Responding to anti gun questions

[Sharpie443]

I go looking to have discussions with anti gun people because i think it's interesting. A few days ago a channel on YouTube that is very anti gun made a questions for "Gun people" video. I thought some of you might be interested in seeing my response. Some of his questions were very telling about the attitude people have towards guns when they don't know anything about them.

 

[FL-NC]

I watched his stupid video. Appearing as a cartoon wearing a kangaroo head (I assume that's what it is) is just stupid, but in the middle of his questionnaire, when this stain starts asking questions about a man's private parts were strikes 2 and 3. Not worthy of response.

 

[Wisco]

Two things -

First thing: holy 29 minutes, Batman. I don't have time for that. You've got to make the best argument you can in 60-90 seconds or you lose nearly everyone after that.

Second thing: the AIU video didn't make it apparent what I was about to watch within seconds, so I didn't watch. I did take the survey - what a joke. Save your time, don't watch the AIU video or take the survey.

 

[Sharpie443]

Ya I don’t do videos for people with short attention spans. The videos I watch are all at least ten minutes possibly 45 minutes or longer. I’m looking for intelligent arguments not dumbed down twitter comments. The audio book for the gulag archipelago is 70 hours long. Good arguments are not done is 60 seconds.

 

[Twiki357]

First thing: holy 29 minutes, Batman. I don't have time for that. You've got to make the best argument you can in 60-90 seconds or you lose nearly everyone after that.

Same here. I watch videos during TV commercials. 3 minutes tops.

 

[Wisco]

I’m not pulling stuff out of thin air. I’ve spent a military and now civilian career in media and information and designing information to make an impact.

You can make an argument to appeal to the very few who listen to well-reasoned, thorough arguments, but the guy who shouts the loudest gets the attention of the masses. The masses matter more than the few thoughtful people.

It’d be far more effective to quickly say what you mean “guns are good,” say how great you are, say something terrible about your adversary, then say something else about how awesome you are and then back to “guns are good.”

A guy won an election recently doing just that. It’s what America wants. This is already longer than I think many will read....

 

[ontarget]

Wisco nails it.

 

[BigBore44]

29 minutes? Yeah. That’s not going to work for a response. It doesn’t have to be 2-3 minutes. But if you want a lengthy video to be worthwhile, bring an anti to debate.

 

[entropy]

In the words of FDR, " Be sincere. Be brief. Be seated." In the words of Kimberly Wilkins, "Ain't nobody got time for that!"

Nice Skegaxe!

The audio book for the gulag archipelago is 70 hours long.

Ya. Solzhenitsyn didn't do books for short attentions spans, either, but I found Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire a more worthwhile read. Just because it's long doesn't mean it's good.

I find a dialogue more likely to challenge someone perspective that a 29 minute harangue. If a bunch of pro-gun people (the members who have posted thusfar) aren't willing to sit all the way through your video, do you really think very many anti-gun people will?

 

[hdwhit]

Sharpie443 wrote:
Responding to anti gun questions

First, can I have the wasted 29 minutes of my life back?

Second, before you do something like this that is going to be on the 'net forever, write a script, consider how the anti-gun movement may interpret your answers from their perspective - particularly your various concessions to their arguments - and then revise the script accordingly to make sure it says what you intend before recording it.

Third, if what you know is antique firearms, what qualifications do you have to respond on behalf of those of us who use modern firearms and find ourselves under assault because of the recent mass shooting in Las Vegas? You do not speak for me and should not prate about as if you do so.

Forth, before you take it upon yourself to speak for the all pro-2A supporters, take a moment to check with us and see what concessions we're willing to make the the anti-gun movement before you start making them for us.

Fifth, if you want to mount a defense of gun ownership, do so. If you want to open a dialogue with the anti-gun movement, do so. But, you can't say, "We're right" and the same time you say, "Let's talk about it."

If it were possible, I would ask you to remove this video from YouTube, but it's already on the archive sites forever so that every anti-gun activist can point to it and the concessions you make.

 

[hdwhit]

Sharpie443 wrote:
Ya I don’t do videos for people with short attention spans.

That's why I made it through the whole thing.

But, I also don't think - judging from this exemplar - that you make videos for people who have thoroughly researched and considered the issue and are thus ready to present cogent arguments to the people who opposed the 2A on many levels.

 

[Axis II]

I didn't watch it just for the fact him saying he goes looking to argue with anti gun people.

I'm very pro gun but just like me having my rights to like them anti gun people have the right to not like them. Imo most anti gun people don't like guns or gun people because certain people do stupid crap like fill a lawn mower up with explosives and shoot at it like a jackass, make videos arguing with them just for that persons own gratification, wear army fatigues all the time like they are ready to go to war,etc. I don't try and push things on anyone cause this is America and we have our rights and they have theirs so please don't try to speak for all of us.

I was forced to fire someone for a YouTube video he did on his own time because he used racial slurs 6yrs ago when he was like 16yo. Once it's viewed I'm sure someone copied it like they did with this guy.

Btw not about short attention spans it's about having better things to do then watch someone make a mockary

 

[Spats McGee]

I tracked down the AIU video and have to agree that it wasn't worth a response. 23 yes-no questions, including ones about my genitals, aren't worth my time, and there's no stinking way I'm clicking on his link to take the survey. As for your response, OP, what I saw looked fine, but there's no way I'm sitting through a half hour response to something to which I wouldn't have responded in the first place.

 

[Salmoneye]

My only question is, how did AIU come onto anyone's radar...

17,000 views isn't really 'viral'...

And the clearly biased slant to the wording of the questions deserves neither my time or effort...

 

[Robert]

Eh, this doesn't appear to be going anywhere productive.