I think it may be more that you were, both times, open-minded. You were in a situation where you didn't have much to lose, and thus were open to being wrong and rectifying that wrong. If you professed a believed view like "Homosexuals are pedophiles", and someone else said "Incorrect. Here is study X that reveals that less than 1% of all homosexuals are pedophiles.", you might be convinced, but more likely than not, you won't be. You would probably perceive it as a verbal attack on you.

But it's not just an attack on you, but your reputation. See, a lot of people also perceive that admitting oneself is wrong, or even if oneself doesn't know something, is a very, very difficult thing to do for the best of people, and it only climbs in difficulty with something entrenched.

What it sounds like is that you saw an area of what you knew little about and researched them on your own. Your mind was open, and nobody was trying to convince you of their viewpoint while you were holding a contradicting viewpoint.

I reckon, if such a thing is possible, someone could one day show me unbiased and irrefutable facts about how gun control actually works, and I would be very critical and harsh about the study, and then ignore it, since the entrenched view for me is the idea that liberty is good, and it should be allowed at any cost (as long as that cost is not liberty). I've done it before with Global Warming (pseudo-)skepticism. I will probably do it again. I might already be doing it without realizing it. Hell, I came to the recent conclusion that I may be an extremist. I believe in the unabridged right to bear arms that can be used in self-defense, which includes things such as tanks (since the military), but does exclude the possibility of an individual using a nuclear or biological weapon. I also don't believe in pre-emptive infringement on someone's right unless they have been proven to abuse it in the near future by past actions (and not condition of which they have no control). This goes for people who have depression, among other possibilities. In other words, no compromise.

There are wonderful times which I am able to change my views with little emotional need, but I have observed that most of those instances are where I am in a weird mood, or I am in both a healthy atmosphere which doesn't alienate anyone (regardless of viewpoint) and that I have little to lose with changing or even inverting my viewpoint on the matter I am discussing. It happened recently with abortion to where I changed what I held was personhood (for the curious, I believe personhood begins at the moment when unique DNA would form for another organism; I am still pro-choice up until it is impossible to have an abortion (at birth of the baby)). With gun rights, the biggest thing I have to lose is the fact that the idea of liberty is the biggest reason for all of my derived beliefs and values, and unless someone can bring some reasoning and evidence to the discussion that doesn't infringe upon that idea, I will give very little weight to what they have to say that puts that idea even close to being infringed.

I dislike it. I really dislike the fact that my emotions overpower facts, but it's not an easy thing to get rid of. The scarier thing to me is that I realize this (I don't think a lot of people realize this about themselves), and I fully accept that I will twist and manipulate my own words in order to make sure that gun rights succeed in the event that some evidence comes along that hints at merit for the gun control movement. The worse thing is I'll let it happen, and it will take a damn long time for me to get out of that trap.

For what it's worth, if it comes to that, I might be able to keep silent about the issue as to not use dastardly means to further my own views.

I hate being human.