How the other side plays it

ust 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.
Click to expand...

Yes and we no longer debate we have "National Conversations"
Debates have winners and losers, 'Conversations" just go on and on.

I totally agree with Frank. Absent the kind of demographic analysis that any serious advertiser would do as a matter of course we have little hope of swaying opinion in a meaningful way.

I see the point about Gang Violence - but we somehow have to be able to demonstrate that it's the criminals and gang bangers (really one and the same)...not us... who kill and maim. When an impassioned Mom on TV pleads to know why people who buy AR15's want to kill her children....I dunno...how do you counter that kind of emotional blackmail?

WRT Nazi confiscation - there's a Jewish RKBA groups that use that. One of their promotional pieces bears a swastika with a line through it. We place literature in our show space if we have room and for a short time had theirs up. I had to remove it because to a person walking by it looked like we actually espoused Nazism. You had to read it to get the point.
 
When an impassioned Mom on TV pleads to know why people who buy AR15's want to kill her children....I dunno...how do you counter that kind of emotional blackmail?
Click to expand...
If it's actual blackmail, then: "I certainly hope I don't strike you as someone prone to violence. Gun owners are your friends, neighbors, and coworkers. We come from all walks of life."

That doesn't leave room for much of a snarky comeback. The approach also works with someone who has legitimate concerns. I've had many conversations in which people told me, "I didn't know you had guns. But you're smart/polite/not dragging your knuckles on the ground."

The trick is to build empathy and trust.

That, or we can drive a wedge with cliched slogans, anecdotes of questionable veracity, and oft-misattributed quotes.

Bringing up the Nazis doesn't help. There are too many differences in that situation and ours, and the listener may feel that I'm accusing them of being a Nazi. Let's not forget some of the rather intemperate political rhetoric and imagery that have been flying around the last few years.

The same goes for talk of shooting the jackboots when they come for us in the night. If you're addressing an urban academic crowd, leave the Gadsden flag and the "cold dead hands" t-shirt at home.

Many of the folks who support gun control mean well. We ARE a violent country. They want something done about that. Gun control has been tried as a means of addressing it, but it hasn't worked. Point out alternatives (better funding for police and school programs, better treatment of mental illness). Give them something to consider as an alternative. Don't just attack their views.

Anything, and I mean anything, you quote as authority needs to be accurate and verifiable. Israeli schoolteachers don't really carry Galils in the classroom, and Switzerland has a whole other set of circumstances than us. Yamamoto didn't really make that comment about a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Same goes for statistics. Comparing the crime rates between Chicago and Cheyenne is disingenuous, and it's a trap that a savvy opponent can snare you in.

Everyone needs to read back through that paper and take a close look at how the other side suggests making arguments. We could learn a lot from some of those approaches.
 
Actually reading the message, I am floored by the number of logical fallacies in an official production.

Slippery slope, moral panic, anecdotal evidence, straw man argument, false dichotomy, loaded question/begging the question are just a few that come to mind.
 
Look at these metrics! There is only one category where their vote is the majority.

Far more likely to believe gun laws should be stronger. (51% for all respondents, 66% for liberals, 80% for NRA is extreme.)
• More likely to consider the NRA extreme. (35% for all respondents, 60% for liberals.)
• Less focused on “free to be safe.” (32% for all respondents, 18% for liberals, 17% for NRA is
extreme)
• More focused on “NRA too powerful.” (13% all respondents, 25% liberals, 26% NRA is extreme.)
• Slightly more open to personal tragedy as a reason to act. (19% for all respondents, 25% for liberals, 23% for NRA is extreme.)
 
I short - we, too, need a professionally researched and prepared guide.

I mean really... "When you're in a public place don't you want to know who is carrying a loaded hidden gun?" "Concealed carry permit holders have killed 460 people since 2007 including 15 police officers" (Not sure my numbers are totally accurate from their guide)

This is powerful stuff. Where is the rebuttal - in print - in color - that I can hand to everybody I meet at a gun show? We can sit here and discuss this and come to consensus, but there are too many people to reach to do it one at a time.

We need something we can disseminate among ourselves to counteract the well executed training program that they have in place.
 
Last edited:
Tom Servo said:
...The trick is to build empathy and trust....
Click to expand...
How true.

We need to remember that many people are afraid. They're afraid of guns. They're afraid of people who have guns. They're just afraid.

We need to demonstrate, by the ways in which we participate in life and our communities, that we are not people to fear. We can't just tell people that. Talk is cheap. We need to show it by the ways in which we live our lives. We need to show that we gun owners aren't the sorts of people they thought we were.
 
I don't think that anybody I know or encounter thinks I'm an unstable threat to their safety. But they know me.

It's "The Others" they are being taught to fear and loath. Those other people with the military style assault weapons capable of holding 100 rounds and firing 20 in 10 seconds - people who at a moments notice can and will go nuts and kill their children.
Those people who are protected by the extreme NRA.

It's not you and me - it's Them. Except for somebody else we're the Them.
 
Where is the rebuttal - in print - in color - that I can hand to everybody I meet at a gun show?
Click to expand...
Printing something up might be a good idea, but its usefulness at a gun show will be limited at best.

We can preach to the choir all we want, but we need to be working outside our normal comfort zone.
 
The choir can't sing without a Hymnal

(The best replies always come up later :rolleyes:)

Another Edit: We can prepare the Responsible Gun Owners Guide ourselves....we can crowd source it. 8 people take 10 pages each - or we all take one section - of their manual, break it down and craft rebuttals point by point.

They state...

It is always useful to use the word “loaded” when describing concealed weapons carrying. In fact, when the word
“loaded” was added to a 2011 poll by the Illinois Council
Against Handgun Violence, opposition to concealed carry
jumped by 9 percentage points. Illinois Council Against
Handgun Violence, The Mellman Group,
Illinois Voters
Strongly Oppose Concealed Carry
(March 31, 2011),
http://www.icpgv.org/pdf/CCWPoll_Memo.pdf

We routinely say that an unloaded gun is a club...but our guide says it in convincing language. The Guide instructs readers to instill doubt and fear about unknown people in a crowd that might be carrying a hidden loaded gun.
Yes - there probably are, but the ones to fear are those who haven't gone to the trouble of taking training courses and passing extensive background checks. The ones to fear are the people in that crowd who mean to do harm.
.
When we have our sections done we pass them to the right so everybody's work gets reviewed by the others in the project. Distill it down to a manageable number pages that we can print out ourselves - at first - and voila'...we've accomplished something of substance that can be disseminated to both those who need to rebut and those who make the assertions but who are open to hearing the other side.

Since this forum is a wholly owned subsidiary of S.W.A.T. Magazine I would think there'd be support from and benefit to that side as well. This could be printed in the magazine and reprints made available.

C'mon gang...we can build a stage in my dad's barn!
Ok -I'll stop now :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
A lot of great idea's going around here, IMHO, I would gladly hand out such information to everyone I know and help out in whatever way I am able to help get this off the ground.

It's just a matter of getting people involved willingly and actively.
 
Tom Servo said:
"I certainly hope I don't strike you as someone prone to violence. Gun owners are your friends, neighbors, and coworkers. We come from all walks of life."
Click to expand...

Suggested repackaging.

"I certainly hope I don't strike you as someone prone to violence. Second Amendment Advocates are your friends, neighbors, and coworkers. We come from all walks of life."
 
hermannr said:
Tom Servo said:
"I certainly hope I don't strike you as someone prone to violence. Gun owners are your friends, neighbors, and coworkers. We come from all walks of life."
Click to expand...

Suggested repackaging.

"I certainly hope I don't strike you as someone prone to violence. Second Amendment Advocates are your friends, neighbors, and coworkers. We come from all walks of life."
Click to expand...
Why?

Here's an example of the importance of understanding your audience. While you, as a Second Amendment Advocate, might prefer calling yourself that, the real question is whether making the change could affect your message, i.e., how it is received and understood by your audience.

Based on my own experience trying to get a message across, which is something that lawyers need to be able to do, I'd be reluctant to make that change. "Second Amendment Advocate" strikes me a too formal, imposing and creating a sort of distance. You're setting yourself up as something other than "just plain folks." You're now a politically active character with a particular focus and agenda.

But the real message you want to convey is, "I might own a gun, but I'm really still just an ordinary person much like you." That will be more effectively communicated by:
I certainly hope I don't strike you as someone prone to violence. Gun owners are your friends, neighbors, and coworkers. We come from all walks of life.
Click to expand...
 
I think part of the problem is we let them start and frame the debate.
We need to answer their questions the same as they do ours.
Then shift the focus onto violent crime as a whole and how our elected official allow this to happen. How is it possible that any person can have 4, 5, 6 felonies and even be amongst us to perpetrate another one. Gun involved or not.
We need to change the debate from protecting gun rights to governments complete failure to stop crime. Put and keep (THEM) on the defensive.
Just my opinion.

They may not be sending the crazy wacko instructions to go shoot up a mall.
But their actions and inaction's are causing these things to happen.
All for their political gain? Hmmm think about it.
 
Last edited:
The "guide" is very smart to point out that one set of language and argument is appropriate when talking to the base (gun control believers), while a different set is appropriate when talking to the mainstream.


We need to keep that same idea clear in our heads. One set of facts, arguments, language, and talking points for the main stream. Another set to energize those of us already focussed on Second Ammendment issues.

Jim
 
Bringing up the Nazis doesn't help. There are too many differences in that situation and ours, and the listener may feel that I'm accusing them of being a Nazi. Let's not forget some of the rather intemperate political rhetoric and imagery that have been flying around the last few years.
Click to expand...
I'll have to disagree. Most people don't know about Nazi confiscation. Sure there are some differences and you shouldn't say it in an accusatory tone but that doesn't mean it can't be part of a good argument. Obviously, the type of argument depends on the audience and the circumstances.
 
There are many examples of confiscation by totalitarian governments. Enough that one shouldn't have to use the N word to make their case.

Here - for example, and notice how they use Germany without saying Nazi

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

________________________________________________

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

________________________________________________

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

________________________________________________

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

________________________________________________

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

________________________________________________

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

________________________________________________

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Source: The University of Excellence
http://uofe.org/gun_confiscation.html
 
The problem is that those examples are far away and from a long time ago. A response would be something along the lines of "we're not anything like Turkey or Uganda." Beyond that, there are other factors contributing to genocide and tyranny.

I've heard the "if they come for our guns, tyranny follows" argument used before, and I've seen it quickly shot full of holes by a savvy opponent. The person on our side looks like they're venturing into histrionics and doomsday proclamations.

We see a similar problem when claiming that permissive gun laws reduce violent crime. While Chicago is certainly more violent than Dubuque, that analogy falls apart when comparing Honolulu with Atlanta.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top