Trying to reason with a pro-ban "pro-2a" soon-to-be-former friend...

[mcdonl]

I have anti gun friends too. We just dont talk about guns so it is a non issue.

 

[BrooksD]

It would help to know what angle she is taking in her anti stance. Is she a "ban all firearms" type? Or is she "ban scary looking black rifles because the founders couldn't have envisioned them" type? Is magazine size her issue? Does she get hung up on the "militia clause"? Something else? I've found that every argument they have can be counter pointed with logic, statistics and examples but it helps to know what the main hang up is first.

 

[gossamer]

My hope is that you can enlighten this person through this email (are more importantly through a personal interaction (at a range, etc.). I also hope you can maintain a friendship and create more of a conversation than an internet argument. To that end, a few suggestions:

1) Do not open with a dis. It's never a good tact.

"You probably think anything outside the Ivy League..."

is just a thinly veiled way of saying "you're an elitist ******* who clings too strongly to your convictions while I'm reasonable because I cling strongly to mine." Honestly, that line makes you sound petulant, like an Internet Aruger rather than a citizen concerned with the truth and fact.

Why not just open with your agenda? "This information is from a reputable source and I hope you read it so you gain some clarity on my position..." and continue.

2) The Janet Reno thing. Why is it important to you that someone on "her side" recant what Reno said? Why is that even pertinent to the discussion you are having with her? Is your friend accountable for something Reno said 15-20 years ago? (Hint: she's not.) Why even bring this up with her? It' evidences nothing pertinent to the utility of RKBA. It doesn't shed a bit of light on your agenda which is getting her to realize the sensibility of what you are saying about a ban.

3) You talk about taxes, immigration, spending, etc.. Why? I thought we were talking about the RKBA? Again, you're attacking her for things others have done, and your stated goal -- in the title of your post -- is to "reason with her" about the second amendment. I find that when someone is trying to reason with another person, there is absolutely no need to bring up ancillary issues. "But you said I could have a new bicycle! Great, what's that have to do with cleaning your room?"


Stick to the issue of the RKBA. Don't let her distract you or be distracted by these other issues. Why? Because RKBA is supposed to be bigger than politics. It's supposed to be bigger than ideology. If you entangle it with these things then it becomes indistinguishable from them and just becomes some petty, political issue rather than the Right granted to us under the Constitution.


4)

By the way, the shooter at Sandy Hook was an undiagnosed schiozophrenic who had his family hiding him rather than getting him the care he NEEDED, because they're a Money/Socialite Family

I want to see citations for this because to date there is absolutely zero objective, clinical, forensic proof of Adam Lanza's psychological status. Speculation? Yes, from unnamed neighborhood friends, an unnamed son of a pastor, and an unnamed LE Official. There has been no clinical assessment of his brain, no history of psychiatric treatment, diagnosis, or assessment. There is speculation from unnamed, untrained, and unverifiable sources.

Within the context of RKBA, where we hold other people to a standard of showing actual evidence for their positions, to throw out there something like this is irresponsible and hypocritical. And, again, it simply detracts from the facts you CAN and HAVE supported.



Finally, the last paragraph where you "withdraw the range invitation" -- sorry, but it just sounds petulant (again). Logic isn't dictating she shouldn't benefit from the things she thinks people should not have, you are. Do you REALLY want to "disinvite her" and thwart what enlightenment may come from a range visit?



I would wager lunch on one thing -- there is more clarity to be gained (for her and you) from your personal interaction with one another at a range than there is from some email either of you send, no matter how well that email gets vetted by the choir.

 

[22-rimfire]

Let's hope that we have some time for emotions to decrease and people settle into their basic beliefs again. But the anti-politicians with Press support are certainly going to try to feed the emotion flame as much as possible. All you have to do is look at the constant flow of stories about gun control with little opposing view points other than painting the opposing view points as out of touch, or favoring baby killers or something. The fact is, most of these anti-gun people do in fact favor killing babies. So, there you go...

 

[fxstchewy]

I'm old. Long ago, I decided trying to convert anyone to agree with my personal beliefs, convictions and life's lessons was a lost cause. I am married, happily. We both have our beliefs, interests, and passions, but we don't try to force them on each other, because there is mutual respect, and the need to allow each personal space to be our own special beings.

It's the same as women who try to change we men. We are totally different in our makeup. Our brains are wired differently. There is no changing us, except to be accepting of our loved ones' place in the world, and whatever it is that makes them happy. That isn't them changing us, that's being an unselfish life partner.

In younger days, long ago, I was intolerant of anyone who did not share my interests or outlook on life. It caused many breakups, as many of my lady friends were equally intolerant as well.

You grow-up, mature, and see that life is not all about you (me).

There are far more important things in life to enjoy, than tit-for-tat fights about divisive issues.

Just some ramblings from an old man. Ridicule me if you want, my skin is thick, and my breath of an ox.

That my Friend was Very Good advice for All to read, Thanks for the post.

 

[dancer]

A "good" discussion or argument is worth having, but I'm guessing that you are mentally at the right place in your anticipation of what to expect from it.

I don't believe that our rights to keep and bear arms are in serious jeopardy (but I will still be vigilant). I'm probably in the minority on this forum, but I really don't care about military-style weapons whatever names they carry -- "assault", "semi-automatic" (that one is scary!), or whatnot. I don't own any, don't need any, have never wanted any.

However, since limiting those weapons would be an erosion of our right, I'm against it. Ask your friend which of her precious possessions, or rights (to be in the same ballpark) she is willing to leave lying out in the weather to rust and erode just because someone objected to it. Does she have a Harley? Is it loud? Does someone object? Yes? Is she willing to abandon it to the elements?

Take the word "gun" away from the issue -- what are her proposals for dealing with "violence"?

 

[Tirod]

Let me get some clues, hmm, trying to shock some sense into her, send her an email, and the plan was to engage in a long term relationship and beget children.

Nope. Words from a veteran husband, ain't gonna happen. Don't Even Try. You are reacting to her reacting, and the scenario is all about emotions, not cool dispassionate logical thought.

I got into a discussion with a former neighbor who stopped into the store, he started up about nobody needs 30 round mags, these are weapons of mass destruction, blah blah blah. I'm on the clock, I'm NOT going to create a hot line call to Corporate, so I have NO choice but to endure politely and be calm.

Point there, Keep Calm and Reload. I took the circumstances not as a personal attack (he did when I quietly disagreed,) but considered what he was saying and how to answer. I answered his falsehoods with facts - a weapon of mass destruction is not a firearm, the BATF makes that distinction, not the press, along with the specific distinction that assault rifles are full auto and have been under controls since 1934, and no new ones made for civilian sales since 1984. As for the 30 round part, I reminded him that they will always be available simply because their are millions. Even more, so will AR15's - Many DON'T use 30 round mags hunting, most states limit capacity in season to five or ten. And so forth.

Boring facts delivered with almost a monotone voice, as if answering a teens questions about life from the perspective of The Dos Equis Man. Regardless of gender, at that point I felt like one of us was being an old woman, and the other was the Retired Reserve, Veteran, who's been there, done that.

If you plan on addressing it all, it needs to be with a certain measure of disappointment - because the long term effort will be to minimize her becoming a drama queen about whatever the latest media circus is focused on. Her behavior to the event is an honest emotion - get used to the female of the species reacting when children are threatened. That cannot be changed. What can be done is to not get emotionally involved with her emotional involvement, and even show her that kind of behavior isn't welcome. In a polite, loving way.

This won't be the last difference of opinion you might ever have, consider the circumstance where a guy like me might be getting a retirement check he could apply toward building a kit car before he gets to old to work on it, and she thinks Easy Street and lots of money are at her disposal. That's less than 60 days away. Hmm.

Remember, I'm pulling for ya, we're all in this together.

 

[Diamondback6]

Idea for a less heated alternate tack... given that all I own is a 1911 and a 10/22 (the actual Garand and Carbine that Uncle Frank used are lost to the sands of time, but it is important to me that someday I will own a set that he could not tell from his own) and that she CLAIMS to specifically support handgun ownership and carry for self-defense, maybe see if my old instructor and I could set up an appointment next time she's in the area, bring a whole pile of iron and just when she gets to the point of having fun spring the "Oh by the way, everything you've handled today is on Feinstein and McCarthy's ban lists by name or feature..." I mean, do even liberals have the reaction that when you discover you REALLY like something and somebody else REALLY wants you to not have it by force of law that it really cheeses ya off?