Gun Control Through Effective Messaging

[HexHead]

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

The liberal's playbook is Saul Alinsky's classic,"Rules for Radicals". Everyone should read it. Know your enemy.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

The easiest way to put an end to this is to support the Colorado Recall. If the recall is successful there is a good chance they wlil crawl back ino the cracks from which they came.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The easiest way to put an end to this is to support the Colorado Recall. If the recall is successful there is a good chance they wlil crawl back ino the cracks from which they came.

What makes you think that?

 

[Hacker15E]

There are lots of eyes on the Colorado recall who see it as a referendum on this latest "state-level alternative" to the failed national gun control push.

I think if the recall fails, the gun control forces will see the pushback as weak and redouble their state level efforts.

 

[beatledog7]

Frank,

I'm not even going to bother addressing your insulting me. You claim to be a moderator--well, I guess you do carry that designation--but you are far from understanding what it takes to moderate a discussion. You turn everything into a litigation.

My hyperbole was exactly the right way to express what I wanted to say. It may have been a bit over the top, and not everyone agrees with it, but everybody understands it.

Maybe you shouldn't have retired.

Chief,

The best way to come out on top in a gun control discussion with a devoted anti, in my experience, is not to have it. Logic, rational thought, and facts are lost on these people, and there's no changing that with words. The playbook proves it. It's better to just invite them to go shooting and let that experience do the talking.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I'm not even going to bother addressing your insulting me. You claim to be a moderator--well, I guess you do carry that designation--but you are far from understanding what it takes to moderate a discussion...My hyperbole was exactly the right way to express what I wanted to say. It may have been a bit over the top, and not everyone agrees with it,...

Actually, you directly and in the most virulent possible terms directly insulted me and cast aspersions on my professional integrity.

I provided examples from my professional experience. And your response was:

...when the truth failed to sway, they formulated a package of lies based on what they've discovered people wanted to hear....

So you charge me with permitting, and perhaps even assisting, clients to tell direct lies to the public.

I stand fully behind my response to you.

 

[beatledog7]

So you charge me with permitting clients to tell direct lies to the public.

No, I acknowledged that my statement was hyperbole. This is an Internet forum, not a legal hearing. You read my post as if it were under-oath testimony.

Clearly you're a very knowledgeable attorney and were good at what you did. That's undoubtedly why you were hired by those clients. But please--court's adjourned.

 

[Frank Ettin]

No, I acknowledged that my statement was hyperbole. This is an Internet forum, not a legal hearing. You read my post as if it were under-oath testimony.

Clearly you're a very knowledgeable attorney and were good at what you did. That's undoubtedly why you were hired by those clients. But please--court's adjourned.

No, it's not that simple.

There is nothing in your original post to suggest that your statement was in anyway in jest. Even if in jest it is out of line.

This doesn't have to a legal hearing or testimony under oath. In context, your statement was a clear and direct charge that business clients who I said I was working with were lying to the public with my acquiescence and/or assistance.

If you meant to say something different from that, you didn't do a very good job.

And be advised that having my professional integrity impugned is no joke to me. I resent your flippant response.

 

[beatledog7]

There is nothing in your original post to suggest that your statement was in anyway in jest. Even if in jest it is out of line.

I didn't say it was jest; I said it was hyperbole.

This doesn't have to a legal hearing or testimony under oath. In context, your statement was a clear and direct charge that business clients who I said I was working with were lying to the public with my acquiescence and/or assistance.

No, it wasn't that at all. It wasn't aimed at you personally or at any particular client. I don't know you, nor do I know who your clients were. There's no way I could have pointed my comment in the way you suggest, because there's nobody to point it at. You're a disembodied screen name.

If you meant to say something different from that, you didn't do a very good job.

And be advised that having my professional integrity impugned is no joke to me. I resent your flippant response.

Yet you felt free to insult and impugn my professionalism (and this isn't the first time). I don't like it very much either. Am I supposed to just take it because I'm not a moderator and you are?

But back on topic, how exactly can pro-2A forces effectively communicate our message to people who are bound and determined not to hear anything but the emotional appeal?

 

[LewSchiller]

Hi, I'm new to THR but not to firearm forums.
On another forum (Or as they used to say..."On another network " ) I've suggested that we need a similarly executed rebuttal guide that can be distributed to other like minded people for their use in combating this well written, well organized professionally produced piece.

This isn't preaching to the choir, it's giving the choir a hymnal so that they may sing.

I've suggest that a group of people take that guide , break it down into sections and write counter arguments and rebuttals - each person taking one part. When done we hand our work one place to the right so we can review and comment on each others work.

When done we distill it into a compact form that individuals can print out - until it gets legs and a printing sponsor.

This would be doing something positive about this stilted opposition piece, the gist of which is being used very effectively against us.

If anyone here is interested in participating in the project please reply here or PM me.

Thanks!

Lew

 

[Black Butte]

Purely emotional arguments are only effective on that portion of the population that tend not to think about problems logically.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...In context, your statement was a clear and direct charge that business clients who I said I was working with were lying to the public with my acquiescence and/or assistance.

No, it wasn't that at all. It wasn't aimed at you personally or at any particular client. I don't know you, nor do I know who your clients were. There's no way I could have pointed my comment in the way you suggest, because there's nobody to point it at. You're a disembodied screen name....

There is no other way it could be taken because you quoted my story about my professional experiences. And like a number of other folks on this board, I don't use a screen name.

 

[DeadMoneyDrew]

Does anybody have a brain that I can borrow? Mine fell out while I was skimming that document.

There are no background checks or ID requirements in most states for private sales, including private sales at gun shows.

Apparently that dead horse hasn't been beaten enough.

There are virtually no restrictions on the type of weapons available for purchase in America, including assault weapons and ammunition magazines that store up to 100 bullets and can shoot 20 rounds in 10 seconds.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA what? The magazines that I own for my Beretta are banned in numerous states.

 

[Bill50]

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

I guess you are the only person that watched that video. I had read quite a few books on Marxism, indoctrination, propaganda, and logic (the logical fallacy argumentum ad passiones is what they are using here) and was still shocked by that video when I saw it.

I'll post it again in case anyone missed it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGph7QHzmo8

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Chief,

The best way to come out on top in a gun control discussion with a devoted anti, in my experience, is not to have it. Logic, rational thought, and facts are lost on these people, and there's no changing that with words. The playbook proves it. It's better to just invite them to go shooting and let that experience do the talking.

The problem with that philosophy, accurate though it may be, is that people like you and I aren't the real targets of their propaganda...it's those who are on the fence, those who are otherwise uninterested or involved with gun ownership or use, those who are young and impressionable, and many others who, for whatever reason, have not sided one way or the other.

By allowing them to continue their methods unchecked and unchallenged, we lose ground in the battlefield for our right to keep and bear arms because more people end up being swayed to points of view which are counter to our own. This is, without a doubt, a long term battle with a long term goal for the opposition to remove that right. "Winning" battles by choosing not to engage in dialog may well cost us the war in the long run.

 

[RFMan]

Hi, I'm new to THR but not to firearm forums.
On another forum (Or as they used to say..."On another network " ) I've suggested that we need a similarly executed rebuttal guide that can be distributed to other like minded people for their use in combating this well written, well organized professionally produced piece.

This isn't preaching to the choir, it's giving the choir a hymnal so that they may sing.

I've suggest that a group of people take that guide , break it down into sections and write counter arguments and rebuttals - each person taking one part. When done we hand our work one place to the right so we can review and comment on each others work.

When done we distill it into a compact form that individuals can print out - until it gets legs and a printing sponsor.

This would be doing something positive about this stilted opposition piece, the gist of which is being used very effectively against us.

If anyone here is interested in participating in the project please reply here or PM me.

Thanks!

Lew

This rebuttal guide is pretty good. It has sources.

http://www.gunfacts.info/

 

[LewSchiller]

Thanks RFman!
That is a terrific resource - one that I'd certainly go to in making a rebuttal piece.
I don't think, though,that it takes the place of a rebuttal in that it is mainly just the facts.
The Guide in question is an emotional hit piece aimed at - just my opinion - people for whom facts are secondary in their decision making. I believe we need a rebuttal guide that meets the emotional arguments one for one.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

There are no background checks or ID requirements in most states for private sales, including private sales at gun shows.

The NSPOF survey* gave the "how" of acquisitions of guns as 13% private sales, 3% trades and swaps of guns.* The "where" of gun acquisitions was 4% at gun shows or flea markets. So private sales, swaps or trades at gun shows are a fraction of 4% of all gun acquisitions.

What we should worry about is where and how do criminals acquire guns, a question answered by inmate surveys cited by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. According the inmates, less than 1% acquired guns at gun shows. Far more important criminal sources of guns included theft, burglary, fences, black market and drug dealers. Family and friends of criminals were another big gun source, bigger than retail sales including gun shops, pawn shops, flea markets and gun shows combined.

I downloaded the PDF. It is all about making arguments for more restrictions on legal sales of guns, and not on realities about guns and their control. And they certainly don't address questions like: if criminals acquire guns mostly illegally, what is the argument for more restrictions on legal purchase and ownership. It is more about making arguments for "reasonable" "commonsense" restrictions on legal guns by playing on sympathy and emotion and avoiding hard fact and statistics.

excerpt from
PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE THROUGH EFFECTIVE MESSAGING
. . .
How to discuss the NRA is another example. It’s critical to know that our base supporters are very critical of the NRA’s role in enabling gun violence. But, most general audiences view the NRA as a mainstream organization.
. . .
When we move beyond our base, the view that gun violence prevention advocates have of the NRA and its role doesn’t align with public perceptions. When asked which of the following statements comes closest to their own opinion, 35% of registered voters chose the first and 57% selected the second.
“The NRA is an extreme organization with too much power in Washington that blocks any attempts to reduce gun violence in America.”
“The NRA is a mainstream organization that protects our Second Amendment rights and provides information about gun safety.”
But, there is a sharp ideological divide. People who consider themselves liberals choose the “extreme” statement by a 2 to 1 margin (60% to 27%). Conservatives are even more dramatically tilted in the other direction. 81% choose the mainstream description and only 13% the extreme one. Moderates are split right down the middle.
All of this is to say that, outside of our base, an easy assumption that people think of the NRA as an out-of-control, extreme organization would be misplaced.

* How did law abiding citizens acquire guns?
60% from licensed dealers
19% gift from family or friend
13% private sales of used guns
5% inheritances
3% swap or trade of used guns.

 

[LewSchiller]

I downloaded the PDF. It is all about making arguments for more restrictions on legal sales of guns, and not on realities about guns and their control. And they certainly don't address questions like: if criminals acquire guns mostly illegally, what is the argument for more restrictions on legal purchase and ownership. It is more about making arguments for "reasonable" "commonsense" restrictions on legal guns by playing on sympathy and emotion and avoiding hard fact and statistics.

Absolutely. That's their primary weapon, which is why I suggest we need a hand out that's counters them using the same approach.

I also downloaded Gun Facts and ordered Shooting the Bull by the authors of Gun Facts. Looking forward to seeing how they approach it.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

But back on topic, how exactly can pro-2A forces effectively communicate our message to people who are bound and determined not to hear anything but the emotional appeal?

There is nothing you can do to make people understand when they don't want to.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

What makes you think that?

Colorado is seen as the canary in the coal mind. If the the politicians being recalled prevail the anti's will feel that's the go ahead for a full court press nationwide to restrict our rights. If the politicians subject to recall are recalled the anti's will not feel that it's safe to move forward.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

In looking at a document like this, it is worth remembering the reality of the politics in the US.

In terms of the gun-control/2A debate, there are basically 10 groups of people.

1. Gun owners, anti-gun control, highly informed
2. Gun owners, anti-gun control, uninformed
3. Gun owners, pro-gun control, highly informed
4. Gun owners, pro-gun control, uninformed
5. Non-gun owners, neutral/undecided, highly informed
6. Non-gun owners, neutral/undecided, uninformed
7. Non-gun owners, anti-gun control, highly informed
8. Non-gun owners, anti-gun control, uninformed
9. Non-gun owners, pro-gun control, highly informed
10. Non-gun owners, pro-gun control, uninformed

In terms of size/population represented, those groups break down something like this (this is not a statistically backed breakdown, just a guess from my best understanding of demographics/numbers):


SMALLEST
Non-gun owners, neutral/undecided, highly informed
Gun owners, pro-gun control, highly informed
Gun owners, pro-gun control, uninformed
Non-gun owners, anti-gun control, highly informed
Non-gun owners, pro-gun control, highly informed
Gun owners, anti-gun control, highly informed
Non-gun owners, anti-gun control, uninformed
Non-gun owners, pro-gun control, uninformed
Gun owners, anti-gun control, uninformed
Non-gun owners, neutral/undecided, uninformed
LARGEST


While the specifics of that order may not be 100% (which would be a discussion for another thread), I am pretty confident that the “UNinformed” significantly outnumber the “highly informed” across all categories. As such, all groups seeking political change target their message and techniques at low information voters, because there are more of them. This is true of most groups across most issues. Brady does it, NRA does it, Republicans do it, Democrats do it, that is just the way the world works.

For the pro-gun-control people, it appears that they have decided an emotional appeal and focusing on the social impacts of gun violence is the best strategy to appeal to the most people. Can’t say I disagree with them.

The large pro-2A groups use the same logic in their presentations. They don't start with "What is the most factual and logically descriptive policy position that we can enumerate to the public?" They start with "What will appeal to the most people that we are trying to reach with this message?," just like the pro-gun-control people.

Not sure what that means in terms of what I, or you, do politically, but it puts documents like this in the context that they actually are meant to operate.

 

[LewSchiller]

Colorado is seen as the canary in the coal mind. If the the politicians being recalled prevail the anti's will feel that's the go ahead for a full court press nationwide to restrict our rights. If the politicians subject to recall are recalled the anti's will not feel that it's safe to move forward.

I'm afraid I have to disagree.
If the recall is successful it will be a victory for us - but it will not be long lived. The left will go apoplectic and pull out all stops to reverse the effects. This is what happened when Colorado voters passed the Marriage Initiative in the 90's. It's why Colorado is now totally run by Democrats.
I do agree that those with no intention of listening to a counter argument can be swayed - but those who aren't strident activists might be reached.

There are so many things that the collective we do to hurt our cause...
One example: We say there's no such thing as an Assault Rifle.It's a made up term used by the Left and the Brady Campaign. Yet this weekend at a gun show there were professionally done posters provided by a national supplier promoting "Assault Cases" for your Assault Rifle. Well... then I guess there are Assault Rifles aren't there?
We say so ourselves in advertising aimed at gun enthusiasts.

 

[316SS]

...

I quite agree. To me, this document reads not as a manual for propagandizing or rhetoric, but as propaganda itself. It is a useful-idiot recruiting tool.

 

[docsleepy]

These are great points. I sent the link to four or five people with whom I discuss these topics, including one rabidly anti-gun person, who always misconstrues statistics.

I'm probably not the best person at changing other peoples attitudes through my discussion. However, I have talked more than a dozen people how to reload now, and there are a bunch, a big bunch, of new firearm owners because of me.