Question of the Day: Is Polite Conversation About Guns Still Possible?

Many claim and some purport to prove that America is more ideologically polarized than ever before. That may or may not be, but at least anecdotally, the “national conversations” on various issues of he day seem to be more, well, animated. Vitriolic? Nasty? Use your adjective of choice. In any case, from lots of time spent in and around the issue of guns, it certainly seems that the discussion surrounding Americans’ gun rights is more intense that it was only a few short years ago. Still and all, there are those who are convinced a rational, reasonable conversation on the topic without the spittle and burst blood vessels is still possible. Agree?

comments

  1. avatar William says:

    Only with people that agree with you.

    1. avatar Gunsplain says:

      I am tired of talking with people who agree with me. The polite term for that is “echo chamber.” There are less polite terms.

      I envision a well-educated electorate, and the only way they’ll get educated about guns is if we get out there and educate them.

      1. avatar Scott says:

        There are people out there willing to be educated. However, people for gun control typically choose ignorance intentionally.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts, or logic.”

          Seems to apply.

      2. avatar William says:

        I never said it was a good thing, just a thing. In general I’ve found that no one ever has their mind changed.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Changing of the mind is something that strikes at the very center of self. Logic must prevail, and in a culture of “feelings”, logic has little leverage. To change your mind, it is necessary to have the self-discipline to understand that the introduction of new information is neither good, nor bad. The reception of the information is the critical element. To change a mind, it is necessary to have the ability to recognize and understand the power of the concept of self. When people put their entire belief about self at risk, it is a scary proposition. To change a mind is to acknowledge error, which is both a logical and emotional effort. Self-discipline allows one to change, yet not consider oneself weak, bad, failing, or a whole host of invalid perceptions. To change is to reject not only former conclusions, principles, beliefs, but to reject those around us who hold the old notions sacred. Rejecting others may cause us to become isolated from all that is familiar, which is where emotion has its tightest grip. Emotion exalts the self, logic subordinates the self to reality. Reality is not generally a pleasant place, anathema to preferred wonderland of the theater of the mind.

          If you succeed in changing someone’s mind, treasure that moment…and that person.

  2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    ‘Many claim and some purport to prove that America is more ideologically polarized than ever before.’

    Those people need to google ‘1860’.

  3. avatar Noishkel says:

    No. Not at all. At least no as long as these so called ‘progressives’ are allowed to guide the narrative in society in this ‘conversation’.

  4. avatar mike oregon says:

    Yes it’s possible but rare. I think that the biggest problem stopping good conversation is, as a group pro-freedom people think and attempt to use logic, facts and statistics, anti-freedom types know how they feel. Communication from such divergent places is nearly impossible.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      You nailed it! It is almost like we are using different languages. Actually, we have completely different ways of looking at the world around us.

      We talk with logic, and about reality and self-reliance. They talk with their feelings, and about an utopian world that doesn’t exist and that is impossible to create; a world where dependence on others is an important part of that utopia.

      Before we can begin communicating with people like that, we need to shock them out of their fantasy-style thinking.

      When I am confronted with an anti-gun person who wants to ‘discuss’ gun control, I try to find out whether I am dealing with a rational person or a pie-in-the-sky idealist first. If the person is rational, then we can talk. Trying to have a rational discussion with an idealist is a waste of time.

  5. avatar CM says:

    One side is capable of having a real conversation. The other side just ends up stomping it’s feet, throwing a hissy fit, takes away my rights and goes home.

    1. avatar Noah says:

      For what it’s worth, both sides throw their hissy fits. TTAG is a statistical outlier in terms of the intelligence of discussion; check out Colion Noir’s comment sections on FB if you’re not convinced. The only real difference between us and the antis, is that we have two types of commentators: “rational argument” and “hysteria,” whereas “hysteria” is their only option.

      1. avatar MAC][ says:

        Yup, frothing mouths on both sides for sure. Unfortunately this drowns out the information and logic which favors our side. For this reason, our side should take care when engaged in gun-rights conversation to stick to the point and supporting facts while avoiding personal attacks as a detractor.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Ya, anyone claiming “frothing mouths” ought to Bing Search [F-google] Patrick Henry’s speech to the Virginia Convention, 1775.
          You’re taking the tour bus off the cliff, and you want me to maintain low tones, and not call you a conehead, in an effort to stop you.

          We have very little (safely read “nothing”) between us, worthy of our common enterprise called America, none of you are a founding father, but chuck the Constitution (AS PRESCRIBED) and we can get on with the nast bits of me preventing you a moments peace in an attempt to write another.

        2. avatar Other Tony says:

          +1 on keeping it classy, folks. Frothing at the mouth won’t help us win anyone over to the 2A side.

        3. avatar george from fort worth says:

          killjoy !!

  6. avatar Gunsplain says:

    What kind of comment were you gonna leave? Would you rather leave it on the YouTube video?

  7. avatar Gordon says:

    I actually have managed to engage a few anti-civil rights types in polite conversation regarding guns.

    And by few, I mean I can count them on one hand.

    When debating antis, I live by the “killing them with kindness” routine. I remain 100% respectful and civil, and that drives them absolutely crazy.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      In general, few people know how to have a real conversation, on any topic, controversial or not.

      With antis, more often than not, the kill ’em with kindness tactic takes the form of the anti getting louder, more physically animated, and constantly interrupting your points, while careening off on his own fifteen minute long stream of consciousness harangue.

      If you don’t take an assertive tone and verbally pop him in the nose here and there, you’ll just end up being his whipping boy and the butt of his jokes.

  8. avatar Fukem says:

    No, go flock yourself!

    1. avatar Gunsplain says:

      I do not understand anything that you said. Would you kindly make another attempt, possibly without slang?

      1. avatar Fukem says:

        Uhhhh no, double go flock yourself!

        1. avatar Gunsplain says:

          Well, I tried.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Are you talking commercial grade ‘flocking’ or the over the counter canned consumer grade?
          I always thought canned flocking might work well in a pinch as winter camo.
          ?

        3. avatar Other Tony says:

          I was going to post something about how it sounds like somebody here already knows how to go flock themselves. Then I thought “remember, keep it classy”. Finally I thought, eh flock it.

    2. avatar Richard In WA says:

      And I here I thought we were supposed to Glock ourselves.

  9. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    there are those who are convinced a rational, reasonable conversation on the topic without the spittle and burs blood vessels is still possible. Agree? No.
    The liberal conversation of guns consists of a panel of liberal journalists debating on how to best throttle freedom and impose tyranny. Then the conversation will be transferred to a legislative branch where the debate will take place between progressives and RINOs about how best to work for and grow government power. Legislation will pass screwing over citizens but still allowing criminals to roam at large. Of course, the liberals will hail the legislation as liberty against the evil NRA.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      The NRA will appeal the progressive gun legislation where it will go before the courts. The enlightened Judges shall rule that the badly needed legislation is in the best interest of the community and will protect the government’s right to act in defense of the best interests of society.

  10. avatar Dev says:

    Face to face yes, for the most part I think it is possible. However, most of these “conversations” happen on social media or on “news” programs which are all about garnering ratings. On the internet the anonymity makes people much less respectful; one need only read the comments section on every7 site (including TTAG) to see that in action. On these news channels they want controversy and conflict because it sells advertising time. We see more of this illogical discourse than what I suspect is truly out there because of the immediacy in which we get information now as opposed to 20 years ago.

  11. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    It’s tough. Even when presented by factual evidence many choose to still ignore it. I watch a friend have a Facebook debate with his two anti friends. He had everything right there for then and they dismissed their beloved governments reports that show that the gun control they want is entirely ineffective.

  12. avatar Sam I Am says:

    A “civil war” begun in the mid-1700s persists today. There are those who believe (believe, not think) people must be ruled. There are those who believe the direct opposite. To put faces to it, Jefferson and Hamilton. Another hallmark? In the beginning, only landed gentry or very successful merchants were allowed to vote (because the ‘rabble’ were only interested in taking from others, but had nothing to lose if their mob destroyed the society). There are those who believe central government must have virtually absolute power over all elements of private life, and that power should be acquired and maintained only by a special elite who are better persons than any other group (indeed, after the Revolution, there were serious calls for , and champions of a new hereditary aristocracy). There are those who believe government should only be allowed to interfere with people to the extent necessary to conduct business delegated to the central government by a written constitution, with all the risks associated with a democratic form of government.

    The divisions of belief systems is bound to lead to violent episodes, the most notable of which is probably the well-known “War between the States). Keep in mind that prior to that catastrophe, public documents proclaimed, “We the United States Are…”. After the decision by force of arms, the narrative became “The United States is….”. Not a subtle change, not an alternative way to say the same thing. After the mess 1861 – 1865, federalism (as conceived by the nation’s founders) ceased, and states became provinces of the central government. The gunfire abated, but we were seeing a truce, not a surrender (Appomattox Courthouse notwithstanding). If you have not spent considerable time in the Southern States, the idea of truce vs. surrender might not seem quite real, but truth is virtually all the Pell Grant colleges (schools where mandatory ROTC is the norm) are in the South, and they take military training very seriously.

    Today, we see the Civil War unfolding in the implacable camps of “Liberals” vs. “Conservatives”. And the division is still centered on the moral role of central governments. After a sort of dormancy for 150+ years, the blood is beginning to boil on both sides. It is alleged that Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (a Civil War veteran) once proclaimed that as a result of his war experience, “When two peoples hold unalterable and opposing views on the direction of the nation, the only resolution is armed conflict.” Waco, Ruby Ridge, Waco may be chilling harbingers of what lies ahead, because the two camps of government have once again reached the point where any opposition is intolerable, and resident in evil people who must be subdued (or, preferably, eliminated….don’t kid yourself).

    This is not the nation of our grandfathers.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      No ‘government’ can guarantee its own perpetuity. You need people to want its existence, and those people need the means to defend it [even when, or especially when, it cannot defend itself, or its citizenry – Bing Search 60 years war, and Border War with Mexico]. You have to pretend that history means nothing, to want to disarm the US citizenry. PRETENDING WON’T ever make it so.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        The desire to live in a risk-free, safe, predictable, pleasant world is most powerful. The dream is worthwhile, and whatever it takes to try to get there is, by definition, good – even if it doesn’t actually change anything. Good people, with good intentions are the most desirable population, and who wouldn’t want to be a good person? Making illegal anything that is un-good prospers the dream.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Said the Cheshire Cat before it disappeared…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Indeed.

  13. avatar Excedrine says:

    Yes, it is still possible, it’s just extremely rare.

  14. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Polite conversation is always possible among polite people.

    Conversations involving diametrically opposed and emotionally charged issues are more difficult. It involves a specialized skill. But it’s possible.

    Remember, the one who controls the questions controls the conversation. When we ask logical questions, invalid arguments lead to logical conclusions.

  15. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Only if you are talking to someone who is not an anti. There are lots of folks out there who haven’t joined us and who haven’t drunk the Kool-aid of the virulently anti gun left

  16. avatar James in Florida says:

    Wow…..read the comments and feel like i lost iq points.
    Attention spans are getting shorter these days.
    Well……to stay focused here.
    Last night i have the pleasure of getting through to a group of four Jehovah witnesses.really lovely people, at first very closed to hearing anything pro 2 A.
    As i gave a short history lesson which spanned from 1776 to the present , including common violent crimes….they started to get it.
    I gave examples of idiocracy of anti gun debates vrs good guys with guns coming to save the day comparisons.
    They walked away getting the value of taking personal responsibility for their own safety, they understood that pro gun culture is part of a larger national civic duty .
    I was able to expose them to a new sense of patriotic pride that they hadn’t thought of before. They also understood that their generation better snap out of their apathy of world events.
    It was a good conversation between Americans from quite different backgrounds and life experiences.
    Looking forward to more of these chats.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Bovine scatology…..

  17. avatar AnOregonian says:

    No because the anti-rights crowd is not dealing in good faith.

  18. avatar Michelle says:

    It depends on if they’re operating off of an ingrained opinion they’ve built themselves, or simply going along with something they’ve been told and just haven’t had the motivation to investigate it.

    There are a lot of antis that just parrot back talking points – we know that.

    These are the ones who think “assault weapon” means “machine gun”, people who have heard that you’re supposedly more likely to live if you “let a home invader have what they want – after all nobody wants any trouble” … people who have heard what’s been fed to them but haven’t had the concern or reason to question it.

    These people probably can be engaged with. They’re not motivated anti gunners, they just don’t think about guns much and have picked up a few convenient ready made positions.

    However, the ones with an angle? The Ladd Everitts of the world, the ones who proclaim to be trying to “do something”? — No, they’ve heard all the arguments ad infinitum and continue to work on ways to subvert them. These are the people spinning around on their heels checking for the favor of the “only ones” and the politicians and “rulers” with armed bodyguards who know full well what the score is — they just don’t want YOU to have firearms.

    So a conversation in the media? Among figureheads, politicians, operatives and movement leaders?… No.

    With your brother, your mom, the guys you go bowling with or someone at work?… Maybe. Sometimes definitely yes. And if might be a good idea right about now to try.

    1. avatar Other Tony says:

      +1

  19. avatar Paige says:

    As of recently the anti gun folks have been saying “the NRA is a terrorist organization” “gun humpers” lots of guns are a penis extension memes, “gun humpers have blood on their hands” and that is just a few of the more personal comments. No those folks saying that dort of thing, they can not be talked to. They really are not sane people, their personal hate runs deep.
    But while the activists can not talked to. There are very few of them. Most people are rational even if misinformed. Talking with them helps a lot. They hear that we are nuts and often live where they do not even know a gun owner. Finding out that we tend to be very normal does a lot of good. At which point they might even listen to the facts and the facts are on our side

  20. avatar Joe R. says:

    Only if we can jump right to non-lethal ass-kicking, followed by lethal ass-kicking on the un-convinced, followed by subjugation of the wet-turd bystanders that “can’t make up their mind”. Notice, I kept all that neutral. Put up or STFU, it’s coming down to more than talking. Don’t let your side get ‘beat’ without an honest to God fight. And F all of you if you want to “argue” anything else after.

    1. avatar James in Florida says:

      Okey dokey…then.
      That doesn’t sound extreme at all now.
      Again…..wow.
      The things i read on these sites.
      Ooh boy!
      It must be me? What ever happened to talking? Instead of hitting each other with verbal hammers?????

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Just talking got Ezra Pound (not a fan) thrown in a cage in a public square for a year. His god was kind, and he got off light. Polish people talked for a while before experiencing what they had feared and talked about. Jews got herded onto railroad cars after some quiet conversation; S. Africans lost their homeland to morthern invaders; Europe is succumbing to ISIS; the US too, as well as a million sh_tbags across our borders every few months.
        But yeah, you start a conversation.

  21. avatar Anonymous says:

    I’m no longer interested in a polite conversation. They aren’t either – and I’m fine with that.

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    A polite conversation about guns with who? Not with an anti-gun wingnut, no. With a person who really wants to understand why I am armed, certainly. With a person who thinks that the 9mm is the equal of the .40 caliber? Impossible!

    1. avatar Gunsplain says:

      .357 Magnum master race.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Yeah? Master Race not worried that it’s too “snappy” hunh?
        Or not worth suppression?
        ?

  23. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    I gotta say I’m sort of sick to death of having polite conversations with people who mostly put their fingers in their ears and say I can’t hear you, stop talking. Essentially, they are trying to deny me a right, a right to protect myself an others. Something the framers of our country thought was pretty important.
    There comes a time, in my humble opinion, that polite conversation ends and opposing side is met with the stiffest resistance possible, just short of getting ones self arrested or coming off like a galactic d—– bag.

    This country wasn’t created with polite conversations.
    Let’s not forget what we have today is owed to fighting for what we believe in and sacrifice and there is a great many of us who WILL NOT go quietly into the night. It was said best with: I Will Give Up My Gun When They Peel My Cold Dead Fingers From Around It

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      Seems to me, if we had just shut-up and remained subjects of the King, we would have avoided a whole lot of unnecessary bloodshed in arriving at where we are today.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        You are not where we are today.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          We are right where England, Australia and Canada were just before they surrendered their lives to the crown in all things.

  24. avatar gsnyder says:

    It is not possible if you are actually speaking with the opposition.

    Even on the supposed pro-side I’ve found myself defending my position when all I am doing is wanting to show responsibility. I asked a question at a local Range about a safety concern I noticed and if it was something they watched for, innocent mistake so to speak. They did not understand me, became defensive, and told me they had an expectation people know how to safely operate their firearm and be responsible. Um, yes, but it missed my point. The one thing I detest is when my integrity is met with a stop sign and I find myself on defense. Makes it hard to ask questions. Time to look for another place to shoot. In this I believe what the article asks is a no, it is more likely you’ll be met with opposition than not.

    We can’t talk politics, religion or about firearms at a party.

    1. avatar lasttoknow says:

      Does it make any sense to shoot at any range where there are no RSOs ? We have at least one such, and it is dominated by homies who like to demonstrate their skill whipping guns around and shooting sideways. Unfortunately, the range is part of one of our better-stocked gun stores (with pretty good prices). Lack of range control keeps me out of the gun store, also.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Does it make any sense to shoot at any range where there are no RSOs ?”

        It does when the range is private property and the only people there are expressly invited by the landowner.

        Beats the hell outta range Nazis with their horns and attitudes.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Does it make any sense that they don’t fear for their lives?

          What other Consititional tight can you F with as bad and not have to burn your personal resouces defending in court.

        2. avatar lasttoknow says:

          My unfamiliarity with private gun ranges being called gun ranges. ‘Round here, the private facilities are called shootin’ galleries.

          Public ranges without supervision are not attractive. One nearby had an episode where two girls (yes, teenagers) decided it would be like, you know, totally like wow to go to an unsupervised public facility at mid-day (to be sure of an large audience), and attempt dual suicide; one lived (which is how we know the girls thought it would be “….totally like wow…”. Approximately 30 people witnesses something they can never un-see, and something that will remain a nightmare in their lives forever.

          Oh yes, I have experience at 7 different Public ranges without supervision are not attractive. One nearby had an episode where two girls (yes, teenagers) decided it would be like, you know, totally like wow to go to an unsupervised public facility at mid-day (to be sure of an large audience), and attempt dual suicide; one lived (which is how we know the girls thought it would be “….totally like wow…”. Approximately 30 people witnesses something they can never un-see, and something that will remain a nightmare in their lives forever.

          Oh yes, I have experience at 7 different gun ranges, all supervised, without encountering any “range Nazis” or bad attitudes. But those were only seven of twenty-eight in a 30mi radius. The rest could be as you describe.

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        @lasttoknow, I used to do a lot of shooting at the West Barnstable town range on Cape Cod. There were no RSOs, so we all took care of each other. AFAIK, there were no problems, and a more polite and safety-conscious group of shooters would be hard to find.

        Unfortunately, the range was closed due to noise complaints from homeowners who were shocked — SHOCKED! — that there was shooting at a shooting range, but I understand that the range will be reopened in a year or two.

        1. avatar lasttoknow says:

          Good onya mate ! Glad yours is/was a safe and pleasant experience. In a city of 4 million, I am less trusting of strangers with guns. Wouldn’t disrespect their 2A right, but I am not required to make self uncomfortable about who is locked and loaded next to me. There are too many other options for cap-busting around here.

  25. avatar Felix says:

    There are many subjects which are not amenable to civilized discussion: murder, slavery, genocide, theft.

    The right to self-defense is perhaps the most natural right there is. The Second Amendment is about that right to self-defense, and firearms come into the picture only because no more equitable tool of self-defense exists.

    The right to hunt for sport, or even for food when other food is cheaper, might be open for discussion, except it presumes one always has cash to buy food from others.

    The right to shoot for fun is indistinguishable from the necessity of practicing with the tool of choice.

    As far as I’m concerned, discussion of limiting self-defense is equivalent to discussing slavery, murder, genocide, or theft. No, there can be no rational discussion in favor of any of those civil right violations. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a slaver.

  26. avatar ThePontificator says:

    The “left vs. right” paradigm doesn’t exist. It’s liberty vs. tyranny.

  27. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Is civil discourse possible? Yes. I engage in it, often.

    Very few opinions change, though.

    1. avatar george from fort worth says:

      i find civil discourse pretty much restricted to talking to myself.

  28. avatar DerryM says:

    No, I do not think so.
    When you are talking to the other side, you first have to recognize that you are dealing with a point of view that is convinced he/she “knows better” than you and has granted himself/herself the authority to tell you what you can and cannot do. Hence, no fact or logic can penetrate their ego’s self appointed superiority. They have pigeon-holed you as an ignorant savage who is to be indulged, but cannot be taken seriously. They will have a “conversation” with you strictly on their terms because they cannot permit their mind to be changed. To do so would be to embrace the unthinkable reality that their point of view is wrong and an “inferior” is right.

  29. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Possible but sadly rare. Making sense doesn’t help-the anti’s are ruled by emotion. Interesting to see the trolls posting(with never before see monikers) that most of the regulars are brain-dead troglodytes. I’m usually not interested in having a “discussion”…

  30. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Of course you can have polite conversations about guns. It happens in here daily, admittedly along with some less polite exchanges, but that’s among people who at least believe in the basic premise of the right to keep and bear arms. Many and varied interesting conversations spring from that common premise. Among others, though? Unlikely.

    There are two broad groups of people out there: those with an interest in firearms and related matters (either pro or anti) and those who don’t.

    You can’t really have a conversation, polite or otherwise, with people who have absolutely zero interest in the topic. They’ll change the subject, walk away, or tune you out for being a bore. Had they any interest, they’d read up and become a person of the gun themselves.

    With antis, well, they’re possessed of a worldview that disbelieves in the Individual. They contend, at least implicitly, that only certain people have rights and that those people hold illimitable dominion over others. That’s a philosophically untenable position comorbid with unbearable cognitive dissonance. The lamentable if predictable outcome is emotional outburst.

    Such people first need the curiosity and maturity to explore the topic on their own, without defensiveness and with an open mind, before they can discuss it with others. Otherwise, they’re just going to regurgitate whatever bits of prejudice, ignorance and misinformation have been crammed down their throats and fermented.

  31. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    With the antis no. They run on pure emotion, no logic.

  32. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    It depends. With anyone who values reason, and I run into them often, then yes, it’s entirely possible.

    With the committed statist or emotion driven Progressive, it is rare. They are either not interested or threatened by the losses the keep having.

  33. avatar doesky2 says:

    The training ground for how the Left wants to “debate” is exhibited by the average university campus.

    The general rules are as follows.
    1) If your viewpoint is Right of center you will not be invited to speak.
    2) If somehow you are mistakenly invited you will be summarily UN-invited when the resident faminazis, Gaystapo, or Islamofascists find out about it on canmpus.
    3) If by some miracle the University hierarchy doesn’t cave to the radical student body then you better arrange for some hired personal security.
    4) If you make it on stage you will be shouted down incessantly.

    I see no need to post the countless video and articles to back up all the statements above.

    In contrast, non-religious socialist Bernie Sanders is politely welcomed and listened to by thousands at Jerry Falwells Liberty University without a peep of dis-respect shown.

  34. avatar jp says:

    Gonna have to go with no. I tried having a civilized conversation with our vehemently anti gun represenative. She was irrational and disrespectful the entire time.
    Now mind you we are in my front yard and a beautiful summer day. By the time our conversation was over, all the signs people had put in their yards supporting her were gone.
    I was as polite as possible…. even after she called me an idiot and a retard.
    I end our conversation with 4 questions.
    Would you die to protect our family? She said yes, only if she had no other choice.
    Would you kill to protect your family? She said no. She would call the police before she would do that.
    And my final question was…. do you own a fire extinguisher? She said of course, who wouldnt? So I asked why? The fire department is only a phone call away. Never did get a response to that.

  35. avatar nightstryke says:

    Dan Zimmerman, you write or submit a lot of articles some from viewers and some entirely of your own opinion. Quite honestly, you should be one of the first people to join and talk to Jake about this.

  36. avatar Dean Carpenter says:

    Striking up a random conversation about guns is like a random discussion about global warming. Few people want an intelligent discussion but many people want to express their opinion.

    When I find myself conversing with someone for the first time I play a little game for self amusement.. The person will inevitably start out talking about themselves and their worldview and I start asking them questions to explain in more depth. They willing go on and on and on. I am usually amazed how people can tell a stranger private details about themselves and not have the slightest interest in to whom they are speaking.

  37. avatar Gunr says:

    Every now and then I like to sit down next to our Black Lab and have a little talk, goes something like this.
    Wanna tummy rub! The dog will usually role over and expose his under carriage.
    When I’m tire of rubbing, I ask him, Do you think a 9mm case can be reworked to fire in a 9X18 Makarov?
    That’s when he wants to go outside and pee on the wrench I left out the night before.
    Dogs are funny that way.

  38. avatar James in Florida says:

    Fine words Gunr….slow clap in 5…4…3…2…1. Clap….clap…..repeat for six minutes

  39. avatar Dustin says:

    There never was a conversation. It’s nothing but liberals telling lies and spreading hateful slander. Anyone who disagrees with their agenda/demands becomes the target. There never was an interest in any conversation on their part. Bu “conversation” they mean “be our slaves or die! HOW DARE YOU PRESENT FACTS THAT DEFY MY WILL!!!”

  40. avatar Mike in OK says:

    I guess you might be able to talk all day without getting rude, but the antis won’t hear anything we say, and I’m not prepared to make any more compromises, so there’s not much point in it. I had one that told me that “nobody wants to take your guns.” When I linked a sitting US Senator, and POTUS candidate saying that very thing, it was dismissed as “a conspiracy theory.” In discussion about violent crime rates I linked the official UK, Aussie, and FBI crime reports and was told that those numbers were wrong (which they very well may be, but are the most accurate we have). The only reason I bother anymore is just to make sure their BS doesn’t go unchallenged.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      When I reply to some bogus comment on the internet, I rarely am trying to change the mind of the person I am replying to, although I address my reply to him anyway. Rather, I am trying to speak to the lurkers who read, but rarely comment on those blogs. These lurkers can be swayed, and I will not let them be swayed by the lies of the original commenter.

      Never forget that your comments are read by many more people than the few you see posting on that blog. Since they are more passive, they are also less passionate about the subject, and therefore more easily convinced. If you are replying/commenting on a Facebook thread, look at the number of likes your reply gets, not just the number of vitriolic responses. The likes are from the lurkers that your logical discourse has swayed, or has confirmed or strengthened what they were already thinking. These lurkers also see rage-filled or crazy comments versus your polite and rational arguments, and sometimes they will decide that the rational argument wins, if only on “style points”.

      1. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

        That point is very important and it makes your tone and language even more important. It really doesn’t matter if you have the truth on your side and how many facts back it. If you’re using language like “libtard” or coming off as a condescending SOB, you have lost the debate.

        The other thing is that not only must you engage the intellect with fact, you must also engage the heart with emotion. When you do that, you are engaging the whole person and this is a winning combination.

        That’s why taking someone out to the range is so effective. It engages bit mind and emotion.

        1. avatar george from fort worth says:

          i like the screaming and yelling, better.

  41. avatar William Burke says:

    Who gives a sh*t?

  42. Only when preaching to the choir. I have the right to protect myself and if you don’t like it tough $hit.
    The 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution so the people could protect themselves from a corrupt government. No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com

  43. avatar Kap says:

    being in the used too was generation there is not a snowball’s chance in Hell that I would listen to Anti American, Treasonous and Seditious speech for more than .5 seconds especially when the oppositions speech is backed by a super rich Ass who wants to destroy personnel freedom for his Gain or self esteem! you can bet you sweet Ass the he will have all the rights that his Organization trying to take away from us, sorta like another super rich Ass Buying up all the rifle companies so they can be bankrupted and sold for a profit {tax write off} what better way for Gun Control, Look at the Remington group destroying Marlin, DPMS and others for Money and amonopoly

  44. avatar PeterK says:

    It’s possible. It requires a lot from both participants, though. At the very least you must want and actively seek to be civil.

    I love the “things are worse than ever” line. It’s true to some degree, but then, people rarely get shot at political rallies these days. And politicians mince around and call each other “my friend” instead of the gutless weasels so many of them are. Which they used to.

    So I dunno. I think things are changing and it has to do with the ease and volume of communication possible. Need more civility and less dividing of the world into us vs them.

    Though obviously there is an us and a them. You just need to be careful where you draw the line and why and not throw people across it just because you have different views.

  45. avatar Anonymous says:

    Good luck to you Gunsplain.

    I do think a face to face conversation will be more civil. Certainly avoids the GIFT theory:
    http://image.slidesharecdn.com/onlineplayerpsychology-140922032534-phpapp01/95/mmo-player-psychology-34-638.jpg?cb=1411356474

    That said, I don’t think you’ll be changing any minds for people who just aren’t interested in freedom and/or hate guns.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email