imported post
Well like I said, your letter was very good as it was written.
When we deal with people, its most effective to NOT trigger the 'defensive reflex'.
Once we trigger the 'defensive reflex' people close their minds and become more concerned about defending themselves than thinking and gaining information. Its kinda like the best way to stop a run-away horse. You don't smack into it head on. You come up along side of it in stride first... THEN you drop the rope over its neck and slowly draw it in the direction you want to go.
Much of the time, the people we deal with in the anti-gun world are not people of logic but people of emotion. Some people so much so, and so entrenched in their thoughts that we willnever appeal to them. Weare probably wasting our time totry. But we should try to appeal to the 'fence sitters'. The people who haven't really formed a deep seeded opinion. Maybe they have no experience with guns, and have a perception that is more based in emotion, media influence etc, but don't really have a hard-core stance.
These are the people we can win over if we come up along side of them first, and then draw them our direction.
Those kinds or people will like the emotional appeal if we can make it. We can use emotion for our benefit. We may not be use to 'debating' like that, as we are about logic and facts, but it still works. Those kinds of people "feel" more than they "analyze" We have to make it "feel" right.
As an example. An emotional thinker will not respond to stuff like: "An armed society is a polite society" Thats totally true, but they can't relate and its too hard to think that through. In fact, it seems contrary. Requires to much analytical thought to make the connection.
Better to appeal to an emotional thinker by saying: "we support open carry so that the single mom who works downtown who has to stay late working overtime for her familyand then walk to her car 5 blocks away at night has the ability to protect herself from thugs"
By making the emotional appeal, you bring the emotional thinker in line with you. They open their mind and become more receptive to logical arguements after you break down the emotional wall.
It didn't make the interview they aired that I did at the picnic monday, but Heather Shannon asked me about the people who were at the picnic and was I suprised at how young some were. I told her "some people want to be champions of their rights. Some people want to socialize and network with other people who believe the same thing they do" "But many people don't want to go to open carry picnics, and they don't want to read laws and be activists. They just want to be able to walk their dog at night with a sidearm for safety. They just want to be able to walk to their car at night and be able to protect themselves if something happens." And I told her that these rights are not about 40 people at a picnic with guns but that we do so, so that others can have their right to go to walk to the store at night and be safe.
Emotional appeals work really well in some circumstances.
