I did a google search on the following and looks like there's some good research articles.

"Facts harden peoples opinion against"

Also, this is the guy referenced in the last video. You can google search this, too, and come up with interesting research on fake news in politics.

"brendan nyhan dartmouth facts"

"Cognitive Dissonance"

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

This Article Won't Change Your Mind
....The facts on why facts alone can't fight false beliefs

It's a very long article, but you can actually listen to someone read it via the button inside that link, so if you have a long commute...?

I imagine there's a lot of wisdom in all these links that can be used for all sorts of interactions we have in life, not just politics, but also convincing folks in sales, relationships, etc.

I am also reminded of Pre-suasion's author. Getting on the same page with others thru tactful use of language. It's not us vs them.... that's the wrong approach, the opposite of Robert Cialdini's message.

concordtom said:

---

Yeah, I was being sarcastic.
I would never want to go to a gun range either.
But it would be I teresting to see if this person, tilting right, was like, "Alright! Let's go!"

---

Probably everyone should go to a gun range once just to become acquainted with how to safely use a handgun. I can't say that I enjoyed my time there and felt extremely uncomfortable with it, but at least now I've been exposed to it.

Agreed. My sister in Glen Ellen ands has a gun just in case, and went to a class or 2.

The only thing guns can do is fire bullets, and those can injure and kill people.
I'm not interested in either.

Yogi Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yeah, I was being sarcastic.
I would never want to go to a gun range either.
But it would be I teresting to see if this person, tilting right, was like, "Alright! Let's go!"

---

Probably everyone should go to a gun range once just to become acquainted with how to safely use a handgun. I can't say that I enjoyed my time there and felt extremely uncomfortable with it, but at least now I've been exposed to it.

---

I went to a pistol range in Milpitas once and fired a Glock, a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum and a .45 Colt Model 1910. I got asthma from the gunpowder because the air system wasn't dispersing it fast enough. When I looked at the rules governing the range I figured that many of those rules were regularly violated and I never went back. I preferred the .357 because of the light trigger pressure required to discharge it.

concordtom said:

---

The only thing guns can do is fire bullets, and those can injure and kill people.
I'm not interested in either.

---

I'm not either, but if there's a gun nearby and it's the bad guy or my family, the bad guy is getting a gun fired at him. Or at least pointed in his direction to get him to back off.

Yogi Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yeah, I was being sarcastic.
I would never want to go to a gun range either.
But it would be I teresting to see if this person, tilting right, was like, "Alright! Let's go!"

---

Probably everyone should go to a gun range once just to become acquainted with how to safely use a handgun. I can't say that I enjoyed my time there and felt extremely uncomfortable with it, but at least now I've been exposed to it.

---

Meh, I had a friend teach me gun safety in an Indiana basement one drunken night. Was a good time but I don't remember much.

Yogi Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

The only thing guns can do is fire bullets, and those can injure and kill people.
I'm not interested in either.

---

I'm not either, but if there's a gun nearby and it's the bad guy or my family, the bad guy is getting a gun fired at him. Or at least pointed in his direction to get him to back off.

---

And that's how the NRA wants us all to think.

When I was in college in DC, we took a trip to their headquarters and the just older than me lobbyists that gave us thentour told us endless stories about people "if they had a gun, this wouldn't have happened."
By the end, I was like "Bull Chit!"

What they don't tell you about are the accidental shootings, the suicides, the escalated encounters that occur when there is a gun."

In my mind, we just need to wipe out all magazine shooting guns, semi-automatics. For starters.
If you wanna be a hunter, shoot a single shot rifle. It's okay if we made it more of a prized (harder) kill.

The right to bear arms (protect self) does not mean atomic bombs, apache attack helicopters, rocket launchers. It should not mean grenades, machine guns, or other weapons of mass murder.

At the time of the constitution, citizens had guns and served in local militias. This allowed them to rise up against the red coats. What did the framers have in mind when they wrote their "bear arms" amendment?

The NRA is not an organization that is interested in creating a better society, as the framers of the constitution were. The NRA is interested in selling as much wesponry for profit as possible. It aims to shape public opinion to make that happen. We are all brainwashed on the subject. They've been very successful.

I confess, it's hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

It's a community issue. You should have a right to bear arms or not to bear arms as your community sees fit- all, nothing, or in between. Nine old people in DC running their fingers over parchment have nothing to do with it-neither does the federal government. Why give up your rights to them?

I believe everyone should learn gun safety, even if you don't own, don't wish to own and will never own. I've never owned a gun but I've been to the range starting with Boy Scouts. Went a few times after that. It was extrememely educational, especially later when I looked at the people at the range.

See if you want gun control, you have to have an idea what guns do, the culture...and the fringe weirdos who make up the NRA. (Let's hope the whole Russkie collusion thing rips the NRA apart.)

I haven't given it a lot of thought but there's something wrong with the extreme gun owners, the open carry types and the stand your ground types. It's like someone just have them a new, shiny ginormous stunt *****...and well DANG...lets shot some crap and pretend we got big ones!

Anarchistbear said:

---

It's a community issue. You should have a right to bear arms or not to bear arms as your community sees fit- all, nothing, or in between. Nine old people in DC running their fingers over parchment have nothing to do with it-neither does the federal government. Why give up your rights to them?

---

So, would this community be a state, a county, a city, a town, a neighborhood, a street?
What do you propose?

Whatever a like minded group of citizens that rules itself looks like.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Whatever a like minded group of citizens that rules itself looks like.

---

That's completely unworkable. Illegal.
If 10 people down a rural road make an agreement, but one refuses, the ten cannot implore the other 2 on that road to the same agreement unless the appropriate state/federal laws support it.

concordtom said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Whatever a like minded group of citizens that rules itself looks like.

---

That's completely unworkable. Illegal.
If 10 people down a rural road make an agreement, but one refuses, the ten cannot implore the other 2 on that road to the same agreement unless the appropriate state/federal laws support it.

---

They make the rules- why wouldn't it be 100% agreement? Why do your "rights" derive from the state or some obscure 18th century document? Why not from participatory democracy and the understanding that we all have natural "rights"?

The security is that everyone agrees to disarm.
If one person thinks that someone else is not going to disarm, then the tendency is to fear that person and similarly not disarm.
Needs to be widespread to work.
Otherwise, fear as you heard in the post above rules and more people are apt to load up.

Whether they all carry or are banned by localities doesn't bother me. I don't believe in gun control- at least federally. Guns in Idaho and guns in Chicago cannot have the same rules. We're the United States not the United People.

Any distinction for you between handguns, rifles, repeat fire guns, grenade launchers, flamethrowers, etc?

Where would you draw the line in Idaho, or Chicago?
No line at all? How about if I have a laser gun?
How about if I have a Drone?

Where's the line?
It's complicated. Can you take your generic rule and apply to actual circumstances?

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

That's too bad.
But, maybe next time see if he and his son want to go target shooting at the local gun range. See how long it takes to hear back on that offer.

---

There is a local gun range owned by a guy who lives in town and I've been asked a couple times if I have any interest. I have none.

Haha again - the left and right live in different worlds.

---

FWIW, I've owned nine firearms for over 25 years, enjoy going to the range, and I'm seriously considering working for the Buttigieg campaign. Enjoying firearms safely and responsibly crosses ideological/party lines.

Also FWIW, I think Canada's approach to firearms regulation is the way to go: more lax regulation on long guns, heavy regulation/restriction on handguns. Even though the mass shootings with AR-style guns gets the bulk of the attention, it's the dreary handgun shootings that constitute the majority of firearms injuries and homicides. Portability and concealability make them the weapons of choice for those who would do surprise mayhem in public. You want to protect your house? Nothing better than a pump shotgun.

Also also FWIW, When you look at Trump think Berlusconi, not Hitler. This is farce, not fascism. The man has no real political agenda past his own self-interest. As for those who still love him, this article is still a good one, even if it's from a while back:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2017/01/trump_sold_america_a_miracle_cure_it_will_fail_he_ll_get_off_for_free.html

People don't like to admit that they've been duped

concordtom said:

---

Any distinction for you between handguns, rifles, repeat fire guns, grenade launchers, flamethrowers, etc?

Where would you draw the line in Idaho, or Chicago?
No line at all? How about if I have a laser gun?
How about if I have a Drone?

Where's the line?
It's complicated. Can you take your generic rule and apply to actual circumstances?

---

The people in their community define the line- not the Supreme Court and not the State -neither of whom offer reasonable solutions without denying a lot of freedom- the freedom to not bear arms or the freedom to bear arms. FWIW I spend a few months every year in a Southern state. Everyone packs- black, white, gay, straight, Democrat or Republican but I don't know anyone who owns a flame thrower or a grenade launcher. These things take care of themselves.

BearsWiin said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

That's too bad.
But, maybe next time see if he and his son want to go target shooting at the local gun range. See how long it takes to hear back on that offer.

---

There is a local gun range owned by a guy who lives in town and I've been asked a couple times if I have any interest. I have none.

Haha again - the left and right live in different worlds.

---

FWIW, I've owned nine firearms for over 25 years, enjoy going to the range, and I'm seriously considering working for the Buttigieg campaign. Enjoying firearms safely and responsibly crosses ideological/party lines.

Also FWIW, I think Canada's approach to firearms regulation is the way to go: more lax regulation on long guns, heavy regulation/restriction on handguns. Even though the mass shootings with AR-style guns gets the bulk of the attention, it's the dreary handgun shootings that constitute the majority of firearms injuries and homicides. Portability and concealability make them the weapons of choice for those who would do surprise mayhem in public. You want to protect your house? Nothing better than a pump shotgun.

Also also FWIW, When you look at Trump think Berlusconi, not Hitler. This is farce, not fascism. The man has no real political agenda past his own self-interest. As for those who still love him, this article is still a good one, even if it's from a while back:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2017/01/trump_sold_america_a_miracle_cure_it_will_fail_he_ll_get_off_for_free.html

People don't like to admit that they've been duped

---

OK, but is the local high school musical bipartisan too?

I haven't asked, but there are a lot of Nazis in the cast

Sound of Music

concordtom said:

---

And that's how the NRA wants us all to think.

What they don't tell you about are the accidental shootings, the suicides, the escalated encounters that occur when there is a gun."

---

The other thing they won't tell you, and that we do not address at all culturally, is the aftermath of the shooting. The "I'll just shoot the bad guy" crowd like to make it seem that's it's this clean transaction: I shoot bad guy, problem over.

The fact is there is often collateral damage in a shooting...and often that collateral damage is the mental scars of killing and witnessing of the killing. It's not cool or macho or a video game to shoot another human being. There is almost no acknowledgment of the humanity of that bad guy, or the repercussions to the "justified" shooter and those who are traumatized as witnesses, and the infringement on the morality of thou shall not kill.

How many times, could the "good guy with a gun" have deescalated the situation or escaped the conflict rather than go John Wayne on it? And how many fewer bad guys would be armed to begin with if we had gun control?

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Any distinction for you between handguns, rifles, repeat fire guns, grenade launchers, flamethrowers, etc?

Where would you draw the line in Idaho, or Chicago?
No line at all? How about if I have a laser gun?
How about if I have a Drone?

Where's the line?
It's complicated. Can you take your generic rule and apply to actual circumstances?

---

The people in their community define the line- not the Supreme Court and not the State -neither of whom offer reasonable solutions without denying a lot of freedom- the freedom to not bear arms or the freedom to bear arms. FWIW I spend a few months every year in a Southern state. Everyone packs- black, white, gay, straight, Democrat or Republican but I don't know anyone who owns a flame thrower or a grenade launcher. These things take care of themselves.

---

are you sure about that?

The US is not comparable to any of the countries listed on that graph, it has certain similarities with high-crime developing world countries like Brazil, that most OECD countries don't share. Most homicides in the US are gang-related violence that became prevalent in the 1960s/70s after family structures dissolved, particularly in African American communities. This is not a purely racial issue, because many West African countries like Ghana or Sierra Leone have pretty low homicide rates.

It sounds like you are trying to rationalize away all those deaths, as if they don't happen?
They do.

If we're doing just as well as Brazil, things must be fine then!

The US doesn't have a flamethrower or grenade launcher problem. It has a hand gun problem

If you look at gun deaths, 2/3 are suicides- that's mostly a rural white male demographic. Murders are largely a black young urban male problem. Gun deaths are about half of drug overdoses. We are a society in decline with tremendous alienation and people at the margins.

So, you are for banning handguns and drugs?
Nice!
I concur.

Nah, I'm for expansion,

Anarchistbear said:

---

The US doesn't have a flamethrower or grenade launcher problem. It has a hand gun problem

If you look at gun deaths, 2/3 are suicides- that's mostly a rural white male demographic. Murders are largely a black young urban male problem. Gun deaths are about half of drug overdoses. We are a society in decline with tremendous alienation and people at the margins.

---

So without changing the subject or squirming out to mincing definitions:

1) Do you think it is a good idea to make sure that every person who owns a gun is mentally stable and not a threat to the public as best we can determine?

2) Do you think we should figure out a clear definition and distinction of arms that would and should be used for hunting and protection, and restrict those that are reasonably identified as those that could be used for mass shootings/criminal intent and reserve those for military and law enforcement? Or does everyone get access to everything?

Can you give a straight answer on those?

I have no problems in principle, but it depends who makes these judgements. They should be made by communities not in DC or by the courts.