March for our lives too ?

[zukiphile]

"Our" answer to "make our schools safer by banning guns" is not being well articulated and we are not offering a way out of the dilemma.

Maybe it isn't a dilemma.

Remember the group of several 9/11 widows? They had their 15 minutes. They were originally a larger group until some members conspicuously dissented from Breitweiser's line of criticism of GWB.

 

[SonOfScubaDiver]

While I get your point and I get the emotion behind the feeling the risk of being the victim of an active school shooting is relatively low. One of the issues is we report every event that might even remotely be considered a gun issue in school as if it happened right next door in Mayberry. It didn't. We ignore where protections have worked.

To me this is part of the issue. You are fighting emotion that is based on a suspect premise and left without being able to point out what it is in a way that is not taken as offensive.

"There really haven't been that many school shootings if you consider the size of the US, the amount of schools, and the amount of students"

"Tell that to the 17 families in Parkwood"

This has become the "stranger danger" of today. We spent a lot of time, money, and energy in the 80's and 90's teaching children of the danger of people they do not know when most kidnappings and abuses were being perpetrated by people they did know.

I'm sure you know this, but a statistical argument doesn't work when we're talking about kids getting shot up in school. Back when the Sandy Hook shooting happened, I thought for sure it would motivate Congress to pass some kind of gun control laws. Just the thought of a classroom of dead six year olds was more than I could bear at the time. One thing I think that contributed greatly to all that has happened since the Parkland shooting is the cell phone recordings the students took while it was happening. Hearing the shots and the screams really woke something up in many people. And yeah, it's an emotional argument, but, unlike others, I don't find anything particularly wrong with allowing such arguments. I'm pretty sure that plenty of emotion was behind the writing of our Constitution and BOR by the FFs.

Did you know that some of our FFs were teenagers in 1776? I was so surprised to find that out. We see pictures or paintings of them as older men, so we never really think about how old they were when they were revolutionists.

 

[Lohman446]

Maybe it isn't a dilemma.

Remember the group of several 9/11 widows? They had their 15 minutes. They were originally a larger group until some members conspicuously dissented from Breitweiser's line of criticism of GWB.

I'm on the fence on this one. Absent a good message silence is the preferred answer here. It's not like these demonstrations are actually posing a question anyways. Considering the rhetoric that has been used to answer so far silence was probably the preferred answer.

Still silence in the face of accusation seems suspect too. If we are even being accused of anything...

I think you have a crucial point in that this is likely to go away. There have been a number of tragedies that looked like "we" would lose given the emotional response but like many passionate emotions they quickly enough die out at least for most.

 

[Lohman446]

I'm pretty sure that plenty of emotion was behind the writing of our Constitution and BOR by the FFs.

Emotion spurs a lot of things. Letting them rule too much of the thought process creates historical blunders like the Articles of Confederation. Yes we are driven, often, by emotion but if we should come up with reasonable solutions and not simply let our emotions dictate one's that will not work.

Its part of the reason why direct democracy is a major concern.

You could ban every assault rifle tomorrow and not stop a school shooting that uses an assault rifle from occurring at some point. You could confiscate all assault rifles tomorrow and not prevent all school shootings. The issue with these highly emotional events is that success is defined by zero and that will not happen. Guns or not there will be children killed by violent intentional actors at school in the future.

 

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Lohman, here's what I think is different this time. These protests and marches by these students are happening at a time when they are coming of voting age. This year's midterms could prove to be pivotal. Those who don't turn voting age before this year's elections will be voting age come 2020. We're talking about millions of new voters who will come of age with the Parkland shooting and what's happened since still relatively fresh in their minds. I am very much a proponent of governance from the middle, not from extreme left or right. While I think we're going to see a swing to the left, a swing too far to the left could result in a surge of actual "get rid of all the guns completely" type of representatives, which wouldn't bode well for us.

I say this because young voters have a greater tendency to be single issue voters than older voters. I know when I was young this was the case, and I've seen the same in my children and their friends. Ya gotta live a little to come to the place where you understand that political issues are more complex than that one issue you feel strongly about. Learning what all the issues are, figuring out how important they are to you, deciding how much weight you give them when deciding on who to vote for, etc. are all things that happen over time as you get older. My concern is that, in their zeal to address gun violence, this crop of new voters will elect people with agendas that go beyond enacting "common sense" regulations and we're going to end up with regulations that make it very difficult for anyone to have guns.

 

[Lohman446]

Maybe. I have no doubt that voting is influenced by various demographics with age being one of them.

The sensationalized coverage of school shootings also applied to these marches. I happened to be in Grand Rapids, MI and witnessed the march downtown there. Considering how far some of the people traveled there really were not that many people there - they were just all together. The coverage we are seeing is sensationalized and we are reacting to what we perceive as some fresh threat to a particular liberty. I'm not sure that this march represents some major change in voting though I do think you will see some shifts in the mid terms - I think that is normal.

Edit for clarity: a swing in the mid term elections would not surprise me. I would not blame it on the March for our Lives "movement" It seems that most youth movements have always looked for change and I don't think that will change.

 

[5whiskey]

These protests and marches by these students are happening at a time when they are coming of voting age. This year's midterms could prove to be pivotal. Those who don't turn voting age before this year's elections will be voting age come 2020. We're talking about millions of new voters who will come of age with the Parkland shooting and what's happened since still relatively fresh in their minds. I am very much a proponent of governance from the middle, not from extreme left or right. While I think we're going to see a swing to the left, a swing too far to the left could result in a surge of actual "get rid of all the guns completely" type of representatives, which wouldn't bode well for us.

It's important to not become chicken little and fail to see that there will also be millions of young people coming of age to vote that are not protesting or participating in these marches, nor do they believe in restricting gun rights. Half of America's population still resides in more rural areas (The census says 80% of America's population is "urban," but they count "urbanized areas" and "Urbanized clusters," the latter of which is defined by a population of 2,500 people... hardly urban by most standards).

There are always two sides to the coin. Everyone here is correct, there needs to be an effective pro-2A message. I would think the NRA could work on some short ads highlighting gun control under Nazi Germany and the revolutionary war "Powder Alarm" (which helped shape our current Second Amendment). They should not work on denigrating these young folks though. It sends the wrong message. Countering a message is fine, attacking the messenger is not... especially in this case.

 

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Resorting to the Nazi Germany argument will not help. It never does anything but stoke fear and makes us look bad. I'm in agreement with Glenn that the messaging is all wrong, and anything Nazi related falls into that category.

 

[5whiskey]

Resorting to the Nazi Germany argument will not help. It never does anything but stoke fear and makes us look bad.

I personally disagree, but I will not argue the merits because I'm not a marketer. I actually am horrible at marketing, what little I have tried. I do maintain that we need to coalesce with a common voice, and let that common voice come up with an effective message.

I'm in agreement with Glenn that the messaging is all wrong, and anything Nazi related falls into that category.

Out of curiosity, do you have any ideas or proposals?


The only genius idea I have (which isn't) is that we can't get into history lessons and 30 minutes programs and speeches as a public outreach. 30 second soundbytes is about all the attention span we MIGHT have.

 

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Out of curiosity, do you have any ideas or proposals?

I wish I could adequately answer that question, but I can't. I know that we need to stop demonizing people who favor gun control. You cannot have a conversation with people you constantly run down. So, that would be a good place to start.

I also think that we need to take a look at ourselves as a community and be honest with ourselves about how much we've allowed this image of a guy decked out in tactical gear to become the image that pops into people's heads when they think of gun owners. People don't think of gun owners as your run of the mill average guy who goes to the range for practice to learn how to better defend himself and his family in case they're attacked by a criminal, or someone who enjoys the sport of target shooting, or even the hunter who helps control the deer population while putting food on his table. Optics are important, and we've done a lousy job of projecting the right image to those who don't own guns.

In terms of the things we say to others about guns....well, I just share with people how I became a gun enthusiast. If I can put it this way, I give them my testimony of inheriting guns I really didn't want and how almost using one of them on someone who was trying to get into my house made me realize how important a role they can play in my safety and that of my family.

Other than that, I don't really know what we can do to turn the tide in our favor. I just know that we are losing this argument, and we have no one to blame for that other than ourselves because we've allowed the wrong message to be conveyed about who we are, why we believe what we believe, and why we believe owning guns has made us better than we would be if we didn't have them.

 

[doofus47]

The Nazi Germany analogy is interesting as a double edged sword.

One one hand, it's the only un-questioned metaphor for "bad" that millennials appear to recognize.

On the other hand, they are also young enough to say "But that's obviously not us."

The key piece of awareness that makes the 2nd Amendment look relevant is "Good gov'ts go wrong." I just don't think that piece of thinking exists in the current environment. To be fair, I thought this before the student marches and I think that that has existed for awhile.

 

[zukiphile]

I also think that we need to take a look at ourselves as a community and be honest with ourselves about how much we've allowed this image of a guy decked out in tactical gear to become the image that pops into people's heads when they think of gun owners.

How did we "allow" that?

How would you prevent it?

 

[Lohman446]

We have to find, and fund, a non-controversial (as much as possible) method of getting young people "into" guns. Not gun enthusiasts necessarily but the kids who will someday be our base. I wonder how much havoc would be raised if the NRA sponsored a series of air-gun shoots, matches, and tournaments at various after school clubs (think the boys and girls clubs) to introduce people to firearms in a non-threatening manner.

 

[zukiphile]

We have to find, and fund, a non-controversial (as much as possible) method of getting young people "into" guns. Not gun enthusiasts necessarily but the kids who will someday be our base. I wonder how much havoc would be raised if the NRA sponsored a series of air-gun shoots, matches, and tournaments at various after school clubs (think the boys and girls clubs) to introduce people to firearms in a non-threatening manner.

In a culture in which mothers don't allow their children to play by pointing an index finger and saying "pew-pew!", you will undoubtedly find some controversy and many hostile gatekeepers. I found that 20 years ago.

I do believe the activity itself would be good for kids. I think it has disciplinary benefits for adults as well.

 

[SonOfScubaDiver]

How did we "allow" that?

By not actively presenting an alternative. Prior to actually becoming a gun owner, I thought most of you were Rambo types. Hunters, sport shooters, and those interested in SD never entered my mind. The only people who had guns, in my mind, were the cops, criminals, and those crazy NRA guys who tried to look tougher than the cops and meaner than the bad guys. I was very pleasantly surprised to find out that most of us are just regular people. I'm just one person, but I can tell you that I've heard the same thing coming from others who don't own guns. They don't think of us as good guys just having some fun or trying to protect our families. Some people like to blame the media, and that argument has some merit. I won't deny that. But what has the gun community done to counter that image, that misconception of who we are? Little to nothing.

 

[5whiskey]

I also think that we need to take a look at ourselves as a community and be honest with ourselves about how much we've allowed this image of a guy decked out in tactical gear to become the image that pops into people's heads when they think of gun owners. People don't think of gun owners as your run of the mill average guy who goes to the range for practice to learn how to better defend himself and his family in case they're attacked by a criminal, or someone who enjoys the sport of target shooting, or even the hunter who helps control the deer population while putting food on his table. Optics are important, and we've done a lousy job of projecting the right image to those who don't own guns.

Like Zukiphile I disagree that gun owners in general promoted that message, or even condoned it. Yes there are some crazies, just like all pet issues have the ardent crazies, but as a whole I would say the gun enthusiast community is in large not so much mall ninja and much more the "run of the mill average guy that likes to shoot or hunt." If we are presented as mall ninjas by the media, I will say that it was not with our consent. I understand perception and optics... but perception is not always reality and many times you cannot influence how others perceive you when they've made their mind up before they even meet you.

 

[zukiphile]

By not actively presenting an alternative. Prior to actually becoming a gun owner, I thought most of you were Rambo types. Hunters, sport shooters, and those interested in SD never entered my mind. The only people who had guns, in my mind, were the cops, criminals, and those crazy NRA guys who tried to look tougher than the cops and meaner than the bad guys. I was very pleasantly surprised to find out that most of us are just regular people. I'm just one person, but I can tell you that I've heard the same thing coming from others who don't own guns. They don't think of us as good guys just having some fun or trying to protect our families. Some people like to blame the media, and that argument has some merit. I won't deny that. But what has the gun community done to counter that image, that misconception of who we are? Little to nothing.

Other than presenting as normal people, as the people in your example did, what is to be done to counter your prior misconception?


______

EDIT - I would add that shooters I've encountered seem better than normal. They aren't inclined to tell tall tales - perhaps attributable to the piece of paper downrange ready to contradict them. They are also very friendly, sometimes obtusely social.

 

[SonOfScubaDiver]

We have to find, and fund, a non-controversial (as much as possible) method of getting young people "into" guns. Not gun enthusiasts necessarily but the kids who will someday be our base. I wonder how much havoc would be raised if the NRA sponsored a series of air-gun shoots, matches, and tournaments at various after school clubs (think the boys and girls clubs) to introduce people to firearms in a non-threatening manner.

I think that's a good idea, but it needs to come from the local clubs rather than the NRA. Most of the outdoor shooting ranges in my area are owned by local clubs. One of the biggest and nicest ones is owned by one of the gun shops. Maybe gun shops and clubs can get together and put some outreach programs together.

 

[5whiskey]

Some people like to blame the media, and that argument has some merit. I won't deny that. But what has the gun community done to counter that image, that misconception of who we are?

By not having mall ninja contests, living our lives in a more or less normal manner? Not walking around in SWAT gear with an AR15 slung across our chest (excluding the crazies)? And by not even advertising our gun ownership on a day to day basis?

If the public is so afraid of the boogeyman that lives next door, that they don't even know exists, then there isn't much advertising we can do to advocate our cause. I do appreciate your perception and history however, it gives me an honest view that not everyone grew up the way I did. Guns were normal growing up for me, so for someone to honestly say they once viewed all gun owners as cops, thugs, or scary NRA militia men gives me insight. Mind you just like I grew up where guns were normal, YOU GREW UP WHERE THEY WERE NOT. This obviously impacted your world view. It may be the view of quite a few people, but I dare say it is a minority view.

 

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Like Zukiphile I disagree that gun owners in general promoted that message, or even condoned it. Yes there are some crazies, just like all pet issues have the ardent crazies, but as a whole I would say the gun enthusiast community is in large not so much mall ninja and much more the "run of the mill average guy that likes to shoot or hunt." If we are presented as mall ninjas by the media, I will say that it was not with our consent. I understand perception and optics... but perception is not always reality and many times you cannot influence how others perceive you when they've made their mind up before they even meet you.

That's the point I'm making. I now know that that's not who we are. You know that that's not who we are. Most of us know that that's not who we are. But THEY don't know that that's not who we are because very little has been done to counter that image. It's not that the gun community actively promotes that image. It's that the gun community does nothing to counter it.