How does the right combat the emotions on the left with common sense and reason? What can Trump say to the emotional arguments for gun restrictions? "I'm terribly sorry for the shooting, but the 2nd Amendment says... and as President I'm sworn to uphold the Constitution... the price of freedom is an occasional nutjob...."
"SCREECH SCREECH SCREECH..." non stop from the communists.
"Folks alot smarter than alla you added the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to give citizens the necessary means to keep tyrannical govt in check..." "Screech screech..."
If you were Trumps speech writer, what would he say?
There will always be chicks and chick-like dudes. Some chicks are educable and some aren't. You can talk sense to some people all day long but they still operate on how they feel at a given moment as opposed to how things are. You see it here all the time.
How does the right combat the emotions on the left with common sense and reason? What can Trump say to the emotional arguments for gun restrictions? "I'm terribly sorry for the shooting, but the 2nd Amendment says... and as President I'm sworn to uphold the Constitution... the price of freedom is an occasional nutjob...."
"SCREECH SCREECH SCREECH..." non stop from the communists.
"Folks alot smarter than alla you added the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to give citizens the necessary means to keep tyrannical govt in check..." "Screech screech..."
If you were Trumps speech writer, what would he say?
What percentage of legal gun owners shoot an innocent with their gun? Bet it's low, compared to the number of legal vehicle owners who crash into innocents with their vehicles. And vehicles are not even guaranteed by the Constitution. It sucks, but evil finds a way sometimes, be it firearms, bombs, planes, trucks, fire, poison, whatever..... but the infuriated will not want to hear that. How many more innocents would die at the hands of emboldened and illegally armed criminals each year if not for legal firearm ownership in this country? Thousands per year? More???
The main thing I still remember from a risk communication course many years ago is that you can't use logical arguments to counter emotional issues. You have to package your message in a way that addresses the emotions.
Fireball2 you have brought up a very pertinent question. How do you counter emotional Issues? A friend of mine who is a very skilled negotiator told me his tactic is to ask questions of the other party. What do you suggest? How will that affect the problem? Are you aware that is already illegal? What is the definition of a criminal? How does one become a criminal?
These are a few examples. I am sure people can come up with more through the course of the conversation. Most people who are emotional about a subject are not going to change their mind. If you come up with some ideas please post them. I am interested also.
I agree. Intelligent and probing questions can be very effective in dealing with folks strung out on emotion.
However, some people simply cannot begin to consider the possibility that their position is weak or wrong - and they will resort to sometimes nonsensical means in trying to overcome one who disagrees. Shouting, lying, interrupting, making stuff up, ignoring factual evidence, throwing tantrums etc. all can be part of their chosen behavior.
The appearance and feeling of personal triumph - no matter how ridiculous in actuality - is very important to such people. They have neither the intent nor ability to understand and acknowledge facts contrary to their position - rational thought and sensible argument are foreign to them.
There is a good bit of this going around these days, especially in politics and the media. Is there a "go fund me" account to support the cure?
The only way to communicate with an emotional person is to first calm the persons emotions. Anyone who has managed to stay married has figured this one out.
With this subject, we start with what seems obvious to us, that we know this was a horrible tragedy that has touched each and every person in this country. Work through this and that point a common ground has been found.
Once the emotions are put at bay and common ground has been found, the discussion needs to go to what would drive a person to commit such a horrid crime. This needs to cover sources of anger, sources of hate, promotion of violence in the entertainment industry, problems with untreated mental illness, a society where people feel so distant from others that they dehumanize them, and on.
When you steer the conversation to the deep underlying issues and causes, you show the other side you really want to solve the problem, that you really care about the problem. Gun control will never be a part of the conversation because it will never be a part of the solution.
We know what happened mtsnake. A multimillionaire real estate investor and gambler killed and wounded over 500 people. We don't know what was going through his mind.
I agree. Intelligent and probing questions can be very effective in dealing with folks strung out on emotion.
However, some people simply cannot begin to consider the possibility that their position is weak or wrong - and they will resort to sometimes nonsensical means in trying to overcome one who disagrees. Shouting, lying, interrupting, making stuff up, ignoring factual evidence, throwing tantrums etc. all can be part of their chosen behavior.
The appearance and feeling of personal triumph - no matter how ridiculous in actuality - is very important to such people. They have neither the intent nor ability to understand and acknowledge facts contrary to their position - rational thought and sensible argument are foreign to them.
There is a good bit of this going around these days, especially in politics and the media. Is there a "go fund me" account to support the cure?
Those questions usually lead to the liberal mantra "If it only saves one life, isn't it worth doing?"
Erik, I agree that one often would get that reply. If a lib said that to me today in relation to gun laws and the LV shootings, I would most likely point to the info posted above about the ongoing and ongoing and ongoing shootings in Chicago.
"Chicago Carnage.....Sept. totals= 57 murdered, 273 shot, = 330 tot. , year to date= 501 murdered, 2,409 shot, 2910 tot. , where's the outrage?"
Then, noting that the vicious actions in LV were horrible, ask the lib why he/she is not ouraged that such carnage continues and continues in a Dem hole with strict firearms controls. In keeping with my OP, the above probably would be pushed aside by a lib - it is not an acceptable fact and must be ignored.
I have appreciated the observations/suggestions here about trying to get across to folks in a highly emotional state. I was not talking about that problem, but rather the challenge in dealing with folks who choose to live in constant self-induced delusion.
Those questions usually lead to the liberal mantra "If it only saves one life, isn't it worth doing?"
The counter to that was addressed very effectively by Thomas Sowell in one of his books. Basically, it is based on economics. Takes emotion out of the equation.
(my paraphrase) "If the resources it would take to save one life were applied elsewhere, how many more lives might be saved?"
Serious policy decisions have to take costs vs. benefits into consideration.