Ever successfully persuaded an anti?

Success

Yes, fastest way to do it is to convince them to come shooting. Then once you get them out there, away from home at least, you really go over both range and gun safety. Walk them through all the beginner stuff, let them handle the weapon, and go over their stance. Once they get the seriousness of the safety involved in gun use, only then let them shoot. Let them do most of the shooting as well, while you keep a good eye on them and make it very one on one.

Most of the time they will be so excited about the experience afterward. Then optional as to whether you draft them into cleaning the weapons after that first shoot. About half the time if they are real excited they will want to help. The other half... that will have to wait til after the next range trip.

Then just see if they want to go again, and repeat the process. Most of the anti gunners are really just scared of guns. Once you get them to realize that safety and respect for them are paramount, and they actually shoot them themselves then they start to realize that they fostered a lot of misconceptions.

Have successfully brought over several anti gunners into the light.

Several. My best luck was with who are willing to reason through anti-gun arguments. Take them shooting and be a good example for our sport. I work very hard, (and am constantly working hard) to be the best example I can for safe gun handling, reasonable debate, and to generally be a model gun owning citizen. Guns are my passion and I try to convey that. My Partner is very anti-gun, but even she has moderated heavily just because she cares for me and sees how responsible I am with them and how important an aspect of my life they are.

Yes, they were all women. Unfortunately all had been recently assaulted.

It works, I've done it! As others have said it's usually about misconceptions/fears.

The exception to this is politicians like Fienstein, who have a socialist agenda, and already know the truth about guns (she owns them, has a CCW, carries, and has armed guards - she even has NFA items). They're not going to change what they're saying because their agenda is achieved through gun-control, while gun-control itself is not the end-goal; their end goal is the elimination of personal freedoms, making us all the subjects of an all-powerful state. To achieve this they must eliminate religion and confiscate firearms.

It makes more sense when you consider that gun-ownership is not our end-goal; our's is a secure and prosperous liberty. Our end goals are diametrically opposed.

If you can't get them to go shooting with you, demand they surrender their car keys - after all, automobiles kill a lot more people and do environmental damage at the same time.

Also remove his reproductive organs - we all know how dangerous THOSE are!

Biggest misconseption I have run across is the anti's I have talked to believe that I think everyone in the world should have a gun. They seem to jump on the Piers bandwagon of a whole room full of AR's. I explain that is not what it about at all. Just the right that those who want to carry should be allowed to carry all the time. When the teacher argument comes up I first off explain that I absolutely see there point (which I usually dont). Then I explain that I trust my Teachers to expand my childs mind, I trust them to get my child out of a school in case of a fire, I trust them to do drills for tornadoes and now "red drill". And I also trust them to have a gun to protect themselfs and my children. If I felt a gun in the hands of any of my childrens teachers would pose them as a threat to my child I would already be at the school complaining about that teacher now for there would be something that I did not trust about them. Of course usually I always ask do they feel afraid being around a gun. Usual response is yes and then I say you don't seem afraid around me. Then it usually switches to I didn't know you were carrieing. Then I say who said I am???

Also you cant argue with emotions or ignorance....best sometimes just to walk away from it....then they usually will try and start it back up and then you can use it to your side and say I will not have a discussion with you unless you are willing to listen with open eyes and ears. A lot of information on the net about facts and numbers. Use them to your advantage. Be courtious and polite. But firm on your beiliefs.

I have a couple of friends who surprised me in their support of magazine limits. I already knew they were liberal on social issues, but they have often gone to the gun show with me and have purchased firearms, including ones that would be classified as 'assault weapons'. So I was shocked when one of them stated that they felt magazine limitations would have helped at the CT shooting. I stated that I felt they would not have made a difference, but might help during a home invasion.

At that point they LEAPED on my statement with a very quick stated, "You can't have it both ways! You can't say it would make no difference at time A, but make a difference at time B."

I tried to keep my temper because this is a good friend and I thought I explained myself fairly well. I said to him after a couple of seconds to collect myself. "Look...those kids at the school in CT weren't little vampires. They weren't going to leap on the shooter and rip him to shreds during a magazine change. So no, I don't think it would have made a difference if he had been carrying a 30rd magazine or a 10rd magazine, or 2 six shooters and a machete. But a 30rd magazine MIGHT make a difference if someone wakes up at 2:00 in the morning, groggy, and suddenly realizes that someone has busted into their house and is outside their room. If that someone is not alone--if it is a home invasion with 4, 8, 10 guys--then having a pistol with a 30rd magazine in it might make all the difference in the world if you don't have to worry about a magazine change in the middle of them busting thru your bedroom door." I then suggested this person look at youtube under "defended" and "home invasion" and that they would find a story about an Arizona man who was attacked by 4 home invaders, seen on home security video, and who started shooting at them until the left. Clearly with a high capacity firearm. Then after that I hung up because I was having a tough time controlling my temper. It seemed that a few moments of logical thinking and "gaming" a couple of situations/scenarios would have answered these questions without me having to point them out...but that's not how it went.

So it did strain the friendship for couple of days. But he's not wearing Blue and me Grey yet so there's still time for discussion.

Ever successfully persuaded an anti?

Click to expand...

Yes, a number of times.
It's actually quite easy if the person is an intelligent, reasonable person that has a bit of an open mind and responds to truth, common sense and facts.

On the other hand, a hard core, hard headed liberal isn't worth wasting words on. As with "gun control", most everything they believe is wrong and nothing will change their minds. I find talking to a door knob will give you about the same lack of satisfaction as talking to a hard core anti gun individual.

Yes. I have done several full conversions, the most successful ones were people I took shooting. Most recently on facebook, I have gotten several people to admit that even if they don't like guns, that doesn't justify taking them away from other people. But it's never with strangers, it's with people I already know, and have a relationship of trust of some degree.

Yes I have been able to turn an anti. The key is to get the person to look objectively at the issue without taking an emotional approach (easier said then done).

Besides the usual facts and stats I have had success with point out that even if we confiscated all firearms the criminals would still have them. Many of the Mexican drug cartels would start running them because they will make money, just like we outlawed drugs, so they smuggle drugs.

Basically keep calm no matter how they react and continue to ask them logical questions that help them conclude that new laws aren't effective as only law-abiding follow the laws.

I made great mileage with logical arguments on several people who are near and dear to me.... who actually (for the most part) think for themselves.

But I'm noticing, that in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, these same people are showing signs that they are punting logic and falling back into emotional responses to the overwhelming ground swell going on around them.

No Never.
Most I have met usually were looking for an argument and have 100% devotion to their belief, which is fine till they start acting like they are just looking for a fight, then I just walk away.

It's not the antis that worry me. I have shooting buddies who also agree with some magazine limits. Several have guns with magazines that would be restricted, but it seems like they are either willing to give them up or won't mind since they already have their handful of mags.

Yes. Once I explain that they are the Militia. Miltia means armed citizen.

The only anti gun person whose opinion I was ever able to change was...Myself!

I was raised being taught that the SA did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms and that firearms were not useful for self defense.

For various reasons by the time I moved to Texas I was aware that most of my sources of information on important issues like gun control were unreliable at best.

After the store that I worked in was robbed at gunpoint I decided to find out the truth independently of what I had been taught. Today I am a life member of the Texas Rifle Association, Endowment member of the NRA and recently joined the SAF.

I of course CCW as well.

Yes, a number of times. My approach is to ask a lot of questions - why do they believe that, where does that belief come from, what about variations on that. Many (most?) people don't have well-constructed belief systems and when you start working through the discrepencies and inconsistencies, if they're open-minded, they will ackowledge the holes and start asking themselves "Why DO I believe these things?"

If you approach it as a debate, well, I've had some great debates that way, but that's all they are. I don't argue, I don't present contrary evidence, I just try to completely understand everything about their position and viewpoint At the same time, YOU have to be completely consistent in your approach.

From above:

I tried to keep my temper because this is a good friend and I thought I explained myself fairly well. I said to him after a couple of seconds to collect myself. "Look...those kids at the school in CT weren't little vampires. They weren't going to leap on the shooter and rip him to shreds during a magazine change. So no, I don't think it would have made a difference if he had been carrying a 30rd magazine or a 10rd magazine, or 2 six shooters and a machete. But a 30rd magazine MIGHT make a difference if someone wakes up at 2:00 in the morning, groggy, and suddenly realizes that someone has busted into their house and is outside their room. If that someone is not alone--if it is a home invasion with 4, 8, 10 guys--then having a pistol with a 30rd magazine in it might make all the difference in the world if you don't have to worry about a magazine change in the middle of them busting thru your bedroom door."

Click to expand...

In the above dialogue, the poster (IMO) would have been better off acknowledging that larger magazines are typically better for dispensing bullets. There may be a more basic point at which one can start - what is the fundamental role that firearms play in our society? If someone believes guns are "OK for hunting and sport but nothing else" you're not going to get very far with large magazines, military-style weapons, etc. So if that's what they believe, start there and really dig into understanding it.

If they acknowledge that firearms are critical for personal and home protection, that's where you can really start making progress. And if they acknowledge and value the original intent behind the 2nd amendment (that guns in the hands of citizens are a final check on federal power), and place value on that in today's world, then the discussion around military-style weapons can be had in a different contet.

But at the end of the day, there are people who prefer surrendering their power and rights to another. If it doesn't cost them anything for others to retain rights, they don't care, but as soon as there is any cost, they want for others to have their rights stripped away.

I had a roomate who believed traditional weapons of any kind should be outlawed. He was a pacifist and very consistent in his beliefs (he said that he would not injure another person in order to prevent injury to anyone), and he believed everyone else should be the same. We were idealogically too different to agree on any aspect of gun control.

Couple more points - you will get a lot further if you don't judge, at all, their positions. You can disagree, fundamentally and absolutely, but that doesn't mean you don't respect their right to hold and voice a different opinion. That right is as fundamental a part of our republic as the right to bear arms, so I always keep it front and center in my mind when discussing controversial topics.

Final point - be open to them asking the same types of questions and finding holes in YOUR beliefs or positions, and then question those yourself.

-2KYDS

I don't go into the subject very much. The only person I've had to argue with has the typical die-hard political mindset of "every opinion is right so long as it agrees with mine" or "I believe the Bill of Rights gives you the right to be stupid". Not that this person has flat-out said that, but I pretty much get that idea. However, I love talking with this person at work so I can come on here and say "you won't believe what my anti coworker said!"

Of course, this person also thinks we should do things Britain style (not just guns, she thinks we should be ruled by a monarchy) so I take what she says with a tablespoon of salt.

Being a victim is a religion for many of these people. Those that don't want to be a victim, are usually able to come around to sanity.

Print this off from the post "great author, great read" and give it to him. Sounds like he may be one of the subjects of this article.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=694467

I have a couple of hardcore ultra liberal friends, and we do tend to get into rather heated debate on many topics, not just gun control. I have been successful in changing their minds about some of these issues some of the time even some of their feelings on gun issues. However what I generally find is that they back slide particularly if most of the people they associate with are also of a similar mind set. So it is not just about the effort to convert them, you also have to continue to reinforce the conversion, much like supporting a recovering alcoholic.

I have converted a few, but one in particular I am happy about. He is my brother-in-law and a great guy. He never understood the semi-auto rifles. He was against everyday people owning them. I never pressed it, but found out why. His younger brother was shot to death, when my B-I-L was younger. Evidently he was accidentally hit by a couple of "gang bangers". The weapon used was a 9mm pistol. They never fought the guy who shot, and only had one eye witness account for what happened. .... Anyway to make a long story short, he thought the SR and AK rifles would fire hundreds of rounds a minute because that was what the news had said. I took him shooting and he is actually ok with them now. A side note, his son, my nephew, is now a youth shooter and hunter and loves anything firearms. So it was worth it.

take him shooting, he will understand.