Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Trent, Mar 26, 2018.
Thank you for that.
Well said. I've turned a few people into gun owners as well and I've found the easiest way is to just take them shooting.
Maybe my point wasn't clear; I wasn't referring to the attitudes of anti-gunners, but of the general public. Obviously not every ambivalent person thinks we're evil, since society is both a wave and a particle, so to speak. But in the aggregate, attitudes have definitely been trending downward against us in the population centers that do drive national policy. That it is arguably the result of massive political manipulation of the social sphere is beside the point.
The real question is how do we counter that? "Being responsible role models for society and encouraging participation" is what we've been doing, and frankly, have been doing quite well. Frankly, 'doing well' doesn't seem to be doing enough, anymore, and whatever good will & support we've built incrementally this way was just dashed in an instant. Most of the 'ambivalent' folks I communicate with around town have suddenly adopted a negative-ish (they have trouble describing the reasons for their) attitude toward the firearm owners who insist these latest gun control efforts are misguided. I expect it to recover in time since they are still truly non-committal and don't actually care about the issue, but for the time being --the time that matters-- they are supportive of gun control efforts.
We can certainly sway them and we do, but that is because they are easily swayed, and therefore not much use when push comes to shove and a massive media/political confluence comes down in a monsoon on us. They won't stop gun control efforts; they never have. So the only use they can be to us is as 'converts,' ie by us 'radicalizing' them into gun nuts. That won't happen unless they buy guns, and since most reside in areas where ownership & use of firearms is conveniently already made logistically difficult, legally treacherous, and socially undesirable, I see no way other than the counter-culture angle to get that conversion to occur.
Folks like Noir & Loesch are helping on that front by breaking the stereotype while exuding charisma and making our alien culture seem more interesting and enticing to outsiders, but they're closely affiliated with a stuffy mega-org, which largely negates those qualities.
Well said, jamesjames - you are on point here, sir!
So what do you think was the purpose of the gay pride parades, then? Just havin' fun? They were most definitely political, not some innocent 'summer of love' thing. It was explicitly (literally) about shocking bystanders into submission so more 'moderate' deviant behavior would become accepted. Like a mob chanting angrily on an elected officials' front lawn until being removed by police. Glitter bombs & red paint. Flashmobs of angry protestors ("Are they rioters? Who can say in the moment?") Obviously we can't be quite as brash as everyone else, since we'd get shot for it, being gun owners. I still think it is incredibly naive to discount "agitation-propaganda" as a useful tool in addition to the professional, congenial approach, and am gradually coming around to believing that little hint of worry in the back of peoples' minds we all go to such lengths to avoid is what is actually missing. Agit-prop is the only constant in anti-gun advocacy, and kind of the core of their arguments. Even when agit-prop has no effect, it works excellently to 'preach to the choir' and keep them united for future efforts; that's the real purpose of the March for Our Lives. Lotta Facebook friends were made between activist gun banners over the weekend.
No reason we can't do 'die ins' and shout "Blood on your hands" like the anti's do; and in our case it'd have some degree of credibility.
Sorry, but them's the brakes when there's not all that much left to give. Prominent mainstream politicians & the media are talking about banning & confiscating all semi-autos or magazines. Maybe if folks had held the line several lines ago, we wouldn't be stuck defending the one/few we have remaining.
I don't mean to insult anyone intelligence, but I'm guessing that most folks here (and in the world at large) don't have a significant background in statistics, sampling methodology etc. In short if you ask enough people the same question you reduce the risk of your study being skewed to a very small amount by people answering falsely. To be 99% sure that your answer is +/- 1% (I'm simplifying the math here) from a group of 300 million Americans, you'd need to survey approximately 16,600 people. If you wanted to be 95% sure that your answer is +/- 1% then you'd need to survey about 9,000 people. If you open it up to say 95% at +/- 3% you need just a hair over a thousand. So it's not difficult to do a statistically valid survey that accounts for self report variations.
Maginot worked great after Newtown, at the federal level, and nearly every place else. LaPierre was not just defiant, he was clear. A simple, easily-internalized sound bite, repeated ad-infinitum, that was an argument & message all in one. The man has many faults & needs to go, but he said what needed to be said at that time. And very little more; certainly nothing that could be seen as consenting to further gun control. And then the hubub died down, then revived for the aborted AWB push, where our resolve was redoubled, then the hubub died for good during the Obama administration. "No new federal gun laws. Period." became taken for granted, even in the anti-gunners' messaging (antis: "will we keep repeating this vicious cycle where we blood-dance & you ignore us until we go away?" Us: "Yes. Yes we will.") It was not until exactly after the NRA flexed on bumpstocks that the anti-gun movement revived its hope for a win this time, and suddenly roared back to life. Very, very clear & abrupt timeline on that.
It's not Maginot when you let a charge flank you because "that hill isn't worth defending." Or when you don't even realize that hill needs defending, or when you think you can trade this hill for that hill, or think you can lure the enemy forces in as some 'elaborate ruse' that fails to take into account the obvious effects of political momentum & untrustworthy allies. I don't think the NRA once said "there will be no new laws; any Republican who tries will immediately be flunked out of the NRA" in the days or weeks after Parkland. The messaging that was present was nowhere near as clear and adamant as after Newtown either, it seemed more like they weren't taking the event as seriously this time. Part of this was complacence, the rest was the polished, coordinated blitzkrieg the anti's had apparently war-gamed for months (years?) before hand throwing the NRA completely off balance.
Obviously when the immediate threat passes, the other job is to at least try to grab some enemy territory while they recover. War is a poor analogy for politics, but trench warfare is closer (since neither side is ever destroyed by incremental gains or losses, and momentum is the only real change). Pushing the initiative is something the NRA has quite literally never done. I've never heard a good explanation why, either, but I assume it's because NRA leadership doesn't have a good idea of what their goals or end game are. They only know the tactic of using their rating system to get more pro-gun politicians elected, but that's the end of it. Someone should start a thread on strategies the NRA should take, but isn't; the convention is coming up after all, and supposedly we'll be able to pass them along to the big brainos in charge of strategy.
Contrary to what both pro and anti-gunners say, I don't think it's about the money. Wayne is highly paid, but nothing compared to hundreds of other lobbying interests. The NRA or NRA-ILA donation pool is tiny compared to practically any true industry group, like banking or pharmaceutical, and is laughably small per-capita to its membership. The only benefit I can see to simply existing as the head of the organization, is the political influence to rub elbows with the big boys (which is cool and all, but apparently not hugely lucrative in and of itself) and the ego boost of being able to speak for literal millions. If that were Wayne's (et al) game, then you'd expect them to run for public office more often than they do.
It seems more likely their hearts are in the right place, but they just don't know how to approach actually winning some victories, or the organization is so unwieldy due to internal politics that it cannot be directed to a course of action. My money's on the latter. There's a whole lot of Directors with diametrically opposed visions of what 'pro gun' means, and Wayne doesn't strike me as the sort of fellow unifying them with his vision & charisma.
And yet reported gun ownership collapses every time there's a push for gun control. The self-report variation only moves one way when it is present. There aren't many non-gunowners lying about owning guns.
This type of bi-polar political argument is popular—and seemingly effective—because it boils a multi-faceted social issue down to just two choices; either you’re a “good guy” or a “bad guy,” a victim or the victimizer. But now is the right time for us to talk about and promote the third category of citizen, one that’s deliberately ignored. If we’re going to continue with the Sheep vs. Wolves model, then the overlooked third player is the Shepherd. The Shepherds in our society are those who consciously take a stand against the Wolves in defense of the Sheep, willingly placing themselves in danger to protect those who cannot defend themselves. They are motivated by patriotism, a sense of duty, and devotion to their family and friends. Some Shepherds choose to wear a uniform and others carry a badge. But the vast majority of them in this country are honest, hard-working people who exercise their Constitutional right to carry a legally obtained firearm. In other words, their motives for owning firearms are both pure and noble.
But is it enough to know in your heart that you’re a decent, responsible gun owner? It’s time to do more than just feel good about ourselves. We need to be the kind of gun owners that cannot be easily impugned and who do not simply stand by and allow this political debacle to continue unchallenged. The first step to being a responsible gun owner is to declare yourself a Shepherd.
I think the people with a shotgun and a .22 rifle have just as big a stake -- they have those guns because they feel it's appropriate for them to have them and would not happily give them up. The difference between them and the 3% is that the 3% are very vocal on the pro side of the debate whereas the folks with one or two home defense weapons don't think much about being gun owners, it seems normal to them but is not the major factor in their self-image. If we could get more of them involved it would be helpful, not least because they don't go around dressed in camo etc. They look like the nice folks next door (which they are).
That's sort of a butchering of the well known "Sheep, Sheepdog, and Wolves" story told by LTC Dave Grossman.
But what Col. Grossman's story or your pastiche of it has to do with the subject of this thread is a mystery to me.
While the writer of the following nonsense, Maren Mecham, isn’t wrong when she says “people with fear and hatred in their hearts sometimes use guns to kill other people,” she, like so many other anti-gunners, doesn’t seem to grasp that there are also those who can and do use guns to stop those “with fear and hatred in their hearts.”
Indeed, someone actually wrote that, and someone else actually published it.
Unfortunately there are some states that take ALL of the guesswork out of it. Illinois is one, with it's FOID card. New Jersey is another.
In Illinois, we have widely disparate gun owner %'s across the state, county by county.
For example, as of 2014 (the last FOIA documentation I have from the State Police);
In Cook county (Chicago), there are 5,240,700 people with 424,784 gun owners... 8.1%.
In my county (Tazewell), there are 136,352 people with 31,931 gun owners, which is 23.4%.
Calhoun county, population 5,059, has 2,360 gun owners; or 46.6% - the highest percentage in the state, and, not surprisingly, the 3rd least populated one.
The overall state percentage is 12,882,135 people, with 1,792,220 gun owners - or 13.9% of the population.
The 10 LEAST populated counties (the most densely populating having a mere 6,860 souls) combined total 55,337 people, with 18,318 gun owners, or 33.1% of the population.
Meanwhile the 10 *most* populated counties, having a total population of 9,419,469 (73% of the population of the state), has 991,241 gun owners; or 10.5% of the population.
I would wager that across the country you would find that urban centers track similar to this; the bulk of the population wrapped up in high density housing, with a very low percentage of gun owners.
Meanwhile, sparsely populated counties would have a much higher percentage of gun owners.
If you do a survey of random numbers distributed geographically over the country, you'd most assuredly get skewed results which are much higher than true results.
Meanwhile, if you weight-balance your calls so that higher population centers get a higher percentage of phone calls (e.g. 1035 people polled in Chicago for the ONE lonely soul you call in Calhoun county), you'd get better statistical results.
However the uneven geographical distribution of gun owners would make even the most well thought out survey useless.
The only numbers we can trust, are those from states which actually track gun owners as part of a systematic registration process, such as Illinois or New Jersey. From those we can make educated assumptions of the distribution of gun ownership on urban vs. rural.
A randomized calling system of numbers will not yield accurate results, by any means. Not unless the sample size is so sufficiently vast that the majority of America is called. This is simply due to the vastly uneven distribution of gun owners in the country. If you had full data of how they were distributed you could take an accurate survey; but without taking a full accounting you couldn't realize that distribution, which is a Catch-22 preventing any survey from being anywhere close to accurate.
Given the toxic political climate it would be silly to assume people are going to be honest with an anonymous poll taker. I'd be curious to know whether the decline in people answering "yes" corresponds to the increase in attacks on ownership, treating it like sexual perversion.
Question about a need is not valid and we need to not try to play that game. The question should not be given credibility with an attempt at trying to describe some need. There is no need, it is a personal choice. There is no rational reason why people should not have a right to make their own choices.
My approach is to avoid emotional and personal reactions or attacks. Or usually attacks of any kind. I simply provide objective, factual information that counters their statements: the 2nd Amendment is about personal freedom rather than firearms per se, that rapid fire, breech loading firearms have been around since 1660.
The exact wording varies according to the conversation.
I've worked with statistics only to a limited degree, but I have trouble accepting that small samples can be adequate unless there is a guarantee that the sample is very homogeneous.
A few months ago I was invited for a meal by a young family in the community. Folks in our circle are generally friendly to the idea of gun ownership regardless of whether they personally are owners, so I was flabbergasted when the husband started talking negatively about guns. I went out of my way to actually listen to what he was saying and answer honestly but politely and respectfully, despite his obvious lack of any real knowledge on the subject. On the topic of "need" questions, trying to argue for limited capacity he said, "How many bullets do you really need if your gun is really only for self-defense?", to which I answered "How many attackers are there?", at which point the expression on his face revealed he had never considered there might be more than one... and of course he also imagined that that one person would drop dead from the first shot you fire... I said if you have to shoot a real person it's not going to be like shooting at a target at the range... the person is moving, they may be shooting at you, the light may be poor, you are likely to be at least nervous if not scared out of your wits... and even if your first shot does hit them, a number of factors could enable them to continue attacking you for at least several seconds... etc. I really hope some of what I said penetrated, they have three young children and we have a lot of crime around here.
“It is 1932 and gun owners are the new Jews.”
Michael Bane has talked about this for several years and has several recent podcasts (2018) on the topic. We are being “Othered” so that they do not need to treat us as human.
Proper political presentation is important but many people are not capable or willing to engage in it. The NRA-ILA does it for those people. Not joining the NRA is stupid, as is not joining your local organizations. Imagine what would happen if the NRA had 20 million members. Now think about it if they had EVERY adult gun owner as a member.
Could you use little imagination and replace Jews with say African-Americans or Native Indian Americans who were treated in this very country as second class citizen or matter of fact not citizen at all. I feel uncomfortable in constant branding of Jewish people as helpless victims. Thank you for your understanding.
The argument is that righteous, respectable gun owners can so impress the sheep they become the community leaders...or something. Doesn't work that way in practice as I can tell, since so few political or civil leaders are all that familiar with guns or gun culture, regardless of party.
They don't believe us anyway if we say we need an AR for defense, hunting, or sport. The pretend we can make due with less in their "expert tactical opinion" and demand we agree with them, before moving the goalposts again.
They're the worst kind of debate partners.
Don't get sucked in. If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that FB is not the place to get into arguments. Your aren't going to resolve anything of FB.
Separate names with a comma.