A reason why we are losing


PDA






iMagUdspEllr
April 1, 2014, 10:21 PM
Every time I interact with the gun community I meet argumentative, stubborn, and ignorant people that can't stand not having the last word at any cost.

This is why we are losing the war. You see, the jerks who want to take away our guns are cowards. They are in their element in debates because they fight with tricks and emotional responses instead of being real men (and women) who rely on reason and facts to support their position. When all we are capable of doing in this arena is be emotional and argue like children, they win. That is all they want and what they need. They need to ensure that they portray us as stupid, emotional, and fanatical in order to win.

If and only if we learn to debate like men (and women) instead of prideful children we can maybe show people on the fence that we are informed, rational, and intelligent human beings. We need to show the rest of the country and the world that we aren't just clinging to guns because we were indoctrinated, but because it is part of our inherent right to defend ourselves.

I legitimately can't have a debate on this or other gun forums I have been on without having to wade through ad hominems, argumentum ad populums, and countless other logical fallacies that have no place in adult discussions.

I guess all I'm saying is that the gun community as a whole needs to learn what is a good argument and what is invalid and to stop being so prideful you can't even listen (not just hear) to what the other person is saying.

I apologize in advance if this is an inappropriate place to post this. But, I really felt compelled to share it for the sake of our rights. Thank you for your time and consideration.

If you enjoyed reading about "A reason why we are losing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Cooldill
April 1, 2014, 10:34 PM
Oh come on, welcome to EARTH guy! :)

Honestly no matter how much you wish it so, there are many people out there who aren't going to have a civilized conversation.

iMagUdspEllr
April 1, 2014, 10:48 PM
@Cooldill: Yes, you are right. But, I'm not just talking to random people on the street. I expect better from like-minded people, especially if we want to have a snowball's chance in hell of not just staving off, but reversing the plots to strip us from any and all gun-related rights.

Furthermore, it happens every time.

If I make an assertion and support it I can't get anything in response other than the equivalent of , "Nuh uh. That isn't what he said/meant. That is your opinion. You can view things however you want." and so on.

Seriously, quite often I want to just have a high-level discussion about some juicy gun stuff but I can't because people "who know how it is" can't have a two-way conversation.

TennJed
April 1, 2014, 10:58 PM
What makes you think we are losing?

Sam1911
April 1, 2014, 11:02 PM
(Moved to Activism Discussion and Planning, as this isn't a call to a specific political action.)


So, do you have any tips a or a suggestion about how to be a more effective debator?

I doubt the sorts of ignorant types you seem to be directing this toward are going to come to THR and read this and be convinced to change their ways. So what does "Joe THR Member" do to meet your call? Is there a book or something you'd suggest to help folks learn the art of persuasion?



(And it would indeed be hard to support the argument that we are on a general losing trend, far from it, so one might suggest that, as a fundamental principle of the most effective kind of persuasion, it is important to make sure your basic premise is correct at the outset! :))

Tony k
April 1, 2014, 11:26 PM
so help us out, Imagudspellr. I know what an ad hominem logical fallicy is, and I can pick out a few others when I see/ hear them. I also agree that it is in our best interest to elevate the discussion above emotional ranting. What say you list some types of logical fallicies, give an example, then explain how we can counter them?

I'll start:

an ad hominem logical fallacy is when you attack a person rather than their argument.

Example: Someone says something like, "Ice-T says we need the Second Amendment because it is the last defense against tyranny, but he's just a stupid jerk."

A reasonable Counter-argument might be something like: "Regardless of how you feel about Ice-T as a person, his statement about the Second Amendment is very much in line with why the Founders added the 2A."

Throw some more at us, Imagudspellr. The more savy we are about logical fallacies, the more adept we will be at countering flawed rhetoric. I often hear people say things about guns and the rtkba that I know is logically flawed, but I just can't put my finger on the flaw fast enough to mount a solid response.

We could all become master debaters! (sorry, couldn't resist the chance to say "master debaters":evil:)

iMagUdspEllr
April 1, 2014, 11:32 PM
@TennJed: New York banned 8+ round magazines, right? I'm not sure but I thought CA did the same. I'm a FL resident now but I'm from California so I guess I feel for them. But, I guess I truly think we are losing because of how the majority of the media is brainwashing everyone to follow the anti-gun agenda and a very large number of people are keeping silent or going anti-gun. One of my bosses in the military is antigun. It seems like we are about *this* close to passing an antigun bill and we are nowhere near repealing any anti-gun bills.

I am also under the impression that a Republican will never be president ever again because it seems during Obama's two terms the Republican party has been successfully painted as radical, stupid, malicious, "pro-death", et cetera. If we get another Democrat in office I think we will see another AWB.

I dunno, maybe I'm off-base. Tell me something encouraging.

@Sam1911: Well, I will attach a couple of pictures to this post that are a very good starting point. Wikipedia has a very extensive list of logical fallacies (Wikipedia logical fallacies). Then at least I can stop having to explain to people how their arguments aren't arguments. People tend to be more persuasive when they aren't wrong by default. Also, being able to identify when someone is appealing to emotion or appealing to the majority it gives you the ability to call them out on it.

@Tony k: Well an appeal to emotion is a common one used by the antis. e.g. "Kids are dying because of guns on the streets!" That argument is a non sequitur and an appeal to emotion in one. It is a non sequitur (i.e. it doesn't follow) because police and CCL holders carry guns on the "streets" and somehow kids aren't dying due to just their very presence. It is an appeal to emotion because it is trying to illicit an emotional response from someone who hears it (empathy for child victims) instead of actually making an argument supported by fact.

Now, as far as the whole "countering it" thing. I'm not so good at that part. The reason why is because an appeal to emotion is powerful (because it evokes emotion). My Ben Stein, cold, calm logical response doesn't really "undo" the emotional response that has been evoked by the anti in the people observing the debate. I normally try to tell them they are letting children die because they can't stand to let the people we trust to teach our children put a bullet in the lunatic who is mindlessly murdering kids (because that would be "wrong").

And, then they go into nonsense about how children will somehow get the guns the teachers have, or the teachers will shoot the children, or that the school would be a prison if people were armed on campus, etc. Of course I rationally respond to every inane appeal to emotion. But, it is like watching a gun segment on Pierce Morgan. The damage is done once they drop an appeal to emotion bomb. I'm also really not talented at it because I am quick to anger. Typing like this is my favorite medium for that reason. It is the only way I can have the opportunity to calm down, process the argument, and then calmly counter it.

HighExpert
April 1, 2014, 11:45 PM
Big increase in gun purchases, ammo purchases, concealed permits, favorable court decisions and increase in NRA memberships. We may not be winning, but we aren't losing, yet. IMO

splattergun
April 2, 2014, 12:00 AM
iMag, most people, whether on our side, on the other side, or on the fence, simply do not know an ad hominum from hominy. Most people don't debate according to the rules laid down by academia, we argue. Ours is not the only guilty side in this regard, the other side and the fencers also resort to emotional illogic. So what?

barnbwt
April 2, 2014, 12:02 AM
We don't lose in debates, and there's actually very little need for persuasion. Honestly, most of our issues are philosophical in nature and, at some point, rely on being 'self-evident' to show their providence.

The only time we lose is when we;

-Do not engage in real debates; meaningless online polls, meaningless trolling of anti's in news blogs/etc., show up to get shouted at by Piers Morgan

-Allow a hostile or ambivalent side to control our visibility and access (all mainstream media, Fox and otherwise)

In both cases, arguments are moot, regardless of their merits. The first can be defeated by wisely picking battles in places where they will be fair/advantageous to us, or make a difference (town hall/city council, primaries, well-run protests and events). The second is best defeated by an end run around the filters/censors and educating people ourselves (take them shooting, show/tell them how a gun works, describe the difference between legality and illegality in our Byzantine system)

I don't think it's possible for a rational person to learn some plain truths about our gun laws and not think the whole system is idiotic and criminal. Much like the tax system that way, actually; have you ever met someone who was impressed by the tax code after filing their own paperwork for the first time? No. They are universally disgusted and disappointed that our entire system depends on such a repugnant structure (perfect time to have the Fair Tax talk ;).

Describe in general detail the difference between sporting and assault weapons, armor piercing 9mm and a hollow point 308, how a part becomes classified a "firearm," and when they start to lose their faith that the laws were intelligently written or prudently enforced, open their eyes to 922r, "constructive possession," and the concept of "readily convertible" as interpreted by our fair ATF G-men. Never met a person yet who wasn't livid about the arrangement after learning about it (even an anti agreed it was profoundly dumb, and set to developing his own set of "reasonable restrictions" that he intended would at least be based in reason of some sort)

Teach a man to shoot, he will lose the fear of a gun in his own hands
Teach a man to love his brothers, he will lose his fear of others' guns
Have him take a gun apart, he will lose his respect for all gun classifications
Have him build himself a gun, he will want the whole gun law structure repealed

TCB

barnbwt
April 2, 2014, 12:09 AM
Oh, and we aren't losing, not even close. It seems like the gun owner's movement is the strongest it's been in 230 years or so, and is actually gaining steam (not advocating "revolt" or anything so dumb; just saying that the notion of liberty and armament being intertwined is probably floating about as high as in all of American history)

It's honestly gotten so heated that I wonder if the ongoing ammo shortage is winning us converts, as unintuitive as that may seem, and as unintentional as it surely was. Lots of people are taking this issue seriously enough to lay down a whole lotta money to protect theirs. I would not be surprised to see ammo prices become a political issue very soon just like gas prices often are.

TCB

vamo
April 2, 2014, 12:10 AM
I am also under the impression that a Republican will never be president ever again because it seems during Obama's two terms the Republican party has been successfully painted as radical, stupid, malicious, "pro-death", et cetera. If we get another Democrat in office I think we will see another AWB.


The beauty of the 2 party system is when a party actually takes enough to seats to have real power they inevitably squander or fail miserably at achieving their objectives and make the other guys look like amazing alternatives.

We aren't losing and the tide is moving in the gun rights direction at this moment. Think about 1994, the assault weapon ban passed with only a small whimper form the opposition. In 2004 there was no chance of it being renewed in either chamber or being signed by the president. There was a time when severely restricting the availability of handguns to civilians was a realistic goal for anti-gunners. Every state now has a conceal carry law on the books, and may issue constitutionality is coming into question. There are cities and states where its still a pain to be a gun owner, but the tide is flowing in our direction especially at the federal level.

The thing we need to realize is we are not going to wake up tomorrow and be allowed to own newly manufactured full auto ak-47s and bazookas. This is a war by attrition its how the other side has fought it since the NFA in 1934. They weren't able to close the machine gun registry til over 50 years later. Since 94 we've made some great strides. For candidates from one party supporting gun control is political suicide while for the other it can be a risky proposition.

newfalguy101
April 2, 2014, 12:11 AM
The majority of the issues are a matter of opinion, and thus, in many cases there really are no "right" or "wrong" answers, usually the truth is somewhere in the middle which means each side has to give up something.........which is often viewed as "caving" or "weak willed" or "not having a backbone"

Sam1911
April 2, 2014, 12:25 AM
Tell me something encouraging.At the risk of seeing this drift into two separate threads...

Concealed carry theoretically possible in every state, and now practically available in nearly every state -- even ILLINOIS, just this year!

Recall of the Colorado State Senators in response to their ram-rodding strict new gun control laws after Sandy Hook.

Utter repulse of all federal gun control legislation in the "one last great gasp" moment provided by Sandy Hook.

Heller

MacDonald

Washington DC forced to allow handgun ownership

Federal Courts of the 9th District strike down CA's "good cause," "may issue" carry permit system, forcing "shall issue" permitting.

Repeal of the ban on concealed carry in national parks.

Various shifts for the better in BATFE technical opinions (pistol-to-rifle conversions, SIG "arm brace" stock, 3MR trigger groups and slide-fire stocks ok, etc...)

Numerous states passing anti-confiscation and "firearms freedom" acts.

Numerous states passing laws removing places from their concealed-carry-prohibited lists.

ASTOUNDING record sales of guns and ammunition, one effect being to bring "evil black rifles" into the spot as the most common type of gun sold and used in the US.

Discussion (at least...that's something!) of a national CCW reciprocity bill in US Congress.

Increasing numbers of states removing their prohibitions against silencers and SBRs/SBSs.

(Only somewhat related, but I'll mention it: Various states strengthening their protections for lawful defenders. So-called "stand your ground," and/or "castle doctrine" laws.)

And the list goes on!

On the flip side, the antis can point to a few gains (for their side) in NY, MD, CT, CO, ... and I'm thinking that's about it. They're onerous, burdensome, frustrating, and pointless laws, but really they've been mere backwash against the tidal wave of positive motion.

Xyr
April 2, 2014, 12:35 AM
The 7 round magazine limit in NY was overturned on appeal. And Cuomo and kin have agreed not to enforce it during its appeal process (both sides are appealing). (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62131) I live in NY and I hate NY. But home is home. Thankfully I'm not in NYC.

I disagree that gun owners are "losing". (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-nra-wins-again/359760/) We've seen some serious push back against gun control. And it may be slow but it's working. There will always be politicians with the ideological view of my Governor Cuomo that believes that a disarmed civilian population is the best way forward. Mainstream America disagrees. Not the pundits. Not the networks. Everyday regular people do not want to see that happen.

Yes, anti-gun types tend to talk about kids dying in mass shootings. Which while I understand the sentiment as I think it's horrible and would like to see it reduced/stopped I can't help but ponder where was all this outrage when kids were gunning each other down left and right in Chicago/Brooklyn/Detroit?

At the end of the day the solution to mass shootings is serious mental healthcare reforms. Now on a political level I'd like to see both parties take their heads out of their rear ends and deal with THAT issue instead of blaming movies, games, guns.


But once again, we're not losing. My argument is simply which do you generally believe? It's either:

a) A citizen is a independent being endowed by their creator/nature with certain inalienable rights and one of which is self defense and the means to self defense. That they are adults and we as a society trust them enough to follow the law correctly but will hold them to account when such time comes that they proven in a court of law (not public opinion) when they break said rules.

-or-

b) A citizen is a dependent subject that is incapable of making choices and following the law correctly without the State involved. That they should rely on only the State for their self defense needs and are too dangerous to be trusted with owning a firearm or making other important decisions that carry a risk of failure.

Some believe the former, some the latter. While I understand the need for Government I don't believe disarming the civilian populace is a moral position to take. History is full of examples of what can happen to a disarmed population. No hyperbole needed when debating this issue w/ anti types. Just facts, reason and a twang of style.

iMagUdspEllr
April 2, 2014, 12:37 AM
@HighExpert:
That doesn't really make me feel any better. Because, it doesn't matter if people like you and me buy guns left and right (like I am doing at the moment). The other 2/3 of the population aren't necessarily against guns but they are against 10k people who are murdered with guns per year. And, it doesn't seem like I can explain to them that those 10k people are mostly gang members killing each other and 10k people is like .0033% of the population.

It isn't really a compelling counter-argument. 'Well only a few people died.' Doesn't sound good.

What favorable court decisions? I don't really care about NRA memberships because I saw a graphic that compared the NRA, Ruger, Smith and Wesson, Bloomberg, and Feinstein's net worth. Feinstein is a drop in the bucket compared to Bloomberg and she eclipses any of the other entities I named. They have all the funding, all the media, and therefore all the hearts and minds.

@splattergun: The problem is that if we make bad arguments they can catch us in bad arguments and then write story after story and do show after show about how we are evil, cruel, stupid, conspiring, malicious conspirators that want to kill babies. 'They will do anything to hold onto their death machines!' That is the issue.

@barnbwt: I'm afraid avoiding the mainstream media gives them all the control. I do understand the problem with engaging the enemy on their turf. However, all of the alternative places you propose we fight don't get the coverage needed or are too slow to undo the damage they do everyday.

I am confident nobody but us cares about the difference between various firearms or ammunition. I don't think people who are on the fence or the antis care about how they work or care to shoot them. All they know (and all they need to know) is that "they kill people." And, when I say, "Yeah... criminals and lunatics." They STILL aren't on board because they are ON THEIR SIDE. 'Protect the life of the criminals and the lunatics. Human life is sacred. Rehabilitate them.'

They are literally the enemy in every sense. They don't want people to defend themselves and they don't want the criminals to get theirs (because that would be "wrong").

Sam1911
April 2, 2014, 12:50 AM
At the end of the day the solution to mass shootings is serious mental healthcare reforms.
Probably. Possibly. Maybe. Someday. But it is more than pretty likely that there is no foreseeable "solution" to the Sandy Hook and Aurora type killings.

Billions of people interacting in trillions of ways every day. And a microscopically small percentage of them -- so tiny a percentage that no statistical model would ever make note of it -- kill 5-25 people at once in some spectacular way.

It is very attention-grabbing and makes everyone who hears about it feel shocked and horrified. But a "solution" is a very tall order. Imagine standing on the edge of a corn field stretching to the horizon, and being told, "There are a couple hundred kernels on every ear of corn in this field, and ten of those kernels -- 10, between here and the horizon -- have a boring worm inside. Find them before they infect another kernel!

You can't write a program or pass a law that will hope to locate those hidden horrors, the needle-in-a-thousand-haystacks. And whatever law or program you DO institute to try is going to have to disrupt, infringe, intrude upon, and generally make life that much more unpleasant for ALL, in the absurdly hopeless quest to blindly stumble onto any one of that which you were searching for.

It is simply another facet of "security theater." Trust us, we can make you safe... Life doesn't have to be unfair, and dangerous, and capricious, and occasionally tragic without reason.

But like the lottery, folks just don't generally have the understanding of mathematical SCALE to understand why they're being sold a ridiculous false promise.

iMagUdspEllr
April 2, 2014, 12:57 AM
@Sam1911: Well, mental care reform is good in my opinion. But, the most direct solution is giving people of-age their legal right to carry even at a school. The next Sandy Hook wannabe will get shot by a teacher, janitor, or the principal. Then the antis will have to do damage control and try to argue, "Well see! Four children STILL died. It doesn't work!" Which is a joke when compared to 26 people. We defend money, the country, politicians, and just the politician's children with guns... so why not our children and everything else for that matter?

Xyr
April 2, 2014, 01:02 AM
I can't disagree. And I used the word "Solution" when I really shouldn't have. We as a society may have to accept the fact that we can never cure those that fetishize and fantasize about harming other people.

But one of the keys to at the least reducing this already rare even is indeed better mental health programs. Teaching people how to recognize certain signs. Cause I mean...when your grown man kid tells you not to talk to them directly and only wants to communicate via email and shuts themselves in their room 24/7 and never comes out there is a serious problem going on.

At the end of the day society is going to accept "It's pretty rare so nothing to do". We -are- going to try something. I'd rather do something that has a chance of working than the "Ban the bad things!" approach that definitively will not work.

Personally? We used to put crazy people in crazy places so when they went crazy they would only hurt other crazy people minimally since they'd be quickly sedated and restrained. But we as a society "felt bad" about that and now just leave people with SERIOUS mental disturbances free to roam about. Some need therapy and medication. Others need institutionalization. Unfortunately.

There have always been atrocious killings of innocents throughout history and it will remain that way. But as a society we will always strive to improve. The key is to do it without removing the rights of the rest of us.

Sam1911
April 2, 2014, 01:11 AM
No argument, really. We will "do something." That's what we do. Whether it makes a whole lot of sense or not.

But I apologize for dragging this off into yet a third direction.

To circle back to one of the main points, read Post 14 and accept that if you're not pretty excited about the direction we're currently headed, you've not been paying attention to the right things! The news media tends to concentrate on the losses, and the most positive thing you'll normally read from them is a bit of hand-wringing about why-oh-why can't we pass some "reasonable" gun control laws? Meanwhile, us out here in "RKBA-land" are finding plenty of occasions for encouragement, enthusiasm, and even the occasional hi-five of celebration when another court case turns our way, or another anti- type senator gets drummed out of office, or...or...or :)

dook
April 2, 2014, 01:11 AM
I think 80% of our problem is mass media and Hollywood. We've fallen this far under their watch.

JohnKSa
April 2, 2014, 01:16 AM
Every time I interact with the gun community I meet argumentative, stubborn, and ignorant people that can't stand not having the last word at any cost.That's because the gun community is made up of people.

People have always been like that. It's why discussion forums are interesting and entertaining instead of being boring and predictable.

It's also why there are wars, divorces and lots and lots of videos of people hurting themselves by doing very stupid things.

Sam1911
April 2, 2014, 01:27 AM
I think 80% of our problem is mass media and Hollywood. We've fallen this far under their watch.
:) We've fallen this far under EVERYBODY's watch. :confused: Yeah, Hollywood exists, but blaming the entertainment industry for pandering to the wants of the public (whatever sells, shows!) seems like a very incomplete picture of the causes of gun control.

And, truth be told, if we fell a long way from the good-ol-days before the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934, we certainly hit bottom sometime between 1968's Gun Control Act, and the 1994 AWB. But Hollywood didn't go away while we bounced back and came off the ropes FIGHTING, and won the ground we've earned in the last 20 years. (10 since the AWB sunset so poignantly and fell off the national radar.)

The mass media is more massive today than ever before (though some would say the sway of network news has lessened) and they've done nothing to stop all those things I listed in Post 14.

I think the information age has done FAR more to help our cause, through networking and awareness-raising, and ease of communication than the "big" mass media ever did to hurt us.

JRH6856
April 2, 2014, 02:03 AM
Then the antis will have to do damage control and try to argue, "Well see! Four children STILL died. It doesn't work!" Which is a joke when compared to 26 people.

And how is this any different than the argument you are trying to make with this example? You say we are losing, and in spite of clear advances in firearms rights over the past 20 years, you are doing damage control and saying, "There is STILL opposition. It's not working!" :scrutiny:

fiftybmg
April 2, 2014, 02:08 AM
I dunno. Fishing hooks and twigs overriding trigger safeties is an unprecedented logical construct best left to academics, and removed from practical discussion.

A bit like Mr Hawkings, impeccable mathematics and no practical application.

ericbc7
April 2, 2014, 02:56 AM
This discussion is not going to be decided by logic. You will not be able to convince a mother that has lost her child to gun violence that more gun freedom is the answer. to quote my signature "you cannot by reason change the ill opinion of a man which by reason was not obtained". If we pursue an "all or nothing" agenda we will loose in the long term. if we accept regulation similar to cars we might see a compromise. that said, I hear the "slippery slope" folks that fear tyranny. The fact is we have to live together, the hyper-individualism that is popular now is not a recipe for community or survival. This country is willing to give up freedom for safety (real or imagined) as evidenced by the patriot act and NSA surveillance.
Where does that leave us gun owners? We are in the same nebulous place we always were. We cannot embrace armed conflict with the government. We are the government and must accept compromise if we are to survive. The alternative is increasing polarity and moves us toward dissolution. Imagine if the constitution was changed to allow states to leave the union... we would end up with a fractured loose assembly that has no ability to maintain our standard of living.

I don't know the solution, and more individual freedom and less corporate freedom seems better to me, but we know that a balance is the key.

Mp7
April 2, 2014, 05:03 AM
+1 on the OP.

Maybe there needs to be a giant sticky-thread on how debate works,
and what can be quoted, and how thesis and argumentation work.


("god-given-right" for instance is a blunt instrument.)

Sam1911
April 2, 2014, 06:50 AM
If we pursue an "all or nothing" agenda we will loose in the long term.
We did hear a lot of tremulous calls for "compromise" like that right in the wake of Sandy Hook, when many sunshine stout hearts lost their nerve and felt their knees knocking.

But the truth is we only have the high ground were fighting from now because of a give-no-inch resolve that we've held fast to for decades now. I don't know when the time will come when we have such a commanding hold on gun rights in this country that we need to start "compromising" but it isn't today, for sure! (And if it wasn't in the wake of Sandy Hook? When will it arrive?)

Remember what compromise means in this case: "you have your pie. I'm going to take your pie from you. If you're nice about it, I'll only take half of your pie today." Compromise? How about extortion?

And the fact that the left-unspoken parting line is, "...and I'll be back tomorrow for some more compromise. Seeya then , chump!"

sota
April 2, 2014, 08:21 AM
SAM1911

Concealed carry theoretically possible in every state, and now practically available in nearly every state -- even ILLINOIS, just this year!


The first part of your statement is correct. The second (practically) part is false. It is not possible for "ordinary" citizens to obtain a concealed carry permit in the state of New Jersey. I'd appreciate it if everyone started singling out NJ in this regard. If more people spoke the truth about this in their conversations perhaps it will open peoples eyes to the fact that NJ is still more of a slave state than even NY is.

Sam1911
April 2, 2014, 10:21 AM
Well Sota, the fact that there are a handful of states (MD, NJ ... and?) where it is technically possible, but not realistically possible doesn't make my statement false. It actually is exactly what I said. :confused:

That's what the word "nearly" means.

Pizzapinochle
April 2, 2014, 10:43 AM
So, do you have any tips a or a suggestion about how to be a more effective debator?




Step #1: Accept that BAD arguments ARE made in favor of positions you support.

When someone who agrees with you makes a bad argument, don't support those bad arguments!

There are a lot of people making bad arguments in this debate on both sides. The most common response I have seen of others on the same side of the argument is to try and keep the person they agree with from looking bad.

If they make a bad argument, tell them: "Look, I agree with you generally, but that is not a strong argument. Lets focus on our strengths!"

Especially if it is a public forum, take this approach. When people on the fence see that you have an accurate understanding of your own position and understand that not every argument that is in your favor is sound, they will be more likely to respect the opinions you DO hold strongly are not just blind repetition, they are something you actually thought about.

In contrast, when one pro-gun person presents a bad argument and others support them, it presents the picture that all pro-gun folks just blindly accept anything that sounds pro-gun, even if it is a terrible argument. This destroys the credibility of the GOOD arguments.

Sam1911:

"you have your pie. I'm going to take your pie from you. If you're nice about it, I'll only take half of your pie today."

I agree that this is an accurate portrayal of what has happened. Have there been any serious efforts (from either side) that were more along the lines of....

"If you want some of my pie, you can have it, but you have to give BACK some of those other pieces of pie you took earlier."

???

Is that ever a possibility?

jerkface11
April 2, 2014, 10:57 AM
"If you want some of my pie, you can have it, but you have to give BACK some of those other pieces of pie you took earlier."

???

Is that ever a possibility?

Who knows they've never offered anything. The least I would accept is the opening of the machinegun registry and the removal of silencers from the NFA. And I wouldn't give much in exchange maybe a 100 round mag limit.

JRH6856
April 2, 2014, 11:16 AM
"If you want some of my pie, you can have it, but you have to give BACK some of those other pieces of pie you took earlier."

???

Is that ever a possibility?

Probably not. The core of both sides truly believe they occupy the moral high ground and are loathe to surrender any of what they already have to attain what they believe they rightfully should have.

Sam1911
April 2, 2014, 11:27 AM
Probably not. The core of both sides truly believe they occupy the moral high ground and are loathe to surrender any of what they already have to attain what they believe they rightfully should have.

Another realpolitik point to keep in mind is that one only really compromises due to weakness. In other words, to keep the other side from investing whatever it will take to assail you, wear you down, and take possession of your ground -- if they have the resources to do so.

In the case of the gun control movement of late, they appear to have thrown their resources against our defenses and their high-water-mark came and went with them having lost the campaign. (Note, "campaign." Not just a "battle," but not the "war" either, which will likely never really end.)

A compromise might have been tried prior to the big battles of 2013. We might have given up something to get something. They might have offered something to get something from "us." Who knows what COULD have happened? As it turns out, they thought they could seize the moment and drive us before them... and they were wrong. We held, they failed. (Yeah, we had a few casualties. That's war.)

The thing is, compromise would have been better than LOSING.

But WINNING is much better than compromising. And for now, at least, we're definitely winning.

(And the sounds of their lamentations fills the op-ed columns... :))

JRH6856
April 2, 2014, 11:41 AM
(Note, "campaign." Not just a "battle," but not the "war" either, which will likely never really end.)

And that is what we can't afford to forget. The "war" will never end. If we somehow expect to scheive a final victory, we will be continually disappointed. Some will even see it as a sure sign we are losing. But, the war will never end. Eternal vigilance IS the price of freedom as is the eternal struggle to attain it.

Mp7
April 2, 2014, 12:13 PM
The question seems to be wether the rift between to factions
(who call each other names similar to "commie" "nazi" or "liberalfascist"
for not being in the same camp :scrutiny:)
is already so wide that the majority of debators has accepted
it as a fact, that there will be no consensual solution, ever. Ever.

In that case it`s just a fight. Not a debate.

In that case calling each other "Gun Nut" oder "Commienist"
is sufficient. As nobody will be listening to each other anyway.


Many here and many on the other side of the "fight" are guilty of this.
That`s why there is no debate anymore.

Sam1911
April 2, 2014, 12:17 PM
Perhaps so, but I don't personally value the debate itself. I'm not a political junkie and don't take pleasure in the give-and-take of the political process as a hobby.

My interest is purely in the defeat of gun control and promotion and recognition of the right to bear arms.

Debate on the subject is merely a tool to that end, used as required. As long as our rights are being strengthened, I'm perfectly content for the gun control debate to vanish from the Earth.

(That being said I don't tend to call people names at all. I have more specific, direct, and accurate ways of expressing myself, and I calling names doesn't convince any legislators to vote my way.)

The only consensual solution I'm very greatly interested in is one in which guns are de-regulated and the argument over them fades away as the antagonists on the other side wander off to find other causes to occupy their attention. Give it enough time, and make guns more universally present and neutral (and/or positive!) in society, and the numbers of those willing to really devote money and energy to opposing private gun ownership will dwindle away to insignificance. Call it, "consensus by attrition." :)

It's already happening to a very great degree. Prior to Sandy Hook, the main gun control champion organization was reported to be all but defunct, and their bubble of renewed popularity is fading fast again. And as we see, there's not enough public support for gun control to make political motion out of it in the most auspicious moment their side had seen in decades.

EDIT to add: We don't really, necessarily, have to reach a consensus, in the classic sense of sitting down at the negotiating table and hammering out a deal with the other side. What we have to do is hold out and outlast them. We have the impetus of defending our rights, defending the real possessions of our guns against very present threats of confiscation and illegality, the preservation of our heritage and tradition and one of, what most of us feel is, the most fundamental facets of our culture that set us apart from the social experiment as practiced in other times and by other cultures. There's a lot of momentum and self-perpetuating energy in that. It is much harder to maintain drive and enthusiasm to be AGAINST something, especially if that something is the possessions and rights of other people who honestly don't cause you any real direct harm or discomfort day-to-day.

So, I see this as a waiting game, at its core. Hold the line, be steadfast and die-hard. Watch the old guard anti-gun politicians die off and be forgotten. Recognize that there is unlikely to be a new guard that picks up that orphaned and dead-ended mantle and is willing to tie their political fortunes to it. We may never drive the last nail into the coffin of gun control, but I do think we'll see the day when the issue has faded to share the fortunes of alcohol (and maybe now marijuana?) prohibition as a has-been cause.

JRH6856
April 2, 2014, 12:30 PM
Many here and many on the other side of the "fight" are guilty of this.
That`s why there is no debate anymore.

There is a hardcore contingent on each side for which the gun control/gun rights issue is their primary focus. They are true believers in their cause and are unlikely to be swayed by any argument.

But there is a much larger segment of the population for which it is a secondary concern if it is a concern at all. Other issues are more important to them than guns and their political position on guns is probably determined by entirely by these other issues. They support parties and politicians based on these other issues and however they stand on guns just comes along with it. These are the people who might be swayed by argument if you can get them interested enough in the gun debate to listen.

Pizzapinochle
April 2, 2014, 12:48 PM
The least I would accept is the opening of the machinegun registry and the removal of silencers from the NFA. And I wouldn't give much in exchange maybe a 100 round mag limit.

Really??

If there was a bill that said:

-ALL newly manufactured detachable magazines are limited to 50 rounds
-Newly manufactured fully automatic firearms can now be added to the NFA registry
-Silencers are no longer an NFA item and can be purchased as an accessory with no background check/tax stamp

You wouldn't jump at that?

I sure would. Yes, we lose something (super massive magazines that very few people use and are pretty unreliable), but the gain would be much greater.

In my mind, that bill would be a HUGE win for the pro-gun side, but you are saying you would oppose it?

Mp7
April 2, 2014, 12:49 PM
Please show me a single internet thread in which this "debate"
is conducted in such a grown-up way, that the real-life analogy
would not be as immature and ignorant as a fistfight in a schoolyard.

i mean people talking about arguments, instead of throwing sh.... at each
other while no even reading what the other wrote .....

On a friendly BBQ occasion, grown up people can talk calmly about
their stantpoint.

One idiot gun-owner, or idiot-anti at the BBQ
will spoil it for all others though.


(Some peoples personalities just seem to be like that.
I do not even think the topic guns makes it special.
They would fight for or against flowers, just call someone stupid.)

Sam1911
April 2, 2014, 01:03 PM
Please show me a single internet thread in which this "debate"
is conducted in such a grown-up way, that the real-life analogy
would not be as immature and ignorant as a fistfight in a schoolyard.

Well, not to put ourselves on any sort of pedestal but, we try really hard here at THR. That might not be saying a whole lot -- we take an awful lot of anger for stifling folks' more vitriolic comments -- but we do try to shepherd our debates here to be as adult and respectful as possible. And to be as closely based on fact and reason as our members can maintain. But few folks come to a gun-rights forum to argue the "anti" side, and those that have had the stomach for that and have come here to debate the issues have tended to reach the point of frustration, anger, and insult very quickly. That isn't a fair comparison as the sample of those on the opposing side who would come here and launch their arguments probably could not be considered "representative" of their peers. One hopes. :o

But maybe the problem is that you're asking too much of human beings in (relatively) free conversation. Do you believe there has ever been a time, or a place, where average folks got together to debate things they were passionate about and yet maintained civility while accomplishing something productive by their efforts? I'm not sure that I do.

Looking back at the history of folks who even got a chance to express their views in shaping their own laws and society (itself far from universal) I seem to see a lot of bombast, abuse, propaganda, deceit, coercion, ridicule, etc. And that's in the halls of the various governing bodies, to say nothing of the general public discussion! And I can't seem to find examples of dispassionate debate leading to well-considered social change.

I think humans are a little "messier" than that in how we make up our collective mind to change the world.

iMagUdspEllr
April 2, 2014, 01:45 PM
@JohnKSa: I see. Arguing is entertaining. I can see that. Debate is actually more entertaining to me. Because both sides actually understand each other and can examine and constructively critisize each other's points instead of digging at each other. 'That's just how things have always been.' isn't really an acceptable excuse to maintain the status quo instead of improving.

@JRH6856:

You misunderstand me. I think that situation is good (forcing the antis to do damage control).

I was wrongly under the impression that we were losing. I was viewing things from my perspective. I was mostly observing what people were saying on neutral websites on the internet (YouTube). It seemed that there were far far fewer pro-gun people than anti-gun people. There seemed to be more, 'I don't care, just stop the killing.' people than pro-gun people. I wasn't closely following court decisions because I don't know a good way to follow stuff like that.

So, to be clear, I'm not saying that just because there is opposition I think we are losing. I was just legitimately under the impression, based upon talking to people individually in a neutral place, that our side is in the minority. But, I was wrong.

@fiftybmg: That is an ad hominem. It is also highly opinionated without anything to support it. This is how you sound to me (yes, this is an ad hominem... sorry) 'Best leave all that thinkin' stuff to people with degrees.'

Please try to actually respond to my argument instead of just saying, 'What you said is ridiculous. Get out of here.'

@ericbc7: And, people like yourself irritate me in a unique way. We didn't just compromise on a substantial number of fronts. They got what they wanted and we got nothing in return. We already have background checks. We don't have to pass a background check to buy a car. Now, (and I'm sure this will cause disagreement) if private gun sales required background checks that would contribute to mitigating gun trafficking. But, registration like on a car? Why? The objective is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It doesn't matter who has the gun, what type of gun it was, or when it was purchased. It only matters that whenever a gun is transferred that the person receiving the gun isn't a criminal or a lunatic. You don't need registration to accomplish that.

And, then you start to talk about how being a hive-mind is okay (sorry for the exaggeration I hope you get my meaning). I don't care what stupid people are willing to give up for whatever reason. Every US citizen can decide to melt their guns tomorrow and I would not do the same.

We can't embrace armed conflict with the government at this time. Furthermore, the majority of the military isn't going to shoot American citizens over gun ownership. It seems to me that the government has chosen the police force to be its enforcers whenever they decide to go full tyrannical (military members can't have guns on base but police officers can keep their gun on them at all times). The liberal entities in the government can't do what they want until they indoctrinate the majority of the population to believe that guns need to go.

Balance is not key. Right is key. And, the only way to objectively show what is right is through sound debate that is based upon fact and logic. If we decide not to worry about justifying our position in an objective way then it is just our opinion versus their opinion. People don't usually want to pursue this path if they want to get their way because it requires you to be correct. It requires you to legitimately justify your position. But, for reasons I have already said, they win the emotion game every time. If we want to talk about not just stopping future gun control, but repealing current gun control measures, we need to show that our way is the right way.

e.g. If we want school staff to be able to arm themselves in order to protect themselves and the children they teach we have to show that isn't just what we want... but it is the right thing to do.

Arkansas Paul
April 2, 2014, 02:12 PM
While I agree that at times it would be best to be a bit more tactful in our approach, you can't be surprised when emotions run high with this issue.
Both sides are often fueled by emotions.
One side is using the emotions of violence and innocent victims and the other side is emotional about constitutional rights being violated, infringed upon and at times downright ignored.

I'm guilty of coming across as a jerk at times too depending on the situation.

If someone is simply uneducated and is under the impression that these measures actually do help, I will be more than happy to engage in calm and factual debate.
If someone simply thinks gun control measures should be put in place because of their insecurity or because we don't "need" all these weapons, then I am not polite and I do not owe any courtesy at all to that person. If someone is wanting to take away my constitutional rights so they will sleep better at night, then screw them.

And we're not losing by the way.

jerkface11
April 2, 2014, 03:15 PM
Yes I'd say no to a fifty round ban. And if I had said 50 to start with you would be saying 30 now.

greyghost01
April 2, 2014, 03:20 PM
You cant use logic when dealing with illogical people. For sake of a better name to call people who are against guns I will call them Liberals. In trying to reasonably discuss the issues with them, You cant, You cant explain reasoning or logic to them as they are not capable of understanding this issue at all. What is more important in this war is the voting if we don't get this issue solved we will never win period. If they can count 170% of the vote you cant beat that and If nobody questions how they can come up with 170% how do you expect to win its illogical the same as liberals. We need leaders on our side that are just as dirty and mean as they are. They own the media so we have no voice. That is our problem if we are mentioned at all, Its always in a bad light, And we are made fun of just like God, the constitution, etc
Nobody brings up the fact of how stupid they are for kicking a kid out of school for a GI joe gun or a pop tart, Its the accepted stupidity on there behalf that we cant seem to over come.

Tirod
April 2, 2014, 03:29 PM
We're not losing - as the record plainly shows.

That arguments against lawful gun ownership are emotional seem common, yes. A response in kind isn't the preferred method, anymore than sending family members of your church to picket servicemen's funerals isn't the best way to protest against the homosexual lifestyle.

It becomes the focus of the opposition, and they play up the negatives at every opportunity to continue spreading the idea that any other viewpoint is equally bad.

The problem is that EVERY American does have free speech, and can say whatever they want. It's why we can laugh at the "shoulder stock thingy", or "ghost" guns, or even the source of Gabby Giffords flawed logic.

Whether we like it or not, our fellow travelers in this sphere of life aren't always as well spoken or keep as calm about the idiocy hurled at us. And it's not just about guns, it's about religions, or politics, or even what brand car you drive.

And, it should be more than obvious, the male of the species DOES compete for the last word. He IS emotionally charged by nature to compete, and there is a continuous struggle for dominance.

If the calmer heads didn't prevail, and we let others go on about what they prefer to do, we'd already be getting over a shooting war over gun rights. Connecticut would never have happened. There would be no SAFE act. The smoke would have already cleared and the incident over.

There's your emotionalism run amok. BUT - it hasn't happened, regardless of the baiting on both sides, because the ones with a clear head about it still keep talking to each other.

We aren't losing the war, and they aren't winning. If anything, we are continuing the push back begun after the 1934 NFA was enacted, and things are much much better now. We've shown the registery closing was flawed, and when the time is right, it can and will be opened again. Same for silencers - and strangely enough, the medical profession is likely our ally in that, along with the environmentalists. The rest of the world knows that noise suppressors are a better deal and it's the US who's backward about it. If we really believe suppressors are wrong, then the whole concept of having them on cars should be included, eh? Same inventor and same pretext - keep the noise down.

How's that for progress? Almost every car owner in America has a "silencer," and it IS mandated.

Frankly, what I find disappointing are those who say we are losing. Seems to be a defeatist attitude and certainly doesn't reflect an accurate view of the long term. I don't disagree that the natural competitiveness of the male keeps us on our toes, but if we were still married to our first wives and still the only father of our male children, then maybe the young males who don't know their boundaries wouldn't seem so numerous.

If 70% of young men in America don't learn respect by having an older male to smack them on their pointy little skulls (like my Dad did,) then no wonder it seems to be a problem. And who's fault is that?

Pizzapinochle
April 2, 2014, 03:30 PM
Yes I'd say no to a fifty round ban. And if I had said 50 to start with you would be saying 30 now.
I am curious about the rest of you.

If there was a bill that said:

-ALL newly manufactured detachable magazines are limited to 50 rounds
-Newly manufactured fully automatic firearms can now be added to the NFA registry
-Silencers are no longer an NFA item and can be purchased as an accessory with no background check/tax stamp

Would you vote YEAH or NAY?

Sam1911
April 2, 2014, 03:43 PM
You cant use logic when dealing with illogical people. For sake of a better name to call people who are against guns I will call them Liberals.
Well, you're going to have to come up with something better than that. Especially here. We don't do "liberal" bashing here nor do we do liberal-vs.-conservative or Democrat-vs.-Republican thing either. Plenty of folks who think of themselves as "liberal" one way or another, are staunchly pro-gun-rights. And plenty of "conservatives" will sell out RKBA to get whatever else they want. All are welcomed here, and we don't accept blanket labeling.

In trying to reasonably discuss the issues with them, You cant, You cant explain reasoning or logic to them as they are not capable of understanding this issue at all.What an oddly defeatist attitude. Many of us know "liberal" and even once-anti-gun people who've been swayed by reason and experience to come around to the pro-gun viewpoint.

YOU may not be capable of reaching other people with your persuasive skills (as Harry Calahan said, "A man's got to know his limitations..."), but don't claim that others cannot.

What is more important in this war is the voting if we don't get this issue solved we will never win period. If they can count 170% of the vote you cant beat that and If nobody questions how they can come up with 170% how do you expect to win
Are you suggesting that the major problem we face is VOTER FRAUD? :scrutiny: Oooohhh kay. That's an interesting opinion.

They own the media so we have no voice.Eh, the mainstream media is less and less important as time goes on.

Nobody brings up the fact of how stupid they are for kicking a kid out of school for a GI joe gun or a pop tart, Its the accepted stupidity on there behalf that we cant seem to over come.I can't agree with that either. Those absurd over-steps are getting national -- even international -- attention, to a degree that we couldn't command even a decade ago. The information age has given us quite a wide reach to get our views heard.

Walkalong
April 2, 2014, 03:48 PM
If there was a bill that said:

-ALL newly manufactured detachable magazines are limited to 50 rounds
-Newly manufactured fully automatic firearms can now be added to the NFA registry
-Silencers are no longer an NFA item and can be purchased as an accessory with no background check/tax stamp
Would you vote YEAH or NAY? Get them to bring that to the table, and I'll let you know. Don't just put out feelers for folks willing to "compromise", and then bring a different item to the table than what was promised, which has been common for the antis. Actually bring that exact deal to the table, and then we'll talk.

DHJenkins
April 2, 2014, 04:23 PM
What's this "we" stuff?

Nom de Forum
April 2, 2014, 04:49 PM
iMagUdspEllr,

I salute and appreciate your attempt to improve the techniques to fight the good fight.

I can not agree with you that we are losing.

I think you are laboring under a false assumption about the "gun community" Your statement,

Every time I interact with the gun community I meet argumentative, stubborn, and ignorant people that can't stand not having the last word at any cost..

is incorrectly limiting. It should read "Every time I interact with the (Fill in the blank_____________) community I meet argumentative, stubborn, and ignorant people that can't stand not having the last word at any cost."

People are people regardless of what "community". You probably already know that, but I think you may currently be a little emotionally compromised by the disagreement from the majority you are getting in another current thread. Try to remember that me and some of the rest of us may be sobs, but we are sobs on your side that probably agree with most of your views.

sayak
April 2, 2014, 05:13 PM
I do not agree that we are losing.
If we cannot communicate with anti-gun folks, it is because we cannot reason with them. They are emotionally driven rather than logical.

Pizzapinochle
April 2, 2014, 05:20 PM
Get them to bring that to the table, and I'll let you know. Don't just put out feelers for folks willing to "compromise", and then bring a different item to the table than what was promised, which has been common for the antis. Actually bring that exact deal to the table, and then we'll talk.

Yeah.... pretty sure unless one of us is secretly a US congressman, nothing is being brought to the table on the basis of us yakking it up here on THR.

You can't even discuss the possibility of what might or might not be acceptable to you? Why not?

Nom de Forum
April 2, 2014, 05:22 PM
I do not agree that we are losing.
If we cannot communicate with anti-gun folks, it is because we cannot reason with them. They are emotionally driven rather than logical.

Then you need to use emotion to communicate with them. Make them empathize with your pain. It is not like many of the pro-gun folks aren't emotionally driven rather than logical.

JRH6856
April 2, 2014, 07:34 PM
You can't even discuss the possibility of what might or might not be acceptable to you?

What would be acceptable to me is a Constitutional amendment shielding firearms and items necessary to their designed functioning (to include magazines and ammunition) from interstate commerce regulation.

Given its position as an amendment, the 2nd amendment should already do this, but apparently it needs to be made crystal clear.

Pizzapinochle
April 2, 2014, 08:50 PM
Well, that is great that you want a huge victory for the pro gun side w/o giving anything up. Not very useful in a discussion about regaining ground through compromise.

splattergun
April 2, 2014, 08:52 PM
@splattergun: The problem is that if we make bad arguments they can catch us in bad arguments and then write story after story and do show after show about how we are evil, cruel, stupid, conspiring, malicious conspirators that want to kill babies. 'They will do anything to hold onto their death machines!' That is the issue.

My point is, that very few people on every side of the issue even KNOW how to debate! Is the discussion supposed to be limited to the professionally trained mouth-fighters, just to please you, or do we common plebes get to exercise our right to speaking our minds, too?

Sam1911
April 2, 2014, 09:06 PM
Well, that is great that you want a huge victory for the pro gun side w/o giving anything up. Not very useful in a discussion about regaining ground through compromise.

Oh! Holy cow, is THAT what this thread is about?

I was thinking it was about how we didn't compromise and instead just WON and that was a good thing.


...

And about how to debate ... And about whether psych testing will screen out mass murderers... And about getting the last word ... And about whether we're losing or not. ... And probably a bunch of other stuff.

JRH6856
April 2, 2014, 09:09 PM
Well, that is great that you want a huge victory for the pro gun side w/o giving anything up. Not very useful in a discussion about regaining ground through compromise.
Not interested in compromising the protection of fundamental core rights. I'm more interested in strengthening the protections and finding solutions to your perceived problems through other means.

jerkface11
April 2, 2014, 09:11 PM
I like how I suggested a 100 round limit and it's already been cut in half. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.

readyeddy
April 2, 2014, 09:44 PM
I give you folks credit for debating the cause. I just don't have the energy, or probably the skill the OP talks about. fyi, my opinion is that the battle, besides being a legal battle in the courts, is mostly PR, like a political campaign, so it comes down to TV ads and other mass media outlets.

Walkalong
April 2, 2014, 09:54 PM
You can't even discuss the possibility of what might or might not be acceptable to you? Why not? I cannot answer a make believe question. You either missed my point, or have no interest in it, instead trying to move the focus.

monotonous_iterancy
April 2, 2014, 09:58 PM
We're definitely winning.

I think that part of the problem the OP was talking about is that we can be impatient.

I'll be honest, I think that's part of my problem. Most of us here are well outside the mainstream when it comes to how far we'd like to roll back gun control. It can be easy to become frustrated that the process isn't moving as fast as we'd like, or even potentially going in the other direction at times.

This leads to how sometimes I'll hear a politician talking about gun control, and I agree with him in principle, but to my ears, what they're saying is painfully moderate. But, that's how a democratic society works.

The trick is making our positions sound like the more responsible ones.

Finally, we don't have to compromise anything. Many people seem to think that being in the center is compromising, but that's not true, it's simply being inconsistent. In politics, your positions can change, and they can shift, but your views can stay the same. You can advocate moderate positions that move the debate closer to your true goals, and remain internally consistent. That's how we win.

Most people don't come to hardcore pro-gun positions (or any issue really) without a lot of reading and studying. We do a valuable service here by providing a place for people to do that reading.

Pizzapinochle
April 2, 2014, 11:33 PM
Not interested in compromising the protection of fundamental core rights. I'm more interested in strengthening the protections and finding solutions to your perceived problems through other means.
You say you want to strengthen rights, but when offered a proposal that, on the whole, strengthens rights you dismiss it. That legislation would be a MAJOR win for gun rights, but in your desire to "not compromise" you won't even accept a good deal. Not sure how those views are congruent.

Sam1911, I think this illustrates one reason it is hard to have these conversations, which was the original topic of the thread. I've had pro-gun people say they wouldn't be n favor of blatantly pro-gun measures because of the slightest sniff of gun control attached.

The strategy you discussed as winning IS winning (holding the line, preventing new legislation), but it has not produced any favorable federal legislation in a long time that I know of. Compromise would be a way to start taking back pieces of the pie. But, if the pro-gun community is like JRH, they would vote out anyone who they viewed as compromising, even if they got back a big piece of the pie for gun rights without giving up much.

What is the winning strategy for getting back rights that have been under attack for 100 years? You AREN'T going to get them all back in one fell swoop. Just doesn't happen. Problem is, the anti gun crowd is happy to chip away at rights, seems like the pro gun crowd is reluctant to chip back.


I like how I suggested a 100 round limit and it's already been cut in half. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.

You said you WOULD accept a 100 round Iimit. No reason to ask a question you already answered, so of course I made a proposal that is a bit more strict.


I cannot answer a make believe question. You either missed my point, or have no interest in it, instead trying to move the focus.

Apparently I did miss the point. To me it seemed like you were unwilling/unable to answer a pretty simple hypothetical question.

I would have no problem answering that type of question, don't really understand why you can't.

DT Guy
April 2, 2014, 11:44 PM
There is more than pragmatism in this fight, and that's what you will never get, Pizzapinochle.

Some of us view this not as a political game, but a struggle of right and wrong, justice and injustice. "Trading" is not an option for the more idealistic amongst us, regardless of what benefits it might bring.

Larry

JRH6856
April 3, 2014, 12:07 AM
You say you want to strengthen rights, but when offered a proposal that, on the whole, strengthens rights you dismiss it. That legislation would be a MAJOR win for gun rights, but in your desire to "not compromise" you won't even accept a good deal. Not sure how those views are congruent.

According to Scalia in Heller, the protection by the Constitution of certain enumerated core rights necessarily takes certain legislative options of the table. IMO, compromise regarding the exercise of those rights is one of those options. I might favor increasing the penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a crime, but that is a restriction of use. Use of arms is not protected by the Constitution and is subject to legislative restriction. We can probably find some common ground there. Keeping and bearing arms is protected and should not be subject to compromise.

JohnKSa
April 3, 2014, 12:17 AM
I see. Arguing is entertaining. I can see that. Debate is actually more entertaining to me. Because both sides actually understand each other and can examine and constructively critisize each other's points instead of digging at each other.Well, one man's argument is another man's debate. However, I didn't say that arguing was entertaining. I said that the fact that humans tend to be "argumentative, stubborn, and ignorant people that can't stand not having the last word" is, among other things, the reason that discussion forums are interesting and entertaining. If no one were willing to argue, or if everyone were instantly willing to give up their point of view, or if everyone were informed and no one were ignorant, there would be hardly any point at all to having a discussion forum. If you did have one, it would be a pretty boring "place".'That's just how things have always been.' isn't really an acceptable excuse to maintain the status quo instead of improving.What makes you think I'm trying to make excuses for the human race or that I'm in favor of maintaining the status quo? My point was that based on your comments, the reason that pro-gunners are losing is because they're human and share traits common to people everywhere.

If you can find a way to change the nature of humans for the better, I'll be the first to recommend you for a Nobel Prize. I'm certainly not in favor of maintaining the status quo.

Pizzapinochle
April 3, 2014, 12:24 AM
Keeping and bearing arms is protected and should not be subject to compromise.

But it is already compromised. NFA and the restriction on producing new full autos for civilian ownership is a much bigger compromise to the right to bear arms than a 50 round magazine limit.

Is trading one bad compromise for a BETTER compromise not a win?

I feel like i am offering a trade in apples. You have 6 apples. I offer to give you 6 more apples in exchange for TWO of your apples. You would have a total of 10 apples after the trade, but you are so worried about giving up two apples that you won't trade, even though you really want more apples and the end result is you getting more apples.

barnbwt
April 3, 2014, 12:31 AM
"Then you need to use emotion to communicate with them. Make them empathize with your pain. It is not like many of the pro-gun folks aren't emotionally driven rather than logical."

The problem is we 'feel' different 'pain,' and ours isn't the sympathetic kind.

Column A has; tragedies, community moral outrage, senseless violence, shocking gore, the children, the children, THE CHILDREN!!!!!!

Column B has; personal moral outrage, disdain/disgust towards our tyrannical system, a desire for "change" (i.e. revolution), a desire for freedom (i.e. anarchy), and a desire for trust/faith in free Americans (i.e. naiveté)

The people promising to save will always be seen as more sympathetic than the stern voices telling others to help themselves (or even worse, do nothing in response to terrible events with no solution). Human reasoning*/cognitive dissonance does not tolerate "no solution" being the solution to anything, even if that is the correct one. It's hard to argue with "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" Utilitarian rhetoric without getting in to the nitty-gritty person-level issues that urgent emotions have no patience for. "Damn the torpedos, man, we've got to do SOMETHING!!!!"

Hard to form a proper rebuttal to such butt-headedness ;)

TCB

*not 'logic'

Ed Ames
April 3, 2014, 12:36 AM
You say you want to strengthen rights, but when offered a proposal that, on the whole, strengthens rights you dismiss it. That legislation would be a MAJOR win for gun rights, but in your desire to "not compromise" you won't even accept a good deal. Not sure how those views are congruent.

Where is this major win you mention?

All I saw was a variation on the old saw (attributed to various people) which ends, "...now we're just haggling over the price."

The reality is that magazine capacity restrictions are illogical and functionally irrelevant. It takes less than a second to swap magazines. Lower capacity magazines are smaller so you can carry more of them. Capacity limits have never saved a single life, and they will never save a single life. All they do is raise costs and inconvenience for shooters, 99.999% of whom are law abiding. Magazine capacity restrictions are not something anyone on either side of the debate really care about, except for their role in a larger effort to gradually restrict the exersize of a constitutionally enumerated right.

Same goes for the registry. It should be reopened (or eliminated altogether) because reopening makes sense. I suspect it will be, because it is especially unfair to young people who are priced out of the MG market by the fixed supply. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

It isn't in anyones interest to accept a new restriction that we know is ill conceived and will not have any positive benefit, in exchange for anything. The best thing we can do, for our own positions and for public safety, is to insist on common sense changes such as eliminating the archaic restrictions on noise polution prevention devices. Not in trade for anything, but for the benefit of all.

Nom de Forum
April 3, 2014, 12:37 AM
Some of us view this not as a political game, but a struggle of right and wrong, justice and injustice. "Trading" is not an option for the more idealistic amongst us, regardless of what benefits it might bring.


This is essentially what all people who eventually resort to the most despicable means use to rationalize their actions. Translate it into Arabic and it will be much like what the 911 terrorists professed. You have to express these sentiments to your opponents and supporters without appearing to be a dangerous, ideologically driven, non-empathetic fanatic. Convey the message gently and unthreateningly. Everybody please remove their "From my cold dead hands..." bumper stickers if you want to reduce the fear of our opponents to the apathy we can expect at best.

I might favor increasing the penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a crime, but that is a restriction of use. Use of arms is not protected by the Constitution and is subject to legislative restriction. We can probably find some common ground there. Keeping and bearing arms is protected and should not be subject to compromise.

Sounds reasonable. The problem is many of our opponents see the mere "keeping and bearing" as use of arms. We have to force them to take this off the table by accepting trivial compromises that somewhat sate their hunger to devour gun rights. We can compromise on many things, many of which will be inconvenient but actually trivial, if ultimately we have a quid pro quo that protects our ultimate right to keep and bear arms. The attitude that fight for all and surrender nothing is too dangerous a strategy.

barnbwt
April 3, 2014, 12:48 AM
"Is trading one bad compromise for a BETTER compromise not a win?"

Okay, in politics, there are three basic states of being for each side; winning, losing, and stalemate. "Compromise" really only occurs during the latter, a shuffling of deckchairs when no real territory is to be won, so the legislators can look like they are doing something. While winning, the winners justify their route of the opposite team as a "compromise," often throwing them a few token bones so they might not be compelled to turn to desperate measures to defend themselves or inflict damage on the opposite team (i.e. keeping it "cat and mouse, not cat and missile" :D ). Likewise, the losing team attempts to shore up its less enthusiastic elements by couching the loss as a compromise, since that is seen as less negative. Keeping the group unified in the face of defeat this way is the only way future victories can be ever won, so it serves a very real purpose.

But it's not a compromise unless both sides get what they don't want and neither side loses future standing. If the deal is "better" for one side, it's not a compromise, it's a victory, and before the deal is inked (and only then played off as a compromise rather than a defeat or rout) the negotiating parties will be under no illusions as to the beneficiary.

"Well, one man's argument is another man's debate"
I'll have to disagree with you on that one ;)

Nom de Forum
April 3, 2014, 01:02 AM
"Then you need to use emotion to communicate with them. Make them empathize with your pain. It is not like many of the pro-gun folks aren't emotionally driven rather than logical."

[QUOTE]The problem is we 'feel' different 'pain,' and ours isn't the sympathetic kind.

Column A has; tragedies, community moral outrage, senseless violence, shocking gore, the children, the children, THE CHILDREN!!!!!!

Column B has; personal moral outrage, disdain/disgust towards our tyrannical system, a desire for "change" (i.e. revolution), a desire for freedom (i.e. anarchy), and a desire for trust/faith in free Americans (i.e. naiveté)

Sorry but you've got your columns incorrectly labeled and incomplete.

Your "Column B" is actually Column C. Column B contains many people in between the extremes of Columns A & B. These are the ones we sway to support or remain apathetic. The knee jerk Column A types don't have the numbers to win if we influence the majority of Column B.

The people promising to save will always be seen as more sympathetic than the stern voices telling others to help themselves (or even worse, do nothing in response to terrible events with no solution). Human reasoning*/cognitive dissonance does not tolerate "no solution" being the solution to anything, even if that is the correct one. It's hard to argue with "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" Utilitarian rhetoric without getting in to the nitty-gritty person-level issues that urgent emotions have no patience for. "Damn the torpedos, man, we've got to do SOMETHING!!!!"

Hard to form a proper rebuttal to such butt-headedness ;)

TCB

*not 'logic'

I agree, it is hard, but it isn't impossible. It takes sophisticated presentation and persuasion. Waving flintlock muskets over our head and shouting "From my cold dead hands" is not going to work. Don't worry about "Human reasoning*/cognitive dissonance does not tolerate "no solution" being the solution to anything" most people tolerate it everyday when rationalizing religious belief with the facts of everyday life, and especially scientific discovery. We don't need them to love us or even understand us, we need them to not hate us. People holding philosophical/religious beliefs that should make them the enemies of their neighbors are frequently friends or at least courteous with their neighbors.

JRH6856
April 3, 2014, 01:07 AM
Is trading one bad compromise for a BETTER compromise not a win?

At best, it is less of a loss. But a loss none the less. You asked what I would accept. I told you. If you don't like it, be glad it's not my decision alone.

We have to force them to take this off the table by accepting trivial compromises that somewhat sate their hunger to devour gun rights. We can compromise on many things, many of which will be inconvenient but actually trivial, if ultimately we have a quid pro quo that protects our ultimate right to keep and bear arms. The attitude that fight for all and surrender nothing is too dangerous a strategy.

The attitude of compromise all and gain nothing is a bit too dangerous as well. And it seems the definition of "trivial" might be important here. I think jerkface's offered compromise of agreeing to a 100rnd mag limit might be trivial enough to be acceptale. Apparently Pizzapinochle does not.

The amendment I said I would accept is something I find acceptable. It may not be the only thing acceptable to me but it is something I will always seek. What do you want in return? Limitations on use? OK, let's work on defining use and try to find some common ground. Anything else? Make a proposal, don't just ask me what I will surrender first.

barnbwt
April 3, 2014, 01:12 AM
"Yes, we lose something (super massive magazines that very few people use and are pretty unreliable), but the gain would be much greater.

In my mind, that bill would be a HUGE win for the pro-gun side, but you are saying you would oppose it?"

I'm sorry, but I take visceral exception to this. I usually try to refrain from personal engagement on forums, let alone personal attacks, but this is too much. You would rather accept an admittedly flawed, illogical, and pointless measure over something effective --just because it gores your ox less than the other option? This kind of mentality is exactly how we've gotten as bad as we are. If gun owners of this country had demanded the Banner's present real, defined, proven strategies and measures to reduce the "plague of gun violence" in the first place before yielding anything, they would have never been able to chip away at our margins the way they have.

Back in the day and up till now, they wouldn't dare touch people's hunting rifles and shotguns, but the (now) NFA, home/personal defense, and sport (not hunting) crowds were fair game --because "very few people" used those items, and the remainder didn't care that their fellow sportsmen were now subject to arbitrary and capricious laws, and whatever machinations were surely to come later.

I won't even go into gun building; suffice it to say you'd flip your lid if you learned the kind of stuff builders have to put up because their fellow Americans didn't care about guns being assembled from foreign parts, or that guns are both too simple and too varied to be classified intelligently, or that machine guns & silencers, short barreled rifles & shotguns, were too scary to warrant a single thought about unintended consequences before the ban was rammed through.

TCB

Nom de Forum
April 3, 2014, 01:20 AM
"Is trading one bad compromise for a BETTER compromise not a win?"

Okay, in politics, there are three basic states of being for each side; winning, losing, and stalemate. "Compromise" really only occurs during the latter, a shuffling of deckchairs when no real territory is to be won, so the legislators can look like they are doing something. While winning, the winners justify their route of the opposite team as a "compromise," often throwing them a few token bones so they might not be compelled to turn to desperate measures to defend themselves or inflict damage on the opposite team (i.e. keeping it "cat and mouse, not cat and missile" :D ). Likewise, the losing team attempts to shore up its less enthusiastic elements by couching the loss as a compromise, since that is seen as less negative. Keeping the group unified in the face of defeat this way is the only way future victories can be ever won, so it serves a very real purpose.

But it's not a compromise unless both sides get what they don't want and neither side loses future standing. If the deal is "better" for one side, it's not a compromise, it's a victory, and before the deal is inked (and only then played off as a compromise rather than a defeat or rout) the negotiating parties will be under no illusions as to the beneficiary.

"Well, one man's argument is another man's debate"
I'll have to disagree with you on that one ;)

Compromise is getting enough to be satisfied without trying to be sated at the expense of your opponent starving. It can be done and is being done. While our opponents have been crowing about their trivial tactical victories, we are winning the strategic victory of more people with CCW than ever before, more women (biggest voting block) buying guns than ever before, more people watching more gun sport oriented television shows than every before. Many of those people are young and will vote to support guns. The generations of the late 20th and 21st centuries are increasingly demanding protection of their rights from obviously intrusive government organizations. Gun ownership is one of those rights they will protect. WE ARE WINNING!:D

barnbwt
April 3, 2014, 01:24 AM
"From my cold dead hands" is not going to work."
It works great for rallying our side though; Chuck wasn't speaking at a Brady convention, nor a town hall. It was the 2000 NRA convention. Gun-waivers, anti screamers, and other such slogan-hurlers are not talking to the other side so much as showing solidarity with their own kind. You usually can't understand what a large crowd of protestors are chanting, but each protestor sure does. Some birds gotta crow, some monkeys gotta fling poo; it's the way of things. That said, I wholeheartedly endorse efforts to remove the worst offenders from our midst when the goal isn't to make fools of ourselves, but it's folly to deny the impulse, or to pretend we can prevent it (it's like trying to end gun violence ;) )

"The attitude of compromise all and gain nothing is a bit too dangerous as well. And it seems the definition of "trivial" might be important here. I think jerkface's offered compromise of agreeing to a 100rnd mag limit might be trivial enough to be acceptale. Apparently Pizzapinochle does not."
Exactly. "Reasonable restrictions" on universally-loathed weapons like full autos, large bore cannon, explosives, sawn-off long arms, machine pistols, and the like have yielded a Byzantine regulatory system chock full of booby traps, landmines, and the ever present "Do Not Pass Go..." rulings of the ATF changing the game mid stream. Engage in the business of selling or making firearms, and you must walk on eggshells, check those i's and T's, as well as those pesky p's and q's, lest you open yourself to all sorts of liability (some of it potentially at the point of a gun, no less :rolleyes:). All passed under the auspices of a tax-collecting authority, none of it enforced to that end.

I want to build a belt-fed semi-auto machinegun (even sans NFA since ammo is too pricey ;) ) from a ZB37 parts kit*. Someone tell me why I either do not have the right to do so, or should cede my right to do so without compensation, so that an unknown, unthanking stranger can ostensibly enjoy that which is not yet banned as part of a 'grand bargain.'

I'll be waiting for a response, because my belt fed, tripod mounted 'machine gun' would certainly be the first sacrifice on the 'bargaining' table...

TCB

*So, would 100 round belts be okay, but not 250? By what logic do you draw the line at that particular number, the quantity of fingers on our hands? :confused:

barnbwt
April 3, 2014, 01:35 AM
"Compromise is getting enough to be satisfied without trying to be sated at the expense of your opponent starving."

By your own description of current events, the anti's are looking really hungry about now. Probably having hallucinations of us as talking spiral-cut hams :D. Last election they had something like 5000$ to chip in for O. I have no compunctions about keeping hungry wolves at bay now and into the future (and bay they most certainly will...:neener:)

http://yosemite-sam.net/Sam/Animated-Cartoons/Along-Came-Daffy-03.JPG
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x72dcg_daffy-duck-along-came-daffy_fun?start=1

TCB

Nom de Forum
April 3, 2014, 02:48 AM
[QUOTE]"From my cold dead hands" is not going to work."
It works great for rallying our side though; Chuck wasn't speaking at a Brady convention, nor a town hall. It was the 2000 NRA convention. Gun-waivers, anti screamers, and other such slogan-hurlers are not talking to the other side so much as showing solidarity with their own kind. You usually can't understand what a large crowd of protestors are chanting, but each protestor sure does. Some birds gotta crow, some monkeys gotta fling poo; it's the way of things. That said, I wholeheartedly endorse efforts to remove the worst offenders from our midst when the goal isn't to make fools of ourselves, but it's folly to deny the impulse, or to pretend we can prevent it (it's like trying to end gun violence ;) )

Chuck was speaking at the equivalent of a Brady convention or town hall because the whole World saw it on their media of choice. We don't need to use these methods of showing "solidarity" with our own kind. We need to encourage sophisticated methods that are not easily exploited against us. We are homo sapiens sapiens, we can control the instinct to "crow" or "fling poo". We can use our intellect to make a similar demonstration that does not appear to be inflammatory crowing and poo flinging. With many hobbies and pastimes the participants can appear aggressive and fanatical to outsiders without appearing to be threatening. Aggessive and fanatical behavior by gun hobbiests scares the hellouta allota people. Let's stop doing that. It is counterproductive.

Nom de Forum
April 3, 2014, 02:56 AM
"Compromise is getting enough to be satisfied without trying to be sated at the expense of your opponent starving."

By your own description of current events, the anti's are looking really hungry about now. Probably having hallucinations of us as talking spiral-cut hams :D. Last election they had something like 5000$ to chip in for O. I have no compunctions about keeping hungry wolves at bay now and into the future (and bay they most certainly will...:neener:)

http://yosemite-sam.net/Sam/Animated-Cartoons/Along-Came-Daffy-03.JPG
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x72dcg_daffy-duck-along-came-daffy_fun?start=1

TCB

Here is the thing about dieting. Done gradually the diet does not seem like a diet after a while. In fact at certain point even the starving lose the sensation of hunger, they only feel weak and ineffective at doing any thing, and eventually lose the will to take corrective action. The food they need is people voting there way. They don't get that if we keep swaying the young and women to our side or not to any side.

JRH6856
April 3, 2014, 04:24 AM
With many hobbies and pastimes the participants can appear aggressive and fanatical to outsiders without appearing to be threatening. Aggessive and fanatical behavior by gun hobbiests scares the hellouta allota people.

In fact, it scares many of them so much they start seriously questioning whether anyone should have the right to scare (threaten) them to that extent. And they start looking for and supporting "reasonable" limitations, regardless of what the Constitution might say about it.

Let's stop doing that. It is counterproductive.

You're right, it is counterproductive. (:confused: I think we just agreed on something. How did that happen? :scrutiny:)

Mp7
April 3, 2014, 04:58 AM
@Sam

Well, not to put ourselves on any sort of pedestal but, we try really hard here at THR. That might not be saying a whole lot -- we take an awful lot of anger for stifling folks' more vitriolic comments -- but we do try to shepherd our debates here to be as adult and respectful as possible. And to be as closely based on fact and reason as our members can maintain. But few folks come to a gun-rights forum to argue the "anti" side, and those that have had the stomach for that and have come here to debate the issues have tended to reach the point of frustration, anger, and insult very quickly.

That`s the reason I, as an atheist, liberal, social democrat, historian, martial artist,
nature boy, gun lover...
... am still here :-)

Walkalong
April 3, 2014, 08:34 AM
Make a proposal, don't just ask me what I will surrender first.JRH6856 certainly understood my point, and expressed it more clearly.

Pizzapinochle
April 3, 2014, 11:14 AM
First, I think magazine limits are stupid and pointless. Jerkface suggested it, I ran with his suggestion. I would take that bill in a heartbeat because…

1. I want a full auto, but won’t be able to afford one without opening the registry
2. I want a suppressor, but don’t want to pay more for a tax stamp than most of my guns are worth

.... NOT because I want magazine limits (I don't), but because I think what is gained is much greater than what is lost.

Second, this thread is about effective advocacy and tactics. There are a LOT of things I would like to see happen (List off the top of my head: Repeal NFA, repeal import restrictions on foreign guns, repeal all PERMITTING for ownership, repeal any magazine limits, repeal bans based on stupid standards like bayonet lugs and “overall scariness”) that, at the moment, I don’t see an effective pro-gun strategy for reaching those goals. I see an effective strategy for resisting further attacks (which was demonstrated in 2013), but defense is much easier than offense. Just “STAND STRONG, NO COMPROMISE” works as a defense, but there needs to be a strategy for winning back rights. And that may take a different strategy.

Third, I like putting things in real world/scenarios, because it makes it harder to rely on ideology/abstract philosophy. Of course, it is also easy for people to say “Well, that isn’t real so it isn’t relevant,” but I have a good imagination so I have no problem theorizing and abstracting about possibilities.

So, here is a little play for you. I am curious about your response.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Characters:
Pro Gun Senator Sam
Anti Gun Senator Bob
Random Senator Sally the Committee Chair
LIBERAL MEDIA!!!!!
ANTI-GUN COMMIES!!!!

Act 1:
Pro-gun Sam proposes a bill.

"REPEAL THE 1934 NFA"

Bill goes to committee. In committee, it is clear that an outright repeal isn't going to happen.

Sally suggests: "What are the most important parts of the NFA you would like to see repealed?"

Sam: "Re-open the machine gun registry and completely remove suppressors from the NFA. They are safety devices that we should be ENCOURAGING, not restricting."

Sally: Ok, well lets try running with those two things and send it to the floor.
Act 2:
New bill hits the floor: AMEND THE 1934 NFA
Liberal Media goes crazy, Anti-gun Commies go crazy, because congress is about to let all the crazies get AUTOMATIC WEAPONS WITH SILENCERS!! BLOOD AND SILENT DEATH WILL RAIN DOWN UPON THE WORLD!! NO ONE NEEDS AUTOMATIC WEAPONS!!! WE HAVE HAD THIS LAW FOR 80 YEARS, WHY CHANGE IT NOW!!!! THEY WANT TO KILL BABIES!!!!!
In the Senate, there is quite a bit of support, but it is not a sure thing to pass.
Act 3:
Anti-Gun Bob talks to Sam.

"Sam, you MIGHT have the votes to get this through, but me and my block are going to fight it every step of the way with every procedural trick in the book and our colleges in the House will do the same. It'll be a mess and the whole thing will probably fall apart. Our constituents want us to fight this.

BUT, if you throw us a bone, say, a ban on the manufacture and importation of magazines larger than 50 rounds, I'll still vote against it but we won't use every procedural trick possible to keep the bill from ever reaching a vote. We can tell our constituents we got something out of the bill also, that it is a win for us. If you really have enough votes, it will pass.”

Sam weighs his options. He knows he is winning, Bob would not be crawling to him asking for a compromise like this if he didn’t know he was in a tight spot, but Sam also knows that the bill is not a sure thing even WITHOUT Bob causing problems. Without Bob backing off, the bill might never even reach the floor for a vote.
Sam says: “You know, we can live with restricting the manufacture/importation of magazines over 50 rounds if it gets the bill passed.”
Act 4:
Bill gets amended and sent to the floor:

-All newly manufactured detachable magazines are limited to 50 rounds
-Newly manufactured fully automatic firearms can now be added to the NFA registry
-Silencers are no longer an NFA item and can be purchased as an accessory with no background check/tax stamp

Bill goes to a vote and doesn’t get enough votes, fails 47 YEAH – 53 NAY. Dies in the senate.
Act 5:
Liberal Media rejoices!! Anti – Gun Commies rejoice!! THANK GOODNESS THE SENATE WAS SMART AND DIDN’T LET THOSE GUN NUTS JAM THROUGH THAT TERRIBLE AMENDMENT!! THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLING BABIES!!! BUT COMMON SENSE WON OUT AND THE BILL DIED IN THE SEANTE!!! REJOICE!!!
End Scene
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And you are telling me you guys would be sitting here on THR agreeing with the liberal media and anti-gun groups, saying “Boy, good thing THAT bill didn’t pass!! Would HATE to have compromised on anything!!” ?????

I don’t buy it.
You can say ideologically, when it isn’t a real world example, that you would oppose it because it is a compromise, but if that bill actually reached the floor and it didn’t pass, you would not be happy. Just like it was a win for the pro-gun movement to block the 2013 legislation, it would be a win for the anti-gun movement to block this hypothetical legislation.

And I realize it is all hypothetical and theoretical and such. And maybe some of you really are that ideologically bound to the “No Compromise” mantra.

But, in the real world it is incredibly difficult to get anything “cleanly” through the US legislative process. Even if you have a lot of support, someone is going to try and latch something onto it. If pro-gun legislators think the pro-gun voters will turn on them even if they were to secure a big win because of a minor anti-gun rider, I see a lot of difficult in winning back rights on the federal level b/c even the representatives you support will be scared to act.
Maybe I am wrong. What was the last major (or even minor) PRO-GUN piece of federal legislation to pass with no anti-gun riders/features?
If these are getting through with zero compromise, then I guess it is possible, but if that has happened in the past 30 years I don’t know about it.
In contrast, what was the last major ANTI-GUN legislation to pass without any pro-gun riders/features?

Final thought:

It seems that some of you only see the slippery slope working against you. Take my proposal.

You see that and say “Yeah, today they want 50 rounds, next they will want 30 then 20 then next thing you know we can only have single shot .22lr rifles!”

An anti-gunner sees that same legislation and says “They got rid of half the NFA, how long until the whole thing is repealed? If they can repeal NFA, what about GCA 1968 or Brady 1993?”

Do you have to watch out for the slippery slope?? Of course, but if you have the chance to push your opponent down HIS/HER slippery slope in a big way, TAKE IT!!

All for now.

Sam1911
April 3, 2014, 11:26 AM
Just “STAND STRONG, NO COMPROMISE” works as a defense, but there needs to be a strategy for winning back rights. And that may take a different strategy.

I posted a list a while back of things I saw as recent wins in our column. I do not automatically disagree that there may be utility in giving a little to get a little, as a general principle, but as I look at that list I posted, I don't see really anything that we had to give up to get real positive changes. What did we compromise to make the 1994 AWB sunset? What did we compromise to get the national parks carry ban killed off? What did we compromise to get the 2nd Amendment declared a personal (not collective) right? What did we compromise to get concealed carry rights established in (almost) all 50 states?

Did we get those significant wins (and all those others) by being stubborn and hard-nosed about our rights and holding a firm line? Or by compromising?

The last SERIOUS federal compromise bill I can remember involved safe transport of firearms across state lines, decreased harassment of FFLs, the removal of the "contiguous states" provision for long gun purchase ... AND the Hughes Amendment that closed the machine gun registry. We could have killed the bill and refused to compromise -- and the registry would be open today! An M-4 registered receiver could probably cost you $500 these days. But we compromised to get a small pile of things we wanted. Was that a good idea? Are we just "haggling over price?" ;)

Nom de Forum
April 3, 2014, 11:31 AM
.......You're right, it is counterproductive. (:confused: I think we just agreed on something. How did that happen? :scrutiny:)

As I mentioned in a previous post: Try to remember that me and some of the rest of us may be sobs, but we are sobs on your side that probably agree with most of your views.:D

Captain33036
April 3, 2014, 11:42 AM
I agree, we could have better arguments when debating the anti's.

Some get too down in the weeds, trying to explain the Constitutional merits, or even the value of freedom. Unfortunately, that makes the listeners eyes glaze over (very sad that people have become this unable to comprehend).

So, advice: Keep it simple. And if you do not have a pithy reply, simply ask the other side to explain their point.

1. Cuomo said, "because you don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer."

OK, then, how many rounds do you want your wife to have when she is confronted by more than one bad guy in your home at night?


2. "Too many people die of gun violence."

Was no one ever killed before the advent of the gun?


3. "We need to place limits on the Second Amendment."

Would you allow others to place limits on the First, Fourth, Fifth and the rest?

El Tejon
April 3, 2014, 12:31 PM
A reason why we are losing

Losing? Why do you think this?

Sam1911
April 3, 2014, 12:34 PM
Losing? Why do you think this?
He explained that in post 42, and has clarified that his impression was erroneous.

Mp7
April 3, 2014, 12:52 PM
2. "Too many people die of gun violence."

Was no one ever killed before the advent of the gun?

Ahem.
This is one of the arguments that are the weakest.


Focus on the fact that there is a gun culture.
And that it cannot be just done away with.

The above "Argument" is childish.
A 10 min survey of global data tells you that.
( don`t start, "but in Switzerland!..." cos its, tiny and rich
and in better social shape than the US)



My 02$.

Pizzapinochle
April 3, 2014, 01:20 PM
2. "Too many people die of gun violence."

Was no one ever killed before the advent of the gun?



Also weak because the answer is:

"Not as easily, not as quickly, not at range, not with minimal training and without physical strength."

This is actually a theme of one of the weakest pro-gun arguments: treating guns like any other object.

They aren't like any other object and everyone knows it. If other objects were like guns, you wouldn't care about gun rights and antis wouldn't care about gun control.

Doesn't mean guns are evil/inherently bad/etc. etc., but be realistic about what they are. Really cool mechanical devices that hurl chunks of metal at potentially deadly velocities.

JRH6856
April 3, 2014, 02:03 PM
First, I think magazine limits are stupid and pointless. Jerkface suggested it, I ran with his suggestion. I would take that bill in a heartbeat because…

1. I want a full auto, but won’t be able to afford one without opening the registry
2. I want a suppressor, but don’t want to pay more for a tax stamp than most of my guns are worth

.... NOT because I want magazine limits (I don't), but because I think what is gained is much greater than what is lost.

I'm not ready to act in your play, but about the above, it might be a good deal if thatis as far as it goes, andif both sides negotiated in good faith, it could be. But you have just agreed that mag capacity is negotiable base on a purely arbitrary number. So they will be back, offering something else--say no restrictions on SBRs and allowing handgun purchses across state lines like long guns, in exchange for another 20rnd reduction. Someone wanting to convert a rifle into pistol who doesn't see a need for mags larger than 30 rounds might vote for that in a heartbeat.

And they'll be back, offering another 20 round reduction in exchange for something else--say treating shotguns like rifles as far as length restrictions. The shotgunners don't need more than 10 rounds so that's fine with them And in the end, you will have your full auto with a 10 round magazine and you are measuring rate of fire in mag changes per minute. Happy now?

That is what barnbwt means about the other guy's ox being gored.

If you are going to compromise on something, make it a part of something you wouldn't miss if you lost it all.

JRH6856
April 3, 2014, 02:11 PM
3. "We need to place limits on the Second Amendment."

Would you allow others to place limits on the First, Fourth, Fifth and the rest?

We are already pretty far down that road (off the top of my head):

Freedom of Speech? Not if it offends a specially privileged group That is hate speech and must be punished.

Freedom of Religion? You are free to believe and worship as you choose, but don't try to act in everyday life as you faith dictates. See specially privileged groups above.

Protection against illegal search and seizure? Well see, that is why you can't have guns. Someone will get hurt if you try to resist a no knock warrant in the middle of the night.

Protection against self incrimination? Fine. We don't need you to talk, we can get all the evidence we need from your phone records and emails. And if you refuse to talk, that refusal can be used as evidence against you. Apparently no one has the right to remain silent if they remain silent. You have to actually say you wish to remain silent.

Right to trial by jury of your peers? When we get through with the pre-trial pub, you won't have any peers. And if you do, we'll get a change of venue because of the pub.

No ex post facto laws? But this isn't a law, it is just a regulation of intertate commerce that happens to affect you.

Sam Cade
April 3, 2014, 02:17 PM
Focus on the fact that there is a gun culture.
And that it cannot be just done away with.

The above "Argument" is childish.
A 10 min survey of global data tells you that.


Prevalence of firearms has little to do with per capita murder rates.

A 10 min survey of US state data tells you that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state



also,
http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/05/07/gun-murders-down-39-percent-from-1993-to-2011According to a report released Tuesday by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of firearm-related homicides declined 39 percent from 1993 to 2011. Non-fatal firearm crimes dropped 69 percent during the same period.

Captain33036
April 3, 2014, 02:33 PM
History is full of many large scale murders and killings long before the gun was ever invented.

Even after guns were common, there have been numerous mass stabbings and bombings.

History is a useful guide. In 1139, Pope Innocent III and the second Lateran council outlawed the crossbow as a weapon causing unacceptable devastation.

Today, in the US, more people are killed by poisonings, cars, medical faults and quite a number of other things, than handguns.

So, it does not seem to me that the simple question, "was no one killed before the advent of the gun" is a weak one.

Thanks

JRH6856
April 3, 2014, 02:39 PM
So, it does not seem to me that the simple question, "was no one killed before the advent of the gun" is a weak one.

And the answer is, "Yes, people were killed, and people tried to reduce the level of death by restricting the weapons used in the killings. For example, In 1139, Pope Innocent III and the second Lateran council outlawed the crossbow as a weapon causing unacceptable devastation." :uhoh:

Sam Cade
April 3, 2014, 02:46 PM
History is full of many large scale murders and killings long before the gun was ever invented.

Don't forget that the recent ethnic madness in Rwanda was mostly machete work.

Captain33036
April 3, 2014, 02:48 PM
JRH - good, but that answer is a pretty meaningless, since there are still an unacceptable number of violent deaths.

Which makes having a weapon for personal protection all the more meaningful.

In the UK, when guns were outlawed, knife attacks rose to fill the gap.

Thanks

Captain33036
April 3, 2014, 02:51 PM
Sam - exactly. There will always be a means and history, even recent history has given us plenty examples in which large numbers of people were killed, no guns involved.

So, the question is a valid one. Honestly, whenever I run into an anti who begins to go down that path, that simple question most often stops them in their tracks.

And what I am trying to convey is that ANY question, really, usually stops these people. Because their argument never has any logic to it. And can never be defended by them for very long.

Thanks

JRH6856
April 3, 2014, 03:05 PM
JRH - good, but that answer is a pretty meaningless, since there are still an unacceptable number of violent deaths.

Of course the answer is meaningless. As is the question it answered. And the null result demonstrate the weakness of the argument. The only thing to be drawn from the exchange is that when people die, other people try will to stop it no matter how ineffective the effort.

And what I am trying to convey is that ANY question, really, usually stops these people. Because their argument never has any logic to it. And can never be defended by them for very long.

They may not logically defend it to your satisfaction, but because logic was not involved in their argument to begin with, that doesn't matter to them. They can defend it emotionally and that is sufficient to their need.

Nom de Forum
April 3, 2014, 03:19 PM
And the answer is, "Yes, people were killed, and people tried to reduce the level of death by restricting the weapons used in the killings. For example, In 1139, Pope Innocent III and the second Lateran council outlawed the crossbow as a weapon causing unacceptable devastation." :uhoh:

That is just the tip of an iceberg we don't want to hit! Do not use historical references to defend the bearing of arms unless you are very carefully selective because it opens the door to valid historical documentation countering your argument. Through out much of history, arms control has been the policy of a small ruling class to control the majority. Even in our the recent past during our American right to keep and bear arms era some of our most cherished legends have a very anti-gun reality. Very strict Gun control is what many "Wild West" towns practiced. We have enough constitutional support, case law, and statistical support, that we can avoid relying on questionable and possibly detrimental historical references. We especially have to avoid using references to anything that is more romantic myth than historical fact.

JRH6856
April 3, 2014, 03:53 PM
That is just the tip of an iceberg we don't want to hit! Do not use historical references to defend the bearing of arms unless you are very carefully selective because it opens the door to valid historical documentation countering your argument. Through out much of history, arms control has been the policy of a small ruling class to control the majority. Even in our the recent past during our American right to keep and bear arms era some of our most cherished legends have a very anti-gun reality. Very strict Gun control is what many "Wild West" towns practiced. We have enough constitutional support, case law, and statistical support, that we can avoid relying on questionable and possibly detrimental historical references. We especially have to avoid using references to anything that is more romantic myth than historical fact.
Exactly right. In spite of what we like to think, the actual history of 2A rights and gun control in this country is really not very favorable to our side. The original intent of the 2A is still the subject of objective debate, the 14th Amendment incorporations were pretty much gutted by the Slaughter-House cases. Heller was the first really favorable event for firearms rights and it was narrowly decided and has narrow application. Heller unlocked the door, and McDonald turned the knob, but the door is not yet open.

Captain33036
April 3, 2014, 03:55 PM
Not sure I understand what you are saying.

You state, do not use historical references, but then go on to give very good historical references reinforcing the argument for maintaining the second amendment.

I think you just made my argument for me. :O)

At any rate, whomever wishes to make whatever argument they wish, certainly can. I debate anti's on a regular basis and have been successful. My comments are a few pointers. Simple questions neuter their arguments easily. And if they continue to believe in illogical conclusions, the debate is quickly ended, as being simply pointless. Not a big deal.

A reasonable person has no good answers to those simple questions. A zealot is not worth asking the questions of.

Thanks
ps - I should add the first thing you would learn in debating is that the most basic strategy is simply to not accept the other sides position.

Pizzapinochle
April 3, 2014, 04:00 PM
I posted a list a while back of things I saw as recent wins in our column. I do not automatically disagree that there may be utility in giving a little to get a little, as a general principle, but as I look at that list I posted, I don't see really anything that we had to give up to get real positive changes.



Sam, i agree with your evaluation for the most part. Those were wins, but none of them are federal legislation that EXPANDED gun rights, they are all still defensive/reactionary.

What did we compromise to make the 1994 AWB sunset?

Purely defensive, the win here was getting the sunset provision in the original bill. Obviously the original bill was a net negative, but getting that provision in was a win.

What did we compromise to get the national parks carry ban killed off?

Defensive

What did we compromise to get the 2nd Amendment declared a personal (not collective) right?

Judicial ruling, so not a legislative win (which is valid, but a different topic)

What did we compromise to get concealed carry rights established in (almost) all 50 states?

State by state basis, so not really sure.

Definitely these were all wins. I am wondering about nationwide improvements, but obviously that is not all that matters.

Sam1911
April 3, 2014, 04:07 PM
Eeeehhhh...Pizza? By that logic, repealing GCA'68 or NFA'34 would be purely defensive, too.

What counts as an OFFENSIVE win then? Forcing the government to GIVE people guns? :scrutiny: ;)

40-82
April 3, 2014, 04:08 PM
The liberal news media is not winning. Their high water mark came in 1968 when they reported the Tet offensive, a great American military victory because our enemy was foolish enough to come out and fight, as a victory for the Viet Cong. The news media turned a devastating military defeat to our enemies into a political victory for them. Nobody doubted the truth of the news medias reports because we had no alternate sources. That is no longer true today. In 1968 when Lyndon Johnson pushed through the strongest control laws our national government had ever seen, they did so with virtually no opposition. The NRA at the time was a tiny organization that supported competitive shooting and managed a gun magazine. Look at us today.

As it stands now the chances a gun measure has to pass in a given state hinges on whether the state's population is primarily urban or rural. The anti-gun people look at that dichotomy with confidence between the long term trends of the American population favors urban population growth over rural population growth, but more of the urban population as time goes on are coming around to the point of view that just because they will never go duck hunting and can't imagine ever wanting to go that doesn't necessarily mean that they have a desire to give up their right to have the means to defend themselves.

We're winning.

Spats McGee
April 3, 2014, 04:13 PM
We're losing?!? :what:

Well, crud. Nobody told me THAT.

Nom de Forum
April 3, 2014, 04:16 PM
Not sure I understand what you are saying.

You state, do not use historical references, but then go on to give very good historical references reinforcing the argument for maintaining the second amendment.

I think you just made my argument for me. :O)

At any rate, whomever wishes to make whatever argument they wish, certainly can. I debate anti's on a regular basis and have been successful. My comments are a few pointers. Simple questions neuter their arguments easily. And if they continue to believe in illogical conclusions, the debate is quickly ended, as being simply pointless. Not a big deal.

A reasonable person has no good answers to those simple questions. A zealot is not worth asking the questions of.

Thanks

O.K., I think I understand what you mean. You think I supplied a good historical reference to support the 2A with the comment about ruling classes controlling the majority. Ya, that works for the converted, but the heathens hear that and interpret it as through out most of history Arms Control has been the norm and think so why should it not be now. Most of the Anti-gun people are more concerned with receiving protection from the Ruling Class than protection from the Ruling Class.

BTW, the whole Pope banning crossbow edict was not a concern about carnage. It was concern that low born, easily trained men where killing high born, expensively trained, nobles and that might give the low born the idea they were just as good as a noble. The Pope had no problem at all with using crossbows on heathens, as was amply demonstrated during the Crusades against Islamic control of the Levant.

JRH6856
April 3, 2014, 04:32 PM
I'm not sure if this is intended for me or not, but it is entirely possible that I helped your argument since I'm not sure what your argument is.

I don't try to win debates with antis because as you point out, it is pointless try to counter emotion with logic and it is hard to claim any kind of victory when the opponent is playing an entirely different game by a different set of rules.

Captain33036
April 3, 2014, 04:36 PM
Nom

I hear you and think we agree.

Arguing head to head, point by point, such as using historical references, draws you into their argument. They can come up with references, you can come up with references (my favorite is ...say that movie, it was called Shindlers List). And few are prepared to win this way.

I think you see my point with the crossbow [and you are right in your point]. Throughout history, there have been plenty of terrible weapons thought awful by the ruling class (as the elites think guns are now). But...of course...no one points out...ALL those weapons are still with us, you can buy them at any Kmart or Walmart.

What I am trying to say is simply this: If you want to engage an anti in debate and are looking for tactics and strategies, here is a scheme that works:

a. We do not have to defend our position, it is in the Constitution. If an anti wants to debate me, they need to defend their position.

b. The first rule of debating is to not accept the other sides argument. They can start out with, "guns are bad," "guns kill people" etc. Does not matter. Don't accept any of it.

c. Ask questions that force them to defend their position. I listed three simple questions that end most debates. Their arguments are never more than one or two layers deep...and they run out of rational explanations after just one or two questions.

Just one way of doing it.


If I am reading correctly, the last few pages of this thread have demonstrated that if you can caught up in numbers, moral equivalency, legalities, constitutional rights....you quickly get caught in a quagmire...of their making... from which there is little escape.

My best to all

J

ps - and yes all the above depends on your having a discussion with a reasonable, if not rational person. If they are not, you will know this within two sentences and you can then save yourself the time.

iMagUdspEllr
April 3, 2014, 04:42 PM
Whoa. Apparently I took too long of a break from this thread.


@JohnKSa:
No, one man's argument is not another man's debate. They are two different words with two different definitions for a reason. You also seem to think a debate is when two people half-heartedly state their opinions and then leave it at that.

Please correct me if that isn't what you think a debate is.

A debate can be just as spirited as an argument. Both sides can aggressively defend their position. Truly, in a formal debate, (which I'm not even remotely suggesting holding anyone to) there will be a pro and a con side. The pro will be for defending a position and the con will be trying to show that is a bad idea. You would basically have to have a debate for every idea. This would take forever. What I do propose is that we try to debate instead of argue. Whether you have a regular or a formal debate the point is to focus on the ideas and whether they are a bad idea or not. In an argument people will try every underhanded trick in the book (those tricks almost always are a logical fallacy) to appear to win (even when they haven't actually touched the subject matter at hand).

In other words, people spend a lot of time not making any progress in either direction. It wastes my time. It pisses me off. Nobody learns anything. People lose interest in the thread who might have effectively contributed to the actual discussion. And so on and so on.

You don't need to argue to defend your position. Debating is defending your position and making your assertion. It gives your idea the chance to hold water on its own merit rather than how good you are at discrediting your opponent.

No, my point is that pro-gunners are losing because we are too stupid to make a legitimate point that can stand on its own merits. And, we are "okay" with that because for some reason you are a "man" if you are good at browbeating.

If someone is offended because I said "we"... then apply it to just me then.

I tried to explain this in a way that wasn't offensive with my initial post. But, nothing other than blunt seems to work.

Nom de Forum
April 3, 2014, 05:00 PM
I'm not sure if this is intended for me or not, but it is entirely possible that I helped your argument since I'm not sure what your argument is.

I don't try to win debates with antis because as you point out, it is pointless try to counter emotion with logic and it is hard to claim any kind of victory when the opponent is playing an entirely different game by a different set of rules.

Well, you did help my argument serendipitously.:) References of distant and recent history of people using firearms to defeat their oppressors is not very effective against the Antis. They think you are a nut job for believing you think you may need to and can fight back against tyrants driving M1 Abrams by using your M1 Garand. Stick to the constitution, law, statistics, and good PR work. Much of good PR work is making your target audience comfortable believing you are much like them and only slightly different in a non-threatening way to their sense of normality.

Pizzapinochle
April 3, 2014, 08:35 PM
Eeeehhhh...Pizza? By that logic, repealing GCA'68 or NFA'34 would be purely defensive, too.

What counts as an OFFENSIVE win then? Forcing the government to GIVE people guns? :scrutiny: ;)
I suppose i should have clarified offensive and defensive, since that terminology doesn't really have a standard meaning in this context.

Defensive: preventing bad legislation from passing
Offensive: passing new legislation that expands gun rights (it is legislation to repeal an old law, so that fits here)

It is much harder to get the support/votes to pass new legislation than to block new legislation, so that is what i was looking at.

barnbwt
April 3, 2014, 09:18 PM
"Chuck was speaking at the equivalent of a Brady convention or town hall because the whole World saw it on their media of choice. We don't need to use these methods of showing "solidarity" with our own kind."

Bunk. How many rallies, donation campaigns, flyers, marches, bumper stickers, and stirring speeches consist of calm, measured, pure logic? You end up sounding like Al Gore and alienating people before they even pay attention. I enjoy NPR because I like to think about the news, and it is non-emotional unlike blow-hard shows (even if the topics are equally vacuous :D), but I won't pretend they convince anyone of anything (heck, they have to do a week's long guilt-trip four times a year just to keep the lights on :rolleyes:). Rather, they are actually rather true to their 'stated' cause in that they are quiet enough for listeners to form their own thoughts about what they choose to report.

Obviously all that 'emotive' stuff is fluff in the long run (which is why the Brady campaign is so up and down depending on the weather), but you need it to get people on board and keep them allied when they aren't thinking --and there are certainly times when they are not thinking. Heck, after Newtown lots of people were saying 'to heck with the NRA, they won't say anything about the shooting' even though the organization is precisely what ended up saving their bacon. For grouping of like-minded people brainstorming and pondering the fundamentals of our beliefs, like here, hard logic is essential because it reinforces and organizes those beliefs we "feel" are self-evident.

If there is, and I sincerely hope there is, a think tank out there focused on crafting gun-friendly well-written legislation, they would undoubtedly be focused on the very logical and philosophical debate you yearn for. But that isn't politics; politics is doing what you can, and you rarely get that by acting magnanimously versus strategically. I also think such a think-tank organization would be our only hope of ever getting meaningful and well-crafted pro-gun legislation.

Anybody know if the NRA has such a thing? I've never heard of it, or of any such proposals...just schmoozing with law makers to keep them from voting for additional baloney laws.

TCB

barnbwt
April 3, 2014, 09:30 PM
"all the above depends on your having a discussion with a reasonable, if not rational person."

Wow, there's a niche :D. I honestly think the only way such a beast can exist is by way of pure ignorance, which is itself becoming something of an endangered species in our media driven world. Someone who is apathetic will likely never be an asset to us, someone misinformed sufficiently before we reach them is also a likely lost cause. If we find someone who really and truly is capable of thinking about the issues and weighing both sides, it is because they haven't bothered or had the opportunity to even think about it up to that point. If the former, they are so apathetic as to be useless, if the latter, it can only be because they have not been exposed to this topic. I find it increasingly difficult to believe an intelligent person exists in this country who has not been exposed to this topic.

TCB

JRH6856
April 3, 2014, 09:37 PM
I suppose i should have clarified offensive and defensive, since that terminology doesn't really have a standard meaning in this context.

Defensive: preventing bad legislation from passing
Offensive: passing new legislation that expands gun rights (it is legislation to repeal an old law, so that fits here)

If we are going to use clearly defined terms... Rights exist, with or without legislation. Legislation can only restrict rights, it can't create them or expand them, it can impose or remove previously imposed restrictions. Keep that in mind when defining legislation as good or bad, offensive or defensive.

barnbwt
April 3, 2014, 09:52 PM
"What I am trying to say is simply this: If you want to engage an anti in debate and are looking for tactics and strategies, here is a scheme that works:

a. We do not have to defend our position, it is in the Constitution. If an anti wants to debate me, they need to defend their position.

b. The first rule of debating is to not accept the other sides argument. They can start out with, "guns are bad," "guns kill people" etc. Does not matter. Don't accept any of it.

c. Ask questions that force them to defend their position. I listed three simple questions that end most debates. Their arguments are never more than one or two layers deep...and they run out of rational explanations after just one or two questions.

Just one way of doing it."

I follow you on points A and C, point B is very non-diplomatic if taken literally (a better tactic is refusing to let the opponent get away with such broad and imprecise claims in the first place --"what does 'guns kill people' have to do with anything? we're talking mag-limits" for instance). Refusing to accept the scant but real logic of the other side is a recipe for a shouting match. Likewise, both debating parties must respect the other sides' as a good-faith argument. Otherwise you're loudly and impolitely arguing about what color the sky is. Good faith arguments can be hard to come by when they are rooted in visceral emotions (fear/grief). Our side has plenty of those, too (black helicopters and the Holocaust, respectively)

Point A is the most critical to not only forming a coherent argument, but in forming a cohesive view of the world and firming exactly where you stand on this and all other issues. Be it the Constitution, Bible, Vedas, or Mao's little red book, you need a firm foundation to support whatever you seek to argue. To debate ad hoc is to invite logical fallacies and contradictions all over; this is precisely why ill-prepared debaters on both sides of the issue quickly become frustrated and angered as their opponent pokes through the holes of their claims. A good foundation for your world view actually makes for a very emotional argument; a passionate argument. An argument you can readily support on your feet without contradicting yourself on; an argument which makes itself.

TCB

JohnKSa
April 3, 2014, 11:30 PM
No, one man's argument is not another man's debate. They are two different words with two different definitions for a reason.Yes, one man's argument is another man's debate. What one person might consider (note that 'consider' is a word which implies a personal interpretation taking place) to be a structured debate amounts to a free-for-all argument to someone schooled in the formal rules of debate.

They are two different words with different meanings, but the entire point of my comment was that people don't always see eye-to-eye. Is that not a common theme running through this entire thread? Because people don't always see eye to eye, it is common for them to also shade the meanings of, or have differing opinions about the interpretion of various words.

It's really not a concept that should require an in-depth explanation. Or any explanation at all, for that matter.You also seem to think a debate is when two people half-heartedly state their opinions and then leave it at that.I can tell you that in this case, what it "seems" to you that I think is not what I really think. Consider yourself corrected. ;)It wastes my time.It only wastes your time if you can't disengage--if you are one of those people who must have the last word at any cost--as someone recently put it.No, my point is that pro-gunners are losing because we are too stupid to make a legitimate point that can stand on its own merits.If you really think that pro-gunners haven't made any legitimate points that can stand on their own merits, I really don't know what you tell you. I can see why you're frustrated if that's actually what you believe.

Nom de Forum
April 4, 2014, 01:32 AM
[QUOTE]"Chuck was speaking at the equivalent of a Brady convention or town hall because the whole World saw it on their media of choice. We don't need to use these methods of showing "solidarity" with our own kind."

Bunk. How many rallies, donation campaigns, flyers, marches, bumper stickers, and stirring speeches consist of calm, measured, pure logic? You end up sounding like Al Gore and alienating people before they even pay attention.

O.K. if that is the way you want to play the debate game; I call your Bunk and raise you. 3U// $H1+! Calling “Bunk” is not the way you win friends and influence people who have demonstrated they are on your side, let alone people who are not or are uncertain. I think I have sufficiently demonstrated I don’t deserve being labeled by you as “sounding like Antis” in one thread and now making suggestions “sounding like Al Gore” in this one. Perhaps you have a friend or foe identification problem. If you will look at my THR signature line you will notice I am not just a Life Member of the National Rifle Association, I am an Endowment Life Member of the National Rifle Association. If you don’t think it is possible to make an inspiring speech to the faithful that is carefully crafted to limit your opponent’s ability to use it against you, you have very little understanding how the sophisticated political game is played. That is thinking strategically and doing what works rather than “what you can”. Doing “what you can” thinking in politics leads to impulsive acts that can boomerang back doing you more harm than your opponent. To summarize: 1. Don’t insult your friends thinking that is going to force them into line. 2. Don’t make melodramatic gestures that are interpreted by your opponents and the undecided as at the very least silly, inappropriately aggressive, possibly hostile, and can do more damage to you than your opponent.

I enjoy NPR because I like to think about the news, and it is non-emotional unlike blow-hard shows (even if the topics are equally vacuous :D), but I won't pretend they convince anyone of anything (heck, they have to do a week's long guilt-trip four times a year just to keep the lights on :rolleyes:). Rather, they are actually rather true to their 'stated' cause in that they are quiet enough for listeners to form their own thoughts about what they choose to report.

I also enjoy NPR and am a supporting member of my local station. I agree with your analysis, but many people on The Right think NPR is a rabid mouth piece of The Left. It is amazing how different perspectives can be of the same thing. I actually bounce around through out the day and week to many sources of news in an attempt to get a wide perspective before making conclusions.

Obviously all that 'emotive' stuff is fluff in the long run (which is why the Brady campaign is so up and down depending on the weather), but you need it to get people on board and keep them allied when they aren't thinking --and there are certainly times when they are not thinking. Heck, after Newtown lots of people were saying 'to heck with the NRA, they won't say anything about the shooting' even though the organization is precisely what ended up saving their bacon. For grouping of like-minded people brainstorming and pondering the fundamentals of our beliefs, like here, hard logic is essential because it reinforces and organizes those beliefs we "feel" are self-evident.

If there is, and I sincerely hope there is, a think tank out there focused on crafting gun-friendly well-written legislation, they would undoubtedly be focused on the very logical and philosophical debate you yearn for. But that isn't politics; politics is doing what you can, and you rarely get that by acting magnanimously versus strategically. I also think such a think-tank organization would be our only hope of ever getting meaningful and well-crafted pro-gun legislation.

Anybody know if the NRA has such a thing? I've never heard of it, or of any such proposals...just schmoozing with law makers to keep them from voting for additional baloney laws.

TCB

Unfortunately the NRA has many faults and deficiencies, but they are still our best defensive organization. Perhaps if we elected less flintlock waving directors and more politically sophisticated directors the money we send them would be even more effective. Perhaps that money would be used to do what is most effective instead of just what can easily and impulsively be done. If I were a suspicious man I might think easy and impulsive melodramatic acts by the NRA are more about perpetuating the making of money instead of helping to craft realistic legislation that protects the right to keep and bear arms.

barnbwt don’t alienate your comrades in arms helping you fight the good fight.

JRH6856
April 4, 2014, 02:33 AM
If I were a suspicious man I might think easy and impulsive melodramatic acts by the NRA are more about perpetuating the making of money instead of helping to craft realistic legislation that protects the right to keep and bear arms.

That melodramatic stuff is what we see because it has to be seen to be melodramatic. It does raise money from those motivated by melodrama. And it isn't just the NRA. It is almost a universal truth.

But there are a lot of people that are turned off by such antics and I don't see the NRA doing a lot to appeal to them. A legislative/judicial strategy think tank would be a good move, and it doesn't need spectacular visuals to have an appeal. Just tangible results without the hype would do nicely.

And we don't need aged rock stars replacing the flintlock wavers. ;)

ugaarguy
April 4, 2014, 04:28 AM
But there are a lot of people that are turned off by such antics and I don't see the NRA doing a lot to appeal to them. A legislative/judicial strategy think tank would be a good move, and it doesn't need spectacular visuals to have an appeal. Just tangible results without the hype would do nicely.
Here are three organizations with results and so little hype that you haven't heard of them: The CATO Institute (Responsible for Heller v. DC) NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund (Largely responsible for funding McDonald v. Chicago) and the NRA Institute For Legislative Action (one of the most effective gun rights legislation lobbying organizations). Most gun folks don't even know that the NRA CRDF and the NRA ILA are separately funded entities: When you donate to the CRDF or the ILA all of your money stays in that sub entity and doesn't go to "big" NRA.

Also of note, Knife Rights, the incredibly successful group that's gotten tons of pro knife legislation passed in their very short existence, is modeled after the NRA ILA.

The organizations are out there, but since they spend their money on getting results rather than hyping themselves you have to look a little harder to find them.

Pizzapinochle
April 4, 2014, 08:08 AM
Yes, one man's argument is another man's debate. What one person might consider (note that 'consider' is a word which implies a personal interpretation taking place) to be a structured debate amounts to a free-for-all argument to someone schooled in the formal rules of debate.



Ha ha.... Definitely this is true. As someone well acquainted with formal debate, i can say with great certainty that nothing that happens here on THR or any other online forum I have seen bears any resemblance to a formal debate.

I suppose online/message board "debates" are closer to Presidential/political "debates," where the primary goal is not to be accurate and correct with strong logical supports, but to appear appealing to one group of people or another.

HexHead
April 4, 2014, 08:47 AM
It's a lot easier to just tell the antis that they're stupid and walk away. You're not going to change their minds.

Sam1911
April 4, 2014, 09:02 AM
It's a lot easier to just tell the antis that they're stupid and walk away. You're not going to change their minds.

As I said before:

What an oddly defeatist attitude. Many of us know "liberal" and even once-anti-gun people who've been swayed by reason and experience to come around to the pro-gun viewpoint.

YOU may not be capable of reaching other people with your persuasive skills (as Harry Calahan said, "A man's got to know his limitations..."), but don't claim that others cannot.

Tirod
April 4, 2014, 10:20 AM
The real problem is that many won't make the effort to expand their abilities. They just give in to their rising levels of frustration and shake the dust off their feet.

There is a time and place to do that, but it's not that time or place across the board on many of the issues. What we are seeing is exactly that on both sides. An attitude is copped that the "others" are brain dead ignorant and can't see Truth if it hit them between the eyes.

In reality, men always strive against each other, it's just one huge monkey dance to see who's the top dog. We argue internally about if we are even winning or losing in this thread, we argue whether we should even bother talking to "them," we argue whether a company should move out or stay in their home town. If we can't even agree on it or whether the M16 eats where it poops, how then will we be able to convince others they aren't right about wanting all firearms confiscated and destroyed?

You have to exercise the skill to improve it. There's really no way to add a good scope and zero in more precisely, it's not a hardware oriented kind of thing. It's a SOCIAL skill, which is why so many shooters get easily frustrated. They don't have those skills, don't like those that do, and don't want to have much to do with them - even fellow 2A fans.

That's normal for any group of men focused on the technology, not the interaction. Racers are the same - it's about the car. Show car builders are different, it's about the impact on the public and eliciting their reaction, it's about the social aspect. The basic fact they can't drive it on the street isn't anything they worry about, where the racer focuses solely on the performance aspect. Shooters do the same - some focus on the performance, some on the aesthetics. A Service Rifle match has a consistently different view of firearms vs a group bidding for engraved Belgain Browning shotguns.

If you or I won't make the effort to communicate with others in a polite, restrained, and informative way, then we either shut up and leave it to others who can, or contribute to being the Fred Phelps of the gun owner's association. And like it or not, consistently pointed out as being the average, the normal kind of gun user, which is how the antigunners like to slant the game. Pick the worst examples, focus on them, talk about them as if that's what we are ALL like.

It's an easy thing to do - antigunners make noises like, "a gun rally is no different than Westboro Baptist members demonstrating." And tossing rotten tomatoes never seemed to deter them. They were convinced they were right. In that specific situation, there is guidance as written, and it is NOT to keep tossing rotten tomatoes, or shunning them. Their may be that time, but who are any of us to give up so quickly when we see others who've done more for us?

But, if your Mom or Dad broke it up, that example may not exist for you. Keep looking, it's there nonetheless. A coach, teacher, someone who put up with us long after we deserved any attention. And if we really get honest, we can think of plenty of times we pushed things even further to make them prove they wouldn't walk away.

We have to do the same, we are the example of exactly why. We need to be long suffering, patient, and continue to work to get an understanding across. When it comes down to the basic issues, what we really disagree with antigunners on is the method - not the goal. We both want a quiet peaceful life with no stress. We just understand we need to do it protecting ourselves from the wolves, they don't see we ARE protecting them from the wolves. When they finally have to do it on their own, they gain more understanding.

We don't need to look like the wolves to do it, but we need to understand that they don't like anything that does and lump us all together. I know it's the sheep dog cliche, but it goes to the point - they hate guns because they feel as if any gunbearer is a threat. They can't or won't separate the two, they can't or won't (ironically) parse the nuance. For some, it's just attempting to gain more power, and an enemy is simply a tool to play against others who won't comply, to draw them in.

We aren't losing, we still have guns. Laws or not, many of us will continue to have them, regardless of what popular opinion and playing to the electorate bring about.

Nom de Forum
April 4, 2014, 10:54 AM
The real problem is that many won't make the effort to expand their abilities. They just give in to their rising levels of frustration and shake the dust off their feet.

There is a time and place to do that, but it's not that time or place across the board on many of the issues. What we are seeing is exactly that on both sides. An attitude is copped that the "others" are brain dead ignorant and can't see Truth if it hit them between the eyes.

In reality, men always strive against each other, it's just one huge monkey dance to see who's the top dog. We argue internally about if we are even winning or losing in this thread, we argue whether we should even bother talking to "them," we argue whether a company should move out or stay in their home town. If we can't even agree on it or whether the M16 eats where it poops, how then will we be able to convince others they aren't right about wanting all firearms confiscated and destroyed?

You have to exercise the skill to improve it. There's really no way to add a good scope and zero in more precisely, it's not a hardware oriented kind of thing. It's a SOCIAL skill, which is why so many shooters get easily frustrated. They don't have those skills, don't like those that do, and don't want to have much to do with them - even fellow 2A fans.

That's normal for any group of men focused on the technology, not the interaction. Racers are the same - it's about the car. Show car builders are different, it's about the impact on the public and eliciting their reaction, it's about the social aspect. The basic fact they can't drive it on the street isn't anything they worry about, where the racer focuses solely on the performance aspect. Shooters do the same - some focus on the performance, some on the aesthetics. A Service Rifle match has a consistently different view of firearms vs a group bidding for engraved Belgain Browning shotguns.

If you or I won't make the effort to communicate with others in a polite, restrained, and informative way, then we either shut up and leave it to others who can, or contribute to being the Fred Phelps of the gun owner's association. And like it or not, consistently pointed out as being the average, the normal kind of gun user, which is how the antigunners like to slant the game. Pick the worst examples, focus on them, talk about them as if that's what we are ALL like.

It's an easy thing to do - antigunners make noises like, "a gun rally is no different than Westboro Baptist members demonstrating." And tossing rotten tomatoes never seemed to deter them. They were convinced they were right. In that specific situation, there is guidance as written, and it is NOT to keep tossing rotten tomatoes, or shunning them. Their may be that time, but who are any of us to give up so quickly when we see others who've done more for us?

But, if your Mom or Dad broke it up, that example may not exist for you. Keep looking, it's there nonetheless. A coach, teacher, someone who put up with us long after we deserved any attention. And if we really get honest, we can think of plenty of times we pushed things even further to make them prove they wouldn't walk away.

We have to do the same, we are the example of exactly why. We need to be long suffering, patient, and continue to work to get an understanding across. When it comes down to the basic issues, what we really disagree with antigunners on is the method - not the goal. We both want a quiet peaceful life with no stress. We just understand we need to do it protecting ourselves from the wolves, they don't see we ARE protecting them from the wolves. When they finally have to do it on their own, they gain more understanding.

We don't need to look like the wolves to do it, but we need to understand that they don't like anything that does and lump us all together. I know it's the sheep dog cliche, but it goes to the point - they hate guns because they feel as if any gunbearer is a threat. They can't or won't separate the two, they can't or won't (ironically) parse the nuance. For some, it's just attempting to gain more power, and an enemy is simply a tool to play against others who won't comply, to draw them in.

We aren't losing, we still have guns. Laws or not, many of us will continue to have them, regardless of what popular opinion and playing to the electorate bring about.

Bravo!

Well said, especially "When it comes down to the basic issues, what we really disagree with antigunners on is the method - not the goal. We both want a quiet peaceful life with no stress. We just understand we need to do it protecting ourselves from the wolves, they don't see we ARE protecting them from the wolves. When they finally have to do it on their own, they gain more understanding. We don't need to look like the wolves to do it, but we need to understand that they don't like anything that does and lump us all together. I know it's the sheep dog cliche, but it goes to the point - they hate guns because they feel as if any gunbearer is a threat. They can't or won't separate the two, they can't or won't (ironically) parse the nuance."

Nuance. A concept we really need to help our allies understand and help anti-gun people understand.

silvermane_1
April 4, 2014, 11:01 AM
IMHO, we are losing RKBA "war", because there still is a NFA, ATF, DHS, oh lets not forget about the MDV=loss of RKBA, and we firearm owners are still considered "potential terrorist", however that is IMHO.

iMagUdspEllr
April 4, 2014, 11:14 AM
@JohnKSa:

Language doesn't work very well if people decide to come up with their own individual definition for any given word, especially if it changes from moment to moment throughout a discussion.

In a formal debate (again... not proposing anybody is held to that standard) if there are words that might come up in the debate that could cause miscommunication both parties agree to the definition that will be used for the purposes of the debate. I know that sounds absurd. But, it is mandatory if both sides want to actually discuss the topic instead of misunderstand each other the whole time (which leads to an argument).

I can tell you that in this case, what it "seems" to you that I think is not what I really think. Consider yourself corrected.

Way to capitalize on a perfectly good opportunity to present your definition of the word "debate". Are you trying to avoid communication?

It only wastes your time if you can't disengage--if you are one of those people who must have the last word at any cost--as someone recently put it.

No, that is completely incorrect. You see, if people focused on the topic and discussed it, I could present an idea and someone else could present an idea. Then we could both ask clarifying questions, present a couple of counter-examples, and then be done having discussed the topic to its natural conclusion (it can go back and forth more than that depending upon how many solid counter-arguments there are). Instead we end up with several pages of argument and little to no progress on the actual subject matter. This has absolutely nothing to do with the last word. It has to do with it being more important for some people to look superior to the person they are talking to than it is for them to discuss the actual topic.

So, it wastes time because nobody is actually talking about the subject. It wastes time because I have to tell people half the stuff they are saying is an attack against me or not an argument (logical fallacy). If you are telling me it is my fault that I didn't "disengage"... well you are wrong again because "disengage" = not discussing the topic also. So, you have left me with these choices:

A) argue i.e. don't discuss the topic
B) disengage i.e. don't discuss the topic.

If you really think that pro-gunners haven't made any legitimate points that can stand on their own merits, I really don't know what you tell you.

No, the point of this thread was to help at least the part of the gun community that visits THR to learn how to make solid arguments by me showing them what bad arguments are. This allows the gun community as a whole to become better at defending our position. We look smarter, more mature, and we will win more hearts and minds whenever we have a public exchange with the antis due to having a sound argument.

I am under the impression that you are content with how people in the gun community represent us. I'm not. I very clearly explained why I'm not content a few times in this thread. I think I could give more examples and explanations. But, I think you understand where I'm coming from, right?

You have to exercise the skill to improve it. There's really no way to add a good scope and zero in more precisely, it's not a hardware oriented kind of thing. It's a SOCIAL skill, which is why so many shooters get easily frustrated. They don't have those skills, don't like those that do, and don't want to have much to do with them - even fellow 2A fans.

...

If you or I won't make the effort to communicate with others in a polite, restrained, and informative way, then we either shut up and leave it to others who can, or contribute to being the Fred Phelps of the gun owner's association. And like it or not, consistently pointed out as being the average, the normal kind of gun user, which is how the antigunners like to slant the game. Pick the worst examples, focus on them, talk about them as if that's what we are ALL like.

Tirod spoke to the heart of this thread here. The idea is that we need to be polite, restrained, and informative when we represent the gun community. You can't do that if you can't present an actual argument and name-call instead. It makes us all look bad.

JRH6856
April 4, 2014, 11:23 AM
Here are three organizations with results and so little hype that you haven't heard of them: The CATO Institute (Responsible for Heller v. DC) NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund (Largely responsible for funding McDonald v. Chicago) and the NRA Institute For Legislative Action (one of the most effective gun rights legislation lobbying organizations). Most gun folks don't even know that the NRA CRDF and the NRA ILA are separately funded entities: When you donate to the CRDF or the ILA all of your money stays in that sub entity and doesn't go to "big" NRA.

Having worked wit CATO in the past, I was aware of them. NRA-ILA is the source of most of the melodramatic fundraising hype that turns me off (or at least it was until I turned them off whcih may be why I forgot about CRDF).

Nom de Forum
April 4, 2014, 11:25 AM
Here are three organizations with results and so little hype that you haven't heard of them: The CATO Institute (Responsible for Heller v. DC) NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund (Largely responsible for funding McDonald v. Chicago) and the NRA Institute For Legislative Action (one of the most effective gun rights legislation lobbying organizations). Most gun folks don't even know that the NRA CRDF and the NRA ILA are separately funded entities: When you donate to the CRDF or the ILA all of your money stays in that sub entity and doesn't go to "big" NRA.

Also of note, Knife Rights, the incredibly successful group that's gotten tons of pro knife legislation passed in their very short existence, is modeled after the NRA ILA.

The organizations are out there, but since they spend their money on getting results rather than hyping themselves you have to look a little harder to find them.

Exactly right. I too am familiar with the CATO institute and considering how often it is mentioned in the mainstream media you can only not know about it if you are not paying close attention. CATO is frequently cited in political commentary. The NRA ILA is also supported by me. I have donated money to several pro-gun organizations over the years. My mail box is regularly filled with requests for money. In fact the rise of so many additional pro-gun organizations is part of my hope the NRA leadership will realize they better shape-up or the money will go somewhere else.

JRH6856
April 4, 2014, 11:31 AM
Ha ha.... Definitely this is true. As someone well acquainted with formal debate, i can say with great certainty that nothing that happens here on THR or any other online forum I have seen bears any resemblance to a formal debate.

I suppose online/message board "debates" are closer to Presidential/political "debates," where the primary goal is not to be accurate and correct with strong logical supports, but to appear appealing to one group of people or another.
Bingo. If your position and/or argument does not appeal to a majority of the engaged membership of an online forum (such as this one, though others are much worse), you risk being shouted down, blocked, or ignored. Not surprising at all since most of us probably suffer from confirmation bias to some degree.

Nom de Forum
April 4, 2014, 11:37 AM
Bingo. If your position and/or argument does not appeal to a majority of the engaged membership of an online forum (such as this one, though others are much worse), you risk being shouted down, blocked, or ignored. Not surprising at all since most of us probably suffer from confirmation bias to some degree.

Yup, and it is not "some of us" it is all of us that "suffer from confirmation bias to some degree" as we all are human beings.

Sam1911
April 4, 2014, 11:54 AM
I'm still somewhat stuck trying to figure out exactly what we're discussing in this thread, I guess. Not formal debate, but something better than a shouting match or simple verbal brawl -- I get that.

You see, if people focused on the topic and discussed it, I could present an idea and someone else could present an idea. Then we could both ask clarifying questions, present a couple of counter-examples, and then be done having discussed the topic to its natural conclusion (it can go back and forth more than that depending upon how many solid counter-arguments there are).Yes, if you were trying to determine something with very clear answers, and the debate is taking place between two (only) persons with a finite amount of data to work with, it might go like that.

But that's not what we have here. We have an issue that has vast social ramifications contributing to the debate from, and heading off into, almost countless directions. You have a random and varying number of participants who enter and leave the debate at will and who introduce new data and new perspectives in a scattered way, and who have wildly varying levels of adhesion to the rules of debate, of logic, and even of civility. You also have a subject without ONE "natural conclusion" but with many, each heavily dependent on the underlying philosophy, interests, prejudices, and convictions of each participant.

Without limiting the discussion to those with precisely congruent basic philosophies, or expanding the debate to try and reconcile those very philosophical world-views (and good luck with that!) then you'd be a fool to expect a debate on a forum such as this (at the VERY best) would ever be more than a chance to air opposing views with the "victor" being whomever managed to answer (i.e. shut down) the most objections of their opponent.

Instead we end up with several pages of argument and little to no progress on the actual subject matter. This has absolutely nothing to do with the last word. It has to do with it being more important for some people to look superior to the person they are talking to than it is for them to discuss the actual topic.That's a bit unfair. Sure, some argue entirely out of ego, but to say that most of us contribute to these multi-page debate/arguments for reasons other than bringing folks around to our view of the world is not realistic.

In fact, it tends to sound a bit like the kind of "sour grapes" many folks start to launch when their argument has been bested and redirecting the debate toward "you're just picking on me" is the only response they have left.

JRH6856
April 4, 2014, 11:59 AM
If you or I won't make the effort to communicate with others in a polite, restrained, and informative way, then we either shut up and leave it to others who can, or contribute to being the Fred Phelps of the gun owner's association. And like it or not, consistently pointed out as being the average, the normal kind of gun user, which is how the antigunners like to slant the game. Pick the worst examples, focus on them, talk about them as if that's what we are ALL like.

Unfortunately, we often do the same. Not everyone seeking stricter gun laws ia a raving paranoid, or a tryannical elitist. But some are. I have a friend I "debate" with regularly. We don't agree on much of anything, yet we remain friends. He is strongly anti-gun, but it has little to do with guns. The real issue is his socio-political worldview in which an armed civulian populace has no place. We can debate/argue for days without mentioning guns at all, but what we are arguing about is the basis for our different positions on gun laws. Quite often, you have to work to get past the rhetoric to find the real reasons for an opposing position. He and I aren't really debating gun control or healthcare policy, or tax law, we are really channeling Hobbes and Locke and debating the authority of the collective vs the natural rights of the individual. If either of us changes our position (not likely, as it really defines and is defined by who we are) on that level, we come closer to agreement on the others without even discussing them.

JRH6856
April 4, 2014, 12:02 PM
Yup, and it is not "some of us" it is all of us that "suffer from confirmation bias to some degree" as we all are human beings.
It is almost certainly all. I just tend to avoid making absolute statements I can't prove absolutely. ;)

Tony k
April 4, 2014, 12:05 PM
Maybe I'm just lucky, but most of the people I interact with on a day to day basis are stubborn creatures of habit, yet fairly reasonable and pragmatic. Their initial reaction to an idea that challenges their assumptions, beliefs, or ideas is often defensive, resistant, and emotional (I include myself). However, once they have the opportunity to mull over a new idea about why individuals might want to keeptheir 2A rights, they'll begin to see its merits. This is especially true if the new idea is presented as "food for thought" rather than a rabid personal attack. With that in mind, when I discuss rkba issues with other people I try to be respectful and use history, the Constitution, etc to my advantage. That first conversation with a person who opposes rkba might be a little rough and awkward, but I've been surprised at how well the next conversation goes.

I've also been a complete jerk to people about it and guess what? The next conversation they become even more opposed to the rkba.

My point is that if we want to win over the fence-sitters, the people who are apathetic, and maybe even a few fervent anti-gunners, we have to accept the fact that like it or not we are all ambassadors. I like the idea presented by the OP that we should avoid logical fallacies and emotional tirades. They don't do us any favors and they feed in to the stereo-type of pro 2A people as being ignorant and scared fools. Let the antis come accoss as unstable, emotionally-driven mental midgets. You might lose in a childish shouting match, but I bet anyone who witnesses the exchange will think more highly of you (and by extension other advocates of the rkba) if you maintain your composure, be respectful, and stick to logical arguments.

barnbwt
April 4, 2014, 09:24 PM
"When it comes down to the basic issues, what we really disagree with antigunners on is the method - not the goal. We both want a quiet peaceful life with no stress."

Ironically, we seek to win both by very stressful machinations :D. This point is very important, and so obvious that it too often goes unsaid around here. On some level, we actually have a lot of common ground with the anti's (we both want to help rather than do nothing) and we should honestly emphasize and praise that trait in our opposition. By failing to do so we make it too easy for leaders on both sides to claim there is no common ground and dehumanize the conflict for their own gain.

"For some, it's just attempting to gain more power"
And those are individuals and not the movement at large, on either side. Most anti's don't even know about the force-balance dynamic they are attempting to play God with, and not enough of us appreciate the feeling of helplessness the presence of infinite force in every pocket must evoke in people who refuse to possess any themselves. People who feel they are betraying their ideal of a world without violence by acknowledging and accepting measures and tools that preclude the existence of one*

TCB

*yes, I see the irony of trying to end violence by denying it; but that is exactly the kind of conundrum many people have allowed their short-sighted emotions lead them into. It is our job to lead them out, and show them the quickest route to a world without violence is one in which violent expression is likely to lead to infinite consequences for the offender. Sadly, to break their dream of a world truly devoid of conflict, and replace it with one of actions and consequences --sometimes bad ones :(

SigSour
April 5, 2014, 12:26 AM
This is a very interesting thread.

IMHO I think this issue has three different sides.

One side is, ideals and the *who*, "who" you are debating has just as much to to with what you are debating. Some people, no matter how hard you try will never, ever abandon their idea of what the 'right' thing is. It would sicken me when I'd see people take a slap or a punch to the face and not do anything about it because fighting as they saw it was "wrong". It's just how some people are, "guns are bad", doesn't matter if someone is breaking into their home while uttering "I'm going to kill your whole family" they'd rather die themselves than pick up a firearm and defend themselves. This argument is useless, a total waste of time.

Another side is inertia or... naivety: the person who watches the news and the reporter says "The Kardashians are great!" they turn to their friends and say "the kardashians are great!" or someone who is on TV says "water is bad for you!" they stop drinking water... they don't really care what is being said as long as someone on TV, in a magazine or someone famous says it. Unfortunately the majority of those people like to side with what's popular and now, "gun control" is popular, so they go with that. Those people... hm, I can see how that would really get under your skin because debating them is like debating a talking head as they only repeat what they've heard and don't really know much else.

A third angle is apathy, people who don't own fire arms and don't think they should be banned feel as if they don't have a dog in the fight so what do they care? Problem is the 2A fight means SO much more than they could ever imagine - I think these are the people to "target" (for lack of a better word) - my dad would always say "pick your battles" and if you've debating with the first two long enough then by the time you get to the 'apathetic' soul you might be a little bitter.

If I bumped into a Bloomberg wannabe at a party and he started going off about 'gun control', what's the point of debating? He will NEVER change his mind just like I will never change mine... a simple solution would be to chalk it up to a draw and move on.

My $.02

Nom de Forum
April 5, 2014, 01:44 AM
"When it comes down to the basic issues, what we really disagree with antigunners on is the method - not the goal. We both want a quiet peaceful life with no stress."

Ironically, we seek to win both by very stressful machinations :D. This point is very important, and so obvious that it too often goes unsaid around here. On some level, we actually have a lot of common ground with the anti's (we both want to help rather than do nothing) and we should honestly emphasize and praise that trait in our opposition. By failing to do so we make it too easy for leaders on both sides to claim there is no common ground and dehumanize the conflict for their own gain.

"For some, it's just attempting to gain more power"
And those are individuals and not the movement at large, on either side. Most anti's don't even know about the force-balance dynamic they are attempting to play God with, and not enough of us appreciate the feeling of helplessness the presence of infinite force in every pocket must evoke in people who refuse to possess any themselves. People who feel they are betraying their ideal of a world without violence by acknowledging and accepting measures and tools that preclude the existence of one*

TCB

*yes, I see the irony of trying to end violence by denying it; but that is exactly the kind of conundrum many people have allowed their short-sighted emotions lead them into. It is our job to lead them out, and show them the quickest route to a world without violence is one in which violent expression is likely to lead to infinite consequences for the offender. Sadly, to break their dream of a world truly devoid of conflict, and replace it with one of actions and consequences --sometimes bad ones :(

Bravo! That is very insightful of the minds of the people who make up the yin and yang of this conundrum.

barnbwt
April 5, 2014, 11:03 AM
"Those people... hm, I can see how that would really get under your skin because debating them is like debating a ..."
http://coolgiftsforkidsstore.com/img/original-bozo-the-clown-bop-bag-inflatable-punching-toy-46-large-size_60703_500.jpg
:D :D

TCB

JohnKSa
April 5, 2014, 09:23 PM
Language doesn't work very well if people decide to come up with their own individual definition for any given word...It can cause a lot of problems. Some of the kinds of problems that you mentioned in the first post of this thread. But it is true, beyond a shadow of a doubt that people do differ on the specific meanings of various terms. It shouldn't take much time spent on an internet forum to confirm that.Way to capitalize on a perfectly good opportunity to present your definition of the word "debate". Are you trying to avoid communication?I'm not going to argue with you about the specific definition of debate because the point of my comment was to highlight how different people see things different ways in keeping with the tone in which this thread was started. I have no intention of trying to nail down the specific/accurate definitions of the words 'argument' and 'debate'. For one thing it has nothing to do with my point and therefore it is a red herring from my perspective. For another, the dictionary has already done a good job of that.It wastes time because I have to tell people half the stuff they are saying is an attack against me or not an argument (logical fallacy).No you don't. You don't have to do anything at all--unless of course you're one of those people who can't let it drop even after you see that you're not making headway.If you are telling me it is my fault that I didn't "disengage"...I'm not telling you it's your "fault", I'm just telling you that if you CHOOSE to spend your time in a debate that you feel isn't productive then it doesn't make much sense to turn around and blame others for "wasting your time". You made the choice to spend your time in that manner.I am under the impression that you are content with how people in the gun community represent us.I am content with the way some people in the gun community represent us, I am not at all happy with the way others in the gun community represent us.

I think at this point, it would do you a world of good to go back and look at my first two posts on this thread and read them for what they actually say. The only conclusion I can draw from your responses is that you are working very hard to read some sort of hidden meaning(s) into them. That is not a productive use of your time, in my opinion. I wrote them to be very easy to understand, not to be filled with hidden meaning.

By the way, when someone consistently responds to you by saying things like:

"...I didn't say..."
"What makes you think I'm trying to..."
"...what it "seems" to you that I think is not what I really think..."
"I'm not telling you..."

That's an important hint that you need to spend more time on paying attention to the content of the communication and less time telling people what they think, what they are saying, what they are trying to do, what they are trying to tell you, etc. It's a clue that you're spending a lot of time building strawmen and addressing those strawmen as opposed to simply dealing with the content of the communication directly and addressing it straightforwardly.

Nom de Forum
April 5, 2014, 09:54 PM
"Those people... hm, I can see how that would really get under your skin because debating them is like debating a ..."
http://coolgiftsforkidsstore.com/img/original-bozo-the-clown-bop-bag-inflatable-punching-toy-46-large-size_60703_500.jpg
:D :D

TCB



He is my one of my plans for actively promoting the RKBA.

For individuals that barnbwt might label as above; I don’t discuss, I do the following. I do not do this until they have known me long enough to have formed an opinion of me that I am just an average good guy. When they bring-up the RKBA with a negative comment, I calmly and succinctly let them know I support the RKBA. They usually are so surprised, that for a few moments you can almost see the wheels spinning in their head to reconcile the cognitive dissonance of Good Guy and Gun Nut combined. During those few moments they have to question their beliefs. There is often no further comment from the befuddled, but if there is I don’t take the bait. I never treat them any differently than I did before the revelation. It is not much of a victory but it is far from a defeat for the RKBA. Please, no snide remarks about me never doing this because of the infinite time necessary to form the opinion that I am an average good guy.:D

Nom de Forum
April 5, 2014, 10:11 PM
iMagUdspEllr,

IMHO after reading your posts in this thread and the Glock Safety thread, it is my sincere belief it would be in your best interests to take a break and evaluate why you are getting the responses you have received. It may make you a better "communicator", which is not the same as someone who can quickly string sentences together in an attempt to make a cogent argument. Your argument is failing in its appeal and is not compelling.

If you enjoyed reading about "A reason why we are losing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!