How to respond in the aftermath of a gun tragedy.

W

Will Beararms

New member
" I understand how you feel right now. I have a family and I can't imagine what the families of the victims are enduring right now. Firearms are dangerous and must be handled with great care. They may not be for everyone. It would be wonderful if we could ban all guns and the risk of any more needless deaths would be eliminated. It's not that simple.

You must take into account human nature. Throughout history, any time a government bans anything, the profit motive kicks in and laws have the opposite effect of their intended purpose. Currently, our politicians have chose to ignore immigration laws for their own selfish gains. They are looking the other way as gangs like MS13, Los Zetas and others flood over our borders. These groups are well armed, often better than our police and they have no intention of disarming themselves. An outright gun ban will mean booming business for crime cartels and in the end, it will be even easier for the mentally deranged and criminals to access handguns and long arms.

Also remember and like it or not, America was founded in part by the personal ownership and use of firearms. Just the unregistered heirlooms floating around would be enough to outfit and army. Trying to get rid of guns would be as effective as we'll....the war on drugs.

If I could be guaranteed that all politicians would be honest and that no criminal would ever have access to firearm, I would seriously consider giving up my pistols, rifles and shotguns if it would safe one useless murder. Until such time as I can be guaranteed that no politician will be corrupted by power or no criminal will use a firearm, i choose to have a means of protecting myself and my family.

Before we move on, you do know the full story surrounding young man at the center of the execution mishap in Oklahoma recently right? You are aware that during the commission of that home invasion and murder, that this guy and two of his accomplices repeatedly raped, in every manner possible, the girlfriend of the homeowner in front of their child right? I'm not willing to leave my welfare and the welfare of my wife and children up to a 911 call but, if you want to take this route, I won't get I your way."
 
There are some problems, both in argument and in general approach.

It would be wonderful if we could ban all guns and the risk of any more needless deaths would be eliminated.
Click to expand...
The response implies that we might be supportive of a ban if it stopped shootings. What about other uses for guns, such as target shooting and hunting? Furthermore, any such suggestion would be met with the rebuttal of "that's why we have to try."

Also remember and like it or not, America was founded in part by the personal ownership and use of firearms.
Click to expand...
That won't mean much to the parent of a child who's just been murdered. Add to that the fact that the gun-control lobby will be aggressively targeting the parent, and it makes us look like we're trying to turn a murder into a political debate.

Before we move on, you do know the full story surrounding young man at the center of the execution mishap in Oklahoma recently right?
Click to expand...
Nope, and to the families of the tragedy at hand, it has nothing to do with their situation. Again, we look like we're trying to score political points.

The best strategy is to voice sympathy when appropriate, then stay out of it. We didn't shoot anybody. Let the other side turn the matter into politics, and we can rebut at a later time.
 
In the immediate aftermath of such an event the best course of action is probably to stay quite. There’s very little we can say when the environment is so emotionally charged that won’t be taken the wrong way. We can hope as time goes by and talk turns to specific changes that then we can have a rational discussion.
 
Tom for the OK story is a matter of public record and is a part of one of the appellate measures the recently executed man took during his incarceration or I would not have referenced it.


For the record, I would not broach the subject with a family member of a victim of mass shooting victim. About all I would do is hug them if it were appropriate.

I certainly am not in favor of any ban on guns. My intent is to point out how even trying would be futile but your point is excellent and something I haven't tought of----"well let's try".

I am not out to proseletyze anyone. I just know colleagues and friends will be bringing it up. Note I said i am not out to convert anyone but if they give me the chance, I will. ;)
 
Tom for the OK story is a matter of public record and is a part of one of the appellate measures the recently executed man took during his incarceration or I would not have referenced it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but our opponents frame the debate on emotion, and that'll get us shouted out of the room.

The best approach is to imply that we aren't the ones who committed this act. When the calls for legislation come, we fight those in their own time.
 
Thank God for principled, intelligent advocates in our Congress. I will support them to this end. I am big on one-to-one integration when the opportunity presents itself.
 
Talk to the individual. Yes, this is a nice huge public debate right now. But you're going to make more progress by focusing on individuals. When you write something, write it as if to one specific person -- not a rant to the world at large, but a quiet conversation with one person you care about. When you talk to people, tell stories about one specific person or one specific family.

Emphasize our commonalities. We do have goals 100% in common with non-gun owners: we all want safer families, safer neighborhoods, safer communities. We all want to enjoy a life where we don't have to be afraid of the person who lives next door or around the block. We all want our children to enjoy the benefits of peace. We all want to think of ourselves as peacemakers, as people who help our communities and help other people live better lives.

Listen respectfully. If we get in the habit of interrupting, of brushing away or downplaying what the other person says, they will do the same to us. When we focus -- really, truly focus -- on what they say, they become more willing to listen to what we say. When we try to shout people down or shut them up, they get louder and less thoughtful.

Be respectful. Don't just listen respectfully -- be respectful. Respect that the other person does share some common ground with you. Respect that they have seen things you haven't seen and been places you've never been. Respect that they do have reasons for believing the things they believe. Do you know what those reasons are? Don't ask your friends on TFL -- ask them! It's very disrespectful to go into a conversation already convinced that you know everything the other person is going to say, already skeptical of their ability think rationally, already downright contemptuous of their "emotional responses" (to an emotional event, natch...), already downplaying everything you think they believe. It doesn't matter how "respectfully" you force yourself to listen to them, if everything about your body language says you think they are an irrational idiot who doesn't have a clue. So get your head to a place where you don't expect any particular line of thought from them, where you don't pre-judge what you think they're likely to say or assign motives to them before they have said a word to you.

Expect to reach an understanding. Note that understanding does not equal agreement! Look for the common ground and expect to find it. Expect that when you listen to them, they will also listen to you. Expect that when you treat them with respect, they will also treat you with respect. Will this always be true? Nope. But it will almost-never be true if you go into the conversation expecting to butt heads and "lose" or "win" an argument.

Here's an example of the sort of thing I mean, something I wrote after Sandy Hook. It is the emotional answer to protecting our gun rights after a tragedy -- and it was addressed to new gun owners who aren't (necessarily) very interested in political discussions about gun control. Again, remember this was just after the Newtown shootings: It's About Love.

Please, go read it.

pax
 
i'm well informed on the crimes committed by Clayton Lockett.

i have the utmost sympathy for the father whose son was murdered by Elliot Rodger. i will not criticize the father for his recent statements.

After the Gabby Giffords shooting many gunowners made statements that were uncaring and arrogant. Ditto for the CO theater shooting and Sandy Hook.
 
Long before guns, politicians lied and used corruption and power to enslave and murder.

Long before guns, there was violent crime at the business end of a blade, an arrow, poison, fire, hanging, clubbing, drowning, etc.

Only a fool would ever willingly turn over his right to own guns. Similarly only fools BLAME guns for the murderous intentions and actions of the evil men and women who use them. Emotional or not, it shows an extremely low IQ and irrational thought process. It's a tired analogy, but we don't blame cars, or knives, or water for the deaths of people at the hands of evil doers using those implements.
 
^^^. Banning guns wouldn't save a single life. To do that you would have to make everyone the same physical size and strength and then ban evil. In that same area about 15 years ago a crazy college kid drove a car into a crowd. He killed about 6 people. He then got out and proclaimed to be the angel of death. He spent 10 years in mental hospital then got out.
 
Calling a murder done with a gun a "gun tragedy" is already playing into the hands of the anti gun bigots.

A gun tragedy is a rare #parts matching Luger having something break. Its a well intentioned idiot polishing his feed ramp with a dremel. Its Bubba badly sporterizing a rare collectible. Etc.

Some things are accidents. Murder is deliberate. And while they are surely tragedies, and do involve guns, calling them a gun tragedy implies the gun is a responsible component in the event. Involved, certainly. Responsible is ONLY in the hand that wields it.

Using their name for it, implies that we admit that the gun is somehow at fault. It is stepping into the hole they dug, before we can even begin an uphill emotional struggle.
 
It is a fact that there would be no deaths caused by guns if guns didn't exist. It's also true that:
There would be no deaths caused by alcohol consumption if there was no alcoholic beverages.
There would be no stabbings if all knives and sharp pointy things disappeared.
There would be no deaths caused by automobiles if motor vehicles didn't exist.
There would be less deaths from falls if it wasn't for those damn ladders.
There would be less strangulation deaths if we could just get rid of rope, string, guitar strings, piano wire, electric wire, vines and belts.
There also would also be less deaths from choking if we could just do away with solid food and get everyone to have a liquid diet.
These are all common sense things we can do to make this world a safer place. We can do this if we have the will!
 
It doesn't matter how tactful we are, guns, gun owners and the NRA are going to be vilified. All the rear end kissing in the world won't amount to Jack Diddly. After about three days of non-stop attacks, the time comes to rebut the insanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top