How to change an an anti . . . sort of.

BenTowe, maybe he figures another Westchester NewsJournal will print the addresses of all permitted gun owners in a region.

They were not the first, and probably will not be the last.
 
Such a missed opportunity here.

The opportunity is to inform someone who is anti-NRA and presumably anti-gun (for others) about reality. That would involve some minor Q&A and a lot of discussion about legalities, responsibilities and such things like permits.

Remember, one of the biggest propaganda hurdles pro-rights supporters like us face is the lie that guns are "easily available," as if there are no serious restrictions on purchasing or owning a gun. This is a good opportunity to open someone's eyes. With them being better informed and also being "accepted" by other anti-gun advocates they are in a better position to speak up when they see or hear the B.S. in the media.

I had a similar encounter here in the Lost Republic of California not too long ago. What he really wanted was "a small gun" because he wanted to "scare them off, not kill them" :rolleyes: and that he didn't want friends or family to know.

I walked him through the purchase requirements here in CA and he was unhappy he would have to go to a gun dealer twice to acquire his gun. He was also annoyed that he'd end up forking over an extra $50 in various fees or taxes, plus sales tax. Then we talked about the "extras" he'd need - like ammo, cleaning kit, transport case, something to lock it up at home while he's away. Then it was the discussion of responsibilities and legal pitfalls. Things like not shooting until someone was inside the home; being responsible for the damages caused by every round fired; theft security; limits on transporting a gun.. and on and on.

I was gratified when he blurted out "It sounds so complicated! So even if I shoot someone inside my home I might go to jail?" When I said it always possible if there was anything odd about the circumstances, his response was "But... that's absurd!" I had to then tell him that it is absurd, but it was a result of attitudes like his and his friends that these laws were created. After initial denial and then realizing he had supported "tighter restrictions" he understood he was part of the problem.

In the end, I told him he'd be better off with a Taser or stun gun, given his insistence that he didn't want to "kill someone". I suggested keeping a small can of pepper spray handy as a delaying tactic too. When he left, he had a much better appreciation of the complex legal framework in which gun owners have to live.
 
BenTowe, maybe he figures another Westchester NewsJournal will print the addresses of all permitted gun owners in a region.
Either that, or he/she has watched too many CSI-type TV cop shows, and believes that:
  1. Police can figure out what kind of gun was used in a crime, based merely on shell casings or bullets found at the scene. (<woman in lab coat holding bloody bullet> "Ah, I see he was shot with a 9mm Smith and Wesson!")
  2. They have access to a magic registration database with the names and addresses of all legal gun owners, and can access this data instantaneously. ("Davis, give me a list of everyone in the county who owns a 9mm Smith & Wesson!" <click click sounds of typing, followed by computer printer> "Yes sir Captain, there are 30 of them, here's a list of their names and addresses!"), and
  3. Cops routinely use this information to shake people down. ("Mr. Johnson, we KNOW you own a 9mm Smith and Wesson! Don't make me take you downtown to our dramatically dimly-lit interrogation room!")
Seriously... you might be surprised how many otherwise well-educated and astute people believe this stuff. :rolleyes:
 
Seriously... you might be surprised how many otherwise well-educated and astute people believe this stuff.

You'd be surprised how many pro-gun folks believe stuff like this, i.e. BATFE is going to be doing surprise inspections of your residence once you own a registered silencer, machine gun, etc.
 
In some cases the terms "pro-guns" and "anti-guns" just aren't very descriptive. A person can be pro-gun in the sense they own them and see a right to own them but oppose carry laws. A person can be pro-guns and support carry laws but be opposed to the carry of long guns. I don't find many people totally opposed to guns nor many people supporting an unrestricted in any way right to ownership and carry.
 
Carguychris-excellent post.

If 'B' (we don't know if it's a guy or a gal) wants to go shooting I finally found a picture of what 'B' and their ilk need for their range trips.

51wtPqgF5wL__SY450_.jpg

Just the thing for an anti that wants the experience of shooting but doesn't want it to get out that they actually went to an evil gun range. Safety glasses with the built in diguise.
 
Prof Y,
Perhaps 'B' should get a dog coupled with an alarm system and up their homeowners insurance for stolen property (and maybe dog bites?)...

Would not want to stigmatize anyone unless absolutely necessary.
 
It sounds to me like "B" is extremely un/under/mis-informed about guns, gun ownership and the laws thereunto appertaining. This is a great opportunity to take "B" out for coffee and have an informative discussion. I meet lots of otherwise intelligent people who know little or nothing about guns and the majority of what they believe to be true is wrong. Some of them are willing to listen.
 
Back
Top