Countering Gun Rights Haters on the Street and in the Press

How do you guys classify a gun hater? I know people who support universal (including private sales) background checks, limits on mag capacity, more restrictive carry permit requirements, and some other restrictions while at the same time own guns and have owned them their entire life.

I'd say they have a somewhat narrow view of the 2nd amendment but would not call them a gun hater. These are the types I'd like to be persuaded to change their minds on at least some of the restrictions. Calling them gun haters or bigots isn't likely to persuade.

We shouldn't stereo type people who don't agree with us 100 percent anymore than they should stereo type us.
 
Even the 'us' has substantial disagreements.

It seems that many solid RKBA supporters have little use for the extreme Open Carry folks.

Substantial numbers of folks in the hunting/skeet domain have spoken against the EBR cultural segment

Folks are in favor of training for concealed carry while some aren't.

Various degrees of opinion exist on the level of mental health background checks.

The solid base consensus is that law abiding citizens (which may be checked in some manner) can own some kind of firearm for SD and some sports.

After that - there are various views. Unfortunately, as we see in every domain - extremes tend to be vocal and act out.
 
Understand that there are "knuckle dragging Neanderthal" bigots & fanatics on BOTH side of the issue.
Click to expand...
True my wife doesn't like firearms i have no problem with that. It certainly does not make here a bigot. Some of the rhetoric that comes from pro gun groups is as bad and sometimes worse than that from anti gun groups, and does firearms enthusiast no favours.

I do agree that attempting to downplay their lethal capabilities by trying to use the label of "tool" to make them seem warmer and fuzzier is a silly argument
Click to expand...
I would agree with that.
 
Last edited:
While pointing out someones bigotry may not change their view, neither will reasoned debate because, well, they are bigots. I'm not really convinced that failing to confront bigotry is effective either.

And to nit-pick, not all tools are weapons, but weapons ARE tools- designed primarily to incapacitate or kill things. I do agree that attempting to downplay their lethal capabilities by trying to use the label of "tool" to make them seem warmer and fuzzier is a silly argument.
 
"Even the 'us' has substantial disagreements."

I know what you mean. I don't know who the "us" really is but couldn't think of another term.
 
The formula is pretty simple. There are the gun rights supporters, you can call them (us?) what you want it wont matter they wont change. There are the gun control supporters, you can call them what you wont they wont change. Then there is everyone else in between.... and you better not call them anything because those are the ones that tip the scale. Be polite, just because they might support a gun control law doesn't mean they are a gun hater.
 
I call them tools because they are tools. If you think calling them tools makes them teddy bears, then you are making a connection I am not.

A chainsaw is a tool, also, but if you're carrying one in the middle of the night on a desert highway, I'm not picking you up. Even if you do have Bud Light...

Oh, and BTW, the hockey mask is a good look for you!.....
:D
 
My question is, why bother? I've tried before with every fact known to mankind, and with every reasonable argument from the arguments of the Founding Fathers to the scenarios involving life or death, and it makes no difference. Most of them are brainwashed puppets who make their decisions based solely on emotion. Until they are faced with the reality of the world we live in, they will never understand; that is until it is too late.
 
ronl said:
My question is, why bother? I've tried before with every fact known to mankind, and with every reasonable argument from the arguments of the Founding Fathers to the scenarios involving life or death, and it makes no difference. Most of them are brainwashed puppets who make their decisions based solely on emotion....
Click to expand...
Yes, which is one of the reasons that spouting "fact" and haranguing folks about the Founding Fathers isn't generally going to get anyone too far. We need to remember that many of the folks we can win over still start out being afraid of guns and, most importantly, afraid of people who have or want guns. Thinking of them as "brainwashed puppets" doesn't help.

Consider some of the reasons for increasing support in many places for gun control.

A lot of it started with the assassinations in the 1960s of JFK, RFK and MLK by nut cases with guns. Those were wildly popular public figures, and their murders laid the foundation for the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

A lot has to do with the continuing urbanization of America. California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc., are strongly anti-gun in part because the bulk of the political power in those States is in a few major cities. The rural parts of those States are much more pro-gun or neutral. And in States like Washington and Oregon which generally have decent gun laws, the urban centers area still hot beds of anti-gun sentiment.

People tend to look for support and validation from others who share their tastes and values; and they distinguish themselves, often in a denigrating manner, from those who do not. So the city dweller likes to fancy himself sophisticated, socially liberal, well educated, urbane, fashionable, etc.; and he wants to associate with, and have his self image validated by, people he perceive are like him. And they set themselves apart from those they find different -- such as the type of person they believe usually owns guns.

If we want to make a dent in urban anti-gun sentiments, we must challenge their anti-gun sentiments by demonstrating that their perspectives on other things aren't inexorably intertwined with hating guns.We need to start by being good ambassadors for gun owners and, through our manners, activities, and participation in the civic and cultural life of our communities dispel the negative stereotypes of gun owners.
 
If we want to make a dent in urban anti-gun sentiments, we must challenge their anti-gun sentiments by demonstrating that their perspectives on other things aren't inexorably intertwined with hating guns.We need to start by being good ambassadors for gun owners and, through our manners, activities, and participation in the civic and cultural life of our communities dispel the negative stereotypes of gun owners.
Click to expand...

Frank Ettin said it very well.

About one third of US voters give a rats butt less about gun rights or gun control. In addition to politely refuting the anti-gunners; we should appeal to those who have not made up their minds.

Hint:
We won't get there by lending moral support to Cliven Bundy and immature gunowners who openly carry loaded rifles into businesses.
 
A chosen victim of a committed rapist does not stop him in the act through rhetoric or making him feel good about her side of the argument; she stops him through the use of violence.
 
katokahn99 said:
A chosen victim of a committed rapist does not stop him in the act through rhetoric or making him feel good about her side of the argument; she stops him through the use of violence.
Click to expand...
Which means exactly what in the context of this discussion?

If you've proposed that as an explanation for why we here believe guns to be a useful and appropriate tool for the private citizen to use in self defense, we here of course agree. But that doesn't make that particular truism a useful vehicle for winning our political and social battles.

If you're proposing a metaphor to suggest that we must resort to extra-legal aggressive measures, or violence, against our opposition, that is out of line as well as an inapposite metaphor. Thinking of our neighbors, our co-worker, the people in our communities, etc., who are inclined to support gun control as "rapists" will not help us further our political and social interests.
 
Simply being against gun control is not enough. While it is popular to label people "anti-gun" they are in fact pro-gun control. The real antis are those who oppose gun control.
A positive agenda tends to overcome a negative. imho those who oppose gun control are simply holding back the sea until there is enough of a demographic change to drown them.

If however the anti-gun control movement finds positive policies to reduce gun violence it will go the other way around.
 
Last edited:
...positive policies to reduce gun violence...
Click to expand...

This is the crux of the matter right here. We all want less of the shootings that they call "gun violence". (as if the gun were the responsible component)

But, gun control laws DO NOT DO THIS. Gun control laws are all about who can have what, where, and when. NOTHING ELSE.

We have, and have always had laws against violence. One is simply not allowed to shoot people for fun or profit. If those laws are not reducing or controlling "gun violence" how does a law that restricts possession (only) do anything?

If you believe that law A is worthless and law B is the cure, go right ahead, but don't be surprised when a criminal ignores A, B, and the rest of the alphabet if it gets in the way of what they want.

The fact is that essentially both sides want the same thing, (fewer shootings) their way to get this is restrict/remove guns in private hands. Our way is stop the people who are doing it, leave guns alone.

They see it as a problem with things, we see it as a problem with people.
 
There are a lot of folks out there we classify as "gun haters" but don't really fit the mold. My son-in-law is a good example. He is not a gun guy, was raised in the country but never cared about firearms. He is a Taekwondo expert and can easily take care of himself, never needed or even considered a firearm. However he is now the father of my grandson, works 6 days a week, and just moved my daughter and grandson into a small home in a somewhat sketchy neighborhood beceause its what they can afford. 2 days after moving in a man attempting to break into a home 2 blocks away was shot and killed by the homeowner. As of a couple days ago there is now a very simple 20 ga. single shot shotgun in their closet. I strongly suspect he would rather not have it there but suddenly it became a good idea. People do change their minds, but if we get the whole "in their face" and come off looking like the idiots at the Bundy ranch, or the guys who openly carry an AR-15 into the mall and video it for youtube, then its going to hard to convince the anti-'s that we are anything but a bunch of gun loving rambo wannabes. Its on us to present the proper image. Lets compare guns to politics, we all know that politics is a necessary evil, has been around for thousands of years. We see the "stuff" that goes on making the news and become so disgusted and anti-politician it would be hard to convince us that politics can be used for good. Seldom do we see making the news, a half dozen senators from different political parties sitting in a cramped back room working out a deal that is good for the country, we see the idiots who are out front happily shutting down the government etc.
 
There have been some excellent analyses on this thread.

Appearance is important. Dressing like a slob or toting an AR into a restaurant because "it is my right" does not win hearts and minds. Going to a gun-rights rally decked out in camo - not helpful.

Also, many pro-gun folks are only about guns. Have some other interests. A shared love of music, photography, sports, the outdoors, etc. can lead to a productive conversation about guns.

This is hard - but be an active listener and show a little empathy. A friend's wife and I were discussing prepping in case of a natural disaster and I asked if she had thought about a security plan. She said no, she was terrified of guns. I asked why. She said because of the violence they represent. I said I understood. Then I gently move to "we don't blame cars for drive-by shootings, though". An a-ha moment. She later agreed that going to a ladies-only shooting class would be a good idea.

Lastly, some people simply won't change. Recognize them and move on.
 
...there is now a very simple 20 ga. single shot shotgun in their closet. I strongly suspect he would rather not have it there but suddenly it became a good idea. ..
Click to expand...

Is he now going to follow Joe Biden's "advice"???? (sorry, couldn't resist..:D)

There are a lot of people who don't know guns. They don't like guns. And for them, that's a fine thing. I'm fine with people who don't want to have guns, or have guns around them. Its their choice, and one they are entirely within their rights to make.

BUT, I strongly dislike them foisting their belief system on me. And politician, telling me (through LAW) that I need stand cap in hand, head bowed, tugging on my forelock as they pass by, in order to get their permission to buy something that I already have a dozen of at home, EVERY TIME I want to buy one, AND which is my right, and one of the few rights specifically spelled out in the Constitution? That just grates on me.

What is the logic that says a 50yr old who hasn't even gottin a traffic ticket in 10 years, cannot own a spring loaded box above a certain size, because a 17 yr old, somewhere, went nuts? Gun Control laws seem to all be based on an automatic presumption of guilt. Personally, I find that repugnant.

A lot of people who don't care for guns, for themselves are ok with guns for those who want them. Many of them do support gun control, but only in passive way. Their support is not active, its just not opposition.

They don't oppose gun control, first, because it doesn't have a personal impact on their lives, and second, they accept and believe the lies told by the anti-gun crowd, mostly because they have had nothing in their personal lives to contradict those lies, and because, on the surface they sound rational.

But the real world is more than what is on the surface. Legitimate law abiding gun owners are misrepresented, mischaracterized, and even outright demonized in the media constantly. The media endlessly repeats sound bites and statements without any regard to the actual facts.

They tell how we are all dangerous, because we have/ want guns. WE are ALL the same as the deranged killer to them, we just haven't YET gone on a rampage killing spree.

What do you call it when you stereotype everyone in a group based on a single thing? Once it was called bigotry. Today it is called CNN....et al
 
I'm half tempted to place a gun or a knife on the table sometimes when I'm talking to my brother and then ask him of he feels the need to go and kill something be it stab or shoot them. A debate I had with him a while back, he stated he feels that having guns around the house or whatever promotes violence with guns. Because by their mere presence or availability, the whack job that wants to go shoot up a school is going to take the most effective and easy to use device he can get his hands on, the gun on this case.

I've tried arguing the fact that a person who intends to kill will use whatever is available, be it a gun or a knife but he wouldn't have it, arguing that at least you have a chance to get away from a knife wielding lunatic, while a gun you almost have no chance.

Best counters IMO is to remain calm, civilized and use facts and data to counter their claims. Their aim is to make all of us look like trigger happy but jobs with a penchant to go full on Rambo on people. Slinging mud doesn't help our cause, and can be just as damaging as those...less intelligent folks who go around brandishing AR15's at target and chipotle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top