Guys, they're not ignorant by accident.

[ccsniper]

I have seen and heard multiple people "debating" with anti gunners all over the web. I use quotations because a debate requires both sides to be logically interactive with the arguments either side presents. We are the only ones giving facts. All we get from them is a bunch of logical fallacies, emotionalism and lies. I am not talking about your everyday person that watches too much MSM, there is hope for them and you should try to convert them. But for groups like the Brady Campaign, Mayors Against Illegal guns etc are hopelessly lost and there is no sense in even talking to them. I see debating them or even trying to have a rational discussion with them as a man screaming at rocks to become water. They are not ignorant of the facts, they live in those crime rotten cities. They know their policies don't work and never will.

Just ignore them. Don't give their facebook pages or websites traffic. Don't write them, don't read their literature and don't watch their youtube vids. Ignore them, it will do wonders for your blood pressure and temperament.

Those groups have no interest in stopping crime, they are masters of double think. I say not to even give them the time of day, ignore them completely. You are better off talking rationally to people that might be influenced by them, like co-workers, friends, family and so on. Take them shooting, give them safety lessons, volunteer at local schools to teach kids safety, be a positive role model that isn't always yammering about how ignorant the anti's are. Thanks for listening to my rant.

 

[Deanimator]

I like to upset THEM.

I love to use the online comments section of the Cleveland Plain Dealer to refute what they say, and to simply say, "No, I refuse." The latter just sends them into an insane rage, which I further exploit.

 

[OilyPablo]

If we ignore them, they will assume a win by our silence. No, we must overwhelm them with calm, rational truth and our Constitution.

 

[1911Tuner]

They're ignorant because somebody else said something that agreed with their core beliefs and they bought it. If they didn't already believe that guns were bad things, they'd have done some research and developed their own ideas.

Example:

About 20 years ago, when I was going through a divorce, my ex was whispering things to my daughter. I noticed that Sarah became cold and distant. She stopped calling me just to shoot the breeze, and when I called her she was "busy." I knew what had happened.

Once the divorce was settled, she noticed that the ex suddenly didn't have a lot of time for her.

Fast-forward a few years, and she told me that she'd figured out that she'd been played and was so very sorry for the rift and the betrayal...for the "River between us."

I told her that if she hadn't already had a low opinion of me, she wouldn't have been so quick to believe the bad things that she was told. We made peace, but the river between us will never be completely bridged.

We may "make peace" with most of these people, but they still believe in their hearts that there's something fundamentally wrong with people who own and use guns.

 

[Beentown]

I can deal with ignorance and try to inform them with what trips their trigger....i.e. emotional or logical arguments. Sad thing is most think emotionally anymore.

The willfully ignorant just piss me off but I still try to refute their blather.

 

[PabloJ]

I have seen and heard multiple people "debating" with anti gunners all over the web. I use quotations because a debate requires both sides to be logically interactive with the arguments either side presents. We are the only ones giving facts. All we get from them is a bunch of logical fallacies, emotionalism and lies. I am not talking about your everyday person that watches too much MSM, there is hope for them and you should try to convert them. But for groups like the Brady Campaign, Mayors Against Illegal guns etc are hopelessly lost and there is no sense in even talking to them. I see debating them or even trying to have a rational discussion with them as a man screaming at rocks to become water. They are not ignorant of the facts, they live in those crime rotten cities. They know their policies don't work and never will.

Just ignore them. Don't give their facebook pages or websites traffic. Don't write them, don't read their literature and don't watch their youtube vids. Ignore them, it will do wonders for your blood pressure and temperament.

Those groups have no interest in stopping crime, they are masters of double think. I say not to even give them the time of day, ignore them completely. You are better off talking rationally to people that might be influenced by them, like co-workers, friends, family and so on. Take them shooting, give them safety lessons, volunteer at local schools to teach kids safety, be a positive role model that isn't always yammering about how ignorant the anti's are. Thanks for listening to my rant.

There is no point in trying to understand some people. It's like engaging a brick wall. For example, some Americans do not like illegal aliens. My question is why the .... are the same people hiring them or companies who use them?

 

[Mark13]

I think you are being unfair to the anti-gun side, and pretending that you are somehow smarter and more logical.

Anti-gunners come in two flavors.

The ideological ones see firearms as immoral. For them guns equal "sin". Ever try to convince a Christian that "sin" wasn't so bad and not to worry about it? Not going to happen.

The second are people who live/work in areas that offer relative safety. They live in an affluent community in an urban area, work in controlled environments, or live away from high crime areas. They can't relate to the use of firearms for self defense at all and the urban ones can't relate to even a need for firearms for hunting.

This doesn't make them stupid, just more like people that run up a debt, and think to themselves that they will pay it off later. Later, in this sense, is not having that modern sporting rifle if a gang raids your home, or you banned firearms so now you are defending your island against a German military machine with "war pikes".

I read posts by the moderators all the time about the need to keep the tone constructive, and not to demean people who obviously can't think straight.

 

[holdencm9]

They're ignorant because somebody else said something that agreed with their core beliefs and they bought it. If they didn't already believe that guns were bad things, they'd have done some research and developed their own ideas.

What you speak of, Tuner, is confirmation bias.

 

[r1derbike]

They're ignorant because somebody else said something that agreed with their core beliefs and they bought it. If they didn't already believe that guns were bad things, they'd have done some research and developed their own ideas.

Example:

About 20 years ago, when I was going through a divorce, my ex was whispering things to my daughter. I noticed that Sarah became cold and distant. She stopped calling me just to shoot the breeze, and when I called her she was "busy." I knew what had happened.

Once the divorce was settled, she noticed that the ex suddenly didn't have a lot of time for her.

Fast-forward a few years, and she told me that she'd figured out that she'd been played and was so very sorry for the rift and the betrayal...for the "River between us."

I told her that if she hadn't already had a low opinion of me, she wouldn't have been so quick to believe the bad things that she was told. We made peace, but the river between us will never be completely bridged.

We may "make peace" with most of these people, but they still believe in their hearts that there's something fundamentally wrong with people who own and use guns.

1911, your story parallels mine nearly to the minute, only it was my son whose mind was poisoned. We made some amends later, but as in your case, the wounds will never completely heal.

Guess what I'm trying to say is, if you keep spouting lies to impressionable people, they eventually believe them, and facts are irrelevant after they've become possessed by lies.

 

[Cosmoline]

We must never stop debating, and persuading. To hole up and communicate only with those who agree with us will lead to isolation and irrelevance.

If the vague emotionalism is getting in the way, have them make a concrete proposal. What law do they think will solve this problem? Then you can explain why that law is stupid. If they complain that you're being "too technical," remind them that these are laws about technology, and that they should learn something on the subject before proposing laws.

 

[holdencm9]

I think Mark13 is spot on, and to tie it back into the issue of confirmation bias: Anti-gunners are not necessarily more irrational or less intelligent than pro-gun individuals. They are products of their upbringing and environment, and maybe there is some intrinsic belief imbedded into a person's DNA that defies their upbringing, hence we have lots of first-generation shooters whose parents were vehemently anti-gun. But that is a nature vs nurture debate I don't want to get into. What I am getting at is, it's not as if all people are blank slates of beliefs, and it is only the dumb ones that are "duped" into becoming anti-gun. There certainly ARE such people, and even some intelligent people who were duped, and those are the ones we can reach. But there are just as many pro-gun people, who are pro-gun for all the wrong reasons, or have no reason whatsoever to support WHY they are pro-gun, they just are. As an intelligent, rational person, I think the facts do favor our side, but I am constantly trying to keep myself in check, and now allow confirmation bias to cloud my perspective.

Confirmation bias says that you will be much more likely to believe evidence that aligns with your preconceived notions. So, if you intuitively believe something, for instance: that guns aren't inherently bad and you should be able to defend yourself, then you are much more likely to agree with a study that comes out and agrees with you. For instance, "less guns = less crime."

I think it goes deeper than one group using facts and reason and another group using fear and emotion, or one group being "smarter" or even correct. It all boils down to core beliefs, whether a person is cognizant of them or not, and a few simple questions, that I think if you asked people, without even bringing up the issue of guns, could give you a pretty good idea of where they stand on A LOT of issues. For instance:

- Can you legislate morality? Should you even try?
- Are you ultimately responsible for your own safety, or is it the government's job?
- Do you think PEOPLE should be held accountable for their actions?
- Do you think people are inherently good or inherently bad?
- Do you believe that, of those that are bad (or forced to do bad things due to circumstance) that they will find a way, regardless?

 

[Certaindeaf]

It's really too bad we have tiered/step function cable television contracts/providers. I certainly don't watch (there's no need for a Nielson device any longer for them to know what you're watching) CNN etc etc but they sure wind up getting my and your money.

 

[we are not amused]

I think you are being unfair to the anti-gun side, and pretending that you are somehow smarter and more logical.

Anti-gunners come in two flavors.

The ideological ones see firearms as immoral. For them guns equal "sin". Ever try to convince a Christian that "sin" wasn't so bad and not to worry about it? Not going to happen.

The second are people who live/work in areas that offer relative safety. They live in an affluent community in an urban area, work in controlled environments, or live away from high crime areas. They can't relate to the use of firearms for self defense at all and the urban ones can't relate to even a need for firearms for hunting.

This doesn't make them stupid, just more like people that run up a debt, and think to themselves that they will pay it off later. Later, in this sense, is not having that modern sporting rifle if a gang raids your home, or you banned firearms so now you are defending your island against a German military machine with "war pikes".

I read posts by the moderators all the time about the need to keep the tone constructive, and not to demean people who obviously can't think straight.

I don't think I agree with you. I don't think we are pretending to think we are smarter or more logical than anti-gun nuts, I think we are!

It isn't smart to hide your head in the sand, or to equate guns with "sin".

Just because your ideology is anti-gun, doesn't mean that reasonable arguments can't sway their opinion, not if they are indeed capable of logical argument and thought. After all, Christians may indeed be against sin, but we are also open to arguments of what sin is.

As for the idiots who think that it can't happen to them because they are rich or live in nice neighborhoods, well that alone says something about their thought process which doesn't equate to high intelligence.

People who run up a huge debt, without regard to paying it off, are indeed stupid or criminally negligent.

While keeping our tone "civil" may be good, I see no need not to point out stupid thinking or bad information.

Tolerating evil or stupidity just leads to more of it. It is the duty of every good citizen to oppose such.

 

[we are not amused]

I think Mark13 is spot on, and to tie it back into the issue of confirmation bias: Anti-gunners are not necessarily more irrational or less intelligent than pro-gun individuals. They are products of their upbringing and environment, and maybe there is some intrinsic belief imbedded into a person's DNA that defies their upbringing, hence we have lots of first-generation shooters whose parents were vehemently anti-gun. But that is a nature vs nurture debate I don't want to get into. What I am getting at is, it's not as if all people are blank slates of beliefs, and it is only the dumb ones that are "duped" into becoming anti-gun. There are just as many pro-gun people, who are pro-gun for all the wrong reasons, or have no reason whatsoever to support WHY they are pro-gun, they just are. As an intelligent, rational person, I think the facts do favor our side, but I am constantly trying to keep myself in check, and now allow confirmation bias to cloud my perspective.

Confirmation bias says that you will be much more likely to believe evidence that aligns with your preconceived notions. So, if you intuitively believe something, for instance: that guns aren't inherently bad and you should be able to defend yourself, then you are much more likely to agree with a study that comes out and agrees with you. For instance, "less guns = less crime."

I think it goes deeper than one group using facts and reason and another group using fear and emotion, or one group being "smarter" or even correct. It all boils down to core beliefs, whether a person is cognizant of them or not, and a few simple questions, that I think if you asked people, without even bringing up the issue of guns, could give you a pretty good idea of where they stand on A LOT of issues. For instance:

- Can you legislate morality? Should you even try?
- Are you ultimately responsible for your own safety, or is it the government's job?
- Do you think PEOPLE should be held accountable for their actions?
- Do you think people are inherently good or inherently bad?
- Do you believe that, of those that are bad (or forced to do bad things due to circumstance) that they will find a way, regardless?

Confirmation bias does not mean one cannot be swayed by an argument, just that it is more difficult.

What it sounds to me, what you are saying is, that there is no right or wrong, and if someone disagrees with us, we shouldn't try to change their mind, even if they are trying to take something we strongly feel about away!

Naturally, I reject that argument.

Just because someone is heavily influenced by bias, does not mean that they are beyond reason. Nor should I give up trying to change their mind if they are seeking to cause me harm before I start using physical force to stop them.
For example, my neighbor is a socialist, and he likes my lawn tractor, and thinks I ought to let him use it. When he comes to take it, should I try to convince him otherwise? or just go ahead and use force to stop him.

Just because anti-gunners have deeply and sincerely held positions, doesn't mean I should just shrug my shoulders and ignore them! Not when they are trying to take away my rights under the Constitution!

If I can change their mind, I find that preferable to having to use force to protect my rights.

And by the way, when I use the term force, I don't necessarily mean shooting them or engaging in violence - directly anyway - It include the use of the Courts and the Law, which is backed by the use of force, to preserve my rights.

Clearly attempting to change their minds is preferable to using force, whether through legal means or not.

 

[harrygunner]

I suspect with people who have a liberal bent, the reason that logical debate fails is their underlying need is to be accepted by a group.

A strong awareness of society and a fear of isolation has them parroting the group mantra, unwilling to analyze any part of it.

It's all about group identity and belonging. Rather than a fear of metal objects, their true fear is of isolation if they express opposing views.

Unfortunately, that obligatory view ignores true human nature.

 

[1911Tuner]

What you speak of, Tuner, is confirmation bias.

Sounds like it.

your story parallels mine nearly to the minute, only it was my son whose mind was poisoned.

I forgot to mention that my ex isn't my daughter's mother...so that made the cut and the rift even deeper.

 

[holdencm9]

What it sounds to me, what you are saying is, that there is no right or wrong, and if someone disagrees with us, we shouldn't try to change their mind, even if they are trying to take something we strongly feel about away!

You interpreted wrong. I definitely think our side is "right." This isn't some philosophical rhetoric, it is just trying to better understand the opposition.

Naturally, I reject that argument.

Naturally.

Just because someone is heavily influenced by bias, does not mean that they are beyond reason.

This is true. Hence my statement that some people can be reached. But some people, truly deep down, feel that they oughta be protected by someone else. They don't take self defense as a personal responsibility. They prefer the nanny state because they've never been held accountable for anything. Those people are unreachable, why bother?

The funny thing is that they think deep down, most people are bad, hence we can't trust the average person with a weapon, but that the populace as a whole (that is generally bad) can vote in a government that can be trusted to protect us. Ha!

You can feel free to argue our case to these types till you're red in the face, and I applaud your efforts, but I suggest focusing energy elsewhere, either to people who actually stand a miniscule chance of being swayed by your arguments (it is usually pretty quick to determine), or toward elected officials. Another effect of confirmation bias is the harder you push on some of the aforementioned deeply-entrenched people, the more entrenched they will get.

The point is, you don't have to convince everyone. Wise to pick your battles.

 

[SabbathWolf]

I swore an oath a long time ago to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC too.
Simply ignoring anti-gunners is not my idea of DEFENDING anything at all.
It's a cop out in my mind.

The Constitution spells out our Rights.
I take those Rights very seriously.
I don't give a flying crap how somebody else was raised, where they are from, where they live now, how they formed their opinions, or any of that touchy-feely stuff what so ever.

When they start to attack the Constitution, then they become Traitors to the very foundations of our country. Ignoring them will only embolden them even further.
I would much rather kick them in the teeth every single chance I get.

 

[holdencm9]

The Bill of Rights doesn't give us the rights, it spells out which rights are protected from infringement by the government. The problem is that the antis don't think they are attacking the Constitution per se, they think they are interpreting the 2nd Amendment correctly, or that it is out-dated, and that WE are wrong. Fortunately, right now the Supreme Court is on our side, by a narrow margin. If the SC reversed its decision, and said the 2nd Amendment is really just about hunting and that's it, would any of us change our minds? Heck no! Just like none of the anti's changed their minds after Heller or McDonald.

If the BOR didn't have the 2nd Amendment, I think most of us would still feel the way we do about our right to self-defense, which is in my mind, and I think most of us would agree, an inalienable human right. Most people here would think that we oughta have the right to protect ourselves and our loved ones, no matter what, and that the burden falls to US as individuals, not the government or society at large. I don't believe this because of the second amendment, I believe it in every fiber of my being, and just thank God that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect that right (for now). Hence I keep up the fight, but if someone who reads this last paragraph just can't fathom any of what I am saying (about self defense being a human right and personal responsibility and all that...I swear it is just white noise to some people) then they are unreachable and I won't waste my time engaging in any sort of dialogue with them.

 

[Baba Louie]

Context is important

Alone in a private conversation w/ an anti, maybe good advice.

If, however, IF, there is a chance for a fence sitting outsider to listen in or read the words written, and who responds to logical presentations, you must defend the position, if only to change one mind at a time (and not that of your opponent) but the "Audience". Their minds.

Also, facts, figures, logic and history do not work for some people who are "Feelings" based. (I'd guess that half of the population is feeling based, based on my feelings )

So... throw in some "EMOTION" once in a while to support your facts and figures. Again, you may not sway the anti, but a fence sitter might very well be swayed when both facts, figures, logic AND some real honest human emotion about the right to defense of self are thrown in to boot and presented in a proper fashion.

You can really floor them by telling them that the RKBA is a very very liberal POV adopted by our forefathers and opposing that POV where only the Kings Men are armed, is a very very conservative and potentially dangerous POV. See if they can agree to that statement for some fun.

Again, you'll never sway an anti (or very little chance of success at best) but the fence sitters...

Worst case... tell an anti "I hope you never need to depend on the Police to keep you safe. After all, THEY depend on their guns to keep themselves safe! I'm sure you're not a hypocrite in this regard... right?" smile and walk away.

 

[SabbathWolf]

@ holdencm9

Just because you think some people are unreachable....you can't just ignore them and hope they go away. They won't.
Good luck with that strategy.
It fails every time.

 

[holdencm9]

Baba Louie, good points about fence sitters. Especially in online message boards, it is important to get out there and counter the anti's arguments with our own, because you never know who is reading. For every person who posts, there may be a dozen, or maybe several hundred that are just reading the comments.

Sabbath, good point. Instead I will kick their teeth in. A better strategy is to not waste time with the staunch antis who we can never reach. I'd rather spend an hour of my time converting a few people rather than 10 hours of my time talking to a brick wall. The hard-core antis don't NEED to go away. This is still America. Our purpose will be better served by getting the message out to as many people as possible, rather than trying to convince that one hardcore anti he is wrong.

 

[OilyPablo]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/28/warrants-to-be-released-in-newtown-investigation/

A loaded 12-gauge shotgun was found in the glove compartment of the Honda Civic Lanza drove to the school with two magazines containing 70 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge shotgun rounds.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/28/warrants-to-be-released-in-newtown-investigation/#ixzz2Oy0zhoPQ

I used to think Fox was better, but this event they started to show the same journalistic ignorance as the rest.

 

[SabbathWolf]

Baba Louie, good points about fence sitters. Especially in online message boards, it is important to get out there and counter the anti's arguments with our own, because you never know who is reading. For every person who posts, there may be a dozen, or maybe several hundred that are just reading the comments.

Sabbath, good point. Instead I will kick their teeth in. A better strategy is to not waste time with the staunch antis who we can never reach. I'd rather spend an hour of my time converting a few people rather than 10 hours of my time talking to a brick wall. The hard-core antis don't NEED to go away. This is still America. Our purpose will be better served by getting the message out to as many people as possible, rather than trying to convince that one hardcore anti he is wrong.

You do whatever you like.
I never suggested NOT going after easier converts at all.
I support that idea 100%
The more we can grow our numbers, the better.

"The hard core anti's don't need to go away?"

The heck they don't!!!!!
What are you even talking about?

They need to be met head-on, fought at every level, and voted out of office.

 

[holdencm9]

I was under the impression we were discussing conversations with people in our lives, or online or what-have-you. Absolutely the anti-gun politicians need to be voted out! And I am sure we can all agree we'd like for everyone who is anti-gun to go away, but it is not necessary to maintain our freedoms. There will always be a contingent of anti's to fight against, but for now we just need the majority and to grow our ranks however we can.