Meaningful dialogue with "antis"

[AlexanderA]

Almost all antis that I talk to are abysmally ignorant about guns. There's a lot of room for education here. Now, educating them could be a double-edged sword. Knowledge of guns could make them into more effective antigunners. On the other hand, it could lead them to moderate their views. In any case, I enjoy talking to antigunners about guns.

 

[2ifbyC]

Emotion has much more power than facts or logic. Those that use emotion to govern their lives make difficult targets for change. To change their attitude requires peeling away the layers of emotion to the core of their being. It takes tremendous perseverance to replace emotion with reasoning. What seems nonsensible to us is entirely rational to them.

Frankly, I don’t have the energy to engage in this debate. We have the 2nd amendment. I will let the NRA do the fighting for me.

 

[Jackal]

I work at a sporting goods/gun store. I have many anti gun folks rolling through and they often make negative comments about our gun section. When engaging these customers, I politely apply the Socratic method and just basically ask "why". Often times, by just asking them why they feel that way and then applying a modicum of facts/logic and supporting data, they usually go away feeling less "anti" than when they walked in.

 

[Sistema1927]

The prevalence of post-modernism has rendered rational debate almost impossible by killing off the concept of objective truth. We need to recognize that we are engaged in a clash of world views.

I have found that it is instructive to show that post-modernism is an impossible philosophy to live by. Nobody actually lives their life without regard for natural laws and their consequences. You actually need truth claims in order to walk down the street, drive a car, cook a meal, etc.

Facts matter, but only to those who are open to admit their validity.

 

[Bigmike79]

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

Taylor is to Gibson/Martin as Glock is to Colt/Sig !


I might have just started a war...............LOL

 

[Bigmike79]

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.

This is a ridiculous post of the highest order. I'm a mentor to my nephew who is now competing in professional MMA. While I have been in a few street fights as a kid and I wrestled in HS, I would never attempt to coach him on the sport. Being a mentor to someone isn't the same as having the knowledge to coach or regulate an activity at the highest levels.

If you can't play and you don't understand the industry, you have no business mentoring others on how to play or perform outside of the very lowest levels of the art. My dad who was an agent for 30 years dealt with enough parents like yourself to put him into an early grave. He watched people that didn't know zip about the business absolutely destroy people's careers with terrible advice.

My analogy is spot on. People that don't understand squat or even own firearms, have absolutely zero business advising others about firearms, especially governing them.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[Hokie_PhD]

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.

Ouch

I don’t play guitar, and I admit I don’t know much about them. But I’m learning and thinking about getting one. It’s been years since I’ve played an instrument but I love music and study its history and enjoy focusing on certain instruments and the way people play.

Hmmm most of my life I didn’t own a gun either. In fact, for most of it, I was pro 2nd Amendment but saw “common sense” views like training, insurance and permits as good things. It wasn’t until after the Obama election and the increased attacks on the 2nd Amendment that I decided to learn all I can about guns, about so called gun control and related topics.

After almost being killed in a campus shooting I’ve become very vocal against anything that infringes on our second Amendment Rights in any way.

BigMike79, Now go do a search on Mark Chatfield and find some of the videos of him playing with Bob Seger and see why I was blown away by his playing when I saw him with the Silver Bullet Band (ironic that my favorite band has that for a name). ;-)

 

[luzyfuerza]

Shortly after the Las Vegas massacre, a local newspaper invited me to discuss the gun issue, on camera, with a proponent of further gun restrictions. During that discussion, the other party admitted to lying about the requirements of the law, claimed that race (simply being black) and family configuration (absence of fathers in the home) drove individuals to commit crimes, and was unable to describe any changes to existing gun laws that would actually reduce crime.

That video, in either edited or unedited form, has never seen the light of day.

Why do you think that this might be?

 

[CapnMac]

constant barrage of media coloring their understanding.

Which is carefully crafted to not rely upon facts or logic, but an emotional appeal to be accepted as fait accompli.

Which, to steal the clever comment above, reduces our side to attempting rational debate with the irrational. Becasue the talking points have been crafted into easy-to-swallow servings, they are hard to yield up.

This has created the perversity of people owning firearms being anti-firearms ownership. They have a snubbie .357 in the nightstand, have never shot it, and litterally do not think of themselves as "gun owners."

"We" are asking people besotted on gumdrops to vomit them back up and actually examine what they ate. They do not want to kknow that gumdrop is filled with toxic dyes and dangerous artificial sweeteners. Their only care is that it was "free," tasted sweet, and "everyone else is doing it."

This is as insidious as "dark design"--this is not a pleasant google surf.

 

[Ignition Override]

Condensed info in a one-page "nutshell" could go a very long way.

Are there simple statistics published by a law enforcement agency which can Estimate either
A) Approx. how many times handguns have been either displayed or used, in response to a clear physical threat?
or
B) " " " " AR-15s (not Mini 14 etc, the AR is the scapegoat) have been displayed or used, in a situation where the gun owner has too little training to have used a handgun?

This is asking too much to find these types of stats, but maybe even (for example) 2,000 documented cases of a handgun preventing/stopping a threat could help support a pro-Sec. Amendment debate or argument, could it not?

 

[GEM]

Turning this into a racial debate is a way to leave THR

Such deleted and take the hint!

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

The title of the thread states "anti". There are anti's and there are folks on the fence. You can have a conversation with folks on the fence, maybe even educate someone or change their mind, but a true "anti" can not be reasoned with.

That's a fact.

 

[RPZ]

Almost all antis that I talk to are abysmally ignorant about guns. There's a lot of room for education here. Now, educating them could be a double-edged sword. Knowledge of guns could make them into more effective antigunners. On the other hand, it could lead them to moderate their views. In any case, I enjoy talking to antigunners about guns.

If you want to educate them about guns challenge them to a session at a range. Start them off on .22s, then the other items. Many of them will get hooked. Once hooked they'll influence some of their families and friends.

 

[GEM]

I would like to see empirical evidence that a true gun believer or a true anti believer cannot have his or her opinion changed. Define the word 'true' . I have seen folks move from both positions. Of course, you will say they are not 'true' - which is an ill defined and useless phrase in the real world.

Well thought out messaging, personal experiences, emotional experiences - all go into attitude change. Is the gun world effective in messaging right now - that is debatable. Here's an interesting piece on the divide. Of course, some parts will make some people raise their arms and run around. Try not to be absolutist but rational.

https://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/interesting-take-on-the-path-forward-on-guns/

 

[drband]

I would like to see empirical evidence that a true gun believer or a true anti believer cannot have his or her opinion changed. Define the word 'true' . I have seen folks move from both positions. Of course, you will say they are not 'true' - which is an ill defined and useless phrase in the real world.

Well thought out messaging, personal experiences, emotional experiences - all go into attitude change. Is the gun world effective in messaging right now - that is debatable. Here's an interesting piece on the divide. Of course, some parts will make some people raise their arms and run around. Try not to be absolutist but rational.

https://gunculture2point0.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/interesting-take-on-the-path-forward-on-guns/

Some good ideas in that article. I’m a bit Leary of the ERPO though some form of that is needed.

 

[RAT807]

Here are a few things I think every anti gun person should here and think about.

Chicago has strick guns laws yet many people are shot and killed daily. How do you propose getting all the guns away from the drug runners, gang members and any other person who's job requires the use of guns to provide security, protection and law enforcement?

In my opinion, this will not happen and the anti's do not realize it. Just like the anti's don't realize getting guns away from free, law abiding individuals will not happen without a huge fight, maybe even another civil war.

Are there individuals or groups that can have guns, you know to protect the Judges, politicians, etc?

At some point I would image one of the anti's answers would be, "the military can do it". And my reply will be, sounds like the military will need more people to pull this off. Are you going to volunteer??

Why is it okay for the military to have guns and not every day ordinary people? Every person in the military was once an every day ordinary person. What happened to ordinary people that you now trust them with guns in the military? Hmmm, maybe it's not the guns at all...

 

[coloradokevin]

I've spent countless hours on various discussion forums (not gun forums) arguing for gun rights. Here's how I see it:

I may never change the view of my direct opponent in the debate, but I will thoughtfully and respectfully argue for my position (and that's something I do well). Though I may never change the opinion of my opponent, my opponent isn't the only one reading the debate. If my argument is the stronger argument in the debate, I may very well sway the opinion of numerous fence-sitters in the debate.

I've argued with new people, and some of the same people I've been debating with for years already. In some cases I think I have cause meaningful changes to another person's outlook, but more often than not I continue to argue for the exact reason I stated above.

 

[readyeddy]

I've run into two types of antis: 1) the politically motivated; and 2) the people who don't own guns.

The first type of anti is either an anti politician, close to an anti politician, or affiliated with an organization that is aligned with antis. These folks careers and paychecks are at stake and they aren't going to change. There's a lot of these where I live.

The second type is simply a person who doesn't own guns and are attempting to think only about their own well being. Their thinking is that if they don't own a gun, then it will only help their situation if other people were prohibited from owning guns because less guns means less chance of gun violence. Of course, most of these people would be defenseless if a larger and stronger person were to attack them, but they aren't thinking rationally. They are mostly approaching the subject matter from fear, meaning their thinking is disorganized. They are afraid of violence and they are afraid of guns. Arguing with them is often counter productive in my experience. It only increases their fear, which turns into anger, and then a hatred towards guns. A soft sell with a friendly demeanor is more effective imo. But the most effective method is to take them shooting to demystify guns and gun owners. Once they see that gun owners value their firearms because of a deep love for their families, communities and country, they then begin to understand.

 

[Walkalong]

I politely apply the Socratic method and just basically ask "why". Often times, by just asking them why they feel that way and then applying a modicum of facts/logic and supporting data,

It's the only way, go too hard on them and they buck up and resist anything you say.

 

[RecoilRob]

When encountering an 'Anti'...I preface the conversation with the fact that they'll very likely be cussing at me within 90 seconds. Then ask if they'd like to continue the discussion knowing full well that they're about to get really angry because they just cannot debate the subject with the very limited knowledge they possess? Of course they normally believe they know EVERYTHING about it and then rattle off their carefully memorized talking points that were given to them by some Leftist publication.

We then stop and go back over each talking point...carefully refuting what they just said and then asking for more information as to WHY they said such a thing? This of course exposes that they actually know nothing more than the talking points and the only way out is to curse and refuse to continue. I just smile and say....'told you so!'

People on the Left are told what their opinion should be....not given the facts to allow them to come to one on their own. If someone cannot articulate WHY they believe what they claim to believe...it's because they're parroting a conclusion given to them by someone else. Most 'Anti's' are comfortable with this ignorance and trying to budge them from their position just incites hostility...but I still try when given the opportunity. I just love watching the smug look on their face dissolve into rage when they realize that the person they're talking to knows a LOT more than them about the subject and that they're going to look like a fool if they continue. Fun times.

 

[Old Dog]

People on the Left are told what their opinion should be....not given the facts to allow them to come to one on their own. If someone cannot articulate WHY they believe what they claim to believe...it's because they're parroting a conclusion given to them by someone else. Most 'Anti's' are comfortable with this ignorance and trying to budge them from their position just incites hostility...but I still try when given the opportunity. I just love watching the smug look on their face dissolve into rage when they realize that the person they're talking to knows a LOT more than them about the subject and that they're going to look like a fool if they continue. Fun times.

Geez. Don't know who you these "people on the left" you guys are encountering, but you're sorely underestimating them. I come from a family, and background, of liberals who all possess PhDs, MDs, JDs, etc., and they can all pretty clearly articulate WHY they believe what they believe. The sort of hubris displayed in this thread is giving me a pretty clear indication of why our movement has taken such serious hits of late.

If you approach our opposition in the belief that they "are comfortable with this ignorance," yes, you certainly will incite some hostility. And if you're watching "smug looks dissolve into rage" you are not effectively debating. We're not doing this for fun.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I would like to point out one observation of my own. I have a particularly liberal coworker (a liberal teacher? say it ain't so!) who always wants to have a "meaningful conversation." I refuse. I explained it to him thusly: I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe. I am not going to change what I believe even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. So. What value is there in having this conversation? What gain or good can come of it? Nothing good can come of it. We will just both end up angry. Let's just avoid the topic (any controversial topic) altogether. But say, isn't the weather lovely this morning?

There really is no point in debating with the other side.

 

[Deanimator]

There really is no point in debating with the other side.

Actually there is.

I don't have the slightest illusion that I'm going to change the "mind" of a "movement" anti-gun cultist.

On the other hand, if we have an audience, I'm going to prove him a pathological liar and humiliate him seven ways to Sunday. I'm going to expose his craven dishonesty, and he's going to help me every step of the way. If I can get him to expose himself as a racist, misogynist, anti-Semite, homophobe, etc., in the bargain (as I have MANY times), so much the better. I've been doing it for more than thirty years and it works.

 

[RecoilRob]

Geez. Don't know who you these "people on the left" you guys are encountering, but you're sorely underestimating them. I come from a family, and background, of liberals who all possess PhDs, MDs, JDs, etc., and they can all pretty clearly articulate WHY they believe what they believe. The sort of hubris displayed in this thread is giving me a pretty clear indication of why our movement has taken such serious hits of late.

If you approach our opposition in the belief that they "are comfortable with this ignorance," yes, you certainly will incite some hostility. And if you're watching "smug looks dissolve into rage" you are not effectively debating. We're not doing this for fun.

If someone actually can articulate WHY they believe what they believe...they are entitled to their opinion even if I disagree with it. At least it is one that they themselves have come to on their own....though I might offer a counterpoint if any of their reasons are based on incorrect data for instance. The 'Anti's' that I've encountered were NOT PhD types and could not come close to offering ANY reasoned logic to arrive at their opinion...hence their anger when it is exposed.

What we have around here are closet Communists who just can't bring themselves to admit it. I've actually known a couple full blown Communists and enjoyed talking to them...never agreed with much they said, but found it interesting to hear their side of the story. And without the context of history...their way of thinking does make sense in the 'wouldn't it be wonderful if' way of looking at the world. Sadly...human nature will defeat even the most sincere attempt at Communism and bring it down to the reality that exists everywhere it's been implemented. At least these Communists were being honest and I considered them a friend...if not a comrade. I am able to get along with many people I have disagreements with....but sadly many Leftists in these parts absolutely HATE us gun carrying Christians.

 

[Ru4real]

Anti questions - Why do you need a gun? Why does anybody need a gun?

My answer - I don't need a gun because I already have quite a few guns.
But I would like to buy some more guns.
Do you need a gun?

I equate their concept of need with my concept of more. Derails their argument.
I also established them as anybody because they don't own,
and me as not anybody because I do own.