8. It is not "us vs them".

I have noticed that a lot of the arguments about gun rights have two sides arguing at each other, often with very little constructive outcome. Now maybe it is because the reasonable people aren't the loud ones and we just see the more extreme people getting the attention but I think there is more to it.

I often see it said that the anti-gun liberals are illogical, that they ignore the constitution, and that their arguments are all emotion. I also see some similar types of arguments (in reverse) from the anti-gun crowd as well. Long story short, it seems to be that the two sides only consider arguments that make sense to them. Our position is logical and rational and supported by facts to us but theirs are also to them as well. For a number of possible reasons, things one set of people find convincing  aren't always convincing to another set of people. For example, I don't eat fish and someone could yell and shout and argue how good some fish is but it won't be convincing to me even though to the other person it is an easy case to make. We have to recognize that even though our arguments convince us, they may not be convincing our opponents.

Now where I am going with this is that I think we need a shift in mindset about how we talk and deal with those who are anti gun and especially those who don't have any strong stance on the issue. We can either try to convince them to come to our side or end up fighting them in the future. The current state of firearms fights seem to be trench warfare and legally speaking I think we are slowly loosing ground (with a few important battles being won on our side). Now I will admit, I don't have some magic argument that will win them over but I see a number of arguments that I find to be hurting our cause. Now it isn't necessarily the content of the argument but the presentation. We get angry, insulting, condescending, etc. and then they get defensive. The same works for them against us as well. Then we regress to our dug in positions yelling at each other.

A few ideas to consider but feel free to add your 2 cents. I know this might not be orthodox for our side but I really think we need to evolve our style or I really feel we are going to lose more gun rights.

1. Show them that you can see their point of view. You don't have to agree but when you acknowledge the merit in their position they are more likely to have constructive discussion.
2. If you show you can recognize their arguments they are more likely going to recognize your arguments
3. Don't insult them or their position even if you find it stupid. People get defensive and then the walls go up. If they insult you resist insulting back, that just reinforces the wall.
4. Don't just say someone is wrong bluntly because people get defensive. Find a constructive way to introduce data or logic that supports a conflicting conclusion
5. Give leeway for inaccurate information. We shouldn't hit them on the head for misunderstanding things like the difference between a magazine and a clip. Not everyone is a gun enthusiast
6. Our opponents aren't usually stupid, they have come to their positions through thought and consideration of what they have learned. It's not necessarily that they know the 2nd amendment and ignore it but that they understand it to mean something different than we do. (This is why I avoid arguments that some elected official is violating their oath)
7. You don't have to win them completely over, even if all you have done is temper their stance you have made some progress.
8. It is not "us vs them". We should avoid alienating anyone who doesn't take our side on everything to do with firearms.
9. Understand that even if something isn't factually correct, if it feels correct to someone it is still going to be an issue. For example, many blacks think they are being targeted by police but even if they aren't it still has repercussions in the relations between the two. In essence, "image matters" so even if we rest out flag on a solid logical argument but people think we are crazy we can still lose ground.

No, you don’t negotiate with terrorists

I commonly use the example that if a rape victim were armed, the out come may have been different.  Then usually there is no rebuttable to that example.

I dont bother anymore.  My last argument went something like this:

them: "You should be detained and evaluated by a psychiatrist until it is clear you are not a crazy person for owning guns"
me:  "what if I refuse to talk to the psychiatrist, do I have a right to remain silent, how long do they get to detain me against my will"
Them: "as long as it needs until you talk, if you remain silent then you must be guilty"
me: "if I still continue to remain silent, are they then allowed to use torture on me to get me to talk"
Them: "sure, as long as they can confirm you are not crazy"

There is no argument against that line of thinking.  If people have decided that the government should ignore that many of the bill of rights (4 of them)  because you own a gun, there is no point to the argument.

I have found it best not to talk to Democrats.
Not worth the time.
Their lives and personal safety aren't worth my
efforts to help them.

I commonly use the example that if a rape victim were armed, the out come may have been different.  Then usually there is no rebuttable to that example.

you can't reason with stupid

you can't reason with stupid

you can't reason with stupid

In person debate is completely different thing than a virtual debate, and in today's world, the social media page is where most get 70-80% of their ideas and thinking handed to them.


  On facebook, I've tried to find some people that are genuinely unknowing and want to actually know more on the topic when "trolling" the local 'news' (loose term) FB pages.  When I can find them and I engage, they are open and we can have a very interesting conversation.  Some have been educated, some refuse to see the points, however, these types usually don't end up in a crazy shout match.  We can agree to disagree and go about our separate ways.

Also, post fact and/or supporting opinion, while not trying to be too over the top.  (if you get too nuts you'll go to facebook jail when one of the crybabies, that can only shout obscenities, rat you out)

Most are just regular people that have an opinion.

(edit) Some, though, are leftist trolls that constantly regurgitate the talking points, with no clue about what they are saying, and are either easily dispatched, or they end up calling me a racist, or names, or whatever.  I usually chalk that up to a win, and disengage.  No sense in continuing that bull shit. (you see the same people regularly, many are not even from or in Hawaii)

Best bet is to get the knowledge out there for the NORMAL people to read. 

We need MORE social media warriors. 

DO IT, It is how this planet communicates in the 21st century, otherwise it'll be a lefty echo chamber and no one will know what's really going on.

Yes it is.

You think the Jews who were "nice" to the Gestapo and Brown Shirts faired any better than those who weren't? They didn't. Unless they turned traitor and spied on and/or turned in their fellow Jews.

Anyone who expects "reasonable accommodation" from the civilian disarmament crowd is delusional.

No, you don’t negotiate with terrorists