chevyforlife21
Member
sorry dec: i dont think i can respect some one anti gun no matter how hard i try
What can i say to convince my liberal friends guns are good?
- Thread starter ganymede
- Start date
- Status
Tim the student
Member
Talk to them about the Jim Crow gun laws, and why those gun laws existed.
I try to keep it simple and in perspective by reminding them of the countless number of people, the majority of them liberals, that changed their position on owning a gun after a tragic incident where the death of a loved one could have been prevented by having a gun handy.
To further expand on what rainbowbob said, we've got an active RKBA group on dKos, and have been fighting the good fight to change minds there. It's making a difference. Here are some more discussions which may be of use: http://www.dailykos.com/tag/RKBA
Jim D.
Jim D.
Neo-Luddite
Member
JPF
rg
-or more simply put-
Never Again
rg-or more simply put-
Never Again
Hawk
Member
I'll take a shot at a double whammy - first, it's not a good idea to stereotype self-professed "liberals" as all having the same beliefs - but I'm going to do that to the limited extent that it may be applicable in the one case.
Secondly, it involves invocation of a topic verbotten, with good reason, at THR. I'll take a chance that I can mention a topic without actually engaging the topic, and rely on others to do likewise.
With the prefatory preemptive apologies out of the way, try dropping the phrase "partial birth abortion" into a crowd of progressives.
If luck is with you, you'll have a staunch pro-choicer in the crowd and get a lecture on how:
1. No such medical procedure exists. Its only claim to legitimacy is being codified into law by people unassociated with the medical profession.
2. The term was invented from whole cloth in 1995 by a pro-life congressman.
3. The term has no legitimacy with the AMA or ACOG.
4. It's sole reason for existing was to gross out the fence sitters and, let's face it, how much steam could a bill called "the intact dilation and evacuation ban" get?
Listen attentively, nod sagely, and note how "assault weapon".
1. Has no definition apart from that codified into law by a ban.
2. Was invented from whole cloth by a drone of an anti-gun organization.
3. Has no legitimacy with the US military or NSSF.
4. Its sole reason for existing was to frighten the fence sitters and, let's face it, how much steam could a bill called "semi-automatic with a handle and shoulder thing that goes up ban" get? (Actually, wasn't it the "sporting arms protection act")?
Anyhow, I've had some degree of success in using the the above as a "point of commonality" - most holding the belief seem unaware that they aren't the only ones to ever be on the short end of a made-up, hot-button, media-adopted term.
Once there's a chink in the armor, the DailyKos might be a reasonable follow up but I personally would go with Ben Ezra's posts at DU. Actually, I've found that the thoughtful "librul" won't need a follow up. Once obvious that Josh Sugarman knows about as much about guns as Charles Canady knows about medicine, they'll complete the journey on their own.
I'll point out that it isn't necessary to agree with a concept in order to commiserate over that same concept.
Secondly, it involves invocation of a topic verbotten, with good reason, at THR. I'll take a chance that I can mention a topic without actually engaging the topic, and rely on others to do likewise.
With the prefatory preemptive apologies out of the way, try dropping the phrase "partial birth abortion" into a crowd of progressives.
If luck is with you, you'll have a staunch pro-choicer in the crowd and get a lecture on how:
1. No such medical procedure exists. Its only claim to legitimacy is being codified into law by people unassociated with the medical profession.
2. The term was invented from whole cloth in 1995 by a pro-life congressman.
3. The term has no legitimacy with the AMA or ACOG.
4. It's sole reason for existing was to gross out the fence sitters and, let's face it, how much steam could a bill called "the intact dilation and evacuation ban" get?
Listen attentively, nod sagely, and note how "assault weapon".
1. Has no definition apart from that codified into law by a ban.
2. Was invented from whole cloth by a drone of an anti-gun organization.
3. Has no legitimacy with the US military or NSSF.
4. Its sole reason for existing was to frighten the fence sitters and, let's face it, how much steam could a bill called "semi-automatic with a handle and shoulder thing that goes up ban" get? (Actually, wasn't it the "sporting arms protection act")?
Anyhow, I've had some degree of success in using the the above as a "point of commonality" - most holding the belief seem unaware that they aren't the only ones to ever be on the short end of a made-up, hot-button, media-adopted term.
Once there's a chink in the armor, the DailyKos might be a reasonable follow up but I personally would go with Ben Ezra's posts at DU. Actually, I've found that the thoughtful "librul" won't need a follow up. Once obvious that Josh Sugarman knows about as much about guns as Charles Canady knows about medicine, they'll complete the journey on their own.
I'll point out that it isn't necessary to agree with a concept in order to commiserate over that same concept.
Deanimator
Member
I don't know that you can convince them that guns are "good". If they have normal human intelligence and something like common sense, you can convince them that they're sometimes necessary.
The best way is to tell them:
Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
Police have virtually no ability to protect individuals.
Then show them the legal precedents which back up these statements.
Then find out what the average police response time is in their area. Do the "Tueller drill" with them and ask them if they think they can survive in the time between somebody attacking them and the average time it takes for the police to show up... assuming they get the chance to call the police AT ALL. My godsister didn't when her boyfriend stabbed her to death in "safe, gunfree" Chicago.
Last Christmas I upset some family members in Chicago by destroying their comforting fantasy of being "protected" by the police.
In my personal experience, a lot of "you don't need a gun" sentiment is based on the LIE of police "protection". Destroy the lie.
The best way is to tell them:
Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
Police have virtually no ability to protect individuals.
Then show them the legal precedents which back up these statements.
Then find out what the average police response time is in their area. Do the "Tueller drill" with them and ask them if they think they can survive in the time between somebody attacking them and the average time it takes for the police to show up... assuming they get the chance to call the police AT ALL. My godsister didn't when her boyfriend stabbed her to death in "safe, gunfree" Chicago.
Last Christmas I upset some family members in Chicago by destroying their comforting fantasy of being "protected" by the police.
In my personal experience, a lot of "you don't need a gun" sentiment is based on the LIE of police "protection". Destroy the lie.
belus
Member
That was enlightening, Hawk. I'm going to remember that comparison.
We have several threads in Activism Discussion on this that may provide some help.
Just One Shot
Member
Just take them to the worst neighborhood in the nearest big city and walk through it with them.
When it's over ask them if they were more comfortable having you armed and walking with them or if they would have been more comfortable walking through alone and unarmed?
When it's over ask them if they were more comfortable having you armed and walking with them or if they would have been more comfortable walking through alone and unarmed?
Though they be liberal, and therefore probably CAN'T use logic, try a logical approach.
1. A firearm is a tool...
Nothing more. It takes a MAN to put this tool to use for either good, or bad. A baseball bat is a tool that can be used to take life. An automobile is a tool that can be used to take life. NONE will take, or SAVE a life WITHOUT a man behind the mechanism.
2. Firearms work BOTH ways...
While MAN may use a firearm to conduct acts of evil, man ALSO uses firearms to THWART acts of evil. The media plays up firearms related crime, however, they FAIL to give the SAME coverage for the PREVENTION of crimes due to use of firearms. While a criminal may use a firearm to rob a liquor store, a law abiding citizen may just as surely protect himself, his family, and his property by using a firearm.
3. Firearms are used THOUSANDS of times a week by law abiding citizens in the pursuit of sport and competition in clubs across the country without incident.
USPSA, IDPA, CMP, Steele Challenge, GSSF, NRA, SASS, all are examples of how law abiding citizens joined in the pursuit of sport and competition embrace firearms as tools of discipline, skill, and tradition, and NOT of crime and negligence. Take them to a good club match and let them experience the cameraderie and the safety measures employed by responsible gun owners.
4. The right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT we have as AMERICANS thanks to the foresight of our founding fathers.
Our founding fathers were smart and had uncommon integrity and great courage. They KNEW how governing bodies can, and WILL, abuse their power over citizens. They KNEW that the ONLY way to GUARANTEE that citizens could defend themselves from INTERNAL, or external threats, was to ensure they had the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
While there is much contention on the liberal side about WHO and WHAT a militia is, there is NO doubt in my mind, or in our founding fathers mind, about who the militia is...
It's YOU. And ME. And EVERY other American citizen.
WE are the militia. WE NEED firearms to ensure the security of OUR free state.
Don't believe me?
Check out the militia created by some of our Korean American citizens during the LA Riots. They sent out a call to arms to support and defend their businesses that were under attack.
Where were the police?
Where was the national guard, or the Army?
NOWHERE to be found.
There are countless examples from past, and present, of citizens using their RIGHT to keep and bear arms to defend themselves, their families, and their property.
Bottom line: Firearms are NOT evil. MEN are evil, and the firearm is one of the most effective tools to defend ourselves from those evil men.
1. A firearm is a tool...
Nothing more. It takes a MAN to put this tool to use for either good, or bad. A baseball bat is a tool that can be used to take life. An automobile is a tool that can be used to take life. NONE will take, or SAVE a life WITHOUT a man behind the mechanism.
2. Firearms work BOTH ways...
While MAN may use a firearm to conduct acts of evil, man ALSO uses firearms to THWART acts of evil. The media plays up firearms related crime, however, they FAIL to give the SAME coverage for the PREVENTION of crimes due to use of firearms. While a criminal may use a firearm to rob a liquor store, a law abiding citizen may just as surely protect himself, his family, and his property by using a firearm.
3. Firearms are used THOUSANDS of times a week by law abiding citizens in the pursuit of sport and competition in clubs across the country without incident.
USPSA, IDPA, CMP, Steele Challenge, GSSF, NRA, SASS, all are examples of how law abiding citizens joined in the pursuit of sport and competition embrace firearms as tools of discipline, skill, and tradition, and NOT of crime and negligence. Take them to a good club match and let them experience the cameraderie and the safety measures employed by responsible gun owners.
4. The right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT we have as AMERICANS thanks to the foresight of our founding fathers.
Our founding fathers were smart and had uncommon integrity and great courage. They KNEW how governing bodies can, and WILL, abuse their power over citizens. They KNEW that the ONLY way to GUARANTEE that citizens could defend themselves from INTERNAL, or external threats, was to ensure they had the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
While there is much contention on the liberal side about WHO and WHAT a militia is, there is NO doubt in my mind, or in our founding fathers mind, about who the militia is...
It's YOU. And ME. And EVERY other American citizen.
WE are the militia. WE NEED firearms to ensure the security of OUR free state.
Don't believe me?
Check out the militia created by some of our Korean American citizens during the LA Riots. They sent out a call to arms to support and defend their businesses that were under attack.
Where were the police?
Where was the national guard, or the Army?
NOWHERE to be found.
There are countless examples from past, and present, of citizens using their RIGHT to keep and bear arms to defend themselves, their families, and their property.
Bottom line: Firearms are NOT evil. MEN are evil, and the firearm is one of the most effective tools to defend ourselves from those evil men.
mljdeckard
Member
Oh, and RS14, come on out. I don't know where you are or if there might be a more convenient place, but Impact (www.impactguns.com) has a large selection of full autos to rent. They also have an annual machine gun shoot.
An MP-5 is not at all punishing to shoot, it feels like a toy in comparison to other guns, even on burst and auto. This fall I took a group of delegates from the offices of our congressmen out to our local training post for a variety of 'touristy' activities hosted by the national guard, including a range hosted by the 19th SFG. We let them shot a lot of things, including MP-5s, they couldn't get enough, including the petite females.
An MP-5 is not at all punishing to shoot, it feels like a toy in comparison to other guns, even on burst and auto. This fall I took a group of delegates from the offices of our congressmen out to our local training post for a variety of 'touristy' activities hosted by the national guard, including a range hosted by the 19th SFG. We let them shot a lot of things, including MP-5s, they couldn't get enough, including the petite females.
rainbowbob
Member
Hawk:
That is an interesting and valid comparison and was thoughtfully and discreetly presented. However, it only focuses on the the "assault weapon" ban and the fact that inaccurate propaganda can work both ways. It doesn't really make any point as to why firearms are necessary or why the Second Amendment is so important.
I found the "DU" which I discovered stands for "Democratic Underground" - but I didn't find any comments that were specifically relevant to the OP's question. Not that they aren't there - I just don't know where to find them. Do you have a link?
In general, I'm impressed with your and other's posts in this thread. For the most part, a definite step above the usual "...liberals are mouth-breathing idiots and want to take all your guns and can't think logically and are evil socialists/commies who won't rest until they have completely disarmed all citizens in preparation for a tyrannical new world order..."
That is an interesting and valid comparison and was thoughtfully and discreetly presented. However, it only focuses on the the "assault weapon" ban and the fact that inaccurate propaganda can work both ways. It doesn't really make any point as to why firearms are necessary or why the Second Amendment is so important.
I found the "DU" which I discovered stands for "Democratic Underground" - but I didn't find any comments that were specifically relevant to the OP's question. Not that they aren't there - I just don't know where to find them. Do you have a link?
In general, I'm impressed with your and other's posts in this thread. For the most part, a definite step above the usual "...liberals are mouth-breathing idiots and want to take all your guns and can't think logically and are evil socialists/commies who won't rest until they have completely disarmed all citizens in preparation for a tyrannical new world order..."
oneounceload
member
You might try showing them articles from the NRA mags where law-abiding citizens used guns to protect themselves in situations where disaster might have occurred.
Pull up the stats that show comparisons between other dangerous day-today events (like drunk driving, driving while texting, the small percentages guns are used by BG's, etc.
Whatever you do, DON'T go on a frontal attack at their beliefs or they'll shut you out and will never listen. It is a long process, but it can be done
Pull up the stats that show comparisons between other dangerous day-today events (like drunk driving, driving while texting, the small percentages guns are used by BG's, etc.
Whatever you do, DON'T go on a frontal attack at their beliefs or they'll shut you out and will never listen. It is a long process, but it can be done
Corporal K
member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2007
- Messages
- 356
Show them some of Oleg's artwork.
SharpsDressedMan
member
Easy. Just invite them over to your house, place a loaded gun on the kitchen table, and invite them to demonstrate how that gun is inherently evil. After about 5-60 minutes of waiting for it to jump up off the table and kill someone for no reason, they might be forced to admit that it isn't the gun, but the person holding it. You might also get them to admit that guns in the hands of governments have killed far more innocent people than all the privately owned guns in the world. So now who is more dangerous, private citizens, or governments?
Hawk
Member
You are correct: the entire point is that inaccurate propaganda works both ways and nothing more. Progressives are, on average, pretty smart and don't need to be lead around by the nose - once they discern that Sugarman is roughly cast in the mold of Canady, they'll take if from there. It's a start.
BenEzra is an active member here - with luck he'll stop by. In the interim, this'll get us started:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/benEzra
A common mistake made by all facets of the political spectrum is the belief that their specific opposition took a blow to the head at an early age. In actual point of fact, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, progressives, yadda, yadda are reasonably intelligent and have simply come to different conclusions for any number of reasons - they don't need leading about by the nose and will resent attempts to do so.
One doesn't choose one's beliefs, they choose you.
My belief is that the "average" (to the extent one exists) liberal is smart enough to take a single new piece of information and run with it without my intervention. A realization of the similarity between Sugarman and Canady should be sufficient to make the jump from "made up terms" to "generalities of 2nd amendment issues" without my input. If my input is required, I would find myself disappointed. A little "nudge" should be all it takes if facts are on one's side.
I believe it was Sun Tzu that noted that a lack of respect for one's opposition is a recipe for disaster. If anything sinks our cause it will be the attitude that our opposition is incapable of thought.
MinnMooney
Member
post #25 :
I agree.... as long as the anti-gun folks don't want to take MY guns away from me !
I agree.... as long as the anti-gun folks don't want to take MY guns away from me !
It's hard to change heart-felt ideals. I'm pretty liberal in some areas (probably more libertarian) but I try to be logical and thoughtful in my positions. For me, I explain gun issues in terms of tradition (growing up shooting and enjoying it as a sport), independence (in the end we are all responsible for ourselves), societal stability (ours would not be the first civilized society to take a step backwards), mechanical facination (it's a guy-thing), and finally, there is no scenario that removes guns from society and suddenly makes us all "safe" (if no more guns were produced and sold, millions will remain in circulation for a few hundred years and quite a few of those will always be in criminal hands). I'm not sure this will ever sway anyone that is against guns but in the end they get to decide where they stand, just like the rest of us. There is no substitute for taking them shooting and getting them interested. Good luck in your quest.
belus
Member
+ 1
I'll add: please don't used a canned line in your argument.
Try this angle:
It's constitutional, and by definition the rights spelled out in the 'Bill of Rights' cannot be infringed, but can be subject to reasonable restriction. Theirfore, any restriction that is placed on the right to keep and bear arms can also be placed on the right to vote, free speech, religion, etc. Then ask them if we should have the same 'instant' check that can take up to 7 days that every voter must pass before he or she can vote.
Try it from the angle of 'who don't you trust with a gun? would you trust that person to be your cab driver? doctor? babysit your kids? have kids of their own? vote? sit on your jury?' then tell them 'in for a penny...in for a pound, it's all or nothing. Either we restrict people who have done nothing but we simply don't trust, or we let them have all the rights and responsibilites. After all, if someone is going to be bitter about their lover cheating on them they could simply drive their SUV into a line of people waiting outside a nightclub. Anyone who goes crazy can easily go on a mass killing with or without guns.
When they come at you with 'but you are more likely to kill someone than a burglar' simply state #1 Fast Food is much more likely to kill you than a home invader OR a gun accident and that #2 having a gun makes it very unlikely you will ever shoot a burglar dead in your home, but then state that guns are used to thwart attacks roughly 2 million times a year, and that you aren't really interested in killing someone, just being safe.
Then beat them to the punch by jumping in with the Kellerman study that is used to claim people with guns are supposedly 21 times more likely to suffer gun related murder. Point out that it is actually valued at 2.7, but that it is 5th on the list of factors. Point out that no suprise, ilicit drug usage is #1 (5.7), but BEING A RENTER rather than owning a home is second, just edging out a history of domestic abuse which is 3nd place, and living alone is #4.
Ask if they are going to buy everyone a home and a mail-order asian bride to curtail gun violence, as it is logical to go after the biggest factors first, right? (drugs are already illegal, if they are believers in ending the war on drugs ask them how they can justify that but want to ban guns, even though drugs are a better predictor) Ask them how they think being a renter changes the likelyhood of someone being a victim of gun violence? (my suspicion, money. Renters tend to be less affluent. areas of urban blite = many renters = much crime)
The point out that when the same sample of data used in kelllerman's study is processed using the non-gun murders, while the exact figures of each of the top 5 catagories change, their master-order remains unchanged. Illicit drug use is the best predictor for non-gun murder, home renter is #2, domestic abuse #3 etc etc, so then ask them exactly how firearms elimination plays into their desire to end murder, if firearms in the hands of honest folks was a cause of problems, you'd expect to see a shift somewhere in that order, right?
Then point out that we should make martial arts illegal, because it is more likely that an honest law abiding person is going to be kicked and punched to death than they are to kick and punch an attacker to death.
It's constitutional, and by definition the rights spelled out in the 'Bill of Rights' cannot be infringed, but can be subject to reasonable restriction. Theirfore, any restriction that is placed on the right to keep and bear arms can also be placed on the right to vote, free speech, religion, etc. Then ask them if we should have the same 'instant' check that can take up to 7 days that every voter must pass before he or she can vote.
Try it from the angle of 'who don't you trust with a gun? would you trust that person to be your cab driver? doctor? babysit your kids? have kids of their own? vote? sit on your jury?' then tell them 'in for a penny...in for a pound, it's all or nothing. Either we restrict people who have done nothing but we simply don't trust, or we let them have all the rights and responsibilites. After all, if someone is going to be bitter about their lover cheating on them they could simply drive their SUV into a line of people waiting outside a nightclub. Anyone who goes crazy can easily go on a mass killing with or without guns.
When they come at you with 'but you are more likely to kill someone than a burglar' simply state #1 Fast Food is much more likely to kill you than a home invader OR a gun accident and that #2 having a gun makes it very unlikely you will ever shoot a burglar dead in your home, but then state that guns are used to thwart attacks roughly 2 million times a year, and that you aren't really interested in killing someone, just being safe.
Then beat them to the punch by jumping in with the Kellerman study that is used to claim people with guns are supposedly 21 times more likely to suffer gun related murder. Point out that it is actually valued at 2.7, but that it is 5th on the list of factors. Point out that no suprise, ilicit drug usage is #1 (5.7), but BEING A RENTER rather than owning a home is second, just edging out a history of domestic abuse which is 3nd place, and living alone is #4.
Ask if they are going to buy everyone a home and a mail-order asian bride to curtail gun violence, as it is logical to go after the biggest factors first, right? (drugs are already illegal, if they are believers in ending the war on drugs ask them how they can justify that but want to ban guns, even though drugs are a better predictor) Ask them how they think being a renter changes the likelyhood of someone being a victim of gun violence? (my suspicion, money. Renters tend to be less affluent. areas of urban blite = many renters = much crime)
The point out that when the same sample of data used in kelllerman's study is processed using the non-gun murders, while the exact figures of each of the top 5 catagories change, their master-order remains unchanged. Illicit drug use is the best predictor for non-gun murder, home renter is #2, domestic abuse #3 etc etc, so then ask them exactly how firearms elimination plays into their desire to end murder, if firearms in the hands of honest folks was a cause of problems, you'd expect to see a shift somewhere in that order, right?
Then point out that we should make martial arts illegal, because it is more likely that an honest law abiding person is going to be kicked and punched to death than they are to kick and punch an attacker to death.
proplinker
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 69
Say nothing take them to the range.......Make sure they can hit what your aiming at and very little recoil. It's worked twice for me.
First thing you might want to do is stop thinking that "liberal" = "Anti-gun".
Cause I'm pretty liberal, and I just bought more ammo today.
And as soon as I can afford it... another gun.
FWIW - on "liberals" and emotion based decisions -
I do base the decision to own guns largely on emotion.
I FEAR what could happen to my loved ones if I was unable to protect them. I know I'm not the biggest, baddest guy ever born. I know that a gun is the thing that makes me equal to a man who has fifty pounds of solid muscle on me and the will to do harm to me and mine.
Don't pretend it's all logical thinking boys and girls.
The world just ain't that black and white.
Cause I'm pretty liberal, and I just bought more ammo today.
And as soon as I can afford it... another gun.
FWIW - on "liberals" and emotion based decisions -
I do base the decision to own guns largely on emotion.
I FEAR what could happen to my loved ones if I was unable to protect them. I know I'm not the biggest, baddest guy ever born. I know that a gun is the thing that makes me equal to a man who has fifty pounds of solid muscle on me and the will to do harm to me and mine.
Don't pretend it's all logical thinking boys and girls.
The world just ain't that black and white.
mljdeckard
Member
Ok. just MOSTLY.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
