TexasCHLforum.com

"yankee" "gun grabber" "pinko" "gun nut" "fascist" etc.

I used to be anti gun. I now own several, have a CHL, and often carry. I regard guns differently now. Rather than viewing them with emotional disgust based on misiformation, I realize they have a use and can be safely kept and carried by responsible folks.

Let me say something though: I didn't come around to this viewpoint by raving, emotional arguments that are common among many pro gun folks. Instead it took someone who thought a bit about my viewpoint (grew up in a non gun family, currently see tragic injuries and deaths as a result of gunshot wounds(I'm a trauma surgeon)). Instead of implying that I'm ignorant or an idiot, this guy directed me to some data, challenged my beliefs and made me try to use my logic to defend my anti gun stance, etc.

One of the reasons for rabid anti gunners is rabid gun nuts. One of the reasons for rabid gun nuts is rabid anti gunners. The first thing you do when your opponent insults you is stop thinking and ABSOLUTELY STOP LISTENING. Ad hominem attacks are great for fun and games and when someone might get declared a winner of a refereed debate, but they don't win folks over

If the pro-gun/anti-gun debate continues to stay at the level of name calling, we'll pretty much get nowhere. If you want to demonize guns, perpetuate the "they'll pry my gun from my cold dead fingers" image. It's fun, maybe even a bit cathartic and gratifying, but it's not gonna go anywhere.

On the other hand, reasonable discussion, challenging intelligent people to defend their beliefs with fact, demonstrating that you can be a "normal" guy or girl and carry and own firearms, etc may win over a few here and there.

Just something to think about from a previous antigunner.

Stephen

Mr. sar,
That is one of the best posts that I have read. Bravo!!

I agree. I'm not a trauma surgeon, but I did spend 6 years working the PM shift in the ER of a level 1 trauma center in the Los Angeles area. My anti-gun opinions were largely informed by both my work environment, and by my upbringing by parents who were extremely liberal Caltech professors. It took calm reasoned arguments by friends whom I respected to eventually bring me around to a less muddled and intellectually honest point of view.

Of course, just as there is no anti-smoking activist like a former smoker, I find that I am passionately interested in the defense of the RKBA now.

Thanks for posting this.

It's a fair comment especially for one on one conversations, but sometimes it's better to eschew obfuscation and euphemisms and just call a spade a spade.

boomerang wrote:It's a fair comment especially for one on one conversations, but sometimes it's better to eschew obfuscation and euphemisms and just call a spade a spade.

I would never argue against calling a spade a spade, but if it is at all possible to do so respectfully, then that will be your best witness.

Nah, I think generally the stereotypes are often well earned

Though It will probably get me tossed off the forum, I have long thought that many NRA members' no compromise positions did their cause more harm than good.
Please note, I am not talking about the NRA's position. I am not familar enough with it to comment. I am talking about the flagwaving, chest thumping members who do not listen to my reasoning.


Society will always act to regulate what it perceives as dangerous: cars, motorcycles, guns, abortions, chemicals, drugs, women rights, etc. etc. The only solution I see is to convince society that the benefits are worth the risks. We need to demonstrate that the benefits of responsible gun ownership are greater than the risks of guns being in the general population.

lawrnk wrote:Nah, I think generally the stereotypes are often well earned

So, will treating them disrespectfully bring them over to our side and advance the cause of gun rights? Wrong headed people frustrate the heck out of me. I chose my screen name years ago specifically because I am irritated by stupid thinking. But if I treat people disrespectfully by calling them names to their faces when we disagree, it will simply further alienate them, and it will reinforce the notion in their minds that us gun nuts are a bunch of uncouth philistines who really need their superior intellect and nuanced thinking to guide us into utopia. Thus, as sar pointed out, the impasse becomes self-fulfilling and just gets worse.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

lawrnk wrote:Nah, I think generally the stereotypes are often well earned

So, will treating them disrespectfully bring them over to our side and advance the cause of gun rights? Wrong headed people frustrate the heck out of me. I chose my screen name years ago specifically because I am irritated by stupid thinking. But if I treat people disrespectfully by calling them names to their faces when we disagree, it will simply further alienate them, and it will reinforce the notion in their minds that us gun nuts are a bunch of uncouth philistines who really need their superior intellect and nuanced thinking to guide us into utopia. Thus, as sar pointed out, the impasse becomes self-fulfilling and just gets worse.

I agree--

Gun Control is an emotional topic in which many will respond emotionally and sometimes illogically. When both parties get emotionally worked up - they tend to refuse to listen, refuse to think logically and emotional walls go up - thereby, resulting in nothing being accomplished.

This can be hard to do, however, with good communication (both listening and speaking) - many things can be accomplished....

The 11 Rules of Good Communication

Here are the basic rules of good communication:

1. The speaker can say what he or she thinks needs to be said, except for derogatory statements, shaming words, blaming words and globalizing words. Nothing to inflame the conversation. Just facts, feelings and true and honest thoughts.

2. The listener fully listens to what is being said -- even when having a reaction. Breathing through the reactions, giving the speaker the respect of being listened to.

3. When the speaker is done, the listener will reflect back to the speaker a summarized version of what the speaker said, to make sure the speaker is fully understood.

4. The speaker will take this opportunity to further clarify what he or she said and will restate the goals of the conversation.

5. If the speaker provides new information, the listener will come back with a summarized version of what the speaker said, to make sure the speaker is fully understood.

6. Now the listener gets to switch roles with the speaker. The new speaker now speaks freely, truly and honestly, but carefully.

7. The new listener gets to listen fully and later summarize what the speaker has said.

8. Take turns until both of you feel resolved about the topic of the original conversation. Don't end the conversation before that point. Don't give up on what you want, need and feel.

9. If tempers do flare, voices get raised, or things are said that should not be, take a break.

10. Later, when both of you have cooled off, apologize to each other.

11. If need be, schedule a time to have the conversation again, and work through the steps again until the point of resolution.

....uncouth philistines....

Indeed!

BTW, what is "RKBA"?

Every individual should be treated with respect and given the benefit of the doubt unless and until they show bad behavior.

Similarly, every person has a right to keep and bear arms and it is improper to infringe that right due to the bad behavior of others. Your right to keep and bear arms can only be removed after due process for your own crimes and irresponsible behavior.

There are many people who are just ignorant on this subject due to gun control propaganda and the general, almost total, incompetence of the press. These people need the truth explained to them patiently using only facts and logic and avoiding emotion or propaganda.

Others who favor gun control are intellectually dishonest and although it is still possible to avoid personal attacks and any form of profane or abusive language it is quite proper to call them on their dishonesty once they show that they will not adhere to facts and logic.

As to compromise, a right is not something that should be a candidate for compromise. We do not compromise our freedom of speech, access to an attorney, nor free speech, and we should not compromise the right to keep and bear arms which requires similar protections from government abuse.

It is totally up to those who would enact or defend gun control laws to PROVE their necessity AND to PROVE their efficacy, as well as to consider other methods to achieve the necessary goal that are less intrusive of the right. Merely "sounding reasonable" is not sufficient to prove that gun control works.

Since no gun control has been shown to work after significant review by the DoJ, National Academy of Sciences and the CDC, this requirement for proof that gun control works is a very large obstacle to anyone who would defend gun control of any type.

None of it works, and in general it is not enforce on the criminals but only on the law-abiding thus proving it is not a compelling state interest in any case.

We much insist that the Constitution be followed and therefore: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

Good post SAR!

Many life decisions are made only based only on emotion or are carry overs, with different goals in mind, learned from others. It's good to re-examine past decisions and see if they are still valid or need adjusting.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

lawrnk wrote:Nah, I think generally the stereotypes are often well earned

So, will treating them disrespectfully bring them over to our side and advance the cause of gun rights? Wrong headed people frustrate the heck out of me. I chose my screen name years ago specifically because I am irritated by stupid thinking. But if I treat people disrespectfully by calling them names to their faces when we disagree, it will simply further alienate them, and it will reinforce the notion in their minds that us gun nuts are a bunch of uncouth philistines who really need their superior intellect and nuanced thinking to guide us into utopia. Thus, as sar pointed out, the impasse becomes self-fulfilling and just gets worse.

I'm frankly not the bigger man. I admit it. I often have a tendency to alienate people who are just dead wrong. No, I believe that diversity is not some magical theory to success in a corporation. Frankly I find it to be forced mediocrity. And I’ve tried arguing with a liberal. As I’ve said, rather un-PC, but it is simply like winning the Special Olympics. Case in point. True story. A co-worker named Lachoenda is black. She stated in 04 the she intended to vote against GWB because (and I am omitting all colloquialisms) cause he keeps raising taxes. I pointed out that actually he passed most of the tax breaks than any other in presidential history. So she looked stumped, and said he doesn’t like black folks. I pointed out that Bush actually appointed more blacks to power than any other president. I can keep going and tell you that the discussion went on and on, and she was a typical idiot democrat who simply voted for whatever party her momma did. Anyone see that Obama video I did and posted here a week ago? At least 100 people I sent this to viewed it. Friends, family, strangers, people on this forum. I only received one negative response. My own brother. He called it a baseless red herring. My brother is actually one of the smartest people I have ever known. Liberals, and I don’t mean the mindless voters like Lachoenda, but actual liberals…you cannot convert them. I believe that just like homosexuals and child molesters that they are simply born that way. You cannot change or rehabilitate them, they just are...

Well said SAR. No one wants to relate to a raving lunatic, regardless of his/her cause.

Likewise, Herb. We should all embrace your message with our hearts and minds and never give up our RKBA.

Try arguing with this "liberal". Incidentally, the Cuban flag bore the image of Che. It was not mentioned in the video. Unbelievable footage. This is the Obama HQ of HOUSTON. The reporter never argued. Never tired to "bring her over." Simply asked one question. Explain the flag.
So.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5lJrMvqahA