|Pro-Gun Rights vs. Anti-Gun Rights
||[Sep. 12th, 2004|03:11 am]
Yesterday we had a post on this group talking about the expiration of the Assault Weapons ban this Monday. The original poster, after deleting a number of comments she felt were "childish", deleted her post. This is a debate community, so deleting of comments, even ones you think are childish, I think is a bit uncalled for.|
But it brings up an issue that I've been thinking about a lot lately, because I've had to defend the ban's expiration to a number of people in the past week. I think we often don't do a great job of communicating these issues to people who don't agree with us, or to people don't really just don't know anything about the issue, but may or may not have reflexive opinions about it based on what they've heard.
Let's admit it; we live in an echo chamber sometimes, and spend more time bouncing our own arguments off each other than we do to people who either don't agree with us, or have minimal exposure to the arguments. Using the assault weapons ban as an example, is there any way to frame this issue, or gun rights in general, that can be persuasive and non-threatening to non-shooting folk?