Gun Control - public enemy or public safety?

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_articles_contributors.asp?conid=13

imported post

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

:exclaim:
Amen. Benjamin Franklin said as much in 1759.

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.

Click to expand...

Amen. Benjamin Franklin said as much in 1759.

Click to expand...

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."

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.

Click to expand...

Amen. Benjamin Franklin said as much in 1759.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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

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.

imported post

Crimefree wrote:

Actually fear is the tyrants tool.

Click to expand...

I am retired from a career in nuclear power and testing reactor plant limits. Likely we view safety and fear a bit differently.

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.

Click to expand...

Amen. Benjamin Franklin said as much in 1759.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

"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

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Crimefree wrote:

Actually fear is the tyrants tool.

Click to expand...

I am retired from a career in nuclear power and testing reactor plant limits. Likely we view safety and fear a bit differently.

Click to expand...

Oh, so that explains that certain glow about you, eh? (heh, heh)

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Amen. Benjamin Franklin said as much in 1759.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Crimefree wrote:

Actually fear is the tyrants tool.

Click to expand...

I am retired from a career in nuclear power and testing reactor plant limits. Likely we view safety and fear a bit differently.

Click to expand...

Oh, so that explains that certain glow about you, eh? (heh, heh)

Click to expand...

umm........ awkward.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

Because the have neither the truth, justice nor the American way on their side. :lol:

Yata hey

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.

imported post

Very profound and well articulated Dreamer.

Yata hey

imported post

Very well said, Dreamer.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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/hunting/2009/10/gallup-poll-will-obama-ban-try-ban-sale-handguns
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123602/many-gun-owners-think-obama-will-try-ban-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-u.s.-record-low-support-stricter-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?