Joe Huffman has spoken at great lengths about our opponents inability to distinguish Truth from Falsity. To be fair, I don’t think that applies to all our opponents, but certainly many of them we’ve encountered in the wilds of the Internet. This has me wondering if they can even comprehend our arguments at all. I’m not sure how there can be a dialog when there’s not even a basic grasp of the subject matter at hand, or any real understanding of what we believe at all:
And so, dear readers, I have argued that someone with a loaded gun in a public place will not be able to save the day to protect themselves or others for some of the very reasons expressed in the comments above. I mean, the shooter might have an overwhelming arsenal making your pistol ineffective; people freeze up and can’t believe it’s happening; this is a perfectly normal human reaction; the police are actually trained to deal with situations like this and permit holders are not necessarily, etc. etc. It is amusing to watch these folks turn themselves into pretzels to argue with common sense and then saycommon sense things themselves.
The problem is, our dear Brady Board member has erected all manner of straw men in her head about what gun owners believe, and virtually none of it is fact. She believes in a caricature of gun owners, and desperately wants to cling to that caricature, no matter how often the fairly rich tapestry of our lot walks by her virtual playground on a regular basis. Understand that most of us are not trying to be mean, nor do we expect that she’ll come around to agree with us. I think the reason people waste their hours attempting to comment on Common Gunsense is that they want to be understood. They don’t expect agreement, or capitulation, rather they are looking for that point where each side understands the other, and there at least is agreement to disagree. The great frustration with so many of the folks on the other side of our issue is, there’s not really any hope of reaching that point.
I have come to the conclusion that trying to get to that point of understanding with her, and people like her, is a futile act. They are either incapable, or unwilling to come to that understanding.
They remind me of creationists, in their refusal to engage with what the other side is actually saying.
I think the reason is similar in both cases: Whenever they do honestly engage with the other side’s arguments, or anything like it, their own position starts feeling queasily untenable.
How flippin sweet would it be if she replaced Helmke?
Sebastian,
A few in order to explain why I spend time on sites like Joan Peterson’s
1. I do want to be understood. I do that first by making sure I fully understand their points, addressing those with an explanation of what I believe.
2. I don’t know, nor do I assume until I try, that someone like Joan Peterson is unwilling or unable to understand until I try. I think that separates out a majority of the anti-rights cultists from reasonable debate. Many of them don’t even try to understand.
3. By showing my/our attempts at understanding their view and then reasonably presenting our views on their sites we can show many people that we did make reasonable attempts at dialogue and understanding.
4. And most importantly, it is those people who read and are willing to understand that I’m addressing my points to mostly.
Several years ago when I started researching the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I was greatly disappointed by the lack of interaction ( I now why “reasoned discourse” and all ) on the anti’s blogs and sites.
By presenting an opposing view on the anti’s sites, we provide food for thought and further research to those people just learning about the issues.
And that my friend is not a futile act by any means.
etc. etc.
Has she been watching The King and I too much?
LOL at Bitter’s comment!
I never bothered much with JaPete or JadeGold or the rest of their ilk. There is only so much time in the day and I just don’t want to spend it on them. I can see the argument for trying to make it so they understand us. That said, I think their minds are closed and will remain closed no matter what. They are True Believers.
Because I believe in what the philosopher Eric Hoffer wrote that there is nothing more dangerous than a true believer, I think we should keep an eye on them but that doesn’t mean we have to interact with them.
Japetes Mind is as Open to a Rational Discussion on Gun Control as Al Gore’s is to Global Warming.
My response to her (not sure if it’s going to post)
“the police are actually trained to deal with situations like this…”
Know who else is trained to deal with gun fights? Soldiers – like the National Guardsmen targeted by the shooter last week in Nevada. Despite our training, we are not allowed to carry while on duty. So they became helpless victims. There are 23 million America Veterans out there.
Shamelessly stolen from “The Smallest Minority”:
Peter Robinson: If you had a sentence or two to say to the Cabinet assembled around President Obama, and this cabinet holds glittering degrees from one impressive institution after another, if you could beseech them to conduct themselves in one particular way between now and the time they leave office, what would you say?
Thomas Sowell: Actually, I would say only one word: Goodbye. Because I know there’s no point talking to them.
Through it all, it bears remembering the old saw:
“You can’t reason someone out of something they weren’t reasoned into.”
Magical thinking is a core cognitive process for many — and probably the majority.