And idea I learned from John Lott last night

[Beatnik]

I went to hear Dr. Lott speak at GMU last night. I didn't hear any new arguments in his presentation.

But in the Q&A, a couple people asked him if he thought the media was maliciously spinning stories in order to enact gun control. The example given was how they never print self defense stories: only murder stories get any press. Thus, they must be evil people who know that the defense stories happen and intentionally suppress them.

His response was basically this: he didn't believe that anyone would consciously try to endanger people. Outside of Hitler and Stalin, not many people in power genuinely want to oppress everyone and put them in danger with malice aforethought. Sure, they can be wrong, but that doesn't make them evil.

At one point he followed up with this: even if they are evil, so what? What's the benefit of thinking ill of them?

That's what I walked away with last night: the economists' cost/benefit view of getting angry about gun control. Thinking ill thoughts about the Bradys costs you much sitting around stewing about it, and there aren't any benefits to it. It's therefore a bad investment.

 

[Winchester 73]

That certainly doesn't sound like the John Lott who wrote More Guns,Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns.The John Lott that almost every day is writing a column or blog about the distortions of the Brady's and the VPC.
Sure that was the real John Lott last night?

 

[Beatnik]

There's still a distinction, like he said, between being wrong and being evil. You could even throw stupid in there, but that's still not evil.

At least that's what I got out of it. I have to wait for friends to read those books before I can get to them.

 

[Henry Bowman]

There is also the fact, recognised by Lott, that "Person Not Robbed" or Gun Not Fired" really don't make grabbing headlines or stories of widespread interest. Hype sells (or at least the MSM believes its polling idicates that). If it bleeds, it leads... If it burns... etc.

 

[WayneConrad]

Lott's a smart guy.

The people on the other side are not comic book villains. They genuinely wish for themselves, their family, and their country to be safe, and they are doing what they think will accomplish that. Just as we are. They've arrived at different ideas at how to do that.

When you turn the other side into comic book villains, you end all possibility of dialog and understanding.

You don't want understanding? You need it, and not just for making friends. You need understanding if you want to win battles, too. So don't demonize your opponent.

 

[bogie]

Yeah. The Brady folks mean well. They're just generally theoreticians, and generally ignorant about the very thing that they are opposing...

They are NOT stupid.

Do not confuse ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance can be fixed, via education. Stupidity cannot be fixed.

In many cases, the "theory" becomes part of a "belief system," much like many of your religions. They "believe" that gun control will work. They can't demonstrate the efficacy, but the "belief" makes them feel good.

 

[Rocketman56]

Well said..

Bogie: That was very well said..

If we all could understand that and work with it.. We might actually beat the Brady crew at their game.. It would certainly frost those "true believers" who have internalized the "belief" that gun control works..

I believe we're making progress, but there is a long way to go..

Steve

 

[shdwfx]

bogie:

The Brady folks mean well....
They are NOT stupid.

Carolyn McCarthy:

(wildly guessing what a barrel shroud is rather than admit ignorance, since the term was included in her own bill.)

"It's a shoulder thing that goes up"

One wonders. One wonders.

Of course, our <sarcasm>boundless understanding of their pure motives</sarcasm> hasn't prevented them from turning gun owners into comic book villains.

 

[WayneConrad]

shdwfx, You don't have to look very hard to find those in the gun rights movement, both in the leadership and in the ranks, that make it easy to portray us as the opposition's comic book characters. You and I know that doesn't prove their sterotype of us.

Similarly, Don't think that a stereotype of the other side represents them all. Heck. If the critter is on capital hill, it probably represents anyone very well.

 

[shdwfx]

This has nothing to do with ignorance or stupidity. It has everything to do with the ideology of elitism.

All through history, disarming a people was a fundamental first step in achieving control.

The hard core ones believe what they do about gun control not out of an altruistic desire to protect their families. They know the truth. No, they are consumed with power. A gun represents the fundamental power of choice, and to have the common people in possession of such power violates every fiber of their being.

These socialists "know what's best for us," and the only way to fully realize their goals of total dominance is to seize all power - even fundamental basic rights.

Sure, I would wager most in the anti-2a group do not see it this way. There are always the sheep deluded enough to follow propaganda and talking points. It's just the only explanation that makes sense when you consider the ridiculous intellectual contortions these congressmen, presidential candidates, and mayors put themselves through to push gun control.

 

[another okie]

The real key is the last statement Lott made: How does it benefit you to think ill of them?

 

[Beatnik]

Hm. shdwfx, you have a point, if you're talking about hardcore, drank-the-kool-aid socialists.
I wouldn't say the average grabber is consumed with power, though. One could easily say the same about us.

Look at it this way. They most likely see what you term as their consumption with power as simply something they're willing to live with in order to better society.

Their goal is ostensibly to rid society of violence, which is a noble goal. They are already attached to the method they wish to use: get rid of guns. Yes, we know about the psychological problem with automatically associating guns with violence, but put that aside for a second.

Since guns cause violence in their minds, any evidence that guns also prevent violence is going to naturally get downplayed: and even when they get smacked in the face with it, they're likely to respond that they are willing to sacrifice the good guns do to get rid of the evil they also do (in their minds).

Now turn around and look at how they must see us. What would we say when confronted with all the gang violence and random shootings that happen? There certainly are a lot of them. Would we be really tempted to say something very similar in reverse - that we're willing to accept that violence happens, and that we're willing to accept the evil that guns do in order to preserve the good that they also do?

Wouldn't it be easy to say that we are so consumed with the power of self determination that we are unwilling to entertain the other side's point of view?

I've met real statists before, the kind who openly admit that they want government to rule us. They're damned scary. But surely we must be equally scary to people who just aren't accustomed to the idea of everyone being able to make their own decisions.

In either case, I maintain it's not helpful to throw "evil" into the conversation.

 

[Thernlund]

You don't have to look very hard to find those in the gun rights movement, both in the leadership and in the ranks, that make it easy to portray us as the opposition's comic book characters.

Uncle Teddy comes to mind.


-T.

 

[shdwfx]

You are right. Calling the individuals in the opposition "evil" is non-productive.

Would we be really tempted to say something very similar in reverse - that we're willing to accept that violence happens, and that we're willing to accept the evil that guns do in order to preserve the good that they also do?

No, not really, because we are not "pro-gun" due to the reciprocal belief that "guns prevent violence." You know this, but the violence that happens has nothing to do with the presence or absence of guns. The presence of guns in the hands of principled persons can aid peace and prevent evil acts, yes. It still has everything to do with the person.

That's where ideology comes in again. Even most of the sheep in the disarmament movement have a proportional disbelief in individual responsibility. They can't fundamentally reconcile that humans can be overcome by evil, so they must project the problem to an object. To the extent that this idea fosters more violence and evil acts, it is evil.

 

[BlackBearME]

Yeah. The Brady folks mean well. They're just generally theoreticians, and generally ignorant about the very thing that they are opposing...

They are NOT stupid.

Do not confuse ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance can be fixed, via education. Stupidity cannot be fixed.

I tell people this all the time, largely because they get mad when I call them ignorant. At first I agreed with you....but on thinking some more, I don't.

Ignorance can be fixed, through education. And yet, you throw facts, figures, studies, and real-world examples at the Brady Bunch et al., and they still refuse to believe. They deny reality. And that crosses the line right into stupid.

The OP is right, though - it's not much use to work yourself up and raise your blood pressure when you can't do anything about it.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

There is also the fact, recognised by Lott, that "Person Not Robbed" or Gun Not Fired" really don't make grabbing headlines or stories of widespread interest. Hype sells (or at least the MSM believes its polling idicates that). If it bleeds, it leads... If it burns... etc.

Sure. But we read in "The Armed Citizen" of several instances each month where armed citizens shoot, injure, and frequently kill criminal attackers. So why don't we hear about these things in the news?

If some dirtball shoots 2 people at a mall somewhere it's big nationwide news. But if some citizen shoots a burglar in his home, it only makes local news.

 

[yokel]

Looking at District of Columbia Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, I see a dangerous demagogue. I see a driver drunk with power speeding ahead with his eyes glued to the rearview mirror.

And it stirs the Irish and Scottish in me.

Is that so wrong?

 

[WayneConrad]

It's easy for us to perceive faults in those we see as our foes and not see them as those we see as our friends. It's not wrong, it's human nature. But it will cost you victories in this arena (or in any other).

Let me put it this way. Does it give you any understanding into what the man is saying, thinking, or planning? Does it help in forming your strategy to get your Irish or Scottish stirred up?

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
- Sun Tzu

I hate putting this in terms of battle, because battles so often end up being about destruction. That's not what I'm after. I want people, whichever side they're on, me or anyone else, to give up ideas that are not based on reality, and give them up for ideas that are grounded in reality. I think it can happen. I think it does happen, all the time. I know it can't happen when people are forming lines in the sand and calling each other names. And that's why I get so completely bent out of shape when people are calling each other names that end in "-****." Because I guarantee you, whoever called that name just stopped thinking.

 

[Soybomb]

His response was basically this: he didn't believe that anyone would consciously try to endanger people.

I don't think many people here think there's a sinister plot by the media to see people harmed by burying the self defense stories. People seem to see it more that those in the media allow their own biases and political views to reflect in their journalism and are upset it. We've raised people to have this crazy notion (and I mean that, this isn't sarcasm) that journalism should be fair and unbiased.