View Single Post
Old 12-09-2012, 3:39 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%

Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Even better emotional argument is to remove guns initially and just convey the concept of "self defense," then introduce "armed self defense with a rock," and only then guns.
That would be true if we were attempting to build a logical argument. But what we're after is an effective emotional appeal.

For that to work, the appeal has to be as simple and as direct as possible. It has to talk to your hindbrain. It's why I set up the scenario as I did:
  • It's simple and direct
  • It leaves no real options on the table (which is generally true of such situations)
  • It has as its center someone the target audience cares about deeply
  • It directly illustrates the fallacy of the "alternatives" that are usually suggested as "effective" by the other side

Anything that complicates the picture is going to force one to think, and that will blunt the emotional impact as well as reduce the overall effectiveness.

Also note that the scenario in question implicitly includes the notion that one has an inherent right to self-defense, for to say that one does not in that situation is to say that the daughter must allow herself to be killed.
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 12-09-2012 at 3:42 PM..
Reply With Quote