I point out where they are wrong, not for their sake, but for someone reasonable who might be following the exchange. They almost to a person are oblivious to facts and logic when it comes to this subject.
How to talk to a gun control nut:
The second amendment says “shall not be infringed”.
It means “shall not be infringed”.
Debate over.
I win.
Try saying that they have the right to be un-armed but I do not have the right to be un-insured and watch their eyes bulge!
The best argument I have heard is to point out that they expect men with guns to disarm those of us who own firearms. So they are, in reality, “Pro Gun”. They just want to dictate who has guns.
Sorry, the rebuttal is always, “but San Bernardino!”, “but that nightclub in Florida!”, “but Sandy Hook!”...
There is ONLY one way to talk to people who wants our guns:
“Pointing the rifles and hand guns in their faces and have them repeat: “I am for every gun you have in America”...if any other thing comes out of their mouths, bang, ...another one bites the dust...”
Just do like their hero KhanMan did and wave The Constituion in their faces
The author must not read the ranting of the gun-control crazies or she would understand how her suggestions are not going to connect with that crowd. Here are her 3 suggestions:
1) Common Ground - Sorry, I have no common ground with those that have no understanding of freedom.
2) Examples - Guaranteed to be turned back on the person using the example as evidence of being an unbalanced gun-nut paranoid.
3) Words - Again, a guarantee of getting the words thrown back at you, even when trying to use their lexicon. If there is no agreement on the basic issue of freedom, there is no room for reasoned conversations. Cut them out of your life as soul-sucking wastes of time, skin, and oxygen.
Them: "Uh, who are your enemies?"
I just smile.
You cannot win over an ant-gunner using facts and logic. I invite them to go to the range, and if they refuse, ask them if they eat lobster?
Just a guess but shooting them isn’t one of the options?
Even if I calmly explain this to libtards, they’ll still YELL at me “racist, right winger, gun lovvveer, I HATE YOU AAAAAAAAA”
You can’t have a reasonable debate with people like that. Better to say GFY and ask them what they’re going to do about it
I have no interest in talking to gun control advocates. I want to head butt them until they finally understand that I’m NOT giving up my second amendment rights given to me by god, not some politician.
Until they get that...FMCDH!
“stay right here , I’ll be right back “ ....
Perhaps she should have given examples of how successful she was talking with gun-control enthusiasts. I’d like to know who she won over with this type of discussion. Gun-control enthusiasts are usually a bit unhinged and this puff piece doesn’t appear to provide useful information.
I find one of the most effective ways to counter the anti-gunner is to take him/her to the shooting range.
A petition is now actively seeking signatures for a measure to qualify for the November ballot in Kalifornicate to overturn the recent anti-gun laws the libturd politicians in Sacramento recently passed and Gov. moonbeam signed into law. If you live in that communist run state I urge you to sign the petition, it's the Patriotic American thing to do. Go to the NRA website for locations of where a petition can be found.
Gun control advocates are driven by feelings, not rational arguments. You will never “win an argument” by directly confronting someone’s emotionally held ideas. They have sharp detectors for “reason”, and will shut out anything you say, because they know that their world view is a house of cards.
But if after a few drinks they will engage in non-confrontational discussion, the only hope is to get them to discover the truth for themselves, Socrates style (and we know how that worked out for him). If they are not screaming LALALALA with their hands over their ears, I suggest working their conversation around to:
1) Their beliefs about civil rights. Are civil rights worth defending? Do they happen by themselves or do they have to be fought for? If there are no other options, does each person have a right to defend their own civil rights? How about their own life or the lives of loved ones and their children?
2) Are women ever victims of sexual assault? There sure seems to be a lot of evidence that a certain percentage of men are predators. Do women have a right not to be bothered, groped, drugged, put upon, raped, murdered?
3) If they answer “no” to these questions, there is no point in further discussion.
4) If they say yes, work the discussion around to scenarios where a person is confronted by armed criminals, or someone much bigger than themselves, with an obvious intent to cause them grievous harm. No policemen is standing by. Since they have admitted the victim has a right to self defense, ask how the victim can defend himself/herself. Etc.
Most emoters will smell the rat of rational thought, put up the shields, accuse you of patronizing them, etc. They do believe in self-defense against reason. Good luck.