Interesting conversation with an anti gun person in my family

[Drakkule]

I had a conversation with my brother that lives in Chicago, and it was a good look at the mind of an anti gun person. We were in the car driving, and stopped at a toll booth, and the people in front of us were talking to the toll taker for about 3 minutes. We were talking about something else, when he says "that's why people shouldn't have guns". I asked what the hell was he talking about, and this was his response. "People like that **** me off, and that's why people shouldn't have guns". I asked if i should shoot at them, because they were taking their time? He implied that they wouldn't be safe around him. So we banter a bit, i like giving him a hard time for being anti gun. After a lengthy conversation, i was left with the feeling that at least some anti gun people don't trust themselves with guns, and that's why they don't think anyone else shouldn't have them. So, how many of you think i might be on to something? Could it be that the anti crowd is just projecting their lack of respect, and fear of doing harm to others on to those of us that support the 2nd amendment? What are your thoughts?

 

[Mr. Habib]

My response would have been something on the order of "people like you are the reason that the rest of us need guns".

 

[Expat]

I think they just like the idea of controlling other people's behavior.

I would tell him you no longer feel safe being around him if he really feels that homicidal over waiting a couple minutes at a toll booth.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I had a conversation with my brother that lives in Chicago, and it was a good look at the mind of an anti gun person. We were in the car driving, and stopped at a toll booth, and the people in front of us were talking to the toll taker for about 3 minutes. We were talking about something else, when he says "that's why people shouldn't have guns". I asked what the hell was he talking about, and this was his response. "People like that **** me off, and that's why people shouldn't have guns". I asked if i should shoot at them, because they were taking their time? He implied that they wouldn't be safe around him. So we banter a bit, i like giving him a hard time for being anti gun. After a lengthy conversation, i was left with the feeling that at least some anti gun people don't trust themselves with guns, and that's why they don't think anyone else shouldn't have them. So, how many of you think i might be on to something? Could it be that the anti crowd is just projecting their lack of respect, and fear of doing harm to others on to those of us that support the 2nd amendment? What are your thoughts?

You mean like when they ridicule gun owners by saying a gun lets gun owners compensate for having small ****s? Hmmm....maybe they are projecting their lack of....something.

 

[Drail]

Sadly a lot of people in our society should not have guns for exactly the reason your friend described. And a lot of people in our society should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle or a voting machine or have access to a liquor store either. That's the hassle with Democracy - you have to let everybody play with everything after being awarded their Govt. "education".

 

[Leadeye]

It's still a free country, he has every right not to buy one if he doesn't want to.

 

[CPT Nervous]

I would have told him to get out. Yes, I'm serious, GTFO.

If you don't get out, I will remove you. Find your own ride.

 

[zippy23]

Ask them this......"If a 2 guys come in your house at 3 a.m., would you rather grab a gun and protect yourself, or call the police and wait 15 minutes for the to arrive? If they try and B.S. there way through it and wont answer it honestly, they are a lost cause and nothing you say matters. People who arent willing to be honest with themselves are pointless to argue with. They need a real world experience to change their minds, and then its too late anyways.

 

[easy]

It's still a free country, he has every right not to buy one if he doesn't want to.

According to the lib/progressives, they don't want you to be able to buy one if you do want to...

 

[Woobie]

I think there is some projecting that takes place. I think there is also the desperate clinging to blissful ignorance, and gun owners are the mean people who jerk their warm security blankets away from them and expose them to cold reality. People don't like that, and "taking the red pill" can be a mentally and even emotionally difficult process.

As as for your relative, I hope his ignorance remains blissful, and doesn't come back to bite him in the butt. But that's a lot to hope for in Chiraq.

 

[Bennettjh]

Ask them this......"If a 2 guys come in your house at 3 a.m., would you rather grab a gun and protect yourself, or call the police and wait 15 minutes for the to arrive? If they try and B.S. there way through it and wont answer it honestly, they are a lost cause and nothing you say matters. People who arent willing to be honest with themselves are pointless to argue with. They need a real world experience to change their minds, and then its too late anyways.

That's what I use. Someone breaks in and intends bodily harm, what are you going to do. Simple question. SHOULD get them thinking.

 

[OakRiver]

From my own interactions (I know the plural of anecdotes is not evidence) almost every anti-gun conversation has one thing in common; the anti-gunner does not trust themselves with a firearm. Because of that they do not think that anyone should have one. I would much prefer that they acknowledge that while they may not be comfortable with owning a firearm that others do not have the same lack of comfort.

 

[OakRiver]

Ask them this......"If a 2 guys come in your house at 3 a.m., would you rather grab a gun and protect yourself, or call the police and wait 15 minutes for the to arrive? If they try and B.S. there way through it and wont answer it honestly, they are a lost cause and nothing you say matters. People who arent willing to be honest with themselves are pointless to argue with. They need a real world experience to change their minds, and then its too late anyways.

Ask them how long they think they can hold a door while an intruder (or more) tries to force their way in. Then ask them what happens if;
- there is more than one intruder
- they have to phone the police while holding the door
- the intruders are armed

 

[abnk]

You have a family member who does not own a firearm? You are failing, OP.

 

[jerrob]

Who cares what they think?.............They're antis.
If they had their way, they would take away any and every right they think you shouldn't have and force you to be just like them, that's how these people are wired......................so F---- 'em.
Having a different outlook on a topic or just agreeing to disagree is nowhere near enough for them, more must be given. I have family members that are antis, I dismiss everything they have to say, gun related or other.
Try to take away my rights and I have zero use or respect for that individual.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You have a family member who does not own a firearm? You are failing, OP.

I have to disagree. There really are some people who should not own guns. It is most liberty-conscious when those people self-identify. There are some (like the guy identified in the OP) who I am glad choose not to own guns. They have a right to own them, but not a mandate to do so.

They are where the foolishness comes from about the BG taking the gun away... They may not have it in them to just shoot the MFer who is threatening to do so, like most of us have trained to do, if needed. I would not push legislation to prevent them from owning, but I encourage them to not buy a gun, while at the same time encouraging them to leave me the choice to do so. I also like to put them on the spot: You don't trust you... that's your own choice. What is it about me you don't trust?

You would force me and my family to be helpless before a person with evil intent, but you have no problem with any drunk out there being able to go get in his car and drive down the road. (this usually gets a "well... there are laws against that!" or "But people have to be licensed to drive" (and/or "...be of age to drink!") "Sure they do. And it doesn't stop that from killing far more innocent people and far fewer evil ones than guns are used to do."

I've seen far fewer gunshot victims than I have drunks in the ER or on an ambulance. I have to wonder, if they favor more restrictions on gun ownership because of what the criminal does with them, does that logic carry over to punishing either law-abiding car owners or legal alcohol buyers for the criminal actions of those who are so much less responsible, including those who have proven that fact repeatedly. Maybe there should be a 7 day waiting period to buy a 6-pack or a bottle of booze? How about a 6 month federal investigation to rent a keg for a party? It's September... better hurry up if you want to have a party on Valentine's Day.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Roadie]

I have to disagree. There really are some people who should not own guns. It is most liberty-conscious when those people self-identify. There are some (like the guy identified in the OP) who I am glad choose not to own guns. They have a right to own them, but not a mandate to do so.

They are where the foolishness comes from about the BG taking the gun away... They may not have it in them to just shoot the MFer who is threatening to do so, like most of us have trained to do, if needed. I would not push legislation to prevent them from owning, but I encourage them to not buy a gun, while at the same time encouraging them to leave me the choice to do so. I also like to put them on the spot: You don't trust you... that's your own choice. What is it about me you don't trust?

You would force me and my family to be helpless before a person with evil intent, but you have no problem with any drunk out there being able to go get in his car and drive down the road. (this usually gets a "well... there are laws against that!" or "But people have to be licensed to drive" (and/or "...be of age to drink!") "Sure they do. And it doesn't stop that from killing far more innocent people and far fewer evil ones than guns are used to do."

I've seen far fewer gunshot victims than I have drunks in the ER or on an ambulance. I have to wonder, if they favor more restrictions on gun ownership because of what the criminal does with them, does that logic carry over to punishing either law-abiding car owners or legal alcohol buyers for the criminal actions of those who are so much less responsible, including those who have proven that fact repeatedly. Maybe there should be a 7 day waiting period to buy a 6-pack or a bottle of booze? How about a 6 month federal investigation to rent a keg for a party? It's September... better hurry up if you want to have a party on Valentine's Day.

Blessings,
Bill

Of course they don't favor that. Because alcohol and cars are things THEY like, and THEY want to own. So how dare you suggest restrictions. :\
This is why they scoff at comparisons to cars. THEY drive cars, they think they NEED cars. So to them the comparison is invalid. It takes a very intellectually honest Liberal to support gun rights, and accept the comparison to cars and alcohol. They are out there, but they are rare.

EDIT: On a side note. I made the comparison today between the 400ish gun accidents that take a life each year, and the 600ish bicycle accident deaths in an anti gun debate today. The response? "I didn't know bicycles were weapons"

To THEM it made perfect sense that it was ok more people died in bike accidents, because bikes aren't weapons.. unable to look outside their narrow paradigm

 

[Faine]

One of my long time friends and now employee was vehemently anti-gun until Sandy Hook. After Sandy Hook he came to me fuming mad and was ranting and raving about guns, mental illness, guns, etc... I let him calm down then talked to him rationally. I found that by asking him some questions I was able to determine why he was so anti-gun. It was a combination of ignorance and lack of self-trust/discipline. He doesn't trust himself with a firearm and he didn't see how others can be different in mentality than he is, so he inherently thought everyone that carried would be as dangerous as he would be. I had a series of 2-3 hour talks with him, where he went home and communicated with his wife who shared his opinion. After those talks they were no longer anti-gun and are talking about getting a firearm for home defense.

Points I noted. They knew nothing about AR15's. They thought they were automatic. They thought that the adjustable stock, muzzle break/flash hider, pistol grip, bayonet lug, etc... made the firearm more deadly. They thought that anyone could just walk into a gun store and get a gun with no paperwork or background check. They thought the "gunshow loophole" really was a loophole. They thought a national registry would help make America safer. They had many more misconceptions I won't get into. I was able to de-bunk and settle each issue that was brought up with ease and actually turned 2 people from anti-gun to eh-gun in about 2 weeks and 2 weeks after that had them thinking about buying. I believe they ended up taking a gift his wife's father had been trying to give them for a few years, a .38 Special Revolver.

I found the trick was to listen and answer questions, then ask questions that make them question themselves instead of trying to impress a viewpoint on them. When you try to force your beliefs or viewpoints on another person they become resistant and more difficult to train. Best to do it in a way that allows them to think it out for themselves and trust your intuition and honest feedback to leave them with no other avenue to travel.

 

[actaeon277]

I had a conversation with my brother that lives in Chicago, and it was a good look at the mind of an anti gun person. We were in the car driving, and stopped at a toll booth, and the people in front of us were talking to the toll taker for about 3 minutes. We were talking about something else, when he says "that's why people shouldn't have guns". I asked what the hell was he talking about, and this was his response. "People like that **** me off, and that's why people shouldn't have guns". I asked if i should shoot at them, because they were taking their time? He implied that they wouldn't be safe around him. So we banter a bit, i like giving him a hard time for being anti gun. After a lengthy conversation, i was left with the feeling that at least some anti gun people don't trust themselves with guns, and that's why they don't think anyone else shouldn't have them. So, how many of you think i might be on to something? Could it be that the anti crowd is just projecting their lack of respect, and fear of doing harm to others on to those of us that support the 2nd amendment? What are your thoughts?

If he would shoot them, then he'd also stab them or ram his car into them.
Since he REALLY would do neither he's just lying. (Even lying to himself).
People stay stupid things like that. Then you point out all the ways they have available yet are NOT using.

 

[actaeon277]

Of course they don't favor that. Because alcohol and cars are things THEY like, and THEY want to own. So how dare you suggest restrictions. :\
This is why they scoff at comparisons to cars. THEY drive cars, they think they NEED cars. So to them the comparison is invalid. It takes a very intellectually honest Liberal to support gun rights, and accept the comparison to cars and alcohol. They are out there, but they are rare.

EDIT: On a side note. I made the comparison today between the 400ish gun accidents that take a life each year, and the 600ish bicycle accident deaths in an anti gun debate today. The response? "I didn't know bicycles were weapons"

To THEM it made perfect sense that it was ok more people died in bike accidents, because bikes aren't weapons.. unable to look outside their narrow paradigm

Yup. A lot of people are only worried about stuff that DIRECTLY affects them.