How do you talk to anti- people?


PDA






thesolidus
April 17, 2009, 04:24 PM
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.

If you enjoyed reading about "How do you talk to anti- people?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
WardenWolf
April 17, 2009, 04:37 PM
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
April 17, 2009, 05:06 PM
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
April 17, 2009, 05:15 PM
"Anti-people"?

You mean those like bears, lions, and such? :D

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
April 17, 2009, 05:16 PM
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
April 17, 2009, 05:21 PM
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
April 17, 2009, 05:50 PM
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
April 17, 2009, 05:59 PM
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
April 17, 2009, 06:36 PM
Very slowly. :neener:

chemist308
April 17, 2009, 06:43 PM
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
April 17, 2009, 06:54 PM
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
April 17, 2009, 07:18 PM
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
April 17, 2009, 08:14 PM
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
April 17, 2009, 08:18 PM
I use statistics of how firearm rights reduce crime.

DAVIDSDIVAD
April 17, 2009, 09:52 PM
Most of the time I just use logic.


Seems to work.


That and I give them the LBJ treatment.

thesolidus
April 18, 2009, 02:08 AM
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
April 18, 2009, 02:57 AM
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
April 18, 2009, 03:08 AM
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... :neener:

TAB
April 18, 2009, 03:15 AM
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
April 18, 2009, 04:23 AM
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
April 18, 2009, 04:34 AM
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
April 18, 2009, 07:41 AM
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
April 18, 2009, 08:43 AM
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 libtard 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
April 18, 2009, 09:46 AM
Don't talk to them but take them to the range shooting, best way I found yet to make a convert....

lamebums
April 18, 2009, 01:04 PM
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 libtard 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. :D

Neverwinter
April 18, 2009, 01:31 PM
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.
I do this too, but also prefer to employ the Socratic method of getting them to contradict themselves or stand behind a conclusion which discredits them in the eye of other observers.

6_gunner
April 18, 2009, 03:16 PM
I have contributed to successfully turning non-gun people into pro-gun people. However, I've never succesfully turned an anti-gun person into a pro-gun person.

In small town Indiana, I suppose it's pretty hard to grow up without learning something about guns, self-defence, and hunting. Therefore, most of the antis are the crazy, irrational kind rather than the ignorant kind.

There are a lot of good arguments here. I'll be sure to keep them in mind, in case I ever meet a rational-but-ignorant anti-gun person.

largecaliber
April 18, 2009, 03:50 PM
Here in Wyoming the anti's we run across in general are the tourists. A few years back a fellow from Chicago approached me while open carrying. He first asked if it was legal for me to do so. I politely told him that it was perfectly legal in Wyoming and then with a nasty attitude he stated, "We don't allow that type of thing in Chicago" Realizing that being polite with this fellow was not going to get me anywhere I simply told him, "Pal! you ain't in Chicago anymore and if you don't like the laws here then I suggest you pack up your sh_t and get the he_l out of Wyoming because we don't need your kind here". Some people you can talk to, some you can debate with and others you just need to tell where they can go because it will do no good to talk to them anyway. You are the only one who can judge how you will approach this issue by the kind of person you are tlaking too.

Double Naught Spy
April 18, 2009, 07:20 PM
I have never met these rational anti-gunners you speak of.

I personally find "anti-gunners' to be basically subhuman, and avoid conversation with them at all, as they're more or less the enemy.

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 libtard 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.

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.

You see, there are zealots on both sides of the coin who are who entrenched in their own views that they don't even understand that their opposition may feel the same way and feel just as justified.

This last statement spoke volumes as it could be said about many pro-gun people just as easily.

The beliefs on both sides of the issue are such that the often degrade into strong emotions, naming calling (see posts above), and are often done so with a religious fervor.

PT1911
April 18, 2009, 07:26 PM
slowly, softly, and using small words from at least 3 feet away... much as you would speak to a small child... they scare awfully easy...:D

pop a doritos bag right behind them if you wanna see something really funny.

Macmac
April 18, 2009, 10:18 PM
I live in rural NH, an there are not many anti's around.

OT maybe but the only 2 times I met would be anti's which I assume had they been asked, this is what happened..

I had been camping for a week in September in the rain, and it was time to go. I hit a town driving my 1966 Volvo pick up truck. A car once converted to a pick up.

i stopped at a mom and pop store to get a 6 pack and a coke, still in trail shorts and muddy boots. My brindle Great Dane was sleeping in the back of the truck, and as I came out a old blue hair woman was skowling at the dog.

I asked her if the dog had some how bothered her, since he was asleep, ahd her reply was "DEER HUNTERS" and she glared at me!

I let out a soft whistle and the dog raised his head.. That did it, off she went muttering the deer isn't even dead!"....

You can't deal with people like this..

Next: Dead winter 1:00 Am I got off driving a team of Belguims from hauling torisita's on a big sled (old logging pung re-fit to haul people)

I drove in clothing fit for the year 1839, wearing a red blanket coat, wool britches, and gaunletted mittens, and moc boots.. The mittens are trimmed at the cuff in beaverm and also on the backs of the hand. Some bead work is on the gauntletts, and the leather is elk, with blanket wool liners.

I hit up the local roast beef joint and it was -40 below, so entering a warm place I sent off steam and stunk like horse.

A new girl is the waitress, and I toss my mitts on the bar, and begin to ask for a roast beef fries and a beer.

But NO she goes off on how I am a killer staring at the mittens. I listen to the BS a few moments and have a hard look at her.

I see and then tell her the wool sweater she has is real wool, the belt she has is real leather, her shoes are real leather too, and her perfume and some of her make up are made of animal parts, but worst of all she is sloppin ROAST BEEF over the counter!

That did it, off she went yelling in the hitchen and pete the owner and a friend of mine came out.

He asked what I did to his new girl and i told him. He asked where i got the mittens, and i relplied made em. He asked to buy another pair.. $120.00 bucks pete... Sold.....

I never did see that girl again.

cliffy
April 18, 2009, 10:32 PM
Once he or she is eaten by a newly re-introduced Hybrid Wolf, his or her attitude WILL change ubruptly, if a bit too late to help others realize the raw nature of life in the wild: eat or be eaten.

MD_Willington
April 19, 2009, 12:11 AM
thesolidus

I'm just messing with ya... LOL :neener:

Ioweegian
April 19, 2009, 12:34 AM
thesolidus, I thought your responses were very well thought out. I would be interested in how you would answer the question raised by the interlocutor that Sapper771 states . . .

“" Why do you carry a pistol? , Do you really think that your in danger everywhere you go? Why do you own so many firearms, don’t you think that is strange?"

I would also be interested in how you would answer that question too Sapper as you also have obviously put time into well thought-out answers.

A lot of good posts here. Nice work.

thesolidus
April 19, 2009, 01:08 AM
Last First,
chance to educate...
I start talking about either rats or gophers. That a 22LR is about perfect (no WMR or .17 arguments guys) for either but can't pierce the hide of much bigger. That a larger bullet is needed for larger animals, that a coyote stays at a distance and a long shooting 200-300 yard fast traveling bullet is okay, but would only wound an Elk which would be cruel. If you hunt in tree's shorter shots are more common, if you hunt in plains really long shots with high caliber is the norm. And that's not even getting into shotguns!
If they want the short version I say different animals need different guns, like golf needs more than one club. A gun safe is just a big golf bag!
Also a god start if someone talks about "High-Power" or "Armor-Piercing" rifles. Start with a 22LR killing a rat, but can't reliably kill a deer, won't even wound a wild pig... but goes through human's like butter. Cause we are unprotected in the wild, no claws, fur or hide... since the beginning we've used our brains to make a better club, or a better bow. That's all a gun is... Some of the bullets you need to cleanly catch a cow sized animal (see... "catch" and using cow, something ugly that people don't mind killin') have to penetrate quite a bit to do it that's all...

?Why do you carry a pistol? Do you really think that your in danger everywhere you go?
Of course not! Don't think it's going to rain every day, but bring a raincoat anyway. Also keep a decent first aid kit, fire extinguisher, emergency supplies for me and neighbors, train with local disaster relief, volunteer regularly and always willing to lend a hand to strangers in need.
(Now that makes me sound right Christian don't it? What have They done?)

You could add. "I'm sworn to defend the people of this great country so others don't have to."
(?Sworn? (Ex-Military, boy scouts, local Cert team, and even some states drivers licenses have the oath that "I swear to defend the Constitution... all enemies foreign and domestic...") If they ask who you "work for" (meaning police etc) "Just a citizen with special training and permits and a specific charter to carry" What Charter? "It's the Second Amendment ma'am."

<Momma always said, "Better a smarta$$ than a dumba$$."

fourdollarbill
April 19, 2009, 09:37 AM
Sorry but I gave up on the anti... I never found one with enough life experience. No joke intended. The ones I have met were just you people that follow in the footsteps of others.

Pistol Toter
April 19, 2009, 11:05 AM
I don't bother wasting my breath. A fool is a fool. I have family who are anti's. I stay as far away from them as I can. The funny part is that when there is burglar in their neighborhood, they call. I used to go, but not anymore. They aren't worth my trouble or my sweat.

sig220mw
April 19, 2009, 08:40 PM
Ditto to what alexanderom said. I don't waste my time and prefer not to be called names.

Delaware_Dan
April 20, 2009, 03:43 PM
I usually ask them if they have a spare tire in their trunk. The usuall response is "just in case" to which I smile and let the wheels start turning. They usually get the picture.

bob.a
April 21, 2009, 12:35 AM
A long time ago, around the time I bought my first pistol, I invited an old school roommate to come shooting. I told him how much fun it was, but he turned me down flat. He told me that he was afraid he'd enjoy it, and didn't want to have to abandon his anti-gun stance.

Pathetic.

Lou McGopher
April 21, 2009, 05:49 PM
Ask them if their mother is capable of fighting off a couple attackers with her bare hands.

Lou McGopher
April 21, 2009, 06:04 PM
Here in Wyoming the anti's we run across in general are the tourists. A few years back a fellow from Chicago approached me while open carrying. He first asked if it was legal for me to do so. I politely told him that it was perfectly legal in Wyoming and then with a nasty attitude he stated, "We don't allow that type of thing in Chicago"

All you had to do was ask him how the violent crime rate of Chicago compares to that of Cheyenne.

TravisB
April 23, 2009, 01:21 AM
For years I lived in the in the most densely populated area of Los Angeles -- the Westlake District, or Rampart District as it came to be known after the LAPD "gangsta cop" scandal. It's the area that the TV series "The Shield" is set in.

Now I live in the hills of Montana. It's better.

These two areas have two very different schemes of gun control, and each strikes me as appropriate to its environment.

Here in Montana, you can carry a gun pretty much however you want and wherever you want, and even the modest restriction for cities (a shall-issue CCW is required) is currently on the chopping block in the legislature. Despite these liberal gun laws, the murder rate is not out of control. People are not constantly shooting at each other. There are no gunfights on the streets.

In Los Angeles, an individual's gun rights are so obscure that most people opt not even to own a handgun, let alone try to carry one, even in their cars. And this is good. Because there are four times as many people in the city of L.A. than there are in the entire state of Montana. An apt comparison of the population density would be a can of sardines versus those same sardines spread out in the Great Lakes.

Oh, and in the Rampart area of L.A. -- people are constantly shooting at each other. This is not an exaggeration. When the gangs were really fighting, I'd hear more than one gunfight a night. The kitchen window of my apartment had a bullet hole in it, and I lived on the eighth floor.

Nobody I knew cried much for an 18th Street Gang member who got killed trying to assassinate a rival, or, especially, a cop. But innocent bystanders are a different matter. When an innocent child (and an alarming amount of the time it is a child) is gunned down just because she happened to be waiting for the bus when a gunfight broke out nearby, the community cannot help but think, How can we stop this from happening?

And, understand, they sincerely want a real answer to that question -- a real, effective answer that will actually reduce the number of innocent people in their community getting killed and maimed as collateral damage in the gang wars.

"Everybody should have guns" is not the answer. It is, in fact, an offensively stupid answer that can only be promoted by someone with a poor understanding of urban crime and no skin in the game. In the (non-hypothetical) example above, the gunfight broke out between two or more gangbangers who did have guns. They were shooting at each other. Arming the kid who died, or her mom, or everyone at the bus stop, would not have prevented the gunfight or reduced the death rate. Among the people who actually live in these communities, the answer to those who provide "Everybody should have guns" as a solution to the innocent-bystander problem is, quite understandably, "f--- you."

"Enforce existing gun laws" is not enough. The LAPD enforces every gun law it can. Catching a gangbanger with a gun, in fact, is a principal means of getting criminals off the streets in L.A. You don't even have to catch him committing the robbery he just did or the murder he was just about to do -- you only have to catch him with the gun to put him in jail (he almost certainly has a criminal record making it illegal for him to possess the gun). Still, the gang wars rage on, and innocent people die literally every day in the crossfire.

"Reduce availability and potency of guns," a solution far from adequate, is nonetheless the best anyone's been able to come up with to deal with the problem of gun violence in extremely densely populated cities. We know that the gun-control laws against fully automatic weapons work. If the 18th Street Gang could get or make automatic weapons to use regularly on the street, they would. But it's too hard to be worth it, and the law is what makes it too hard. And it's obviously good that the gunfights on the streets of L.A. are not being waged with automatic weapons. So the community naturally thinks, How about continuing in this proven direction?

Obviously, this is problematic, as we Montanans don't want to be restricted by the gang wars of L.A. We don't have daily gun battles here. What's good for the Rampart District is not good for Montana.

But the question was...how do you talk with people who favor more gun control? I think a prerequisite is understanding that "more gun control" is not their main purpose. "Ending collateral damage from out-of-control gunfights in the inner city" is the purpose of the gun-control advocates I knew in L.A. If you have a better solution to that problem, they're all ears. But if you instead insist on caricaturing them as mindless zealots with no real reason for the gun-control position they have, well, they know better, and they'll rightly pay you no attention.

Shawn Kethley
April 23, 2009, 04:02 AM
"Speak softly and carry a big stick."
- Theodore Roosevelt

Len S
April 23, 2009, 08:34 AM
THe last time Tried was yesterday. I had just read an news account about how some inner city church was trying to teach boys NOT to sexually assault females. THere was also an article a few weeks ago about two men now in their 20's who spent most of their life from 10 or so on in prison for throwing another boy out of an 8 story window over candy. Between that and the on going gang shootings I asked the question. "when you have to teach someone NOT to rape, when kids throw other kids out of windows and others have NO respect for any kind of life why do you expect them to obey new gun laws or any kind of law?" The answer was that they do not expect the bangers to respect the law that is why the government should take ALL guns. Cant argue with that mind set.


Len

TravisB
April 23, 2009, 09:57 AM
Len,

Do you have a link to either article you referenced?

Demitrios
April 23, 2009, 10:18 AM
Number one, above all else, you need to know your facts. From gun control to statistical shootings (all these facts taken from a high quality source, such as the ATF or FBI). Now you're armed with intelligence, next I recommend diplomacy. It's hard for someone to yell, scream and argue while at the same time maintaining an intelligent appearance. Also, being diplomatic is nice as well, don't tell them they're wrong for being anti-gun ut explain to them the facts and let them know if they're going to make any decision on anything it's their duty as citizens to know their facts otherwise they're just spouting out heresay and rumors and molding impressionable minds the wrong way.

MTO
April 23, 2009, 11:44 AM
TravisB,

Respectfully, I think that your dismissal of arming the law-abiding citizens of Rampart is not correct because your assessment assumes that all else will stay equal.

In my opinion, the gangsters doing the gunplay are emboldened by the strict gun laws. In their view, the only players are themselves, rivals who are likely easy to spot in whatever regalia they use to self-identify, and the police who wear uniforms. Any bystander is a mere prop unworthy of even a single thought.

If a gangster had to worry about taking fire from the hardhats filling potholes on the corner, the grandmother watching the neighborhood kids from her front stoop, or the guy operating a hot dog cart, then it would not be so easy a decision for him to pull a gun and start spraying-away at some rival he chances to meet.

I fully admit that this scenario is horrific, but it sounds like the current reality is horrific, as well.

Rellian
April 23, 2009, 01:57 PM
IMHO TravisB has hit on the issue indirectly. There is no blanket option. You cannot say guns for everyone! you also cannot say guns for no one! My biggest problem with the antis is that they seek the blanket option in almost every instance. They respond in an absolute manner to what is a specific and subjective situation.
Now I have not read any posts here (or on any other forums I frequent) that seriously say give guns to everyone. but what I have read (and agree with) is the philosophy that guns should be accessible to any and all who have NOT proven themselves a danger or incompetent. The whole idea of innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Much of the current legislation being enacted in many states ASSUMES the danger and requires the individual to prove their standing first. They assume guilty until proven innocent.
The problem with many of the antis is that they approach the issue from the standpoint of emotion rather than logic. They are (in my mind) the paranoid ones who do not trust anyone, ergo no one can be allowed to have guns. You cannot argue logic with an emotional person. Nicky Santoro is right. They will hear nothing you say because their fear and suspicion will not allow it. And don't kid yourselves for a moment that there are not those in our side of the issue that reason emotionally. This form has the rules it does partly because there are.

Bula
April 23, 2009, 03:02 PM
Facts are usually of little importance to hardline liberals. I find it best to avoid the conversation all together. I try to not associate myself with such riff-raff. ha.

ge0624me
April 23, 2009, 08:08 PM
it's like politics, i hate to bring up politics when i'm drinking with my buddies we always get into a debate, i asked a friend of mine that question once, about talking with antigun nuts, he said, ''dont even bring it up...you'll never win'' Thk you television.:banghead:

Shawn Kethley
April 23, 2009, 08:33 PM
I agree with Bula. Finding an "anti" that will listen to reason from a "self-proclaimed gun-toting lunatic of true principal... to a fault" (as I have at times been called by my left-winged but otherwise correct-thinking friends) would be nothing less than a true miracle.

But if you do find someone that will listen to reason, I've found that providing facts tends to upset them further (most that I've encountered in this fashion believe the facts are fabricated by those "gun-movement people").

The best way to go in my opinion is to point out that uber-strict gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens that would be able to protect others when a criminal decides to run a muck. And that keeping those guns out of our hands only encourages criminals by letting them know that it's not likely that they'll run into someone able to fight back as long as the area is clear of police.

Good luck to you. I'll keep converting those few that are left here in Texas. I'm sorry to say that you've got a much more daunting task Mr. California...

catspa
April 24, 2009, 12:44 PM
Quote:
Here in Wyoming the anti's we run across in general are the tourists. A few years back a fellow from Chicago approached me while open carrying. He first asked if it was legal for me to do so. I politely told him that it was perfectly legal in Wyoming and then with a nasty attitude he stated, "We don't allow that type of thing in Chicago, and I won't allow it here either."

Fixed it for him.

"Do I come to Chicago and micro-manage your city business? No I do not. Go back where you came from - it's not safe for you out here."

My sister lives in a big city, and she tells me, "I wouldn't allow you to have a gun, except that without a gun, I can't stop you."

Parker

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 24, 2009, 12:57 PM
How do you talk to anti- people?


With a red face, clinched teeth, pursed lips, squinted eyes, and a high blood pressure.

My sister lives in a big city, and she tells me, "I wouldn't allow you to have a gun, except that without a gun, I can't stop you."

That's funny right there - wonder why she'd WANT to stop you. I suppose blissninnies will never cease to amaze me.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 24, 2009, 01:09 PM
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.

Actually TAB, you are 100% incorrect. Impeccably multiple-regression-analyzed crime data has proven

BEYOND ANY AND ALL SHADOW OF A DOUBT

that certain "firearm rights" - shall-issue CCW laws specifically, most certainly DO significantly reduce violent crime - homocide, robbery, rape, and aggravated assault.

Now they have the incidental negative side effect of slightly increasing property crime, but VIOLENT crime has been throughly proven to be reduced by CCW laws, and violent crime is far more costly to society than property crimes. No one, but no one, with anywhere near the credentials and scientific integrity of Mr. Lott have even come close to being able to successful impune his extensive study on the subject, studying many years and thousands of counties in the USA with and without CCW laws. People who have attempted to refute his findings have been utterly devastated by the scientific response.

Read "More Guns, Less Crime" - anyone and everyone that reads this work, who is a serious scientist, statistician, or scholar, or simply an intelligent human being who can read, can see plainly that the findings are correct. I suggest you read it.

eventer289
April 24, 2009, 01:36 PM
It depends on the anti. Some are willing to listen and acknowledge that they don't know much about guns. Others are so set in their beliefs that all they do is spew propaganda and aren't able to be reasoned with. I tend just to stop conversation with them, because all it will do is cause undue frustration for me.

9x23
April 24, 2009, 02:26 PM
Quote:

"I have contributed to successfully turning non-gun people into pro-gun people. However, I've never successfully turned an anti-gun person into a pro-gun person." - 6 Gunner

6 Gunner really hit the nail on the head with this one.

Problem: While some tolerance might evolve from discourses between staunch pro-gun and anti-gun folks, they, like those with different religious views, are generally not going to change their positions.

Solution: There are far and away more non-gunners than anti-gunners. Their dispositions are more easily swayed with logical dialogue that is supported by reliable and verifiable statistics.

If they can be cajoled into a trip to the range you may not have only averted them from taking an anti-gun stance in the light of another school shooting spree, etc., but you might even turned them to one of us. Get busy because the anti-tide is coming in.

TAB
April 24, 2009, 10:14 PM
Actually TAB, you are 100% incorrect. Impeccably multiple-regression-analyzed crime data has proven

BEYOND ANY AND ALL SHADOW OF A DOUBT

that certain "firearm rights" - shall-issue CCW laws specifically, most certainly DO significantly reduce violent crime - homocide, robbery, rape, and aggravated assault.


try again... the only person that has ever "proven" more guns = less crime is Lott... after much presure from the stats community, asking him to prove it, he recanted and said his concultions were wrong. infact it destroyed his creditablity as a stat complier... its only the gun community that has any faith in him. thats strickly a emontional thing. In his latter works he said guns play no role in crime stats. Qouting lott, makes you look foolish. It would be like taking the brady bunchs word that AW are evil and cuase most of the crime.

Captain Kyle
April 26, 2009, 02:37 PM
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).


Dont forget plain old stupid people!

TexasRifleman
April 26, 2009, 03:04 PM
try again... the only person that has ever "proven" more guns = less crime is Lott... after much presure from the stats community, asking him to prove it, he recanted and said his concultions were wrong. infact it destroyed his creditablity as a stat complier...

Lott has never "recanted" anything and continues to maintain his results are valid, though disputed by some. Only the results of a 1997 survey are in question.

In fact Lott had a defamation suit in progress against those that claimed it, though he did lose that suit. The book "Freakonomics" is the book that claimed the inaccuracies.

Studies since have disagreed with Lott completely, some have agreed with most of what he published in his book.

It's clear the information is controversial, but your post is factually incorrect.

Whether Lott is right or wrong, your post contains misinformation to try to get your point across, the same thing you accuse Lott of doing.

bombmaster
April 27, 2009, 04:08 PM
I live in California You cant sneeze cough or sniffle without getting a germ on an "Anti". Talk to them all the time just cant do any better job of informing them that the "Nightly News". Their conversation starts something like Well I saw **** ***** say that 90% of Blah blah blah. How can I compete with that.:mad:

Floppy_D
April 27, 2009, 04:55 PM
How do you talk to anti- people?

Sparingly. :D

taprackbang
April 27, 2009, 06:10 PM
How do you talk to anti- people?

Swiftly, with the back of your hand..

DeepSouth
April 27, 2009, 06:35 PM
How do you talk to anti- people?

Believe it or not, I've never meet one. Guess it's something about living in rural AL. I see them on TV and hear other people talk about them so I know they are around, but I have never meet one face to face.

benEzra
April 27, 2009, 10:05 PM
Rationally and with civility. Some people are anti because they are authoritarian zealots, but most are anti because they are misinformed, either about guns themselves, gun law, gun ownership, or the prevalence of gun misuse. The latter category is not hopeless.

benEzra
April 27, 2009, 10:07 PM
(deleted duplicate)

mr slow
April 27, 2009, 10:12 PM
For some weird reason they no better to come up to me talking ****.

markfh
April 27, 2009, 11:21 PM
Double Naught Spy - a question was asked. Answer it and stop attacking folks you don't agree with.

Now to answer the question. I gave up discussing gun rights with people that obviously have a mental disorder or are suffering from invincible ignorance.

I have converted a number over the years by using some of the techniques mentioned here.

The older I get the less patience I have though.

Deanimator
April 28, 2009, 01:57 PM
When people say that 'the police should handle it." I agree (usually true) and say "sure, as long as you're in the city."
1. Police have no duty to protect individuals.
2. Police have no liability if they fail to protect individuals.
3. Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals.

If anybody thinks the police are going to "protect" them as an individual, I invite them to:

1. Learn the average response time for your local police department. Remember, it's the AVERAGE. It could be MUCH longer. If either 911 or the police screw up, they could NEVER come.

2. Get a beef roast, a large knife and a stopwatch that has a "countdown" function.

3. Set the stopwatch for the average response time and grasp the knife in an "icepick" grip.

4. Start the stopwatch and start stabbing the beef roast until the time set expires.

5. Count the number of times you were able to stab the roast before time ran out.

Now ask yourself if you could survive that many stab wounds before the police show up. My godsister couldn't.

This is all of course premised on your assailant ALLOWING you to call 911.

Be prepared to defend yourself or in most instances don't get defended AT ALL.

Deanimator
April 28, 2009, 02:03 PM
"We don't allow that type of thing in Chicago, and I won't allow it here either."
I'd just look him in the eye with no expression on my face and no emotion in my voice and say, "How are you going to stop me?"

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 1, 2009, 03:44 PM
TAB, your allegations sir, are sorely mistaken. Laughable in fact.

the only person that has ever "proven" more guns = less crime is Lott...

Wrong.

after much presure [sic] from the stats community, asking him to prove it, he recanted and said his concultions [sic] were wrong.

Not only wrong, 100%, 180 degrees wrong. Show me where you think he admitted anything close to any such thing.


infact [sic] it destroyed his creditablity [sic] as a stat complier [sic].

Wrong. His work was, is, and shall remain impeccable. He has soundly defended it against weak semi-scholarly (strictly-anti-gun-motivated) attacks on several occasions.

.. its [sic] only the gun community that has any faith in him.

Wrong. Any and all intellectually-honest actual scholars and statisticians who have studied his work have agreed and do agree with the conclusions. **


thats strickly [sic] a emontional [sic] thing.

Wrong. It's actually 180 degrees from emotion. It's raw, hard, cold, incontrovertible, multiple-regression-analyzed FACTS

In his latter works he said guns play no role in crime stats.

Wrong. Show me where he said anything close to any such thing? Why would his CURRENT blog, today, support the same conclusions, if he recanted?

http://www.johnlott.org/

Where Lott has this section/page, among others:

Confirming More Guns, Less Crime

Does it sound like he's "admitting" or "recanting" anything?

Qouting [sic] lott, makes you look foolish.

Spouting easily-demonstrable untruths makes you look foolish.

**
In a special issue[2] of The Journal of Law and Economics. A number of papers from that conference supported Lott's conclusions:

* Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University, and Brent D. Mast, American Enterprise Institute, 'Privately Produced General Deterrence', The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[3]

* Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and T. Nicolaus Tideman, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, "Does the right to carry concealed handguns deter countable crimes? Only a count analysis can say", The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[4]

* Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, "Testing for the effects of concealed weapons laws: Specification errors and robustness," The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001[5]

Other academic studies that have supported Lott's conclusions include the following.

* William Alan Bartley and Mark A. Cohen, Vanderbilt University, 'The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis', Economic Inquiry, 1998[6]

* Florenz Plassmann, State University of New York at Binghamton, and John Whitley, University of Adelaide, 'Confirming More Guns, Less Crime', Stanford Law Review, 2003.[7]

* Eric Helland, Claremont-McKenna College and Alexander Tabarrok, George Mason University, "Using Placebo Laws to Test 'More Guns, Less Crime'," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 2008.[8]

* Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and Mary, and Thomas B. Marvell, Justec Research, 'The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws', Econ Journal Watch, 2008.[9]

The book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies, examines the gun control policies of many nations around the world and supports the ideas presented in Lott's work.

Are you calling all of these (or even ONE of these) highly-credentialed scholars "members of the gun community"? :scrutiny:

RX-178
May 1, 2009, 04:42 PM
Okay, I can respond to this in one of two ways.

Most people have answered with /what to say/ to anti- people. I think I'll take the different approach and try to give you pointers on HOW you say things to anti- people.

The golden rule in trying to convert someone to your point of view, is:

NEVER make statements.

Don't state facts, opinions, or anything else if you can avoid it. If asked directly, give a straight, polite answer, but when it's your turn to talk, try to end everything with a question mark. Human beings can easily ignore statements that they do not agree with, but we have no choice but to respond to questions, even if they hide their response.

Instead of saying 'Self defense should be recognized as a fundamental human right.', ask them 'Don't you think self defense should be recognized as a fundamental human right?'

Another thing is to try and steer clear from words or sentences that can trigger a knee-jerk defensive and hostile response from them. Don't immediately go towards the second amendment, or talk about resisting armed robbery, or the founders' intent for the country. That's a sure way to push them into the 'This person is a right wing nutjob' defense, and they'll block out everything else you have to say. Choose your words carefully to make them want to continue the conversation/debate.

'Do you think this semi automatic AK-47 is really different from this Saiga rifle? Why do you think that?'

'Do you think that Concealed Carry makes us less safe? Why do you think that?'


They will be happy to share their points of view with you, and if you are patient enough not to laugh in their face, or speak in a condescending or sarcastic tone (And trust me, you will be REALLY tempted), you can make them question their beliefs about gun control.

Carne Frio
May 1, 2009, 04:52 PM
How do I talk to antis ? I don't. If they persist, I tell them to leave me the **** alone.

BHP FAN
May 1, 2009, 06:31 PM
''How do I talk to antis ? I don't. If they persist, I tell them to leave me the **** alone...''
ROTFLMAO! I really do try to talk to people like that,as a Civic Duty,but it's usually a waste of time and precious oxygen,and probably increases my ''carbon footprint''.

leperphilliac
May 2, 2009, 12:54 AM
living in San Jose in California (a place considered liberal even by Californians) practically everybody I know is an anti. They're usually not antis because they thought it out though (or else they'd be pro). I've convinced a couple of people (usually the smarter ones) to at least hold a neutral stance in gun control just by debunking every fact the brady campaign concoct while pointing out historical evidence that the second amendment was in fact intended to protect individual rights to bear arms.

a couple of things to make sure you do when talking to an anti-gunner is 1) never mention the NRA (for some reason even the neutral-gun people hate it still) and 2) try talking in a respectful tone. You don't win allies by alienating them. Oh, and mentioning the pink pistols to a liberal always leads them to be very confused but I noticed they warmed up to gun rights once i've mentioned them...

CapnMac
May 2, 2009, 01:59 AM
Well, best way seems to be like a fart in church, ignore it, and change the subject.

Antis, by and large, believe in imaginary things. In this they are usually unshakable. You are faced with the logical dilemma of proving a negative to these people. Might as well try to disprove UFOs, ailen abductions, copr circles, the tri-lateral commission, or any of dozens of beliefs held with religious conviction.

Anti's believe things like anything shaped like an AR-15 or AK or the like is a machine gun, no matter what. they've seen it on tv--they are all "machine guns' to them. They believe that the NRA wants, and allows, people to hunt bunnies and baby deer with M-60s. They do not think any gun laws presently exist. They believe things like criminals obey laws (since they are just like us, except for how they are forced to commit crimes and all).

They believe these things like they believe the sun rises in the East. Further, most have not been taught that the Sunrise defines east; as far as they are concerened, east is just something we've all just agreed upon.

So, if you try to educate, even socratically, all they tend to hear is that you are spouting nonsense. The Sun doesn't rise in the West! How can there be 20,000 gun laws? People would obey those, wouldn't they? They have to! They are Laws! Everybody is Just Like Me, and I Obey Laws! (Do not point out that they all know at least one speeder or recreational chemical user--they don't "get" irony either.)

They simply have no framework to consider crime victimization versus population, that there are people who are lawless and will disobey laws at will.

All that really happens is that the anti has to go twitter anout the psychopath they met; some sort of throwback creature, O it was horrible. And they seemed so normal, not like the hunched-over knuckle-dragging nra types we all can normally spot . . .

def
May 3, 2009, 12:02 PM
note: ***this post is not aimed at anyone in specific***

quite frankly, there's idiots on both sides, as far as i'm concerned. further, i believe both sides are equally stupid when at their most irrational. without getting into details, i'm quite pro-gun rights and pro-gun control, to certain degrees on various, specific issues. anyone, and i mean anyone, who either a) subscribes to 100% of what the stereotypical right or left side of the politics on the issue (or any issues, for that matter) and/or b) completely dismisses the other side of the argument as being of "libtards" or "Rush Limbaugh-parroting morons," then you obviously aren't smart enough to form your own thoughts and views; instead just picking a team and blindly following it like gospel, even if you can't see that you're doing that.

jordan1948
May 3, 2009, 12:07 PM
How do you talk to anti- people?
I don't. Unless it's someone at work in which case I don't talk about guns. But I rarely talk about guns to anyone that I don't associate with after work. I don't even think anyone at my church knows I have any either. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I'm a firearms enthusiast but I find myself in a lot less arguments when I don't talk about them.

Foofles
May 3, 2009, 12:10 PM
It depends.. if the other person is using rational arguments then maybe I'd get into a civil debate using my own interpretations and conclusions from history and statistics. Though mainly in a "food for thought" kind of way, and pointing out the general flaws in most gun control arguments...

Like "the USA has so much more gun crime per capita than X Y Z!" ... well, the USA is also much larger in land area and has much more diversity in population densities... the most crime occurs in the areas with the highest population density (and usually the lowest proportion of legal gun ownership), and this skews the statistics for the whole country. Etc.

If the person is just a raving emotional house I'll just try to avoid the issue. I'm not out to be a missionary or something, if someone wants to believe something that's their business and I don't want to waste my time or blood pressure on it.

bikerdoc
May 3, 2009, 01:44 PM
There are no anti's in my circle. IF one appears THE Cranky old curmudgeon answer Is "WHEN YOU PAY MY BILLS YOU CAN HAVE A SAY!! "

Or Your not from around here are you?

cbrgator
May 3, 2009, 01:51 PM
Almost my entire youtube channel is dedicated to the subject. If you want some good info, cycle through some of the videos.

jimmyraythomason
May 3, 2009, 03:45 PM
Like General Patton to a shell shocked soldier.

AgentAdam
May 3, 2009, 03:51 PM
No Talk. Take them shooting. Actions speak louder than words. If they don't like shooting a .22 there helpless. Most people can't get enough and want to move up to a .32,then .38, then 9mm, then, then, then it never ends.

Dravur
May 3, 2009, 07:41 PM
I use small words and a soothing voice as you never know when they will snap.

AllAmerican
May 3, 2009, 09:23 PM
I make fun of them to their face.

Portedglock26
May 3, 2009, 10:16 PM
No Talk. Take them shooting. Actions speak louder than words. If they don't like shooting a .22 there helpless. Most people can't get enough and want to move up to a .32,then .38, then 9mm, then, then, then it never ends.

I have taken my friend shooting he liked it but theres still no hope. When the nazi zombies come dont call me!

dkk73
May 4, 2009, 02:55 AM
Some very interesting posts here.

I talk to "anti-gun rights" people selectively, and usually after I've known them at least a bit, they express openness, or toss out an argument that might be productive to have. Or clearly want some sport and we're both in the mood.

My one piece of advice would be this: If you are convinced you have the only right answer about something and cannot talk with becoming irrational or needlessly elevating your blood pressure... then consider not talking.

Unless you just want to antagonize people. Which you might want to do for whatever reason (some of the posters here clearly just like feeling superior to other people, whom they call names...).

Certainly your right, but, consider this:
Many of us feel that gun rights are actually practically important, and worth advocating by means other than long-range shots with your superior skills.

It may make a lot of people feel better to say "molon labe", "screw the idiots", whatever, but it doesn't improve our practical political position.

I agree that the most actual mileage comes out of talking to people who are not rabidly against gun rights to start. But being prejudiced alone does not, in my experience, make them a rabid anti- by default. A lot of these people just accept received wisdom. Like so many of us do in other areas, without realizing it.

People are sometimes surprised that I am a strong believer in gun rights, because of their presumptions about all kinds of things. I think I help open the door a bit to gaining their support by seeming reasonable and actually having open discussions. I don't feel I need to "win" every argument.

I am one of the pragmatists who does not believe that we can secure the 2A by extremism... The "freedom loving" American citizenry, many of who are part of The Right, have been giving up the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments for so long, that I think it is ludicrous to think that gun grabbing can be defeated without efforts at argument and systematic lobbying.

It's definitely local. I'm biased because I live in WA state, which is a place with great gun laws and relatively little urban disorder threat in most areas (well, maybe my old neighborhood!). Quite different from MT and Los Angeles, CA...

I'm not trying to bash people for being disgusted with some anti's... I have the same reaction. It's just a question of what actually helps our cause.

Cheers,
DK

06
May 4, 2009, 08:35 AM
True story: Met a "bostonian yankee" about 4-5 yrs ago who was an anti. He made the comment once that if he were pastor of a church and I came carrying he would ask me to leave. My reply was: I would not be there to start with. Well, it has taken me four yrs and now he is into preps, has an '06, wife and he have their CCPs, wee bit of ammo, 3/4 ton 4X4, garden, and starting on a greenhouse. He has plans in place for stopping vehicles from getting to his home and even talks about fortifications. Quite a change from my former tree hugging buddy. He is even a working Republican now-wow. How did the change take place--just drops of info along the way, getting to know each other, giving examples and pointing out errors/threats to himself and his family. He even has a "Gator" and extra fuel/oil/parts. We talk about accuracy at distances and self defense up close for him and wife.
I remember him saying that he thought I had a bit of Tyranasaurs Rex in my gene pool in a meeting and now he has "caught the bug" and is a bit "scaley" also. LOL, and he was going to "convert" me. This fall he is going to learn a bit about unit tactics and E/E/S. I may have "created a monster", but it will be a nice monster-lol, wc

Guitar Bob
May 10, 2009, 12:09 PM
Reading this forum I saw some remarks about Canadians.
Here is my take on it.

I went up to Vancouver bout two year ago.
Why them folk up thar sho do look like us, talk like us, en ack like us, but they shore don't thank like us down here in Alabamy. Why they is sceered o guns and such. Shore nuff foreigners alright! En everbody in town drives about in some kinda Nazi car. I only seen three pick up trucks and they wus Jap trucks. Not a Chevy or Ford in sight. Some cab driver with a rag tied on his head and a big moustashe tole me he jus loved the national helth care.
Well I couldn't wait to git back to Alabamy en go a huntin and a fishin. Sides all o them folks seem to be :)Queer and Lizy.
ThanK l I'll go en git me a co-coaler en a moon pie now.
Bye Y'all!

NotSoFast
May 10, 2009, 11:46 PM
With the rational, discussion is possible. But with rabid irrational anti-gunners, nothing you say will get their attention.

The only one I've heard that could talk to them and get their attention is this Texas lady.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

expvideo
May 20, 2009, 11:23 PM
Say what you mean and don't sugar-coat anything. We try to tiptoe around people's emotional reactions to certain words and it doesn't get us anywhere. They want to be up-front and vocal about their beliefs. Be up front and vocal about yours. One of my best arguements with an anti was when a friend of mine said "I support gun rights, but I don't see why anyone needs to own an AK47". I explained why I own one. I explained why the 2nd amendment was in place and that there could come a time when *inappropriate for THR* come to my door and tell me to let them in to search for jews (great reference, huh). I own an AK in case I ever have to use it against my *not appropriate for THR*. To my surprise, she thought it was a very rational reason and changed her mind about the whole subject. Had I beat around the bush and tried not to say anything offensive, we probably would have had to agree to disagree.

Sheezy
May 24, 2009, 08:34 AM
We don't really get many antis around here, except for the occasional touron
Although, I do meet alot on the internet, but I usually just direct them to this;
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/200306172114.html

BornAgainBullseye
May 24, 2009, 10:05 AM
i say to them... Regardless of what kind of biased opinion you have. The fact is that automobile accidents kill far far far more people than any type of firearm. So if all you want is to save lives. Why don't you want to ban sports cars and 18 wheelers??? Oh and put restrictions on motorcycles and SUV's while you are at it. When they try to respond I usually very rudely interrupt them and end it with whatever insult I see fit

Steven Youngblood
June 3, 2009, 11:12 PM
With a big ole stick!
You beat them about the head and shoulders, until they figure out they need a gun for self defence.

MDW GUNS
June 4, 2009, 08:48 AM
I live in California... (i know uhg.)

In these days in CA that is a loosing task, specially as closer you get towards the Bay Area.
You can only try with the moderate ones, the fanatics will never listen, until they get robed/raped or almost beaten to death.
Then they want a .44 Mag or better .500 S&W!

aliasneo07
June 8, 2009, 08:53 AM
Well, my political viewpoints differ from most of yours I'm sure. I'm a democrat, and I GUESS a liberal. But I'm a strong supporter of the second amendment. And if I may say so, all the conservatives and pro 2A need to search for people like me.We can't win with republicans alone, we need as many dems as we can possibly get.

I don't hunt, I just love target shooting and the right of self defense.

As far as the original topic I've found most anti gunners can be reasoned with if you're respectful and logical.Some can't.

10/22plinker
June 8, 2009, 11:34 AM
On the topic of names I've been called for stating things that are true. During a debate I brought up that most 110lb. women can't take down a 210lb. man with just her fists unless she knows some martial arts I've never heard about. Immediatly afterwords I appoligized to anyone I may have offended and within seconds of saying this they all blurted out that I was a stereotypical sexist.

Deanimator
June 8, 2009, 12:39 PM
On the topic of names I've been called for stating things that are true. During a debate I brought up that most 110lb. women can't take down a 210lb. man with just her fists unless she knows some martial arts I've never heard about. Immediatly afterwords I appoligized to anyone I may have offended and within seconds of saying this they all blurted out that I was a stereotypical sexist.
You forgot to say, "Here's a clue for you: 'Xena, Warrior Princess' was NOT documentary."

thesolidus
June 9, 2009, 08:06 AM
I stayed in a hostel in Santa Fe recently, (good place to meet some very liberal people.)
Initially I didn't talk about guns or hunting or anything, but as conversations drifted to country living I dropped terms like "self-reliance" and got supeisinf reactions. People started talking about guns! Hippies liking guns you say!? Yup.
I had asked why some folks, namely then that don't trust the government and conspiricy theorize about George W and the Freemasons and grey aliens running the country etc are not more "self reliant" and still ask for the help/ interference from the same governemnt they distrust. (always seemed odd, people convinced I'm part of a medical conspiracy asking for an x-ray)
Anyway, everyone looked at me like I was the anti-RKBA person.

So what do you know... Suprised me anyhow, bunch of hippies (said with love and respect) sitting around the communal kitchen table talking about shooting...

evan price
June 10, 2009, 03:55 AM
I had a conversation recently with an old fella I know. I was carrying openly that day. He made the comment to me that they shouldn't let people carry guns nowadays. That was for a long time ago when things weren't civilized. Nobody needs a handgun nowadays. Back then, people could die if they didn't have a gun, but today, there's better options available, like calling the police.

While leaning on his pasture fence I commented that he had some nice horses. I went on to say that people nowadays don't need horses, that was for a long time ago when people weren't civilized. Nobody needs a horse nowadays. Back a long time ago, people could die without a horse, but now there's better options available, like calling a taxi...

He then said horses were for riding, guns were for killing. I told him all my guns must be defective then, because they've never killed anybody. And is there a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to keep and ride horses?

He's a nice older fella, and we get along fine.

type99
June 10, 2009, 05:10 AM
I agree with many of the previous posters. I usually carefully feel a person about, and if I sense they are anti-gun, I don't even bring the subject up. Since I work in a social work organization that generally holds to leftist views and supports the welfare state, there is a great deal of anti-gun sentiment. There are only 3 people at work that I talked to, and the general bottom line was that they were or had been hunters.

Outside of work, I don't talk to people about guns unless they ask me. I pretty much keep it to myself. The anti-gun faction generally believe in illusions, and do not understand that a gun is a valuable life-saving tool, and important object to study in it's own right.

Cheers,
Gary

If you enjoyed reading about "How do you talk to anti- people?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!