Friday, March 2, 2018

A Gun Rights Mind Virus

You meet different sorts of people who advocate for gun control.  Some of them are hard core control freaks who just want to crush flyover country, but if you're like me you don't run across them very often.  Mostly you run across people who aren't shooters or gun owners, who haven't thought about the issue very much, but who are disturbed about the constant media drumbeat about shootings and who just want to "do something".

We need these people on our side, or at least standing on the sidelines.  How do we separate them from the gun control pack.

My last post was how I approach this: I'm not opposed to gun control, I'm opposed to stupid and useless gun control.  This is a mind virus that I'm trying to infect them with.  I want to sow seeds of doubt in their minds to get them out of the gun controller's camp and onto the sidelines.  Hopefully (if the virus really takes) it will begin the process where they actually start to think about things and they may even end up on our side.

It's a battle for the (very large) middle ground.  In the long run, we're not viable without it.

My experience has been pretty good with this.  Most of these folks are decent people.  They want to be fair, and they know that they don't know much about this topic.  My mind virus is a challenge to them - is what you're proposing dumb?  Will it work?  Is it fair?  Nobody wants to be dumb, or unfair.

This is especially true with the sentence that has had more impact than any other I've used with folks like this.  When they say (and they will say it) "But we have to do something", I reply:
Do you want to do something stupid and useless?  That doesn't sound right.
Quite frankly, our choice is to build bunkers or to convince the middle.  Building bunkers makes us look like the dumb (and dangerous) ones.

Yes, the people at the heart of the gun control battle are, well, evil.  No getting past that.  But we don't win without the vast middle.  We don't win by starting from "Gun controllers are evil" (they are wishy-washy gun controllers after all).  We don't win from "Molon late, bitches!" (this seems to make people nervous.

We win from a mind virus that starts to get them to ask themselves the right questions.  Truth is on our side; we can lead others to truth if we want.


Jerry said...

How about a Department of Virtue Signaling. Every time there a catstrophe, DVS comes out to wail, wring hand, cry, etc. then ask for more money and go away until the next catastrophe.

Jeffrey Smith said...

You are getting it all wrong. "the other side" approaches this from a completely different premise than you do. To them guns are a necessary evil, to be tolerated or even done away with, and the only reason to have one in an urban setting is self defense.

It starts from the simple fact that guns are meant to do one thing and only one thing: kill or at least seriously injure living beings. Hunting confines itself to the subset of living beings we know as animals. Warfare and crime do not: and self defense is actually a subset of that.

When you pick up a gun you are asserting the right, or at least the ability, to kill whomever you want for whatever reason you want. "Responsible" gun ownership is really a pledge to make use of that ability only when it's truly necessary. But there is not necessarily a way to determine in advance who, like Borepatch, honestly take that pledge, and those like Omar Mateen and Adam Lanza, who don't. And in general they don't see guns such as AR15s as being useful/needful in hunting and self defense. The "last bulwark of liberty" approach will merely get you laughed at.

So any argument that doesn't start from that premise, and then works back to prove otherwise, is a failure from the start. They aren't going to be persuaded by arguments that a particular form of gun control won't work until you persuade them that their premise doesn't require "gun control".

Suz said...

My office mate at work is a very nice older gal my age who was a divorced mom of several kids who are now in their early 20's-30's and are self supporting. So we have a bunch in common.
However, our politics don't have much in common.
The other day she made a remark about how she doesn't want to have the schools militarized by having guns in them.
I said "Ya know, when I was in high school, there were guns in schools...the students brought them so they could go hunting after school, and we had a after school gun club." Now, we are the same age, and she knows I grew up in New York state.
So she said "You know what I mean".
I replied "Yup, but do you have a problem with going to the courthouse, or to the airport, or to the mall? Because they all have security, metal detectors, and limited access points. And folks, who have been trained, with guns in case something goes bad. Do those places feel militarized?"
"Well, no..."
"Sooo, what are you saying? It's ok to protect the judge, the airplane, the clothes, but not our kids??"
"Furthermore, there are plenty of schools in this country already that do have folks who have concealed carry permits, who are carrying daily. It just depends on the state you are talking about. You don't hear about those schools, as the crazy, mentally ill yahoos who want their 15 minutes of fame are not stupid. They don't go shoot up a place where chances are very high they would get shot before inflecting a bunch of damage. It is a mental health problem, not a gun problem."
"Well, yes, there is a definite mental health problem out there."
"Besides, crooks don't follow the laws on the books already, (that's the definition of a crook) and, from what is being said, it sounds like some of the cops, and the FBI didn't follow the laws either. Several folks saw something, and said something, but nothing was done.
To me, that is the real crime. All those deaths could have been prevented if the laws already on the books were followed. They weren't. So how does putting more laws on the books help that? That is like shutting the barn door harder after the cows are already out."
She laughed, and agreed somewhat. I could see the wheels turning.
Gently leading the way to the sidelines...

LSP said...


μολὼν λαβέ

Richard said...

The fallacy in your argument, I think is the assumption that this is one country. It is not. It is two (at least) mutually hostile populations living in the same geographic space. The hostility is increasing, the separation in increasing and we are on the road to civil war. It is not just gun policy, it is everything. Civil war would completely wreck things no matter who wins but the left is hell bent on total domination. They will never stop and they will never keep any agreement they make. We will never be safe as long as we are sharing a country with large numbers of leftists. By all indications, they feel the same about us. So if we don't want civil war and we don't want to surrender, the only answer is partition. We need to come to terms with this.

McChuck said...

Richard - there are the right whites, the left whites, the blacks, and the browns (Latinos). Plus a few Asians and Amerinds, but not enough to count in most places. The left whites count on the blacks and browns as allies, which is rather foolish of them. The right whites don't have any allies, but we are still a plurality. And we have the guns.

As far as bringing the squishy middle around - gently, slowly. The sheep are easily spooked, and have heard only the voice of the left all their lives. They may realize its speaking nonsense, but it's a comfortable, familiar voice repeating the same phrases over and over.

There is not a single red pill. You must first get past the emotions for the facts to have a chance. "Do you want to do something counterproductive, or would you prefer to do something useful?" is a good start, if you're already friends and the person will stay to listen to the rest of what you have to say. "Every mass shooting has happened in a 'gun free' zone. Maybe that's the problem?" must be a follow up, not an opener.