Question of the Day: How Do We Convince People That Guns Aren’t Dangerous?

At the end of this Fox News chinwag Juan Williams repeats the oft-repeated shibboleth that owning a gun puts you in more danger of getting shot rather than less. The Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex uses this assumed “fact” to ward off the suggestion that a firearm is an extremely useful method of personal self-defense. The best scientific study on the subject concludes that the people who own guns who get shot by guns are either suicidal or living in violent households. Not to mention living in households where there’s criminal activity. But neither science nor common sense will cut it. How do you convince a fence straddler that they won’t get killed by their own gun?

comments

  1. avatar Craig says:

    David Kenik or take people to the range. Or have David Kenik take people to the range.

    1. avatar gabba says:

      color would be cosmetic, however pistol grips, foregrips, folding and telescopic stocks, shrouds, compensators, brakes and flash hiders are all ergonomic features

      cosmetics ≠ ergonomics. ergonomics matter. if they didn’t why would you object so passionately?

      1. avatar TJ says:

        For the same feelings I get when I can’t find the right shoes to match my outfit of the day

  2. avatar ST says:

    Step one:Take over the Media Structure of America. This is ground which our opposition hides in like a cowardly insurgent shooting from inside a legally protected mosque on the battlefield.It’s high time we take back the hearts and minds of Americans.

    Step two:place and promote pro2A actors and entertainers .Sad , yet true, our youth gets their marching orders from American Idol and the pig slop bowl which is MTV.Imagine how far our movement would go if California hippie chicks bragged about Springfield 1911s instead of which purse they bought.Picture…..”On THIS EPISODE Of THE HILLS: Will Lauren Conrad dissapoint her friends and trade her 1911 for a G30?! Next Week-Heidi Montag shoots her first IDPA stage…..”

    Of course this means jettisoning the old, anti gun generation of current studio heads and financiers, and I don’t have any quick answers to that dilemma.

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      We need to support main stream pro gun media and pop culture… We should encourage the call of duty, and action movie fan boys. We should support shows like top shot. Even if we don’t like or 100% agree with this type of culture it keeps it relevant in the minds of fresh gun owners.

  3. avatar the ruester says:

    For most people, simply pointing out that their grandpa is being lumped together with the boyz n tha hood to produce that statistic is enough to get the ball rolling. Not that it will change their minds, but at least it puts a face on the gun owner whose teeth aren’t dripping with baby blood.

  4. avatar shawn says:

    This argument is like the pro-choice vs. pro-life people. Nothing can change their mind. BTW, since I am pro-choice and support the 2A, does that make a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative.

    1. avatar Heretical Politik says:

      Same here… It doesn’t make you either of those things. There are two (viable) political parties in this country. Way too few to accurately represent the political inclinations of 300 million people.

      1. avatar shawn says:

        You are one of the few who understood my post. I guess the others are trying to tell me what is the “right” and that is the way it should. Kind of like what the anti-2A are doing.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      I am pro-choice and support the 2A

      The woman made her choice when she decided that the baby daddy should ride bareback.

      I’m not hiding behind obnoxious marketing-speak like “pro-choice.” I’m pro-abortion, end of story. Yes, I said the “A” word. If a potential mother doesn’t want her child to be born, neither do I. Goodbye and good riddance.

      1. avatar Merits says:

        Ah, but even the term abortion is only the first generation of this market speak, which is just classic progressive word-shifting. We adults here all know the proper term for killing an innocent human.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          If the mother wants to “terminate” the pregnancy by suicide what is society to do. Short of that murder is still wrong (and illegal.).

          If you support and defend the constitution – good for you. If you are amoral you are of no use to the constitiution of a moral people.

      2. avatar Accur81 says:

        It kinda of sucks if you’re the baby – getting killed by being ripped apart from a sharp vacuum tip. People keep trying to convince me that its about freedom, but it sure doesn’t look like that from the baby’s perspective. Probably everyone posting here was a defenseless baby at one point, and is still happy that their mother didn’t terminate them if they were to take a moment and think about such things. Since virtually everyone here talks about how they would defend their own life, I can only assume that they would have chosen such as a child or as an infant.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “It kinda of sucks if you’re the baby”

          Nah. If an embryo gets aborted, I’m sure the Immortal Soul involved would simply find another viable fetus to possess. At least, I’m pretty sure mine would have if my Mom had aborted me.

        2. avatar Accur81 says:

          @ RG
          Wow. The fetus is some sort of sub human object according to your interpretation. My baby recognized my voice from inside the womb, and recognized my voice again after – and you “don’t care” if you would have been aborted. Horseshit.

          By the way, partial birth abortion is not documented because it is illegal. Duh. That would be like some documenting voter fraud on their own behalf. Doctors aren’t going to document an illegal “medical procedure” because it will get them fired, imprisoned, or both. Again, I spoke of blurring the lines between abortion and infanticide.

          Further, although an infant fetus clearly has no RKBA, but I would have defended the life of that infant with my own firearm. Pregnant women have been punched and stabbed in the stomach. Even CA defines the taking of an adult human life or a fetus against the will of the mother to be murder – CA penal code section 187.

          But you are set in your ways – its a baby if its wanted and a “fetus” if it isn’t.

    3. avatar michi says:

      it makes you an independent thinker who has a self-directed opinion on a variety of issues. I’m the same. Fortunately our minds don’t have to be like Cable TV, we don’t have to subscribe to the whole package, even channels we don’t want.

      Unfortunately, the political system, well… “I’ll align with these guys and get support from them, while you align with those guys to get support from those guys.” They aren’t running a charity.

    4. avatar Ardent says:

      I think that makes you a libertarian.

      1. avatar Salty Bear says:

        Libertarianism’s emphasis on individual rights does not extend so far as the right to murder children.

        Libertarians are not anarchists. Government does have a responsibility to legislate against practices that deprive people of life and liberty, no matter how dependent or independent tl they are of their parents.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Explain to me how a parasitic organism has “rights” that are superior to those of a fully developed and intelligent adult that said parasite is feeding off of.

        2. avatar PW in KY says:

          Reply to Totenglocke. Parasite? A newborn is also totally dependent and feeds off its mother. Is it also a parasite? This is sick.

        3. avatar Totenglocke says:

          PW – A newborn is capable of living without literally sucking the life out of another creature. A fetus on the other hand is no different than a tick or a tapeworm. You wouldn’t think twice about removing one of those from your body.

          The problem is that, like the anti-gun people, you want to make it an *emotional* issue, not a fact based issue.

        4. avatar Accur81 says:

          Wow, Toten. So much stupid in such a small space. First of all, a fetus and its mother are *the same species*. If you were treated as a parasitic organism, you would not be alive today. If you would chose to defend your life today, as a teen, and as a child, then why wouldn’t you do so as a baby?
          The baby outside the womb still depends upon the mother for nourishment. It’s called breast feeding. Still consider that young human to be a parasite?

    5. avatar Totenglocke says:

      It makes you a libertarian. The more people realize that there ARE more than two parties, the sooner we can start getting our rights back.

    6. avatar Rich Grise says:

      The bottom line is self-ownership. Each person is the owner of her own body, period. Da Gubmint’s jurisdiction doesn’t extend to the inside of any person’s skin. Hell, it’s supposed to stop at your front door, or ideally at the property line.

      Yes, we need government to maintain a map room, a standard yardstick, and an impartial court system, but it’s criminally insane to give the chairman of the highway committee the power to throw people into iron cages for the crime of smoking dried flower buds.

      1. avatar pat says:

        “Each person is the owner of her own body, period. Da Gubmint’s jurisdiction doesn’t extend to the inside of any person’s skin.”

        Totally agree, but this is where the primary difference lies between most anti-abortion and pro-abortion folks. We anti’s believe that an unborn child is a person too, and a woman has no more right to murder her unborn child as she does to murder her newborn. Period.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          So, in other words, the fetus, which you can’t even see without the woman’s consent, is a full-on person, but the woman it’s inside of is … what? A fucking incubator for it?

          That’s the problem – the “women are chattel property” imprint.

        2. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Ugh. Here we go again.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          OK, sorry, I apologize for getting off the 2A again. I have a hot-button in that area, and i don’t think it’s any secret that I’ll shoot off my mouthkeyboard at the slightest, even imagined, provocation.

          I’ll try to do better at keeping my comments on-topic.

        4. avatar Steve says:

          The killing of an unborn child (let’s call it what it is, shall we), is morally reprehensible.

        5. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Does an unborn fetus have a Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

      2. avatar Salty Bear says:

        When a person concieves a child, they have created a new life. Scientifically, there is no dispute as to whether the embryo is a distinct human life. It is not the woman’s body. It is a child’s.

        Your front door doesn’t stop the government from interfering if you decide to kill your children who are no longer dependent on their mother’s physiology, nor should it.

        You aren’t a libertarian. You just believe that there are some people who don’t matter, and that human rights don’t extend to those people whether it’s because their lives have been deemed inconvenient or for some other reason such as the fact that your eyesight doesn’t penetrate the womb. That’s about as far from libertarianism as you get.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “When a person concieves a child, they have created a new life”

          Well, that’s just plain not true. One live sperm encounters one live ovum, and they merge into one zygote.

          So, actually, where there were two living cells, now there is only one, so the act of conception actually snuffs out a life.

          But then, according to Genesis 2:7, “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” In other words, the woman assembles molecules in her womb and expels the parasitic fetus, and when it draws God’s Breath of Life, it becomes a Living Being.

          It’s in the Bible. Are you saying that the Bible is wrong?

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Rich,

          So, if a baby’s head is still in the womb and a foot is sticking out, can the mother lop off the baby’s foot for any reason whatsoever? How about the other way around — if the baby’s head is out and the baby’s foot is still in the womb, can the mother lop off the baby’s head for any reason whatsoever?

          Now let’s up the ante. A women delivers a baby which is still attached to the mother via its umbilical cord (and hence receiving all the oxygen it needs to remain alive for days) and the baby has not yet started breathing. According to your definition, the baby is not a “life” because it hasn’t started breathing yet. Can the mother kill the baby at that point? After all, the baby hasn’t started breathing yet.

          You are misunderstanding the Bible. Adam was a lump of chemicals until all those chemicals (arranged into cells) started processing oxygen and sugar and the cells started replicating and repairing themselves. That is why Adam was a “life” at that point. And the same standard applies to all life forms. That is why an unborn baby is a life. Its cells process oxygen and sugar, and they replicate and repair themselves.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “So, if a baby’s head is still in the womb and a foot is sticking out, can the mother lop off the baby’s foot for any reason whatsoever?”

          I dunno – can you cite any documented examples of such a scenario ever actually occurring?

          And what does this have to do with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

        4. avatar Accur81 says:

          Rich Grise,

          It’s called partial birth abortion, and there are plenty of pro-choice advocates who support it. It’s blurring the line between abortion and infanticide, and you are out of touch with reality if you think partial birth abortion doesn’t exist.

          But what would I know? I just finished off paying for high def 3D partial color ultrasound of my son when he was at 31 weeks. My son was nearly born at that time. He’s now 9 months old – and he’s is the development of the same human being, just like you developed from a baby to a human. Funny how that happens.

        5. avatar Rich Grise says:

          1. Can you cite an actual documented example, or is this just another straw boogeyman?
          2. WTF does this have to do with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, other than the fact that women should probably arm themselves to protect themselves from white slavers like yourself?

          If government power doesn’t stop at our skin, then we might as well just don our swastika armbands and start marching the goose-step.

    7. avatar Rich Grise says:

      You might be a libertarian if you believe…

      If you think 99 percent of politicians give the rest of them a bad name, you might be a Libertarian.
      If you think taxes are ridiculously high, you might be a Libertarian.
      If you think that the problem with civil servants is that too many of them are neither civil nor servants, you might be a Libertarian.
      If someone asks you to take a urine test and you feel like telling them you’ll give them a taste test, you might be a Libertarian.
      If you think that there are way too many laws about way too many things, you might be a Libertarian.
      If you believe in the Bill of Rights, you might be a Libertarian.
      If you believe that no one should go to jail for smoking flowers, you might be a Libertarian.
      If you believe that just about everything should be bought and sold on an open market except politicians, you might be a Libertarian.
      If you are glad you don’t get all the government you pay for, you might be a Libertarian.
      If you think the US Constitution is the only contract with America you need, you might be a Libertarian.
      If you think the only gun permit you need is the Second Amendment, you might be a Libertarian.
      If the only way you can tell a left winger from a right winger is by which one of their hands is in which one of your pockets, you might be a Libertarian.
      If you think the left is too left and the right is just plain wrong, you might be a Libertarian.
      If you think polluters should pay for the environmental damage they cause, you might be a Libertarian.

      How do you know if you are a Libertarian? Thanks to http://rlibertarians.tripod.com/funny.html for a quick and funny reference point.
      To learn more, visit http://www.facebook.com/libertarians/info

    8. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Being “pro choice” does not make you liberal, it makes you anti-science.

  5. avatar Heretical Politik says:

    Show them that responsible American gun owners are more diverse than the stereotype of the “Obama hating” ofwg. (No offence to y’all.) People need to identify with the messenger if they are to be receptive to the message.

    1. avatar michi says:

      we aren’t all ofwg’s here. But point taken.

      1. avatar Heretical Politik says:

        I wasn’t referring to everyone here. The folks who do fall into that stereotype tend to be pretty loud and obnoxious though. They have every right to be; I’d just like to see a more diverse chorus.

        1. avatar ChuckN says:

          There’s plenty of diversity in the chorus. The problem is the
          “Constitution hating” OFWGs,especially those in the media,
          do their best to drown out the voices. For instance, when was
          the last time CNN or MSNBC even acknowledged the existence
          of Mr. Colion Noir or ANY women who is pro-gun. However the
          NRA, NSSF et al could definitely be doing more on this front.

    2. avatar Emfourty Gasmask says:

      I’ve been saying this for a long time. If the NRA did a huge media blitz with the Pink Pistols they would sway a vast amount of people sitting on the fence about firearms.

      1. avatar Heretical Politik says:

        plus effing one!!!!

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        What makes you think that the Pink Pistols would do a PSA with the NRA? What makes you think the NRA hasn’t tried?

        This is from the Pink Pistols website:

        Are you part of the NRA?

        No. Although we do work with the NRA. For example, in California the NRA-ILA contacted us and asked us to take a look at some legislation before the State Assembly and submit written testimony with our take on the bills. We also worked with the NRA when we submitted our amicus brief on the D.C. v Heller case before the Supreme Court. On the other hand, many of our members dislike the NRA due to the positions they have taken, such as helping push through “Instant Background Checks” on a federal level. But as to whether we are an “associate” group of the NRA, no, we are not. We can’t be, because we do not have an elected Board of Directors and other necessary structural elements the NRA requires for associated groups.

  6. avatar Leadbelly says:

    Simply point out to them that they haven’t been killed yet by their own automobile, steak knives, lawnmower, chainsaw, whatever. ANYTHING can be dangerous if misused. Conversely, unless there are unseen defects, almost ANYTHING can be used safely with the appropriate training.

    1. avatar bontai Joe says:

      I have owned firearms (at least one loaded) for over 13,750 consecutive days and I have not shot another person or myself. I have not damaged my or any other person’s house or car with a firearm. I have not shot any of my neighbor’s dogs (had a couple of close calls with a pair of Rotties). In the same 13, 750 days, I have been shot at (missed thankfully!), I have had neighbors shoot guns at and near my house, I have witnessed police shooting it out with some “urban youths” in Chicago back in the 1970’s (an eventual surrender with no fatalities) My point being that in all those days, I have been super ultra safe in handling any and all firearms, and fully aware of the responcibility that ownership has. I have hurt my self with stupid everyday household stuff, like kitchen knives, hammers, pliers, but never with a firearm. So are guns dangerous? Given my experience, I am much more likely to draw blood with a nail clipper, or fixing the gutters, or sharpening a mower blade, or slipping in the shower, or carrying laundry down the steps, or shoveling snow, or using a screw driver………

  7. avatar jirdesteva says:

    List the names of all the presidents and politicians that are dead that have knowingly owned guns this includes Sen. Frankenstein (sorry she just looks dead) and see if they were shot by their own guns. I know its BS but the fact that more loons get front page and headlines than the average civil and law-abiding gun owners don’t even get honorable mention when they do good. How about the simple stat that most police officers don’t get shot by their own firearms(most as in 90% or better) or how about military. but as it has been stated before THEY (you know who they are) are an emotional lot that pull stats out of there rears in what ever way and shape to benefit their point of view. Common sense doesn’t apply PERIOD.

  8. avatar John in Ohio says:

    If owning a gun did, in fact, put an individual at greater risk; would that in any way negate the fact that the government is restrained by a constitution? Also, are we governed under the terms of that contract or are we governed based upon popular opinion (aka mob rule)?

    I think that the argument has been re-framed to the point that it avoids the original intent and plain language of the Second Amendment. The 2A is all about being a deterrent to and a solution for tyrannical government. The natural right of self defense already dictates that an individual possesses the right to keep and bear arms independent of perceived or real increased risk to the individual. Both the 2A and the natural RKBA are independent of crime stats or any other similar argument of the left or the FUDs.

    Anyone remember that scene from “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” where ‘Jay’ is maneuvering the patsy into admitting that he’d have sex with sheep? That’s what the left and FUDs are doing to individuals defending the RKBAs! They’re re-framing the debate away from the real facts of the matter in an effort to get the RKBA people to falsely admit to something unrelated to the real issue(s). As ‘Joshua’ declared in “War Games” (yes, another film reference), “The only way to win is not to play.”

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      Well said John, as always.

      I would add that the risk of not being armed outweighs any risk associated with being armed. This is true individually, such as for protection from violent attack and collectively, such as for protection from invasion or domestic tyranny. The shoe is on the other foot so to speak as while the RKBA is a natural and unalienable right but the ‘right’ to some amorphous concept of ‘safety’ exists nowhere but in the minds of those who would not provide for their own defense. Thus, the argument should properly be framed not in terms of whether it’s dangerous for someone to be armed but rather of how dangerous it is for someone not to be.

      Further, the concept that one has a ‘right’ to be safe, if such means ‘safe from mortal attack’ is more approximately achieved by exercising the right to be armed since being armed provides both deterrence to attack and the means by which to thwart those who remain undeterred. However if the ‘right to be safe’ is taken to mean the ‘right to be safe from the expression of violence absolutely’ no such thing can ever be achieved and any inroads made in that direction achieve only declining liberty rather than actual increased safety.

      When I see the ‘right to safety’ argument being made I generally interpret it to mean ‘the right to be free from reminders that violence exists and that one has a responsibility to provide for ones own defense in the face of the fact of violence’. Read this way the argument is absurd on it’s face as ignoring a responsibility doesn’t remove it anymore than ignoring the reality of potential violence in no way makes one safer but on the contrary puts one at greater risk.

      What is at issue here isn’t rights or conditions at all but feelings. What is meant by the ‘right to be safe’ is rather the desire to ‘feel’ safe regardless of actual condition of safety. This ought to be achievable merely by further ignoring the problem and reality of violence in the absence of any law or regulation whatsoever for once one surrenders reason in favor of emotion reality ceases to have value in the first place. It could be thought of as ‘heal thy self’ since what is needed isn’t the actual condition of safety but rather the sensation of safety, thus one has only to change ones own perspective to achieve the desired state.

      However, if what is desired is the actual condition of increased safety then no argument restricting the bearing of arms would rise above the level of absurdity. This is because the only known method of increasing absolute safety in the face of violence is by being better prepared to avoid or resist violence and going armed is a critical piece of that resistance.

      In summation; it’s illogical to discuss whether or not guns are dangerous, rather we should discuss the inherent dangers of being disarmed.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “I would add that the risk of not being armed outweighs any risk associated with being armed.”

        This is certainly true and you quickly get to the heart of the matter!

        Regarding the ‘right to safety’ and ‘right to feel safe’… It has been my understanding that rights which have been enumerated in our Constitution are subsets of natural rights. Natural rights are unalienable in that they cannot be CREATED, given away, or lost. They can be denied (imprisonment – a contractually agreed upon infringement – ‘loaning’ of rights) or infringed. A natural right is a natural right because an individual, in a natural state devoid of government, would posses such a right. In situ, an individual possesses no such natural right to ‘safety’ or to ‘feel safe’. As such, any attempt to enumerate a pseudo-right like that would be a futile effort at creating a right. A complete slave still cannot be guaranteed full safety or even the complete feeling of safety at all times. It’s not a natural state in our plane of existence. It’s pure fiction.

        “In summation; it’s illogical to discuss whether or not guns are dangerous, rather we should discuss the inherent dangers of being disarmed.”

        Yes! This is a great answer.

        1. avatar Ardent says:

          I like your take on the foundation/definition of natural rights. When viewed from that perspective it makes what I was attempting to say about the ‘right to safety’ self evident (that it’s an illusory state at best and rather absurd at worst).

          This foolishness about ‘feeling’ safe is neither a rational argument to begin with nor a useful one even it were to be allowed. Since it’s my assertion that in order for me to feel safe I need to bear arms and with all else being equal our rights have equal weight and it’s a wash. If one then adds that being armed actually makes one safer regardless of feelings the counter argument is rather only an opener to being crushed by reality. Further more, since the right to bear arms is, as you pointed out, a natural one while the right to safety isn’t possible within our reality any argument against the RKBA on the basis of safety holds no weight logically or politically.

          These compounding irrational arguments stem from irrational fears. It is difficult to impossible to engage in rational arguments with an irrational person. On the one hand they don’t allow that reason is a virtue and on the other they are immune to reasoning since their position wasn’t arrived at through reason at all.

          There used to be a saying that you never confront a delusional person regarding the tenants of their delusion. That is, one oughtn’t to attempt demonstrate to a person who believes they are Napoleon that they are not in fact Napoleon. This is because they have developed the delusional framework as a bulwark against a reality they cannot accept and you invite a potentially violent melt down if you are successful in disabusing the insane party of their delusion. They don’t revert to sanity but rather a state of either manic turmoil or black depression. They are rather more stable while under the mantel of their delusion than they would otherwise be, having reached equilibrium via the machinations of the delusion.

          When dealing with hoplophobic anti rights advocates it serves well to remember that they very likely suffer from a delusion and that attempting to dispel it is unlikely to succeed and may actually create an even worse situation. Instead work within the framework of their delusion to lead them to conclusion, arrived at on their own, that fit within their delusional reality but which are more useful to your position.

          Strong minded people do not generally develop delusions as a coping mechanism because they tend to confront troublesome issues rather than attempt to ignore them. Thus a delusional person is often highly receptive to being manipulated if it is done correctly.

          Furthermore, because one of the hallmarks of delusional people is their rather profound ability to ignore reality it should come as no surprise that they are able to achieve a sensation of safety even via making themselves less safe in actuality.

          With a good many of these anti rights types we’re well past the point where we can approach them rationally and instead must accept the reality that what we’re butting heads with is a minor, subclinical form of delusional thinking that cannot be swayed by reasoned argument.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Outstanding discussion gentlemen.

          I have been telling people that many gun grabbers are quite literally hysterical. At one point in time, I innocently, naively, and genuinely engaged gun grabbers in discussion hoping to learn and to teach. I soon discovered that there is no end to their verbal gymnastics. They will say and redefine anything and everything to support their hysteria, their delusion. They have no interest in learning, coming to a common understanding, or agreement. They want what they want. And that would be fine except for the fact that what they want requires that you give up something against your will.

          I am at the point now that I don’t indulge gun grabbers’ delusions. Indulging them confirms them. I state a couple points of fact and let it be.

  9. avatar James says:

    If the mainstream media would come to rural Amreica and see how we use them in our daily lives at the range to shoot competition matches or just to plink. They could see that weapons are not bad things . It’s the person behind them. Go to 3 gun match and watch it. There fun to watch and compete in.
    I have tried for 10 minutes to type this on my I phone. It keeps going to other other screens. Coiencecdence? I don’t think so no wonder no one has responded!

  10. avatar Cameron says:

    Take people shooting. Heck you can even let people hold them after a dinner party, try not to be smug when you explain that more people are killed by X or that I’ve sustained far greater injury from nail guns, lawn mowers, and thinking that pop cap beers were realy twist offs.

  11. avatar Ross says:

    I don’t even bother to try to convince folks that guns are not dangerous, I’ve found one just can’t fix stupid.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Exactly! The other side or the unswayed must first want to listen. Otherwise you’re just talking at them and wasting time.

  12. avatar Hannibal says:

    Guns ARE dangerous. They’re meant to be. It takes a few pounds of pressure to launch a hard projectile hundreds of feet per second out of one.

    They are not magical, however, and don’t fire by themselves. Or load themselves, or point themselves…

    1. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

      Indeed. The question is not to convince people that guns aren’t dangerous, but that law-abiding gun OWNERS aren’t dangerous.

      Of course, when cornered and threatened with the infringement of their inherent, inalienable rights, gun owners ARE dangerous, and rightly so.

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      I’ll have to paraphrase but many years ago I was reading the manual for my newly purchased Colt 1911 pistol. It actually contained a passage that indicated that while the pistol in it’s design was inherently safe it was designed and intended to launch projectiles of sufficient mass and velocity to cause injury or death, and that if the external safeties were defeated and the trigger pulled it would do just that.

      I marveled at the stupidity it would require for such instruction to be necessary. At once it defined the purpose for which I had purchased it in the first place while at the same time seeming to presuppose that the purchaser reading the passage had absolutely no concept of what a pistol is or does.

      Imagine the absurdity of a vehicle owners manual stating that the vehicle was designed to be operated at sufficient speeds and contained sufficient mass so that if one were to start the motor, engage the transmission and drive the vehicle to sufficient speed and them aim it at a person death or bodily harm was apt to result.

      This is the bizarre difference the gun as a machine represents in the minds of many people. They seem to have some sort of magical thinking so that while there are innumerable things that if put to the purpose can readily kill but the gun is somehow unique in this quality.

      At the risk of becoming pedantic; consider a warning on a hammer indicating that striking people with it would harm them and the utter absurdity of peoples thinking on guns becomes clear. I wonder what it is about guns that makes them so different from all the other tools and machines, chemicals and what have you that if used for the purpose are readily lethal.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        “Imagine the absurdity of a vehicle owners manual stating that the vehicle was designed to be operated at sufficient speeds and contained sufficient mass so that if one were to start the motor, engage the transmission and drive the vehicle to sufficient speed and them aim it at a person death or bodily harm was apt to result.”
        You will find this paraphrased in various places in every motorcycle operator manual in the world. And if you stitch the individual warnings together in the book that comes with your car nowadays, it will boil down to the same thing. Thank our litigious society [apologies, Ralph].

  13. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    Take them shooting. That will work every time.

  14. avatar dwb says:

    I think this sound bite is a media favorite, but I think most reasonable people realize this stat is based on a study dominated by people who misuse drugs and guns.

    trying to convince people guns are “not dangerous” is the wrong approach. guns ARE dangerous. so are chainsaws, pools, boats, and cars. my sawzall used incorrectly will take off a finger. so are all the presciption drugs in the medicine cabinet.

    I dont think this sound bite either convinces people to give up guns, or prevents them from buying one.

    my holophobic friends that know I have guns have no problem with their kids coming over because they know I take safety seriously. its no different than if I had a pool.

    I think people do their own personal risk assessment, and do not spend so much time with these abstract talking points. if you want to convince a particular person, you need to develop a relationship with them.

  15. avatar ropingdown says:

    Expanding on the view in Ruester’s comment, breaking out the statistics as to who owns/carries guns safely to a good purpose…and who possesses guns to snuff out rivals, is the path. Easy-to-communicate statistics which factor out, by neighborhood or dysfunction-type, where and by whom guns are misused, would be useful. Publish them here.

    Just as auto crash numbers reveal that cars are safe if you factor out the drunk and the very tired, so, too, guns offer the potential, not the necessity, of danger, while enabling a very useful function, self and home defense.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    Of course guns are dangerous. Insisting otherwise makes us look stupid. Frankly, if guns weren’t dangerous they’d be of very little use.

    The issue isn’t whether or not guns are dangerous, but to whom. My guns are dangerous to bad guys who want to do bad things to good people. My neighbor’s guns are dangerous to deer and other game. And all guns are dangerous to negligent people who ignore the rules.

    Taking non-shooters to the range works wonders. They see first hand how responsible owners are as safe as they can be in an unsafe world. If they don’t go, they won’t know.

    1. avatar michi says:

      Ok. I think RF meant “aren’t inherently dangerous to innocents when inert and do not have a corrupting effect on the owner” – or something like that, but it does not make a good headline.

      Are guns dangerous? Yeah, so are lawn darts. Maybe he should have used the word ‘evil’, though that’s a bit melodramatic.

      I know antis who believe that the gun alone is the corrupting factor. That the gun makes the owner evil, like a cursed top-hat or something. I think this is what he’s trying to get at.

      1. avatar Brent says:

        +1

        Taking someone to the range works only if they’re willing to go. Until that happens, they have to recognize you to be a level-headed individual who also happens to own guns.
        What’s your story?

        My grandfather and my father were both members of the NRA. My father had a collection of more than 40 firearms at one point. Neither of them killed anyone or committed any crimes. If guns are so bad, why weren’t they?

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        @michi, I knew what RF meant. My point is that guns are inherently dangerous. Which is why there are so many rules, including not only Cooper’s Four Commandments, but also rules for safe storage promoted by the NRA and dozens more rules that you find on those little safety pamphlets you get with every new gun.

        Any comparison to lawn darts is specious. Ignoring Cooper’s Fourth Law can kill someone a mile away. Try that with a lawn dart.

        Guns are dangerous. Period. Following the rules manages the danger. Break enough rules and bad things will result.

        1. avatar DonS says:

          Any comparison to lawn darts is specious. Ignoring Cooper’s Fourth Law can kill someone a mile away. Try that with a lawn dart.

          Now I’m waiting for the next Joerg Sprave video. With lawn darts.

  17. avatar APBTFan says:

    Owning a backyard pool greatly increases the chance of drowning, especially children, but that doesn’t stop millions of folks from owning them.

  18. avatar Patriot says:

    Owning a car increases your chances of getting into a car accident and dying, where is the cry for a ban on automobiles? Hell you don’t even hear about people dying in car accidents anymore they are so often. I demand action. AAA should be ashamed of themselves for supporting the “privilege” of driving.

    Funny how driving a car isn’t even a constitutionally protected one; however, if you had a politician that was remotely serious about banning ownership of a car you would have rioting in the streets.

  19. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Guns are dangerous like a multitude of objects. I think safe use if guns should be the focus. How many people get shot in 3 gun, or IDPA etc? Lots of guns and lead flying around without death or injury.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      If you can convert that idea into Rap and Gansta oriented products, THEN you’ll get air time and attention. And attitudes will change.

  20. avatar ensitue says:

    Most Leftys (fence sitters) do not wake up until a near death experience at the hands of one of Obama’s disenfranchised supporters. When the glass wall is broken they may find that their ownership of a firearm is socially ‘permissible’ as they are one of the entitled class.
    Do not expect them to feel the same about Your ownership of the same, or any other firearm.

  21. avatar Ben says:

    Convincing people that guns aren’t dangerous isn’t the soulution that we really need. What we need to do is convince people that reason and rationality are sexy again. When a person learns to form opinions and views using the lost arts of objective analyisis and critical thinking, then “Guns aren’t dangerous by themselves” becomes a forgone conclusion to them. They may still choose to not own one, but they wouldn’t be afraid of them. It’s extremely difficult –if not impossible– to pull the wool over the eyes of someone who knows how to think for themselves.

    We will never convince some people, like the heads of the major civilian disarmament groups (MAIG, MDA, VPC, etc…) because their intent isn’t to save lives, it’s simply to disarm us. They already understand that the guns aren’t the problem, they just don’t care. Those people want us disarmed. Period.

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      Bravo Ben. With a little critical thinking and objective analysis we could solve most of the major problems facing us as a nation (we’d also have precious few liberals around).

  22. avatar john says:

    I’m not interested in convincing anyone of anything. The Constitution should be enough. If it isn’t, there’s not really much I can say that will sway any wrong-headed notion they may have.

    Yes, guns are dangerous – even when they’re not loaded. They were made to be that way. Otherwise, their usefulness for the intended purpose would be severely diminished. They can serve as a firearm when loaded, a club when ammo has been expended, and when properly accessories, a stabbing weapon. None of this precludes me from owning one, and in fact, is PRECISELY why I *do* own one.

  23. avatar Nine says:

    We don’t, or rather can’t. Most people have it too set in their mind that their guns will kill them.

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. Or some jazz like that.

  24. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Juan Williams is an idiot.
    They have him on Fox just to embarrass himself every time he opens his mouth.
    I don’t have to try and convince anyone of anything. The unarmed person will always be at a disadvantage.
    In some circumstances Im fine with that.

  25. avatar Steve in RI says:

    All I can say is I love Greg Gutfeld, The Five, and Red Eye.

    1. avatar Denny says:

      The Five is good, but without Bob and Juan.. AKA the liberal dumbocrats.

  26. avatar Adam says:

    Next Quote of the day at the end right there: “[Gun ownership] It’s the male version of knitting…”

  27. avatar Jay1987 says:

    Reframe thar arguement to what it should be about. Whenever I hear the right to feel safe and the we need more controls after a shooting it makes me think, why is duct tape, flex seal, those scratch removers off infomercials so popular? Because it makes people feel like they are doing something to fix the problem. Like the guy with a car that’s got a headlight taped in after he hit a deer, he knows that ain’t a permanent fix but lives with it because at least he did something until he can replace it later. This is kind of how the antis work. They are taping or painting over the problem till they can “fix” it later. That’s why they only call for new laws after school shootings mass shootings or in the face of horrific instances of gun violence, they know none of it will actually work they are just doing it to say at least they tried and if it hadn’t been for (insert pro 2a group name here) we would’ve been able to fix it. There they shift the blame and gain support, however, there are better ways to actually fix the issue like repairing mental health restoring 2a rights to law abiding folks and making our prisons actually reform criminals or giving tougher sentences on crimes committed and keeping to them. Those would go a long way towards solving the issues of violence, however the antis won’t do this because it would lose them a lot of votes between low income inner city voters and women due to the fact that the inner city is where a lot of gun crimes are committed and that the criminals doing it have mothers girlfriends baby mommas and sisters.

  28. avatar ensitue says:

    Guns are dangerous that is why the Govt wants to give them to Drug Cartels and Al Queda while taking them away from Citizens.
    With Progressives it is Always: “Power For Me But None For Thee”

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      Yeah. It’s pretty obvious that drug cartels need guns. And their American boss-men Eric and Barry did a great job of getting them some.

  29. avatar roadkill6 says:

    Taking them to the range is really the only way. All the logical arguments in the world become moot once they get behind the firing-line and learn firsthand how firearms work.

  30. avatar William Burke says:

    Convince someone that guns aren’t dangerous? They ARE dangerous; I thought that was the point. (To use Obama’s own weed-smoking comment against him.”

  31. avatar BLAMMO says:

    We could take all the guns away from the police and law-abiding citizens and give them to the criminals. That way, when the criminals go to use the guns on us, we could just take them away from the criminals and use them on them.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Oh, I like this approach. Then I don’t have to worry about lugging firearms around, cleaning them, sighting them in, finding ammunition at the stores, and jumping through all the hoops to make sure I follow all the relevant laws.

      Why didn’t we think of this sooner?!?!?!?

  32. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Gotta love the Gut.

  33. avatar Chip says:

    “…How do you convince a fence straddler that they won’t get killed by their own gun?”

    Do you have fire extinguishers in your home? Why? Can’t you call 911 and have professional firefighters come and help you?

    After the person your trying convince quits going ummmmm.. you can use the same reasoning for firearms. You *can* call 911 and wait for police. Or you could take responsibility for your own safety and have a firearm.

  34. avatar niceguns says:

    Every gun owner should offer to take a non gun owner to the range or hunting or both, get a gun in every hand and we win…

  35. avatar Cubby123 says:

    Since I own a lot of them ,I must be in real danger!Oh wait it’s a Stupid Idiot who knows nothing about Guns making the statement ,wheew,I thought I had to take that information seriously.Good thing I don’t have to listen to uninformed ignoramuses who have zero background,knowledge ,experience and ,oh ya,FACTS about Firearms.Boy was I worried,(for a second) about that!

  36. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    As other contributors have noted, you have to illustrate the reward(s) outweigh the risks. Personally, I didn’t want to bother with the hassle of gun ownership. I lived on base for the majority of my military career. If I wanted to own a firearm, it would have to be stored in the armory. Since I was living in a very safe community, I didn’t feel the need. Once I retired and settled in the U.S,, gun ownership became relevant again. I have trained and learned (and continue to do so) proper handling and safety. My additional point is that owning a gun is extra responsibility(hassle, expense, etc.)

    I’d like to know how the filmmaker of “Infringed” is doing with the project.

    I’d Iove to to see a popular rebuttal to “Bowling for Columbine”.

    This site has made it a point to shame irresponsible gun owners. It also tends to promote safe ownership habits, So, it is both turning off and turning on potential gun buyers…

    1. avatar niceguns says:

      Ed, I have been wondering as have many others, how is the military personnel taking the current civilian disarmament efforts and the current administration? Just wondering their stance, if you know. Thanks

      1. avatar Ed Rogers says:

        I couldn’t say how are active duty military feels about civilian disarmament – we reflect society at large, for the most part. I had buddies who were avid hunters, gun collectors, etc. I’m sure many of my other colleagues didn’t care one way or the other. Some were probably wonton gun-grabbers….

  37. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “How do you convince a fence straddler that they won’t get killed by their own gun?”

    Simple. Ask the fence straddler why the bullets in their gun would be deadly to themselves but not to a criminal. And then ask the fence sitter why they would not attempt to take a gun away from a criminal.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email