Gun Control Forum on Facebook Gun Control Forum on Google Plus Gun Control Forum on Twitter

Greetings Gun Control Debater

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with Twitter

Popular Gun Control Forum Categories

In this Discussion

Anti-Gun Extremists - What do we do to educate them?

edited June 2016 in Gun Control Debates Posts: 39

So I have been thinking about gun controls and

new gun laws and

registration of firearms

and safety classes for gun owners

but I haven't spent much time thinking about what non-gun owners don't know about law abiding gun owners and gun safety. Another forum member pointed out that victims of gun violence are usually anti-gun extremists. Who are the others? How do we explain that we already have enough controls and violence perpetuate with a gun is rarer than domestic violence?



  • They don't realize that not all gun owners are criminals.  They seem to think that all people become maniacs when they get a gun.  If the forum member is me, I didn't mean that all victims of gun violence are anti-gun.  I'm a victim of gun violence; I'm not anti-gun.  We have to let people know that criminals won't abide by the laws and the ones who do are the ones that don't shoot people. 
    Thanked by 1CherylTorrie
  • Posts: 234
    I agree.I think first and foremost we have to actually get the anti's to listen to us with a open mind.I have listened to them and even agree with a few legit concerns,but until we can get them to see us the good guys with guns and not the criminals with illegal guns,there isn't much of a chance to compromise.They need to see there is a need for law abiding citizens to have guns,not only for protection,but for hunting and target shooting it is fun and harms no one.
    Thanked by 1CherylTorrie
  • It just comes down to them breaking that wall down of ignorance. They are set in their ways. We can educate them all we want, but they're stubborn and brainwashed.
  • Posts: 21
     Right you are, harpazo22. They are definitely brainwashed! If just knowing that criminals are not going to use even more violence against an unarmed public, doesn't convince them, I don't know what will! Our right to bear arms doesn't seem to sway them either. I wish that the people who hate guns just wouldn't buy one, and leave the rest of us alone! If a shooter came into their child's school, and a law-abiding citizen saved their kid's life by killing the gunman, I wonder if that would knock some sense into the anti-gun nut?
  • I think a lot of the problem with education is defensiveness.  I wouldn't listen to anyone who is calling me uneducated or a nut.  I mean, don't pro-gun people get offended when they are called "gun nuts" instead of enthusiasts?  Both sides of the debate fail to realize that there are real people on the other side. 
  • Posts: 234
    I for one don't care what someone calls me,they are entitled to there opinion,when I say someone is not educated on something or ignorant to something it is not meant as a insult,just a situation,in other situations I might be the uneducated or ignorant to that situation it doesn't make me all around stupid or something.Pride is a good thing,but just like anything else it has to be used right.When someone calls you something,I think it is more important not to prove them right.
  • I agree that people are entitled to their opinions. The most important thing is working together, however, on both sides.  I was just basically saying that if you call someone a name, it gets their hackles up and they are less likely to work with you.  I know some people can rise above that and do what needs to be done, but most people are more sensitive. 
  • Posts: 234
    You know the old saying call me want you want, just don't call me late for supper.Just had to throw that in there.Now seriously you can't educate anyone if they are not willing to learn or listen.I see a lot of the anti's can't even agree on the same things they want,some want laws, and some want restrictions, and other ones want total ban of guns.
  • That is true.  If people don't want to listen, there's not much you can teach them.  Sadly, there are so many people who think they are right about something and don't want others to "poison their minds". 
  • Posts: 49
    People have a right to their long as their opinions don't turn into actions that infringe upon the rights of others, I see no need to preach to them.  
  • I agree that people have a right to their opinions, but educating isn't about "preaching".  Preaching is trying to get others to see your point of view.  Educating is presenting actual facts so they can make an informed decision instead of running around half-cocked and hurting others.
  • Anti gun people do not listen since they consider that facts are just lies presented by the NRA, you can't even get gun owners to agree on much gun issues, truth is, if we could just get 80 % of gun owners to join NRA and to agree to work together, the anti gun people might just join us, however, I believe we will have little success until we have a majority of gun owners working together as pro gun rights advocates.
  • I feel most of the problem lies with people who think they know everything there is to know without properly educating themselves. Most anti gun people have either dealt with something horrible having to do with guns or have not dealt with guns directly at all. Many are only going by what they see or hear in the news. Most have never had the joy of going to a gun range, had to defend their cows against coyote, or even been in a situation where that gun saved their life against an intruder. I'm not a large woman. If a 300 lb intruder comes in and attacks me I'm not taking my chances with a frying pan defending me and my children. We never hear about positive gun stories in the news. So really how would people know any different if they hadn't been raised around guns. 100 years ago, guns were required for survival. Most killed their own food. Guns didn't get such a negative wrap until the media painted them as the problem.
  • Posts: 75
    I suppose that domestic violence doesn't result in unnecessary deaths with striking regularity like the way gun crime does. You have to convince the anti gun extremists that there are less bullets than human lives and that releasing a bullet or pressing a trigger would not determine the number of days an innocuous citizen should spend on this planet. That one should not always look over their shoulders just in case there is a projectile raring for his nape. You have to convince them why despite the controls so much hyped about rarely work to save those who did not live to tell another story just because some people won't give up a deadly and unnecessary indulgence.
  • Posts: 6
    theboysmom04 made a very good point. 100 years ago, guns were required for survival. Most people killed their own food. 

    However, the world today is vastly different. We no longer need guns for survival, because most of our food is killed humanely in processing plants, and we pick it up at the supermarket for amazingly low prices. 

    Now, our governments pay men to have guns and protect us. They are called police. They are called soldiers. 

    Now, the only reason we have guns is so that we can feel the pride of ownership, and from time to time, showcase our targeting skills, and maybe once in our lifetime, shoot a stranger who comes uninvited into our house at 2 in the morning. Oh, and our kids learn that if they can hold a gun up, they can make grown men do whatever they demand them to.
  • Posts: 5
    If the pro gun population had any respect for guns at all they would realise that for the safety of the population it would be prudent to give up their right to hold an item that can kill a person in an instant and accept that just because they can use a gun safely it doesn't change the fact that many, many people die needessly. Is human life not worth more than target practice and hunting deer?
  • Although hunting and self protection are important rights, what the anti-gun argument often ignores is that this is not protected in the Bill of Rights. Quoting the preamble of the Bill of Rights-"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."

    This means that all TEN of the first amendments were designed to protect the people from oppression of the government. So when speaking of the 2nd amendment, which is often the most debated, we get the principal that it's there to protect the people with "arms".

    You really need to break up the 2nd Amendment statement to get its meaning. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The important phrase that applies to individuals are the "well regulated militia" and the "right of the people" which are separate by a clause. But if you arrange a clause with a conjunction-A well regulated Militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed. The framers of the constitution ensured that this document was not overly written. However you construct this sentence though the meaning is the same.

    So, if you combine this with the fact that the preamble is to protect us from an oppressive government. This is why so many are against gun laws. Hilary Clinton has said that she likes the Australia gun laws- those laws confiscated many guns and made it a crime to own common hunting and self protection guns, let alone guns that should protect the people from oppression.

    If you see this as not an infringement on rights, look at how since 9/11, and how the patriot act does not recognize US Citizen privacy as it once did. Americans passively think about or don't even recognize the fact that secret warrants have occurred to pull cell phone data and look at your email. Look at how often police coerce citizens to be searched without a warrant. We're loosing our 4th amendment rights and not even stopping a beat. Freedom should be difficult to take and warrants should be hard to get. Ultimately people should not have to be afraid of the government and lay down their rights.
  • Posts: 75
    The best way to educate anti-gun extremists is not through intellectual discourse which is strong on both sides with the situation on the ground tilting in their own favour. I am pro gun control but I recognise the fact that these shootings that occur despite being a grievous tragedy are statistically speaking random discrete occurrences just like road accidents and are representative of a very tiny portion of the populace. There is also no quantification of the deterrence occasioned by gun ownership. Its not clear whether shootings will increase if guns are banned or not. I think the best thing is to agree to disagree wild looking for a common ground on the issue. But one more life lost is one life too much if the situation can be preempted.
  • Posts: 24
    Well I think that we all know at this point that no matter where the issue goes, you are going to have your extremists on both sides of the argument.  It really does work to muddy the waters, though, and I think that it is far more counter-productive than a lot of the other things people attribute the apparent stagnation to.  These are all interesting ideas though, and so thank you for sharing.
Sign In or Register to comment.