Debating an Anti-Gunner, Part III

[Nico Testosteros]

What exactly did we lose to the Soviets in the Cold War?

 

[Neverwinter]

Ah!

Ridicule!

Because if I can make fun of it, I don't have to understand it.

I think we *all* understood what you were trying to say there, wink wink nudge nudge.

After all, I wouldn't have been able to make that metaphor without truly understanding what you meant by "not involving religion or politics".

 

[ArfinGreebly]

[-snip-]

Arfin:This summary:

Gun rights: liberty, freedom, creativity, hopefulness.

Gun control: manipulation, restriction, prevention, apprehensiveness.

This summary, as worded, reflects an innate prejudice on your part. All of the words on the Gun Rights line are positive and uplifting in nature. The words associated with Gun Control are generally less so, more negative. That is not the way to win an argument. I submit to you that a person who favors gun control very probably believes that it is a positive idea, a good thing, and would take exception to the negative aspects of your description. So....in the spirit of learning to understand the mindset of your opponent, how would you cast those ideas in more positive terms? For instance, a person who fears firearms may feel restricted because of the presence of guns and may feel that controlling them or prohibiting them would be a liberating, freeing experience.....it really does come down to the same terms for both.

[-snip-]

You know, one of the problems with summarizing is the exposure to context-free misinterpretation. That's a risk I have to accept when I try to distill a book into a few paragraphs.

And so it is.

Gun rights are, in fact, an element of liberty and freedom. That's not just my personal bias. What's the "wavelength" of liberty? Would you rate that higher on the scale or lower?

Gun control is, in its most basic essence, is inspired by fear. Water it down if you like. Call it "caution;" call it "apprehensiveness." Hey, call it "prudence." It still derives from "preventing bad things." That's not a creative drive.

That is not the way to win an argument.

I wasn't trying to "win an argument." I was trying to illuminate an underlying principle.

I submit to you that a person who favors gun control very probably believes that it is a positive idea, a good thing, and would take exception to the negative aspects of your description.

I don't offer that description to people with whom I'm having a debate or "adversarial discussion." I offer that description to people attempting to understand what kind of mindset would motivate someone to impose capricious restrictions on an enshrined and guaranteed right.

So....in the spirit of learning to understand the mindset of your opponent, how would you cast those ideas in more positive terms? For instance, a person who fears firearms may feel restricted because of the presence of guns and may feel that controlling them or prohibiting them would be a liberating, freeing experience.....it really does come down to the same terms for both.

It's gonna be tough to characterize a downscale emotion in "positive terms."

I completely get how a person could fear guns and believe that his personal freedom depends on their prohibition. That, however, isn't a remotely upscale emotional vector. "I'm afraid of those things, so if I ban them I will be free." Does that not sound just a little deluded?

Understanding the mindset behind an attitude doesn't mean coddling or pandering to that attitude.

If you know that the person with whom you're conversing is speaking from a position born of some flavor of fear, doesn't that help you understand what approach you should use?

If you know that the person across the table from you is driven by an abject terror that an unfettered free people would destroy him, doesn't that give you valuable insight into how you should talk to him?

If that person is merely anxious and curious and misinformed, your role is still different in that conversation.

The point is not that "all gun grabbers are psychotic and terrified;" the point is that you should recognize the driving emotions so that you can frame your persuasion appropriately.

And, if you do indeed find yourself confronted by the control freak who can preserve his own life only by enslaving others, you should appreciate that you're not dealing with a cheerful or enthusiastic or serene frame of mind.


You won't always be able to spot someone's motivating emotional wavelength by the tone of his voice, the smile on his face, the firm grip of his handshake, or the "reasonableness" of his arguments. You have to grasp what kinds of solution will be offered by what kinds of mindset.

The man who "cheerfully and reasonably" tells you, in soft measured tones, that the only real solution to the horrid excess of freedom is to eliminate all these "destructive machines" and impose peaceful conduct on everyone, that guy isn't dealing from an upscale emotional position.

This isn't a trivial tool. What I've suggested here is a condensation of a 400-level course. Recognizing "the vibe behind the vector" involves an understanding of where certain vectors originate. What a man says, what he proposes, what he argues will tell you a great deal about his location in the emotional spectrum.

Sometimes you need to reassure. Sometimes you need to educate. Sometimes you need to inspire. Sometimes you need to stick out your chin and invite your adversary to "back off."

And it helps to know when which is appropriate.

Emotions, attitudes, and behavior tend to operate together in surprisingly consistent "bands" in the spectrum. Reading emotions gives you insight into the attitudes, and that helps you predict behavior. That helps you frame the debate, or even decide whether there's any point to a debate.


The "prejudice" you believe you perceive isn't something I "just thought up."

What you see is a conclusion of years of observation of conduct and attitudes, and their relationship to human emotions.

Heck, I'm not even an expert at this; more a student of the art, if you will, just sharing what insights I have. I've met and studied with people who are really good at this. I ain't no guru here, and I'll freely admit that I'm fumbling with articulating this stuff with any clarity.

But the principles are real, and the principles really work.

You want to persuade more people that gun rights are a good idea? You want to bring more people into the ranks of happy shooters?

Then understand that part of this is going to involve understanding where the other guy's coming from, and that's going to be a whole lot easier if you understand that emotions and attitudes and behavior are interrelated, and that even the most "logical" guy has those same things.


I'm not presenting this material in hopes that it will persuade people about gun control. I'm offering it in hopes that people who do want to persuade them will find it a useful tool. I'm offering it in the belief that people willing to grasp it can become better diplomats -- ambassadors -- for our cause.

 

[Ignition Override]

Nico T.: You might know some of this, but it's just to clarify for whoever else.
We did lose quite a number of military reconnaisance aircraft and their crews over the decades. Some of them were outside Soviet airspace.

Some Soviet pilots flew against the US in the Korean War.
One Soviet pilot had a good ejection, but when he landed in the ocean he was strafed by an aircraft, to prevent possible capture by US or NATO forces and political "loss of face" for the USSR.

Though the passenger jumbo jet was South Korean, this large B-747 (navigation errors and possible autopilot malfunction over water) went into Soviet airspace, was intercepted by a Soviet Sukhoi fighter and shot down by a missile.
Some US citizens were on board, including a US Congressman.

Back to "regular" guns.....anyone...?

 

[Pete D.]

400

Arfin:

I wasn't trying to "win an argument." I was trying to illuminate an underlying principle

*
I was thinking about framing the argument from the POV of the opposition.
I appreciate your explanation of what your purpose was and is. I do. Accordingly, I do not want to turn this byplay into an adversarial debate about terminology. That being said, understanding the opposition's emotional wavelength, yes, may be helpful. The way that you have expressed that understanding, though, is in itself debatable. Your entire vocabulary, at least as expressed here, is very much slanted to the critical, judgmental and negative and that shows a lack of understanding of the emotional state that you are examining.*

Gun control is, in its most basic essence, is inspired by fear. Water it down if you like. Call it "caution;" call it "apprehensiveness." Hey, call it "prudence." It still derives from "preventing bad things." That's not a creative drive

Not a "creative drive"....that is your mindset. You can get away with it here because you are preaching to the choir.*

It's gonna be tough to characterize a downscale emotion in "positive terms."

That is the weakness in your position. You see it as downscale; they surely don't. Your language is unremittingly critical and until you are able to understand and to put into appropriate emotional words the POV of the antis, you will have an incomplete picture of the situation.
You don't have to believe it; you just have to be able to say it.
For example, one could also say that our position is fear driven as well....afraid that our rights will be infringed, afraid that we will lose the sense of empowerment that owning firearms gives us, afraid that we will no longer be able to do things (like shoot Trap) that give us tremendous pleasure.*
I submit to you that your entire exercise could be recast from the POV of the Antis and be just as valid.*
Remember....I am on your side. Just being a bit of the devil's advocate.
Pete

 

[Trent]

What did we lose in the cold war? Cuban cigars! We fought a thousand small proxy wars with various concepts and lost a lot of them. That, and it damn near bankrupted us. That is bankrupted THEM first is our only saving grace, but it DID accumulate a rather substantial 4.8 trillion dollar debt building those 34,000+ nukes.

Enough of that, though, we're getting way off topic.

In a way, the gun rights / anti-gun rights movement is like a cold war, of sorts - it's now moved away from the center-line of the conflict and is being fought in a thousand proxy wars on the periphery.

As evidence of this, here's an excerpt from a letter campaign from Handgun Control Inc, urging the gun control topic to be raised at the presidential debate:

"As moderator of the first presidential debate in Denver Colorado, we respectfully request that you ask President Obama and Governor Romney to present their plans to address the issue of gun violence in our nation, because

:

* the debate will take place within 10 miles of two of the most deadly mass shootings in U.S. history: Columbine High School and the Aurora movie theater.



* Every day in our nation 32 more Americans are murdered with guns.



* During the next presidential term, 48,000 more Americans will be murdered unless we do something about it.



Since the recent tragedies in Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin, a real national conversation has begun, bringing together Americans from across the nation and across the political spectrum, to call for real solutions — solutions that recognize the Second Amendment right to bear arms — solutions with the only goal of preventing gun violence.



It is time our presidential candidates listen to the American public, join the conversation, and provide us with their plans.



As a nation, we know we are better than this. It is time for those seeking our highest office to show that they know it to."

Dissecting this argument, we see the following:

#1 An emotional plea based on proximity to emotional events
#2 A statistical argument which does not reveal all of the facts
#3 An emotionally charged, hypothetical argument of future events that have not unfolded, presented as fact - "48,000"
#4 A vague "appeal to authority" - "since ... a real national conversation has begun"
#5 A demand for action off of an unfounded belief - "it is time.. to show they know it to (sic)."
#6 A position of moral superiority - "we know we are better than this"

This isn't an exercise in debate. This is real, on their website. It IS their current argument and plan of attack. Pin down one or both candidates in public, so they can push their agenda further once either candidate is in office.

Refuting these arguments;

#1 Proximity of one event to another in an unrelated field does not convey any specific authority to act

#2 Facts:

Since 2006, homicide by firearm has dropped almost 15% in the US (10,225 in 2006, 8,775 in 2010), and has steadily decreased every single year - while concealed carry rights and justifiable homicides by civilians with firearms has increased nearly 18% in the same time frame (192 in 2006, 232 in 2010).

Using the latest complete uniform crime reports (2010) their argument of 32 people a day killed by firearms is PATENTLY FALSE. The latest official statistics are 8775 in 2010, which is 24 per day. Their statement is exaggerated a whopping 33%, using official sources.

#3 Facts:

48,000 to be murdered.. conjecture, drawing on false presumptions, and exceedingly unlikely. As mentioned previously homicide rates by firearm have been steadily declining.

Murder by firearms:
2006: 10,225
2007: 10,129 (-0.1%)
2008: 9,528 (-5.9%)
2009: 9,199 (-3.4%)
2010: 8,775 (-4.6%)

2006-2010 saw a clear trend of decreasing homicides by firearms with a net decrease of murder rate by homicide of 14%. THIS OCCURRED DESPITE THE LARGEST PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP BAN IN US HISTORY BEING LIFTED (AW BAN).

Should the rate remain unchanged, over the next 4 years, the result would yield 35,000 murders, not 48,000.

Should the rate continue to drop, over the next 4 years, at the same rate of the last four years of statistical data, the result would yield less. But.. no one is a fortune teller, and trending future events is pointless unless you can weigh in all of the factors.

#4 "A real conversation"

Appealing to a vague or unproven "higher authority" to base your moral argument on is a long standing tradition. In this case "America demands it"... sorry, but you do NOT speak for America. You speak for YOUR activist campaign.

Remember this - whenever you assume you are the majority, it causes people on the opposing side to dig in and "get serious". I, for one, do not feel that HCI represents my interests; but here they are, claiming to speak on my behalf.

Thus, the statement is patently FALSE. Emotionally charged, but false nonetheless.

#5 Demand to action

Is it really time for the candidates to give their stance on firearms ownership? I would suspect both want to let the subject lay quiet. Demanding they prioritize this over more important issues - economy, unemployment, etc - is asinine. "We have bigger fish to fry."

But the demand for action is an empowering call for THEIR members, no doubt. It's an appeal and justification for their "righteousness"..

#6 continuing on self-rightousness - "We know we are better than this".

THAT - is their new slogan; it's on pictures on their website, a common theme.

Snappy, short, effective. THAT is a dangerous slogan. Because it shows we are "morally inferior" for believing in the right of self defense.

I strongly disagree.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Arfin: *

I was thinking about framing the argument from the POV of the opposition.

And this is necessary if one is to be effective.

At the same time, one also has to acknowledge the realities. If you're dealing with someone who is in denial, you can still see his PoV, but that doesn't negate the fact that he's in denial.

I appreciate your explanation of what your purpose was and is. I do. Accordingly, I do not want to turn this byplay into an adversarial debate about terminology. That being said, understanding the opposition's emotional wavelength, yes, may be helpful. The way that you have expressed that understanding, though, is in itself debatable. Your entire vocabulary, at least as expressed here, is very much slanted to the critical, judgmental and negative and that shows a lack of understanding of the emotional state that you are examining.*

You say "judgmental" like that's a bad thing.

But seriously, when you have enough hours of this kind of observation, enough years of watching the connection between attitudes and the efforts and vectors that are the result of those attitudes, you can tend to cut to the chase with a lot less equivocation. And that's kind of what "exercising judgment" is all about.

Don't make the mistake of ADOPTING the opposition PoV just because you can see it.

When someone who is frightened of something attempts to explain to me that "I'm not really afraid ..." I can still have that conversation, but don't imagine that I'm going to mislead myself by buying the rationalization. No matter the effort to change the label, a person acting from fear is still acting from fear, and pretending he's not will fail.

Not a "creative drive"....that is your mindset. You can get away with it here because you are preaching to the choir.*

I'm familiar with fear. And anger. And a whole spread of related emotional positions. There's a line below which creativity is sacrificed in favor of the drive to stop things. Yes, it's a matter of degree, but the drive to create is far less for fear, and the drive to stop has the upper hand.

I don't ask that you simply take my word for it. Do your own observations. See if you can discern a usable scale or spectrum and determine where different people "live" on that scale. I can only offer the tool. I can't make it useful for you.

That is the weakness in your position. You see it as downscale; they surely don't. Your language is unremittingly critical and until you are able to understand and to put into appropriate emotional words the POV of the antis, you will have an incomplete picture of the situation.

Fear is what it is. Anger is what it is. The fact that these are not creative emotions has nothing really to do with being "critical." In a study of martial arts, these are emotions from which students strive to be free, in favor of serenity. And there's a good reason for that. Reason suffers greatly in that emotional band.

You don't have to believe it; you just have to be able to say it.

I must confess I'm not following you. What I may say when framing a discussion may not reflect everything I know to be true, but what I say and how I say it will be informed by what I know.

For example, one could also say that our position is fear driven as well....afraid that our rights will be infringed, afraid that we will lose the sense of empowerment that owning firearms gives us, afraid that we will no longer be able to do things (like shoot Trap) that give us tremendous pleasure.*

Gun rights is an extension of the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to be secure in the exercise of those things.

Can there be fear of having one's freedom and liberty -- indeed, one's life -- taken by those whose "solution" is tyranny? Yes, of course. But that fear is not the primary motivation. Liberty is the primary motivation. The freedom to build and prosper.

I submit to you that your entire exercise could be recast from the POV of the Antis and be just as valid.*

Certainly it can be "recast" but it would not be "just as valid."

Consult your understanding. What do you know about the spectrum of emotional expression? Which ones embody creative impulses; which ones embody destructive (or "stopping") impulses?

Fear, terror, anger, hostility, hate, apathy, and the related emotions that occupy that portion of the spectrum all tend to inhibit reason, all tend to be preoccupied with preventing, stopping, or even destroying.

On the other hand, whence come impulses to elevate, enlighten, improve, expand, thrive, and prosper? Those come from emotions higher on the scale.

If you listen to what's being said, you will be able to derive where he's coming from.

He may be pushing the happiness and bliss of all the peace and safety that will result from . . . destroying the means to defend one's life and liberty . . . but if you're listening, you will realize that happiness-through-destruction is not as "reasonable" as it's being made to sound.

When you choose your words in that conversation, you may not say everything you know, but you will want your words informed by what you know.

Remember....I'm on your side. Just being a bit of the devil's advocate.
Pete

Roger that.

Just remember that the "devil" doesn't need a lot of help "recasting" things.

Let's not get the order of things reversed.

The proposal that there will be peace once everyone is disarmed is "true" in the sense that it's "true" that graveyards are peaceful.

There will be peace when men cease trying to enslave other men. Until that day, peace through superior firepower will have to be how it's done.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

[-snip-]

In a way, the gun rights / anti-gun rights movement is like a cold war, of sorts - it's now moved away from the center-line of the conflict and is being fought in a thousand proxy wars on the periphery.

As evidence of this, here's an excerpt from a letter campaign from Handgun Control Inc, urging the gun control topic to be raised at the presidential debate:

"As moderator of the first presidential debate in Denver Colorado, we respectfully request that you ask President Obama and Governor Romney to present their plans to address the issue of gun violence in our nation, because :

* the debate will take place within 10 miles of two of the most deadly mass shootings in U.S. history: Columbine High School and the Aurora movie theater.

* Every day in our nation 32 more Americans are murdered with guns.

* During the next presidential term, 48,000 more Americans will be murdered unless we do something about it.

Since the recent tragedies in Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin, a real national conversation has begun, bringing together Americans from across the nation and across the political spectrum, to call for real solutions — solutions that recognize the Second Amendment right to bear arms — solutions with the only goal of preventing gun violence.

It is time our presidential candidates listen to the American public, join the conversation, and provide us with their plans.

As a nation, we know we are better than this. It is time for those seeking our highest office to show that they know it to."

Dissecting this argument, we see the following:

#1 An emotional plea based on proximity to emotional events
#2 A statistical argument which does not reveal all of the facts
#3 An emotionally charged, hypothetical argument of future events that have not unfolded, presented as fact - "48,000"
#4 A vague "appeal to authority" - "since ... a real national conversation has begun"
#5 A demand for action off of an unfounded belief - "it is time.. to show they know it to (sic)."
#6 A position of moral superiority - "we know we are better than this"

This isn't an exercise in debate. This is real, on their website. It IS their current argument and plan of attack. Pin down one or both candidates in public, so they can push their agenda further once either candidate is in office.

[-snip-]

I strongly disagree.

Trent, would this be worth crafting an Activism plan and opening a new thread in Activism with this data?

There are a number of possible avenues to counter this, and I think it would be effort well spent.

You want to take point on this?

 

[Trent]

I'm not looking at it from an activism perspective - I do not want to spearhead an assault on HCI; I'm ill prepared for such an activity at the present time. What I copied in is a public, well publicized opinion from the other side, which we can critique to sharpen our pencils against this very sort of fear-backed/emotional argument that we are discussing in "Part III". I went LOOKING for an emotionally charged anti-gun argument, pulled up their webpage, and no surprise found one in about 15 seconds.

We covered statistics and social aspects pretty heavily in parts 1 & 2 of my ongoing threads - discussion of those was thorough but ended pretty quickly.

Part III was opened mainly as a continuation of those, but from an emotional backing. I'm trying to arrive at an ultimate understanding of gun control - not just gather material to battle it, but I truly wish to understand WHY the desire exists. What makes a person flip the switch, and choose one path or the other.

Because at the core - I have a fear as well, and look to understand something about myself. For, I'm afraid that I'm an extremist, since I'm unable to understand - to respect - the other side. As mentioned before, I'm a Buddhist, so this sort of thing bothers me. Or, maybe not so much bothers me, but intrigues me, and makes me curious to go forth and gain understanding.

So here we are, the most dangerous of territory - debating emotion on a subject of life and death.

Emotion is the strongest weapon that BOTH sides have at their disposal - swaying the public opinion IS a battle of emotions. People who are already sympathetic to firearms ownership - shooters - love statistics because statistics, in volume, are generally speaking sufficiently pliable to be bent to reinforce their beliefs.

Those stats above in my rebuttal? I could have also made a case FOR gun control by choosing different criteria or a subset of data. One could EASILY rebut my statement that their numbers are inflated, and say "so, we were wrong, it's not 48,000 murders, but 34,000 - HOWEVER, you're saying that tens of thousands of murders are OK with you? That it's OK for 34,000 people to die, so that those 240-some people can save themselves?"

And then, my jugular is exposed, they go for blood - "Do not the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few?"

Now, on the basis of choice, my experience in life has shown me that the way the mind works, when a person emotionally progresses towards a certain understanding, once the connection is made, the middle parts are skipped over in subsequent thoughts which use that conclusion as a basis. So I'm not quite sure WHERE or HOW I even arrived at my current state of thought. I can't back-track every random thought that has happened over the last 35 years to formulate the conclusions that are part of ME. The "middle ground" - the points upon which decisions are made and stacked, have eroded with time.

Belief is stacked on belief, on top of belief; the points of decision that FORMED those beliefs are transient, and lost with time. Such is the learning process.

So I'm starting from the other direction. I have no opinion whatsoever on firearms, good or bad, one way or the other. How do I get from THAT state, to the state where I'm an activist for one side, or the other?

Obviously for a person to reach the point of activism on a topic, that topic has had to have a profound impact on their life. One does not simply wake up one morning and say "I think I'm going to lobby for {X/Y/Z}". This decision is a procession of ideals and beliefs forming in to a very decisive state, a motivated mindset.

If I'm to tackle a true activist in a debate, not just John Q. public, and present a compelling argument - a FULL argument - start to finish, I have to gain a great deal of additional understanding that allows me to fully understand and appreciate HOW my adversary's views formed.

And in the process, understand my own, because to be honest - I'm not really sure how I ended up where I'm at. For all that has happened in my life, I could have just as easily went the other way, and arguably, should have. Sometimes I question whether my "love of guns" stems from a rebellion, a defiance of my father's actions. To embrace his very cowardly act and effort to escape from this world; to own it, to control it, to subdue it, to conquer it to prove that I am my own man, and not my father's son.

Pretty deep stuff.

But I have to understand.

 

[Pete D.]

If you listen to what's being said, you will be able to derive where he's coming from.

You should not have to derive anything. You should know ahead of time: what his or her questions are, what his facts are, what his criticisms will be, what his answers will most probably be.
I get the impression, perhaps erroneously, that when you fellows engage an anti in a debate that you operate with a great mass of information that you have collected but with little understanding of the opposition aside from, as you say, that they are operating from a fear based position. I also get the impression that the people with whom you have had debates are not very prepared - certainly not as much as you seem to be.
Let me ask you this question.....what are the three weakest points in your argument for gun rights as you would pose that argument to an anti?
Helpful note: remember.....liberty is a loaded word. It can and does mean a lot of different things to lots of different people. A word that can mean just about anything doesn't mean anything.

 

[captain awesome]

And the other shoe drops.

Rev. D. Haberer There is always darkness and light and Jesus took the road of nonviolence. I will follow him and [ask] all others to do likewise.

Sometimes you just can't win these debates.

But I keep trying.

(Told you he was closet anti-gunner - took the better part of 5 hours to finally get a confirmation out of him though.)

I find it interesting he responded like that; he must not know the bible all that well, or is full of crap.

Even Jesus Christ himself did not live a totally violence free life.
When people namely gamblers and money changers were defiling the holy grounds of the temple Jesus cast them out(and very violently I might add). He was protecting his fathers house from becoming a "den of thieves"
Mark 11:15–19, 11:27–33, Matthew 21:12–17, 21:23–27 and Luke 19:45–48, 20:1–8, John 2:13–16
That's biblical support of the castle doctrine, and defending yourself and your family from being desecrated, if I ever saw it.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

You should not have to derive anything. You should know ahead of time: what his or her questions are, what his facts are, what his criticisms will be, what his answers will most probably be.

Uh, negatory.

I don't know in what context one is supposed to "know ahead of time" what kind of argument he will encounter.

When it IS possible to know in advance, that's great. On reviewing the number of debates I've had where I knew anything in advance . . . I come up with zero. So I have to confess I'm puzzled by your assertion.

I get the impression, perhaps erroneously, that when you fellows engage an anti in a debate that you operate with a great mass of information that you have collected but with little understanding of the opposition aside from, as you say, that they are operating from a fear based position. I also get the impression that the people with whom you have had debates are not very prepared - certainly not as much as you seem to be.

Erroneously.

Over the years I've accumulated a certain amount of information, but my greatest resource isn't what I can carry in my head, it's where I know I can look to find the stuff I need in the moment that I need it.

The ability to read an emotional component and derive it from signals and attitudes, and to then extrapolate what else would be implied by that emotional component, is something I picked up over a course of years, primarily in a volunteer setting where we dealt with rehab and educational matters. It's an indispensable tool in that environment.

Debating becomes easier when you have a solid grasp of foundation principles as opposed to encyclopedic knowledge of facts and figures. Sure, the fax & figgers are helpful when the arguer starts flinging false stats, but a firm grip on logic and principles is the bedrock.

Let me ask you this question.....what are the three weakest points in your argument for gun rights as you would pose that argument to an anti?

Helpful note: remember.....liberty is a loaded word. It can and does mean a lot of different things to lots of different people. A word that can mean just about anything doesn't mean anything.

Beg pardon? The "three weakest points" concept presumes I'm working from a proforma script of some kind.

I don't work from a script. I don't have a quiver of shiny pre-fab arguments that I whip out and zing at my "opponent."

My greatest weaknesses were in my failures to appreciate the realities of guns as an equalizing force, as a bulwark against brutality and tyranny. In the beginning, I "kinda knew" that it was right for people to be armed, only I couldn't articulate it with any clarity.

Since I've been with THR, I've had a real education in that. Some of the current and former mods had that clarity which I was missing, and I have shamelessly appropriated every bit of articulation, erudition, and principled knowledge I could discover. LawDog, Kathy Jackson, 1911Tuner, Art, hso, John, XavierBreath, Mal, Fred, Larry, the late Byron Quick, and a bunch of others, along with regular members whose experiences and wisdom have provided a wealth of knowledge and understanding that I so sorely lacked.

So now, armed with my past experiences in dealing one-on-one with people who needed me to perceive, not just look, and nearly six years here at the THR Advanced School of Gun Nuttery, College of Liberty, and Institute of Life's Realities, I now do a much better job when those moments of discussion and debate arise.

And I do what I can to pass along what little wisdom I've managed to glean from greater minds than my own.

 

[Trent]

We're facing a paradox here - No plan of action survives first contact with the enemy. But he who is not prepared to win, will not win.

Or put another way, from Sun Tzu (I'm partial to Asian philosophy on the matter, for obvious reasons):

Pete D.'s philosophy:

“To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
-Sun Tzu

ArfinGreeably's philosophy:

“know yourself and you will win all battles”
-Sun Tzu

Both are correct, and both combine to form the following philosophy:

“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

My problem, my paradox, is I currently neither fully understand my OWN beliefs, nor do I understand my adversary's beliefs. I mean, I understand the message carried by both sides, but I do not understand the root cause, the train of experience, exposure to events, and full thought process that leads one to choose one path or the other.

What made me go "pro-gun" when I have strong events in my life where I suffered great emotional turmoil and harm involving firearms? When the same events turned other people in my family strongly anti-gun?

While certainly not my most pressing life concern, it has become a fascinating subject for me, as a major tenant of my faith is introspection to reach enlightenment. Because so much of my life experience has been formed at an early age (and again at points through my life) from events involving a firearm, these tools have taken a central role in this mid-life examination of my past and present.

While not trying to expand at all on the religious theme, it is unfortunately, somewhat necessary to understand where I'm coming from. This has become (from a Buddhism perspective) an "abiding place", in any path to enlightenment there are "stops" along the way where one cannot progress towards further understanding of enlightenment without "unlocking" the conflict in the mind. So solving this issue, and gaining understanding has a very personal and profound meaning to me.

The lessons I learn will, of course, be shared. Probably in an essay, not a book.

But .. back to the subject at hand, I gotta figure this out guys.

 

[Trent]

Rephrasing:

The fundamental objective I have, is to identify the root cause of why events cause SOME people to go strongly PRO, while the same exact events inspire others to go strongly ANTI.

Having witnessed this in my personal life, it is a very important topic to understand.

Witnessing this in society at large, on a daily basis today on news and social media, it is a very important topic for us to discuss.

If we determine WHY people choose one path or the other, we will understand our adversary, and we can win every fight from here on out.

If we don't understand why the path is chosen, we will neither win nor lose, but continue to exist in a state of "Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Sort Of)", where each side occasionally wins or loses ground, depending on whim and the price of wheat in China.

EDIT: This is fundamentally a DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE than understanding their ARGUMENTS. I want to understand what flips the switch.

 

[tomrkba]

I didn't read the whole thread; it's quite long.

What stood out in my mind is this "reverend" thinks Jesus was not violent. That is not the case. He used violence to clear the temple. He had no problem with properly applied, moral violence. Yes, you should attempt to avoid it, but not at all costs.

Frankly, most "men of cloth" are pretty clueless about what the Bible actually says and means. They merely promote the agenda of that church. Why have the Dead Sea Scrolls and other documents been suppressed by the Catholic Church? The answer is they do not want that information to "escape" because it conflicts with established doctrine.

The fundamental objective I have, is to identify the root cause of why events cause SOME people to go strongly PRO, while the same exact events inspire others to go strongly ANTI.

There is no limit to human stupidity.

One guy may go totally PRO because his uncle said something. Another will go totally ANTI because they refuse to take responsibility for their negligent discharge. The variations are nearly infinite.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

We're facing a paradox here - No plan of action survives first contact with the enemy. But he who is not prepared to win, will not win.

With the proviso that the meaning of "win" will not be a constant.

Sometimes to persuade is to win. Sometimes to neutralize is to win. Sometimes to enlighten and educate is to win.

The objective will be different depending on the person or group before you, and different depending on the outcome you desire for that person or group.

Or put another way, from Sun Tzu (I'm partial to Asian philosophy on the matter, for obvious reasons):

Pete D.'s philosophy:

"To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy."
-Sun Tzu

ArfinGreebly's philosophy:

"know yourself and you will win all battles"
-Sun Tzu

Well, speaking now as ArfinGreebly, that's not altogether accurate, and for that I must apologize for my failure to adequately express what I meant.

Let's try this:
Know how to know yourself, know how to know your enemy, know how to recognize your friends and potential allies.

Both are correct, and both combine to form the following philosophy:

"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

Which more closely aligns with my revised snippet above.

My problem, my paradox, is I currently neither fully understand my OWN beliefs, nor do I understand my adversary's beliefs. I mean, I understand the message carried by both sides, but I do not understand the root cause, the train of experience, exposure to events, and full thought process that leads one to choose one path or the other.

What made me go "pro-gun" when I have strong events in my life where I suffered great emotional turmoil and harm involving firearms? When the same events turned other people in my family strongly anti-gun?

It would be supremely arrogant of me to attempt to guess why you chose as you did, what value or principle within you resonated with the taming of power toward the preservation of life and liberty, or what possible breath of wisdom fanned the embers of your understanding.

You have a better than average grasp of the value of life and the importance of self-realization.

Sometimes "why do I know this" is less important than the fact that you do know it. And, although this is not particularly deep, you do, in fact, get to decide for yourself such things as "what course shall I take and why shall I do so?" There is tremendous power in the idea that "I decide," and knowing that "I decide" precedes anything a man shall do.

While certainly not my most pressing life concern, it has become a fascinating subject for me, as a major tenant of my faith is introspection to reach enlightenment. Because so much of my life experience has been formed at an early age (and again at points through my life) from events involving a firearm, these tools have taken a central role in this mid-life examination of my past and present.

While not trying to expand at all on the religious theme, it is unfortunately, somewhat necessary to understand where I'm coming from. This has become (from a Buddhism perspective) an "abiding place", in any path to enlightenment there are "stops" along the way where one cannot progress towards further understanding of enlightenment without "unlocking" the conflict in the mind. So solving this issue, and gaining understanding has a very personal and profound meaning to me.

The lessons I learn will, of course, be shared. Probably in an essay, not a book.

But .. back to the subject at hand, I gotta figure this out guys.

Well, I can't walk your miles for you, but perhaps I can light a lone candle and walk at your side.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Rephrasing:

The fundamental objective I have, is to identify the root cause of why events cause SOME people to go strongly PRO, while the same exact events inspire others to go strongly ANTI.

Having witnessed this in my personal life, it is a very important topic to understand.

Witnessing this in society at large, on a daily basis today on news and social media, it is a very important topic for us to discuss.

If we determine WHY people choose one path or the other, we will understand our adversary, and we can win every fight from here on out.

If we don't understand why the path is chosen, we will neither win nor lose, but continue to exist in a state of "Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Sort Of)", where each side occasionally wins or loses ground, depending on whim and the price of wheat in China.

EDIT: This is fundamentally a DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE than understanding their ARGUMENTS. I want to understand what flips the switch.

Ah, well this one's maybe a little easier, but it will refer back to my earlier notes on "wavelength."

Gather up half a dozen tuning forks and stand them in their holders on a table.

Take a tuning fork whose tone is the same as one of the tuning forks on the table, and strike it with the little wooden or rubber striker mallet.

You'll get a clear tone from the fork you struck and, after a couple of seconds, if you mute the one you're holding, you'll hear one of the forks on the table making that same tone, though more faintly. This is a simple lab experiment we did in my freshman science class.

What it showed was that the vibrations at a given frequency would evoke a resonant vibration in a tuning fork of the same frequency.

Resonance.

You cause a single event in the presence of multiple objects, and only certain ones respond, because they are already tuned to the wavelength of the musical tone generated when the first fork is struck. If you have a good command of tonal pitch, you could whistle that same note and get a response from that same fork.


Now, I know that this is a severe simplification of the problem, but how a person responds to an event will have a great deal to do with their emotional tone. It's not a musical resonance, but more of a "mood" resonance.

They're already tuned. They've spent their lives going through a litany of experiences, good and bad, and the things they've seen, felt, and done have resulted in a state of mind that is "tuned" such that [this event] will evoke [that response].

Drop a briefcase from shoulder height so that it hits the floor flat with a loud bang. The eight or ten people in the room when that happens will each have a different response. There may be cursing, laughing, crying, or fainting.

You won't know from just looking at the "package" they present -- their hair, clothes, shoes, tattoos, or even that carefully cultivated "don't care" attitude.

BANG!

And in that moment you'll know a lot more about the people near you.

Resonance.

I want to understand what flips the switch.

There is, of course, more to it than just "emotional tuning" but that's something you can generally observe about a person without having their life history in front of you. There will be other stuff in that history that you won't know and which will influence how they respond.

But the most immediately available thing, the most readily observed thing about the person in front of you will be his attitudes, which provide clues to his emotional state, which will help you predict how he'll resonate, and that will help you choose which note to whistle.

 

[Trent]

Regarding resonance, in part, to what "tips the scales"..

What about instinct, and genetics? Do you think that pro-gun people have a less repressed survival instinct than anti? One takes life or death in to their own hands; the other pushes the matter of life or death off to others to decide for them.

Or is it more of a social / upbringing factor? We're taught from day #1 to look to an authority figure for answers and guidance on what to do (parents, school, church, etc). Do you think some people are naturally predisposed, or taught more strongly to trust authority to decide matters for them? Are people brought up more.. coddled, more sheltered, more likely to be anti-gun? Than people raised with the "school of hard knocks", "spare the rod.." types?

What about followers, vs. leaders? Self-motivated vs. non-motivated?

I mean, it is clear that certain factors predispose one to select a certain path to follow. It's not guaranteed they will GO that route, as free will is unpredictable, BUT... I would wager you could ask someone a set of questions not related to firearms and have a pretty good read on their standing on the gun control issue based on their responses to those non-related questions.

 

[Pete D.]

Beg pardon? The "three weakest points" concept presumes I'm working from a proforma script of some kind.

Well...yes....I was thinking in terms of a formal debate (argument, rebuttal, cross examination, summary) as opposed to the metaphorical fist fight that we often call debate. My mistake.
Pete

 

[Trent]

There are many forms of debate, not all are as structured as college IPDA (funny how that nearly shares a name with a gun sport).

I use the term debate appropriately here as the arguments we present in public are viewed by many, and the assertions we make are representative of the whole; whether by intention or coincidence is no matter.

When you talk about RKBA with a non shooter, you are representative of the whole, whether you want to be... or even realize you ARE, is irrelevant. You've adopted a political stance and put yourself forth as a representative of gun owners when you speak or argue policy, political science, and theory about the right to keep and bear arms in a public forum.

Unfortunately, many firearms sites are not as clean and moderated as THR. This provides those who wish to ban firearms an endless source of entertaining and offensive sound, video (youtube), or text (forum, various comments) samples to pull from.

Example from a belt fed forum I'm a member of:

"This {new gun} of mine, she runs like a raped ape!!!" (One can almost hear the beer spill and the hur-de-hur!! follow)

My point, is we make it very easy on the opposition just because OUR side has such a crazy low level of awareness and recognition that they are, indeed, feeding the trolls out there who want to take our rights away.

Something to consider - you are ALWAYS representing firearms owners and debating an anti-gunner when you post online... whether you realize it, or not.

 

[Trent]

Something my wife brought up last night when we were talking psychology.

She says I often appear to write or speak from a position of superiority and this may "tune out" readers or the audience.

Regarding the method of delivery, what is the appropriate "tone" to use? Or should this vary with each encounter?

In life, I operate from the assumption that I am correct, until shown otherwise. Then I integrate the new data, modify my views, and continue operating from the assumption I am correct.

Based on the phrasing and attitude in this thread, can anyone provide some honest, open feedback on style and tone? As mentioned, I operate on the assumption I'm correct until shown otherwise, and my wife (a much higher authority) indicated I might need to refine my tone to be more effective at persuasion on the masses when discussing gun rights.

Feel free to be blunt, I have a thick skin.

(She's correct; you can lose an argument even if you have the process well in hand, and data in order; just off of presentation)

 

[Hugo]

Trent said "I'm beginning to wonder - honestly, tell me I'm not being paranoid - if the anti gun crowd has people working social media under the color of religion."

+1,000

I have no doubt that anti-gun rights groups use/abuse social media to manipulate the gullible. I'm sure you can hire people to use their multiple accounts on social media. PR has a long, long history of manipulation for good and bad, often bad though.

Google "The Century of the Self" to see a great but scary BBC documentary on the history of Psychology, PR, and manipulation.

When debating an Anti-gun person, aim to get them "on the fence". You won't convert someone to rational reality and away from irrational fanaticism overnight or over a week or two. You have to just get them on the fence and seeing reality a bit and hope their curiosity and growing awareness takes them the rest of the way. Hardcore "I will never change!" loonies? Don't waste your time, focus on those near the fence.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Something my wife brought up last night when we were talking psychology.

She says I often appear to write or speak from a position of superiority and this may "tune out" readers or the audience.

Regarding the method of delivery, what is the appropriate "tone" to use? Or should this vary with each encounter?

"Receptiveness" will vary from person to person (what will resonate).

Prejudice and bias will vary from person to person (what they "know").

You have both of those things to deal with.

THR will mostly be concerned with factual sources and citations, along with known successful presentations and known pitfalls.

The personal dynamic? That's mostly out of scope for THR per se, but there are members and mods who will be happy to take some of that off line (you may always PM or email me) because, frankly, when you start getting down into the role of the mind and emotions and philosophy or religion in something like this, it's pretty easy to run into the forum guardrails.

(A complete answer to some of your previous questions will be out of scope here, but I'm happy to discuss it off line.)​

As long as we can keep it "between the lines" we can do a certain amount of that here.

In life, I operate from the assumption that I am correct, until shown otherwise. Then I integrate the new data, modify my views, and continue operating from the assumption I am correct.

Welcome to the human race. You won't move the needle much in any venue if your approach is one of always questioning your own validity. Do your best to get your facts straight, present them with confidence, and always be willing to accept and acknowledge correction when new facts update your understanding.

Based on the phrasing and attitude in this thread, can anyone provide some honest, open feedback on style and tone? As mentioned, I operate on the assumption I'm correct until shown otherwise, and my wife (a much higher authority) indicated I might need to refine my tone to be more effective at persuasion on the masses when discussing gun rights.

Refine your tone? Perhaps "get better at tuning your dial." At least at the individual, one-on-one level. Groups respond differently, and that's kind of a different subject, given that the parameters for group dynamics require a little more work.

When I was teaching computer languages (college classes), I found that explaining anything to a group works differently from explaining it to an individual, although the individual dynamic still figures in that.

Feel free to be blunt, I have a thick skin.

(She's correct; you can lose an argument even if you have the process well in hand, and data in order; just off of presentation)

Well, "blunt" gets kinda close to the edge of THR guidelines, so don't be too surprised if civility continues to prevail.

 

[Pete D.]

Debate

One way to avoid the "tone" of superiority, of "I am right and you just have no clue" is to avoid as much as possible, completely if possible, language which is unnecessarily judgmental and critical. If you have unimpeachable facts and solid logic, there is no need for any modifiers in your statements. You let the facts speak for themselves.

About formal debate - and gathering all the facts: try this....the resolution is a familiar idea.
Resolved: Guns don't kill people; people kill people.
Last week, you argued the affirmative side and won.
This week, you have been chosen to argue the negative side.
How would you go about it?
Pete

 

[Neverwinter]

Based on the phrasing and attitude in this thread, can anyone provide some honest, open feedback on style and tone? As mentioned, I operate on the assumption I'm correct until shown otherwise, and my wife (a much higher authority) indicated I might need to refine my tone to be more effective at persuasion on the masses when discussing gun rights.

Feel free to be blunt, I have a thick skin.

(She's correct; you can lose an argument even if you have the process well in hand, and data in order; just off of presentation)

Style and tone will have to be adjusted to the nature of the audience. That audience is composed of people who have varying life experiences that have influence the way that they process information.

She is correct that you can lose an argument with good data if the presentation isn't right for the audience. Some life experiences will produce that kind of result, where the data is irrelevant without the presentation which matches the successful influences in their lives. This why it's important with any kind of learning activity to know your audience. When you know their influences, you can understand what has worked on them in the past and alter your presentation to work in similar ways. You will find that there are a surprising number of people who are willing to accept ideas even with a complete lack of data, provided that the presentation is just right. You just have to look for the signs.