While I did post a brief, glib response earlier on (post #16), after pondering a bit more and reading and re-reading others wise posts, I offer the following:
Debating with an anti.
1st define terms agreeable to both sides.
2nd, historical USA POV, control of weapons by individuals v. govt, which includes the situation back then e.g., Pilgrims etc not allowing guns in the hands of the Natives up to 1770s North American British Colonies and disarming of citizens by Redcoated Kings Men thru the post Civil War when armed black Americans caused a few in power some concern, Bonus March/34NFA (I cheat and tie the two together with no backup, my bad), 68 GCA tied to assassinations and civil unrest of the day.
If the Pro or Con side agree to the above as factual history, ask their opinion of same... (As in)
3rd, Was that GOOD or was it BAD? (a wise response could be, answer depends on whose OX is being gored at the moment)
4th, ask them if they knew or know why the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place. (some do, most do not in my own experience)
5th, Bring up the two often cited SCOTUS court cases, Castle Rock v Gonzalez and Warren v. DC explaining in simple terms that the courts have ruled citizens are basically on their/our own with little to no LEO protection. (very very few people outside of the gun community know of these two cases, I've had people argue that I MUST BE WRONG!)
Yes, I will admit to them that weapons
IN THE WRONG HANDS are dangerous; be they guns, steak knives, sticks, rocks, automobiles, etc (see post 16) and I will go farther and state that I know a few people who should NOT own firearms as their impulse control is non-existant and/or they have anger management issues.
With a few, I have chosen to back down and agree to disagree as none of the above seems to penetrate. Closed minds are closed. Smile and wish them a safe trip home.
As I am not in Debate Club in H.S., I don't try to WIN any debate, but plant a thoughtful seed instead. Ask them to ponder the above and get back to me if they choose. If I feel it wise, I offer to take them shooting.
If they do come back for more and/or we do go shooting somewhere in the next go round of discussions, if I want to get all Zelman JFPO on them, I discuss gun control elsewhere and the end results on the populace (I never mention pre WWII Germany, let them). Again, you might be surprised by how few people actually know the number of dead as a result... and besides, that, that awful genocide word... that could NEVER happen here, right? Ask the native americans about that.
Otherwise, shooting firearms is a fun sport with very useful side effects and a whole lot of history with them, both good, and bad. Depending on the user of the implement in question of course.
While I might not change their minds, perhaps someone else listening in, who might be more of a fence sitter on the subject and hopefully has an open mind, might gain some insight. While I know I am preaching to the choir here at THR, while I typed this out there are 397 members and 1254 guests viewing the forums. Maybe a lurker will read this thread and gain some insight, maybe join us?
A boy (or old man in my case) can dream can't he?
But on the other hand, I, like others here, can debate, er, discuss the opposite side as well and really frost some gun owners with my discourse using the old "Well Regulated Militia" and "Free State" angle of attack using the convoluted reasoning that "Shall Not Be Infringed" means "reasonable regulations" per SCOTUS Heller v DC (hey, if I'm going to quote SCOTUS for one, might as well use it for the other... however sad that logic is).