• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

How to win a debate with an anti-gunner

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
http://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/4/15/how-to-win-a-debate-with-an-anti-gunner/



If the link is giving you trouble, right-click on it and copy nto your browser.

First of all, do not debate.


For the Too long/don't want to read crowd:

Using this strategy, here’s how I respond to four common types of people I’ve encountered over the years.



#1 - [person] who thinks he or she is on the moral high ground when telling you guns should be banned and that gun- free zones work.

I ask, “Why do you feel gun-free zones save lives?”

They typically respond with a generality, such as that they feel there are too many guns in society. They don’t have any experience with guns and are afraid of firearms.

I like to tell them about my conversations with Evan Todd, a young man who had a gun held to his head by one of the Columbine killers, but who now has spoken at hundreds of schools and in other places about how he wishes a good guy with a gun had gotten on the scene sooner. Then it’s easy to calmly point out that mass murderers have a habit of taking guns into “gun-free zones.”

Finally, I give teachers a way out by telling them they can attain an educated opinion by taking a local gun-safety course. The NRA lists these and other courses at findnra.nra.org.

#2 - Those who naively think disarming law-abiding citizens will make them safer.

I ask, “Why would disarming your neighbor make you feel safer?”

After they answer, I ask if they know their neighbors. This humanizes the point. I then ask why they feel average Americans can’t be trusted. Now that I’ve broadened the point, I explain that the nation’s violent crime rate hit an all-time high in 1991 and thereafter declined in 18 of the next 20 years—49 percent overall, to a 41-year low in 2011. This decline includes a 52-percent decrease in the nation’s murder rate.

All this happened even as the number of privately owned firearms and the number of states with right-to-carry laws rose to all-time highs.

Now it’s easy to explain that many people don’t know this because newspapers find more profit in printing bad news. Then I can end the discussion by asking them to be neighborly and tolerant (they love that word), and by showing them how to learn more about their freedom.

#3 - The well-meaning, but startingly ignorant, types who just want to be safe.

I ask, “How would you feel if you were trapped in a public place with some madman who was assassinating people?”

After they answer, I ask, “Now, in that state of helplessness, would you like it if an average American gun owner was there with a chance of stopping the killer, or would you prefer to wait for the police?”

Most reasonable people will stop and ponder that. Maybe they finally say they just want all those military-style arms taken away from people. Maybe they flounder about for another false premise. Either way, they’re looking for answers.

It’s easy to explain that just about every type of firearm has been used by the military and u.s. citizens, and about how, in a free country, the two are necessarily linked. You can explain all about semi-automatic firearms, and how this century-plus-old technology represents the most commonly owned firearm type today.

Wherever the conversation goes, just be sure to let them know that it’s okay they don’t know these things, as schools rarely teach this information. Then tell them about your favorite books or articles on these topics, and offer to share them.

#4 - The committed anti-gun zealot who truly hates you.

I like to ask, “What makes you feel so cruel toward women and the elderly?”

They usually respond with shock, as they gasp, “What?!!” After they’ve had their say, I explain that it’s cruel to prevent, for example, an elderly man or woman from having the one tool that we know can stop a bad guy from badly injuring or killing them.

I point out that anti-Second Amendment policies empower thugs and murderers. This is a cruel thing to do to good, law-abiding people. Depending on the particular person and the context of the opportunity, you can easily let their egos off the hook by explaining that they probably just haven’t had the opportunity to hear this side of the argument before. If they have any reasonableness left in them, you can then begin to help them see past their bias.

Note that with all these types of people, if you ask the right questions you can at least make them start considering more seriously the real truth about gun ownership.

Try it the next time someone starts to "discuss" you and your gun.

stay safe.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
"I used to win debates using facts and logic, but I wasn't winning people to my side. Now, I win debates using facts and logic, and everything is different!"

:)
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
^^

Reading comprehension is key. He's asking a question, not debating. IMO.

Maybe for a limited definition of "debate".

But then most folks believe that "debating" is arguing differing opinions and that "arguing" must of necessity be contentiously adversarial.

http://classroom.synonym.com/types-debates-2476.html Three out of the five styles presented rely on persuasion rather than the presentation of overwhelming evidence that the other side are complete idiots.

stay safe.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
For those who watch Comedy Central's Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) There's an hilarious bit where the interviewer tries to get anti-abortion proponents to say the word "choice" and they just can't do it.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
For those who watch Comedy Central's Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) There's an hilarious bit where the interviewer tries to get anti-abortion proponents to say the word "choice" and they just can't do it.

Does this signal a sudden change of mindset about "debating"?

stay safe.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Anti-gunners are persuaded when their vote is no longer a effective weapon against liberty. I will not provide them the satisfaction of lending any credibility to their false premise. I prefer to work to make they, and their views, irrelevant.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Anti-gunners are persuaded when their vote is no longer a effective weapon against liberty. I will not provide them the satisfaction of lending any credibility to their false premise. I prefer to work to make they, and their views, irrelevant.
Make what irrelevant? :lol:
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Good read. Thank you, skidmark.

The gun grabbers have been successful largely through the use of emotion.

The methods posted by skidmark have the advantage of bringing emotion to bear in favor of our side, or at least to undermine the anti-gun views.

As someone's tag line once read, "You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position he got into using something other than logic."

The proper use of emotions opens someone up to accept some facts.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Anti-gunners are persuaded when their vote is no longer a effective weapon against liberty. I will not provide them the satisfaction of lending any credibility to their false premise. I prefer to work to make they, and their views, irrelevant.

A fair number of current pro-RKBA persons used to be anti-gun or at least fence sitters.

There are committed gun grabbers who will never be persuaded. But many fence sitters and even some currently anti-RKBA persons are open to persuasion of the right sort.

After all, one of the fundamental premises of this forum is that we can advance statutory and social respect for our RKBA by OCing. Proper OCing of a firearm is one way to help persuade people to respect our RKBA.

Charles
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
A fair number of current pro-RKBA persons used to be anti-gun or at least fence sitters.

There are committed gun grabbers who will never be persuaded. But many fence sitters and even some currently anti-RKBA persons are open to persuasion of the right sort.

After all, one of the fundamental premises of this forum is that we can advance statutory and social respect for our RKBA by OCing. Proper OCing of a firearm is one way to help persuade people to respect our RKBA.

Charles

I'm going to have to make a confession to comment. About 15 years ago when it first looked like CCW was going to pass in MO, my then boss (I was his 2nd) sat down with me to discuss the company position if it passed. To post no carry or not to post. We were both gun owners and occasional shooters so not antis, but were somewhat ambivalent about citizen carry. The issue failed (I did vote yes) before we had to make any decision but it got me thinking. Some here may notice that my opinion evolved, dramatically, over the next 5 years leading to CCW becoming law, and in the last push I was a stalwart supporter of CC. I owned my own business by that time and have never even considered prohibiting carry.

When I started to carry, my father raised an eyebrow and my mother was concerned. Eight years later they both have multi-state CC licenses and, while they don't carry regularly, they are starting to carry more and more. They travel a lot and it is primarily the patchwork of laws state to state that they find overwhelming to research and follow that inhibits more regular carry.

So yes, I have seen the triumph of responsible carry win the day just within my own family and with my wife's friends as well, none of whom were even very comfortable around guns when they met me and most of whom now are at least pro-CC.

We each have to decide if we approach carry as "it's my right - screw off" or choose to do our best to be ambassadors of this precious right. I have been in both places, but have found that personally the role of ambassador has been far more effective in winning hearts and minds and makes my life more pleasant.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
A fair number of current pro-RKBA persons used to be anti-gun or at least fence sitters.

There are committed gun grabbers who will never be persuaded. But many fence sitters and even some currently anti-RKBA persons are open to persuasion of the right sort.

After all, one of the fundamental premises of this forum is that we can advance statutory and social respect for our RKBA by OCing. Proper OCing of a firearm is one way to help persuade people to respect our RKBA.

Charles
Please do not patronize me on the associated benefits of OCing or the mission of OCDO.

If I were referring to fence sitters I would have included fence sitters in my post.

I do not go about proselytizing on the topic of the 2A. I engage in conversations, when approached, and answer honest questions with facts and figures to the best of my ability. Fence sitters (non-gun owners who philosophically support the 2A), in my experience, typically "vote for" the 2A, even if tangentially.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
OC for ME;2140852... said:
. I engage in conversations, when approached, and answer honest questions with facts and figures to the best of my ability. ....

The point being, one guy (author of the article quoted in the OP) claims (en emotinal rather than objective state) to have better success dealing with anti-gun rights folks by responding with the same types of emotional (as opposed to objective) responses as the anti-gun rights folks use.

Some folks find it very hard to do that (use emotional responses against an anti-gun right's reaction/response to ZOMG GUNZ!) without breaking into uncontrollable fits of laughter or foaming-at-the-mouth rage and frustration. The author of the article seems to have the ability to engage in emotion-based argument without hitting either extreme.

Anyone who says you must engage in this or that type of debate/conversation seems (an emotional as opposed to objective judgement) to have missed the point.

stay safe. (an objective desire, although some believe it is an emotional comment)
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The point being, one guy (author of the article quoted in the OP) claims (en emotinal rather than objective state) to have better success dealing with anti-gun rights folks by responding with the same types of emotional (as opposed to objective) responses as the anti-gun rights folks use.

Some folks find it very hard to do that (use emotional responses against an anti-gun right's reaction/response to ZOMG GUNZ!) without breaking into uncontrollable fits of laughter or foaming-at-the-mouth rage and frustration. The author of the article seems to have the ability to engage in emotion-based argument without hitting either extreme.

Anyone who says you must engage in this or that type of debate/conversation seems (an emotional as opposed to objective judgement) to have missed the point.

stay safe. (an objective desire, although some believe it is an emotional comment)
It is interesting that the author relates this wee tidbit.
So I let him off the hook and we talked about Ancient Rome and other things. In the years since he has slowly come around, and now even says he wants “to shoot skeet some time.”
Skeet, huh? Well, isn't that special, we have a new found 2A supporter who resides inside "the" ivory tower...:rolleyes:

You missed my point, I don't engage folks who may take years to getting around to wanting to shoot skeet some time. I thought that I made this crystal clear.
I do not go about proselytizing on the topic of the 2A. I engage in conversations, when approached, and answer honest questions with facts and figures to the best of my ability. Fence sitters (non-gun owners who philosophically support the 2A), in my experience, typically "vote for" the 2A, even if tangentially. - OC for ME
Anyway...

If the author gave a rip about that professor's position, how he votes, then why not pursue a course that prompts the professor to persuade his comrades wanting to shoot skeet some time, from within the ivory tower.

You are free, of course, to "debate" anti-gunners any way you see fit. Heck, try different "styles" until you find one that works on most folks. Or, maybe a professor is a poor choice as a example of changing hearts and minds.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
^ ^ There is no style/one size fit all ^ ^

Best to target your response in accordance with the most effective method given the situation at hand.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
^ ^ There is no style/one size fit all ^ ^

Best to target your response in accordance with the most effective method given the situation at hand.
Obviously.

There is, however, something to be said for taking the path of least resistance, namely, fence sitters. They are not that hard to find, most folks are fence sitters in my experience. A 2A friendly professor? A unicorn sighting in the very vast majority of ivory towers.
 
Top