Perspective from someone who was anti-gun

[MontClaire]

I grew up pro gun up until around the age of 14.
What happened? Peer pressure and treated like crap by my teachers and college professors. My dad taught me well but I fell on the dark sided.

In my 20s after having earned my place in life (not a wealthy person but I've done fine) and have a wife, I bought my first firearm, 12ga pump.

Looking back I felt like an *** for believing that way. I guess it's what most young people go through to avoid being heckled in college by professors and hoping to get into the pants of college chicks.

Then my son was born. I now acquire a couple of firearms a year. My wife is nice enough to give me some funds for a new gun on our anniversaries. My dad didn't give up setting me straight.

From my cold dead hands.

Exactly the reason why I won't raise my children in ca. As soon as the first was on horizon, we headed north east where more households are gun owners.

[Steves32]

the issue is, do these friends vote no on new gun control laws, or do they vote yes because "of the children"?

that is the main issue of why gun control laws and politicians keeps getting voted in. they use mis-information and prey on the ignorant to make guns the boogeyman so they will vote for Yes on gun control.

my few friends that don't own guns but enjoy shooting, they know to vote no on anything for more gun laws. i informed them enough and also i let them know they can ask me for clarification on what the law is trying to do instead of believing the lawyer speak.

[kemasa]

City Council put it to a vote (behind closed doors BTW) and that was that.

I don't believe that is legal in CA. There is only certain things that they can discuss in private, but I believe all votes have to be in public.

Yeah, it is a means to use money for what they want as they don't reduce the taxes that was paying for it before. Quite typical.

The people keep voting for such politicians.

[xSlapshotx]

Trail Teams. Thanks for posting. I'm glad you discovered for yourself that firearms are not the problem. When people are raised with the mantra "that guns are bad and have no use" it's hard for them to snap out of it. Keep learning and training!

[Trail Teams]

This approach is moot on lefty Brady Bunch. They will not, can not, must not listen to reason and logic. Their arguments are all based on emotion and theory. They cannot get past their emotional instinct that gun=bad.

Where they get my ire is there insistence that everyone conform to their way of thinking. I don't try to force my views upon them. If they don't want to own guns then I'm not going to try to convince them that they should. They need to respect my gun ownership as it is my RIGHT.

I appreciate the OPs candor and his attempt to educate us on tactics with the anti-2A crowd. I just think that OP is more open minded and wiser than most antis.

Thanks for the response. After reading all the posts, I'm starting to think that I'm just late to the party. Maybe I'm on the newbie high. But it's like seeing the light for the first time; I feel like I want to do so much. But you're right, and maybe there's only so much we can do.

[yodeeds]

I'm with Trail Teams on this one. I'm a newbie too, and grew up in an anti-gun household, most of my friends are liberals, and I've always lived in liberal cities (LA, SF, NYC, Boston, etc). For most of my life, I've been anti-gun. That changed for me a few years ago, well before I purchased my first gun or ever went shooting. At some point, I simply arrived at the conclusion that I, and other law abiding citizens should have the right to defend themselves from those who would cause them serious harm or death. Also, I simply don't believe in denying people rights, whatever they may happen to be. I support gun ownership with the same enthusiasm as I support marriage equality and freedom of speech and a woman's right to be the sole decision-maker about her health care. I offer my full-throated support for you to worship whatever God you choose, or no God at all, just as I wholeheartedly believe in the clear separation of church and state. In my view, you can't be for some rights and against others and then expect to be seen as credible in this particular debate. Both the left and the right are equally guilty of this hypocrisy in my view. Both sides would deny the rights of the other side if they could.

Anyway, my girlfriend is Japanese, Bay Area liberal with a bunch of Bay Area liberal friends she wants to fit in with. She is about as anti-gun as they get and if she ever found out that I keep loaded weapons in the house, I'd be in deep doo doo. But guess what? Over time, and especially with this most recent Vegas tragedy, we've been talking more and more about it and she's starting to open up. And while she hasn't been like, "Dude, you're totally right, I've been wrong this whole time! Show me the way of the light o wise one!" quite yet, she IS taking a basic defensive handgun course this weekend from ADE. So it's a start.

So I reject the notion that you can't change even the most anti-gun person's mind with patient, non-confrontational, fact-based information and education. Mine was changed, and while it's too early to tell, but I think my girlfriend will come around eventually.

Just my $0.02.

Oh, and since I don't plan on doing too much posting here, I did want to take this opportunity to thank everyone here who is on the front-lines fighting for my rights. I really appreciate it, thank you.

[osis32]

I've had debates with more antis than I can count. most don't want to debate just want to call you an evil murderer. my go to reply is to point out their intolerance and that most of their "facts" are lies. just stay cool and you'll either win outright or make them look stupid and shut up.

[TurboChrisB]

For the vast (it would seem) majority of the left it comes down to "Ideology over truth"
You can debate rationally but it falls on deaf ears as it's just not want they want to hear and if it doesn't fit their narrative.

[Lex Talionis]

Approach #3 - Acceptance

This is a tough one. Because it involves looking in the mirror. It took me years to admit and accept that I was wrong about guns, and I'm suggesting that some form of self-reflection is needed within the pro-gun movement. We have our own problems, and until we sincerely acknowledge them, then we'll always get beat. I could be wrong and ignorant, but here is my attempt to list some problems, and my response to each one:

Problem 1 - We have an image problem. Someone wrote a response on this thread about how commonplace guns were in the 60's. Guns had a different "image" back then. I don't know what exactly can change, but at the very least, we can be more aware of how we portray our positions.

Problem 2 - Being closed minded. In as much as the far left is guilty of this, some of us are so closed off that we don't encourage healthy discourse. I live in an anti-gun City in the Peninsula, and I'm planning to invite the County board members to my own home . Will they go? Highly unlikely, but if more people are open to doing something similar, then it can open a line of conversation where we can express our position.

Problem 3 - Criticizing without proposing solutions. This is a principle that I try to live by. It can be healthy to provide criticism, but it's critical to make it constructive. Otherwise, all we're doing is polarizing the issue. I'm an NRA member, and I was disappointed with their recent position on bump stocks. But instead of just voicing my displeasure, I'm writing the NRA to provide alternative solutions, and this leads to the next problem...

Problem 4 - Proposing alternative solutions. We have our own pro-gun talking points, and I believe that we should continue to stand by them. But we can accept that they haven't worked, or have been ineffective. That's why I wrote about Approach #1. It's not about being against laws. I think that we're in agreement that it is acceptable to have some sensible gun-control. So instead of anti-gun people always proposing gun laws, we should propose our own gun laws. And I'm arguing that the common ground is the fiscal position. I quoted Einstein about the prohibition. Some people don't know that the prohibition of alcohol is the 18th Amendment, and it was repealed by the the 21st Amendment. This is in our Constitution. So what changed? It was practically unenforceable and fiscally unsustainable. They found a way to make money off of alcohol. Even now, California has a liquor excise and sales tax. We can argue the negative health effects of alcohol but no one cares. Why? Because it's generating big $$$. Same thing happened with Prop 64. We can argue the moral and health issues with marijuana, but why did it ultimately pass? Read the ballot's fiscal impact statement, and I quote "Net additional state and local tax revenues that could eventually range from the high hundreds of millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually." This is what everyone understands, whether your pro-gun or anti-gun. I think history is teaching us, and we have an opportunity to take matters into our own hands. I'll expand on this with my next proposed approach.

With all due respect we have no problem because of this simple fact:

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

With all due respect, and I do appreciate your candor about sharing your transformation from anti gun to pro gun advocacy, but you are still somewhat affected by overthinking the issue from how a person with a progressive perspective thinks and/or feels. For most of us we are not tripped up by a need to explain something that simply stated IS. And that is a natural and constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Therefore talk of our "image" or talk of "solutions" are not our problem and why the progressive left is always in turmoil over a basic inability to see normal as natural on MOST topics including gender, economics and personal accountability. Self defense is a natural, normal, logical----and therefore MORAL value which requires no PR campaign. It is therefore not incumbent upon us to convince anyone of a natural right any more than it would be incumbent upon us to convince someone that the sun does not revolve around the earth.

We defend the second amendment not from a advocacy position of something that should be, we defend because it IS. It exists aside from the constitution, it exists as a NATURAL right as natural as the sun coming up in the morning sky--- preexisting of all human government and laws. Something liberal progressives are not wired to comprehend.