Do you engage anti-gunners?

[tgunsmoke]

A friend from my barn posted this photo on his Facebook, and I felt the strong urge to comment back on it. I simply stated that while guns kill 32,000 according to this image, the CDC attributes over 88,000 deaths to alcohol (I know he drinks, like most of us, and I'm sure he doesn't bat an eye to the effects of alcohol).



Anyways, it was hard for me to stay out of the conversation past that comment, but I did. No sense engaging him and his group of anti friends in a logical conversation about guns.

So... Do you engage the anti-gun people in their debates?

[nothinghere2c]

i usually will engage people once to see if they actually are interested in having a conversation or if they just want to suck you in and batter/shame you verbally for believing in human rights.

as long as they keep it civil and abstain from the shame game, or middle school naming calling, i have no problem engaging in conversation. its the only way to learn another persons viewpoint.

[E Michael]

Respond with another equally stupid comic strip.

[toby]

IGNORE

[E Michael]

[cdtx2001]

I give them 3 freebie "shots" calling me a murderous no good piece of s*** blah blah blah.... If they don't make it to 3 in a conversation, I may have a reasonable debate with them. If they go over 3, I start calling them AND their mother a 2-bit prostitute.

[nothinghere2c]

I give them 3 freebie "shots" calling me a murderous no good piece of s*** blah blah blah.... If they don't make it to 3 in a conversation, I may have a reasonable debate with them. If they go over 3, I start calling them AND their mother a 2-bit prostitute.

fair enough lol

[voiceofreason]

In real life... about 2x a week.

[DennisCA]

From Long or short range

[cjc16]

no. I offer to take them shooting and If they decline, I ignore them.

[Baeleron]

I will engage 1 on 1, but not vs a large group. That's not because I'm afraid to be ganged up on, but because it's a waste of time. Nobody is likely to think seriously about anything or question their beliefs while in the spotlight of their peers. Get them 1 on 1 and see if they're willing and able to have a real discussion. Then take them to the range.

Regarding FB, if someone annoys me once I will mute them. Annoy me again and I'll unfriend them.

[Jimmybacon43]

From Long or short range

^

[Jet Setter]

I usually ignore ignorance but try to educate as much as I can. Sometimes, it is a pointless effort.

[brushfire21]

With the latest Evertown BS splattering social media and the UC Barbera shooting, I did engage and stayed nice. A few 'friends' were unfriended when all they could write is how they hate guns and ignored the use of a knife and vehicle and kept pushing about guns.

Gave up on them, good riddance!

[voiceofreason]

I usually ignore ignorance but try to educate as much as I can. Sometimes, it is a pointless effort.

The goal is to plant seeds that sow doubt into their minds.

After you refute the first few talking points the MSM give them... they run out of steam and are much more open after that.

The crap that comes out of their mouths is so ridiculous, it's easy to politely correct their myths and use common sense reality to explain the truth.

It's easy to win a debate when you are correct and your opponent has nothing but lies and emotion to debate with. Within a few steps, the logic of the argument is gone and they either stonewall refusing to acknowledge your points (everyone within earshot then clearly sees they're wrong), or will begin to ask actual questions.

Just be polite, laid back, non-emotional, matter-of-factly, and smile a lot when knocking each and every point on it's a**.

You'll get better over time AND you realize the goal is not to change the mind of the other person, but the entire crowd around you.

If your logic and points can stand up against 5 people attacking you with questions and stupid liberal talking points simultaneously... they look like a**es when they run out of steam while you can continue to talk about history of civil rights/gun control as well as going on the offense in regards to asking how they justify taking away the only effective tool away from elderly, disable, single moms with small children, etc.

If pepper spray and tazers were completely effective, cops wouldn't need actual guns.