bestdefense357
New member
I need some help from TFL members. I'm writing an article on this subject and would like your input. I may use some of your ideas in the final draft.
It is my strongly held belief that most people in America make their decisions based on emotion rather than logic. This is primarily because of the visual images presented by television, and to a lesser degree, movies. Instead of ranting against what is admittedly a shallow and flawed way of making important decisions, we should fight fire with fire. My question is, What are some ways we can bring an emotional presence to the pro-gun side of the argument?
While the majority of those in the national media are anti-gun, there are enough pro-gunners that we can recruit if we find the right emotional appeal. For instance, most radio talk show hosts are pro-gun--the numbers of listeners to these shows are 40-50 million. There are television producers and actors who are pro-gun. In another medium, many local newspapers are pro-gun.
How do we tap into these sources? Also, how do we get our emotional appeal to the 100 million or so who make their decisions based on what television shows them?
One suggestion is to try to change the semantics of the debate. When our side speaks on television, they should never mention the Second Amendment (most soccer moms and dads nowadays could care less). Instead, they should speak of what matters to these people. For instance, safety in their homes and their children having safe neighborhoods. In other words, make the pro-gun message an anti-crime issue.
A second suggestion would be to try to get as many victims who fought back with guns on television and radio shows. A television show of re-enactments of these stories (such as "Rescue 911") would be very popular.
There should be other ways to inject an emotional presence into our side of the argument. Let me know what you think.
Robert
It is my strongly held belief that most people in America make their decisions based on emotion rather than logic. This is primarily because of the visual images presented by television, and to a lesser degree, movies. Instead of ranting against what is admittedly a shallow and flawed way of making important decisions, we should fight fire with fire. My question is, What are some ways we can bring an emotional presence to the pro-gun side of the argument?
While the majority of those in the national media are anti-gun, there are enough pro-gunners that we can recruit if we find the right emotional appeal. For instance, most radio talk show hosts are pro-gun--the numbers of listeners to these shows are 40-50 million. There are television producers and actors who are pro-gun. In another medium, many local newspapers are pro-gun.
How do we tap into these sources? Also, how do we get our emotional appeal to the 100 million or so who make their decisions based on what television shows them?
One suggestion is to try to change the semantics of the debate. When our side speaks on television, they should never mention the Second Amendment (most soccer moms and dads nowadays could care less). Instead, they should speak of what matters to these people. For instance, safety in their homes and their children having safe neighborhoods. In other words, make the pro-gun message an anti-crime issue.
A second suggestion would be to try to get as many victims who fought back with guns on television and radio shows. A television show of re-enactments of these stories (such as "Rescue 911") would be very popular.
There should be other ways to inject an emotional presence into our side of the argument. Let me know what you think.
Robert