We seem to be losing the media battle

[coloradokevin]

Here's another great piece: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/21/nra-comments-draw-swift-opposition-in-reactions/

So, I keep reading CNN every day, trying to gain some insight into what the other side of the gun debate is thinking. Obviously I knew these folks would disagree with the NRA's position on the subject of gun ownership, but the manner in which they disagreed is rather surprising to me.

The article I've linked to claims (via their chosen political figures) that most Americans don't want armed security (teachers or otherwise) in our schools, and I think that goes against what most people believe, even among the crowd that doesn't like guns. The article also repeatedly quotes political figures who seem to only be interested in blaming guns for crime, rather than criminals.

This particular shooting just seems to have become one of those pivotal moments for gun rights. The anti-gun movement has gained political ground, and they're pushing very hard to ban guns, and getting significant media support for their cause.

What's the next step for us? So far we've had one less-than-totally-impressive speech from the NRA, and thousands of articles written for the other side. Maybe I'm just ranting, but this isn't an encouraging time for enthusiasts of gun ownership.

 

[somerandomguy]

Well, I actually knew this was going to happen. The media pounced on this like a pack of wolves, it was atrocious. Then you have idiots like Cenk Uygur who started putting up pictures of those children and pushing for his gun control agenda. Nobody who was pro gun were saying things like "we need less gun control!" because we were being respectful and trying to let the families mourn. I mean if I was one of those parents and my dead child was being used for someone elses' agenda...that would send me over the edge personally. I mean where do they even get off thinking they have the right to just assume that every living victim wants what they want and using the victims for their own agenda especially without even speaking to those parents? The way the media in general has handled Sandy Hook is just repulsive, disgusting, and insensitive.

Anyways, back on topic...because there was no real loud opponents of gun control, even the Republican politicians were saying that they would be willing to have gun control because they thought no one was on their side. It was a losing issue from the getgo because the anti-gun guys were just itching to politicise this with no consience, and shamelessly I might add.

 

[RX-178]

Let's say it seemed like we were winning.. what would that scenario look like right now?

Of course everyone's reporting about gun control, and the typical anti-guns antics, which are the exact same as every single year, only this time they're getting more press coverage because of the tragedy.

The NRA's first statements were just earlier today, it hasn't even been 24 hours since then.

I would say we're doing a lot better than I would have anticipated.

 

[gc70]

While we may appear to be losing the media battle, I think we may actually be winning the public relations battle.

Most of the media is clearly against guns and, along with the mouthpieces for gun control, they are being as vocal as possible in their derision of armed security in schools. However, the December 19th Gallup poll showed that a solid majority of the public favors armed security.

I initially thought of the Gallup poll as simply a theoretical expression of public preference, that each side would try to sway. After reading many public responses to negative articles about the NRA proposal, I have come to the realization that it is not a matter of theoretical preference. There are already a lot of places in the country that have an armed presence in schools - and the people in those places like armed protection for their children.

When the media and the mouthpieces for gun control rant about the ridiculousness and stupidity of the NRA proposal, they are alienating the people whose children's schools already have armed security. It can't be a winning strategy to tell a large number of people how stupid they are, but that is effectively what the media and gun control advocates are doing when they criticize armed security in schools.

 

[Evergreen]

When did we ever win the media battle is what I would like to know??

 

[somerandomguy]

Let's say it seemed like we were winning.. what would that scenario look like right now?

Of course everyone's reporting about gun control, and the typical anti-guns antics, which are the exact same as every single year, only this time they're getting more press coverage because of the tragedy.

The NRA's first statements were just earlier today, it hasn't even been 24 hours since then.

I would say we're doing a lot better than I would have anticipated.

I disagree but I'm going to address the things you brought up one at a time.

1.) If we were winning in the media, they would be talking about having less gun control, instead if you turn it on to any news channel you will hear debates about "more gun control" "assault weapon ban" "10 round clips" (it's magazines, but they're too stupid to know that).

2.) I know, but the way the media is going about it is just disgustingly repulsive and insensitive. They're purposefully posting pictures of those children up on tv without the consent of the victims' families as they push for gun control as if the parents advocate for it. The parents have been through enough, they need to be left to mourn without being politicised. The media is just using those kids to tearjerk the audience for their own political gain.

3.) The NRA's statement blamed video games and movies even more than the school or the mental health aspects. They should have blamed the school and the mental health aspects more and emphasised those more rather than looking ignorant.


So yeah, I say we're getting absolutely destroyed in the media due to cheap, offensive, anti-gun tactics. You know you're in trouble when republicans start agreeing with Democrats on gun control.

 

[TAKtical]

We will always lose the media battle. The media is not on our side. For every pro gun piece on tv there are 10 anti. I really wish there were more people and less sheeple. Fortunately, from what I can tell with the millions of CHL permits in this country and more NRA members and new gun owners every day, the numbers are in our favor. If an AWB/mag capacity ban was a nation wide vote, it would be a landslide victory in our favor. The problem is that the people running this country dont care what the people want and think they know whats best for us. Reminds me of how this country came to be and why the second amendment was so important to the founders of this great country.

 

[mnrivrat]

The media is not on our side.

You know - that's about all one needs to say, and realize the truth of it.

That , and the fact that they control what gets air time .

 

[yokel]

Of course, the Washington Post gleefully supports any policy that smacks of domestic disarmament.

A prime example of enemies of liberty that are incorrigible and not redeemable.

I trust that the time will come when malefactors such as this will be held to account for their crimes against liberty.

 

[Pilot]

We need to scare the politicians again just like we did in 1994. That is all they understand. The media is irrelevant if we let the politicians know their days as a cushy, lucrative member of their club is numbered. Threaten them with being fired.

 

[itchy1]

"We need to scare the politicians again just like we did in 1994. That is all they understand. The media is irrelevant if we let the politicians know their days as a cushy, lucrative member of their club is numbered. Threaten them with being fired."

Amen. As gun owners, this is the greatest impact we can have.

 

[ol' scratch]

Agreed. Scare the politically. It is already happening, by the way.

 

[nathan]

Let us respect the bereaved loved ones of Sandy Hook. Rather than figting them , lets enjoy the christmas holiday. But make no mistake these bereaved families will be marching to Washington to speak to COngress against gun . NRA must be ready for the long haul.

 

[jason41987]

i dont agree with the NRAs statement about video games and television, that was a bad, bad thing to do... they essentially threw the first amendment under the bus in an attempt to save the second... the second amendment is supposed to be there to protect the other ones, and how can that happen if the NRA is willing to sacrafice the other ones to keep it?....

video games arent the problem, violent entertainment has been around for thousands of years... the romans regularly watched people kill eachother... and a large amount of people who play first person shooters and watch action movies are gun owners too that DIDNT commit crimes... so that wasnt right for the NRA to do and they lose some respect from me for trying to place the blame there without ANY attempt to question mental health

 

[JERRY]

you can count on the media to be against gun rights but how are your representatives acting about them? are you letting the media form their votes or are you doing it?

 

[hso]

most Americans don't want armed security (teachers or otherwise) in our schools, and I think that goes against what most people believe,

Not everyone here thinks having armed security at schools is reasonable, the rest of America won't either. If some of "us" don't think the idea has merit then perhaps most of the rest of the country doesn't.

What is our motivation? The argument that we guard our money and our power plants so we should do the same for our schools is based on the false assumption that the rare violently insane person who attacks children in a school is the same as the criminal that would rob a bank. That's false on the face of it. The criminal that selects the bank or armored car is motivated by the desire to steal the money with the least effort and risk so they could escape without capture to enjoy their ill gotten gains. The mass murder carried out in CT had no relationship with any of those rational goals nor did the Amish School murderer that barricaded himself in the school and lined the children up and shot them. The objective was to carry out these heinous murders and nothing more. Trying to say that the threats from school shootings and armed robberies are the same fails for many because the motivations aren't remotely the sam. What if we use terrorist attacks instead? People have argued that we have armed guards to thwart terrorists at many facilities, why don't we have them at schools to prevent attacks like the one that occurred in Russia? Terrorists are committed to carrying out their mass murders without regard to their survival. They want to disrupt society and break the will of their enemy to fight by carrying out horrific murders. A terrorist attack on a school was planned and carried out in Russia so why wouldn't it take place here? Many would see that as more relatable for a planned school attack, but at the same time disassociated with the impulsive heinous murders carried out by Lanza who shot his mother and then drove the short distance to the school and murdered 20 children there inexplicably with no motivation or manifesto or demands of the government. We know that there are a network of terrorists working against our government, but what network of criminally insane individuals exists planning to carry out inexplicable mass murders is there? No, the terrorist analogy doesn't fit either.

Even if it became a national goal, the idea of putting armed guards at schools isn't even feasible since it would cost billions to implement and billions each year going forward. In a time where communities are cutting budgets for public safety personnel and teachers how would they afford it? If federal money was used where would that come from?

If the threats aren't seen as the same and the costs are not feasible then why is anyone surprised if many, if not a majority, of people don't think that putting armed security in schools is a solution?

All that said, more important than reacting to the media is looking at "impartial" poll results from Gallup and others. Polls actually randomly contacting a sample of the population of the U.S. will tell us much more about the opinion of the public than news shows or media "polls". Gallup shows 53% think having police at schools is the best approach followed by improved mental health programs for preventing this sort of tragedy.

 

[nathan]

Im all for armed guards with proper training and regulated by the state. Armed guards should be professionals. No volunteers. You never know if these volunteers have the kids in their utmost interest . THey can be perverts or closet rapists or vets with undiagnosed PTSDs or what not just wanna be with kids.
The realities of today's world call for this new new phenomena. Killers in the lurk targeting schools. Just as America responded to Al qaeda and hunt them down in foreign lands with all the powers of our military, how much more we need to protect our very kids who are left vulnerable. This is the reality today. The threats come from outside and now from inside ----amongst our very own kind who are suffering from mental illness , sociopathic disorders or psychosis, drugs, or just pure evil and mischief. Or worse, terrorists who are funded by some radical groups.

If guards are guarding armored trucks to protect our money , US border patrols along our borders, US coast guards, secret service details to all politicians paid by US taxpayers, dept of state security to guard our embassies and officials abroad , how much more we need our schools and kids protected . They are the future of our nation.

 

[W L Johnson]

While we may appear to be losing the media battle, I think we may actually be winning the public relations battle.

Weren't we saying the same thing the morning of Nov 6th?

 

[22-rimfire]

Yes, I think the practical cost to guard each school is excessive and I think it would be throwing a lot of money at a "needle in a haystack". It would be more practical to have school administrators armed or selected teachers. But that creates a new legal problem.

If Rommey couldn't at least break even on the media battle, how could you ever dream that gun rights would be given a fair shake by the media. But dealing with individual legislators is another matter.

 

[JERRY]

some schools have SROs for years, the need to ensure ALL schools have them is imparative.

as mention above, the motivation of the nutbags are different, but the fact remains, neither can succeed if stopped by an armed officer.

 

[hso]

Gallup's poll would indicate that a majority of people agree with having armed security at schools whether there's a credible threat or not.

 

[2ifbyC]

This battle will not be won in the media but with the politicians that represent you in Congress. Therefore it is imperative that you write to them to voice your opinion; keeping their job is their number one priority.

The NRA’s strategy is well conceived; slow play the progression to allow emotions to cool, introduce diversions to allow focus on something other than gun control, and offer to help with both expertise and monetary support.

Concentration on the solutions is not as important since it is virtually impossible to provide the kind of safety that is being sought.

With a strong NRA and vocal backing by its members/gun advocates, the politicians will soon realize that more concessions will not be tolerated. We are in a position of strength and we will win this fight provided we remain united and focused on the goal: No new gun laws!

 

[helotaxi]

Let us respect the bereaved loved ones of Sandy Hook. Rather than figting them , lets enjoy the christmas holiday. But make no mistake these bereaved families will be marching to Washington to speak to COngress against gun . NRA must be ready for the long haul.

The media might have you believe that, but are the victims families the ones giving that impression? Not from what I've seen.

 

[Geneseo1911]

CBS had an article that popped up on my google page with a quote from one of the parents of one of the survivors. He in not-so-many words said that they did not blame the weapon, but the shooter.

NSSF is headquartered in Newton. I didn't know that until I read it in a huffpo article. The president said in not-so-many words that some of their familes were affected. There's probably some shooters/gun enthusiasts in Newton. Don't be surprised if they don't come to Washington, and if they do, are supportive of banning gun free zones instead of black rifles.

Don't be surprised, either, if I'm 180 degrees wrong.

 

[481]

It is hardly a surprise that we are losing the media battle- LaPierre predicted it during his speech yesterday.

It's the mainstream media- they'll pick and choose what they want. They can argue anything anyway they want so long as the select the correct postulates.