A reason why we are losing

[Nom de Forum]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wow! you miss a few days on a thread and you miss a lot!

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]

"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 . 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]

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]

"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 . 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]

"Those people... hm, I can see how that would really get under your skin because debating them is like debating a ..."



TCB

 

[JohnKSa]

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]

"Those people... hm, I can see how that would really get under your skin because debating them is like debating a ..."



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.

 

[Nom de Forum]

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.