Originally from TTAG comment

Raging Against Self Defense:
A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

By Sarah Thompson, M.D.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

Incidentally these would work on any topic, but the domain-specific examples are pretty good.

Honestly, in my opinion, attempting to change the beliefs of a genuine anti, or any genuine believer in any cause, is a waste of effort.  People don't choose their beliefs rationally, and they don't change them rationally.  If someone actually believes some variation of "guns are bad," just move on. 

Most of the population don't fall into the category of either "pro" or "anti."  They may have some level of opinion, but not much in terms of belief.  This is the fertile ground where we should spend our time.  Rational thinking can change opinion, and opinion can lead to behavior changes.  We don't need believers, and for those of us that are believers, we are actually a detriment to the cause.  We need a large majority of the population to be properly informed, and act accordingly.

Honestly, in my opinion, attempting to change the beliefs of a genuine anti, or any genuine believer in any cause, is a waste of effort.  People don't choose their beliefs rationally, and they don't change them rationally.  If someone actually believes some variation of "guns are bad," just move on. 

Most of the population don't fall into the category of either "pro" or "anti."  They may have some level of opinion, but not much in terms of belief.  This is the fertile ground where we should spend our time.  Rational thinking can change opinion, and opinion can lead to behavior changes.  We don't need believers, and for those of us that are believers, we are actually a detriment to the cause.  We need a large majority of the population to be properly informed, and act accordingly.

The techniques it describes are inclusive for both the misinformed or genuine believers and do not all depend on rational reasoning. Of course you will have better success convincing the uninformed than those with deeply-held beliefs, it acknowledges that as well.

The point of the article was to enumerate concrete examples of techniques to counter those caveats, and I think it does it pretty well. The techniques are nothing new if you are familiar with mediation/negotiation practices, but the domain-specific examples are pretty good.

I agree that fundamentalists on both sides are detrimental, and I didn't get anything from this article that advocated hardline beliefs. Certainly the most polarizing example recently would be OCT + friends.

Good techniques. I was already using them naturally, but having the home field advantage of being left of center on a lot of issues probably gets me in the door quicker. 

Speaking of which it was a little hard to swallow the blacks/jews/women as professional victims part. The author was letting his personal politics slip a bit too much. The fact is they have a lot of legitimate issues dealing inequality that exist to this day, although the Jews seem like they are doing ok (unless of course they wander off the highway somewhere in the deep south).

And speaking of projection, there are a lot of politicians playing off the white victimization mentality when it comes to illegal immigration lately. They are trying to distract everyone from the terrible state of the economy and the general loss of faith in the political system, but once you tie enough horses to that particular wagon there's no telling where it will go. European politicians tried the same thing and now there are fascists groups popping up everywhere on the other side of the other pond.

although the Jews seem like they are doing ok (unless of course they wander off the highway somewhere in the deep south).

I am glad your left of center views do not stifle your bigotry.

Like it has been said, changing someone's mind is not easy if they are already dedicated in their mind to their beliefs.  It is just like trying to convert someone to a different religion.

However, you best defense is having well thought out answers to questions/accusations they might have.  You should be a voice of reason, and not spout off random facts and quotes in an aggressive manner. 

Calmly and articulately explain your personal reasons for owning a firearm.  They will ask you questions that they think you will not have an answer for. Prove them wrong by giving well thought out answers that they would have a hard time arguing against.  If you go on the offensive, all it will divulge into is a shouting match or statistics. 

On thing both sides of the argument love to bring up are statistics.  The fact is, statistics are mostly bullshit. There are plenty of stats on both sides of the argument people will throw around.  You should know them all, but at the same time you should point out that no statistic is going to be accurate in a real life scenario.  There are too many variables with correlation vs causation. All statistics show is a snap shot of a small group with no way of factoring in all of the different controls.

I tend to shy away from bringing up the politics behind it, because political views are the hardest to change. Instead, I focus on physical, tangible and practical data points on a personal level. Show the reasoning an individual might have for supporting your beliefs.

I'll give an example, it's kind of a long answer, as I tend to verbose too much.

If the accusatory question is "Why do you need an assault rifle to defend yourself with!?".  This is the answer I usually give.

American civilians have owned semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles since 1909, when they were first introduced.  Materials, and looks may have changed, but it is still the same essential function.  A rifle that fires once every trigger pull and has a detachable box magazine.  This is not new technology.  There many advantages that a rifle like that offers over both handguns and shots.  They are easier to aim and accurately fire than a handgun, while also being much more powerful.  They are easier to use, and only have about a 1/4th of the recoil of a shotgun.  They are easily adjustable, and usable by anyone regardless of size and strength. There are also many studies done that show a high velocity rifle cartridge will penetrate less number of walls when compared to either a handgun or shotgun round. They also offer a larger capacity magazine, because I do not get to choose how many shots I may need, if I ever needed to use it.  I do not get to choose when, where, and who I may have to defend myself from. The aggressors always have the advantage because they were ready, and I was not.  The only variable I do have control over is having the most capable tool possible at hand.

See, something like that not only brings it to a personal level, but also raises points of practicality.  Just spouting off "because I can!" doesn't back up your points at all.

Like it has been said, changing someone's mind is not easy if they are already dedicated in their mind to their beliefs.  It is just like trying to convert someone to a different religion.

Brings to mind many arguments I've seen with my wife's late grandmother.  Even after being shown in a printed book that she was wrong, she would turn around to leave and declare, "You're wrong, and that book is wrong, too!"

I think it's obvious some people hate admitting they are wrong more than they fear the possible damage their mistaken beliefs might cause, even if the damage is to themselves.

Therefore, often it isn't so much a challenge to change the person's mind, but to do it in a way that they think THEY came up with the right conclusion. 

Easier said than done...

I remember an old saying that goes something like...

"A liberal is a conservative that hasn't been mugged yet." 

Changing people's minds is a hard thing to do. Most people get angry if you try to convince them that their worldview is wrong because it defines their identity and self image.

Sometimes, folks need a good smack by reality or get to a different stage in life before their worldview changes.

Matthew 7:6

A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested.