I thought that you, as someone well seasoned in gun rights debate, wouldn't need a specific example. Since it happens so often and is mentioned here regularly I figured it would be preaching to the quire.

But in case you have really never noticed a gun control group misusing statistics, here is an example.
They frequently cite that 30,000 people a year are killed by firearms while neglecting to mention that 2/3rds are suicides.

Do you truly believe that they never misinform people or do you just enjoy causing a ruckus?

Now explain how mis-reporting and inflating the percentage is not an emotional appeal?

The only reason for using such an inflated number is to get the person reading it to FEEL bad the number is that huge.

Giving the correct number would not be so compelling emotionally.


See how this discussion thing works?  It is much more civil when you participate instead of trying to be right ALL THE TIME!

Now explain how mis-reporting and inflating the percentage is not an emotional appeal?

The only reason for using such an inflated number is to get the person reading it to FEEL bad the number is that huge.

Giving the correct number would not be so compelling emotionally.


See how this discussion thing works?  It is much more civil when you participate instead of trying to be right ALL THE TIME!

I wouldn't consider it inherently an emotional response. Someone can simply reason that 30,000 lives lost to guns is unacceptable. Many believe that gun control will reduce that number thus they support gun control.

Is the desire to prevent death emotional? If it is then aren't we all guilty of it?

Ignorance of facts by misinformation is not inherently emotional. Remember the video of the politician holding up an AR-15 saying it could fire 30 rounds a second? Someone can look at that video and decide that it is simply too dangerous, not out of emotion but out of their reasoning, but in the end they based their position on inaccurate data. Nuclear weapons shouldn't be in the hands of regular people, and I can arrive at this conclusion without emotion. Someone who is pro gun control may believe, though misinformation, that gun control would solve our violence problem. This doesn't mean that person is being emotional about it just because they choose wanting to solve our violence problem over protecting our rights.

Either you ARE that stupid, or you are trolling again.

Which statistic are you referring to in your answer?  Name the statistic -- you know, labels and numbers?

Why are you getting all bent on if it is emotion or reasoning? 
What does it matter? 

The point is that the anti gun activists use erroneous and twisted data to sway those who may be undecided and ignorant of the facts over to agreement with asinine gun control measures. 

The very difficult part of this whole thing is that their side only need to convince the majority to sit down and shut up, then they are free to do as they please with stripping rights.  On the other hand, our side has the task of not only educating the middle majority, but also getting people energized enough to get into action. 

I wouldn't consider it inherently an emotional response. Someone can simply reason that 30,000 lives lost to guns is unacceptable. Many believe that gun control will reduce that number thus they support gun control.

Is the desire to prevent death emotional? If it is then aren't we all guilty of it?

Ignorance of facts by misinformation is not inherently emotional. Remember the video of the politician holding up an AR-15 saying it could fire 30 rounds a second? Someone can look at that video and decide that it is simply too dangerous, not out of emotion but out of their reasoning, but in the end they based their position on inaccurate data. Nuclear weapons shouldn't be in the hands of regular people, and I can arrive at this conclusion without emotion. Someone who is pro gun control may believe, though misinformation, that gun control would solve our violence problem. This doesn't mean that person is being emotional about it just because they choose wanting to solve our violence problem over protecting our rights.

Is the desire to prevent death emotional?  Not by itself.  But when the proposed solution is to (1) infringe on everyone's rights due to abuses by a mathematically insignificant subset,
and (2) creating laws that would have prevented 0 (zero, nada, none) of those deaths, then, yes, it is an emotional decision.

Every one of Obama's appeals is emotional:

We are the only advanced country with these kinds of mass shootings.
The NRA resists these common sense laws, even though 90% of their members say different.
30,000 shootings per year ....
The only reason for a 30 round magazine is to kill lots of people as quickly as possible.
Nobody needs an AR-15, which is often the mass murderer's weapon of choice.
We need universal background checks to prevent guns from being in the wrong hands.

Whether the statement is true or not is irrelevant.  He would not have said any of those had they not been geared toward fear and emotion.

Democrats operate on emotional pleas.  Facts turn people off, but emotions drive them to the polls!

Is the desire to prevent death emotional?  Not by itself.  But when the proposed solution is to (1) infringe on everyone's rights due to abuses by a mathematically insignificant subset,
and (2) creating laws that would have prevented 0 (zero, nada, none) of those deaths, then, yes, it is an emotional decision.

Every one of Obama's appeals is emotional:

We are the only advanced country with these kinds of mass shootings.
The NRA resists these common sense laws, even though 90% of their members say different.
30,000 shootings per year ....
The only reason for a 30 round magazine is to kill lots of people as quickly as possible.
Nobody needs an AR-15, which is often the mass murderer's weapon of choice.
We need universal background checks to prevent guns from being in the wrong hands.

Whether the statement is true or not is irrelevant.  He would not have said any of those had they not been geared toward fear and emotion.

Democrats operate on emotional pleas.  Facts turn people off, but emotions drive them to the polls!

They are misinformed, that is why they don't realize the laws they support would have little to no effect. Some might know but I think the average voter isn't as informed about the issue as us. Yes, we all know that the gun control measures being proposed would not make a significant difference but do they?

Even if their decisions are emotional, whether justified or not, when we talk to them I don't think it benefits us to push the emotion issue. I also don't think it is safe to make such a blanket statement about such a huge portion of the population. Even conservatives make emotional arguments sometimes.

Mods, please delete or lock thread.

It's difficult to change peoples minds on guns by words alone.  They actually have to see it for their minds to change and it's a culture change, so it's a long term change that may take a decade or two.  Change movies where ordinary citizens with CCW help take down a bad guy.  Have news stories on shooting competitions and the high school air rifle teams.  Take a friend, coworker, or neighbor with you to the range every month.  Sit down and have a non-political chat with your legislator about how you enjoy shooting.  Gather up all the victims of crimes and have them tell their crime story about how they couldn't defend themself, and how the police didn't help them.  Build good relations with the regular police patrol officers.  Work with womens and youth groups.

The gun community is the source of the problems.  Many gun owners just keep to themselves or just hang out with other gun owners, instead of building good relations with the community.  Hardly anyone volunteers for stuff except a handful of people even though many say gun rights are very important to them.  And even then the gun community doesn't support those few hard working volunteers.  There's little support or mentorship for new shooters.  and the list goes on and on.  We are the problem and that has to be changed first before we convince the anti-gunners to change.  I feel we need a totally new way of thinking to reverse things.

IBTL

When you start shouting and arguing, people stop listening.  I think that's the problem we have communicating with this legislature.

...and this thread.