bitterkenny
Meh
My father and I were at the rally in Annapolis Wednesday. We returned with new sense of hope that the process can work. It really was an honor to have stood next to so many of you.
We have momentum in our favor at the moment, and we've now got some attention. But as we all know, the fight is far from over and our opponents in the State Assembly have learned and have been adjusting after the last two weeks of public hearings. I have no doubt that they are mobilizing their people.
I'm leaving the legislators who drafted these proposals and who publicly support them alone until the elections. There is little we can do since their ego will not allow them to admit they are wrong, and flip-flopping on issues is career damaging.
I need to focus on the people whom they are calling on - the ones who support these proposals by default due to their political and ideological alignments. And I need to focus on the people who don't really see what the big deal is.
To this end, I have some data points that have been successful in getting people to be more open minded. I came to much of these ideas from my friends and co-workers, who are largely liberal Democrats, studying the arguments of the gun-control advocates, including watching a lot of Piers Morgan on CNN, and of course, reports from all the fine folks in this forum.
1. Let's start by looking at the current gun control argument and why it’s flawed:
There have been horrific mass killings, and there is a lot of gun crime. We need to do "something." We are proposing "common-sense" legislation and putting "reasonable" restrictions on gun owners.
The places I've been focusing:
A. Doing "something" isn't the same as doing something right. I am not opposed to gun control, I am opposed to bad gun control that will not work and thus needlessly infringe on my rights. The current wave of proposals falls in the bad gun control bucket.
The proposals basically come down to limiting my rights based on the chance that my legally owned, overly lethal assault weapons (whatever that means) and hi-capacity (really standard capacity) magazines will be used in a crime. It also requires my fingerprints and compliance in registration, also in the chance that my legally owned guns will be used in a crime. Furthermore, the proposals demand a fee/tax to exercise a Constitutional right.
- So basically, the law will limit my rights based on the chance that something bad can happen, without being able to give me some sense of what that chance is. Does that sound right to you?
- The law also assumes some firearms are too lethal, meaning the government believes there is an acceptable level of lethality. That’s perverse. What’s the definition of acceptable lethality and can you put that in some legal terms? If you get shot, will you care what kind of gun was used?
- The law also thinks 10 rounds in the magic number for a magazine. Why 10? Why not 11? Why not 9? We already have a limit at 20, is 10 going to make us twice as safe as before?
- Columbine happened in the middle of the Clinton-era national AWB. One of the gunmen even used a ban-approved rifle with a backpack full of 10 round magazines. Are you saying that was acceptable because there was a chance that it could have been worse if the ban wasn’t in place? What was that chance?
- You ask me why I need a particular firearm. The simple answer is I don’t have to need it to have it. In a free society, you need to prove to me why I don’t need it, not the other way around. By your reasoning, I should be able to ask you why you need a car that can go well over 100MPH.
- It’s different because a gun is designed to kill a person? Guns are designed for a variety reasons, including target shooting and hunting. In the context of self-defense, I can see how you would think it was meant to kill, but in reality, a gun in that situation is a deterrent first and foremost. Nobody in his or her right mind wants to ever shoot someone. Of course, it would be a poor deterrent if it couldn’t stop a threat.
- Yes, if there were no guns, there would be no gun crimes. And yes, it would follow that if there were fewer guns; there would be fewer gun crimes. But your logical flaw is that that it doesn’t follow at all that fewer legally owned guns result in fewer gun crimes. There's a huge difference, and here are the figures to prove it…
- Yes, there have been gun control laws in the past that I didn’t fight. So yeah, it looks weird that I’m fighting this one. The truth is, I don’t know a lot about the past laws, so I really can’t comment. I’d like to do some serious research before I can say anything about those previous laws. But I do know a lot about this one, and this one is a bad proposal.
- No the 2nd Amendment isn't just about muskets, just like the 1st Amendment isn't just about hand written notes and town square meetings.
- No, all of the Bill of Rights were specifically put in place to protect the private citizen from the government. Let me take you on a historical journey...
- So I need to submit fingerprints and register my firearms in the chance my gun is used in a crime? Again with this “chance” and without being able to tell me what this chance is and how they came up with that number.
- I can go to jail if I fail to comply? What if I was traveling for work? What if there was some clerical error? Are you really going to imprison me because of paperwork?
- Now I have to pay to exercise a constitutional right? It really sounds like a modern version of the poll tax with the intent of violating my civil rights. And who are they to determine what I can afford?
- Yes, every right has limits, but those limits come down to punitive measures after a violation of law. In this case, the punitive measures are being disguised as preventive ones in the off chance I might violate the law. Imagine <insert analogy here>
B. When Constitutional rights are being curtailed, they need to have more then just "common-sense" to back up their case. They need to have a clear idea of the problem they are going to address. They need to study the issues in-depth. Any proposals need to be based on facts, statistics and science. They need to calibrate the law to address that specific problem, and not go beyond what is absolutely needed. They should have metrics to measure the law's effectiveness and have a way to track unintended results. They are weighing lives, millions of dollars in tax revenue and people's rights - they can't just wing it and hope for the best.
C. It seems “reasonable” to you because it doesn’t really affect you and/or because you can't relate to it. Let me put it in terms that maybe you can relate to…
2. Now let’s look at public perception:
- We heartlessly, selfishly and stubbornly, hold onto our guns, even after Aurora and Shady Hook
- We are mostly white, Bible-thumping, backwards, paranoid male insurrectionists
- We are mindless drones of the evil NRA
- We are extremists who resist any and all gun control measures
- We are violent, trigger-happy nutcases looking for a fight
- We live in video game and movie fantasy world
These false perceptions need to change.
- We need to stop making it about guns, and make it about being treated as criminals, scapegoats, and a persecuted minority. We need to be the underdogs fighting for our civil rights. Everyone loves an underdog.
- “The NRA may have some of my interests in mind, but at the end of the day, I think and speak for myself, much like you.”
- Stop talking about the “liberal agenda” or some vast government conspiracy
- Don’t overtly display your interests at work or other places where we may appear way out of place. We need to appear just like everyone else, because we are just like everyone else.
- “Yeah, I grew up shooting and still do. It’s part of who I am, but not all that I am. This isn't really about the guns for me anyways, but mostly about government overreach and being punished for the crimes of others.”
Regardless of our true feelings, the goal is to engage in a conversation, not a confrontation. And to do that, we can’t come off as threatening.
3. Understand who you are talking to and address them accordingly:
- Self-professed liberals claim to be compassionate and rational
- Many, if not most, just don’t like guns and some are really afraid of them
- Most really like Obama, I mean really like him
- Many believe racism and corruption exist in the highest ranks of the Republican Party
- Lots of them have actually said that they are the smart ones, and we are the ignorant or crazy ones
- There is a serious mistrust of big business and capitalism
- They pay more attention to national issues rather then local ones. Many are top-down proponents when it comes to policy
- There appears to be a lot of value in symbolic gestures
- There are a lot of comparisons to Europe
We need to keep these factors in mind when having a discussion.
- Don’t insult Obama or anyone else directly, speak to specific policies
- Ask if they agree with every policy from the current administration. Ask if there could be any corruption or self-serving policies.
- Ask if they think the media ever got some things just wrong or can be biased. Remind them that media companies are for-profit companies.
- Appeal to the same rational side that makes them tolerant of other belief systems and minority views
- Talk about inaccuracies in movies and TV shows, and steer them towards how impossible most of the gun stuff really is
- Take them shooting and educate them about responsible firearms use
- Talk about how America is a unique creation. We are a nation born out of a revolution and have a rich history of independence from pushing the frontier westward. It’s that spirit that makes us so innovative, not just in technology and business, but in philosophical thinking. Our love of cars and firearms are artifacts of the same spirit. They are symbols of our freedom. Have you ever noticed how Europeans just don’t understand our car and gun culture? It’s because it’s not really a separate car or gun culture at all, they are just part of the American culture.
- Agree that the NRA/Republicans have been too extreme sometimes. They should agree that there have been a lot of emotional and knee jerk reactions from the other sides as well because of their great sense of compassion. Always try to come from some common ground.
- We know the current gun control argument and rebuttals, but don’t jam it down their throats. This isn’t a debate or argument - it’s a discussion. Soften the items from #1 above and tailor them to be appropriate. Whenever you can, make it relatable and correct any bad analogies
4. How to start a conversation:
Q: Where were you yesterday?
A: I was in Annapolis to voice my disapproval of this damaging bill.
Q: What did you do over the weekend?
A: I went shooting with my family. Have you ever been?
Q: You look tired.
A: I am. I was up late writing to the State Assembly.
Q: Have you heard about the <insert latest shooting/gun crime>?
A: Yeah, we really need to do something. I hear almost half these crimes are from repeat offenders or the suspect displayed some serious mental issues.
Waiting for someone to make a misinformed comment on Facebook or other social media site is an opportunity as well. But try to be respectful and agree at some level. Remember, they want to solve the problem too, they just have bad information.
--
Please add on more if you have them. I’m constantly engaged in conversations (willingly or unwillingly) so I could use some more discussion points.
Thx,
-BK
We have momentum in our favor at the moment, and we've now got some attention. But as we all know, the fight is far from over and our opponents in the State Assembly have learned and have been adjusting after the last two weeks of public hearings. I have no doubt that they are mobilizing their people.
I'm leaving the legislators who drafted these proposals and who publicly support them alone until the elections. There is little we can do since their ego will not allow them to admit they are wrong, and flip-flopping on issues is career damaging.
I need to focus on the people whom they are calling on - the ones who support these proposals by default due to their political and ideological alignments. And I need to focus on the people who don't really see what the big deal is.
To this end, I have some data points that have been successful in getting people to be more open minded. I came to much of these ideas from my friends and co-workers, who are largely liberal Democrats, studying the arguments of the gun-control advocates, including watching a lot of Piers Morgan on CNN, and of course, reports from all the fine folks in this forum.
1. Let's start by looking at the current gun control argument and why it’s flawed:
There have been horrific mass killings, and there is a lot of gun crime. We need to do "something." We are proposing "common-sense" legislation and putting "reasonable" restrictions on gun owners.
The places I've been focusing:
A. Doing "something" isn't the same as doing something right. I am not opposed to gun control, I am opposed to bad gun control that will not work and thus needlessly infringe on my rights. The current wave of proposals falls in the bad gun control bucket.
The proposals basically come down to limiting my rights based on the chance that my legally owned, overly lethal assault weapons (whatever that means) and hi-capacity (really standard capacity) magazines will be used in a crime. It also requires my fingerprints and compliance in registration, also in the chance that my legally owned guns will be used in a crime. Furthermore, the proposals demand a fee/tax to exercise a Constitutional right.
- So basically, the law will limit my rights based on the chance that something bad can happen, without being able to give me some sense of what that chance is. Does that sound right to you?
- The law also assumes some firearms are too lethal, meaning the government believes there is an acceptable level of lethality. That’s perverse. What’s the definition of acceptable lethality and can you put that in some legal terms? If you get shot, will you care what kind of gun was used?
- The law also thinks 10 rounds in the magic number for a magazine. Why 10? Why not 11? Why not 9? We already have a limit at 20, is 10 going to make us twice as safe as before?
- Columbine happened in the middle of the Clinton-era national AWB. One of the gunmen even used a ban-approved rifle with a backpack full of 10 round magazines. Are you saying that was acceptable because there was a chance that it could have been worse if the ban wasn’t in place? What was that chance?
- You ask me why I need a particular firearm. The simple answer is I don’t have to need it to have it. In a free society, you need to prove to me why I don’t need it, not the other way around. By your reasoning, I should be able to ask you why you need a car that can go well over 100MPH.
- It’s different because a gun is designed to kill a person? Guns are designed for a variety reasons, including target shooting and hunting. In the context of self-defense, I can see how you would think it was meant to kill, but in reality, a gun in that situation is a deterrent first and foremost. Nobody in his or her right mind wants to ever shoot someone. Of course, it would be a poor deterrent if it couldn’t stop a threat.
- Yes, if there were no guns, there would be no gun crimes. And yes, it would follow that if there were fewer guns; there would be fewer gun crimes. But your logical flaw is that that it doesn’t follow at all that fewer legally owned guns result in fewer gun crimes. There's a huge difference, and here are the figures to prove it…
- Yes, there have been gun control laws in the past that I didn’t fight. So yeah, it looks weird that I’m fighting this one. The truth is, I don’t know a lot about the past laws, so I really can’t comment. I’d like to do some serious research before I can say anything about those previous laws. But I do know a lot about this one, and this one is a bad proposal.
- No the 2nd Amendment isn't just about muskets, just like the 1st Amendment isn't just about hand written notes and town square meetings.
- No, all of the Bill of Rights were specifically put in place to protect the private citizen from the government. Let me take you on a historical journey...
- So I need to submit fingerprints and register my firearms in the chance my gun is used in a crime? Again with this “chance” and without being able to tell me what this chance is and how they came up with that number.
- I can go to jail if I fail to comply? What if I was traveling for work? What if there was some clerical error? Are you really going to imprison me because of paperwork?
- Now I have to pay to exercise a constitutional right? It really sounds like a modern version of the poll tax with the intent of violating my civil rights. And who are they to determine what I can afford?
- Yes, every right has limits, but those limits come down to punitive measures after a violation of law. In this case, the punitive measures are being disguised as preventive ones in the off chance I might violate the law. Imagine <insert analogy here>
B. When Constitutional rights are being curtailed, they need to have more then just "common-sense" to back up their case. They need to have a clear idea of the problem they are going to address. They need to study the issues in-depth. Any proposals need to be based on facts, statistics and science. They need to calibrate the law to address that specific problem, and not go beyond what is absolutely needed. They should have metrics to measure the law's effectiveness and have a way to track unintended results. They are weighing lives, millions of dollars in tax revenue and people's rights - they can't just wing it and hope for the best.
C. It seems “reasonable” to you because it doesn’t really affect you and/or because you can't relate to it. Let me put it in terms that maybe you can relate to…
2. Now let’s look at public perception:
- We heartlessly, selfishly and stubbornly, hold onto our guns, even after Aurora and Shady Hook
- We are mostly white, Bible-thumping, backwards, paranoid male insurrectionists
- We are mindless drones of the evil NRA
- We are extremists who resist any and all gun control measures
- We are violent, trigger-happy nutcases looking for a fight
- We live in video game and movie fantasy world
These false perceptions need to change.
- We need to stop making it about guns, and make it about being treated as criminals, scapegoats, and a persecuted minority. We need to be the underdogs fighting for our civil rights. Everyone loves an underdog.
- “The NRA may have some of my interests in mind, but at the end of the day, I think and speak for myself, much like you.”
- Stop talking about the “liberal agenda” or some vast government conspiracy
- Don’t overtly display your interests at work or other places where we may appear way out of place. We need to appear just like everyone else, because we are just like everyone else.
- “Yeah, I grew up shooting and still do. It’s part of who I am, but not all that I am. This isn't really about the guns for me anyways, but mostly about government overreach and being punished for the crimes of others.”
Regardless of our true feelings, the goal is to engage in a conversation, not a confrontation. And to do that, we can’t come off as threatening.
3. Understand who you are talking to and address them accordingly:
- Self-professed liberals claim to be compassionate and rational
- Many, if not most, just don’t like guns and some are really afraid of them
- Most really like Obama, I mean really like him
- Many believe racism and corruption exist in the highest ranks of the Republican Party
- Lots of them have actually said that they are the smart ones, and we are the ignorant or crazy ones
- There is a serious mistrust of big business and capitalism
- They pay more attention to national issues rather then local ones. Many are top-down proponents when it comes to policy
- There appears to be a lot of value in symbolic gestures
- There are a lot of comparisons to Europe
We need to keep these factors in mind when having a discussion.
- Don’t insult Obama or anyone else directly, speak to specific policies
- Ask if they agree with every policy from the current administration. Ask if there could be any corruption or self-serving policies.
- Ask if they think the media ever got some things just wrong or can be biased. Remind them that media companies are for-profit companies.
- Appeal to the same rational side that makes them tolerant of other belief systems and minority views
- Talk about inaccuracies in movies and TV shows, and steer them towards how impossible most of the gun stuff really is
- Take them shooting and educate them about responsible firearms use
- Talk about how America is a unique creation. We are a nation born out of a revolution and have a rich history of independence from pushing the frontier westward. It’s that spirit that makes us so innovative, not just in technology and business, but in philosophical thinking. Our love of cars and firearms are artifacts of the same spirit. They are symbols of our freedom. Have you ever noticed how Europeans just don’t understand our car and gun culture? It’s because it’s not really a separate car or gun culture at all, they are just part of the American culture.
- Agree that the NRA/Republicans have been too extreme sometimes. They should agree that there have been a lot of emotional and knee jerk reactions from the other sides as well because of their great sense of compassion. Always try to come from some common ground.
- We know the current gun control argument and rebuttals, but don’t jam it down their throats. This isn’t a debate or argument - it’s a discussion. Soften the items from #1 above and tailor them to be appropriate. Whenever you can, make it relatable and correct any bad analogies
4. How to start a conversation:
Q: Where were you yesterday?
A: I was in Annapolis to voice my disapproval of this damaging bill.
Q: What did you do over the weekend?
A: I went shooting with my family. Have you ever been?
Q: You look tired.
A: I am. I was up late writing to the State Assembly.
Q: Have you heard about the <insert latest shooting/gun crime>?
A: Yeah, we really need to do something. I hear almost half these crimes are from repeat offenders or the suspect displayed some serious mental issues.
Waiting for someone to make a misinformed comment on Facebook or other social media site is an opportunity as well. But try to be respectful and agree at some level. Remember, they want to solve the problem too, they just have bad information.
--
Please add on more if you have them. I’m constantly engaged in conversations (willingly or unwillingly) so I could use some more discussion points.
Thx,
-BK
