TexasCHLforum.com

RoyGBiv wrote:

VMI77 wrote:There are different types of antis. The type that is active and joins anti self-defense groups like Moms Demanding Action have emotional attachments that are unlikely to be overcome with logic. A lot of the non-active types haven't thought things out and may be susceptible to logic. In any case, if for no other reason, responding to them, especially in public forums like comments after an article, can alert them to the fact that they're really in a minority, and that tends to have a wonderfully demoralizing impact on them.

As a generalization perhaps.

My Yankee sister and her Hillary-loving clan came to visit us for the holidays last year. (Needless to say, we don't spend a lot of time together )
Long story short, in the end I sat with them in the living room and we had a very frank "lesson 1" about guns.
I probably didn't change their minds, but, I believe I changed their perceptions somewhat.

My favorite part was when I put a loaded gun on the kitchen table (holstered, empty chamber, just in case... they ARE Yankees, after all ) and said...
"Ok.... here's a loaded gun. Let's sit here and see how long it takes for it to go bang if nobody touches it."
I let that sink in for a solid 5 minutes before moving on.

I felt better that my nieces and nephews at least got a safety lesson.
Good luck getting lane time at a range the first few days after Christmas.

Probably the first time they had the full spectrum shined on the subject.

When I argue with people on the internet about guns or any other controversial issue, I am not primarily concerned about changing their mind. I am primarily concerned with influencing those who may be reading the argument. I have generally found that the best approach is to be factual, reasonable and avoid making personal attacks. When the personal attacks against me begin, I know I have won.

RoyGBiv wrote:

VMI77 wrote:There are different types of antis. The type that is active and joins anti self-defense groups like Moms Demanding Action have emotional attachments that are unlikely to be overcome with logic. A lot of the non-active types haven't thought things out and may be susceptible to logic. In any case, if for no other reason, responding to them, especially in public forums like comments after an article, can alert them to the fact that they're really in a minority, and that tends to have a wonderfully demoralizing impact on them.

As a generalization perhaps.

My Yankee sister and her Hillary-loving clan came to visit us for the holidays last year. (Needless to say, we don't spend a lot of time together )
Long story short, in the end I sat with them in the living room and we had a very frank "lesson 1" about guns.
I probably didn't change their minds, but, I believe I changed their perceptions somewhat.

My favorite part was when I put a loaded gun on the kitchen table (holstered, empty chamber, just in case... they ARE Yankees, after all ) and said...
"Ok.... here's a loaded gun. Let's sit here and see how long it takes for it to go bang if nobody touches it."
I let that sink in for a solid 5 minutes before moving on.

I felt better that my nieces and nephews at least got a safety lesson.
Good luck getting lane time at a range the first few days after Christmas.

Yes, a generalization. I'm fortunate to have no anti-gun family members. My father had an FFL years ago. My mother had her own guns. My brother has a CHL. My wife had her own guns when I met her but I've gotten her better ones. Both sons have their own guns, one has a CHL. My wife and her sisters used to tag along with her dad when he went hunting. Her mother had her own guns. If there is a single anti-gun person in either family I've never met them or heard of them...though I suppose some more distant relation we don't have contact with could be anti-gun.

mojo84 wrote:Charles, Do your comments apply only to gun related issues or to other issues as well. If not, why? I am concerned we have operated in our own echo chamber for too long and that's why we have seen the deterioration of values in other areas such as valuing life, liberty, morals, religion, economics and individual responsibility. Most of this has happened during our and the previous generation.

I am interested in your feedback as I am involved in a couple of pretty contentious debates.

If I may interject for a moment, IMHO, stand your ground, silence is consent.

I don't start a lot of conversations but I have a way of ending them when the other side doesn't like what I have to say. At the same time I sometimes get unexpected agreement. Like I am confirming what others were thinking but afraid to say or wondered if they were on the right track. Sometimes people have to their common sense confirmed the first time they use it. So yes, mostly we are preaching to the choir but I a have "turned" a few family and friends. It is rare but possible.

The first step is to get people to think for themselves, use common sense and quit listening to all the media and propaganda. I often point out the error of the other side or those who think like them especially when I know my intended audience is one of them. It's less of a personal attack that way but gets the message across. I'll risk upsetting some to change the minds of others.

My good friend. He thinks very logically and when he realized gun laws restrict law abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow laws, a lightbulb went off. Honestly it took no convincing, just used common sense.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The majority of Americans now reject gun control so yes, telling the truth does reach the undecided. We won't change the minds of true anti-gunners because they are either outright liars, or are too stupid to handle their own affairs. The facts told by our side, the FBI, and the Justice Dept. prove gun control is ineffective and no honest person can argue otherwise. Anti-gunners are not our audience.

Chas.

^THIS^ ... in a nutshell. By nature, people with strong convictions will not often be persuaded to change their position ..... but, like in most all subjects pertaining to politics, morality and the like, it's the "squishy middle" that always swings the pendulum.

jd

Answer to the OP's question. Directly, yes.

I entered into a conversation with a DPS trooper who thought that only cops needed to carry guns. It was about a 20 minute and very civil conversation. The epiphany for him was when I asked him if he was dangerous, violent and unsafe in handling a gun before he became a trooper or was he always a responsible, honorable and law abiding citizen. He paused and then answered that he was not different now as he was before. I then asked him the obverse of that question. If someone was dangerous, violent or unsafe in handling a gun, would they magically change when they pinned on the badge? He admitted that would not change them. I then asked if there was nothing magical about a badge that would make a person MORE law abiding, what about not having a badge makes a person LESS law abiding. He actually told me I had changed his entire attitude towards armed citizens.

A second and less direct was with the vociferous discussion that happened at the station after Sandy Hook and the beginnings of the national dialog about arming teachers. Several, even some of the "pro gun" crowd, were arguing that magazine limits and the types (I.E. military style) of operation
should be regulated. I stayed out of it until directly asked about why arming teachers would be a solution. I stood up and started with reiterating how long it takes, when WE (the FD) calls for police code 3 how long it takes for the first unit to get there; I asked what the options were until they got there. Then I said, "suppose I have a magazine limited to ten rounds, after all I obeyed the law. I walk into the station here and start shooting firemen." I walked around going "bang" to each member, very casually. Stopping every ten "rounds" to drop the imaginary magazine, load another and drop the slide. After I had "shot" everyone five times (50 "rounds"), I looked at the clock and said, "Oh, we are two minutes in. Has anyone arrived? Made entry?" I saw some lights come on. Whether there were any paradigm shifts I can't say.

Charles is right, the light of reason is illuminating the lies of the left. One of my avocations is Biblical apologetics. I had an old preacher tell me once, "remember, you are not debating to change the minds of those that oppose you, you are debating for those that are listening." Yes, keep up the good fight putting forth sound and well reasoned arguments.

Dragonfighter wrote:... Charles is right, the light of reason is illuminating the lies of the left. One of my avocations is Biblical apologetics. I had an old preacher tell me once, "remember, you are not debating to change the minds of those that oppose you, you are debating for those that are listening." Yes, keep up the good fight putting forth sound and well reasoned arguments.

Thank you for that example. I find it is often difficult to discern whether those with whom I am discussing are actually listening or not. It may take a few exchanges to know their intent. And those who do not listen at first sometimes begin to listen.

Of course, there are always those who will never listen. In those cases, the best I can hope for is that someone else is actually listening or that I'm getting good practice in presenting sound and well reasoned arguments in a hostile setting.