312
submitted 1 year ago by ZeroCool@feddit.ch to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

That's a no to this and the comment you're replying to

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not pro-gun, or pro-car, or anything that is a detriment to society. I vote progressively, donate to digital rights groups, and contribute money and code to open source projects. I believe in a better world.

Okay, with that out of the way, I'm looking for an argument I can use against a gun owner to tell them that they should not own a gun.

School shootings and dead kids is somehow not enough to convince them, because of the claim that its a minority of reckless users who are the problem. I am looking for other arguments I can use, and I will question arguments that seem weak or inconsistent to me.

Apologies if the car argument is often used by them, it came to me on the spur of the moment. Clearly it was a bad argument.

[-] Wirrvogel@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m looking for an argument I can use against a gun owner to tell them that they should not own a gun.

I don't think there is a universal argument against it that will work with everyone. Find out why they actually want a gun (not what they tell others on the surface) and check if there is a way they can get what they need without it.

If they have a gun because it makes them feel more "manly" then no argument will help, telling them they don't need a gun to be a man could. If they feel insecure and threatened, helping them to find other ways to feel secure and safe again will help. It could be group pressure, it could be anything.

If you can't make them give away the gun, maybe you can make them put it behind a lock, gun and ammunition separated at least. That would keep everyone more save. Sometimes it is all one can do, but it would have hindered this accident to happen.

[-] squaresinger@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago

That puts your original comment into perspective.

I don't think there is an argument that could convince someone who wears their gun like it's a religion. They see that as part of their identity, and you can't change that with simple logic.

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

I guess I live in the hope that we're all human beings capable of being reasoned with

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Change almost never comes from the outside. You have to want to change. They have to put the pieces together themselves and many people just lack the required introspection.

These folks get a hit of dopamine from guns. That's hard to fight against with logical argument.

[-] squaresinger@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

Everyone has their irrational topics where it's hard or impossible to be reasoned with. The issue is that it's really hard to spot that with yourself, because in one's mind it all sounds reasonable.

Many firm beliefs that everyone of us holds are not nearly as much backed by science than we actually believe.

[-] lewdian69@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 1 year ago

Oh my sweet summer child

[-] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

My only gripe with what you said is that there are legitimately irresponsible drivers and irresponsible gun owners. I don't think there's anything you can say to most Americans who own a gun to get them to not. Guns are so tied to the American image, it's not a tool, or a hobby...it's a fetish, a symbol of belonging to the group.

The car argument isn't a bad one, but saying that everyone is responsible until they're not is a falsehood.

A better way to phrase it might be something along the lines of:
Even responsible drivers can make an error, and a single error, one split second of inattentiveness, can destroy the lives of so many people. Now consider how many people are irresponsible drivers.

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Even responsible drivers can make an error, and a single error, one split second of inattentiveness, can destroy the lives of so many people. Now consider how many people are irresponsible drivers.

This is a good one to use, my thanks.

[-] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago
[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I’m looking for an argument I can use against a gun owner to tell them that they should not own a gu

"No one is going to break into your suburban home, Steve. Quit being such a pussy."

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

You'll have to do it with work. No magic bullet on this one. I own zero firearms but I'm a staunch advocate for 2a and our right to self defense.

A lot of people don't have well thought out reasoning, but it's cultural. I'm not saying they don't think about it so much as they never thought to, because they don't see those problems in their communities. They've been around firearms their whole life. When you go to a farm on a shooting day the old timers find the noobs and gently correct them. Problems get sorted quickly from those group experiences.

So, you have to ask questions to sort out where they stand and to break down their ideas into something more concrete. You have to kinda neutrally get them to put thought into how they came to the ideas they have.

this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
312 points (98.1% liked)

News

23284 readers
3596 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS