I’m an NRA-certified firearms instructor, a concealed carry instructor, an avid shooter, and just an all-around gun guy. My friends, coworkers and acquaintances all know this. Generally, this is a non-issue. In fact, I’ve gained many good friends through my love of firearms, and I’ve converted several individuals from non-owners to owners. But with the recent spate of negative gun publicity in the mainstream media, I’ve learned some things about the few gun control advocates within my network…some things I’m very concerned about, and frankly, a little scared of . . .

In the past few days, I’ve been called names like chickenshit (seriously?), coward, ill-informed, stupid, and pathetic. I’ve been told that I live in a pathetic existence, and that I have a “home protection fantasy” where I just can’t wait to be the hero. I was even told that I “own pistols because I want to kill men,” and that if it weren’t for “chickenshits like Zack Pike, the tragedies we’ve seen this year would never have happened.”

These comments came from one person whom I went to school with and haven’t seen in 10 years, and I’ve seen similar threads in other debates with other gun advocates in my network. This saddens me.

I consider myself a rational person. I don’t believe in insulting anyone because it can’t lead to anything good. I enjoy having actual discussions with gun control advocates that have a) done at least a small amount of research to come to their conclusions, and b) are willing to hear me out if I hear them out.

When these criteria are met, it’s generally a good exchange, and more often than not it’s resulted in the gun control advocate changing their position, at least slightly. It’s the irrational, emotional, reactions that lead to no outcome. And, through this emotional week, the craziest thing is that they just won’t stop. Even when I attempt to end the debate, the personal attacks continue.

In a recent exchange in which I received a torrent of personal insults, I knew it was going to be bad almost from the start. I realized it quickly and encouraged the person to do some more research before we went further (in a vain attempt to help make it a better discussion). This led to a firestorm of personal attacks on everything from the integrity of my research to how I make a living.

What concerns me most is the speed at which the insults began and the ever-increasing rage that was apparent. Surprising (or not), coming from someone who was arguing about ways to prevent violence.

The worst part: this is becoming a consistent theme that’s becoming more and more prevalent. We all just witnessed it when Piers Morgan called Larry Pratt stupid, an idiot, dangerous and a shame to his country. Still, despite all the sound and fury, we’ve yet to hear from any gun control advocate the details of how an AWB would actually prevent a mass shooting.

When I explain that an AWB would do nothing to take these firearms out of the equation, generally that leads to either the person realizing there’s no reason for it, or it leads to personal insults and continually interrupting me to prevent the rest of my points from being made.

There can be a healthy debate around gun control and I’m willing to enter into it with anyone who meets my two criteria, above, because I know my side of the argument is founded in real world data and objective results.

Instead, what I see is ignorance driving the aversion to firearms. Education is one solution, but until the mainstream media and politicians start basing their reports and rhetoric on real world facts and telling the whole story, I don’t see the insults stopping. Unfortunately, those are the sources from which most gun control advocates get their talking points.

Has your experience been the same? How do you handle it? I’ve never seen it this bad and I don’t mind saying it: I’m scared for our rights and our safety.

148 Responses to “Debating” Anti-Gunners. It’s Getting Ugly Out There

  1. This was my comment in the Brady Campaign/Invitation post, but it actually fits better here…

    I don’t waste my time talking to these people. I would much rather spend my time talking to people I know who own guns, but don’t understand the situation in which we now find ourselves. There are lots of them out there, so I’m sure you know some too. You don’t have to nail them down like a proselytizer looking for a conversion, just have a basic conversation to see if they have any real idea what’s going on right now. Many of them won’t. They’ve got lives going on, Christmas is coming, there’s a million and one distractions right now. So rather than wasting your time trying to convince the unconvinceable, save that for later, and right now, work on the undecideds and fence-sitters.

      • Question for TTAG: Why was the original photo for this article swapped out for the cartoon?

        2A supporters are being pilloried in the press and, it appears from this thread, from friends, acquaintances and strangers.

        Do we really need a cartoon on TTAG showing 2A supporters as large white males eager to pull a gat? There may be an intellectual point to be made that the gun prohibitionists view us this way, but we don’t need to volunteer to feed the stereotype IMO.

        • Maybe because it shows the level of reasoned, intellectual discourse we can expect from the media?

        • I didn’t even see the first image. what was it of?

          I agree completely tho, that the current image does nothing but paint gun owners in a poor light.

        • Who made the rule that every story had to be on the pro-2A side? TTAG is simply showing what we are up against. Reality.

    • Agreed. They do exist, those who are not explicitly gun-averse.

      It is (very occasionally) fun to reduce the opposition to effectively quoting Vladmir Lenin, but it gets old. “You don’t need a militarized yadda-yadda-yadda”

      It’s about Freedom. It’s the Bill of Rights, not the “Bill of Needs.”

    • +1. Agree. You arent going to convince the true believers, and its completely un-productive or even dangerous to engage the angry ones.

      Reminds me of the saying about trying to teach a pig to dance :

      Pigs cant dance, and all you get for trying is a pissed off pig, and getting yourself covered in mud.

      Better to set an example of calm restraint, and just keep repeating the facts, if they ask. Thats what influences those looking for information, who I am guessing are the majority of the quiet “lurkers” here, and are looking for exactly that sort of example, to determine if this is a place to return.

      Once someone does a bit of reading, they will be back to TTAG as many of us do, to get the benefit of the deep experience, real-world expertise, and respectful sharing here.

      • Thank you Fred, That pig analogy has gotten around… It sure is a good one that imparts wisdom, I heard it said like this…
        “Never try to teach a pig to sing, it will only frustrate you and it annoys the pig….”

    • Well put Matt. There are a lot of people too that are like I’m a hunter but I don’t understand why you need a 30rd mag or semi-auto rifle, etc. They own guns but they are actually for these restrictions, as if they’d stop there. To me one of the problems is they have been the ones to frame the argument. I shouldn’t have to tell you why I need a standard capacity magazine, you should have to tell me why I can’t have it. They want to turn our right into a privelidge.

      • I wonder if these people who are hunters [only] realize that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to hunting, nor does it apply to ant sporting use of a firearm. The 2nd Amendment only applies to the types of firearms that would be used in a confrontation with a tyrannical government, i.e., military style civilian forearms. Since the 2nd Amendment does not apply to sporting firearms (or even non-military style firearms used for home protection), once “they” ban the 2nd Amendment firearms it would take little effort to ban the others which are not in a protected class. So, the hunters had better realize that this is the reason that large capacity magazines and military style civilian firearms must not be banned. The anti’s are saying that they will not interfere with the ownership of firearms that are used for a sporting purpose. The anti’s are saying that the AR-15 must be banned, but this rifle [the AR-15] is the most commonly used and most popular sporting rifle in the USA today. Is that a delimma? How will this be addressed?

    • I have experienced this via the web myself. One of my LinkedIn contacts started a thread with an anti-gun slant, and while responding with the great facts & statistics gained here, other posters started name calling, one even saying “statistics aren’t important” when confronted with the thousands of DGUs every year. These types are so overwrought that nothing will penetrate their hatred.

    • It is a universal tactic of most liberals: if they don’t understand an issue, or have a logical reasoned argument to make, they become shrill and attack with insults and dismissive behavior. Liberals have been displaying that sort of conduct for forever, especially media types and politicians.

      And you can never get a word in edgewise. You typically won’t change the mind of this sort of individual. It’s not even worth trying to reason with them, unless there is an audience present who you might enlighten with your measured comments.

  2. Ask anti-gunners how they “feel” about the Constitution. It appears that 2A is not the only assault on We the People. How long does anyone really expect the 1A to hold up? Let’s count backwards: 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2…

    NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision Mysteriously Stripped From Bill

    WASHINGTON (12/18/12) — Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention.

    The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 was added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), but there was no similar language in the version of the bill that passed the House, and it was dumped from the final bill released Tuesday after a conference committee from both chambers worked out a unified measure.

    It declared that “An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.”

    Source: HuffPo (link left out to minimize track backs)

      • Instead of responding with what I thought I “know” I did a little more digging. From the UK’s “Guardian” is this:

        [M]ajor media – like the Huffington Post – are taking Feinstein’s amendment at face value as a measure of preventing Americans from being indefinitely detained by the military. Even Michael McAuliff’s HuffPo piece ran with an erroneous headline that read “Indefinite Detention: Senate Votes Down Military Imprisonment of Americans”.

        The original law at least left the issue of military detention somewhat ambiguous, but this amendment actually makes matters worse by explicitly allowing the military to take Americans into custody. The measure infringes on Americans’ constitutional rights, asserts Afran, who explained that, since 1861, the US supreme court has written in at least four decisions that “people living in the US – citizens or not – cannot be taken into military custody and denied a trial in civil courts.” Unforunately, should the NDAA go through, this becomes the law of the land:

        “Our system says a law is in force unless a court says otherwise. The president is considering vetoing the bill. We don’t know if it will be passed by the House, then signed by the president. If it is, we may have to go back to the trial court.”

        Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/feinstein-amendment-ndaa-assault-constitutional-rights

        Apparently Ms. Feinstein has a teflon coating.

      • Sorry for the red herring. With the amendment or without the NDAA guts of our Bill of Rights. A matter of degree.

    • This language merely replaces the Presidents claimed authority to violate your rights, with a congressional authority to violate your rights. A right is inalienable, it cannot be suspended by writ of law.

  3. I save it for the people who are not die hard anti-gunners but look out for those parrotting popular talking points. A lot of people will go with whatever sounds good and can be swayed with logic and reason.

    For people who see gun control as a pet cause, this is a great opportunity for them. It’s sickening and if the NRA were to pull something like this they would be called ghoulish. You cannot reason with people who will dance on the graves of children in celebration that they have leverage now. They don’t see it that way, but I do.

    So look out for the “low information masses”, because they don’t know because this isn’t a priority. We need to sway the average American and forget about the anti-gunners.

    • That’s where I’m at. Fight wolves, guide sheep, ignore the stubbern goats. And I prefer to engage all of the above one-on-one.

  4. A friend from highschool (many years ago)starts out his rant… “I don’t own guns, never had a reason to and I don’t know a lot about them but…” It went downhill from there. I tried to engage him in facts, proper descriptions, laws, etc. The anti-gun people are in flame mode and we have to let it wash over and let them calm down but don’t let them off completely in the mean time. On the other side of things. I found out I have a lot more closet gun aficianados around me than I counted on. I have been tapped for more gun, ammo, and equipment advice in the last 4 days than I have been in 4 months.

    • Totally. I had a co worker tell me he didn’t see the “need” for “30 shell clips”. I told him it was an ammunition magazine and you could call them rounds, but not shells. He didn’t seem to realize it made him sound uninformed on all related topics when using the wrong nomenclature.

  5. Zack, I have run into the same thing. When the derogatory epithets start flying out of my co-discussants mouth, all I do is look at him/her a long time, and then walk away, even though I know that such a response leads them to think they’ve won. I’m a clinical psychologist. and am particularly galled when the anti-gunner begins making all kinds of depth-psychological speculations about the (generally unflattering) reasons for my pro-gun stance. Yeah, I heard Piers Morgan call Larry Pratt “an idiot,” and was impressed by Pratt’s forbearance. Bottom line — there are some folks with whom to argue or discuss this issue is simply a waste of one’s breath.

  6. This my experience has been pretty much the same. The thing is, what most gun control advocates talk about is mitigation, not prevention. Just as there’s nothing magic about a firearm, there’s nothing magic about gun control. The only thing in my view that would prevent this sort of thing from happening has to do with mental health. No one goes from “Leave it to Beaver” to this, these are tortured souls. Oh yeah, and people being responsible enough to keep access to their guns limited to people who were meant to access them.

    • The law drew that line hundreds of years ago. Cannons, explosives, etc. were considered ordnance in the founders’ time and the states restricted them however they saw fit.

      Don’t respond to stupid **** like that.

      • Can you post some citations on that? Not that I don’t believe you, it’s just good to have citations to support the argument. thanks.

        • http://guncite.com/

          http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

          Arms

          “In Colonial times “arms” usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for “ordinance” (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.”

    • I draw the line at indiscriminate weapons. Tanks and grenades do not target a single individual, they target a particular area without prejudice. Semi-auto weapons are discriminate weapons, they only damage what you point them at.

  7. You mean like this lady I posted on Facebook:

    December 14 near Champaign
    Got a call from an angry woman in the 847 area code today at 10:31a.m. She was ranting that we, as members of Guns Save Life, were responsible for the massacre in Connecticut today.

    I told her that despite her anger, we weren’t going to back away in our opposition to racist, sexist and classist gun control.

    She went on another tirade and when she calmed, I calmly explained that mankind had already experimented with a time when the common man was debarred the use of guns: The Medieval times. I explained how the strong dominated and victimized the young, the old and the weak.

    She sputtered and hung up.

    She was a very angry woman today and sadly, is directing her anger at the people who didn’t do it.

    Such a shame.

    • John: You have about 2 minutes to delete that personally identifiable information before it is permanent. Why on earth would you post that information??

      • Why on earth would you feel it’s OK to call someone up and blame them for 20 dead children, simply because they’re a pro-gun organization? I figure if you start the dance, you should be prepared to stay to the end. You want to be anonymous, wear a mask.

        • I’m inclined to agree with you, but there is a difference between that and painting a target on someone (to use terminology we can all identify with).

        • That reverse telephone lookup could be out of date. That number could also be sold to someone else down the line.

        • Posting phone numbers is crossing a line I wouldn’t even want to touch. You’re playing right into the antis hands and just reinforced the cartoon stereotype.

      • You call me up out of the blue and libel me, saying I’m responsible for killing children and other innocents, I’m not going to hide your identity when I share what happened with others in the world.

        She played in the big boy leagues, let her take the consequences for her anti-social behavior.

        You don’t get a pass when you attack me. Sorry.

        And also, I wish to provide evidence which support my statements.

        I hope though she’s calmed since her tirade against me. And maybe, just maybe, she’s realized what a fool she made of herself and won’t do something so ugly again.

        John

        • +1 she kinda waived her right to privacy. Now post her address so the criminals know where to send the rip crew tonite. . . .

        • Doesnt matter what you would do Matt. Its still an invasion of her privacy, and potentially dangerous to provide it internet-wide.

          Two wrongs dont make a right.

        • I’m sorry if it invades her privacy, but actions have consequences. I guarantee it never would have happened if she’d kept a civil tongue in her head.

    • Thank you, John, for taking the time and energy to absorb the rant from this lady. The rage takes a lot of energy, negative energy, from the person spewing it out. And it takes a lot of energy and patience to absorb it.

      By not reflecting it back, the energy it consumed and lost, the rage subsided, even a little. You didn’t fuel it back up so she could go on and rant to someone else, perhaps someone not as sensitive and patient as you.

      As we all know, anger is unhealthy — for everyone. And folks need to let it out. Screaming in the wind isn’t necessarily as therapeutic as “screaming at someone”. Having someone there helps.

      So, she won’t probably say it, but thanks for listening. I know its hard on you too.

  8. It has been precisely the same with me. I hold human life in the highest regard. I strongly believe in everyone’s God-given right to defend their families against evil, and consider that to be THE reason to own an AR-15 and 30-round magazines.

    For that I’ve been deemed by one person in particular a psychopath whom he was afraid would come to his house and murder his family. Among other things. Only after he found how deeply the idea wounded me did he realize we could still be friends.

    The fact remains: The anti-gunners are extremely angry and always resort to personal insults when they have nothing left to back up their positions. It is an endemic problem in the anti-2A group, and they see nothing wrong with it.

    • These people were not taught how to think for themselves.

      Or, if they were, they gave it up in pursuit of their religion that preaches tolerance only for ideas, things, or people they like.

      History has shown that “true believers” are the most dangerous type of people when they have power.

      • People joining the gun prohibitionist movement really are True Believers. The term was coined in 1951 when Eric Hoffer wrote a book with that title. The blog PeaceByDesign reviewed it:

        “In Hoffer’s time Freud’s psychoanalytic theories held sway in the world of psychology. Hoffer, not a psychologist , turned all this on its head and suggested something novel-that those who succumbed to mass movements were people who wanted to ‘be rid of an unwanted self.’ In other words, a mass movement appeals to certain people, not because it offers them a place to shine and advance as an individual, but because it satisfies a ‘passion for self-renunciation.’ ”

        “Hoffer’s analysis of exactly which sectors of society join mass movements (the newly poor, the abjectly poor, misfits, those who are bored) is superb. He also lists factors that encourage and support self-sacrifice. (Hoffer would have had a field day with al Qaeda!). He also looks at the role of factors like hatred, persuasion and coercion and leadership in holding these movements together. If we want to eradicate terrorism, Hoffer is a great teacher to look to.”

        What are we to think when observations originally made about Christianity, Islam, fascism and the KKK can be readily applied to a budding movement in the US?

      • True. “True believers” in every religion are very dangerous. I lived in the liberal San Francisco Bay Area for many years. The most fanatical and dangerous religious extremists that I personally have ever met or know of are “true believer” atheists who embraced the religious ideologies of the progressive movement, political-correctness, and feminism. I would probably say the same about “true believers” of any traditional religion if I had ever experienced living in their community.

        Mixing political power with fanatical religious/political ideology becomes the most dangerous brew. Far too many “true believers” have historically and currently do rule countries.

      • The term “True Believer” was adopted by Eric Hoffer in his 1951 book by the same name. He lays out conditions that lead people to become True Believers, a primary one of which is that joining a mass movement satisfies a “passion for self renunciation.”

        Hoffer also looks at the role hatred, persuasion and coercion all play in holding mass movements together.

        • @Spoons Make You Fat, The True Believer remains one of the most important books ever written. Even more so because Hoffer was self-educated, a former skid row bum, prospector and longshoreman. He was a true genius.

        • Not posting in threaded format, belongs with my post at 15:01, which was a semi-duplicate post to my earlier one at 14:01. It didn’t show up for 45+ minutes so I put together this shorter version. Anyway, I think my point came across.

          @ RF — I sort of picked up on the irony of the earlier editorial cartoon but ultimately I couldn’t reconcile the gaping (in my mind) contradiction between it and the article.

    • It’s not just that they’re angry; there’s so much more. They continually harbor violent thoughts and impulses, and it feels right to them to project their own violence onto responsible gun-owners.

      We have to learn this basic fact about them: THEY ARE BY AND LARGE VERY SICK PEOPLE, WHO HAVE VIOLENCE BUBBLING HOT JUST BENEATH THE VENEER OF CIVILITY.

  9. Zack – as a rebuttal to the outpourings of hate speech from the rabid anti self-defense types, I would recommend the words of that great debater, Calvin (from Calvin & Hobbes): “Oh yeah? Well, you’re just a potty mouth poopyhead.”

    That is the level of intellectual discourse that they are capable of understanding, and so richly deserve. Have fun.

  10. I’ve decided to drop off my social media accounts for awhile due to the same response – complete, irrational hatred spewing out of those I thought I knew. There was no reasoning that would get to them, even relating my personal experience didnt change it (my family has endured a stalker and threats from a disgruntled ex-employee, among others).

    As an aside, I was seeing the same thing regarding my Christian beliefs – just a general intolerance and name calling, etc, when trying to explain my beliefs. Just because I think differently than they do.

    ironic – these are the same people that are calling for civility and understanding for everyone else and their beliefs. I reckon it’s only for those that really think like they do.

    • A personal observation re: your comment about beliefs. In my own experience, it seems the closer you are to a major urban center the more folks get all wound up about God, guns, or whatever. I work in Chicago, live in the far west suburbs and have family from rural Iowa. Chicago is the most “you have to believe what we do” attitude whereas the folks in Iowa tend to be “we’re all people, lets just get along”

      • A fellow atheist posted this elsewhere. I tend to agree with it:

        “One of the benefits of religion to a society is that it provides a framework of meaning to random, incomprehensible acts without the need for people to fly off the handle looking for scapegoats or solutions.

        We all laugh at the idea that it’s God’s will or similar sentiments, but the truth is that they are healthier and less destructive in the wake of a tragedy (yes I know it’s really a crime) like Newtown than what the progressives are doing now.”

        • I’d guess I’d rather swallow the red pill than the blue one Mike in spite of the danger to my “health”, Randy

    • Generally avoiding FB too.

      I did leave one comment along the lines of “Can you please wait until the bodies are cold before you start insulting prople and dictating on a subject on which you know virtually nothing?” I consider him an expendabel friend.

      A few of my Canadian friends made comments which were not wholly unintelligent regarding comparable fireams law. As a former resident of Canada and a current denizen of CT, I explained that legally obtaining a pistol or AR (with folding stock and bayonet lug!) is actually a little easier in Canada than in CT, though to be fair there is no concept of civvie carry of any kind in Canada, and mags are limited to 10 rounds for handguns and 5 for rifles. Yup, 5 – even the integral mag on an SKS has to be pinned.

  11. Gun control is a symptom of cultural decay.When a person values collectivism,they inherently see mass gun ownership as a public security threat.If the existence of firearms is culturally considered a danger to society,they’ll react with predictable extremism.

    • Yep, good point, when the people acccept being helpless as the cultural norm, any citizen that is not helpless and dependant on their “betters”, is a threat to that belief system;

      it’s as basic as being the one sheep dog among the sheep, as the paper “on wolves, sheep and sheep dogs” byLt.Col. Grossman ret. discusses, the sheep (the general population), have learned to associate a person with a gun as part of the “dangerous” species ie the wolves; when the sheepdog carries a badge, it lessens the fear response, but dosen’t eliminate it, when the sheepdog is one of them, look out! Thier not just a black sheep, they’re a black sheepdog without the shiny magical talisman that says that the state has anointed and blessed the sheepdog to give him the power denied the rest of the population.

      It really is at this level of animal fear response, because right now, thier is not one sign of higher level thought or logic among the gun ban crowd.

  12. Anyone notice how the white haired guy with kind of big ears in front of the crowd(by the aisle) looks like Ollie North?!

  13. imho, save your breath, there cannot be a logical discussion with people to quite literally, completely uneducated on the topic. In my experience over the past several days, its like trying to discuss African American history with the KKK.

  14. Certainly don’t waste your time debating someone who was brought up in a society where guns are absolutely prohibited, and have been for a long time (i.e. Britain). Speaking as an Englishman now living in the US (for 13 years now) I know where Morgan is coming from and I used to hold the same views. But unlike him I have since been introduced to handguns/rifles/shotguns by an experienced and rational individual. My views have changed completely; not through hyperbole and evangelism, but through direct experience, and my own research. I will be a gun owner within the month.

    • yeah congrats, i was indoctrinated by the “guns are evil” crowd in California and was completely anti, although of course i was fascinated with them.
      a little bit o research and i realized that wow, everything i was told was wrong and i completely converted.
      the unfortunate thing with this event is that many normal, non-gun owners began viewing firearms in a neutral light but then the news on this event has kicked alot of them into supporting the anti’s.

    • If you don’t mind my asking, would you expand on what you mean by “rational individual?” This might be a key to help us reach out, at least to folks who have the social roots that you have.

      • By “rational individual” I mean someone that understands the responsibilities he has undertaken in life. Someone that has examined both sides of the argument, and can talk about both in an informed fashion. My friend chooses to conceal-carry, but that’s not something I plan on doing in the near future. He and I talk through different situations and we often take a position on each side just for the sake of debate.

        The key for me was him having the extreme patience to answer all my dumb questions, and spend the time to take me to the range.

  15. In this yuletide season, I wish to convey a bit of Victorian wisdom to the above discussion…. 🙂

    From A Christmas Carol -1952 (best version ) Its the classic line of Christmas Present who shows Ebenezer two children clinging to his cloat. “This boy is ignorance, this girl is want. Beware them both, BUT MOST OF ALL BEWARE THIS BOY”

    Ignorance has gotten this world in a heap of trouble over the eons….

  16. I’ve not (yet) had to deal with the anti attitude, but that’s probably because I’ve been off work for the holidays and not been around any irrational human beings. I do have a similar experience re: motorcycles…

    Several years ago in the Chicago area we had a summer with a number of tragic motorcycle accidents, mostly from folks riding sportbikes. The outcry from Chicago city hall (Rich Daley mayor @ the time) was that we need to have a helmet requirement for Chicago city limits (no explanation on how that would be enforced). Restrict motorcycles over X horsepower (why do you NEED 150 horsepower?) sound familiar? Restrict motorcycles to certain streets. Special speed limits for motrcycles. Etc. Even though the riders were always at fault for reckless riding doing crap like wheelies on the highway with girlfriend on back or street racing, it didn’t make a difference because almost all of a sudden motorcyclists were viewed as reckless organ donors lower than slime. Some folks I knew also knew I’d been riding for over 20 years and before the accident filled summer I rarely had a comment from any of them, but after that I was told I had to get rid of them, I was crazy, think of my future children (I didn’t/don’t have any), I was being selfish and not thinking of other drivers, etc. More than once it devolved into behavior similar to PMs recent outbursts of insanity and the calmer I’d be the worse they got. When pointing out that I was following the rules of the road, have insurance way above state requirements and have been accident free for over 30 years it still didn’t matter. Ultimately I just walked away from the crazies because it’s just not worth my time/effort to educate some clearly biased individuals.

    How does the above story relate to guns? I’ve since adopted a policy of not telling anyone I shoot aside from a few select individuals. I am in no way ashamed of my activities but it’s just not worth the aggravation.

  17. I think much of this will need to be ironed out by the courts. All the grabbers ranting illogical points etc fall apart in a court of law. They have taken it on the chin in court lately & I don’t see them prevailing in the future, Randy

  18. Thankfully I don’t appear to have any strong anti-gun people on my personal FB page. If they are anti-gun they keep to themselves. I would like imagine the reason they don’t lash out at me is because they know I am well versed in these debates and can easily debunk any of the “random facts” that seem to be touted by the antis.

    That and I don’t just friend everyone I’ve known since I was 2 years old. I think I have maybe 40 friends on my FB page that is 5 years old?

    People who friend everyone, down to the kid they said “Hi!” to in the school hall 20 years ago crack me up.

    Congrats you have 1000 friends, that is 960 more random opinions I don’t have to deal with.

    – D

    • I did a little experiment w/LinkedIn. I asked anyone the service suggested I should be connected to join my group. I had had an account for several years w/maybe 10 folks in my group. 2 days after I started my experiment I had well over 100 and 50-75 percent of those I didn’t personally know. Too may people are ready to click “join” without doing some thought beforehand.

      • Really, unless you are an important child hood friend, or someone I interact with on a frequent basis, you may get me to accept your friend invite at first – but after a week or so I realize that nothing is going on between us, I’ll just ‘de-friend’ to keep my wall clutter-free.

        Yes I know I can ‘hide’ single or all postings by user, but the hell with trying to do maintenance on hundreds of users. I even hide “liked” company messages to keep the clutter down because I usually know what they are posting before they post it (being that blogs like this one will put up the announcement prior to them updating their own FB page)

        – D

  19. Maybe,it’s just me, but I would think that if these people seriously thought the average gun owner was no different than a mass murderer, then they wouldn’t be so brazen in their insults and arguments, lest they themselves be a target. The truth is, they know we’re law abiding and principled (generally speaking), and they can attack us with no fear of a physical response. Either that, or they’re stupider than they look and it’s the Lord’s protection of children and fools that keeps them from engaging someone who is actually violent.

  20. I’ve experienced the same childish behavior on a forum I frequent for a different reason than political. I initially posted about the timing of the thread starting (day of Sandy Hook) which then I was called a monster. After that I just read the thread and only contributed to correct misconceptions about laws, etc. I did watch most arguments degenerate into name calling, insults, debate tricks and otherwise just hostility.

    Most of the gun control advocates there say the same as Obama in that we cannot prevent them all, but that cannot be an excuse for regulating the commoners and their rights (okay I paraphrased).

    Again our defense of the 2A is met with the same emotional responses to factual information only this time it has been much, much worse due to the age of the victims in the last massacre. Any logical, calm presentation will be met with insults, assumption, prejudice, and even hatred.

  21. I understand where you’re coming from. This is a firestorm I haven’t seen and I know it has been lying in wait looking for the perfect crisis to unleash it, and they got it. We need to remain steadfast and principled in our rights, but avoid using some of the same tactics they use on us in the name-calling, screaming, unreasonable and disrespectful areas. Remember, most of the people you see posting and ranting know exactly nil about firearms, and have never even held one. I believe most Americans will stand for American rights, but I’m worried; I thought I knew what we valued on November 6th and was wrong.

  22. I think the word “debate” itself is load because it already implies that there will be a “winner” of the debate and a “loser.” I prefer the words conversation / dialogue / discussion, because ultimately, our goal as gun owners should be to inform and educate – there’s so much misinformation and ignorance when it comes to guns, that you literally have start from scratch with some folks when you discuss the issues of owning a gun, the history of our country, statistics, and personal experiences.

    I applaud Zack Pike’s approach – cool, calm, and reasoned will bring more people over to “our side” even if they choose to personally not own a gun. Screaming, calling people names like “b*tch” or “coward” or “libtard” doesn’t help.

  23. There cannot be a rational discussion about this issue as long as emotions are in play. I have worked in the environmental engineering field for 35 years and I can tell you that once emotions are let loose common sense goes out the window. What we can hope for, and what Obama is trying prevent, is a bit of cooling off time so that calmer heads prevail.

  24. My experience has been like that at work. I also don’t dare speak to my fiancee’s family for the same reason. While my fiancee was converted to our side before we got engaged, most of her relatives remain antis.

    I wonder how many people at work know I’m a firearms instructor on the side… I generally separate my work life from the rest of my life, and this is precisely why.

  25. IMO, before I read the story, the cartoon pic of an enraged gun owner pointing a gun at a defenseless and terrified gun-grabber suggested to me that this article is a call for angry pro-gun owners to calm down in their online comments against gun-grabbers.

    • The more I look at this cartoon the less I understand it. I really can not fathom why it was posted. Anyone?

  26. I’ve been very interested to see that around Detroit, guns have grown wings and started to fly off the shelves. People here know that we really do have to protect ourselves and see the usefulness of “military style” “assault weapons” and “high capacity ammo clips” [President Obama’s words, not mine]. Why is it that the people of Detroit, who by many accounts are among the least educated and most illiterate people in the country can figure out that there is no common sense in “common sense gun laws” while our “highly educated” representatives can’t?

    Maybe I’ll just start using “highly educated” as a euphemism like I do for “highly trained professionals” (State requirement is for police to fire guns once per year at qualification), “expert in firearms” (the same people who say things like “high capacity ammo clips”), and “high powered assault weapons” (no explanation needed).

  27. I live in the mid west where having an informed credibly educated opinion is not high on the list of things to base opinions on. I also open carry since I live in an open carry state. The first debate that I got into was with my girl who travels back and forth over the line of pro and anti depending on her mood. That debate ended as it always does her mad and me looking for some place to hide for an hour or so. I also spend 14 years in the Navy and was released for medical reasons and I am most of the time Very proud of my service and country. My second debate came from a person inline behind me at the gas station, it started of with the words “war monger” and very quickly devolved into a feeding frenzy from others in line also. None of these people know what a war is let alone did anyone have anything intelligent to say about firearms or those of us who own them. When the leader of this gaggle of baby chic’s I will call them finally quilted the others down so I could say something as he surely could see I had something to say. I told then that I am sorry about what ever it was that has angered them, (not knowing of what happened yet) and began to ask questions about what their issue what with the service and gun owners. (wrong thing to ask I know) I was accosted with a lot of names, phrases, and a few things I still haven’t figured out what the hell they meant. This cycle continues and I was given another chance to speak. This time I asked only one question and that was what they hoped to gain from verbally attacking a disabled vet? As it was plain to see I am forced to walk with a cane now and it seams they just then realized that. They did seam to quite down a bit and feel a bit bad about attacking a disabled person as some apologized. However the instigator refused to back down and yet I didn’t know what caused him so much anger. He spouted a few more colorful metaphors and I asked him what was wrong and what did I do to him since we all know what I did and gave up for him. He stepped forward and took a swing at me, really, through a punch at a 14 yr combat veteran. This gentleman seamed to completely forget that I was caring not just a gun for my knife was also in plain site and I had a big stick. I don’t understand people like this. I deflected his punch with my cane and stepped aside, he ended up in the counter at the gas station and knocked himself cold and gave himself a good cut on his forehead. Needless to say I paid for my things and began leaving when my second discussion in so many minutes began as the sheriff arrived and stopped everyone from leaving till he found out what was going on. I will admit that this conversation was a lot more civil yet aggregating since I was caring a gun, open carry. Some of you might know what I mean. Anyway, in the end, I found that remaining calm and polite, I will also admit that it is not the easiest thing to do but appearing calm to the vocal people is very, very important as to not escalating the confrontation. It was one of the hardest thing I had to do, mostly because I was becoming more frightened as time past as they where becoming more vocal and angry. Honestly I don’t think I would have been able to do that without all of the training I had in the Navy. Anyway that was my day the day it happened, I haven’t been out during the day as to not have that type of discussion again. I firmly believe being a chosen ignorant person is not a reason to hurt anyone, even in defense. However I also believe that the safety of my family, friends, and myself are a little more important, property is just that an object and they are replaceable. Well that’s was my 2 cents as well. Best of luck to the rest of you and I’ll pray people will become more educated, Soon. (I know I’m dreaming)

    • Thanks for sharing that, Joseph. We can hope that those who did apologize might do some thinking about where their unchecked emotions might lead them.

      Thank you for your service.

  28. Seriously. How hard is it to find a political cartoonist that can draw an accurate depiction of a firearm? Those things look like something from Blade Runner but he can’t draw a Glock?

  29. Just keep up a mantra of reasonable and succinct arguments while ignoring their insults. That way you’ll keep the moral high ground and make sure your side of the story isn’t drowned out.

  30. The biggest mistake true Americans ever made was allowing idiots a voice. You don’t allow children at the grown-ups’ table. You don’t allow children to have a valid say in adult affairs. And that’s all antis are, mental children.

    Under the deceptive banner of “democracy,” this country has allowed unworthy people the right to a voice and equal say, and now it’s paying the price. The idea of unconstrained “democracy” (this country is supposed to be a Constitutional republic first and foremost) is a piece of thuggish false morality that the evil and stupid use to give themselves power they shouldn’t have.

    At least the cartoon accurately portrays antis as weak, pathetic cowards.

  31. Ignorance drives the aversion to firearms and results in personal attacks and name-calling because the left has no logical argument whatsoever.

  32. There is a technique, invented or discovered by liberals used originally to defeat Robert Bork when he was nominated for the supreme court. That is to vilify, defame and slander anyone with an opposing viewpoint to discredit them and remove any opportunity for an objective defense. This was used with great success against Bork and of course we now see this technicque used by anyone who is unwilling to engage in an objective conversation including both sides of any argument and used with great passion by internet trolls who love to anonymously make people look stupid. It’s how you win an argument without having to actually argue. Yeah, freedom of speech!

    Those people don’t want to debate they want to shut you up. You won’t win or ever have an honest conversation with these people. You have to simply ignore them. The NRA has been amazingly good at presenting logical arguments for gun owership. So opponents are forced to attack them in ways that ignore the argument and vilify the organization and individuals in a scorched earth policy.

    People who you know, who attack you this way, are not your friends. It is sad to discover that but your friends will honor you enough to hear your argument and pose an alternative viewpoint without attacking you personally. It is your choice if you want to keep non-friends like this. If you do, your best hope is to build a strong enough relationship with them so that you can speak the truth into each other’s lives. But that takes time and effort and you will have to decide if it’s worth it. Anyone who insulted me in that way would have lost the right to speak to me again in any forum.

    You might also think about shining a light directly on the hate speech being directed at you. Thank them for their personal and insulting attacks that do nothing to advance the dialogue for a meaninful resolution to the horrible attack at Newton. At least then you call attention to their own slanderous behavior and possibly cause some hesitation on your friends who may think the same.

    In the short term, emotions are way to hot to have any kind of meaningful dialogue on this issue.

  33. I agree a AWB is no way to stop any murder its all attack on personal liberty. Antigunners lost there momentum in the last few years and in there anger lost control of themselves like Piers Morgan and ABC and CBS and CNN ect all they got now s emotion to attack gun owners. The polls today and the last few days show BIG BIG part of americans are not supporting gun bans and the anti-gunners lost there clout in the nations and cannot return to there heyday in the early 1990s. Its good news too apart from Washington DC in the nation we are winning the war on public opinion on gun rights. I think this helps our GOP allies kill any BAN Obama may send next year.

  34. I’d rather shove a flaming porcupine into my Jockey shorts and then jump into a vat of hot cosmoline than have a conversation about anything with an idiot.

    And if I was taking a ration of sh!t from a wingnut, I’d take him to court. It would be fun. See, calling a self-defense instructor a coward — in writing — is clearly libelous and likely to be financially harmful. So sue the pr!ck. Let him rant in front of a judge. Make him pay.

    We live in a very disordered society, where respect is based almost entirely on the amount of misery one can dispense.

    Yeah, you may not want to sue the b@stard because it could be expensive. If I had such a problem, I know a really good (retired) lawyer who would be happy to represent me and use the system to torture the bastard until he pays me . . . oops, I meant to say the lawyer — just to go away.

    • If I was on the jury in that lawsuit, i’d side with the defendant, because you failed to throw a punch at him to defend your honor, demonstrating your cowardice.

      And isnt what youre proposing a abuse of process?

      You’re also betting on the defendant not representing himself, which i’ve done before for a frivolous wrongful death lawsuit.

  35. i had an interesting debate over Google+ with a former colleague of mine. She’s an Aussie. We started out with silent counterarguments via news articles – hers being subjective ones saying it’s time to stop the violence, mine being info driven articles.

    In the end, the emotional appeal of not feeling safe if everyone in the street had a concealed carry, and that we care about our guns more than our children was the end all.

    I then wrote this: https://plus.google.com/114639458632800741087/posts/ECafZzfwWAZ

    Over time I expect to get more criticisms for my stance on the matter. Oh well.

  36. Well my sister all 40 years old told me guns are BAD and we don’t want them, you can say anything to change my mind, and covered her ears like a two year old!
    So much for discussion or education…

    Most of my Facebook friends know darn well where I stand. Many have been silent as I do not flame them. But they do get a reply about a page and a half long with stats, and information on crime, gun deaths, crime rates world wide, etc etc etc.. All very polite, but it shuts them up in a hurry.

  37. I’ve found that most people arguing about gun control know little to nothing about guns, gun culture, laws, regulations, and definitions.

    They cant answer what an “assault weapon” is.
    They dont know the process for obtaining a firearm. Hell, I had one person try to tell me that it’s easier to buy a gun, than it is to buy medical marijuana. I laughed so hard when I heard that. I’ll explain in a second…
    They love to think that these AR15s being used is some the same gun used my armed forces. They are unaware of the patent expiration, the modularity, the fire controls, and what is actually banned here in California, or in any AWB.
    They equate furniture to “military” weapons, I equate the AR15 to a Honda Civic. Reliable, easy to maintain, modular, customizable, affordable, readily available parts, etc. It’s overall cost makes it’s affordable for most consumers.
    They are incapable of providing a solid solution that isn’t half baked. When they realize this they turn to the age old “we arent fighting the British any longer” remark. Funny how they dont even understand what the second amendment means. Then when you proceed to tell them, they interject with “so you can own nuclear weapons then?” I always follow that with “WMDs are a different class of weapons whos use must be determined by a larger majority of figures heads capable of taking responsibility for wiping out a city or destroying a nation. Those are nation state level weaponry. Again, off topic. They assume that because the US Gov has nukes, we cant fight them. Imagine the press on that one. US Gov Nukes own territory. Wow.. Thats end of the world stuff right there if you ask me.
    Anyways…
    The problem is, the majority of people always like to bring up the timeless, albeit, dusty, power play. “Semi automatic weapons are not what the second amendment had in mind, they ha muskets at the time, they did not include military weapons. So, I think that only single shot (what they really mean is bolt action, seeing how my AR15 is already a “single shot” long gun), and hi-capacity clips should be banned” – This one I have such a hard time debating. Ok ok ok I say. Hi-capacity magazines (picking something I can get some buy in on) are relatively unnecessary, but standard capacity magazines should be legal, no? They usually say “well no one needs a 100 round drum to hunt” I say “you’re right, and most people dont hunt with C-Mags or 50 round drums. They usually make some ad hominem remark about how anyone who needs more than one shot is a crappy hunter. Funny though, these same people 99% of the time, have never been hunting, most appose it, and they certainly don’t own a gun, or have ever been to the range. That said, I agree with them, again, getting some buy in here. Then I ask them… Are you ok with standard capacity magazines? The kin that come with the gun, no crazy modifications or custom parts, just plane old mags. Usually they say “sure, as long as it’s not more than 10 rounds” I saw that coming. So I ask them, where they heard the magic number 10? They say something along the lines of “no one needs more than 10 rounds” I let them know that they really have no basis for that, and they are now contradicting their previous stance on normal/standard cap mags. Back peddling. I bring up the hi-cap mags again and say “look, you said you’re against hi-cap mags, yes? “yes” ok, so lts move on. They ont always get it, and if they decide to change their answer you’re better off asking them to explain why they just back peddled or end the convo. I bring up the single shot thing. I ask them why single shot? They usually say something about how guns that only shoot one bullet at a time are safer, or not as capable of killing as many people. And once again, I usually agree. Buy in again, they’ll hopefully want to mirror my “acceptance” here… I see he does agree with me and hes a gun guy. By this time, I start to ask them well what about the gun used in Sandy Hook, Oregon, or the theater? They say “he had hi-cap clips and an automatic firearm, and he should not have had military weapons, more people would have lived if he didnt have these weapons used my the military” I ask them which weapon are you referring to. They say “the rifle he used” – You mean the AR15? Yes that one. OK. So you’re talking about the the single shot, standard capacity long gun? “No it was automatic, what are you some nut? You have an answer for everything! I’m done” and I usually proceed to tell them that, they did just say they thing guns should only be single shot guns, with no hi-cap mags, and not automatic. They then back peddle again, “well by automatic i meant it chambers a round automatically” this is where I get stumped… They are arguing (back at the beginning again), that the semi-automatic guns is not in fact a single shot gun and could not have been anticipated by the founding fathers. I usually follow up with somehthing like… well the gun most used in Aurora was the remington 870, pump action shot gun. The Ar15 jammed and he was unable to use it. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/james-holmes-gun-jammed-aurora-colorado-dark-knight-shooting_n_1692690.html) I site the Huffington Post and a few other media sources). The shooter in Oregon was stopped by a concealed carrier when his rifle jammed after a few shots. He then proceeded to shoot himself. I also mention that he stole the rifle from someone. They usually claim “im full of answers arent I” and i politely let them know that I dont appreciate the attacks, I’m just stating readily available facts provided to me by the same people they get their’s from.

    Sorry that was long… Any idea how to deal with this single shot BS, or the “never could have imagined [ the evolution of firearms ]. As you can see I’m not the greatest closer. LOL. My roommate refuses to be persuade, or even listen to me. Last night he claimed that I had an NRA/Right Wing slant when I was talking to the TV and said “no [british lady on the tv whos accent makes her sound smart], you did not see AR15s ont he battle field, those where automatic weapons, which have been tightly regulated since 1934 and 1986” There was something else I said, but I dont recall what it was. It was a 100% fact that anyone with google could have found from one simple search. Arg I dont recall, and thats when he raised his voice (because the louder he gets the more ‘right’ he is, hes a dip shit). Anyways.

    So yeah, my friend who claimed buying medical marijuana was harder than buying a gun…. L-M-F-A-O…
    Buying Medical MJ – California
    1) You decide “I want a medical card” (excuse)
    2) You google the nearest quack
    3) You drive, 5-10 minutes to his office.
    4) You make up some bullshit excuse like “i cant sleep, I get nausea after eating sometimes, my back hurts, I have migraines, blah blah blah”
    5) If you pass his BS detector, which min you would be bad for business if you didnt. You get a letter of recommendation.
    Total Time Spent – 45 minuts, TOPS
    6) You take your letter now, and drive to the nearest weed shop. 5-10 minutes with traffic in this town…
    7) You fill out some paperwork, typical crap, ID, Dr’s note, date of birth, illness, blah blah blah… Takes abotu 5-10 minutes I hear.
    8) You walk into the back room, and “hey buddy, is this your first time here?” “why yes it is” “welcome friend, heres a free cookie, and if you make a purchase of $20 or more, well give you a free 1/8 oz of weed. If you would lie to sample something, you can do so in that room over there. Ask if you need anything”
    —— 8 Steps – Total time 1 hour —–
    No background check.
    No thumbprint.
    No 10 day waiting period.
    No laws, regulations, and safety precautions you have to learn and memorize. (sort of but you get what I mean, just dont get high and drive orbe a moron about it, if you get caught, its pretty much a “get out of here dude” kind of sitch).
    No social security number.
    No questionare about you’re citizenship, ethnicity, place of birth and drug and alcohol abuse.
    No restrictions for drug fiends, women beaters, violent and nonviolent fellons.

    Shut that nonsense down like *snap* that.

    • Defining terms is so important. If someone is willing to take the time to really have a discussion, the I would think they would agree to defining terms. As you alluded to, this exercise itself will probably put most of the opposition back on its heals. Mostly the opposition is more phobic than rational, and hashing through the terminology will reveal a lot of prejudice and ignorance. Most people like to consider themselves informed, at least, but better yet principled. It’s difficult to be see yourself as principled as you are finding that you are mistaken in all of your terminology.

      The single-shot counter argument might be countered with the fact that single shot rifles are uncommon. If the opponent is really arguing for the more common bolt action, then you could inform him that these also have magazines. Then follow with neither of these action configurations are suited for defense against anything warranting a shooting response. With anything from a rabid dog, to a wild pig, to a schoolhouse shooter, you’re going to want one do those guns that “loads the chamber automatically.” And you are going to want a lot of bullets available with a minimum of fuss.

      If your roommate has no experience shooting, offer him a six pack of his favorite beer if he goes to the range with you. Get a feel for a self defense scenario that he might relate to, and have him shoot through it at the range. Then have him set the gun on the bench and run through it without the gun. Guns empower good guys, too.

  38. I really wish we could actually have a debate about guns. Instead of hearing insults and one sided arguments. Education is really a must in order for people to understand the truth about guns. If we really look back at our weapons and their history. Every weapon out there can be considered an “assault weapon”. It’s just that times have changed and the perception of what is an “assault weapon”. Looking at early rifle designs such as the musket, bolt actions, and older semiautos. They could be considered “Assault Weapons”. 1700s it was the Musket, 1860s to 1880s it was the Lever Action rifles that won the west. 1900s to 1940s it was bolt action rifles and in the 1940s the development of semi auto rifles begun. These designs were used by militaries around the world and were put to good use by civilians that used them to survive and defend themselves. Now today what we use is the rifle still except it is more modern and up to date. AR-15s are our hunting rifles, the rifle that we grab to defend our homes and loved ones, and it’s the rifle that is used to patrol our streets in the hands of LE Officers. We have to remember that while we make advances in improving our way of life so too do we make advances in the weapons that we use to defend, hunt, and protect what we have achieved.

    • That wont happen because the majority fo the anti stance is based on emotions, invalidating the debate right at the start. There entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. If emotions are involved you’re argument is based on unquantifiable evidence. “I feel guns are bad and refuse to hear otherwise” usually followed by “Well aren’t you mr know-it-all” actually… it’s quite the oposite. I’m an informed individual, my knowledge comes from reading, studying, engaging, and participating in said culture. I don’t understand how people think that because they watched Borne Identity, or Expendables II, and watch Piers (twat) Morgan, they suddenly have a good grasp on gun culture and are able to formulate opinons base on said knowledge.

  39. I’ve found by and large the people I have been arguing since last Friday have no clue what the current laws are or how frequently they are not enforced. For example, in Baltimore over 80% of misdemeanor firearm violations result in suspended sentences.

  40. When liberals can’t win the arguments, it always degrades into personal attacks. “Oh, ya, well George Bush is Stupid”.

    Replace, George Bush, with anyone that they disagree with. They can’t help themselves, just like Pierce Morgan, calling Larry Pratt Stupid. Of course, thats why CNN viewership is way down.

    The american people get it. Gun Culture in America is mainstream, despite what the media tells you.

    People like Pierce Morgan live in NYC, in high rise buildings with security and door men. They have no concept and a lot of contempt for the rest of us. Morgan’s upset that his Jolly Old England is proof that gun control doesn’t work, that roaming bands of thugs, rob and assault people on the street and he wants to paint the picture that England is an advanced society. He’s a sell out, he’s a joke. People like him have destroyed his country and he’s completely content on doing the same to ours.

    We beat the British to gain our independence and it was done with men with guns, not over paid, cowards like Pierce Morgan. He would be the first to cower under his desk. He wouldn’t have the courage to charge a killer or run toward the sound of gunfire. That’s the facts.

  41. Ohoh oh!!!! MY FAVORITE IS…

    “who are we fighting? Why do you need guns?”

    Funny… I brought up the fact that the 2A was designed to protect us from the very people who wrote it, as a means of providing security for our selves incase the government attempted to rule over the people.

    My father scoffed at that and said I have a very warped perspective as to what it means to be an American. So I asked him, “do you support the bill of rights?” He replied “yes, I do” I said “would you like it if someone tried to take your rights away?” he said “Not at all” to which I replied, “than how is taking our guns away any different thank someone taking your rights away” at which point he proceeded to go on about how it isn’t our right to own military weapons.

    They just love circular logic.

  42. I chose the cartoon image previously used on this post to illustrate how gun control advocates see and portray gun rights advocates. The “irony” didn’t quite come through for some of our readers. In the interests of clarity, I’ve swapped it out for something a little less . . . obtuse.

  43. First let me say this is one of the best post I have read at TTAG.

    I have had many experiences exactly like the ones you speak of.
    The funny (strange) thing is I never initiate the conversation.
    It usually starts with someone coming up to me and saying something like, ” I hear you know a lot about guns.” These people are usually thinking of buying a gun.
    Or someone will make a commit about some violent crime in the news, which I maneuver into a conversation about self defense. Sometimes I join a conversation already in progress. When ever possible I never miss an opportunity for a good 2A/ self defense conversation. Even I am amazed at how often they come up. They just seem to follow me around.
    Of course my main focus is converting the fence sitters to our side.
    But I also enjoy talking with the antis. In fact when I’m engaged in conversation with a group (or even a single) of fence sitters I prefer to have at least one (1) anti in the group. I find it helps me to make my points. So much in fact,I have thought of taking a friend with me to serve as a shill in case no antis are present.
    The thing about antis is no matter how much they believe in their cause, they can never put forth an argument that we can’t counter. In the final analysis their arguments just don’t hold water.
    BUT what I really love is when they get frustrated and go on one of their rants.
    By then it’s obvious their so called logic just doesn’t make sense and as a last resort, they resort to name calling. Everything I have said is just stupid. Why is it stupid? Because it just is. Their right and I’m wrong. Why? Because I’m stupid of course. I remain calm and continue my argument as before. You can actually see the fence sitters start to become uncomfortable with the antis rant.
    Not all antis behave in this manner. Some remain calm, steadfast in their beliefs. Still no matter how strong the belief, the result is the same. Their arguments just don’t hold water. Ever notice how antis always run out of conversation before the conversation is over.
    I can’t say that I convert all or even most, but I have converted many. And I honestly believe that every fence sitter I have spoken with who was leaning to the side of the antis has left at least a little less certain.

    BTW In the past couple of years I have added some new ammo to my arsenal.
    When confronted with the question of the possibility of ever needing a gun for defense, I use the same reasoning I have used for forty (40) years. Then I suggest they go to thetruthaboutguns.con, look at the very top of the page, click on DGUTD and read until they are too tired to read further.

    Robert any chance of making this box larger? It is really difficult to prrooff red!

    • Robert any chance of making this box larger? It is really difficult to prrooff red!

      If you’re on the mobile site, there’s not really much you can do except possibly compose in a notepad-type app and then cut and paste. However, if you’re on a computer, just above the input box there’s two buttons. The first with is a combination spell-check/WYSIWYG button, and the second expands the input box to full screen.

  44. I begin by conceding that gun control can have some effect on deadly violence, but I try to explain why the effect of even the most restrictive gun control would be very marginal. The fact that the most effective gun control would be the most politically unpalatable often doesn’t bother them because many want to ultimately ban all magazine-fed semi auto’s, or even guns altogether… but they’re then at least conceding that gun confiscation is the ultimate goal.

    I then point to the rate of homicide in Latin America. I’ll hear “But they have a different culture down there!” They’re already starting to get it…

    I’ll also point out that there are more annual alcohol-related traffic fatalities than firearm-related homicides. (Similarly, total highway fatalities are greater than total deaths by firearms). I’ll then ask if we should respond to this problem by banning the sale of alcohol at restaurants, bars and parties.

    Anyone who’s thinking will then realize that they value drinking alcohol more than they value the legitimate use of firearms. I point out that, for me, the right to defend oneself is inseparable from being a free person. If they’ve made it that far, they’ll usually come to at least respect my position.

    A lot of the time is spent just providing factual information, which can be very productive as well. They probably won’t know that the AWB bans the sale of the standard magazines that come with most full sized handguns (I’ll often hear that this must have been an accident of a badly written law!).

    Nothing is gained by responding in-kind to emotional vitriol. I just calmly relay facts and avoid the sort of rhetorical games and name-calling these sorts of discussions usually degenerate into.

  45. I “discuss” with people who agree with me (pro 2A) to expand my knowledge or correct my errors, I enjoy that. I do nothing with people who disagree with me (Anti-2A) as it will only lead to an argument and I’m terrified they will start calling me names and I will have to do things I’m too old to do anymore. The only way to make it work out well for all concerned is to continue to egg them on as they turn purple and get them to attack you. Then you can shoot them and everything works out good for all concerned. You win the argument, the 2nd amendment loses an attacker, and all your gun buddies will want the story repeated endlessly. I think I’m just being silly.

  46. Just a WAG, the frenzied vitriolic rage is being fueled by fear. A schoolhouse killing spree is unsettling in the extreme. If school children, six year olds, are not safe, then every last one of us is in jeopardy.

    The gun is a reminder of this jeopardy to many people. It is hard to overstate the aversion of modern Americans to the existence of uncontrolled risk, more so the existence of uncontrollable risk.

    Americans have been sold an illusion of safety that is absolutely miraculous in its widespread belief and devotion. Americansim is escapism in many respects..

    As I type this it’s dawning on me that the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is also a reminder of a basic jeopardy, that of tyranny–of government, and of fellow citizens. How many times have readers here made a case for guns on Constitutional grounds only to face the reply of “that won’t happen here.” That’s the response one gets for questioning the misplaced faith in a security by birthright.

    I’m afraid that only an intense and broad tragedy will break this spell. Something on the order of a foreign invasion or economic collapse–basically the all of the kinds of events where everyone would really want a gun.

  47. I’m going to refrain from making sexist comments about the two women anti-NRA protesters in the picture with their mouths wide open.

    • You mean the two women that look like
      “Linda Lovelace orally servicing an elephant”??
      Ya I wasn’t going to comment about them either! 😉

  48. Both anti-gun politicians and the media are at bottom statists for whom a government monopoly on force is the world as it should be. Since the motivation for their opposition isn’t really based upon what they publicly purport, there is no changing their opinion because it isn’t driven by facts, reality and truth.

    So, what’s left is to CRUSH them. Figuratively, and literally.

  49. Mr. Pike,

    Should you wish to do so, try the following on anti-2A cultists.:

    If it’s true that “the answer to guns isn’t more guns”, then you fully support the immediate & total disarming of ALL American & Israeli military, law enforcement, & private security forces.

    If it’s true that more guns = more death & destruction, explain why America hasn’t long ago become like northern Mexico, Somalia, or Syria despite the estimated 300 million guns Americans already have & 4 straight years of increasing gun sales.

    If it’s true that holding ALL Muslims & African-Americans responsible for the violence committed by a few of them is not only wrong but also bigoted, explain why the same standard shouldn’t apply to non-criminals who make, sell, & buy guns & ammunition.

    If it’s true that it’s not only wrong but also bigoted for government & law enforcement to single out ALL Muslims & African-Americans for scrutiny when only a few commit violence, explain why the same standard shouldn’t apply to non-criminals who make, sell, & buy guns & ammunition.

    If you decide to drop the above ‘inconvenient’ requests on the anti-2A cultists you encounter, be advised that allowing them to anger or otherwise distract you is unacceptable. If they try to evade or bait you, politely ask if they’re having trouble understanding those very simple requests & if they say no then politely ask for an answer again & wait for them to repeat their BS. When that happens, you & everyone else will know that you have them & that’s when you (again VERY politely) ask why they seem to be afraid to give an honest answer & watch what happens then. It’s labor intensive but it works, & the anti-2A cultists attempts to bob & weave their way out of the trap you set are entertaining as well as revealing & informative to onlookers.

    And don’t be surprised if they ask you something & demand an answer before giving one, that’s icing on the cake as it allows you to politely remind them that decent people don’t behave that way & then repeat your request for an answer to the original request. If they still refuse to give a straight answer after that & you want to move on, just politely express your disappointment at their inability to engage in an honest discussion & go on from there. Also expect to be badgered for answers to THEIR questions & when that happens, refer them to the original post & tell them that when they comply with your request you’ll do likewise & again move on.

    Good Luck!

  50. Who cares about debating with them? Gunowners aren’t gonna change their minds and they’re not gonna change ours. Crazies and lunatics have always been with us so don’t waste money and resources trying to ID and weed them out, it’s impossible. Just wear our guns and mind our own business until trouble starts then be ready to deal with it. That’s all we can do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *