Do we surround them?
- Thread starter Yo Mama
- Start date
- Status
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Everyone you talk with?
Even at work, not everyone I meet hold anti-gun views.
Perhaps you need to analyze why you have surrounded yourself with the people that you have.
Even at work, not everyone I meet hold anti-gun views.
Perhaps you need to analyze why you have surrounded yourself with the people that you have.
Beach Nut
Member
My situation is the exact opposite of the original poster, almost everyone I know when
it comes to family and friends is pro Second Amendment and thinks gun laws are too
restrictive in many parts of the United States. I can only think of one person in the
past year who had anything negative to my gun ownership. It was my brother's
Mother in Law at Christmas dinner last year. She asked me why I owned, in her
words, "assault rifles".
I explained to her that my AK-47 and AK-74 were not assault rifles like the ones
carried by soldiers across the world. Then I explained the difference between
automatic and semi-automatic firearms and that I owned my rifles as well as the
rest of my modest firearm collection because I enjoy shooting and collecting
guns and I have the Constitutional right to do so. Then I went on to show her
from my point of view how the Second Amendment serves as a guarantee that
all of the other amendments will not be taken away from the people. Our discussion
was very civil and polite and hopefully I gave her some food for thought.
Sometimes, I wish I knew more people with anti-gun viewpoints. If they have any
logical thoughts whatsoever, I feel that they can be won over with civil and polite
debate that relies on fact in showing them how important preserving the Second
Amendment is to protecting their freedom, their property and their well being from
the criminal element. The only problem is that there aren't too many in the anti-
gun camp that use logic when considering political issues.
it comes to family and friends is pro Second Amendment and thinks gun laws are too
restrictive in many parts of the United States. I can only think of one person in the
past year who had anything negative to my gun ownership. It was my brother's
Mother in Law at Christmas dinner last year. She asked me why I owned, in her
words, "assault rifles".
I explained to her that my AK-47 and AK-74 were not assault rifles like the ones
carried by soldiers across the world. Then I explained the difference between
automatic and semi-automatic firearms and that I owned my rifles as well as the
rest of my modest firearm collection because I enjoy shooting and collecting
guns and I have the Constitutional right to do so. Then I went on to show her
from my point of view how the Second Amendment serves as a guarantee that
all of the other amendments will not be taken away from the people. Our discussion
was very civil and polite and hopefully I gave her some food for thought.
Sometimes, I wish I knew more people with anti-gun viewpoints. If they have any
logical thoughts whatsoever, I feel that they can be won over with civil and polite
debate that relies on fact in showing them how important preserving the Second
Amendment is to protecting their freedom, their property and their well being from
the criminal element. The only problem is that there aren't too many in the anti-
gun camp that use logic when considering political issues.
I have friends across the political spectrum, and friends across the gun rights spectrum (not that those two things align perfectly; I know some very liberal people who are pro-gun). In my limited experience, those who are anti-gun are usually coming from a functionalist/utilitarian view. They believe that gun control will lead to less crime and fewer deaths. That's the underlying premise you have to work against. They're not anti-gun because they want individuals to be slaves to the state. They're anti-gun because they perceive guns to cause many problems and solve very few.
Talking about "rights," in my experience, doesn't do much. If they were impressed by arms being "rights," they'd already be pro-gun-rights. You're better off working with data. Show them that nothing great happened when the federal AWB came into effect, and nothing bad happened when it expired. If they point to other countries, point out that those countries had vastly lower homicide rates than the US long before they enacted gun control, and that their homicide rates generally haven't changed in reaction to gun control. If they're focused on mass shootings, point out that the Navy Yard shooter was able to be quite effective with the kind of shotgun that nobody proposes banning. Find them a video of a competitive shooter demonstrating a reload if they are operating under the delusion that making a mass shooter reload is going to make a big difference.
Don't try to be glib or clever. That stuff may feel good, and may impress any other pro-gun people listening to the discussion. It will not change any minds. Focus on practical realities. Work with aggregated data. And work with specific scenarios. Ask them their plan for getting a violent intruder(s) out of their house. Calmly work through the deficiencies in their plan.
And don't expect anyone to change their mind during a discussion. End on a pleasant note. Leave an open invitation to go shooting, if you like and trust them. Let your points sit for a few weeks. Sometimes cognitive dissonance takes a while to overcome. Just stay reasonable, and you'll change some minds. Not all minds. Not most. But some. If we all changed minds at the rate of one every other year, we'd be in great shape.
Talking about "rights," in my experience, doesn't do much. If they were impressed by arms being "rights," they'd already be pro-gun-rights. You're better off working with data. Show them that nothing great happened when the federal AWB came into effect, and nothing bad happened when it expired. If they point to other countries, point out that those countries had vastly lower homicide rates than the US long before they enacted gun control, and that their homicide rates generally haven't changed in reaction to gun control. If they're focused on mass shootings, point out that the Navy Yard shooter was able to be quite effective with the kind of shotgun that nobody proposes banning. Find them a video of a competitive shooter demonstrating a reload if they are operating under the delusion that making a mass shooter reload is going to make a big difference.
Don't try to be glib or clever. That stuff may feel good, and may impress any other pro-gun people listening to the discussion. It will not change any minds. Focus on practical realities. Work with aggregated data. And work with specific scenarios. Ask them their plan for getting a violent intruder(s) out of their house. Calmly work through the deficiencies in their plan.
And don't expect anyone to change their mind during a discussion. End on a pleasant note. Leave an open invitation to go shooting, if you like and trust them. Let your points sit for a few weeks. Sometimes cognitive dissonance takes a while to overcome. Just stay reasonable, and you'll change some minds. Not all minds. Not most. But some. If we all changed minds at the rate of one every other year, we'd be in great shape.
Last edited:
JustinJ
Member
The people you know are not representative of the nation on the whole although I have no idea what you define as an "anti". Regardless, a strong minded person does not object to socializing with people of different views. People who seek only views and information which validate their own are intellectually lazy. Don't be intellectually lazy and embrace the opportunity to engage in debate and learn different perspectives.
Great point. Part of convincing others is being respectful towards their views. Be open to understanding their viewpoint. If they make a good point, say so. If they raise an interesting question, acknowledge that. If you act completely dogmatic and bull-headed, they'll become defensive, and you'll never get anything past their defenses.
Yo', I wouldn't waste any breath on defending the NRA. They certainly know how to defend themselves, but they don't make it easier with some of their ham-fisted efforts at PR (the commercial involving the President's daughters... who thought THAT was a good idea?).
Just say, look, the NRA is an interest group. Like all interest groups, they're one sided. The ACLU fights for guilty criminals to have their civil rights respected. But whether the ACLU is good or bad doesn't say anything about whether NSA data collection is a good or bad thing. And thinking the NRA is good or bad doesn't say anything about any particular gun policy. Try to move the discussion past the NRA (and any other personalities) and on to a concrete policy discussion. JMHO, of course.
Just say, look, the NRA is an interest group. Like all interest groups, they're one sided. The ACLU fights for guilty criminals to have their civil rights respected. But whether the ACLU is good or bad doesn't say anything about whether NSA data collection is a good or bad thing. And thinking the NRA is good or bad doesn't say anything about any particular gun policy. Try to move the discussion past the NRA (and any other personalities) and on to a concrete policy discussion. JMHO, of course.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
That's when you point out, "I am the NRA," and challenge that statement.
It's easy to call some faceless entity evil. It's alot harder to say, "Yes, you. You kill children. The person I know/work with/see at Christmas. You kill children."
Or maybe for some it's not.
Regardless, don't let someone else define who you are.
It's easy to call some faceless entity evil. It's alot harder to say, "Yes, you. You kill children. The person I know/work with/see at Christmas. You kill children."
Or maybe for some it's not.
Regardless, don't let someone else define who you are.
Beach Nut
Member
Anyone who says or actually believes that "The NRA kills children" is not mentally fit to
have a discussion with. Besides this forum, which has many fine members who have
your back, I would spend a little more time at my local gun stores and ranges where
I am sure you will meet many individuals who support the Second Amendment and
would be glad to make you feel more at home.
Just remember what George Carlin said "Think about how smart the average person
is and remember 50% of the population are stupider than that." There are some really
crazy people out there who have no clue to what is going on around them and believe
that more governmental control of our lives will solve all of society's problems.
have a discussion with. Besides this forum, which has many fine members who have
your back, I would spend a little more time at my local gun stores and ranges where
I am sure you will meet many individuals who support the Second Amendment and
would be glad to make you feel more at home.
Just remember what George Carlin said "Think about how smart the average person
is and remember 50% of the population are stupider than that." There are some really
crazy people out there who have no clue to what is going on around them and believe
that more governmental control of our lives will solve all of society's problems.
Bullfrog', the only question I'd raise is whether it's more important to convince the person that the NRA isn't all bad, or that guns aren't all bad. From my perspective, the image of the NRA is kind of a peripheral issue. If you end up being pro-gun, the NRA seems reasonable. If you're anti-gun, the NRA will necessarily seem unreasonable. By adding the NRA's image to the burden you have to carry in the conversation, you're making it twice as hard on yourself; that's why the anti-gunners have spent so much time and effort making the conversation be about the NRA itself. That's ground that they want to have the battle on. IMO, don't give battle where the enemy selects.
All well and good, but those people get votes, too. If we don't engage with anyone who thinks that the actions of the NRA have the net result of killing children*, then eventually we'll be enough of a minority to lose everything.
* See my prior comment about anti-gunners usually being utilitarian in their views. They think gun control saves lives - including the lives of children. Thus, opposition to gun control is necessarily a preference for a world where more children die. Thus, the NRA kills children. The problem is not primarily the logic, the problem is the assumption about the way the world works. If you want to convince people, you have to talk about what they care about. They care about results. Show them that gun control does not produce (positive) results.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Dave, you cannot debate an emotional battle with logical points.
It's not about convincing someone the NRA is a good organization. It's about telling someone you're part of it, and if that person wants to believe you'd belong to an organization that wants people dead, or even you're on board with that . . . there's no persuasion possible.
My point was exactly what it was. Don't read into it. It's easy for someone to declare faceless political opponents evil. It's alot harder to carry on with that rhetoric and tell someone we know - face to face - you're an evil person.
Last Christmas at the in-laws my wife's sister and her husband had a conversation with me and my wife, and they are both very left of center. The Sandy Hook debate was raging, and they made similar statements about the NRA. I pointed out that her father and I am the NRA, and she backed off a bit on her rhetoric. But when her sister, my wife, spoke up and said, "Jenn, I belong to the NRA, too," she was floored. It totally challenged her preconceptions about who an NRA member was.
The blanket statements and the rhetoric ended right there, and we all began to have an honest discussion about civil rights, the dangers centralized power has against the minority, and that the people who own or carry guns really aren't wackos.
It's not about convincing someone the NRA is a good organization. It's about telling someone you're part of it, and if that person wants to believe you'd belong to an organization that wants people dead, or even you're on board with that . . . there's no persuasion possible.
My point was exactly what it was. Don't read into it. It's easy for someone to declare faceless political opponents evil. It's alot harder to carry on with that rhetoric and tell someone we know - face to face - you're an evil person.
Last Christmas at the in-laws my wife's sister and her husband had a conversation with me and my wife, and they are both very left of center. The Sandy Hook debate was raging, and they made similar statements about the NRA. I pointed out that her father and I am the NRA, and she backed off a bit on her rhetoric. But when her sister, my wife, spoke up and said, "Jenn, I belong to the NRA, too," she was floored. It totally challenged her preconceptions about who an NRA member was.
The blanket statements and the rhetoric ended right there, and we all began to have an honest discussion about civil rights, the dangers centralized power has against the minority, and that the people who own or carry guns really aren't wackos.
Carl N. Brown
Member
"They believe that gun control will lead to less crime and fewer deaths."
Most of my life, most of my experience, has been that guns are used for hunting or target shooting, or kept as curios or keepsakes than used as weapons. And when used as weapons: I have female relatives who have used guns in threatening situations to prevent beatings or worse. Without their guns there would not have been a threat of gun violence, I grant that, but sometimes gun violence in self-defense is a good thing.
Fewer deaths ... by shooting? So non-gun violence is better? Close to home: there was a stabbing death in the rooming house up the street from my apartment in 2004, then when a suspect was caught in a double homicide with a baseball bat in 2006, that suspect was tied to the stabbing murder. A double shooting in 2005 involved the cocaine trade, so I doubt anyone involved there would have submitted to a voluntary universal background check for non-dealer gun transactions. Just this spring 2013, two guys killed a disabled Iraq War vet in his home with a hammer and knife and robbed him, found no drugs but took money and guns. But none of that was evil "gun violence", that was non-gun violence that I suppose is somehow better in the eyes of those obsessed with gun violence.
Most of my life, most of my experience, has been that guns are used for hunting or target shooting, or kept as curios or keepsakes than used as weapons. And when used as weapons: I have female relatives who have used guns in threatening situations to prevent beatings or worse. Without their guns there would not have been a threat of gun violence, I grant that, but sometimes gun violence in self-defense is a good thing.
Fewer deaths ... by shooting? So non-gun violence is better? Close to home: there was a stabbing death in the rooming house up the street from my apartment in 2004, then when a suspect was caught in a double homicide with a baseball bat in 2006, that suspect was tied to the stabbing murder. A double shooting in 2005 involved the cocaine trade, so I doubt anyone involved there would have submitted to a voluntary universal background check for non-dealer gun transactions. Just this spring 2013, two guys killed a disabled Iraq War vet in his home with a hammer and knife and robbed him, found no drugs but took money and guns. But none of that was evil "gun violence", that was non-gun violence that I suppose is somehow better in the eyes of those obsessed with gun violence.
Carl, I completely agree with you. Those are the kind of points/stories that can make headway. One of the key concepts to get across is that, from a criminal's perspective, guns are a substitutable good. And substitution with other instruments (knives, bats, etc.) becomes easier if they know that their victim does not have a gun. Magically get rid of all guns, and criminals would just be robbing and raping and murdering using knives. The things that are the actual drivers of crime are not instruments. If the goal is to have fewer people die, then reducing homicides overall should be the goal, not causing fewer shootings but more stabbings.
HoosierQ
Member
With regard to the NRA and this topic. Folks have to understand that the NRA/ILA are lobbiests. They are not themselves politicians. They are not policy or law makers. Their job is to ceaselessly promote their agenda...which of course is our agenda vis-a-vis the RKBA as defined in the 2nd Amendment.
There is not a lobbiest in Washington or any state capitol that will seam, to the average citizens, to be a rational, balanced, "see both sides" kind of person. That is the nature of the lobbiest. Lobbiest are probably the most despised figures amongst the Washington insider set...all of them, regardless of their agenda. They pester. They pressure. They try to wine and dine. They are a constant buzz in the ear of every lawmaker on Capitol Hill. But they serve a purpose.
So, in summary, I agree that in trying to "win over" an anti to taking a more pro approach, one has to distance themselves from the NRA simply because their lobbying activities will seem unreasonable or simple one-sided. They are one-sided. So yes "I am the NRA" may be fine and dandy. but I would offer that in the context of this conversation, changing the attitudes of anti leaning folks, "The NRA is not me"...kind of a thing.
As far as the NRA? Make no compromise on anything. That's what we need them to do toward the end of compelling our lawmakers to make as few compromises as possible.
There is not a lobbiest in Washington or any state capitol that will seam, to the average citizens, to be a rational, balanced, "see both sides" kind of person. That is the nature of the lobbiest. Lobbiest are probably the most despised figures amongst the Washington insider set...all of them, regardless of their agenda. They pester. They pressure. They try to wine and dine. They are a constant buzz in the ear of every lawmaker on Capitol Hill. But they serve a purpose.
So, in summary, I agree that in trying to "win over" an anti to taking a more pro approach, one has to distance themselves from the NRA simply because their lobbying activities will seem unreasonable or simple one-sided. They are one-sided. So yes "I am the NRA" may be fine and dandy. but I would offer that in the context of this conversation, changing the attitudes of anti leaning folks, "The NRA is not me"...kind of a thing.
As far as the NRA? Make no compromise on anything. That's what we need them to do toward the end of compelling our lawmakers to make as few compromises as possible.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Well I guess it just boils down to what approach you want to take. I am the NRA. I'm not the NRA. I am the NRA but the NRA doesn't speak for me. The NRA are in the crowd of those despised lobbyists, and no one wants to defend a lobbyist. Whatever. Pick one.
I do know that it is futile to debate a position based upon emotion with logic, point by point. One might win the argument, but that doesn't change anyone's mind or perceptions which are based on emotion.
Now I support the right for an accused citizen to adequate defense counsel, too. That doesn't mean I want predators to go unpunished, it just means I don't want the innocent unjustly convicted. The state has to prove it's case; it's not enough for it to proclaim, "But we know he did it!" and have that be enough.
If that means I sometimes have to defend what is sometimes seen as a dishonorable professional - defense attorneys - then that's exactly what it takes.
By the way, the NRA does a LOT more than just lobbying. From just one among it's many programs: For a great majority of small municipal police departments, they are the only recognized training organization able to certify law enforcement firearms instructors to train and annually qualify the sworn officers on that department.
I do know that it is futile to debate a position based upon emotion with logic, point by point. One might win the argument, but that doesn't change anyone's mind or perceptions which are based on emotion.
Now I support the right for an accused citizen to adequate defense counsel, too. That doesn't mean I want predators to go unpunished, it just means I don't want the innocent unjustly convicted. The state has to prove it's case; it's not enough for it to proclaim, "But we know he did it!" and have that be enough.
If that means I sometimes have to defend what is sometimes seen as a dishonorable professional - defense attorneys - then that's exactly what it takes.
By the way, the NRA does a LOT more than just lobbying. From just one among it's many programs: For a great majority of small municipal police departments, they are the only recognized training organization able to certify law enforcement firearms instructors to train and annually qualify the sworn officers on that department.
Glock Doctor
Member
Whenever I'm in a well populated urban area I follow the Golden Rule and keep my gun covered and, unless asked, my opinion(s) to myself. I don't carry a gun to argue; I don't carry a gun to, 'demonstrate' anybody's Second Amendment Rights; (including my own) and, IN AN EXCESSIVELY VIOLENT (AND GODLESS) TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY AMERICA, I try to respect the personal safety AND peace-of-mind of all the normally distracted, generally worried, but otherwise peaceable people moving all around me. Nobody's going to know I'm armed unless I'm forced to show it to him - Period.
When you responded with "How?", what did they say?
Tejicano Loco
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2013
- Messages
- 89
I was raised in a very left wing environment and know the different types of anti-gunners you usually find in America.
There are those who simply believe that banning guns will result in much fewer guns in the hands of criminals which is supposed to result in less crime. Some of these can be won over with logic and reason.
There are those who simply have an irrational phobia of weapons. Talking about guns with some of these would be like trying to have a conversation with somebody who has one hand in a jar full of spiders. The subject is too drenched in emotion for them to talk about it calmly.
And there are a small number who see disarming America as a necessary step for their ideal political state to come about. These are most likely to not have any interest in discussing the subject rationally because they see any armed civilian as an obstruction to the way they want the world to be. Granted, this is a small number of people, but they will be the most stubborn in a discussion about gun control.
At this point in my life I find it a rare event where I choose to be with people who are not supportive of gun rights. Unfortunately most of my family are not in that camp. My step-mother spent most of her career working for left-wing fund raising organizations inside the DC beltway and she is a mixture of all three anti-gun types. Any talk about guns usually ends up with her shouting at me in a spittle-flecked rage.
Next week I will be flying back to the US to visit my father. On one hand I am ecstatic that I finally have my Virginia non-resident CPL which is recognized where my dad lives but on the other hand I have to be in deep cover so my step-mother doesn’t get sent into a tizzy over me carrying a gun.
There are those who simply believe that banning guns will result in much fewer guns in the hands of criminals which is supposed to result in less crime. Some of these can be won over with logic and reason.
There are those who simply have an irrational phobia of weapons. Talking about guns with some of these would be like trying to have a conversation with somebody who has one hand in a jar full of spiders. The subject is too drenched in emotion for them to talk about it calmly.
And there are a small number who see disarming America as a necessary step for their ideal political state to come about. These are most likely to not have any interest in discussing the subject rationally because they see any armed civilian as an obstruction to the way they want the world to be. Granted, this is a small number of people, but they will be the most stubborn in a discussion about gun control.
At this point in my life I find it a rare event where I choose to be with people who are not supportive of gun rights. Unfortunately most of my family are not in that camp. My step-mother spent most of her career working for left-wing fund raising organizations inside the DC beltway and she is a mixture of all three anti-gun types. Any talk about guns usually ends up with her shouting at me in a spittle-flecked rage.
Next week I will be flying back to the US to visit my father. On one hand I am ecstatic that I finally have my Virginia non-resident CPL which is recognized where my dad lives but on the other hand I have to be in deep cover so my step-mother doesn’t get sent into a tizzy over me carrying a gun.
- Status
