General Categories > Information Arsenal

I need a gun to feel like a man!

<< < (5/7) > >>

JTH:

--- Quote from: Mntnman on December 17, 2013, 01:15:21 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

Isn't that most gun control arguments in a nutshell?

1) Statement of emotionally-chosen factoid supporting gun control.
2) Expectation of agreement.
3) Statement of pro-self-defense facts conflicting with emotionally-chosen factoid.
4) Personal attacks on people providing pro-self-defense facts.
5) Re-statement of pro-self-defense facts and requests for discussion.
6) Call for pro-self-defense folks to quit attacking or bullying instigator of discussion.

No actual discussion of facts, unless more gun control factoids (normally either incorrect, out-of-context, or irrelevant to the argument at hand) are said as "rebuttal."

...oh, I forgot:  Normally in #6, there are also claims that pro-self-defense folks are angry, scared, or compensating.

Next time everyone reads a discussion like this, see if you can count off points 1-6.

 

Mntnman:

--- Quote from: jthhapkido on December 17, 2013, 01:27:34 PM ---Isn't that most gun control arguments in a nutshell?
--- End quote ---

Yes, in my experience. Sad thing is many people I know that have guns use this method in discussing personal defense weapons. They think that if I have a gun on me that I will not be able to control the temptation to kill someone. Nevermind the fact that I drive a 27 ton bomb every day.

bullit:
"Liberalism is a mental illness".  - Michael Savage

AAllen:
The six steps shown are pretty accurate, besides the psychological reasons that you have covered very well I think there is one other piece that has been missing from the why.  For the last 5 decades that is how the Liberals have been trained, if not on purpose through being involved/on the sidelines, to handle this.

The Liberal/Progressive/whatever movements have all been using the tactics instituted by Saul Alinsky in his Rules For Radicals.  Rule number 5 - Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

I am not saying that an individual is purposely using Ridicule, but because of how prevalent its use has been for the last 50+ years that people are inclined to use it when their position of emotional attachment has been challenged.

So how do we get out of the 6 step loop?  Combating ridicule with ridicule quickly denigrates the debate into nothing more than name calling.  The most effective counter's are to point out that ridicule is the refuge of the desperate and uninformed.  Then either follow it up with a request for an apology for the attack (friendly method), or follow up with 3 more fact-based points that tie directly to your point. Finish with the point that if someone wants to engage in ridicule instead of discussion then they aren't in the right place. Whatever you do, remember the following: DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY. That's what they are aiming for - it takes you off your game. Remember it's a tactic, and frequently one of desperation or displaying a lack of a cogent argument. It's often a signpost to drive your point home hard and fast with facts as quickly as possible.

bkoenig:
I don't need a gun to feel like a man.  That's why I drive a pickup truck and own power tools.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page