Which reminded me of a post that Erik made over at P-F.com in response to somebody describing people in favor of gun control as "fear-driven", "low-information", and "childlike":
That seems entirely too reductionist and dismissive to me. I know a number of people who understand that the world is an inherently unsafe place and support the individual right to keep and bear arms conceptually who still look at recent events and think that banning "assault weapons" might just be a reasonable step. Those people don't understand why anybody who isn't in a position of authority would need a weapon "that can shoot so many bullets so fast" and can't help but think that reducing the number of those weapons that are available would make a difference. Those people are not part of a control-driven elite and they're not child-like in nature. They are responsible, adult, well-intentioned people whose hearts are broken by events such as Newtown and they want to make a difference. They think that banning "assault weapons" is taking responsibility and that clinging to them is irrational. Those are the people you need to reach, and you can't do it if you don't start from a place of mutual respect.
We mock the scornful tone put forth in editorials from the other side as "Why won't you stupid cousin-humping rednecks vote for us?" and then expect the flip side of the same coin to work: "Why won't you childish emotional communist hippies listen to my logical arguments?"
I manage to discuss politics with the Democrat Next Door just fine. I think she's wronger than a monkey riding a poodle, but I'll grant that she's smart and well-meaning and came by her wrongness honestly, and I'm not going to change her mind on a single issue by shouting or belittling her.
Of the "four boxes", I'd greatly prefer to win using the soapbox.