Anyone serious about building consensus on gun policy needs to be slower to judge and quicker to listen to those who disagree. I understand why gun-safety advocates might not want to listen to those who are skeptical of gun-safety laws. People are being killed in their places of worship and kids gunned down at school; this kind of crisis can make people feel they don’t have time for dialogue.
However, listening to those who are resistant to gun-control laws is more than just a sign of respect. Understanding what motivates people can help us come up with better solutions that are more likely to stick. Instead of focusing on what motivates us, we need to ask what motivates them. We don’t all need to take the same path to get to the same destination. We can get more people to the destination if we can find a path they’re willing to take.
Jen Zamzow
November 14, 2018
Why we can’t agree on gun control
[Great advice! The truth cannot be learned if people do not listen. Listen to others on the condition they listen to you and then see where you both end up. To see if both sides are really listening try a role reversal in your second session. If you can’t argue your opponents side then you probably aren’t listening.
Numerous studies have shown that conservatives understand progressives far better than the other way around. So this actually something of a “trap” for progressives. —Joe]
Gun-safety advocates?
Would a car safety advocate say let us ban all pick up trucks or anything that can carry more than four passengers. Let us limit who can by an 8 cylinder car.
Safety has nothing to do with it. If it did they would work to teach basic firearm safety in every school in the country
Notice that she used both “gun-safety laws” and “gun control laws”. In this way she appeals to (and irritates) both sides.
“Gun safety” is newspeak for “gun control”. Everyone wants safety, fewer people want control.
I know all of the fake reasons offered by gun control advocates. Heard them all ad nauseum. They are either impractical, ineffective, punitive, illegal, or just plain stupid.
That defines them as either ignorant or evil (or both).
Only my enemy wants me disarmed.
The corollary is, “a government who wants me to disarm, intends harm.”
Why would progressives listen to a large group of people when there ultimate goal is total disarmament, subjugation and systematic extermination of that people?
You have said it yourself many times: they want us dead. They want all of us dead. They want the government to use the military to literally kill every single solitary gun owner in The country. You can tell them that’s over 100 million people but they don’t care or otherwise believe that is an appropriate number of people to kill to achieve there progressive utopia.
Not all progressives are in agreement over our death. We don’t need to win over all of them to win the war.
Most anti-gunners speak from an intentional position of ignorance. They will BRAG that they don’t know the difference between an AR-15 and an AK-47, or even how those guns differ from a Remington 700. Further they will BRAG that they have never shot or handled a real gun.
Also they almost always do not present themselves in a venue where their points can be rebutted, and when they present the reasons for why pro-gun people oppose certain laws, it’s always a straw man.
We must NOT do this, #1 because it’s wrong, but the bigger #2 because THEY are wrong and the facts are on our side.
So, let them know in a good natured way what you think of that. I’d probably start out with something like, “Wow! You are really special. I don’t think I’ve ever met someone who prides themselves on their ignorance.”
And any rational dialog will end right there. When you start a conversation by insulting the other party, any desire to listen to your position is gone
This conservative understands leftists well enough to know they will never honor any agreement they make.
You don’t have to get them to have an agreement with you. You just have to create doubt, confusion, and division in their side to increase our odds.
While “gun safety” is a blatant euphemism, “gun control” is one also. The honest terms are “gun confiscation” or, best of all, “victim disarmament”. That last one because it captures the fact that victims are disarmed by the laws, but criminals are not. That suggests a slogan one could use: “Keeping the streets safe for criminals”.
I don’t listen to them because they lie. Their “slippery slope” approach is well documented, and not matter how “reasonable” one of their proposed regulations may seem on the surface, we all know they have a “high capacity infringement loading device” fully loaded with more infringements to enact after the current one is launched.
I’m willing to listen to friends and neighbors. I think the culture can be changed.
When it comes to “gun control” there is nothing to “agree about”. The left wants us DISARMED. Totally and completely defenseless. If possible they would do it in one fell swoop…..issue an edict, round up all the guns and kill anyone who resists. But to date they haven’t been able to get that edict…..so they are continuing the battle plan they’ve used for decades….the death of a thousand cuts, disarming us one bullshit law at a time. NEVER EVER FORGET that the left subscribes to the old communist motto…..”what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable”. They offer us NOTHING when we “negotiate”…..the end result of ALL such negotiations with the commie left is LESS FOR US and MORE FOR THEM.