Meaningful dialogue with "antis"

CavalierLeif · Mar 29, 2018

Probably like most on here, I've been following the recent anti-gun movement, seen "common sense" discussions on social media - which inevitably seem to turn into an extended back-and-forth with little concession or agreement between "pros" and "antis," mirroring a myriad of other political/social issues (abortion, immigration, Trump, etc.) I don't believe Facebook is a platform for meaningful discussion here - let's be honest, most people come into a discussion on the internet with a set opinion they've (mostly) made up their mind on and are not looking to consider other views. Social media political discussions usually end up at a "net zero" between views, with the "win" going to the stance with the most voices. Posts on pro-gun pages are usually pro-gun. Posts on anti-gun pages are usually anti-gun.

I've seen many comments all over the place from people who have convictions that this "problem" can be fixed with any measure of actions from supporting greater background checks and mental health evaluations, to banning "assault weapons," banning all semi-automatics, to banning all private firearm ownership in general.

I've had a number of personal discussions with anti-gun friends. Many of these friends have had little or no exposure to firearms and ownership of them by responsible individuals and had never really explored the reasons behind owning guns. I'm sure many of us have crafted our responses to such questions as "why do you need a gun? (and then, "why do you need a semi/mag holding more than 10 rounds/AR)," "what if it falls into the wrong hands?," "isn't it selfish to refuse to give up your guns if it would result in less lives lost?," etc. In the end, these discussions were often educational, even if they did carry the spirit of debate.

It's tough to do - to weigh the logic and validity of a view that stands in stark opposition to your own, regardless of whether the discussion is about guns or any number of other ideologies. But I've found that, among friends, such open dialogue is more productive as you understand the emotions and views of the other better than strictly online.

I think it's safe to say that, while we here at The High Road lie on different sides of the pro-gun scale (and some may be anti, too) - a majority of us share relatively similar views. Most of us have personal experience with firearms, whether through military service, law enforcement, and/or private ownership, and have based our views on such experience.

This made me think, with such a wide gap between the spectrums of "pro" and "anti," have many others here on The High Road had discussions with individuals in support of greater gun control measures that resulted in meaningful and open dialogue? By this, I mean that both sides are relatively open to understanding the root of the opposing views, and not just "sticking to their guns" with the sole purpose of convincing the other they're wrong.

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
~ Thomas Jefferson

MedWheeler · Mar 29, 2018

I've tried. I have often, in consideration of many topics, been inclined to "self-debate" both sides in an effort to see how such a debate can possibly play out. I consider myself to actually be quite adept at this, "playing the devil's advocate", so to speak.

The truth is, in my situation at least, I have yet to come into a debate with an "anti" who has taken any time to formulate a lucid-sounding argument. With those that I know, they have typically not been an "anti" as long as I've been a "pro." In fact, many of them have not even been alive as long as I've been a "pro." This leaves them seriously disadvantaged in such a debate or discussion with me, as they have not gathered their "facts" (statistics, arguments, etc) yet. Virtually all the "antis" I know well enough to know their stance has only a recently-established one, usually brought on by recent media hype over this or that high-profile event.

So, I'm typically left to debate myself. And, I do so, from time to time, just to see if I can find some validity to any of the points on "the other side" from me in the gun-control debate. You see, I actually do care about safety, crime reduction, and "the children." So I want to make sure I'm not blinded by my own passion for an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms and missing a key element. To date, I've not yet come across one that seems, in the long run, to hold water. Perhaps a more-informed and more-prepared "anti" can help me one day.

JeeperCreeper · Mar 29, 2018

It always starts with "we need to just have an adult conversation" which actually means "I think I'm the adult and you need to listen to my side".

So I rarely talk about it anymore. There's very little point most of the time. Not all, but most.

Alot of times I preface it with "I don't want you to agree with my side, I just want you to understand why I have my side". That normally removes many people's need to argue as it doesn't require debate, just listening. I'll also listen to anyone as long as they don't require me to agree after hearing their speech.

jmorris · Mar 29, 2018

let's be honest, most people come into a discussion...with a set opinion they've (mostly) made up their mind on and are not looking to consider other views.

I agree, it is also best to be armed with both sides of the story in any discussion. Back in college I remember the debate professor picking me, as the odd man out, to debate both sides of the argument.

Once you realize that, you integrate as many view points as you can and polarize opposing points of view.

The only difference between the two is how convincing they are with logic and who they can speak to. If the audience is illogical and easy to convince, that’s pretty much “game over” for discussion on gun matters if they spout CNN/MSNBC propaganda. They just won’t have anything to go on after they spout off the same few talking points, with zero evidence to back them up.

Again, knowledge is the key.

NIGHTLORD40K · Mar 29, 2018

I'm a member on several anti-gun sites were I try to engage them in rational dialogue. Within three or four posts it ALWAYS devolves in to name calling on their part. Apparently, I'm a "bigot, racist, gun nut, Klansman, hillbilly, redneck", AND, just a minute ago, a "mouth-breather."

I knew I was deplorable, but I had no idea......

I fear there can be no debate. Families and friendships are being torn apart by the ideological, economic, and social divides of these times, with the media stoking the flames ever higher for more ratings and clicks.

We are facing the greatest schism since 1860, and we all know how that turned out. Even more terrifying is that a repeat of those events would leave whatever remains of the United States critically weakened in the face of hostile foreign powers which would take advantage of the situation to finish us off.

Will it take another 9/11 to pull this country back together before we tear ourselves apart?

Sorry, got to go bury some more ammo. I wish I was kidding.

hdwhit · Mar 30, 2018

Nightlod40K wrote:
Apparently, I'm a "bigot, racist, gun nut, Klansman, hillbilly, redneck", AND, just a minute ago, a "mouth-breather."

I knew I was deplorable, but I had no idea......

Yeah, well, own those labels and then re-define them.

Bigmike79 · Mar 30, 2018

Talking about anything gun related with people that don't own guns is like talking guitars with people that don't play guitar. The big difference is that people that don't play music usually don't try to tell me what guitars and amps I should or should not be able to own. They will at least acknowledge that they don't know crap about guitars and value my opinion. Antis don't take into consideration that they don't even know enough about firearms to form a legitimate argument in regards to governing them.

hdwhit · Mar 30, 2018

CavalierLeif wrote:
Meaningful dialogue with "antis"

Okay, I've spent the last 30+ years of my life as a technical expert advising attorneys and negotiators on the resolution of highly technical matters. It is a fact of life that you cannot engage in a "meaningful dialogue" with another party until you recognize that their position has validity and is based on sincerely held beliefs about the balance between regulation and security (and not a belief that everyone is a "gun grabbing liberal"). As long as you persist in being intractable, don't be surprised that the other side is too.

hdwhit · Mar 30, 2018

BigMike79 wrote:
Talking about anything gun related with people that don't own guns is like talking guitars with people that don't play guitar.

I am tone-deaf, can't play a note on a guitar and have never personally owned one. That hasn't stopped me from being a mentor to my son who is making a career as a singer-songwriter.

Your analogy is flawed because it falsely assumes someone who doesn't fully participate in an activity cannot appreciate, respect and advocate for it.

hdwhit · Mar 30, 2018

jmorris wrote:
Once you realize that, you integrate as many view points as you can and polarize opposing points of view.

The only difference between the two is how convincing they are with logic and who they can speak to.

Agreed. But what we have here is people posting assertions based on (at best) specious reasoning into an "echo chamber" where there are no effective opposing voices.

NIGHTLORD40K · Mar 30, 2018

Bigmike79 said:
Talking about anything gun related with people that don't own guns is like talking guitars with people that don't play guitar. The big difference is that people that don't play music usually don't try to tell me what guitars and amps I should or should not be able to own. They will at least acknowledge that they don't know crap about guitars and value my opinion. Antis don't take into consideration that they don't even know enough about firearms to form a legitimate argument in regards to governing them.

This.

When a plane with 200 people on board crashes and kills 100 people, does the FAA and NTSB gather the survivors and victims families and ask them why the plane went down and how to prevent it from happening again?

Being the survivor of a violent, tragic event might make you an expert on pain and grief, but not on aircraft avionics- or firearms.

NIGHTLORD40K · Mar 30, 2018

hdwhit said:
Yeah, well, own those labels and then re-define them.

I might own "gun nut" and "redneck"- maybe even " mouth breather" when I'm congested.

But the others are patently untrue and I will lay no claim to them.

I would be proud to be a "hillbilly," but do not and have never resided on a hill, mountain, crag, or precipice of any sort.

DeepSouth · Mar 30, 2018

To be perfectly honest I’ve never met a person that was an out right anti gun individual, at least not face to face. I don’t do Facebook or really social media in any form other than THR and a vintage Mustang Forum. Living in rural Alabama I just don’t meet anti’s, one reason I love this place.

I do however meet what a lot of people here call a Fudd, people that are primarily hunters and care very little about handguns and/or modern sporting rifles of any kind. They are frequently willing to concede the rights they don’t use if a good argument is presented. But these same people are very untrusting of politicians, and anyone that they see as supporting gun control, which is ironic. I would also point out some (if not most) of these people own guns into the double digits, easily.

Productive conversations are common with these people, they already pretty much agree they just want to “do something” but when you ask them a few thought provoking questions they tend to start putting the puzzle pieces together on their own, and if you can find a gun they enjoy shooting just for no reason than fun you’ll win them big time.

A true died in the wool anti, I wouldn’t bother to debate to be honest.

RPZ · Mar 30, 2018

The majority of the anti gun crowd on the street level are simply emotionally driven people. The faculty of reason and logic is not applied. Most people who latch onto banning ARs, want to limit magazine capacities etc are often emotionally driven as well, along with a marked lack of critical thinking ability.

All this leads to a degree of irrationality. And you can not argue with an irrational person. They will not likely be won over until they get a wake up call, or are otherwise exposed to some demonstration that they have been deceived - or are deceiving themselves.

There are fence sitters, and these folk are often more fruitful targets of persuasion. Some can be rational, logical, and even critical thinkers, who for one reason or another have never thrown their weight into the subject.

drband · Mar 30, 2018

I find a number of younger folks to be creatures of emotion, highly dependent on their perception of what others think of them. This plays into any “social justice” argument and often defuses logical thinking in their own mind. Of course, there are some older folks who operate like this, too.

Sometimes you can get them to listen, sometimes not, but they always expect you to listen and agree with them. It’s a very me centered society we live in and antis can’t abide anything that makes them FEEL uncomfortable. So... if I choose to engage, I usually only talk about these issues with people I already have a relationship with. Just be factual, avoid hyperbole, and appear rational and reserved. There’s not much hope for some of them because they live for peer approval whether that means friends or media. But maybe a few inroads can be made.

NIGHTLORD40K · Mar 30, 2018

drband said:
I find a number of younger folks to be creatures of emotion, highly dependent on their perception of what others think of them. This plays into any “social justice” argument and often defuses logical thinking in their own mind. Of course, there are some older folks who operate like this, too.

Sometimes you can get them to listen, sometimes not, but they always expect you to listen and agree with them. It’s a very me centered society we live in and antis can’t abide anything that makes them FEEL uncomfortable. So... if I choose to engage, I usually only talk about these issues with people I already have a relationship with. Just be factual, avoid hyperbole, and appear rational and reserved. There’s not much hope for some of them because they live for peer approval whether that means friends or media. But maybe a few inroads can be made.

Yes, their feelings don't care about your facts.

They say we don't need the 2nd Amendment because it is irrelevant. When did the youth of America start TRUSTING the government? Especially after the great job said government did of protecting the Parkland kids when presented with multiple tips that Cruz was dangerous and unstable.

Perhaps, now that they are not faced with conscription, Big Brother seems a lot more benevolent?

I just don't get it.

Deus Machina · Mar 30, 2018

Like any subset of people, a one-on-one conversation can be productive if they're willing to listen. Many people (with any wisdom, anyway) are, and can be swayed through logic. Or can at least see a viewpoint, and find the limits of where their own reaches.
But you get them in a group, and the Idiot Hivemind takes over.
Any group. Them, us, pro- or anti-anything. Personal conversations are between people, but one dissenter amidst a group turns into "you vs. us," whether it begins as "this is not what this group is for" or just plain "you're different from our opinion."

FL-NC · Mar 30, 2018

I've found that having "meaningful conversation" with those people is a waste of time and frustrating. Trying to "convert them" to our side makes as much sense as getting mad at your cat for not being a dog, or getting a Florida Gator fan to root for Florida State. That is the essence of opposition, and that is why we vote and pay the NRA to do the heavy lifting.

danez71 · Mar 30, 2018

hdwhit said:
It is a fact of life that you cannot engage in a "meaningful dialogue" with another party until you recognize that their position has validity and is based on sincerely held beliefs....

This right here is what I think too many fail to recognize.

What's works for me a lot of times is the tactics of ' I see your point... lets take that logic a few steps further...' which usually fizzles out fairly quick.

Then (re)present my logic in the same example they used and carry my position through the same steps further.

Hokkmike · Mar 30, 2018

Bigmike79 said:
Talking about anything gun related with people that don't own guns is like talking guitars with people that don't play guitar. The big difference is that people that don't play music usually don't try to tell me what guitars and amps I should or should not be able to own. They will at least acknowledge that they don't know crap about guitars and value my opinion. Antis don't take into consideration that they don't even know enough about firearms to form a legitimate argument in regards to governing them.

Taylor is to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ as Glock is to _ _ _ _ !

hso · Mar 30, 2018

CavalierLeif said:
Many of these friends have had little or no exposure to firearms and ownership

That's our biggest hurdle is dispelling the myths that are fed to people that have no exposure or experience with firearms and firearms owners. The violent depiction of firearms and firearms owners/users through entertainment and news media informs their perception of the world and drives their fears and prejudices. Personal experience with crime drives people's perceptions of the world as well, whether it drives them to be prepared or to remove the perceived threat before it has to be lived again.

We need to understand this and we need to work to help educate and provide experience for people that have nothing more than the constant barrage of media coloring their understanding.

Tcruse · Mar 30, 2018

hdwhit said:
Okay, I've spent the last 30+ years of my life as a technical expert advising attorneys and negotiators on the resolution of highly technical matters. It is a fact of life that you cannot engage in a "meaningful dialogue" with another party until you recognize that their position has validity and is based on sincerely held beliefs about the balance between regulation and security (and not a belief that everyone is a "gun grabbing liberal"). As long as you persist in being intractable, don't be surprised that the other side is too.

You have a point. One of the best ways that I have heard about, is to start the conversation with the question. "Are you interested in reducing gun violence or all violence?" If the "anti-" responds "gun violence" then there is probably no reason to continue the discussion.

barnbwt · Mar 30, 2018

THR isn't an echo chamber, it's an anechoic chamber.

340PD · Mar 30, 2018

FL-NC said:
I've found that having "meaningful conversation" with those people is a waste of time and frustrating. Trying to "convert them" to our side makes as much sense as getting mad at your cat for not being a dog, or getting a Florida Gator fan to root for Florida State. That is the essence of opposition, and that is why we vote and pay the NRA to do the heavy lifting.

Invite your local state legislators to your local gun range. Have them meet with some couples and female shooters. Get a 22 in their hands and send them home with a good target.

Deanimator · Mar 30, 2018

CavalierLeif said:
This made me think, with such a wide gap between the spectrums of "pro" and "anti," have many others here on The High Road had discussions with individuals in support of greater gun control measures that resulted in meaningful and open dialogue? By this, I mean that both sides are relatively open to understanding the root of the opposing views, and not just "sticking to their guns" with the sole purpose of convincing the other they're wrong.

Every HONEST person of middling anti-gun views that I've talked to has had his "received wisdom" shaken by documented fact. INVARIABLY what they THOUGHT they knew about guns was not just wrong, but LAUGHABLY wrong, like Calvin in the old "Calvin and Hobbes" comic strip who thought that "bats are bugs". Only they didn't make it up in their own heads. Instead they were spoon fed lies and despicable nonsense by sociopaths.

An HONEST person who's been shown that he's been lied to through conclusive proof, will react with anger... not at the person telling the truth, but the person who manipulated and exploited him through lies.

Meaningful dialogue with "antis"

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Random Guy

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

member

Member

Member

Similar threads