Jeff Thomas
New member
I had no intentions of becoming a 'shrink', but I did enjoy psychology courses in college. One concept I found interesting was 'cognitive dissonance'. An expert in the field could explain it better, but I recall it as being the mind's tendency to work towards eliminating inconsistencies in thought, thought vs. action, etc. Check this web site for some more info: http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~benj/patty/
So, what does this have to do with the RKBA? Plenty, from my perspective. Because the anti-self defense movement is rife with inconsistent and illogical thought, not to mention out and out deception.
So, in the interest of promoting more efficient debate for all of us, please offer your favorite examples of how you point out the illogic of anti-gun / anti-self defense folks. I'll start it out (and, also note that every one of these examples either came from TFL, or was improved by discussions on TFL):
1. The 911 dilemma - your 'friend' says they will call 911 if they need help, and therefore they don't need a firearm. It's 'fun' to politely ask how long an LEO will take to get there to help them if they can dial 911 immediately. Unless they are completely nuts, they'll answer at least three minutes. Pretty easy to point out how much might happen as we count to 180 (seconds) together, slowly ... Or, we could say something like 'Oh, just call 911? What happened at Columbine High School? Why didn't they call 911? ... Oh - they did? ...' And just let them answer their own question.
2. The 'no weapons allowed sign' - many of us have noted this line of logic before. My friend Alan Korwin (author of gun law books - see http://www.gunlaws.com ) suggests to people that they place a sign on their property reading something like 'No guns on this property. All persons in this house are unarmed and defenseless ...' I also like the technique I've seen others use - asking if the property owner will take full responsibility for my safety. Asking how they can do that, where are the metal detectors and armed guards, etc.? Just ask a lot of questions, thus causing the 'sign keeper' to actually consider the true implications of their actions.
3. The 'why do you carry a gun' discussion - person asks me why I feel the need for a concealed firearm. 'Well, it's like home insurance. Probably won't need it, but it seems like a small investment to avoid a potentially dire loss ...' They say that it's safe around here, and it really is paranoid to carry a gun. I retort that if it is safe around here, then why are they concerned or worried if I do carry a gun? And, if things are usually so safe, why do they support the reduction in RKBA rights? After all, there isn't really that much violence, and violence is even declining statistically, right?
Cognitive dissonance. Calmly help them confront their own illogic, and often we don't even need to argue the point. Sometimes it works to simply ask a question that points out the absurdity of their own illogic. Sometimes you see the wheels start to turn, and sometimes not ...
I used to be lousy at this - I tended to want to hammer my point home. I think, and hope, that I'm getting better at this more subtle method. I'm now convinced that it simply works better.
So, how do you all handle this kind of debate?
Regards from AZ
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited October 31, 1999).]
So, what does this have to do with the RKBA? Plenty, from my perspective. Because the anti-self defense movement is rife with inconsistent and illogical thought, not to mention out and out deception.
So, in the interest of promoting more efficient debate for all of us, please offer your favorite examples of how you point out the illogic of anti-gun / anti-self defense folks. I'll start it out (and, also note that every one of these examples either came from TFL, or was improved by discussions on TFL):
1. The 911 dilemma - your 'friend' says they will call 911 if they need help, and therefore they don't need a firearm. It's 'fun' to politely ask how long an LEO will take to get there to help them if they can dial 911 immediately. Unless they are completely nuts, they'll answer at least three minutes. Pretty easy to point out how much might happen as we count to 180 (seconds) together, slowly ... Or, we could say something like 'Oh, just call 911? What happened at Columbine High School? Why didn't they call 911? ... Oh - they did? ...' And just let them answer their own question.
2. The 'no weapons allowed sign' - many of us have noted this line of logic before. My friend Alan Korwin (author of gun law books - see http://www.gunlaws.com ) suggests to people that they place a sign on their property reading something like 'No guns on this property. All persons in this house are unarmed and defenseless ...' I also like the technique I've seen others use - asking if the property owner will take full responsibility for my safety. Asking how they can do that, where are the metal detectors and armed guards, etc.? Just ask a lot of questions, thus causing the 'sign keeper' to actually consider the true implications of their actions.
3. The 'why do you carry a gun' discussion - person asks me why I feel the need for a concealed firearm. 'Well, it's like home insurance. Probably won't need it, but it seems like a small investment to avoid a potentially dire loss ...' They say that it's safe around here, and it really is paranoid to carry a gun. I retort that if it is safe around here, then why are they concerned or worried if I do carry a gun? And, if things are usually so safe, why do they support the reduction in RKBA rights? After all, there isn't really that much violence, and violence is even declining statistically, right?
Cognitive dissonance. Calmly help them confront their own illogic, and often we don't even need to argue the point. Sometimes it works to simply ask a question that points out the absurdity of their own illogic. Sometimes you see the wheels start to turn, and sometimes not ...
I used to be lousy at this - I tended to want to hammer my point home. I think, and hope, that I'm getting better at this more subtle method. I'm now convinced that it simply works better.
So, how do you all handle this kind of debate?
Regards from AZ
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited October 31, 1999).]