Arguing with an anti-gunner is like herding amphetamine-crazed cats. Despite all their talk about “common sense gun safety,” antis rely on unreliable studies and surveys. First you have to debunk their bad science – exposing bogus survey samples and skewed questions – then you have to counter with good science and robust data (click on the main site’s Facts About Guns tab for ammunition). At some point, you have to “explain” the meaning of the Second Amendment to them (as if it could be any clearer) and illuminate the point of the U.S. Constitution (protecting rights). Supreme Court decisions come into it. It’s exhausting. Luckily there’s a simple pro-gun argument which forces antis to acknowledge Americans’ gun rights . . .
Tell an anti-gunner that Americans should be able to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms to defeat criminals trying to beat, knife or shoot them to death and they take little notice. Disarm criminals! Meanwhile, give them what they want! Change the conversation to rape and watch their amoral, unrealistic and inhuman belief in compliance crumble.
Start with the following questions. 1. Shouldn’t a woman be able to defend herself against rape? 2. Given the disparity in size and weight and strength between most rapists and their victims, what’s the most effective defense against rape? What weapon has the best chance of stopping the rapist in his tracks?
If they try to divert attention from the obvious answer by talking about weapon retention [see: below], don’t let them. “We can discuss that in a minute. For now, imagine you’re a woman sitting alone watching TV in your living room. A man breaks in determined to rape you. There’s a gun on the table next to you. Would you use it? Wouldn’t you want it to be there? Wouldn’t you give anything in the world for it to be there?”
Counter the counters
Antis counter by insisting that the odds of being raped are lower than the odds of the gun causing other problems (e.g., negligent discharges for children, suicides, etc.). I ignore these objections and repeat the questions until the anti answers them; because the odds are they will duck and dive and try to wriggle away. Once they answer, THEN I’ll discuss odds, regulations, etc. If they refuse to answer the questions, the “discussion” is over. Really. We’re done.
Antis – like Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo – also counter by asserting that the rapist may grab the gun and use it against the victim. You and I know that’s stupid – even though it can and has happened. We’d rather women (and men) have a shot at defending themselves against a rapist than not. But the best way to stop that nonsense is to remain focused on the theoretical scenario.
Play the odds
If the woman about to be raped had a 50 – 50 chance of using the gun to stop the rape or having the gun used against her, would she take it? Should she? What if the odds were 60 – 40 against her succeeding? What if she had just a 30 percent chance of being able to stop the rape with a gun? How about a one-in-ten chance? After they answer, if they answer, it’s “so now tell me why would you deny a woman a chance to stop a rapist.”
Don’t Waste Your Breath
The odds of converting an anti are lower than the odds of a woman having her own gun used against her. So never argue with an anti one-on-one. Make sure there’s a firearms freedom fence straddler nearby. Then it’s worth it.