Finding antis

[Full Clip]

Heh -- it's California.
Throw a rock and you'll hit one.
And when you do throw that rock, throw it hard.

[MrLogan]

You won't look long on most college campuses.

[Max-the-Silent]

had an experience with a co-worker...he's an anti...i asked him...if his mom's home was broken into, and the crook had a gun or weapon of some sort, wouldn't he wish he had a gun to fend off the bad guy? he said "NO"

so i asked what would he do to help his mom? or run away...he said "he'd run away"

and i said "you're eeeeeeeffffffeeeedddd up! and a coward"

"that's ur mama"

BTW what kinda coffee shops ya'll go to? starbucks? it's a grind? or vietnamese coffee shops?

And so ends civilization as we know it.

[radioburning]

I work on photo shoots all day. Half the crew is Europeans, usually. 9 times out of ten the euros think Americans are inherently violent, and the streets of America are awash in blood due to AW's. I usually try to be as un-condescending, un-emotional, and patiently friendly while completely destroying their pre-conceptions. Most of the people I hang out with are libs(I know, shocking), and for the most part it can take a long time to change their perception of guns and gunners. Getting dogmatic on them never helps.

[Max-the-Silent]

I work on photo shoots all day. Half the crew is Europeans, usually. 9 times out of ten the euros think Americans are inherently violent, and the streets of America are awash in blood due to AW's. I usually try to be as un-condescending, un-emotional, and patiently friendly while completely destroying their pre-conceptions. Most of the people I hang out with are libs(I know, shocking), and for the most part it can take a long time to change their perception of guns and gunners. Getting dogmatic on them never helps.

Pretty common view amongst Europeans, but we have to go back to the 1800's to find genocide in America, you only have to go back to the 1990's in the former Yugoslavia, or the 40's with Hitler, so who's more inherently violent?

[radioburning]

They don't really see any correlation between Yugo and say, Paris. They think we're either a) the "angry drunk" version of John Wayne, or b) 50 cent. I'm not saying it's right, that's just their perception. That's when I step in(mellow guy in semi-fashionable attire) and say "yeah, I'm a total gun guy." It really puts a wrench in their system to see a gunner who isn't Gecko45. At first it's always "do you have an AK?" all excited. I tell 'em yeah. And then I go on to explain the negative stereotypes the millions upon millions of responsible, law abiding gun owners get from Hollywood and every time some wacko goes columbine. Then I tell them how much fun it is, and that they'd probably really like it. Long story short, an hour later, more often than not they're interested and have a slightly different view of what an American gunner is.

P.s. This isn't always with euros. Remember, this is Hollywood celebrities(talked with Stallone about some AR-15's I was picking up-he didn't seem too thrilled), fashion photo shoots, car shoots. Today I'm on day 4 of a Harley Davidson shoot. Funny, not too many people worried guns on this shoot.

[radioburning]

Oh, P.S. Working with these sensitive d-bags doesn't keep me from wearing my Sig shirt every now and then.

[nick]

Oh, P.S. Working with these sensitive d-bags doesn't keep me from wearing my Sig shirt every now and then.

That's because they don't know what SIG is. Get a Glock one, everybody knows Glocks are evil

[Arkalius]

There are two types of antis. There are the ones who are simply misinformed and haven't had an intelligent pro-gunner show them the truth. They may be hard to argue at first but after enough common sense and real world statistics, they tend to come around, though sometimes grudgingly.

Then, you meet the other antis. These are the people who base their arguments on emotion. They rely on what they believe ought to be the case, even in the face of mountains of evidence. They sometimes get hung up on the entirely academic argument that the world would be safer if guns didn't exist (a fact that I'm not even convinced is true). Some of them are pretty clever and will pick up on any slight inconsistency or hint of a crack in your argument and pull it apart and dwell on it. They will tell you your entire argument is invalid because of one little mistake you make. Arguing with these people can range from mildly amusing to extremely frustrating. It's amusing when your arguments get the person so fed up that they are no longer making coherent rebuttals and all but admit that their argument is based on emotion. It's frustrating when that emotion turns into ad hominem attacks and has them in a place where they speak as if they have totally trounced you despite their massive logical fallacies and inconsistencies, simply because you made one mistake.

If you are really up to the challenge of arguing against antis, be prepared. Also, be fair to yourself. I find myself in positions where an argument is made against me that I don't have the appropriate response for, or requires the use of statistical data I don't really remember or can't effectively source. Attempting to make an argument you are not prepared to make will come through and make you look as if you really don't know what you're talking about and will damage your credibility in an argument. Once that happens it becomes easier to drag you down the path of emotion as you get frustrated with the state of the debate. It has happened to me on occaision. Do not be afraid to admit that you do not have an appropriate rebuttal prepared for a particular argument, but insist that you can prepare one with some time and research. Some people might be impressed with your willingness to admit that you do not know everything, and may respect the fact that you are taking their arguments seriously enough. Some will just laugh at you anyway for being unprepared, but these are the people who are going to frustrate you to no end anyway no matter how much you actually know.

So I wish you luck on your venture. It is very satisfying when you can come out ahead in a logical debate with someone and convert them to our way of thinking (or at least introduce doubt into theirs), but you will find plenty of people who are completely unwilling to relent in their beliefs and the more you hammer into them, the harder they push back. When you find yourself in these situations, it's tough to walk away letting the other person think they won but no other outcome is usually possible so it is best to avoid the aggravation and walk away from these fights.

[LIFEWITHOUT]

Ask if they have ever fired a gun. If no, offer to take them shooting. Start them on something with little or no recoil. Rinse, repeat. Once people overcome their fear of the unknown, typically they will no longer fear or detest

[trinydex]

had an experience with a co-worker...he's an anti...i asked him...if his mom's home was broken into, and the crook had a gun or weapon of some sort, wouldn't he wish he had a gun to fend off the bad guy? he said "NO"

so i asked what would he do to help his mom? or run away...he said "he'd run away"

and i said "you're eeeeeeeffffffeeeedddd up! and a coward"

"that's ur mama"

BTW what kinda coffee shops ya'll go to? starbucks? it's a grind? or vietnamese coffee shops?

wow there's no helping or convincing someone like that...

[trinydex]

There are two types of antis. There are the ones who are simply misinformed and haven't had an intelligent pro-gunner show them the truth. They may be hard to argue at first but after enough common sense and real world statistics, they tend to come around, though sometimes grudgingly.

Then, you meet the other antis. These are the people who base their arguments on emotion. They rely on what they believe ought to be the case, even in the face of mountains of evidence. They sometimes get hung up on the entirely academic argument that the world would be safer if guns didn't exist (a fact that I'm not even convinced is true). Some of them are pretty clever and will pick up on any slight inconsistency or hint of a crack in your argument and pull it apart and dwell on it. They will tell you your entire argument is invalid because of one little mistake you make. Arguing with these people can range from mildly amusing to extremely frustrating. It's amusing when your arguments get the person so fed up that they are no longer making coherent rebuttals and all but admit that their argument is based on emotion. It's frustrating when that emotion turns into ad hominem attacks and has them in a place where they speak as if they have totally trounced you despite their massive logical fallacies and inconsistencies, simply because you made one mistake.

very accurate.

btw the next time someone says that the world would be safer without guns tell them that they should think about all the small asian women, tiny gay guys, frail lesbians and other marginalized peoples who are subject to all kinds of violence. with a philosophy that guns should not exist they've essentially disarmed these poor people of the universal leveler. then point out most of the amendments in the constitution are protecting "universal levelers," information, right not to incriminate yourself etc.

otherwise we go right back to the stone age where the biggest guy with the biggest club can make you do whatever he wants. how's that for sophisticated, educated and any other haughty crap they try to tout themselves up with?

Ask if they have ever fired a gun. If no, offer to take them shooting. Start them on something with little or no recoil. Rinse, repeat. Once people overcome their fear of the unknown, typically they will no longer fear or detest

i've met people who never want to touch a gun.... :\ guns are bad they're made to kill people. they always look shocked when i say, so?

[jcaoloveshine]

Attend just about any university.

Oh how true this statement is.

I plan on taking a few people shooting before I graduate, one girl already wants a gun (wanted a handgun at first, but being 19 sort of negates that. I still need to take her shooting though, we were supposed to go over summer but she only stayed in Norcal for a few days.

[sb_pete]

btw the next time someone says that the world would be safer without guns tell them that they should think about all the small asian women, tiny gay guys, frail lesbians and other marginalized peoples who are subject to all kinds of violence. with a philosophy that guns should not exist they've essentially disarmed these poor people of the universal leveler. then point out most of the amendments in the constitution are protecting "universal levelers," information, right not to incriminate yourself etc.

otherwise we go right back to the stone age where the biggest guy with the biggest club can make you do whatever he wants. how's that for sophisticated, educated and any other haughty crap they try to tout themselves up with?

Sure, biggest guy with the biggest club (or best kung fu, or best swordsmanship, or longest knife, or whatever) when we're discussing crime, one on one kind of stuff. It's the ability to face down an angry mob and defeat mob mentality that is even more important to civilization as we know it today. Just put the image in your mind of Wyatt Earp (or insert hero from less orderly time in the last few hundred years) facing down the lynch mob and telling them, "hey guys, give peace a chance."

Then when you're done having a laugh at thought, think seriously about how a principled individual or small group could face down lawless mobs without firearms.

Even somebody who thinks the world would be a better place without guns will admit this caveat when pressed. They will then retort something about training and having law enforcement (the professionals) to do that part domestically and the military protect against external threats. You can then point out:

A: What happens when even a principled, honorable servant of the law becomes bound by duty to enforce ignoble law? What happens when the slide into tyranny comes slowly so that those enforcing it become innured to the process? Mention Solzenitsyn and his assertion that it was the Soviets' monopoly on the use of arms that allowed them to enforce their tyranny. Same for Himmler's comment that Germans under the Nazi regime should "join the SS" if they want a gun. Or Mao Tse Tung's comment that all power emanates from the barrel of a gun. Tell them to go watch the second season of CBS' Jericho even.

The basic point is that, without a credible threat of force, there is no real check on a government's abuse of power.

They will argue that you can have mass protests - the power of the people and some such. Ask them what the survivors of Tianamen Square might say to that proposition?

B. You can also mention that if guns exist for the military and police, they will end up in the hands of criminals as well. The military and police are not monolithic structures, they are represented by people - with all the failings and weaknesses which that entails. Firearms will find a way into the hands of the wrong people.

It is only by the utilization of advanced weaponry, by it the Roman Legion or the AK47, that a government is able to maintain the order and rule of law in which modern civilization (and the specialization of tasks upon which it is based) can flourish. Further, it is only the credible threat of force that keeps leaders from becoming tyrants. There are other checks, but ultimately the final check is that of force. The gun, used by a legitimate government, protects the minority from the majority and the weak from the strong; yet it also protects the people from the government.

[sb_pete]

i've met people who never want to touch a gun.... :\ guns are bad they're made to kill people. they always look shocked when i say, so?

Basic Hoplophobia. You are so right about it though. The premise that if you can prove something is made for the express purpose of taking human life, it should be banned, is taken, I think, as a basic truism by many if not most in our society. Whether or not any gun is or was really made for such a purpose is beside the point. Yet that is precisely the argument we constantly hash out in the media with this inane dribble about whether or not a firearm has a "sporting purpose."

The basic truism that humans always have and always will find reason to harm or kill other human beings is never confronted. Were we to seriously think about it though, we know that there are times when killing is justified (for self-preservation if nothing else). We also know that the credible threat of force alone is often sufficient to deter people from exercising their baser human instincts. These thoughts are just too distasteful though and people would rather not think about them.

They pass off the distasteful aspects of dealing with violence onto the police. Over the course of the twentieth century, the police have slowly taken a greater and greater role in dealing with interpersonal conflicts. The tendency of bureaucratic creep is facilitated by the advent of technologies such as cars, police radio, and 911 call center. These have allowed police to step in for the basic societal vigilance and conflict management that were once considered a basic aspect of living amongst other human beings. It was Sir Robert Peel, the father of the modern notion of a police force, who said:

"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, even if you expose some people to firearms and take away their elemental fear of guns; you are still left with the more intellectual problem of them thinking anything "made for killing" is automatically evil. To do away with that, they must be forced to face the reality that violence is not always something you can or should run away from. Man's nobility lies in knowing that it can and should be avoided whenever possible, his honor lies in knowing when to face it head on.

-Pete