Quantcast

Some ideas about taking control of gun control

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by RX-79G, Sep 10, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Malamute

    Malamute Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,166
    Location:
    Rocky Mts
    There is talk of removing restrictions. Suppressors are more common and popular than ever, manufacturers are making suppressor ready guns off the shelf. Many states are allowing suppressors for hunting. Theres discussion of downgrading their status under the NFA.

    I don't see a UBC as nearly as intrusive as a ban on an entire type or class of guns. Annoying? Yes. Wrong? Yes. Not as intrusive as a ban though. This is all aside from all the opening of carry laws in virtually all states now, and being able to own handguns in some places that it was prohibited in the past, like Chicago and DC. We don't have the same opinion on the improvements, nor what you perceive as limitations or losses.
     
  2. drec

    drec Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    97
    Location:
    SE of Seattle
    I'm fairly new to guns, but an old guy. The reason that I got into guns is that my wife and I travel some and being older, felt that it would be better to have a way to protect ourselves. Prior to this, I had no problem with guns, as I grew up with them, but hadn't touched one for many years. This is something that I ever thought that I'd need to do, but the world has changed.

    Since we got into guns , I just tell anyone that asks that the police might be there to help us if needed. My wife and I have our CPL's and have been taking defensive handgun classes. It's a great responsibility, but the way the world is now I feel that everyone should be able to protect themselves. We don't have a defensive plan worked out yet, but are working on it. I took a defensive firearms class a few months ago. My wife and I will be taking a live fire class in a couple weeks; which should be similar to the defensive firearms class that I took before and will be good for my wife.
     
  3. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    Again, did you read the thread OP about media and changing attitudes?

    Why not try to read the thread OP about media and changing attitudes?
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  4. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    Your entire post is about how we have more rights because of the added opportunities to pay for and get investigated to get a licences for things that we feel ought to be already legal for everyone without a license.

    When I point to this as a model of how we might control our destinies, I'm a "gun banner". When I point out that we are losing rights, you point to all the things we can request and pay for to get with a license. Which one is it?
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  5. Malamute

    Malamute Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,166
    Location:
    Rocky Mts
    I agree that we shouldnt have to pay a fee or be investigated to exercise a right, but,...there is in fact more states that don't require any permit to carry, and the trend seems to be slowly continuing.

    I don't believe we should be "compromising" with people that want to restrict or ban our rights, because I don't believe it appeases them in any way shape or form. I believe all it does is encourage them to try even harder to restrict our rights because they've been made to believe that "gun people can be reasonable" and want us to be a whole lot more "reasonable". I don't believe there is any level they will be satisfied with until guns are completely banned or so restricted that its nearly impossible to use them in any practical way. So yes, if someone feels we should "compromise" in some way and that it would appease restrictors or banners, I think they are related to those that would ban our guns and rights.

    The only way it "controls our destinies" to "compromise" with anti-gun folks is it simply makes the day when we wont have any just a little closer, and makes it easier for them in the long run. Throwing a passenger out of the sleigh to the wolves doesn't appease the wolves, it just loses another passenger.
     
  6. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    You agreed to a compromise when you voted for CCLs. Just no one wants to admit to that compromise, or the fact that compromise led directly to no-permit carry.

    And there is no "they". Pro-gun people aren't of one mind, gun-control people aren't, and fence sitters aren't either. Talking about "them" all the time is like pretending every gun is the same.
     
  7. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,658
    Location:
    CAAZ;TX?
    Well, your post #7 not only contradicts itself, it's a contradiction of your OP.

    Given your contradictions and seeing that you've been steering away from your OP, it's a bit baffling why you ask either question.
     
  8. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    This is post #7
    I won't even ask what you're talking about, so I'll just explain, again, what's going on:

    Intellectual appeals are not effective. Statistics don't do anything but confirm bias. Anything effective has to be an empathetic connection that doesn't look like pro-gun propaganda.

    Whatever contradictions you think you're reading, you aren't.
     
  9. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,658
    Location:
    CAAZ;TX?
    You recommend in post 1 that media/film/ a drama be used.


    Post 7, you say
    Is a documentary not media/film/ a drama?

    Your explanation does nothing to explain away your contradictions.
     
  10. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    No, a documentary is an intellectual appeal. A bunch of statistical pie charts can also be put into a video, and be just as ineffective.

    Do you really not understand what I've been talking about this whole time? Drama, not obviously pro-gun, empathy with characters, etc?
     
  11. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,658
    Location:
    CAAZ;TX?
    Disney has put out quite a few documentaries that are informative, entertaining and even geared toward family audiences of all ages and various intellectual prowess.

    Are you saying all documentaries are only for we'll educated audiences and can only come across as itellectual appeals?
     
  12. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    Nope. An "intellectual appeal" isn't for "we'll educated audiences". It means that the appeal is logical and makes people think consciously about the pros and cons. But they need to be open to such an appeal, otherwise they won't watch it or cancel out what they are hearing based on their biases.

    Good marketing is emotional and associates positive, attractive things with what's being marketed and associates ugliness and negativity with whatever is against it. If it is effective, the audience doesn't realize they now associate boobies with corn flakes or gun control with bureaucracy.
     
  13. UltraT

    UltraT Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    In terms of 'dramas', horror movies like "The Purge" make a pretty good case for guns, lol! Although it's a little too far-fetched to make a real impact.
     
  14. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    "Anything effective has to be an empathetic connection that doesn't look like pro-gun propaganda."
    An emotional argument without substance *IS* propaganda. Silent Spring, is propaganda. All Quiet on the Western Front, is propaganda. Uncle Tom's Cabin, is propaganda. Unless you are depicting a real event accurately, or referencing scientific data, your argument is based on mere emotion and falls in the camp of propaganda.

    I think I know the issue here;
    -You have no idea what an acceptable pro gun message would look like to you, because you are not pro gun (even if you want to be convinced into being one)
    -Anti-gun propaganda is so ubiquitous at this point that you no longer see it as propaganda, but pro-gun arguments are so incredibly rare in mass media that they stick out like a sore thumb & are easily deflected unless backed by facts/figures that make them less emotionally-appealing to stupid people (some of us find data *very* emotional, because we can imagine its real life impact; "New York Hit, 1.1 Million Dead").

    Instead of crowd sourcing suggestions, or crying to the moon ("we just need a less hostile presence in Hollywood or academia"), how you suggest a specific action or argument for a change? You've done literally nothing but shoot down every other suggestion that's been offered to you (usually with poor justification)

    BTW, most TV networks have an explicit ban on showing anything that advertises weapons, and anything that encourages their use by viewers. The censorship is as bad now as it was when Catholics were pulling the strings, and forbid anyone represent police, government, soldiers, or clergy as villians, from the 30's up until the 70's when they finally gave up after the huge success of indepedent studios with anti-hero and anti-Nam flicks.

    TCB
     
  15. Tcruse

    Tcruse Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    Messages:
    590
    Location:
    Corinth Texas
    Some interesting ideas. I would suggest that we get behind the NRA, they are producing some good high quality informational short takes.
    If I had to think of one thing that is going against us is that we have far too man "gun owners" that are willing to accept "reasonable restrictions" like Universal Background Checks. We all need to be one united front, namely, we need to be pushing for removal of existing restrictions not discussing "allowing some new restrictions".
    Constitutional Carry at the federal level, force property owners to accept responsibility for ANY crime committed in a "No Gun Zone", remove silencers and SBR from NFA.
    Aggressive DOJ actions against states that pass more restrictive laws than the federal laws.
     
  16. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    Quite frankly, you can take a hike. I am not going to have a discussion with anyone who purports to know what goes on in my head while being seemingly unable to read words on a page.

    Please leave me alone. Your righteous tirades against your fellows are just low and disgusting.
     
  17. Malamute

    Malamute Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,166
    Location:
    Rocky Mts
    Actually, I think we have tons of this. Most action films have the heros using all sort of weapons to save the world, their family, or whatever. The funny thing to many is that some of the Hollywood heros are anti-gun, but make tons of money using them and creating the feeling that without them, the outcome wouldn't have been as agreeable.
     
  18. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    I said in the OP:
    Action movies require suspension of disbelief, and glorify violence. That doesn't bridge to real life - the guns in an action movie might as well be space ships.
     
  19. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    Sorry if I offended you, RX, but it's getting tiresome how you've steadfastly refused to offer any concrete suggestions, while consistently denigrating all others offered. Usually out of hand, as you have with my most recent post in this thread that raises what I feel to be some very basic, very important aspects of the topic at hand, here. Please do note that I did not say you were anti-gun, my point is that I do not believe you yet fully understand the circumstances we argue from, nor our arguments (yet). I infer such education is your goal in pursuing these new persuasion methods and I'd like to work to that end, but good-faith dialogue is needed. I went through something similar trying to put together a 'firearm owners bill of rights' a while back that sought to dissect & explain each facet of what we *want* the RKBA to actually mean (and why) --naturally, there was no one answer for every poster on the board, here.

    I both agree and disagree with this statement, and I think it's largely due to just how varied the representation of firearms & their users is in film (TV is far more consistently bad, but not historically). You have wild fantasies like Starship Troopers or Terminator, you have vivid historical fiction like Saving Private Ryan or realistic dramatization like Band of Brothers, you have technically-rich performances like John Wick or Collateral, you even have harmless-fun slapstick of I'm Gonna Get You Sucka; far too varied to put a fine point on it. Thematically, it's even more diverse.

    To appeal emotionally, you must make the emotions more obvious through melodrama. But in doing so, you harm the realism and compelling argument being made. The pro-self-defense/pro-gun argument, at its core, is that evil will always be present, violence is the most immutable of human tools, and tragedy is part of the human condition that must be suffered at times. That is a very mature, very complex topic that cannot be easily relayed to those who have lived sheltered lives, and experienced no moral conflict beyond mild bullying or the death of a grandparent. It involves a lot of powerful, unpleasant emotions, that quite frankly a lot of people prefer to avoid or transfer on to objects like firearms (or drugs, or minorities, etc). At one time, the realities of life dictated that a greater share of the populace learn these truths for themselves, so conveying them was not as necessary as it is today. Again, this is when considering the simplest, most clear-cut of plots represented realistically (see Pixar's Borrowed Time short they put out recently for something more morally conflicted; a lot of people still got an anti-gun message from it, because they fixated on the most shocking turn of the melodrama, and completely forgot about the events leading up to it)

    TCB
     
  20. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    I disagree. The most impactful films are dramas, not escapist action films. Platoon is not an action film, despite containing scenes of violence.

    Blood Diamond, Norma Rae, Silkwood, The Battle of Algiers and Philadelphia are all dramas that made social changes while having engaging stories that were worth seeing regardless of any underlying theme. Because the story is good and the characters both believable and sympathetic, the viewer begins to empathize with their situation, its fairness and whether it could apply to their lives.

    That doesn't happen when you watch an action movie, thriller, comedy, horror, sci-fi or other escapist genres.

    I have made these and other similar suggestions several times before - I don't know what you're reading. I really don't understand your objections, except that EVERY post you make is an objection. I sincerely doubt you read anything long enough to do anything but frame a new objection or defamation.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2016
  21. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,658
    Location:
    CAAZ;TX?
    One correction, In the OP, he does offer a suggestion.

    I don't believe, or not convinced, that education or that good-faith dialog was his intended goal of the OP

    If you reread the OP, he offers his idea. He doesn't ask a question nor does he invite anyone's thoughts or suggestions. He then goes on to deprecate all everyone else input.

    4 pages of that supports that his intention, whether conscious or not, was to express his idea and not have a discussion containing varying ideas.
     
    Malamute likes this.
  22. RX-79G

    RX-79G Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,808
    I actually had several ideas I was going to put in the thread, but couldn't start writing any of that before the cranks came out of the woodwork to denounce the idea rather than ask a single question or discuss it.

    As usual.

    But it must be a joy for you guys to listen to yourselves. Congrats to Danez71 for the exciting new direction his trolling has taken. Will Barnbwt jump on the newest bandwagon? Will someone again get confused about what "intellectual appeal" means? Will Warp show up with some real fire and brimstone? Will Deanimator mention Holocaust denial? What will the General Objection Party decide to do next?

    Thank God I don't have any major spelling errors! I'd never be allowed to live that down.
     
  23. jdc1244

    jdc1244 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    858
    Location:
    Florida
    "…we are losing because the media is always against us."

    No, we’re losing because of ridiculous statements such as the one quoted above – contributing to the perception of gunowners as being extreme, childish, and crackpots.

    The notion that ‘the media’ are engaged in a concerted effort to undermine gunowners’ rights is as inane as it is wrong.

    We need to stop whining about being ‘victims’ of various conspiracies seeking to ‘take’ our guns.

    We need to stop with the ridiculous rhetoric about ‘the government.’

    We need to stop with the inflammatory language about ‘anti-gunners,’ and ‘gun-grabbers.’

    And we need to acknowledge the settled, accepted fact of law that the Second Amendment right is indeed subject to reasonable restrictions by government, where we need to participate in the debate as to what manifest as being reasonable, and stop rejecting all and any firearm regulatory measures predicated on the errant belief that firearms should be subject to no regulation at all.

    The greatest threat to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment comes not from ‘anti-gunners’ and ‘gun-grabbers,' but from gun owning extremists and ideologues who have misappropriated the issue to pursue a wrongheaded agenda having nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
     
    RX-79G likes this.
  24. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    Well, statements like this aren't much help, either;
    "I think we are losing. Not only are gun owners in the minority, but we have (foolishly) refused to be part of process or of representing ourselves as much better than demanding children or worse, crackpots."
    Practically every statement can be refuted (not picking on you RX, your littany is very representative of the typical slurs leveled against gun rights supporters on a daily basis here & elsewhere so I'm using it as an example; it's actually so ubiquitous in media that even many pro-gun people have internalized these accusations to some degree)

    -We're not losing, at least not as of about a year ago. Unprecedented and accelerting reversals on the state level in practically all areas apart from those most beholden to the disarmament coalition. Texas has open carry of some sort for the first time since rejoining the Union.
    -It's debatable we're in the minority of voters, certainly not so irrelavent we should have to worry about our most core freedoms being infringed by a simple majority (think about the accomodations made to gays, the disabled, and other super-minority groups, as opposed to the tens of millions of gun owners whom many believe have no right to exist at all)
    -We have hardly 'refused' to be part of the compromise process of crafting bipartisan legislation. The NRA actually spear-headed it right up until the organization, then led by LaPierre, decided they'd finally had enough and planted their feet...and stopped losing ground, and began regaining it at the state level. Pure coincidence, to be sure. Or maybe we've finally become 'part of the process' at long last by fighting back.
    -Though we are derided as 'extreme,' this completely ignores the facts of what our side is seeking; the freedom to conduct ourselves peacefully with firearms without being punished for it. Despite an enormous portion of the nation doing exactly this, still a number of the remainder see fit to persecute us for the real or imagined acts of others. Many would even see us purged altogether. Exactly which belief is 'extreme' from this perspective of actual policy & actual goals? For every 'extreme' gun owner you can find who is also happens to be a racial bigot, I can find at least as many extreme anti-gun bigots who hate others solely for owning firearms; the difference is the latter are far more likely to occupy the highest reaches of power.
    -Despite being labeled 'demanding children,' we're not the ones demanding the rest of the nation give up their freedoms & property for our own peace of mind like ignorant, naiive babies. This is pure projection by immature individuals who have managed to survive to adulthood believing violence is a fantasy, due in no small part to the far-away violence of countless others conducted on their behalf.
    -As for crackpots? Fact is, the main media players are almost entirely against gun owners, and act as a fairly unified political force. We're denied airtime & representation the same as if we were pornographers (or racists or bigots; there's hardly any 'degenerate' groups left that the media isn't willing to cover at this point so it's hard to find examples that aren't us.) Reporters know Jack about guns & gunowners, and have shown stubborn resistance to any/all education on the matter, yet insist on parroting politicians' calls for gun control laws as though they have an informed opinion on the matter worth hearing. All sorts of analytical & empirical data to back that up, to say nothing of the flagrant exposure of collusion revealed by the ongoing DNC wikileaks. These people know each other, they are friends, they live in the same places, they go to parties together, they graduate the same schools, they are like-minded, they are not 'of us,' and they know this. There is no *need* for an intentional conspiracy, the effect is the same, regardless (though there is definitely a very real level of conspiracy also going on when you're rigging primaries & presidential debates).

    TCB

    *Not as good on the second viewing :D
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2016
    Tcruse likes this.
  25. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    After additional thought, I think the source of my frustration is the OP's suggestions aren't really specific enough to do anything productive with ("we need to do something"), and I'm just trying to pin down those vague hopes into productive specifics. Initially off the list, are 'action' stories (i.e. demonstrations of the heroic use of firearms, more broadly), preachy tales (i.e. persuasive stories that are the express purpose of this discussion to a large degree), or vigilantism (even though a big part of the importance about civilian ownership/use is the fact that the 'system' fails us and cannot always be relied upon, a core tenant of the so-called vigilante theme). So the OP's initial suggestions close down most of the obvious avenues by which we might express pro-gun sentiment through media. Also a good portion of the perfectly legitimate arguments for civilian firearms (corrupt government/legal system, insurrection, military readiness)

    Then the OP closes down non-emotional arguments involving facts/figures/reality as too confusing to people, as well as one-liner slogans that oversimplify the issue. There's just not much left, other than a few scant examples of films/documentaries that have nothing to do with firearms or self defense, and therefore will not translate very well (that is to say, they are not very useful examples, themselves). OP brought up the first post again, so I suppose I'll address it, again;

    I guess it makes sense to demonstrate how illogical & counterproductive gun laws are in this country, but to do so requires a lot of technical and legal exposition that's even more off-putting than facts & figures. There very little technicality to smoking (and to the OP's credit about documentaries being unconvincing*, this film didn't exactly stop the anti-smoking brigade in their tracks, either) Heck, most pro-gun folks don't even understand the meaning or importance of Due Process, and fewer understand what is mechanically different about a semi-auto or machine gun. It's gonna be a rough road to both educate & then convince a bystander of anything on these topics. Movie about a guy with a SIG brace based on Kafka's The Trial, maybe? You see how esoteric and 'high concept' such an idea would be? Honestly, a scripted documentary about an AR 80% build party attended by a 'rainbow' of telegenic gun owners is probably the best you could hope for along those lines.

    Closest thing I've seen to a self-defense drama involving a justified shooter being rail-roaded by ambitious attorneys was an episode of Ghost in the Shell, but that involves both a police officer (quasi-military secret police of a corrupt state at that) and themes of vigilantism that muddy the message, and sci-fi setting that distracts from its relevance to reality. Pretty unique in that there is a lot of realistic questioning of the shooter's motives and weapon, just as we'd expect from a George Zimmerman scenario. The emotional toll on the shooter is largely absent (he's a grizzled police vet) and the stakes are entirely 'legal,' and the villain & his attorney are the most cardboard of cartoon hoodlums, clearly deserving punishment. Yet in the end, even the 'righteous' stance of the victorious policeman is stained by his buddy seeking revenge on those from the corrupt DA's office.

    But as a concept, it seems an appealing way to present our issues, if only because you've closed down all other approaches to the topic. The question, though, will it be entertaining? That I'm not so sure about, since the plot arc of a 'good shoot' is so different from most neat tales. You have the life/death struggle that is both the most emotionally intense, as well as having the greatest stakes, at the very beginning of the story line, but a smaller-stakes moralist dilemma in the courtroom dominates thereafter; this is the exact opposite of what you want to hold an audience's attention. So you can either start the story after this in the courtroom, and use flashbacks to inform the viewer Memento* style so as to 'sync up' its emotional impact with that in the court room, or leave those circumstances completely up to the viewer's imagination. Neither is very straightforward or easily digested, unfortunately, and flashbacks are a terrible way to tell a story since each is a break in continuity.

    And you still have the hurdles of convincing the audience that;
    -such an attack could realistically occur to them
    -that they themselves could stop the attacker with a firearm
    -that the consequences could involve a cruelly arbitrary or even hostile court proceeding (that mother in NJ that got pardoned by Christie was such a glaring example of real-world injustice as to be practically corny, and even then it took months to convince enough people that NJ was serious about putting her in jail that Christie could be convinced to pardon her; most folks kept expecting the DA/judge to dismiss)
    -that mental & emotional after effects are real & healthy
    -but are ultimately worth the chance to continue living, the responsibility of possessing firearms, and the cost of an attacker's life

    The message is so complicated to address completely, that you almost need to show it in stark contrast to the alternative; maybe the story of a good man defending his family & abused by the legal system, who finally wins his freedom but with a felony rap/disarmament & is anti-climatically killed by an identical mugger on the way to work the next morning? Too preachy? Well, it happens to countless ex-cons in the ghetto every day who can't legally own firearms, as well as to the countless innocent people attacked by those very same men earlier in their lives. You want preachy, see Philadelphia and Uncle Tom's Cabin ;)

    TCB

    *I would argue that Philadelphia was so influential largely because attitudes toward AIDS were already softening in much of the populace, and it could act as a rallying cry, so to speak. Similar to how Uncle Tom's Cabin didn't initiate the Slavery Abolition movement, but brought it to a full crescendo. Both were absolutely 'preaching to the choir' so to speak, but were entertaining/compelling enough more generally that the die-hards were willing to share them with the non-committal, who were then willing to hear an entertaining tale. As fun as Unintended Consequences or Atlas Shrugged are from a true-believer's perspective, neither are particularly well written, and therefore aren't the best vehicles for conversation (or conversion)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice