Korwin Love Bombs The Antis


PDA






AZRickD
April 15, 2008, 02:25 AM
http://www.gunlaws.com/DuquesneSpeech.htm

For some reason, Alan Korwin of gunlaws.com was invited to be the token gunnie in a room full of anti-rights sycophants.

One might imagine oneself in that situation, trading barbs and devolving into a screaming match. After all, he was in a roomful of antis who came to rejoice with anti-rights Supermen (Tom Mauser, Jim Brady, and statistician David Hemenway of Harvard who, for some reason, doesn't do demographics because he apparently doesn't want to find out much about who he says is doin' the killin'.)

He followed featured speaker Tom Mauser whose son was killed many years ago and has become a staple of these gatherings (Some years ago, I exchanged some pleasant -- on my end -- e-mails with Mr. Mauser. He didn't like me much)...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/images/200804/20080410sm_mellon_gun_500.jpg

While addressing the National Symposium on Handgun Violence at Duquesne University, Tom Mauser displays the shoes of his son, Daniel, who was killed at Columbine High School. Mr. Hauser wears the shoes on special occasions.

Some Korwin snippets (about his tactics, not necessarily the most potent phrases):

I’ve been studying persuasion skills for a long while now, and here was an acid test. Was it possible to address an audience like this and not get booed off stage? Could I manage civil discourse with the participants at the luncheon beforehand, maintain composure through the staging, and end up sociable at the afterglow dinner at a fine restaurant?

It’s my belief that the words exist in the universe to convince anyone of anything true, regardless of their predispositions. The trick is in finding those words, in the moment, and delivering them in a way that works, with the proper aplomb. You may not always find the words, but the words are always there. Think of it this way. What would Jesus say. The words are there. Could I find enough of them?

Their emotions had been played upon all afternoon, so I continued the trend. I told of a woman awakened to find a knife-wielding, ski-masked intruder in her home, and how she had to shoot him while crouched behind her bed, after having called 911. She had to keep firing until the big guy finally collapsed. The police arrived only nine minutes later. You could hear a pin drop.

Would you deny this woman her right to live, by taking her gun away? Isn’t the message, “If it saves one life...”? Do you have the moral authority, or a sense of self righteousness that says she must die because you think guns are bad? I pressed on.

The audience was mine. I had achieved my primary goal. Show a roomful of fearful anti-rights activists that guns are good sometimes, and not get yelled at for it. Bring reason and insight to a crowd, steeped in ignorance and fear, that sorely needed it. I had found the words, and the demeanor, and made the most of it. The university had done good finding me.

We can’t get to that world because of what I call the Four Horseman of Human Havoc -- Angry, Hungry, Stupid and Wicked. Oh, we might be able to solve Hungry someday, but the other three? And that’s the rub. Until there is a fundamental change in human nature, the good guys need the guns to protect themselves from the bad guys. That’s why you have all those armed people in the room, right? No one disagreed. If guns suddenly disappeared, the good guys would have to invent them all over again. That’s because Guns Protect You.

Which leads to a counterintuitive truth. We’re safer now than we were then when there were no guns. The ability to effectively project force keeps us safer. You couldn’t ride the highways back then, now you can. For all the crime you hear about, things aren’t all that bad.

Those of you who just want guns to go away, you don’t want to take guns away from the police do you? Heads shake no. Of course you want the police armed... and that’s a very pro gun position. You instinctively understand the value of guns. You just want someone else to hold it for you. But Jeff Snyder, in his landmark book Nation of Cowards, suggests it is unethical, immoral and politically corrupt to entrust your right to and precious gift of life to someone else.

Also, if you want to cut the “gun deaths” in half, recognize that many if not most are actually “war deaths,” killings in the war on some drugs. The government wages this war, encouraging armed camps, and they shoot at each other and themselves. Declare an armistice and stop the killing. You’ll reach your goal faster than fighting the civil rights lobby that protects the Second Amendment.

Ask a politician when we can declare victory and stop, or just declare defeat and stop, and you’ll learn it’s a perpetual war, like Orwell warned us about. The analogy to alcohol prohibition couldn’t be clearer. While the ban is on, the killings continue. Stop the war, the killings go away, even though all the problems caused by the vegetable products continue.

Lots more.

Rick

If you enjoyed reading about "Korwin Love Bombs The Antis" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
John G
April 15, 2008, 02:38 AM
Excellent. This is a seminar on how to present a pro-gun, pro-self defense philosophy.

AZRickD
April 15, 2008, 02:50 AM
It takes lots of practice. I can do it in short bursts. I've seen Alan do it in long-form.

IllHunter
April 15, 2008, 12:19 PM
I often get frustrated and jump to rights, idiots and sheep. This usually starts a brawl and I escape out the window:cuss:

misterwhipple
April 15, 2008, 02:39 PM
Thank you, AZRickD. That was good for me to read.

rainbowbob
April 15, 2008, 02:51 PM
Great Post! Man...just in those highlights the man hit so many bulls-eyes it was uncanny.

Tinker
April 15, 2008, 03:17 PM
Thanks for posting.

Robert Hairless
April 15, 2008, 03:37 PM
But Jeff Snyder, in his landmark book Nation of Cowards, suggests it is unethical, immoral and politically corrupt to entrust your right to and precious gift of life to someone else.

I think it's unbelievably corrupt--in all ways--for someone who is unwilling to defend his life to pay someone else to risk his own life for that person.

I have an even lower opinion of people who won't defend the lives of their very own families but prefer to wait for someone else to do it for them.

Poper
April 15, 2008, 03:41 PM
Ten against one. Hah. I had them outnumbered.
+1!
When you have the truth on your side, they ARE outnumbered!
Poper

MechAg94
April 15, 2008, 04:05 PM
I like that first story about the lady fighting off a knife wielding attacker.

1. It is a personal and individual story that is both emotional and hard to refute w/o looking like the bad guy; similar to stories anti-gunners use. Forcing people to put themselves in that vulnerable position is effective. It puts the emphasis on the phrase the "when seconds count, the police are minutes away."

2. There really isn't a good argument for alternative forms of defense since she is a woman and presumably not going wrestle the guy to the floor and the fact that he was already in a position to hurt her so locking herself away wasn't an option.

I have found it is very difficult to get anti's to really think about those scenarios. The one time I can remember doing so, the answer back was "well, the odds of that happening are really small. How often does that happen?" My only answer was 'often enough that I want to be prepared for my sake and my family'.

anthrem
April 15, 2008, 04:29 PM
Reading that made my chest swell with pride...nothing greater that the truth in dealing with the gun control crowd. Logic has a warmth all its own.

We need more of this kind of rhetoric, before we, as a culture, are consumed by the lack of logic that emotional reasoning can created.

nplant
April 15, 2008, 04:50 PM
Well done, Mr. Korwin!

Gosh, I feel like I do okay against anti-rights folk, but that's just amazing. I'm going to spread this far and wide.

Cmdr. Gravez0r
April 15, 2008, 05:01 PM
PURE GOLD

Saved for reference

rainbowbob
April 15, 2008, 05:02 PM
I think it's unbelievably corrupt--in all ways--for someone who is unwilling to defend his life to pay someone else to risk his own life for that person.

I can't agree that it is necessarily currupt to pay someone else to defend you - if you can afford it. Why is it any different than paying a professional to do anything for you?

I mean, let's face it...the woman in the story who fought off a knife-wielding assailant would probably have been better off with an armed guard. But of course that isn't practical or affordable for most of us.

It is certainly currupt for people who CAN afford an armed guard - or those who have them provided at tax-payor expense - to advocate the rest of live unarmed and unprotected.

bannockburn
April 15, 2008, 05:41 PM
AZRickD

Thanks for the insights; made for great reading.

WayneConrad
April 15, 2008, 05:45 PM
(never mind)

misterwhipple
April 15, 2008, 08:29 PM
I can't agree that it is necessarily currupt to pay someone else to defend you - if you can afford it. Why is it any different than paying a professional to do anything for you?

In most cases, we hire someone to do something that a) we can't do for ourselves, like surgery, or b) isn't convenient to us, like changing the oil. Such things are simply the mutual service of ordinary commerce. They are neither cowardly, nor do they involve judging my own life as more valuable than someone else's (at least, not necessarily). That would be corrupt.

So, hiring someone to risk his life with me is legitimate. Reducing the value of his life to mere money so I can risk his life instead of mine would not be.

AZRickD
April 15, 2008, 09:33 PM
Man...just in those highlights the man hit so many bulls-eyes it was uncanny.

Not uncanny at all... :evil:

It was not by chance. I've seen Alan evolve his arguments over the last 15 years or so. He practices it in the heat of action with cameras rolling, over e-mail lists, and in special "dinners" with fellow gunnie activists. Ideas are bounced around. Alan incorporates. This was something of a culmination, I think.

When I would call into talk radio shows I would make two or three bullet points on a pad of paper -- and stick to the message. All this after spending several months deep in books trying to figure out the arguments.

Practice makes perfect. Alan is in a different sphere, but all of us can do a fraction of what he does. All for the better.

Rick

AZRickD
April 15, 2008, 09:35 PM
Alan asked me to post this (I thought he was already a member)...

Thanks for all the kind words folks. Admitedly I've had some practice at this, but the key is this: it's not about winning a debate, it's about convincing the other guy. Learning more about 2A is not the answer, most of us probably know too much of that already. For me, How to Win Friends and Influence People, and the book Getting To Yes are more important, so much so that I offer them on my site gunlaws.com.

Rights activists need those tools, not another history lesson. And as Rick knows, word choices are critical -- never say pro gun, always say pro rights, casting them as anti rights (instead of anti gun which is a good position for them if they're convinced guns are evil). I have more of that kind of thinking in my Politically Corrected Glossary, also on my website. If you decide to go there, click the Positions Papers buttons for persuasive arguments and rational thought that helps sway poor misled anti-rights souls who need our sympathy, compassion and a digestible dose of common sense.

Alan.

rainbowbob
April 15, 2008, 10:22 PM
In most cases, we hire someone to do something that a) we can't do for ourselves...

There are many who - for whatever reasons - are not able or competent to defend themselves. This doesn't make them currupt. And let's face it...for ever buyer is a seller. Is that currupt?

Feanaro
April 15, 2008, 10:33 PM
I can't agree that it is necessarily currupt to pay someone else to defend you - if you can afford it.

It's not corrupt to hire a bodyguard. It IS corrupt to say that no normal person should own a firearm... but want and accept protection by the gun. It would be like a pacifist hiring thugs to beat up people who tick him off, it just doesn't jive.

Our opponents can see the utility of firearms and their used. As Mister Korwin points out, at some level they understand why firearms exist. Most people lack the ability to really run their own ideas through the wringer. This exposes the contradiction in their beliefs. They claim to hate firearms but wouldn't want their police armed with mean words. They want the benefits of firearms but they don't want (most) people to have them.

AZRickD
April 15, 2008, 10:55 PM
It IS corrupt to say that no normal person should own a firearm... but want and accept protection by the gun.

Think Rosie O'Donnell and dozens of other celebs, Captains of Industry and political elites.

Remember, Alan used a gentle form of verbal jujitsu that allowed the antis to confront themselves. Did they really hate guns? They sure felt comforted by the hired guns around the room, didn't they?

While I used to dislike the use of case studies in my own work (epidemiology), I found that their ethical use can be used to drive home a point. Alan's case study concerned Arizona's own Mary Ann Watkins who ended up at that Yuma rest stop face to face with a cowboy-trucker with a coil of rope in his hand. Alan relayed the sanitized version of that story. Here is the original 1994 version...

http://www.lizmichael.com/bitches.htm

In case that URL was sanitized by the auto-censors, try this...

http://www.gunowners.org/wv20.htm

After relating the Readers Digest version of that all-to-real story, the anti-rights people have to come to terms with their sacred beliefs versus the successful rebuke of sexual assault.

BTW, there are still doubters out there. Alan sent me this from a doubter who saw his speech...

Hi Alan,

I just saw you on C-Span, April 8th 2008.

You said, "Guns save hundreds of thousands of lives a year."

You said this after describing a situation in which a women killed her intruder.

I think this claim needs to be fully explored for veracity because if it is true, we gun control advocates will need to take pause.

If on the other hand, this statement is off by say 99.9%, then it is arguably a lie. As a non-fiction writer, your moral and ethical integrity are in question.

I've posted this e-mail on our blog so that you may defend your statement publicly. Please go there http://oneutah.org/2008/04/15/a-search-for-truth-about-guns-and-their-usefulness/ to respond.

Thanks
Cliff

This is Cliff: http://oneutah.org/photos/2.jpg

Ya gotta go to that link to read what the antis have to say.

AZRickD
April 15, 2008, 11:04 PM
Here is Korwin's response in that blog. It really looks like the blogger is trying to use Korwin's notoriety to increase his hits...

Here's Alan's pic, since Mr. Mauser's was linked above...

http://oneutah.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/korwin.jpg

Alan Korwin Says:
APRIL 15TH, 2008 AT 11:38 AM

Cliff,

Thanks for writing.
C-SPAN taped the symposium when it was held on April 9, so it’s unlikely you saw it broadcast on April 8.

I’ve been waiting for word on when it would air, and have not heard yet. I’m presuming the Duquesne organizers will be among the first to know, no word yet. Do you recall if you saw the entire Symposium?

The 13 scholarly studies I referred to, which indicate between 700,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, are summarized, as I mentioned, in the book Armed, by Gary Kleck and Don Kates. The differences in the numbers are due to different time periods and sets of respondants examined in the various studies. You can see the book, or get a copy, here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/books4.htm

The example of a woman saving herself is common in real life, but mercilessly censored in mainstream news reports. This leads to a hopelessly distorted impression among the public, who are flooded with stories of criminals misusing guns, sometimes from thousands of miles away, and don’t have a clue about all the good that guns do. We sell four books with nothing but accounts of people using guns in self defense. For an excellent account of media bias on the subject, see John Lott’s book, The Bias Against Guns, here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/books4.htm

Is that sufficient? Will you now take that pause?

Somehow I suspect you may not, because this isn’t a policy issue, it’s a medical one:
http://www.gunlaws.com/GunHate.htm

Thanks again for writing, questioning my “moral and ethical integrity,” and giving me an opportunity to respond.
Alan.

JCMAG
April 15, 2008, 11:07 PM
Thank you for posting this Rick. It is an inspiration to rights advocates and those who attempt to defend their rights everyday.

I would be very curious to know how that forum turned out. Did they applaud him? How did they respond?

AZRickD
April 15, 2008, 11:20 PM
They didn't laugh at a couple of his light jokes (we barely laugh at them either). :p

But at the end of his write-up (available at the link above), he writes...

I summarized my main points and, since Duquesne is a Catholic school, I closed with “God bless and keep America, the ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments. Thank you.” The applause was as good as any other, except for Tom who, choking back tears, got an ovation.

JCMAG
April 15, 2008, 11:24 PM
Thanks Rick. I read the whole OP but the link, apparently. I've been known to have selective reading.

Thanks again for reporting on this, it is excellent reading.

armedandsafe
April 15, 2008, 11:36 PM
"well, the odds of that happening are really small. How often does that happen?"

The response to that is, "I thought you said the idea was to save even one life."

Pops

Poper
April 15, 2008, 11:43 PM
"
Quote:
"well, the odds of that happening are really small. How often does that happen?"

It only takes one time. It should never happen, but it does... All too often.:fire::fire::fire:

Poper

misterwhipple
April 15, 2008, 11:58 PM
There are many who - for whatever reasons - are not able or competent to defend themselves. This doesn't make them currupt.

That's part of what I meant. If you can't defend yourself, arranging for someone else do it for you is entirely legitimate. It's expecting someone else to endanger his life to defend me when I won't defend myself that's corrupt; building on the foundation of that cowardice and equating my offer of money with the value of his life is worse.

(Note that a corrupt buyer doesn't always imply a corrupt seller.)

And let's face it...for ever buyer is a seller. Is that currupt?

That is a much more far-reaching question, perhaps beyond the scope of this thread.

rainbowbob
April 16, 2008, 12:08 AM
Points well made - and well taken, misterwhipple.

...equating my offer of money with the value of his life...

But isn't that what we do when we hire an LEO?

Macpherson
April 16, 2008, 12:41 AM
It's expecting someone else to endanger his life to defend me when I won't defend myself that's corrupt; building on the foundation of that cowardice and equating my offer of money with the value of his life is worse.

Even that's not the main issue here. It's the fact that people who don't like guns are deciding that no one should have guns, which is blatantly unconstiutional and contrary to the concept of individual freedom. If someone doesn't want to own a gun, fine, that's their right. However they have NO right to prevent me from owning one. Moral issues about a desire (or lack thereof) to defend one's family aren't even really the heart of the argument here, but unfortunately that's the way it has to work these days.

The Unknown User
April 16, 2008, 02:13 AM
Awesome post. I'm taken aback by his level of maturity.

Oh, and that "One Utah" blog is hysterical. The anti-rights group is so out there.

Rumble
April 16, 2008, 08:34 AM
Those of you who just want guns to go away, you don’t want to take guns away from the police do you? Heads shake no. Of course you want the police armed... and that’s a very pro gun position. You instinctively understand the value of guns. You just want someone else to hold it for you.

Oh, man, this resonated with me. What a powerful statement.

AZRickD
April 16, 2008, 09:38 AM
His words are one thing. You should hear how this six-foot-four-inch red-head delivers the message.

misterwhipple
April 16, 2008, 09:58 AM
But isn't that what we do when we hire an LEO?

Also a complicated question. Short form: sadly often, but not necessarily.

I'm thinking I'll put my thoughts together and either start a new thread or send them to you privately.

misterwhipple
April 16, 2008, 10:01 AM
Even that's not the main issue here. It's the fact that people who don't like guns are deciding that no one should have guns, which is blatantly unconstiutional and contrary to the concept of individual freedom. [...] Moral issues about a desire (or lack thereof) to defend one's family aren't even really the heart of the argument here, but unfortunately that's the way it has to work these days.

Personally, I believe that in the end, all arguments for what the law should be eventually boil down to an appeal to moral principles.

ScottsGT
April 16, 2008, 11:57 AM
Maybe if somebody showed up at Mr. Mausers speach with an empty holster and said if it were filled by a teacher at Columbine High School, his shoes might still be filled today.

rainbowbob
April 16, 2008, 04:48 PM
I'm thinking I'll put my thoughts together and either start a new thread or send them to you privately.

Sounds good. I would be interested to hear your views.

AZRickD
April 17, 2008, 10:02 PM
I found out today that Korwin has an interesting (mostly) non-gun-related blog called "Page Nine" or the "The Uninvited Ombudsman."

http://www.pagenine.org/

Two short ones:


Solarpanel Trumps Trees

The lamestream media told you:

Richard Treanor and Carolynn Bissett of Sunnyvale, Calif., were criminally prosecuted because their redwood trees cast a shadow over their neighbor's solar panels. They lost the case and had to have the trees chopped down, after the judge in the case ordered them removed. The trees had been planted before the solar panels were installed, but grew.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Just when it seems Californians cannot get any more bizarre, they prove me wrong. I apologize for being so naive.

Posted by The Uninvited Ombudsman on Thursday, April 17, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1)


Candidates' Positions Unknown

The lamestream media told you:

"Voters Unaware of Candidates Immigration Positions: New Poll" according to a report circulated by the Associated Press.

Guest Columnist Craig Cantoni notes however that:

The headline could have read: "Voters Unaware of Candidates' Positions on Everything."

Or: "Voters Unaware of History, Economics, Law, Foreign Policy, Math, Spelling and the Foundations of Our Classical Liberal Republic."

Repeated calls for voter testing have been turned down by many of the same people who are calling for testing for gun possession.

Posted by The Uninvited Ombudsman on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0)

misterwhipple
April 18, 2008, 01:37 PM
But isn't that what we do when we hire an LEO?

Also a complicated question. Short form: sadly often, but not necessarily.

I'm thinking I'll put my thoughts together and either start a new thread or send them to you privately.

I imagine much or most of what I was thinking came from hearing small quotes from Nation of Cowards (http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/ntncwrds.shtml). No way I come close to saying it as well or as effectively.

So, um, never mind. :D Go read that instead.

If you enjoyed reading about "Korwin Love Bombs The Antis" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!