Is it even worth arguing with the Anti's?

[GEM]

Yes, it is worth it. If you demand absolute ideological purity from someone who has the opposite absolute ideological purity then it is worthless.

However, there are folks who are not zealots and can listen. Real surveys about gun rights (not politically motivated ones) indicate that most of the country supports owning guns for SD and sport but wants to control access to criminals.

Thus, you can get support for home ownership and concealed carry. Now you may not like, if you are a purist, a middle person who likes background checks for private sales at the gun show - but that person might support CCW permits with some training or testing. That person is an overall win.

In several states we've gotten concealed carry with not to onerous requirements for a shall issue permit. The absolutist might not like it but now most states are shall issue. Quite a good thing.

I can make the argument for campus carry to some - who know that I've taken the issue seriously and trained up. They may not like the untrained carrying. So with that person I can reasonably discussed standards.

If you think about small steps and reason - it can be done to the middle of the distribution of gun attitudes.

 

[carbine85]

The problem I see with it is that the anti's like to yell and scream to make their point while must of us like to have a discussion with facts and facts don't matter to the anti's. In the end very few anti's change their minds but it's always worth a shot (no pun intended)

 

[Big_John1961]

Being from the social media generation I have an active Facebook presence. When the sandy hook gun ban scare was going around, well we all know how people love to spout off on the internet. I'd defend gun ownership in the most based logical way I could when I got the chance but more often than not was faced with the usual "plug my ears and close my eyes I know I'm right" strategy. I think I can count one instance someone cared enough to listen to me and even still they closed with "I understand why these things have a use but they should still be banned."

Lately I've stopped bothering. I feel I'm wasting my time and energy trying to chance someone's mind that's already made up. Seems my effort is better spent with those on the fence open to a real discussion and to writing congress.

Thought on this

In my experience, a big fat NO. I rarely bother any more because the likely outcome is elevated tensions and a heated argument.

 

[Big_John1961]

You're on a site dedicated to the very idea that we can change peoples' minds simply by having reasonable discussions in a civil manner about firearms that they can read.

Never give up, learn all you can about how to persuade people with facts and emotion and then keep doing it

This is a fine sentiment, but this site is also largely (overwhelmingly?) populated by firearm advocates and enthusiasts. The few threads I've seen started by someone with anti-gun leanings have deteriorated into some pretty nasty affairs. Not saying good debate doesn't happen, it does, but it seems to me to be mostly between people who already have a love of firearms.

Just my $.02.

 

[Warp]

No need to wonder, they have the EXACT same conversation in their groups.

To antis, pro-gun people are illogical and their position is based on fear and emotion, just like to pro-gun people, antis are illogical and their position is based on fear and emotion.

Everything you say, nearly word for word, they are saying about you.

And both sides are, in many cases, right about the other side. Many people who believe strongly on either side have strong emotional attachments to their position that are immune to logic or reason, they will hold that position regardless of any evidence or reason to the contrary.

The majority of antis believe things that are patently false.

What you are saying may be true for a select few...the antis who believe it is better for a woman to be raped than for her to shoot her attacker...the gun nuts who prefer 'dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery'...the antis who believe that only a select few, the chosen, the rich and powerful deserve arms while the peasants do not...the gun nuts who believe the Right to arms is fundamental to being a human being...those kinds of things may be called emotional and aren't strictly logic based, necessarily.

 

[Big_John1961]

No need to wonder, they have the EXACT same conversation in their groups.

To antis, pro-gun people are illogical and their position is based on fear and emotion, just like to pro-gun people, antis are illogical and their position is based on fear and emotion.

Everything you say, nearly word for word, they are saying about you.

And both sides are, in many cases, right about the other side. Many people who believe strongly on either side have strong emotional attachments to their position that are immune to logic or reason, they will hold that position regardless of any evidence or reason to the contrary

The difference is that antis are flat out wrong, about the Constitutionality of private gun ownership and concealed carry, about the so-called "benefits" of gun control laws and about the gun culture in general. Their arguments are rife with hypocrisy.

Facts matter not to someone who is anti gun. In my book that equates to delusional behavior. There's so much evidence to the contrary that denying it is akin to those who claimed that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax perpetuated on the gullible masses from the confines of a Hollywood soundstage or that George W. Bush orchestrated 9/11.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Is it even worth arguing with the Anti's?
No. I don't believe in arguing with 'em. I do try to calmly match facts against fiction.

 

[DammitBoy]

...gun control advocates are generally arguing that restrictions can stop or limit the available means to inflict damage by people wishing to do so.

This is the usual argument I encounter on the Net, especially in forums with posters from Canada and Europe in the mix. They argue it is the sheer number of guns available in the US that is the root cause of our gun violence issues.

 

[aarondhgraham]

I quit trying to argue with anti's,,,

I quit trying to argue with anti's,,,
They (like me) are too emotionally invested for me to change them.

Instead I concentrate my efforts towards people on the fence,,,
As well as the people who don't think about the 2A one way or the other.

Just last night I ran across a young lady I had taken to the range once,,,
That was back in 2009 and she is now a NRA member,,,
And she has a small range on their farm.

Apparently she hosts shooting days for her other lady friends,,,
This is what I consider a good use of my time.

I'm never going to change the mind of an anti,,,
I might be able to counter their vote with a NEW Pro-2A person.

As often as I can I take college kids out shooting,,,
In most cases I find they weren't even aware of the attack on the 2A.

So I place a rimfire gun in their hands,,,
And show them just how much fun plinking can be,,,
This is how I deal with by countering them one new shooter at a time.

There's an old saying that I think applies here:

Never try to teach a pig to sing,,,
It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Try and turn the antis if that is what you want to do,,,
Myself, I will try and enlarge the numbers of people on my side of the fence.

Aarond

.

 

[ATLDave]

This is the usual argument I encounter on the Net, especially in forums with posters from Canada and Europe in the mix. They argue it is the sheer number of guns available in the US that is the root cause of our gun violence issues.

Yes, that is the common argument. Responses include:
1. Those countries all had far lower rates of homicide than we did long before they enacted their gun control. Gun control is not the cause of their low homicide rate.
2. There are substantial differences between the cultural norms and socio-economic realities of those countries and ours. They have extensive social support for people. For better or worse, our social safety net is thin and hard, or badly mismanaged. So many more people here live "tough" lives. That leads to crime. Passing laws against guns won't change any of that, so crime won't change.
3. Once you exclude the groups of Americans that are most likely to be perpetrators and/or victims of violent crime, our homicide rates look very similar to those of European nations. We have certain highly-disfunctional sub-cultures with VERY high crime levels. The rest of society is doing OK, despite the huge number of guns. It's not the guns that cause the problem... it's something else. Let's figure out what it is and fix that.
4. The number of guns in America has increased over the last 15 years, while the level of crime and homicide has decreased. If cigarettes caused cancer the way guns cause murder, we'd be giving out Lucky Strikes to first graders!
5. One true part of the statement is that there are a lot of guns in America. There is no law that will change that reality. Marijuana has been illegal for roughly a century, and we have more than ever. We have lots of guns because we want lots of guns. A change in the law won't change the demand. It will just produce the negative collateral effects that usually flow from a prohibitionist strategy.
6. A change in the law, will, however, adversely effect the 99% of gun owners who are law-abiding, well-intentioned, and no threat to anyone. This kind of overbreadth problem is always worrisome when you're dealing with a question of personal liberty. Even if you don't think the 2nd amendment settles the issue, you should be troubled by the idea of a law that will almost exclusively impact/constrain people that you don't need to constrain and that have done nothing harmful.
7. Lots of states have tried various forms of gun control. When you compare homicide rates - or even gun homicide rates - in the 50 states to the Brady Campaign scores for the 50 states, you discover that, from a statistical point of view, there is NO CORRELATION between gun control laws and reduction of homicide among Americans. Similarly, we had the AWB from 1994-2004. Nothing dramatic happened to murder rates when it was enacted. Nothing dramatic happened when it expired. Rather than extrapolating from how other populations in other countries act under gun control, we can look at how Americans respond. Nothing happens. Gun control is simply ineffective in America - again, because guns aren't the causal element. You can pull the gun control lever all you want, the homicide rate needle won't move. Let's find a lever that will move the needle.

 

[J-Bar]

Yes, it worth our time to respond to anti-gun arguments, because it will help perpetuate the standoff we presently have.

Crimes have been committed as long as there have been human beings; we will not ensure gun rights with efforts to prevent crime. Criminal activity is going to continue. Forever. We will not ensure gun rights with efforts to prevent poverty. There will always be poverty. After billions and billions of dollars spent worldwide to help poor people there are now more poor people than ever. The poor will always be with us. We will not ensure gun rights with efforts to eliminate mental illness. Mental illness will always occur in human beings. These societal problems have always been part of human life and will continue to be part of human life as long as there is human life.

So as I see it, the best we can hope for is a Mexican standoff, no disrespect intended to Mexicans. The pro-gun/anti-gun debate is a dynamic process and will always be so. If we do not continually make our voices heard, if we yield the field to those who would take our personally owned firearms away, then the balance is lost and the antis will win.

I really don't think we should expect to bring the antis around to agree with us, but they need to continually understand that we will never agree with them.

 

[RBid]

The real question is, do you care enough to be the best ambassador for gun owners that you can be?

 

[Zeke/PA]

Argue? I'd really be able to discuss the issue till they have AT LEAST seen my point of view.

 

[readyeddy]

If the argument is a civil and polite discussion, then absolutely. After all, we have the advantage of being on the right side.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

The problem I see with it is that the anti's like to yell and scream to make their point while must of us like to have a discussion with facts and facts don't matter to the anti's.

And... They say the EXACT same thing about you and they believe it just as much as you.

Both sides, for the most part, view the other side in the exact same way.

 

[Warp]

This is a fine sentiment, but this site is also largely (overwhelmingly?) populated by firearm advocates and enthusiasts. The few threads I've seen started by someone with anti-gun leanings have deteriorated into some pretty nasty affairs. Not saying good debate doesn't happen, it does, but it seems to me to be mostly between people who already have a love of firearms.

Just my $.02.

I have found that a great deal of people on gun boards are anti gun. They just don't know it.

If you don't believe me start a thread or conversation about:

*Carry with no license requirements
*Nowhere off limits unless it is secure, with screened access for every person, with armed security present (jails, secure areas of airports, etc) (note that this means teenagers can carry guns while drinking at bars on colleges campuses...also note that this is already the case in at least one state, with no issue)
*18 years as minimum age for carry
*No background checks (free in society = you have your Rights and Liberties)
*No NFA or AOW restrictions

And watch the gun forum regulars roll in with their anti gun arguments for why these things are crazy

 

[shafter]

The only time I argue with antis are when I'm feeling ornery or when I encounter an intelligent anti with an open mind subject to being swayed by politely presented facts. Other than that, I just smile and nod at their ignorance.

 

[Baron_Null]

I find it very worth it, but in order to find worth in it I have to move beyond the incredibly narrow mindset of "I'm arguing with this one person for the express purpose of trying to change their mind".

When I argue with anti's, it's almost always in a public setting, such as social media sites, where there may be people on both sides and a great deal who are not on any side at all.

I've had a few people become more open to gun rights after having a debate with them, but for the most part, they're just someone to spar with. The true purpose behind why I argue is to get people on-the-fence to see that it's not just one side that has valid arguments, which is an easy impression to get if you only get information from main-stream media outlets.

Besides that, I don't like the idea that we should just allow anti-gun people to have their soapboxes on public sites, and never challenge them because "we can't change their minds". The fact of the matter is that the more that is out there from anti-gun advocates that goes unchallenged, the more it looks to the layperson that the majority of people support further gun control.

To address the point that implies that gun-control advocates are not willing to think logically, I find this position only does our side more harm than good. The pro-gun control side has many arguments that make some amount of sense, logically. However, just because their points make sense does not mean that I agree with them, and it is important that I counter those arguments. Acting like they're just screaming children only makes us seem like we are hasty to discredit the opinions of people just because we don't like said opinions. It makes every pro-gun person just seem that much more immature and uninformed in the eyes of fence-sitters and anti's alike. Not that I tell them they're right and pat them on the head just because they have an opinion, mind you, but I do make sure to treat them with the same respect I would any other person.

Even if the anti I'm debating with is acting uneducated and illogical, I will still treat them with respect and address their arguments. Treating them with disrespect does nothing to change their minds nor the minds of others.

There are few times where I do treat them disrespectfully, and only treat them badly if they argue points like "rape is not worth killing someone in self-defense over" (yes, one person made that argument. Surprisingly, I got them to change their mind on a few things, and though they are not pro-gun now, they aren't as anti. You never know until you talk to someone what will happen.) However, I don't purposefully treat them with disrespect, it's just my personal biases making me lose my cool.

To summarize, it's worth arguing with anti's, but only if you are willing to treat them with respect and address the arguments that they make.

 

[benEzra]

Yes, it is worthwhile. Occasionally you will find an anti mind open enough to thoughtfully consider the issue, but the real reason to debate the prohibitionists is to persuade the undecided lurkers reading the conversation, not the zealots.

 

[Schwing]

I do enjoy discussion or even arguing with anti's. I have found that, the ones who really are willing to have a constructive conversation, may not necessarily change their minds, but I often walk away with a far greater understanding of their point of view. Don't mistake this with agreement but I believe that there is a huge advantage in being able to actually put yourself in the other person's shoes and try and see WHY they believe what they do.

Over the years, I have been able to do this with other areas of disagreement as well. I have my own definite opinions on things like religion, abortion, capital punishment, drug legalization etc. but it is extremely helpful to be able to HONESTLY look the other person in the face and be able to say, "I understand why you feel the way that you do but... this is why I disagree...". I will even admit that I have had MY mind changed on some things over the years. If people know you have an open mind and they know that you are intellectually honest, they will be far more likely to come around.

Just my .02

On another note, the troll in me enjoys a good heated argument with someone so rabidly stuck in their position that you know it is a waste of time. It is kind of a guilty pleasure of mine to be able to keep a smile on my face and watch them foam and the mouth and explode.

 

[TRX]

Sometimes you just feel like wrestling with the pig...

The strategy that has worked for me is to get them to a place to shoot, put a gun in their hand, double them up on ear protection, and let them blast away at cardboard boxes and milk jugs. It's amazing how the fun factor rearranges their perceptions. Flinging hot lead downrange turned out to be way more fun than they ever imagined.

In at least two occasions, a year later the guys owned more guns than I do; one had three gun safes, last I saw.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Ah Justin, good to see that you are still illogical. When will you emerge from the closet? When the anti's take the position that the only way to make us all safe is to remove all weapons are they not stating that humanity is not to be trusted with a weapon that can cause death? And doesn't it also put the light to their illogic when they do not apply the same standards to the multitude of things that cause more deaths than firearms?

 

[JustinJ]

Ah Justin, good to see that you are still illogical. When will you emerge from the closet?

Thank you, Steel Horse, for so perfectly demonstrating my point regarding overly simplistic black and white view points. Apparently, just acknowledging there are multiple facets to the issue in your mind means one is an "anti". I love owning, shooting and collecting guns just like everybody here. That, however, does not mean I shouldn't be objective when evaluating issues pertaining to gun control. Objectivity takes integrity. Believing what is convenient to one's wants does not and its intellectually lazy. That does not mean I support gun control. Only that I acknowledge that there is more than one side to the issue.

Regarding your claim that my comments were illogical, please feel free to explain how so rather than just make an unjustified accusation.

When the anti's take the position that the only way to make us all safe is to remove all weapons are they not stating that humanity is not to be trusted with a weapon that can cause death?

Or maybe they simply believe that there are some individuals amongst the population who can't be trusted with weapons that cause death, which is in fact true, and that the only effective way to keep them out of the hands of most criminals is to ban them outright. If you really want to know why supporters of a gun ban feel as they do it would not be that hard to find out. Of course, doing so would take actual effort as opposed to just inventing easily attacked straw man arguments.

And doesn't it also put the light to their illogic when they do not apply the same standards to the multitude of things that cause more deaths than firearms?

It ultimately comes down to what different people value. Or do you think its just a coincidence that the people who actively fight gun control are the same ones who have a strong interest in guns? Thousands die every year in auto accidents but the vast majority of Americans would agree that the contributions to society by personally owned vehicles are worth the cost. Many gun control advocates, on the other hand, see little to no value in the ownership of guns or certain classes of them. This is why they regularly ask, "why does anybody need to own that". To them, banning such guns is all benefit as they see no use for them while those of us who enjoy owning and shooting those guns disagree. It also matters to people if the object or activity in question causes people to kill others or to kill themselves. Nobody calls for skydiving to be banned because the participants only kill themselves. Drunk drivers, on the other hand, often plow into others so there is strong support for its criminalization. It's not just a matter of total people dead. Sure, its hypocritical to call for the activities other people enjoy to be banned while defending those one enjoys. But then again, there are plenty of gun lovers who oppose the legalization of pot so don't think logic is the driving force on either side.

 

[Warp]

Many gun control advocates, on the other hand, see little to no value in the ownership of guns or certain classes of them.

Many of them see value in the peasant class being disarmed.

Many of them, especially at the highest levels, are rich and can afford personal private armed protection and/or they have special privileges granted via political corrupt..err...connections.

Of course, almost every gun control advocate is more than happy to call somebody to come and use a gun for them on their behalf.

 

[JustinJ]

Many of them see value in the peasant class being disarmed.

Who are these you refer to, what is the value they see and what evidence do you have for this claim?

Of course, almost every gun control advocate is more than happy to call somebody to come and use a gun for them on their behalf.

I'm not sure what you define as a gun control advocate. You do realize that there are countless people who own guns, believe in the right to own guns and also believe that there should be more regulations geared towards limiting the access of the mentally disturbed and convicted felons?