Trying to use an analogy on my liberal friends

(Posted this today on my Face Book page in an attempt to reach my lib friends that fear the dreaded "Assault Weapons" and say no one needs them in our modern society. Don't know if it will reach them through their fog of fear and hate of what to them looks scary, but who knows? All we can do is attempt to educate and ease their fear of things versus evil intent.)

"Look closely. What do you see? A wolf? A predator? A mindless killing machine?

Look again. This is a Belgian Sheepdog. It looks like a wolf on first glance, doesn't it? Same teeth. Same fur. But this Sheepdog is trained and lives to protect the defenseless sheep when the shepherd is not around. It stays with the flock. It knows its herd. It is not a wolf, but some ignorant people might just look at it and scream, 'I AM AFRAID OF THAT WOLF!!! WOLVES KILL!!! GET RID OF THAT WOLF!!! IT HAS NO PLACE IN OUR PEACEFUL SOCIETY!!!'

But the shepherd knows better and needs/wants that Sheepdog for his and the flocks' protection against the predators of equal size. It does not take a dozen Sheepdogs to protect a flock. Usually one good one suffices to send wolves looking for easier prey. One chihuahua sized Sheepdog would not be a deterrent or stand a chance against Wolf sized predators.

Welcome to how I feel when you scream that my semi-auto AR-15 rifle is bad because it "LOOKS" bad and somewhere, sometime, a predator might get one and use it to kill."
Attachment 65619

I like to use the Hummer analogy myself. Banning civilian AR style rifles because they look like Military M16/M4s is like banning the Hummer H2 because it looks like a military HMMWV. They might look similar but they function much differently.

If you're looking for constructive criticism of the analogy, here's mine. I don't think that the assault-themed weapons adds any useful security, especially in herd-protecting fashion. For this reason, the analogy doesn't resonate. It would be an uphill battle to suggest that there's some type of knock-on benefit, security-wise.

To augment your argument, you might want to find instances where the assault-themed weapons have been used to stop a threat. And, the threat should be some type of second-order effect, like the AR-15 was used to stop a threat to a stranger (i.e., used to intervene between a badguy and someone the owner didn't know). Remember, by using the sheepdog analogy, you're suggesting some type of herd benefit; that analogy is not naturally accepted. I wouldn't feel safer knowing you had an assault-themed weapon, no more than I'd feel safer if you owned a pitbull guard dog.

sheep/sheepdog/wolf analogy is a great piece used by LTC David Grossman. In the wake of another mass act of violence, everyone should read his book: On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society: Dave Grossman: 9780316040938: Amazon.com: Books

I think it will just tick off a bunch of folks because it could appear to them that you are calling them sheep. IMO it will back fire...at least with libs and anti's I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suntzu

I think it will just tick off a bunch of folks because it could appear to them that you are calling them sheep. IMO it will back fire...at least with libs and anti's I know.

---

The fact that it would backfire doesn't make it any less the truth, however sad that may be.

I think that while a good analogy, it won't go anywhere. You are approaching it from a position of logical and rational thought. For many of those who oppose guns in general, or "Assualt Weapons" in particular, their position is at base an EMOTIONAL reaction that will not be affected by logical reasoning. I think that for most "anti's" the real issue that lies deep inside of them is a life of denial. They do NOT want to believe that EVIL men and women stalk among us, looking for victims.

This was thrust home again to me this work week in a discussion with a co-worker. This is a generally "good" person, who is usually, pretty rational. He wanted me to sign a petition to our legislators and he thought it was pretty "middle-of-the-road" and that I would agree with it. It contained language about banning/prohibiting ownership of "AWs". I thanked him and told him that I would not sign it. He was incredulous and this led to the discussion about "why would anybody need an AW?" Fairly quickly it got to the question I asked him: "Do you actually expect evil or crazy people to obey the laws?" He tried to dodge it, and I pressed him, and he finally (with great reluctance and some anger) admitted "No." "If the BGs have them and WILL use them, why should I not be able to defend myself adequately?" At which point, it became too emotional for him and he reverted back to his simple: "I just believe that there are too many guns."

Bottom line, its NOT about logic, its about maintaining an illusion (delusion?) of painful reality that they avert their eyes and turn their heads away from, lest they actually see that evil stalks among us.

The assumption that people are too stupid to tell the difference between a BSG and a wolf is a bad place to begin your efforts to educate and inform.

If they are your friends and they are liberal, than I would advise that you stick to discussing things that you both enjoy, e.g., barbeque, beer, and pedicures.... Seriously, I gave up a long time ago trying to change people's minds, especially on issues that are core beliefs and charged with emotion. I have some liberal friends, and there's a lot we agree on - and that's what we stick to.

But, if you want an analogy, describe any instrumentality that they use that has "aggressive" qualities.

Another thing to consider in this analogy is that a high percentage of liberal types are also environmentalists.

That means that Wolves are beautiful and natural examples of pristine nature, and should be preserved and expanded. The "evil" livestock keepers and murderers of the beautiful wolves are the ones that should be feared. You could end up just starting a whole 'nother argument here ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chaplain Scott

I think that while a good analogy, it won't go anywhere. You are approaching it from a position of logical and rational thought. For many of those who oppose guns in general, or "Assualt Weapons" in particular, their position is at base an EMOTIONAL reaction that will not be affected by logical reasoning. I think that for most "anti's" the real issue that lies deep inside of them is a life of denial. They do NOT want to believe that EVIL men and women stalk among us, looking for victims.

This was thrust home again to me this work week in a discussion with a co-worker. This is a generally "good" person, who is usually, pretty rational. He wanted me to sign a petition to our legislators and he thought it was pretty "middle-of-the-road" and that I would agree with it. It contained language about banning/prohibiting ownership of "AWs". I thanked him and told him that I would not sign it. He was incredulous and this led to the discussion about "why would anybody need an AW?" Fairly quickly it got to the question I asked him: "Do you actually expect evil or crazy people to obey the laws?" He tried to dodge it, and I pressed him, and he finally (with great reluctance and some anger) admitted "No." "If the BGs have them and WILL use them, why should I not be able to defend myself adequately?" At which point, it became too emotional for him and he reverted back to his simple: "I just believe that there are too many guns."

Bottom line, its NOT about logic, its about maintaining an illusion (delusion?) of painful reality that they avert their eyes and turn their heads away from, lest they actually see that evil stalks among us.

---

No, I don't think it's an illusion. If I lean back and think about it, I think that AWs are more likely to be used to hurt innocent people than to hurt a badguy. It's just not the place of a civilian AW, in modern society, to be used to prevent innocent people (especially strangers) from being killed. The argument of "sheep & sheepdog" is incredibly more powerful when it comes to CCW. Yeah, a person with a CCW is available to stop a shooting spree, God willing.

I just don't buy that the AW-style weapons have any benefit regarding the evil that stalks amongst us. Well, okay, a minor benefit, sure; but I think that minor benefit is outweighed by the harms. This is trying to go about it objectively. Criticising the 'liberal' viewpoint on this topic doesn't really help, because the OP's goal is to convince, not to argue. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-AW legality, but I'm trying to give an empathetic response to the weakness in the argument.

Quote:

---

I just don't buy that the AW-style weapons have any benefit regarding the evil that stalks amongst us. Well, okay, a minor benefit, sure; but I think that minor benefit is outweighed by the harms. This is trying to go about it objectively. Criticising the 'liberal' viewpoint on this topic doesn't really help, because the OP's goal is to convince, not to argue. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-AW legality, but I'm trying to give an empathetic response to the weakness in the argument.

---

I know that the OPs goal is to convince. My point is that due to the primary motivation of the "antis" being emotional, that logical discussions are not much use. If we look at your straw-man argument, well, OK, as a logical next-step of your "argument", then we ought to also ban all semi-automatic weapons (pistols included) that are magazine-fed, because they can either accept hi-capacity magazines OR be reloaded so quickly, that they can still be used to inflict so great a harm on so many people...... We should also pass laws that limit people to six-shot revolvers, and then also ban the old speed-loaders--this would keep everybody safe right?? Because we expect others to respond to us in reasonable and peaceful ways!!?? While I appreciate your engaging in the discussion, the argument you used is still, (as I see it) at base, an emotionally based argument.

It is emotional, and difficult to reach out to our acquaintances that are non-gun folks. I think Chaplain got it right.

Denial kills. Chaplain Scott has it on all fours, and Grossman had it on all fours as the first of his Five points:

Grossman’s Five D’s:

Let’s contemplate the following outline and summary of Dave Grossman’s “Five D’s.” While you do, I encourage you to add in the comments area below your suggestions to address, and expand upon, these ideas.

1. Denial — Denial is the enemy and it has no survival value, said Grossman.

2. Deter — Put police officers in schools, because with just one officer assigned to a school, the probability of a mass murder in that school drops to almost zero

3. Detect — We’re talking about plain old fashioned police work here. The ultimate achievement for law enforcement is the crime that didn’t happen, so giving teachers and administrators regular access to cops is paramount.

4. Delay — Various simple mechanisms can be used by teachers and cops to put time and distance between the killers and the kids.

a. Ensure that the school/classroom have just a single point of entry. Simply locking the back door helps create a hard target.
b. Conduct your active shooter drills within (and in partnership with) the schools in your city so teachers know how to respond, and know what it looks like when you do your response.

5. Destroy — Police officers and agencies should consider the following:

a. Carry off duty. No one would tell a firefighter who has a fire extinguisher in his trunk that he’s crazy or paranoid.
b. Equip every cop in America with a patrol rifle. One chief of police, upon getting rifles for all his officers once said, “If an active killer strikes in my town, the response time will be measured in feet per second.”
c. Put smoke grenades in the trunk of every cop car in America. Any infantryman who needs to attack across open terrain or perform a rescue under fire deploys a smoke grenade. A fire extinguisher will do a decent job in some cases, but a smoke grenade is designed to perform the function.
d. Have a “go-to-war bag” filled with lots of loaded magazines and supplies for tactical combat casualty care.
e. Use helicopters. Somewhere in your county you probably have one or more of the following: medevac, media, private, national guard, coast guard rotors.
f. Employ the crew-served, continuous-feed, weapon you already have available to you (a firehouse) by integrating the fire service into your active shooter training. It is virtually impossible for a killer to put well-placed shots on target while also being blasted with water at 300 pounds per square inch.
g. Armed citizens can help. Think United 93. Whatever your personal take on gun control, it is all but certain that a killer set on killing is more likely to attack a target where the citizens are unarmed, rather than one where they are likely to encounter an armed citizen response.

Here's what I tell my anti-gun friends:

The media has apparently forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called "COPS in School," a program that does exactly what the NRA is proposing and the media is currently in overdrive mocking. Hypocrisy? <Sarcasm off>

Just a thought.

My best analogy is that if guns are bad then airplanes caused 9/11.

In reality though the chaplain had it dead right. You cannot argue against emotions. Libs feel that guns are bad and no amount of logic will change a feeling.

It's like this. If your daughter is in love with a jerk. You can tell her that he's a jerk and you can back it up with facts. But to her he's not a jerk because she feels that she loves him. She can't see the bad and will delude herself into not believing the bad even when it slaps her in the face. It's called denial and it is very powerful.

Here's my advice;

Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.