I encourage all of you to engage anti-2A's in debate

[EandGWZ]

Don't let these people spread misinformation. Educate yourself. Logic and sensibility will always win.

If someone says "we need tougher laws" ask them what laws that would be and then cite the facts within the context of the most recent event. Basically a 20 year old man killed his mom and stole her guns to go on a shooting rampage.

My typical response is, "what law did you have in mind that prevent people from killing other people"

If someone says "we need to ban assault weapons", I would inquire as to what is an "assault weapon" as in my opinion anything that self loads is an assault weapon.

The safest place for a weapon is on one's hip.

KEEP THE ARGUMENT FOCUSED ON WHAT LAW COULD OF BEEN PASSED TO PREVENT WHAT JUST OCCURRED, THERE IS NO LAW.

[DoubleSawbuck]

You can usually talk sense into someone who's on the fence about the issue. Someone who is a staunchly opposed to firearms won't bother listening to you and is only looking for an argument.

I think it's beneficial to engage in a educated debate with them when they start regurgitating the lies you hear from the media. You need to remember that most people don't take the time to question what they read/hear on the news and they are never presented the other side of the story.

I think the most important thing is to me polite and have facts to back your argument. I've seen ignorant comments on facebook that make both sides look bad. If you choose to engage in discussion leave out the tired cliches and name calling.

[EandGWZ]

Yes Double, being pilite and hqving facts is paramount. That's why I just like to ask questions which outside miraculously recalling 300 million firearms (including the illegal ones) have no answers (at least any that make sense)

[Derek]

I typically find myself engaging in educating, not debate. Both sides have to be properly informed before a debate can occur.

Politely, of course.

~ Derek

[EandGWZ]

Good point and distinction Derek!

[DoubleSawbuck]

I was having, what I thought was, a polite discussion on facebook yesterday. We went back and forth on the usual points, i.e. no guns = no crime, only police should have guns, ect. I took my time and answered everything concisely, double checking my facts before I posted. Unfortunately he must have decided there was no use arguing with logic and deleted all of his posts leaving me look like I went off on some sort of a tangent.

[Derek]

Good point and distinction Derek!

After I reread it, it sounds a little arrogant. Not intended, I just find most people lack the firearms fundamentals.

~ Derek

[ChamberedRound]

Agreed with the OP. Engage them wherever it can be done in a sensible, logical, and civil way. Be it in person, via email, Twitter, FB, forums, phone calls, etc., make sure that our side of issue gets heard over the hysterical din of calls for "sensible action" which will be anything but sensible.

[Hokkmike]

The very best things you can do for an anti is to invite them to the range, give them a couple of shots, and brag about their good ones.

[EandGWZ]

I was having, what I thought was, a polite discussion on facebook yesterday. We went back and forth on the usual points, i.e. no guns = no crime, only police should have guns, ect. I took my time and answered everything concisely, double checking my facts before I posted. Unfortunately he must have decided there was no use arguing with logic and deleted all of his posts leaving me look like I went off on some sort of a tangent.

Sounds like that person isn't much of a "friend" despite the difference in your views. I don't even get into the more guns less crime argument. I'm more along the line of what are the laws and how would you like them changed. It follows everything they want to see become law is already law. Ultimately, police officers respond to crimes in 5-7 minutes if you're lucky, my firearm 1-3 seconds...people like me and you do not go and by guns legally to kill children in schools.