1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Honing a Perfect Message

Discussion in 'Activism' started by dubious, Apr 15, 2008.

  1. dubious

    dubious Well-Known Member

    I was over reading an fun article on the Huffington Post about Hilary's supposed new found gun love. That site has a very thriving posting community in the form of comments, mostly by Dems. Most of the gun related posts weren't too horrible but a few people were venemous. So I posted this:

    I decided this was a good place to actually do something besides preach to the choir on THR (though I am an evil Dem). So I spent about an hour carefully crafting the "perfect" very short pro gun message. I decided to address what I see as the anti's main issue: irrational fear. What do you guys think?
  2. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Well-Known Member

    Perfect up to the last sentence. Your body is utilitarian, so don't end with a constitutionalist coda. Stay utilitarian.

    I love your concept of not preaching to the choir.
  3. ArfinGreebly

    ArfinGreebly Moderator Emeritus

    Gun Deaths?

    Let's begin here:
    and notice that, in addition to a ten-year downward trend in firearms-related deaths (despite increased ownership and more carry in more states), it can be seen that suicides account for, on average, more than 50% of the total, leaving us with homicides+accidental+undetermined below 50% and totalling less than 20,000 per year.

    Further, calling homicides committed with a firearm "gun deaths" is inaccurate. The technical term is "murder." And there are as many murders committed without guns as with them.

    In general, I would avoid the term "gun deaths," as it is a) inaccurate, b) a "loaded" term which demonizes an object, not an event, c) an (incorrect) concession that guns are somehow "a cause" of injuries and deaths.

    As a rule I try not to let the folks who want to disarm us frame the debate in their terms and on their turf.
  4. Yas

    Yas Member

  5. ronnyreagan

    ronnyreagan Member

    Agreed. I see too many posts here complaining about "the other side." I understand that some people need to vent, but complaining to the people who already agree with you isn't going to change anything. Maybe it's just because I'm an "evil Dem", but I don't see the point in endlessly bashing the other party. Just convince them that you're right and you won't have to argue any more!:)

    Anyway, good job dubious.
  6. Pat-inCO

    Pat-inCO Well-Known Member

    The majority of your message is good. I also agree that the last statement (it's actually a question) might be better if it said something like: "How many of that 1.5 million would have been victims if we were to eliminate the legal guns?"
  7. Dksimon

    Dksimon Well-Known Member

    Looks like a great post
  8. MIL-DOT

    MIL-DOT member

    One of the best things about your post......brevity. Too many good points and good messages are lost on many readers, especially these days, because the writer over-does it with information. Get in,hit hard,get out. Nice job.
  9. CaesarI

    CaesarI Well-Known Member

    If I may

    Just from my experience preaching to those who are not in the "choir".

    The "guns save lives" argument is much harder harder for people oppositional to the RKBA to swallow. It is also difficult/impossible to prove, and by making the statement, *you* have to back it up. Proving things is easily 10 times as hard as disproving things. So...

    The better argument is: "I agree, gun deaths, like all other deaths, are a tragedy, it's just that after examining the issue in detail I've found no convincing evidence that gun control laws save *any* lives." You can play with the words a bit to suit your manner of speak, and to suit your audience, the basic idea however is solid as a rock, unshakeable, and incredibly persuasive. To improve the persuasiveness, offer an alternative proven method of "saving lives" that your audience will find suitable and believable. The alternative can be gang intervention programs, or sending food to Africa, or whatever you want. I don't suggest touting concealed carry, that's too hard for them to swallow, at least initially.

    The reason it works is that it puts *them* on the defensive. *They* are forced to prove that their laws do something other than waste people's time and energy. People value their time, energy and money. Convince them it's a scam and you win. People *hate* being scammed. You aren't asking them to cross a bridge too far. You aren't asking them to support the right of people to own what they view as dangerous objects of death, you aren't asking them to enjoy it, or support it as an unalienable right. You're merely saying that what they think will save lives, won't work, trying something else.

    The reason it's rock solid is that it is. There has never been a published study (so far) that has shown gun control laws to have any effect whatever on the rate at which people die with firearms. Several well-funded groups of anti-gun biased researchers examined the issue, and left with changed mines. The two that come to mind most are Wright and Rossi "Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms " and the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

    Good luck in your quest, it's noble and I've done it myself, just hoping to save you the same lessons I had to learn.

  10. MIL-DOT

    MIL-DOT member

    I'd have to say,Morgan...good point.....great tactic. I hadn't looked at it exactly that way before.
  11. CaesarI

    CaesarI Well-Known Member

    Thank you. I hope it works as well for you.

  12. Rachen

    Rachen member

    Preaching to the choir is okay, if we are using it as a method of practicing our arguments and proofreading our articles, before we go out and broadcast them. It's good to have some feedback before actually publishing works.
  13. Robert Hairless

    Robert Hairless Well-Known Member

    At least some evil Democrats might be reasonably well educated.

    Many of them might know that "amendments" is not spelled "ammendments."

    Most of them probably know that one of their two leading contenders for the presidential nomination is named "Hillary," not "Hilary."

    At least some of them might realize that the one-sentence concluding paragraph has nothing at all to do with what precedes it.
  14. V-DOP

    V-DOP Member

    God. Reading readers replies to those articles on that site is like watching a trainwreck unfold in HD slow-motion.
  15. BruceRDucer

    BruceRDucer Well-Known Member


    Keep honing that message Dubious. We're all in this together. Without people like you, my rights are in danger, and because of you and people like you, they are secured. :)


Share This Page