Statistics
Aug
27
CU Regents reject Campus Concealed Carry, Passion Didn’t Work.
August 27, 2008 | Tagged campus concealed carry, Gerry Spence, NLP, positive influence techniques | 1 Comment
According to a story in the Boulder Daily Camera, the Colorado University Regents last week rejected a student petition to allow licensed CCW permit holders to carry guns on campuses in the university system. Regents commenting on the petition presentation cited “inflammatory rhetoric” and lack of facts and logic in refusing to consider the issue. Not all of the Regents were ideologically against concealed carry, but even one potential supporter urged a different approach.
Logic, passion, facts, legal authority, or morality won’t necessarily carry the day in a discussion of the individual right to self-defense against crime and tyranny. A case in point is the Heller decision. The United States Supreme Court told the Washington D.C. governing council that their ordinance banning handguns and requiring that all guns be disassembled or locked up was unconstitutional. The D.C. council promptly revised their regulations, lifting the handgun ban, but banning semi-automatic handguns and still requiring that all guns be disassembled or locked up, unless actually being used for self-defense. (Heller has filed another lawsuit.)
There are some people that you can’t convince on a topic, because their self-concepts are so bound up in a particular belief system, that changing that system would unravel their personalities. Professional victims, who seem to make up a significant percentage of Democrat politicians and voters, are good examples. If you take away victimhood and oppression, they lose their identities. Who will they demonstrate against? How will they struggle against oppression, if there are no oppressors? Liberals preach moral equivalency, but they can always find underdogs to support, capitalists to hate, or their own grievances to nurse in the name of “social justice” until they fester into “causes,” ”movements,” and demonstrations.
You will probably not change the mind of a card-carrying Liberal on gun control. They get their information from different sources. They don’t trust the sources that we trust, any more than we typically trust their sources. See my post, “A figurative quick shot at liberals on gun control,” for suggestions. Also, my post on “Displacement as a defense mechanism in the irrational fear of guns” may prove helpful in some cases. It is, of course, easier to influence people when they do not have an opinion rooted in ideology.
Another way to change perception when it is possible to change perception, is to question a person on how he or she makes decisions to determine what criteria are used in the process. Does the person value logic? Do they value results without regard for methods? Do they crave personal power? Do they act on intuition? Do they nearly always empathize with the “underdog?” Do they want to keep everyone happy? Will they take a risk for the sake of taking a risk? Once you understand what a person values and how he/she decides, it may be possible to “frame” your proposal so that it makes sense in terms of his or her own mental organization and value system. See Robert Dilts’ books on Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) (TM) on the above link or other NLP books for more information on this technique.
One way for students to seek to establish their legal right to self-protection on campus would be to study the biographies and voting records of the CU Regents and try to determine what they value and how they have made decisions in the past. Returning to the Board of Regents, a spokesperson might open with something like, “Thank you for hearing our proposal. We appreciate your feedback on our last presentation. We have modified our approach based on your suggestions. We know how important is it for you to maximize the safety of students on your campuses. We would like to help you in reaching that goal.” This is one example of a technique from NLP known as “pacing.” Pacing is an attempt to match your interaction with the person you are trying to influence in accordance with his or her perceptions and methods of processing information. Pacing can get quite specific and can be very effective.
(Quick note: it is very important to use the powerful techniques of NLP in ways that are not harmful to anyone else or yourself. NLP practitioners refer to this as “ecology.” You can think about it as Karma, if you want to. As far as I am concerned, allowing people to defend themselves against crime and tyranny is about as moral a position as you can take.)
Gerry Spence, the famous Wyoming attorney who won the Weaver/Ruby Ridge Case, the Karen Silkwood/Kerr McGee Case, the Rock Springs Sheriff Shooting Case, and many other legal battles uses methods similar to NLP to influence juries. Spence’s books, Gunning for Justice and How to Argue and Win Every Time are worthwhile reads. Spence claims on his site that he has never lost a criminal case and that it has been decades since he lost in a civil proceeding.
So, enough psychology, already. I know, that if you are reading this blog, you are highly intelligent, very perceptive, and open-minded enough to consider any new, useful ideas you may encounter. You do not fit the Liberal stereotypes that portray you as a knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal, gun-owning, clingy, bitter Neo Con. You are logical and selective in choosing and evaluating your sources of information.
Stay well. Enjoy the mirth and contradictions in the human spirit. Stay positive. One major advantage that we enjoy over the Left is that we can laugh at ourselves. They are sooo serious and sooo sure that they are right. Er, Left, Er, whatever!
Def Mech
Comments
1 Comment so far
Good stuff. I like your realism. If we want to enact change and the Powers That Be don’t want change we have two options: kick them out or make our proposal seem more appealing. The former is impossible, the latter will be successful.