Your Best Arguments and Talking Points against Anti-gunners and Fence-Sitters

[ReadyOnTheRight]

The anti gun movement uses fear, lies and emotion to try to take away our rights. They've figured out how to do it in slow waves -- like a frog slowly boiling in a pot or the camel's nose in your tent. It has been working for them for the past decades. They have our institutions and time on their side.

Please share with TFL members your favorite arguments, talking points, quotes, taking people out shooting... --whatever-- when you get into the RKBA discussion with an anti-gunner or someone who is sitting on the fence.

I've found that asking "What gun control law would you propose to keep CRIMINALS from using a gun to commit a crime?" seems to work well. It can get a fence-sitter to think and possibly open their eyes with a little help. I have seen it work, but it can take YEARS after planting the seed.

A true Anti will just shut down, yell, or attack your character because they know the answer. They just want more control…not a solution.

The answer, of course is that there is no law that will stop law-breakers. Gun control laws only affect (and hurt) the law-abiding.

Asking this as a question, and then using follow-up questions usually works better than just lecturing because people have to get to the truth on their own.

The anti-gunners have much of the media and Hollywood on their side. But we have the Constitution, the internet, Freedom of Speech (backed up by the 2nd Amendment) and TFL members to spread the truth through our words, actions and how we live our lives.

 

[rwilson452]

Mostly I ask questions. I let them hoist themselves on their own petard.

 

[bungiex88]

I don't have to say nothing because I know I already won lol

 

[bungiex88]

I do like listening to them for awhile though makes me feel like a rocket scientist.

 

[motorhead0922]

1. "Do you think people have a right to defend themselves?"

2. "Against whom?"

3. "Against what weapons?"

 

[doofus47]

rwilson452

hoist themselves on their own petard.

Best phrase ever.
and a good strategy for opening people's minds also: let them walk them selves in a circle then make sure they notice they've not gotten anywhere.

 

[ronl]

I never argue with them, sorta' like talking to a cow. I'll listen for a while, blah , blah, blah, yada, yada, same old stupid stuff I've heard a million times, and wait for a break in the conversation. I will respond, "In that second just before some lunatic puts a bullet in your brain pan or some other necessary part of your anatomy, pause to consider the error of your ways." Then I'll simply walk away.

 

[raimius]

Depends on the audience.

For people who are swayed by logic and statistics, I point to a lot of the stats on gun ownership rates increasing without crime increasing. "Decent people with guns aren't committing many crimes."

For theoretical types, I go to the "interest balancing" and rights theories. If gun ownership by decent people doesn't raise crime, and might actually help, why should the government be allowed to restrict it? When does the government have the ability to ban you from using the best defensive tool available?

For the emotional types, I might argue responsibility and hobby. Guns can be a fun hobby. They can also help you protect your family. Don't you want to be able to protect those you care about, with the best equipment you can?

 

[Tom Servo]

I don't have to say nothing because I know I already won lol

Keep thinking that, and we'll find ourselves on the losing team.

As for refuting anti-gun arguments, it depends on the situation and the person. Most people I've spoken with aren't anti-gun--they're just concerned. They've had the idea that restrictions are just common sense shouted at them so loudly and for so long, they start to believe it.

The normal arguments about lack of harm from the law-abiding and the lax enforcement of current gun laws usually do well in that case.

As for someone who's an actual anti-gun activist? You're not convincing them. The only time I'd converse with them would be if there was an audience to win over.

 

[RaySendero]

ASK - How would you protect your family from an armed murderer in a gun free zone?

WATCH - Their eyes as they answer.

 

[wiiawiwb]

We are in a time and place where it is incumbent upon us, the gun owners, to take the time and impetus to educate the people around us, particularly if we want to stop the movement toward gun control. Let me give you a good example.

I asked a group of my close buddies what an "assault rifle" was. Not one of six could give me a correct answer. All but two thought it was an automatic military weapon! These six are all highly educated, accomplished guys.

I explained to them it was nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle whose technology has been around for over a hundred years. I also explained that their fathers' deer rifle was a more powerful rifle than an "assault rifle". I further explained what a pistol grip was and that the "scary look" had to do with rails that held accessories such as lights.

It shows that the public is largely ignorant and if we want to stem this movement to disarm citizenry, it is our responsibility to educate those around us. Then they educate those around them and so it goes.

I've also referenced John Lott's two books about more guns, less crime which provides irrefutable data that disarming people is the recipe for crime. It creates a vacuum which is quickly filled by the bad guys carrying illegal guns.

Finally, I just ask the question, "If your daughter/sister/mom was at home alone with her children and two bad guys broke in at night with guns, how is she going to protect her family. In suburban and rural area the police might be 15 minutes away after a 911 call."

 

[DanTSX]

I don't bother with the antis.

I offer to take the fence-sitters shooting. I keep politics, etc out of it for the most part except to note which gun that put a huge smile on their face was deemed too scary by some twit.

 

[wiiawiwb]

We can not sit back and do nothing because the anti-gun groups are out there every day screaming from the rooftops. It's what people hear on the news, in their newspapers and they're not provided with any alternative much less the correct information.

We can make a difference if we each take every opportunity to educate the people around us. Those who are completely silent have surrendered their right to complain if they awaken some day and their rights are watered down or gone completely.

 

[motorhead0922]

I asked a group of my close buddies what an "assault rifle" was. Not one of six could give me a correct answer. All but two thought it was an automatic military weapon! These six are all highly educated, accomplished guys.

Uh... that's exactly what an "assault rifle" is: M4 carbine, M16, etc. Your AR-15 is not one.

Before we attempt to educate someone, we need to know what we are talking about.

 

[LancelotLink]

I can offer a somewhat unique view. I've always been pro gun in theory, but until my 40s, never actually owned one. I knew more than the average person, but far less than an actual gun owner.

When I started, I had no idea there was an assault on the second amendment going on, nor was I aware of existing gun laws, other than some vague notion.

With that starting point, I saw no reason why guns should not be registered, since we register cars, dogs, boats, etc. etc. .50 cal weapons seemed silly, why would they be needed unless someone was trapped in Jurassic Park after dark. It was more ignorance than being against firearm ownership, as the nuances of the second amendment was simply outside the realm of my day to day thinking.

I came to see the light very fast once I got hands on experience and actually paid attention to what was going on.

However, for those people who simply do not own guns and are not anti 2A zealots, you have to remember that too many details will simply cause people to tune out. Explaining complex issues in simple terms is they key; its something the antis have done very well. Consider their terms, "common sense laws" and so on.

I have the privilege in living in as state with an assault weapon ban. Yay me. But I use that to my advantage when speaking to non gun owners.

I've introduced several people to shooting, some of whom support assault weapons bans. When going over the basics for the first time, I use a ruger 10/22, and I separate the stock. I can then show then that the shape of the wood determines if the gun is an assault weapon, and that three shapes/parts are a felony. The other three definitions of assault weapons of course all lie on the tip of the barrel. I explain how the ruger's dove tailed front sights are ok, but if they were screwed on, that would be a felony. Most of the time the initial reaction is disbelief, but so far, everyone whom I have explained this to has come to the realization that AWB are stupid. But getting them past the belief that AW are machine guns is hard, even when presented with actual hands on experience, its hard for a lot of people to accept their conceptions are wrong.

This approach won't work in conversations though. When the topic of assault weapons comes up, my current best line is to state that banning the Olympic target pistol is moronic. That's an easy example that doesn't involve any technical discussions at all. Olympic means sports, target means something safe. Again, not everyone actually believes me, at least at first, but this approach does seem to be working better than any other one I've tried before.

Overall, the best answer to the OP I can give is to have a toolbox of short and easy to understand examples. Use them sparingly, taking care to use the right tool for the right conversation. If an interest is sparked, then follow up, even at a later date and time. Don't hyper-focus on the subject either, you don't want to be that pro gun guy who talks about nothing else than the 2A.

Finally, and depending on the audience, discussing the other 9 amendments in the BoR can be useful too. I like to compare how the tactics used against the 2A is often used to attack the 1A.

One more thing too that I almost forgot. The whole anti argument about the 2A applying only to the militia. Outside of Heller, whom a lot of antis will simply discount as Scalia being a right wing reactionary, there's another excellent example that I've found stops antis....



The Copyright clause.

This is Article I, Section 8 Clause 8, and says:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Note the language mirrors that of the 2A.

If an anti believes the 2A applies only to militias, then every copyright law passed by the US government outside anything involving the progress of science and useful arts is null and void. Thus, for an anti to be consistent, they must oppose copyrights except for these two limited categories. But of they support copyright, they can't claim the 2A applies only to the militia.

I'm sure I'll think of more examples, but that's it for now.

 

[NY'er]

I pull up the video of Suzanna Hupp testifying about how her parents were murdered in the TX Luby's Diner massacre and ask them what the outcome may have been if she had her pistol on her. And further- whether, if in her shoes that day, they'd at least like to have had the chance of defending their own parents

 

[rickyrick]

I stopped trying to convince them because they cannot be swayed. Maybe fence sitters? Who knows. The ballot initiatives appeal to the fence sitters, because they offer common sense approach to gun control. (As it appears to them). That's the biggest obstacle for us.

Many people have lost people that they loved to guns, anti-gunners sometimes have a valid reason to be against guns. A suicide or victim of gun violence is one in the statistics, but that one statistic could have affected dozens of people. Anti-gunners aren't all made up of people that want to take your freedom. Many are well meaning but misguided even if they've never been touched by violence or tragedy. You cannot really change their opinion in most cases.

Some can be changed, though, usually on their own. They become more aware of freedoms and support the bill of rights. I know more than a few people that changed their stance on guns because they became more aware of what freedom means.

The one phrase that never works is this: "A gun is just a TOOL".
The reason that doesn't work is because everyone knows what a gun is for, so don't kid yourself, or them. You loose credibility with that phrase.

 

[Tom Servo]

The ballot initiatives appeal to the fence sitters, because they offer common sense approach to gun control. (As it appears to them).

I've seen no evidence the fence-sitters are taking part in those initiatives. People generally only get involved in such things when it's an issue that applies directly and urgently to them.

I'd be curious to see an audit of the initiatives in Washington and Oregon. My guess? Most of the signatures are from out-of-state political operatives.

Most of the population would like to see something done about violence. The gun-control lobby tells them we can do that by going after specific instruments while ignoring the root problems. That's an argument that works well.

How we phrase and present our arguments matters.

 

[44 AMP]

I asked a group of my close buddies what an "assault rifle" was. Not one of six could give me a correct answer. All but two thought it was an automatic military weapon! These six are all highly educated, accomplished guys.

All but two, were CORRECT.

I explained to them it was nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle whose technology has been around for over a hundred years. I also explained that their fathers' deer rifle was a more powerful rifle than an "assault rifle". I further explained what a pistol grip was and that the "scary look" had to do with rails that held accessories such as lights.

You are incorrect.

It shows that the public is largely ignorant and if we want to stem this movement to disarm citizenry, it is our responsibility to educate those around us. Then they educate those around them and so it goes.

This is correct, and I applaud your efforts to educate those around you. HOWEVER, you need to do a bit more research on proper terminology, and get out of the trap you fell into, one that the anti gun people laid carefully.

ASSAULT RIFLE is the term for a class of weapons that are SELECTIVE FIRE (meaning full auto and semi auto) and fire an "intermediate" class of cartridge. This term was created at the end of WWII, when Gemany began fielding small numbers of these new weapons. Hitler named it the "Sturmgewehr" which is usually translated as "assault rifle". It could also be translated as "Storm Rifle". (Storm, in the military sense of "storming an objective, i.e., an assault)

Having the capability for full auto fire (under US law, a machinegun) IS ONE of the two defining features of an Assault RIFLE. There are many other features that may be found on an assault rifle, but they are not the defining features. Select fire, and intermediate power cartridge are. (intermediate power cartridge is one that is less powerful than the standard WWII infantry rifle round, but more powerful than the standard pistol round)

The trap you fell into, was carefully crafted by the best spin meisters around the anti gun movement in the 90s. They created a term, very, very close to "assault rifle" in a deliberate, and generally successful ploy to confuse the public. The term they made up was ASSAULT WEAPON.

ASSAULT WEAPON as they defined it was any SEMI AUTOMATIC firearms (either by name or features) that met a certain list of features. Included in the list was detatchable magazine, pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, and folding /collapsible stock, among other things.

Under the 94 AWB Federal law (sunset in 2004) two of these features put the gun on the list. Various states enacted virtual copies of the Federal law, without the sunset clause. Since then, some states have further modified their laws so even ONE listed feature might put a gun on the list.

The important point is ASSAULT RIFLE is the military, full auto gun...ASSAULT WEAPON is the semi auto (civilian) gun with the "bad" features.

You had the terms reversed.

 

[Koda94]

I'd be curious to see an audit of the initiatives in Washington and Oregon. My guess? Most of the signatures are from out-of-state political operatives.

in Oregon, we didnt get to vote on it, the signatures were all the democrat manority senators bought out by Bloomberg funds to win last years election to office.


edit: which is worth bringing up as a talking point to the fence sitters....