Pro gun? How to argue.

[lawodevolution]

After being involved in the issue for a long time I've discovered some things about how to argue and win hearts and minds

1. You can't force someone to change their minds, but you can facilitate it. There is no value to being rude or to disparage someone who has not yet seen the light.
2. To win someone over, all you must do is teach them the truth. Ignorance facilitates being anti gun while understanding and knowledge on the issue facilitates being pro gun. To win people over, just
educate them on the issue. It may take a while but they eventually become pro gun, even if it takes them months or years.
3. Keep the truth visible, as people discover some truth they often go and look for more truth. If the antis control the flow of information they will keep the public ignorant and on their side.
4. The best way to ensure gun rights for the future is to take people to the range today (treat them, pay for them, buy their bullets if you have to).

5. Start translating pro gun information into spanish.


When I meet someone who is anti gun my way of handling the situation is to ask them why they feel that way. I also express my views without insulting them. Then I go on to say that neither side is wrong, you simply make up your mind based on the data you have on the issue. There is no value to insulting someone on the issue or even sharply correcting them like we do here on the message boards. If you are nice to them and you tell them why you feel the way you do about being pro gun, there is a chance the idea will spread in their head, but if you are rude, mean or abrupt with them, they may establish a defense mechanism against you by displacing their anger and frustration with you on the topic you presented. Remember that a bad interaction with an anti gun person is worthless, but a good interaction with an anti gun person can soften them up on the issue or even plant the seed that will bring them on board later on.

Here's an example:

Me: "did you hear about the shooting in Juarez this weekend, 17 people were killed"
Person: "yeah, they should ban guns!"
me: "Mexico already has very strong gun control and they've shut down all private gun stores, the only gun store is owned and controlled by the federales in Mexico city"
Person: "well, they should do that here"
me: "although I don't think there is a right and wrong when it comes to the gun debate and although what you said may be true, I think they should do the opposite, I think Mexico should copy our gun laws"
Person: "if they did things would go out of control"
me: "purhaps, but look at how it is in Mexico today, the drug lords are heavily armed with bombs, rockets and military grade weapons while the good people can't buy new manufactured guns in Juarez legally".
Person: "we supply them all their guns"
me: "there are guns crossing the border to mexico, but the guns the drug lords like to use are military grade weapons sold to the Mexican government by authorization of our government which end up in the hands of drug lords through corruption"
person: "well, I just don't agree with you"
me: "that's fine, I think your views are perfectly valid and I respect them, I suggest you research more on the issue if you are interested..."

No where do I insult or abruptly correct the person, let them do it to you. This is like a real conversation I had. Although I have no idea if they have changed their mind, I planted a seed of doubt into the anti-gun dogma that will grow.

On discussion forums it's better to be abrupt and frank about the truth, so that people on the fense who are viewing can sample the truth as well as the other sides sensationalism, deception and emotionalism. If our side is not represented, then people will become more ignorant and therefore more anti gun.

[derby378]

1. Next time I shoot off a submachine gun at the range...

...I should invite a couple of Democratic friends to watch. :hi:

[ManiacJoe]

24. Or invite them to shot with you.

[derby378]

44. Thing is, I don't own any NFA weaponry...

...but I can rent an Uzi at this place I know. But it costs at least $85 per person, and I don't think they do group discounts on NFA.

[jpak]

2. fense

:rofl:

[lawodevolution]

5. here's a good example, if they misspeeeel something

don't jump on it like a dick, if you make them feeel insolted abut the issue they will hate the ideas that you represint.

[jpak]

9. When one accuses an opponent of "ignorance" use spell check

yup

:rofl:

[lawodevolution]

14. lol, that's pathetic, you spell check their post to point out a typo

[rl6214]

7. The spelling police have spoken

jpak has spoken and has LOST already cuz this is all she's got.

[lawodevolution]

17. jpak is one person I support being rude to if necessary. lol.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

19. necessity has nothing to do with it :)

[jpak]

28. how fucking rude

yup

:D

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Somehow I suspect you can take it.

Still, forum decorum to observe and all.

[bbinacan]

3. Good points. n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. I'll make life simpler for you... "Just use facts and statistics."

Think with your head, use fact & statistics, and disregard emotionally charged feelings/arguments...
Simple Pro-Gun strategy for success.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Can you share some with us?

Thanks.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. Share some of what.

specificity ;)

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Pro-gun facts and statistics

Thanks in advance.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

27. This is one of my favorites:

(courtesy of DUer GreenStormCloud)
http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/popdat/detailX.shtm
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm



This a comparison chart showing the arrest rates for five years for VIOLENT CRIME, comparing the Texas general mal and female general population with the Concealed Handgun Licensed population.

Blue is the male general population arrest rate.
Dark red is the male CHL arrest rate.

Yellow is the female general population arrest rate.
Light blue is the female CHL arrest rate.

Obviously, conviction rates are even a bit lower than the shown arrest rates (due to aquittal).
There is no reason to believe that the populations of other states are any different.
The above data suggest that people licensed to carry a concealed firearm are even more law abiding than POLICE!

[Euromutt]

13. Hey, it worked for me

I told my story about my own experience with firearms here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=230314&mesg_id=230327

It was being exposed to facts and stats that caused me to cross the aisle.

[lawodevolution]

16. and it was done in a nice way, which is why you were willing to listen

[wizstars]

6. Hey, great idea!

We can sell more pistols to the Mexican people so they can defend themselves against the guys with AK-47s and grenade launchers.

Then they can be just like Somalia!! (only whiter!)

[lawodevolution]

15. no, let the people of mexico buy ak47s

that's a better idea. They might be more like El paso, full of ak47s owned by normal people and little violence. Same population. hispanic and spanish speaking.

[Snoutport]

8. But...

I am very liberal and have a gun. It was my grandfather's. It is cleaned yearly and is an accurate weapon. I've never shot it but it is hidden close to the bed. I have a family to protect. My house has been robbed. My parents house has been robbed.

Having a weapon gives me peace. I feel safer for having it.

BUT...I grew up in Alaska and we were once chased by a brown bear, we had moose in our yard... you NEED a gun in Alaska. Later when we got a farm we needed a gun to put down animals.

And therein lies the problem with gun control. People in the city only see misery from guns. Killings, accidents, shootings, injuries and so they hate guns. And they are right to.

But in the country or the wilder parts of the country are the people who think you would be absolutely crazy NOT to have a gun. The idea of being without a gun scares them because only a fool doesn't have a gun!! They feel as though they are not safe without a gun. And they are right to.

I'm a city boy now but I still like my gun. (i just usually pretend i have it because it is an heirloom...but, like i said, it is cleaned and oiled with fresh bullets).

Do I still get to be a liberal?

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Don't forget us Jews!

Perhaps you can sway the talmudic scholars in your life:

http://jpfo.org/rabbi/rabbi-interview.htm">Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership

[geckosfeet]

12. Shaking head and wondering how some people can miss the boat by so much.

[billh58]

20. And therein lies the

rub...;-)

By framing the "gun issue" as having only two sides (pro-gun or anti-gun), and claiming that anyone subjectively identified by a "pro-gun" advocate as an "anti" is not really evil, but just plain ignorant, is disingenuous.

I maintain that it is entirely possible to support the Second Amendment, and individual gun ownership, while also calling for strict enforcement of common sense firearm regulation. This is not a "one size fits all" issue, and the SCOTUS has not ruled on the full scope of the meaning of the "bear arms" part of the sentence -- yet.

Whether you choose to keep a gun in your home (or not) is none of my business, and is completely justifiable so long as you take the proper precautions to keep it from being stolen or otherwise misused. No matter how it is rationalized, however, carrying a gun in the public venue is a different matter, and that is where educated (non-ignorant) Americans disagree on where each other's rights begin and end.

Most (non-ignorant) gun owners that I know (along with the NRA) agree about the need for common sense firearm restrictions on ownership: mental incapacity, felons, age limits, etc. That some restrictions on gun use are necessary for the public good, has already been agreed upon. Contrary to what passes for "intelligent" civil discourse on a daily basis in this forum, most Middle Americans are tolerant of other citizens' rights, and have a genuine respect for each other's general comfort, welfare, and peace-of-mind.

The "intelligent" comparison of guns to automobiles is often made here, but some may have noticed that we are not allowed to drive cars on the public sidewalks, into restaurants, courthouses, airport terminals, or most other places where they would be so obviously out-of-place.

But then, being an "ignorant" combat veteran, what in the hell do I know about guns...?

[lawodevolution]

23. an anti can be informed on the issues and not ignorant

"Most (non-ignorant) gun owners that I know (along with the NRA) agree about the need for common sense firearm restrictions on ownership: mental incapacity, felons, age limits, etc. That some restrictions on gun use are necessary for the public good, has already been agreed upon. Contrary to what passes for "intelligent" civil discourse on a daily basis in this forum, most Middle Americans are tolerant of other citizens' rights, and have a genuine respect for each other's general comfort, welfare, and peace-of-mind."

What does this have to do with CHL on campus, banning 50 cals or 11 round magazines?

[billh58]

26. I am not an "anti"

and attempting to paint me with that broad brush is beneath your obvious intelligence. "CHL on campus, 50 cals, and 11 round magazines" are insignificant issues compared to the reasons behind the perceived "need" to carry in public.

The recent Heller SCOTUS ruling was not a "landslide" decision (5-4?), but did affirm what most of us have always believed: having a gun in the home is a fundamental right. For many reasons (among them the KKK, Skinheads, American Nazis, street gangs, etc.) the sight, or thought of, guns in the public venue, however, is not something that Middle Americans are totally comfortable with, and is a legitimate topic for rational discussion.

The other thing that pro-gun activists are fighting, is image. For decades, Hollywood, television, literature, and the Prohibition Era, have painted guns in public as menacing and dangerous instruments of death. For a militant group of idiots to show up at public gatherings wearing guns (just to show that they can) does the pro-gun group absolutely no favors. The impression I get of responsible gun carriers is one of discretion and understatement, and definitely not wanting to be in anyone's "face."

I know that you are sincere about your arguments, and a civil rights advocate. I believe, however, that your choice of framing your position as "you're either with us, or against us, and if you're against us you're just ignorant" is unfortunate for those of us searching for a middle ground position on responsible public carry -- until we can address the underlying social issues which provoke the need.

[lawodevolution]

31. No, I'll explain to you what ignorance is

It's when a person states that CHL on campus is bad because 18 year olds are crazy (you must be 21 to get CHL) and CHL would mean shootings at frat parties (that are off campus where no CHL is need to possess a gun).

Maybe you didn't realize that gun control groups are spinning lies and deception around which results in an incredible level of ignorance on the issue among university students.

If someone who is against CHL on campus is able to express the truth about the bill, then I consider them informed. My point was that people against CHL on campus often switch sides after they are informed of the truth. This means that in order to win the debate all we have to do is enlighten people of the truth.

[billh58]

38. So now I'm too

ignorant to understand the meaning of ignorance? I realize that there is a war going on between pro-gunners and the Brady group, but why do you assume that the rest of us are so simplistic (ignorant?) as to see only two sides to this issue?

What if, just for the sake of argument, there really are some college students who are informed, know the facts, but who would rather not sit in class with someone who is carrying a gun because it is distracting? Let's further suppose that these same students support the Second Amendment, and the right to have a gun in the home. How do you bring them away from the dark side of "ignorance?"

I know the truth about guns, and because of my experiences with them, I would rather not be around them at this stage of my life. That is a personal preference, and I would not advocate imposing that choice on anyone else. I still support the Second Amendment, and your right to keep and bear arms on YOUR own private property. If you want to carry a gun in public (part of which is MY property) it seems that you would be willing to at least discuss the need for some basic common sense rules and regulations, and how we as a society could better enforce existing rules.

Statistics showing that gun carriers are the most responsible people in our society do little to combat the specter of armed gang members and white supremacist radicals, and a way to determine the good guys from the bad guys when they are ALL strangers to us.

And lastly, besides carrying a gun to promote a safer society, what steps do gun-carriers advocate for addressing the anti-social behavior which necessitates the perceived need to carry a gun in public in today's society? It's an honest question, and one that too often gets buried in the "with me, or against me" rhetoric about guns in public.

[lawodevolution]

39. Like I wrote above

"What if, just for the sake of argument, there really are some college students who are informed, know the facts, but who would rather not sit in class with someone who is carrying a gun because it is distracting? Let's further suppose that these same students support the Second Amendment, and the right to have a gun in the home. How do you bring them away from the dark side of "ignorance?""

Like I wrote above, such a student is not ignorant but has made a decision that was well informed. A person cannot be ignorant from an opinion alone but if they have an opinion on an issue based on false beliefs and misinformation about the issue, they are ignorant.

The point to my post is that as people are informed of the truth on the issue of CCW on campus, those who are against it tend to change their minds while people who are ignorant of the facts and for CCW on campus do not ever flip to the other side when they are well informed.


The answer to your other question is that there is a background check to getting a CHL in shall issue and for constitutional carry there is a requirement that the person is not banned from possession therefore there are laws that help differentiate those who carry legally and those who carry illegally but no amount of laws will stop people from carrying illegally.

[jpak]

30. My vote for the best post on this forum in a while

yup

:toast:

:thumbsup:

:yourock:

:bounce:

:patriot:

etc.

[Kennah]

40. Random thoughts in response

I certainly agree there are more than two sides to the gun issue. In overly simplistic terms, there are anti-hunting gunners and anti-gun hunters, just to name a couple of the divides.

The point of disagreement likely comes as we define with more specificity the term "common sense firearm regulation". There are likely more than a couple of areas where we would agree, but it appears there are also areas where we would disagree.

There of course is disagreement between Americans over concealed and open carry in public, but with 40 Right To Carry states, no "blood in the streets", and no obvious problems after decades of RTC statutes, I must admit I remain very puzzled over the objections.

On prohibiting felons from owning or possessing guns, and age limits for gun ownership, we would agree. However, I also support the concept of a convicted criminal, even a felon, petitioning to have their right to own, possess, and even carry a gun.

The issue of mental incapacity is quite vague and broad, so I have to ask that we explore more details of what each other means. The standard which I support, and which is the standard the mental health profession lobbied for here in Washington state some years ago, is this: prohibit the ownership or possession of guns for one who has been involuntarily committed.

You raise a number of issues with guns and cars.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians exclusively. Roads are for vehicles exclusively. Pedestrians on roads is just as dangerous as cars on sidewalks.

Other than a drive-up or drive-thru fast food place, restaurants like sidewalks are all but exclusively for pedestrians. One likely can't ride their bicycle, skateboard, or skate through a restaurant, but there are likely some exceptions. Courthouses and airport terminals are similarly exclusively for pedestrians.

I've carried into any number of restaurants, including those that serve alcohol, and I've not yet discovered the reason for all the hype about guns in restaurants. Washington state law prohibits carry if the establishment, or that portion thereof, is deemed off limits to those under 21 by the Liquor Control Board. IMHO, there is a world of difference between a bar and a restaurant, whether they serve alcohol or not.

Courthouses here in Washington must provide secure storage for guns if one has a license to carry. I have carried to court when I had jury duty, and it was no big deal. I have also carried into the non-secure portion of Sea-Tac, and there's is no law against it. I'm at a loss to understand the outrage.

[billh58]

43. Thanks for the courteous

and thoughtful response, and for addressing the issues in a rational manner. I was, of course, being facetious with the "cars in restaurants" analogy, in an attempt to point out the fallacy of the cars = guns arguments I see on this forum ad nauseum.

It just seems to me that the majority of the pro-gun crowd (at least on DU) assumes that anyone who disagrees with them on public carry (and yes there are many places where it is legal) is automatically lumped into the "anti," crowd who wants to curtail their civil rights. The attitude that, "it is my Constitutional Right" to make someone uncomfortable by carrying a gun into a restaurant where they are having dinner with their family, while totally legal, is lacking in common civility to some extent.

The message that, "if people were only educated about the statistics relating to how safe we gun carriers really are, they wouldn't harbor this irrational fear of me," is a one-sided view of the issue. The fact is, that ANY stranger carrying a gun (or a knife, or a sword, or a crowbar) in a place where it is not common (and not obviously necessary for self-defense) puts many people in a WTF? mode. That is not "outrage," but a common, basic, fight or flight instinctual reaction to a perceived threat. We are accustomed to seeing LEOs carrying in public, but not Joe Six-Pack.

Of course you are correct that if the weapon is concealed, and nobody knows that you are carrying, then there is no reason for concern. Until, that is, the weapon falls on the floor, or is unintentionally exposed (and someone calls the cops), or any of the other "oops" scenarios we read about occasionally. Personally, I would rather know if one of the licensed "good guys" is carrying, as most illegal carriers, carry concealed.

Again thanks for not calling me ignorant, and explaining your position without using the "anti" vitriol. Peace...;-)

[Kennah]

45. Open carry and restaurants

Open carry was pretty much unheard of, except in Arizona, until very recently.

In the 10 pre-Florida Right To Carry states (Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington), concealed carry was the norm, even if open carry were legal, other than in more rural locations.

Until very recently, the law in Virginia was extremely odd. Open carry was legal unless prohibited by local statute, and statewide pre-emption did not obtain for older grandfathered laws, which I'm given to understand many counties and cities in Virginia had local statutes. I think I have that correct.

When Virginia statewide pre-emption wiped out all the old local grandfathered statutes, state law remained in an odd state. One could not carry concealed with a license into a restaurant that served alcohol, but one could openly carry into restaurants that served alcohol. Of course, any private business can always set their own rules: No shirt, no shoes, no service

Open carry advocates became emboldened by this, and I think the open carry movement would not have gained the steam it has if one could have simply carried concealed into more locations.

There is a defiant streak to many open carry advocates which I believe would have been tempered had the fight against concealed carry not been so fierce.

[DissedByBush]

46. Basic question: Where do we see the lies and ignorance on the issue?

Almost exclusively on the anti-rights side.

[billh58]

47. There is that

"with me or against me" argument again. Do you think that it is not possible to be pro-Second Amendment, and support the "keep" part of the sentence, while wanting to discuss the extent of the "bear" part? There may indeed be some exaggeration going on from both sides of the argument, and that is the nature of politics. It is also relatively easy to interpret most statistics in such a way as to support almost any side of an argument.

I am not swayed in either direction by advocacy groups or zealots whether they are for, or against, a particular issue. I would rather listen to my neighbors (some of whom are gun owners, and some are not), friends, relatives, and co-workers: average people with no crosses to bear, nor axes to grind. In other words, the public.

The "public venue" belongs to gun-carriers, as well as to those who don't feel comfortable around a proliferation of gun-carriers. The First Amendment has been long curtailed by regulations and socially-accepted norms (restricting the limits of free speech, regulating the right of assembly, and reigning in the promotion of religion) as are the other enumerated rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Why is the Second Amendment any more sacred than the rest of them? Determining and agreeing upon what is, or is not, socially acceptable behavior is how we function as a civilized society of free men and women.

Telling someone that they are "anti-rights" because they don't feel comfortable around a stranger carrying a gun, is disingenuous. Telling someone that they are "ignorant" because they don't fully trust that a gun-carrier is not a threat because they are licensed, is arrogant.

Are there those who engage in anti-social behavior and act as parasites on the rest of us? Of course there are, and we need ways to deal with that segment of our society for our own safety. Carrying a gun is but one solution, but certainly not the only or even the preferred solution.

We, as a society, desperately need to address the underlying causes which induce enough paranoia to make a segment of our citizens feel it necessary to carry a gun at all times, to all places. That is no way to live in the America that I fought for, and saw so many friends die for.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

21. There is no point in having a gun discussion on DU.

There are about 75% of us who enjoy our guns for whatever reason and the rest who think all guns are evil! This demographic is not going to change regardless of the arguments put forth. No minds will be changed, no opinions will be altered. Frankly, I have better uses for my time, like going out to the range and improving my aim.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. I think it is important that they do occur here at DU and elsewhere

If nothing else they remind the anti's that they are not the vast majority view in the party. It also shows them that sweeping claims that all liberals or progressives hate guns are nonsense. It gives us opportunity to show the racist and classist impacts of their anti rights vision.

A while back an old family friend and anti gun activist demanded of me how I could possibly support private gun ownership. I introduced her to my wife who told her how she shot a perp about to shoot me. I told her about our teaching firearms classes to mostly GLBTs and women. I also pointed out the racist and classist roots of gun control and its ongoing disproportionate impact on the poor and minorities. She was quite taken back. A madman with a gun had killed a family member and she had been on a anti gun crusade ever since. I showed her the other side of the coin. She still does not like guns, but she now begrudges their usefulness in certain situations. I figure it is about as good as I will ever do with her.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Disagree. I have seen people change their minds here. And elsewhere with similar

demographics.

It does happen.

[GeorgiaPeach]

25. Guns suck. Period.

[jpak]

29. !

:wow:

[PavePusher]

32. It would help if you expounded on your belief a bit.

Otherwise, you come off as being about 5 years old and confronted with icky vegetables.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. Your choice and may you or any of your loved ones never find themselves in a place

where not having the means to defend themselves means injury or loss of life. I would request that you not foist your choices on the rest of us who choose a different path.



It is very hard to bash a prepared and armed person...http://pinkpistols.org

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Mine only blow.

[NewMoonTherian]

48. I disagree.

But it's good to have you here at DU. I hope you'll continue to join us here in the Gungeon and learn more about the issues at hand.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. I generally cast it as self defense, especially for the weaker members of society

I also bring up the racist and classist roots of gun control and its similar impacts today. Other discussion points include that the existing laws already contain what most people consider "reasonable" gun control, they are just not enforced properly. The sticking points tend to be the assault weapons nonsense, which take a fair amount of education to overcome.

One advantage that I have is that I have my own training range. Makes it easier to do interesting demos.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. I've had pretty good luck taking some co-worker immigrants to the range.

Good time was had by all. All are working toward citizenship, and I look forward to attending their swearing in.