Another attempt at reasoning with "them"

This is a discussion on Another attempt at reasoning with "them" within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Euc's post on starting a subtle push for teacher carry ( see it here ) got me to thinking, about my next attempt to reason ...

Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Another attempt at reasoning with "them"

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array 4my son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,631

    Another attempt at reasoning with "them"

    Euc's post on starting a subtle push for teacher carry ( see it here ) got me to thinking, about my next attempt to reason with the anti's. Sounds like a slow change of perception might be the best way to go. Hopefully this next letter will "plant some seeds for thought" or maybe begin to turn the lights on for some of the politicians that are just following the party herd, and haven't actually taken the time to look and consider that there is actually a positive side to firearms ownership.

    Please let me know what you think. With the seat of power shifting in this election, I don't want to sit around and wait to see, this may have little to no effect, but it beats the crap out of sit and see. not expecting many if any politicians to reply either, but we'll see what happens.


    Dear, Xxxxxxx

    I would like to ask for a minute of your time to inquire about your thoughts on firearms ownership in America. There are as many arguments for and against firearms as there are people you might ask, but this letter is focusing on handguns in particular. I am a proponent of law abiding citizens lawfully owning handguns, and believe that contrary to the portrayal in the mass media, the benefits of handgun ownership out ways the negative stories we see on TV and read about in the papers. It is true that guns have been used in some very despicable manners, including murdering children in schools, and while playing in their back yards, but they are also used every day to protect the innocent, these stories don’t carry the “shock value” thus are not portrayed with the same level of notoriety that the “slayings” receive, if they even make the news at all.

    We have been taught since childhood that the Police will be there to protect us, yet they have no responsibility or liability for the safety of the individual citizen, (Warren vs District of Columbia)I do believe that they are our best “front line” defense against the criminal element, but it is proven in the papers every day that they are unable to protect us from murder, or prevent assaults, and rapes. It is my opinion and an arguable one, that there is no better tool for a citizen to use to protect themselves from the attack of a stronger person, or multiple aggressors than that of a handgun. How many women in this country could fight off a rapist that is twice her size? And being raped could as easily today become a death sentence, with the spread of aids, and other catastrophic diseases yet to be discovered.

    I look forward to hearing your comments on this issue. Please in the future when considering bills, amendments, and other legislature, consider the positive side to firearms and the loss of personal protection to the law abiding citizens of this great country should actions be taken to remove them. Thank you in advance for your time.


    Sincerely


    Mike Xxxxxx
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Ex Member Array Roundeyesamurai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Upstate New York, USA
    Posts
    48

    remove religious stuff

    There is an unfortunate reality here, that most vocal minorities (including ardent gun owners) have yet to realize:

    What you consider "reason" about your important topic, is usually neither reasonable or important to the person you're attempting to convert.

    And make no mistake about it, what you're looking for is for them to agree with you, and they know it.

    The net result of this- and this applies whether the organization at behest is the NRA, PETA, The Sierra Club, , etc.- is that by attempting this "reason", you actually alienate the person you're attempting to convert.

  4. #3
    Member Array Biloxi Bersa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Biloxi Mississippi
    Posts
    399
    On anti-gunners, I recently read an article with an interesting point:

    The less knowledgeable people are about a particular topic, the more likely they are to believe in falsehoods.

  5. #4
    Member Array DoubleR's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    26
    4My Son - Excellent letter and a really good start. I'd also think of some closed questions requiring a yes or no answer. my 2 cents, but I like the idea of your letter.
    DoubleR"You Can't Legislate Human Behavior"

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array 4my son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundeyesamurai View Post
    There is an unfortunate reality here, that most vocal minorities (including ardent gun owners) have yet to realize:

    What you consider "reason" about your important topic, is usually neither reasonable or important to the person you're attempting to convert.

    And make no mistake about it, what you're looking for is for them to agree with you, and they know it.

    The net result of this- and this applies whether the organization at behest is the NRA, PETA, The Sierra Club, , etc.- is that by attempting this "reason", you actually alienate the person you're attempting to convert.
    Terry,

    I see your point, I guess I kind of had something like that in mind, I guess to put it another way, I'm trying to "kick start" their thinking process into not just taking the anti stats, and ideals for gospel, but to think about the other side of things, and loose that "guns are evil, and nothing else" mentality, with out coming across as a "hey, why can't you see it my way,are you stupid" kind of letter.

    With that being said, is the letter to strong, and to the point, should it be softened up even more, or is their no way to achive the desired results. It just seems like to often we try to win the whole war in one battle, maybe the next step should be to show that their is actually a "good" side to guns, and let them approach the fence, and look at the other side for a while, then if they cross it, they will have done it on their own, and less likely to go which way the wind blows.

    Please help me everyone to plant some seeds of thought.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Array gimpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote:
    "It is true that guns have been used in some very despicable manners, including murdering children in schools, and while playing in their back yards......"

    "It is my opinion and an arguable one....."
    End Quote:

    I'm not sure those statements do anything to help make your point. Personally, I would leave them out. My $.02
    "Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other. It undergoes continual change; but this change is not [an improvement]. For everything that is given, something is taken."
    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Biloxi Bersa View Post
    On anti-gunners, I recently read an article with an interesting point:

    The less knowledgeable people are about a particular topic, the more likely they are to believe in falsehoods.
    Bingo!

    We need a national 'Take an Anti to the range' day.
    And no bull like giving them a shotgun loaded with 3.5" Magnum shot or a .357 Mag snubnose only to snicker and laugh as they get the pants scared off of them.
    Do it right, cover the basics, start with a .22LR or .38/9MM, and cover in detail how the firearm works...and most importantly doesn't work.
    The way to win people hearts is through their minds, or is it the reverse.

    My mother inlaw and father inlaw both are ardent antis.
    Why? Because they both had horrible first experiences with firearms at the hands of a his brother who would trap & shoot neighborhood cats strung by the paw to a tree and she was taken out by a former BF who gave her a shotgun and his hunting rifle only to have the report scare her to tears (no ear or eye protection) while he laughed and teased her with the guns pointing them at her. That was when she was in HS and to this day 30 yrs. later she's terrified of guns and 'gun people'.

    Stories like this are not unusual.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  9. #8
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundeyesamurai View Post
    There is an unfortunate reality here, that most vocal minorities (including ardent gun owners) have yet to realize:

    What you consider "reason" about your important topic, is usually neither reasonable or important to the person you're attempting to convert.

    And make no mistake about it, what you're looking for is for them to agree with you, and they know it.

    The net result of this- and this applies whether the organization at behest is the NRA, PETA, The Sierra Club, , etc.- is that by attempting this "reason", you actually alienate the person you're attempting to convert.
    I must respectfully disagree. If the person or persons you are dealing with are ideologicly committed to an anti-gun position then you are probably correct. No amount of reason will likely change their position. But my experience is that if we are talking to a person who is willing to be intellectually honest in the discussion, and is thus not ideologicly wedded to an anti-gun position, it is, over time, quite possible to get them to change their view. In any event, I believe that it is worth the effort. the downside is minimal.

    Ron

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. "Blue Force Gear" and "eCop! Police Supply" Review
    By Medic218 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 30th, 2012, 05:31 PM
  2. My wife's "Awkward" robbery attempt
    By paramedic70002 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 31st, 2011, 01:24 PM
  3. (Open carry) "Help, Officer, he brandished his weapon at me!"..."No i didn't!!"
    By RR9501 in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: October 9th, 2010, 01:48 PM
  4. Smith & Wesson Model 40 "Classic" "Lemon Squeezer"
    By randytulsa2 in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 10th, 2008, 05:30 AM
  5. A True Texas Tale: "Bad Guy" "One", "Old Man" "Zero"
    By Rock and Glock in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 17th, 2006, 08:50 AM