Persuasion

I'm interested in hearing from others here, what has been your most effective argument against additional restrictions on gun ownership when speaking with people who describe themselves as moderates?

My experience, though limited, is that appeals based on U.S. history, founding fathers, BOR, etc are more miss than hit.

Of late have been trying to argue the point with examples of analogous restrictions on other rights, e.g. would it be OK to require a permit, waiting period, etc before individuals are allowed to speak out against a politician. Usual reply is "no, but this is different because people can die".

I haven't yet played the abortion card in response to that, though I think it may be the best card in our hand. But that risks escalating the emotion to a point that's counterproductive.

What has worked for you?

Here is are some simple facts; The average response time for a police officer is 3-4 mins, that is if you are talking about being serviced by a local city police department. Now if you live in a county that is serviced by a sheriff's office. That time will increase, how much depends of the number of deputies and the size of the county. Additionally, I can tell you as a law enforcement and security specialist if an individual desires to do you harm they will most like succeed. Why? They can and will dictate the time, place and method in which they will do you harm. It is hard to be constantly alert, we get tire, we get distracted. So you need to have some means to defend yourself if the need arises. We are not conditioned as we once were. Just look around an count how many people are busy looking at their phone? How many have headphone on? Crimes have changed as well they more brazen, now we have individuals breaking into homes during the day and even when they are occupied. We have individuals that will steal a car in broad daylight even with the owners in them. Look at Baltimore today, 88% commercial robberies. A LEO can only respond, and try to curtail criminal behavior if allowed.

If you're trying to preach to the Sheeple of the left, the you may be out of luck. Jesus Christ could not get them to see the truth. This is the problem I have. I know it sounds stupid, but the best way I've converted folks is to take them shooting. Most of the Left can't get it until they fire that first round. Now don't get me wrong, I have had some who have shot a 22 pistol as their first shot and they put the pistol down and said that was enough. You will find those types. But I'm probably at a 95% or better ratio of converting folks into becoming a shooter and therefore a 2A supporter.

The one argument I use that works if someone is willing to be pragmatic...

Even if you were somehow able to instantly halt the new production of every factory, as well as cease all importation, you still have an overwhelmingly impossible task. There are about 300 MILLION guns in this country right now. Even if 90% of them are turned in, you still have 30 Million guns out there! And certainly, the criminals won't be the ones to turn in the "tools of their trade." Unless we implement police-state tactics and methods, there will always be guns floating around in a black market, and the only ones left defenseless will be the law-abiding who surrendered theirs.

While that line of reasoning usually works to bring out the practical difficulties of the problem, it's usually followed by a "well....we have to do something." (sigh)

Joe

This pretty much sums up society today.

Different arguments work with different people. I don’t talk with many left wing nut jobs and they can’t be reasoned with anyway.

If we’re talking about street crime I’ll usually focus on the fact that most guns they use are obtained illegally, and that prohibition laws don’t work and tend to create criminal enterprises. I’ll then mention that if they can be illegally armed then their potential victims should certainly have the chance to be armed in their own defense. I find that most reasonable people believe in the core right to self defense.

If we’re discussing modern sporting rifles and or standard cap magazines. I point out that we’re not talking about battlefield weapons. That most people when searching for a self defense firearm won’t look at the military, but at their local police force. 40 years ago the self defense weapons of choice were a 38/357 revolver and/or a 12 gauge pump shotgun, which is what the police had for dealing with bad hombres. Now the police carry a 17 round Glock for everyday wear, but if there is real trouble they get the AR out of the trunk. But in those cases the news calls it a patrol rifle. Is the cop’s job to mow down as many people as possible, or is it the best tool for the job. I’d remind them that the job is facing the same exact same bad guy that a citizen would likely be facing. Why should the citizen be expected to do it with smaller capacity magazines.

School/mass shootings - they’re horrible tragedies and I hope we can figure out a solution. There are a couple issues I bring up depending on the emotional state of the person I’m talking to:
Mag capacity - in a self defense scenario against just a few attackers a mag change at 10 rounds could get you killed. Lookup hit ratios in real shootings. But, mag changes while walking school halls or while there’s a room of cowering unarmed people will barely slow a shooter down.
AR15- I point out that there are rifles that shoot the same bullets the same way but nobody talks about them because they have wooden stocks. I mention the devastation that could be wrought by someone in a classroom alone for 10 minutes with a shotgun. I remind them of the horrible body count at Virginia Tech where just a couple pistols we’re used.
Supply Side solutions - I point out that almost all of the “solutions” proposed by the Democrats and their friends are feel good/do nothing gestures to make people feel good and give them the moral high ground. While these shootings are seemingly common and happen far too often, they are incredibly rare and hard to predict until hindsight gives you the “what if’s”. These guys are a few needles in a large haystack. The targets need to be protected. Can you imagine the TSA trying to find highjackers out in the streets or restricting the sale of box cutters? They have security at the airports. Airports, banks, rich people, politicians, etc... security needs to be tougher, and if somehow it is breached, then for God”s sake there needs to be somebody close by with a gun!

At some point the phrase “ but if it saves a few lives...” will come up. This is when I usually say let’s turn this argument around. I say that over 10,000 people are killed by drunk drivers each year and about 10% of those are children. Therefore all alcohol sales should be banned. Booze is purely recreational and we could save thousands. Are you not to blame? How do you sleep at night with the blood of those children on your hands? They’ll usually point out that they don’t drink and drive so they’re not the problem. They’re a responsible drinker and shouldn’t be punished because of the few bad people. At some point they should make the connection. Assuming they’re a responsible drinker.

There are a lot of people open to persuasion. Good luck!

"I like shooting and might need to protect myself"

Convince someone they like shooting and might need to protect themselves.

I find that the argument often comes down to one, immutable thing: do you believe guns are good or bad?

Like many political stances, it goes well beyonds facts to a core set of closely held beliefs. What you believe determines the statistics you remember and voices you use to reinforce your opinion.

If the news and close relatives getting shot is your litmus test, guns are evil. If you or your relatives hunt, are military/LEO, or are otherwise gun owners you are on the pro end of the spectrum.

I have given up trying to convince the other side they are patently wrong. I've found it's better to point out that their experience and mine are not the same, which colors our ability to have a useful discourse around the issue. You can't argue with beliefs. We can agree to disagree and move discourse to a place where it can be dialogue.