Another "Discussion With an Anti" Post...

[OregonJohnny]

I know these threads get started at least once a week, but I had a recent confrontation with a RAGING anti the other night. My parents were having a dinner party with 5 other couples they've known for 20+ years. 5 out of the 6 couples in this dinner group are republican, and the remaining couple is very Democrat. I somehow got roped into a conversation regarding my generation (current 18-30 year-olds) and their political views. I stated I have rather liberal views on social issues even though I'm a registered republican. When the Democrat woman asked me why, I began to say, "Well one of the reasons is I'm very against gun control and anybody telling me what I can legally own..." Oh boy, this started it all. To sum up, here were a few of this couple's statements:

Them: "Why are machine guns legal? All these recent school shootings have been with machine guns!"

Me: "Well first of all, none of the recent shootings were with machine guns. You are thinking of semi-automatic rifles..."

Them: "Why does anyone need a gun in their home? If I'm breaking into your home, you're never going to get to a gun and load it before I get to you."

Me (as I'm trying to remain calm): "Actually, you'd be surprised at how many Americans sleep with a loaded firearm very close to them..."

Them: "Oh that's smart. Sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow so it goes off and kills you..."

Me (deep breath): "A gun doesn't just 'go off'. That's a huge misconception. Someone has to deliberately pull the trigger for the gun to fire in that sort of situation..."

Them: "If we keep allowing people to own guns to defend themselves, everyone will be shooting each other. Imagine road rage if everyone had guns."

Someone else in the group: "If we outlawed guns, only the bad guys would have them."

Me: "And in the case of road rage, a 4,000 lb. vehicle can do a lot more damage than a firearm. So should we outlaw cars?"

From here, their logic got more and more diluted and I realized I wasn't going to make any difference in their opinions. So I gracefully left. But I realized something very scary. When a person this passionate about gun control and the evil of guns enters an argument, none of their statements are based on fact or knowledge. It's all emotion, and it's all based on imaginary situations, fear, misconceptions, and a total lack of experience with firearms. I'm just glad they were in the minority of the group...

 

[thekomet]

I feel your pain. I think I have had this exact discussion word-for-word with several of my friends and family members. Almost all of them I would describe not only as well-educated but also thoughtful and intelligent. It mystifies me that when it comes to issues like this, however, all reason leaves them. Just as in your story, they had misconceptions on firearms but when I very gently tried to educate them, they dismissed it BECAUSE I AM PRO-GUN. They were heavily invested in their false beliefs, and nothing could dissuade them. In fact, it was a religious ferocity with which they held their opinions. Sad, especially since our republic relies on an informed and reasonable populace.

 

[wolf]

i found that trying to match someones fear of guns with logic is futle...

i put the brakes on the conversation

ok...your afraid of guns...(if they admit this much..continue)
do you know anything about them (outside of media presentations)
would you be willing to go a shooting range and use a handgun (my expense)

if the fear factor is so great they cant even "touch" a gun for any reason...change the subject...

this person is not afraid of guns..they are afraid of life..and all the logic in the world will not change their mind

remember...a pro/anti stance is not a religion in search of converts...if it were it would be tax-exempt

 

[Len S]

Trying to reason with an anti is like looking for water on a hill top. It can be done but not successfully. I do not waste my time with the rabidly anti they are a lost cause. What we have to do is get the fence sitters and the it does not matter to me on our side then we will begin to turn the corner.


Len

 

[OregonJohnny]

I now realize some antis are simply so set in their ideals, they will not listen to logic and facts. Most of the "antis" I've talked to up to this point have been "fence sitters" who don't like guns but are willing to listen to my reasoning and some even changed their minds once I took them shooting. Let me rephrase that: EVERY person I've taken shooting has come away with a smile on their face and a major willingness to reconsider their lifelong hatred of guns.

This last discussion with a RAGING anti was the first time I've felt utterly useless in an argument. It was like I was trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't speak a word of English. I've actually had an easier time discussing logic with a very religious person who then began to question their particular denomination because of the holes in their core beliefs.

I guess what struck me the most was the absolute lack of basic logic this person had. When I am very passionate about a subject I make it a point to study both sides of the argument in order to make the best decission possible.

I'm wondering what some people's thoughts are on the most effective thing you can say to a raging anti like this. What is the single most contradictory fact to what they believe? I'm thinking it's something along the lines of a statistic, like the actual percentage of people murdered by guns versus murdered by...

Any ideas?

 

[IllHunter]

You probably wouldn't be surprised...

at the conversations/confrontations I've had, living here in ChicagoLand where the uninformed are the majority. I have adopted a technique of not getting drawn into arguing. As you correctly stated, "they are almost religious in their beliefs". I ask if they have ever seen a real gun, then if they've ever fired one. Most(99%) say no. I ask if they would like to and more than half express some intrest. Those who do, I invite to meet me at a range for some simple instruction. Most often these are women. The men (only one has) don't call back or show up. The women don't jump to buy a gun as that is a months long proposition here in ILL-inois. Back to the non-argument, I ask if they have ever used a power drill or saw and ask how that inananimate tool differs from a gun. I've found that if I keep the focus in comparison, the discussion will stay more mellow and I consciously refrain from trying to "convert" the "Anti" I'm very very passionate about the 2nd Am and can be (as I've been told) very intimidating. Some mistake my passion for anger so I focus my intellect and try some sideways arguments. I try and get the discussion to "What would you have done", or "What could you have done differently"
With the recent shootings at nearby Northern Ill. U. the topic is everywhere. At a recent party I was introduced to the conversation that was obviously at that subject, What could be done differently. I related about my recent visit to a suburban Social Security Administration Office in my neighborhood where the loooong wait and my seat next to the armed security guard gave me pause to wonder why they needed an armed guard (Glock 21 in 45ACP)in a suburban office that contained no money or treasure. If the SSA thinks enough to protect it's minions, shouldn't your/my employer? I express my belief that as I'm self-employed, I'm definately responsible for me and mine and would be until further notice. If there're lawyers present I raise Heller and talk about amicus filings until the sheep's eyes glaze over and the topic shifts.

 

[doc2rn]

I took two fence sitters to the range yesterday. Oddly enough one is an ordained minister. Both said no good could come from this, however one went back and bought a Ruger .22 like the ones I took for them to shoot. The range owner called me to thank me, evidently it was his pastor.

 

[Corporal K]

I have a debate tactic that usually works pretty well. Or at least it's fun for me anyway: ask an anti-gunner if they think people should be allowed to own semi-automatic firearms. They'll rant "No! Of course not! Blah blah blah."
Then ask them to define semi-automatic. They won't be able to.
That's when I point out, politely, that they want to ban something they can't even define.

Then for added amusement, I ask them how they're going to defend themselves against an attack, when the attack has already started and they can't dial 911. Or ask them what they would do in the face of a Katrina-like disaster.

If they're still not grasping it, I'll point out that the OKC bombing and the 9/11 attacks didn't involve illegal firearm-usage at all.

You can have a lot of fun with these idiots.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Zundfolge had a great list of "types of antis"

Here's a repost of a repost of a repost of a classification system I came up with for antis.

I concluded that there are 4 basic types people that support gun control either in words, votes or activism (and there are many who fall into more than one category).

The Duped: The majority of people who say they support gun control or vote for anti-gun candidates ... these people have bought the lies told by the gun control movement. They honestly believe that gun control would make us safer. There is hope to turn these people to the truth as they are just lied too and not committed to believing the lies because of other personal reasons like groups 2 & 3 (and they are by far the largest group).

The Partisans: They are Democrats/liberals/progressives ... and their party says "guns are bad"...or more to the point "those who support gun rights are our enemy" so they support gun control and vote for anti gun candidates. These people are pretty much unreachable unless Republicans became pro gun control. Most could care less one way or the other whether guns are legal, illegal, restricted, or whatever (although most are partially duped and I'm sure there are plenty Hoplolphobes among them too).

The Hopolophobes: just simply people with an irrational fear of guns ... they are unreachable. Therapy for their phobia is required. (this is a somewhat small group ... smaller than 1 and 2).

The Power Seekers: These are the Schumers and Feinsteins ... these are the leaders of the movement who know guns aren't bad but know they can't implement their other diabolical plans against us as long as we're armed (this is actually a very small group ... even most anti-gun politicians are just Partisans, Dupes and/or Hopolophobes, only a very select few are trying to enslave us).

 

[Bartkowski]

Its amazining how they never seem to understand common sense. Today, I ran into an anti and we have had previous conversations, so I started talking to her. I was not rude, I just asked her a few questions about guns and other issues so we could pick up the conversation where we left off. She told me she didn't want to talk about it, "Don't get me started, I will tear you apart" is what she actually said. What she said just made me realize that liberalism is the politics of children and those who believe it are just uneducated and very intolerant of what others believe.

 

[OregonJohnny]

"ask an anti-gunner if they think people should be allowed to own semi-automatic firearms. They'll rant "No! Of course not! Blah blah blah."
Then ask them to define semi-automatic. They won't be able to."

I think this is a great idea. I'll try it next time. When someone blatantly points out my ignorance on a subject, I almost feel ashamed, and I'm much more inclined to go learn about it. This could be a very powerful way to get them off guard at the beginning of a debate.

 

[jungleroy]

Looks like you use logic to maintain your life and views, and that they may use a whole lot of feelings to manage their life and views.
You told them the truth and they did not understand it, this is not your fault.
A mere explanation of that every man has the right to defend himself, and here in the US, it is even recognized in the second amendment of our constitution, is all i usually give to those who want to argue about our 2A.
There is not much debate to be found when your audience does not grasp the simplest facts you have to present to them.
simple things to ponder over:
Firearms are tools, they have no feelings, thus are not good or bad.
People have feelings and are capable of being good or bad.
Would these same people blame their car for running over the neighbors dog?
If it is not productive to talk to these people, I would try to avoid such confrontations.
It is hard to change the outlook and views of someone who lets emotion rule their life. Don't let them drag you down to their level of pain and anger.
your time would be much better spent elsewhere.

These things I say are just my opinion on the subject at hand, please take them as they were offered for free, and with the proverbial grain of salt.

I am not a lawyer, i am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, i have just noticed these things in my lifetime.

 

[Deanimator]

"ask an anti-gunner if they think people should be allowed to own semi-automatic firearms. They'll rant "No! Of course not! Blah blah blah."
Then ask them to define semi-automatic. They won't be able to."

I think this is a great idea. I'll try it next time. When someone blatantly points out my ignorance on a subject, I almost feel ashamed, and I'm much more inclined to go learn about it. This could be a very powerful way to get them off guard at the beginning of a debate.

I've had that same conversation with my boss regarding "assault weapons". Like 80% of people, he thought they were "machineguns". He was of course surprised to find out both that they weren't and that there's no fixed definition of "assault weapon". But then this was INTENTIONAL disinformation by Josh Sugermann, and by his own admission.

 

[Rokyudai]

Don't you wish you had a pair of scissors to "cut" the chatty kathy string on the back of their necks?

'Just pull once for verbal diarrhea'....

 

[TwitchALot]

I have a debate tactic that usually works pretty well. Or at least it's fun for me anyway: ask an anti-gunner if they think people should be allowed to own semi-automatic firearms. They'll rant "No! Of course not! Blah blah blah."

Then ask them to define semi-automatic. They won't be able to.
That's when I point out, politely, that they want to ban something they can't even define.

Are you sure this works?

 

[eventer289]

I feel your pain. I live with a raging anti in my dorm and it is an endless battle to avoid his lectures on how guns, especially handguns, are the root of all evil. I don't even get into it with him anymore because nothing I say will change his view.

 

[Winchester 73]

And to think that just 45 years ago, none of these conversations would ever have taken place.
All downhill since November 22,1963.
But we are finally regaining the high ground and from this point, being the optimist I am, the Social Engineering Gun Control begun with the NFA of 1934 ,is going into the dustbin of history.

 

[Mot45acp]

remember...a pro/anti stance is not a religion in search of converts...if it were it would be tax-exempt

That made my day.

 

[mike101]

" But I realized something very scary. When a person this passionate about gun control and the evil of guns enters an argument, none of their statements are based on fact or knowledge. It's all emotion, and it's all based on imaginary situations, fear, misconceptions, and a total lack of experience with firearms."

It sounds like you've spent some time on the Brady Bunch Blog, or Huffington Post. You run into these people every day on anti-gun blogs. When you present them with the facts, they totally ignore you, no matter how many links you provide to stats from the FBI, ATF, DOJ, etc. They won't even look at them. They need to remain ignorant , so they can keep on chanting the mantra with a straight face.

BTW, Feinstein and Schumer both have CCW permits. So do Barbara Boxer, Rosie the Bull, and lot's of other antis. Rosie has hired armed body guards to accompany her kids to school. I guess those "Gun Free School Zones" are for other peoiple's kids. Jesse Jackson is anti-gun, but his entourage is armed to the teeth. Hell, Josh Sugarman (Violence Policy Center) has a FFL! Hypocracy, elitism, hysteria, and lies are VERY common among the antis. They also tend to be a vicious, rude, and venomous bunch, when they get a keyboard in front of them. Some of them are real mental cases.

 

[Rob G]

I'd like to point out that their arguments aren't just based on emotion, they're also based on the idea that we're stupid. I can't tell you how many antis have tried to make their point with the following:

"So let's say a guy walks up to you and pulls a gun and demands your money. So you go to pull yours and he shoots you. See it was more dangerous to have the gun because if you were unarmed you would have just given him the money and he would have gone away." :banghead:

It's at this stage that I point out that only an idiot (not me) would reach for a gun when someone's already pointing one at you at close range. And that in that situation I'd just let them have the money. Of course once they turned their back to leave.......

The point being, it isn't just emotion, it's also the honest belief that gun owners are truly stupid people.

 

[ColinthePilot]

remember...a pro/anti stance is not a religion in search of converts...if it were it would be tax-exempt

Maybe it should be!

 

[chris in va]

See it was more dangerous to have the gun because if you were unarmed you would have just given him the money and he would have gone away

I know, that's scary when they say that. Not the case any more, half the time the gun either goes off by accident as they get excited, they pull the trigger thinking it could never kill someone or they just do it first and scavenge the money afterward.

Saw a video on TV recently where the BG walked in to the convenience store, held a gun and plastic bag OVER another customer, pointed the gun at the clerk and shot him. Didn't even get any money.

 

[jakemccoy]

I've given up debating with anti-gun people who have never gone to the range and who refuse to go out to the range. I literally feel the IQ drop after trying to have a serious debate with someone who clearly has no knowledge about firearms.

I take that back. Outside of a structured debate setting, I refuse to debate with any anti-gun people. My blood pressure goes up for the rest of the day, and I get nothing accomplished.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Someone else in the group: "If we outlawed guns, only the bad guys would have them."

This has always been one of the sillier arguments to me. Almost any actions can fit the "If we outlaw xxx, only criminals will do xxx."

"If we outlaw assassinating Presidents, only criminals will shoot Presidents."
"If we outlaw shooting people during a drug deal, only criminals will shoot people during a drug deal."
"If we outlaw putting stupid bumper stickers on cars, only criminals will put stupid bumper stickers on cars."

Mike

 

[Mike128]

I recently got into it with an anti the other day also. After argueing for a little while I decided to go logical. She basically followed the Brady lines word for word, no assult weapons, registration, but allow for hunting rifles for now. When I showed her there were already "sensible" laws that she recommended she was at a loss for words. Than the infamous line of "Guns kill people" came out. Her face when I said my guns must be defective than because they never killed anyone or plan to that I know of, was priceless.

However, it went from a logical debate to random comparissons to emotional pleas to what if scenerios until finally drugs are like guns and should be tightly regulated. My mind was still trying to make logic out of things and didn't have a good comeback for that one. Beware of the misdirections.