As gunnies, we all experienced this situation: you wind up in a "discussion" with a hoplophobe, and no matter how politely you state the provable facts, you just keep getting the same old Brady Bunch talking points in reply. Eric S. Raymond of Armed and Dangerous has developed a new method for dealing with this issue.
I listened to the others on the channel offer polite, reasoned, factually correct counterarguments to this guy, and get nowhere. And suddenly…suddenly, I understood why. It was because the beliefs the ignoramus was spouting were only surface structure; refuting them one-by-one could do no good without directly confronting the substructure, the emotional underpinnings that made ignoramus unable to consider or evaluate counter-evidence.
And another. My reply was more sheep noises, more deliberate mockery. And you know what? A few rounds of this actually worked. Ignoramus protested that he wasn’t a sheep. At which point I asked him “Then why are you disarmed?”
I'm am so-o-o looking forward to a test application of his methodology. I may also try it for other, similar circumstances.