I presented this to the NRA for consideration

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hang fire

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
1,089
A way to counter the emotional onslaught from the anti gun crowd

Every time there is another screaming headline about mass murders, the gun control powers that be, can whip the public into a frenzy. What does the pro gun ownership side counter with, logic, numbers and facts, which in the emotional heat of the moment, go over like a lead balloon. I have often wondered why the NRA and other pro-gun organizations cannot come up with an emotional (fight fire with fire) fool proof way of their own to counter the antis at such times?

I would suggest the NRA get with other pro organizations and record each and every incident, as to where firearms are used in self defense. This could be done by mining all public records from newspapers and the law enforcement agencies, and presented in their own words only. I would prefer it would be done for over a ten year period, but can be broken down by the year.

The “THE ARMED CITIZEN” which the NRA puts out monthly would be an ideal format, short, to the point, with the facts and no further input needed. I know there are search engines available for such, but they are too expensive for an individual such as I to use. The NRA has the resources to accomplish a printable data base, and as suggested, better yet, get with other pro-Second Amendment organizations where all can work on it together for a common goal.

At hearings and press events, there could be several carts wheeled in containing thousands of pages of irrefutable and verifiable public records, where lawful citizens used firearms in self defense, and that could not be ignored.
 
On a local radio station in Bakersfield CA, a local gun store runs ads that start out with new stories of guns being used for self defense across the country. Seems effective to me, although I'd like to see that sort of thing on stations where they aren't just preaching to the crowd.
 
We show an example of how a responsible gun owner saved lives during a home invasion with a gun: they say, "A gun in a home is more likely to be used against a household member than against an assailant."

We show an example of a person saving his own life on the street with a gun: they say, " A handgun is more likely to be used against the CCW holder than against an assailant."

For every case we could cite, they have a moronic, undemonstrable talking point.
 
They would rather a woman be raped than to have the chance of defending herself.

To them, someone defending themselves is NOT something positive.
 
There is no need to say anything, let the public records by the thousands do the talking.
 
The emotion driven goal for the anti crowd is not to reduce or eliminate gun crime, but gun violence. By nature, any use of a gun, especially if fired is violent.

So whether the use is positive or negative, it is still an example of the violence that must be eliminated from society.

And the only way to eliminate it is to eliminate guns from society.

And all the examples in the world where guns saved lives won't change that.
 
And the only way to eliminate it is to eliminate guns from society.
Click to expand...

That is how liberals think. They couldn't care less if criminals and rapists commit crimes with other means, they are just happy if no guns are involved. Such is the depth of their illogical loathing and moral obtuseness.
 
The concept of live and let live is unknown to a liberal.

A liberal feels that if he or she doesn't like something, nobody should have it. On the other hand, if a liberal likes something, then to him or her it follows we all must accept it. And to the liberal, that's a valid, rational view of the world.

The two things most liberals like least are (1) guns and (2) anyone who doesn't agree with their positions.

Hopeless.
 
kwguy said:
That is how liberals think. They couldn't care less if criminals and rapists commit crimes with other means, they are just happy if no guns are involved. Such is the depth of their illogical loathing and moral obtuseness.
Click to expand...
No, they do care if criminals commit crimes with other means, but the gun is special because it has no purpose that is not violent.

In the mind of the anti, The only purpose of a gun is to kill. Even guns designed just for punching paper are violent because target shooting is just enhancing skill with a gun, There is no need for that skill absent the gun, and the purpose of a gun is to kill.

Knives are used to cut many things, that they can be used to threaten or kill is "unfortunate". Any item that can be used as a weapon other than a gun probably has a non-violent primary use. People under stress beyond their control may use these things as weapons. The way to address that is to remove the stress. But this is not so with a gun. GUNS KILL. That is all they are good for and people who have them will as a matter of course, use them for the only thing they are good for—killing.

(we now return from the mind of the anti)
 
beatledog7 said:
The concept of live and let live is unknown to a liberal.

A liberal feels that if he or she doesn't like something, nobody should have it. On the other hand, if a liberal likes something, then to him or her it follows we all must accept it. And to the liberal, that's a valid, rational view of the world.

The two things most liberals like least are (1) guns and (2) anyone who doesn't agree with their positions.

Hopeless.
Click to expand...
What you describe is an "elitist", not a liberal per se. There are elitists of all stripes, it isn't limited to liberals. Many liberals are not elitists, but not many of these hold political office right now.
 
^^ OK, I can concede that "elitist" might be a technically more correct term for the description I stated, and that there are conservative elitists and liberal non-elitists.

However, in my experience, most elitists (especially those in the public eye) are also liberals. Similarly, a heavy preponderance of anti-gunners are liberals and elitists. The obvious danger: if he or she doesn't like guns, then he or she thinks she has a right to have them taken from everyone and pushes that agenda hard.

There are also gun-owning elitists, of course. These are the folks who bash the guns they don't own or tell us all that a .32 or .380 or .38SPL is too wimpy for SD or that the .40 "short and weak" is a solution looking for a problem. You know, that sort.

Happily, elitists gun owners are comparatively rare.
 
hang fire said:
There is no need to say anything, let the public records by the thousands do the talking.
Click to expand...
Authorship is uncertain on this one:

A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get it's boots on.

The "public records by the thousands" need our help to get its boots on and get out. That is the point.

"It's for the CHILDREN!" and "YOU tell a grieving mother about your right!" are emotional arguments hard to counter unless you have equally compelling, righteous and emotional force.

The Gun Control debate is not only a debate of ideas, but of emotions. While good emotions make for bad laws, we have to be able to work on all levels.

The original post seems to me to be a VERY GOOD idea. Along with finding and documenting all cases where a zero, one or two victim shooting spree was nipped in the bud before a dozen or more people were killed (this happens, but does not get reported because the SUPPOSITION that a well-stocked shooter intended to shoot many is hard to prove is he/she was stopped early).
 
If the purpose is to ratchet up the rhetoric and feel good about having done something (this is the basis for all emotion-driven action) then the OP is a good idea. If the purpose to to accomplish anything, it is probably a waste of effort for reasons already stated (see #6 & #10)
 
I like the OP's idea. As some have noted, nothing will deter the liberals from their anti-gun agenda, but I assume that the OP's target audience isn't primarily die-hard liberals; die-hard liberals are lost causes. There are still lots of otherwise sensible people in the country who simply don't get enough balanced, accurate information (they dang sure aren't going to get it from mainstream liberal media) for them to make the sensible choices that many of them would make if they had that information. Some of these people are too lazy to pay attention, but some are simply too busy trying to keep their lives together and feed their kids, or otherwise too busy living their lives to search out balanced news and information.

Without conservatives figure out a way to get a coherent message out (not only on this subject, but many others), the liberal agenda WILL prevail eventually. Conservatives serving one another up reasons to give up will only assure that liberalism prevails.

As has been said, when good men do nothing, evil prevails.
 
Last edited:
Another option is to quit waiting to counter punch and always playing defense. We need to stop reacting to the opposition and be proactive.

We need to keep pushing REAL SOLUTIONS and go on the offensive.

What are we doing about our mental health system? Why are our politicians refusing to address REAL problems?Here's a perfect example of a story that we should be shouting about from the rooftops...http://m.nbcbayarea.com/nbcbayarea/pm_117573/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=iXcL9f0w

What are we doing to secure our schools and kids? Why are we ignoring this in favor of magazine limits, background checks, eliminating milsurps, etc?

We need to start a proactive approach that is based on facts, reason, statistics, etc. We need to take control of this debate and stop reacting and letting these idiots create the talking points. They are mostly uninformed on guns in general and they use emotion because facts and statistics are not on their side.

We need to initiate and maintain a voice and stop waiting for these idiots to throw the first punch!
 
Seems like "they don't want to hear it" is a common theme in this thread, and I agree. The thing is, they in that sentence doesn't refer to the average American, it refers to the liberal media and crazed antis like Feinstein.

There are still tens of thousands of people in this country who can be swayed one way or the other. Those are the people we need to make this information available to. I've converted most of my in-laws, beginning with the youngest teens in the home, up through some of the oldest adults (the younger they are, the easier they are to convert). My mother-in-law, who was a diehard anti when I met her, has proved to be a difficult egg to crack; and often, it's true that she simply doesn't want to hear it. Except now, she has six kids between the ages of 13 and 26 (I know, I know...) who won't shut up about how guns save lives. She can't ignore them forever...

Bring this type of information to everyone you know. This (link) is an invaluable tool.
 
Bring this type of information to everyone you know.
Click to expand...

One on one communication has a better chance of getting someone off the fence than an anonymous commercial message. If every gun owner moved just one fence sitter to our side of the fence, there would be a major shift in attitude that would be difficult for the antis to overcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top