Page 1 of 1
Talking Productively re: Guns
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:58 pm
by CDFingers
I just bumped into this blog today through another site. Most interesting collection of geeks. But their post on the seventh of December is about guns, "Talking Productively About Guns" is about how folks on the edges of the debate talk past each other.
It's hard to grasp the reaction of someone who understands gun terminology to someone who doesn't. So imagine we're going through one of our periodic moral panics over dogs and I'm trying to persuade you that there should be restrictions on, say, Rottweilers.
Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?"
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you're talking about now.
Me: You're being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the fuck.
Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I'm not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don't need to own.
You: Can we?
Because I'm just talking out of my ass, the impression I convey is that I want to ban some arbitrary, uninformed category of dogs that I can't articulate. Are you comfortable that my rule is going to be drawn in a principled, informed, narrow way?
So. If you'd like to persuade people to accept some sort of restrictions on guns, consider educating yourself so you understand the terminology that you're using. And if you're reacting to someone suggesting gun restrictions, and they seem to suggest something nonsensical, consider a polite question of clarification about terminology.
Rights Matter. Too Bad We Suck At Discussing Them.
link:
https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking- ... bout-guns/
There are many good examples of unproductive techniques, and there are some remedies. It appears we're seeing more and more of this kind of writing popping up, writing that goes past the flaming talking points.
CDFingers
Re: Talking Productively re: Guns
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:30 pm
by Bacchus
It is good to know there are thoughtful posts out there, that aren't fully aflame. I like the analogy of Rottweilers, er, attack dogs.
I fear what lies behind at least some prohibitionists is beyond an agreement of terms or definitions. Take my dear mother for instance. She's agin gunz. There's family history there, as I have had three family members die at the end of a gun in three separate occasions. Now, I recognize it's not the gun's fault. It has been a looooong and painstaking task to get her to accept that I like to shoot, without disowning me. But that's as far as I've come. Can't talk to her about why it's not an assault-auto-replicating-tactical-high-capacity-armor-piercing-gun-with-clips, let alone why that matters. She hears about a shooting - any shooting - and suddenly there are mass murderers behind every blade of grass. I say I go to target shoot, she says I go blasting. I love my mother.
I like hearing of people's experiences reaching out to prohibitionists and making a connection.
Re: Talking Productively re: Guns
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:14 pm
by TrueTexan
I love the analogy. It is a shame there are those that are getting cities to ban certain breeds as there are banning certain guns. The ban is not based on facts but on ignorance. We have stupid owners in both cases of dogs and guns. With dogs training them to be vicious or just not training them properly or at all and then not securing them safely and humanely. With guns using them without following the rules of safety and not securing them properly or having them when not in the right mental state to use one. With both they are potential weapons of destruction and killing it just depends on the person operating the weapon where it is for good or bad.
BTW i am a dog lover. I have known pit bulls to be the sweetest big babies, just love puppies, same with Rotts. The most vicious dogs I met while working as a home health nurse were Chihuahuas and Dachshunds.
I also have never meet a gun I didn't like but Glocks. They are vicious thing that will turn on there owners and bite them on the leg if given a chance.
Re: Talking Productively re: Guns
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 6:38 pm
by pdoggeth
Pretty good post! I may steal that little bit on the dogs for any future online debates with antis.
I will say that when I was an anti and debated the pro-gun crowd, it usually ended up being shouting matches, and obviously nothing really changed. Like what Ken White's post suggested, we both were talking past each other. But a few things did plant seeds of doubt into my mind, one was me finding out a liberal friend was also a gun enthusiast, and then discovering the actual crime data. These and other things slowly but surely transformed me until one day I gave in and decided to go to a range to try out some guns (and the rest of the transformation was my time on this forum =) ).
I had a recent series of debates with a friend who is pretty staunchly anti, this time NOT shouting matches -- I made sure to be calm and polite. Obviously I didn't change his mind by the end of these debates, but I hoped I was able to sow the same seeds of doubt that I experienced a few years back. I don't know if it worked, but I guess we'll have to see how anti he still is a few months from now. He lives quite far away, but if he were closer I would take him out to the range for sure.
Re: Talking Productively re: Guns
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:04 pm
by CDFingers
Taking non shooters shooting with a .22 is the ticket.
What I have most enjoyed is the recent increase in either discovery or writing of things favorable to guns in a measured way.
CDFingers
Re: Talking Productively re: Guns
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:26 pm
by Merkwuerdigliebe
You know my attitude. If it is a semi-automatic rifle that can fire more than eight or ten rounds, it shouldn't be banned but should be owned as part of some sort of gun club membership arrangement.
Re: Talking Productively re: Guns
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:35 am
by BKinzey
Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:You know my attitude. If it is a semi-automatic rifle that can fire more than eight or ten rounds, it shouldn't be banned but should be owned as part of some sort of gun club membership arrangement.
To hell with that. You can't even state what arbitrary number you want to stick with. So a 10-22 is a no go but you are ok with a 17 round Glock?
Re: Talking Productively re: Guns
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:30 am
by Merkwuerdigliebe
BKinzey wrote:Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:You know my attitude. If it is a semi-automatic rifle that can fire more than eight or ten rounds, it shouldn't be banned but should be owned as part of some sort of gun club membership arrangement.
To hell with that. You can't even state what arbitrary number you want to stick with. So a 10-22 is a no go but you are ok with a 17 round Glock?
I spelled out my views in other threads. Read them if you like.
Re: Talking Productively re: Guns
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 5:49 am
by Coach
You can have my Rottweiler when you pry my cold, dead hands from around him.
Re: Talking Productively re: Guns
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:35 am
by sikacz
Not fond of the idea I'd have to belong to a kennel club to own a particular size or breed of dog. It's a good thing I go for attack cats.
Re: Talking Productively re: Guns
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:24 am
by CDFingers
I don't support the idea of a gun club owning my guns, but I don't disagree with it so vehemently. I just won't vote for it nor write in support of it. It works in Yurp, but this ain't Yurp.
Attack cats? I got 'em, too. Viscous brutes.
CDFingers
Re: Talking Productively re: Guns
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:57 am
by sikacz
CDFingers wrote:I don't support the idea of a gun club owning my guns, but I don't disagree with it so vehemently. I just won't vote for it nor write in support of it. It works in Yurp, but this ain't Yurp.
Attack cats? I got 'em, too. Viscous brutes.
CDFingers
In some Yurp countries one needs to belong to a kennel club for two years before being allowed to get a pooch. Don't think that's constitutional either. One said country doesn't allow for dog weapons as self defense. That's not going to work here either. Yurp is not a good example