"More Guns in More Public Places is What Protects People"

Source video.

I thoroughly enjoyed the video, and it was cool to see and hear Shane Belanger in the video, but I thought the VCDL's summary statement was off-target. I don't believe "more guns in more public places protect people" any more than I believe "guns are bad."

We've long countered the "guns kill people" arguement with "guns don't kill people; people kill people." Yet when we talk about safety, we're animating guns to a status they simply don't have. Guns, by themselves, neither protect anything, nor do they kill anything. They're inanimate, machined hunks of metal.

So what does protect people? Simple: It's the same thing that kills people: People.

But let's refine that a bit, as not all people are law-abiding citizens, not all law-abiding citizens are responsible, and not all responsible law-abiding citizens are willing to accept personal responsibility for defense of self and others, fewer still by arming themselves with a firearm.

In summary, more guns in more public places won't protect people. What protects people are guns in the hands of responsible law-abiding citizens who're willing to accept responsibility for defense of self and others.

Agree? Disagree?

Why "Guns Save Lives" (GSL) you ask? It is really quite simple and there are several valid reasons.

First, "guns in the hands of responsible law-abiding citizens who're willing to accept responsibility for defense of self and others" doesn't fit very well on a button or sticker! :lol:

A need was perceived to find a catchy slogan based on certain accepted facts. Through some transition of style, the present form evolved and more importantly it works.

GUNS SAVE LIVES has a high recognition factor and promotes the positive. Response to the slogan, even from the antis, contributes to expanding the influence of RKBA groups and individuals. That is what good PR productions should do.

Bottom line - GSL is arguably the single best pro self defense slogan to have been produced - and it started here in Virginia from a VCDL member's efforts a number of years ago. I would not change a thing.

BTW - At a recent past Lobby Day, some of us wore both the orange GSL sticker and the anti's People Save Lives sticker at the same time - IMO one complimented the other + it soured the expressions of the Brady Bunch to see their effort turned around on them.

since9 said:

Source video.

I thoroughly enjoyed the video, and it was cool to see and hear Shane Belanger in the video, but I thought the VCDL's summary statement was off-target. I don't believe "more guns in more public places protect people" any more than I believe "guns are bad."

We've long countered the "guns kill people" arguement with "guns don't kill people; people kill people." Yet when we talk about safety, we're animating guns to a status they simply don't have. Guns, by themselves, neither protect anything, nor do they kill anything. They're inanimate, machined hunks of metal.

So what does protect people? Simple: It's the same thing that kills people: People.

But let's refine that a bit, as not all people are law-abiding citizens, not all law-abiding citizens are responsible, and not all responsible law-abiding citizens are willing to accept personal responsibility for defense of self and others, fewer still by arming themselves with a firearm.

In summary, more guns in more public places won't protect people. What protects people are guns in the hands of responsible law-abiding citizens who're willing to accept responsibility for defense of self and others.

Agree? Disagree?

Click to expand...

Agree %100, you make a great point.

Grapeshot said:

Why "Guns Save Lives" (GSL) you ask? It is really quite simple and there are several valid reasons.

First, "guns in the hands of responsible law-abiding citizens who're willing to accept responsibility for defense of self and others" doesn't fit very well on a button or sticker! :lol:

Click to expand...

Somehow, I knew I'd be hearing this from you! And yes, good point. To be memorable, slogans must be short, as in "Just Say No."

Nevertheless, I can't seem to get Burger King's 1976 "two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame-seed bun" slogan out of my head... That and most of the songs from Schoolhouse Rock are still up there, too.

So I guess it's not just "short and sweet" which the human brain finds memorable.

Repetition plays a role, as well. Most "kids" my age can recite the pledge in their sleep, but my son could untill a year ago, as they're not allowed to recite it in the public school he attended at the time. He's now in a private school, and they have no problem with the "under God" clause, so he's got it down pat.

A need was perceived to find a catchy slogan based on certain accepted facts. Through some transition of style, the present form evolved and more importantly it works.[

GUNS SAVE LIVES has a high recognition factor and promotes the positive. Response to the slogan, even from the antis, contributes to expanding the influence of RKBA groups and individuals. That is what good PR productions should do.

Click to expand...

I hear you, agree with you for the most part, and I'm sure Dreamer would agree, as he's got a PR background, too.

BTW - At a recent past Lobby Day, some of us wore both the orange GSL sticker and the anti's People Save Lives sticker at the same time - IMO one complimented the other + it soured the expressions of the Brady Bunch to see their effort turned around on them.

Click to expand...

Outstanding! This sublimely underscores the point I was trying to make in my OP this thread! :banana:

The VCDL has done some incredible work towards pro-2A causes, and I in no way meant to slight them in the least. If anything, I meant to raise awareness of the other couple of factors in the mix which saves lives. The wearing of both stickers is truly an inspired response to the antis' objections.

since9 said:

Nevertheless, I can't seem to get Burger King's 1976 "two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame-seed bun" slogan out of my head...

Click to expand...

It was MacDonald's that ad this advertising jingle.

I have to say, you have been putting forth some excellent posts on a number of threads here lately. Good stuff.

SouthernBoy said:

It was MacDonald's that ad this advertising jingle.

I have to say, you have been putting forth some excellent posts on a number of threads here lately. Good stuff.

Click to expand...

"Where's the beef" - Wendy's 1984

Since9 is the real deal - working hard behind the scenes to put together the National OC/RKBA Day in May of '11. Shoot him a PM if you can help.

Yes, if one cannot stand the criticism of doing something in the open, he does it behind closed doors. The parallels between how this is being handled and the way the government we just ousted operated continue to grow and astound.

All of our locally planned events are planned and discussed privately, then an announcement made - this includes our major Lobby Day extravaganza. I see no problem with that.

Do we listen to suggestions etc? Sure, but decisions are made.

Not everyone will participate, but it is encouraged for the good of all.
A united front has obvious benefits - IMHO, internal disagreements should be below the horizon.

Grapeshot said:

All of our locally planned events are planned and discussed privately, then an announcement made - this includes our major Lobby Day extravaganza. I see no problem with that.

Do we listen to suggestions etc? Sure, but decisions are made.

Not everyone will participate, but it is encouraged for the good of all.
A united front has obvious benefits - IMHO, internal disagreements should be below the horizon.

Click to expand...

IMO, disagreements with decisions made arbitrarily with NO discussion should be criticized openly. Tyranny operates behind closed doors with mandates from on high. Grassroots operates in the open with discussion.

In this case, no discussion was had until there was first criticism. After the discussion was had and a poll taken, the results of the poll were ignored in favor of the original decision made after NO discussion. That is a shameful way for a grassroots organization to operate.

since9 said:

I thoroughly enjoyed the video, and it was cool to see and hear Shane Belanger in the video, but I thought the VCDL's summary statement was off-target. I don't believe "more guns in more public places protect people" any more than I believe "guns are bad."

We've long countered the "guns kill people" arguement with "guns don't kill people; people kill people." Yet when we talk about safety, we're animating guns to a status they simply don't have. Guns, by themselves, neither protect anything, nor do they kill anything. They're inanimate, machined hunks of metal.

Click to expand...

Disagree. What you're missing is that when pro-gun people say "Guns [insert verb] . . ." they mean it in the sense of "responsible people with guns . . .". It's just shorthand. Anti-gun folks aren't using shorthand. When they say "Guns [insert verb] . . ." they actually mean the gun itself, because they do actually think that guns have some animate powers, such as going off by themselves or causing people to act less responsibly than they otherwise would. The determining factor of whether the phrase is being used as shorthand properly or is improperly "animating" guns themselves is the content of the message.

A lot of phrases are shorthand for something, and that's fine. "Seat belts save lives" or "drugs kill" are proper shorthand for "People buckling their seatbelt have improved their odds of survival" or "People ingesting illicit, uncontrolled substances have put their lives at risk and indeed have lost their lives to that."

I'm fine with shorthand ways of talking. I'm fine with anti-gun folks using shorthand phrases, as long as they are doing it properly. I think that is where you are confusing it. Our shorthand is by no means the same quality, or lack of it, as ant-gun shorthand, which does quite directly animate guns, contains ad-hominem attack, or is otherwise rationally deficient.

Guns save lives. More guns in more public places protect people. We know what that means and what is being talked about. There's nothing rationally deficient in those shorthand statements, as there is with so much of anti-gun rhetoric. The content matters to whether or not the shorthand is valid.

DanM said:

Guns save lives. More guns in more public places protect people. We know what that means and what is being talked about.

Click to expand...

True, you do know what that means and what is being talked about. The problem is, you're not considering your target audience, those who don't know what that means or what is being talking about.

That's my point: Consider how the antis and the larger, fence-sitting crowd will receive it, as in "More guns? Why do we need more guns? There are already more guns in America than their are people."

Thus, it's critical we make the distinctions when we're saying things which those sorts of people will hear, so they'll say, "Oh, I get it - more guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens. I thought you just meant more guns, period, and as for "public," I thought you meant out on the street."

By the way, "out on the street" is similarly misleading, as it's slang for "in the hands of criminals, so it just goes to show that being clear goes both ways.

Seriously: Much of the negative sentiments on both sides are largely the result of miscommunication. We need less of that, not more.