Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Gun Control - public enemy or public safety?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    You guys are a cut above the rest but there is an almost universal problem to fighting gun control and that is to simply shoot the messenger rather than examine the source and its modus operandi and fight that.

    Gun Control organisations are each and every one, PUBLIC SAFETY organisations.

    They serve no other public purpose than to advise the public on the dangers of firearm ownership.

    Gun control organisations may or may not have another agenda, but you cannot fight the agenda. You have to address the means and manner in which gun control seeks to remove “guns” from your and every other law abiding firearm owners hands – PUBLIC OPINION.

    What is public opinion?

    It is the yardstick of every political party, politician, of every business that wants to make money and of any success that involves the public’s participation.

    How do gun control organisations operate?

    They create public FEAR and HATE of an object (guns) and offer a solution to the problem. Get rid of guns – problem solved and objective achieved. Gun control will not stop until that objective is achieved. Neither congress, politicians nor the courts will ever prevent gun control from achieving its objective.

    I see the words propaganda and demonise bandied about but their does to seem to be any dots connected to how to fight propaganda.

    How to fight is to deny gun control its means of achieving the objective – public opinion in favour of gun control.

    The latest Gallop poll indicates that public support is at an all time low of 49% in favour of more restrictive firearm control laws. There are many firearm owners who support more restrictive laws because they believe the propaganda of gun control.

    I would be worried because gun control will react to that decrease and do something about it.

    What can we do about it?

    Promote public safety not firearm ownership. Cheer leading firearms will only increase anyone’s fear of firearms. The public need reassurance and reasons the public can understand why they should tolerate or embrace firearms for their own safety.

    That cannot be achieved when politicians place gun control ahead of fixing the social problems of crime. When the police, state and national structures are snowed up in paperwork of controlling those least likely to commit crime. When criminals are given a government backed guarantee that victims will be unarmed, criminals can and will react in the only way possible for a predator. Nor can any success be achieved when firearm owners completely ignore public concerns for their safety. You never ever want to find out what the public will do when they think their safety is being threatened by anyone or anything.

    If gun control, politicians, businesses and the media think public opinion is vitally important then firearm owners and organisations had better figure out why and if it is important to their survival.

    BTW here is an interesting website.
    http://www.richmarksentinel.com/rs_a...s.asp?conid=13

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Safety is the tyrant's tool, because no one can be against safety, and safety is the first act of security theater.

  3. #3
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    I agree. It is a common debate tactic, geared toward putting your rival on the defensive. Note this type of behavior doesn't actually address the issues.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  4. #4
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Safety is the tyrant's tool, because no one can be against safety, and safety is the first act of security theater.

    Amen. Benjamin Franklin said as much in 1759.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Safety is the tyrant's tool, because no one can be against safety, and safety is the first act of security theater.
    Amen. Benjamin Franklin said as much in 1759.
    I would be interested to read him in his context. I don't recognize your allusion, could you be more specific, please, a citation?

    Do you mean the much more common paraphrase of,

    "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Safety is the tyrant's tool, because no one can be against safety, and safety is the first act of security theater.
    Amen. Benjamin Franklin said as much in 1759.
    I would be interested to read him in his context. I don't recognize your allusion, could you be more specific, please, a citation?

    Do you mean the much more common paraphrase of,

    "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
    Probably alluding to this:
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Actually fear is the tyrants tool.

    Safety is simply a vehicle, a lever into the hearts and minds of the public and needs to be kept in mind but it is not the crux of the fight against gun control. Public opinion is.

    The real danger is being side tracked away from realising that public opinion is the only important aspect. That is why government and gun control all employ experts and never ever forget what they want as an objective, as the end result.

    Looking up Leonard W. Doob might be instructive and very interesting.

    What do firearm owners want? What is their end objective and how will they achieve it?

    Americans have one of the best examples of propaganda at work beside that of gun control yet this is almost completely ignored and the role played by propaganda is almost never mentioned.

    One of the most intensive propaganda campaigns ever in America was that of the Anti-Saloon League, founded in 1875.

    "Word went out from Washington and state headquarters to send letters, telegrams, and petitions to Congressmen and Senators in Washington. They rolled in by tens of thousands, burying Congress like an avalanche... We started off, early in 1914, with about 20,000 speakers, mostly volunteers all over the United States. They spoke at every opportunity to every sort of gathering... As the climax approached we doubled our forces. Even that wasn't enough, so for a time the world's largest prohibition printing establishment ran three shifts a day, every hour of the twentyfour, grinding out dry literature." As the result of these efforts the drys gained seats in the 1914 elections." 1

    A printing press was obtained in 1909 and the League up until the early part of 1923 produced,[JAC]
    [*]157 million copies of temperance papers, [*]2 million books, [*]5 million pamphlets, [*]114 million leaflets, [*]2 million window placards and [*]18 million small cards.
    At the height of the campaign, from the printing headquarters, a river of 40 tons of anti-alcohol material poured every month.


    1 HISTORY OF THE ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE 1893-1933
    http://www.wpl.lib.oh.us/AntiSaloon/history/history.htm

    JAC Techniques of Persuasion - JAC Brown. Penguin Books.



  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Crimefree wrote:
    Actually fear is the tyrants tool.
    I am retired from a career in nuclear power and testing reactor plant limits. Likely we view safety and fear a bit differently.

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Safety is the tyrant's tool, because no one can be against safety, and safety is the first act of security theater.
    Amen. Benjamin Franklin said as much in 1759.
    I would be interested to read him in his context. I don't recognize your allusion, could you be more specific, please, a citation?

    Do you mean the much more common paraphrase of,

    "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."

    The link is, http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/poor_richard.html

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Crimefree wrote:
    Actually fear is the tyrants tool.
    I am retired from a career in nuclear power and testing reactor plant limits. Likely we view safety and fear a bit differently.
    Oh, so that explains that certain glow about you, eh? (heh, heh)

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Seems to me that the best counter to the anti-gun propaganda is for all gun carriers to OC their handguns in public everyday, so the public can see for themselves that the anti-gun claims of dangerarefalse. The public will be able to see for themselves that law abiding citizens can be armed, and go about their daily lives without posing a threat to public safety. In fact, the general public may even notice that with armed LAC present public safety is improved.

    In many parts of the country, mostly in the rural areas,the general public already knows that an armed society is saferfrom crime than an unarmed society.

  12. #12
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    falcon1 wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Safety is the tyrant's tool, because no one can be against safety, and safety is the first act of security theater.
    Amen. Benjamin Franklin said as much in 1759.
    I would be interested to read him in his context. I don't recognize your allusion, could you be more specific, please, a citation?

    Do you mean the much more common paraphrase of,

    "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
    Probably alluding to this:
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
    There is some minor concern this quote isn't originally Franklin's
    Although BF claimed responsibility for some small excerps from the HRoP, he did not specifically claim that quote. Also the next known writing of it, BF used quotations. It is attributed, but cannot be properly sourced. What is properly sourced, is the quote Doug provided. It was written before the almanac and is of similar construct and concept.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  13. #13
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Crimefree wrote:
    Actually fear is the tyrants tool.
    I am retired from a career in nuclear power and testing reactor plant limits. Likely we view safety and fear a bit differently.
    Oh, so that explains that certain glow about you, eh? (heh, heh)
    umm........ awkward.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Seems to me that the best counter to the anti-gun propaganda is for all gun carriers to OC their handguns in public everyday, so the public can see for themselves that the anti-gun claims of dangerarefalse. The public will be able to see for themselves that law abiding citizens can be armed, and go about their daily lives without posing a threat to public safety. In fact, the general public may even notice that with armed LAC present public safety is improved.

    In many parts of the country, mostly in the rural areas,the general public already knows that an armed society is saferfrom crime than an unarmed society.
    This is going to help anyone who fears "guns" exactly how?

    See universal problem with firearm owners.

    Every supporter of gun control or more strict laws is an ambassador for public safety and every firearm owner who wants to retain those rights is an ambassador for firearm ownership. Cheer-leading firearm ownership.

    That is why public safety will win. How on earth can you convince anyone who fears guns that more guns or your gun will improve public safety? It's like putting a person who fears and hates spiders in a room full of spiders and trying to tell that person that most spiders are not poisonous. That should work.

    Being an ambassador for public safety requires a mindset change for firearm owners while gun control supporters do this naturally and are motivated by public safety and doing good for the public.

    It is interesting to note that Obama did more for firearm ownership than the combined efforts of every firearm organisation and ownership supporter. Support for more strict laws was as high as 60% in the 1990's. That no countries firearm owners has found a successful defence against gun control because they do not recognise the kind of fight they are in and fight incorrectly.

    This is not surprising because firearm organisations are run or advised by firearm enthusiasts not public manipulators like gun control and governments. Fiream organisation rely on ambassadors for firearms ownership to defend without advising how to defend correctly.

    The public image of firearm ownership is what needs defence and correction. Use experts to do that and advise firearm owners on how to fight and win public support.







  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Crimefree wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Seems to me that the best counter to the anti-gun propaganda is for all gun carriers to OC their handguns in public everyday, so the public can see for themselves that the anti-gun claims of dangerarefalse. The public will be able to see for themselves that law abiding citizens can be armed, and go about their daily lives without posing a threat to public safety. In fact, the general public may even notice that with armed LAC present public safety is improved.

    In many parts of the country, mostly in the rural areas,the general public already knows that an armed society is saferfrom crime than an unarmed society.
    This is going to help anyone who fears "guns" exactly how?

    See universal problem with firearm owners.

    Every supporter of gun control or more strict laws is an ambassador for public safety and every firearm owner who wants to retain those rights is an ambassador for firearm ownership. Cheer-leading firearm ownership.

    That is why public safety will win. How on earth can you convince anyone who fears guns that more guns or your gun will improve public safety? It's like putting a person who fears and hates spiders in a room full of spiders and trying to tell that person that most spiders are not poisonous. That should work.

    Being an ambassador for public safety requires a mindset change for firearm owners while gun control supporters do this naturally and are motivated by public safety and doing good for the public.

    It is interesting to note that Obama did more for firearm ownership than the combined efforts of every firearm organisation and ownership supporter. Support for more strict laws was as high as 60% in the 1990's. That no countries firearm owners has found a successful defence against gun control because they do not recognise the kind of fight they are in and fight incorrectly.

    This is not surprising because firearm organisations are run or advised by firearm enthusiasts not public manipulators like gun control and governments. Fiream organisation rely on ambassadors for firearms ownership to defend without advising how to defend correctly.

    The public image of firearm ownership is what needs defence and correction. Use experts to do that and advise firearm owners on how to fight and win public support.





    There are very few persons in society that are truly afraid of firearms. In my entire life I have only run across one person who was really terrified of a gun. I was just a kid with a toy 6 shooter and a woman that was hired to watch me and my younger siblings got hysterical when she saw me twirling the toy gun on my finger. She was literally crying uncontrollably, nearly screaming,until I left the room with it.

    This is called hoplophobia -anirrational fear of firearms, or anything that looks like one, such as a toy gun.

    Most people that say that they are uncomfortable around firearms DO NOT have an irrational fear of them. They have been conditioned (or brainwashed) into believing that guns are bad and scary. These people have literally been "trained" to feel uncomfortable around guns by the propaganda of the anti-gun movement.

    If we go about our daily business just like anyone else does, except with a handgun hanging on our hip, the "trained" people will see this and start to question said training. Of course this will require that they start thinking for themselves and stop listening to the people that have been "training" them.

    You claim that the anti-gun organizations use experts to present their case. You are correct, they use expert liars and deceivers. Pro-gun organizations don't need such experts, we have real facts and statistics to support our arguments. The anti's don't like to debate the issues of gun ownership or carry for self defense, because they can't win. That is blatantly obvious because they do not tolerate any pro-gunfacts or statisticsposted to their forums. The Brady Campaign for Gun violence Prevention quickly deletes any such post from their twitter page and bans the poster.

    If the pro-gun crowd is so inept atpersuadingthe public, why are the anti-gun groups losing ground so badly?

    Tell Sarah we said hello.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    snip......

    You claim that the anti-gun organizations use experts to present their case. You are correct, they use expert liars and deceivers. Pro-gun organizations don't need such experts, we have real facts and statistics to support our arguments. The anti's don't like to debate the issues of gun ownership or carry for self defense, because they can't win. That is blatantly obvious because they do not tolerate any pro-gunfacts or statisticsposted to their forums. The Brady Campaign for Gun violence Prevention quickly deletes any such post from their twitter page and bans the poster.

    If the pro-gun crowd is so inept atpersuadingthe public, why are the anti-gun groups losing ground so badly?
    Because the have neither the truth, justice nor the American way on their side.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    We also need to remember that the reason the anti's got so much traction in the first place is fourfold (despite the fact that almost every statistic, report, or study they issue are fraudulent):

    1) the public education system here in the US was infiltrated early in the 20th century by operatives from the big "globalist" foundations, to ensure that every child would receive the same "indoctrination" (that's not my word--that word was used by the first president of UNESCO, Sir Julian Sorell Huxley, who was also the president of the Eugenics Society after Charles Galton Darwin stepped down in 1959), and a large part of this indoctrination is based in a very subtle program of Bernaysian "public relations" that uses emotion and fear (rather than logic and fact) to sway opinion and develop deeply-held beliefs. The public education system is also used to break down the child's reliance on parental authority, feelings of local community ties, and--most importantly--their ability to process and examine raw data on their own without the "help" of "experts".

    2) The Anti's have received MOST of their funding from the same "foundations" that funded UNESCO, the UN, the formation of the EU, as well as the large international banks that funded BOTH SIDES of WWI, WWII and the Cold War. They are the minions of these globalists, and are simply tools in their grand plan to unite the entire planet under one system of "governance", a system that is not quite socialism, not quite capitalism, but a fascistic amalgam of the two systems.

    3) Through the application of sophisticated propaganda and cultural engineering, using the techniques of Bernays, Huxley, Lippman, and even Goebbels, the Anti's have never let truth and fact get in the way of a good story, and have VERY successfully used classical propaganda techniques (based on tying fear, subconscious connections, and instinctual urges to their message in order to deeply root it in the public's minds) to sway public opinion.

    4) Because the Public is being effectively dumbed down through faulty education, constant bombardment of info-tainment, and general information overload through addiction to the Media and the Internet, much of the general population has become intellectually incapable of discerning truth from fiction. Anything they are fed by a "trusted expert" in the media will be readily assimilated into their psyche.

    If the Pro-2A movement wants to gain traction against these lies, we need to use more sophisticated techniques. The truth of our position will be drowned out by the daily avalanche of propaganda being pumped out by these VERY-well-funded anti-liberty organizations. We need to recruit PR specialists, Graphic Designers, videogaphers, and writers who are trained in the classic techniques of Public Relations, and use some of these same appeals to the instinctual urges of the public (albeit, our message will be rooted in FACTS, not the lies of tyranny) to sway public opinion.

    I'm not saying we need to resort to deceitful propaganda (in fact NOTHING justifies such a tactic), but perhaps we need to use a different strategy other than throwing around lots of statistics, real-world anecdotes, and logical, rational argument. This tactic has been (and will continue to be) drowned out by the massive inundation of lies and spin that the anti's spew.

    Until the 2A movement realizes that we are fighting a battle for the MINDS of the People, and approaches our information dissemination with the same fervor, creativity, and subtlety as a large corporate advertising campaign, we will be at a disadvantage...

    So to the original poster, Gun control is the enemy of the public, because:

    1) it is based on faulty logic, outright lies, and it has as its ultimate goal the complete disarmament of the Citizenry, rendering them at the absolute mercy of the "government", a situation which history bears out as NEVER being good,

    2) gun control is a violation of the most FUNDAMENTAL human right--the right of self defense, and as such, shoudl NOT be tolerated by any people who aspire to be Free, and

    3) Gun Control inevitably leads to tyranny and genocide. In EVERY single society where the citizenry was effectively disarmed, horrific tyranny has ensued. Unless the very nature of mankind changes, and we can GUARANTEE that sociopaths and criminals--both petty and governmental--will never be born, the citizenry MUST maintain the ability to defend our lives, our families, and our very freedom. Any system that has a goal of disarming the citizen is working AGAINST the freedom and sovereignty of the individual, a social concept that is essentially and fundamentally immoral and evil.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggressionand this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    Very profound and well articulated Dreamer.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Very well said, Dreamer.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    I have lost contact with Sarah since she moved to Cape Town. One of the hardest workers for firearm owners I know.

    Possibly this is why firearm owners need the help of experts. – “Pro-gun organizations don't need such experts, we have real facts and statistics to support our arguments”. While firearm owners may have all the information they have no idea of what to do with it.

    Try to keep in mind I attempt to deal in facts only and try very hard not to allow beliefs and emotion to cloud the issue.

    It is therefore going to be near impossible for me not to offend so, shields up Scotty.

    In propaganda terms, by implication of incorrect and false attributes with strawman arguments and appeals to false logic and reason you have attempted either deliberately or unknowingly to disparage and discredit everything I have said rather than examine the facts.

    Try to consider the facts I have presented and not the beliefs and rationalisation of firearm owners. Remove from your mind feelings of emotion and gut reactions.

    Expecting to win a fight for public opinion with “Queensbury rules” in a street fight is like taking a rubber knife to a gun fight. If you don’t know the how to fight don’t expect to win.

    Your proposals and arguments are no different to what has been tried in every other country and failed because firearm enthusiasts did not know any better or refused to accept that they were not the experts. The possibility also exists that some knew but failed to make any headway in a sea of adversarial rejection by firearm enthusiasts who knew better.

    I was just a kid with a toy 6 shooter and a woman that was hired to watch me and my younger siblings got hysterical when she saw me twirling the toy gun on my finger. She was literally crying uncontrollably, nearly screaming,until I left the room with it.
    Call it what you want but it is what will see the demise of firearm ownership is assured.

    Most people that say that they are uncomfortable around firearms DO NOT have an irrational fear of them.
    Care to quote the section where I said they did? Even a firearm owner expressing a view that stricter laws should be adopted is not a supporter and is certainly reacting to fears induced by gun control propaganda. Ask gun control if they are happy with this result.

    They have been conditioned (or brainwashed) into believing that guns are bad and scary.
    Was your use of the totally incorrect term “brain washing” a deliberate attempt to induce fear, an expression of your own fears or was it done in ignorance? Social psychology is a subject you can study at a very large number of institutions of education. I would suggest you find such a person and ask them for the correct terms.

    The anti's don't like to debate the issues of gun ownership or carry for self defense, because they can't win.
    That would be the opinion of firearm owners who judge success by a different yardstick than public opinion. The anti-gun organisations will meet firearm owners on any public platform if they think there will be a large enough audience of the general public because they know they can’t lose against an unskilled opposition.

    The Brady Campaign for Gun violence Prevention quickly deletes any such post from their twitter page and bans the poster.
    As would any sensible expert. Propaganda requires a one sided view for faster operation. Why do you think governments want to control the media and do so despite any laws.

    ================================================== =====================
    Gallup Poll: Will Obama Ban Try To Ban The Sale of Handguns?

    A new Gallup poll may explain recent reports of increased gun and ammunition sales in the U.S. Majorities of those who personally own a gun (55%) and of those with a gun in the household (53%), as well as 41% of all Americans, believe that President Obama "will attempt to ban the sale of guns in the United States while he is president."

    http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/...-sale-handguns
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/123602/ma...gun-sales.aspx
    ================================================== =====================

    Today, Americans are as likely to say the laws governing gun sales should be kept as they are now (43%) as to say they should be made more strict. Until this year, Gallup had always found a significantly higher percentage advocating stricter laws. At the same time, 12% of Americans believe the laws should be less strict, which is low in an absolute sense but ties the highest Gallup has measured for this response.

    The trends on the questions about gun-sale laws and a handgun-possession ban indicate that Americans' attitudes have moved toward being more pro-gun rights. But this is not due to a growth in personal gun ownership, which has held steady around 30% this decade, or to an increase in household gun ownership, which has been steady in the low 40% range since 2000.

    Even with the change, there are some subgroups among whom a majority continues to favor stricter gun laws, including liberals (67%), Democrats (66%), Easterners (59%), gun non-owners (57%), postgraduates (55%), women (55%), and nonwhites (51%).

    The groups least in favor of stricter gun laws are gun owners (20%), Republicans (28%), conservatives (30%), and men (33%).

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/in...-gun-laws.aspx

    Public support for keeping the laws governing the sale of firearms the same or making them less strict rose from 49% in October 2008 to 55% in October 2009, also a record high. (The percentage saying the laws should become more strict -- the traditionally liberal position -- fell from 49% to 44%.)

    How the federal government is back in the business of funding studies that promote gun bans ... more than a decade after Congress put an end to the practice.

    The federal government has resumed the Clinton-era ideological offensive against gun ownership. The opening salvo was fired recently by the federal National Institutes of Health, with a new study purporting to show that gun ownership increases the risk of being shot by 4.5 times.

    Dave Kopel -- How Your Tax Dollars Demonize Your Guns
    http://www.nrapublications.org/a1f/AFFlead.html

    I don't find anything to rejoice about because the reasons and modus operandi of gun control remain as elusive to firearm owners as they have always been.

    But I’ll buy it if you can show with verifiable proof what firearm organisations did differently to cause a change from 60% support in the early 1990’s to the debateable 43% now. Note only 12% support less restrictive laws. Significant changes demand significant reasons and if you can’t convince Gallop you will not convince me.

    Are these polls conducted for no reason other than mild curiosity? Who reads them? Who wants them? Who uses them?

    And just in case you do not know "studies" are used to give legitimacy, authority and public exposure (media coverage) to publicity (propaganda) not to supply facts and figures to the public.

    Shooting down a study is like shooting down the plane that has just dropped a bomb unless media coverage and pressure can be exerted at the same time on public opinion. Something an expert would know. Counter the propaganda and deny gun control the almost exclusive audience of the public and thus public opinion.

    The public want messages they can understand and unless you are an expert the wrong message will be sent or no message at all. No message is the normal reaction to those who believe that gun control and the public are just misguided individuals who will circum to reason and logic. When a message is sent it attacks the messenger instead of the message.

    Examine this statement and figure out what emotional impact it is trying to achieve.
    “gun ownership increases the risk of being shot by 4.5 times.

    The imparting of knowledge is most certainly not its intention. What is its intention?”

    Do you think the public will understand the message and what is the message?

    What will be the emotional reaction when the word “gun” is mentioned or one is seen?

    Propaganda does not appeal to logic and reason and cannot be countered by logic and reason. Engrave that in your mind.

    Countering propaganda as you imply (something despicable) does not mean having to use lies and deception. It does mean you have to recognise the propaganda and remove the intentions and results of the propaganda which will be emotionally based and not based on reason and logic.

    Gun control propaganda is by its nature all based on appeals to fear in one way or the other. To give legitimacy to their propaganda gun control needs to create “truths” which is why they invest so much in bogus research. Remove the fear they seek to induce and you deny gun control its support.

    Fighting smart means using your numbers to influence the media and political ambitions because both will react at some point to public demands.

    There is no point in bitching about the media not giving coverage to your friends, this is the fault of gun owners themselves and cannot be blamed on anyone else.

    Contact the media with complaints and demands as their readership, listeners or viewers. Don’t ask for debates unless you work for gun control. Counter every newspaper article and pro gun control letter you can in numbers that can’t be ignored and they will not be ignored. We have computers and phones, all that is required is the desire to do it and that is where the problem is. It is not cheerleading firearms and nobody thinks it worth the effort. There are no dots between their guns and what the media reports that can be connected.

    More importantly, would this fight not be a lot better and successful if firearm organisations took advice that can and will mean a more efficient effective fight?

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Crimefree,

    It appears that you are suggesting that we use the media to get our message out. Do I have to remind you that the MSM IS NOT on our side. In fact it is as about as biased as it can get against gun owners and the 2A.

    It doesn't matter how many letters we write to the media organization, most end up in file 13. Many online publications that allow comments to articles are monitor to delete pro-gun postings. I was banned from posting comments most likely because I presented too many facts and logical arguments in defense of gun ownership and carry for self defense, while the anti-gun crowd was allowed to keep posting their venomous tripe and vulgar name calling and insults.

    Have you not seen how the National MSM have covered incidents that occur in this country? Every time a mass shooting happens it gets weeks of front line coverage. But do they cover any of the events where a Law abiding citizen is able to stop a violent crime with their own firearm? Hell no!!!! It barely gets local coverage.

    A good example of this.

    We saw weeks of coverage about the various mass shootings across the nation. Questions were raised as to why current gun control measures failed to prevent these incidents. The MSM gave the anti-gun groups plenty of platform to plead for MORE gun control

    But when an off duty law enforcement officer (LEO) in Colorado stopped a shooter at his second target for the day, the MSM attempted to vilify HER, as ifSHE had done something wrong. They even questioned the church she defended concerning why they even had someone there, ARMED,for security.

    Now, let's take a hypothetical look at how the MSM might cover an event. What if the Virginia Tech shooter had been stopped by armed staff or students before he could get off more than a few shots? Would the MSM praise the armed citizens for their prompt action to defend everyone from the crazy guy with intent to murder innocent people? Highly unlikely. In fact, I doubt that the MSM would even mention the event happened at all. I believe most everyone on this forum would agree.

    And you think we should rely on the media for support? Wouldn't that be like the gazelle turning to apride of lions for help?

    We, every last one of us gun owners/carriers,have to be our own media and messenger. We all have to be active in countering the anti-gun propaganda. The best way I see of getting the general public over it's nervousness at the sight of firearms is to carry our handguns openly on our hips so that they canSEE them. It's the only way that they can see that law abiding citizens CAN carry arms in public without shoot-outs in the streets occurring, as has been falsely prophesied by the anti-gun organizations.

    Concealed carry does nothing in this respect. It doesn't help the cause if gun owners hide their guns from the eyes of the public. "Out of sight- out of mind" does not help in convincing the general public that having an armed society IS a benefit to public safety. Sure, CC in "Shall Issue" states does reduce crime as a collective, but the public doesn't always understand this. They don't see the guns that are around them, causing criminals toback off of some of their activities because they don't know whose armed,if they are concealed.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that protects an individuals assumedright not to be nervous or uncomfortable. If we were to set outto ban everything that might cause somebody discomfort or uneasiness, there wouldn't be much left for people to do. There is no such thing as a perfectly safe world. Thatis an Utopian notion.

    The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Law Enforcement is under no obligation to provide security foreach individual citizen. Recent events, in which LEO have been gunned down while on duty, suggests that they can't even provide for their own safety all the time.

    Those of us that have chosen to be responsible for our own safety, carry a tool (a handgun) for that purpose. Those of us that carry openly are actively promoting personal self defense in a passive manner. Some of us have actually been thanked, by individuals that aremembers of the general public, for taking responsibility for arming ourselves.Some people do see it as a meansfor the betterment of public safety and not a threat to it.



  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    Crimefree wrote:
    Entirely too verbose for this forum, IMHO - more suitable for a classroom environment with a captive audience. Most are not going to wade through checking and counter checking your data nor respond to the myriad points you attempt to make.

    Sensory/numerical overload does not a compelling argument make. In the vernacular - give them too much to eat and they will develop a belly ache.

    I agree that public relations is a battle that well should incorporate the use of those practiced in the art. There is much that is being done right and more that can be done without a doubt.

    I do not forecast a losing war for our rights by staying on our present course - you would seem to do so.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    277

    Post imported post

    Well, I have read this thread and good points are being made by several people. I too, now feel compelled to add my opinion. I support our constitutional rights. Though I am not an activist nor as fervent in that as many on this board, I feel that it is one of our duties as Citizens to make sure our rights are not eroded.

    For the average person, spewing rhetoric for either side, sounds like you are doing exactly that. Now granted, some of the pro gun sayings are awesome. "If it don't start with 4, don't go to war" is one of my personal favorites. However, strapping on your shootin' iron and letting loose the clever witticisms doesn't do much to help the cause. Normalization is the best course of action. Now when I say this I'm not envisioning a group of armed citizens rallying together to show they present no threat. Now granted, such outings do have their place to raise awareness in a positive light, I don't personally think that's the best method to make exercising a birth right that many find strange and archaic seem normal to most people that find it strange.

    Like most of you, I would love to live in a society where part of your preparation for a night on the town would involve determining which holster, pistol, and blade would best match your attire for the night. Now, I realize for some of you this is an option, and I am envious of you and hope that Texas does change it's laws in my lifetime. I mean I wish the MAJORITY of persons did so. Where you might stick out if you were unarmed. That is what I would like to see. How do we get there?

    In my opinion, I think just talking with those in your life. I'll use a friend of mine as an example. Now, he wasn't anti-gun per se. He did (and still does) view me as a gun nut. What I did initially was raz him and throw in clever one liners that favored gun ownership and self-defense. That didn't work. He would still come over and occasionally comments would be made about the pistols that I had within reach at my home. If he looked at one, I would offer to let him examine it. If he wanted to look at it, I would unload it, and hand it to him. When he made a comment about it being loaded, I explained my reason. I didn't break out my soapbox for any gesturing or grandstanding. I just simply told him matter of factlythat should I need it, I will probably need it very quickly and probably wouldn't have time to load a magazine and rack the slide. You know what? With no holier than thou tones, speaking in plain English as one man to another, he understood. Nothing else was said.

    Eventually I invited him to the range. Needless to say he was a little nervous at first. Heck, he managed to make my Sig jam. How that's possible, I'll never know. At the end of the day he was thinking out load as to how he mighttalk his wife, read the boss, into getting one for range use. I discovered this website via the Texas Open Carry on line petition during this time. I was excited when I found out there was a movement and perplexed when I learned that open carry was legal in some form in most states. When I talked to him about this he questioned in a condescending tone as to why I would want to wear a gun publicly when we have concealed carry. Again, I spouted off the standardrhetoric. I eventually just dropped it and realized we would have to agree to disagree.

    Now my friend used to ask why I kept a loaded gun in the car when I found out it was legal. I again used quotes from others as my justification to him. Of course that didn't work. See, that's part of the problem. A lot of the time we are put on the spot and others try to compel us to list our reasons for doing so. We don't need to justify anything to anyone. The way he finally accepted my view was that I just kept my firearm in the car and didn't bring it up.

    My friend handles a lot of money during the week for his job. I tried to talk him into getting a gun, but he always had a reason not too. I dropped it. Then one day, we were talking and he mentioned that he was thinking about getting his CHL just to have a way to defend himself when he was picking up and depositing the cash. It was all I could do to contain my excitement. I of course supported his idea, but told him to make sure that was what he wanted to do. He asked me again on the law about having a handgun in your vehicle without a license. I explained the conditions you had to meet and offered to loan him one of mine. He accepted my offer along with my condition that he would have to fire it and show he was comfortable with it.

    Now, I know this anecdote was a little long winded, but I feel it helps to illustrate my point. To normalize open carry and to allay fears of weapons carried in public in general, we need to do just that, be normal. If open carry is legal in your state, then carry everywhere you can. Make no big deal of it, especially to those close to you. If you have an open carry event. Make no special mention of your sidearm. While you are out in a group, make sure to smile at and shake hands with as many people as possible. Make sure to let them ask you questions.

    Above all though, the most effective way, in the opinion of this particular Joe Six pack at least, is to educate those closest to you. Take your friends to the range. Teach them about firearms safety and all the neat pistols that are out there. Chances are, they'll pass it along. Personally, I think this is the best way to help our cause. This is just my opinion. It's worth exactly what you're paying for it.




    -Gruu

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the reply.


    I accept that you have the best intentions in mind and do not for one moment think that you are incorrect in what you so passionately believe is a solution. I ask only that you open your mind to other ideas that may very well have a huge potential to help.


    Anything that challenges beliefs is confrontational but try to see past that. It is also the reason firearm owners are adopting the wrong methods by directly challenging the beliefs of those who would restrict ownership - the public. This simply leads to conflict in which both sides dig in their heels even harder and refuse to budge. You have to find common ground in which both sides agree. By both sides I mean firearm owners and the public.


    Admitting defeat before you really start is hardly the way to win. Finding excuses which simply imply justification for what failed for this admission is rationalisation. The media was not convinced that a sufficiently large enough portion of the public wanted any change of marketing direction. That to do so would be endangering market share and profits. Yes you have personal bias to over come but money talks louder.


    Firearm owners do this because their only aim and goal is to increase firearm ownership and absolutely nothing else is of any consequence or importance.

    Imagine if gun control did this how far that would have got them. No matter how many defeats gun control has it will never stop. While gun control may change its direction as it has recently done in Switzerland and the USA it will never change its methods, promotion of fear and hate by the public.


    Gun control’s stated objective is to increase public safety and until public safety is increased the way gun control deliberately choose to do this gun control will continue. The fact that it cannot be increased is irrelevant to those who control gun control because that is not the objective of those who control gun control..

    The USA and world is a good example if and only if you take the time and trouble to look and correctly evaluate on social psychology based reasoning and learn from historical mistakes the same errors will be repeated for exactly the same reasons they were made in the fist place..


    Observe gun controls modes of operation and fight using the intelligence you obtain. Deny gun control its objective of influencing the public to fear and hate firearms by removing fear and hate and showing the public that their safety will be improved by allowing firearm ownership. It is impossible to do this by promoting the object the public fear and hate.

    That alone makes firearm enthusiasts who have no useful background and knowledge of the problem totally unsuitable to lead, guide or advise this fight.

    Let us say for argument that firearm owners "solutions" are wrong in every aspect proposed, what would that say of the attitude and willingness to examine information and correctly apply it to the problem? What would it say for any real chance of success?


    It appears that you are suggesting that we use the media to get our message out. Do I have to remind you that the MSM IS NOT on our side. In fact it is as about as biased as it can get against gun owners and the 2A.
    The media is well aware that only 12% of the US population support fewer restrictions and that is their market opinion. The media would be stupid beyond belief to ignore that.

    The media is biased because firearm owners and organisations have sat on their behinds and done nothing about that because they have always thought there is no reason to do anything about it.

    It doesn't matter how many letters we write to the media organization, most end up in file 13. Many online publications that allow comments to articles are monitor to delete pro-gun postings. I was banned from posting comments most likely because I presented too many facts and logical arguments in defense of gun ownership and carry for self defense, while the anti-gun crowd was allowed to keep posting their venomous tripe and vulgar name calling and insults.
    Is this a total lack of understanding of the problem and a rationalisation to what accords with your way of thinking? .

    Those of us that have chosen to be responsible for our own safety, carry a tool (a handgun) for that purpose. Those of us that carry openly are actively promoting personal self defense in a passive manner. Some of us have actually been thanked, by individuals that aremembers of the general public, for taking responsibility for arming ourselves.Some people do see it as a meansfor the betterment of public safety and not a threat to it.
    The public say different and their voice is the only voice that counts.

    This ploy you describe has done absolutely nothing for the public image of firearm ownership and possibly changed the attitude of only a few who more than likely required little reason to do so.

    When you have changed the mind of the women who you first gave as an example then you may claim success. When you have changed the mind of 78% of the US public who support some restrictions on firearm ownership then you will have succeeded.

    Please explain how your methods and those adopted almost universally by firearm owners will change the mind of those who fear and hate firearms enough to want to restrict in some way ownership.

    You have at present just 12% of US citizens who support less restrictive laws (a current high). Think very hard on what you and others are doing wrong. Do not be so foolish as to ascribe success to anything you wish to believe is the reason for change. Obtain your information from surveys conducted by independent research. Now that is faultless logic and reason. Will that convince you?


    Image

    Your image is the first thing others see. It is what others will judge you by and think of you.

    The image of a group of people is no different. It is what others will judge that group by and how they will think and view them as a group. It will influence attitude, trust, disposition and any relationship.

    When a group or person is large enough, important enough or requires public participation and needs to be noticed by the public, the public will judge that group on its image as that is all and the only information they have available. It is the first impression and probably the only impression anyone will have.

    Surveys give some insight to the image of firearm owners. The public response to that image is often surveyed because government and gun control want to know how successful their publicity and advertising has been.

    Why do government and gun control want to know what the image of firearm owners is?
    Both try very hard to influence that public image to gauge public reaction to whatever they wish to do. Many would call this a “marketing survey”.

    How do government, gun control, businesses and organisations influence the public?
    With the use of advertising and publicity (propaganda).

    All advertising and publicity that seeks to entice, “popularise” or influence a product, person, event, organisation, plan or idea is “propaganda” that relies on the study and use of social psychology. Many would call this marketing or advertising.

    What is the image of firearm organisations that the public and firearm owners judge them by? A gauge of that image is membership, participation in the organisation activities and public support.
    What is the image of firearm owners? How do the public judge firearm owners? Legislation is a gauge of that image as are public surveys. Legislation is often the result of public surveys.

    Is it not time that firearm owners and organisations took great care of their image and ensured public acceptance of firearm ownership?

    Promoting firearm ownership simply means you want to sell more firearms to a market that accepts and embraces firearm ownership. What happens when that market is hostile to some degree to this advertising and product? Do you simply just increase your advertising of the product and totally neglect the hostility? That is what firearm enthusiasts do almost without exception because they do not know why their promotion is failing and will continue to fail while gun control seeks only to increase market (public) hostility by any means they can.

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602

    Post imported post

    TehGruu wrote:
    snip.....
    To normalize open carry and to allay fears of weapons carried in public in general, we need to do just that, be normal. If open carry is legal in your state, then carry everywhere you can. Make no big deal of it, especially to those close to you. If you have an open carry event. Make no special mention of your sidearm. While you are out in a group, make sure to smile at and shake hands with as many people as possible. Make sure to let them ask you questions.

    Above all though, the most effective way, in the opinion of this particular Joe Six pack at least, is to educate those closest to you. Take your friends to the range. Teach them about firearms safety and all the neat pistols that are out there. Chances are, they'll pass it along. Personally, I think this is the best way to help our cause. This is just my opinion. It's worth exactly what you're paying for it.


    -Gruu
    That is actually worth a lot, lot more than most will ever pay for it Gruu.
    It is a way of life - living and teaching by example and it should never be discounted.

    There are other methods to be sure, but if you don't accept this one as your personal standard then how will you expect others whom we encourage to deport themselves?

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •