Lazy, Igonorant, Cowardly: Diagnostic Analysis, or Name Calling?

[Old Fuff]

First of all, getting into an argument with someone who (for whatever reasons) has strong anti-gun views and opinions is usually a waste of time.

Therefore I avoid any confrontation unless they attack my position first, especially in a group conversation where others are present that might be more open minded. Then I try to use logic and facts to oppose emotion.

I have found that occasionally a dedicated, anti-gun individual will come looking for me with a different attitude after something traumatic happens in their lives. Otherwise they are best ignored. After all, ignorance is bliss.

 

[Arp32]

As a pro-2A "liberal", it gets old hearing some die-hard conservatives explain most of my own political views to me as if i were too stupid to operate a spoon unattended. I hear it sometimes at work, a lot on talk radio, and unfortunately occasionally here on this site.

I love living in a country where someone can feel justified in telling me exactly how stupid my politics are, but I'm not sure how helpful or persuasive it is. It certainly doesn't make me stop and reflect on why some random blowhard is absolutely right while I've been horribly wrong this whole time. If only someone had told me I hated mom, apple pie and America, maybe I would have realized it and switched sides years ago!!!

(Sarcasm over...)

It just appears to me that sometimes the goal is to let everyone else know how much we think our own views are right, as opposed to trying to convince others to open their mind a bit. Preaching to the choir isn't a long term solution to protecting RTKBA. I have a strong suspicion that the demographic of today's average pro-2A voter is misaligned with growth trends for new voters in general. That's bad math for the odds of my great-great-grandchildren being able to own a semi-automatic rifle.

As some point, I think we need to grow the pie and introduce new shooters to our culture.

How do we do that? My humble suggestion would be to relate to folks on a personal level, show them respect even when they disagree with you, and leave the politics out of it.

I'llleave it at that, mainly because I know how many of you hate having a liberal tell you what to do

 

[CB900F]

SDM;

You'll have to do another debate point prep if you try this, but it may very well be worth it. The point has been made that words like coward are confrontational, and it's hard to bring someone to your point of view when you've just insulted them. Therefore, try asking them how they like having been the victims of propaganda. But you'll have to be prepared to show them how that's so. Not like there aren't literally thousands of examples around though.

By putting the question that way, that they've been victimized, you're putting the semantic content with you rather than against you. Which may go a long way towards opening their minds to at least thinking about your point of view. Show them a few concrete examples where what's been said by, say a major media source, is not at all what the facts of the matter are, and you might just gain a convert.

Personally, I'd start with the differences between what Feinstien says an assault weapon is and what the military has defined it as. You could lose San Francisco in the gap between those two views.

900F

 

[Lantern]

I live under the "your rights end where my nose begins" way of thinking. And generally that puts me more times than not in the republican camp, but it doesn't make me one nor does it make me a dem or lib.

I try to live in a way that doesn't directly effect the lives of other people in a way they wouldn't approve of. And in general the laws work that way. If you bother other people your rights are taken away. Crash into somebody.....right to a car taken away. Use a gun in ways that infringe on others' way of life...right to a gun taken away. Take away somebody's right to live.....life taken away.

Soooo.... when people are using votes to take away my right to choose to have a firearm I start thinking its time they have that vote taken away. Use your vote to ban the right to firearms for yourself. Not to take away to the choice from law abiding citizens you've never met or even know at all.


Yes, I fully understand it's a simple...maybe overly simple way of thinking.

 

[eye5600]

I've thought about some of these issues in terms of utility functions. The term arises out of philosophy and economics. It just means that each person assigns a value to things. The value is not a money number, necessarily, but more like a degree of importance.

So most people on THR assign a high value to the right to own guns, the right to use guns is self-defense. People on the other side assign a negligible value to these things. If they had the opportunity to obtain a gun for free, they wouldn't take it. It's worthless to them.

All that is pretty obvious, but take it one more step. When the gun control advocates ask you to give up your guns, they don't think they are asking for much, because they think they are asking you to give up something of no value. When you object, they really don't understand why you are being so stubborn about something so useless (as they see it).

 

[Double Naught Spy]

To not accept this, after being presented with logical and historical proof is either lazy (shirking a social responsibility placed on them by thousands of years of human behavior, i.e. SELF DEFENSE), or, and I hate to say it, COWARDICE. Do we dare utter that word in this day of social advancement, our peaceful and utopian society notwithstanding? I am preparing my discussions, debates, and arguments to include the words "ignorant, delusional, lazy, and coward" when countering liberal, anti-gun arguments. The words accurately describe citizens that ignore facts, neglect the social DUTY of self defense and defense of others, erroneously conclude that the police can thwart violent crime, and that new laws will miraculously save everyone (when the old laws failed so miserably for some reason). I have tried to avoid name calling, but perhaps the two by four to the head approach with strong, but accurate, words is now the way to go. Coddling those who continue to ignore such obvious truths just isn't working. Most of the liberals I've encountered do not give the matter deep thought, or try to understand the issues, they just "adopt" the rhetoric. That is no longer acceptable.

First of all, to claim the moral high ground of trying to avoid name calling and then blatantly start name calling is pretty disingenuous. The "facts" that you claim are quite subject to interpretation even if they are accurate, assuming that you are not actually confusing "facts" with "data" and "interpretation."

Based on your claims, I am not sure if you understand the meanings of lazy and coward. One thing fairly clear cut about many of the anti-gun groups, especially the Brady campaign is that they are anything but lazy. As for calling them cowards, you have no basis for it.

It is interesting that you seem to be demanding that your opposition suffer the wrath of your words for their acceptance of what you feel is wrong, but you would apparently be quite content if they adopted your rhetoric, which would make them just as guilty of the sins you are claiming they have committed for the views they currently support.

Pretty much by the time you resort to personal attacks and name calling, you have already lost the fight for the salient issue at hand and you are now fighting for ego.

 

[itsa pain]

it is funny most gun owners worship police and liberals figure the more police the less a civilian needs a gun. we are getting tons of police armed with machine guns tanks grenades explosives etc so keep up the worship and they will hire more police. more police: less need for regular folks to have guns but then again gun owners are their own worst enemy anyway

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Frank, I might be out of line, but your light handed approach hasn't gotten the pro-gun movement in San Fancisco or CA too far. Perhaps standing on the truth and calling the anti's what they are will get them to back off, or, less likely, take a good hard look at what they are really made of. As far as devout passivism, I'm afraid many subscribers are also cowards. Those cowards have found a cute concept to hide behind. I have no problem with cowards, ignorant people, or lazy people until they start puffing themselves up as something else, and start tramping of the rights of people who DO understand the ways of the world, are NOT lazy, and who WOULD stand up armed against armed aggression. They do not have to follow our lead, just keep out of the way.

 

[oldbear]

who

SharpsDressedMan, why bother to even try and change the minds of folks who have all ready made up their mind, it makes no sense to even try. Now the group we want to concentrate on is the huge mid ground, the folks who have little if any interest in guns and additional gun control. Do your best to show these people that we are a sane and well reasoned adults who happen to enjoy a unique hobby.

Everyone, please remember that the "silent majority" are the ones who's help we need to win this war.

 

[leadcounsel]

These situations fall into a few categories and people are driven by either emotion or reason.

1. Intelligent/thoughtful/reasoning people that simply have not thought about this issue, and who can be swayed through patient, reason and logic and experience. Gradual facts, reason, and taking this group shooting will one day sway them. I have swayed lots of these people over to the pro-gun side.

2. Intelligent/reasoning people who have made up their mind to be anti-gun. Can never sway this group and it's a waste of time to try. They have their views based in their own brand of logic, and nothing will sway them.

3. Stupid people who are ruled by emotion who are anti-gun. Again, this group won't change unless something changes their emotion. For instance, THEY are afraid and decide they need a gun. I have someone close to me that is this way. Anti-gun as long as I've known her; now suddenly due to the economic and other uncertainties in the last few years, she wants a gun.

You then either have to decide whether to continue to invest time in the lost relationships, or cut ties. Being attacked at every meeting is no fun. You can agree to not talk about these topics, but they always seem to come up.

 

[Twmaster]

Sharps, while I applaud your efforts to sway these people, I also think the way you are going about it is a waste of time.

It's kinda like putting lipstick on a pig. It won't make the pig any purdier and it's guaranteed to piss off the pig.

 

[beatledog7]

I posted:

Three social failures: Ignorance, Laziness, Cowardice.
Those traits are common in enemies of liberty and freedom generally, not just of RKBA.

And Frank responded:

I dare say that such traits are not exclusive, on an individual basis, to those with whom we have political or social disagreements. Demonizing out of hand our political and social opponent diminishes us and impairs our effectiveness.

I did not demonize any social or political opponent of gun owners. I made a point about "enemies of liberty and freedom generally," a point I stand by.

Yes, these traits are also fairly common among those who claim to love freedom and liberty. But in my experience, a person who wants to kill 2A is a almost always person who wants more and more of our lives to be controlled by government rather by our own choices.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

A couple months ago my siblings with spouses in tow met to settle my fathers estate, "estate" here meaning the few meager possessions if a life long blue collar child of the depression.

After the official drudgery was out of the way we had a few drinks and the topic turned to politics and gun control. One of my sis-in-laws is a vocal Liberal and fueled by wine she made a few statements I swear were to incite a reaction, the whole family knows I admire, own, and use firearms plus detest the current administration.

The table went silent and several were looking at me expecting me to launch.. and I was very near to doing just that. Instead I took a sip of my whiskey leaned forward and in a low voice said, "We'll just agree to disagree on that." then I smiled at her. It took all the fight out of the equation and even brought some laughter.

Both my parents are gone now, this is my family. I am not going to generate damage there even if I didn't initiate it.

.

 

[heeler]

SDM,
I agree with a lot of things you stated in your original post on this subject.
I would also like to say from my point of view most liberals I have known are generally well educated and for the most part have seen little to no violence directed against them and except on the news,which happens to all those other people out there.
Most I have spoken to never even had a fight growing up as a male which was quite common for those going through their teens in the 50's,60's,and 70's.
Most do not own guns,hunt,or even know the basics in self defense or self preservation except on how to call 911.

I find it most difficult to even try reasoning with these people because I have grown up from the school of hard knocks and just cannot see their foggy way of Shangra La thinking.
They have never walked in my shoes and I wont even wear their shoes.

 

[Averageman]

I would avoid them Kharma has a way of making all things right.
Eventually they will se the light, but it may take a very harmful experiance for them to learn that how they live and think is wrong.
I have learned to walk away from arguing with a fool, let them be foolish and arguing with them only brings you down to their level.
Sometimes it hurts to cut the ties with family, but if they see the light, they can always appolgise and come back.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Most of the opposition have no interest in firearms, do not practice any pro-active awareness in self protection (often indicating that is what laws and the police are FOR),

Perhaps you can explain the logical fallacy of supporting violations of the highest law of the land -- the Constitution -- and expecting the law to protect you.

 

[labhound]

SharpsDressedMan with your relatives and other anti-gun types, you're batteling the "crap always happens to someone else, not me" attitude and the nanny state philosophy that "someone else will take care of me". Until something does happen to them and no one arrives soon enough to save their butt, you're wasting your time trying to change their minds.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Perhaps standing on the truth and calling the anti's what they are will get them to back off, or, less likely, take a good hard look at what they are really made of....

Do you have a scintilla of evidence to support that conjecture? You're welcome to your opinions, but you've never given me any reason to pay attention to your opinions.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Frank, you should know your anti-gun co-inhabitants of San Francisco. If you haven't broken them down as to what makes them that way, give me some of their names and addresses and I'll speak to them, and try to figure out which of the three, or what combination of, ignorant, lazy, or cowardly they are. I have another theory about people I'll share with you. Whenever people are jerks, confuse me, or try to intimidate me, etc, I look at them and try to imagine what they would have been like at around 7-8 years old on the playground. Did they share? Did they boast? Did they act tough? Were they quiet, or anti-social? Did they get off on "show and tell"? People really aren't that much more sophisticated than what they were as kids. Meanwhile, Frank, sorry that you live in one of the most restrictive states in the Union. I think the stress of that is making you a bit touchy. I would not be as condescending if MY state had sunk into hopeless socialism.

 

[Walkalong]

I cannot see where this is relevant or on topic for GGD.