How to Correct People, or Just Don't?

[Wayne02]

I'm with the previous posters in that I do not correct others unless it is a potential safety issue, or if they ask for clarification on a particular term or issue.

My inlaws use 'clip' when they are really talking about a magazine...

I use the correct term when discussing guns/magazines with them or anyone else. I use the correct term when instructing others.

But I don't correct them when they use 'clip'. They were born and raised country, where a good portion of the population has used that term for generations. They are safe and capable gun handlers. Don't sweat the small stuff.

 

[4D5]

There are some things that are just not possible.

Take for instance my friend who thinks Obongo walks on water and Hitlary is the next messiah. We can't have any discussions that involve the right me, or him the left. Neither of us will budge. He doesn't think anyone really needs guns, well except for self defense but he really wasn't able to articulate the parameters of self defense.

So one day we were mildly discussing guns and I ask him what is an assault rifle.
Answer "anything with a detachable magazine" :banghead:

I knew right then to stop, there's not amount of logic or explanation that would right this blatant ignorance and bias.

Both of us are USAF veterans, go figure...

.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

A couple months ago a very left friend of mine since high school who is also the wife of one of my oldest friends shared a picture of an AK on Facebook. These are direct quotes below that pic." (Meme?)

"This is an AR-15"
"It shoots 400 rounds per second."
"You can by it for $170.00"

I couldn't help myself, I corrected her and then I iced it with "Thanks for the BS propaganda." I knew better as this woman has never been able to stand correction but I was a bit agitated myself. She wrote a full page response to my correction basically indicating I was complicit in mass shootings and has not spoken to me since.

(sigh)
Such is life.

 

[buck460XVR]

For some reason, I seem to run into a ton of gun owners (older brothers in law, coworkers, school classmates, guys at church, etc) who really don't know much about guns at all, but seem to feel the need to educate me about them.

Seems to be true with just abut any subject. When I was in construction, it seemed folks with no experience in home building were always telling me something about it. I've been hunting for half a century, but come hunting season, folks with no experience other than the Sportsman Channel are giving me tips. So, like with guns and reloading, I just smile and nod if it's not a safety issue and let them be the "wise-ass, wannabe know-it-alls".

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

How do you converse with these people normally on other subjects?

Shouldn't be much different than those times.

 

[CDW4ME]

"Its okay if you disagree with me, I can't force you to be right."

 

[Poper]

As mentioned, sometimes it just ain't worth bothering with. But sometimes, it might be the neighborly thing to do, especially if there's already an amicable conversation taking place. I've found luck phrasing it like, "you know, i used to think (or wonder about) that, too, but I recently read from {insert authoritative source} that the opposite was actually the case".
Works lots better than, "WRONG-O !!!! blah-blah-blah-blah".

Agreed.
You know what they say:
"You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose. But you can't pick your friend's nose."

 

[Red Wind]

I'm with the previous posters in that I do not correct others unless it is a potential safety issue, or if they ask for clarification on a particular term or issue.

My inlaws use 'clip' when they are really talking about a magazine...

I use the correct term when discussing guns/magazines with them or anyone else. I use the correct term when instructing others.

But I don't correct them when they use 'clip'. They were born and raised country, where a good portion of the population has used that term for generations. They are safe and capable gun handlers. Don't sweat the small stuff.

A fine post. My very thoughts. More than half of my family is NJ/NY/PA country (farmers) that use those terms. I just play it as it lays, and stay cool.

 

[FROGO207]

Safety issues are brought up pronto! Other stuff is sometimes worth *discussing* with somebody sometimes it is a bad idea. When I do want to set the record straight I usually start with "No kidding! I was reading/watching/listening the other day and found out this" . It works for many situations not just RKBA.

 

[Ironicaintit]

Would you tell somebody that they have a booger on their face or shirt? I'm the guy who will.
That's not much different than letting somebody run around with incorrect data. If you care, let them know before anybody else notices. Tactfully!
But really,
If I'm amongst friends, I will go ahead and let them know if something they are saying is factually incorrect. So long as I know for sure what I'm talking about!
And if it's a point that's in doubt, we will find the sources to nail it down.

But my friends already know that I'm a grammar nazi, and an all around wisecracking loudmouth know-it-all, so they'd expect nothing less.
Then once you have proven that you aren't just blowing smoke...you become the reference they go to!

With people you know only casually, or not at all; it's best to keep your lips zippered. That way, you can find out how much they really don't know.

And clips are for loading magazines!

 

[Bula]

Some comments are just non-defendable. If those comments come from "gun friendly" types, I will educate. Arguing with an anti is futile. Informing a novice is different. I've been at this hobby for a long time. Just don't be a jerk and most comments are well received (most of the time). YMMV.

 

[DeepSouth]

If I don't know them real well I just smile and nod.

 

[Deanimator]

If somebody makes a statement which provably, factually incorrect then they've opened themselves to correction. If they don't like that, they should keep their opinions to themselves.

If you say, "Open carry is illegal in Ohio" or "The AR-15 is a machine gun", or "7.62 NATO can be fired in an AK-47", I don't have the slightest compunction about correcting you, ESPECIALLY if you're trying to spread that misinformation to others.

If you're spreading gun control propaganda, especially disinformation about "universal background checks", "'assault weapon' bans" and the like, I feel COMPELLED to refute you, since you obviously have a malign purpose and mean to do harm.

 

[Deanimator]

Arguing with an anti is futile.

No it's not.

Trying to change THEIR "mind" is usually futile.

Refuting them in front of bystanders is NEVER futile.

Silence is usually taken as agreement.

If arguing with antis is "futile", then Wayne La Pierre should NEVER debate Diane Feinstein or Charles Schumer on TV. We should just let them speak without contradiction and simply concede the debate to them.

 

[barnbwt]

Kinda curious if even posting this makes me come across as a wise-ass, wannabe know-it-all.

Personal opinion (effectiveness, desirability)
Debatable point (flash hider v. muzzle brake)
Snapple fact ("the Guhrand actually did use a clip, not a magazine")
Factoid (stats)
Minor misunderstanding <----about here is when I open my yap to anti-gunners, since it's informative about their stances
Major misunderstanding <----about here is when I open my yap to non-gunners, since it is highly educational
Minor misrepresentation <----sweet spot of actual "debate" where ideas clash, but neither side is wasting time teaching the other
Major misrepresentation <----about here is where I plan my exit
Probable fabrication
Demonstrable fabrication <----here is where I make my exit
Ad hominen attack

 

[barnbwt]

Trying to change THEIR "mind" is usually futile.

Refuting them in front of bystanders is NEVER futile.

Silence is usually taken as agreement.

On the first point, I do not even believe this is the case with anti's who have formed their beliefs around ignorance (which seems to be the great majority of them). "Fence sitters" with no opinion on the issue are as real as Bigfoot, IMO, but it's non-committed anti's (or rather, non-committed, yuk yuk yuk) that can be swayed into either camp with proper education where the battle lies.

Part of it is exposure ("the AR gave me PTSD!" ), part of it is history ("you do know none of these laws has ever really worked, right?" ), part of it is philosophy ("are you a man, or a slave?!" ), and a really big part of it, perhaps most important, is the quality of character of the person. Do they really trust themselves to act righteously, and can by extension trust others to as well? Do they understand, logically or emotionally, the difference between right & wrong, and are displeased by the latter? Is their perception of reality such that they can realistically assess priorities & motivations of different actors? Do they understand cause, effect, correlation, and consequence?

There's a lot of unbalanced and sociopathic folks out there, probably more than we'd like to be aware of, and for these poor souls there probably is no way to reach them. And even more than these are people who simply will not think when 'thunk' at, who will refuse to engage in conversation at all.

TCB

 

[Deanimator]

On the first point, I do not even believe this is the case with anti's who have formed their beliefs around ignorance (which seems to be the great majority of them).

I was referring to "movement" anti-gunners. They are almost invariably really stupid or really evil. Fortunately, the biggest part of the anti-gun movement are people who haven't given one iota of thought to the issue and simply parrot what they hear.

 

[md7]

Unless it's a safety issue or my opinion is asked I do not generally correct. However, I'm happy to share what I know in a friendly conversation when firearms are the center of the discussion and I'm content to let others form their own opinion.

Fortunately, I've not had to deal with many antis. Most everyone in this area pro 2A. How knowledgeable they are on the specifics of firearms/terminology is another story.

 

[grampajack]

Like everyone else has said, it really just depends. They're entitled to their opinions, too. Even if they think .40 is better than 9mm, you'll just have to grit your teeth and bear it.

Also, people must be forgiven for using words like clip to describe a magazine. 30 round magazine clip and ghost gun, however, justify a good ol' fashioned talking to. But simply referring to a magazine as a clip is fair game under common usage rules, just like slang. Another example is referring to a firearm as a gun, which is technically correct, even if it does sound stupid. Anything that launches a projectile from a tube is a gun, so be careful how technical you get because some of the anal nitpicky stuff on gun forums is actually wrong, this being the prime example. Yes, your Marine Corps drill sergeant will make you do pushups if you call your rifle a gun, but he also claims that helmets are called brain buckets. The dictionary, however, begs to differ. Personally, I wish we could all go back to the days when words like clip and gun could be uttered without reprisal from a bunch of eighteen year old "firearms experts."

If it's something that's just plain wrong, then I guess it just depends on how much you like these people and if you want to get along with them. My policy is if it's an honest error, then leave it alone unless it's dangerous. However, if someone is lecturing me, then I don't mind giving a dissenting opinion. For example, I just brought out my new Glock 19 at the range and my in-law starts telling me how I wasted my money and I'm a sissy for buying a 9mm...yea, he's gonna get it. Everyone's entitled to make mistakes, but no one is entitled to be an ass.

 

[DaisyCutter]

I don't correct people.

 

[Bula]

If arguing with antis is "futile", then Wayne La Pierre should NEVER debate Diane Feinstein or Charles Schumer on TV. We should just let them speak without contradiction and simply concede the debate to them.

Valid point. I was taking the man on man point. Let's stay vocal, politically. Different animal altogether. The typical anti is set in stone with their beliefs. Just as we are I guess. Feinstein's ilk do not share our reality, never will.

 

[macgrumpy]

Anything that launches a projectile from a tube is a gun...

Actually that's not technically correct, yes most civilians believe this to be true and even the government assumes that this is true but in the world of weapons a gun is a crew served or a mounted weapon.

 

[grampajack]

Actually that's not technically correct, yes most civilians believe this to be true and even the government assumes that this is true but in the world of weapons a gun is a crew served or a mounted weapon.

That's a modern military convention that has no relationship to the etymology. That's a complicated story, but the short of it is that the word was originally applied to both crew served and hand held weapons, although it was likely first used for hand held ones. Its common usage today is the historically correct one. It's simply a universal term for anything that shoots a projectile out of a tube.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Everyone has gotten so overly technical lately that it's now delving into the absurd and just plain wrong.

BTW, you should write GUNS and ammo, and tell them they either need to change their name or start reviewing howitzers and canons only.

 

[TimSr]

It is near impossible to "correct" anyone who "knows" something via verbal arguments. Just look at the number of locked threads on any internet forum.

 

[pockets]

Just don't.