Zumbo, Take 2

[Warp]

How do you get "giving up Rights" and "appeasement" out of my statement about finding ways to tailor our messages to be more accessible to those people we want to sway?

Indeed your reaction to my comments is highly emotional.

Government mandated training to own a gun = giving up Rights.

16 hours of training required for anything RKBA = giving up Rights.

What is "highly emotional" about this? By very definition turning a Right into a privilege is giving up that Right. There's no emotion necessary for my position or my argument. My position is that giving up a Right is giving up a Right.

 

[Outlaw Man]

Baron Null is spot on. Any time you have to pay for something (directly monetarily or indirectly, such as having to give up a couple days of work) it is no longer a right but a privilege granted to those who can afford it.

Show me a mandatory training that costs nothing (including taxes to subsidize government-funded training) and can be done in the person's spare time, and then we can talk about whether or not it might be worth trading.

Mandatory training for those who can't afford it restricts their rights more than 90% of the gun laws (even the stupid ones) on the books. We need to be looking out for the gun rights of ALL people, not just those who have big enough pockets.

And that doesn't even begin to address the slippery slope...

 

[Glocktogo]

OK, I don't disagree under the circumstances you posted regarding the method of argument necessarily. It just seemed that some were defending Metcalf's nutty ideas rather than "tailoring the message" to the targeted audience. Metcalf is not tailoring the message here. He's proposing an idea that placed in the hands of the rabid anti's, will be used against the RKBA community. His ramblings are ill advised at best, and traitorous at worst.

Personally I'd like to see firearms safety and several other safety topics for daily life taught in grade school. I'd like to see free (voluntary) firearms safety courses taught by certified professionals for the public. It's just that in many "liberal" enclaves across the country, you'd be burned at the stake like a witch if you suggested this. It's a hostile environment out there for us. Logic isn't something we can afford to take for granted.

 

[PapaG]

My main problem with the whole "Zumbo" label is that Jim made a statement of his belief, was taken to task for it, lost at least one good job, has "repented" and still is a pretty good ambassador for the shooting (mainly hunting) sports. He does a lot for youth and wounded warriors.
Metcalf, on the other hand, has been embroiled in at least one major shooting sports scandal. Research old American Handgunner magazine (which has always told it like it is) unlike G&A which once was a great gun mag but seems to have rapidly gone downhill in integrity since Petersen passed on.

 

[Big Bad Bob]

I will first preface my forth coming statement that I do respect people who differ with my opinion but will humbly present that I disagree adamantly with those who oppose constitutional carry or open carry.

If I am legally able to purchase and possess a firearm in my state of residence, it ought to be perfectly legal for me to carry that firearm any way in which I choose without special permitting. UNLESS, the carrying of firearms in those places has already been restricted by the law, such as schools, federal buildings etc.

Period.

I do find value in CCW,CWP, CCL courses, not for the shooting but more the information on laws about where and where you cannot legally carry. For instance in South Carolina I cannot carry in an establishment that serves alcohol. I cannot carry to any sporting event, ie I cant tailgate and carry. I cannot consume alcohol and carry a firearm. I cannot carry in a movie theatre or any private establishment that says "No Concealed weapons". Most folks dont know this, but could this be accomplished without a $200 training course, $50 background check, $10 duplicate copies of my fingerprints, and currently 90 day wait to get my permit? Yes. And regardless of the fact, I am still responsible for the law whether I know it or not.

The argument that licensing firearms ought to be like licensing automobile use holds no water. Driving a car is not protected in the Constitution and those who will say cars weren't invented. 1. the Constitution is a living document 2. Horse and wagons were around during the drafting and could have been included, but there was no need to include protections on the use of transportation as fundamental and unalienable human rights.

Further, while Concealed Carry Laws and the advocated training courses DO have merit. They have become private citizen funded retirement programs for retired law enforcement. Just look at who teaches the courses? Not that these individuals don't deserve respect and compensation for dedicated years of protecting and serving our local communities. However, I should not be forced to pay you, to teach me to use something that I already have the Constitutional and legal right to do so on my own.

Further, while many agree with CCL, unscrupulous politicians saw it as a further way of generating revenue at the state level by generating a fee for service.

Here is a thought, IF I need a permit, training course, and background check to carry concealed, why shouldn't I have all those requirements to purchase? The logic is the same, and that is the problem.

I disagree with Mr. Metcalf, requiring me to pay fees, licensing and training for something that is protected in the Constitution IS an infringement. It would be to the same degree if I was charged a fee and training course to hold a pen to paper to practice my 1st Amendment rights. He closes his diatribe that this is just his opinion, well here is mine.

 

[mooner]

I agree with Warp.

 

[Frank Ettin]

How do you get "giving up Rights" and "appeasement" out of my statement about finding ways to tailor our messages to be more accessible to those people we want to sway?

Indeed your reaction to my comments is highly emotional.

Government mandated training to own a gun = giving up Rights.

16 hours of training required for anything RKBA = giving up Rights.

What is "highly emotional" about this?...

What was emotional about it was that I didn't say a single thing about government mandated training program or giving up rights. The post of mine you were responding to was about finding better ways to communicate our messages to those people we are trying to sway.

So you obviously didn't understand what I was saying and merely reacted in an emotional, knee-jerk way.

 

[Warp]

What was emotional about it was that I didn't say a single thing about government mandated training program or giving up rights. The post of mine you were responding to was about finding better ways to communicate our messages to those people we are trying to sway.

So you obviously didn't understand what I was saying and merely reacted in an emotional, knee-jerk way.

'

I guess I thought your statements were in line with/referring to what has been discussed in this thread.

Can you clarify? What exactly are you talking about or referring to?

What are your suggestions?

What do you think we/I should be doing that we/I are not?

 

[David E]

or your slippery slope.

Did you change you'd SN from Splithoof?

It was he who said:

I'm fine with 16 QUALITY hours; I think it might deter some of the knuckleheads I've seen demonstrating the absolute worst gun-handling skills on the planet. Heck, some of the Somali pirates are safer than these idiots.

And it was his post I was addressing.

 

[JFrame]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights is a limitation on government not the people.

Clean...Concise...I like it.


.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Can you clarify? What exactly are you talking about or referring to?

What are your suggestions?

What do you think we/I should be doing that we/I are not?

I'm not planning on repeating myself. You apparently thought you knew what you were responding to because you were quoting me.

In post 40 you quoted me and wrote:

We need more of them on our side. We need more of those who we can't completely win over to at least be more neutral. and to do so, we need to start trying to understand them and tailor our messages to be accessible to them given their interests, values and concerns.

I do not think that giving up Rights to appease them is going to get us anywhere.

This "compromise" and appeasement only serves to take away more and more pieces of the pie as time slips by.

Very, very rarely do we ever get any of those pieces back.

In post 51 you quoted me an wrote:

How do you get "giving up Rights" and "appeasement" out of my statement about finding ways to tailor our messages to be more accessible to those people we want to sway?

Indeed your reaction to my comments is highly emotional.

Government mandated training to own a gun = giving up Rights.

16 hours of training required for anything RKBA = giving up Rights.

What is "highly emotional" about this? By very definition turning a Right into a privilege is giving up that Right. There's no emotion necessary for my position or my argument. My position is that giving up a Right is giving up a Right.

In each case you went off on some tangent about giving up writes, but nothing in my statements which you quoted had anything to do with giving up rights.

My statements speak for themselves.

 

[Warp]

Their votes still count the same as yours.

First, I suspect that if we were to closely examine many of the views you hold, or any of us hold, there will be an emotional element to our reasons for holding those views.

But in any case, there are obviously ways by which to win their support. Those who advocate positions which such people support have clearly found ways to reach them.

I've often been dismayed by the failure of so many in the RKBA community to recognize the importance of positively influencing public opinion or to have any real clue about how to determine how to go about doing that.

During the course of my career I've had a pretty fair amount of experience working with business clients who needed to be able to influence public perception, understand how to make advertising effective and find the best ways to effectively communicate their messages.

When a lot was at stake, they didn't just guess they didn't assume that their audiences would think the ways they did or have the same values and perceptions. They consulted with psychologists and others who have studied human motivation and perception and beliefs. They thoroughly analyzed the demographics of the audiences and tried to understand what they cared about, what they were scared of, what made them happy or feel secure, what they believed and didn't believe.

They also tested their conclusions with surveys and focus groups. They paid attention to what was happening and made adjustments in their messages and techniques if things weren't working the way they wanted them to.

We in the RKBA community need to stop dismissing our neighbors, co-workers, the people in our community, etc., who don't share our positions as emotional or unreachable or unreasonable. We need more of them on our side. We need more of those who we can't completely win over to at least be more neutral. and to do so, we need to start trying to understand them and tailor our messages to be accessible to them given their interests, values and concerns.

Okay.

How?

Assume that 'we' don't have access to the vast resources of these major corporations and that we cannot spend I-don't-know-how-much money hiring psychologists, giving surveys, holding focus groups, etc.

We on THR are willing to do the legwork ourselves, though.

What do we need to do?

 

[splithoof]

Well, I can't speak for Frank, but IMO "we" need to clean up our act. Somehow, "we" need to make a better impression of gun-owners to the non-gun public; "we" need to better educate and train the countless gun-bozos who continue to destroy hard fought for progress through stupid, reckless, and dangerous display of gun use.
In California Jerry Brown just vetoed a very serious gun bill that would have banned countless AR type rifles and others, and a few weeks later some idiot uses one of those to murder an individual at one of the world's busiest airports. How does that make us look?? In the eyes of too many voters, it makes us look like a bunch of nuts trying to hide behind some arcane 200+yr old law that not even we can agree upon to it's exact meaning. When I try to talk with many of my neighbors about this stuff, often many just say "thats simple....just change the constitution and get rid of that pesky 2nd amendment" THOSE are the folks "we" need to impress.

 

[Sam1911]

In California Jerry Brown just vetoed a very serious gun bill that would have banned countless AR type rifles and others, and a few weeks later some idiot uses one of those to murder an individual at one of the world's busiest airports. How does that make us look??

Ok! Sounds like the beginnings of a plan: Step one, stop the murderers!

I'm on board with that one. Any other ideas?






Actually, I really don't see how there's much WE can do, ourselves, to stop murderers. How is that proactive and feasible?

And if it was, wouldn't we kind of want to be doing that anyway, regardless of political ramifications?

 

[splithoof]

Sam, I don't know how "we" stop the murders, but I do believe that the continual use of these types of firearms in high-profile crimes, and irresponsible actions by gun owners will eventually cause enough voting Americans to say "enough is enough" and abolish the 2nd, thus ruining it for everyone. We here on THR all know that won't solve the crime problem, but too many Americans I feel are headed in that direction.

 

[Sam1911]

But if that is a concern, what can we DO about it? Let's face it, rifles still account for something like 0.05% of weapons used in homicides, or crimes of any sort, so this isn't actually some actionable thing.

And why is this not an ENORMOUS concern with handguns, which actually are used in a whole lot of crimes? If we've withstood any and all attempts to outlaw handguns which are actually used unlawfully fairly regularly, why are we so much more at risk of having our rifles outlawed, when they seem statistically immaterial to crime rates in the first place?

...

But my more important point here is that you're lumping several things together into one phenomenon: "the continual use of these types of firearms in high-profile crimes," AND "irresponsible actions by gun owners."

These are not two sides of the same coin, nor equivalent in rate or importance. Criminal acts are a very serious issue, of course, and do have an impact on the national opinion. Irresponsible actions by gun owners are ... what exactly? Mass murder is not an "irresponsible act."

Having a negligent discharge and shooting your car, or even a neighbor, is an irresponsible act, but it has practically no impact at all on anyone's, or any group of people's, opinions on gun control. (And nationally rates of accidental shootings and gun accidents have been falling for decades. We're a lot safer with guns now than ever before.) I really can't think of other truly irresponsible acts that get any attention whatsoever.

So what's your point with this? What is the actionable thing? Don't be irresponsible? Well, that's fine, we do want to be (and to be seen as) responsible. But what sort of conspicuous responsibility will get us positive attention and turn folks' heads in our favor?

And how does warning us about the negative view society takes toward violent crime help us make things better?

 

[Warp]

In California Jerry Brown just vetoed a very serious gun bill that would have banned countless AR type rifles and others, and a few weeks later some idiot uses one of those to murder an individual at one of the world's busiest airports. How does that make us look??

...there's nothing "we" can do about that.

And it isn't even a big issue, really. Like sam said, rifles are used in a tiny fraction of crimes, and semi automatic detachable magazine pistol gripped muzzle deviced rifles are used in an infinitesimally small percentage of crimes in the US...despite being extremely popular and common. I'd say "we" are doing extremely well with our AR type rifles and similar.

 

[DNS]

IMHO we need to lead more folks towards concealed carry and all gun onwers need to support it regardless of what you believe your right to be. A lot here believe in carry without a license or training which antis use to make the gun community look amateur, ignorant and redneck. License gives VALIDITY.

Push for a turnover of gun free zones which obviously don't work.

Open carry for anyone with concealed carry license - get those guns in view to make it typical, not atypical WHILE being trained and licensed.

Bring the youth shooting programs back. This crap in school with someone getting suspended for an NRA shirt is garbage.

The most important point i have: I believe forming 2A support groups in your area would be useful in all the points above. The anti's are organized yet gun owners locally aren't and we see how that's working; joining the NRA just isn't enough. I think this is where gun shops and ranges need to step up and run information websites for these groups, etc.

 

[Warp]

Open carry for anyone with concealed carry license - get those guns in view to make it typical, not atypical WHILE being trained and licensed.

No mandatory training.

MILLIONS of people are licensed to carry without government required training, and many millions more live in states that allow unlicensed carry.

It's not a problem, and nobody who thinks it is can be helped no matter what we do, because they are willfully choosing to ignore reality.

Bring the youth shooting programs back. This crap in school with someone getting suspended for an NRA shirt is garbage.

Promote Appleseed. Go to Appleseed. Get kids to go to Appleseed.

The most important point i have: I believe forming 2A support groups in your area would be useful in all the points above. The anti's are organized yet gun owners locally aren't and we see how that's working; joining the NRA just isn't enough. I think this is where gun shops and ranges need to step up and run information websites for these groups, etc.

Many states have local organizations. Here in GA we have GCO (georgia carry.org). Does Texas not have anything?

 

[DT Guy]

The problem with 'compromise' and 'reasonable' and 'a conversation' is that the needle nearly ALWAYS moves against gun rights. You want me to compromise?

OK, 16 hours of training-that's me compromising.
Remove all AWB bans nationwide-that's YOU compromising.

Done like that, we can have 'a conversation' about 'reasonable' compromises. If the 'conversation' is just arguing about what new and invariably inane restrictions you can force me to submit to, there's no conversation.

When the national debate actually works like that, you can talk to me about additional requirements or restrictions; until then, nothing, not ONE MORE THING is up for discussion on my part.

That's the problem lots of us have, I think; there isn't anything anyone can propose that seems 'reasonable' at this point.


Larry

 

[taliv]

We need more of them on our side. We need more of those who we can't completely win over to at least be more neutral. and to do so, we need to start trying to understand them and tailor our messages to be accessible to them given their interests, values and concerns.

Okay.

How?

Assume that 'we' don't have access to the vast resources of these major corporations and that we cannot spend I-don't-know-how-much money hiring psychologists, giving surveys, holding focus groups, etc.

We on THR are willing to do the legwork ourselves, though.

What do we need to do?

1. educate them. take them shooting with you any chance you get in order to demonstrate that everything they learned from hollywood is a big fat lie
- guns aren't scary, they're just inanimate objects that don't fire themselves
- the people that shoot them are regular guys just like them, with teeth and jobs, wives 1.3 kids and a dog

2. educate them about the laws and make it personal
- most gun laws were racially motivated
- YOU can't have that because the gov doesn't trust YOU. of course YOU are responsible but it doesn't matter.

3. educate them about safety
- impress them with your commitment to safety
- impress them with professionalism


recall the hundreds of slow-news-day reporter-visits-shooting-range stories. they are all common formulas:
- "I don't like guns, never fired a gun, am not a redneck, am from the city, vote liberal"
- "guns are scary"
- "visited a shooting range, like visiting mars, people a little quirky but mostly normal, surprised most shooters are not hunters, don't wear camo, lot more women interested in self defense than expected"
- "i shot a gun for first time, felt empowered!!!, it was fun, i can understand why people like it"


that's pretty much the reaction you're looking for. the key is when media/hollywood try to paint us with stereotypes, they will think, "hey wait, that doesn't match my experience. they are lying to me"

 

[Sam1911]

A lot here believe in carry without a license or training which antis use to make the gun community look amateur, ignorant and redneck. License gives VALIDITY.

You have found that antis are more up in arms about unlicensed carry, or carry without a training requirement, than they are about licensed, trained carry? Really? I've never met one or read a rant from one that really had any idea about any of that. They were opposed to guns and the carrying of guns. Technical points about licensing and training were utterly absent.

The only folks I've really seen rant about how we needed to require training and licensing were, to put it bluntly, "gun people" on gun forums. That's sad, but true.

Open carry for anyone with concealed carry license - get those guns in view to make it typical, not atypical WHILE being trained and licensed.

You know there are more people lawfully allowed to carry a gun openly than there are licensed to carry concealed, right?

I'm all for getting more guns out in the open, being carried every day. But there aren't that many states which actually prohibit open carry in the first place, so I'm not sure that there's much public relations success to be accomplished simply by changing the laws in those few states. Most folks just don't bother even though they're perfectly within their rights to do so.

Bring the youth shooting programs back.

AMEN! And it's happening. Appleseed, Junior Rifle, and other programs are growing.

The anti's are organized yet gun owners locally aren't and we see how that's working;

Do you really see that,in truth? Nationally the real "antis" are a tiny group and have largely been ineffective, to the point that HCI and company had nearly closed up shop at last check. The events of the last couple of years have boosted their noise-making to a degree, but the gun rights side has been vastly more effective in the last couple of decades. I agree that we need to get and stay organized and effective, but I don't actually agree that the anti side has ANYTHING over us on that front. Far from it.

 

[DNS]

I don't want to compromise anymore but you have to start somewhere and work a plan. No plan equals fail.

If your state has carry without a license great. For those that don't get on board (for now) with ccw. Here in Texas we've been pushing with good results with more to come eventually I'm sure.

Yes we do have TSRA but I'm proposing local, grassroots groups in communities.

APPLESEED shoots aren't enough either. As a start, air gun and archery need to come back to all public schools.

The antis are playing "the long game" which gives fruition over long lengths of time yet i don't see anything like that in the firearms community and I believe that's what's needed.

 

[Warp]

APPLESEED shoots aren't enough either. As a start, air gun and archery need to come back to all public schools.

Well, Appleseed is about a LOT more than marksmanship/guns...and it is actual firearms, not air guns or archery.

Of course, if we could get air guns and archery into public schools, well, that would probably mean we already won.

 

[CharlieBT]

They went out from among us, because they never were with us from the beginning.

Double standards are funny. It's apparently ok on the high road to bash nut jobs, so long as they are in the RKBA family. It is sin and verboten to use similar insults on opponents, because, well, that's low road. If the same measure were used for all, then moderators here would not advocate all manner of soothing discourse for agnostics and our enemy, while condoning offensive remarks at a large and identifiable segment of the RKBA family.

And this is the problem with Dick Metcalf's opinion piece. There were a thousand ways for him to convey the idea that he advocates government imposed restriction on gun ownership. He chose to insult those gun owners who oppose all such restriction, stating they are constitutionally ignorant
and unwashed in his enlightened ways.

When you bash members of the clan, it makes it uncomfortable to sit down and break bread with one another on Sundays. Worse, Metcalf's victory strategy is hauntingly flawed. He advocates surrender of significant regulatory territory on the theory that such surrender is the only means of surviving the war. In doing so, he sacrifices the very principles he supposedly supports.

In fairness, Metcalf and others here who support more gun restrictions cannot abandon that which
they never possessed in the beginning. Perhaps it is time to recognize apostasy for what it is.

I've served as a director and officer of multiple gun clubs. I've provided pro bono legal services to gun clubs and sportsmen. I am an NRA certified shotgun coach and range safety officer. I lead a firearms small group in my local church. And in my profession I provide legal advice regarding employer weapons policies, active shooter prevention and interdiction, threat assessment and
response, workplace violence prevention and litigation.

I've never abandoned my RKBA principles nor intentionally insulted various stakeholders across the
spectrum of interests I work with.