The problem is that this DOES fit my narrative. The person who posted this comment failed to note that this incident took place in South Carolina, which has one of the highest rates of gun violence. In fact, One finds that South Carolina sounds like the Anglo-Scottish Border regin during the time of the reivers if the person who made this comment had actually paid attention to more than just the comment in the clip that a hotel clerk killed an alleged rapist. If you look at aggravated assaults involving a firearm, Tennessee (129.87) and South Carolina (114.73) come above District of Columbia (99.25). That is our narrative--the more guns there are and the more people take the law into their own hands, the more lawless the society becomes.
Additionally, the whole story sounds as if Richland County, SC is plagued with crime even with people carrying weapons. Isn't the pro-gun narrative More Guns--Less Crime, but does that work in reality? Instead, this post points out that the solution to crime is a whole lot more complicated than a bumper sticker solution.
So, when taken as a whole, this clip DOES fit our narrative--the more guns present, the more likely society is to be violent. Take away the guns from the following statistics and the rate of violent crime goes way down
But the person who made this comment is not interested in dialogue, he is more interested in trying to silence our message. He figures that we will see the surface message of this clip, rather than pay attention to the entire message.
But, this person isn't willing to examine what he is saying and how he presents himself, let alone what we are saying. If someone isn't aware of the message they put out and that it is counterproductive to their cause, how can he properly communicate anything?
That is why the dialog fails.
