Oregon How do you (verbally) defend your rights against an anti gunner?

[bbbass]

Wow, what is going in with the replies that don't separate out. It's bugging me.

As far as I know, every county in every state has a sheriff's office. Big example would be L.A., not every county is wall to wall cities and someone must cover the un-incorporated areas... that does not always mean rural. Nearer you big cities it is rarely that way but they do have sheriffs.

Yes, I agree that sheriffs are elected and that they represent the population that elected them. However, even if you travel to Chicago, you will find a pro-2A sheriff... hardly a clear representation of his constituents.

On the other side, when you have a City Council in charge of hiring a police chief, they seem to gravitate to those candidates that in their view are "best qualified to run the department". This is a different skill set and rarely do these guys come from real community policing. Rather many are simply educated, or have been politically active.

bb

 

[Caveman Jim]

Wow, what is going in with the replies that don't separate out. It's bugging me.

As far as I know, every county in every state has a sheriff's office. Big example would be L.A., not every county is wall to wall cities and someone must cover the un-incorporated areas... that does not always mean rural. Nearer you big cities it is rarely that way but they do have sheriffs.

Yes, I agree that sheriffs are elected and that they represent the population that elected them. However, even if you travel to Chicago, you will find a pro-2A sheriff... hardly a clear representation of his constituents.

On the other side, when you have a City Council in charge of hiring a police chief, they seem to gravitate to those candidates that in their view are "best qualified to run the department". This is a different skill set and rarely do these guys come from real community policing. Rather many are simply educated, or have been politically active.

bb

Exactly, they then really have a PPC (political Police Chief)...

 

[bbbass]

Exactly, they then really have a PPC (political Police Chief)...

Mostly you have PCPC (Politically Correct Police Chief). If you attend a convention of them you get: PCPCPCP (Politically Correct Police Chiefs against PCP). Or you could have PCPCPAC.

 

[Dan Adams]

Tell them you're starting a petition to ban cell phones since texting while driving kills 10,000 teenagers each year....

Ask them to sign since their goal is to save lives.

This is something I suggested a couple of weeks ago in another thread on this forum. Had just heard on the radio that morning how many people are killed due to driving distracted by cell phones. Nobody NEEDS a cell phone. As far as rights go, anybody find any references to cell phones in the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution?

 

[Elf]

Honestly I don't find relying on the constitution helps. It's a legal trump card you can pull out (of increasingly dubious worth), but in a one on one conversation it just makes the other person want to shred the constitution rather than forcing them to begrudgingly respect your rights. Same with talking about banning something they like (e.g. vehicles); it just makes them vapor lock until all they can do is lash out.

When I talk about why I think gun ownership is important in adversarial situations I generally stick to:

• Gun ownership as equality - Guns create equality between people who are not as physically strong (smaller people, women, elderly) and those who would otherwise be able to exert their will through the use of physical force. Saying that gun ownership should be illegal is a de facto return to physically strong people exerting their will on physically weak people.
• Government as a monopoly on force - People with liberal or SJW leanings often have just as much of a distrust of the government as conservatives and liberterians, but may not consciously realize it. They are constantly protesting abuses of government power (e.g. perceived injustices with police shootings, no-knock SWAT raids, etc.). Why do they then advocate that power should be taken away from the people, and that the government should have a monopoly on force? This is Olympics level mental gymnastics and it's great to watch.
• Guns don't kill people, guns save people - It's not productive to try and fight uphill about people abusing guns. Anything can be abused in a free society (incl. U-Haul trucks or gasoline). Talk about how people legitimately use guns. Don't think about guns as taking life, think about guns as saving life. Defensive gun usages far outnumber media inflamed accounts of school shootings. It is much more likely that you or someone you know will be a victim of a crime versus being caught in some sort of mass casualty event. Guns are a tool to stop victimization just as much as a fire extinguisher is a tool to stop your home from burning down.
• Personal responsibility - If you feel responsible for yourself and your family, why would you rely exclusively on the police and the government to protect them? It is your responsibility to protect yourself and those that you love from physical harm, whether from criminals or from the very government that claims to have your best interests in mind (although I might leave off that latter part). Firearms are the most effective tool for that job.
• Absence of paranoia - Gun owners are not afraid and are not "compensating for something," they are just responsible and prepared. Attacks are unpredictable. We don't fear attacks, but we are ready to respond if they do happen. Cast it in the light of your opponent being irresponsible and unprepared to defend their family.

 

[MrRob96]

Honestly I don't find relying on the constitution helps. It's a legal trump card you can pull out (of increasingly dubious worth), but in a one on one conversation it just makes the other person want to shred the constitution rather than forcing them to begrudgingly respect your rights. Same with talking about banning something they like (e.g. vehicles); it just makes them vapor lock until all they can do is lash out.

When I talk about why I think gun ownership is important in adversarial situations I generally stick to:

• Gun ownership as equality - Guns create equality between people who are not as physically strong (smaller people, women, elderly) and those who would otherwise be able to exert their will through the use of physical force. Saying that gun ownership should be illegal is a de facto return to physically strong people exerting their will on physically weak people.
• Government as a monopoly on force - People with liberal or SJW leanings often have just as much of a distrust of the government as conservatives and liberterians, but may not consciously realize it. They are constantly protesting abuses of government power (e.g. perceived injustices with police shootings, no-knock SWAT raids, etc.). Why do they then advocate that power should be taken away from the people, and that the government should have a monopoly on force? This is Olympics level mental gymnastics and it's great to watch.
• Guns don't kill people, guns save people - It's not productive to try and fight uphill about people abusing guns. Anything can be abused in a free society (incl. U-Haul trucks or gasoline). Talk about how people legitimately use guns. Don't think about guns as taking life, think about guns as saving life. Defensive gun usages far outnumber media inflamed accounts of school shootings. It is much more likely that you or someone you know will be a victim of a crime versus being caught in some sort of mass casualty event. Guns are a tool to stop victimization just as much as a fire extinguisher is a tool to stop your home from burning down.
• Personal responsibility - If you feel responsible for yourself and your family, why would you rely exclusively on the police and the government to protect them? It is your responsibility to protect yourself and those that you love from physical harm, whether from criminals or from the very government that claims to have your best interests in mind (although I might leave off that latter part). Firearms are the most effective tool for that job.
• Absence of paranoia - Gun owners are not afraid and are not "compensating for something," they are just responsible and prepared. Attacks are unpredictable. We don't fear attacks, but we are ready to respond if they do happen. Cast it in the light of your opponent being irresponsible and unprepared to defend their family.

You've spelled out the reasons why the second amendment is in the Constitution. The problem arises from your assumption that logic is part of the discussion. The OP is referring to hostile public approaches by what sounds to be emotional, irrational thinking.

Most people here default to the shortcut method of applying the Bill of Rights directly to the wound. It is a valid strategy but is lost on leftists that are miseducated on the tenets of our founding documents. Often you'll hear things like "the second amendment is for hunting" or "the second amendment is to fight the British."

I really like your points but, sadly, they're usually ineffective.

 

[Dan Adams]

• Guns don't kill people, guns save people - It's not productive to try and fight uphill about people abusing guns. Anything can be abused in a free society (incl. U-Haul trucks or gasoline). Talk about how people legitimately use guns. Don't think about guns as taking life, think about guns as saving life. Defensive gun usages far outnumber media inflamed accounts of school shootings. It is much more likely that you or someone you know will be a victim of a crime versus being caught in some sort of mass casualty event. Guns are a tool to stop victimization just as much as a fire extinguisher is a tool to stop your home from burning down.

Thanks for your excellent, well thought out set of talking points! Can anyone tell me where to find reliable sources of statistics on how many people are saved by guns annually? I've heard some high numbers and would like to know if they're true.

 

[Alan12013]

...I've spent a good deal of time, in my past of coarse, in an environment of underworked, overpaid pampered people who haven't spent more then 5 minutes in their entire lives contemplating anything outside what they've been told to do or learn. Having said that, I once had a lady' respond with "oh my god do I need to call the police" after she asked what I was doing that weekend and I said "probably going to go do some bench rest shooting". I try to qualify my opinion and myself, state an uncomfortable position for them, end the discussion, then compliment them or act politely in as few words as possible and hopefully give them a good experience dealing with some one who is "pro gun" and something to think about. If that don't work I approach it from a hobby perspective and start by telling them I bench shoot airguns and collect them, then lead into reloading ammunition for 'precision bench rest shooting' which churches it up just enough to where most wont try gathering a lynch mob to kill me, for the day.

 

[alv7722]

No one knows with certainty what the future will bring. Though we know with certainty what has happened in the past. Germany/Poland, Circa WWII is a lesson in what happens to disarmed populations. We have a responsibility to pass our God-given rights on to future generations.

If the 2nd goes, the 4th and 1st will be soon to follow.

 

[Jabba]

Just tell them you've already had a change of heart, would they like to donate to your tattoo removal fund? You are not going to change any minds in a random public encounter.

 

[Mark W.]

I would tell them its impossible for me to give up my rights as protected by the Second Amendment. Since the amendment has nothing to do with my having these rights. It is specifically written to stop the US Government from being able to change the rights I was born with.

Now move along I don't discuss religion with people on my front porch nor rights with people that don't know theirs.

 

[Alan12013]

Just tell them you've already had a change of heart, would they like to donate to your tattoo removal fund? You are not going to change any minds in a random public encounter.

I'd like to see some studies on this - scholar.google here I come.... In social dynamics you can convince people nearly anything with the right methods but as Hitler noted in his writings, you can convince someone of a matter when you present the right argument and facts to support the opinion however, eventually they seem to forget the reasoning and return to their original thoughts. Peers have a lot to do with it, one study comes to mind recently in Colorado where I think some Harvard academics were looking for group effect on opinion with Court implications (selecting justices/judges, predicting court rulings, preparing legal arguments, etc) in mind and they found the obvious that people will lean further faster when peer opinions lack diversity. I do try to chip away at the libs' closed mindset at times in just one encounter. I try to be a friendly peer to them while letting them know I am totally ok with guns and shoot friendly target shooting as an out door hobby just like rock climbing. I see over a hundred people a day so if I can open 1 mind up from going full extreme on the issue I feel good about myself. Granted most of the time I wish I'd have been born in the EU, that's neither here nor there at this time...

 

[No_Regerts]

For coworkers, file a hostile work environment claim on all of them.

For teens at the store, I'd just fart and walk away.

 

[partsed]

LOL..... Carpet bomb them......

 

[Elf]

Thanks for your excellent, well thought out set of talking points! Can anyone tell me where to find reliable sources of statistics on how many people are saved by guns annually? I've heard some high numbers and would like to know if they're true.

A small summary here: Gun Control – Just Facts
Forbes article: Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

Gary Kleck and John Lott are always good sources, although I wouldn't necessarily quote them directly to anti-gun people as they are now (in)famous enough to be dismissed out of hand. Rather, I would quote their original sources which are usually government data (e.g. FBI, CDC), which is really the only level at which such statistics are kept.

You've spelled out the reasons why the second amendment is in the Constitution. The problem arises from your assumption that logic is part of the discussion. [...] I really like your points but, sadly, they're usually ineffective.

I was hoping in part that people in a work environment would at least be civil and open to some sort of a discussion, but it might be too much to ask for. There is no way to utilize talking points if people aren't ready to talk. The best (and pretty much only) thing you can do is turn the shame they were trying to project onto you, back onto them.

In the cases that we see all so often of gun owners being called "murderers," "sick people," (recently) "terrorists," or people stating they would like to commit physical violence towards us in some way (as I often find from European hoplophobes), I think the only thing is to turn it around and make the extremity of their own behavior clear. Ask them why they are so angry, violent, or irrational, especially if they have never met you before, and tell them you think their behavior is amazingly anti-social and inappropriate. It won't make them believers, but at least it might make them feel bad about themselves.