Grey Matters header image
Photo taken from deck of Warren's home.

The Gun Debate On Social Media

On a forum I frequent, someone asked for advice on how to address the gun debate on social media. My response was this:

In the gun debate, there are the pro-gun folk, the anti-gun folk and the fence sitters. We (the Right to Keep and Bear Arms defenders) will never convince the antis. Their minds are made up. Facts don’t matter.

The fence sitters, for the most part, are willing to go along with “reasonable” and “commonsense” which means going along with the antis who claim the “reasonable” and “commonsense” ground. We need to make the fence sitters see how nonsensical the antis are. We need to reclaim the “reasonable” and “commonsense” title.

The antis are simply irrational. They are primarily driven by emotion (by definition, irrational). Additionally:

  1. The entire premise of the anti-gunners is that “guns are bad.” Guns are not bad or good, people are.
  2. The people driving gun control measures are largely ignorant when it comes to guns. Very often they simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
  3. Not only are the naysayers ignorant, but much of what they claim to “know” is itself untrue. Much of this is intentional; they are lying and they know it.
  4. The gun controllers only consider the negative things that happen with guns and not the positive. Indeed, they don‘t believe in the existence of positive benefits to society of guns.
  5. Their dire predictions (born of their “commonsense”) have never come true. With any loosening of restrictive gun laws, naysayers predict blood in the streets and shoot-outs over minor incidents becoming commonplace. That it never happens does not seem to have changed their closed minds.
  6. Antis believe that for a gun to be useful defensively, a bad guy needs to be shot. This is simply not true.
  7. The antis distort what the Constitution says about RKBA.

But numbers one (1) and four (4) are the biggees. Unless and until antis acknowledge that there are benefits to society of the people being armed for self defense, there can never be any serious talk about “guns.”

They cannot claim to be “reasonable” and have “commonsense” without taking the very reasonable step of considering all the evidence. Once Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) are factored in, one is forced to admit that guns are, overall, a benefit to society, being used many more times to prevent crime than to commit it. Just Google “estimates of defensive gun uses” to get some numbers.

Because of (1) above, they want to ban this and restrict that. Yet, the very foundation of their argument is flawed.

We (RKBA supporters) routinely acknowledge that people sometimes do bad things with guns. If they cannot admit that people sometimes also do good things with guns, they are intellectually dishonest and need to be called on it.

So, whether on social media or anywhere else, start by asking them to consider the positive effects of people being armed for self defense**.┬áNo one can claim to be “reasonable” and “commonsense” if they are not even considering most of the evidence, indeed, studiously ignoring it.

Offer some numbers on DGUs. Invite then to google it. If they fail to acknowledge that guns have beneficial effects on society, they are obviously not open-minded and there is no point in debating anything. Call them out on not being rational, reasonable or commonsense and move on. You’re unlikely to sway the anti but the conversation may move some fence sitters.

Arming teachers is the perfect example. Antis believe that permitting teachers to arm themselves would make them and their students less safe. This is based on the fallacious believe that “guns are bad, period.”

Comments are closed.