Debating the Gun-Grabbers On Gun Control

Debating the Gun-Grabbers On Gun Control

U.S.A.-( Ben Shapiro has a saying. His saying is that “facts don't care about your feelings.” Every time a shooting happens in the US the anti-gun leftist try to goad the pro-gun side into a debate. The issue is that you cannot have a discussion when one side is arguing facts, and the other side is using an emotional crutch.

We can all agree on what happened in Parkland, Florida was a hideous crime. We can all agree that this is a tragedy that we shouldn't have to accept as “just part of life.” I think we all want to prevent the next mass shooting. It is just that the left, and the right disagree on how to fix the situation.

While the pro-gun side wants to fix the actual problem, such as the mental health system, the left would instead attack an inanimate object, as though it is the ring from the “Lord Of The Rings.” The Democrat method is akin to trying to fix the road instead of your car when it breaks down. It just doesn't work.

I am not saying don't debate the people on the left. What I am suggesting is when you do engage them in a war of ideas, for you not to get sucked into a battle of emotions. Ben Shapiro headed off Piers Morgan by removing the emotional argument by insisting that Morgan “not stand on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook.”

Shapiro automatically put Morgan on the defensive and took away his ability to use emotion in his argument by using this technique. Morgan spent a minute plus saying, “How dare you?” in his smug British accent. The reason he kept repeating himself is that Shapiro took away the emotional evidence that Morgan was so fond of using and he knew he couldn't beat Shapiro in a war of facts.

When debating gun control with someone on the left, it is always good to know their arguments better than they do. Fortunately for us on the pro-gun side, the gun grabbers will use the same talking points sourced from the same places. In reality, most of the time, they just repeat the twisted statistics they hear on TV.

The question I ask is, “If we were to stop the manufacture and sale of all firearms from this moment, then how would you deal with the 350 million plus guns that are already in circulation in the United States?”

The only answer that they have is a forced confiscation of firearms. People always think that there is some list of the location of where every gun resides, but this isn't the case. Make sure they know that fact. It is clear to see that if no one knows where all the guns are, then there is no way for gun confiscation to work.

Even if the government did know where every gun was, confiscating firearms wouldn't work in our country. Unless they are dishonest, they will have to admit a large percentage are not going to volunteer to give up their guns. How would the anti-gunner handle the holdouts? Usually, they will not have an answer.

Another argument I have seen today is the “18 school shootings this year” pushed by Everytown. Ask them if they know what Everytown considers a school shooting. When they don't understand what Everytown uses in their study, then bring up the fact that they included BB guns in their stats of school shooting.

I always bring up the indisputable fact that schools are gun-free zones. If you look at the study by The Crime Research Prevention Center that looked at every mass shooting between 1950 and 2016, they found that a staggering 98.4% happened in gun free zones. Even if we limit the range to 1998 to 2016, we still see that 96.2% of mass shootings occur in gun-free zones.

The anti-gunners are going to bring up more talking points from Everytown again. The Bloomberg group puts this number at only 30% of shootings happening in gun-free zones. When this happens, I always ask if they know what Everytown counts in their studies. Of course, they don't.

Everytown includes suicides, accidental discharges, and airsoft guns. Yes, kids playing in the park with airsoft guns and police get called because someone overreacts is counted as “a shooting” by Everytown For Gun Safety. The average anti-gunners just hear the numbers and do not look at the method that was used to reach the figures.

In truth, Everytown For Gun Safety counts on people not looking into the methods used to come up with their skewed numbers. The more significant the amounts; The more prominent the headlines. By knowing their ways, we can discount their studies as propaganda.

The gun-grabbers will try to argue that the founding fathers were talking about muskets and not AR15s in the Constitution. This point is elementary to counter. James Madison, “The Father Of The Constitution,” wrote in Federalist No.46 about the need of the people to be armed as well as the military. Most gun-grabbers haven't even heard of the Federalist Papers.

My favorite thing that they do, is say that the other developed countries don't have as many people killed by guns. What this does is discounts is the size of the US. The numbers they use do not include the differences in population. When you look at shootings per capita, you will find another answer.

Jaclyn Schildkraut of the State University of New York in Oswego, and H. Jaymi Elsass of Texas State University, analyzed mass shooting from 2004 to 2014. What they found is that you have a better chance of being killed in a shooting in Norway, Finland, and Switzerland than in the US.

Then you also have to look at the violent crime rates in other countries. This statistic is one thing that the left never uses in their anti-gun attack. For example, in China where citizens are not allowed to own firearms at all, they have a higher murder than in the US. If people want to kill you, and don't have access to a gun, they are just going to use something else.

The final thing the gun-grabbers might use is another stat from the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. The statistic states that there were 300 mass school shootings since 2013. The actual number of total mass shootings since 1999 is 66 according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. These include all public mass shootings whether they happen in a school or a park. We can surmise from this fact that the 300 number is not only misleading but a total lie.

With separating emotion from the facts we, as responsible gun owners, can win any debate with the gun-grabbing leftist. What we must do is not follow them down the rabbit hole of emotion. We must present the facts and know the subject matter better than they do. In the end, the truth is on our side.

About John CrumpJohn Crump


  • 11 thoughts on “Debating the Gun-Grabbers On Gun Control

    1. ” The psychologist Abraham Maslow developed a theory suggesting humans are motivated to satisfy five basic needs, the first of which relates to issues of survival. While many folks today may focus more on pay and benefits to meet their most basic needs, others see survival in a more literal sense. On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled, once again, that police have no constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. That duty and its inherent stark reality, therefore, rest on the shoulders of individuals. That’s where the “need” for guns begins for so many of us. What type and how many become no more than personal preference for various situations. The desire to own even more guns goes deeper than that.

      Many people will invest in firearms and knives as alternatives to antique vehicles, gold, or other forms of capital; others keep them for myriad hunting purposes. Firearms in a general sense were not always the best of investments, however, increasing in value at a lesser rate than inflation in years gone by. But we’ve witnessed the fact that as protesters protest and politicians push for infringements on Second Amendment protections, demand for firearms increases proportionately. ”

      So why is it that everyone besides Pro-Gun advocates are being heard when it comes to enacting more legislation against firearm ownership, and all of the Pro-Gun advocates, that are law-abiding citizens are not only being ignored, but not receiving any firearm legislation to preserve their 2nd Amendment Liberty, but also their continued diligence in being an Honorable Citizen?

      Doesn’t this bear the resemblance of Inequality and Biased firearm legislation and regulation. And the most interesting point, we are also ignoring the 2nd Amendment in its clear language of “Shall Not Be Infringed”.

      There are lawful and legal steps to remove the 2nd Amendment, and rewrite it, or simply add a provision to it, and yet noone is following the law. Yet instead, they are violating the Consitutional laws of repealing an Amendment, and concomitantly violating the 2nd Amendment. And where is the Honor and Integrity in that?

      Why has the Supreme Court failed to acknowledge and speak on the fact that the 2nd Amendment inherently implies that “Carrying Concealed” was commonplace before, during, and after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment?

      Battles with flintlocks weren’t fought in the rain, and there are battles which had to be postponed due to rain and even cartridges ruined from rain, all which prevented the mechanical operation of the flintlock.

      So the fact that over the course of the life of the flint lock, when people recognized that flintlocks were susceptible to rain and firearm malfunctions, that they didn’t just simply leave them at home, but they carried and transported them while covered and concealed to preserve its firing function. And all done without any laws preventing, mandating firearms training or licenses to do so.

      And if that’s hard to believe, then to say that over the course of over 200 years of firearms ownership, no-one at any time had ever carried a firearm or any weapon for that matter, underneath clothing or any object concealing its view from sight or rain is more than rediculous, it’s just downright ignorant.

      To say that the framers of the 2nd Amendment were ignorant to anyone at anytime having ever carried a firearm, pistol, or weapon underneath their clothing or any object for that matter (concealed) would be the biggest lie ever told to the American people.

      The truth is for the past 200 years, states have boldly violated the 2nd Amendment and its citizens rights to carry concealed; Uninfringed, and are now too scared to rectify said reality from the massive blowback from all of the Citizens whom fell victim to such tyrannical and oppressive laws.

      How can you expect citizens to maintain Integrity and Honor when the laws which have been enacted and enforced are based on lies and deceit?


    2. Ben Shapiro keeps misidentifying modern sporting weapons as assault rifles and keeps letting Morgan refer to them as assault rifles. Shapiro is effectively letting Morgan control the language in the debate.

    3. The reason we have a 2nd Amendment is because the British tried to take muskets, ball, and powder from us at Lexington and Concord. The left is trying to due it today. That limey bastard Morgan should go back to the UK, which is a shell of its former self and being taken over by the Muslims. Also, I don’t need a bunch of snowflake high school kids demanding gun control. They are being manipulated by the left wing gun grabbers. When and if they grow up they might be able to judge issues based on facts, but not now. That bugged eyed asshole Mark Kelley is such a hypocrite. A couple of years back he bought an AR15, which by the way was not the weapon that shot his wife. That was a 9mm Glock. We need to do away with Gun Free Zones that are only target rich environments. We need to harden the schools, put in real security and train and arm selective staff. BTW I donated $100.00 to the NRA today. Wish I could afford more.

    4. After so many school incidents, we now know that gun free zones don’t work! What is the saying that when you keep doing the same thing and expect different results is a sign of insanity?

      and if i were the President id DO JUST THAT.

    6. Hmmm, I had a thought for further ‘derailing’ the hoplophobes: ask them why prison guards have guns – are criminals more important than kids or the rest of us?

    7. It’s nearly impossible to have a legitimate, intelligent conversation or debate with those who are staunchly anti-2A. They operate almost exclusively on emotion. You can begin the discussion civilly. But as you mentioned most of them just repeat the same ‘facts’ they’ve heard or read in the ‘news’ by people who are ill-informed at best, & intentionally misleading at worst. When you use actual facts & point out their errors & the lack of common sense in their so-called ‘common sense gun laws’, they tell you that you’re wrong or a liar, & that they know the facts & they’ve “done the research.” I’ve heard blatant falsehoods spoken on TV & radio with these excuses. It’s like trying to talk to a bratty child throwing a fit who plugs their ears & screams “I hate you” when you try to speak. This is what I’ve witnessed from those who get publicity.
      However I’m not suggesting giving up on trying to have the conversation & educate those who are uneducated on the subject. A lot of people I’ve dealt with in person have been more open to the discussion. There are plenty of people left who are indifferent or fence-sitters & we need all the help we can get. It’s disheartening to see the immediate irrational, emotional calls for gun control after these events. But don’t let it change your mind about trying to change theirs.
      There are two kinds of people involved in the debate over gun control: The people who are proponents of gun control, & the people who are actually educated on the subject.

    8. Good article and some good facts. I am of the opinion that it would be very more superior to protect the kids in the gun free zones. They are like fish in a barrel and have no chance of surviving a vicious attack by a crazy. We use armed guards to protect banks, politicians and many other things. Shouldn’t it be the first line of defence to bring a good guy with a gun to stop a crazy with a gun? They can go after mentally ill people as long as they want but it is possible, and probable, they will not get the right ones. I don’t mean a security guard with his gun locked in a locker, that has to be coming from a liberal idiot. I wouldn’t take that job. Bring the protection to the problem, plain and simple.

    9. With all due respect to Ben Shapiro, I can not agree, when he writes, ” What I am suggesting is when you do engage them in a war of ideas, for you not to get sucked into a battle of emotions.” The Civil Rights Reduction Movement only uses emotion. They do not think. They look for the inanimate object to blame, rather than the wielder of the inanimate object or those who had a duty to act.
      I prefer to begin with the emotional argument, “Why do you hate children so much?” ; “Why do you hate old people so much?” or even, “Why do you hate wild life so much?”. That stuns them to silence just long enough to introduce facts from there.

    10. If You Look ! The First Thing You See While Visiting
      Their Places of Business is an Armed Security Guard .
      Commoners Don’t Need Protection But Elites Do !

      I’ll bet They Tell The Guard to Leave the Gun There,
      When He Goes Home, Cause it’s Not Safe to Have One !

    Leave a Comment 11 Comments