Is it even worth arguing with the Anti's?

In a word? No.

About the only exception to that would be if you are married to one and want to remain married.

On the internet not really, it will just turn into a big you know what contest. In real life sure, if its someone who is willing to sit down and have a reasonable calm discussion. You might not change their mind on the issue, but if you can avoid comparing Obama to Hitler you can help them see that there is a reasonable argument for gun ownership.

Yes.

It is worth correcting them everywhere where they are wrong. It is exceptionally rare to find an anti or grabber or banner or whatever you want to call them that doesn't spout factual un-truths and bogus "statistics". So correct them.

Once in awhile it will take. Maybe not right away, but you can plant the seed.

And besides, there are almost always fence sitters. People who read the thread but don't post. People who the poster talks to about your interaction. In real life, people who listen in or eavesdrop or just happen to be nearby and hear parts of the conversation, or once again, people the person talks to about your interaction later.

IMO and IME it is well worth the effort to not let the bullcrap go unchecked.

Only if they are willing to see the light....but generally no...for the following reasons:

1. I'm not looking for their personal stamp of approval
2. Constitutional rights are non-negotiable.

I think of it as a sport. Many people are anchored to a false reality where they believe if we just change a thing or two everyone can get along and be happy, but that is not possible in a free society. Those who have totally embraced the concept of utopia will never admit they have made a mistake in human nature but it is usually entertaining pushing them to the edge.....

Yep I feel that If have even the slightest chance of changing someone's mind I will try

It usually is, not because of the anti you address but because of those who are not yet antis that may be listening.

“A guerrilla soldier swims through the people like a fish swims through the sea”


So:

With agility, humor, and a sense of fun, you can engage fence sitters thru conversations with antis. You might not change the mind of the anti, but you can certainly illuminate to others how foolish their beliefs are. But you must do it with grace and aplomb, otherwise the message will be lost.


Willie


.

If both people are actually interested in finding common ground, the discussions can be useful.

On very few occasions are people on either side very interested in such an activity. Generally what passes as arguing/discussing on this issue is two people spouting "facts" that barely relate to each other, more "two ships passing in the night" than a meaningful exchange.

True of both sides. Very few people are willing to participate in a conversation in a way that forces meaningful discussion because most people are not really able to support their ideas, they just throw out as many arguments in their favor as possible and hope something sticks.

In most cases, an impartial observer (the fence sitter) who reads carefully is unlikely to feel that either sides is making a well-reasoned presentation.

Do you ever wonder if "antis" feel the same? I mean, we expect them to be open minded and rational but its been my observation that many here don't see that as a two way street. Being open minded does not mean one must blindly accept the position of their opponent but rather be willing to acknowledge valid points when made. The gun control debate, like most others, is not simply black and white and pretending otherwise is wrong on both sides. Not to mention, it's also been said that to really be good at defending or promoting a position one should be equally equipped to attack it.

Is it even worth arguing with the Anti's?

Click to expand...

Gun control is an easy quick answer to a complicated problem called crime. Too often our society looks for easy quick cheap feel good fixes to every problem. It costs virtually nothing to pass another gun law in response to deadly tragic events even though there's ample evidence that gun laws make very little difference. This is one reason (the other reason being control of the masses) politicians and anti-gun supporters love to promote it. It doesn't threaten to take money and resources away from their pet projects and programs and shifts more of the burden of the consequences to law abiding citizens.

The reality is that we need to address the root causes of crime such as mental health, jobs, education, discipline and moral decay. Those problems will take more time, energy, dedication, resources and money to address and correct. We shouldn't let the promoters of easy quick cheap feel good fixes get away with it.

Roughly 20% of all folks are going to be against us no matter what. Roughly 20% of all Americans are are strongly pro-gun. It is the 60% that are largely neutral and vote that we should be trying to influence.

JustinJ said:

Do you ever wonder if "antis" feel the same?

Click to expand...

No need to wonder, they have the EXACT same conversation in their groups.

To antis, pro-gun people are illogical and their position is based on fear and emotion, just like to pro-gun people, antis are illogical and their position is based on fear and emotion.

Everything you say, nearly word for word, they are saying about you.

And both sides are, in many cases, right about the other side. Many people who believe strongly on either side have strong emotional attachments to their position that are immune to logic or reason, they will hold that position regardless of any evidence or reason to the contrary.

The difference is that one side has Constitutional law on their side while the other is based completely on the false hope that a deranged individual will become normal if you change the hardware available to them.

Put it this way -- is there any point in arguing with you that guns should be banned? Are you open to changing your mind?

You could ask them if they support the overthrow of a Constitutional government? Or do they support the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.


Jim

I wouldn't do it too much via Facebook or you'll probably just find that all your friends have blocked or defriended you after awhile. As much as I detest Facebook, I think it's greatest personal value is as a networking site rather than a soapbox. To that note, I would try to keep the network as large as possible as that is where it is likely going to help you the most further down the road.

Every time you engage with someone on some controversial topic, you are probably thinking about converting them or in general just focusing on the other participants of the conversation. You probably aren't thinking about the 5 friends who don't chime in and just click Hide Post, Block this User, or Defriend. If you wish to pursue topics, I'd do it via private message.

The difference is that one side has Constitutional law on their side while the other is based completely on the false hope that a deranged individual will become normal if you change the hardware available to them.

Click to expand...

Put it this way -- is there any point in arguing with you that guns should be banned? Are you open to changing your mind?

Click to expand...

You could ask them if they support the overthrow of a Constitutional government? Or do they support the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Click to expand...

All fine examples of precisely the "two ships passing in the night" type of statements that I was talking about.

As in any debate, no matter what the topic, look first at the person with the opposing view. Are they debating from a perception of logic, or pure emotion? If it's emotion, move on. And remember, you can't win any debate if you cannot back your argument with facts and sound logic. Even then, you can only chip away. you will never win them over in one discussion.

The difference is that one side has Constitutional law on their side while the other is based completely on the false hope that a deranged individual will become normal if you change the hardware available to them.

Click to expand...

That's but one of many facets to the issue. An anti, whatever that means, could be arguing for example that specific gun control legislation would reduce the number of people killed when mass shootings occur. Just saying the "constitution prohibits restrictions against firearms" does not address this argument. Also, I've never heard a gun control advocate say that gun control will make deranged people become normal so that's really a straw man argument. Rather, gun control advocates are generally arguing that restrictions can stop or limit the available means to inflict damage by people wishing to do so.

Not to me it isn't.

Put me in the "yes" camp, albeit with some judgment as to which people you argue with. Some people are just unhinged about the topic. Private discussions with them are pointless; publicly discussing the matter in a way where you remain calm and they get hysterical can have benefits in terms of the impressions of any audience!

But, for the most part, people are pro-gun-control because they think more laws would make the world a safer place for them and the people they care about. It's not strange to desire that result. They just have adopted, often without much critical analysis, the knee-jerk view that more laws against various guns or gun types or gun access would achieve the desired end. Question that assumption. I find that energy directed there is the most likely to achieve at least a moderation of their views and/or a loss of energy on their part; if they think the laws they like won't actually achieve what they want, suddenly getting that law passed becomes much less important.

OTOH, I find references to rights or constitutional provisions, or glib one-liners, to be wholly ineffective. It may feel cathartic to say those things, but they don't convince anyone; only people who already agree with you will think they are dispositive or clever.

Yes. Conversion is the only way to win. Attacking the enemy is easy, tempting, and feels good, but will only make the enemy more resolute and hardened. Conversion to our side or at least to a neutral position is the most powerful thing we can do