3KillerBs
Member
A slur upon my sex but, alas, all too true.
:lol:
Had a convo with my two very good LEO friends
- Thread starter ZombieHunter
- Start date
- Status
A slur upon my sex but, alas, all too true.
:lol:
PaladinX13
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 747
I want to help you to communicate with your good friends so please take my comments not as an affront but an analysis of how the issue is a bit more than just throwing statistics at someone. If you can take your persuasive skills to another level you can actually make a lot of headway.
A principle is a "truth" that is held individually as true. For example, "RKBA is good." As a hypothetical... let's say DC citizens, historically unable to defend themselves now armed post-Heller, are inexperienced and irresponsible with their guns. Accidental shootings, suicides, child deaths, gun thefts, and gun violence soar with no substantial increase in self-defense. A wet-dream for the gun control lobby. The statistics are entirely in their favor.
At that point, you need to ask yourself whether "RKBA is good" remains true. If you are a consequentialist and a person that relies upon results and effects (statistics, if you will), you'd have to concede that "RBKA is NOT good... at least for DC."
But if you hold, by faith, "RKBA is good" as a principle then you will certainly still believe and seek out reasons to explain this- temporarily, you hope- result (such as their inexperience with guns)... to rationalize the result with the belief. If your friends are like you, then you could quote stats until you were blue in the face and it wouldn't make a dent... just as it wouldn't affect you if the stats turned bad for you. So the lesson is not to use statistics as shorthand for truth when, as a principled person, you're arguing to another principled person (particularly as stats can be influenced or shift).
Most people are a mix... and most who tolerate RKBA don't hold strong anti-gun principles (that is, they certainly believe "Guns are bad" but not with any particularly deep conviction) will cede to consequentialist arguments... "The history of guns isn't that bad and there are so many guns it'll never be enforced and only outlaws will have guns", "It's not ideal but it's a practical reality", etc. That's fine... just be aware that if things change, so will their toleration.
Reaching a principled person is different... it isn't about factual truth but finding common principles of belief. Honestly, your job isn't that hard considering they're cops and carry guns to begin with... it's not like they're pacifists. So, in a GENUINE spirit of understanding (easy to become accusatory and trying to "nail" them... which just shuts down thought - just how well would you respond to "Baby Killer" in a discussion about abortion? Or if all one did was hammer "Hypocrite, preserving life of victims of crime but not innocent children!") look for the shared principles ("Why do cops carry guns?") and pay attention to how they're weighted. Actually listen! Then, using the common points of belief show how your view encompasses most, if not all, the most important principles held in their view.
This assumes that they're your friends and you're trying to bring them over and not just win a debate. The tactics for debate, when trying to shut down the spread of either untruths OR principles you disagree with, are different. It's important to distinguish your goals and whether they're espousing something that's actually a lie "The sky is plaid" versus a differing belief "RKBA is bad"...
Random additional notes:
Historical Truth is different than a Present Truth
For example, if I toss a coin 99 times and get heads each time... does that mean the 100th toss must be a head? Statistically, the world's population is mostly Asian... does that make you Asian? There's a difference between a historical record and an actual applied truth ("Most people born are female" versus "I am male"). Thus, even though gun crime arguably has been historically low... banking on it as a future truth is folly.
Value of Principles
Principles allow you to do new things and keep the faith... but that's what it is and the other side has it too. Saying nothing but "Our side has the truth!" may bolster morale but it's unlikely to have any impact on a belief based in principle, anymore than yours would be shaken by their statements against yours.
See Their Point of View
The pro-choice v. self-defense is a weak argument because people have different metrics for valuing life which are personal and subjective. It's easily reconciled by saying, "Without state authority, an individual doesn't have the right to take sentient life" (to you and her, pre-natal life not being sentient and- conveniently for her, being an agent of the state; reconciling the difference between citizens carrying and police).
She might not be articulating it correctly when preceded by a consequentalist argument ("If A then B") but there's actually nothing wrong with saying "I don't care about statistics" if a belief is based on principle. Statistics are not logic and are not "truth"... they are- at best- a record of historical truth (though, more often, a mathematical projection of larger "truth" based on a smaller sample). If the stats swung on you, would you walk away from your principles?
A principle is a "truth" that is held individually as true. For example, "RKBA is good." As a hypothetical... let's say DC citizens, historically unable to defend themselves now armed post-Heller, are inexperienced and irresponsible with their guns. Accidental shootings, suicides, child deaths, gun thefts, and gun violence soar with no substantial increase in self-defense. A wet-dream for the gun control lobby. The statistics are entirely in their favor.
At that point, you need to ask yourself whether "RKBA is good" remains true. If you are a consequentialist and a person that relies upon results and effects (statistics, if you will), you'd have to concede that "RBKA is NOT good... at least for DC."
But if you hold, by faith, "RKBA is good" as a principle then you will certainly still believe and seek out reasons to explain this- temporarily, you hope- result (such as their inexperience with guns)... to rationalize the result with the belief. If your friends are like you, then you could quote stats until you were blue in the face and it wouldn't make a dent... just as it wouldn't affect you if the stats turned bad for you. So the lesson is not to use statistics as shorthand for truth when, as a principled person, you're arguing to another principled person (particularly as stats can be influenced or shift).
Most people are a mix... and most who tolerate RKBA don't hold strong anti-gun principles (that is, they certainly believe "Guns are bad" but not with any particularly deep conviction) will cede to consequentialist arguments... "The history of guns isn't that bad and there are so many guns it'll never be enforced and only outlaws will have guns", "It's not ideal but it's a practical reality", etc. That's fine... just be aware that if things change, so will their toleration.
Reaching a principled person is different... it isn't about factual truth but finding common principles of belief. Honestly, your job isn't that hard considering they're cops and carry guns to begin with... it's not like they're pacifists. So, in a GENUINE spirit of understanding (easy to become accusatory and trying to "nail" them... which just shuts down thought - just how well would you respond to "Baby Killer" in a discussion about abortion? Or if all one did was hammer "Hypocrite, preserving life of victims of crime but not innocent children!") look for the shared principles ("Why do cops carry guns?") and pay attention to how they're weighted. Actually listen! Then, using the common points of belief show how your view encompasses most, if not all, the most important principles held in their view.
This assumes that they're your friends and you're trying to bring them over and not just win a debate. The tactics for debate, when trying to shut down the spread of either untruths OR principles you disagree with, are different. It's important to distinguish your goals and whether they're espousing something that's actually a lie "The sky is plaid" versus a differing belief "RKBA is bad"...
Random additional notes:
Historical Truth is different than a Present Truth
For example, if I toss a coin 99 times and get heads each time... does that mean the 100th toss must be a head? Statistically, the world's population is mostly Asian... does that make you Asian? There's a difference between a historical record and an actual applied truth ("Most people born are female" versus "I am male"). Thus, even though gun crime arguably has been historically low... banking on it as a future truth is folly.
Value of Principles
Principles allow you to do new things and keep the faith... but that's what it is and the other side has it too. Saying nothing but "Our side has the truth!" may bolster morale but it's unlikely to have any impact on a belief based in principle, anymore than yours would be shaken by their statements against yours.
See Their Point of View
The pro-choice v. self-defense is a weak argument because people have different metrics for valuing life which are personal and subjective. It's easily reconciled by saying, "Without state authority, an individual doesn't have the right to take sentient life" (to you and her, pre-natal life not being sentient and- conveniently for her, being an agent of the state; reconciling the difference between citizens carrying and police).
Grizzly Adams
Member
lonegunman said:
I totally DISAGREE!
Please read the following email that forwarded from my son, who is a LEO. He is also a member of the below mentioned association. After reading ask yourself if this sounds like the "majority" of LEO are antis! This isn't unusual either!
SOUTHERN STATES
> POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC.
> 2155 Highway 42 S
> McDonough, GA 30252-7636
> (770) 389-5391 w (800) 233-3506
> Fax: (770) 389-4572 w (866) 337-7722
> www.sspba.org
>
>
>
> TO: Southern States PBA
> Members
>
> FROM: Jack L. Roberts, SSPBA President
>
> DATE: June 27, 2008
>
> RE: The Second Amendment
> Lives
>
> Fellow members of the Southern States Police Benevolent
> Association, Inc.
>
> Yesterday the United States Supreme Court ruled in the
> case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment to
> the U.S. Constitution protects an INDIVIDUAL right to possess a
> firearm unconnected with service in militia, and to use that firearm
> for traditionally lawful purposes such as self defense within the
> home. This is the first time the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue
> of "bearing arms" as an individual right. This case is being reported
> as a win for gun owners, which it is. However, it is also a bigger win
> for the concept of individual freedom which was a founding concept of
> our country.
>
> The Southern States P.B.A. is proud to have been involved
> early on in the filing of an amicus curiae brief supporting Respondent
> Heller in this protection of our individual rights. After review of
> the base incident, there was no hesitancy on our part to become
> involved in this case. Don't forget, this decision will affect
> you after you leave law enforcement. Mr. Heller, the Respondent in
> this case and a special police officer authorized to carry a handgun
> while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington D.C. , was
> denied a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep
> at home. Would you like to beg permission to have a handgun in your
> home for self defense? Apparently the International Brotherhood of
> Police Officers (IBPO) and the International Association of Chiefs of
> Police think you should have to beg for individual rights and freedom.
> These two organizations joined with the others in filing an amicus
> brief in support of the District of Columbia's illegal taking of
> the individual rights of law abiding citizens
>
> We at Southern States P.B.A. are proud to represent those
> who are on the front lines to help keep our citizens safe. We are
> likewise proud when we can help you in this endeavor by enabling law
> abiding citizens to have the ability to protect themselves, which will
> include you when you leave the law enforcement profession.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Jack L. Roberts
> SSPBA
> President
I totally DISAGREE!
Please read the following email that forwarded from my son, who is a LEO. He is also a member of the below mentioned association. After reading ask yourself if this sounds like the "majority" of LEO are antis! This isn't unusual either!
SOUTHERN STATES
> POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, INC.
> 2155 Highway 42 S
> McDonough, GA 30252-7636
> (770) 389-5391 w (800) 233-3506
> Fax: (770) 389-4572 w (866) 337-7722
> www.sspba.org
>
>
>
> TO: Southern States PBA
> Members
>
> FROM: Jack L. Roberts, SSPBA President
>
> DATE: June 27, 2008
>
> RE: The Second Amendment
> Lives
>
> Fellow members of the Southern States Police Benevolent
> Association, Inc.
>
> Yesterday the United States Supreme Court ruled in the
> case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment to
> the U.S. Constitution protects an INDIVIDUAL right to possess a
> firearm unconnected with service in militia, and to use that firearm
> for traditionally lawful purposes such as self defense within the
> home. This is the first time the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue
> of "bearing arms" as an individual right. This case is being reported
> as a win for gun owners, which it is. However, it is also a bigger win
> for the concept of individual freedom which was a founding concept of
> our country.
>
> The Southern States P.B.A. is proud to have been involved
> early on in the filing of an amicus curiae brief supporting Respondent
> Heller in this protection of our individual rights. After review of
> the base incident, there was no hesitancy on our part to become
> involved in this case. Don't forget, this decision will affect
> you after you leave law enforcement. Mr. Heller, the Respondent in
> this case and a special police officer authorized to carry a handgun
> while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington D.C. , was
> denied a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep
> at home. Would you like to beg permission to have a handgun in your
> home for self defense? Apparently the International Brotherhood of
> Police Officers (IBPO) and the International Association of Chiefs of
> Police think you should have to beg for individual rights and freedom.
> These two organizations joined with the others in filing an amicus
> brief in support of the District of Columbia's illegal taking of
> the individual rights of law abiding citizens
>
> We at Southern States P.B.A. are proud to represent those
> who are on the front lines to help keep our citizens safe. We are
> likewise proud when we can help you in this endeavor by enabling law
> abiding citizens to have the ability to protect themselves, which will
> include you when you leave the law enforcement profession.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Jack L. Roberts
> SSPBA
> President
Grizzly Adams
Member
Yeah, happens when I get hot under the collar! Thanks.
Hmm, so when did this happen?
Is she still waiting for this wave of CCW violence against LEOs? When someone has an opinion based on emotion, rather than logical or facts, it should be challenged. However, this girl has a paranoid fear her bf is going to be shot by a CCW holder for giving the guy a ticket- thus there is probably little chance she is going to hear anything else.
Real cool how your LEO pal backed you up too.
Some LEO are pro carry and some are not.
However there is a problem with helping those who are not to see your logic and feel it with emotion at the same time.
Whether they can carry or not is not up for discussion.
They already can, so the argument is not the same.
You are essentialy arguing if other people have the right to carry, not whether they have the right to carry.
If they are both closed minded and at the same time can carry themselves regardless, it is much easier for them to remain that way.
However there is a problem with helping those who are not to see your logic and feel it with emotion at the same time.
Whether they can carry or not is not up for discussion.
They already can, so the argument is not the same.
You are essentialy arguing if other people have the right to carry, not whether they have the right to carry.
If they are both closed minded and at the same time can carry themselves regardless, it is much easier for them to remain that way.
kcshooter
Member
Most every LEO I know or have talked to in person supports the CCW laws. When CCW became legal in my state and two counties, St. Louis and Jackson (Kansas City), refused to comply, even the deputies said it was violating the law for the Sheriffs to deny the people the right to obtain a legal permit. Some were pretty pissed about it and were rather vocal on their views. I am suprised to hear a LEO being against CCW's.
How long have they been LEO?
How long have they been LEO?
doc2rn
Member
C.S.S. ~ see below
ZombieHunter
Member
Wow...well let's address the issues in order of importance:
The steaks were cooked on a grill with a heavy helping of Montreal Steak Seasoning. My buddy does have a tendency to over cook them but they still came out Medium-slightly under well. I prefer rare...but they were tasty nonetheless.
They are both LEOs. And I feel both lean slightly towards the "I'm a cop therefore I am inherently better than most" side. It's actually a large part of the reason I decided against being a cop...after meeting enough of them I've noticed that the stereotypes hold a lot of water.
Pally I appreciate the help. Principled argument, rational argument, statistical argument, emotional argument...there's no real way to get through to her. Him on the other hand...well I've convinced him on numerous things as it is >.> this shouldn't take too much.
Why didn't he back me up? Well I give his GF a bunch of good natured crap anyway and he sometimes gets dragged into it. Since I'm not sleeping with him I can't fault him *too* much for pulling the "I'm not touching that with a 50' pole" position.
But I did get a haircut today, getting a free dinner tomorrow and I found a Norinko SKS for $225. So today was a win lol.
The steaks were cooked on a grill with a heavy helping of Montreal Steak Seasoning. My buddy does have a tendency to over cook them but they still came out Medium-slightly under well. I prefer rare...but they were tasty nonetheless.
They are both LEOs. And I feel both lean slightly towards the "I'm a cop therefore I am inherently better than most" side. It's actually a large part of the reason I decided against being a cop...after meeting enough of them I've noticed that the stereotypes hold a lot of water.
Pally I appreciate the help. Principled argument, rational argument, statistical argument, emotional argument...there's no real way to get through to her. Him on the other hand...well I've convinced him on numerous things as it is >.> this shouldn't take too much.
Why didn't he back me up? Well I give his GF a bunch of good natured crap anyway and he sometimes gets dragged into it. Since I'm not sleeping with him I can't fault him *too* much for pulling the "I'm not touching that with a 50' pole" position.
But I did get a haircut today, getting a free dinner tomorrow and I found a Norinko SKS for $225. So today was a win lol.
Deanimator
Member
However you're neither entitled to be respected for them, nor not be mocked for them if they're sufficiently stupid.
I ridicule Holocaust deniers.
I ridicule PETA.
I ridicule people of such meager intellectual gifts as the person being discussed.
Don't want to be humiliated? Be smarter or stay away from me.
ProficientRifleman
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2006
- Messages
- 579
STOP IT!! Stop it right now! Enough with the Cop bashing!
If she took that attitude with you, you probably deserved it! And, besides, you don't know what kind of day she's had!
Why don't you just submit, comply and be passive...she's a cop so she knows what is best for you!
ZombieHunter
Member
I'm not really sure how to reply to post #37
The second and third line seem to be obviously and intentionally sarcastic and funny. The first line though...I'm confused.
I've met a substantial number of cops. The young ones seem to be prone to anger management issues, control issues, superiority complexes and carry an holier than thou air. Many of the older ones are either completely normal people who are cops the same way you might be an electrician or a nurse. It's purely anecdotal of course but rampant enough where I was completely turned off from cop as career choice.
The second and third line seem to be obviously and intentionally sarcastic and funny. The first line though...I'm confused.
I've met a substantial number of cops. The young ones seem to be prone to anger management issues, control issues, superiority complexes and carry an holier than thou air. Many of the older ones are either completely normal people who are cops the same way you might be an electrician or a nurse. It's purely anecdotal of course but rampant enough where I was completely turned off from cop as career choice.
1st thing...
your logic, is not the only logic... the sooner off in life you learn that, the better off you will be.
IF you want to have a good convo with some one, you can not say "I'm right your wrong". ( I don't mean that litterly, you know what I'm saying) Might as well end that convo right then and there. You have shown to every one that you are the prob in that convo. Insulting/name calling also does nothing but turn people off and make you look like a fool.
your logic, is not the only logic... the sooner off in life you learn that, the better off you will be.
IF you want to have a good convo with some one, you can not say "I'm right your wrong". ( I don't mean that litterly, you know what I'm saying) Might as well end that convo right then and there. You have shown to every one that you are the prob in that convo. Insulting/name calling also does nothing but turn people off and make you look like a fool.
TexasSkyhawk
Internet SEAL
When I run into cop/LE types that are anti-gun and/or anti-CCW, I show them a little scar I have above my right eye. I explain to them that I got that scar on a dark, lonely Alabama highway one night when I just happened to find a fugitive's car I'd been trying to find for over a month. Rural area, no real backup. I hit the grill lights (I was in a gov't ride, which was unusual as hell for me in that line of work), pulled the car over.
It's something like 2:00 in the morning, I'm tired, and I go up to the passenger side. To my surprise, not only was my subject in the car, but so were three of his buddies. They pile out and a four-on-one fight for my life ensues. No way in hell am I going to go for my gun--not with all of us on the ground wrestling, punching and kicking.
Long story short--two "BAM BAM" shots ring out and everyone stops. That was the split second I'd been waiting for and out comes my piece and I conk the two biggest guys hard as I could in the face and as I'm rolling to the side of the car to avoid getting shot from behind (had no idea who'd fired the shots and we were all looking into his headlights), I hear the voice of salvation,
I've got a permit for this gun, so you better let the cop up or I'll shoot your ass!
That gave me time to smack a third guy and then drag my subject in front of me since I still didn't know who had fired the shots. A few seconds later, I hear sirens and the calvary arrived.
The guy who saved my butt that night was an ordinary, everyday citizen of the great state of Alabama who was driving home from Auburn. He'd been helping his daughter move into the dorms and was heading home. He saw my grill lights and "Kojak" light and then saw one guy fighting with four others and figured it out pretty quick.
He flat told me and the troopers that showed up (he'd called 9-1-1) that if he hadn't had a gun, he would not have gotten involved. He was a smallish guy, soft-looking, no military experience, no kung-fu-judo kwon jitsu training.
Just an ordinary American citizen. I got this guy a nice letter of appreciation from Attorney General Dick Thornburgh for saving my skin that night.
I tell this story to the anti-CCW cops and remind them that without honest, decent and concerned citizens, they might find themselves in the same boat but with a far different outcome.
I then ask them what they have to fear from law-abiding, decent citizens.
Jeff
It's something like 2:00 in the morning, I'm tired, and I go up to the passenger side. To my surprise, not only was my subject in the car, but so were three of his buddies. They pile out and a four-on-one fight for my life ensues. No way in hell am I going to go for my gun--not with all of us on the ground wrestling, punching and kicking.
Long story short--two "BAM BAM" shots ring out and everyone stops. That was the split second I'd been waiting for and out comes my piece and I conk the two biggest guys hard as I could in the face and as I'm rolling to the side of the car to avoid getting shot from behind (had no idea who'd fired the shots and we were all looking into his headlights), I hear the voice of salvation,
I've got a permit for this gun, so you better let the cop up or I'll shoot your ass!
That gave me time to smack a third guy and then drag my subject in front of me since I still didn't know who had fired the shots. A few seconds later, I hear sirens and the calvary arrived.
The guy who saved my butt that night was an ordinary, everyday citizen of the great state of Alabama who was driving home from Auburn. He'd been helping his daughter move into the dorms and was heading home. He saw my grill lights and "Kojak" light and then saw one guy fighting with four others and figured it out pretty quick.
He flat told me and the troopers that showed up (he'd called 9-1-1) that if he hadn't had a gun, he would not have gotten involved. He was a smallish guy, soft-looking, no military experience, no kung-fu-judo kwon jitsu training.
Just an ordinary American citizen. I got this guy a nice letter of appreciation from Attorney General Dick Thornburgh for saving my skin that night.
I tell this story to the anti-CCW cops and remind them that without honest, decent and concerned citizens, they might find themselves in the same boat but with a far different outcome.
I then ask them what they have to fear from law-abiding, decent citizens.
Jeff
I had a convo with an itelligent older gentleman who believed that you don't need to have a gun in the house.
I simply replied that as a father and husband it is your responsibility
to protect your family wether you like it or not.
He had no response and I could see his mind working.
I repect his beliefs but also feel it my responsibility to show him the light.
I simply replied that as a father and husband it is your responsibility
to protect your family wether you like it or not.
He had no response and I could see his mind working.
I repect his beliefs but also feel it my responsibility to show him the light.
Travis McGee
Member
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
As many wise THR posters have pointed out you can't sway a closed mined person that has such a visceral response to an issue. The facts rarely figure into the equation. I once went round for round with my sister in law on the gun debate. She insisted that it is the job of the police to protect us. I then asked her if she would she feel safer if the police were disarmed? I got the deer in the headlights look and she just looked at me and said of course not. Well, I said that the antis goal is to get rid of all guns except the military's. I went on to say that they often refer to the UK as an "enlightened" society where even the police are unarmed. They leave out the fact that violent crime and particularly burglary have increased greatly since 1997 ban in the UK. We never spoke on this issue again.
ZH-
This is what I would've done if I were in your position. As soon as that bubblehead announced that they doesn't care about statistics, I would've looked straight at them and said "So you truly don't believe in the truth or the facts of the matter, you simply believe in whatever sounds likely in theory but has no basis in reality?"
This is what I would've done if I were in your position. As soon as that bubblehead announced that they doesn't care about statistics, I would've looked straight at them and said "So you truly don't believe in the truth or the facts of the matter, you simply believe in whatever sounds likely in theory but has no basis in reality?"
- Status