S&W is getting hammered on these forums, but they are mostly the victim here. S&W has to operate in a particular social and political climate, one that they have not created. Creating that climate is the responsiblity of others, like us. If we, individually and through the NRA and other organizations, had successfully persuaded the public to our position on gun rights, then S&W would not have found itself in the fix it was in. The Clinton Administration would not have had the temerity to launch its legal strategy if public opinion were clearly on the side of gun rights and maintaining the Second Amendment. But we have largely failed in that attempt to persuade. The result is that a clear majority of Americans favor stronger gun controls and would probably vote to repeal the RKBA tomorrow if they could. That is not the fault of S&W. As a company, they simply have to play the hand they have been dealt, to operate as best they can in the social and political climate that exists. We have failed S&W, not the other way around. What to do? The NRA, etc. need to examine the tactics of the opposition and to finally get serious about how people are persuaded away from one position toward another. Logic and evidence are important, but they pale to insignificance in comparison with the importance of appeals to emotion. Our not taking this fact seriously, while the other side uses it constantly, has allowed them to use us for a punching bag in the arena of public opinion, with predictable results. Here's what I suggest: NRA must buy 15- or 30-second TV spots that present real people giving emotional testimony about how they saved themselves or others because they had a firearm. The woman attacked by rapists, the homeowners whose door was kicked in, the store owner who was threatened by thugs, the driver assaulted by carjackers, etc. All of them pleading to maintain the right that gun grabbers want to deprive us of, the right to self defense. Tearfully: "Otherwise, I wouldn't be here to tell you my story! I could be your wife (son, brother, etc.) or I could be YOU!" This is the Achilles Heel of the anti position, and the NRA, GOA, etc. have not even begun to exploit it, preferring to make their arguments in the abstract, with zero impact. Having apparently slept through Persuasion 101, they are playing a fool's game, and S&W and the rest of us are paying the price for their ineptitude.
S&W: Why it happened and what NRA, et al., must do
- Thread starter Byron
- Start date
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
You are so right! Listening to a bunch of old white men talking about the 2nd Amend. does not sell.
How about this:
4500 women stop rape each year with guns.
If Bill Clinton and HCI had there way, 36000 would have been raped during his two terms.
If Al Gore had his way, we could add another 18,000.
Of course, rape prevention was never a high priority for Bill Clinton
How about this:
4500 women stop rape each year with guns.
If Bill Clinton and HCI had there way, 36000 would have been raped during his two terms.
If Al Gore had his way, we could add another 18,000.
Of course, rape prevention was never a high priority for Bill Clinton
Byron,
I don't think that the NRA can buy TV time, certainly not on the major networks. It isn't for lack of money, but rather because the networks won't accept NRA advertising.
In order to get TV time, something like Wayne LaPierre's comments need to be aired. This stirs up a controversy for a week or two, boosts NRA membership and serves as a springboard for further media appearances.
Do you think it is a coincidence that S&W caved this week, so soon after Wayne got Clinton with a good kick in the jimmies? For the first time in 8 years, Clinton got rocked by a media event (LaPierre's comments) that he could not control. Just like bombing the drug plant in Sudan, a distracting event was needed. I'm sure that the White House really tightened the screws on S&W to get them to cave in RIGHT NOW. This gives the President a chance to regain the offensive, which he now has, by the stunning announcement that S&W has collapsed.
Don't feel sorry for S&W. They may have sold out for legitimate business reasons, but there was no need for them to roll over without any warning to the pro-gun forces. Sometimes how you roll over is more important than the fact that you rolled.
S&W should have issued a press release stating the fact that they acted under duress, releasing notes/transcripts/memos of their negotiations with the White House. They may have been dead meat, but they should have made the victory such a costly PR failure for the White House that it would not be soon repeated.
------------------
TRAVELLER, SHOULD YOUR ROAD LEAD YOU TO SPARTA, TELL THEM THAT YOU SAW US LYING HERE AS THE LAWS WILLED IT.
-Inscritption on a Greek monument to Leonidas
[This message has been edited by Keystone (edited March 19, 2000).]
I don't think that the NRA can buy TV time, certainly not on the major networks. It isn't for lack of money, but rather because the networks won't accept NRA advertising.
In order to get TV time, something like Wayne LaPierre's comments need to be aired. This stirs up a controversy for a week or two, boosts NRA membership and serves as a springboard for further media appearances.
Do you think it is a coincidence that S&W caved this week, so soon after Wayne got Clinton with a good kick in the jimmies? For the first time in 8 years, Clinton got rocked by a media event (LaPierre's comments) that he could not control. Just like bombing the drug plant in Sudan, a distracting event was needed. I'm sure that the White House really tightened the screws on S&W to get them to cave in RIGHT NOW. This gives the President a chance to regain the offensive, which he now has, by the stunning announcement that S&W has collapsed.
Don't feel sorry for S&W. They may have sold out for legitimate business reasons, but there was no need for them to roll over without any warning to the pro-gun forces. Sometimes how you roll over is more important than the fact that you rolled.
S&W should have issued a press release stating the fact that they acted under duress, releasing notes/transcripts/memos of their negotiations with the White House. They may have been dead meat, but they should have made the victory such a costly PR failure for the White House that it would not be soon repeated.
------------------
TRAVELLER, SHOULD YOUR ROAD LEAD YOU TO SPARTA, TELL THEM THAT YOU SAW US LYING HERE AS THE LAWS WILLED IT.
-Inscritption on a Greek monument to Leonidas
[This message has been edited by Keystone (edited March 19, 2000).]
Sorry Byron...I don't buy that we let S&W down.I do all I can vis a vis writing members of Congress etc.Sure we didn't win..and you are right about American sheeple repealing RKBA.And I agree this was a business decision on their part...but I was under the impression that the gun manufacturers had banned together to fight. Obviously I was wrong.Looks like they (gun mfgs.)will all hang separtely.But again..I don't think WE let them down.
There are two general possibilities. One is that there is a persuasive case for the RKBA that could be successfully made to the American public, but we have just so far failed to make it. The other is that we have made the best attempt possible, but due to demographic and other changes in how people live these days, no matter how you might try to do it, you simply can't persuade the majority of people to favor the RKBA.
It may eventually turn out that this is a fight that cannot be won, but I'd hate to see that conclusion arrived at before we have trotted out our best effort. I've argued that brief, highly emotional appeals for the right of self defense based on true-life instances and testimonials are our best shot. If that doesn't have an impact, then I can't imagine anything that would.
We have to recognize that today TV is all that matters, and emotion is all that matters on TV. Most people don't and won't read anything, not even a newspaper. Their attention spans are measured in seconds. Logical arguments cannot be effectively presented on TV talk shows, even if the biased host would let you try. If you can't spit it out in 15 seconds and shout it over the interruptions of others, forget it. Any attempt to present numbers or statistics that involves comparisons of any kind is a hopelessly doomed waste of time. But our spokesmen keep trying to argue on TV with logic and statistics, and wondering why the message does not seem to be getting through. Meanwhile, the other side just screams "Thirteen children killed every day by guns" and that simple, emotionally-loaded falsehood trumps everything on the table, every time.
If our guys knew what they were doing, they'd forget the logic and statistics and use their time on these shows to describe a specific instances, e.g., "Joan Smith of Des Moines, Iowa, just yesterday successfully defended herself from a rapist by brandishing the firearm she had recently purchased; police said that she would otherwise have likely been badly injured or killed." People instantly relate to such stories on an emotional level, and they are immune to refutation. Clinton has always used this approach to great effect, and so should we.
It may eventually turn out that this is a fight that cannot be won, but I'd hate to see that conclusion arrived at before we have trotted out our best effort. I've argued that brief, highly emotional appeals for the right of self defense based on true-life instances and testimonials are our best shot. If that doesn't have an impact, then I can't imagine anything that would.
We have to recognize that today TV is all that matters, and emotion is all that matters on TV. Most people don't and won't read anything, not even a newspaper. Their attention spans are measured in seconds. Logical arguments cannot be effectively presented on TV talk shows, even if the biased host would let you try. If you can't spit it out in 15 seconds and shout it over the interruptions of others, forget it. Any attempt to present numbers or statistics that involves comparisons of any kind is a hopelessly doomed waste of time. But our spokesmen keep trying to argue on TV with logic and statistics, and wondering why the message does not seem to be getting through. Meanwhile, the other side just screams "Thirteen children killed every day by guns" and that simple, emotionally-loaded falsehood trumps everything on the table, every time.
If our guys knew what they were doing, they'd forget the logic and statistics and use their time on these shows to describe a specific instances, e.g., "Joan Smith of Des Moines, Iowa, just yesterday successfully defended herself from a rapist by brandishing the firearm she had recently purchased; police said that she would otherwise have likely been badly injured or killed." People instantly relate to such stories on an emotional level, and they are immune to refutation. Clinton has always used this approach to great effect, and so should we.
Brett Bellmore
New member
ANY strategy which relies on the firearms manufacturers holding the line is doomed in the long run; They're corporations, and corporations are creations of the state, with only the rights the government is willing to allow them. ANY company can be rolled or destroyed if the administration really wants to do that. And remember, this is, according to historians, the most corrupt Presidential administration in American history; Fake evidence, malicious prosecution, they're willing to do ANYTHING to achieve their ends, illegal or not. So I don't blame S&W too much for the fact that they rolled, although the way they did it stinks.
Defending the Second amendment is up to US, not the firearms companies. Heck, they could all go down to ruin, and we could replace them if we win.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
Defending the Second amendment is up to US, not the firearms companies. Heck, they could all go down to ruin, and we could replace them if we win.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
Dennis Olson
New member
I can almost HEAR the backroom negotiations:
"But if we agree to this, the gun owners of America will boycott us for SURE!"
"Don't worry, the government will guarantee, through 'preference buying', that you'll continue to stay in business and make a profit. In exchange, you'll have to testify in any court cases."
"Deal."
"But if we agree to this, the gun owners of America will boycott us for SURE!"
"Don't worry, the government will guarantee, through 'preference buying', that you'll continue to stay in business and make a profit. In exchange, you'll have to testify in any court cases."
"Deal."
not only that but all this "must change all designs to have internal locks in one year and develop smart guns" is a sham cause S&W will just market conventional guns to the FED's & the police & the private security croud and avoid millions of dollars in development costs but not selling any civilian guns.
the next signer of this contract is screwed cause the police market is only so big and they will be forced to make the smart gun
dZ
the next signer of this contract is screwed cause the police market is only so big and they will be forced to make the smart gun
dZ
NRA can buy tv time and has. Just Sunday morning in caught the last 10 or so minutes of an NRA program.
It was highlighting the problems in Australia with the government ban on long guns. Had some very good interview with victims and law enforcement.
If anyone know if this will be reran I would like to know so that I can watch the entire program and let friends know.
It was highlighting the problems in Australia with the government ban on long guns. Had some very good interview with victims and law enforcement.
If anyone know if this will be reran I would like to know so that I can watch the entire program and let friends know.
IMHO S&W will not need to abide by any part of the contract.
They will just become the exculsive weapons provider of the Federal & local Governments!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Law enforcement and military exception. If law enforcement agencies or the military certify the need, exceptions to these
requirements may be made. Manufacturers will ask that these guns not be resold to the civilian market.[/quote]
Could a gun company afford to:
Within 12 months, handguns will be designed so they cannot be readily operated by a child under 6.
and then:
Internal locking device on all guns within 24 months.
and then:
Within 36 months, authorized user technology will be included in all new firearm models,
we are talking about a complete running redesign of every gun in 12 months and a complete replacement of every gun in 36 months
They will just become the exculsive weapons provider of the Federal & local Governments!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Law enforcement and military exception. If law enforcement agencies or the military certify the need, exceptions to these
requirements may be made. Manufacturers will ask that these guns not be resold to the civilian market.[/quote]
Could a gun company afford to:
Within 12 months, handguns will be designed so they cannot be readily operated by a child under 6.
and then:
Internal locking device on all guns within 24 months.
and then:
Within 36 months, authorized user technology will be included in all new firearm models,
we are talking about a complete running redesign of every gun in 12 months and a complete replacement of every gun in 36 months
MITHRANDIR
Inactive
in this area (KC) only the PAX network (Chan 50) runs NRA ads/docu-mertials... the others shuns them (ABC,NBC,CBS,FOX)....how is it in your areas ?????
[This message has been edited by MITHRANDIR (edited March 20, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by MITHRANDIR (edited March 20, 2000).]
Mike in VA
New member
S&W is Brittish owned company.(switching to Bubba mode) Ah figure them pasty faced limey b@$tards is jes' getiin' even for us kickin' their pasty arses the last time they tried to take our guns away 200 humpty-hump yars ago. They alreddy scrood the pooch with they own gun-banning 'speriment and now misery loves company. Fum duckers don' learn frum histery, neither. Last time them Krauts wuz comin' to kick they pasty arses, they had to borry guns frum US to hold 'em off cause they threw all theirs away. Can't trust pacifist pansies. R'minds me of my yuppie neighbors whut make fun of my guns an' whether I'ze responsible for havin 'em. 'Course after them druggie kids broke in down the street and robbed them people while they slept the other night, one of 'em wanted to borry my .45. Ninny'd never shot nothin' before, so I showed him just how reesponsible I are and said no, not till he got some training so's he would hurt anyone other than them whut needed it. Meybe hill figure it out, meybe not.
but I ramble. Anyhoo, the Brits today are a long way from them that built an empire. it ain't clear that they're our firends. They definitely put money ahead of principle, an' meybe we don' need friends like dat. (Bubba off) M2
but I ramble. Anyhoo, the Brits today are a long way from them that built an empire. it ain't clear that they're our firends. They definitely put money ahead of principle, an' meybe we don' need friends like dat. (Bubba off) M2
Excuse me, but I don't think I let anyone down.
I'm a law abiding gunowner who is being called a "right wing extremist" by a basically socialist/fascist presidency.
S&W cut a deal and were immediately rewarded by the Detroit Police Dept saying they would favor them in a gun buy.
I have a bad taste in my mouth for Colt and now S&W.
I'm a law abiding gunowner who is being called a "right wing extremist" by a basically socialist/fascist presidency.
S&W cut a deal and were immediately rewarded by the Detroit Police Dept saying they would favor them in a gun buy.
I have a bad taste in my mouth for Colt and now S&W.
The infomercial is great but it is aimed at those who already like RKBA but feel that "it can't happen here."
Those brief spots would be much better for working on fence-sitters and soccer-moms. Why not start with one spot, cheaply made with just an actor like, oh, I don't know, Tom Selleck, talking about someone who defended herself with a gun? Then inquire about purchasing air time on, say, ABC. When they refuse, trumpet the fact on another network, like the Fox News channel which is somewhat less hostile to the NRA. A written refusal would be good for this. ABC would get good support from the more dedicated antis but you might be able to convince fence-sitters that it's not fair to deny a paying customer.
Or maybe not. The way the country looks right now, ABC might become the heroes of the week.
Those brief spots would be much better for working on fence-sitters and soccer-moms. Why not start with one spot, cheaply made with just an actor like, oh, I don't know, Tom Selleck, talking about someone who defended herself with a gun? Then inquire about purchasing air time on, say, ABC. When they refuse, trumpet the fact on another network, like the Fox News channel which is somewhat less hostile to the NRA. A written refusal would be good for this. ABC would get good support from the more dedicated antis but you might be able to convince fence-sitters that it's not fair to deny a paying customer.
Or maybe not. The way the country looks right now, ABC might become the heroes of the week.
Covert Mission
New member
re: "If our guys knew what they were doing, they'd forget the logic and statistics..."
Totally right. I have a friend who is a trial lawyer, and a shooter (we shoot IDPA together). Whenever we get into RKBA discussions, and I try to use logic and reason,saying "We have to ----", he shuts me down. He says logic rarely works in court in jury trials. Jurors are much more susceptible to emotional manipulation, as a rule. Undoubtedly because they lack critical thinking skills, on average.
I think a series of commercials, featuring real people who have survived lethal or horrible encounters or saved others by having/using a gun, and who tell their stories dramatically, would have a great impact. Pull every heartstring you can. It's unfortunate that people require this kind of emotional manipulation to be made to understand, but the other side is doing it against us. Let's return the favor.
Totally right. I have a friend who is a trial lawyer, and a shooter (we shoot IDPA together). Whenever we get into RKBA discussions, and I try to use logic and reason,saying "We have to ----", he shuts me down. He says logic rarely works in court in jury trials. Jurors are much more susceptible to emotional manipulation, as a rule. Undoubtedly because they lack critical thinking skills, on average.
I think a series of commercials, featuring real people who have survived lethal or horrible encounters or saved others by having/using a gun, and who tell their stories dramatically, would have a great impact. Pull every heartstring you can. It's unfortunate that people require this kind of emotional manipulation to be made to understand, but the other side is doing it against us. Let's return the favor.
Mike in VA
New member
Ferget ABC, Don, it's owned by Disney, one of the most head-in-the-sand, PC organizations going. They run a place called Fantasyland, remember, heavy into revisionist history, too.
I do really like the idea for commercials with real people who survived real life horrible situations because someone had a gun. A thirty second reality check. It would even fit the average couch potato/soccer mom attention span just fine. The public is chumpazoidal over 'victims', and it's high time the tables were turned to show the real victims, not the poor, misguided underpriveledged underclases predatorscumbagscriminal@$$hole-m/fers who want your sneakers, car, possessions or your daughter, etc., cause they never had a PlayStation. Could even close with a nice picture of a scummie with the tagline of "here's what HCI wants you to deal with while you wait for the police, unarmed".
Hope I don't sound too reactionary, it's been a strange day for me. M2
I do really like the idea for commercials with real people who survived real life horrible situations because someone had a gun. A thirty second reality check. It would even fit the average couch potato/soccer mom attention span just fine. The public is chumpazoidal over 'victims', and it's high time the tables were turned to show the real victims, not the poor, misguided underpriveledged underclases predatorscumbagscriminal@$$hole-m/fers who want your sneakers, car, possessions or your daughter, etc., cause they never had a PlayStation. Could even close with a nice picture of a scummie with the tagline of "here's what HCI wants you to deal with while you wait for the police, unarmed".
Hope I don't sound too reactionary, it's been a strange day for me. M2