Previous Post
Next Post

[ED: Our friends at Handwaving Freakoutery provoked some interesting responses with this tweet, debunking California Governor Gavin Newsom’s provably false claim that, “Permitless carry does not make you safer. States that allow concealed carry have higher gun homicide rates.” The results are…instructive.] 

By BJ Campbell, Handwaving Freakoutery

Today I’m going to present a bookmarkable example of how to use the HWFO material, which is largely mathematical in nature and not emotional or ideological, to “win” a debate about guns. Please be aware, this will not change anyone’s mind. People’s beliefs about guns are emotional, not rational, so persuading someone that guns aren’t evil takes an entirely different approach. To change someone’s mind, you have to build from shared core values (we all want to reduce deaths) and build a consensus with baby steps, and is a much more noble and beneficial endeavor.

But if you wanted to simply beat someone to death on Twitter with irrefutable math, here’s how you’d do it.

The Opener

This is how basically all modern anti-gun people open the discussion.

On HWFO we always respond with this.

From here we go different directions depending on how they respond. Rocky Mountain Views was kind enough to go many different directions at the same time, allowing us to showcase many of the different argument branches.

Path 1: Doubling down on “if no guns.”

There’s not any real direction we can go from here except to repost the fact that there is no magic gun evaporation fairy, or post the link (below) to the firearms ownership visualization article.

Path 2: Other Countries

This is part two of a two part response. Either you go with “there is no magic gun evaporation fairy” which means that comparisons to other countries literally don’t matter, or you go with the “guns are the bulwark against tyranny” argument, where you put them on their heels repeatedly pointing out what a shithole Europe actually is when it comes to gun deaths (if we also include genocide as a gun death). Or, perhaps, go with both.

Path 3: The self righteousness of not owning a gun.

Here you ask them to actually read the article linked, since it literally talks about that, and see what they do.

Path 4: Yes, but suicide is bad.

We obviously can’t go any further from here, but if his response was more on-topic you’d also point out that gun control laws don’t have any impact on suicide, on a multivariate analysis, using this link.

Path 5: I just hate guns.

We obviously can’t go any further from here.

Rocky Mountain Views then blocked me so I couldn’t run any more argument trees off of him/her, but let’s highlight one more from the past few days.

Weaker Gun Laws create more gun deaths

Note the weaseling in the headline. It’s phrased as if there’s an association with higher rates of both homicide and suicide, but that’s not true. There’s an association with higher rates of [homicide+suicide]. In other words, it’s the same old trick yet again. So open by pointing that out.

To be explicitly clear, Everytown’s analysis actually showed that areas with more gun ownership vote for fewer gun control laws. And areas with higher gun ownership have higher rates of gun suicide and lower rates of suicide by other means, since guns are a very convenient way of committing suicide. The causality chain is backwards.

This is a pretty unhinged response from someone who’s bio claims to be a Folio Award Winner. Let’s see where this goes.

Poisoning the well fallacies are apparently all you need to win a Folio Award nowadays.

At this point we could go back to the beginning, since this entire thread was spawned off of the “everyone’s lying about the relationship between gun ownership and gun homicide” article, but that would just be circular woozling.

You’ll notice a theme at this point. When you hold someone’s hand and carry them to the mathematics, they attack your value as a person because it’s all they have left to attack.

But Spree Shooters

Any time spree shooters come up, run these three in succession.

Reduce the incidence of spree shooters by 30% by making it illegal to carry them in major media outlets. Reduce the body count by 79% by going nationwide constitutional carry and getting as many people to carry concealed as possible, so there’s always someone on site ready to return fire. Now the anti-gun crowd may not like those two things, for various reasons, but those are the two things that would help.


This article originally appeared at Handwaving Freakoutery and is reprinted here with permission. 

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. You can bet your last dollar that dacian the DUNDERHEAD and MINOR Miner49er will have something to say about this.

    • Just a repeat of most of the process above. But sometimes it’s fun to check the links they post and see how tenuous the connection is with their assertions. Hopefully the next troll incarnations will be a bit more up to the task.

      • Going tit for tat with Gun Control zealots has done nothing but provide standing for Gun Control. If you want to stand for the Second Amendment just cut the chase and ask Gun Control zealots how come Gun Control is not buried alongside its sidekicks racism and genocide?

        Until Gun Owners take the 2A from beneath the scrutiny spotlight and define Gun Control according to its confirmed history of rot the tit for tat clown show continues.

        • It seems a waste of time countering the leftist studies, surveys, graphs with more studies, surveys and graphs. As Debbie W says “going tit for tat with Gun Control zealots” doesn’t seem to accomplish much. As for me, I don’t have the magic answer, but presenting a strong front in support of the 2A is a must. Further, if given a choice I’ll take the tit vs tat any day.

        • Has nothing to do with convincing zealots on either side, their decisions and thoughts are irrelevant to the conversation. It’s for the ones who haven’t paid attention and yes it’s still a lot of people even with all the new gun owners who need to see the recycling project known as the gun rights debate unfold yet again to figure out where they stand. Endless process but currently heading slightly in the favor of more rights.

          Further, the RKBA of the 1775 Patriots of no: fee, tax, license, permit of ban on firearms that existed then, fully exists now.
          As the People have the right to “alter or abolish” any government they create as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, then the People also retain the full power to do so.
          This is a real “No Brainer” to understand.

  2. I don’t care for a win. GOD commands me to look after my family ie protect. I sold my cloak & bought a sword!🙄

      • Hey! I gots swords too.

        Bat Jam Do and Barong’s are the favored, and they’ve been mastered. Reminiscent of being put in a blender, on puree. 😀

        Ving Tsun, Kali, Krav, and BJJ is an interesting & well rounded combination.

  3. I don’t know how many of them are true believers, that are duped, and how many are traitors that are looking forward to one world government. I know the desolator is behind the mass shooters, to attempt to justify disarmament. Open eyes and open ears

  4. I have a friend that used to own the best LGS I ever walked into. Every year a local high school debate team would come in to get facts on firearms. The opposing teams were chosen without preconceved notions. The pro 2A team won every time. Changed no one’s mind.

    • Dave that’s right. The leftists hear but they do not listen and reasoning is out of the question.
      Further, they aren’t interested in truthfulness. A stuck pig squeals!

      • ……..kinda want to see a pro 2a chatbot use this logic tree on a large scale if only for entertainment purposes. Should have learned to code.

        • I agree. Make it interactive for the people who have not made up their mind. There’s so many variables in arguments but not being the best debater (or the worst) I would find that a useful tool.

          Undecided: no one needs an AR
          Computer: why do you say that
          Undecided: they are used for mass shootings
          Computer:pistols are more commonly used than rifles in mass shootings. Here is a link to FBI data showing the weapon used in homicides. Here is a link to media story about Virginia tech
          User: *chooses their own adventure*

          (A) ok so ban pistols too
          (B) limit AR rifles to 10 round magazines
          (C) Ar rifles are too powerful
          (D) only the military and police need rifles
          (E) you can’t hunt with an AR

          At every step the computer should allow them to say why they aren’t convinced and offer more data to support 2A with logic, facts, etc and politely debunk arguments until suck time they would either be convinced or have to admit to themselves that it’s a non rational personal opinion.

  5. My hat is off to HWFO for getting into the ring with some of these wackadoodles. I’m glad to see the responses, but not willing to do that for the luluz. Besides…I have no social media and will continue to abstain. Both from SM and Hoplophobes. I’m willing to teach/coach/mentor noobes or influence neighbors/co-workers…until I retire/move out into the boonies.

  6. I’ve learned that they refuse to be educated and are brainwashed. They will stick their fingers in their ears and scream, “La la la la! I can’t hear you!” I have dealt with these people and I can tell them that the sky is blue, and they’ll argue it’s not. The minute Rocky said you were mentally ill and you have a problem, you won the argument. I had someone tell me, after patiently trying to explain my position, that I was mentally ill and shouldn’t be around a firearm-ever. I don’t even bother with these fools anymore; I just keep my mouth shut.

  7. “…which is largely mathematical in nature and not emotional or ideological, to “win” a debate about guns. Please be aware, this will not change anyone’s mind.”

    This right here, from the intro, is, in my view, the principle part of the problem. Data and facts SHOULD change people’s minds. It was not emotion that convinced me that Jupiter is larger than Mars. It was not emotion that convinced me that my chances of surviving a traffic accident are higher if I wear a seat belt. It is not emotion that provides the necessary information to design the aircraft that I sit in to travel to a distant destination, nor emotion that flies it, nor emotion that fuels it, nor emotion that (usually) gets the luggage matched to me on it and to my destination, nor emotion that schedules its departure and arrival. It is not emotion that motivates me to shut off the water outside in winter. It is not emotion that allows me to calculate the relative cost of two different products and it is not emotion that dictates which of those products performs its function the best. It is not emotion that tells me how many gallons of fuel I will need to purchase to drive to Idaho. It is not emotion that allows me to comprehend an electron bond.

    I, for one, am sick and tired of people trying to make public policy based upon how they feel. I WANT the data. I want to know how things work and why, how much they cost, what they do, what resources they require an what byproducts they generate. Give me the data, please, that is what I need to make informed decisions.

    The entire problem in this “debate” is that the people who hate guns also, apparently, hate facts. They want to remake the world (or at least this country) based upon how they feel and that is just not good enough. We don’t let toddlers make all the rules for the house because they are not capable of understanding enough data and they are too driven by their feelings. Similarly, we should not allow these fainting weaklings to make public policy because they don’t understand the data and are too driven by their feelings.

    • A debate is the logical reasoning that occurs between the opposing sides in an attempt to reach a common conclusion. When one side refuses to even listen then any further time spent debating is a waste of time.
      Actually when one side refuses to listen, then the other side by continuing just as well be speaking to a wall. The leftist at some point in a debate stop any meaningless speech and refuse to listen. It becomes clearly obvious that they can’t handle the truth and further attempts to at discussion is meaningless.
      When they won’t talk, it’s time to walk.

      • True. I have to admit, however, that I just don’t get it. Why do some people insist on shutting down their brain every time their feels are disturbed? I am not free of emotions but, I don’t have the luxury (or curse, I suppose) of being able to use them to make my every decision in life.

    • That is exactly what I found. You can never reason with emotion, it just leads to frustration (as was called out in the article).

      One point of fact that need to be made crystal clear re. suicide is this:

      Suicide, but gun or any other means, is not an act of violence as no rights were violated. Violent crime (one person violating the rights of another) is (obviously!) an act of violence. Anyone that conflates the two has already lost any standing based on fact.

      The only way that I’ve ever succeeded in a discussion w/ a liberal is to have them logically explain their position —> silence —> discussion ended.

  8. If you have the patience for that sort of “discussion” then that’s great.

    You will never get that time back, you still think that other guy is an idiot, and the idiot is still thinks you’re the idiot.

    • Mostly true. I have had a couple of guys, the type that were willing to do the research and the math, that I have convinced to change their stance. Unfortunately, those guys appear to be quite rare.

    • Yup, I don’t engage anymore.

      There’s nothing left to say, only waiting on them to do what they say they will. Training hard and stacking deep for the day, anything less is useless dick waving.

  9. It’s only winning if you’re changing minds. Otherwise it’s just masturbation with an audience.

  10. its like debating a Shannon Watts love child fathered by delusional dacian and instructed by Miner49er, the whole subject is way over their head and they debate from emotion based confirmation bias and don’t know what context is.

  11. One comment from RMV: If there were no guns, there’d be no gun violence.

    Rather than go to the magic gun evaporation fairy, I’d rather respond with something like: So you’re okay with people getting murdered with knives, hands, feet, machetes, crossbows, arbalests, flaming hamsters, etc.? Good to know.

  12. One nit to pick: it is NOT deaths by guns, use the word with! Words matter and if we conced the language we are immediately giving up part of the argument. By guns implies that the gun has agency outside of the operator, with acknowledges that a human is involved.

    • Agreed. The only thing my guns do without direct human involvement is rust. I’ve been trying to teach them not to do that but, alas, with no success.

  13. I spent a weekend after the intense debate that happened after sandy hook just playing with public data. Just for my own curiosity. DOJ, US census, and United Nations data. Nothing sophisticated, just seeing what correlates with what. Number of guns in private hands per capita vs. homicides per capita across US sates? Slight negative correlation (r about – 0.10, not statistically significant with the number of data points) in the direction of more guns tended to be associated with lower homicide rate. Same result if you do it by county instead of state. And same result across nations from UN data. For the US, there was no association between murder rate and strictness of gun laws (score the Brady Foundation gave states for how “good” their gun control policy is, so think CA = high score). Did a bunch of other stuff.

    The only thing I found, and it accounted for a big chunk of variance, is population density across US states: Murder rate goes up with density, suicide rate goes down. If we assume for the sake of argument that this relationship is causal, if you spread people out they kill themselves, and if you pack people together they kill each other. Not sure what that might say about the human condition.

    • I (try) to talk about the actual numbers with people all the time and, for the most part, they just won’t have it. I have explained until I am blue in the face that the fact that we have over 400 million guns in private hands in this country would indicate, if murders were proportional to guns, that we “should” have at least 100 times as many murders as we do. I have talked about quantities, ratios, probabilities and rates until I threw up my hands and admitted failure.

      Honestly, I don’t think that the average gun-hater (or possibly, the average person) comprehends the concept of hundreds of millions of something versus tens of thousands of another thing. I have begged them to do the math for themselves and have, usually, ended up doing the math for them and it does not move the needle a bit. This, I don’t understand. If you show me reasonably reliable data that displays that Texas contains a larger number of square miles than Montana – I will likely double check your information with a couple of sources and then go about the rest of my life confident that Texas is larger than Montana. It does not mean that I love or hate Texas, or, Montana, just that I recognize that one is larger than the other. What I don’t get about the gun grabbers is that no amount of information, even as simple as that example, seems to have any effect on their thinking. It is as if there were millions of people running around the country who were insisting that Montana is larger than Texas when, demonstrably, it is not.

      • If someone has a strong belief based on emotion rather than objective reality, data will probably not sway that person. I understand that at an intellectual level, but I’ll never understand it at a “gut” level.

        • “I understand that at an intellectual level, but I’ll never understand it at a “gut” level.”

          Thinking that is probably the case because you believe in fact, over truth.

        • @Sam I Am

          How are you defining “truth?” Data can be biased based on the way they are collected. You do the best you can, and try to take that into account. But if someone puts forth a proposition, such as “more guns in private hands means higher murder rates,” then either that statement is generally consistent with objective reality or it’s not. If one makes a more specific statement, like more guns in private hands means a higher murder rate in countries with certain other specified characteristics, then again that’s either consistent with objective reality or it’s not.

          Arguments based on some form of “I believe it so strongly that is has to be true,” or “that’s your truth, not mine” have never been convincing to me. But again, what do you mean by “truth?”

        • Phil, there is ONLY one truth. The Lefties seem to like to pd their ‘facts’ with pure unadulterated B/S!

  14. I think push for “common sense media control” and see how they balk at it.

    Do you guys remember how the nuns went to Ruger during their share holder meeting and wanted a report from them about how they promoted “gun violence?” Maybe someone should do the same thing to MSM outlets.

  15. If only the Leftist/fascist ‘gun control’ crowd could construct a coherent narrative. Unfortunately, they are bereft of reason and logic.

    “Ban assault weapons!” Forgetting for a moment the use of a completely made up phrase, that has LITERALLY no fixed meaning, long guns, of ALL types, account for roughly 3% of firearm deaths, annually. CLEARLY, “assault weapons” (even if there were such a thing) are NOT the problem.

    No system of “gun control” can address the issue of the existing 400 million + existing guns (probably at least 10 – 20% above that, in reality), short of going door-to-door. As long as there are 400 – 500 million guns possessed by Americans (and there are), guns will continue to be ‘available’. It should be sufficient, even for the mentally defective ‘gun grabbers’, like dacian the demented dips*** and MinorLiar, to simply look at the OFFICIAL ‘compliance rates’ with the CA, NY, NJ, and even Australian ‘gun bans’ to realize that such laws DO NOT WORK. But ‘stupid is as stupid does’, so they just keep on passing idiotic, ineffective, unconstitutional laws that . . . accomplish f***-all.

    I have guns. Some of my guns have been declared illegal, at various times, depending on where I was living and what idiocy possessed the legislature of that state. I have never ONCE given up a gun to comply with some stupid, unconstitutional “gun law”, and I have no intention of ever doing so in the future. If dacian the demented or MinorLiar want to be in front of the stack to come seize my guns?? Stack up, mofos. Always been curious to see how many bodies a few of my loads would penetrate, if I could get the idjits to stack up.

    Pass whatever dumbass, ineffective, ignorant, unconstitutional stupidity you choose. I. WILL. NOT. COMPLY. Suck it, gun grabbers.

  16. Interesting how the one side presents with cool, objective data while the other side has the emotional maturity of a 6 year old.

  17. quote———–This is part two of a two part response. Either you go with “there is no magic gun evaporation fairy” which means that comparisons to other countries literally don’t matter, or you go with the “guns are the bulwark against tyranny” argument, where you put them on their heels repeatedly pointing out what a shithole Europe actually is when it comes to gun deaths (if we also include genocide as a gun death). Or, perhaps, go with both——–quote

    Laudable DEFLECTION. The standard Right Wing Fantasy but in reality even if the Jews in Europe had been armed to the teeth the Holocaust would have still taken place. One could give other examples as well because citizens stand zero change against a well trained and armed military set upon them by an evil State. None. The American revolution would have been a complete failure without the French Military and Navy and millions in gold spent on the Revolution.

    I might add also that the Warsaw Ghetto uprising did zero for the Jews who tried to fight a professional German Army.

    So the article in question dodges the facts that yes because of Europe’s gun laws they have an astronomically lower homicide and mass murder rate and history has proven an armed citizenry does little to nothing from stopping genocide by an evil state.

    • Naturally you take the side of the ss. Typical for a fascist. The Jews did not fight because they expected victory. They fought so that you not-zees would not have a cheap win.

      I am not a Jew. But I remember with pride the Jews that died standing, not kneeling.

      You ridicule them. But what do we expect from a racist fascist such as you.

    • Able to rewrite history in your mind are you, idiot? Do yourself a favor and compute European countries’ homicide rates *per gun* and then come back and explain why ours is so very much lower. If you want to make the case that it is the *quantity* of guns that is the problem then you have to explain why, with an order of magnitude or three more guns per capita than anywhere else, the U.S. does not have *orders of magnitude* more gun crime. We do, however, seem to have had only one domestic armed conflict since the ole revolution.

      Oh, BTW, you’re an idiot. Did I mention that?

    • @dacian

      “history has proven an armed citizenry does little to nothing from stopping genocide by an evil state.”

      we did it here already… it was called the Revolutionary War.

    • well look at dacian…. trying to take on a debate for which he is so outmatched and so far over his head that he like the rocky mountain guy doesn’t realize he had already lost the debate with the first words he posted.

    • STFU dacian. your beloved Europe is awash in the blood and destroyed lives of of innocent. its history is rooted in the slaughter of others and innocents in the name of some king, and that same feudal tyranny still exists in its modern day form ‘granting’ rights as the government sees fit to basically a conquered population.

      Women and children are routinely victimized by the thousands every day across Europe. Heck its almost a continental sport status where 33% of the female population has been violently raped or sexually assaulted, pedophilia runs rampant, 50% of males and females have been the victim of a violent crime and knife and blunt object attacks are common and the elderly are attacked and abused. Your so called civilized Europe is nothing but a sewer of violence and genocide and tyranny.

      • Booger Brain

        I have never seen such an ignorant rant. As a matter of fact France has more freedom of the press for it citizens than we do. I will not go into detail because you are to ignorant understand why anyway.

        • Your entire counter was that France has more freedom of the press than we do?

          You need to be under supervised care.

        • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD. That France has more freedom of the press than we do is boulder dash!

        • @dacian

          As usual its a subject so far over your head that it simply doesn’t make sense to you in your delusional spit spewing knee bending adherence to your false narrative.

          And your only response is “France has more freedom of the press for it citizens than we do” and even in that response you are delusional and false.

          The French Constitution provides freedom of expression, from which the French press derives your claimed ‘freedom of the press’ but not to the same extent as the First Amendment provides under the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law nor is the French ‘inherent’ as the rights in the U.S. Constitution. The French constitution is a jumble of government granted ‘permissions’ they call ‘rights’. Specifically, the French Constitution incorporates the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights of 1789, which provides freedom of speech. But Article 10 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights states that “No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order.” – in other words its a ‘permission’ because its conditional, its not inherent and the government is not prohibited from infringing it and it may be infringed or restricted or revoked by the government at any time simply because the government says it interferes “…with the established Law and Order.”

          It is 100% false that “France has more freedom of the press for it citizens than we do”

          Its the same concept across all of Europe in terms of government granted ‘permissions’ they call ‘rights’. Its part of that modern day form of feudal tyranny under which the people in Europe are a conquered people and are too stupid to realize it because serving the feudal tyranny has been bred into them generation after generation as the illusion of ‘freedom’ designed to serve the feudal tyranny government.

          You moron, you ignorant genocide loving Fascist, you don’t know the difference between a government controlled ‘permission’ and an inherent right. Our constitution is the only one in the world in which the rights codified in that document called the Bill of Rights, are inherent derived from natural rights that all humans have.

        • To add to my response to your “France has more freedom of the press for it citizens than we do” lie and delusional response….

          In other words, basically (to attempt to keep it very simple for your moron thought process, even though this basic simple is still probably way about your head) what the French media have is a ‘privilege’ granted by government permission. Its the, rough analogy, equivalent of our states here in the U.S. issuing a drivers license to operate a car on the public roads, which is a privilege and not a right thus can be revoked/removed/restricted by the state. Its not having “more freedom” its having a privilege by permission of government.

    • dacian the demented dips***,

      So, when are we going to launch your “GoFundMe” page, to buy your ONE-WAY ticket to Eurotrashville???? We WILL NOT miss you, in the slightest. Out lives will be improved, and you will FINALLY be living in your ‘civilized’ Euro-utopia. Sounds like a ‘win-win’ to me. So when do you FINALLY GTFO of Dodge, you disgusting, ignorant, uneducated, lying s***weasel???? How can we miss you, if you WON’T GO THE F*** AWAY????????

      ‘Bye, scrote breath.

      • I have offered to donate a first class ticket for him from Canton, OH to anywhere he wants to go, one way. I figure the gofundme page you all set up could be used for incidentals and bribes so he can go somewhere more civilized.

    • Yep the Pro-Fascist’s and Pro-NAZI propagandist, would like the Free People to just role over to the Fascists/NAZI’s and be polite to their “MASTERS”, like you!!!!

    • @dacian

      you seem to forget that the jews in Warsaw were forced to take on a German army because the Nazis wanted to exterminate them and were not equipped to do so overall having been disarmed by the Nazis and confined to the Warsaw ghetto with no hope of bringing in much support at all.

      Yeah, you would pick an example of a weakened, subjugated, and disarmed people to make some insane ‘oh guns don’t stop genocide’. That’s your Nazi mindset.

      • and also… not to ignore that by your insane statements and lies you advocate for genocide.

    • @dacian

      “One could give other examples as well because citizens stand zero change against a well trained and armed military set upon them by an evil State. None. The American revolution would have been a complete failure without the French Military and Navy and millions in gold spent on the Revolution.”

      You moron.

      First you say “…. citizens stand zero change against a well trained and armed military set upon them by an evil State. None.”

      Then you contradict your own statement and prove his point with “The American revolution would have been a complete failure without the French Military and Navy and millions in gold spent on the Revolution” and you don’t even realize it.

      The fact the Revolution did work, did succeed, even with outside help, shows that armed ‘citizens’ indeed did and do have a chance against a well trained and armed military set upon them by an evil state.

    • @dacian

      “… history has proven an armed citizenry does little to nothing from stopping genocide by an evil state.”

      100% false

      We did it with the Revolutionary War.

      The Irish did it twice against the British with the Irish War of Independence and the Northern Ireland Conflict.

      Kenya did it against the British.

      East Africa did it against the British

      India did it against the British

      The Dutch colonies in the southern areas of Africa did it against the British.

      The Afgans did it twice against the British in the Second and Third Afghan wars.

      Malaya did it against the British.

      And in an indirect way the Jews and French and Polish did it too in WWII against your beloved Fuhrer Adolf Hitler, by motivating the U.S. to drive further into Europe. See, what you ignore, for example for the Jews, is that even though not publicly visible in the form of armed resistance behind the scenes they were working to get the armed response they needed and did have an armed resistance faction.

      and there are many more examples…

      So even if Warsaw did not work out for the Jews, it does not prove your point because your entire point is false to begin with.

      If it seems that the British did this a lot its because they did. When the British started to encounter ‘push back’ from a ‘population’ they sought to dominate they tended to try to reduce and subjugate that population by various methods, in other words ‘genocide’ to reduce and subjugate the population. They would use things like, for example, controlling the food supply, starvation, military force, imprisonment, slavery, and denial of medical care – with the goal that eventually people would die off as their ‘quality of life’ and access to ‘necessary life sustaining’ things declined – a genocide, only slower. The British even did it to their own people in England. But the British are not the only ones, most all countries in modern day Europe have done it at some time or another. It’s that ‘tyranny’ side of them.

      • also to add…. a favored tactic of the British was to use excessive taxation, rules, laws, all coupled to the threat of military force – the British had done the math. These when combined together overtime increases the poverty level and as the poverty level increases the death rate goes up because the quality of life decreases because there is less access to ‘financial’ means to secure the things needed. Eventually, if kept up long enough, a portion of the population dies off because of this reduced ‘quality of life’ and eventually that reduces the population to a smaller amount and it becomes more manageable thus is easier to subjugate. Its genocide, only slower.

        The British had started trying that here, we weren’t going to have it …. we fought and won a ‘debate’ called the Revolutionary War to kick their tyranny out of here.

  18. Define “win” and then show me the part where Handwaving Freakoutery won other than maybe by their own definition?

    This isn’t winning. Facts don’t care about feelings and feelings don’t care about facts. No one was swayed by this in either direction. Followers lined up behind the account they agree with. No, your ratios on Twitter don’t actually mean shit IRL either.

    There’s a very, very, very good and explainable reason that the most successful politicians do NOT quote facts and figures all the time but, rather, are excellent story tellers. This is also why meme magic is a thing. It’s also why antis are so keen to “personalize” every story about someone killed with a gun and wave the bloody shirt. Because emotion opens doors that data and facts do not and never fucking will. They know this works and has worked for a very long time.

    Properly deployed stories/memes are relatable to large swaths of people. Data tables get people screaming at you that you’re mentally ill, just like this did above, and the audience tunes it out or entrenches their own position further.

    Because you know the data and agree with both the premise and the hypothesis doesn’t mean that “your guy” won the argument. The other side believes their guy won just as much as you believe your guy did.

    To the other side, this only makes it easier to say that you’re a “bad person”. Handwaving Freakoutery is a bad person. Libs of TikTok is a bad person.

    Your data doesn’t matter. You’re supporting a bad position and are therefore a bad person. And what does a just society do with bad people? It punishes them. Is this being the basis of most Left-leaning thought not goddamn obvious at this point?

    And in the world of law and politics what matters is what the audience, statistically, believes. If facts and shit mattered so much the GOP would have the Senate right now, not because they’re so awesome but because the D’s demonstrably fucked up just about everything, really hard, for two years. Yet… here we are.

    Further, there is no “winning an argument” on Twitter, there’s just people internet yelling at each other. It’s the worst debate platform ever created. Using it as an example of how to win an argument is just silly.

    If you want to study argumentative strategy using something like Twitter, focus on the “Rocky Mountain Views” account’s responses.

    • As usual you raise good points and do it well but I have to admit that I don’t like one of your principle theses one bit. That being, “Because emotion opens doors that data and facts do not and never fucking will.” I do not question that you are correct but this truth annoys me to no end. I do not, I am afraid, understand why this is true though it apparently is. Facts, data, numbers, and the like have convinced *me* of a great many things in my life and it wears me out that similar facts will not, apparently cannot, convince others.

      Clearly, I suppose, I do not work in marketing or sales. I am an engineer and a builder and if you can show me that a beam will support a required load, I’ll build that beam. If you can show me that it won’t, well, I’ll not build it and seek a different solution. I try not to be overly pedantic about facts and their implications in many areas of life but, sometimes, there is no other way to make a rational, reasonable decision. I admit that I cannot appreciate how it is that people make the choices they do without some, at least minimally structured, approach.

      Sure, I don’t perform a multivariate analysis to choose my lunch but we are not talking about lunch, we are talking about national policies that impact hundreds of millions of people. Why we can’t approach that kind of decision making using cold, hard, facts is, I’m afraid, lost on me.

    • That’s why they put the word “win” in quotes.

      The article even begins with

      Please be aware, this will not change anyone’s mind.

      The left is not reasonable, rational, or reachable. We have glaring examples who post nearly every day on this forum.

  19. The validation of the effectiveness of gun control laws is simple, and simply achievable: if it saves only one life, it is worth it.

    If banning all firearms saves only one life, especially a child, total gun control is worth it.

    With total gun control, gun owners immediately become non-law-abiding persons, subject to arrest and trial. Trying and convicting the alleged 100 million gun owners will dramatically reduce the number of deaths from firearm use; if it saves only one, it is worth it.

    Confiscate all the “legally owned” firearms, and those guns cannot be used to kill (intentionally or otherwise) anyone. If that saves only one life, forced gun confiscation is worth it.

    No one needs a gun, but society needs all the other implements that might be used to kill someone.

    The alleged purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow “the people” to form militias to overthrow a tyrannical government. Federal law already, and long ago, made overthrowing the government illegal (10 US Code, Chap 15, 1807), putting an end to the silly notion in the DOI that “the people” have a right to “abolish government”.

    It is agreed that there is no “magic gun evaporation fairy”, but none needed. If legal gun owners are law-abiding, they will surrender their firearms under national gun confiscation, or become subject to arrest and trial. No attempt to confiscate guns from the criminal element will be made, as that will lead to more gun deaths; eventually illegally held firearms will malfunction, or become non-functional, but lives that really count will be safe.

  20. Handwaving Freakoutery:

    I commend you. You have provided a superb example of thoroughly “triggering” a Lib/Prog, nothing is more satisfying and to be able to do it long distance, from the comfort of one’s home is no doubt particularly gratifying.

    Now everyone here who hasn’t bern permanently banned from Twitter must “pile on” whomever (they claim to be a “female” but who knows these days) “Rocky Mountain Views” (RMV) and deluge their page. Of note “RMV” is now wringing her/his/zer hands over a carjacking in his/her/zers neighborhood that left one person wounded and a male dead.


    “Hammer” the handwringer but good, make ’em “do the chicken” and “protect” their page, a bevy of Pro-2nd Amend memes and DGU articles will be a good start.

  21. Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:
    “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong.”

  22. @Phil Wilson
    “How are you defining “truth?” ”

    Truth is my truth; however I define it at the moment. Like our current president, truth is what I say it is, when I say it. Truth is whatever causes me the least inconvenience, and gets me the most votes.

    Data and math are white privilege, and distort truth. The very idea that 2 + 2 always results in 4 is racist, and imposition of white oppression on people of color. Not every culture agrees on white calculations being the only possible means of representing amounts.

  23. Ever hear the quote “I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an Unarmed Person?”
    That’s how I view debating with Gun Control Zealots, and why I try to avoid commenting to the Unarmed on this forum. Unarmed being the Dacians, Miners, and Alberts that Troll this site. I don’t always succeed, but I’m a work in progress, and admit it.
    Dacian loves to proclaim Dr. Lott’s work has been Debunked, but that is not the case. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that Lott started his research believing in Gun Control, but as one of the very few “Honest and Ethical” researchers studying the data, he quickly saw that the data totally undercut the Gun Control totally corrupt and myopic claims.
    Gun Control Zealots always include Suicide in their number crunching as well as accidental and call their total “Homicides.” That’s not only dishonest, but intellectual obfuscation. Several States jumped on the Red Flag Law bandwagon when the idea was first expressed. Statistics do show that with the passage of the Red Flag Law, Suicides committed with a Firearm do go down. The stats also show that Suicides by other means goes up. There’s really no change in the number total number of Suicides, there’s only a change in the method one uses to end their life. You’ve not prevented any Suicides, you’ve only prevented one method that was used. To call that a Gain or Win is a Lie, because you haven’t addressed the real cause of Suicides, which is Mental Illness (Acute and/or Chronic). In stating Red Flag Laws reduce Suicides, all your displaying is Confirmation Bias, and Gun Control Zealots are as full of Confirmation Bias as they are full of feces (Full of Sh*t to be blunt).
    The simple fact is that the overwhelming incidence of Gun Violence is caused by Criminals. The Stats also show that the overwhelming majority of the firearms said Criminals use were either stolen or purchased through the Black Market. The incidental crimes, where a supposed “Law Abiding” Individual purchases a gun and then use that gun to commit a crime, are statistical outliers. They’re rarities in the numbers, no matter their reasons for committing their crime.
    Frankly, the Gun Control Nazis use creative accpunting/statistics that have been Debunked and proven false, you can pretty much sat that if Shannon (T)Watts or Gabby (as Brussel Sprout) Giffords are spewing numbers, it’s a Lie.

    • The main refutation I have heard of Lott is an old game. Some of the hundreds of studies Lott cites have important methodological limitations. Which Lott acknowledges and discusses, before basing conclusions on the total body of evidence. But we can just ignore all that because “Lott cites flawed studies.”

  24. “When you hold someone’s hand and carry them to the mathematics, they attack your value as a person because it’s all they have left to attack.”

    I call it: “Ad hominem – FOR THE WIN!!”

Comments are closed.