Selling Gun Ownership to the Antis

[Tiffany Johnson]

I don't deal with leftists regarding the topic in my day to day, nor do I online, so indeed screw em.

I'm so thankful that the Rangemaster crew took a different approach with me years ago when I first marched into their shop with all kinds of negative misinformation about guns and gun people. :-)

[Peally]

I don't go out of my way to be an ass mind you, it just simply isn't something I talk to people about at work or the park, nor would I generally want to.

[ford.304]

The two ways I have gotten farthest is educating people about how guns work (including taking them shooting), and in arguing the Social Justice justification for guns. Separating guns from "white, male, middle class, rural, and conservative" and arguing that women and minorities have no other effective means of self defense, or that the same issues with ID cards and voting applies to CCW training or waiting periods, seems to at least garner some sympathy. As much as it is a dumb issue, one can even lever some of the anti-police sentiment -- "you don't trust the cops to police drugs without racial bias, but you do trust them to enforce gun laws without it?"

As long as you haven't *previously* locked yourself into conservative stances enough to make this sound like special pleading, it can be pretty effective. I'm not going to try to convince a liberal by arguing the libertarian case for gun rights -- I've got to make the liberal case for them.

Offering construction suggestions can be helpful, too. No one wants to throw up their hands and say we can't solve anything. Saying "yes" to improved healthcare funding for the mentally ill, or juvenile programs, or anything else that might affect the social panic du jour from another a non-gun-control angle will get help make these arguments more convincing.

[Chance]

Several years ago, I started this thread as a collection of things you can use when debating with anti-gun people. Great links on there.

I think the entry point that is successful to many is self-defense.

I've found that doesn't work with everyone. When asked to consider their own defense, I've had people look at me like a cow looks at an oncoming train. My SO's family, who hails from Narodnaya Respublika Kaliforniya, has this reaction.

It drains my energy just being around those types of people, much less trying to convince them of anything. So, while I'm not necessarily in the "screw 'em" category, talking about firearms with anti-gun people is something I tend to avoid. For that matter, I don't spend much time discussing things with the people who insist you have to carry a .45, or that Glocks "need a safety."

[Hot Sauce]

Now that I'm on a real keyboard:

During the Korean War, US POWs were held by both the Koreans and the Chinese. The Chinese had remarkable success at gaining compliance, turning POWs into collaborators who informed on escape attempts, and getting Americans to write or broadcast anti-American and pro-Communist propaganda. The Koreans fared horribly in all of these things. The difference was in the approach. The Koreans were brutal and made large demands. Denounce your nation or we'll electrocute you! sort of things. Compare the Chinese approach.

First, they made tiny requests. Things that would seem unreasonable to turn down.

"Would you say American isn't perfect?"

Well, few people think anything is perfect, so if they could get you talking you would say no. This lead to "what about America isn't perfect?" which lead to "Can you write down the things you said weren't perfect about America?" which lead to "How could some of those things be addressed in America to make it more perfect?" Etc. etc. Each little step seems reasonable when you've taken the last one. More importantly, when POWs were debriefed once returned to the US by military psychologists, the former POWs of the Chinese actually had more favorable views of the Chinese and Communism than non-POWs and much more favorable than Korean held POWs. The exercises actually changed the POWs viewpoint by exploiting a basic human desire for consistency. Even tracing a pro-Communist writing makes the tracer more favorable to Communism for a time, even though they are just tracing words.

So, if you really want to engage and persuade anti's, you need to start small and keep building on small victories until you can get them shooting and get them to identify as a gun owner. Then their desire for consistency will take over and they'll likely have stronger feelings about it than someone around guns their whole life...the nothing is more annoying to smokers than an ex-smoker situation. You can't just start at EVERYBODY NEEDS A MACHINEGUN MOAAARRRR GUUUUNS!!! and expect to make any headway.

"Is it possible that someone who is handicapped could only protect themselves against a stronger person by using a firearm?" The elderly? A petite female? Etc. etc.

Note this is similar to an interrogation technique. Almost nobody admits the entire crime right out of the gate. They admit it in pieces, and you build. It's also how de-radicalization programs for Islamic terrorists work. You can't just tear down someone's world view in one swing. You start with small inconsistencies and hypocrisies with their first line leaders, get them to admit that they could be wrong, and then start working on their organization, then their mission, than their view of Islam. Same thing. Reinforce the "right" answers, make small steps until they are ready to hold a gun, then shoot it, then make it an outing they enjoy, they they'll be buying an AR on the ride home. It is an incredibly powerful approach if you can get someone to listen and to talk.

The downside to the Internet debate is once you write a position, especially in public, you become much more attached to that position. If I write "I love ponies" and show it publicly, especially to people I want the respect of, then I'll actually like ponies more than I did before I wrote it and be more likely to defend the awesomeness of ponies to pony haters...despite the fact I really didn't feel that strongly about it until writing it down because of the human need to appear consistent.

Such a great post!

Bravo, sir.