COMMUNICATIONS TECHNIQUES FOR THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE
As a pro-gun activist, you will engage in discussions with various people who have different opinions on the issue of gun control. Your purpose is to sway them to your point of view.
In any discussion, there are three groups of people. The first is that group that agrees with your position, the second are those that are neutral, the third are those that are against you. If successful in your presentation, the best you can realistically expect is to sway those who were previously neutral to your side, and those against you to be neutral. The purpose of this paper is to help you to influence your audience to the latter scenario.
A typical discussion will last about seven to ten minutes. In that time you have to make an impact on those present to sway them toward your point of view. This could be a discussion with a co-worker, or a discussion with your elected official's staffer, or your elected official, or the editor of your newspaper.
In order to sway them to your point of view, you need to use the proper communications techniques.
POSITIVE POWER AND INFLUENCE
According to the text, Positive Power and Influence (1), there are four major ways to get someone to come to our point of view. The four techniques are 1)Persuasion, 2) Bridging, 3) Assertiveness, 4) Vision.
1) Persuasion is the technique of the technically able, one who is versed in numbers and facts. The method of using persuasion is to use a statement of the sort--"Take a look at these facts, and you'll agree that we should avoid gun control". Persuasion takes time, typically longer than the seven to ten minutes that a conversation lasts because the person whom you are addressing must accept you as an authority on the subject of which you speak. Unless that happens, your statements are typically ignored. The time you need to establish yourself as an authority robs you of the time you need to try to put your point across.
Most gun-owners are technical type people. They enjoy machinery, can probably tell you how their gun operates in exquisite detail, know something about its capabilities, how far it can shoot, how much energy the bullet has, etc. And people who own military or older firearms take pride in knowing a bit of the history about the gun, about where it was used, dates, battles, etc.
Furthermore, people that are technically inclined (gun-owners included) can often determine to their satisfaction as to whether or not the person talking to them is indeed an authority on the subject they are discussing in relatively short time. Thus gun people (like most engineers) use persuasion to a fault. They often employ it in situations where they probably shouldn't. Gun control debates/discussions are a good example.
The trouble with this technique is that most of the population are not technically inclined. From some other source, somewhat of 75% of the population are not technically literate. Thus persuasion, the communications technique of choice of most gun owners, is of little or no use in public discussions.
2) Bridging is the technique wherein you try to draw out your opponents fears and concerns to try to determine middle ground upon which you can open discussion. This technique is used in negotiations a great deal. In politics, this is called compromise--and to most enthusiastic pro-2nd Amendment types, this is a dirty word.
Bridging also takes a great deal of time. It takes time for each side to get to feel at ease with each other sufficient to be able to discuss what it is that they are concerned with most. As before, this amount of time is not available in a typical discussion of seven to ten minutes. Thus bridging is also not an acceptable way of trying to get your point across.
3) Assertiveness. A typical statement used in an Assertiveness technique is "Either you do this or else I'll do that...!" This is what the anti-gunners have been using against us for years, and many of us truly didn't know what was happening. The anti-gunners have been using the moral high ground by saying "Guns are responsible for crime, and if you believe people should own a gun, you are morally responsible for crime!" in other words, "Either give up your gun, or I'll brand you a social outcast!"
Assertiveness does not need factual evidence to back it up. An example from one of the early leaders in the gun control movement, Sen. Joseph Tydings, in a discussion proposing national registration of all firearms(2):
Returning briefly to the efficacy of firearms registration, there is no doubt that such a program would be of immeasurable value to the police in solving gun crimes.
Note that he does not say, "Based on a study by...", nor does he use any facts. The above statement is a pure assertion.
Assertiveness has the benefit of being able to be employed with little time required. A strategically thought out statement can be all that is necessary to get your point across. A series of such statements can equip a person with a veritable arsenal of statements in which to deliver your point. Assertiveness gives the speaker an air of authority to many people that listen, and puts the receiver on the defensive--a plus in any debate. (who's been on the defensive in all this mess?)
4) Vision. This is technique that is used by more successful leaders. A typical usage of a vision statement is of the sort " Imagine what it would be like if we only did this....!" Using a slow sweeping motion with your hand is good technique to put the image of "painting a vision" in your audience's mind.
This technique is more refined than assertiveness, and gives the speaker an air of nobility--something that can win admirers in your audience, and make it difficult for your opponent to attack you without his/her losing some points with other listeners. Plus, Vision statements are usually lacking in solid facts or details, thus making it difficult for your opponent to attack. Something like, "Remember what it was like a few years ago, when we could walk at night and not fear for our lives? Well, we didn't have gun control then either. Just imagine, we could try getting rid of the gun control laws we have now, and maybe we could walk the streets, unafraid, once again!"
Being an engineer, I looked at the facts provided by this course, and came to the conclusion that gun owners are technical people, and rely too heavily on persuasion and bridging. They do not use enough assertiveness and/or vision. Thus, I derived my contention regarding gun control.
Epilogue
It was one of those magazines that someone left at the range to share with other shooters who were waiting their turn on the line.
I picked it up and began thumbing through it, looking for whatever its pages could contain on a subject near and dear to my heart, firearms activism. Spying a title about a public debate, I eagerly soaked up the facts, Neal Knox and Harlon Carter debated Police Chief Joseph McNamara at GAMECOIN in Austin TX. Most notably:"Based on the points covered and statistics used, our side clearly won." I was hooked!
Okay things are now turning around! When did this happen? Turing to the cover, I saw "American Rifleman, Feb. 1977".
I couldn't get that last statement out of my mind,"...Based on the points....". It seems that all the facts and statistics point to the conclusion that gun control doesn't work, yet in 1990, pro-gun advocates are still losing. Why?
Thus began my quest for debate skills, communications techniques, and any other information that could be used to turn the tide in our favor. My conclusion is that the issue of primary concern is gun control, and that we rely on one communications technique far too much, and that technique is not suitable for use with the general public.
It is my hope that the following information can be of help for the cause.
-JK