How the other side plays it

T

Tom Servo

Staff
Seattle Gun Examiner Dave Workman unearthed a policy document outlying strategies for gun-control advocates [pdf file]. It's very much worth taking the time to read.

Back in 1993, I sat on the panel of a gun-control debate for a local TV station. The guy on the other side of the table actually said, "you can try to trip me up with the facts, but the only real fact is that we need these weapons off the streets." The crowd loved it.

They're still using the same tactics.

Always focus on emotional and value-driven arguments about gun violence, not the political food fight in Washington or wonky statistics. (...) We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence. Compelling facts should be used to back up that emotional narrative, not as a substitute for it.
Click to expand...

The paper advises advocates to refer to the issue as "gun violence" rather than "gun control," and to advocate for "stronger" gun laws rather than "stricter" ones.

There's a whole part on page 41 about addressing minority audiences, and they have a primer for how to capitalize on public shootings.

The truth is, the most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak. While we always want to be respectful of the situation, a self-imposed period of silence is never necessary.

The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time. (...) Of course, once a fact is clearly established, it makes sense to rely on it to advance your case.
Click to expand...

The paper then goes down a list of pet causes like Stand Your Ground laws and national reciprocity. There's all sorts of fun stuff about villainizing the NRA without looking like you're villainizing the NRA.

Their suggested response to questions about Fast & Furious is this:

We are better off acknowledging that it was a botched operation and then quickly moving on to a broader conversation about weak gun laws and guns flowing into the hands of drug cartels. (...) It is the height of hypocrisy for the NRA to be attacking the ATF’s enforcement capabilities after they have waged a decades-long effort to hamstring the agency’s ability to enforce the nation’s gun laws.
Click to expand...

In case you're wondering about authorship and bias, Greenberg Quinlan Rosser and OMP both take money from the Joyce Foundation to do studies for the Brady Campaign.

Edit: the original site has pulled the paper. The link above has been corrected.
 
Last edited:
This part seems to sum it up pretty well:

The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time.
Click to expand...

It was clear even without seeing their handbook that "gun violence" was the key operative term. Never mind that the problem is violence (or all kinds) in today's society, it has been clear for some time that their sole focus is and has been to discuss and to demonize only violence perpetrated with firearms.

And our problem, as I (and others) have stated before, is how to reclaim the high ground in the "debate," because he who controls the language controls the debate. We need to NOT allow them to characterize violence that happens to involve a gun as "gun violence" -- as if the fault lies with the gun rather than with the perpetrator of the violence.
 
I worked in the environmental field and Greenpeace was caught doing something very similar. When confronted they actually admitted they were ignoring the facts, but justified it by stating they did it to keep people focused on protecting the environment. “We have had problems adapting the environmental movement to the new reality. When most people do not feel the world is about to fall off it’s hinges at any moment, they have problems taking the environmental organizations seriously.” Kalle Hestvedt, Greenpeace

I’ve always admired economist because they tend to peel the layers back and find out what is really going on so rational fact based decisions can be made. However, I fear often the emotional arguments win out because most people don’t take the time to do even minimum research on the issues. You would think people would be upset to find out they were being manipulated, but more and more folks just seem content to follow along.
 
We do need to reclaim the debate, and gunowners going on about 'clips vs. magazines', or 'assault weapons are fully automatic', is not going to work. The lexicon is already created and in use, and it cannot be changed.

When they rant about gun violence, I agree with them, 'we must indeed focus on guns in the hands of violent criminals without monitoring law-abiding citizens', just like with the NSA phone records.

Say, yes, the existence of AR-15s can be a problem, but the fact is that there are several million of them in lawful hands and prohibition will not work. Look at the war on drugs if you want to see how successful your crusade will be.

They may not agree with you, but other listeners will at least begin to get beyond the emotion.
 
kilimanjaro,

"So because child pornographers and rapists break the law, that should be legalized too? How about murder?"

You can try using words like "False dichotomy" "Moral Panic" "Slippery Slope" and "Straw Man" but I've found logical appeals to emotional arguments get nowhere fast.
 
The term 'gun violence' flatly does not mean criminal activity with a gun. The term does not distinguish between a violent criminal murdering an innocent victim and a homeowner warding off a home invasion without firing a shot. The former is gun violence; the later is the threat of gun violence.

If the homeowner chooses to make a moral commitment never to participate in gun violence and at the first sound of a break in, he calls the police, and the police do arrive in time and the criminals do surrender, they do so because of the threat of gun violence. Following this line of reasoning it would be as morally reprehensible to call the police as it would be to defend yourself with a gun.

If you believe that you have the right to live the term 'gun violence' is amoral. The right or the wrong of a violent act with a gun waits the interpretation of the circumstances.

The problem with the term 'gun violence' is that it is used in an intentionally deceptive manner. The intention of the anti-gun people is to use the term to carry along the uninformed who believe that the term 'gun violence' is used as another way of saying violent crime with a gun. Imagine a debate that begins in this fashion, the anti-gunner says, "We must curb rampant gun violence," and the gun owner answers back, "Gun violence is not necessarily bad."

We cannot allow the anti-gunners to define the language without challenge. He who owns the language owns the soul.
 
Maybe we should use emotion also when trying to retain our rights to keep and bear arms. Focus on all the innocent people killed by armed criminals illegally possessing guns. Home invasions, robberies, car jackings, etc.
 
How do you compare that to situations where the victims survive or successfully ward off such a crime with no bodily harm?

As I recall, a big issue is that many if not the majority of successful defense cases are never reported, so the numbers at least are against us if I'm not mistaken.
 
...just like with the NSA phone records.
Click to expand...
This might be a "teachable moment" for us. It seems to me that the analogy with the NSA's sweeping intrusion on ordinary citizens is a powerful one. In that light, "universal background checks" sound pretty scary -- as they are.
 
What surprises me is the inability of anybody of prominence on our side to shift the issue to gang violence.

Yes - it's known that of the 6,000 some odd names of "victims of gun violence" 10 or so were murders shot by police. But I've seen no mention of which names on that list were "Victims of Gang Violence"

I imagine Daryl Green is on that list. There's a young man whose story should be hammered by those with the money and voice. 17 year old boy in Chicago who was killed because he wouldn't join a gang. No mention of it in the major media - certainly no mention by the usual suspects. He should be the poster boy for an end to "Gang Violence".

Leftists are very skilled at framing their message and getting it out regardless of the facts. Repeating the Big Lie is standard practice.
Falsehoods aside, I don't see any similarly relentless professional effort on the part of 2A support groups.

I've been to 2A rallies. The main theme is..."It's a fundamental right and therefore we shouldn't even have to be addressing it". Well - that's true but it's also totally wrong if we hope to hold on to those rights. The rallies I've attended also managed to include Right to Life speakers. IMO that has to stop. The issues must be kept separate.

Through out my life I've seen the same scenario over and over again. Those on the conservative side of an issue score a victory and then everybody goes home. They return to their routines thinking the matter is settled. It's never settled. Leftists - like rust - never sleep. They never stop until they've won the issue and then they move on to the next issue. Their victories always seem to be permanent - ours are not.
 
The main theme is..."It's a fundamental right and therefore we shouldn't even have to be addressing it".
Click to expand...
That's been a successful strategy for us in the courts, and I've often stuck to that in debates as well.

However, we do need two things. The first is a set of answers for their talking points. We have the data on our side, so a well-informed advocate can generally hold their own on that front.

The second is trickier. We need a way to counter their emotional appeals. While facts should be enough, we have to bear in mind that we're often dealing with an audience that's fickle and has an attention span of a few seconds.
 
We need a way to counter their emotional appeals.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We've brought a knife to a gun fight.
They have the media, the schools and tear jerking emotional appeals. All we have are facts.

Women are our only hope. NRA is doing a good job of reaching out to women. Getting them into shooting sports, defensive programs and so forth.
Protecting their children - demanding an end to Gang Violence.
A thousand women supporting 2A rights is worth 5000 men.
 
Last edited:
I happened to be wearing my NRA Instructor baseball cap yesterday when I stopped into Harbor Freight Tools to grab some ... tools. When I went to check out, the young lady at the register saw the hat and asked, "Are you really an NRA instructor?"

"Yes," I said, "Is that a good thing or a bad thing?"

"Oh, it's a good thing. I've been thinking about taking a course but I never get around to it. Where do you teach?"

I told her I think it's important for all young women to get their permits and carry, that I expect my adopted daughter to get her permit when she's old enough, and that the world (especially around here) is just not a safe place any more. I gave her the name of the range where I teach and the phone number.

I don't bother trying to convince older men or women. Younger guys are usually pretty open already, and young women generally seem to be responsive to expressions of concern about their safety. It helps that I'm not fooling about having a daughter I expect to be carrying as soon as she's old enough to get her permit.
 
What a great encounter!
I suggest, though, that you not write off older women.

My wife attends a women's gun event every other week at
Centennial Gun Club in Englewood Colorado. They have speakers, demonstrations and they get range time with instructors available. She tells me that the majority of women in attendance are 50 and above. There are usually 50 or more women in attendance every time.

We sell women's concealed carry holsters and related items at gun shows. Most - not all but most - of our customers are, I'd say, 40 and up.
 
It's certainly true that's how the other side plays it. If you can't pound on facts, pound on the table, isn't that from some other thread in this forum?

Still, I see that as a failing long-term strategy. Look at carry -- it's now in all 50 states, and better carry still is represented by cases that have been knocking on SCOTUS' door already.

Look at the Sandy Hook attempt to resurrect the AWB. They had high levels of emotion -- why did it fail? Because while people are stupid and emotional, they don't like to be fooled. Our side said, "hey, remember the previous AWB was a failure", and even sites like Slate were noting that. The internet makes it possible to spread the truth in ways not possible back then.

The antis scorched-earth policy of fooling voters by using voter emotions to manipulate voter actions is not a sustainable practice in this new era. We should all hope they cling to this policy, as it will only help our side, provided we stick to facts.
 
Remember the classical elements of a good argument when making one -- pathos, logos, and ethos.

Pathos is the appeal to emotion. Don't underestimate it. Use it. Talk about how the Nazis confiscated guns before rounding up the Jews for the slaughter. Talk about how gun control gained traction to keep "uppity blacks" under control in the South.

Logos is the appeal to logic. Get a couple of facts in without boring people to death; e.g., the number of successful times guns are used to prevent violent crimes each year or the fact that the violent crime rate in the United Kingdom is higher than the U.S. despite the almost complete ban on firearms in that country.

Ethos is the appeal to character or morality. The right to defend one's self is a fundamental human right. We have the obligation to defend our family.

These are just illustrations and you'll need to tailor your arguments to the issues, audience, and time you have. I just to some quick hitters like those above that I can rattle off quickly if the opportunity arises.
 
Discussing gang violence is orthogonal to the RKBA.

1. Simply mentioning gang violence brings up that guns are used for evil. Not a good message.

2. Folks who bring up gang violence tend to go off in racist directions. That makes the RKBA associated with some social values that are counterproductive.

The problem with the choir is that many cannot understand that their arguments are from a political/social construction that others do not agree with. That weakens RKBA points.
 
Excellent points, Glenn.

I'd add that allusions to the Nazis are also apt to backfire, IMO. However much one may dislike some current trends in the US' domestic and foreign policies, comparisons to Nazi Germany are inaccurate, and also offensive to many people.
 
I'm going to take the liberty of quoting something I posted in another thread:
Frank Ettin said:
...I continue to be dismayed by the failure of so many in the RKBA community to recognize the importance of positively influencing public opinion or to have any real clue about how to determine how to go about doing that.

During the course of my career I've had a pretty fair amount of experience working with business clients who needed to be able to influence public perception, understand how to make advertising effective and find the best ways to effectively communicate their messages. When a lot was at stake, they didn't just guess ...

.... they didn't assume that their audiences would think the ways they did or have the same values and perceptions. They consulted with psychologists and others who have studied human motivation and perception and beliefs. They thoroughly analyzed the demographics of the audiences and tried to understand what they cared about, what they were scared of, what made them happy or feel secure, what they believed and didn't believe.

They also tested their conclusions with surveys and focus groups. They paid attention to what was happening and made adjustments in their messages and techniques if things weren't working the way they wanted them to.

And I strongly suspect that our opposition is doing at least some of those things....
Click to expand...
I have to, however, now amend my last statement quoted above. It's no longer a matter of suspecting that our opposition is doing the sorts of things I described to increase the effectiveness of their communications. We now have reason to know that they are.

Tom Servo said:
...We have the data on our side, so a well-informed advocate can generally hold their own on that front.

The second is trickier. We need a way to counter their emotional appeals. While facts should be enough,...
Click to expand...
Part of the trick is that we need to understand that data and facts aren't enough. We need to understand our audience well enough, and hone our communication skills, to be able to communicate facts and data in a way that resonates with, and makes those facts and data accessible to, our audience.

We also have to make sure that our facts are verifiable.
 
Just look up the Progressive movement-same tactics over and over again. They like to use certain buzzwords, but when those buzzwords start losing their clout(like gun control), just repackage them with new buzzwords like gun violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top