We’ve talked on several occasions here on the lack of “Red Team Thinking” done on the anti-gun side when they present their points. I see a lot of evidence (especially from all the outrage from Colion Noir NRA show, as well as all the clips of Glen Beck I used to see on “Progressive” websites back when he was on basic cable) that the other side DOES venture across the political and ideological aisle on a regular basis. Still when they craft their arguments it seems to show they HEAR what the other side is saying, but don’t contemplate WHY the other side is saying it.
The end result is what we often see in what passes for debate these days as “Talking past each other”. Hell look at the greatest victory on gun control. The 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban”, it succeeded because of red team thinking. Back in the 80s and 90s we had what our side calls “Gun Culture 1.0” people had guns, but A) It was mostly people living in rural areas, and they were mostly white B) Most of the shooting done in this country was hunting game animals, and target shooting, and C) The “Newer” guns like the AR-15, and Glock Pistols weren’t as popular as bolt-action rifles, pump-action shotguns, and single-stack pistols and revolvers. So a bill that attacked the guns that many people didn’t have, and were ignorant of worked very well.
It backfired on them of course because all this talk of “Assault Weapons” and “High capacity clips” got people to ask questions about them, and buy examples of them just for novelty.
At the same time police forces were switching over from Revolvers and Slide-action shotguns to semi-auto rifles and double-stack pistols. This has been mistakenly argued as an “Arms Race” against criminals, but criminals were mostly using cheap single-stack pistols, revolvers, and slide-action shotguns. Really this was like the switch from carbureted engines to electronic fuel injection. Yeah there were arguments for the “old ways”, but really the new technology was superior and now you really can’t buy a new EFI car from a dealer.
I’m getting off on a rant here, but this video really opened my eyes to the extent of the Red Team thinking of the other side:
I really think it isn’t just lawful gun owners they don’t understand. They also don’t understand the criminal element. Hell when I first moved to Medford Mass my soon-to-be wife and I rented an apartment in a quaint little neighborhood. Now reading the news there were assaults and robberies in my town, and you could often hear police sirens at all hours. Still MY neighborhood was quiet and safe. Or so I thought. Then my landlord decided to sell the house as condominiums. We couldn’t afford to buy our unit, so we were essentially evicted and had to find a new place to live. My wife quickly went online and found that there were a bunch of units that were not only CHEAPER than what we were paying for rent, but only a few miles away!
WOW, had we been missing out on some great apartments for less money this whole time? You know what they say about stories that are too good to be true.
We went and viewed a few of the units. The neighborhood was AWEFUL, it was dirty, run down, and there were sketchy people sitting on stoops watching us. I had never wanted to have my carry permit more then. One of the apartments had a massive stain on the bedroom floor, and I wondered if former occupant had been murdered. Who knows. Still we were approximately two miles from our current apartment. WALKING DISTANCE!
This got me thinking, if the bad areas are walking distance from where you live, is your neighborhood really “safe”? Also this really changes when you note that criminals have cars.
It was really a big step on my Red Team thinking of the criminal element. Was I 24/7 terrified of being mugged? Did I think I would need an armed squad and close air support to keep me safe as I went to the grocery store and work? No, but I learned that no place is safe, and while we hope for the best, we should always prepare for the worst.
I really don’t think anti-gun people think much into the issue. Maybe it’s the fear that they always accuse us of. It can be pretty scary to think about such things when you also aren’t interested in thinking about how would you handle it.
So is the divide in the debate as simple as Red Team Thinking? I mean both the anti-gun and pro-gun side talk about wanting more public safety. We’re really not so different in that sense, but in terms of gaming out scenarios where bad people do bad things, there is a VAST difference.
It could still be a lack of red team thinking.
I mean there’s more to it than researching on the “red faction”.
One has to also consider the opposing team’s motivations, goals, and methods.
And that requires overcoming one’s own biases. This is especially true the more the other team differes from one’s own decision process and risk stack.
Now an arrogance and dehumanization of the opposing team does tend to go hand in hand with a disinterest in researching what the opposition acutally thinks and wants.
This type of selection bias is very easy to fall into, and becomes more tempting the more contemptible the opposition seems.
Clearly, this is a risk those on our side also face.
I think there is not thinking about the motivations and thought processes of the other side; then there is a whole different level some of them engage in – Denial of Reality.
How many times did we hear a refrain like “I never thought it could happen here” or “These types of things don’t happen in (Insert City Name Here).”
We’re really not so different in that sense, but in terms of gaming out scenarios where bad people do bad things, there is a VAST difference.
Not sure if I agree with the idea we are ‘gaming out scenarios’ as much as we are predicting probabilities based on real life statistics. Sure we game out scenarios for a particular situation (home invasion, mugged on the street –do I throw the coffee first or not –, etc) but only after evaluating the entirely real risks.
On the other hand; look at how hard the other side has to distort reality in order to ‘game out scenarios’ — “Oh, he only wants to steal stuff when he breaks into your house, just give him what he wants” or ‘Unless you live in a bad neighborhood, you don’t have to worry about crime’.
Or one of my favorites ” The government would never do (insert historical incident –Wound Knee, Japanese Internment, etc ) again”.
The other side wishes away the recreational aspects of shooting, except for hunting, on a regular basis — ‘guns have no other purpose than killing people’ — as if the .22LR rifles the TCU Rifle team used to win the National Championships were the same as the Armies M4s.
Not all are in complete denial of reality; I mean not everyone is a Jason “Baldr Odinson” Kilgore who thinks witnessing a homicide is ‘surviving a shooting’. Too many of them simply are closer to that end of the spectrum then are closer to understanding our world view.
The only thing I didn’t like in the video was the SWAT guy saying “enforce existing laws”, instead of “Repeal most of them”. See, we already have existing anti-gun laws here in the PDRK, and they have damn near squelched gun ownership, without doing a damned thing to the criminals and gangstas. The PDRK is constantly near the top in gun violence.
Well one must remember, he lives in New Jersey, and probably always has. People who grow up in oppressive regimes somehow think that switching to a more permissive regime will always be some “great social experiment” no matter how wide-spread the permissive model is.
Massachusetts people fight against repeal of our horrible licensing system, just as they fight against our horrible alcohol laws. To them allowing somebody to walk into a gun shop and walk out with an AR without any other hoops but the GCA ’68 (hell Americans aren’t even considering repeal of the GCA ’68 despite there really not being any major problems before that) or walking into the grocery store and buying a case of beer will always result in BLOOD IN THE STREET!!!!
No, The Enemy is not engaging in Red Team thinking nor engaging in poor thinking about public safety. Gun control is about control. If government controls your money, your health and your safety, what do you have left of freedom. They have got the first, they are well down the road on the second. In most places, we are holding on the third. But do not mistake their motives.