Combating Ignorance.

Discuss ways to help people understand firearms topics.

Some work associates were talking about people not needing to buy automatic weapons. I wanted to interject but refrained. I did ask if either of them had ever tried to buy an automatic and left it alone afterwards allowing the conversation to continue.

What would you have done? I think clarifying the current limitations on autos would have been relevant but I didnt want to seem like the aktchually guy. On the other hand letting them think there is no regulation on autos let’s them chase their tail a bit.

Just seeking some insight to enlightening those not unware. What’s the best way to keep someone receptive to input?

1 Like

You can’t fix stupid and it’s likely these people would never entertain the other side. Beat them over the head with sarcasm.

All my guns are fully semi automatic

Ask questions in addition to stating facts.

If you can ask why five times, you might be able to make them realize by themselves that their own logic is flawed, instead of you telling them it is.

Ackhuyally rarely works and often works against its purpose, even if you are correct.

It isn’t easy, but if you can steer the conversation in a way where people have to rationalize their own point of view, you might get somewhere.

Also don’t get mad, and accept that some people are just so set in their ways that you cannot change their mind, and it usually isn’t worth burning bridges over.

As an example, but not relating to firearms, I’m sure you can relate to this type of discussion:
Just the other day I had a discussion on nuclear power with someone and the person just wouldn’t have it. It went something like this:

Joe: Nuclear is bad, it’s dangerous.

Tsk: Why is it dangerous?

Joe: It’s so bad when accidents happens, you destroy massive areas!

Tsk: It can be bad, but nuclear has the least deaths and injury in the energy sector

Joe: Chernobyl was a disaster.

Tsk: Yes, but it’s not representative of the nuclear industry, or a modern reactor.

Joe: And what about Fukushima?

Tsk: One person died in Fukushima, coal plants are responsible for thousands of deaths yearly in comparison.

Tsk: Many Norwegian Journalists decided to come home from Japan cause they were afraid of the Radiation from the reactor, the only problem was that background radiation in Norway was still higher than where they were.

Joe: But it’s not safe, it’s too risky if it goes bad.

Tsk: …

Tsk: Did you know 6 grams of uranium-235 is equivalent to 1 tonne of coal in energy?

Joe: ಠ_ಠ

Tsk: * starts talking about fusion *

Joe: *loses interest, opens snapchat on his phone *

I failed to change his mind on the subject, but I have been successful with others on this particular topic.


As tsk says. Ask don’t tell. People hate being “told”. They have to think they’ve figured it out on their own.

I ask them specifics about what they believe and then try to address specific fallacies with well sourced corrections when required.

The first thing I like to ask about is “do you think crime is higher or lower than 30 years ago?” You will find virtually every trope gun control argument has been debunked by FBI, DOJ and CDC study/data but people calling for gun controljust parrot BS theyve heard.

Ultimately though its not about “the gun” but the symbolic representation of limited government it represents. I wish i could find a way to explain this to pro and anti gun alike. It scares them both it seems when it should not.

Its not about how some hypothetical revolution is won it’s about how our government is required to abide by due process for each individual prior to depriving them of unalienable rights.

prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment. That amendment was repealed. No amendment was passed after that repeal to allow “bans” of guns or drugs or anything else by the federal government. Least of all specifically enumerated rights to keep and bear arms.

So its a bigger question of are we free citizens with government protecting our rights or are we subjects granted privileges.


Normally if I hear that level of stupidity I text or email them the truth without context and them write them off as a functional human.

My grandfather told me everyone deserves 5 minutes. After that, you have a choice if you will give them more.

1 Like

I’ve had a few “”"""“discussions”"""""" about firearms on the interwebs, and I have to honestly report that a grand total of zero [0] have resulted with anti-gunners relinquishing their position.

Ironically, it’s my own countrymenwomanxhe’s or Australians/Kiwis who are AGGRESSIVE in their condemnation of firearms, and will go on et fucking nauseum about how awful the are and how they would never ever ever everrrrrrrr visit America because Americans all walk their dogs with an M4 down their trousers and several other talking points they cough up like mucus-y hairballs onto whatever platform they happen to be posting on.

I love guns. I mean I really do love the idea of these small machines that create miniature explosions inside to propel a small piece or pieces or metal outwards, and the machining that has to be done in order to get that done, and quite frankly I enjoy the idea that regular people can own these wonderful machines and can use them as a enjoyable test of precision or indeed to protect themselves from lunatics, wild animals, and the occasional Soviet invasion. I myself do not own any firearms because of several physical issues, and the fact I don’t live in America full time and as such cannot devote myself to carrying/utilising a firearm with the 300% safe mindset they require.

You specifically asked about trying to argue the pro-gun side of things, and there are lots of smarter people out there that will have very smarter things to say about how you can argue and debate gun ownership and rights better but I’ve thought about what I would say if I carried and what I have said in defence of people who do, and it’s very simple.

Because you can.

You can. That’s it. By the laws of the country you are in, you can own a firearm. It may require a lot of effort and possibly you can’t do all you’d like where you live, but you CAN own a firearm. That is really all I would feel people need to be told. WHY you carry is your own goddamn business, but you CAN. Like nowhere else on this planet, America facilitates CAN in so many wonderful ways. You don’t even need to frame it as an aggressive clapback, you can just politely say that you carry or you WOULD carry, simply because you can. You are permitted by the simplest and most fundamental precept of American law, and you can choose to do so. Just as others are free to not do so.


It’s been said before, but asking them what their rationale is behind their bias is a great way to open it up.

Most people don’t know what they are talking about, and you can usually ask simple questions until they have no choice but to say “I don’t know” and/or their entire argument falls apart because it was never based on facts in the first place.

And correcting people immediately and ACKCHUALLYing them to death will immediately turn their logical brains off, and they’ll jump straight to the emotional brain.

1 Like

Practice on me! I don’t think people need fully automatic rifles. They might want them, which is fine if they are responsible gun owner, but I can’t think why they need them.

1 Like

It should never be a matter of need. If I can legally have them I should never have to justify why. To that point others should have to justify why shouldn’t I.
I believe full autos are a waste of ammo and only useful for flexing on the poors. But I will never ask someone to explain their reasoning for having it.


One of my steam friends tried to school me on guns with his epic reddit logic. His perspective was that guns are illegal in his country and crime rates are low, and that crime rates are higher in the US where guns are legal; but went on to contradict his perspective by talking about being upset that guns are now legal in Brazil, where they have been extremely restricted historically yet have an extremely high rate of violent crime. It seems to me the counter point to his argument is that his country (UAE) is a wealthy country of primarily oil magnates, and that violent crime is not a symptom of gun legality/ownership but of poverty which is absent in his country.


You only need them if they tell you can’t have them despite having done nothing wrong.

One bullet can be as or more lethal than 30, but then so can a car or a propane tank.

Innocent until proven guilty. Free until due process has been satisfied.

1 Like

See above. Its a machine or tool like so many others. It’s important that we retain am understanding between the people and our government that they do not have the power to deprive us our liberties because of what someone “might” do.

The murder rate doubled from 1998-2015 in MA after sweeping new gun laws. The rate of suicide has increased significantly since new suicide targeting gun laws were enacted.

What you will hear on TV is that MA has some of the lowest gun crime rates in the country. What they wont say is that they also held that spot before the restrictive laws were enacted.

This is why government was not granted the power to ban things. Mob rule is driven by misinformation and mistrust.

gun crime rates are irrelevant to the conversation as far as I’m concerned. Really we should be looking at violent crime overall. A criminal deprived of a gun may use a knife and so on.

1 Like

Ok, I will bite.

Where does power come from? Does it come from consensus, social contract or force?

Those are all the same thing. If you continue to resist an unjust law or government eventually they will use force to enforce their law and will. Even not paying your taxes, this holds true.

Now, firearms are the universal tool for applying force. By allowing or guaranteeing Private ownership of arms, you decentralize force. Thus, you decentralize power.

Next, a well armed population is a deterrent to invasion and occupation.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq all had much lower ownership rates and still the world’s biggest military power was bogged down for years in civilian insurgencies. And in all cases the outcome was inconclusive for the aggressor at best.

Third, just because one does not want or need something does not mean they should be barred.

I can make same argument about automobiles, private property, encryption, and almost any material good.

But, let’s say you have nothing to hide so would you be ok giving up all privacy? Because you didn’t need to defend yourself right now doesn’t mean won’t have to later.

And statistics muddy things a bunch. Outside of the Christchurch shooting NZ was quite safe and back then they could have AR 15s. Switzerland, Finland and Czech Republic all have high ownership rates but lower crime.

In Australia after they enacted the firearms restrictions they followed up after 10 years. The drafter of the law admitted they could not find conclusive evidence it lowered crime. They felt that better mental healthcare, criminal reform and education did more to lower crime rates. Brazil and Mexico post colonial countries like the US have worse crime but more restrictive gun laws.

In closing, the US has more firearms in private ownership than people. Firearms don’t go bad so even if a ban was enacted they wouldn’t go away.

1 Like

Should necessity be a requirement for freedom? Seems counterintuitive.
We should lookup the requirements to obtain an automatic, as I understand its incredibility difficult. I think possession and storage has certain requirements as well.

Also what kind of militia would we be with inferior weapons? Its chilling to see the growing possibility of a civil dispute requiring armed citizens unfolding in our lifetime.
See Portland and their dwindling police force.

How’s this?

Follow Up: Houston Texas allows for open carry of Firearms and London, UK has recently banned the sale of knifes with pointed tips to include kitchen knifes.

Houston is a safer city per capita…

Edit more counter points

Full auto is used for suppressive fire. I.E. to keep your adversary behind cover. Even using bust fire only slightly improves hit percentages. Look at the manual of arms for NATO and BRICs countries, it supports this point


The media has somehow tricked people into believing that Full auto rifles are both common and easy to acquire.


This is what blows my mind.


When I got my new rifle my friend seriously thought it was full auto.

1 Like