Is talking to anti-gun people a waste of time?

[daddyo]

Interesting perspective on whether or not it is productive to engage the gun-grabbers online (or arguing with anyone on the internet in general):

 

http://gunnuts.net/2013/02/15/is-talking-to-anti-gun-people-a-waste-of-time/

Edited February 18, 2013 by daddyo

[dlm37015]

yes

[10-Ring]

After engaging in conversation after conversation in which I stated facts, did not get angry, remained calm, did not make threats, call names or make other personal attacks it is my personal experience that talking to these people does zero good.  I will not be continuing to do it.  In my experience I can't even have a civil debate without being attacked personally or being called names.  I will continue to try to live life as a good example to society of a responsible gun owner but I'm done talking to the antis.

[Randall53]

Not on the internet.....I won't anyway.  Face to face I will to a degree.  I stop and walk away when their eyes glaze over while I'm talking.  They've stopped listening and just thinking what their gonna say next.

[LagerHead]

I disagree with his assessment. Part of the liberal agenda - the part at which they have been extremely successful - is to control the language or the debate. They have introduced political correctness into our way of thinking so that people are more likely to stay silent than to say something that might offend the one female minority dwarf with a skin condition living in the mountains of Tibet. What we need to do is to take back our right to say what is right even if it offends someone.

What I am suggesting is that we need to be ten times more informed on the subject than the most (mis)informed anti-gun person. If enough us knew enough to counter the top ten arguments successfully they would eventually stop making those arguments to us. Eventually the only people that would listen are the ones, like them, that will never be convinced no matter how soundly you trounce their arguments. In other words, we need to control the debate. We need to be the ones on the side with all the facts and everyone needs to know it. 

Sun Tzu said to know your enemy, and he was right. When I first really got into guns I of course was confronted with the barrage of misinformation about guns, gun owners, statistics on shooting yourself while in the shower, and all the other crazy nonsense by anti-gunners. But at that time I naively believed that all of the information they were spewing couldn't be wrong. I figured they weaved their lies with just enough truth to give their arguments real world credibility. So I started doing research because I was curious how much of what they were saying was true and how much of it was bunk. My research surprised me. It's all bunk. All the top arguments used by anti-gunners are either complete made-up garbage or based on extremely poorly conducted "studies" like the Kellerman one that were debunked before the ink was dry but still are repeated by a gun-hating media daily. 

So if you haven't, do your research. Try to debunk both the pro-gun and anti-gun arguments. You will find one is much easier than the other which gives us a huge strategic advantage in controlling the message. Of course we'll always be fighting an anti-gun media but if we can get enough folks with a voice to destroy Piers Morgan and others in these debates maybe we can sway some of those that are on the fence. And remember, it's the fence-sitters we are trying to convince, not the die hard Sarah Bradys of the world. Folks like her know the truth but spout lies by choice and will never be anything but 100% opposed to our rights. So don't waste your time trying to convince them. Maybe silence them. That's just as good if you think about it. 

[TMF]

You won't change their mind.  The only thing you can do is counter their emotion with logic, which will only make them look crazier and cause them to act rabidly, which will hopefully open up the eyes of the sheep.

[Guest drv2fst]

Debate is not about winning over the opposing team.  It's about winning the audience.  

 

It is very unlikely you will ever convert your opponent.  Your goal in public debate is to make a reasonable and logical case and sway the listeners (not the talkers).

[Dolomite_supafly]

I think as long as we talk to them with respect and try not to argue they might listen. Even though we do take it personally we cannot let our emotion enter into the conversation otherwise we have lost.

 

At the stable were my wife boards her horse there is a women who is LIBERAL. She speaks in liberal speak, is a teacher and a PETA member as well as a vegitarian. A few months ago I jokingly told my wife I am going to get her to shoot a gun. When I started talking to her about Sandy Hook and guns she gave me a icky look saying "I don't udnerstand how anyone could own a gun". She works as a school teacher and said she would never carry a gun in a school.

 

My wife and I have talked to her a few times over the last month about the benefits of guns in protecting people. I never got loud and remained calm. My wife has even showed the lady the gun my wife carries. And I always asked the lady when she wanted to go shooting. Well a few days ago she said to let her know when we could go shooting. I honestly thought she would have never considered it but now we just need to set a date for my wife and I to take the lady shooting.

 

My next goal is to convince her she needs a HCP even if she never plans on owning or carrying a gun.

 

And this isn't the first. We have a friend who loved or loves Obama. Pretty liberal leaning and never really was a gun person even though her family is. We invited her over for a day of shooting with several members here. She was able to shoot a bunch of different guns. She has since gotten her HCP and carries almost every day. I am not sure I can convert her from being an Obama lover but at least she is a gun owner.

 

I think we are trying to convert them to our way of thinking too quickly. Getting loud and trying to argue them into submission only forces them to shut down and not listen, the same way we do.

 

Dolomite

[1gewehr]

Arguing is worthless.  Getting emotional is counter-productive.  But, if you can calmly engage in intelligent conversation, then the best thing to do is to remain calm, ask pertinent questions, and state only facts.

Asking polite questions is usually the best tactic.  Instead of stating an opposing viewpoint, try asking a question about why THEY believe the way they do.    I usually try to guide the conversation by stating "On an issue this important, don't you think that a calm look at the facts is better than reacting blindly from emotion?" 

 

Good questions are:

What is the goal of that gun control proposal?  Why do you think that it will work?  (That gives you the opportunity to show why it WON'T work by asking further questions.)

Why are you only focused on 'gun violence'?  Why is being shot worse than being blown up, stabbed, or poisoned?  (Gets the focus away from 'guns', and on to violence.)

 

If it gets emotional and confrontational, you have lost.  And your goal is not to 'win', but merely to get the other person to question their beliefs.  Once they can do this, then you can take it further later.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

On the internet, it is a waste of time, but face to face you can get your case out, depending on your ability to discuss

rationally to some.

[Guest uofmeet]

On the internet, I am one of those person who make it pointless(and in person sometimes also). I am not talking about guns though, just topics in general. I like to play devil's Advocate. Sometimes I argue them even if I agree with them. Except for guns.I will always be pro guns when having a conversation with someone else, other than that, it is game on......I have to entertain myself somehow, And since football season is over, there is not much on TV.

[RED333]

I will only do it One on One, with more than one on their side you wont stand a chance.

The left will not admit you are right if someone else can hear them agree.

[LagerHead]

I will only do it One on One, with more than one on their side you wont stand a chance.

The left will not admit you are right if someone else can hear them agree.

 

I know you're not the only one to say this but I'm gonna pick on you because you were last. Fair is fair, right? ;)

 

I do it on the Internet too, and here is why. There are topics, like guns, about which I am fully prepared to debate and since clearly the facts are squarely on our side I will win. However, there are topics about which I am right, yet not prepared to debate. So you do you know what happens? I don't debate them. I stay silent. Global warming is a prime example. Global warming alarmists tend to be well versed in the "science" and can trounce me even though I know enough to know it's bunk but not enough to say why.

 

The point is if we can silence the opposition because we can demonstrate to enough of them that they are not prepared to debate us on this topic then it is a de facto win. And a win in public opinion is often, though admittedly not always, a win in the political arena. And that is where this battle will truly be won or lost. Back to my point on political correctness, we stay silent about some things rather than offend someone and it turns into a political loss for the right (and the right, if you catch my drift). This is one area on which we cannot afford to stay silent. When it comes to our God given rights we need to talk (type) until we are blue in the face (fingers). The last thing we need is to say, "If I had only done more," when our rights are taken away. Let's at least go down swinging. 

[Guest Lester Weevils]

At this point I do have to admit to a certain bias as well - because I've never actually seen anyone change anyone else's mind on the internet...

 

Unless there are "unbiased" or "convinceable" lurkers to online discussions, who might be persuaded but you never get feedback, the return on time invested is very low if not nil. The fella's comment matches my experience "ever since there was an internet." Actually, even pre-internet in the compuserve and BBS days. I don't recall a participant in a discussion ever "converted" except me. I changed from anti- to pro-, so I know it can happen. On the other hand, perhaps changed opinions are common even though it is rare to witness it happen. Logic dictates that birds must copulate on a routine basis or there would be no birds, but I don't recall the last time I witnessed a bird copulating. :)

 

One possible utility of the infinite loop debates-- When an anti-gun person finally becomes concerned enough for his family's security to buy his own gun-- The fella will already have read pro-gun arguments so he will not have to invent his own rationalizations why having a gun is good and gun-bans are bad. As soon as he buys his own gun, he already knows how to explain his self-interested reversal of opinion to himself in a logical fashion. :)

 

[runco]

I do like to argue, and I have been accused by many that I would argue with a stop sign. So I think engaging in debate is healthy, and keeps your blade sharp. If you do not engage, how do you know how sharp your blade is.  So at minimum it is not a waste of your time, but keeps you sharp and prepared!

[Grand Torino]

Is talking to anti-gun people a waste of time?

 

Yes...absolutely. If you are not ready to agree with these libturd assholes then they will not sanely discuss anything.

 

[Monkeyman2500]

Used to have this old manager that would spew all these BS lefty ideas, he loved movie stars especially sean penn, so I would just listen and nod. That night I would do research on the bs and find all the real info and then print it all off real nice. The next day I would bring it all to him and just watch him read it and then sit there and look at me funny. After eight or so times he would never say things around me again. I just hope he got it.

[Wyldk2]

Now my father is not anti-gun. He just tells me "why does anyone need a 30 round magazine?".  If only he knew I have several.   Now my brother on the other hand, he's not anti gun, just anti- "evil looking black rifle". But he's a Liberal democrat ( funny, we was raised conservative, i guess his mind was brainwashed in college).

 

Got him to shoot my Glock at the range once, i think he liked it. So little by little i think i may be able to get him to respect what i like. Hopefully with time.

 

I'm not expecting him to turn into a gun loving fanatic like some people, just to realize why we have these and there aren't any "bad" guns out there. Just bad people.

[frankmako]

You won't change their mind.  The only thing you can do is counter their emotion with logic, which will only make them look crazier and cause them to act rabidly, which will hopefully open up the eyes of the sheep.

 

plus one.  it will not change anything.  the only time they change their mind is when something bad happens to them.  then they whish they had a gun. 

[RED333]

I know you're not the only one to say this but I'm gonna pick on you because you were last. Fair is fair, right? ;)

 

I do it on the Internet too, and here is why. There are topics, like guns, about which I am fully prepared to debate and since clearly the facts are squarely on our side I will win. However, there are topics about which I am right, yet not prepared to debate. So you do you know what happens? I don't debate them. I stay silent. Global warming is a prime example. Global warming alarmists tend to be well versed in the "science" and can trounce me even though I know enough to know it's bunk but not enough to say why.

 

The point is if we can silence the opposition because we can demonstrate to enough of them that they are not prepared to debate us on this topic then it is a de facto win. And a win in public opinion is often, though admittedly not always, a win in the political arena. And that is where this battle will truly be won or lost. Back to my point on political correctness, we stay silent about some things rather than offend someone and it turns into a political loss for the right (and the right, if you catch my drift). This is one area on which we cannot afford to stay silent. When it comes to our God given rights we need to talk (type) until we are blue in the face (fingers). The last thing we need is to say, "If I had only done more," when our rights are taken away. Let's at least go down swinging. 

I only talk to lefts face to face, as I dont go to sights that are left,

as I cant stand to read the crap that comes out of a left side.

I do get spam from the Mayors aginst Guns, Stuff they sling make me mad as HELL.

We have meet, I am big man, pick all you want. :cool:

[TGO David]

Debate is not about winning over the opposing team.  It's about winning the audience.  

 

It is very unlikely you will ever convert your opponent.  Your goal in public debate is to make a reasonable and logical case and sway the listeners (not the talkers).

 

I was just about to type this very thing.  This is by far the only good reason to debate most of these people.  You never know who is listening and whether your words might save them from swallowing the opposing party's load of manure.

[1gewehr]

Debate is not about winning over the opposing team.  It's about winning the audience.  

 

It is very unlikely you will ever convert your opponent.  Your goal in public debate is to make a reasonable and logical case and sway the listeners (not the talkers).

Very true!  You never know who else might secretly agree or be undecided.

 

If you do NOT speak up, then the gun control advocates will interpret the silence as agreement.  Just by voicing an opposition, you let them know that the issue is not 'settled'.

[Jonnin]

LOL:

 

We apologize, our idiot boss broke the site. The archives are currently down pending restoration.