Hint: It does not involve arguing on the Internet. That’s just for fun.
A few days ago, I wrote a post about the six types of anti-gunners and how to spot them. One commenter–whom I’m not picking on, because he has a solid point–remarked that attempting to educate or inform an anti-gunner is generally a waste of time. He’s correct, of course, because the majority of anti-gunners are operating from places of emotion, not from logic. Whether that emotion is “I want to feel like a good person,” “guns scare me,” or “all my friends are doing it,” trying to come at it with statistics and historical information just isn’t going to make a dent. If anything, it’ll entrench them more deeply into their beliefs. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule–two ways in which someone who hates or fears guns (and the people who use them, of course) can experience an epiphany. And you, dear reader, only have access to one of those ways.
The first way in which someone who wants to restrict gun rights has their mind changed is sad and awful. It’s the little kernel of truth at the center of the following cliche: “A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.” (The corollary, by the by, is “a liberal is a conservative who’s been arrested,” so there you go.) That’s because guns are, in some ways, a lot like lawyers: You may not want one, but if you wind up needing one? You really, really, really need one. The difference, of course, is that you probably won’t die if you have to wait three days for a lawyer.
One such convert is Sandy Froman, who was the second female president of the NRA…but her journey towards supporting the Second Amendment started with an attempted break-in. In fact, that’s a fairly common trope among women who support gun rights–that having someone either attack or attempt to attack them brought home the idea that self-defense against a bigger, stronger aggressor just isn’t practical without a weapon. However, we’re talking about changing hearts and minds here, and “I hope you get mugged so you’ll understand the need for guns” just isn’t a good look for anyone. So if you’re hoping to persuade someone to think a little more about gun rights, that’s not the way to go. What is?
The next time someone strikes up an argument with you about whether or not civilians should be able to keep and bear arms, including ones that have pointy bits hanging off the end and shoulder things that go up, don’t engage them with facts and figures. Instead, ask them if they’ve ever shot a gun. And then ask them if they’d like to. Invite them to come with you to the range, “just to see what it’s all about.” Tell them that even if they don’t ever want to own one, they might want to at least learn how to load and unload one safely, in case they or their kids come across an unattended firearm. Tell them that you’ll provide the guns, the ammo, the eye and ear protection, and cover the range fees as well as any fees for a safety briefing. And mean every word of it.
That’s because you can’t change someone’s mind. They have to do it for themselves. And because there’s nothing that can change someone’s mind like real-world, hands-on experience, your one and only job in this matter is to do what you promised them you’d do.
If they take you up on your offer to join you at the range, do your very best to make sure they have a positive experience. Take them when the range is emptier than normal; double up on the ear protection (foam plugs and muffs) to cut down on the noise, which is likely to be much more shocking to them than the recoil. Don’t start them on your bigass AR-15 chambered in .308 Lapua–start them with something small and easy to control, like a long-barreled .22 pistol or .17HMR rifle. Do your best to avoid dropping political commentary on them while they’re trying to learn. (I know, I know. The urge to say, “Look, that pistol hasn’t jumped up and made you murder someone yet, hurr hurr” is damn near overwhelming because I have personally experienced it and my tongue still bears the scar.)
And then, on your way out, tell them that you’ll take them back anytime they want…but next time, they’re buying the ammo. You might be surprised with a new range buddy soon.
Trace, a proud Special Farces who goes commando, is dedicated to pubic service. Although he’s a legend among YouTube commenters, he actually began life as a humble dingleberry farmer. Now, no subject is too moist or sensitive for his incisive odor and scintillating lymph nodes.
Paul says
Nothing new with this article, but it is spot on! Been offering this for awhile, most I get is it will shut them up for a few days. But I keep trying knowing that the first person will have a good time and the others might give it a try!
TC says
Aimed at nonsensical…….
II GUN says
I tend to not waste my time with ignorance. Anti anything people are typically ill versed in what they are protesting and voiced with emotional idiocy.
But…. Next time you’re confronted by a gun grabber, ask questions you already know the answer to it’s easy.
Change directive and ask; “HEY I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU” (this gets their attention and curiosity)
“WHO IS THE PERSON CLOSEST TO YOUR HEART, WHO DO YOU LOVE THE MOST?” (get a 1st name)
SO IF SOMEONE ATTACKED AND KILLED (use name) TODAY WITH A BASEBALL BAT” – “WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HAPPEN TO THE KILLER?” (varied response but whatever it is it’s not good for the killer)
Then Ask: “WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WITH THE BASEBALL BAT? (again varied response/confusion)
“OK…. SO INSTEAD – SAY THE WEAPON WAS HIS FISTS OR A LARGE ROCK. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WITH THE WEAPON USED?” (watch for confusion)
“SO, WHICH MATTERS MORE THEN, THE KILLER OR THE WEAPON? I HAVE A ANOTHER QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU….”
“DO YOU KNOW “WHY” 2/3rd’s OF THE PEOPLE THAT COMMIT SUICIDE EVERY YEAR USE A GUN?”
“BECAUSE IT ‘S QUICK AND AFFECTIVE!! DAH!!”
“SO WHAT DO YOU THINK PEOPLE USE IF THEY DON’T HAVE A GUN?” (varied response)
“OH, SO IF SOMEONE DOESN’T HAVE A GUN TO KILL OR COMMIT SUICIDE THEY’LL JUST PICK THE NEXT BEST CHOICE, DOES THIS SOUND CORRECT?”
“SO WOULD YOU AGREE THAT “BAD” PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE?”
“SO IT’S NOT THE WEAPON USED. I GET IT THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP FOR ME…”
THEN LEAVE…
Timothy Toroian says
James Sinon is right, the antis aren’t for gun control, they are for PEOPLE CONTROL! Just ask the Venezuelans who gave up their guns to Chavez when he lied to them. One question I have yet to see a gun controller answer is, “Give me a philosophical reason why a law-abiding citizenry be disarmed?”. I believe that if you produce a philosophical reason you cannot [roduce a practical reason either.
SNAKEDOCTOR says
The Second Amendment was place after the 1st or a particular reason. Without the 2Amendment there is no 1st. Please let that sink in for a while. guns to NOT kill people, People do! A gun is an object and will not harm anyone until it is picked up by a human. The Anti-Gunners are of the mindset that if I don’t like guns then you can’t have on. This is very restrictive and wrong. I feel it is a God Given Right to be able to protect yourself and family along with others if the situation arises.
Gnomeo says
Yes drunk drivers “can” get their license taken away and they “may” also go to jail. But I don’t ever recall anyone or any group coming unglued about the vehicle that he was driving at the time. Or the size of the vehicle the tires it had on, or the horsepower and whether it had four doors. Another thing that has always bewildered me is the number of people who are deathly afraid of guns yet don’t give it a second thought to drive down a two lane road at 60 mph while texting. And while the person coming at them also at 60 mph (in my town more likely 80) is either also texting or reaching over to update their navigation screen
But guns SCARE them?
James Sinon says
The antis are not REALLY anti-gun… just anti themselves having to do the dangerous and/or dirty work.. they call 911 quicker than s,,, when they hear a bump in the night. In other words they are perfectly happen to have a good thug with a gun come and take out a bad thug with a gun. They are not anti-GUN… just anti-YOUR GUN.
Terry Brewer says
Great Article! I think another great approach is to ask the anti gun person if they are willing to change their mind based on compelling facts, if not than they probably aren’t worth your time trying to convince.
Joseph Silva says
I’ve changed my methods to comparing to something being restricted from them that the majority of the public use. Lately I ask, how would you feel if, after a drunk driver killed an entire family of four they passed a law saying all car owners would need to purchase a breathalyzer and have it attached to their car. No automobile would be able to start without one, doesn’t matter that it may malfunction late at night on the bad side of town. I also use the example what if that same accident, the legislators passed a law that Chevy”s could no longer be sold or bought in your state because that’s what the drunk driver was operating at the time, or to stop cell phone use while driving, the government passed a law that they were going to take away your cellphone and give you $25 for it, as long as there was fund money available. If it ran out you would still have to give up your phone.
Sensible says
No but drunk drivers can have their license taken away. They also go to jail.
Randy says
After they are caught 4 or more times, sure then they lose their license and go to jail, if they can’t afford a top notch lawyer.
JonsOn says
And murderers go to jail as well. It doesn’t matter what the method of murder is. Most drivers arrested for drunk driving get their driving privilege back.
TC says
And felons can’t own or possess a gun………
Did you have a point, other than you are a moron?
N. R. Ringlee says
Wise words. Propaganda is emotion driven. The anti-liberty lobby is driven by propaganda. In order to engage the anti-liberty lobby you have to engage them first on the emotional level. Once done, their defenses are down, reason can now enter the process. Leading question for leftists: If Donald Trump really is as dangerous as you and the media say he is why do you want to be defenseless? Crickets………………………………..
william chandler says
We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment.
Find one government in all of history that banned it’s own ARMED FORCES from “Keeping and Bearing” ARMS.
Find one government in the history of humanity that felt a need to document a “RIGHT” for it’s ARMED FORCES to possess ARMS.
Oppressive Governments are ALWAYS banning the People’S RIGHTS to arms.
The claim that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to give Our ARMED FORCES a “right” to keep and carry ARMS is S-T-U-P-I-D.
The only reason for the Second Amendment is to clearly spell-out the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep & bear ARMS.
The only reason for the BILL(list) of RIGHTS was to codify INDIVIDUALS’ GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
Has there ever been a government that was not chock full of it’s “rights” up to and including declaring itself to be the Lord God Almighty?! (Rome, Egypt, Israel,etc)
Does the 1st Amendment mean the GOVERNMENT is allowed to give speeches? Try shutting up any Politician. But THEY would LOVE to shut YOU up, hence the FIRST Amendment.
Anyone who tells you the 2nd Amendment applies to the Army or State Militia, is telling you they think you are STUPID.
There has NEVER been a government that felt it had to codify it’s army’s/soldier’s “RIGHT” to “Keep and BEAR ARMS” because there has NEVER been a government that refused to allow It’s own soldiers to KEEP and BEAR ARMS!
The Second Amendment was written for the People, like the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. This was confirmed by the SCOTUS in the DC vs Heller decision, where they stated that the “People” in the Second Amendment were the same “People” that are mentioned in the First and Fourth Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment clearly codifies the “right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”, and certainly not “the Militia”.
Why would “the Militia”, a type of army manned by citizen-soldiers as opposed to full-time “regulars”, need a constitutional amendment to guarantee they have the right “to keep and bear arms”?
Is there any specific statement anywhere in the Constitution that the army Congress is empowered to raise has the “right to keep and bear arms”? Of course not. …………. That is assumed.
the 2nd amendment,, specifies that the RIGHT to bear arms is the right of the people,, NOT the militia,,,, it is the people who will make up the militia,, but the right is not the right of a “well regulated militia” it is the right of the people, We the people were BORN WITH INALIENABLE RIGHTS, meaning they come from GOD.
Your Rights do not come from the Constitution. Your Rights come from Our Creator, and the Constitution was written to SUPERVISE, REGULATE, and CONTROL government actors. As it relates to firearms, the Heller “decision” was completely unnecessary, and likely a smokescreen to make it APPEAR that the USG retained some rights to regulate some firearms. Check out the relevant part of US v. Cruikshank:
“[The Right to Keep and Bear Arms] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;… This is one of the amendments that has no other effect
than to restrict the powers of the national government,…”.
U.S. v. Cruikshank Et Al. 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
Res adjudicata – “the thing has already been decided.”
The 9th and 10th Amendments help make it ABUNDANTLY clear to even the DENSEST of intellects that we truly have NO “Constitutional rights.” What we have(at the risk of being redundant) is Constitutionally-SECURED rights, but these rights are ONLY as secure as:
a) the honor and integrity of those taking the oath, and
b) the ability of the People to COMPEL obedience on pain of perjury charges and removal from office.
https://resistancetononsense.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/our-preexisting-irrevolkable-right-of-self-defense/
The intention of the Founders and Framers was to keep our God-given rights secure by REQUIRING those who seek office to take the oath as an immutable predicate to taking office, meaning it is binding on THEM – not on US.
Of course, most of the power brokers wish to keep us ignorant of our Rights and our Power. If possible, i highly recommend Thomas Paine’s “The Rights of Man,” which should help to educate Americans and illustrate to them the difference between Natural Rights, and what the 14th (never properly ratified, btw) wishes to change that to: “privileges and immunities.”
It is implicit in the nature of all kinds of armies —- be they militia or regulars, volunteer, conscripted, or mercenary — to be armed.
They are all “armed forces”.
They all “bear arms”.
They all carry guns.
That is what they do.
It certainly no more requires an amendment to the Constitution to state that “the Militia” has the RKBA , than a specific statement that the army Congress is empowered to raise may be manned by armed troops.
Governments don’t have to document their “right” to bear arms, that is what governments ARE, they are naked force, George Washington said as much. Saying governments have a right to guns is like saying cars have a right to have wheels…
“The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals … it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government … it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.” Ayn Rand
Bud says
Hi William, Every word you say is true. The issue is not if Snow Flakes believe that “We the People” have a right to defend ourselves, what THEY believe? Government is good for us. They believe the government is there to take care of them and if they have a problem, people killing people with guns, they expect the government to stop the killing. None, ABSOLUTELY none of the solutions to these problems comes from the citizen, only the government can solve societies problems. Thus, take the rights away, especially those I do not need, and then the government can do their job. William, Stay true to the Constitution and thank you. You Are a Fine American!
Sensibility says
The first three words of the second Amendment state “A well regulated militia”
A militia is not the official army or military it is a group of people average citizens.
It was important to protect the people’s right to bear arms because during our country’s revolution the British were trying to control citizens by controlling their weapons.
BUT I do not think this gives citizens card Blanche when it comes to owning weapons either.
They should be allowed to have what they want but it should be as stated “well regulated”
If you are an upstanding citizen you should have nothing to worry about.
You should have a prove you can safely operate the weapons you own, they should be resistagred yearly. If one of your guns is involved in a shooting and you have not reported it stolen you should be charged with the crime. Also there should never be the excuse of accidentally discharging your weapon while cleaning cause it’s just plain “bullshit” in my opinion.
The time has come when we need to truly recognize that they are deadly weapons and with that comes a certain amount of responsibility and accountability.
I am for accountability not restrictions and that is exactly what the second amendment states.
Batterycap says
Your arguments in favor of a neutering of the 2nd have been kicked to the curb by serious scholarly analysis umpteen hundreds of times. Still, your mindset persists. Apparently, you have encountered the anti-2nd Borg and have been completely assimilated.
Step back and seek data. I wholly recommend the book “To Keep And Bear Arms” by Joyce Lee Malcolm. You can get it on Amazon.
Be prepared to have your mind altered. It’s a good thing. If you are “green” you are growing. If you are ripe, you rot.
Sensiblity says
I will get that book and read it then I will respond again. I still feel that in society as it exists today there still has to be some give and accountability. For far too long there have been lupoles and a lack of accountability. If you would have asked me 10 years ago if I would be a gun owner I would have answered “no, why would I need one.”
But here I am the owner of several and a member at a shooting range. If you ask me why now I say it is because of everything that is happening these past several years and because of that I decided to exercise my right because I never want to be a “victim” and the odds of that happening were getting to great for me. I decided to take a proactive approach. I take this new “responsibility” very seriously and hold myself to a high standard
Anthony Romano says
Excellent article and a great idea. Some anti gun people may not be as anti as they think!!
Baz Lewis says
I cop those comments all the time. Guns kill people!!!!!!!!
Next time I’ll try your tactic.
Baz Lewis says
Ahhh. ‘Merikan time! 2020hrs here in Oz!
Alan says
Hi Bazza:
How about a translation of your email for my Seppo mates?
AC, in AZ (zeee) Novocastrian by birth.
bob onit says
not so much ,they kinda need an operator