I read the original PSH piece and I think the blogger has some serious issues. He seems to be the one with the problem controlling his violent impulses.
I'll be looking forward to reading the debate, Kevin. Keep us updated.
Yup. I love these discussions. Because our side has numbers, facts, proof and logic, and their side has penis references.
We can't argue illogic with logic and will never change their minds. But over and over and over, those who sit on the fence see our side's arguments presented calmly and rationally and are won over.
It's why I considered the Brady Blog to be the best source of pro-gun information until they shut down comments.
Good luck with this, Kevin. If he takes you up on it, I'll be surprised. The reason is because in order to have a "mature conversation", it is necessary to acknowledge current reality as it stands in order to serve as a starting point to get to somewhere else. Even if the "somewhere else" in both your minds is a different place.
Most of those who write like this, use statistics or anecdotes to their own ends often have no direct experience with firearms. And no desire to acquire it. I would personally love to take a devout anti-gunner shooting. I wouldn't be preachy, mere educational. Yes, sir, I would actually deliberately go out and give them ammunition (metaphorically and literally) to use against me. Take one along while I purchase a firearm and let them SEE the process in action (believe me, I am good person to use for this because you get to see NICS at its finest).
At least give them practical experience and knowledge. It may not kill their biases, it may reinforce them, but hopefully it will get them to stop and THINK. Something, for the most part, they aren't doing now.
That way when they come back about "assault weapon bans", background checks and the like, they'll know something about the truth of these issues. Kind of hard to state that an assault weapon fires a "deadly, high powered round" when they've shot a 60 year old WWII era 8mm K98 along with an AR-15, for example.
I just wish for once that folks like this fellow would lay out what would be ideal in his world. I agree that the debates are for the fence sitters. But the fence sitters are who I want to take along for the ride. Show them, teach them. Let them walk away and never see a gun again but at least give them knowledge. You never hear about pro-gunners becoming anti-gun but you often read from first-hand accounts of people going the other way.
I want more of them. Best of luck! Let me know if I can help.
It seems to me that if this is going to be a debate between you and he, it should just be between you and he—no comments.
By allowing everyone on both sides of the debate to chime in, it's going to distract both of you from the actual debate, as you might feel it necessary to respond to individual comments, which is going to go off on tangents and water down the central debate.
Debate him if you wish, but I intend to have him kept as far away from the flight deck of an aircraft as possible.
His threats ain't funny, and when you read:
"Don't tempt me"
that means that he's already disavowed any responsibility for his actions...it's all his victims' fault.
For "tempting" him.
By refusing to surrender their civil rights.
And for God's sake, don't any of you let this ass-clown anywhere near a firearm.
I applaud Kevin's continual willingness to stride yet again into the arena.
It serves several noteworthy purposes:
* It gives lie to our opponent's statement that such mature discussion is impossible.
* It deprives them of their illusion that they're sitting atop some unassailable mountain.
* It reassures us of the solidity of our position.
* It is instructive for the onlookers.
That being said though, sooner or later, as a larger community, we're going to have to declare the matter settled, and those who still hold opinions to the contrary to be the deviants, so we can move on to better things, reasonably secure in our rights.
While some may view that this may be a -teense- premature, perhaps not so much, no.
What I'm saying is that if we keep acting as a defensive minority, that is how we'll be viewed, rather than as the secure majority we are.
Kevin, I envy you your stamina, your patience, and your research.
And I agree with Guav. Comments would be, in my opinion, a huge and unnecessary distraction. It would be like watching the final bout of the gladiatorial super bowl with a crowd of peanut vendors screaming in my ears. You need to reach the masses, but not as individual conversations.
Mr Baker, I don't know how you have the patience to do it. I read the comments over at that blog, and I don't think they're wanting reasoned debate at all.
"It would be like watching the final bout of the gladiatorial super bowl with a crowd of peanut vendors screaming in my ears."
HAHAHAHAHA
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/09/another-debate-that-im-supposedly.html (14 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I read the original PSH piece and I think the blogger has some serious issues. He seems to be the one with the problem controlling his violent impulses.
I'll be looking forward to reading the debate, Kevin. Keep us updated.
Yup. I love these discussions. Because our side has numbers, facts, proof and logic, and their side has penis references.
We can't argue illogic with logic and will never change their minds. But over and over and over, those who sit on the fence see our side's arguments presented calmly and rationally and are won over.
It's why I considered the Brady Blog to be the best source of pro-gun information until they shut down comments.
Good luck with this, Kevin. If he takes you up on it, I'll be surprised. The reason is because in order to have a "mature conversation", it is necessary to acknowledge current reality as it stands in order to serve as a starting point to get to somewhere else. Even if the "somewhere else" in both your minds is a different place.
Most of those who write like this, use statistics or anecdotes to their own ends often have no direct experience with firearms. And no desire to acquire it. I would personally love to take a devout anti-gunner shooting. I wouldn't be preachy, mere educational. Yes, sir, I would actually deliberately go out and give them ammunition (metaphorically and literally) to use against me. Take one along while I purchase a firearm and let them SEE the process in action (believe me, I am good person to use for this because you get to see NICS at its finest).
At least give them practical experience and knowledge. It may not kill their biases, it may reinforce them, but hopefully it will get them to stop and THINK. Something, for the most part, they aren't doing now.
That way when they come back about "assault weapon bans", background checks and the like, they'll know something about the truth of these issues. Kind of hard to state that an assault weapon fires a "deadly, high powered round" when they've shot a 60 year old WWII era 8mm K98 along with an AR-15, for example.
I just wish for once that folks like this fellow would lay out what would be ideal in his world. I agree that the debates are for the fence sitters. But the fence sitters are who I want to take along for the ride. Show them, teach them. Let them walk away and never see a gun again but at least give them knowledge. You never hear about pro-gunners becoming anti-gun but you often read from first-hand accounts of people going the other way.
I want more of them. Best of luck! Let me know if I can help.
Matt
I look forward to this. Every debate I engage in or read improves by skills and provides me w/ new resources.
It seems to me that if this is going to be a debate between you and he, it should just be between you and he—no comments.
By allowing everyone on both sides of the debate to chime in, it's going to distract both of you from the actual debate, as you might feel it necessary to respond to individual comments, which is going to go off on tangents and water down the central debate.
Just a suggestion.
I agree with Guav. I don't have the type of self restraint needed to not clog up the comments.
Kevin;
Debate him if you wish, but I intend to have him kept as far away from the flight deck of an aircraft as possible.
His threats ain't funny, and when you read:
"Don't tempt me"
that means that he's already disavowed any responsibility for his actions...it's all his victims' fault.
For "tempting" him.
By refusing to surrender their civil rights.
And for God's sake, don't any of you let this ass-clown anywhere near a firearm.
Regards;
I applaud Kevin's continual willingness to stride yet again into the arena.
It serves several noteworthy purposes:
* It gives lie to our opponent's statement that such mature discussion is impossible.
* It deprives them of their illusion that they're sitting atop some unassailable mountain.
* It reassures us of the solidity of our position.
* It is instructive for the onlookers.
That being said though, sooner or later, as a larger community, we're going to have to declare the matter settled, and those who still hold opinions to the contrary to be the deviants, so we can move on to better things, reasonably secure in our rights.
While some may view that this may be a -teense- premature, perhaps not so much, no.
What I'm saying is that if we keep acting as a defensive minority, that is how we'll be viewed, rather than as the secure majority we are.
Bilgeman:
Read closer. The "fly an airplane into a building" guy is not the guy who wants to debate.
comment subversion? Heh.
I'm also with Guav. I wouldn't be able to keep up with all the comments anyway.
Kevin, I envy you your stamina, your patience, and your research.
And I agree with Guav. Comments would be, in my opinion, a huge and unnecessary distraction. It would be like watching the final bout of the gladiatorial super bowl with a crowd of peanut vendors screaming in my ears. You need to reach the masses, but not as individual conversations.
Kev:
"Read closer. The "fly an airplane into a building" guy is not the guy who wants to debate."
Got that...I was in town not only for 9/11, but also when that numb-nut kamikazed his Cessna into the White House during Clinton's tenure.
I hear that kind of crazy-talk, I call the MIB...no further input needed.
Ahhh, well. Add one supremely self-justified political extremist mouth-breather with,(for the moment),a private pilot's license to the TSA Watchlist.
You has your fun, and I has mine.
And thus is the Homeland made Secure.
(hopefully).
Steve-lad will soon be piloting nothing higher than a taxicab.
Enjoy.
Mr Baker, I don't know how you have the patience to do it. I read the comments over at that blog, and I don't think they're wanting reasoned debate at all.
HAHAHAHAHA
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>