How to debate with anti-gun relative

[Old krow]

Several very intelligent people have told you to back out of this fruitless venture.

I can see why you'd consider this a fruitless adventure. However, it is because he immediately said that he did not believe in human rights, or simply not a policy to argue or debate with an "anti?"

There are people that are going to inherently disagree with this, and there are people that will not. Here's my take on it anyway. This is what age and wisdom have taught me, well, mostly a lot of chess and Sun Tzu. Know thyself. Know thy enemy.

The RKBA is "liberty's teeth." Liberty is American Culture, therefore, RBKA is American Culture. You'd be fooling yourself to think that this is not as much of a cultural issue as it is political. You'd furthermore being doing yourself a great disservice to think that our culture is being propagated the way it once was.

Their camp is now larger than ours. Less than half American homes have a gun in them and more than half (64%) favor stricter gun control. RKBA provides protection from the gun grabbers until a 75% supermajority can ratify The Constitution of the United States. I find it unlikely that a move like that will be plausible in the near future, but it's heading in that general direction.

The media works against RKBA most of the time, Academia works against it most of the time, countless organization and government officials work against it. They also do it very diligently and tirelessly. They have on numerous occasion stated that they would erode it little by little. Everybody is speaking against guns to the antis, who speaking for guns to the antis? The other team is speaking more often and louder than we are. They're waging (and winning) a war of attrition. All they need is patience. In the end, the votes of the American people will mean a lot more than a court ruling. The courts can only interpret law, publicly elected officials make them.

The point being, if we shun or ostracize, everyone that doesn't share our beliefs in what I would consider fundamental to the American culture, their camp will continue to grow and ours to shrink. If people are looking for an answer, they will take whatever is available should the truth be hiding from them, i.e "the barrel shroud." Seriously? And people believed that. If we allow them to believe the garbage that is out there without offering up the truth then they will continue to believe it as the gospel. I'm almost surprised that California didn't put a limit on archery quivers after watching Legolas in Lord of the Rings.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

We need to either make babies faster than they are or start convincing some of them that an AR15 won't really blow the front wheel assembly off of a suburban at 500 yards. I'm too old for a baby race.

Just my .02

 

[rattletrap1970]

I don't debate truth, or sense with anyone. I'm right, they aren't, and if they are in my house they won't be for long.

 

[Zombie_Flesh]

Start off with "I am sorry your belief is wrong, I know I cannot change your mind I see no reason to discuss this further."

Honestly, I would not try it's simply not worth it, the time and effort you spend converting him, you could talk to co-workers or neighbors or stranges and convert 100 fence sitters in the same amount of time.

 

[jwash3rd]

It's my hope that it doesn't take some tragedy to change his mind.

 

[Deanimator]

You'd be fooling yourself to think that this is not as much of a cultural issue as it is political.

My 20+ years of in person and online debate of the subject indicates to me that there's a lot of truth in that.

Discussing armed self-defense with a lot of anti-gunners, especially foreign anti-gunners is like discussing womens rights with the Taliban. They don't "get it" and don't WANT to get it. Furthermore, there's a considerable degree of animosity and contempt on their part for the VICTIMS of crime. They have no more concern for the welfare of REAL victims of savage crimes like those committed by Hayes and Kommsarjevsky in Connecticut than I do for the pretend victims in a teen slasher movie. As long as THEY aren't touched, it's just "entertainment" to them.

The bottom line is that there are some of them who will NEVER be convinced. What I do in those cases is provide them an opportunity to display their psychopathologies and moral failings to as broad an audience as possible. Stick with it long enough and you can play them like a sport fisherman playing a fish. You can get them to display their own racism, anti-Semitism, and misogyny themselves. THAT'S what the undecided masses need to see.

 

[Neverwinter]

I'm slightly confused by this. Which socio-economic factors are you speaking of? And more specifically which crimes that resulted from the socio-economic factors are we talking about?

Out of consideration for the OP, I will not discuss the socio-economics factors alluded to in my post in detail. If he posts that he has gotten all of the discussion needed out of the thread and does not mind if it is locked due to discussions of politics, religion, and abortion.

I can highlight some in the list, though. Narcotics violations, larceny, robbery, sexual assault, sex trafficking, DUI...

I'm all for layers of security, but they're not built in to save the criminal. I certainly do not ever intend on shooting someone over food, but when did the burden of crime get placed on the innocent?

There is no burden of crime. It is legal to use lethal force to defend yourself(and your property, in some jurisdictions). My focus was not on the safety of the criminal, but rather the intent of the person who takes the approach that non-violent preparations are not worth the effort. I would not call a person whose preference is to use force over deterrence as "innocent". There are many self-interested motivations to taking measures against having to use your gun. A self-defense shooting has legal, psychological, and financial consequences that would best be avoided rather than welcomed.

 

[Jonah71]

I don't debate the issue. Really.......how many times have you actually witnessed anyone on either side of the argument change their mind because of these "debates?" Educating people is a good thing. Butting heads with people who's minds are made up/closed is a waste of energy.

 

[Deanimator]

I don't debate the issue. Really.......how many times have you actually witnessed anyone on either side of the argument change their mind because of these "debates?"

I've rarely seen a "movement" anti-gunner change his mind. On the other hand, I've seen "me too" anti-gunners and fence sitters change their minds quite frequently. A lot of people are laughably ignorant and only have the opinions they do because they're "supposed to". As I've said previously, the motives of anti-gunners can be EXCEPTIONALLY ugly. Expose those motives and you can make a LOT of people turn away from them. I've seen it happen.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Deanimator, could you give me an example of a few ugly motives of anti-gunners? As far as my life experiences go, all the antis I've ever met seem to want guns banned for some perceived good in society. It's normally based on ignorance, dumb assumptions, a controlling nature, or wrong information, but still, their intentions are good. Also, how do you go about exposing evil motives?

 

[skoro]

Here's an analogy I use when someone questions why I carry...

I never leave the driveway thinking, "I might have a flat on this trip." But I'm convinced that it's good to be ready, just in case I do get a flat. So, I keep a spare in the trunk along with the tools needed to mount it. But I hope I won't ever need it.

I used to be a Boy Scout. I think the motto "be prepared" is a good one.

 

[Deanimator]

Deanimator, could you give me an example of a few ugly motives of anti-gunners? As far as my life experiences go, all the antis I've ever met seem to want guns banned for some perceived good in society. It's normally based on ignorance, dumb assumptions, a controlling nature, or wrong information, but still, their intentions are good. Also, how do you go about exposing evil motives?

1. racism - If I had a dime for every racist I've seen who didn't want "them" (usually Blacks) to have guns, I'd buy myself a watercooled .50 with change.
2. anti-semitism - It's really hard to get somebody onto the boxcar if you've got a sucking chest wound. An elderly cleaner at McDonalds who gave me crap about my NRA ballcap opined that he wasn't sure that the Holocaust was really "such a bad thing".
3. misogyny - I'll never forget the Brit who told me that women shouldn't be allowed to carry guns because he was "afraid that he'd be mistaken for a rapist and shot". My reply? "How is it that you act around women that that's going to happen? Put down that butcher knife and pull up your pants and you'll be just fine."
4. violent political nihilism - Fanatics of the right and left want to be able to forcibly suppress opinion and speech of which they disapprove. Again, that's hard to do with a sucking chest wound.
5. fear of retaliation for violence on their part - Criminals, especially criminals who prey on women and the elderly count on being able to intimidate or overwhelm. Again, that's tough with a sucking chest wound.

I expose evil motives by drawing them out. If it's obvious that the anti-gunner isn't afraid of guns, but Black people with guns, I hand him all of the rope he needs to hang himself.

One of them once compared opponents of gun control to "over-educated New York Jewish lawyers opposing prayer in school". I just kept throwing it back in her face as beacon of her true motivations.

If they think women shouldn't be able to carry concealed, I ask why female LEOs should be allowed to carry, and indeed why females should be allowed to serve in the military and control weapons of mass destruction. None of them could ever explain.

There is a DEEP well of malice in the anti-gun movement. I do everything I can to bring it to the surface where normal people can see it. Usually they're repelled.

 

[Old krow]

Out of consideration for the OP, I will not discuss the socio-economics factors alluded to in my post in detail. If he posts that he has gotten all of the discussion needed out of the thread and does not mind if it is locked due to discussions of politics, religion, and abortion.

Fair enough.

I don't debate the issue. Really.......how many times have you actually witnessed anyone on either side of the argument change their mind because of these "debates?" Educating people is a good thing. Butting heads with people who's minds are made up/closed is a waste of energy.

I've seen it (albeit generally in person). I can give you a couple examples if you want. The young man in the OP is young, no kids, and if I remember correctly, still a student. He's hardly the poster boy for "steadfast beliefs." Doesn't mean that they're not strong beliefs, just that they will change anyway. Just about the time diapers show up with be a big one. He doesn't believe in human right at the moment, how long will that last? Will the OP get to reap the seed he's sown? But, yes, you're right. The success rate isn't all that high really. But you do win some, and they have a tendency to act like compound interest.

In my own personal experiences I have seen people that were anti gun actually purchase guns. It's about fear in many cases, IMHO. Those could be rational or irrational, but it's fear just the same. My mom, who is anything but anti, believes that an AR15 will go through a house, a car, 6 inches of steel, and blow up the natural gas tank. It appears that my nephews had her watching Losers. :banghead:

The purpose (at least for me anyway) to argue with an anti of which I am sure I cannot change his mind isn't to beat him. I just wanna see what he/she is selling. They had some strategy to win over to the anti crowd a person that hadn't enough experience, or bought into their school of thought, to make up their own mind. It's like chess, sometimes you learn more from losing. Your opponent MUST reveal his strategy to beat you. I go to their websites, I see their arguments, I watch their debates too. When we (as a nation) get scared, we give up freedoms.

Here's a great example from an debate.org on gun control in urban areas. She might not EVER change the mind of her opponent, but after reading the comments I'm inclined to think that his paradigms might have shifted a bit, but, look at the votes. http://www.debate.org/debates/That-we-should-ban-guns-in-urban-areas/1/

I wasn't saying that we should take on every debate with every anti out there. What I was saying is that if we simply ignore all them we're not doing ourselves any favor. They're getting fed information from somewhere, and the anti gun crown is happy to give it them in our absence.

 

[Jonah71]

I'm not against debating the issue with people who are capable of doing so objectively. It doesn't take long during the conversation to know the difference.
Taking open minded but "misinformed and misguided" individuals to the range is the best way to change their opinion. Those who are not willing to at least go that far are imo probably hopeless. But I can see your point. It may take a few discussions to get them there. This is just an opinion, but I believe most real "antis" have never fired or even held a gun. Most are clueless and are determined to stay in that condition.

 

[okespe04]

Let him / her grow up a bit, try again in 10 years.

 

[Patriotme]

You only have to make a few points.
1) This country is full of guns and always will be. If you, a law abiding citizen, and other law abiding citizens are disarmed it will not make anyone safer so what is the point? When a new law is passed it is expected that there will be a positive benefit. Disarming law abiding citizens benefits no one.
2) If we cannot keep illegal aliens, Cocaine, Heroin and Meth from coming across our borders we cannot keep illegal guns from flowing in if handguns are banned. Only the criminals would be armed. There is no positive benefit to this.
3) Your family member may hate guns but I'm sure that he has no problem with a man carrying a gun protecting him. He is unwilling to "Man Up" but is willing to have police officers and security guards protect him as if he is a small child. Ask him if he routinely calls the police officers "Daddy."
4) What is the average response time for the police in your area? Show your family member exactly how long it would take you to walk in the front door, enter the kitchen, grab a knife and find the nearest bedroom. Ask him what he would be doing during this 5 minute (or so) time period.
5) Pull up a list of sex offenders in your (or his) area. Ask him how his wife could defend herself against a man with twice her upper body strength. Take him outside and show him how easy it would be to cut the phone lines.
6) Ask him why gun control failed in Washington, DC and Chicago. When he replies that guns keep coming in from outside of these cities ask him if guns would enter America from other country. Remind him of our inability to keep illegal aliens and drugs out. Now ask him how well we would do at keeping out illegal guns.

 

[stchman]

To the OP:

I would not waste any more of my time. It is obvious that this person has been completely brainwashed by somebody.

How does this person (who thinks it is OK to protect yourself) think you can protect yourself from a criminal wanting to do you harm if you don't harm them?

Sounds like he feels sorry for criminals committing crimes. I wonder if his tune would change if he was beaten by thugs, had his wallet/money/personal possessions stolen from him? Would he still feel sorry for them?

Cops without guns in NZ??!!!! I guess that criminals have free reign over there.

 

[lemosley01]

If he doesn't believe in the concept of fundamental rights, there is nothing you can say.

This person is going to have to learn the hard way that there are no skittles-pooping unicorns that run on rainbows.