Social Media & Gun Control

[BarryLee]

When we see media outlets running stories about gun control even obviously anti-gun outlets like CNN will run some version of both sides. While they may challenge and berate gun rights supporters and let obvious lies from their anti-gun guest go unchallenged at least they offer some version of both sides. However, with the growth of social media and the 140 character story there is very little objectivity, rebuttal or accountability. Also, social media travels much faster than traditional news stories as the information is automatically pushed to our device. We also see many corporations, governmental agencies, and individuals responding to these social media trends much faster than they have to traditional stories.

So, as we see more and more people getting most of their information from social media does this change the debate as it relates to gun control? Traditionally we have seen the public generally support gun rights once they hear all the facts. Does this narrower version of the story change that? Are a growing number of Americans only getting one side of the story and in their haste to “do something” will they support worthless regulation to make themselves feel better and follow whatever is trending? Will politicians be less likely to consider the actual facts, but more influenced by social media and the impact it may have on the ballot box?

While I’m not an expert on social media, public opinion, etc. it does seem we are seeing a change in the way our society is responding to breaking news. Thanks to social media very large groups of people can demand immediate change without the traditional evaluation that issues normally receive.

 

[wogpotter]

It depends on the individual media vendor.

I contest most anti-gun falsehoods so on in social media. Its those who use social media with the ability to comment kn return that are preaching to the true believers. You'll never get through to the ones that have already decided, right or wrong, the mind is frozen in doctrine & its unshakable even in the face of good, logical refutation.

What you can, & should, do is to counterpoint so those undecided or neutral, don't get a totally biased one sided version of "truth".

 

[Dashunde]

I have little doubt that reality is being skewed.
It seems somehow acceptable to toss out negative gun comments and blame the gun for every tradgedy, meanwhile I rarely see any positive news/posts on guns.

I think our current crop of voters understands the benefits of gun ownership in America despite the image problem guns have.

My concern is the future 20+ years from now when our public school "guns are bad" liberal indoctrinated twitterheads are voting in full force instead of people who grew up carrying a pocketknife to school everyday.

 

[Skans]

In 20+ years from now, my biggest concern will be thinning out what I've got. Acquisition mode probably will have stopped by then. I'll make sure that my daughter has whatever guns she wants, and after that, well the world belongs to the future generations. Their freedom, or lack thereof, is completely up to them!

Is it really my job to make sure that America's future generations (beyond the generation that I am currently involved in raising) do everything they can to keep their freedom? Maybe I should just take all my guns to the grave with me when I finally kick over. Sealed in PVC and cosmoline, of course. More than likely, they will be safer with me than with the internet generation.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Confirmation bias - with multitudes of outlets - lots of folks will pick only those which confirm their beliefs.

There are interesting nuances. With the prison escapees in NY - a supposed antigun state - I have seen on several major networks and cable news, a local interviewed and stating that they are gun friendly, have the guns ready, have pistol permits, etc.

No Tut-tut from the commentators. But then you see a call for gun control from an anti pol.

It goes back to the basic American core belief that:

1. People have the right to have guns to defend themselves

That negates the total ban folks. Yes, there are pockets of total ban in some of the cities.

2. Guns should be kept from criminals and appropriately diagnosed mentally ill.

The rub is how you do both of these.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...as we see more and more people getting most of their information from social media...

And I see that as the core problem. Social media is the very worst place to get information. Anyone can post just about anything, and most consumers of information through social media are markedly uncritical, accepting as fact unsupported, unqualified opinions that confirm their biases without demanding evidence or good documentation.

 

[44 AMP]

Because of its speed, access by anyone, and literally the ability of anyone to say anything to possibly millions of people and still be relatively anonymous, basing any govt policies on social media is the 21st century equivalent of mob rule.

Our Founders understood the danger to rational rule the passions of the mob represent. That's why we have a Republic.

it's a song lyric, but true nonetheless..

"if you listen to fools, the mob rules"!

 

[GrailKnight]

The worst thing to happen for firearm owners rights is the Internet.
The best thing to happen for firearms owners is the Internet.

 

[carguychris]

The worst thing to happen for firearm owners rights is the Internet.

I disagree. Social media allows the near-instantaneous dissemination of information to multitudes of people without the traditional news media having to be involved.

The recently proposed M855 ban was retracted largely because of an outcry that spread via social media. The traditional news media lagged behind the curve the entire time.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Social media allows the near-instantaneous dissemination of information to multitudes of people without the traditional news media having to be involved.

The recently proposed M855 ban was retracted largely because of an outcry that spread via social media...

And that's also correct.

Social media is a tool. Like any other tool it has its strengths and weaknesses. There are things it's useful for and things it's useless for.

It is a highly efficient way to communicate cheaply with a great many people. But it is also an indiscriminate means of communication. It can reach almost everyone, and it can easily be used to communicate garbage, nonsense, lies, and misinformation, just as easily, cheaply, broadly and efficiently as good information.

 

[Skans]

I agree with Frank. We all just need to get better at using the internet as a tool. Shame on us if the antis get getter at this than we do.

 

[rickyrick]

Often the side in the right will be honest. Limits to the information that you can give honorably.

The side in the wrong will often resort to misinformation. Dengerous in issues of perceived good. For the good of the people is an effective way to win. The side that's wrong will often have paid trolls with corporate backing that can counter with well thought out responses.

Gun owners are often painted in a paranoid light. Most of the pro-gun talking points actually propagate that perception.

 

[BarryLee]

Yes, I agree that social media does have a positive side such as TFL. Also, we saw the recent call by what appears to be a majority of South Carolina citizens to remove the Confederate Flag from the capital #ConfederateFlag . So, yes there are good uses, but what concerns me is the unchecked speed with which many of these popular trends take off. I’m concerned that we could see some new piece of legislation gain considerable popular support before anyone has an opportunity to respond rationally to the proposal. Yes, I realize we probably still have enough support in the US House, but what about in the local State Houses. Also, we like to think that the Courts are unbiased, but I think we’re being naive to think that public opinion plays no part in their decisions.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Often the side in the right will be honest. Limits to the information that you can give honorably.

The side in the wrong will often resort to misinformation. Dengerous in issues of perceived good. For the good of the people is an effective way to win. The side that's wrong will often have paid trolls with corporate backing that can counter with well thought out responses....

That is a fine example of the evil of confirmation bias, and is, in good English, nonsense.

The reality is that lousy information and unmitigated garbage abound on social media on all sides of any issue. But everyone believes that those on the side he favors are honest and honorable and that anyone thinking otherwise is a lying, scurvy cur.

 

[Mike Weber]

I agree with Frank. We all just need to get better at using the internet as a tool. Shame on us if the antis get getter at this than we do.

Its not that they are better at it than we are. They play by an entirely different set of rules and will quickly resort to every dirty nasty trick they can use to sway public opinion.

I remember a few years ago back when Michael Moore's Bowling For Colombine was about to open in theaters here in the U.S. Moore had a website promoting the movie along with his other movies. A group of about 35 of us many of us from TFL and other gun forums decided to camp out on his forums for about three weeks to dismantle the lies Moore told in Bowling For Colombine and to debate with the people there. We believed that there might be a few visiting the site who were on the fence regarding gun control and we wanted them to hear the truth. Most of us chose to debate the issue without resorting to name calling and personal attacks.

The Gun grabbers on the other hand were constantly resorting to namecalling and even death threats. The place was a real cesspool in terms of the behavior of many of the Moore fans. I remember one conservative homeschooled teenage girl who posted there on the progun side being threatened with rape by Moore's leftist fans. One thing that was odd is that none of us debating with them who remained civil were banned from the site. After about three weeks it became obvious that they were losing the debate and Moore pulled the plug on his own website to shut down the debate.

The Lefts usual tactic is to silence any opposing views. Typically anyone who is pro gun and goes to an antigun website is quickly banned.

 

[Tom Servo]

Glenn nailed it when it comes to confirmation bias. An anti-gun person will read Daily Kos and Mother Jones. He won't question the information he gets there, and he uses it as talking points to his friends.

The pro-gun person will read the NRA websites and various gun blogs. Unfortunately, too many of us do the same thing. We stock up on slogans or poorly-researched statistics, and we preaching to an echo chamber.

The trick is breaking into the middle and convincing those on the fence. That won't happen on social media. We win when we can convince the mainstream media our cause is just and right.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Tom has it.

I've experienced it myself. When I did the assault weapon / jury article, on various forums, I was denounced as it seemed mildly critical of assault rifle owners and suggesting the UN should come for YOU. One guy on another forum suggested an evil conspiracy between yours truly and Massad Ayoob. At our local gun club, I was invited by the Pres. to talk about the study at our monthly meeting. One guy had a poopy-fit and it ended with the more intelligent types trying to explain it wasn't about the UN or he should give up his guns.

I am convinced that if Kleck and Lott used their methodology and found out that more guns, more crime was the outcome and the results were legit (could have happened) - they would denounced as Commie traitors.

One can argue about the methods and data but the emotion is revealing. If it turned out that CCW states without training had a higher accident rate - would you accept that (if done well) or spew hate at the researcher?

 

[wogpotter]

I literally "just went there" with someone who was twisting, cherry picking & all the usual tactics of mis (if not dis) information.

What I did was to collect supported facts, with provenance, & point out the inaccuracies & outright lies from the OP's commentary.

I know it will have zero impact on the OP, but that wasn't my intent at all, we'll never win the zealot over. When he responded with personal attacks, insults & wild accusations I'd won.

Why?

Because the reasonable middle of the road people seeing the interchange KNEW who the ranting, irrational person was. They were really who I was trying to reach.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Its not that they are better at it than we are. They play by an entirely different set of rules and will quickly resort to every dirty nasty trick they can use to sway public opinion...

Again, that's not necessarily true either. See my post 14.

....After about three weeks it became obvious that they were losing the debate and Moore pulled the plug on his own website to shut down the debate....

You might have thought our side was winning, but did anyone else? And maybe Moore pulled the plug because for other reasons. Again, you've been caught in your own confirmation bias trap.

The reality is that you have no idea why Moore pulled the plug. But it feeds your ego and confirms your bias to believe that he did so because our side was getting the better of his side.

Stop guessing and start requiring validated data, verifiable facts, robust evidence. As Carl Sagan used to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by 44AMP
Because of its speed, access by anyone, and literally the ability of anyone to say anything to possibly millions of people and still be relatively anonymous, basing any govt policies on social media is the 21st century equivalent of mob rule.

Our Founders understood the danger to rational rule the passions of the mob represent. That's why we have a Republic.

it's a song lyric, but true nonetheless..

"if you listen to fools, the mob rules"!

This sums things up very well. Public support for gun control is typically based upon a knee-jerk, emotional response to a shocking act of violence such as a mass shooting. The problem with trying to use an emotional response to change public policy within the American system of government is that our government often moves too slowly to effectively capitalize on said responses (they're usually fleeting).

For example, if we look at polls before the Sandy Hook shooting, immediately after, and now, we see some interesting trends. For example, according to Gallup, as of October 6-9, 2011, 43% of respondents thought gun laws should be more strict, 11% less strict, and 44% kept the same. By December 19-22, 2012 (immediately after Sandy Hook) 58% responded more strict, 6% less strict, and 34% kept the same. However, by October 12-15, 2014, 47% said more strict, 14% said less strict, and 38% said kept the same.

The relatively slow speed with which our government works, while sometimes frustrating, is by design. At any given time in our history, you could probably find a point at which, if a national referendum were held, you could have probably gotten enough support to repeal any or all of the Bill of Rights. However, the legislative process slows things down enough to allow cooler heads to prevail and prevent rational argument from being drown out in the heat of the moment.

Historically, the biggest weakness of the anti-gun movement is that the majority of its support comes from emotional responses and that support is usually short-lived. The pro-gun side, however, is much better not only at remembering where various politicians positioned themselves on gun control, but also at reminding people of those positions come election day. This strength has been recognized and commented upon by very prominent anti-gun politicians including Bill Clinton who has mentioned it several times over the years. This is why, when there is a shocking act of gun violence, anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Everytown for Gun Safety, Etc. try to act so quickly: they know they must strike while the iron is hot because their support will be short-lived.