Neutralizing the "Victim turned anti-gun activist"

When debating with antis, most of our arguments (and theirs) are posed in the area of the abstract and hypothetical.

But then you have a few anti gun activists (Tom Mauser and Sarah Brady come to mind) who have truly suffered from "gun violence".

How does one neutralize these people's emotion driven "arguments" without destroying your own position by appearing mean to the person who has "unjustly suffered so much".

One of the tactics used against us is to say that gun owners are cold hearted ******** that believe our "right" to enjoy a hobby is more important than the lives of children (Moore re-edited a bunch of Heston speaches to shove that point home in Bowling for Columbine).


I got to thinking of this because of the couple up in Bailey Colorado who just lost their daughter. Its pretty clear that their politics are pretty left of center (they sent their kids to "Peace Jam" for chrissake), but they still seem like good people who don't deserve to be told to "piss off, nobody wants to hear about your dead baby" if they got into the whole anti-gun thing (which frankly they have said NOTHING even REMOTELY anti-gun at this point so its possible they are "pro-gun progressives" or realize that gun laws aren't the issue here). I want to make it clear I'm not picking on these people, just using them as an example (because frankly they seem to have done much more than Mauser and Brady to turn their tragedy into something positive, and as long as they don't try to disarm us over this I believe they deserve our respect and support).



I understand that these types of activists are running on pure emotion and its hard to shut down emotion with logic and reason, but there has to be something one can say to gently say "you're not thinking straight so go away and leave the discussion of the issues to the adults."


Any ideas?

Zundfolge

I couldn't begin to give a good solid answer to your question, but here is a link to a lady that seems to truly understand the mentality of those you are speaking off.

A Psychiatrist who gets it.

I am also anxiously awaiting posting from some of the members that do often post informative and intelligent answers to these types of questions. That's not to pick on ANYONE, but I know I don't have the experience or education to formulate a realistic plan for dealing with just the situation you described.

I don't have a definitive answer either, but it seems like most people are/were victims because they weren't armed. Being armed doesn't guarantee we won't be attacked or that we'll be successful defending ourselves against an attack. But I'd rather have the gun than not.

The NRA, and other sources, indicate that people use guns over 1 million times a year to defend themselves and something in the high 90 percentile, a shot is not fired. That speaks volumes about just having a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

But then you have a few anti gun activists (Tom Mauser and Sarah Brady come to mind) who have truly suffered from "gun violence". How does one neutralize these people's emotion driven "arguments" without destroying your own position by appearing mean to the person who has "unjustly suffered so much".

---

They have experienced the murder of a loved one. The reason I carry firearms is to stop a future attack/murder of my loved ones, to avoid exactly the sort of pain and suffering they and their families have gone through. From the Bible to the Talmud to most other ancient writings, stopping unjust murder of innocents is seen as a good thing, even a duty. The moral basis is there. Coupled with the simple fact that firearm is about the only thing that can stop such an attack at the instant it occurs, this pro-gun rationale is a hard argument to counter. No bleeding-heart weepings cut the legs from under this argument, so far as I know. It with stands logic and the realities of a reactive (even if responsive) police force. The only thing it cannot guard against is irrational fear and refusal to listen. (Horse and water type of thing.)

Personally If Brady had had a gun and was trained, neither he nor President Reagan might have been shot. But then they won't listen to that now will they? There is no discussion to be had when people are so passionate that their brains nolonger function. Along this same line of thought you might as well ask how to tell a good buddy that is new girl friend is a tramp.... Like he will ever listen.... yea right...

The near chasm that separates gut emotion from sound logic can be a monstrous divide and often seemingly unbridgeable.

In trying to ''educate'' folks it seems sometimes we have to tackle things on almost a case-by-case basis, as resistance to logic varies enormously. Some people are so closed minded, it seems nothing will even begin to get thru, and these folks are not necessarily either the ones who have suffered loss due to gun crime.

Others tho if prepared to listen and actually think - can begin to see how important it can be for individuals to take responsibility for their own (and family's) safety. They only have to grasp the potential for BG's shooting regardless (the ''just do as you are told'' myth busting) and the realities of response times, assuming a situation can even be called in.

However, a big stumbling block, even if folks get this far in realization - is the ''gun'' bit! They might see the usefulness but, not be able to bring themselves to actually owning a gun and being able to use it. That of course is where we come in often - by baby-stepping them into a range vist etc and nullifying their innate gun phobia. Let them then see a gun as a potential ''equalizer''.

It's a big subject all told - and one we must keep considering.

LEW, the president is surrounded by armed Secret Service agents. So was Robert Kennedy. Both were shot anyway. Even as far back as Teddy Roosevelt, gunmen penetrated the protective ring around a president and shot him. There is NO perfect protection. If a nutcase wants to do you harm, you will probably be harmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccw9mm

They have experienced the murder of a loved one. The reason I carry firearms is to stop a future attack/murder of my loved ones, to avoid exactly the sort of pain and suffering they and their families have gone through. From the Bible to the Talmud to most other ancient writings, stopping unjust murder of innocents is seen as a good thing, even a duty. The moral basis is there. Coupled with the simple fact that firearm is about the only thing that can stop such an attack at the instant it occurs, this pro-gun rationale is a hard argument to counter. No bleeding-heart weepings cut the legs from under this argument, so far as I know. It with stands logic and the realities of a reactive (even if responsive) police force. The only thing it cannot guard against is irrational fear and refusal to listen. (Horse and water type of thing.)

---

I think this is probably the best way to deal with people who make purely emotional arguments. And the reason is that it is itself a partially emotional thought process. "I carry a gun to stop this horrible thing from happening to me or my family" pulls in the emotional connection that the other person has with their own family.

Differentiating between offensive force and defensive force helps as well by separating the actions of a law-abiding armed citizen from those of an armed criminal.

But even so, those who cultivate and fiercely defend their own ignorance are almost impossible to convince. They do an end-run on any point and any argument by immediately comparing it to the (in their minds) indisputable fact that guns are bad (m-kay :wink: ). Thus, anything that disagrees with this fundamental "truth" is disregarded before any thought processes like logic or reason can be applied to it.

It is, in essence, the transferrance of their fear and insecurity (ironically what they accuse us of, frequently). If the GUN is not responsible, then they must recognize 1) the real presence of personified evil, and 2) they will question their responsibility in the event (survivors' guilt).

If another person was fighting for the stricter control of motor vehicles, pursuant to a MVA death, the same people would suggest that the activist seek counselling and medication.

Dr. Thompson is entirely correct. The "liberal" (communist/socialist) agenda has produced the most brutal regimes in history. It may ruffle a few feathers, but the fascists at least have the fact that a vast majority of the population agreed with, and actively participated when participation was not required or coerced, their brutal policies. The Liberal fears personal responsibility because, on some level, they strongly desire to inflict the brutality they say they hate. It is easier to hand the responsibility off, and complain when not used in ways they feel appropriate. Conservatives have no such conflicts- we'll just kick some A**.:biggrin2:

Getting someone to self-evaluate, in honesty, is incredibly difficult, and only possible if they recognize that there is a problem. This is not frequently an option with those unequipped to balance their emotive and intellectual processes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSGTTBAR

LEW, the president is surrounded by armed Secret Service agents. So was Robert Kennedy. Both were shot anyway. Even as far back as Teddy Roosevelt, gunmen penetrated the protective ring around a president and shot him. There is NO perfect protection. If a nutcase wants to do you harm, you will probably be harmed.

---

True, but in the video Brady was between Reagan and the gun man, not an SSA. If he was trained and more vigilant and not complacent like all the other sheep, it MIGHT have been prevented. As far as "No Perfect protection" if this is true then everyone should have been wearing a vest....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lew

Personally If Brady had had a gun and was trained, neither he nor President Reagan might have been shot. But then they won't listen to that now will they?

---

Guy in a crowd of reporters unexpectedly draws and starts firing from 6 feet away... I don't know how anyone could have stopped that, no matter how fast they are.

As far as wearing a vest... Brady was shot in the head, Delahanty in the back of the neck, and Reagan was hit (via rebound) in the armpit. McCarthy was the only one who would have been protected by a vest.

Liberals are a problem, as Bostonian's know too well and their only version to control crime is "Gun Control" and it makes you think?? We always need to push the education and refer them to the "NRA" or to facts that Gun Control = more crime, as then the only people with guns are criminals. They don't obey the laws, as they are criminals.

A true Liberal / Democrat is a socialist / communist and dedicated to Marxist theory...

Regards,

Stephen
Boston, Massachusetts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob72

It is, in essence, the transferrance of their fear and insecurity (ironically what they accuse us of, frequently). If the GUN is not responsible, then they must recognize 1) the real presence of personified evil, and 2) they will question their responsibility in the event (survivors' guilt).

If another person was fighting for the stricter control of motor vehicles, pursuant to a MVA death, the same people would suggest that the activist seek counselling and medication.

---

I agree with Rob72 on these points. Subconsciously they recognize that there is no possibility to control people in general, so they focus on an inanimate object that they can control and which is socially acceptable. Goes back to the saying: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". The "logical" answer for a person that was subjected to violence is that if the person didn't have a gun to begin with, they couldn't kill someone. That sentiment leads to tougher gun control laws.

Criminals or criminal behavior is not socially acceptable. Weapons, as a majority, are not socially acceptable. The only interaction many of these people have with someone carrying a weapon is either a criminal or a LEO, rarely do they see anyone else. Therefore, if you are not readily identifiable as a LEO, they will assume you are a criminal if they see you carrying. These people believe that the only people that carry a weapon are LEOs, criminals, hunters and people that are trying to be LEOs (e.g. vigilantes). Without the major exposure to good, law-abiding people their views will not change.

By pushing for laws that deny carry for anyone but LEOs or hunters, they believe that they are making the world safer because it keeps the criminals and vigilantes away from guns. This is why you see some jurisdictions where the applicant for a CCW permit has to show or prove a "purpose"... Because they believe that only LEOs and hunters have a recognized "purpose". That's one of the major reasons why I make it clear that I do not hunt and I'm not trying to be a LEO (otherwise I would've checked that box instead of dispatcher on my application lol).

This is the exact reason why I believe we shouldn't hide behind the idea of the 2nd Amendment or hunting as a reason for us to carry. I believe that this cheapens the reason why we carry. Screw that it's our right to bear arms or some of us hunt and should be allowed to carry because of it. I carry my firearm(s) because I recognize that I am the first and sole defense for me and my family. If it is not a recognized right or law that allows me to carry for whatever reason, it should be.

I am not going to use a phone as a shield for the lives of me and my family. I don't care if the response time is 30 seconds to my house for police, that phone is not going to stop a bullet or a knife... I am. Thinking that calling 9-1-1 is going to save your life or prevent a criminal from doing you harm is just as ridiculous as believing that a paper sign saying "no carry allowed" is going to "magically" repel criminals from entering your establishment from doing the same.

Cheers.

You might want to remember that Mrs Bradys salary at handgun control is around $250.000 grand a year I bet if they told her she had to work for free she might just find another cause

I honestly am not pc enough to worry if i offend them or not . When push comes to shove i point out autos and the death rate there , while refusing to accept the arguement that guns are " designed to kill people " guns are only the sling and rock taken to the level our technology allows . Another thing that i " ding " on is the concept of responsability Most rabid anti's dont seem to understand the concept well . Rather than anyone having responsibility for an act something must be responsable , they feel better blaming the gun than the gunman. If they recognise any responsibility for anything is human responsibility , then they may have to sholder responsibility for thier own lives , and they just dont seem to be able to do that .