Why Dont Liberals get it?

[BAC]

It’s been my experience that liberals don’t like facts and will defy basic logic.

If you think this is exclusive to liberals, I've got some beach-front property in AZ to sell ya...

Spot on, matiki. Now is the worst time to be alienating people when you're looking for a movement to grow.


-B

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[United93]

I am enjoying this thread, though I do not have an answer...

[highvoltage]

I have a dear and close personal friend who is a bleeding heart liberal, and we occasionally lock horns. When this happens, she usually hangs-up or walks away. It’s been my experience that liberals don’t like facts and will defy basic logic.......

You nailed it right on the head. Their thought processes are ruled by emotion, not logic. They think and perceive based on the right side of the brain where emotions come into play. Left brain dominant people use logic in their thought processes. This is why right brain dominant people get so emotional during discussions and logically based arguments. It's usually because they perceive that they aren't winning and get upset.

[Blakestr]

One of the most ardent gun rights supporters I know is a Liberal. I'll concede that most Liberals seem to be against guns, but some recognize guns as a legitimate right. He's constantly arguing with his Liberal colleagues - and not surprisingly, they listen - to him. In my opinion gun rights advocates would do well to seek out and support Liberals that share their views, rather than alienating them by lumping them in with the others.

I actually fall into this category. Most of my politics lean left but even I can't argue with raw statistics and facts. I remember the first time I really started to sway was when someone asked me to look at violent crime statistics in states with gun laws and those with looser regulation. I was surprised but the statistics didn't lie. Maybe I get a little of my 2nd Amendment zeal from my profession and always wanting to be prepared for the worst. But I can tell you, if you talk to a liberal the right way, you can coax them out of it. It is really all about diplomacy and how you engage someone...find the 'hook' that draws them over.

Then my uncle asked me what would I do if someone kicked in the door to my home and threatened me or my family...what would I do? At the time, all I could argue was that it wouldn't happen, never about what I would do if it did.

Just ask them what would they do...you'll find that fear is a common ground of all people...

[gunsite]

anti-gun people have this notion that the stricter the gun laws, the safe America/public will be. They don't understand that GUN laws only affect law bidden citizens, criminals will always get GUNS.

As a retired officer, i always felt the more good guys/girls with GUNS, the better.

Anti gun people are people who want to feel good about having good intentions. When it comes to protecting the public and keeping America Safe, they do NOTHING.

[retsupt99]

The only answer that I can come up with is 'stupidity', and that's difficult to fix.

[torgo1968]

One of the most ardent gun rights supporters I know is a Liberal. I'll concede that most Liberals seem to be against guns, but some recognize guns as a legitimate right. He's constantly arguing with his Liberal colleagues - and not surprisingly, they listen - to him. In my opinion gun rights advocates would do well to seek out and support Liberals that share their views, rather than alienating them by lumping them in with the others.

This seems so obvious to me, yet many on the pro-gun side don't get it. Whose mind do you think is more likely to be changed here?

A) "I know it doesn't seem right, but believe it or not, guns don't really cause crime, here's some facts..."

...or...

B) "You're just a stupid socialist sheeple!!!11!!!"

Does the other side use that kind of rhetoric? Yeah, and they aren't changing minds either. I can assure you, anti-gun people can change, usually through experience with sane gun owners rather than being told how stupid they are. It's much like many historic forms of bigotry. They were/are largely based on ignorance, and once people became exposed to [insert vilified group here] and realized that they were just people, the walls came down.

If you think this is exclusive to liberals, I've got some beach-front property in AZ to sell ya...

Spot on, matiki. Now is the worst time to be alienating people when you're looking for a movement to grow.
-B

Seriously, many in this thread are self-identifying as conservatives, and the notion that they make all of their decisions based on logic is downright hilarious. Humans are emotional animals. Political ideology has little to do with how much so on an individual basis.

And yeah, it's amazing seeing how some (and I emphasize some) lose all sense of logic or even simple business sense when dealing with this issue. I was at a range/store not too long ago. It was packed, and I'm in a fairly liberal region, so it's a lock that there had to be a few non-conservatives there in addition to me. One of the sales people was loudly talking about how many people with Obama buttons or shirts had bought guns recently and how freaking stupid they were. I sat there thinking, "In what other business does it make any sense to be talking about how dumb your customers are, in front of customers?!" Did it not occur to him that maybe those Obama supporters weren't one issue voters? That maybe they ranked other issues higher? Two of the best friends the pro-gun side has right now, Montana senators Baucus and Tester, were enthusiastic Obama supporters.

[highvoltage]

...Seriously, many in this thread are self-identifying as conservatives, and the notion that they make all of their decisions based on logic is downright hilarious......

Since my post was one that used the word "logic" the most, Ill respond.

I never said that all of my decisions are based on logic. I said that their decisions are "ruled" by emotion. I was pointing out the predominant feature in their thought process, not the only feature.

[torgo1968]

Since my post was one that used the word "logic" the most, Ill respond.

I never said that all of my decisions are based on logic. I said that their decisions are "ruled" by emotion. I was pointing out the predominant feature in their thought process, not the only feature.

That's cool, I just disagree (and if I sounded snarky, I didn't mean to). I'm saying that neither political philosophy magically makes people think logically more than emotionally. It isn't that A is ruled by emotion and B is ruled by logic. It's that A is sometimes ruled by logic, sometimes emotion, usually both, and B the same, but usually on different issues. And that's in general, when you get down to individuals, all rules are off.

Whenever I hear some of my liberal friends talking about how rational they/Democrats/politically left/whatever are, I point them to about half the content on the Huffington Post. Particularly anything to do with science and medicine. I can easily do the same with conservatives.

[Daddy Warcrimes]

It's a very common tendency with all humans to become set in an option, and no amount of logic, evidence, or reasoning can change that.

Imagine for example you have a boss who has an idea for a new way of doing things. Let's say this way has been tried before and has been proven ineffective. A reasonable person would listen to his employees and review past performance under similar conditions. The unreasonable person would ignore history, ignore the advice of others, implement the new plan, and when the new plan failed blame other factors.

At some point in their lives, people will latch on to an idea and never let go.

The idea of firearm limitation is actually logical to an extent. Follow along with me:
First, they see acts of violence committed by people with guns.
They compare this to acts of violence committed by people without guns.
They conclude that the presence of a firearm enhances the effectiveness of the actor (this is true, and why we carry as well).
They are unwilling to be violent in their own defense.
Their only chance of survival, is to only encounter acts of violence from unarmed people.
They conclude that by removing firearms, all acts of violence would be less potent.
At this point, the decision is made, and all further analysis ends.

The reasonable person would continue the logical thread to include methods of removing the weapons, and the effectiveness of those methods. They would look into previous weapon bans to determine their effect. They would look at bans of other products (alcohol, drugs) for parallels.

I guess the solution is early pro-gun indoctrination. This of course would be contrary to the free-thinking society we aspire to.

[Saber]

anti-gun people have this notion that the stricter the gun laws, the safe America/public will be. They don't understand that GUN laws only affect law bidden citizens, criminals will always get GUNS.

As a retired officer, i always felt the more good guys/girls with GUNS, the better...

I don’t know if this is plausible but I would imagine that more people are murdered each year in America by blunt force trauma vs. a firearm. The national news media may not find anything sensational about those cases. Still, it would be interesting to see the FBI statistics on murder by other means vs. a gun.
Regards,

[torgo1968]

It's a very common tendency with all humans to become set in an option, and no amount of logic, evidence, or reasoning can change that.

Imagine for example you have a boss who has an idea for a new way of doing things. Let's say this way has been tried before and has been proven ineffective. A reasonable person would listen to his employees and review past performance under similar conditions. The unreasonable person would ignore history, ignore the advice of others, implement the new plan, and when the new plan failed blame other factors.

At some point in their lives, people will latch on to an idea and never let go.

The idea of firearm limitation is actually logical to an extent. Follow along with me:
First, they see acts of violence committed by people with guns.
They compare this to acts of violence committed by people without guns.
They conclude that the presence of a firearm enhances the effectiveness of the actor (this is true, and why we carry as well).
They are unwilling to be violent in their own defense.
Their only chance of survival, is to only encounter acts of violence from unarmed people.
They conclude that by removing firearms, all acts of violence would be less potent.
At this point, the decision is made, and all further analysis ends.

The reasonable person would continue the logical thread to include methods of removing the weapons, and the effectiveness of those methods. They would look into previous weapon bans to determine their effect. They would look at bans of other products (alcohol, drugs) for parallels.

I guess the solution is early pro-gun indoctrination. This of course would be contrary to the free-thinking society we aspire to.

This relates to something else that gun-owners need to understand. Most gun opposition is based entirely on ignorance and fear. There are very few anti-gun people who give a crap about giving your guns to the U.N., disarming you, or establishing some sort of tyranny.

Before you run off to find links with quotes proving me wrong, consider this. Yes, they exist, but they aren't the norm. It's much like how I could go to some gun forums and within 60 seconds, find the most vile, racist, paranoid garbage imaginable. It's idiotic to characterize that as being from a typical gun owner, and the same goes on the other side of the fence.

When we see anti-gun people, whether in the media or in person, characterize us as blood thirsty, end of the world, racist whack jobs, how do we react? We rightly ignore such idiocy, maybe we dig in, but one thing we don't do is take that person or their argument seriously.

Now ask yourself what an anti-gun person thinks when we characterize him as being a facist/Marxist/socialist/Nazi who wants to hand our country to the U.N.

[torgo1968]

I don’t know if this is plausible but I would imagine that more people are murdered each year in America by blunt force trauma vs. a firearm. The national news media may not find anything sensational about those cases. Still, it would be interesting to see the FBI statistics on murder by other means vs. a gun.
Regards,

Nope, it's firearms by a pretty wide margin.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Weapons used

[Eagleks]

There are too many people who see the world the way they believe it "ought" to be, and not enough people who see it the way it actually is.

Well said.... reality has a habit of knocking people in the head and to the ground some times.

I would like to ask Brady one thing ..... what law, do you think would have kept Hinkley from shooting ? There is NOT ONE .... his actions were all illegal, and it didn't stop him. It never will stop 'crazy' folk or criminals, so we might as well be prepared to defend ourselves from them.

[NickySantoro]

Why Don't Liberals get it?

I don't want to offend any dog owners but it is my belief that liberals are a lot like cockerspaniels. You could explain the imagery in Shakespeare to a cockerspaniel and it will look at you with seemingly rapt attention, appearing to understand. When you are done, however, all the response you will get is "woof". A cockerspaniel is a dog and dogs do have limitations.
You can explain all about gun rights, history, and freedom to a liberal and they will look at you with that very same rapt attention and appear to really understand. When you are done you will ask what they learned and you will be told "I don't like guns. You can't have one". Liberals, like cockerspaniels, have limitations.