Your Best Arguments and Talking Points against Anti-gunners and Fence-Sitters

Yes, the "other side" has a different mindset on the issue and a lot of "our side's" arguments actually reinforce their stance on the issue.

What we really need is more gun owners that actually vote, instead of saying that "they'll never take our guns"

I've seen numerous issues pop up and many just say "oh, it will never pass"

Some wealthy people and companies are willing to spend money on initiatives. Not only gun issues, I've seen some things important to me loose due to monetary influence.

Many states enjoy gun friendly laws right now. Others are going away. Elected officials can get replaced by others not-so gun friendly.

I remember a time in Texas when a gun in a car could get you in trouble... Those days could return. I don't live there any more, but it's still my homeland.

I believe any state can become a California or New York
 
I've lived in places controlled absolutely by criminal organizations. To the extent they could drag someone out into a busy street and publicly execute them without fear of repercussions. To the extent they could go to someones house on their young teen daughters birthday and inform the father his daughter should be bathed and in her best clothes by the time they return in a few hours. Then the father does it not knowing if she will ever come home, because if he doesn't EVERYONE in his family will be beaten, raped, and burned alive. His head left hanging from the nearest bridge. I've witnessed some of those places change quickly once the locals pick up arms(2A) and organize(1A). Uncle Joe's double works to start, but a few solid rifles and a big stack of pistols is preferable.

It is difficult to relate that experience to someone who has lived in Suburban US for their entire lives. When I go to church on Sunday the lector usually relates the reading to some recent sports event. The congregation loves it.

I can usually give some insight into the basics of international arms smuggling. Especially the ease of obtaining true military arms internationally at prices 1/10th the price of US semi-auto derivatives. The ease of importing arms compared to drug and human cargo when you have an established and well funded international organization dedicated to smuggling. The grip organized crime held over some ethnic neighbor hoods in living memory. Invite the listener to contact any law enforcement officers they know and ask about the hold cartels have in those neighborhoods today.

The ease with which I can buy everything I need to set-up a clandestine small arms company TODAY without leaving the city without any background check much more easily than I could set-up the drug processing labs we all know abound in both urban and rural locations.

I usually avoid the interesting relationship between organized crime, unions, politicians of a certain flavor, and gun control. Ohio's infamous James Trafficant serving as a recent example of this relationship.

I usually end with something to the effect of 'In many ways the Second Amendment isn't really all that important to me personally. I am quite confident in my ability to procure/manufacture a firearm or any other weapon if the need should arise no matter the legal situation. The Second Amendment is for those who can't.'

If i don't have the time or the listener doesn't have the patience/interest for all that I avoid any sort of discussion at all.

Maybe i should just go with, "Why'd the 1985 Bears have a punter?"
 
Last edited:
Tom Servo said:
Quote:
I have seen in a few places, "How are those gun free zone laws working for you?" Maybe we need to push that harder.
Click to expand...
Actually, we may need to stop using that argument altogether.

Yes, the majority of shootings have occurred in no-gun zones. But we have exceptions, the most notable being Tucson. There was at least one armed person on site, but they didn't stop the shooter.

Ever since LaPierre's disastrous post-Newton speech, the antis have been asking us why a "good guy with a gun" hasn't stopped public shootings. It puts us in a rhetorical corner.
Click to expand...

I mostly disagree with this reply.... I hear what your saying but GFZ laws DO restrict lawful citizen from being able to defend themselves and in many states signage does carry the weight of the law. Essentially gun control laws, specifically GFZ laws are a talking point against anti-gunners.

We do need to stop suggesting that an armed citizen is going to reduce or prevent gun violence, there is no evidence that suggests these killers would not choose to kill at all if GFZ's were not available. But rather a talking point is better served as there are many cases of "good guy with a gun" putting a stop to violence. Most just aren’t reported in the news, as a start every 2A supporter should know the statistics of the frequency of defensive gun use... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

many fence sitters are not aware of how effective guns have been used lawfully by armed citizens.
 
Perhaps not "How's that working for ya" is not the right tone.
Murder is a terrible thing, and being smug about the law failing doesn't win many points.

Perhaps a more humble "What kind of person does a "no guns allowed" sign stop from bringing a gun there?" (Not the one planning on murdering innocent people!)
 
Tom Servo said:
Fear-based arguments really don't tend to work well. The retort is that we're being paranoid. We need positive arguments.
Click to expand...

johnwilliamson062 said:
It is difficult to relate that experience to someone who has lived in Suburban US for their entire lives.
Click to expand...

A risk based argument can work if it educates.

A lot of risks are difficult to convey to people who've effectively and reasonably insulated themselves from many of those risks, and some will imagine that risk is illusory. Yet they face risks like getting to school or work late and having flat tires. They don't think it irrational to have alarm clocks and spare tires.

Even in a nice area, there is a real risk of events that demand defense, a risk hardly less remote than that of a kitchen fire for which they keep an extinguisher. Noting the risk of being unable to discharge the basic responsibility of protecting one's family describes the risk in being unarmed at the wrong time.
 
Some good ideas in this thread, but let's not forget that who we are and how we show ourselves to the world are also of considerable importance.

Much of today's anti-gun sentiment is a byproduct of 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. 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 perceives are like him. And they set themselves apart from those they find different -- such as the type of person they believe usually owns guns.

Of course that's a gross oversimplification of a complex social phenomenon. But I think it works for this illustration.

To help make a dent in urban anti-gun sentiments, we must challenge those anti-gun sentiments by demonstrating that sophisticated, urbane perspectives on other things aren't inexorably intertwined with hating guns.

Each of us needs to help, by our manner of relating to the world, build a positive public image for gun owners. We need to be good ambassadors for gun owners, dispelling the negative stereotypes many members of the public have of gun owners, by being sober, rational, intelligent, responsible, and active participants in the affairs of our communities.

My wife and I have made a number of inroads with people we know, not by arguing but rather by forcing them to confront the fact that while we are gun owners and active participants in the gun world, we are otherwise much like them and not the knuckle dragging Neanderthals they expect gun owners to be.
 
Last edited:
excellent post Frank, all of it. Its important to be articulated in conversations debating gun control to 'fence sitters' etc. but most importantly our actions life style speak louder than words.
 
I like to point out that I don't own a gun to kill anything- rather, to give me at least a fighting chance of not meeting that same fate due to someone else's malintent and criminal actions
 
When you run into someone who knows guns are bad, because they are dangerous, and so gun owners are bad, and dangerous, you aren't going to change their minds.

Discussing things with them, when there are unclosed minds around can be beneficial, but you have to be the kind of person who can maintain their cool and not show any anger despite the most crude, vulgar personal attacks.

Losing your cool, even to the degree of a snappish retort, will be seized on as "proof" of your anger, instability, and secret desire to commit mass murder.

The foaming at the mouth fanatics are easy. Doesn't take much to get them to reveal their true nature. In the ears of listeners, no matter what the details of the argument are, if you come off as rational, calm, (and have anything more that shouting "it's my right" in your arguments), and the other side rants and raves, it is a win.

Right now, the current hot issue is background checks, who should, & shouldn't be allowed to buy / have a gun.

But don't forget another one of their enduring issues, registration. It has not gone away, and it focuses on those of us who pass all the checks and meet all the legal requirements.
(sarcasm ON)
What is the purpose of registration?
To know who has the guns, right?
So we'll all be safer, right?
But only the police have access to the lists, right?
so what about the rest of us???
would you feel safer if we all knew who had guns?
How about decal for their car, or home? or something for them to wear, so we would know?

Maybe a red bullseye? no, sorry, Target stores took that one..
ok, how about a blue diamond?

or a pink triangle??

Or a yellow star?????????????????????????
wouldn't that be a good idea?
(sarcasm OFF)
:D
 
I'd say the vast majority of people in the U.S. have probably already made up their minds about guns and people who own/use them. Persuasion isn't completely useless but extremely limited. If someone doesn't care that the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the individual right to bear arms and/or that someone shouldn't limit the freedom of other people to do things simply because they don't like their actions, then I wouldn't waste too much time on them.
 
Here's one for Gun free zones.


Gun free zones can work, but not they way they are used now. If you truly want a gun free zone, then each and every individual needs to be stopped and searched for a gun, such as when entering an airport.

Of course, that begs the question as to whether we want the police to have the authority to essentially strip search us as we go about our daily lives. Personally I think the police have too much power already, but if you want gun free zones to truly be effective this is how to do it.

But to think that a simple sign stating an area is gun free will deter someone is just plain stupid. If someone is intent on murdering someone, they will not be stopped by a silly sign. In fact, its quite the opposite. Most recent mass shootings have occurred in areas that are designated as gun free. They know the odds of people being armed is a lot less.

So what do you think we should do to make gun free zones effective, and do you think expanding police authority is good for this country? (this question is not directed to this thread, but as part of the argument)
 
I'd say the vast majority of people in the U.S. have probably already made up their minds about guns and people who own/use them. Persuasion isn't completely useless but extremely limited. If someone doesn't care that the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the individual right to bear arms and/or that someone shouldn't limit the freedom of other people to do things simply because they don't like their actions, then I wouldn't waste too much time on them.
Click to expand...

For these people, tie the 2A to other BoR issues, such as curtailing the 1A. Make it a 1A discussion with the anti 1A people using tactics developed to attack the 2A.
 
"We need to ban guns. Countries with gun bans have less murders."

Response: Prior to Heller vs DC, Chicago Illinois had some of country's strictest gun control measures in place for over nine decades. That is ninety years worth of gun control and outright bans within city limits. Yet every year Chicago vied for the title of the murder capital of the united States. If the problem to violence was the gun, and the solution was banning the gun, Chicago would have been heaven on earth by now.

The problem is not the gun, the problem is the criminal. Visit some violent criminals serving time in prison/jail and ask them, "What did you fear the most when out on the street? The cops? Getting caught? The judge's sentence?" In my personal experience, over 90% of the criminals I've spoken to have said the thing they feared most was for their intended victim to be armed with a gun or have some other way of defending themselves.

Criminals are not scared of of 230# policeman that is minutes away from the scene, but they dreadfully fear even a 110# woman with a gun.
 
I like to paint a scenario for them to ponder.

For gun anti's:

It's 3 AM and you and your wife are awoken by the sound of broken glass and voices coming from downstairs. Someone has broken into your house - you don't know how many people broke in but certainly more than one since they are talking and sound drunk. Your wife grabs the phone to call the police, but the thugs are now approaching your stairs and you must act quickly. You run to your closet where you have a baseball bat, a knife, and a handgun. Which one do you grab?

For those arguing for smaller magazines:

Same scenario as above, but in your closet you have a pistol with seven rounds and a pistol with 17 rounds. Which one do you grab?

For those arguing birdshot is adequate for home defense:

Same scenario as above, but in your closet you have two shotguns, one loaded with birdshot and one loaded with 00 buck. Which one do you grab?

For those arguing that guns should be locked and unloaded:

Same scenario as above, but you have two closets, one has a pistol locked in a safe with the ammunition locked in a separate box, and one has a loaded pistol laying on the shelf. Which closet do you go to?

For those arguing against "assault" weapons:

Same scenario as above, but you hear many voices coming from downstairs, perhaps as many as four or five people have invaded your home. In your closet you have a hunting rifle with a five round magazine, a pistol with 10 rounds, and an AR 15 with a 30 round magazine. Which one do you grab?

Sure gets people thinking when it is personal.

TomNJVA
 
You're at Starbucks and you ask for a Mocha Frappuccino with soy, but they are out of soy...
What do you do? Do you substitute skim or walk to the nearest Starbucks(across the street) and get the soy you deserve than any self-respecting Starbucks manager would never allow to run out?

No anti-gun suburban or urbanite worries about a home invasion. How many would answer "I'm a prohibited person, so I can't have a Glock in a closet even if it is legal for you." It doesn't relate to them at all. When you propose these scenarios they just think you are crazy/paranoid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top