[synoptic]

Before my computer club meeting the other day a friend and I were having a nice conversation about guns and I was explaining the AWB to him. We had a great conversation. As more people started to trickle in the conversation turned to carry in school. This is where it gets frustrating. I have found the average person impossible to politely argue with. They are just too ignorant to understand your argument. While I am making arguments as to why CHL holders should be allowed to carry in schools I am getting responses like "So you think all highschoolers should walk around with a bunch of guns?" One guy goes off to say how guns shouldn't be allowed anywhere tempers have a tendancy to flare, implying schools are one such place. Am I just sheltered? Is this really the atmosphere on school campuses? I have never noticed tempers to flare in a school anymore than in any other location. If I had time to shut these people up and explain the laws and such I may have made some headway, but unfortunately I just left frustrated (we had to start the meeting or I would have tried a little more). When I find the time to write it, I'll be submitting an article to the school newspaper with the facts, and hopefully will open some people's eyes regarding legal carry of firearms. Wish me luck.

Sorry for the rant, I am just still frustrated about my failure :banghead:

[C.R.Sam]

Only lawyers regularly argue a point to a crowd...
And half of the time they lose.

Select your conflicts judiciously.
Pick on em one at a time.
With calm and facts on your side.
Easier on the ulcers.

Sam

[Standing Wolf]

Sorry for the rant, I am just still frustrated about my failure

Wrong and wrong, friend. You have nothing to apologize for. That wasn't your failure at all, but the failure of your audience to listen to reason. Reasoning with hoplophobes is a lot like arguing with walls, except walls don't often insult one's intelligence.

[Redlg155]

I don't even bother arguing with fools anymore. I used to get all riled up but then I think about the pigs..

One built his out of straw..one out of sticks and one out of bricks.

I suspect a bunch of little piggies shall someday come knocking at my door looking for shelter.

Good Shooting
Red

[six 4 sure]

One of the few small pleasures in my life is that with my chosen profession (mining engineering) the vast majority have the same political and RKBA views as I. Most of my daily gripes end up “preaching to the choir”. On the few occations I discuss firearms laws with the anti’s I get more enjoyment :banghead: . It seems no matter how many facts you have they don't want to hear them. If I had a dollar for every time I heard "for the children".......I'd be well on my way to buying my own island.

six

[SteelyDan]

I think you're smart to wonder if you're missing something. It means you're keeping an open mind, which is always a good thing. I, too, get frustrated when talking to an otherwise intelligent person who has been so programmed or indoctrinated that they cannot envision any reason for a person to possess a handgun. Too bad those folks are not willing or able to keep the same kind of open mind, but that's our reality. The best approach I've found is to remain calm and respectful of their beliefs, and to invite them to try shooting a handgun sometime, just to see what it's really like and whether or not they might actually enjoy it.

So far I'm only about 2 for 10 on this approach, but even the other 8--who haven't taken up the invitation--seem to be more subdued in their opposition. I'd like to think that some small part of their brains recognizes the possibility that there may be two sides to the story they've been fed all their lives.

[semf]

The best approach I've found is to remain calm and respectful of their beliefs, and to invite them to try shooting a handgun sometime, just to see what it's really like and whether or not they might actually enjoy it.

I like that. Maybe we can start Take an Anti Shooting Day. The conventional wisdom here and from others i've talked to is that antis are just shooters who havn't shot yet.

Even my wife ,who watched her family get executed in Vietnam. Has taken to the sport. Along with two cousins and a co worker.

You will never convince an anti with compelling words or even undeniable facts. But you may be able to get them to soften to the point of going to the range. After that they will see that the guns for the most part are well behaved and never shoot unless we ask them to.

[Art Eatman]

A school administration argues from the factual standpoint that younger people generally have less self-control, less self-discipline than older people. The problem, of course, is that "generally" is not "always"; "some" is not "all".

Regardless, it's much easier for any school administration to attempt to focus on the "lowest common denominator".

When younger folks grow up within the "lcd" view of rules and regulations, some numbers of them buy into the rationale.

About all I can suggest is that you gotta be happy that not all do...

Art

[critter]

People with a modicum of intilligence can hold a reasonable discussion and can be swayed with facts and logic.

Fools and idiots (as, unfortunately the most of the sheeple are) have only emotion and do not understand either facts or logic.

The fault DOES NOT lie with YOU! And you may as well remember the Biblical admonition against 'casting pearls before swine'.

[Teufelhunden]

I don't even bother arguing with fools anymore. I used to get all riled up but then I think about the pigs..

I thought you were going to let loose the old pig axiom: "Never wrestle with a pig; you'll both get muddy but the pig will like it."

Synoptic, like people have said, trying to instruct a crowd that has based their judgements on emotion if you are armed with facts is virtually impossible. None of your statistics and logic will make them 'feel' safer. It's a tough call, do we continue to attempt to illuminat ehte ignorant, or let them fall by the wayside? My personal take on it is if you won't even listen to my side of the argument, don't count on me for help. Unfortunately, some of the idiots I would rather write-off will make their way into government, so if I like my rights, I have to let people know I exercise them...

-Teuf

[synoptic]

Maybe we can start Take an Anti Shooting Day.

That's a GREAT idea, would need to be worded a tad different to gain national acceptance though. It would give the timid who want to learn an excuse to ask if they can come with us sometime, that is, if we haven't asked them 20 times already to come with us. Unfortunately everyone at the table had shot a gun, some were ex-army, others were reserve army.

People with a modicum of intilligence can hold a reasonable discussion and can be swayed with facts and logic.

After what I saw monday I agree with this wholeheartedly. The discussion was going great until some of the less intelligent came into the room. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I believe it is actually the fault of one person that was there who has a tendancy to create conflict no matter what the subject. Either way, thank you everyone for the kind words, my frustration level is back to normal for the most part. I'm still doing research for the newspaper article though, hopefully they'll print it.

[harpethriver]

Remeber liberals feel guilty because they have fared better in the lottery of life. Their actions are by and large based on insecurity as they feel powerless to do anything about it. They espouse socialism since they are basically lazy, greedy, intellectually dishonest, and envious of those who have worked hard and done it the right way. Unfortunately idealistic, young and impressionable students are ripe for liberal picking. They rely on emotion to foment and agitate their weak followers. Rarely will you find them willing to have a discourse utilizing facts or applying logic, much less coomon sense. Be calm and patient. Size up your opponent and make sure you're not wasting your time. Do not allow yourself to be dragged in to the mud with them. Lastly, remember the advice of that sage philosopher W.C. Fields-"Never smarten up a chump."

[Skunkabilly]

Don't lose a friend just because they don't agree with you...remember, "Not everybody is like me" :)

I had a good discussion with a friend last night. He kept asking 'what ifs' and I told him 'not really because it's not so and I have proof'...we're still good friends.

Don't argue it from an 'I should have a right to have it' standpoint, argue it from a civil liberty one. And NEVER lose your cool!!! STAY CALM!!! Getting emotional makes us look like immature materialistic brats (even if I am one)

[Kentucky Rifle]

*Never argue with crazy people.

KR

[Double Naught Spy]

I think some of y'all are having some confusion as to the differences in meanings for terms such as ignorance and intelligence and then further muddling the issue by assuming that contrary opinion is a sign that a person is lacking either or both ignorance and intelligence.

A person can be very intelligent, yet ignorant. Ignorance is a lack of information. There are some hugely intelligent people who are very ignorant on topics not well known to themselves. For example, you can have a genius and well read person in rocket science who is completely ignorant about anything pertaining to genetics. In my school days, I have known some hugely well read people who were not ignorant, but lacked the ability to use the information they learned in productive manners.

Now add the problem of maturity. Finding it impossible to politely argue with the average person seems to reflect a lack of maturity on the part of those not being polite. If you have had to reduce the exchange down to being impolite, then quite likely you are no longer arguing based on just facts or reasoning, but on emotion. At that point, resolution is not going to be easy.

Believe it or not, non-gun people get scared by pro-gun people who get rude while trying to make their points on why guns are should be allowed to be carried and are using the argument that tempers don't flare any more in school than anywhere else. Sounds to me like the tempers have already flared on the issue within the conversation and did significant harm to being able to support the pro-gun position. Non-gun people have no reason to believe pro-gun arguments when the pro-gun people can't control their own tempers. Suggesting that non-gun people are too ignorant to understand the position is a hugely biased and condescending to the non-gun people and may be completely wrong. It may be that the non-gun people being argued with are not igorant or unintelligent, but that the pro-gun person has failed miserably in presenting a proper argument based on facts and reasoning and has, as a result, resorted to being rude. Appeal to emotion is a definite logic flaw.

When and exchange of information in the form of something like a discussion or debate on a topic is reduced down to the emotional level, then all the facts and proper reasoning in the world will not change things for either party. Also keep in mind that the non-gun people we apparently find incapable of knowing and understanding the truth as we see it are the same people who find pro-gun people incapable of knowing and understanding the truth as they see it.

[Gordon Fink]

Synoptic, I can understand your frustration. My own brother is perhaps the smartest man I know, but he can’t get past the idea that guns are “tools of violence.” I have invited him to the range several times, but he has always declined. He clearly supports “reasonable” gun control but isn’t fully anti-RKBA.

On the other hand, my immigrant wife has become a solid supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, despite being initially leery of guns. However, she doesn’t like to shoot and still doesn’t understand why we might need more than one gun. Of course, I don’t understand why she “needs” so many different pairs of shoes. :D

~G. Fink

[ojibweindian]

It's extremely difficult, sometimes, to not be seething with anger towards the intellectual immaturity demonstrated by many anti's. Some, however, are only playing stupid and know exactly what to say to get a fellow gun nut's goat.

Regardless, I don't push too hard, and I keep in mind that if they ever have a need for a firearm and come to ask for one from me, they're screwed. It eases the pain of suffering their idiocy and shortsightedness.

[synoptic]

Well, to my credit I kept my cool, some of the people arguing against me got a bit emotional but kept their cool for the most part as well. tempers did not flare. I was EXTREMELY frustrated but I kept it inside until I decided to post here.
I used the term ignorance in the correct manner. It is impossible to convince someone of something if they are ignorant of the base fundamentals regarding what you're talking about. The person I accused of being unintelligent I believe truly is. In the 2 years I have known him he has proven this on many occasions. As far as anti's go, I like to assume they are just ignorant and not stupid, but those that fight tooth and nail against guns without bothering to learn all the facts are in my definition unintelligent.
My plans for the conversation were not intended to be 1 vs. many. Most of the people at the table were, I believed, pro gun and I expected an intelligent discussion about why we should not be restricted in our carry of guns on campus. A couple people in the group are coming around as they learn more. The original person I was having the discussion with is coming along nicely. He had never shot a gun when I invited him out to the range and he did incredible. Two days later he found an opportunity to go skeet shooting with some of his other friends. He now agrees the AWB is illogical. He is a victory, but not one I can take credit for, he is coming around on his own seeking out answers and such. My next goal, though, is to get him on the board reading and posting.

[semf]

doesn’t understand why we might need more than one gun.

Gordon, I had the same problem. But now she says we only need two- one for me and one for her. Baby steps people baby steps.

[hillbilly]

Ignorance is fixable.

Stupidity is not.

Take ignorant folks to the range. Be polite, friendly, safety-concious, but take them to the range and fix their ignorance.

hillbilly

[Lord Grey Boots]

The trick is to ask them questions.

IE, "why should the police carry guns"?

A: "to shoot bad guys?"

Q2: "Why do the police need to shoot badguys?"

A2 "To stop them from hurting people?".

Q3: "You mean to protect themselves and those in their protection"?

A3 "Yes"

Q4 "OK, so why can't non-police officers do the same?"

etc

[Skunkabilly]

Q4 "OK, so why can't non-police officers do the same?"


"but..but...they have training!!!" :rolleyes:

[zahc]

LOL@skunk

[gino]

Actually, I LOVE to argue with emotional antis! The trick is to come down to their level. Argue using emotion, then, after you've stunned them, you can actually use logic to make your arguement. My tactics depend on which groups the other person belongs to.

I really like to argue this with black people. The first thing I do is ask them if they trust the police. Generally, the answer is no. I try to get them to chip in with any anti-cop stories. After 10 minutes or so, they've usually got up a good head of steam. THEN, I ask them, " If you don't trust the police, why do you trust them to protect you and your loved ones?" This usually stops the conversation DEAD. Now that I've set up the arguement, I can add all of the logical arguements. Let's face it, the NRA is the ONLY group that believes in arming the black community. It makes a VERY powerful arguement once you've got someone's guard down.

If it's a women, I'll ask if they think that spousal abuse is a real problem in our society. Usually, I can get them to start telling stories also. I'll bait it with a statement like "Well, the police are there to protect you from spousal abuse." If they watch Opra, they'll usually have a few stories of "Dial 911 and die". THEN, I'll mention that I'm very discouraged that most women aren't responsible enough to ensure their own safety. That's just enough of a back-handed insult that it sets the hook.

My tactic is to get the other person to accept the unhappy fact that the police are NOT there to protect us. Most people have MANY stories to back this up, the trick is to get them to take the last step, that THEY are ultimately responsible for their own safety.

The biggest problem with my tactics is that it takes time to finish the arguement. If you get interrupted, you risk looking prejudiced, or just like a real jerk.


BTW, I don't mean to sound anti-LEO, I'm just trying to get them to look at LEO responsibility realistically.

[Bowlcut]

gino has a good point...not anti LEO but the fact is that officers arent there for personal security. they are there to keep order of the mass. its been showed and argued in court more times than we care to think about. but LEO's for the most part are sworn to protect the law of the county/state/federal levels. Not to protect every single person in the county. People need to learn this, and learn that they HAVE to take their own personal protection into their own hands. Not depend on everyone else like we do these days and assign the blame elsewhere.

Lately ive just kinda hung my head in any arugement. Considering alot of the times im around nothing but a bunch of liberals that dont think anything is their responsability and the government is there for them

[semf]

That's a GREAT idea, would need to be worded a tad different to gain national acceptance though.
How about Each One Teach One Day.

What ? You could do better?:D

[Double Naught Spy]

It is impossible to convince someone of something if they are ignorant of the base fundamentals regarding what you're talking about.

This is true. It is also going to be impossible to convince someone of something if they don't agree with your interpretation of the base fundamentals regarding what you are talking about.

Knowing all the facts, pro gun folks will argue that guns are responsible for saving many more lives than taking of lives and that for any given situation, a gun in the hands of a good guy are more likely to bring positive closure to the situation more often than not. The risk of injury or death to non-combatants or unintended actors (the good guy or people the good guy is attempting to protect) is miniscule.

Anti gun folks can see the same information and rationalize that anytime a person is wrongfully/unintentionally shot with a gun (as by the good guy shooting himself, bystander, or other unintended actor) that such actions could have been prevented. What the antis have argued indirectly is that we can't control the actions of law breakers who take lives, but we can control the actions of law abiders and as such we can keep law abiders from having guns and this will make many of the unintended shootings by the law abiders go away as the law abiders won't have any guns.

Pro gun folks will argue that the numbers are on the side. This is an attrition concept where it is believed that guns are valid for use because in the final analysis, more bad guys than good guys are going to be killed by the good guys and hence the gun is a rightful tool. I personally like the attritional concept and believe the odds are in my favor over that of the bad guy. Anti gun folks do not think such reasoning validates the use of guns.

Both sides can be completely aware of the raw data and of the fundatmentals of the argument and still reach differing conclusions on what is right or wrong. The classic interpretational example is the glass of water with equal parts of water and air. One side claims the glass is half empty. The other side, seeing the same glass, claims the glass is half full. Half empty is the negative connotation and half full is the positive connotation. Both interpretations are correct and shot an understand of the water available but also shows mutually exclusive positions on the status of the water. This is a simplified example, but sufficient for the point that both sides can arrive at different and seemingly valid interpretations based on full knowledge of the data under consideration.

You really have to understand that there comes a point in discussions where you have to agree to disagree and leave it alone or you will likely come out of the deal looking like a reactionary hothead. When you reach that point, you have come to a culmination of disparity between the pro gun belief system and the anti gun belief system. You might as well be arguing that your god is better than their god as both sides of the argument can see the same information and arrive at differnet conclusions based on their own beliefs.

Getting mad or upset with your opposition does ZILCH to help convince and promote your position. Believing that your opposition is ignornat or unintelligent because they don't agree with you or behave as you belive is best indicates that you have established and US and THEM categorization and anyone who isn't US is inferior because they are ignorant.

[synoptic]

How about Each One Teach One Day.

What ? You could do better?

That sounds great ;)

I may not be able to do better, but by god I can sit here and tell you what you're doing wrong :evil:

Seriously though, get a nationally recognized "go to the range day" and partner up with some rape prevention groups and such and we can slowly sneak our message in as well as give those we reach an excuse to ehad out to the range with us. Why are anti's so effective? They have most of the mainstream media on their side. The tv stations wouldn't dare turn down a rape prevention ad though, so why not use something of that sort to sneak our message in with? We could actually get the stations to unknowingly promote our message. Just something to think about

[Balog]

gino wrote: Let's face it, the NRA is the ONLY group that believes in arming the black community.

Uhhh, what? JPFO, GOA, KABA, Liberty Belles etc etc ALL believe in this. JPFO especially.

[semf]

get a nationally recognized "go to the range day" and partner up with some rape prevention groups and such

O K so you can do better.

Some guy started a National Ammo day that seems to be picking up steam. Why can't somebody start a Range Day. Somebody smart get behind this.

[BamBam-31]

My sister had a bad experience with guns. Blames guns, not the gun's wielder.

I was explaining how Kali's gun control laws were unconstitutional. She replied, "Well, maybe the Constitution needs to be changed."

:what: :scrutiny: :banghead:

AFAIK, there's only one Amendment that preceeds the RKBA, and that's the one that allows statements like hers. But from whence that freedom, eh? Hmmm.....

[BluesBear]

"So you think all highschoolers should walk around with a bunch of guns?"

Reminds me of the talk going on back in the mid 90s when Kentucky was getting ready to finally enact a CCW law.

I was a regular caller to the local talk radio station (WWKY). This station was pro-gun so one day the afternoon call in show featured a visit by one of the female state representatives that voted in favor of the new law.

However in her conversations she had said that she supported the state ban on CCW in a school. When my turn on the air came around I asker her why she felt this was good. She replied that you didn't want students in school carrying guns. I asked her if she realized that the proposed law specifically limited the right of CCW to those over 21? I pointed out to her that there were very few 21 year old high school students even in Kentucky.
I then went into my standard "what if" about the perfect place for a pervert to take a woman and some children hostage for unspeakable acts was the typical "Mom picking up the kids in a minivan AT SCHOOL" since obviously she wouldn't be armed. She stammered a little bit and said that maybe this could be changed "down the road".

I just pray that there were some sensible mothers listening in that day.

[labgrade]

Interesting, all the talk about "the antis."

I've had more head-butting sessions with the "pro" side than any other - assuming that they can git their head out.

Something about the "right to keep & bear" ...

"Of course we have the rkba!" But, mandatory training, no guns in schools/planes/churches, support of Brady, ad nasuem.

& these are "pro folk." :barf:

I could go on. ;)