General Categories > Information Arsenal
I need a gun to feel like a man!
JTH:
--- Quote from: kozball on December 17, 2013, 09:42:41 AM ---Ran across this blog post which pretty much has the same conclusions.
http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/2013/12/but-you-said-this-or-why-arguing-with.html
--- End quote ---
This is a BRILLIANT quote:
"If someone really wants to have a calm, rational, discussion about the place of guns in society, and they are calm and rational then by the time the conversation is over they will be on our side. Our side has all the calm, rational facts. The other side dances in the blood of victims and chants their incantations to create more victims by nothing more than emotional appeal to disarm more people as if dehorning the rams will somehow protect the sheep from wolves."
Seriously. And I'm going back to my blog and linking to that post, because there's some good stuff there. Particularly that last paragraph.
JTH:
To follow that up----out of the whole situation, pretty much just two things REALLY get me. And oddly enough, neither one is based on the fact that other people have opinions that differ from mine.
1) The first is behavior-related. The minute I disagree with their opinion, suddenly I'm a terrible baby-killer who loves murder, and they have no issues with vilifying me using terms and descriptives that are so far past rude and obnoxious that it is astonishing---and yet, they accuse ME of being rude, mean, and a bully, and so on. (Seriously, I discussed a firearms topic with someone once, keeping strictly to facts and statistics, and her MOTHER publicly accused me of bullying her adult daughter. Bullying? Seriously?)
2) Facts mean nothing. And statistics ONLY mean something if they support their side---no matter how much the statistic itself is irrelevant, whether or not it is contrived, or whether or not it actually is germane to the discussion.
Example: "We have a gun-death rate of 10.3 per 100,000, which is in the top eight out of [a list of countries]. That puts us up there with El Salvador! We need to ban guns!"
My response: "El Salvador has a rate of 44/100,000, 43/44 of which are due to homicides. We have a rate of 10.3/100,000, only 1/3 of which are due to homicides. And we have literally 750 times as many guns in private hands as El Salvador has, AND in El Salvador the restrictions on private gun ownership are extremely strict. You are saying that we are like a country that has a murder rate that is over 12 times ours with a gun ownership rate that is about 1/750th of ours? And you want to implement gun controls in the U.S. like El Salvador already has?"
The response: "Scared Thomas? Take your precious guns and move to El Salvador."
....seriously, that was the response. What the heck?
I realize that when discussing any topic with someone who has an emotional position, and has an emotional attachment to that emotional position, you have to gently point out things so they end up convincing themselves, making them come up with questions that cause them to start looking at facts instead of fabrications. But when ANY commentary by myself disagreeing with emotional statistically-incorrect diatribes is greeted with insults and "you don't care about the children," it makes it difficult.
I asked on my Facebook awhile back: "So, for those who believe that more gun control would make a difference to crime and violence in the U.S.---what would it take for you to change your mind? What level of factually-supporting research would make a difference to your opinion?"----when I asked this, the silence was overwhelming.
(Of course, I've also had a discussion where the other person admitted that facts and statistics would not ever cause her to change her mind. Well, that's useful to know.)
For some people, no amount of reality is going to change their mind. Other than by ignoring them (which is a bad idea, because their stridency and loudmouth-ed-ness will be heard by many others, perhaps swaying their opinion), how do you deal with them?
I try to stick to facts and statistics that I can back up---not because I expect to change their minds, but because the other people who are reading the discussion may perhaps start looking at the facts, and it may help change their minds.
But boy, it is difficult to keep calm when someone responds to facts and statistics with the tried-and-true "progressive" response of "Compensating much?"
[sigh]
JTH:
--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on December 16, 2013, 11:48:48 AM ---
--- Quote from: jthhapkido ---Is it that scary to actually look at the facts?
--- End quote ---
Rather, I prefer to simply ask them to stop the name-calling and abandon the logical fallacies and explain their point of view. Many times I've found that their point of view is purely emotional and not based on facts, but I try to avoid resorting to their same tactics.
--- End quote ---
Makes sense.
But then again, I don't ask that question to their face, because while it IS a germane question (because if their response IS emotional, there is actually a good likelihood that it IS scary to them to look at the facts) attempting to convince someone who is having an emotional response by attacking their emotions doesn't work, and is actively detrimental.
So, I agree----but since I don't do that ("engage in the same "scaredy cat" name calling ....") I'm not worried about it making them more upset.
That being said---it really IS a good question. Because when someone is having a strong emotional response to something, often it really IS scary for them to attempt to think in any other fashion, and often any attempt by someone else to convince them in a manner that conflicts with their opinion IS actually very frightening to them, and they will react extremely emotionally.
An important question really is: Why is it so scary for this person? For this individual, why is there such an emotional reaction? Is it because thinking differently means they have to admit to themselves that violence exists? That humans beings perform it? That it can happen, and does happen, sometimes randomly? (Mostly not, really, but sometimes.) That they are defenseless against violence like this because they have not ever thought about it? What aspect is causing the emotional response?
(That last point, by the way, tends to be an underlying emotional theme with many people. They don't want to admit that violence is human-based, because then it could happen to them, but they have no defense against it, so they are vulnerable, but that is frightening, so they simply say that violence is object-based and if you just stay away from those objects or we can do away with those objects you'll be fine.)
Many people seem to think that if we can just get people away from guns, deaths won't occur. This of course ignores all prior research regarding violence--but many people really do hold emotionally to the idea that violence is object-based, and if we can reduce or remove those objects, violence won't happen.
All evidence and history to the contrary.
When discussing this topic with someone, finding what aspect of it is the frightening part that drives their opinion, and using _other_ avenues to discuss the topic often ends up making them start thinking without triggering that (often verbally violent) emotional response. (And if you hit that trigger, the discussion is over, because bringing up any aspect of the topic after that will garner that same response.)
So---while I don't ask them directly "why are you so scared by this" it is certainly true that I often attempt to find out what part of the topic causes them to be emotional, so that the discussion can be had via other avenues of thought.
All of the above translates to "I don't engage in name-calling, because it isn't productive. That doesn't mean the question itself, and its answer, isn't important."
Mntnman:
My liberal sister-in-law posted some gun control BS yesterday on Facebook. A few people responded on that side with emotional agreement. Then a couple people posted pro-gun facts. The response was personal attacks on the pro-gunners. My s-i-l never commented once on the post. I responded respectfully that Good guys with guns stop evil guys and factual data. Some wacko jumped in on his wife's account and told everyone to stop attacking my s-i-l.
She responded that she never meant to stir debate. That is true, she thought everyone would agree with her. I was happy that the pro side stayed professional and non-personal. No minds were changed but it gave me something to chuckle about all day.
Mudinyeri:
--- Quote from: jthhapkido on December 17, 2013, 01:06:01 PM ---Rather, I prefer to simply ask them to stop the name-calling and abandon the logical fallacies and explain their point of view. Many times I've found that their point of view is purely emotional and not based on facts, but I try to avoid resorting to their same tactics.
Makes sense.
But then again, I don't ask that question to their face, because while it IS a germane question (because if their response IS emotional, there is actually a good likelihood that it IS scary to them to look at the facts) attempting to convince someone who is having an emotional response by attacking their emotions doesn't work, and is actively detrimental.
--- End quote ---
I only mentioned it because you did it in your article which is, of course, available for the public to read.
The question, "Why are you afraid," makes the assumption that the individual being questioned is afraid. And, it's as much in how the question is asked as it is in asking the question.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version