I'm ending my membership in the NRA after today's debacle.

They had a whole week to prepare a response and the best they could come up with was to put a police officer in every single school in America?!

That was seriously one of the most asinine statements I have ever heard and embarrassed me to be a gun owner.

While I completely agreed with the part about better mental health screening, the damage was already done with the statement about armed guards in every school.

That plays right into the liberals' proclamations that no place is safe as long as citizens are allowed to own guns, not to mention the far that a police officer on duty in every school in America is completely unrealistic.

By making such a statement, LaPierre basically conceded that there is a problem with guns in America.

They had a whole week to prepare a response and the best they could come up with was to put a police officer in every single school in America?!

That was seriously one of the most asinine statements I have ever heard and embarrassed me to be a gun owner.

While I completely agreed with the part about better mental health screening, the damage was already done with the statement about armed guards in every school.

That plays right into the liberals' proclamations that no place is safe as long as citizens are allowed to own guns, not to mention the far that a police officer on duty in every school in America is completely unrealistic.

By making such a statement, LaPierre basically conceded that there is a problem with guns in America.

Geeze, this is about the first time I've ever agreed with you. The NRA is a totally lame organization and that was a very poor response. I stopped giving them my money a long time ago when I concluded that they didn't really want to take it to the Supreme Court. It was all about raising money.

The danger there is that, if your "logic" was show to the public, most of them wouldn't agree with you. Here it's simple to make a statement, declare the other guy stupid and move on.

In real life, where people can keep talking it gets a lot harder.

In writing you can "win" an argument that uses logic against sentiment, but when a woman stands up crying about how many children were killed, that's harder to beat than you might think.

Almost anything you say that disagrees with her will make you, and your entire side, look like a-holes.


The important thing to remember is that both sides in this issue have good ideas and are essentially correct. Guns are dangerous. They also can be used to save lives.

If the bad guys didn't have certain weapons it would be harder for them to kill mass numbers of people. If the would be victims were armed they'd be able to defend themselves.

It goes on and on in that manner. The failure to understand your opponent is one of the reasons that guns will be banned.

Now, I know that a lot of pro-gun people will have a problem with this, but that doesn't make it true and I'm not saying it to be insulting, simply to help them understand why they don't understand where the other side is coming from.

Liberal thinking is based in empathy for others.

Not self-sacrifice, not altruism, just the feeling that other people are real and valid individuals as a primary instruction for thought.


Conservative thinking is based in fear.

Not cowardice, not authoritarianism, not hatred or lack of empathy.

This fear dictates all of their actions however. They fear the government, so want guns to protect themselves. They fear having their religion thwarted, so hold to policies based on that. They fear economic damage, so don't want illegal immigrants. They fear crime, so want more guns, police and harder "by the book" judges.

(My point is that Conservatism is the party style of the fearful, even to the blustering to make it be NOT about fear that some will do in response to this. That's a mistake, and I'll explain why.)

You see, to stop the coming ban on guns, what's needed is for the argument to be focused on Empathy. You aren't arguing to show your own position, but to sway the minds of others.

Conservatives believe they are wining when they use fear based arguments, and think that this is logical, even though there is not greater logic to using fear than empathy. Their simply different.

(Bringing this back around now...)

So don't let them heckle and then "destroy" them with logic. Use empathy instead and don't presume your going to get it right for the individual you are speaking to at the moment.

(So don't empathize with them, that isn't the point! Show empathy for others and point out how your position will help more people in the long run.)

Use some catch phrases that will work!

"A well armed and trained person can defend others from harm." (The stress is on what the listener can do for others.)

Instead of,

"If a criminal comes for YOU, you'll want a gun!" (This is trying to influence the person using fear, which doesn't work as well on liberals. It can work, but it isn't their primary mode of thought.)

Or...

"Other people may not be as physically capable or even as mentally adept at handling others as you are. You wouldn't suggest that these people be harmed, just because a few bad individuals misuse a technology, would you?"

Again, the focus shifts from the self to "other". This doesn't have to make sense to you as a conservative, gun owner or voter. It makes sense to the people you need to win over to your side.

That's the important part.

*OK, there is another portion of the Conservative belief structure that I didn't go into, which is driven not by fear, but desire to maintain the current state of things. This isn't important to this issue however. Nor did I go into the motivation of Libertarians, who are not actually conservatives at all, but are actually driven by a sense of egotism.

None of these are bad however. Just different ways of handling the world.

Know yourself and your enemy and you will win all battles.

This shooting was just a symptom of a very sick society. Not to mention you can get just about anything on the black market.