The two types of antis

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I think a lot of us are applying the wrong methods for dealing with antis we encounter because we might think they're all alike, or we can't tell the difference. There's really two types, at least from what I've seen.

The first are essentially the useful idiots. These are your everyday people who have never seen a gun in person, only "know" what they think they know about guns from movies or the media. They're scared of guns because they've never really learned different. Maybe they've been emotionally scarred by a past even involving a gun, maybe they're just towing the party line of their chose political group, maybe they're just scared soccer moms who think "guns=bad" so "removing guns=good". They don't really understand the Constitution, crime, or violence because all of that stuff takes concentrated thought, and for them it's just far easier to "feel" instead of think. Somewhere deep down, they probably really do want what's best for everyone, but their feelings drive them in the wrong direction, and they've never taken the time to learn otherwise.

Then there are the second kind. These are the ones in power. They know what guns are and what they mean. They know that someone with the ability to defend themselves is hard to control. And a country that can defend itself can't be control either. They are the Senators and Congresspeople who write and vote on bills. These are the people who have offices in Washington and sit on the boards of places like the VPC and Brady. They have their own armed security staff, and don't have a problem with guns per se. They have a problem with commoners owning them. To them, gun control is not emotional, but logical. A logical means to obtain more power and keep it.


Don't confuse the two. And when you're fighting an anti, don't assume one kind is the other. If you're talking to your mom, or a coworker about guns, there's a pretty good chance they're the first kind. Save the "it's my RIGHT" soapbox speeches and confrontation and just apply a healthy does of good natured education and fact. They don't hate you, they're just scared and misinformed.

When you're fighting the second kind, never assume they are the first. Don't ever assume that inch you're giving them is going to earn you some good will or consideration. To them "compromise" is just a way to take a little today...and take a little more tomorrow. Until you've "compromised" everything away hoping to get some crumbs back. They do hate you, AND they're scared of you. Be very careful. And don't ever assume they want what's really best for you or the country.

And most importantly, learn to tell the difference between the two and deal with them appropriately. You're hurting yourself and all of us when you apply the wrong method to the wrong kind of anti.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Then there are the second kind. These are the ones in power. They know what guns are and what they mean. They know that someone with the ability to defend themselves is hard to control. And a country that can defend itself can't be control either. They are the Senators and Congresspeople who write and vote on bills. These are the people who have offices in Washington and sit on the boards of places like the VPC and Brady. They have their own armed security staff, and don't have a problem with guns per se. They have a problem with commoners owning them. To them, gun control is not emotional, but logical. A logical means to obtain more power and keep it.

This is a very good point. 20 years ago they were more open about their goals and tactics, but they've been more silent of late.

Don't forget their purpose. Don't forget the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, either. It's not about sports and hunting, after all. Right now most Americans can't afford to arm themselves like the common soldier is armed; if the AWB is passed then we won't be allowed to arm ourselves as well as police officers.

This seems contrary to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, but we'll never get that debate to happen in the media.

 

[Magoo]

There is another group as well, and my wife falls into that category. She is not strictly an "anti", but she is sure as heck riled up that "some concessions must come from the pro-gun side". She has come a long, long way in her view on guns since we met, but she is certainly not the RKBA advocate most of the members of this board are. She is also an ex state champ speech and debate person- I'll admit being a bit handicapped against her skills .

She is not hung up on the cosmetic items individually that get guns labeled an assault weapon. However, she is definitely a "blued and walnut" type of gal and EBRs do seem to give her a visceral reaction, despite her exposure to them and her rational understanding of the lack of practical/effective differences between walnut and plastic. I say this because while her rational mind understands this, I think her visceral reaction to EBRs still affects her overall attitudes and thoughts.

Right now, it seems her biggest hangup is "high capacity" magazines. She is accepting of standard capacity magazines (ie 30 round ARs, ~13-18 round pistols) but cannot or will not accept private ownership of truly high capacity magazines like 100 round drums and such. Dicussions/demonstrations of reload times do nothing to change this.

She is completely aware of the ineffectiveness of the last AWB. However she does seem to support a new ban, though she has not yet articulated to me what she thinks would be effective (other than high cap mags).

She's pretty good on NFA stuff. Trust me, she'd be plenty annoyed if our .22 suppressor was "compromised" away. Short barrel regulation is as silly to her (now) as it is to the rest of us. I could only get her to come around to repealling FA regs to the point of her being allowed to easily purchase 3 round burst capability.

All this said on the gun side of things, she is a mental health professional. She is fully on board that these mass shootings are a major mental health issue- and moreso than a gun issue. Currently most of her work is with domestic violence and not a week goes by that she does not interact with a victim of gun violence. To say she is not more sensitive to gun issues than the average Joe/Jane would be ridiculous. She is a very intelligent and rational person, but witnesses failures of the system and abuses of gun rights on a very regular basis. Her views on guns are formed both in her professional and her personal life. While the use of guns in those two areas is vastly different, I cannot discount the totality of her experiences when we talk.

I am not saying my wife represents a statistically significant portion of the population. I am saying that things are definitely not black and white and there are lots of folks out there with complicated/conflicting thoughts.

Sorry for the rambling. I don't post much in here, but this latest event has really escallated our discussions and I just had to vent a bit.

 

[scott5]

Talking to anit's

Hey Magoo,
I have an idea that may help the ban gun features discussion.
Have you wife dress in a dress and all the accessories that goes with it then tell her that her whole outfit is evil, then say you are going to have to ban her shoes, so she gives up her shoes.

Since her outfit is still evil then she has to give up her purse, (for her safety and the safety of others) then she has to give up her blouse (for the safety of others and herself).

Then she has to give up...
Until she has nowhere to hide her 380 auto and nothing to hide behind.

The point being if they can take one thing they won't stop until America is George Orwell's 1984.

Is this a good analogy or am I all wet?

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Magoo, it sounds like she's either not an anti at all, or she fits into the first group. You've already remedied many of her fears and misconceptions with facts and experience so far, and you just have some more work to do. But the source of her being against certain firearms still puts her in line with the first type: fear and lack of knowledge.

 

[Agsalaska]

I would generally agree with the OP. But I think very few are actually consciously trying to disarm the citizens in an effort to control them. But hose that are trying to do that are playing to the emotions of the first type. And doing it very effectively.

 

[lionking]

I agree but consider this. Most American's aren't going to respond to believing we are on a path to Orwell 1984. They might more if it was a call for a complete ban and confiscation specially if it was handguns but what is going through the minds of many Americans is they can't send their kid to school without worrying their kid will be murdered by some lunatic.

They are going to have to be calmed and assured that worry of theirs is being responded to.

 

[peyton]

My best friend and I have gone around in circles on why the AR should not be banned. One day I visited and he showed me his brand new semi auto shotgun. I said

"John your shotgun is exactly the same operating system as the AR, do you think they won't ban it as well"?? He tried to come back with a denial and I pointed out the parts, mechanisms of similiarity and capacity.
When finally done with my class he admitted he understood better why if you ban one type of firearm all could be affected.
Sadly, he spent 30 years in the Army shooting the M-16 rifle!!

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

...Don't forget their purpose. Don't forget the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, either. It's not about sports and hunting, after all. Right now most Americans can't afford to arm themselves like the common soldier is armed; if the AWB is passed then we won't be allowed to arm ourselves as well as police officers.

This seems contrary to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, but we'll never get that debate to happen in the media.

I just read a long and depressing thread over here about “Gun Control Compromise,” in which it seems evident that most tackling the topic do not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment, do not believe that the chief reason for its existence could ever really occur, and who believe that those who think so are paranoid kooks.

 

[lionking]

I know and agree with you all about the main purpose behind the 2nd amendment. But if your main strategy is to use that argument in this current debate I don't think it will help it might actually hurt.

The Average American isn't concerned with what could be they are concerned with what is right now and right now they are concerned that they can't send their kid to school without worrying some lunatic gunning them down.

You get brought up to the microphone and start saying "but the 2nd amendment is to fight back against a tyrannical government" you are going to turn too many people off and the anti's are going to capitalize on it.

They are going to say back to you " I currently don't see any tanks in the street, I don't see any gestapo coming to get me, I don't see any leader refusing to step down or invoke martial law, but I DO see my kid getting gunned down in a school".

Our efforts right now should be to respond with positive ideas to stop these mass shootings from happening again , to take that lead compared to the anti's taking it while promoting gun rights in a positive light of useful defense without invoking images of storming in rebellion.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

That's why it's so important to know why someone is against guns, and use the right arguments for that person. Politicians aren't going to respond to reasoned facts and scared citizens are probably not going to respond to talk of tyranny. You must tailor your argument to the type of anti you're dealing with.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

...Our efforts right now should be to respond with positive ideas to stop these mass shootings from happening again , to take that lead compared to the anti's taking it while promoting gun rights in a positive light of useful defense without invoking images of storming in rebellion.

The proper solution to an active shooter is a dead active shooter. That's hard to achieve when he's the only one with a gun.

Allowing school personnel with concealed carry permits to carry in schools would instantly provide an active-shooter solution to those who, at present, are not allowed effective means of defense, and who are most likely to be present the instant another active shooting takes place in a school.

 

[MachIVshooter]

what is going through the minds of many Americans is they can't send their kid to school without worrying their kid will be murdered by some lunatic.

This is the perception we have to dispell. Of the myriad tragedies that could take their children away from them, a school shooter is pretty much at the bottom of a very long list. It doesn't seem that way to folks right now, thanks to media sensationalism. But the reality is that, over the last 30 years, an average of 1 child per year has been killed by an active shooter in an elementary school. Yes, of course, that's one too many. It does not change the fact that the actual risk of your 5-11 year old child being killed in such an event is about 1 in 38 million, or a 0.0000026% chance. Odds of you elementary school aged child being killed in some kind of accident (unintentional injury death, all causes)? About 1 in 25,000 (0.004%).

 

[lionking]

While I agree that concealed carry should be open for discussion you aren't going to convince many teachers of it. One they are going to be ethically against it on their part, two they are going worry about potential students overpowering them and getting their hands on said gun, that will be their argument back to you in response.

They may be more open to trained security people though.

 

[beatledog7]

what is going through the minds of many Americans is they can't send their kid to school without worrying their kid will be murdered by some lunatic.

OK, who knows anyone who went to their child's school mid-morning Friday and pulled their child out or refused to send them Monday because of this fear?

 

[lionking]

I don't know anybody who pulled their kid out of school , probably was some but who knows.

Doesn't change the fact that parents or people are shaken by the fact or that it is in the back of their minds. When my house got broken into 3 years ago I still went to work everyday but every time I did leaving or coming home for a while I felt uneasy.

The way I see it, there is a battle between the staunch anti's and the pro gun people, but a large percentage of people don't take the side one way or the other and those people are the ones we should consider because those people at the end of the day will consider their kids before guns in importance. Forget the staunch anti, you'll never change their mind.

 

[FourNineFoxtrot]

Ragnar-

I don't believe that there are truly two kinds of "antis", nor that they can be broadly labeled as either "ignorant" or "malevolent".

Most people who favor gun-control, in my experience, are just people with their own opinions. They hold those opinions for what seem to them to be very good reasons. They are not stupid or evil. They may be wrong; indeed, I believe they are. But I also believe that respecting (Respecting! Not grudgingly tolerating it while saying they're all stupid or corrupt!) a person's right to hold a different opinion is as important to a free society as is the right to bear arms.

I know it's hard to remember to be civil sometimes, in the face of the kind of accusations and hate gun-rights advocates face... especially after an event as tragic and traumatic to the national psyche as the Sandy Hook shooting. I've read more opinion columns in the last few days than I care to count, addressing in disgusted tones what seems to some of them no more than our perverse little hobby, and then discussing with the dispassion of a physician or psychologist how to "cure" this country of its "gun problem". Yes, indeed, I know.

That doesn't make it right to demonize them. Politics in this country have become polarized enough. I doubt that adding to it will help.

 

[The-Reaver]

I work armed security out of Orlando FL,

What I have found when talking to residents about gun control is 99% are just completely clueless about everything really. So they bring the exact same & I mean word for word argument from what they have seen on the Lame steam media.

I have also found that generally people are not stupid.

Think of it like food coloring. A drop of logic goes a long way.

I was speaking with one resident that was all about banning semi automatic everything's. With the little bit of logic I left in that noggin to bake overnight. He bought himself a Semi automatic handgun the next day. ( Well..... three day wait here in FL but, the point is he paid it off and picked it up a few days later. )

 

[bikerdoc]

The useful idiots dont understand that the last 4 major incidents were committed by mental defectives, known to the system and the broken system left them in place.
Bring this up and the they have an ah-ha moment. crazy control not gun control.

 

[beatledog7]

I don't know anybody who pulled their kid out of school , probably was some but who knows.

Nobody posted in the affirmative to my question regarding any parent actually pulling their child from school because of the fear of that child being gunned down. Nor have I heard any news reports of mass truancy due to parental fear of lunatic shooters, and I'm sure if was happening the pro-control media would be all over it.

Yet you have no problem making the blanket statement:

The Average American isn't concerned with what could be they are concerned with what is right now and right now they are concerned that they can't send their kid to school without worrying some lunatic gunning them down. [emphasis added]

You get brought up to the microphone and start saying "but the 2nd amendment is to fight back against a tyrannical government" you are going to turn too many people off and the anti's are going to capitalize on it.

They are going to say back to you " I currently don't see any tanks in the street, I don't see any gestapo coming to get me, I don't see any leader refusing to step down or invoke martial law, but I DO see my kid getting gunned down in a school" [emphasis added].

There may be a handful of parents who are now paralyzed by fear of a shooter at the child's school and won't let that child attend, but there is certainly no general fear of it as you suggest. Sure, some parents will give an interview and claim this, but are they actually not sending their kids to school now? After the Christmas [ahem--Holiday] break, classes will resume, and the schools will fill with children whose parents, by definition and by action, are not so concerned about this happening at their child's school as they might say to a reporter.

More aware? Certainly, unless they live in a cave. Afraid? For the most part, no. It's disingenuous at best to claim you're afraid your child may be next then put him of her right back in that classroom in January. There are those who would have us believe this event has been a catalyst for more gun control, but the real truth is it's merely a sadly convenient match the antis can touch to a fuse they've had in place for a long time.