user
Accomplished Advocate
(Spacer to allow for advertising that makes long, narrow columns of print difficult to read: the real post starts in the reply below.)
Last edited:
Good post.
Ten years ago I read a leftie-prog-democrap handbook on 'framing' of issues with which your statements resonated. I'm sure it's been too long for me to recover the title; let's see ... Off to the public library in Chuckton, SC....
It is only January and the OP's remarks may well be the best of 2012.
We are involved in a war of public relations in which we hold our truths (facts) to be self-evident. If you have ever been in court, then you know that truth has little bearing - what counts is the judge's perception of it. How do we get the message across? - Consider more the listeners.
I recall reading somewhere an entire list of typical gun control phrases/words, and a better pro rights phrase/word to replace them with. I can't for the life of me figure out where I saw it.
Maybe this one:
http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm
I think you bring up a great argument user. The only problem I see is them turning around and saying "we aren't against self defense, you can defend yourself without a gun". Then we would say that since criminals have guns, we need access to the the same or better to defend ourselves. It becomes about the guns again. Maybe they'll then push 'less than lethals' and say we don't need guns. Ad nauseum.
Nothing you said is untrue but I just wonder what happens when we see things through to their natural conclusion. I agree that it's in our best interest to advocate self defense, as opposed to gun rights but we should realize that it will boil down to guns anyway regardless of the rhetoric. So, yes your rhetoric sounds better in public debate and if that's the only thing you are shooting for, it's probably a win.
Well written user.
One thing on my mind though is that in having to discern between personal defense and gun rights is that the "target audience" (no pun intended) may well be those whose minds are long since made up that guns = evil and I'm not sure that would change simply by reframing the discussion topic. It's sort of like IBM where if you worked for them now, when you introduce yourself to someone do you start by explaining that you don't do "international business machines" anymore, or do you change the company name to one that nobody recognizes (thereby losing a significant amount of brand recognition), or do you tell them that you're with IBM and then go on to explain what you can do for them? As far as I know, they use the later approach.
In my own mind, while I get the concept of personal defense, when I hear that term my ears immediately pickup on it and my thoughts go elsewhere. I'm a 5th degree Tae Kwon Do black belt, so "personal defense" has a whole different meaning to me and in hearing that I immediately want to know if someone is trying to introduce some other silly law or that they want to know if you have to "register" your hands/feet as weapons (yes, people ask that). Personally I'm not sure that I would want to have to explain that while I believe in "personal defense" and have a totally different concept of what that means to me (especially if you happen to be standing about 20 feet or less from me) and has meant to me for about 45 years now, that what I really mean in "this" particular context is guns. Especially if the discussion has to do with using guns for personal defense, and those advocating gun control.
But I do get your well crafted point and think that it provides the basis for further thought and discussion.
Possible but not likely for Alinsky's notoriety. As I hope I said, it was a handbook on framing issues.I believe you are talkng about "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky.
Maybe this, based on size, 144 pp and pub date while I lived just down the street.Good post.
Ten years ago I read a leftie-prog-democrap handbook on 'framing' of issues with which your statements resonated. I'm sure it's been too long for me to recover the title; let's see ... Off to the public library in Chuckton, SC....
Possible but not likely for Alinsky's notoriety. As I hope I said, it was a handbook on framing issues.
(Spacer to allow for advertising that makes long, narrow columns of print difficult to read: the real post starts in the reply below.)