PDA

View Full Version : "The People" must be swayed


Wiz-of-Awd
01-08-2013, 3:51 PM
"The People" must be swayed, not the politicians.

We all know that the anti's are looking to do away with guns in our society.

I think we also know they are doing this for their empowerment agendas, and to please those among us who agree with them.

The anti's - politicians and others in power - know full well what is wrong and right with the gun control issue. Problem of course is that 'our' stand on this is from the opposite side of the fence. They are not stupid, and likely understand the flaws (in their legislature) we like to elaborate on and try to debate/critique in these forums much better than we do.

In the end, they are doing this to please the sheople - we know this.

Let's focus fully and deliberately on The People of this nation, and not the law makers.

Ultimately, political direction will follow the almighty dollar. This is something that We The People ultimately control with our spending. Whether it be for goods and services or contributions and other payouts.

We will never win this until we have swayed enough of the citizens of this country. Then and only then will law makers and the media look for another bandwagon to coerce America to ride to their demise.

We must - must - must make anti-gun thinking in this country unpopular and unprofitable, and it starts with our friends and neighbors, and then their friends and neighbors...

A.W.D.

CDFingers
01-09-2013, 7:56 AM
The strongest premise that gun owners can use is that "criminals do not obey laws."

Once The People understand this by reading it everywhere, it's possible for them to understand about things.

CDFingers

Wiz-of-Awd
01-09-2013, 8:04 AM
The strongest premise that gun owners can use is that "criminals do not obey laws."

Once The People understand this by reading it everywhere, it's possible for them to understand about things.

CDFingers

Agreed, 100%

I have found this statement to be quite effective in silencing non-sense from anti's. In fact, it seems to evoke a kind of "self destruct sequence" in their arguments.

A.W.D.

mdimeo
01-09-2013, 8:38 AM
Agreed, 100%

I have found this statement to be quite effective in silencing non-sense from anti's. In fact, it seems to evoke a kind of "self destruct sequence" in their arguments.

A.W.D.

Really? I've found they mostly ignore it and keep saying the same nonsense. Usually louder and slower.

Wiz-of-Awd
01-09-2013, 8:55 AM
Really? I've found they mostly ignore it and keep saying the same nonsense. Usually louder and slower.

Yep, really - working for me so far anyway :)

A.W.D.

SpunkyJivl
01-09-2013, 9:30 AM
The strongest premise that gun owners can use is that "criminals do not obey laws."

Once The People understand this by reading it everywhere, it's possible for them to understand about things.

CDFingers


Agreed. But it will take a very large increase in crime nation wide before people wake up. With higher crime rates and draconian gun laws, politicians will still continue to blame guns for the crimes.

SilverTauron
01-09-2013, 9:37 AM
If only it were that simple.

Chicago had more then 500 homicides last year despite some of the thoughts gun laws in the country. You know what the typical city dweller says: the guns are coming from out of state where the laws aren't as strict. The logical situation of criminals not obeying laws jus doesn't occur to those folks. Guns are bad, and should be banned-period as far as they're concerned.

CDFingers
01-10-2013, 7:42 AM
The facts show that violent crime rates have been falling.

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/06/img/violentcrime_fig1.jpg

Once these facts are shown, any argument that says "we need more gun laws to stop violent crime" becomes very weak when these facts are used in rebuttal or in an statement about crime.

CDFingers

SilverTauron
01-10-2013, 8:15 AM
The facts show that violent crime rates have been falling.

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/06/img/violentcrime_fig1.jpg

Once these facts are shown, any argument that says "we need more gun laws to stop violent crime" becomes very weak when these facts are used in rebuttal or in an statement about crime.

CDFingers

The debate is not about facts. Rather, a lot of people in America feel uncomfortable with the 2nd Amendment and believe we'd all be better off if no one except police and military had weapons. You can challenge emotion with fact, but in the end we humans make decisions based on what we feel. Unless we make guns into an emotionally empowering subject, all the charts in the world won't do a thing to save us.

a1c
01-10-2013, 9:06 AM
Most of my friends are anti-gun. A lot of them are urban and suburban-dwelling liberals, and a few conservatives as well. I come from a country with strict gun control laws (France), so I am quite familiar with the arguments they use.

Here is what does NOT work:

The 2nd Amendment is an individual right
They don't care. At all. As far as they're concerned, they 2nd Amendment should be repealed, or updated. After all, will they argue, there are entire parts of the US Constitution that have been declared void. And they'll tell you that an amendment has repealed another one before. So forget the constitutional argument. They do not care.

Criminals don't follow laws
Common sense, but they don't care either. The end game for them is to get rid of all guns. We all know they want to start with evil black rifles, "military style" weapons. But that's just the beginning. After that, they ideally want to get rid of handguns. Some of them will argue they're OK with shotguns and hunting rifles (whatever that means) with strict regulations. But the idea for them is to get rid of as many guns as possible to make them as difficult to obtain by criminals. So they don't care that criminals don't follow laws, since they think in the long term, it will be difficult for criminals to get guns.

The RKBA is a safeguard from tyranny
They'll laugh at your face if you bring that up. These are people who live in big cities and comfy suburbs. They usually don't have any family members or friends in the military, who may have been dealing first hand with 15-year old kids with AKs. They will tell you the US military has Apache helicopters, tanks, drones, heavy artillery and special forces that will crush any insurrection that could spawn if some tyrant was to take over the White House. You may remind them that the US has been fighting poorly trained enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade and losing thousands of troops, but they will most likely shrug it off. Also because they have no idea how many gun owners there are out there who possess a sizeable arsenal and actually know how to punch holes in a 10-inch target at 300 yards.

More guns means a safer society
Enough with this argument. They don't buy it. And to be fair, data and statistics can be easily manipulated by both sides on this issue. You will NEVER convince any of them that this is true. It doesn't matter if you believe it's gospel. Try to understand that just because you know you're right doesn't mean they think the same. They do not believe you, because they live in safe neighborhoods where they don't own guns, and they fear guns, which they equate to crime and lethal accidents.
Plus, I don't buy that argument either - there are tons of factors at play, and the more guns = safer equation has a lot more unknowns to it. So lose that talking point, you're wasting your time.


I don't care if your mind boggles about the fact that the points above don't work with them. It doesn't matter. You may foam at the mouth all you want like Alex Jones did with Piers Morgan the other day, and you'll just look like a lunatic. It doesn't matter if you are right. You need to sway them. You need to understand how they think if you want to make a dent in their beliefs. You can be right, or you can be efficient.


So here is what works (better):

A gun ban is practically and legally impossible
The genie is out of the bottle. After the Civil War, American leaders could have done what happened after similar circumstances in other countries, and disarmed the population, arguing that it would prevent another bloodbath. Fortunately, it didn't happen - for many reasons. And the country still had to be built in the West, and guns were not a luxury item, but a survival tool. So nowadays we have at least 200 million firearms in the country. Possibly half a billion. No one knows - they need to understand that: there is no gun ID database. And unless they're willing to give up their Fourth Amendment rights, it is impossible to make it happen. Legally, SCOTUS also ruled that the RKBA is an individual right. It doesn't matter if they don't agree - that's the law of the land. So they have to deal with REALITY: guns are part of the American heritage, and an outright ban, even on certain classes of guns, is impossible, practically and legally.

The AR is today's musket
Most Americans are spectacularly ignorant about the military history of their country. They forgot that the lever action rifle, which they now associate with John Wayne and old westerns, was invented for military purposes, and that Lincoln himself ordered the Spencer repeating rifle for Union troops. They forgot about the beginnings of the pump action shotgun, which the Germans feared in WW1 trenches. They forgot that the M1 Garand and the M1 carbines were semi-auto rifles. They forgot that the AR is half a century old. It is today's musket. They don't even know it's the most popular rifle in competitive shooting. Show them pictures and videos of high-powered rifle NSSF or CMP competitions. It's not an assault rifle. It's a semi-auto service rifle. And it's increasingly popular with many hunters.

Why focus on ARs when they represent a tiny fraction of gun homicides?
In 2012, 769 homicides were recorded in the state of New York. Of those, only 5 were committed with rifles. We don't know which kind of rifles those were, but even if they were all black rifles, that's anecdotal. Ask them - why are you focusing on "military style" rifles? They're not the problem. What's so evil about ARs?

Civilians don't have access to assault rifles
It always stumps them when you underline that. Civilians only have access to civilian, semi-auto rifles. Some of those might look like M16s or M4s, but they're not the same thing. They don't have a auto/burst setting. They only shoot one round at the time.

ARs are not spray-and-pray weapons
A lot of antis believe - blame Michael Bay - that ARs were invented to spray as many bullets as possible into enemy flesh. They think they're the modern version of Tommy guns. When you tell them ARs were actually designed as accurate rifles, and that civilians can't own fully automatic machine or submachine guns, they often are surprised.

Detachable magazines and pistol grips are modern updates to an old technology
What really irks antis about ARs or AKs is the fact that they look different from grandpa's M1, and the main differences are those pistol grips and those detachable magazines (although you may mention the M1 carbine also uses detachable magazines - and 15-rounders, too!). But detachable magazines and pistol grips are not exactly new either. Those features appeared on some rifles about a century ago. Pistol grips are about ergonomics - and many traditional hunting rifles have a buttstock thumbhole facilitating an equivalent hand grip. Detachable magazines are about practicality. They have been around in pistols for well over a century.

Don't support legislation about things you don't know anything about
When some family members or friends of mine display their support for "high capacity" magazines or "assault weapons", I often ask them - define "assault rifle", or "high capacity", or even "semi-automatic". When they skirt the question (or fail to answer it correctly), I then ask them why they would support legislation they don't understand, especially since the ones in place are already poorly written by people who also don't understand them.
I ask them - "If bicyclists who didn't even know how to drive a car were pushing for legislation telling the rest of the people what kind of car they can drive and how they should drive, would you support it?" Or I'll ask them if they would let some average consumers who know nothing about food safety ban organic produce and beef or raw milk. That usually leaves them wondering. I then suggest they do a bit more reading if they want to be taken seriously.

Antis deal with gun control the same way some conservatives deal with illegal immigration: short-sightedly
Gun control advocates look at guns as the source of gun violence. They refuse to understand that it's just a symptom of other problems. The root cause of violence is not guns. It's poverty, unemployment, crappy education, lack of access to social and medical services, and so on. It's deep societal problems that need to be tackled in the long term. Solve them, and violence goes away. There are plenty of parts of the US where there are tons of guns, but since there is little unemployment and no one is hungry, there barely is any gun violence. Some of those places are wealthy Southern suburbs, others are rural communities in the Midwest. Everybody there has guns, but people don't shoot each other, because they have jobs, their kids are in school, and sick people get taken care of.
Antis deal with guns the same way some people on the right want to deal with illegal immigration. They think that if you want to get rid of illegal immigration, all you have to do is secure the borders, round up all undocumented aliens, and deport them. And that will solve it. And they're dead wrong. Because not only is it impossible to do, but also it doesn't address the root cause of illegal immigration: a flawed immigration policy. Create a guest worker visa program like the bracero program killed in the 50s, and you kill the incentive to cross the border illegally. But it's also a long term effort, which requires new policies, boring committee meetings, and it's not popular with the base in some districts. So it's not politically sexy.
Same with guns and the antis. They think banning guns will solve violence. When in fact, gun violence is rooted in all sorts of social problems that need to be addressed. Which, by the way, are social issues the left traditionally cares about. Tell them that once you focus on education, employment, social programs that make sense - most violence goes away.

That's it for now. I've swayed or at least made quite a few antis think using some of these arguments. Some have more moderate views now. Or at least more realistic ones.