How do you explain Gun Control Politics to Foreigners

Manwithn0n0men

Manwithn0n0men

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
So I have a Friend in India who went to School in America (I helped get him into the school Ironically)

But his American friends are all Gen Z D-Bags and he is super into their gun control arguments.

How do I tell him his friends are young and stupid POLITELY
 
Manwithn0n0men said:
Because I like him. I made a 10-12 year long friendship with him by calling a former Obama Admin official out for being full of shit about Syria (on Twitter) and being proven right
Click to expand...
I understand that, but I'm not sure it's very necessary. For example: I know some Charistmatics and people who use contemporary Bible translations. Surely, I disagree with Charismatic beliefs and I like Tyndale more than the thousands of other scholars which have made hundreds of English Bible translations.

But, it's not much of a problem for us to deviate in such ways. They still partake in the liturgy, and they still read the Bible.

Worry about it when you've ought to. Most churches don't have official responces to Gun Control for a reason.
 
  • Dumb
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Dirty Larry and Bixby Snyder
Manwithn0n0men said:
Because I like him. I made a 10-12 year long friendship with him by calling a former Obama Admin official out for being full of shit about Syria (on Twitter) and being proven right
Click to expand...
To expand on the story

it was 2010 (or 11) the Then head of the Woodrow Wilson School was INSISTING China and Russia would back team Obama's play on Libya.

She assured everyone on Twitter that she was assured that would happen from her friendos in the obama team.

I called her out. I explained how I some one with a BA in a related field knew that was bullshit and she should know better.

She bet me it would happen and I won
 
  • TMI
  • Informative
Reactions: OrionBalls, Caesare and Moja Zemlja
Easy. Tell him the 2nd amendment is absolute. Some people are scared of guns and want to stop people from having them, but their laws are doomed to be overturned on appeal eventually. As long as you're not a felon or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, any citizen can buy a gun. The gays afraid of nazis can buy guns, the blacks afraid of the kkk or gangs can buy guns, women afraid of rapist men can buy guns. In fact, women, small men and the elderly benefit the most from gun ownership.

Put it to them this way. Being afraid of or hating guns just for existing is as silly as being afraid of or hating minorities just for existing. Focus on the individual person.

Also, fun fact, gun control was heavily used in the US to keep blacks from owning guns after slavery. So it's racist too. Just gaslight them and ask why they want to take away the constitutional rights of POCs.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Feels
Reactions: Useful_Mistake, Toolbox, marisa # and 10 others
If they have an ounce of common sense explain that the 2nd amendment is not in place so people can own guns to protect themselves from other citizens, but to protect people from the government itself should it ever attempt to infringe upon their rights.

If they don't have common sense explain that gun control doesn't stop criminals from owning guns because criminals don't really care about the laws and have ways to get difficult to track guns illegally anyways, it only stops regular people from owning them for their defense. As demonstrated by cities, which often have the strictest gun laws but the highest number of gun crimes

If they have negative common sense, I don't know tell them to do a flip off a bridge for tik tok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Takayuki Yagami, Caesare and JosephStalin
Don't have time to write out everything but a few things I've found useful in no particular order:

  • Quoted gun death figures typically get presented as if they're homicides but they usually include suicides. Someone who kills themself and uses a gun is using it as a method of convenience. There are numerous other ways to commit suicide and when guns are not available they get used. So the figures you see are often misleading.
  • A gun is called an equalizer for a good reason. It lets a woman protect herself against men far larger than her and I've known women who carry a gun for exactly that reason.
  • In the same vein as the above, guns are used to prevent crime often. Simply being armed and producing the weapon can prevent a mugging, rape or assault and often has done. Even more mass-shootings, there was a case of a mass shooter at a church a year or so ago who was stopped by an armed citizen attending the service. Far from the only case.
  • Every authoritarian government and tyrant since guns were a thing has cemented their rule with the removal of guns. This is such a constant that there are pre-made arguments circulated against it like "Hitler didn't ban guns, they were still legal". Well yes, unless you were Jewish, member of a rival political party or deemed "unsuitable". In practice, he banned guns from anyone except his supporters.
  • The question isn't why do you need an AR-15. It's why does the IRS agent have one? The 2A is designed to prevent tyranny by making sure the populace can defend themselves against tyranny.
  • Guns were banned in Australia. Homicides by guns dropped a lot. But homicides overall only dropped a little. This shows that removing guns does drop homicides but in the main, people simply switch to other methods. Also, see earlier point about how women are now less able to defend themselves from sexual assault. The notion that banning guns stops killings is flawed.
  • Reinforcing the above point, gun violence does not correlate with gun ownership. There are countries such as Switzerland that have higher gun ownership per person than the USA but far lower gun homicides. Even more convincingly it doesn't even correlate withinthe United States. Many areas (esp. rural) have higher gun-ownership rates than others but far lower gun homicide rates. What does correlate is urban density. The oft-touted graphics showing gun violence per population in the USA versus other countries:
    • Firstly, abstract away the urban density. What they're really showing is that the USA has far more super-dense urban centres than most other developed countries. It's not useful to compare Chicago and rural Alabama in one picture with another country.
    • Secondly, it's always careful to show the USA versus "developed countries". As if having pockets of hyper-wealth and a giant finance industry within it means you can't compare areas of the country that don't have that to similar areas in other countries.
  • And it is a RIGHT. The fact that someone else doesn't wish to exercise their right to own a gun does not invalidate your right to do so. This is part of the Constitution upon which the union is founded. Without it, the legal basis for the Union is gone.
  • Australia banned guns. The UK banned guns. Both still have gun crime. Both are islands with customs controls. The USA has a land-border nearly two-thousand miles long with Mexico. A country with high homicides and heavy organized crime and copious guns. It also has a massive amount of coastline you can land at which is unobserved. Chances of stopping illegal gun sales are nil. And that's if you somehow made the more guns than people already in America suddenly vanish. In short, if you ban guns what you are doing is banning guns from law-abiding people and doing very, very little to stop them getting into the hands of criminals. Effectively, you are reducing people's ability to defend themselves and their property.
  • On that last point, if they ask you if you really think it's right to shoot at someone who breaks into your home to steal your stuff, tell them "yes, if I feel I need to". You don't have to justify your right to own a gun, they have to explain to you why you should give it up. That person breaking in is very likely carrying a gun, too.
  • Tell them that if they really want to live in a place where carrying a gun is illegal they can move to Chicago or Los Angeles and enjoy the feeling of safety that suddenly descends upon them. Both cities have some of the heaviest gun restrictions in America.
That's all I have time for, today. Hope it helps. Be polite, be friendly, always remind them they have to explain to you why you can't have a gun, not you to him why your rights should be restricted.

Your Starter for 10 said:
I was seconded to the UN a bunch of years ago. I tried to debate in good faith with foreigners of most stripes (although the Eastern Europeans didn't give a shit). Eventually just gave up.

Subjects cannot conceive of what being a citizen is. It's like explaining math to a fish.
Click to expand...
I have lived most of my life in Europe and I can't either. People who look to the state for all their protection can only conceive of people other than the state having guns as either a direct threat, or an indirect threat. Because the state should have the only use of such force in their mind because the state is the teacher/parent/protector of all. And for the same reason they don't understand the ownership of guns as a means to guard against the state's excess because the thought of the state being the enemy is alien to them. The state is to be placated, or persuaded, or pleaded with. Not opposed. Because their source of safety is the state, not the self.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Duration Pending, kartofel, Caesare and 6 others
Chilson said:
If they have an ounce of common sense explain that the 2nd amendment is not in place so people can own guns to protect themselves from other citizens, but to protect people from the government itself should it ever attempt to infringe upon their rights.
Click to expand...
The second amendment is for whatever the fuck i want to use my guns for. But yes, also to protect from the government. Hopefully you don't have to explain past that.
Chilson said:
If they don't have common sense explain that gun control doesn't stop criminals from owning guns because criminals don't really care about the laws and have ways to get difficult to track guns illegally anyways, it only stops regular people from owning them for their defense. As demonstrated by cities, which often have the strictest gun laws but the highest number of gun crimes
Click to expand...
But if you do... its "Everyone else owns guns, you should too! " the DARE method for the no common sense crowd.
Chilson said:
If they have negative common sense, I don't know tell them to do a flip off a bridge for tik tok.
Click to expand...
Just start a gun owner tik tok challenge for the negative common sense ones.
Dergint said:
Only past tense?
Click to expand...
Past tense because now they don't want anyone having guns, as opposed to just blacks.
 
I have an Indian classmate, this is his first time in America. He seemed really interested when I told him I liked to go shooting for fun and offered to take him to the range sometime. He then asked if the gun I owned was full auto.

It's a silly little story, but it made me realize that foreigners really don't understand US gun culture or politics. They think America is like GTA, where you can walk into GunsRUs and buy a full auto AK and 180 rounds of ammo for $500 and walk out within the minute. I can't pretend to have the answer, but IMO exposure is the best solution. Take him shooting, show him gun safety, maybe even take him with you when you go to purchase a firearm.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Caesare, Candlelight Desolation, behavioral swamp thang and 1 other person
A friend in India eh? There are a couple lines of argument which are most likely to work.

First is the argument that a population well versed and capable of owning and using firearms is much more able to defend itself and resist occupation. Hundreds of millions of firearms in the hands of many millions of relatively well trained citizens means that even if the US Military was wiped off the face of the earth the US itself will never be subjugated to the status of a mere colony to be exploited at will by a foreign power.

The Second line of argument is much like the first. However it is predicated more on the individual level. A firearm is the Right and Symbol of a "Free Man". A Freeman is not a slave nor an "untouchable*". This Right and privilege conveys a responsibility to defend one's family and one's community from harm and subjugation. A Freeman is the legal equivalent to the Kshatriya/Rajanyas caste... at least that was supposed to be the theory. In recent history there has been a movement of people who want to give these Rights and responsibilities away and become mere Vaishya or worse, Shudras in part out of cowardice, but mostly out of apathy.

*Otherwise known as the Dalits. Scheduled Caste is the Indian Government's politically correct term.

__
I wish you luck friend. Teaching the foreigner about the very American ideals of Freedom is difficult because most peoples don't really have the same conception of the idea of Freedom.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Caesare and behavioral swamp thang
Manwithn0n0men said:
He is a Muslim Indian on the path to American Citizenship
Click to expand...
Nevermind, ignore everything I said. My line of argument only really works for the Hindis. Muslims and Sikhs have a natural affinity for weapons. Take him out shooting, non-citizens, even people here on guest/worker visas can be loaned guns under supervision in most States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back