Column
Guns: Selling the 'Reason' Not the 'Right'
By Bob Burg
Aug 14, 2008

In the parking lot of my local Publix grocery store, I saw a pickup truck recently with a bumper sticker that read: “Gun control means hitting your target.”

Ha ha. That’s really funny.

Actually, it kind of is funny. And, those of us who agree with the Supreme Court’s recent decision — that gun ownership is an individual right — would probably agree that this is exactly how gun control should be defined.

However, it is not a particularly effective bumper sticker if our goal is to persuade gun control advocates to re-think their position.

Why? Because, first, only those of us who already agree with the message will agree and find it amusing. Great, we can all get together and have a nice Kumbaya moment.

Second, those who are not already inclined to agree will take offense, shut down any alternative way of thinking, and be more fully convinced that people who are not for gun control are simply “gun nuts.”

Third, effective persuasion must include presenting ideas in a way that includes — not excludes — the person you desire to convert.

And I believe that today, more than ever, that is important. We are in a war right now — a war of ideas, of philosophies, of basic premises concerning the effective working of our country — especially as it pertains to the proper role of government in our lives.

In a recent column in his excellent e-zine “A Voice of Sanity in An Insane World,” Robert Ringer recently wrote:

Those who are celebrating the recent pro-gun victory are blinded by the reality of what it really means. It was, in fact, a sad day in the waning years of the American Empire when the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that the D.C. ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

I say that because when the U.S. was still the home of the free, the vote would have been 9-0. Actually, there would not have been a vote, because there would not have been a ban in the first place. There was a time when government would not have dared to tell a person he didn’t have the right to protect his family.

I agree with Robert completely.

But here’s the problem. Many wouldn’t agree with him at all. And they don’t agree with the decision.

And we are not going to get the many individual citizens who want to press the government to take away our right to keep and bear arms to see the light by quoting the Second Amendment.

Remember, they don’t care.

Let me repeat that: They don’t care.

So, we have a choice. Actually, I see three options:

Option 1 – We don’t care what they think: This means that we maintain our self-righteous attitude, knowing we are correct and they are wrong.

Of course, nothing will change and our right to protect ourselves and our loved ones in the way we see fit will be more and more in danger.

Option 2 – We can try to intellectualize them into submission: We can quote the 2nd Amendment. We can explain that rights refer to individuals and powers refer to government. 

We can even point out the number of times and the context within our founding documents where rights and powers are used and — as the adults used to sound to the children on the Charlie Brown/Peanuts television specials ... “Waa Waa Wa Waaa Waaa Wa Waaa.”

Option 3 – We can persuade them, by showing how they benefit from the right to keep and bear arms and how they and their loved ones are in danger by having these rights taken away.

Note, this doesn’t mean we need to persuade them to personally keep and bear arms. As we know, it’s the very “right” itself — the possibility that someone might own a gun — that messes with the mind of the would-be criminal or home invader and, hopefully, keeps them from taking the chance.

I’ll tell you right now — I don’t own a handgun and probably never will. Not because I’m against handguns; obviously, I’m an outspoken advocate of the right to keep and bear arms.

No, I won’t buy a gun because I’m a klutz. I’m sort of like Barney Fife and am just as likely to shoot myself in the foot as I am to hit the target. I say that only half-jokingly. (On the other hand, if you are a potential home-invader reading this, I actually do own a hand gun. Or, do I? I guess you’ll find out if you’re stupid enough to try invading my home.)

So, let’s go with the persuasion aspect. One of my heroes, the late Harry Browne (www.HarryBrowne.com), taught that we have to “sell” liberty because, unfortunately, too many people today simply don’t understand the benefits. And, the gentleman that Harry was, he taught us that the key was gentle persuasion. Indeed, it is the most effective.

How do we do this? My suggestion is to first focus on being inclusive rather than exclusive. Don’t make the gun control advocate your enemy. Instead, turn him or her into a friend.

The basic premise of my book Endless Referrals: Network Your Everyday Contacts into Sales can be summarized as this: All things being equal, people will do business with, and refer business to, those people they know, like and trust.

It’s the same when selling an idea. Before they’ll buy into your idea, and spread the word to others, they must first buy into you.

You can do this by communicating to them that you both have the same basic goal — which, please realize, you do indeed have: It is protecting yourself and your loved ones. Their ignorance should not be confused with mal-intent.

You might begin the discussion by utilizing “The Ransberger Pivot,” developed by Ray Ransberger and Marshall Fritz. You start by finding a point of agreement, and express is thusly: “Dave, like you, I’d also like to...” In this case, you’d fill in the blank with words such as, “...live in a country where everyone and their loved ones felt safe from threats of violence.”

How could the person not agree with that statement? After all, that is the very reason why he or she wants gun control. Because they currently think that is what will keep them and their loved ones safe from guns. Of course, since you know the very opposite is true, once you have their ear, now you can explain why the very opposite is true.

However, this must be done with tact, kindness, and patience if — and only if — you are truly interested in changing their mind and not just making them feel badly for their incorrect thinking. That, of course, is up to you.

The purpose of this article is to share methods of persuasion. I truly hope you agree that this is the route to go, and that you care too much about the safety of you and your loved ones to instead let your ego take over and just put down another person.

Remember — to the degree you make them think that you think they’re an idiot, that is the degree to which they will resist you and your ideas and, as a result, not change their thinking. Should it be that way? Perhaps not. But, it is.

Now, back to the bumper sticker.

I believe that bumper stickers should be used — but not as the person in our initial paragraph used his. He used his to separate the two sides, and, of course, that is his right.

I suggest, instead, that we use bumper stickers to persuade. While there is not enough space on a bumper sticker to actually cause someone to change their mind, there is enough space to get them curious to want to know more.

My suggestions for bumper stickers would be along the lines of: “Gun control is a blessing to criminals.”

That might cause a person to think and hopefully ask the — hopefully polite and well-spoken — vehicle owner why that is. It is then up to that owner to be able to explain why gun control leads to more violence, rather than less. (Since there have been many articles on this topic, we won’t cover that here.)

“Criminals love gun control. Then they get to have all the guns.”

“Gun control only disarms us — the already law-abiding citizens.”

Even better, put a website address on these bumper stickers, where people could go to get more information and have the underlying premises explained to them in a non-threatening and persuasive manner.

Perhaps the NRA, GOA, JPFO or other similar organizations will pick up on this idea and put it into action.

Imagine ... instead of trying to bully the gun control advocates into re-thinking their position — which won’t work — we can actually “educate” them to do so.

Easy? Probably not.

But, then again, very few things of consequence are easy. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be done.