How do you talk to anti- people?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mostly because the anti gunners have a picture in their mind of what a 2nd ammendment supporter is like (agry, middle aged, white trash, moron). Since I don't fit that mold, it knid of turns them on their ear a bit. Then I start shooting down all their half-truths and made up statistics with real numbers.
Click to expand...
I do this too, but also prefer to employ the Socratic method of getting them to contradict themselves or stand behind a conclusion which discredits them in the eye of other observers.
 
I have contributed to successfully turning non-gun people into pro-gun people. However, I've never succesfully turned an anti-gun person into a pro-gun person.

In small town Indiana, I suppose it's pretty hard to grow up without learning something about guns, self-defence, and hunting. Therefore, most of the antis are the crazy, irrational kind rather than the ignorant kind.

There are a lot of good arguments here. I'll be sure to keep them in mind, in case I ever meet a rational-but-ignorant anti-gun person.
 
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" Realizing that being polite with this fellow was not going to get me anywhere I simply told him, "Pal! you ain't in Chicago anymore and if you don't like the laws here then I suggest you pack up your sh_t and get the he_l out of Wyoming because we don't need your kind here". Some people you can talk to, some you can debate with and others you just need to tell where they can go because it will do no good to talk to them anyway. You are the only one who can judge how you will approach this issue by the kind of person you are tlaking too.
 
I have never met these rational anti-gunners you speak of.
Click to expand...

I personally find "anti-gunners' to be basically subhuman, and avoid conversation with them at all, as they're more or less the enemy.
Click to expand...

Talking to an anti is like explaining Shakespeare to a cockerspaniel. The dog will look at you with what would seemingly be rapt attention, but when you are done all you will hear is "woof". It's a dog and it has it's limits.
Your basic liberal anti is much like that cockerspaniel. It will seem to pay attention and appear to actually understand, but when you are done all you will hear is "I don't like guns so you can't have one." It's an anti and it has it's limits.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, you can't. As soon as you mention something that's taboo to them, they immediately circle the wagons and attack, and close themselves off to any further logic and reasoning.
Click to expand...

You see, there are zealots on both sides of the coin who are who entrenched in their own views that they don't even understand that their opposition may feel the same way and feel just as justified.

This last statement spoke volumes as it could be said about many pro-gun people just as easily.

The beliefs on both sides of the issue are such that the often degrade into strong emotions, naming calling (see posts above), and are often done so with a religious fervor.
 
slowly, softly, and using small words from at least 3 feet away... much as you would speak to a small child... they scare awfully easy...:D

pop a doritos bag right behind them if you wanna see something really funny.
 
I live in rural NH, an there are not many anti's around.

OT maybe but the only 2 times I met would be anti's which I assume had they been asked, this is what happened..

I had been camping for a week in September in the rain, and it was time to go. I hit a town driving my 1966 Volvo pick up truck. A car once converted to a pick up.

i stopped at a mom and pop store to get a 6 pack and a coke, still in trail shorts and muddy boots. My brindle Great Dane was sleeping in the back of the truck, and as I came out a old blue hair woman was skowling at the dog.

I asked her if the dog had some how bothered her, since he was asleep, ahd her reply was "DEER HUNTERS" and she glared at me!

I let out a soft whistle and the dog raised his head.. That did it, off she went muttering the deer isn't even dead!"....

You can't deal with people like this..

Next: Dead winter 1:00 Am I got off driving a team of Belguims from hauling torisita's on a big sled (old logging pung re-fit to haul people)

I drove in clothing fit for the year 1839, wearing a red blanket coat, wool britches, and gaunletted mittens, and moc boots.. The mittens are trimmed at the cuff in beaverm and also on the backs of the hand. Some bead work is on the gauntletts, and the leather is elk, with blanket wool liners.

I hit up the local roast beef joint and it was -40 below, so entering a warm place I sent off steam and stunk like horse.

A new girl is the waitress, and I toss my mitts on the bar, and begin to ask for a roast beef fries and a beer.

But NO she goes off on how I am a killer staring at the mittens. I listen to the BS a few moments and have a hard look at her.

I see and then tell her the wool sweater she has is real wool, the belt she has is real leather, her shoes are real leather too, and her perfume and some of her make up are made of animal parts, but worst of all she is sloppin ROAST BEEF over the counter!

That did it, off she went yelling in the hitchen and pete the owner and a friend of mine came out.

He asked what I did to his new girl and i told him. He asked where i got the mittens, and i relplied made em. He asked to buy another pair.. $120.00 bucks pete... Sold.....

I never did see that girl again.
 
Antis are Misinformed, as if that mattered to them

Once he or she is eaten by a newly re-introduced Hybrid Wolf, his or her attitude WILL change ubruptly, if a bit too late to help others realize the raw nature of life in the wild: eat or be eaten.
 
thesolidus, I thought your responses were very well thought out. I would be interested in how you would answer the question raised by the interlocutor that Sapper771 states . . .

“" Why do you carry a pistol? , Do you really think that your in danger everywhere you go? Why do you own so many firearms, don’t you think that is strange?"

I would also be interested in how you would answer that question too Sapper as you also have obviously put time into well thought-out answers.

A lot of good posts here. Nice work.
 
Last First,
chance to educate...
I start talking about either rats or gophers. That a 22LR is about perfect (no WMR or .17 arguments guys) for either but can't pierce the hide of much bigger. That a larger bullet is needed for larger animals, that a coyote stays at a distance and a long shooting 200-300 yard fast traveling bullet is okay, but would only wound an Elk which would be cruel. If you hunt in tree's shorter shots are more common, if you hunt in plains really long shots with high caliber is the norm. And that's not even getting into shotguns!
If they want the short version I say different animals need different guns, like golf needs more than one club. A gun safe is just a big golf bag!
Also a god start if someone talks about "High-Power" or "Armor-Piercing" rifles. Start with a 22LR killing a rat, but can't reliably kill a deer, won't even wound a wild pig... but goes through human's like butter. Cause we are unprotected in the wild, no claws, fur or hide... since the beginning we've used our brains to make a better club, or a better bow. That's all a gun is... Some of the bullets you need to cleanly catch a cow sized animal (see... "catch" and using cow, something ugly that people don't mind killin') have to penetrate quite a bit to do it that's all...

?Why do you carry a pistol? Do you really think that your in danger everywhere you go?
Of course not! Don't think it's going to rain every day, but bring a raincoat anyway. Also keep a decent first aid kit, fire extinguisher, emergency supplies for me and neighbors, train with local disaster relief, volunteer regularly and always willing to lend a hand to strangers in need.
(Now that makes me sound right Christian don't it? What have They done?)

You could add. "I'm sworn to defend the people of this great country so others don't have to."
(?Sworn? (Ex-Military, boy scouts, local Cert team, and even some states drivers licenses have the oath that "I swear to defend the Constitution... all enemies foreign and domestic...") If they ask who you "work for" (meaning police etc) "Just a citizen with special training and permits and a specific charter to carry" What Charter? "It's the Second Amendment ma'am."

<Momma always said, "Better a smarta$$ than a dumba$$."
 
Sorry but I gave up on the anti... I never found one with enough life experience. No joke intended. The ones I have met were just you people that follow in the footsteps of others.
 
I don't bother wasting my breath. A fool is a fool. I have family who are anti's. I stay as far away from them as I can. The funny part is that when there is burglar in their neighborhood, they call. I used to go, but not anymore. They aren't worth my trouble or my sweat.
 
antis

Ditto to what alexanderom said. I don't waste my time and prefer not to be called names.
 
I usually ask them if they have a spare tire in their trunk. The usuall response is "just in case" to which I smile and let the wheels start turning. They usually get the picture.
 
A long time ago, around the time I bought my first pistol, I invited an old school roommate to come shooting. I told him how much fun it was, but he turned me down flat. He told me that he was afraid he'd enjoy it, and didn't want to have to abandon his anti-gun stance.

Pathetic.
 
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"
Click to expand...

All you had to do was ask him how the violent crime rate of Chicago compares to that of Cheyenne.
 
For years I lived in the in the most densely populated area of Los Angeles -- the Westlake District, or Rampart District as it came to be known after the LAPD "gangsta cop" scandal. It's the area that the TV series "The Shield" is set in.

Now I live in the hills of Montana. It's better.

These two areas have two very different schemes of gun control, and each strikes me as appropriate to its environment.

Here in Montana, you can carry a gun pretty much however you want and wherever you want, and even the modest restriction for cities (a shall-issue CCW is required) is currently on the chopping block in the legislature. Despite these liberal gun laws, the murder rate is not out of control. People are not constantly shooting at each other. There are no gunfights on the streets.

In Los Angeles, an individual's gun rights are so obscure that most people opt not even to own a handgun, let alone try to carry one, even in their cars. And this is good. Because there are four times as many people in the city of L.A. than there are in the entire state of Montana. An apt comparison of the population density would be a can of sardines versus those same sardines spread out in the Great Lakes.

Oh, and in the Rampart area of L.A. -- people are constantly shooting at each other. This is not an exaggeration. When the gangs were really fighting, I'd hear more than one gunfight a night. The kitchen window of my apartment had a bullet hole in it, and I lived on the eighth floor.

Nobody I knew cried much for an 18th Street Gang member who got killed trying to assassinate a rival, or, especially, a cop. But innocent bystanders are a different matter. When an innocent child (and an alarming amount of the time it is a child) is gunned down just because she happened to be waiting for the bus when a gunfight broke out nearby, the community cannot help but think, How can we stop this from happening?

And, understand, they sincerely want a real answer to that question -- a real, effective answer that will actually reduce the number of innocent people in their community getting killed and maimed as collateral damage in the gang wars.

"Everybody should have guns" is not the answer. It is, in fact, an offensively stupid answer that can only be promoted by someone with a poor understanding of urban crime and no skin in the game. In the (non-hypothetical) example above, the gunfight broke out between two or more gangbangers who did have guns. They were shooting at each other. Arming the kid who died, or her mom, or everyone at the bus stop, would not have prevented the gunfight or reduced the death rate. Among the people who actually live in these communities, the answer to those who provide "Everybody should have guns" as a solution to the innocent-bystander problem is, quite understandably, "f--- you."

"Enforce existing gun laws" is not enough. The LAPD enforces every gun law it can. Catching a gangbanger with a gun, in fact, is a principal means of getting criminals off the streets in L.A. You don't even have to catch him committing the robbery he just did or the murder he was just about to do -- you only have to catch him with the gun to put him in jail (he almost certainly has a criminal record making it illegal for him to possess the gun). Still, the gang wars rage on, and innocent people die literally every day in the crossfire.

"Reduce availability and potency of guns," a solution far from adequate, is nonetheless the best anyone's been able to come up with to deal with the problem of gun violence in extremely densely populated cities. We know that the gun-control laws against fully automatic weapons work. If the 18th Street Gang could get or make automatic weapons to use regularly on the street, they would. But it's too hard to be worth it, and the law is what makes it too hard. And it's obviously good that the gunfights on the streets of L.A. are not being waged with automatic weapons. So the community naturally thinks, How about continuing in this proven direction?

Obviously, this is problematic, as we Montanans don't want to be restricted by the gang wars of L.A. We don't have daily gun battles here. What's good for the Rampart District is not good for Montana.

But the question was...how do you talk with people who favor more gun control? I think a prerequisite is understanding that "more gun control" is not their main purpose. "Ending collateral damage from out-of-control gunfights in the inner city" is the purpose of the gun-control advocates I knew in L.A. If you have a better solution to that problem, they're all ears. But if you instead insist on caricaturing them as mindless zealots with no real reason for the gun-control position they have, well, they know better, and they'll rightly pay you no attention.
 
THe last time Tried was yesterday. I had just read an news account about how some inner city church was trying to teach boys NOT to sexually assault females. THere was also an article a few weeks ago about two men now in their 20's who spent most of their life from 10 or so on in prison for throwing another boy out of an 8 story window over candy. Between that and the on going gang shootings I asked the question. "when you have to teach someone NOT to rape, when kids throw other kids out of windows and others have NO respect for any kind of life why do you expect them to obey new gun laws or any kind of law?" The answer was that they do not expect the bangers to respect the law that is why the government should take ALL guns. Cant argue with that mind set.


Len
 
Number one, above all else, you need to know your facts. From gun control to statistical shootings (all these facts taken from a high quality source, such as the ATF or FBI). Now you're armed with intelligence, next I recommend diplomacy. It's hard for someone to yell, scream and argue while at the same time maintaining an intelligent appearance. Also, being diplomatic is nice as well, don't tell them they're wrong for being anti-gun ut explain to them the facts and let them know if they're going to make any decision on anything it's their duty as citizens to know their facts otherwise they're just spouting out heresay and rumors and molding impressionable minds the wrong way.
 
TravisB,

Respectfully, I think that your dismissal of arming the law-abiding citizens of Rampart is not correct because your assessment assumes that all else will stay equal.

In my opinion, the gangsters doing the gunplay are emboldened by the strict gun laws. In their view, the only players are themselves, rivals who are likely easy to spot in whatever regalia they use to self-identify, and the police who wear uniforms. Any bystander is a mere prop unworthy of even a single thought.

If a gangster had to worry about taking fire from the hardhats filling potholes on the corner, the grandmother watching the neighborhood kids from her front stoop, or the guy operating a hot dog cart, then it would not be so easy a decision for him to pull a gun and start spraying-away at some rival he chances to meet.

I fully admit that this scenario is horrific, but it sounds like the current reality is horrific, as well.
 
IMHO TravisB has hit on the issue indirectly. There is no blanket option. You cannot say guns for everyone! you also cannot say guns for no one! My biggest problem with the antis is that they seek the blanket option in almost every instance. They respond in an absolute manner to what is a specific and subjective situation.
Now I have not read any posts here (or on any other forums I frequent) that seriously say give guns to everyone. but what I have read (and agree with) is the philosophy that guns should be accessible to any and all who have NOT proven themselves a danger or incompetent. The whole idea of innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Much of the current legislation being enacted in many states ASSUMES the danger and requires the individual to prove their standing first. They assume guilty until proven innocent.
The problem with many of the antis is that they approach the issue from the standpoint of emotion rather than logic. They are (in my mind) the paranoid ones who do not trust anyone, ergo no one can be allowed to have guns. You cannot argue logic with an emotional person. Nicky Santoro is right. They will hear nothing you say because their fear and suspicion will not allow it. And don't kid yourselves for a moment that there are not those in our side of the issue that reason emotionally. This form has the rules it does partly because there are.
 
Facts are usually of little importance to hardline liberals. I find it best to avoid the conversation all together. I try to not associate myself with such riff-raff. ha.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Do people know that you own?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
bowl443
B
O
  • Locked
How to talk to politicians.
Replies
20
Views
1K
bouis
B
A
  • Locked
Talked to an anti last night at the gym...
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
Don Galt
D
C
  • Locked
  • Sticky
****How this forum works (emphasis on WORK). READ THIS BEFORE POSTING!****
Replies
2
Views
41K
hso
hso
T
  • Locked
Drop dead anti gun control facts
Replies
15
Views
1K
helpless
H
Back
Top