How to talk to Anti's

[RogueUSMC]

We can't give you the correct emotional response to this because of the forums language filter...

[Jusme]

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.

Yeah I am constantly amazed by the people, who choose not to carry, but that is not good enough for them. They then want to criticize someone else's choice to carry. Although it has no effect whatsoever on their life. That's why logic plays no part in their arguments. Like you, I would never criticize someone for not carrying, it doesn't affect my life at all. Neither does someone who is carrying. But liberals, think they should have the right to control your decisions. And since that is an illogical starting point, nothing else that follows, goes into a logical discussion.

[Liberty]

When it comes up, I pose the problem as a civil rights issue. and try to describe the issue without mentioning the word 'gun'
We have a right to defend ourselves. Against those who would do us harm. Whether it is a criminal, a crazy or even corrupt government official.
This right is presented and guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. Most will at least agree that it makes sense, even if they don't agree 100%.
If I can get someone to agree that handguns are a legitimate means of defending oneself. I can usually convince them that black guns aren't so evil. They aren't really automatics, They aren't any more deadly than a handgun, They are less powerful than most hunting guns and that statistically they are used in very few crimes.

There are those that are obtuse, and there is no point in discussing anything with them.

[bblhd672]

http://interactives.dallasnews.com/2016/gun-owners/

[Abraham]

For the most part, I've quit trying to convince "liberals" that being able to defend themselves with a firearm just might save their loved ones lives or their own.

I'm not coming to their rescue if the need arrives - they had a chance to arm themselves and they chose to be potential victims.

Yes, I have some exceptions to that personal policy, if you will, as in if I'm on a campus and some terrorist runs over innocents with his vehicle and then gets out to start slashing then - him, I'm going to do my best to take out assuming of course I'm on scene.

[Flightmare]

I was having a discussion with a buddy of mine. His wife and her friend across the street are adamantly against HB 1911. Their arguments are the same as the police unions and other anti-2a groups.

My buddy and I came to the conclusion that people who are emotional and tend to base their decisions on emotions, occasionally have issues understanding logic and rational thought. Logical and rational people are often perceived as heartless by these same people.

I tend to think of myself as a logical person. If I form an opinion on a subject, it's usually fact based. If I am presented with facts that conflict with my position, I will reconsider my position. My buddy's wife on the other hand, has admitted to me that she is stubborn and would be proud to stick to her guns even if she was wrong. I don't understand this position. Can anyone else offer any insight?

[Bitter Clinger]

[Oldgringo]

Why bother?

[JakeTheSnake]

Was having a discussion on another forum about a restaurant that had poted 30.06 & 30.07 when a "lady" came on and stated, "good less waiting for me and I don't have to worry about someone and their Zimmerman-ish antics". No use talking to someone like that.
Saddest thing is she's a schoolteacher.

[C-dub]

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..."

It depends on the mood I'm in at the time, but more often than not I'll ask them if they also hate automobiles. That usually starts them down a road they can't turn around and frustrates the daylights out of them. Most of the time it's the last I ever hear from them on the subject.

I work with a very nice and very intelligent woman only a few years older than myself. After Trump had won, but before being inaugurated she asked me one day if I was used to saying "President Trump" yet. A short discussion ensued and after one of my statements she asked if I got that information from watching Fox News. I hadn't, but had rather heard if from Rush. However, I asked her if she had gotten her information from the same sources that had, for months, been telling people that HRC was going to be the next president and that she was a lock. I think that was the last political discussion we've ever had.

[Oldgringo]

Was having a discussion on another forum about a restaurant that had poted 30.06 & 30.07 when a "lady" came on and stated, "good less waiting for me and I don't have to worry about someone and their Zimmerman-ish antics". No use talking to someone like that.
Saddest thing is she's a schoolteacher.

One doesn't have to be smart to be a school teacher.

[crazy2medic]

Was having a discussion on another forum about a restaurant that had poted 30.06 & 30.07 when a "lady" came on and stated, "good less waiting for me and I don't have to worry about someone and their Zimmerman-ish antics". No use talking to someone like that.
Saddest thing is she's a schoolteacher.

One doesn't have to be smart to be a school teacher.

I find most school teachers fall in the category of LOON

[JakeTheSnake]

Was having a discussion on another forum about a restaurant that had poted 30.06 & 30.07 when a "lady" came on and stated, "good less waiting for me and I don't have to worry about someone and their Zimmerman-ish antics". No use talking to someone like that.
Saddest thing is she's a schoolteacher.

One doesn't have to be smart to be a school teacher.

Obviously not...

[Flightmare]

http://www.newsmax.com/JohnCylc/second- ... id/790733/

I think this is a good point of view.

[chasfm11]

I was having a discussion with a buddy of mine. His wife and her friend across the street are adamantly against HB 1911. Their arguments are the same as the police unions and other anti-2a groups.

My buddy and I came to the conclusion that people who are emotional and tend to base their decisions on emotions, occasionally have issues understanding logic and rational thought. Logical and rational people are often perceived as heartless by these same people.

I tend to think of myself as a logical person. If I form an opinion on a subject, it's usually fact based. If I am presented with facts that conflict with my position, I will reconsider my position. My buddy's wife on the other hand, has admitted to me that she is stubborn and would be proud to stick to her guns even if she was wrong. I don't understand this position. Can anyone else offer any insight?

I cannot offer much except my own anecdotes.

About three years ago, the Argyle school district authorized teachers carrying firearms. I've talked to a number of parents from that district who were thrilled with that change. On social media, another guy suggested that our school district adapt that same program. A firestorm ensued. He and I "debated" a group of about 15 fellow community members for several weeks, on and off.
1. Not one of them ever accepted any fact that we offered.
2. We talked about criminals being uncontrolled by laws or signs. Not one of our antagonists ever admitted the criminal do what they wish, when they wish. They stubbornly hold the adolescent position that nothing bad is going to happen here because we are a "safe community."
3. They refuse to believe that a teacher with a police background is capable of managing a firearm in an education environment. When the truth came out, they don't even believe that current licensed LEO should be allowed to have firearms in a school.

The passage of the Open Carry law started another local social media firestorm. Our local chief held public meetings to discuss the law, None of the critics of it who expressed their distaste would attend those sessions. One even said "all they are going to do is present the facts and I don't care about any facts." Of course, those discussions quickly unmasked the situation that the issue had nothing to do with OC and every thing to do with ANY carry by any one. No one, including LE should be allowed to carry guns. Not one of the antagonists ever took the bait on the question "what should we do with criminals who have guns?" I presented a WWYD situation to a mother with small children involving an armed criminal in her home. She was very happy with calling the police (unarmed as they might be based on her preference) and waiting for them to deal with the situation.

The thing that I've learned is that I have trouble being conflicted in my beliefs. Antis have no such problem. Contradictions among their feelings are simply not acknowledged and the conversation is quickly guided in a different direction.