How would you respond?

[Bennettjh]

I just wouldn't hang out with them.

 

[ModernGunner]

People are gonna think what they think, and quite often for many (most?) that thinking is based on raw emotion rather than any sort of rational thought.

Trying to change their mind from one of 'emotional reactionary' to 'rational thought' is, typically, a fool's errand. Sort of like a dog chasing it car - even if he catches it, he still can't drive it!

Why bother with it?

Food for thought - There are those who don't like (or hate) guns. Maybe they don't believe in god, either. But, if someone (god forbid) breaks into their home tonight, 2 things are true:

1) They're going to call someone with a gun.

2) And pray that person arrives in time.

 

[Maximinus Thrax]

Personally, when I'm carrying (which is pretty much always) and alcohol is involved I either don't drink or maybe have one socially so I don't have to disarm.

As to the family issue, I think you're on the right track with inviting them out for a range day.

 

[Thor]

I have the same issue with a BIL...actually 2. I argue thoughtfully and refuse to give a point to them. My wife carries, my daughter is a fine shot, his daughter and husband were asking me about the best home defense weapons...I may be winning the argument.

And no, we don't voluntarily occupy the same space, I just won't run from a fight.

 

[Bill of Rights]

At some point you need to have the conversation with the father simply out of respect for the fact that you're dating his daughter.

Frame it in a way that shows you care about her safety and yours and that carrying is the best way to ensure you can defend yourself and protect her.

I would not have disarmed the other night like you did, but if you have a conversation with him about carrying and he comes out and says no guns in the house you should respect that.

The old saying is that it is far easier to obtain forgiveness than permission. I think I'd deep conceal while there, but not go unarmed. I also like the idea of using logic, re: that happens so rarely it isn't measurable, but if it does, I don't want people important to me to be helpless in the face of madness, depending on the whims of a crazy person for their safety. Tell them the story of Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, or find it online where she was telling her story to a Congressional committee. It's very hard to argue with success.

Good luck. I think you may need it, but the idea of changing their minds is not a lost cause. It can be done, and it has been done. And again, it's very hard to argue with success.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jwh20]

The topic of firearms came up and her BIL stated that he did not think people should carry firearms because people have mental breakdowns at unknown times and if these people having mental health issues, even though only temporary, are a danger to society if they are armed.

As always when someone posits an absurd argument like this, you must walk them through the logical course of this...

So let's just assume this is a good idea. Ban guns for everyone since anyone can potentially snap into a psychopathic killer at any time and if they have a gun they could go on a rampage. But such a person could also do a lot of damage with a knife, so we better get rid of all knives as well. But such a person could also be driving a car and in such a rage ram though a group of school children (remember, it's ALL about the children isn't it??) so we'd best get rid of cars also. Continue on with baseball bats, hockey sticks, 2x4's, hammers, scredrivers, etc., etc....

In fact just about ANYTHING can be employed by a psycho to slaughter people. So we best LOCK UP any such person proactively just in case. Again, for the children!

So who gets locked up? Back to the original (absurd) argument. He said "people", that's everyone!! Ok, line up, everyone into lockup!!

 

[Force10]

People are gonna think what they think, and quite often for many (most?) that thinking is based on raw emotion rather than any sort of rational thought.

Trying to change their mind from one of 'emotional reactionary' to 'rational thought' is, typically, a fool's errand. Sort of like a dog chasing it car - even if he catches it, he still can't drive it!

Why bother with it?

Food for thought - There are those who don't like (or hate) guns. Maybe they don't believe in god, either. But, if someone (god forbid) breaks into their home tonight, 2 things are true:

1) They're going to call someone with a gun.

2) And pray that person arrives in time.

Just want to point out, true "thinking" is never based on raw emotion. That is feeling. While they may feel it is wrong based on emotion, thinking indicates some element of rationale. It is, however, often difficult to think devoid of emotion, and vice versa.

Totally agree with everything else ya said.

 

[Bill of Rights]

As always when someone posits an absurd argument like this, you must walk them through the logical course of this...

So let's just assume this is a good idea. Ban guns for everyone since anyone can potentially snap into a psychopathic killer at any time and if they have a gun they could go on a rampage. But such a person could also do a lot of damage with a knife, so we better get rid of all knives as well. But such a person could also be driving a car and in such a rage ram though a group of school children (remember, it's ALL about the children isn't it??) so we'd best get rid of cars also. Continue on with baseball bats, hockey sticks, 2x4's, hammers, scredrivers, etc., etc....

In fact just about ANYTHING can be employed by a psycho to slaughter people. So we best LOCK UP any such person proactively just in case. Again, for the children!

So who gets locked up? Back to the original (absurd) argument. He said "people", that's everyone!! Ok, line up, everyone into lockup!!

The answer I usually see/hear when we move off of guns and onto other things that can be used to cause harm is "Well, those things have other purposes! Guns are only made to kill!"
The two obvious answers here are, "Mine must all be defective. None of them have ever been used to take a life while they've been mine." and "Really? So that's why police carry them? To kill? No. The gun's purpose is to propel a projectile in a specific direction. How it is used is, like all those other things, up to the person using it."

This is usually the point you start getting called a redneck/warmonger/NRA shill, or worse.

Some of them have the hardest time wrapping their heads around the idea that it is the guilty person who should be punished, not the innocent along with (or instead of) them.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[kylerudibaugh]

Just nod your head and smile.