How do you talk to anti- people?

[thesolidus]

I live in California... (i know uhg.)
Talk to lots of people, friends at work etc and lots are very anti RKBA, hunting, everything.
A couple conversations i've had came to mind, thought i'd share and see how others talk with folks about RKBA, hunting etc.

I usually talk about "defense" not 'guns.' Invariable someone says they don't like guns. I say "I wasn't talking about guns, just defense. You think it's okay to defend yourself right?" Once they think that's okay it's an easy leap to wanting to have the best tool to do that. Had some anti- folks even turn around a bit.

(Personally I think if there were no guns, California would be passing "Spear Control Laws..."

I always equate hunting to fishing. Lots of folks don't like hunting 'cause they don't like guns. They think it's okay for me to 'catch fish' and when i say we're going to 'catch deer' they think it's cool! When they ask how I 'catch them' I say that shooting is the best way, it's quick, sure and more humane than any other method including what's used for 'factory meat.'
I've had vegetarians suddenly look at me as an environmentalist with that, and they see the need for the gun, and get a bit more friendly.

Vegetarians tend to make carnivores look unnatural. Hit them with their same dialogue. "All paths are sacred right? I choose to honor the spirit and sacrifice of this noble animal and my role as natural predator in the chain of life. The meat is local, free range and organic. Other paths are okay too. Some of the vegetarian stuff is a little too processed for me though. Now they look at the shrink wrapped, processed tofu-burger and feel maybe they're not so natural after all, and hunting sounds more like a environmental thing.

When people say that 'the police should handle it." I agree (usually true) and say "sure, as long as you're in the city." When they question i give them the 'your so sheltered look' and explain how a majority of the country has a police response time of >10-15 min. And how my parents are served by One Sheriff covering hundreds of miles, with a 30+ min response time.
Tell them about Dad shooting a rabid critter (there's no game warden in that county...) and they see that having a gun is a reasonable tool in the country.

When people talk about gun control and try to make me look the paranoid one, I flip it and ask "what if there were No guns like they were never invented? There would still be violence right? We need to address the violence in society and in ourselves and not attack the tools which are inanimate. 'Do not blame the fist, see to the heart of the man striking you. That is where the violence lays.' Suddenly the 'gun guy' is a peace spouting hippie and the anti- sees that they are the one's out of balance, angry or irrational.

With the Somali coast piracy in the news i've been saying how these ships NOT being armed is irresponsible and promoting piracy. How the millions of dollars will arm the pirates and probably lead to another Darfur or Rawanda. How the pirates can strike and escape long before authorities can reach the area. How we need to give aid to the people, give options to the pirates, but defend with lethal force our ships. How having one or two armed sailors on each ship would end coastal piracy very quickly and how easy it is to train an average citizen. (See the parallel to CCW and home defense carry?)

If I can divert the discussion away from guns and to 'Defense'. or "food catching' talk about how misplaced Pacifism can propagate the very evil it is against, often people lose their obstinance and agree that guns have a place... from there opening people to RKBA is easier.

Just my spin anyway.
How do you guys talk with people who are anti-RKBA and often hostile in their beliefs?

P.S. Arguing with anti-gun Canadians is impossible. "If citizens didn't have guns we'd still be part of England... oh,... wait... You ARE still part of England!!!" Hahahahaaha.

 

[WardenWolf]

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).

The non-crazy ones can actually be reasoned with. Logic alone will make them question their ideas and they will usually admit that guns have their valid uses. At the very least, they will typically accept that you have the right to your opinion and way of life, and respect it even if they personally have some misgivings. The irrational ones, you shouldn't even waste your time with. You can't argue with a crazy person.

 

[chibiker]

Hmmm, I must not live in a large enough area, I have never met these rational anti-gunners you speak of.

If it makes any difference I do approve of your responses, often times many I have used myself... of course it did no good (see first sentence) but I know I tried.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

"Anti-people"?

You mean those like bears, lions, and such?

The way I see it, on both sides, is that the topic tends to be treated with the same personal involvement as religion. I am not likely to be able to talk what I feel to be sense into a person who has a different world view than me and it is one that they believe to be true and correct and unwaviering as I feel about my views.

I don't argue with anti-gun people. It would be about as effective as me arguing Christianity with an anti-Christian Muslim (note that I definitely do not mean to imply that all Mulsims are anti-Christian). They are about as likely to convert me to their views as I am to their's. However, I am more than willing to share my views with them and listen to their views.

Turns out, there are some anti-gun people who aren't so much anti-gun as they are anti-hunting. We had a discussion on the issue and I explained that I am an avid shooter and was for years before I ever hunted. I have now taken that person shooting and he really enjoyed it (except the shotgun). The sharing of views helped resolve one issue anyway. He still doesn't like the concept of hunting, but no longer sees firearms as the problem.

With that said, there are some folks you simply can't have a decent conversation with on either side of the issue because they get too personally involved with the words of the argument and take personal offense to differing perspectives...just like you can't have the same sort of religious conversation with some folks for the same reasons.

 

[hso]

I've made inroads using such arguments as well.

Better that we open one out of ten people up to thinking about the place that guns serve instead of spouting rhetoric at all ten and gaining nothing. If you assume that everyone is unreachable then everyone is.

 

[MD_Willington]

P.S. Arguing with anti-gun Canadians is impossible. "If citizens didn't have guns we'd still be part of England... oh,... wait... You ARE still part of England!!!" Hahahahaaha.

You just don't know the right Canadians...

 

[thesolidus]

Didn't mean to dis on all Canadians, sorry guys.
Me and knook buds go shoot often. Like Canadians, except the Toronto Maple Leafs. (Go Sharks!)
Just the Canadian version of granola philosophy must be purer than the US version. (Unless your in California, then it's about equal.) So them that preach it think they smell like roses 'cause Canada doesn't have the same problems. (It does...)

 

[cjw3cma]

I try not to argue for it puts me on their level of dialogue which is not where I do my best. If their verbal actions tend to be irrational then I don't try to convince them as much as I try to use logic to get them to realize the truths as I believe them to be. When asked why I carry a gun I want to say because it's my right as an American citizen, but I refrain and ask them why they do not; and then follow very close to the logic that the OP mentioned. If they don't accept the logically approach then any further communication on the subject is futile as they have proven to me to be not rational and why spend any more time - as there are others points of interest to discuss.

If they get in my face for my beliefs they soon learn that I do carry one of my firearms at all times and the subject usually changes. If not I walk away without turning my back on them.

 

[Yo Mama]

Very slowly.

 

[chemist308]

I rarely have a successful encounter with someone who was truly anti-RKBA. They may have run out of valid arguments long before I did, but they almost always turn it into an adverserial discussion right off.

 

[bigione]

I first hunted deer in the Black Hills of S. Dakota. It was about three years after the bliard of 1949. During that year the dear starved to death by the thousands. I relate that story and inform them it is more humane to die by a bullet than slow starvation. usually it opens their mind a little.

 

[thesolidus]

Yeah, my dad told me of a college's place overrun with deer. Graze lines, eaten flowers, standing on hind legs to strip trees. Dad warned the college to let some hunters thin the herd but the owner was too "oh no! we couldn't! They're too peaceful."
A year later the guy called my dad. The whole herd was starving to death. Dead deer on the fairway type of thing. They were struggling to try to save ANY of them. Hope they learned about land management.

Sheesh. To peaceful? (Well I guess deer are peaceful, they don't shoot back.)

 

[Sapper771]

I try to stay away from the anti-gun crowd. Most of the ones that I have had the pleasure of meeting are the extremist types. They think that it should be illegal to own any type of firearm, but marijuana should be legal. I just cant rationalize with those views.
The ones that ride the fence can be spoken to reasonably. I usually get asked

" Why do you carry a pistol? , Do you really think that your in danger everywhere you go? Why do you own so many firearms, dont you think that is strange?"

These people I can rationalize with. I can usually answer their questions with questions of my own.

Otherwise, I try to stay out of the it.

I did have a debate in college against an anti-gun individual, and I won. His argument was the normal one, "if people didnt have guns, there would be no gun violence".
My responses were simple. Drugs are illegal and have been illegal for quite some time, but in the midst of all of the anti-drug laws, I can still go out and get any drug I want, just as if I walked into the 7-11 to get a pack of gum.
The anti-gun individual then started reading police reports of where guns were used in home invasions and robberies. He stated that if these criminals did not have guns, they could not commit the crime.
My response had two parts. My first part was reading local police reports involving the use of knives in robberies. The second part was reading reports on gun owners using firearms to stop home invasions and armed robberies.

After the debate was finished, there was a vote within the class to see who won the debate. I took 80% of the votes in the class.
After it was done, I offered the anti-gun guy to come to my range and shoot with me and at least try the sport out, seeing that he had never held a firearm in his life. He refused of course and stated that he wasnt going to stoop down to my level.

That was one of the reasons I try to stay out of the anti-gun world.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I use statistics of how firearm rights reduce crime.

 

[DAVIDSDIVAD]

Most of the time I just use logic.


Seems to work.


That and I give them the LBJ treatment.

 

[thesolidus]

Now i'm thinking of putting an Atlatl (short hunting spear), and a compound bow on a gun rack in my truck.
Folks say why don't i hunt without the gun? I wonder if an atlatl looks more peaceful???
Probably get pulled over though, California's new Atlatl Control Laws...

 

[alexanderom]

In general, I don't talk to them. I personally find "anti-gunners' to be basically subhuman, and avoid conversation with them at all, as they're more or less the enemy.

Anyone who wants to take away my guns, or restrict my right to have them is a fascist, so since I have nothing nice to say...I say nothing to them.

 

[DoesItMatter]

I work in a really Liberal environment.

Very Democratic and very Anti-*lots-of-stuff*

I just tend to ignore a lot of the arguments or discussions.
Many are just mis-informed, or delusional.

Maybe police just need to carry water-balloons, or learn more
effective means of verbal authoritative conversation.

Yeah... that'll work...

 

[TAB]

I use statistics of how firearm rights reduce crime.

how is that working for you?

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


I've found there are 3 types.

Those have no exp.

Those that have had a bad exp.

Those that hate guns.


the 1st is about the only ones your going to "convert" The 2nd has a chance to become netural.

There are good arguments on both sides of gun control. Saying: "your wrong, I'm right" is just pushing them the other way. So is name calling. Cut that **** out.

 

[lamebums]

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. This is especially true of liberals. (This includes not just guns but anything else, social/economic issues, policy, etc. They'll immediately call you a racist sexist bigot homophobe. You get the idea.)

The moderates, those who can think logically, and those without much experience, can generally be brought over.

But not the radicals. I've tried many times, just gave up and decided not to waste my time on them.

 

[Dark Skies]

When I was younger I used to think that you could rationally challenge and turn these people around. Now that I'm older I find that I really can't be arsed.

Even if you can convince these people that shooting (in the UK anyway) is a perfectly legitimate sport followed by citizens that, by their very nature, are superior in character to most others it usually boils down to this mindset:

"Banning things must reduce crime."

"If only one life is saved ... blah, blah blah."

"Think of the children ..."

"Just to be on the safe side ..."

My stock response is "We no longer live in a democracy so, fortunately, your opinion doesn't matter one way or the other." Depending on the context I'll toss in an expletive to the effect that the conversation is over and that they should go now.

Experience has taught me that I'm not missing an opportunity to make a convert. We just don't have the same culture or wide open spaces to point to as the USA where one can demonstrate the many various uses of firearms.

 

[punkndisorderly]

I don't really try to change anyone's mind. The people that really have a strong opinion, especially an emotional one, are not likely to be swayed.

I do, however, enjoy swapping viewpoints. I like to hear others opinions, even if I don't agree with them. Partially because it's interesting in a character study kind of way, partially because it's good to know ones opposition.

I also think it's important to get your oppinion out into the marketplace. 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.

The most productive time is usally taking people to the range to see what it's all about. By and large, that will do more than anything to sway the fence sitters and those who can possibly be swayed. The vast majaority come away from their first range trip with two conclusions:

Shooting is a safe, enjoyable pasttime that's easy to do but difficult to master.

Shooting is nothing like they expected. Rather than being an activity fueld by aggression, it's more of a zen thing. It's about concentration, self-control of body and mind. Most leave much more relaxed and peaceful than when they got there.

 

[Nicky Santoro]

How do you talk to anti- people?

I don't. 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.

 

[Sheldon J]

Don't talk to them but take them to the range shooting, best way I found yet to make a convert....

 

[lamebums]

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.

That just made my day.