Debates and Emotions

H

hube1236

New member
I have one issue with the way we all handle a "well" informed anti. We all agree that the statistics used are wrong / biased. It seems that we are fighting emotions of overly emotional people with figures. It is like trying to get my daughter to do her math and science when she wants to studey her spanish at the exclusion of all else. When confronted with an argument of "3000 children a year die needlessly of accidental gun shot wounds," one can see the tears welling up in the eyes of the 6.7 ton SUV (hunter green- of course) wire rimmed glass soccor mom. She sees her kids as one of the 3000.

The reply usually is (on this forum) is that is is ONLY 1000 kids, and we educate them on statistics.

Then the most prolific question is posed, "Don't you care about those 1000 (again they see their kids on the street bleeding, dying)? Well, uh, yeah, uh, but more kids drown a year...

Our argument (collective) only works for fence sitters, but theirs does also. I think we as a group of patriotic, educated individuals need to address the question, "Don't you care about those 1000?" They- anti's are; they think if no one has guns (unrealistic) or that they are locked up (safety locks)that those 1000 will grow up and cure cancer. What have we done?

"Eddy Eagle" program is "nice," but it does not go very far, and flame me all day long, but the name is stupid. I can't say anyone buying a cartoon character doing anything with children (although the democrats and their anti-personal responsibility propaganda crippled the tobacco industry because Joe Camel was the antichrist). I graduated top of my class with a Master's degree in Nuclear Engineering and then sold car stereos due to the fact that my industry chose to handle Three Mile Island, "The China Syndrome", and now Chernobyl with a gun owner parrallel- more people die in swimming pools than from nuclear accidents. It has crippled my industry. Now we are paying a record 1.71 at the pump (in places) and those costs have trickled down to the residential heat and power.

I guess I want to b$tch, but I would like some constructive responses to how (maybe it is only me) can respond to the $100k question.
 
On the one hand, dropping down to the emotional level does us no good, because the use of a firearm for self-defense leaves no room for emotion. You must be knowledgable of the laws, of your threats, of the consiquences of the use and of the epiloge of legal strife you will face in the end. Emotion has no place in this what-so-ever.

Therefore, argueing on the emotional level is not an effective way to sway opinion for us.

This is a huge negative. Because the people of this country are loosing the ability to think rationally as opposed to emotionally. Soon, only an emotional plea will work, as logic will no longer be effective.

Having said that, the gun control fight, if it is to fall to an emotional level, must be defined.

Gun control is racist, sexist, classist.

In America, a life is saved every 13 seconds by good citizens using guns for good purposes.

Women use guns every day to protect their children.



------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

~USP

"... I rejoice that America has resisted [The Stamp Act]. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as to voluntarily submit to being slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest of us." -- William Pitt, British Parliament, December 1765
 
In a very real sense the solid point can be made that people who respond emotionaly as anti's in the gun debate will act unemotionally and rationally when comparisons are made with accidental deaths of children via automobiles. They see the necessity for automobiles and therefore are willing to take that risk. In fact, they take the risk every day. They do not see the utility of firearms for a variety of reasons, least of which is fear.

I have engaged in this particular form of debate with rational anti's who, when approached with the 'acceptable risk' side of the argument are less inclined to hold fast to their prior argument. It may not sway them completely but at least it helps to lead them along the path of reasoned approach based on fact rather than emotion. It's a step.

As often as they point to emotion, point to their willingness to take a perfectly acceptable, higher risk with their children by strapping them into a car, let alone lending them the family vehicle one their 16th birthday.

Chris..

[This message has been edited by ChrisL (edited June 08, 2000).]
 
The previous posters have brought up some very good points. I was an anti just a few short months ago and now I am entrenched on your side and am a gun owner. A few observations on debate tactics, at least some things that were effective with me:

1) avoid at all costs a purely emotional debate. When people get emotional, they stop listening. It becomes a heated battle of who cares more about saving lives and becomes personal. At that point you are wasting your time.

2) many antis (at least those who favor gun bans) have an absurd notion of a utopia without any guns. This idea can be dispelled with logic: If there weren't already 200 million guns in this country, if there weren't already hundreds of millions in other countries, and if there were a way to shut down all manufacturing and possibility of manufacturing guns all over the world, then maybe, that utopia is possible. But logically speaking, how realistic is that? Guns will never go away. They are relatively simple devices. Unless you get rid of them all and the means to produce more, a gun ban only hurts law-abiding citizens.

3) it is essential to inject the self-defense concept into the debate. As we all know, the media only reports the negative aspects of guns. Emphasize the notion that a self-defense gun provides a means for many people to defend themselves who ordinarily would be unable, and then talk about the fallacy of relying on 911 to protect in a serious situation. Many antis have this idea that the police will take care of them anytime, all the time. I have the deepest respect for LEO's but we all know they are understaffed and only human.

4) use statistics but in a strategic way. Don't overload with statistics because the immediate reaction will be that they are "cooked up by the NRA." Some will be necessary, especially when it comes to things like the infamous "13 kids a day," which is complete B.S.

5) finally, talk about why those so-called "common sense" gun laws are and will be ineffective and will only detract from the positive self-defense aspect of weapon ownership. Also talk about the slippery slope and the excuse these step by step laws provide to move on to the next, more restrictive step.

In sum, I think you have to talk at a pseudo-emotional level (e.g. self-defense) while injecting logical arguments. If you can't get off the pure emotional level nobody will listen. Good luck and don't give up!
 
GnL - Thank you for those observations. They will be helpful to many, including me.

BTW, welcome to The Firing Line. :)


------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
One argument that I hear all the time is "yes, but guns are made with the intent to hurt a person/animal, etc., be it in self-defense or otherwise. Cars/pools(etc) are not."
While I completely disagree with the logic of this statement and I also don't like when people try to decide what someone else's *intent* is, the statement itself is pretty much true.
What's a good response to this argument?
 
Cindy -
You could point out that the major defensive benefit of guns is as a deterent - this is borne out by Justice Dept (not NRA) stats that indicate that in over 90% of confrontations between citizens and criminals, no shots are fired - the mere presence of the gun is sufficient to make the turdballs go away.

The other one I've been having success with lately when 'common sense' licensing & registration comes up is to use the car analogy, i.e. ask if licensing & registration has prevented reckless driving, speeding, DWI, or other forms of automotive abuse. When they say 'of course not', then ask what does? In the case of DWI, it took MADD (and I draw NO correlation between MADD and MMM) to get the 'authorities' to get serious about enforcing the laws, with a corresponding EDUCATIONAL program to get the public at large to get serious about cleaning up their act because the laws are going to be ENFORCED. We held both the cops & courts, as well as the offenders responsible/accountable. Laws don't prevent anything, they can only punish (assuming tahy are enforced), but it is the certainty of punishment that shapes/resapes public behavior - when you enforce teh laws, behavoir changes. Also, FWIW, cars are often used as weapons (ask anyone who's been on the recieving end of road rage) and for suicide, and pools have on occasion been used to deal with an unwanted child or PITA spouse/SO ('accidently', no doubt), but I digress.
M2
 
Hube 1236, Eddie the Eagle is an effective and award winning program that deserves your full support. It has been compared to Joe Camel and that is completely wrong. Joe Camel is a marketing tool used to advertise a product. Eddie the Eagle is almost exactly like Smokie the Bear! Gives a message, 'Only you can prevent forest fires', and a simple means to accomplish it, 'Don't play with matches and make sure your campfire is out.' Coloring books, dolls, figurines, kids love them. Whenever someone tries to compare Eddie to Joe be sure to point out this difference.
 
Couldn't agree more that we need to learn to make an emotional appeal. We had better avoid the slimy tactics of the antis and stick to the high ground.

We need images of survivors of deadly attack who survived because of a gun. We need gun bearing freedom fighters as frequent images in the American mind. We need the idea-image of the proper use of a gun to be more loaded with good emotion than misuse is loaded with bad. (Directing the bad emotion evoked by misuse against the miscreant rather than the tool is essential to this IMO.)

In short we need good, gun-bearing archetypes to be strengthened in the culture.
The Protector, the Survivor, the Freedom Fighter are possible hero types. For this part of the fight art is more important than science. This may be psychobabble, but psychobabble is the foundation of this emotional nonsense threatening our rights.

BTW we MUST continue to win the war of facts. That remains our foundation whatever other tools we are forced to employ.

Bentley

"Don't talk to me of your Archimedes' lever. He was an absentminded person with a mathematical imagination. Mathematics commands all my respect, but I have no use for engines. Give me the right word and the right accent and I will move the world."
--Conrad, Joseph, Preface to A Personal Record.
 
You want to win a debate/argument with an anti? YOU be the one asking the questions. lead them to the conclusions you know to be correct by asking specifics. It works. I've done it.

------------------
[[Link to invalid post]TFL End of Summer Meet[/URL], August 12th & 13th, 2000
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>We need images of survivors of deadly attack who survived because of a gun. [/quote]

I really like this idea. Really.

I'm imagining a web page (and printed materials) that has simple, direct portraits of "survivors," along with a short statement on each page -- comment by the person photographed, a pithy statistic, etc.

Anyone else interested? I've got a Hasselblad and a few spare rolls of HP5+...

(Oleg? You out there?)


------------------
I stand before Almighty God and I'll say what I have said for years. I will never again soil my responsibility as a voter by voting again for a candidate who turns their back on the fundamental principle of justice by which this nation's freedom lives or dies. --Alan Keyes, 2/2/2000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top