Best Approach With an "Anti"?


January 9, 2003, 08:05 PM
By "anti" I mean those who are insulting to our position right off the bat when the topic of the RKBA comes up. Most who are somewhat anti are at least open minded, respectful and interested in facts. In your experience, is it better to gracefully state the facts and move on or is it better to say something like, "You impress me as being one of the great thinkers of our time. I look forward to seeing your picture on a dollar bill some day."? Or, "I'd love to agree with you, but then we'd both be an idiot", for example.
Thanks for your thoughts.

If you enjoyed reading about "Best Approach With an "Anti"?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
January 9, 2003, 08:15 PM
I like the later response! :neener: If that don't work shoot em in the foot.

January 9, 2003, 08:15 PM
Right after they're mugged. Most receptive to the tools of self-defense at this time.

January 9, 2003, 08:51 PM
Best Approach With an "Anti"?

Grab his girlfriend by the arm, put a knife up to his face and say: "My turn to play with her for a while".

January 9, 2003, 09:12 PM
double tap to COM


Art Eatman
January 9, 2003, 09:46 PM
By and large, the serious, dyed-in-the-wool anti-gun person is operating purely on emotion. Therefore, it's a waste of time to get into a discussion--about like persuading an Islamic of the equality of men and women.

If you're courteous and polite, you at least show that the idea is wrong, that pro-gun folks are hostile Neanderthals. And some nearby neutral might happen to remember your behavior...


Dave R
January 9, 2003, 10:14 PM
Invite them to go shooting with you. You look like you are secure in your beliefs, and polite to boot.

If they look at you like an evil person, then they are insecure and intolerant of diversity. (Do I sound like a liberal?)

If they go shooting with you, you might make some progress.

January 10, 2003, 12:30 AM
I usually explain that, as a liberal, I used to be for gun control, but once I was educated in statistical methods in graduate school I took a look at the data to see if gun control, in fact, works. I explain that it doesn't, but that most people are so statistically ignorant they don't really understand anything about the way firearm data is collected or analyzed, or how the Brady bunch intenionally uses deceptive statistics because the real data contradicts their message. I usually express some anger that people who claim to be trying to help people are, in fact, outright lying.

I find that raising the 2nd amendment is not really that helpful because that sets off so many red flags that they lose the ability to debate rationally. And most people are even more ignorant of constitutional law than they are of statistics.

People don't want to get into a philosophical argument on self-defense and the 'rights of man, and they don't really buy comparisons of the US to Hitler's Germany or Pol Pot's Cambodia. People want to know if gun control saves lives. If you can just show them that it does not, that usually allows them to start thinking about the issue a bit further. Philosophical arguments you can save for later.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe in the 2nd amendment, but if you are trying to convince people, that is not the place to start. Have some numbers that you can spout off, and be able to cite original sources. One place for some starter data is:

January 10, 2003, 01:46 AM
If you take a direct approach with them on Gun Control and put out logical arguements backed with facts and WILL LOSE..because they already have their mind made up. Instead they (and you) will get angry.

Instead, you should either ignore them or if you really want to "convert" them, use an indirect and gradual approach that doesn't threaten their view of "reality". You will have to be very patient, and change them very slowly.

Most Rabid Anti's have invested a lot of emotion in their viewpoints. So, they will be incapable of letting logic and reason change their viewpoints.

A good place is to strike up a conversation with them about some criminal "incident" where the victim didn't have a gun..and got killed, or a compliant mugger victim got shot, or a woman who happened to be armed shot and killed her rapist.

You will have to use a current news event...

"Say ___, did you hear about that woman in LA who killed some guy trying to rape her? What do you think about that? I know that guns are evil and bad, and people do bad things with I am a little confused here. Do you think that she had a right to defend herself?"

Always approach them conversationally in a friendly manner, then make some comment that will assure them that you are "on their side" , then make a comment about being "confused" on the issue, then ask them a question pertaining to self defense, etc."
The "confused" part, provides the rationale for asking a question and having them supply you with an will also make them feel that they are intellectually more knowledgle or superior to you..

Always give some background data for them..before popping them a question.

After a while they will have convinced themselves that gun control is simply victim disarmament and they will gradually come over to our side.

Once you got them half way over..(always making sure that you are changing "your anti-gun" opinion towards pro-gun in synch with them)..
Think of a situation where you can invite them to go shooting..maybe with a 3rd person, this will help "familiarize" themselves with firearms and they will be less afraid and nervous about them.

After about a year of working on them..they should be pretty much there..maybe not really pro-gun but definately not anti-gun either.

Use stuff put out by JPFO on people who are "moderates" on the issue.

January 10, 2003, 02:37 AM
Depends on the person, IMHO.

If it's a friend, take him or her shooting. Most anti's are grossly unfamiliar with gunnies, and when they see that they're normal, law-abiding citizens, they might back off their stereotypes. Be reasonable, calm, and understanding. Don't come off as condescending. Nod your head a lot. Ask questions about his or her beliefs, and try to find some that, if followed through to their logical conclusions, are in effect pro-gun. Direct them HERE!!

If it's an aquaintance, depends on his or her outlook. If rabidly anti, leave well enough alone. Very few can really be reasoned with, as many of their conflicting beliefs are well entrenched in emotion. If on the fence, again, direct them HERE!! :D

At no time should you raise your voice at anti's or engage them on their level of "debate." Some 'tweener might be watching, and they'll invariably think, "Man, those gunnies really are nuts!"

It's a higher code we have to hold ourselves to because our public image has been so battered and denigrated by the media. Them's just the breaks, I guess.

Then again, we ARE on The Higher Road, aren't we? ;)

January 10, 2003, 02:52 AM
Best Approach With an "Anti"-LEO?

Bob Locke
January 10, 2003, 03:36 AM
Ask questions. The person asking the questions is the one dominating the discussion. Make them think long enough and hard enough, and you'll either get through to them (sort of unlikely, but possible) or you'll piss them off so much that they'll shut up.

Either way, you win! :D

January 10, 2003, 04:06 AM
What ever you do, just take care. Anyone who starts winning an "arguement" with a liberal, stands a very good chance of being labeled a racist.

As said by others, try to avoid the "arguement" route. It doesn't serve your purpose very well.

Zak Smith
January 10, 2003, 01:50 PM
I have found the best way is to find some common ground and start a friendly discussion, and to take them shooting.

If they are unsure if they want to actually try shooting, you can say, "Well, even if you are against guns, you should at least try it to know what it's about."

This "gentle" approach is often more productive than an antagonistic argument, even though the latter can be more enjoyable. :D

As Bob Locke alluded, the Socratic method can work pretty well. Asking "innocent" questions can often lead to an "Ah Ha!" moment for them, or at least get them thinking.


January 10, 2003, 08:09 PM
If they are at all open to listen then a soft, informative, rational discourse may (I said may) do some good. In such a discourse I always try to ask why they feel the way they do. Then I try to attack their arguments. Remember, attack the argument not the person. Don't confuse the person with the position they hold.

If, on the other hand, they are (as many "anti's" often are)emotional, non rational, insulting and just plain "smartass" then I try to change the subject or walk away. I really tend not to be particularly patient with these kind of people and don't want to waste my time on a lost cause. Move on! Good shooting:)

January 10, 2003, 08:30 PM
While not about gun control, the following article really points out the problem with the mindset of the left in general.

This is a typical misfire of the intellect on the left: the belief that intensity of passion somehow reflects greater reasoning.

Robert Farrar
January 11, 2003, 08:20 AM
All I can say is "bombs away" :)


January 11, 2003, 08:54 AM
Ignore them, they are not worth wasting oxygen over.

If you enjoyed reading about "Best Approach With an "Anti"?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!