How do I respond?

[voodoo304]

I had a guy at work who always poked at my pro-2a stance. Then one of the recent north side break-ins happened a few doors down from him. Reality set in, and now he wants me to take him to the range and help him pick out his first handgun.
Amazing how that works.

 

[LoriW]

I don't have to worry about talking about guns at work anymore (we sell guns at my work). At my prior FT job (still there PT), talking about guns to the wrong person could get someone fired...technically. So I didn't initiate conversations about guns or 2A but my car makes it obvious where I stand. As far as I know no one has had an issue with my beliefs. As far as my advice for the OP...ignore them. You tried to educate them. They're not interested in the truth. They've had a few too many sips of the Kool-aid. If you aren't ready to ignore them, try inviting them to go shooting. Might work.

 

[Dead Duck]

This is a perfect opportunity to start Open Carrying.

 

[Smokepole]

Moonbat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



These would be the rare blue moonbat.

Interesting, that the Wiki article mentions several conservative columnists. The first place I heard "Moonbat" I was listening to Neil Boortz. He has been using the term a lot for years. I would hear it several times virtually every broadcast that I listened to. It was one of his favorite terms for wild eyed Libs. And has been for me for years. Thanks Neil!

 

[KellyinAvon]

I had a guy at work who always poked at my pro-2a stance. Then one of the recent north side break-ins happened a few doors down from him. Reality set in, and now he wants me to take him to the range and help him pick out his first handgun.
Amazing how that works.

 

[KellyinAvon]

El Director makes a good point: our views are based on logic, history and things such as the US Constitution. Moonbats are all emotion, all the time.

Or you could ask them how that time machine is coming along so they can un-invent black powder.

 

[Sgtusmc]

Upon immediate judgement, guns are scary to most people. So they immediately rationalize an anti-gun philosophy thinking that there is no way that being pro-gun could be good. They haven't truly thought through what it means to be in a situation where their lives or their children's lives depend on a means of protection.

I had a conversation with someone one time that was so totally against the use of violence that she actually stated she would not defend herself if attacked. She said that everyone has to die someday. I pointed out her fatalistic mindset. "So then, if someone breaks in to your home and kills your children, it's just their time to die?" I said. And the person that committed the crime is free to live another day? She had no words to respond and I think that put the seed in her mind to truly think it though. Most people don't want to think something through until they themselves are put into that situation because the don't believe they'll ever be IN that situation. By then, it's too late. People who are proactive in life are usually successful and worry free. Unfortunately, many are reactive and end up pointing their fingers at other causes to their suffering.

And to the people who think life is a time machine stating, "Guns should have never been made" and other ridiculous statements, get a clue. The advancement of technology is an inherent condition of the human existence. Murder and/or the prevention of being killed has occurred since the dawn of our existence. Be it sharpened sticks, rocks, or projectiles propelled with chemicals, there will always be someone that creates a tool to guard against another tool. We can't un-invent things. We can't un-learn our imaginations' possibilities. The fact is, we know that bad guys are using guns. So we have to guard against that weapon with similar or better weapons to fend off potential attacks.

People who say guns should never have been invented or that no one should need an AR-15 are essentially saying the industrial revolution should never have occurred. They're essentially saying, going back to the dark ages would be wonderful. To rid the populace of knowledge and tools that benefit life in general. To put a cap on what an individual's life and liberty should/could aspire to be. Let's just all go back to swords and shields while the rest of the world gathers 'round with unfettered technology ready to enslave our asses on a whim.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Yeah, there were wars for thousands of years prior to the invention of guns. Would she be ok if I oc'd a broadsword, to go severing limbs and cleaving skulls? Howsabout the jawbone of an ass? And why do I need a suppressor? What's need have to do with it, anyway? I imagine she has some things she can't defend an actual need for. But that's not the issue. A suppressor has functionality she just doesn't understand. You know, it might come up, but it's probably just as well I haven't been in conversation with these bimbos. Probably better to use this as opportunity to teach the Mrs. good data and debating skills.

For moonbattery, check out the site.

 

[88GT]

Thank you for your help! I don't think 50 is old, just when sitting next to my 19-year-old classmate! Interestingly, the two youngest (19, 20) tend to lean more towards my point of view than the moonbats' ideas, so there may be hope yet! I try to keep my mouth shut, but the other day one of the moonbats was going on about how guns should never have been invented, they are the cause of all the wars, and the world would be a much better safer world without guns of any kind. Right......so I very calmly pointed out that there are more dangerous weapons in the average American kitchen than anywhere else. She didn't like me comparing knives, rolling pins, and heavy skillets to weapons; after all, that's not what they were designed to do and guns are only designed to kill. Oh well. I try not to get suckered in to these conversations, but there are two young ladies who appreciate hearing a different side to the argument, and it is more for their sake than for any other reason that I will continue to put some unemotionally-based facts out on the table.

IF you are going to engage them, it is important to remember that tactics are more important than facts. I am not condoning lying or misrepresenting. By you must understand that nobody wins a war with defensive tactics. From your comments, I would guess that you are always defending your opinion. And that probably because you are taking their premises at face value. Change your tactic. Address/challenge their premises. Become familiar with and well practiced in the Socratic method. You shall not want for a response if you do those to things

When they say guns should never have been invented, ask them if they have a time machine to undo it.

When they say guns are the cause of war, ask them to identify the year the first firearm was made. Then confirm with them that it is their belief that no wars occurred before that date.

When they say no one needs a gun, ask them if they believe it is morally superior to be a victim than to use something to defend oneself. I personally opt for maximum shock factor, so you might get specific with the nature of the victimization, say, like a woman being raped in front of her children.

If you always respond in a way that leaves their premises unchallenged, they will continue to believe that their premises have merit.

 

[Hopper]

My company is based out of Chicago, and one of the owners is a die-hard liberal/progressive, one of those who believes Chicago's gun issues are partly Indiana's fault. You get the idea what I'm up against.

I've politely resorted to the "Your feelings don't trump my rights" counter-argument with him, which has worked fairly well. And, as 88GT pointed out, I think the "There's nothing morally superior in being a victim" line gives the person you're talking to something to think about.

 

[45fan]

I woulnt worry so much about what their opinions are, and just go about your day. I cant understand how a massage therapy class could turn a conversation to guns unless someone turns it that way on purpose. As far as getting them to understand things from your point of view, I wouldnt stress too much on that either. Most are either already set in their minds that guns are evil, or on the fence, and just dont have an opinion because they lack any real knowledge about them. It sounds like you are dealing with the sort that already has an opinion, and would resort to provoking you just to prove their point.

 

[churchmouse]

Don't respond?

The company I work for is based in DC. So, I tend to just keep my opinions (and even known facts) to myself.

It is tough not to socialize with folks you spend a great deal of time with. It is safer, though.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Absolutely this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Never let bat crazy people know you are a gun person. They will ride you like a cheap donkey.

 

[warthog]

I used to work in a Driver's License facility in downstate IL. Once we got ourselves a Democratic Secretary of State, as the last of the Republican leftovers, it became obvious they were trying to find a way to fire me. Gotta make room for the Democratic patronage jobs, right? So I was constantly baited, I had a wicked temper back then too. What I got out of this time in my life was the ability to finally control a temper that was like Bruce Banner/the Hulk. So I counted that time as a good experience since instead of acting out like I usually did, I learned how to simply ignore people when they insist on being stupid.

Just ignore them, it isn't worth the time nor the trouble to engage folks who don't have a clue and don't want one either.

 

[88GT]

At what point do we try to bring people along to our side?

 

[cdmiller]

In same situation as you, dear, 50+, conceal and carry, working in one of the higher crime areas of Indy (38th and driveby, aka, E 38th and Keystone). You would be surprised at the number of private owned business in the area where the owners/workers keep a loaded handgun on them at all times. Individuals where I work got bent out of shape that my 30+ year old son went hunting T-day instead of torturing ourselves with family we didn't want to be around. I've given up trying to point out "seconds count when help is minutes away". Just stick to your guns, literally and figuratively.

 

[the1kidd03]

At what point do we try to bring people along to our side?

I'm confused as to what you're asking?

Personally, I never stop "trying." It's mostly about effective communication, active listening, and being respectful/not getting emotional. One more person "on our side" is one less to fight in legislation. Of course, I put myself around such people quite often to both get better at communicating with such people, and also to investigate the psychology behind their beliefs, but it's not as difficult as most think it is in most cases. I've met VERY few people I haven't been able to convert to any degree, and most of those were merely due to lack of time to accomplish it. The change often takes more than a single conversation over a long period of time.

The only "type" of person, if you wish to categorize, that does not convert is one who morally does not agree with a person even having the ability to take anothers' life. This type of person is rather rare though. Most Americans do not possess such a moral grounding when it comes to a danger to their families whereas someone who does, would not take a life even to protect their family's.

 

[eldirector]

At what point do we try to bring people along to our side?

When the risk to myself is low/manageable. I've talked to SEVERAL people about shooting (and this forum) at work. But, that was after I knew them (and their intentions) well. In mixed company, I stick to "safe" topics (like TPS Reports).

Outside of work? Anyone who knows me at all knows I carry, and can likely guess at my political leanings (though, I tend to surprise folks). I have no issue sharing my point of view, and helping folks wake up a bit.

 

[churchmouse]

We use any reasonable opportunity to engage with those who may be swayed in their anti-gun beliefs. As Eldirector stated, at work I rarely engaged in gun talk un-less I was approached in a positive manner on the subject. Most everyone I ever worked with knew I carried and was doing so often against company policy's that were in place only to protect the company from being sued. They also knew that any stupid remarks or sound bite anti-gun crap was not going to be well received so for the most part it was a topic left along. Once I know someone well enough there have been a few converts.

Outside of work we take every opportunity that presents itself in a civil manner to openly discuss gun owner ship and the hobby we all love. We have succeeded in opening many sets of eyes and getting friends/family and others out to the range. We are doing this today if the weather holds. Friend of the wife's was assaulted recently and asked if we would train her in the proper use of a firearm and help pick something out for her to carry. Son took her downtown recently and walked her through the steps to apply for her LTCH. Today we will get her out to the range if possible. We are supplying the guns/ammo/time. We will do this for "Anyone" that is truly looking to get involved.

 

[halfmileharry]

I am never the first to speak about it BUT....when someone gets on me about my rights and the 2A I always tell them "I'll pray for you that you never need one just like I pray I'll never need one to defend my family and myself"
That and IF they push me I always say.." I'll pray for you. You're the most miserable, unhappy, SOB I've run across"

 

[88GT]

I'm confused as to what you're asking?

If we never discuss the issue because it's inconvenient or because we ASSume the others are incorrigible in their position, how can we expect anybody's opinion to change? The idea that firearms are a taboo subject is just foreign to me. Would we remain so passive about the denial of due process? Or the prohibition to practice our religion as we see fit? We stand up for so many other "rights" in this country without a second thought. And then we wonder why it's so hard to get traction in the protection of a right that is kept in the closet.