The ancient Chinese warrior Sun Tzu taught his men to “know your enemy” before going into battle. For if “you know your enemy and know yourself,” he wrote, “you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” But, Sun Tzu warned, “If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.”
In this current gun control political climate, we need to know and understand those on the other side of the issue.
Take a look at the anti-gun playbook, they actually have one and it’s a doozy. It’s hysterical. The book actually claims that they automatically win the debate on logical terms and, thus, should focus on emotional appeals. I know the latter is true but are they dumb enough to actually think they win the logical debate? Probably.
Looking at the actual playbook there are some interesting things. This is particularly intriguing:
Advocates for gun violence prevention win the logical debate, but lose on more emotional terms.
This is followed by these “Key Messaging Principles”:
#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.
#2: TELL STORIES WITH IMAGES AND FEELINGS.
#3: CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.
If they “win the logical debate” then why not play on that turf rather than engaging on the emotional battlefield?
Read the playbook. It’s conformation of the things we have been saying for years. They don’t have facts they have emotions. They literally believe that being a victim grants them moral authority:
Many of the most active advocates and voices in the gun violence prevention movement are people who have personally lived through a life-changing gun violence experience. That painful reality gives such spokespeople special moral authority.
If you or a loved one were raped does that give you the moral authority to demand all men be put in jail or neutered? If you or a loved one were destitute does that give you the moral authority to demand others give you their property? If you or a loved one were slandered or libeled does that give you the moral authority the demand “sensible laws to prevent slander and libel” which infringe upon the right to freedom of speech?
The answer is no. And to those that believe they have moral authority because they or a loved one were injured by someone with a gun the answer is also no.
