In increasing numbers, the general population makes decisions on how they will live today, tomorrow and the next day based on what somebody else says.
» This Issue’s column is born of conversations that I have had with a wide variety of people who are concerned with how the public is being influenced in everyday life, from politics to firearms training. In increasing numbers, the general population makes decisions on how they will live today, tomorrow and the next day based on what somebody else says, taking whatever they’re told as the absolute truth without further thought.
I’m not suggesting that every last iota of information must be scrutinized to the Nth degree. What I’m suggesting is that an intelligent individual must not only hear but listen to the input she or he receives. Concentrate on the facts of a matter rather than the spin with which it is delivered. Get used to the reality that every article written, book published, television show produced, radio program recorded or movie filmed has biases attached to it.
We all view everyday events a little differently simply because of our past experiences and the way the human brain operates.
We all view everyday events a little differently simply because of our past experiences and the way the human brain operates. In short, we compare new information to previously stored information. Often, our biases are amplified when relayed to others just to make the communication more interesting. After there is an agenda involved, the listener might hear an outright lie he feels he’s expected to believe even after it is proven to be false. Remember “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”? Regardless of a person’s political leanings, it’s a bit hard to argue that statement as fact.
When we communicate with others, we should strive to be clear and concise, leaving little room for the listeners to misunderstand the point we are trying to make. In our era of political correctness, communicating a clear and easy-to-understand message is almost a lost art.
It seems the majority of media outlets are more interested in entertaining viewers, readers and listeners with their own slant on the facts than they are in educating them.
The fault of not communicating effectively lies with both the speaker and the listener. The speaker wants to impress upon everyone listening that he is correct in what he is saying to the point of perhaps not being entirely factually accurate. The listener is often too lazy to check the facts and therefore accepts the speaker’s words as gospel and passes the story on to others as fact, perhaps with his or her own added spin to the story.
As a gun owner, staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, personal defense advocate and firearms trainer for longer than I care to admit, the mention of any of these topics immediately grabs my attention. Given the opportunity, I will give my perspective in agreement or question the intentions of the speaker and provide facts to support my position.
I, like many of the readers of this magazine, watch television news and surf the internet for new information, and I also read print publications to find information that might be beneficial to my knowledge base. When I see all of the mistakes, inconsistencies and outright lies regarding subjects with which I am intimately familiar, I begin to wonder if there is any truth to the reports covering subjects with which I am not so familiar. It seems that the majority of media outlets are more interested in entertaining the viewers, readers and listeners with their own slant on the facts than they are in educating them by telling the story without additions or embellishments.
Some say it’s all about the money at stake. Media sources have to make money to survive and, in today’s competitive market, it seems that selling advertising is more important than sharing actual facts. Spicing them up a bit for a bigger wow factor pays the bills.
Compounding this, a steady stream of disinformation and misinformation has turned the general public apathetic. After decades of bombardment, if it doesn’t affect them directly, they don’t care. When we see the leaders of our communities, states and nation commit deceitful or illegal acts with impunity, it becomes more acceptable for the rest of the population to color outside the lines.
Unfortunately, as gun owners, we tend to live and let live. We’re more low-key and less apt to make a lot of waves, unlike those who make us out to be less than civilized for embracing the firearm as a means of personal defense.
It won’t get any better until we take the fight to those who disparage us. Between stating verifiable facts and staying on-subject in the conversation, we can keep working until they see the light (if they are honest enough to be honest with themselves). Never forget that there are only two ways of changing a person’s mind. Convincing them with truth and non-arguable fact is the easiest; brute force is the other. The former is the manner in which civilized persons settle disagreements, and the latter, combined with the overall consequences involved and trouble to effect, is a last resort to which we turn only when lives are at stake.
“Common Sense” is largely someone’s opinion on a particular subject that may or may not be grounded in fact and reality.
In many cases, all we have to do is present our case with a little logic and reason to get our point across. An easy example is that when a homicide is committed by a drunk driver, the driver is at fault. When a homicide is committed by a criminal using a firearm, some believe it’s the gun’s fault. A motor vehicle cannot start itself and travel down the highway to take a life without human influence any more than a gun can load itself and shoot somebody on its own.
When the subject of “assault weapons,” “cop-killer bullets” and “military-grade hardware” are thrown out as things that we as private citizens don’t “need,” a polite and simple way to enter that conversation is to ask the person throwing these terms around if he would define what specifically he is talking about so you could understand his point. Perhaps, in addition to a definitive description of what objects are being discussed, he could provide a source of his information related to the point he is trying to make. Of course, if you had factual answers for all of the questions you asked to help him along when he stumbled through trying to convince you he knew what he was talking about, it would boost your credibility as his was lowered.
An ambivalent phrase that is often used to communicate a person’s or group’s viewpoint is “common sense,” as in “common-sense legislation” or “common-sense gun laws.” Common sense is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “common feelings of humanity or the ability of an individual to make sound judgment.” As you can see by these definitions, “common sense” is largely someone’s opinion on a particular subject that may or may not be grounded in fact and reality. Be careful when using that phrase, and be careful when it is used to convince you of another’s viewpoint. Ask yourself if it is logical, reasonable and realistically applicable to the subject of discussion before accepting it as plausible.
Another area of miscommunication is within the firearms training and education community.
Putting what is communicated by the politicians and media aside, another area of miscommunication that is near and dear to my heart is within the firearms training and education community.
It seems like with the increased popularity of concealed carry in the United States, more and more people are becoming concealed carry instructors just to supplement their income. Many states have a one- or two-day instructor certification class in which there is little likelihood a prospective instructor’s ability to communicate with their students will be assessed. Horror stories abound detailing what students profess to have learned in some of these classes.
Such stories include misinformation like, “If you shoot somebody outside of the home, drag the body inside so it will look like they were already in your home and a threat to you and your family.” Make no mistake about it, altering a crime scene will unconditionally put you on the wrong side of the law. Firearms instructors, with a few rare exceptions, are not attorneys and have no business giving legal advice to their students. Directing students to legal references for them to read and understand on their own or with the help of an attorney is fine, but giving legal advice is questionable at best.
It’s time we put a little more emphasis on accurate information and education.
In many cases, instructors give instructions to students that are of little to no benefit simply because, “It’s always been done that way.” A prime case in point is telling students to stop jerking the trigger when their shots on target are hitting low and to the inside of where they are aiming. In this case, the instructor is telling the students what they are doing wrong but are giving no guidance as to why they are jerking the trigger or how to fix it.
A competent instructor should be able to quickly and easily tell and show the students what they are doing, why they are doing it and how to solve the problem. That way, good information is transferred from the instructor to the students and the problem is solved.
Take the concept of communication — both giving and receiving — seriously, especially when it is important to your way of living. When giving, be succinct and to the point about the subject of discussion. When receiving, validate what you are hearing with questions, especially if you’re not clearly understanding what you’re being told. It’s time we put a little more emphasis on accurate information and education as opposed to entertainment.