Item 1: stereotypes
You should have spoken up to destroy their stereotypes.
No, it might be worth putting a human face on the opposite camp by buying them some coffee cake and asking if they want to them to explain the issue to you. Be interested in what they, as individual citizens, might bring to the table b/c their arguments might be completely different from the run of the mill arguments. Maybe not, but people like getting their say.
If you're a gun-toting citizen who seems thoughtful, calm and rational and you have well-supported arguments that support your position, that would make you a good representative of our position. If all the fence sitters know is Ted Nugent and the people who scream on TV it's hard to sympathize with fellow citizens who carry. We need to change the order of things. Right now, we are depicted as reactionary, paranoid ignorant rednecks who take their guns to bed with them like steel teddy bears. If we become everyday fellow citizens who volunteer at the local soup kitchand and, oh, happen to have guns as well, it might change the perceptions a bit.
You might feel passionately about this (duh, you joined TFL), but if you come off as angry, then you become "that angry guy with a gun whom I met at the coffee shop," and it becomes harder for people to distinguish between angry behavior and gun ownership. It might seem weird, but the stereotype that we need to fight is the news-driven connection between violent behavior and attitudes and the reality of private citizens making rational choices. People who don't own guns, in my opinion, are less against guns b/c they have data that supports their view, but more against "gun violence." No one wants violence in their everyday life, and when people think that gun ownership automatically brings violence, it's not hard to oppose gun ownership.
Item 2:
Should the gov't have equipment that the normal citizen shouldn't?
In my opinion, people's perception of gov't falls into one of two camps (stereotype alert!):
a. The government is the collection of people who provide services to me.
b. The government is the collection of people who happen to be in charge (and I want them to leave me alone so long as I'm acting responsibly).
People who are in A-ville would probably be okay with the police and military have more firepower than the average bag guy (they provide a service).
People who fall onto the b side of the fence are more likely to to remember how governments have turned on segments of their populations and used their superior firepower to horrendous effect.
Both people have trust in their fellow citizens but differently. A thinks that the gov't is trustworthy, B think that their fellow citizens outside of gov't are as trustworthy as--and moreso in some cases than--the citzens in gov't.
Don't forget that these are your fellow citizens and that much as they disagree with you and might not appreciate history nor their 2nd Amend rights, they do deserve the same respect that you do.
