W/ LINK Suzanna Hupp -- Can we establish a kind of "Best Practices" in talking RKBA?

[gossamer]

I listened to an interview with Dr. Suzanna Hupp today on NPR. She was one of their "voices of the gun debate."

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/01/22/suzanna-hupp-guns

I thought the interview was very fair and objective. Was it emotional? Yes. Want to know why? Because Dr. Hupp's experience is fraught with emotion. She watched her father gunned down in the Killeen TX Luby's shooting in 1991. Her mother was also gunned down. Dr. Hupp lives everyday with the pain and regret of knowing that she left her gun in her car when she went to lunch instead of on her person. The interviewer on NPR treated her with respect because Dr. Hupp is one of the respectable voices on the Pro-2A side who blends emotion with rationale thought. I think her experience and how she speaks about the profound sadness and regret she feels about not bringing her weapon with her is a very important part of the untold emotional story on the RKBA side. We would all do well to read, listen, and learn from her in this regard.

I personally try to show respect and deference to people who speak of the emotional (and sometimes irrational) reasons why they oppose guns. I know many people who are against guns because of violence visited upon themselves or their family.

In my own family my brother in law's mother was brutally killed in her home in a robbery. This past fall his niece was shot and killed in her home by her estranged husband and his brother. All of this death visited on one family in the span of less than half my own lifetime.

Based on these experiences my brother in law speaks with respect and emotional import on why he carries and wants his wife to carry. On the other hand, some in his family feel the opposite about guns and advocate for gun control. While we disagree about guns, we never once have argued or been at odds. I find that this family living with two brutal murders in one lifetime learned and exhibits that each processes their feelings about security and safety differently and we respect that fact and one another. I've learned a lot from him and his family.

I guess I bring that up because there is a lot of emphasis put on downplaying emotions. And the FACT is, emotions are the central basis of opinions on both sides of this issue. I find Dr. Hopp's position more artfully expressed because of -- and not in spite of -- the emotion surrounding her experience. I find the same thing in my Brother in Law's opinion.

There are in fact pro-RKBA folks with an emotional foundation for their position. Do we want these emotions respected?

There are also gun control people with an emotional basis for their opinion. Do we want this respected also?

I should hope so.

 

[youngda9]

Can someone provide a link to the discussion ?

 

[jamesbeat]

I'm pretty sure that's the same lady that I saw on the gun control episode of Penn & Teller's 'Bull****!' show.
The show as a whole, and Suzanna Hupp in particular, made a compelling argument against gun control.
If you haven't seen it yet, I urge you to track it down.

 

[gossamer]

Sorry, Here is the link. The episode hadn't posted yet.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/01/22/suzanna-hupp-guns

 

[somerandomguy]

Well, I think we all try to be kind to the emotional who have had things happen to them, that's a given. However, I'm going to say something controversial, most people are irrational due to being emotional. There's a reason that there's such a knee-jerk reaction to Sandy Hook and people aren't thinking clearly because they are too emotional. I actually heard the interview and I was genuinely in shock because here we have someone who's a victim of gun violence herself and yet is saying "Hey listen, this wouldn't have happened if I would have been able to carry my gun"...it's certainly not an every day occurence and it's refreshing to hear a victim of gun violence herself come out being pro-gun.

 

[Kingcreek]

Suzanna Hupp is an outstanding spokesperson for gun rights. Intelligent and well spoken. I've met her, I admire her, and we need more like her.
She was a driving force behind Texas concealed carry laws years ago after her parents were killed. She was passionate enough to run for Texas house or senate (I forget which) and pushed the legislation.

 

[gossamer]

I actually heard the interview and I was genuinely in shock because here we have someone who's a victim of gun violence herself and yet is saying "Hey listen, this wouldn't have happened if I would have been able to carry my gun"...it's certainly not an every day occurence and it's refreshing to hear a victim of gun violence herself come out being pro-gun.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's not what Dr. Hupp said. She said she could have "changed the odds." (which I admit sounds sort of confusing) She also said that while carrying doesn't mean she can prevent the first one or two people from being harmed, (as in the case of Ronald Reagan), her carrying may be able to prevent additional harm.

She also makes a very good point about LEOs. Dr. Hupp talks about how even LE is hamstrung by a refusal to acknowledge that firearms are part of a safety and defense protocol. How in this case, the fact that LEOs were not allowed to carry their own weapons, they were delayed in responding to the grave situation right next door.

The reason I harp on these specifics is because I think Dr. Hupp's language is instructive. She proves (through a lot of practice) that one can still exhibit emotion -- can frame an issue from a perspective of emotion -- and still make VERY rational, thoughtful, and realistic statements of fact.

She also illustrates an important element that I hear many of my RKBA friends leave out too often: that their defense of self and others is not absolute. She admits that she cannot stop or prevent all harm, but that she can mitigate harm. It's a sort of humility that I think goes a long way. She sounds less like she's arguing, and more like she's just talking. Seems pretty "high road" to me.

 

[DonP]

Emotion versus rational thought ...

I'm sorry guys, but I'm really sick of the gun control supporters ranting and throwing actual comments out like; "20 dead children, that's all the reason I need to take away your guns!"

I have news for them, 20 dead children is a typical month here in Chicago. And I mean every month after month.

But sadly, after decades of that, none of them ever get all up in arms over that, including the President that comes from the South Side.

I'm sorry but it seems to me to be more about hypocrisy and opportunism for the majority of them, than a real, deep-seated concern for children's safety.

 

[gossamer]

Emotion versus rational thought ...

I'm sorry guys, but I'm really sick of the gun control supporters ranting and throwing actual comments out like; "20 dead children, that's all the reason I need to take away your guns!"

I have news for them, 20 dead children is a typical month here in Chicago. And I mean every month after month.

But sadly, after decades of that, none of them ever get all up in arms over that, including the President that comes from the South Side.

I'm sorry but it seems to me to be more about hypocrisy and opportunism for the majority of them, than a real, deep-seated concern for children's safety.

It is inaccurate (and somewhat irrational) to say that the President has never been "up in arms" about the number of dead children in Chicago. I can research the "up-in-arms" quotes if you prefer. They are out there. And frankly, I find politicians to be of little use in this discussion anyway. Ronald Reagan strongly supported and lobbied for gun control laws in Cal. just a few years before the quote you use as a sig line. Mostly because black men were openly carrying guns on Cal. streets (as was their right.) So referencing politicians for their stance on guns is a bit like referencing a willow for the direction of the wind.

But more to the point. The idea that this is "emotion vs. rational" thought is not what I'm driving at. What I'm trying to say is "rational thought BECAUSE OF emotion."

The point is, human beings possess emotions. They employ emotions to form their opinions and have since the dawn of man. The founding fathers created the Bill of Rights with the emotions resulting from oppression and tyranny fresh in their minds.

The emotional place BOTH SIDES come from, and the emotional basis one which BOTH SIDES form their opinions should be respected.

The anti-gun lobby drives me away from them every time they refuse to acknowledge this. As does the pro-RKBA side.

Dr. Hupp's presentation is instructive. She does not diminish emotions even in her opponents, she respects them. She uses her own emotions to teach and enlighten.

 

[jamesbeat]

I'm sorry to say that that's probably correct.
The more I hear from the antis, the more I realize that we are dealing with people who have a phobia of guns, and use these killings to further their crusade.

I'm a Star Trek fan, and I often jokingly ask myself, 'what would Spock do?'.
Silly I know, but in situations like this, the right thing to do is to apply cold hard logic.
Any intelligent and pragmatic person in full possession of the facts must come to the conclusion that CCW would prevent more deaths than any gun law ever could.

Of course, by that I mean any intelligent and pragmatic person in full possession of the facts who is not a hoplophobe and does not have a political agenda...

 

[gossamer]

Any intelligent, logical person also knows that "You cannot reason a man from a position that reason didn't deliver him to." -- GK Chesterton

The point I'm trying to make is, the best practice is to discard the old false choice of "emotional vs. rational" thought as a method of addressing RKBA.

Hupp's own actions and and the actions I see in my own family who've been deeply impacted by gun murders proves that integrating the two -- emotion and rational -- has advanced RKBA and its acceptance.

 

[JustinJ]

gossamer, great post. I'm tired of the vitriol on this board against people who advocate gun control. Yes, it frustrates me when somebody advocates to take away a right we have and i strongly disagree with them but the vast majority of people who believe further restrictions are needed believe it will make this country a safer place. It's not about control or a plan to take over the world. I know i'll get flamed for saying this but there are actually valid points on both side of the debate. Unfortunately those on our side willing to engage in a real dialogue seem the exception rather than the rule. Not to mention many of the character attacks against people who want new gun control laws are entirely counter productive. An open minded person who at the moment believes more gun control is warranted will only be pushed farther into that position by the kinds of insults so regularly thrown at him by members of the gun community. Also, our side seems way to eager to accept any pro-gun statement regardless of the validity. Just because a statement appears to support our position that does not make it automatically true, rational or convincing.

Yes, there are gun control advocates who make personal attacks against gun lovers but that does not make it okay or smart for us to do back. People generally believe what they do because of their perspective and it is our job to offer a different one. Believing in gun control does not make a person is stupid or evil nor should they be treated as such. Intelligent debate without the constant ad hominem attacks should be our standard. Especially on a forum that prides itself in being the Highroad.

 

[hso]

The idea that this is "emotion vs. rational" thought is not what I'm driving at. What I'm trying to say is "rational thought BECAUSE OF emotion."

Agreed, you can't win in this situation with just a rational argument because our opponents understand the value of an emotional response. They can exploit that emotional response even more if a counter equally powerful isn't offered.

The fact that I'm very good at the logical rational numbers based argument doesn't mean that I don't realize the value in finding an emotional "hook" to connect those numbers and rational arguments to the person I'm trying to persuade. Sadly I'm not as good at that. The emotional hook we want to anchor the rational with is the violent crimes stopped/lives saved by firearms and the lives lost by not having the means to defend yourself. The battered spouse that escapes with their life only to be forced to kill their estranged husband to survive when they're tracked down vs. the one that is killed by the former husband because they had no means to defend themselves. The family who is killed vs. the one where the use of a gun by one saves them from the horrors of their captors/abusers. Real stories where people's lives were saved vs. those lost in the same situation where the only difference was which did or didn't have the means to protect themselves. There are 800,000 to 2,500,000 times a year that a firearm is used to stop a crime vs the 12,600 murders in 2011. Even at the low end that's a ration of 800 to 12.6.

 

[Skribs]

HSO, I agree with that 100%. Even better, when people say we need to keep guns out of the hands of children (usually referring to teenagers who might shoot up their school, pretty much nobody expects a 7 year old to go on a rampage), I like to point to situations where a 12-14 year old kid used the family weapon to defend against a home invasion while the parents were out. Usually a girl defending younger siblings or a brother defending his sister.

In Larry Correia's article linked in another thread, he said even taking the brady bunch numbers, it's 108,000 uses of guns in self defense each year vs. 12,600 murders total in 2011. Still a ratio of 8.5-to-1, and those other murders aren't all gun-related. And that's the guess from the group biased AGAINST us.

I think we have 4 parts to our argument. #1: what do the founding fathers say? #2: emotional response (such as gun control being the idea that a victim is morally superior to someone who exercises self defense). #3: numbers/stats (which I can never remember, but I'll follow your advice in another thread to email sources to my phone). #4: logic.

 

[barnbwt]

She admits that she cannot stop or prevent all harm, but that she can mitigate harm.

The problem is, this (very rational) argument is up against a banner's assertion that "We will save thousands by getting guns off our streets" it sounds very weak. It's not the argument's fault; it is very thoughtful and honest, while the other is disingenuous, but those distinctions go unnoticed to someone operating on emotion. If we understand that such people make decisions based on what generates the strongest emotional response, "mitigation" loses out to "abolition" every time.

Violent conflicts are ugly things we would all prefer to not think about, because the notion of them makes us fearful, angry, horrified, and mournful. Therfore, "emotive-thinkers" tend to not dwell on them. Having refused serious contemplation of violent conflict, it is hard to expect them to understand things like tactics, effectiveness, lethality, or justification without coming off as morbid.

The closest thing to a visceral, emotion-based, self-evident argument in favor of guns (that is not based on distortions) is that of righteous self-preservation. It is immediately obvious to anyone possessing the slightest moral guidance (i.e. not a sociopath) that someone should have been able to fight back against Adam Lanza (et. al.). Regardless of the weapon he used, it is obvious the defender should have at least had parity with the attacker.

Whether a person is "uncomfortable" with teachers carrying guns on a daily basis, anyone in their right mind dearly wishes they had been available the day of the shooting. There is no such thing as a contradiction in logic, which means one of the emotions expressed in the last sentence is incorrect. Logic indicates it is the reluctance accept the need for firearms, as gunowners realize. However, emotion alone cannot provide this answer, and the resulting emotional "confusion" leaves many vulnerable to false arguments that promise the elimination of violence altogether, that carry no emotional conflict (only logical conflict, that goes unnoticed).

In my opinion, the heroic (if ineffective) sacrifice of the teachers and administrators at Sandy Hook needs much more attention than it has gotten. That is the "emotional" evidence vindicating what we all know to be true. The media was fairly quick to pay lip service to the heroes for about a week, but we've heard nothing about the need for bravery in the face of danger/tragedy in the months since. No speculation on whether their desperate defense would have had an impact had they possessed the means to retaliate. No assertions their deaths would been more honorable if had they died valiantly fighting back with arms instead of defending in vain with only their bodies. Only that we can somehow stop bad things from ever happening again if we can just do something. One realization is based in a mature acceptance of reality, and one is a lullaby to coax a child back to sleep.

It is imperative we do not let our laws be written by children (obvious reference to Obama's Letters from the Children last week)

TCB

 

[gossamer]

Thanks for all the responses everyone. I encourage anyone who has time to listen to the interview with Dr Hupp.

Her perspective, even though it comes from a grave outcome, I think enlightens on why pro-RKBA people choose their path of defense.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

Good interview. Massive, massive distrust of gun owners and paranoia floating around in the heads of many who commented upon the page featuring the interview.

 

[gossamer]

There's also some very pig-headed comments coming from some pro-RKBA folks too. Ignorance knows no uniform.