Monday, October 19, 2015

Gun vs Book Bet

On, a commenter, Blue Jays, says he uses this technique when disarmsts claim that they can obtain a handgun faster than a book or any other common item.  From
My favorite technique is to offer a "bet" with Liberals.
Whatever consumer item they offer (book, car, vegetable, whatever) in contrast...I make a bet that I can acquire any or all of those things *faster* than they can obtain a handgun.

Typically my offer is to reward them the value of the firearm PLUS give them $1000 for "winning" the race.
If I obtain my items faster, they can pay me for the items and we are even.
Liberals are never willing to engage this race with me.
I have occasionally resorted to a similar technique, offering a wager when someone makes a claim that is outrageous and untrue.   Such claims are usually made out of ignorance, so a wager clarifies their thinking process and educates those that are merely watching the exchange.  My experience is the same as Blue Jay's.  I have never had anyone take me up on such wagers.

The key to such wagers is that they have to be concrete, verifiable, and the wager has to be public.   I suggest that a disinterested third party hold the money.  Another technique is to suggest that the loser's money be donated to a charity of the winner's choice.  

The advantage of such a wagers is to have the person who is making the outrageous claim "put their money where their mouth is".   It shows that the person who backs down from the bet to be unsure of their ground, or simply making things up.

I am curious if anyone has been successful in getting a disarmist to actually make such a bet.    I have never seen it.

Such bets can become famous when one side actually loses, as happened in the Simon - Erlich bet on commodity prices.

Definition of disarmist

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.     Link to Gun Watch


Anonymous said...

The key here is to "let" the 'liberal' have all the profit, while you are sufficed with just breaking even and being right. That is the factor that bothers them so, even intimidates them. YOU are supposed to the profit motivated evil one, not them. YOU are supposed to be the one not interested in the "science" of the test but instead motivated only by that evil profit.

Yes, this tactic DOES work.

But sometimes, all it takes is the right questions.

Take global warmers for instance.... can;t place a similar bet about that right? Oh but you can. Here is how.

Bet them you can an ask them a question they will not answer (because it will expose their fraudulent claims if they do). Most will take such a bet if you set it up right. They expect some statistic related question and they are fired up to smack links down on the table "proving" them the winner. The profit bait can be used here, but it is harder to set up because it doesn't have built in factors like the gun versus book example.

When the bet is set, simply ask them this.

It is established fact, undeniable fact, that glaciers advanced and receded prior to the industrialization of human kind. What caused that warming and cooling then and why isn't that the reason we see warming and cooling now?

Haven't seen any more people answer that one than take the gun versus book challenge.

This is the thing I haven't quite been able to figure out. SOOOOO many of us supposed simpletons out here in citizenland can figure out the simplest ways to snuker the liberal zealots into running for the hills instantly, but the super duper besties called republican politicans, the best of the best, can't do so on the House and Senate floors, much less the campaign trails? Really?

Confront the gun controllers, folks, wherever they attempt to market their wares, whenever they try to impose their false debate parameters, however they try to scam innocent unsuspecting Citizens.

Ask yourself this - how can it be that not ONE republican commanding a microphone put this challenge explained here to Obama when he played that nonsense card? And what about all the supposed "pro gun democrats"? Not One.

Dean Weingarten said...

The Republicans who are willing to do it are not allowed access to a microphone to ask President Obama such a question.

Ted Cruz, for one, has repeatedly schooled the opposition on "Global Warming" or "Climate Change".

What you see as timidity of Republicans consists of two things: "Progressive" control of the vast majority of the media; and Republican leadership fearing the media power if they dare step out of what is "allowed" by "political correctness.

Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz are teaching the other candidates how to fight back against the media cartel.