Answering the Antis

I don't shy away from debating with antis. But, the truth is that antis avoid asking me any gun related questions or debating with me. The antis are not interested in facts, truth, learning, or real statistics. Their anti-gun rants are irrational and emotional.

I suppose if you really got down to with them (which I doubt is possible), the mere existence of guns crushes their Pollyanna view of "what the world can become". To them its guns and not the dark side of human nature that is destroying their vision of a better world. The antis that I've encountered simply refuse to believe that any person or people revile in committing truly evil acts upon others.
 
I think that it's wrong to lump all antis into one big group. In my experience there are some that you just have to walk away from, but there are many who share our goals- less gun violence. We don't all fit into one broad group, neither do they.

What works for me? I explain that my town doesn't have a police force and I know that I have to wait at least half an hour for help. Simply explaining that the police aren't at my disposal has opened some minds.
 
"No citizen has ever successfully intervened in a mass killing."
Click to expand...
Aside from the incidents listed, here are some possible responses:
  • "If I have a gun, perhaps I have a small chance of successfully fighting back. If you take away my gun, my odds go down."
  • "That sounds a lot like 'The Gambler's Fallacy.' Even if no one ever has, a statement with which I disagree, it doesn't mean that no one ever will."
  • "So? I didn't think my right to own the means to protect my family was based on statistical odds."
 
Mainah said:
I think that it's wrong to lump all antis into one big group.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Part of being an effective advocate involves correctly assessing the object of the advocacy. If one assumes that everyone who asks a question is immovably hostile to Second Amendment rights, he may miss a genuine opportunity.

One downside of having the same argument over and over again is that one may become inattentive and listen insufficiently, simply assuming that one is responding to the same argument he heard the last hundred times. Fairly responding to the argument made or question posed is more productive.
 
There are people who are simply ignorant, and are willing to learn. There are people who are deliberately ignorant, and are unwilling to learn. Some of them are the living embodiment of the comic's line "You can't fix stupid".

Figure out who you are dealing with, and act accordingly.
 
Tom Servo is Correct:

If I know someone's mind is set, there's not much point in trying to convince them. However, in a public debate, it's not so much about convincing that guy as it is allowing the audience to hear our side of the argument.
Click to expand...

You can not convince the True Believers. But you must not surrender the field to them.
 
There are people who are simply ignorant, and are willing to learn. There are people who are deliberately ignorant, and are unwilling to learn. Some of them are the living embodiment of the comic's line "You can't fix stupid".

Figure out who you are dealing with, and act accordingly.
Click to expand...

 
lockedcj7,

Better on the armed school staff scenario is that schools should have a barricade plan where students take cover. I wouldn't expect teachers to be playing SWAT and should be under cover as well. That means the only person standing to be shot by staff or LEOs is the bad guy.


Elsewhere, the mention of seniors (I will take no offense this time) and disabled needing an advantage is a valid point. Plus there are just too many incidents to count where many shots were needed; more than one perp, perp on bath salts who has just eaten the face off a homeless person that kept on eating after the several shots by LEO (taken down with 4th shot, actually), the lady that barricaded with her children and fired 5 shots into the perp's face only watch him walk away (and if he'd had a partner on bath salts?), etc.

Most anti gun sentiment is either ignorance based prejudice/fear, tinfoil hat stuff or pure bigotry. Given restricting firearms ownership and use is restricting individual freedoms based on who people are rather than any crime, it is bigotry on the same line as the Jim Crow laws and I intend to push this point.
 
i love the strategy that allows us to keep our mouths shut because "the ignorant will remain ignorant". In that respect, aren't we just letting them drown us out? If we stop debating with the stupid people, then they are the only ones talking and our side no longer gets heard, in the end they win. It's like arguing with a child, when you get fed up and walk away...they feel more accomplished thinking they won. That is how we lose our rights people, getting fed up and walking away.
 
Don't argue with a fool they will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience, That said speak the truth clearly with out hostile emotion and leave it there.
 
tony pasley said:
That said speak the truth clearly with out hostile emotion and leave it there.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If you're arguing with someone who is one of what I've called the MSNBC spoon-feeders they have a hard time with statistics and logic, then emotional arguments work better. That's what they comprehend. By all means, speak the truth always, but putting into emotional terms lets them grasp the concept.

As noted in my post above, when it comes to things like banning "large" magazines or pistols altogether that's when using emotion comes into play. And I've had some good successes with it too. Framing the discussion to focus on self-defense for the elderly or disabled makes it harder for them to argue for alternative methods. So does personalizing it, such as asking "why do you hate my elderly [grand]mother? Why do you want to deprive her of her [type-of-gun] when it allows her to keep her independence and live in her own home? What about her right to feel safe? Why should she live in fear because you think her gun is scary?"

I used this logic recently when talking to one of the local know-it-nots who thought banning all semi auto guns was a good idea. I pointed out that seniors have trouble manipulating small objects, like cartridges, under stress and a magazine makes it easier for them to reload. Especially since California limits you to 10 shots and there may be two or three assailants to deal with. It was satisfying to see them try to argue, but realize their talking points couldn't stand up in light of such a personalized view.

Using people who are "mobility impaired" (disabled) is just as fruitful.
 
Last edited:
i think what he meant by hostile emotion was getting worked up to the point of yelling and screaming, not making a logical point that may have an emotional trigger.
 
i think what he meant by hostile emotion was getting worked up to the point of yelling and screaming
Click to expand...

Honestly, it can be smugness, disdain, or simply a perception of bitterness. Audiences do pick up on those things.
 
Honestly, it can be smugness, disdain, or simply a perception of bitterness. Audiences do pick up on those things.
Click to expand...

Exactly correct.

The mind set that we need to carry into these conversations is one focused on helping provide understanding. The goal can't be to "win". It's not a war or a contest. It's a conversation. We need to allow the other side to speak as well, so that we may better respond. Asking a lot of questions is a huge help. While most anti "points" are emotional arguments, many of them come from different angles, and many antis have different hot buttons. By asking questions, we have the opportunity to see which patterns emerge in their responses. That allows us to key in on that angle, and not waste our talking time on things that resonate less with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top