How to talk to Anti's

[Flightmare]

I was having a discussion with a buddy of mine. His wife and her friend across the street are adamantly against HB 1911. Their arguments are the same as the police unions and other anti-2a groups.

My buddy and I came to the conclusion that people who are emotional and tend to base their decisions on emotions, occasionally have issues understanding logic and rational thought. Logical and rational people are often perceived as heartless by these same people.

I tend to think of myself as a logical person. If I form an opinion on a subject, it's usually fact based. If I am presented with facts that conflict with my position, I will reconsider my position. My buddy's wife on the other hand, has admitted to me that she is stubborn and would be proud to stick to her guns even if she was wrong. I don't understand this position. Can anyone else offer any insight?

I cannot offer much except my own anecdotes.

About three years ago, the Argyle school district authorized teachers carrying firearms. I've talked to a number of parents from that district who were thrilled with that change. On social media, another guy suggested that our school district adapt that same program. A firestorm ensued. He and I "debated" a group of about 15 fellow community members for several weeks, on and off.
1. Not one of them ever accepted any fact that we offered.
2. We talked about criminals being uncontrolled by laws or signs. Not one of our antagonists ever admitted the criminal do what they wish, when they wish. They stubbornly hold the adolescent position that nothing bad is going to happen here because we are a "safe community."
3. They refuse to believe that a teacher with a police background is capable of managing a firearm in an education environment. When the truth came out, they don't even believe that current licensed LEO should be allowed to have firearms in a school.

The passage of the Open Carry law started another local social media firestorm. Our local chief held public meetings to discuss the law, None of the critics of it who expressed their distaste would attend those sessions. One even said "all they are going to do is present the facts and I don't care about any facts." Of course, those discussions quickly unmasked the situation that the issue had nothing to do with OC and every thing to do with ANY carry by any one. No one, including LE should be allowed to carry guns. Not one of the antagonists ever took the bait on the question "what should we do with criminals who have guns?" I presented a WWYD situation to a mother with small children involving an armed criminal in her home. She was very happy with calling the police (unarmed as they might be based on her preference) and waiting for them to deal with the situation.

The thing that I've learned is that I have trouble being conflicted in my beliefs. Antis have no such problem. Contradictions among their feelings are simply not acknowledged and the conversation is quickly guided in a different direction.

Thankyou for your story. I have trouble wrapping my head around the thought process of people who say "I don't care about any facts". I'm a logical guy, so when facts are presented and proven, I take that and add it to my position. Sometimes, facts change my position. I'm okay with that.

[Abraham]

Yet, they call Conservatives "deniers of climate change science" or they deny this or that and I in turn call liberals "reality deniers".

They go silent when the reality of armed criminals/terrorists is brought up. Such things don't exist in their world view. Reality denying fools.

Armed law abiding citizens, well, they should be disarmed. Wouldn't want them performing any action like self-defense...don't complain if we manage to get you disarmed, please, just quietly die.

Ah, yeah, sure...

[Liberty]

Thankyou for your story. I have trouble wrapping my head around the thought process of people who say "I don't care about any facts". I'm a logical guy, so when facts are presented and proven, I take that and add it to my position. Sometimes, facts change my position. I'm okay with that.

They say there are two types of people, Leftist who are motivated by their heart (emotions) and conservatives who are motivated by their brain (logic and reasoning) When a discussion devolves into statements like "I feel that .." there is no point into continuing unless the party can put aside their feelings and consider real facts and logic.

[Middle Age Russ]

They say there are two types of people, Leftist who are motivated by their heart (emotions) and conservatives who are motivated by their brain (logic and reasoning) When a discussion devolves into statements like "I feel that .." there is no point into continuing unless the party can put aside their feelings and consider real facts and logic.

I have always found it interesting, if not outright odd, that the folks motivated by emotion are the ones more likely to "know what is good for" me and everyone else than those who carefully consider facts and logic. How can they possibly know what is best for anyone when they distance themselves from facts and logic for the sake of emotion and a holier-than-thou attitude?

Perhaps too often, I simply fail to engage in discussions with Antis. Of course, the attitude they usually bring to the discussion ("righteous" indignation that there can possibly be another perspective to consider) is not one I care to support by engaging them in debate. The "feelers" typically won't even try to debate and favor shouting down the opposition, using volume and the appearance of anger to carry the day. Such as these are not really worth the time to interact with since neither side will change opinions and all will walk away from the encounter feeling dissatisfied.

[Abraham]

Leftist derangement syndrome as in: Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up.

No, none of the above is original, just factual observation...

[bblhd672]

I presented a WWYD situation to a mother with small children involving an armed criminal in her home. She was very happy with calling the police (unarmed as they might be based on her preference) and waiting for them to deal with the situation.

It would be very difficult to feel sorry for victims who have belief system such as this.

[Flightmare]

I presented a WWYD situation to a mother with small children involving an armed criminal in her home. She was very happy with calling the police (unarmed as they might be based on her preference) and waiting for them to deal with the situation.

It would be very difficult to feel sorry for victims who have belief system such as this.

One would hope that they would survive and the tragedy would potentially change their position.

[Jusme]

They say there are two types of people, Leftist who are motivated by their heart (emotions) and conservatives who are motivated by their brain (logic and reasoning) When a discussion devolves into statements like "I feel that .." there is no point into continuing unless the party can put aside their feelings and consider real facts and logic.

I have always found it interesting, if not outright odd, that the folks motivated by emotion are the ones more likely to "know what is good for" me and everyone else than those who carefully consider facts and logic. How can they possibly know what is best for anyone when they distance themselves from facts and logic for the sake of emotion and a holier-than-thou attitude?

Perhaps too often, I simply fail to engage in discussions with Antis. Of course, the attitude they usually bring to the discussion ("righteous" indignation that there can possibly be another perspective to consider) is not one I care to support by engaging them in debate. The "feelers" typically won't even try to debate and favor shouting down the opposition, using volume and the appearance of anger to carry the day. Such as these are not really worth the time to interact with since neither side will change opinions and all will walk away from the encounter feeling dissatisfied.

I also live by the mantra "Never argue with a fool. Neither side will change their mind, and onlookers will not be able to tell the difference"

[chasfm11]

Perhaps too often, I simply fail to engage in discussions with Antis. Of course, the attitude they usually bring to the discussion ("righteous" indignation that there can possibly be another perspective to consider) is not one I care to support by engaging them in debate. The "feelers" typically won't even try to debate and favor shouting down the opposition, using volume and the appearance of anger to carry the day. Such as these are not really worth the time to interact with since neither side will change opinions and all will walk away from the encounter feeling dissatisfied.

Here is the dilemma: In the case of the social media examples I gave, a local community group over 5,000 was being bullied by a couple of dozen Progressives. They would attack, en masse, any post that even smelled of a Conservative viewpoint. I really didn't expect to change any of THEIR opinions but we did have a sizable, non-participative audience, based on the "Likes". My personal opinion is that we lost the battle in higher education because we failed to engage, allowing the Progressives to take over an run (ruin?) everything. If it is just me versus one or even a couple of Progressives, I keep my powder dry. I agree with you- there is no point and nothing to be gained. All too often, however, the bullying robs others of the opportunity to hear a different perspective. Even now, I'll post a contrary viewpoint on Facebook when someone links an article that is blatantly false. Most of the Progressives who haven't unfriended me yet have figured out that I will challenge their MDA articles if they post then and that has pretty much stopped. I count that as a victory, if only a tiny one.

[Abraham]

Jusme,

Your post points out why I rarely take the time to discuss anything gun related with an anti.

I'm not going to engage an irrational person with logic. I've tried in the past and it's exhausting. Silly me.

They're going to do the equivalent of covering their ears and shouting babble, all the while exclaiming "I can't heeeeeeeeear you"!

Apparently, the 'survival gene' simply isn't there for them, but they want us to do without it too, because if we stand up for ourselves, (being armed) than they fear they may be found out to be wrong, and that isn't good for their fragile egos.

They'd rather die than defend themselves with a gun and want the rest of us to die too rather than resist evil with 'oh horror' a gun. Apparently, in their view, it's noble to be a victim.

[Jusme]

Jusme,

Your post points out why I rarely take the time to discuss anything gun related with an anti.

I'm not going to engage an irrational person with logic. I've tried in the past and it's exhausting. Silly me.

They're going to do the equivalent of covering their ears and shouting babble, all the while exclaiming "I can't heeeeeeeeear you"!

Apparently, the 'survival gene' simply isn't there for them, but they want us to do without it too, because if we stand up for ourselves, (being armed) than they fear they may be found out to be wrong, and that isn't good for their fragile egos.

They'd rather die than defend themselves with a gun and want the rest of us to die too rather than resist evil with 'oh horror' a gun. Apparently, in their view, it's noble to be a victim.

Yep, and it's amazing how many of them do come around after being victims of a violent crime (instead of just being victims of social injustice)

[Middle Age Russ]

Here is the dilemma: In the case of the social media examples I gave, a local community group over 5,000 was being bullied by a couple of dozen Progressives.

I am with you. Bullying and the propagation of untruths in the public sphere need to be dealt with straightaway -- in as kind a way as possible. Let those taking to the bully-pulpit be unmasked for what they are -- people attempting to sway opinions on the basis of emotion rather than facts and reason, and all-too willing to act in a fascist manner rather than be truly liberal (classical liberalism rather than the dangerous progressive liberalism we are faced with these days).

[Abraham]

dangerous progressive liberalism is another form of communism that says "we know best" so shut up and acquiesce...

[flintknapper]

I actually tend to lean towards the liberal side of the spectrum as do a lot of my shooting buddies. I find thay a lot of anti gun people can be more easily convinced and reasoned with when they share some common ground.
^^^^^^^
Hasn't been my experience at all. True Anti's will not be swayed, they believe they have all the answers already. Those who are 'agnostic' about firearms CAN be reasoned with, but not anti's. Important to determine which you are talking to, lest you waste your time and theirs.

Of course there are those regressive liberals who are just too dug in to save, but that goes for just about anything.

Agreed, same can be said for Conservatives. But it's really about refusing to be intellectually honest and shouldn't (but does) run down one line (Liberal/Conservative) more than the other. Far Left Liberals have a distinct tendency to make emotionally based decisions.

All I can say is it can be done and just keep at it.

^^^^^^^^^^ Yes, occasionally....but for the most part..its just not worth it. Too little return for the effort expended.


Every person counts and it's important to try to inform as much as you can.

^^^^^ Not really. I'd say SOME people count, others aren't worth the effort. But I agree it is important to "try" as much as you can stand it. But at my age....I just don't have the same tolerance for the willfully ignorant that I used to have. Sounds cynical...I know, but in reality...its just being honest and recognizing we have a very real culture war going on. Not wasting my time on that which is unlikely to be productive.
.

[HKMike]

If someone chooses not to own or carry a firearm, that's fine by me. I just object to that person attempting to make my choice for me.

Cheers!