We must be smart in the upcoming battle

[lionking]

I have little doubt in my mind that this last shooting was the tipping point. Gun control was left silent during the last election and it seemed we had things on our side going our way overall.

Firearm ownership was up, politicians were silent about legislation believing it was detriment to their career. That changed Friday. There will be open calls for bans, the media and the anti gun people are going to use any means they can truthful or not to push for it. Obama if you read between the lines is going to push for it now " we must put politics aside and stop this from happening anymore" is a way he put it.

The anti gun people and media are going to slander us, they are going to use propaganda to the mainstream people who generally support gun ownership but not completely.

We must fight back smartly and with the right choices of words. They are going to attempt to make us look like we care more about guns than children. They are going to portray us as having no heart. They are going to call us "gun nuts". They are going to portray us as being paranoid against government when we mention the 2nd amendment is fundamentally for fighting against a tyrannical government.

The on fence voters and people can be easily swayed by this slander and we must use calm logic while counteracting the claims we are cold hearted. We must show that we care about the future and lives of people and children also. We must expose their lies when they use one.

Sound bites like " guns don't kill people, people do" won't go over well to the on the fence voter. Claiming you need your guns to fight a potential tyrannical government either. What may make them think though is while police do the best they can they can't always protect you, as the saying goes when seconds count the cops are minutes away.

Telling people a AR-15 isn't a assault rifle because it isn't selective fire won't help our argument either, on the fence voters really don't care about technical specifics. But when the anti's claim no upstanding citizen would use one other than to kill we must show the general populace how such firearms are used in competition and hunting events.

In 1992 we didn't have the internet like we do now. Clinton, the politicians and the media along with Hollywood had pretty much free reign to spew their lies and propaganda. At least this time we have more of a voice, more channels to counteract the propaganda, I hope we use it wisely.

 

[vamo]

Some very good points. I agree that all of the above talking points make terrible news soundbites and makes our side look pretty dumb. I must disagree on one point though.

Arguing than an AR-15 or AK47 clone is only for hunting and sporting purposes is just asking for a ban. While I disagree with those that call them military grade weapons, they are still pretty close. Instead we must assert that it is a fundamental constitutional right that citizens can possess tactical weapons. We absolutely must differentiate tactical from defensive and sporting, lest we lose large magazines, and certain features.

 

[Bobk538447]

I agree we need to be smart, unite and fight to maintain our rights.

 

[wow6599]

But when the anti's claim no upstanding citizen would use one other than to kill we must show the general populace how such firearms are used in competition and hunting events.

Why? They are used to kill humans - military, police, criminals, etc..

The Second Amendment is about the right to own firearms for several reasons. Reasons such as hunting and recreation......and for self protection, which sometimes (unfortunately) leads to casualties.

I will not fight this fight with my fingers crossed and wishful thinking.

Google some Thomas Jefferson quotes and see what you think he envisioned the 2nd to be about. The militia had muskets in 1776.......I don't think "we the people" were given the right to keep and bear arms such as long, sharp sticks and sling-shots. A level playing field.

Think about it.

 

[Art Eatman]

Do your best to shift it to the real issue: Mental illness and availability of competent assistance--which is not really available. Too many facilities were shut down in the 1980s by court decisions and the staffs let go. Hardly any place to send people for treatment or long-term hold.

 

[lionking]

Regarding you all mentioning the use of military like rifles for hunting or competition not helping or maybe hurting and openly saying yes they are for killing.

In the wake of this last shooting, and the other ones saying that they are primarily for killing isn't going to help in my opinion unless you can't point the argument in a direction like say, we have drug runners heavily armed crossing the border , these weapons pose as being equalizers for Americans being terrorized on the border, and that is truth and then counteract the argument to the offensive and ask Obama why he can't protect our citizens in such cases?

But bringing it to the defense nature, many Americans not into shooting have no idea that such rifles like a AR-15 or a M1A are used for competition and hunting also and they do need to know that so they won't have the impression these rifles are ONLY used for killing.

Yes mental issues should be addressed also

Also many mainstream American don't believe or like to think about people fighting the government, using that reponse as primary isn't going to win over a lot of Americans who take pride in our peaceful elections.

This going to be a battle for the hearts of people not just their minds.

 

[Alaska444]

Do your best to shift it to the real issue: Mental illness and availability of competent assistance--which is not really available. Too many facilities were shut down in the 1980s by court decisions and the staffs let go. Hardly any place to send people for treatment or long-term hold.

So true Art, my parents met at a mental institution and I wouldn't be here without the Boston City Mental Institution. Ironically, I worked there myself one summer and met a janitor that remembered my parents. Where will they send all of the mentally ill folks that need that type of place for protection and protection against them?

P.S. my mother was a student nurse there and my father was a college student working nights for room and board and a small amount of pay in case anyone wondered.

 

[bikemutt]

Do your best to shift it to the real issue: Mental illness and availability of competent assistance--which is not really available. Too many facilities were shut down in the 1980s by court decisions and the staffs let go. Hardly any place to send people for treatment or long-term hold.

^^^^
This.

Imagine how completely far gone a person has to be to even think about murdering his own mother, then to do the same to innocent children and their teachers. And finally, to himself.

I wonder if anyone would feel different if he'd used explosives to accomplish the same thing.

 

[Alaska444]

Regarding you all mentioning the use of military like rifles for hunting or competition not helping or maybe hurting and openly saying yes they are for killing.

In the wake of this last shooting, and the other ones saying that they are primarily for killing isn't going to help in my opinion unless you can't point the argument in a direction like say, we have drug runners heavily armed crossing the border , these weapons pose as being equalizers for Americans being terrorized on the border, and that is truth and then counteract the argument to the offensive and ask Obama why he can't protect our citizens in such cases?

But bringing it to the defense nature, many Americans not into shooting have no idea that such rifles like a AR-15 or a M1A are used for competition and hunting also and they do need to know that so they won't have the impression these rifles are ONLY used for killing.

Yes mental issues should be addressed also

Also many mainstream American don't believe or like to think about people fighting the government, using that reponse as primary isn't going to win over a lot of Americans who take pride in our peaceful elections.

This going to be a battle for the hearts of people not just their minds.

I think Art has the right approach since almost all of these events are carried out by young, white, upper middle class deranged kids. I read an interesting study published by Harvard showing no correlation between gun ownership and suicide/murder rates in various nations. Culture and mental health issue couple with social issues do.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[vamo]

My point is if you want to argue that an ar-15s/ak-47 is only for sporting purposes, and have that be the argument that the NRA and the rest of the pro gun community sticks with, then be prepared to say goodbye to magazines greater than 10 rounds, folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and all those other evil features. If we abandon our rights to be an armed populace, and just declare ourselves sportsman we lose.

My original reply was one of 90% agreement. I don't want to see further restrictions on the types of guns/accessories I can own (a non-felon mentally competent tax paying citizen), but even I tire of the our sides go to talking points.

 

[lionking]

Thank you Alaska for that info and link I will use it to our debate. That is certainly a example of wise and powerful info to use.

The anti gunners are going to try to focus the debate on guns, we must show people otherwise.

Joe Scarborough stated he now supports a weapons ban but he also placed blame on the mental issues, Hollywood and video games " a culture of violence".

On another forum anti gunners used his speech to declare " finally common sense for gun control" but they mentioned NOTHING about him blaming other aspects.

The anti gunners are going to portray us as the violent ones, we must not let them prevail.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/#50222624

 

[lionking]

Vamos it was not my thoughts to portray a AR-15 as only for sporting purposes but the anti gunners are going to portray them as only for killing, so I think it is important that we show people that is not all they are used for while we can still talk about them as being useful in a defensive nature, being careful how we describe them as used for defense.

Telling people they are for overthrowing a tyrant isn't going to win over many people as most Americans believe all in all our government is by the people which I believe still also. Describing how drug runners terrorize people and proving most of their arms do not come from America is a better arguing point to showing how they are useful in a defensive nature against heavily armed criminals the government can't protect us from.

 

[CharlieBT]

I looked at the Connecticut assault weapons ban statutes, which were adopted after the federal ban came in. The state law remains. I saw some threads on it here before this tragedy. I am struck by the argument that Connecticut has already beaten Sen Feinstein and others to the punch. It has restrictions nearly identical to the federal AW ban. I think many other State's do as well, California topping my list. I have politely used this argument on FB, and my gun restriction bandwagon friends were taken aback by this. I agree wise use of social media is very important and potentially determinative in getting the word out. I am surprised NRA shut down its social media feeds and went dark. This is not the time to go AWOL.

 

[lionking]

I invite you to a site that has people of all persuasions and leanings including hardened anti gun people.

I posted a similar thread there like here, the response by anti-gunners in it is we have no smart position and that banning guns is the only smart thing to do.

I care not about changing their minds, but I do care about winning the hearts and minds of those reading who may be on the fence of the issue.

As they attack us with slander I will not return in kind (try not to), I want to beat them with logic and make them on the defensive.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/

 

[Alaska444]

I looked at the Connecticut assault weapons ban statutes, which were adopted after the federal ban came in. The state law remains. I saw some threads on it here before this tragedy. I am struck by the argument that Connecticut has already beaten Sen Feinstein and others to the punch. It has restrictions nearly identical to the federal AW ban. I think many other State's do as well, California topping my list. I have politely used this argument on FB, and my gun restriction bandwagon friends were taken aback by this. I agree wise use of social media is very important and potentially determinative in getting the word out. I am surprised NRA shut down its social media feeds and went dark. This is not the time to go AWOL.

Yes, CT does have an assault weapon ban still in place and it did not prevent this horrific tragedy. I pointed that out to someone on FB today and they retorted that they support confiscation.

 

[vamo]

I'm not sure that potentially having to fend off hordes of mexican drug runners (especially if you don't live in a border state), is a much more intelligent argument that anything else. When we make the defense argument then why do I need anything other than a .38 revolver, pump shotgun or a bolt action rifle. Any of those guns would be overkill in the vast majority of situations people would find themselves in.

When its a constitutional issue, you don't have to cite far-fetched threats, target practice, or the need to hunt deer by the herd. It's just simply your right to posses tactical weaponry, but please nobody say they want to overthrow a tyrannical government, you aren't helping.

 

[kwguy]

There are many people who simply cannot believe that the "mean looking" AR-15 is actually technologically identical to some other semi-automatic "traditional looking" rifle. They insist that there must be SOMETHING different about it to make it more lethal, when in reality, we know that the .223/5.56 cartridge is most likely less potent than most dedicated hunting cartridges. To prove this point, I had a non-gun (not necssarily ANTI-gun) relative visiting while I was in the process of putting an M1A into a Sage stock. I showed them the rifle while it was still in the original stock, and they thought it looked like a "normal" rifle. I pretended to go get "another" rifle to show them, and quickly placed the barreled action into the Sage stock (just loosely, not tightened all the way). I brought out this "other" rifle, and they couldn't BELIEVE I had such a mean, destructive, killing machine! When I explained what I had done, and that it was indeed the same weapon, with only a cosmetic change, they couldn't believe it. This was done without even a magazine, just a stock change. It's scary and emotional for many who are not familiar with firearms, which can be tough to overcome.

 

[mljdeckard]

The bad news is, Feinstein et al, are fully aware that the last ban was entirely cosmetic in nature, and intend to rectify that flaw in the plan.

 

[Logan5579]

Speaking of winning hearts and minds of those on the fence, I think one of the bigger challenges we will face will be those who are being indoctrinated...I mean educated...in the liberal universities. I've seen too many kids come back with closed minds and open mouths spouting the liberal talking points of the mainstream media...

 

[emb]

I agree with Art. I do not own an AR or AK type of rifle. I do, however, have a variety of bolt, lever and pump action rifles and shotguns and a variety of revolvers and semi auto pistols. I reload everything, shoot weekly, and compete occasionally (with a borrowed AR). I am an avid hunter with rifle, shotgun, black powder and archery. I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and I carry every single day. I am a responsible and careful gun owner and user, and I would not hesitate to use a gun in justified self defense.

After watching the news of the shooting (exclusively on CNN) my wife of almost 20 years and who has been around firearms all of her life commented that there was absolutely no reason she could think of why someone would or should own own of these assualt type of rifles. She asked if I owned one. She believes that but for the assault rifle this kid could not have killed these children. She said "get ready to give up your guns." This from a woman who knows me and many of my friends and fellow hunters. She has absolutely no reason to believe that I or any of my friends would be careless or unsafe in the handling of our firearms.

I pointed out that an AR is not fundamentally, from an operational standpoint, than any of my pistols, that I could effectively create the same rate and field of fire as an AR using any of my pistols, and that it would be just as deadly. I pointed out that some folks use them for hunting, competition and self defense. I also pointed out that the definition of an "assualt weapon" as previously defined included weapons that were not and that some of my current weaponry would qualify. I finally pointed out that gun control wouldn't stop there. Deaf ears.

Folks who do this or are capable of kind of thing have serious mental issues. Most agree that this is true. Keep guns away from the mentally unstable. Who makes that determination? How is that to be defined? Here in Florida intervention is very limited. under the Baker Act, intervention can be by a qualified person if the subject threatens to be a danger to himself or others. Intervention beyond that requires a showing of incapacity which is difficult to prove unless the subject is totally out of it.

None of the individuals involved in the most recent shootings had much in the way of relevant criminal or mental health histories that could have been used to predict that they would engage in this behavior. It came as a surprise to all who knew the perpetrator. The talking heads go on and on and on to the point it makes me sick to my stomach. Since the behavior can't be predicted, they instead go after the instrumentality. The analysis is logically flawed, but no amount of fact or reason will sway their conclusion.

I am an intelligent, responsible gun owner. My pursuits may be excessive. But, I have never ever been irresponsible or careless with any firearm. I can beat someone to death with logic and reason, but in the end they maintain the opinion that the government should limit, ban, confiscate, or whatever (you fill in the blank) all firearms. How in the world do you address this level of ignorance, whether willful or not? The argument, though logically and factually flawed, has an appeal that is readily accepted by many who have the seeming ability to think it through and reject it.

My heart and prayers go out the all of the victims of these senseless crimes. But I'm not going to condemn the instrumentality nor am I likely to get wrapped into the emotional aspect or appeal of this event. I simply cannot beleive how intrusive the media is being in almost every aspect of each of the victim's life at a point where they may simply want to be left alone. I am waiting to hear what could have happened in this young man's life that culminated in this horrific event. I'll take my lessons from that revelation.

As far as making mental health facilities and services more readily available-you can lead a horse to water, but...... BTW if there are any mispellings, gramatical errors, or other grammer or writing errors, it's not my fault. It's got to be the keyboard. I think that the UK is down to butter knives, and those may be next. In the meantime how do we effectively address the issue of gun control with others and our respective lawmakers?

 

[Hollowdweller]

Here's a question for y'all.

OK, so in the Heller decision they basically said the gov't couldn't ban a certain type of gun.

So do you think an AWB would pass that constitutionally?

I could see how they could kick semi autos up into the same class as machine guns and still be constitutional.

I could also see how they could ban sale and manufacture of large clips and still be legal.

But I'm not sure about specific guns? What say ye?

 

[mljdeckard]

I don't. That's one speed bump that they would have to get around. "IN COMMON USE". This is why I have been telling people since the Heller decision that WE need to work to defint "in common use" before THEY are allowed to define it FOR us.

 

[.333 Nitro Express]

I think the main problem is that as long as we let America's issues be framed by a narrow sliver of coastal blue-state extremists (AKA the "mainstream media"), we'll be busy chasing our tails, as we're already doing in this thread.

The fact is simple: the MSM are our political enemies--not because we want them to be, but because they have decided to be. The first meaningful step towards resetting a meaningful discussion is to realize that and stop pretending otherwise.

Step 2 is to stop treating them as legitimate and to deny them the opportunity to use us as punching-bags for ratings. So, if an MSNBC or CNN wants a John Lott or Wayne La Pierre to vilify on the air, they will have to keep wishing. America's adults will simply stop becoming part of their pornography-as-news circus.

At the same time, we should start greatly favoring the news sources that, albeit few as of yet, represent a larger and more moderate viewpoint. NY Post, Washington Times, FOX, WSJ, etc.--not to mention talk radio and well-traveled Internet sites like Drudge and National Review.

We will never create a "new orthodoxy" or even rectify the old one if we don't first recognize that the MSM are our political enemies and we discredit them as illegitimate and accelerate their descent into meaninglessness.

 

[Jenrick]

Suggestion, re-frame the question. If asked "why do you support allowing people to own high capacity rapid fire weapons that can massacre school children" don't answer that question. If the person has an agenda they asked that question that way for a reason.

If they don't have an agenda then asking them back "What do I think needs to happen to prevent future mass murders at american schools? Well...." opens up an entire new set of dialouges. A lot of peoples gun knowledge can fit on a 3"x5" index card with room to spare, and they got it all from the media. They are scared, the media has told them guns are bad, and they are being bombarded with this message. They aren't necessarily scared of the gun, they are scared that their child will be murdered at school the tool used in that nightmare scenario is just window dressing to the core fear. Have a conversation about how to fix the problem, not about the tool.

Also another common one to re-frame "guns kill X many people...(you are all probably familiar with all the variations this one has)". Re-framed "How we reduce criminal homicides in the US is a very important question. Well I think....."

Again, pull out the larger issue/fear in the question/statement. Re-frame it to address the problem or fear rather then the fact a firearm is involved in that persons particular fear or agenda. If the person insists on hammering the firearm angle, accept that they have an agenda and move on. You're probably not going to change their opinion, and no point in trying to talk to the mental equivalent of a brick wall.

-Jenrick

 

[.333 Nitro Express]

"A lot of people's gun knowledge can fit on a 3"x5" index card with room to spare, and they got it all from the media."

I was just watching O'Reilly (whom I generally respect, although he has his own macroscopic blind spots). Hearing him and his "is it legal?" team (K. Guilfoyle and L. Wiehl) talk about AR-15s, "telescopic stocks, folding sights and fast-shooting bullets" was like hearing Larry, Moe and Curly discuss Aristotle's Metaphysics.

Which brings us back about my previous post, in many ways.