Gun Control Through Effective Messaging

[happygeek]

http://www.examiner.com/article/there-is-a-gun-control-playbook-versus-washington-gun-owners

The firearms community has long quipped about gun control strategies from a “playbook,” but yesterday a major gun rights group discovered that advice from a genuine guide to waging a politically-savvy gun control campaign – produced in part by Washington, D.C. consultants who did research for a Washington State gun control group – is part of that group’s political effort.

The guide can be found here: http://thegunwriter.blogs.heraldtribune.com/files/2013/08/Gun-ViolenceMessaging-Guide-PDF-1.pdf. It seems the original link was taken down after word got out.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

One of the funniest things about this "playbook" is their admonishion to stay away from facts or details about legislation or laws.

 

[hso]

Is this it? - http://86262a2d5a8678610839-0d14e49ee6aa00b4013e3b6293913ee7.r99.cf1.rackcdn.com/Gun%20ViolenceMessaging%20Guide%20PDF-1.pdf[/URL]

Very revealing.

 

[230RN]

Double post. Reposted later.

 

[hso]

It had been up on the TBE site for most of a year when outed so I'm not surprised they pulled it. There is a whole cadre of Antis who speak at churches and synagogues working to turn congregants at places of worship against us. Pity we're not doing the same since this sort of grassroots effort can pay off eventually.

 

[230RN]

I hope a lot of people download it for safekeeping and examination offline. Yes, they seem to have pulled it from the original site.

"We" are basically, with certain prominent exceptions, mere hobbyists who just like to plink at targets and tin cans. "They" are dedicated and passionate full-time, 8-hours-a-day salaried professionals and can afford to hire big-bucks strategists to generate that kind of well-organized point-by-point playbook.

Seems to me most of those "quips" referred to were serious, but dismissed as mere tin foil hattery by the "Where's your evidence?" crowd.

Just goes to show you.

Generals win wars by anticipating what the enemy might do and developing countermeasures before the postulated events occur. This is neither tin-foil hattery nor paranoia.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have been out-Generaled and outflanked.

Again.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Pilot]

The huge problem is these anti (legal) gun groups have the mainstream media on their side, not to mention Democrat and some Republican politicians. The media is all to happy to use this recommended EMOTION based and fact less rhetoric to advance the anti gun agenda.

 

[Hacker15E]

"We" are basically, with certain prominent exceptions, mere hobbyists who just like to plink at targets and tin cans. "They" are dedicated and passionate full-time, 8-hours-a-day salaried professionals and can afford to hire big-bucks strategists to generate that kind of well-organized point-by-point playbook.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have been out-Generaled and outflanked.

Again.

Actually, quite the opposite is true. Right there in that guide it mentions that most pro-RKBA people are energetic, vocal, and will expend effort to support RKBA, while most gun-control folks are not.

This explains the history of gun control for the last 20 years or so (post 1994 AWB, at least).

The presence of this guide simply shows that the "other side" recognizes that facts and logic aren't on their side, and that they need to play on the emotional aspect of things.

So, I don't believe it shows we've been outflanked by a longshot. If we'd been outflanked, there would be a national AWB, magazine ban, etc.

But, as we all know, this is a long game, and attacks will continue for generations, so the current state of things is only temporary.

 

[xwingband]

I read most of it last night before going to sleep. It's disturbing the way they think. There are errors and fallacies everywhere.

They admit facts aren't on their side, but their conclusions are the logical ones??? A decision made on emotion not backed by facts is very much wrong.

The one that bothers me the most is they believe they have "A right to be safe in your neighborhoods." Not Really. How can you make sure of this? Yes, you should be unmolested in your daily life, but we don't live in that world. Sorry. Then they go on to say that laws can make them safer... nope, because you haven't removed the mechanism by which you would be accosted: someone who will break the law.

 

[danez71]

Wow.....


That's a well written piece that's goal, regardless of subject or object, is to argue and convince people to make laws based on emotion rather that facts.


For practical example, you could substitute the size of a soda and it would read the same.

And that's exactly how Bloomy framed his soda ban argument and won.... only to be overturned by the courts (for the time being anyways).


Besides then 2A issue, we need to teach our kids to look through emotion based policy making and focus on factual based policy making.

 

[Sol]

I wonder how many more of these "playbooks" are out there for other subjects. These are more for social engineering than relaying fact....creepy.

 

[mokin]

I only read the table of contents and the first few pages. Yeah, pretty creepy, (makes me think of Orwell's "Ministry of Truth") but I've encountered that line of "logic" in discussions already. I think a big part of the issue is that 1) they've repeated the arguments enough times to themselves that they have begun to believe the lies are true, and 2) the lies have been told to the general population who would otherwise be fairly neutral about gun control that a pro-gun attitude is seen as unpopular.

On the other hand, I have noticed several anti-gun stories fail to make any traction in the news recently. I'm starting to think that folks are getting tired of the anti-gun rhetoric and are starting to think about the economy and other bigger picture type issues.

 

[beatledog7]

I would imagine there are plenty of other documents such as this, and not just on gun control. We could use these to write our own propaganda guide--then again, when you have facts on your side, you don't need to write a guidebook teaching your side how to lie effectively.

Funny how they admonish readers not to even call what they seek "gun control" but "gun violence prevention." I suppose they've figured out that "control" doesn't sell, so they're shifting to "prevent" and linking my guns, your guns, everybody's guns to violence.

Yeah, as if they really care about the rampant but "un-newsworthy" violence carried out in the streets of cities long run by anti-gun politicians and home to the tightest gun control laws in the country. That right there tells anyone who knows how to look for bias that the rest of the thing is going to carry only one side of the message and is going to do it with lies and deceptions.

The really scary parts are the "WHAT THE OTHER SIDE SAYS... AND HOW TO COUNTER" sections. Notice in the one on trafficking how FAST AND FURIOUS gets blamed on the NRA rather than the Deptartment of Justice!

Basically, the antis are advised to counter truth and reason with tears and moaning. We could note that "Ninety-nine point nine nine nine percent of lawful gun owners have never and will never shoot anyone," and they'd counter with, "Why do you hate children?" We could state facts such as "the previous assault weapons ban did little or nothing to curb violent crime," and rather than try to rebut the facts, they'd reply with "tell that to the policemen who stare down the barrels of these guns every day." Oh wait, they did say essentially that. And why would anyone need to tell the LEOS? They already know.

Overall it was an interesting read. Some of the stuff the author(s) dreamed up really is kind of imaginative, in its own twisted way.

 

[bergmen]

When I saw this:

"If an honest citizen with a gun were present, this might not have happened."

and the response:

"There’s not a shred of credible evidence that more guns and more shooting save people’s lives. More guns and more shooting mean more tragedy."

Ignoring the unimpeachable research by John Lott in "More Guns, Less Crime".

And this:

"SILENCE (If you pay close attention, you’ll notice that our opponents seldom address gun violence directly.)"

and the response:

"You don’t hear much from the NRA and their allies when violence strikes. That’s because they can’t possibly defend their reckless agenda in the face of such terrible human pain and suffering."

They have their minds made up on the role of the NRA even in the face of specific stated positions by the NRA that are just the opposite.

Regardless of how they are thinking that they can effectively fan the flames of gun control, they are building their "arguments" on a house of cards. They seem to think that there is enough gullibility out there that they can sway at will.

I personally don't think so.

BUT, it is enlightening to see how they think. Simple, logical arguments from our side will put a little hole in this balloon of theirs and it will deflate before your eyes.

Dan

 

[Frank Ettin]

I've often been dismayed by the failure of so many in the RKBA community to recognize the importance of positively influencing public opinion or to have any real clue about how to determine how to go about doing that.

During the course of my career I've had a pretty fair amount of experience working with business clients who needed to be able to influence public perception, understand how to make advertising effective and find the best ways to effectively communicate their messages.

When a lot was at stake, they didn't just guess they didn't assume that their audiences would think the ways they did or have the same values and perceptions. They consulted with psychologists and others who have studied human motivation and perception and beliefs. They thoroughly analyzed the demographics of the audiences and tried to understand what they cared about, what they were scared of, what made them happy or feel secure, what they believed and didn't believe.

They also tested their conclusions with surveys and focus groups. They paid attention to what was happening and made adjustments in their messages and techniques if things weren't working the way they wanted them to.

And I've strongly suspect that our opposition has been doing at least some of those things, and now we have good reason to know that they are.

...Regardless of how they are thinking that they can effectively fan the flames of gun control, they are building their "arguments" on a house of cards. They seem to think that there is enough gullibility out there that they can sway at will...

Really? How can you be so sure? What evidence do you have that this has worked for us?

...Simple, logical arguments from our side will put a little hole in this balloon of theirs and it will deflate before your eyes....

Really? And what evidence do you have that this have been working for us?

I've had any number of clients who needed to be reminded from time to time not to take their own press releases too seriously. They needed to test how their messages were being received by the public and make whatever adjustments necessary to actually get their messages across.

We need to understand that data and facts aren't enough. We need to understand our audience well enough, and hone our communication skills, to be able to communicate facts and data in ways that resonates with, and makes those facts and data accessible to, our audiences.

We also have to make sure that our facts are verifiable.

 

[bergmen]

Frank, key words: "I personally don't think so." My personal opinion only, not a well researched position.

My personal experience is exactly what I have said. I have encountered very deep, long held anti-gun sentiments in conversations over the years with many individuals, I simply approach them with calm logic. It has almost always worked well.

I can go into great detail if you would like, it might open some eyes. I do have some excellent examples.

Dan

 

[Frank Ettin]

...My personal experience is exactly what I have said...

But what I'm talking about, what my business experience has consistently shown, and what obviously our opposition has recognized is the need to go beyond personal experience.

 

[Bill50]

I wonder how many more of these "playbooks" are out there for other subjects. These are more for social engineering than relaying fact....creepy.

This has been gong on for decades. If common core goes through, kids will be getting taught how to argue based on emotions in first grade. If you pay attention and look for it, you'll see that it is everywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGph7QHzmo8

 

[beatledog7]

They consulted with psychologists and others who have studied human motivation and perception and beliefs. They thoroughly analyzed the demographics of the audiences and tried to understand what they cared about, what they were scared of, what made them happy or feel secure, what they believed and didn't believe.

They also tested their conclusions with surveys and focus groups. They paid attention to what was happening and made adjustments in their messages and techniques if things weren't working the way they wanted them to.They paid attention to what was happening and made adjustments in their messages and techniques if things weren't working the way they wanted them to.

I.e., when the truth failed to sway, they formulated a package of lies based on what they've discovered people wanted to hear. The anti-gun pushers have been doing that quite a while, and with a fair amount of success.

Should we do the same? Should we draw up a playbook full of falsehoods and deceptions for pro-2A people to deliver on cue to the antis?

Not this guy.

 

[beatledog7]

Bill50, that video is astonishing. I didn't realize how bad this was getting.

 

[goon]

These people seem convinced that we should have freedom from violence.
That might be nice, but prior to guns, there was still violence. In cities where guns are heavily restricted like NYC and Chicago, there is still violence. In countries where guns are restricted, people still get victimized by criminals.

Human nature is what it is. Bad people will commit violent acts. They'll beat you with a crow-bar or a pipe-wrench. They'll strangle you. They'll just gang up on you and rape your wife in front of you while their buddies knee-cap you and laugh. Guns or not, violence is going to happen. That's just how it is.

Personally, I'd rather face that reality and arm myself to have a chance of opposing it.

This manual is worth keeping around. It exposes a lot of the thought processes of the anti-gun crowd, and knowing how these people think helps us point out their flawed logic and oppose them more effectively.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Niiiiiice....

Forewarned is forearmed and anybody out there with any kind of tactical or strategic experience or training knows that accurate and detailed information into the other side's thought processes, strategy, and resources virtually ensures the tide of battle will go for those with the inside information.

This is a gold mine because it accurately provides us with the arguments and basis that they will use, how they will use them, and when they will use them. Which means we can effectively prepare our counter points well ahead of time.

My thanks. I'll spread this around.


EDIT:

"If you know your enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles." - Sun Tzu

 

[beatledog7]

This is a gold mine because it accurately provides us with the arguments and basis that they will use, how they will use them, and when they will use them. Which means we can effectively prepare our counter points well ahead of time.

But we already know our points. That's the key. WE don't need a playbook to know what we stand for. Trouble is, they have one that, regardless of how silly it is, is proven to work.

I just can't allow my intellect to be reduced to talking points. Suffered through plenty of that in the Navy.

 

[Frank Ettin]

They consulted with psychologists and others who have studied human motivation and perception and beliefs. They thoroughly analyzed the demographics of the audiences and tried to understand what they cared about, what they were scared of, what made them happy or feel secure, what they believed and didn't believe.

They also tested their conclusions with surveys and focus groups. They paid attention to what was happening and made adjustments in their messages and techniques if things weren't working the way they wanted them to.They paid attention to what was happening and made adjustments in their messages and techniques if things weren't working the way they wanted them to.

I.e., when the truth failed to sway, they formulated a package of lies based on what they've discovered people wanted to hear. The anti-gun pushers have been doing that quite a while, and with a fair amount of success.

Should we do the same? Should we draw up a playbook full of falsehoods and deceptions for pro-2A people to deliver on cue to the antis?...

I. e., you who have claimed to be an educator don't know what you're talking about.

The reality is that in the high regulated businesses in which my clients were in, there were many controls to assure that public statements made were truthful and satisfied myriad legal disclosure requirements. Indeed that was part of my role as legal counsel to assure both the literal and figurative truth of the public statements.

The challenge was to assure that the [true] information was communicated in a manner likely to be understood and appreciated by the particular audience. If you believe that what an audience hears and the ways it understands what it hears are not related to the cultural context of the audience, you don't understand either the world or communication.

So no, it's not about drawing up "...up a playbook full of falsehoods and deceptions...." It's about looking at ways to make truth more accessible to people who might not have the backgrounds and foundational knowledge to understand things in the terms we're most used to and comfortable with.

Since you have claimed to be an educator, I would have expected you to be more familiar with the arts of effective communication.

...WE don't need a playbook to know what we stand for...

Sure we might know what we stand for. But it doesn't look like we're communicating effectively what we stand for to non-gun folks, because they don't seem to be understanding us.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

But we already know our points. That's the key. WE don't need a playbook to know what we stand for. Trouble is, they have one that, regardless of how silly it is, is proven to work.

I just can't allow my intellect to be reduced to talking points. Suffered through plenty of that in the Navy.

Respectfully, I disagree with you on this.

First of all, not everybody can intelligently and effectively argue points with others, for a variety of reasons. Some are simply better than others.

Second, not everybody has all the details and sources thoroughly researched so as to be able to effectively counter many of the opposition's points and tactics.

Third, not everybody is skilled in keeping a debate on track and avoiding being drawn off into side-topics and fields which dilute and destroy effectiveness and credibility.

There are other points, but I'll leave it at that.


By knowing a great many tactics and methodologies employed by these people ahead of time, more people can learn to effectively counter them.

THAT is the point.

Even seasoned debaters know and understand this, and will study those they have to go up against so they can best develop their resources, tactics, and presentation skills accordingly.


If you, personally, are well versed and capable in defending 2A rights to such people, then more power to you. However, I submit to you that even so you would benefit from studying their tactics...indeed, you probably already HAVE been studying their tactics, which is part of why you're good at it.


This pdf is simply another resource we may use in our battle for our 2A rights.