Can Opinions Be Changed?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In the current moral panic, some have advocated hunkering down and presented the position that trying to convince people of the merit of the RKBA position is useless. I opined and others have that it is a losing strategy to dismiss the chance of changing opinion or trying to reach progun folks across any political party (not going to politics again to discuss specific parties!).

Thus, my good friend Karl Rehn posted this on his blog - http://blog.krtraining.com/i-was-an-emotional-uninformed-gun-control-supporting-high-schooler-once/

I had a similar view also, coming from an urban background that saw little need for guns and had no strong gun culture. I went through a personal journey to realize the need for the RKBA. Had a write up on a website that I was asked to write, but the site seems defunct. Oh, well.

It is a similar evolution to the attitude change that some of us have gone through on various civil rights and social/attitudinal positions. The prejudices of the past were seen to be what they were.

Thus, I would say that folks do change, situations and personal experiences aid in this, cognitive reasoning helps.

Look at it this way. We see supposed gun folk abandoning the RKBA after an incident. Their attitudes changed. Why is it that we abandon the hope and attempts for attitude change? Do we acknowledge some implicit prejudice that our position is really not worthy? Thus, we go to the bunker and wait for defeat while engaging in self-limiting group polarization?

Just a thought or two.

 

[Scorch]

Of course opinions can be changed. What doesn't work is all the political stances, and an inability to argue one's point of view. You will never change a person's point of view by yelling or name-calling, but rather questioning and using the "felt-feel" method (as in "I felt that way before, but because of XXXXX, I now feel this way") or the Socratic method. Dale Carnegie said "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".

 

[zukiphile]

It is a similar evolution to the attitude change that some of us have gone through on various civil rights and social/attitudinal positions. The prejudices of the past were seen to be what they were.

Epistemically, I'd say you underwent a process of risking you prior prejudices, finding them insufficient, and forming a new set of prejudices, probably adapted from your old ones.

That process requires that a person be willing to risk exposure of those prejudices. People find that uncomfortable. They need their prejudices to make sense of the world; without those prejudices, we don't have language, history, philosophy or politics.

Some people will find that process of risking their own prejudices so uncomfortable that they will refuse to engage in it. Where you see "pro-gun" people rhetorically surrender after a high profile crime, you may simply have an individual who finds navigating the competing duties of kindness to his neighbor and speaking his beliefs awkward.

There is no doubt that someone holding a position, any position, can be ignorant of something, but that isn't the point of a well formed prejudice. A prejudice that works for someone will be good enough for him to navigate and understand his world. Persuasion can be a matter of making that world slightly larger so he will risk that prejudice enough to adapt it.

Argument can do that. I've been on both ends of the process.

 

[ATN082268]

In the current moral panic, some have advocated hunkering down and presented the position that trying to convince people of the merit of the RKBA position is useless.

Of course, there are exceptions but I think that it is generally true but I don't attribute it to a recent tragedy or moral panic. In general and IMHO, those who are pro-gun tend to put more of an emphasis on personal responsibility than those who aren't pro-gun.

 

[Spats McGee]

Gun control supporters routinely take to the streets and to social media to push more controls. If we hunker down and do nothing to push back, then the question ceases to be if the RKBA will be lost. Just a matter of when.

 

[zukiphile]

...it is a losing strategy to dismiss the chance of changing opinion or trying to reach progun folks across any political party...

If we hunker down and do nothing to push back,...

Have these strategies been proposed? If so, are any examples available?

 

[Spats McGee]

Are these strategies have been proposed? If so, are any examples available?

I've been pushing back by: (a) using popvox to support or oppose legislation; (b) emailing my senators and representatives; and (c) engaging my gun-control-supporting friends on social media.

I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for in examples, but one of my more successful engagements involves a pediatrician friend of mine who can only be described as "an old hippie." He's one of the nicest guys you could ever hope to meet, but he has no concept of why anyone would need a "weapon of war" (an AR) in their home. He thinks of clean water and education as "basic human rights" to which everyone should have access. I haven't changed his mind, but I at least got him to re-think some matters when I proposed the idea that the most basic of all human rights is the right to defend oneself against unlawful, violent attack.

 

[zukiphile]

Pardon my pre-coffee typing. I should have typed "Have these strategies been proposed?". No one can be sure what is asked by the question I originally typed.

I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for in examples,...

I would like to read an example of someone actually proposing a strategy of "dismiss[ing] the chance of changing opinion or trying to reach progun folks across any political party" or "hunker[ing] down and do[ing] nothing to push back".

I can't recall anyone proposing either.

 

[rickyrick]

I think opinions can be changed, mine was changed years ago.

I am also pessimistic that new gun control is coming at a rate that we’ve never seen before.

I think many options have been changed in the last couple of years; I think there are more anti gun opinions than ever.

Gun owners will just continue to “ride it out” just like the other periods like this. This ain’t like the other periods. The second amendment will not protect some of us. Yeah, some of you live in a solid area of political favor and will be safe from regulations for some time to come. I predict that the second amendment will be removed by the next generation.

 

[MarkCO]

One has to bypass all of the emotional responses, selfish responses, and get to the heart of the matter. That is, the Revolutionary War, the framing of the constitution and the building of our nation. I would say that even some elements of the Civil war are worth discussion. But more important than that, even if a[n anti-gun] person were to accept the how and why of the formation of the USA, is their world view.

The underlying challenges to the RKBA (and I would assert the Constitution itself) have many faces. Some are emotional, some philosophical and some maniacal. I would assert that the emotional group can be educated to the point of acceptance of the needs of the 2nd Amendment. Those whose philosophical world views are anti-American, as in against any actual Nation or Nationality that seeks betterment will not be swayed, nor will the maniacs.

Never in the history of America have so many people been so bent on the removal of rights of the citizenry. ...

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would suggest as a follow up that organizations with the resources hire trained professionals in opinion change and test various messages using known techniques.

$5 million dollars might buy a good deal of quality research that is more useful than current rhetoric.

The cultural shift attack on the RKBA can gather steam - the model is what happened to smoking. That was good BTW.

We can suggest this or that message, but being an empirically trained behavioral scientist - I would approach the problem that way. What we think is the message might not be. The techniques aren't really secret.

Of course, you have to discern your target population and goals for your messaging. I suggest it is not the choir but folks outside it who might be shifted to reasonable opinions on the RKBA.

 

[zukiphile]

Glenn, I am quoting snippets both for economy and to focus on the part of your text to which I am responding. If you think that does your message any injustice, indicate that and I'll rephrase.

Of course, you have to discern your target population and goals for your messaging. I suggest it is not the choir but folks outside it who might be shifted to reasonable opinions on the RKBA.

I think it is poor practice to ignore the needs of people already friendly to a supportive position, sometimes dismissively referred to as the "choir". The people metaphorically sitting in the pews need to know why they are there too. Ignore their education, affections and passions and they will stop coming. (This literally has happened in my own church.) Taking one's friends and allies for granted is a plan for losing friends and allies.

The cultural shift attack on the RKBA can gather steam - the model is what happened to smoking. That was good BTW.

Smoking is currently a social taboo, a subject of disgust and intolerance. Smokers may be lower in social status than drunks; huddling outside in all sorts of weather as they indulge their vice, they demonstrate what we think of them. It's good that fewer people smoke. Employing the same kind of social mechanism that kept jews out of good clubs seems a poor bargain.

We can suggest this or that message, but being an empirically trained behavioral scientist - I would approach the problem that way. What we think is the message might not be. The techniques aren't really secret.

I have two contrary reactions to this.

I admire the ability to use groups of people to hone a message. The two words "Death tax" did more for federal estate tax reform than everything Art Laffer and Bill Buckley wrote on the topic. Frank Luntz found a key to an explanation so simple that it defied misunderstanding. However, I am hard pressed to think of another similarly complete victory. People know what is meant by "pro-life" and "pro-choice", but the terms themselves are fodder for the derision of the positions they imply.

My other reaction is that I respect what Buckley and Laffer wrote, and have limited regard for the enterprise of getting people to come, fetch or roll over without the intermediate step of having a thought. The reality may be that the bottom quintiles of a population don't do a lot more than come, fetch or roll over, look for mortgages "without fees", or buy a couch because there is a picture of it next to a "25% OFF!!!!" message.

It's also possible that without Buckley's and Laffer's work, people wouldn't have been as prepared to view a "death tax" as an injustice.

 

[rickyrick]

Not responding to any post in this thread, just addressing changing opinions.

Opinions are formed partly from a person’s own world view. In the past one’s own world views was developed from personal experiences throughout life. The experiences can alter one’s beliefs and opinions or solidify them permanently. The world view also has also been influenced by news in different forms throughout the centuries. In the past a person’s world view grew somewhat organically, but not completely; always some influence was given by whatever entity was in charge of a person’s population.

If we fast forward to now, many people do not have an organic world view, it was spoon fed to them by the device in their hand. Pretty much 24/7 now, individuals are being fed information on what’s moral and what is not. They are being told what the problems of the world are and who’s to blame. Individuals provide more and more data as they use social media, so each passing day the big platforms learn how to manipulate the part of the population that can be manipulated. More importantly they are told that the reason that they are unhappy is because of some outside influence. Happiness comes from within, not from outside forces.
Individuals are told what’s moral.
They are told what’s not moral. They are told who is to blame and why.
Swaying opinions has always been the goal of the elite class, now they have the technology to actually do it on an industrial scale.

The public’s opinions on gun owners is pretty low, lower than ever. Some of our tired, worn-out responses to rhetoric aren’t helpful either.

 

[TomNJVA]

I have changed positions several times in my life. In my teens I was an avid proponent of competitive shooting, serving a President of our local rifle club and on the college varsity rifle team. Then came my "hippy" phase when I became anti-guns in general and destroyed all of my trophies. Fortunately that didn't last long.

Later I took what I thought was a more reasoned view, favoring rifles and shotguns for hunting and competition, but still anti-handgun, believing the only purpose of handguns was to kill people or practice to kill people.

With further education I realized that the real purpose of guns is to protect, not kill. Killing may be the outcome of protection, but not the purpose, as in other weapons such as knives and baseball bats. The military use guns to protect our nation; police use guns to protect our towns and citizens; and citizens use guns to protect themselves and their families.

Now I am an avid defender of the 2nd Amendment and keep both long guns and handguns for protection from evil people, both inside and outside my home.

Each change in opinion was facilitated by new information and exposure to the opinions of others who made logical sense in their arguments. I came to the realization that there are truly evil people in this world, and law enforcement cannot possibly protect me from them. I decided I will not be a victim, begging for my life in the event of a confrontation, but will fight to protect my life and that of loved ones.

That is the simple message that I now preach to anti gun folks - you can take responsibility for your own life, or abdicate it to others and hope for the best. If the latter, good luck.

 

[44 AMP]

People can change their minds, but very seldom do, until something happens that directly affects their personal life.

The old saying that "the most ardent law and order conservative is a liberal who has been mugged", is not without merit.

We live in a time unprecedented in history, a time where, thanks to technology, every idiot in the world can be in constant, instant contact with everyone else. It is a virtual virgin field for the epidemic spread of bad ideas. (somehow, the good ideas never seem to get the same amount of traction..)

It is mob rule of opinion, and is extremely vulnerable to, and effective at, the technique of the "big lie". Call it mob rule, or moral panic, the speed and coverage of modern communication goes a long way towards nullifying the use of clear, calm, rational thinking.

It has become the 21st century's "yellow journalism", writ large, in photons and pixels, instantly distributed to all, 24/7. Hearst would be proud...(so to, I think, would be Herr Dr Goebbels...)

when it comes to getting ideas across, we have the Founder's single shot muzzle loaders, they have machineguns! The "assault media" can spit out hundreds of lies per minute, we get one or two shots of the truth to counter that...

Forget the Founders, the Revolution, and their ideals, the anti-gun bigots consider that irrelevant to today's society. And, doubly so, since our nation was founded by "old, rich, dead white guys, who owned slaves!!!"

Despite the fact that some of the people on the other side are technically brilliant, they seem generally unable (or unwilling) to grasp the simple fact that guns do not pull their own triggers. OF course, it may just be a matter of low hanging fruit. Guns (and all other inanimate objects) do not fight back. Accused of the most heinous of crimes, the response of the gun is always the same, mute and inanimate. They are, in effect, unable to defend themselves. Gun owners must shoulder that burden.

And, because we do, we get vilified. This is not logic, it is not reason, it is prejudice and bigotry This attitude, on any other issue would be soundly castigated, by the very hypocrites who are doing it to us!!!

We are constantly told (by some of the same people who want to ban guns) that we should not judge members of any ethnic,racial, or religious group by the actions of a few deranged individuals. WHY isn't that same reasoning applied to gun owners???

Possibly, because on one level, gun ownership represents individual freedom, and responsibility, and they don't like that....

 

[tony pasley]

Minds can be changed with truthful rational debate, name calling, dismissing, and ranting only serves to lock people into their emotional ideas. At present the anti gun crowd is using peoples emotions and fears to try to gain ground with false information to push the idea of disarming the citizens.

 

[Prndll]

People used to worry about kids getting raised on Motley Crue, Madonna, and Jay Z.

I think it's time to separate the kids from those that just want to use them and lie to them. A big part of this is regaining control over the education system. Another big part of it is social media and the idea that adults are too afraid and control the use of cellphones and tablets. The left understands that they have to get to these kids when they are young. That way they are brainwashed later in life.

This is with everything in life. Not just firearms.

Just like people tend to carry the gun they were trained on (like 1911's and 92FS's in the military).....it's all about what people grow up with. Men have to be men and women have to be women. People have been trained. We have to stand up and be willing to retrain.

 

[5whiskey]

We live in a time unprecedented in history, a time where, thanks to technology, every idiot in the world can be in constant, instant contact with everyone else. It is a virtual virgin field for the epidemic spread of bad ideas. (somehow, the good ideas never seem to get the same amount of traction..)

It is mob rule of opinion, and is extremely vulnerable to, and effective at, the technique of the "big lie". Call it mob rule, or moral panic, the speed and coverage of modern communication goes a long way towards nullifying the use of clear, calm, rational thinking.

It has become the 21st century's "yellow journalism", writ large, in photons and pixels, instantly distributed to all, 24/7. Hearst would be proud...(so to, I think, would be Herr Dr Goebbels...)

when it comes to getting ideas across, we have the Founder's single shot muzzle loaders, they have machineguns! The "assault media" can spit out hundreds of lies per minute, we get one or two shots of the truth to counter that...

This, in my opinion, is the crux of the issue that we face. I believe a great many minds have been changed about gun control. There are more CCH holders, Scary AR15s, and other RKBA goodies in circulation today than ever. You can even say that there CCH holder rate (say, per 100k) is much higher. With actual firearms, it's harder to tell. The only measurement is NICS checks requests... and whose to say a spike in that isn't from new owners but owners with 20 firearms already in the stable. I digress, I believe over the years we have gained a tremendous amount of momentum.

But... all of that can go away in the virtual twinkling of an eye because of the digital world that you described. The bold text is why. It is truly amazing how far we've come in just 25 short years of internet existence. Scary even. I remember the time when the largest cell phone (actually bag phone) plan was 100 minutes and that cost an arm and a leg. Now our 11 year olds have cell phones. And social media.

So yes I think it's important to realize we have gained ground, we have changed opinions. But we must continue to work, and I am at a loss for how we spread this message to the next generation. They are generally more urban, more engulfed in social media, and were not raised on firearms or any other aspect of rural life (not saying that folks in urban areas aren't firearms guys, but it's much more common in rural areas). The young generation is where I would focus my effort were I the leader of the NRA. Older folks are more likely to be pro-gun, and the ones that are less likely to engage in or spread the "assault (social) media" lies. I am currently at a loss for how we introduce the next generation to firearms. We better find a way, though, and soon.

 

[rickyrick]

Well the main thing is my generation (Gen x) was pretty tolerant about guns. Some of us had guns in the truck at school, we stopped at Gibson’s after school and bought ammunition wit our lunch money. Went out and shot safely as our parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents or older siblings had taught us.

Now the kids are being taught that guns are bad, among other political beliefs. They are going to graduate believing that all things bad in the world is caused by one half of our political spectrum.
My opinion is that opinions are being changed fairly quickly now, those are being changed to be against gun ownership and anything politically associated with guns.

I was initially dumbfounded when I saw how much stock is being placed on the big social media platforms. The psychological power of the Thumbs Up icon is immense now. It has power.

 

[milehighjc]

I believe opinions can change, they cannot be changed...

What I mean by that is for someones opinion to change, they must be credibly presented and ACCEPT factual evidence that supports a new opinion, and contradicts the old. It happens every day.

It is not possible to force a change of opinion on someone... Scorch nailed it with the Carnegie quote "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".

To me, that means that a change of opinion requires both ability and the willingness to learn something new. Ability is rooted in facts, from a trusted source. Willingness is rooted in getting out of the "foxhole" talking point arguments that seem to be the order of the day on this subject.

For me... I seek out people who are on the other side of this argument. I try to listen more than I talk. I try to get them to talk through their objectives (which usually are exactly the same objectives I would say - take for example, fewer school killings). Then I ask them how they think that can be accomplished, listen, ask more questions, present factual data from sources I think they will trust (I have found mother jones to be an interesting one that seems to be acceptable to the left leaning crowd) that does not support their proposal.

It it can be kept to a conversation instead of a shouting match (usually but not always achieved), then we often BOTH learn something, and sometimes even come up with ideas that we both think will get some traction, and discard the bad ideas.

At least for me, I find that if I am not trying to "win" and argument, but engaging in a conversation I have much better luck.

YMMV, I am fortunate to have some friends who are willing to play by the same rules.