TexasCHLforum.com

Link to a good article, The JPFO site emailed the link to me.


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/0 ... un-owners/

Good ideas. You can't talk to liberals like you would to human beings...

I'm kind of partial to, "Shut up and go away!"

It'll keep your blood pressure down.

Talking them in circles is fun:

Me: "You only hate ARs because they are black."

Them: "No, I hate them because they kill lots of people."

Me: Oh, so you're saying that black people all are killers?"

Them: "No.... That's.... That's not what I said..."

Now why would I want to talk to one?

When someone says to me, "nobody needs and AR15!", I have been itching to use the "nobody needs a condescending jerk mouthing at them, yet here you are!" response but...lol. Every person that used the first phrase on me have been friends I know who are actually very good people but they have all been listening to all the blithering idiots who have no knowledge of guns whatsoever. So I end up having to be nice and courteous...SMH.

RogueUSMC wrote:When someone says to me, "nobody needs and AR15!", I have been itching to use the "nobody needs a condescending jerk mouthing at them, yet here you are!" response but...lol. Every person that used the first phrase on me have been friends I know who are actually very good people but they have all been listening to all the blithering idiots who have no knowledge of guns whatsoever. So I end up having to be nice and courteous...SMH.

My mother tried that line. My response was somewhere along the line of because I can or I want to and thats the only reason I need.

Sign language works best, only need 1 finger to get the message across

this is a good article, thanks for sharing.

Best not to talk to them, no amount of reason or logic will prevail.

I actually tend to lean towards the liberal side of the spectrum as do a lot of my shooting buddies. I find thay a lot of anti gun people can be more easily convinced and reasoned with when they share some common ground.

Of course there are those regressive liberals who are just too dug in to save, but that goes for just about anything.

All I can say is it can be done and just keep at it. Every person counts and it's important to try to inform as much as you can.

NiMexicatl wrote:I actually tend to lean towards the liberal side of the spectrum as do a lot of my shooting buddies. I find thay a lot of anti gun people can be more easily convinced and reasoned with when they share some common ground.

Of course there are those regressive liberals who are just too dug in to save, but that goes for just about anything.

All I can say is it can be done and just keep at it. Every person counts and it's important to try to inform as much as you can.

I try to convince and reason with liberals by sharing facts with them. Kind of like I did in the other thread. The list of Clinton scandals is enough for a reasonable person decide to not vote for Hillary.

It is very difficult for me to talk to liberals in general, and anti-gun folks in particular. The problem is that logic comes naturally to me, and emotion does not. So I need to translate emotional statements into logical statements to process what they are saying, and I then need to translate my logical response into an emotional argument so they can understand it. This is very exhausting.

My latest interaction was with my brother in law, who told me that carrying guns was pointless since there were people open carrying in Dallas and they just "ran and hid" instead of shooting the guy with a rifle, who was targeting officers from an elevated position. The problem is that I can't translate this into logic, so I can't even start to formulate a good response.

BTW, the closest logical translation I could come up with is "having a gun should make you into a super-human capable of defeating all attackers, or you shouldn't carry at all", which is of course illogical. In other words, I couldn't even translate his statement into anything I understand.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:It is very difficult for me to talk to liberals in general, and anti-gun folks in particular. The problem is that logic comes naturally to me, and emotion does not. So I need to translate emotional statements into logical statements to process what they are saying, and I then need to translate my logical response into an emotional argument so they can understand it. This is very exhausting.

My latest interaction was with my brother in law, who told me that carrying guns was pointless since there were people open carrying in Dallas and they just "ran and hid" instead of shooting the guy with a rifle, who was targeting officers from an elevated position. The problem is that I can't translate this into logic, so I can't even start to formulate a good response.

BTW, the closest logical translation I could come up with is "having a gun should make you into a super-human capable of defeating all attackers, or you shouldn't carry at all", which is of course illogical. In other words, I couldn't even translate his statement into anything I understand.

You might tell you BIL, that every police officer is trained, that when he/she is being fired upon, the first thing you do is "seek cover" it doesn't matter how well armed they may be. Anyone that would stand in the line of fire is not too bright. Secondly, shooting at someone who is in an elevated position, means that you can't be sure of what may be behind the target. They only do that in the movies. Lastly, no one forces anyone to carry, if your BIL chooses not to do so, that is his prerogative, just as it is yours to do so. JMHO

Jusme wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:It is very difficult for me to talk to liberals in general, and anti-gun folks in particular. The problem is that logic comes naturally to me, and emotion does not. So I need to translate emotional statements into logical statements to process what they are saying, and I then need to translate my logical response into an emotional argument so they can understand it. This is very exhausting.

My latest interaction was with my brother in law, who told me that carrying guns was pointless since there were people open carrying in Dallas and they just "ran and hid" instead of shooting the guy with a rifle, who was targeting officers from an elevated position. The problem is that I can't translate this into logic, so I can't even start to formulate a good response.

BTW, the closest logical translation I could come up with is "having a gun should make you into a super-human capable of defeating all attackers, or you shouldn't carry at all", which is of course illogical. In other words, I couldn't even translate his statement into anything I understand.

You might tell you BIL, that every police officer is trained, that when he/she is being fired upon, the first thing you do is "seek cover" it doesn't matter how well armed they may be. Anyone that would stand in the line of fire is not too bright. Secondly, shooting at someone who is in an elevated position, means that you can't be sure of what may be behind the target. They only do that in the movies. Lastly, no one forces anyone to carry, if your BIL chooses not to do so, that is his prerogative, just as it is yours to do so. JMHO

Yes. That all makes complete sense to me. But may not make a lot of sense to those among us who can not understand logic.