Gun Owner Image

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trent

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
25,151
Location
Illinois
There's a thread I started in Activism Discussion which I have been asked to share in the General forum for a wider audience. To keep "topics on topic", and rather than re-post the thread in it's entirety, you can click the link here to read in full.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/gun-owners-image.834537/

What I want to do with this thread in General, is convince you of the urgency of taking a few minutes to read that other, more detailed thread.

Recently, anti-gunners have shifted tactics from the political theater to a cultural image objective. In the intervening time between various high-scale public events, someone pretty intelligent on their side drew up a new broad spectrum comprehensive order of battle with brand new methods of engagement we haven't seen previously. They are focusing on the areas gun owners are most vulnerable, which - as with any chain - is our weakest individual link.

I'm talking about you.

One of the new, and most overtly successful tactics in their refined arsenal, has nothing to do with politics; but rather, image. The goal of this information campaign, being ran across all fronts - mass media, social media, main street marches, our country's classrooms, and our churches, among other venues - is to vilify gun owners in the eyes of the undecided, moderate America. To make gun owners yesterday's tobacco company. To portray us as a harmful, dirty element in modern society.

Their goal is to separate friend from friend, family from family, pastor from parishioner, neighbor from neighbor. To make association with a "known gun owner" a bad thing. A social stigma. Taboo. An old, outdated, dirty habit that America needs to kick.

By and large, the way that gun owners conduct themselves in public forums and speech, unknowingly aids them in their cause. This is because we have grown myopic and only see things from our perspective. Most gun owners do not take even one small millisecond to stop and think "how would my words be perceived by someone who has never touched a firearm before?"

We have grown arrogant with repeated victories in the political theater and the courts, and our hubris will be our ultimate downfall if we do not get it in check. To take the whole cake, the hard core anti's only have to do one thing; convince enough of the crowd who isn't on one side or the other, that we are the bad guys.

And we're handing them that on a silver platter, with the arrogance we display in public. The very nature of some of our arguments. The hostility we show towards our opposition. The words which we throw about in public, which, from any other perspective than that of a hard-core 2nd amendment activist or gun owner, seems trite, hostile, or downright venomous.

I witnessed this first hand, shortly after writing that article in the Activism Discussion forum, Sunday evening, when an ex-NRA lobbyist unloaded on a moderate mutual friend; a journalist; on Facebook, This behavior is - of course - exactly the sort of thing the article I wrote, and linked to above, is intended to address.

FMZBvuj.png

This exchange was reproduced with permission of my journalist friend, Mark, with the stipulation that I mask out any last names. I also redacted some swear words to meet THR's quality standards.

I'm using only a portion of that *specific* exchange (it gets worse as it went on longer, not better), as an example of what I'm talking about, and to illustrate a few key points. While "Todd" no longer works as an NRA paid lobbyist, as of last October, he still works as a political lobbyist for "our side" for a different organization. He also held his NRA position for a very, very long time, and is uniformly well known to journalists, senators, representatives, gun owners, and various political figures throughout the state I'm in, and is heavily associated with the ISRA and our concealed carry organizations.

Ask yourself now, how those public statements will be received by that journalist's (rather large) friend's list?

How will women perceive this well known gun lobbyist's remarks on "get some vagisil" and "get your panties out of a knot"? (There were even worse things said later, but I can't redact them sufficiently to make THR's quality standards regarding language.)

Ask yourself, have you ever had a discourse like this in public?

Maybe not as overtly hostile, perhaps? But I'd wager more of you than not, have forwarded on "pro-gun propaganda" which only preaches to one side of the choir (ours), and is designed to antagonize, ridicule, or alienate the other side.

Make fun of a senator for talking about a "Ghost Gun which shoots 30 caliber magazine clips?"

Ever stop to think about the non-gun owner reading what you write? Who is now afraid of even talking to a pro-gun person for fear of getting ridiculed if they call something by the wrong name?

How do you think the >30% of America who aren't Christians feel when they see this?

LzH4Ysyh.jpg

This is part of the larger issue. As I mentioned above, in our hubris, we tend to only preach to the choir without any regard whatsoever in how our images and statements are being perceived by the other side.

How many potential future allies and undecideds are we are alienating along the way?

As a minority can we afford to alienate anyone?

Have you ever de-friended or blocked a liberal? Or said "I'm not going to argue with these folks anymore, you can't convince them of anything"?

If so, you just played right in to the anti's playbook and scored a major victory for them. THEY know they are playing for the undecideds. If we cut ties with folks, if we dis-engage them in polite dialog, or if we turn hostile in dialog, we lose. Period. That means they win over the undecided folks without any subsequent challenge.

I hope I have stirred some of you up enough to take a few moments to read what I wrote in Activism Discussion. I hope, at the very least, I have convinced you of the dangers inherent in "individual public relations."

Whether we like it or not, every last one of us gun owners ultimately is representing every other gun owner. The sum totality of how the public perceives gun owners is what matters. We need to tip the scales so that, on the majority, we are presenting a neighborly image and acting as gentlemen and ladies; not as chest thumping thugs who try to coerce opinion via ridicule and appeals to divine authority.

Driving wedges does not help build commonality, and as a minority, if we continue to act in such a manner, we will ultimately lose.

Here's that link again.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/gun-owners-image.834537/

If you want to discuss *why* image is important, feel free to do it right here in General.

If you want to discuss, contribute, and elaborate on things which can improve our image, do it in the other thread, please.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and the other article, and I hope it encourages everyone to reflect even just a little on how things are perceived, and how important it is to maintain a positive image for our continued battle for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

You represent the rest of us. We represent you.
 
As I mentioned above, in our hubris, we tend to only preach to the choir without any regard whatsoever in how our images and statements are being perceived by the other side.

How many potential future allies and undecideds are we are alienating along the way?

As a minority can we afford to alienate anyone?

Have you ever de-friended or blocked a liberal? Or said "I'm not going to argue with these folks anymore, you can't convince them of anything"?

If so, you just played right in to the anti's playbook and scored a major victory for them. THEY know they are playing for the undecideds. If we cut ties with folks, if we dis-engage them in polite dialog, or if we turn hostile in dialog, we lose. Period. That means they win over the undecided folks without any subsequent challenge.
This is exactly what I've maintained for years on this and other forums, and it's unfortunate that so many within our community disagree, taking the tack that it's not worth engaging because we can't convince them anyway ... We not only alienate (intentionally or unwittingly) but we ignore those whom we disagree with or believe we cannot get through to ...

It's not only our public discourse, though -- it's how we present ourselves publicly as well. Having attended our big gunshow this weekend, I am again simply amazed (and often appalled) by those in our community who seem to strive to dress down to the stereotypical gun-owner image. We don't need to always be attired in firearms-related apparel, and would it kill you to take a shower, shave or dress up a little before going out in public. Just saw way too many folks who didn't look approachable at all, some downright scary-looking.
 
Gun owners are far from the majority and RKBA dedicated owners are a subset of the rest of gunowners. A minority by all accounts.

We can influence other owners and those not purely hostile to RKBA, but we cannot be as effective if we give Antis easy examples of insulting, inflammatory, or idiotic rants full of ad homs and insults (much less threatening, profane or vulgar). We turn folks off, and worse, lend ammunition to the Antis.
 
Concur with you Trent. We should not allow Divide et Impera (divide and conquer) be played against us. I don't care if a person is Pink Pistol or a minority or anything else. Without the 2A, all other rights are but empty words on meaningless paper.

We're supposed to be land of the free, home of the brave but how come the average Afghani gets an AK-47 and we can have only semi-automatic lookalikes (if our state permits us)?
 
This is exactly what I've maintained for years on this and other forums, and it's unfortunate that so many within our community disagree, taking the tack that it's not worth engaging because we can't convince them anyway ... We not only alienate (intentionally or unwittingly) but we ignore those whom we disagree with or believe we cannot get through to ...

It's not only our public discourse, though -- it's how we present ourselves publicly as well. Having attended our big gunshow this weekend, I am again simply amazed (and often appalled) by those in our community who seem to strive to dress down to the stereotypical gun-owner image. We don't need to always be attired in firearms-related apparel, and would it kill you to take a shower, shave or dress up a little before going out in public. Just saw way too many folks who didn't look approachable at all, some downright scary-looking.

One of the reasons I've stuck around The High Road for so long, I guess. The whole purpose of the forum is to set an example that through positive education, self-restraint, mutual respect, and dignified dialog we can accomplish the mission we set out to accomplish; without resorting to negativity, chest thumping, ego trips, profanity-laced posts, and so on, to try to get the message across.

We all have our differences of opinion; here, on THR, we learn to refine our arguments and present them in a civilized, dignified fashion. Through clean discourse we refine not only our arguments, but also ourselves, until they are razor sharp and effective instruments.

I agree about the public image. We all know "the type" that makes us cringe a little inside when they pull up to a gun range. When I served as secretary and CRSO of a local range for years, and ran public shooting matches, I ran across all types.

When in the context of a social event, such as a pro-gun rally, somehow it always seems to be the most offensive folks who happen to get their picture taken and thrown about the media. Or worse, get a hold of the megaphone. Which is why I mentioned specifically to "our weakness is our weakest link", considering that this whole affair has now almost completely shifted from a political struggle to a social image one. (Which still achieves their goals; to win the public, eventually wins the politics.)

Any class of citizen is generally judged by the most radical among them, in the public eye. I see this every single day, online. Folks challenging a minimum wage by posting up a picture of someone holding a sign demanding a higher minimum wage, who has a face full of (sometimes offensive) tattoos and dozens of piercings in the eyes, nose, ears, cheeks, and tongue. Is that representative of everyone? No. It's the weakest link, and that weakest link is the easiest to target; and the most profoundly effective at swaying opinion.

Wouldn't hurt some folks to clean up their dialog, their actions, and their image just a smidge. Not one bit.

We all want to make a difference. But some folks don't want to put in the effort to learn how to do it effectively; or haven't really thought some things through before mashing a SHARE button to repeat someone else's ill-though message; or consider who out there is going to perceive it as good, bad, or indifferent.

Remember we are not doing activism to each other. We are trying to reach the other side and the undecideds in the middle. Trying to get our message across. It does us no good to drive a point home to one person only to lose 4, or 400 more, because of the way we conducted ourselves. And it is ENTIRELY self-defeating to promote a message only our side is going to receive with humor, while turning EVERYONE else off.

It also does us no good to cut ties with someone who we "don't think we can ever convince." All that accomplishes is it gives them the ability to speak without any opposition whatsoever, so then the undecideds only get their point of view. On the contrary. We should embrace the other side, because through our dialog with them, others will be influenced.

 
Well said Trent. Some of the arguments and rhetoric I've seen on FB and other places is absurd and degrading. I agree with your sentiments entirely, and I choose to have rational conversations with anti gun folks when they desire a conversation. Staying calm is the only way this will get any better.
 
Trent, I generally agree with what you're saying. The problem, as I see it, is that gun owners -- and especially RKBA activists -- are living in their own echo chamber, so that their opinions seem to them to be the majority. This is made worse by our geographic and social separation into "tribes." If everyone with whom you associate agrees with you, then it's easy to think that any opposing opinion must be deviant.

I live in northern Virginia, which, as a suburb of Washington, D.C., is a liberal enclave. That gives me a bit of a different perspective. Around here, it's getting to the point where gun owners are seen as socially toxic, like smokers or wearers of fur. Yes, we have gun shows with thousands of attendees, but they're still a minority. (This was proven by our last election, in which a raving gun-grabber, Ralph Northam, was elected governor.)
 
Last edited:
Indeed well said, Although my social media is generally clean and kind, I have been guilty of sharing an occasional pro gun post that's a little rough around the edges. One of the things you mention that's really tough on our image as a whole is the guy that shows up at RKBA rallies with the foul mouth and an AR slung over their shoulder, they are looking for the media and the media is always looking for them. That's really a tough one to counter, I've got my thinking cap on, love to hear others ideas on this one.
 
....The problem, as I see it, is that gun owners -- and especially RKBA activists -- are living in their own echo chamber, so that their opinions seem to them to be the majority. This is made worse by our geographic and social separation into "tribes." If everyone with whom you associate agrees with you, then it's easy to think that any opposing opinion must be deviant....

That is indeed one of the major problems. And for those of us who see it as a problem, one of our challenges is to change that perspective. I don't have any answers, but often the first step toward dealing with a problem is to recognize it as a problem.

We need to have a better handle on how non-gun folks see us. As Robert Burns wrote:
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!


[Translation:
Oh, would some Power give us the gift
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us,
And foolish notion:
What airs in dress and gait would leave us,
And even devotion!]
 
Trent, I generally agree with what you're saying. The problem, as I see it, is that gun owners -- and especially RKBA activists -- are living in their own echo chamber, so that their opinions seem to them to be the majority. This is made worse by our geographic and social separation into "tribes." If everyone with whom you associate agrees with you, then it's easy to think that any opposing opinion must be deviant.

Very true and both sides fall into this trap. I current live in Oregon. People around here where absolutely shocked when Trump was elected. Prior to Oregon I lived in Alabama and they were equally shocked when Obama won (both times).

Most people only seem to interact with people like themselves and today you can almost completely filter media to ideas you agree with. This silo mentality and self segregation hurts both sides and prevents people from seeing the other side of the issue. It also allows people to demonize the other side. None of this is helpful for our country.

I find people on gun forums that simply don’t believe that gun owners are a minority of the US population. The vast majority of people they know own guns so that must be how thing are everywhere. Likewise many of my friend here in urban Portland can’t see why anyone would own a gun. They can only relate to their current situation where the police are a few minutes away and don’t stop to think of people that live in rural areas that have a couple of Sheriff Deputies covering the entire county.

Dialogue is key. Nothing breaks down barriers better than meeting someone face to face.
 
Trent, I generally agree with what you're saying. The problem, as I see it, is that gun owners -- and especially RKBA activists -- are living in their own echo chamber, so that their opinions seem to them to be the majority. This is made worse by our geographic and social separation into "tribes." If everyone with whom you associate agrees with you, then it's easy to think that any opposing opinion must be deviant.

I live in northern Virginia, which, as a suburb of Washington, D.C., is a liberal enclave. That gives me a bit of a different perspective. Around here, it's getting to the point where gun owners are seen as socially toxic, like smokers or wearers of fur. Yes, we have gun shows with thousands of attendees, but they're still a minority. (This was proven by our last election, in which a raving gun-grabber, Ralph Northam, was elected governor.)
Here's the thing, though; are gun onwers being treated as pariahs where you are because they don't dress nice, swear, or act aggressively/criminally? Or is it because they are gun owners?

Because if it is just due to the guns, you won't change their attitude by changing or reinforcing your attitude.

Oddly enough, I can think of several groups that on the whole do embrace all the negative behavior traits we diligently avoid, yet are embraced (and despite prodigious 'gun crimes' and other criminal behavior even). I think there's something else at play here, and I think it has nothing to do with how gun onwers are conducting themselves.
 
I appreciate Trent's statement. I have repeatedly said that the NRA messaging is either incompetent or competently designed to raise money from a subset of gun folks. If someone doesn't like my view, that's too bad.

To my dear lawyer colleague, are psychological concepts that are interesting. I wrote this to someone Frank also knows in a PM exchange with some editing. Italics are additions.

The future
is screwed. The reason in my opinion (esp. seeing our own internal debate) is because:

1. There are some relevant psychological concepts:
a. Theory of mind - the ability to understand the cognitions of others
b. Emotional intelligence - the ability to understand the emotions of others.

--- Thus, they don't get why ... --

c. Kohlberg's 4th state of moral development where some major cultural text, law or preaching cannot be challenged. This the argument that the right is in the BOR and immutable. Forgetting that the Constitution forbid women voting, allowed slavery and did not have direct election of senators - until is was changed. They forget that anti-freedom amendments have been and are frequently suggested on the Constitutional level. I have the text of 1900's amendments suggesting the banning of interracial marriage as God's will to protect white women from black bucks. That's similar language to what Eisenhower said about the SCOTUS Brown vs. Topeka decision. GWB (in favor of the AWB) happily proposed amendments against gay marriage and flag burning. He appealed to the mob when in political trouble over Irag invasion.

2. The failure of the national gun organizations, esp. the NRA.

a. They wedded themselves to the extreme right for its social conservative aspects (not the economic debates).

b. This was to raise max money from this choir subset and keep themselves well paid and on the pulpit for their defined congregation.

c. Staying with ineffective spokespeople like Wayne with his extreme right rants that include socialism, almost mandatory Christian supremacy, and implicit racial and sexual orientation prejudice. On a surface appearance - this is not convincing or useful.

d. They do not have a message based on the why the need for RKBA. Their messages - socialism, implied racist defense of whiteness and Christianity against other races and creeds does not ring true outside of an unpleasant subset of the current choir. I've read that current Evangelical youth favors gay marriage. Thus, social conservative appeals may not work in the long run.

That's my rant for today

An example of failed (IMHO) messaging:

I said this on another forum:
I'll say several things as I try to take a rational, evaluative view of things.

1. Of course, the march was organized to promote a position a portion of gun owners disagree with. Now, if progun rich folks and adults organized, paid for, printed banners, arranged transportation for 200,000 pro gun kids - most folks here would think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. So the NRA is out thought and out fought in PR tactics. That's a surprise.

2. How to respond. This is from a NRA TV outlet:

Quote:
The clip, which featured NRA TV host “Colion Noir” (a pseudonym for Collins Iyare Idehen Jr.), had first been shared on YouTube on Thursday with the title “A March For Their Lies.”

“From where I’m standing, it looks like a march to burn the Constitution and rewrite the parts that they don’t like in crayon,” Noir said, referring to the young activists leading the rally.

In another NRA TV clip posted Thursday, Noir had harangued the Parkland survivors, saying “no one would know your names” if someone with a gun had stopped the shooting at their school.
That's going to convince folks that the kids don't have a legitimate fear and concern? I'm as progun as anyone and that is flat out stupid messaging.

3. The Constitutional issue is clear to us. It certainly isn't clear to educated, legal scholars on the other side of the issue. Look at the recent SCOTUS decisions and fallout from Scalia's words in Heller at the lower court level.

It may be that the issue will fade over time as happened in the past. It might not as the forces that led to the original AWB and recent state laws.

However, conspiracy theories based on better political organizational abilities is just a bunch of moaning and groaning. Rhetoric about crayons and money bombs - not going to cut it.

To conclude, Trent is on the money. Funding raising business as usual or the past rhetorical style is more a Maginot line defense. That worked out well, didn't it.

Our supporting politicians will change their stripes if it benefits them.
 
I find people on gun forums that simply don’t believe that gun owners are a minority of the US population.
Many, many people in this country own guns, but they are not necessarily "gun people." Merely keeping a shotgun and a .22 rifle in the back of your closet doesn't mean that you're a RKBA advocate.

A recent study found that 3% of the population owns about half the guns. These "super owners" are the ones who have a serious stake in the gun debate.
 
We're supposed to be land of the free, home of the brave but how come the average Afghani gets an AK-47 and we can have only semi-automatic lookalikes (if our state permits us

They're in an active war zone which might have something to so with it; of course if things keep going the way they are in this country, we may find ourselves in a similar situation.
 
Many, many people in this country own guns, but they are not necessarily "gun people." Merely keeping a shotgun and a .22 rifle in the back of your closet doesn't mean that you're a RKBA advocate.

A recent study found that 3% of the population owns about half the guns. These "super owners" are the ones who have a serious stake in the gun debate.

Polls that ask something like “Is there a gun in your home” show that only about 35 to 40% of people answer yes. The percentage has also been steadily dropping for decades. Despite this many claim the ownership rate is above 50% and climbing.

40% of households is a lot of people but still a minority.
 
The image of the gun owner as the trusted neighbor, pillar of the community, level-headed, squared-away, good guy is what's at stake. We are being painted, mistaken (through psychological transference) as the one who shoots up the school, or at least as those who create the conditions that make school shootings possible. Until we can make the strong distinction that the "broken boys" and the criminals are not us and we don't facilitate school shootings or "gun violence" through our "gun culture", we are losing the battle for hearts and minds among our fellow urban, liberal citizens.

Until we have a ready, easy, non-threatening, life-affirming response to "why does anybody need an AR-15?", we lose the political argument.

The problem is there isn't an easy response to "why do you need an AR-15?". The response is difficult, messy, and filled with ambiguity. The reality of preparing for disaster, whether buying insurance, fire extinguishers, filling a pantry, or owning a gun, does not mesh with the modern American urban idea that we live in a time of Pax Americana, a time of plenty, with systems in place to meet our every need. The affluent, suburban American can't fathom why anybody would need to be self-reliant or personally responsible when we have abundant services giving us food, water, sanitation, entertainment, comfort, and friendship without even thinking about it or working very hard.

With the illusion of plenty as the status quo, affluent Americans view the very idea of the modern American Minuteman as delusion. It doesn't matter if we are boy scouts or eagle scouts, the motto of "always be prepared" sounds laughable to our neighbors who can summon a pizza or a massage or an Uber car on their smart phone.

Its always intrigued me that the urban liberal (I was one, once) can learn in college lit that life is filled with ambiguity, that there are no easy answers or shiny heros or evil villains. We learn that life is complex with many shades of gray. And even as we continue to consume and appreciate murky fictions in TV, movies, and novels, we look for simple, easy, utopian answers to life's vexing questions.
 
It is hard to overstate the importance of this issue. Gun owners frequently come across as completely and narrow-mindedly aligned with politically and religiously conservative political groups, opposed to science, political and cultural diversity, aligned with big business, etc. This means that currently, in the minds of many many middle-of-the-road people, gun advocates are tied to Trump and all the negatives that come with him. This also means that to oppose Trump is to oppose gun owners (which is what the march in DC was really about).

Liberals (or anyone not in the extreme right wing) often feel unwelcome at gun-oriented events, such as gun shows, because of the extreme right-wing conspiracy booths and general hostility to diversity of opinion on issues that are completely unrelated to gun rights. When NRATV posts an anti-immigrant rant by Dana Loesch it completely and unnnecessarily alienates a huge part of the US population on a topic that has 0% to do with the issue of civilian firearm ownership. As far as I can tell the NRA is all about raising money from the ever-shrinking pool of extremely conservative gun-owners, and making sure they hear what they want to hear.

The High Road (along with TFL) is one of the few gun boards that welcomes a diversity of opinion but in general we are not reaching out to make our argument to a wider audience. And I say this as, I expect, one of the relatively few secular liberals on this board. I have personally turned no fewer than 15 liberals onto gun ownership, but I didn't do it by ranting about the constitution and god-given rights. I did it by being respectful and persuasive, and not making the argument about communism, atheism, immigration, the legalization of marijuana, or welfare mothers.

We will win the argument when we can pursuade every kind of American.
 
Last edited:
Well if 40% say they own a gun, would you say it's more likely that some of them are falsely claiming to own a gun or that some people who do own a gun are not admitting it?

Here's another figure. According to Pew, 58% of Americans feel that having a gun in the home makes the owner safer. That may be the closest thing to an accurate ownership poll you'll ever see.

Civility is always best and it's what we practice, even if the opposition spokeschild is literally calling us (the NRA) child murderers, and calling adults too stupid to use a democracy, on and on. Yes, the kids had their march and their message was heard. That does not change the fact that their message is intellectually vacant.

It strikes me that a lot of people here are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They will say they are not for a ban and then argue the opposition's case for a ban. They will cry doom and gloom when we should be working from the strongest position we've had in a long time. Because of a bunch of kids throwing an irrational fit? It baffles the heck out of me.

I'm going to be busy for awhile and won't be here much. Probably best all around. I do hope that while we're being civil, we can be a bit less timid and defeatist as well. Our greatest asset is not numbers or money. It is the truth of U.S. history, in fact all of human history. We have a strong case and need to insist on an honest hearing.
 
Civility is always best and it's what we practice, even if the opposition spokeschild is literally calling us (the NRA) child murderers, and calling adults too stupid to use a democracy, on and on. Yes, the kids had their march and their message was heard. That does not change the fact that their message is intellectually vacant.

That being said, if we allow ourselves to be bated in to slugging away at that level of vitriol, it serves their cause, not ours. In the public eye, gun owners are the ones on trial, and in the court of public perception, there is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty. Quite the contrary. When they lash out with anger and vile remarks, and gun owners drop their filters and hit back on that same level, they aren't the ones who get the damaged reputation. It's assumed as they are the injured party, they are going to be bitter. For us to respond in like causes us reputation harm, but not them. See where I'm going with that?

It strikes me that a lot of people here are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They will say they are not for a ban and then argue the opposition's case for a ban. They will cry doom and gloom when we should be working from the strongest position we've had in a long time. Because of a bunch of kids throwing an irrational fit? It baffles the heck out of me.

I don't think anyone here is ready to lay down arms and roll over. Quite the contrary. What we're trying to accomplish is taking away their major battle tactic of dividing folks from one another. They want to separate us out from the rest of their self-proclaimed "mainstream enlightened peaceful modern society" and they are using classic propaganda tools to do it - associating weapons with backwards attitudes.

"The second amendment is only about muskets!" or "weapons of war!" or "military-style assault weapons of mass destruction" are all great examples of this. By those phrasing's sheer construct, that is *designed* to get under our skin. To make gun owners immediately, and rashly, lash out. To affiliate us in the non-decided viewer's minds viewing those interactions, that we're a bunch of nutjobs collecting ultra-modern military hardware without a care in the world towards who gets hurt along the way. Or to fashion us as "so old fashioned that we have no relevant place in modern society."

Gun owners think that is about misinformation? Heh. No. That stuff is by design to get us riled up. It's easy to teach to the uninformed soldiers they recruit to their cause, and it works because every time they repeat it, they get our side brow beating them back with technical descriptions and history lessons. At that point, it looks like our guys are a bunch of reactionary, emotional, self-righteous folks who get off on "correcting" other people just to feed our own egos a little more.

It's clever, if you think about it. But then again, so is most propaganda that achieves the desired effect.

I'm going to be busy for awhile and won't be here much. Probably best all around. I do hope that while we're being civil, we can be a bit less timid and defeatist as well. Our greatest asset is not numbers or money. It is the truth of U.S. history, in fact all of human history. We have a strong case and need to insist on an honest hearing.

No argument there - in fact, this is part of the message that we need to stay focused on. But the manner in which we deliver the message needs to be on point, not indignant, not repulsive, not haughty or abusive, and most certainly not ridiculing. It needs to be dignified and eloquent, matter of fact, to the point.

The anti-gunners will try to string you out in comments in social media, try to get you to sit there and argue for hours and hours about some trivial point, or throw one emotional, irrational argument after another, until you just want to shout at your screen in frustration.

Make one GOOD point. Then MOVE ON. Don't let the conversation drop to the level of mud-slinging, personal attacks, and hurt feelings. Check the ego and the attitude and say something short, to the point, and get on with life. Stay above that noise when they try to drag you in to a prolonged public exchange; all they're trying to do is irritate you to the point that you finally give in to temptation and "get ugly."

Stay.. dignified.

And stick around THR. There's a lot of good that comes from contributions of members. Worrying about where we are at is not a "defeatist" attitude at all, it's important to identify our weak points so that we can be collectively stronger.

Sometimes, that self-analysis and review process can be a bit painful to go through, but it's important if we're going to be more effective overall. I myself, have been guilty of some or all of the chest-thumping / egocentric / know-it-all methods of debating anti's, and while it's very, very rare for me to take things to a personal level, it has happened before. I'm not preaching from the pulpit today because I'm "holier than thou" - no.. dude, far from it. I've *made* these mistakes myself, and run them through the Great Hindsight Filter, and refined my approach and attitude.

The net effect? I've actually got some liberals to step back from their solid anti-position. I've even got one who was staunchly anti-gun through a concealed carry course and on our side. And who knows how many onlookers have been swayed, in the last couple of years, since I realized that a different approach was working.

The transformation from how I acted, say, 6 years ago, before I started being a concealed carry instructor, and interacting with a wider variety of gun owners (and not just the hard core activist types, or more militant types), has been a long, but insightful process.

We're all representatives of each other and at the end of the day, we're all neighbors. That's the big thing to remember. That will help us win hearts and minds.
 
Last edited:
Polls that ask something like “Is there a gun in your home” show that only about 35 to 40% of people answer yes. The percentage has also been steadily dropping for decades.
How many people answer the question honestly? Would you? Of course the percentage has been dropping as the stigma of gun ownership has been increasing. Besides that, people are becoming paranoid about security. It's not that fewer people own guns -- it's that more people won't tell pollsters that they do.

I think that nationwide, more than half have some sort of gun in the household. That doesn't make them gun activists.
 
When NRATV posts an anti-immigrant rant by Dana Loesch it completely and unnnecessarily alienates a huge part of the US population on a topic that has 0% to do with the issue of civilian firearm ownership. As far as I can tell the NRA is all about raising money from the ever-shrinking pool of extremely conservative gun-owners, and making sure they hear what they want to hear.
Exactly. I think that explains Wayne LaPierre's anti-"socialist" rants in the last two issues of the American Rifleman. If I wasn't a Life Member, I would have resigned in protest over this.
 
Well if 40% say they own a gun, would you say it's more likely that some of them are falsely claiming to own a gun or that some people who do own a gun are not admitting it?

Here's another figure. According to Pew, 58% of Americans feel that having a gun in the home makes the owner safer. That may be the closest thing to an accurate ownership poll you'll ever see.

Can you link a Pew report that says 58% of Americans feel having a gun makes them safer? The most recent Pew I've seen certainly doesn't say that.
EDIT: Pew report here: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/guns-report-methodology/

Gun safer.png % own Gun.png

How many people answer the question honestly? Would you? Of course the percentage has been dropping as the stigma of gun ownership has been increasing. Besides that, people are becoming paranoid about security. It's not that fewer people own guns -- it's that more people won't tell pollsters that they do..

Yes, I've been part of a Pew poll and I answered honestly. I can't see any reason why someone would agree to take part in a poll and then lie.
 
Last edited:
Because if it is just due to the guns, you won't change their attitude by changing or reinforcing your attitude.


You're missing the point. It isn't Antis we're trying to influence. They are a lost cause, but their cause is to get everyone else to agree with them.

Our job is to get those same people they're trying to influence to see us day by day, week by week, as the people they trust that they can see us as an example of real gun owners and not criminals or threatening. More, we need to then step up and politely, rationally, reasonably speak UP, not out, on behalf of them and our gun ownership.

We need to become advocates for gun owners by living and representing our community actively and consciously day by day and not acting as angry vitriolic hate mongers. Where we see those gun owners behaving in such a way we should point out that they're creating a negative impression with decent law abiding people that we're just the people the Antis want to make everyone believe we are. The decent law abiding people that the Antis want to sway to vote to protect themselves from vulgar, profane angry people with guns along with the criminals. If we act like crazy angry people on social media, the internet and in our personal conversations we harm the cause of RKBA.
 
The image of the gun owner as the trusted neighbor, pillar of the community, level-headed, squared-away, good guy is what's at stake. We are being painted, mistaken (through psychological transference) as the one who shoots up the school, or at least as those who create the conditions that make school shootings possible. Until we can make the strong distinction that the "broken boys" and the criminals are not us and we don't facilitate school shootings or "gun violence" through our "gun culture", we are losing the battle for hearts and minds among our fellow urban, liberal citizens. ...

That's a useful and accurate way to look at things. Gun owners are increasingly being marginalized and stereotyped as misfits, outsiders, malcontents, paranoids, and loners. We're not seen as a part of and participant in the broader community.
 
As a parallel, same-sex marriage achieved acceptance not because of outrageous antics at gay pride parades, etc., but because people came to see gay couples as their ordinary neighbors, with normal families. In other words, they became exemplars of accepted standards, with one notable exception, which people were willing to overlook. Likewise, you won't gain sympathy for gun rights by publicity stunts, such as in-your-face open carrying, etc. Gun owners need to look and act like normal, mainstream people. Shouting "will not comply!" and hinting about insurrection is completely counterproductive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top