How do you talk to anti- people?

it's like politics, i hate to bring up politics when i'm drinking with my buddies we always get into a debate, i asked a friend of mine that question once, about talking with antigun nuts, he said, ''dont even bring it up...you'll never win'' Thk you television.:banghead:

I agree with Bula. Finding an "anti" that will listen to reason from a "self-proclaimed gun-toting lunatic of true principal... to a fault" (as I have at times been called by my left-winged but otherwise correct-thinking friends) would be nothing less than a true miracle.

But if you do find someone that will listen to reason, I've found that providing facts tends to upset them further (most that I've encountered in this fashion believe the facts are fabricated by those "gun-movement people").

The best way to go in my opinion is to point out that uber-strict gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens that would be able to protect others when a criminal decides to run a muck. And that keeping those guns out of our hands only encourages criminals by letting them know that it's not likely that they'll run into someone able to fight back as long as the area is clear of police.

Good luck to you. I'll keep converting those few that are left here in Texas. I'm sorry to say that you've got a much more daunting task Mr. California...

Quote:
Here in Wyoming the anti's we run across in general are the tourists. A few years back a fellow from Chicago approached me while open carrying. He first asked if it was legal for me to do so. I politely told him that it was perfectly legal in Wyoming and then with a nasty attitude he stated, "We don't allow that type of thing in Chicago, and I won't allow it here either."

Fixed it for him.

"Do I come to Chicago and micro-manage your city business? No I do not. Go back where you came from - it's not safe for you out here."

My sister lives in a big city, and she tells me, "I wouldn't allow you to have a gun, except that without a gun, I can't stop you."

Parker

How do you talk to anti- people?

Click to expand...

With a red face, clinched teeth, pursed lips, squinted eyes, and a high blood pressure.

My sister lives in a big city, and she tells me, "I wouldn't allow you to have a gun, except that without a gun, I can't stop you."

Click to expand...

That's funny right there - wonder why she'd WANT to stop you. I suppose blissninnies will never cease to amaze me.

I use statistics of how firearm rights reduce crime.

Click to expand...

how is that working for you?

I ask becuase its been proven that guns play no role in crime stats.

Click to expand...

Actually TAB, you are 100% incorrect. Impeccably multiple-regression-analyzed crime data has proven

BEYOND ANY AND ALL SHADOW OF A DOUBT

that certain "firearm rights" - shall-issue CCW laws specifically, most certainly DO significantly reduce violent crime - homocide, robbery, rape, and aggravated assault.

Now they have the incidental negative side effect of slightly increasing property crime, but VIOLENT crime has been throughly proven to be reduced by CCW laws, and violent crime is far more costly to society than property crimes. No one, but no one, with anywhere near the credentials and scientific integrity of Mr. Lott have even come close to being able to successful impune his extensive study on the subject, studying many years and thousands of counties in the USA with and without CCW laws. People who have attempted to refute his findings have been utterly devastated by the scientific response.

Read "More Guns, Less Crime" - anyone and everyone that reads this work, who is a serious scientist, statistician, or scholar, or simply an intelligent human being who can read, can see plainly that the findings are correct. I suggest you read it.

It depends on the anti. Some are willing to listen and acknowledge that they don't know much about guns. Others are so set in their beliefs that all they do is spew propaganda and aren't able to be reasoned with. I tend just to stop conversation with them, because all it will do is cause undue frustration for me.

Never to convert - only to dismiss their foolishness.

Quote:

"I have contributed to successfully turning non-gun people into pro-gun people. However, I've never successfully turned an anti-gun person into a pro-gun person." - 6 Gunner

6 Gunner really hit the nail on the head with this one.

Problem: While some tolerance might evolve from discourses between staunch pro-gun and anti-gun folks, they, like those with different religious views, are generally not going to change their positions.

Solution: There are far and away more non-gunners than anti-gunners. Their dispositions are more easily swayed with logical dialogue that is supported by reliable and verifiable statistics.

If they can be cajoled into a trip to the range you may not have only averted them from taking an anti-gun stance in the light of another school shooting spree, etc., but you might even turned them to one of us. Get busy because the anti-tide is coming in.

Actually TAB, you are 100% incorrect. Impeccably multiple-regression-analyzed crime data has proven

BEYOND ANY AND ALL SHADOW OF A DOUBT

that certain "firearm rights" - shall-issue CCW laws specifically, most certainly DO significantly reduce violent crime - homocide, robbery, rape, and aggravated assault.

Click to expand...

try again... the only person that has ever "proven" more guns = less crime is Lott... after much presure from the stats community, asking him to prove it, he recanted and said his concultions were wrong. infact it destroyed his creditablity as a stat complier... its only the gun community that has any faith in him. thats strickly a emontional thing. In his latter works he said guns play no role in crime stats. Qouting lott, makes you look foolish. It would be like taking the brady bunchs word that AW are evil and cuase most of the crime.

There's rational anti-gun people and there's irrational anti-gun people. The rational kind are typically that way because of how they were raised or they just got in with the wrong crowd / lifestyle. The irrational kind (what would have been known a few decades ago as a "mental disorder") cannot be reasoned with. It's important to know the difference between the two. One is simply naive, the other is fundamentally out of touch with reality and living in their own world (again, this used to be called a mental disorder).

Click to expand...

Dont forget plain old stupid people!

try again... the only person that has ever "proven" more guns = less crime is Lott... after much presure from the stats community, asking him to prove it, he recanted and said his concultions were wrong. infact it destroyed his creditablity as a stat complier...

Click to expand...

Lott has never "recanted" anything and continues to maintain his results are valid, though disputed by some. Only the results of a 1997 survey are in question.

In fact Lott had a defamation suit in progress against those that claimed it, though he did lose that suit. The book "Freakonomics" is the book that claimed the inaccuracies.

Studies since have disagreed with Lott completely, some have agreed with most of what he published in his book.

It's clear the information is controversial, but your post is factually incorrect.

Whether Lott is right or wrong, your post contains misinformation to try to get your point across, the same thing you accuse Lott of doing.

I live in California You cant sneeze cough or sniffle without getting a germ on an "Anti". Talk to them all the time just cant do any better job of informing them that the "Nightly News". Their conversation starts something like Well I saw **** ***** say that 90% of Blah blah blah. How can I compete with that.

How do you talk to anti- people?

Click to expand...

Sparingly.

How do you talk to anti- people?

Click to expand...

Swiftly, with the back of your hand..

How do you talk to anti- people?

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I've never meet one. Guess it's something about living in rural AL. I see them on TV and hear other people talk about them so I know they are around, but I have never meet one face to face.

Rationally and with civility. Some people are anti because they are authoritarian zealots, but most are anti because they are misinformed, either about guns themselves, gun law, gun ownership, or the prevalence of gun misuse. The latter category is not hopeless.

(deleted duplicate)

For some weird reason they no better to come up to me talking ****.

Double Naught Spy - a question was asked. Answer it and stop attacking folks you don't agree with.

Now to answer the question. I gave up discussing gun rights with people that obviously have a mental disorder or are suffering from invincible ignorance.

I have converted a number over the years by using some of the techniques mentioned here.

The older I get the less patience I have though.

When people say that 'the police should handle it." I agree (usually true) and say "sure, as long as you're in the city."

Click to expand...

1. Police have no duty to protect individuals.
2. Police have no liability if they fail to protect individuals.
3. Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

If anybody thinks the police are going to "protect" them as an individual, I invite them to:

1. Learn the average response time for your local police department. Remember, it's the AVERAGE. It could be MUCH longer. If either 911 or the police screw up, they could NEVER come.

2. Get a beef roast, a large knife and a stopwatch that has a "countdown" function.

3. Set the stopwatch for the average response time and grasp the knife in an "icepick" grip.

4. Start the stopwatch and start stabbing the beef roast until the time set expires.

5. Count the number of times you were able to stab the roast before time ran out.

Now ask yourself if you could survive that many stab wounds before the police show up. My godsister couldn't.

This is all of course premised on your assailant ALLOWING you to call 911.

Be prepared to defend yourself or in most instances don't get defended AT ALL.

"We don't allow that type of thing in Chicago, and I won't allow it here either."

Click to expand...

I'd just look him in the eye with no expression on my face and no emotion in my voice and say, "How are you going to stop me?"

TAB, your allegations sir, are sorely mistaken. Laughable in fact.

the only person that has ever "proven" more guns = less crime is Lott...

Click to expand...

Wrong.

after much presure [sic] from the stats community, asking him to prove it, he recanted and said his concultions [sic] were wrong.

Click to expand...

Not only wrong, 100%, 180 degrees wrong. Show me where you think he admitted anything close to any such thing.

infact [sic] it destroyed his creditablity [sic] as a stat complier [sic].

Click to expand...

Wrong. His work was, is, and shall remain impeccable. He has soundly defended it against weak semi-scholarly (strictly-anti-gun-motivated) attacks on several occasions.

.. its [sic] only the gun community that has any faith in him.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Any and all intellectually-honest actual scholars and statisticians who have studied his work have agreed and do agree with the conclusions. **

thats strickly [sic] a emontional [sic] thing

Click to expand...

.

Wrong. It's actually 180 degrees from emotion. It's raw, hard, cold, incontrovertible, multiple-regression-analyzed FACTS

In his latter works he said guns play no role in crime stats.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Show me where he said anything close to any such thing? Why would his CURRENT blog, today, support the same conclusions, if he recanted?

http://www.johnlott.org/

Where Lott has this section/page, among others:

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime

Click to expand...

Does it sound like he's "admitting" or "recanting" anything?

Qouting [sic] lott, makes you look foolish.

Click to expand...

Spouting easily-demonstrable untruths makes you look foolish.

**

In a special issue[2] of The Journal of Law and Economics. A number of papers from that conference supported Lott's conclusions:

* Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University, and Brent D. Mast, American Enterprise Institute, 'Privately Produced General Deterrence', The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[3]

* Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and T. Nicolaus Tideman, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, "Does the right to carry concealed handguns deter countable crimes? Only a count analysis can say", The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[4]

* Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, "Testing for the effects of concealed weapons laws: Specification errors and robustness," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[5]

Other academic studies that have supported Lott's conclusions include the following.

* William Alan Bartley and Mark A. Cohen, Vanderbilt University, 'The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis', Economic Inquiry, 1998[6]

* Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, 'Confirming More Guns, Less Crime', Stanford Law Review, 2003.[7]

* Eric Helland, Claremont-McKenna College and Alexander Tabarrok, George Mason University, "Using Placebo Laws to Test 'More Guns, Less Crime'," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2008.[8]

* Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, and Thomas B. Marvell, Justec Research, 'The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws', Econ Journal Watch, 2008.[9]

The book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies, examines the gun control policies of many nations around the world and supports the ideas presented in Lott's work.

Click to expand...

Are you calling all of these (or even ONE of these) highly-credentialed scholars "members of the gun community"?

Okay, I can respond to this in one of two ways.

Most people have answered with /what to say/ to anti- people. I think I'll take the different approach and try to give you pointers on HOW you say things to anti- people.

The golden rule in trying to convert someone to your point of view, is:

NEVER make statements.

Don't state facts, opinions, or anything else if you can avoid it. If asked directly, give a straight, polite answer, but when it's your turn to talk, try to end everything with a question mark. Human beings can easily ignore statements that they do not agree with, but we have no choice but to respond to questions, even if they hide their response.

Instead of saying 'Self defense should be recognized as a fundamental human right.', ask them 'Don't you think self defense should be recognized as a fundamental human right?'

Another thing is to try and steer clear from words or sentences that can trigger a knee-jerk defensive and hostile response from them. Don't immediately go towards the second amendment, or talk about resisting armed robbery, or the founders' intent for the country. That's a sure way to push them into the 'This person is a right wing nutjob' defense, and they'll block out everything else you have to say. Choose your words carefully to make them want to continue the conversation/debate.

'Do you think this semi automatic AK-47 is really different from this Saiga rifle? Why do you think that?'

'Do you think that Concealed Carry makes us less safe? Why do you think that?'


They will be happy to share their points of view with you, and if you are patient enough not to laugh in their face, or speak in a condescending or sarcastic tone (And trust me, you will be REALLY tempted), you can make them question their beliefs about gun control.

How do I talk to antis ? I don't. If they persist, I tell them to leave me the **** alone.

''How do I talk to antis ? I don't. If they persist, I tell them to leave me the **** alone...''
ROTFLMAO! I really do try to talk to people like that,as a Civic Duty,but it's usually a waste of time and precious oxygen,and probably increases my ''carbon footprint''.

living in San Jose in California (a place considered liberal even by Californians) practically everybody I know is an anti. They're usually not antis because they thought it out though (or else they'd be pro). I've convinced a couple of people (usually the smarter ones) to at least hold a neutral stance in gun control just by debunking every fact the brady campaign concoct while pointing out historical evidence that the second amendment was in fact intended to protect individual rights to bear arms.

a couple of things to make sure you do when talking to an anti-gunner is 1) never mention the NRA (for some reason even the neutral-gun people hate it still) and 2) try talking in a respectful tone. You don't win allies by alienating them. Oh, and mentioning the pink pistols to a liberal always leads them to be very confused but I noticed they warmed up to gun rights once i've mentioned them...