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.