This is part of my point.
I just love showing my ARs off at family functions when my liberal mother in law is there. She can't stand it but it's so funny to me.
What to do when attacked for pro-2nd Amendment views
- Thread starter TooTaxed
- Start date
- Status
This is part of my point.
I just love showing my ARs off at family functions when my liberal mother in law is there. She can't stand it but it's so funny to me.
LeonCarr
Member
I normally just say, "I understand how you feel, but just keep in mind that when it is all said and done there are two type of people in this world...gun owners and victims."
Just my .02,
LeonCarr
Just my .02,
LeonCarr
HexHead said:
They're already against us and you probably won't change their minds.
But it's not either "us" or "them" because there are a lot of people in the middle. You don't look like a responsible adult to the people in the middle by slinging out threats or acting like a pissy seventeen year old.
So we do lose a lot by acting like that.
You certainly don't gain anything, and you may put off any fence-sitters who overhear you run your mouth. Becoming the stereotypical macho tough guy wannabe gun owner does nothing for our cause whatsoever. I'd venture to say such attitudes can hurt our sport and our cause. Everything one says or does has an effect of some sort. Its up to us to determine what kind of image we want to project to the world. KUSA is free to do or say as he pleases, certainly, but its always good to be cognizant of the effect our actions may have on anyone who may be observing us at any given time
You have to know your audience. Sorry if I stirred the pot too much here.
Really though, the comment I made about lead poisoning is no different than saying "from my cold dead hands".
Last edited:
You have to judge whether the person is too emotionally worked up at that moment to have a calm, rational discussion. If they are, then politely disengaging is the best thing you can do; further discussion will only entrench them and give them a concrete episode to think about that may motivate them to take political action (give money to MAIG, call congressman, vote, etc.). Agitating the already-agitated may feel good, but no positive outcome will obtain. Resist the impulse.
If they're merely of a different view than you, but you have the relationship or the communication skills to plant some seeds, then have a dialogue. (If you don't, see above.) There are plenty of people who were pro-gun-control at some point who changed their minds (FWIW, I'm one of them, though I was never generally anti-gun; I just thought the AWB in 1994 was a good thing, though in retrospect it was clearly a big waste of time). Talking about rights, the constitution, etc., are all unlikely to persuade them, unless they are very serious civil libertarians and you can make equivalent commitments to the civil liberties that they care most about. Most people who are pro-gun-control are that way because they believe gun control is/can be effective.
Study the evidence on that score. Be prepared to point out things like the fact that the UK and Australia did not get low homicide rates as a result of gun control - they had lower homicide rates than us before their gun control. Or that there is no correlation between different states' gun control laws and their rates of homicide, or even gun homicide. Or that the number of guns has increased greatly over the last 20 years while crime and murder have declined. Point out the criminals' likely work-arounds to whatever measure they favor. Don't engage on a "why do you need it" discussion; respond to those questions by pointing out that nobody needs a car that can go faster than 70mph, yet we allow them, or that nobody needs a hamburger or a cookie, yet we can eat them, or a house bigger than 1,000 square feet. The burden is not a person to show "need," it's on the person who would ban an item to show that the ban would be so useful and productive that it's worth the loss of individual rights.
If they're fixated on mass shooters, the Navy Yard shooting from a few months ago is the perfect counter-example. The shooter passed a BGC. He bought a shotgun. It was pump-action. He didn't use any kind of exotic ammo. And he was able to kill many adults with some training on how to respond to emergencies, but who were unable to defend themselves because of a no-gun zone.
Don't expect anyone to change their mind during a discussion. People usually can't do an about-face that quickly. It's possible, however, that they'll do some critical thinking afterward; maybe in a few days/weeks/years they'll have a change of heart.
But if you can't be calm, can't refrain from glib comments about "cold, dead hands," or cops being too heavy to carry or watering trees with the blood of liberty or whatever, then just politely disengage.
If they're merely of a different view than you, but you have the relationship or the communication skills to plant some seeds, then have a dialogue. (If you don't, see above.) There are plenty of people who were pro-gun-control at some point who changed their minds (FWIW, I'm one of them, though I was never generally anti-gun; I just thought the AWB in 1994 was a good thing, though in retrospect it was clearly a big waste of time). Talking about rights, the constitution, etc., are all unlikely to persuade them, unless they are very serious civil libertarians and you can make equivalent commitments to the civil liberties that they care most about. Most people who are pro-gun-control are that way because they believe gun control is/can be effective.
Study the evidence on that score. Be prepared to point out things like the fact that the UK and Australia did not get low homicide rates as a result of gun control - they had lower homicide rates than us before their gun control. Or that there is no correlation between different states' gun control laws and their rates of homicide, or even gun homicide. Or that the number of guns has increased greatly over the last 20 years while crime and murder have declined. Point out the criminals' likely work-arounds to whatever measure they favor. Don't engage on a "why do you need it" discussion; respond to those questions by pointing out that nobody needs a car that can go faster than 70mph, yet we allow them, or that nobody needs a hamburger or a cookie, yet we can eat them, or a house bigger than 1,000 square feet. The burden is not a person to show "need," it's on the person who would ban an item to show that the ban would be so useful and productive that it's worth the loss of individual rights.
If they're fixated on mass shooters, the Navy Yard shooting from a few months ago is the perfect counter-example. The shooter passed a BGC. He bought a shotgun. It was pump-action. He didn't use any kind of exotic ammo. And he was able to kill many adults with some training on how to respond to emergencies, but who were unable to defend themselves because of a no-gun zone.
Don't expect anyone to change their mind during a discussion. People usually can't do an about-face that quickly. It's possible, however, that they'll do some critical thinking afterward; maybe in a few days/weeks/years they'll have a change of heart.
But if you can't be calm, can't refrain from glib comments about "cold, dead hands," or cops being too heavy to carry or watering trees with the blood of liberty or whatever, then just politely disengage.
Using words like" liberal mother in law", etc.....I just don't see how any of that is productive in any fashion, known audience or not. I don't know you, but its already colored MY opinion slightly, and we're on the "same side" of things. Imagine what effect it can have on people already hostile to your point of view, or sitting on the fence, undecided. When we make ourselves deliberately hard to like, is it really hard to see why some people refuse to accept our right to bear arms? Arrogance and attitude rarely make people look as "cool" as they think it does, and a good many people on both sides of the debate find it distasteful. I realize you said we must know our audience, but we can NEVER really know the true reach of our words. One person could repeat your choice of phrasing over coffee the next day, and 10 people you never meant to see your display may hear about it. If they were neutral before, do you really think you've persuaded them to join our side of things? Or, is it more likely, they'll see you in a distasteful light?
Dave
The people that are pushing gun control aren't critical thinkers. You can't reason with someone that is unreasonable. You can't use logic on an illogical person. They are driven by absurd beliefs that you won't change.
We keep losing ground because while we are trying to reason with them they are taking action. They don't care what you say. They don't care how you feel. They won't hear your facts.
My answer is Molon Labe.
The people that are pushing gun control aren't critical thinkers. You can't reason with someone that is unreasonable. You can't use logic on an illogical person. They are driven by absurd beliefs that you won't change.
We keep losing ground because while we are trying to reason with them they are taking action. They don't care what you say. They don't care how you feel. They won't hear your facts.
My answer is Molon Labe.
KUSA, gun control proponents are not a monolithic group. There are the true hoplophobes who have a functionally-religious view on guns. They do not hold their beliefs about the efficacy or desirability of guns as a conjecture about the empirical world, and their opinions are not subject to a demonstration of the null hypothesis. They are not persuadable.
They are also a small percentage of those people who are somewhat anti-gun or pro gun-control. Most people who are pro-gun control are such because they believe that gun control is an effective tool for reducing crime and death. Given the slant of information that they are presented with, this is the very natural conclusion to draw. I believe it to be factually wrong, but that wrongness is somewhat counter-intuitive, especially if the only time you hear about guns is when they are used for murder.
If you believe that every person who is in favor of gun control cannot be persuaded to a more gun-friendly view, then surely you think that complete gun control is inevitable. If you give up on changing minds, you will lose in the end. Guaranteed 100%.
They are also a small percentage of those people who are somewhat anti-gun or pro gun-control. Most people who are pro-gun control are such because they believe that gun control is an effective tool for reducing crime and death. Given the slant of information that they are presented with, this is the very natural conclusion to draw. I believe it to be factually wrong, but that wrongness is somewhat counter-intuitive, especially if the only time you hear about guns is when they are used for murder.
If you believe that every person who is in favor of gun control cannot be persuaded to a more gun-friendly view, then surely you think that complete gun control is inevitable. If you give up on changing minds, you will lose in the end. Guaranteed 100%.
People change. Just because they don't change in the one debate you have with them doesn't mean they won't change 5 years down the road, or 20. Just because you can't change them doesn't mean you can't affect how hard it is for someone else later on in life to change them.
The perception of gun owners as blowhard, petulant thugs is one the media would love to push on everyone, and it doesn't take much of this kind of behavior to reinforce the stereotype.
So, on behalf of all of us responsible gun owners, thank you for making our lives that much more difficult.
KUSA, We have an obvious difference of opinion. Rather than shoving my opinion down people's throats whether they like it or not, I've had success with actual conversation on the topic. Not everyone is so bull-headed that logic is completely lost on them. My wife was raised in an anti-gun home. She had zero realistic experience with guns, be it positive or negative. She simply leaned the way she was raised. However, after talking the issue over with me, and seeing that guns were part of day to day life for some people, she not only reversed her stance, but is now a gun owner herself who sleeps much better with a 9mm in her nightstand. Now, I could have told her she could pound sand if she didnt like guns, but I care about her, and I wasn't going to let the issue ruin a perfectly good relationship. I knew it was simply lack of experience that colored her opinion, and the same goes for many people I've met over the years. Not everyone with anti-gun leanings is part of the Brady Bunch, rabidly wanting to take away your rights. A lot of people, forlack of a better term, simply don't know any better. I could have called my wife a liberal, told her she could get my guns from my cold dead hands, etc etc...but I'd be missing out on ten years of happy marriage, and I'd be down at least one shooting buddy. Not everyone sees things in black and white, or are 100% committed to their position, especially if it isn't based on anything. See what I'm saying?!?!
Exactly. EXACTLY. I have converted folks. Not quickly, but over time. And more than one person. More than a handful. Please don't poison the well for me. If you can't do something constructive - if persuasion isn't your thing - then just politely disengage. Go give money to your gun rights group of choice and vote, but leave the discussion to those who have some track record of success.
Perhaps I misrepresented myself. I don't go around acting like a blowhard. I actually engage in intellectual conversation with the uninformed. However the wretched pro gun control crowd is not interested in facts. You won't persuade them and I get pleasure out of aggravating them. That's all they are worth, a cheap laugh.
As far as complete gun control is concerned it is on the way my friends. You can either go with it or take a stand when the time comes. It's your choice.
As far as complete gun control is concerned it is on the way my friends. You can either go with it or take a stand when the time comes. It's your choice.
I'm not saying you do just go around acting like a blowhard. What I'm saying, is that it doesn't take much of that behavior to reinforce the idea that gun owners are just a bunch of blowhards.
Just try to remember that people do in fact change their minds, not everyone on everything, but people do change, and reinforcing negative stereotypes hurts that process.
As far as complete gun control goes, sure, it may come one day, but when that day comes, I'd like to see enough people who are shooters who might put up a stand, rather than just having a few who can't do anything.
I'm sure you've heard the phrase "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance". To me, this doesn't just mean constantly fighting political battles, paying attention to laws that come through. It means being vigilant about our own actions, it means being better people. It means that gun owners need to be better people.
It's not enough to simply not act like a child all the time. It's important for us to be better, all the time, to do our best to avoid the childish things that all of us want to do on a regular basis. It's about always presenting our best faces to the world.
Just try to remember that people do in fact change their minds, not everyone on everything, but people do change, and reinforcing negative stereotypes hurts that process.
As far as complete gun control goes, sure, it may come one day, but when that day comes, I'd like to see enough people who are shooters who might put up a stand, rather than just having a few who can't do anything.
I'm sure you've heard the phrase "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance". To me, this doesn't just mean constantly fighting political battles, paying attention to laws that come through. It means being vigilant about our own actions, it means being better people. It means that gun owners need to be better people.
It's not enough to simply not act like a child all the time. It's important for us to be better, all the time, to do our best to avoid the childish things that all of us want to do on a regular basis. It's about always presenting our best faces to the world.
KUSA said:
I'm not Dave, but I agree with both of them.
Maybe you won't sway the most extreme anti gun people.
But we're not aiming to sway them.
Most people aren't "gun people" and even among gun owners, only a small number of us care enough to even engage in this discussion right now on THR. Most others are perfectly happy to leave their guns in the closet until deer season or to keep a Glock in the night stand in case of emergency. We are not a majority.
You can gain some respect from those in the middle, those who may be inclined to listen to reason, if you act reasonable.
I'm also of the opinion that those who aren't able to engage in civil debate shouldn't engage in this debate at all. And sometimes I fall in to that category myself. Sometimes I have to take myself out of the discussion.
The ILA is the NRA's legislative arm and is who the donations need to go to.
Zeke/PA
Member
I strongly agree with this statement.
Personally, I try my best to keep up with current stats involving Gun Crime.
My favorites include the Failed Systems way of keeping Career Criminals on the streets. ( It ain't hard living near Philadelphia and Wilmington DE.)
Many bring up "backround checks" and I refer them to Federal Form 4473.
Our best bet is to stay well informed. MOST who wish to debate us REALLY have not enough backround to do so.
Phaedrus/69
Member
It appears there's a 'civil war' of sorts brewing in the ACLU. There's a split within their ranks with a lot of them wanting the organization to step up and fight for the 2nd Amendment. The default position of liberals as being anti-gun is largely a recent thing and partially a myth. The 'old guard' at the ACLU holds the view that the 2nd protects state's rights, not individual rights. But after Heller that view is obsolete.
If the ACLU reverses course they'd dwarf the NRA in the amount of good they could do!
If the ACLU reverses course they'd dwarf the NRA in the amount of good they could do!
Phaedrus/69
Member
BTW, ATLDave has a great point. I myself am somewhat to the left of Stalin!
I'm probably about the most liberal guy you'll find on THR. But I've also had a CCW permit for 25 years and vote staunchly pro-gun. Assuming all liberals are anti-gun only shows your ignorance. On the issue of basic constitutional rights there shouldn't be liberals or conservatives, only Americans.
I'm probably about the most liberal guy you'll find on THR. But I've also had a CCW permit for 25 years and vote staunchly pro-gun. Assuming all liberals are anti-gun only shows your ignorance. On the issue of basic constitutional rights there shouldn't be liberals or conservatives, only Americans.Phaedrus/69 said:
I think that those who run in very conservative circles have trouble with this concept, but those of us who are more libertarian or liberal or who have friends on both sides of the aisle know it to be true.
Having said that, Democrats have embraced gun control as a core part of their party platform in the past. I can't blame anyone who hasn't forgotten that.
Then again, I have found that many who claim to be liberal bear a strong resemblance to fascists in a different uniform. There is a difference between saying you're liberal and actually being liberal.
I can't stand the folks who just drink the kool-aid and believe whatever the talking head tells them to think, but I count some real liberals among my closest friends.
Phaedrus/69
Member
I want to point out that when I said "your" I wasn't referring to anyone specifically, just anyone that regurgitates "liberal" again and again and thinks they're making a point. THR seems to be one of the most polite and rational places for gun discussion on the web, less blind ideology and clueless assumptions here than is the general norm elsewhere.
Really the 'anti-gun liberal' thing is fairly new. Historically the Blue Dog Democrats where staunch supporters of the 2nd and in good stead with the NRA.
I'm basically very liberal when it comes to social issues and generally libertarian with respect to politics. It smacks of fascism to me to try to put the Bible ahead of the Constitution and I don't think any government at any level has the authority to decide who you can marry. Marry a man, woman, chicken or goat...or 10 of each...it's nothing to me. And as Jefferson said whether you worship one god or ten that's nothing to me, either.
One thing is crystal clear to me- if middle aged white men think they'll get their own way forever then this battle is already lost. If the citizens of the US still have the RKBA in 50 years it will because we effectively reached out to women, blacks, hispanics, gays and everyone else with skin in the game. The country is getting browner and more urban, and we can't count on straight middle aged white men dictating all the terms for much longer.
The NRA better start to look less like Wayne LePierre and more like Colion Noir!
Really the 'anti-gun liberal' thing is fairly new. Historically the Blue Dog Democrats where staunch supporters of the 2nd and in good stead with the NRA.
I'm basically very liberal when it comes to social issues and generally libertarian with respect to politics. It smacks of fascism to me to try to put the Bible ahead of the Constitution and I don't think any government at any level has the authority to decide who you can marry. Marry a man, woman, chicken or goat...or 10 of each...it's nothing to me. And as Jefferson said whether you worship one god or ten that's nothing to me, either.
One thing is crystal clear to me- if middle aged white men think they'll get their own way forever then this battle is already lost. If the citizens of the US still have the RKBA in 50 years it will because we effectively reached out to women, blacks, hispanics, gays and everyone else with skin in the game. The country is getting browner and more urban, and we can't count on straight middle aged white men dictating all the terms for much longer.
The NRA better start to look less like Wayne LePierre and more like Colion Noir!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
