Gun Control Through Effective Messaging

[cologuy]

I don't know about the anti-2A folks running scared if we beat them here in Colorado, Queen of T. It's kind of scary to a lot of us that the success we've had up to now is so fragile - a missed word in the recall petition, enough invalid signatures, a more anti-2A judge deciding on the validity of the recall, a Governor with enough b-lls to just declare it null and void, or any one of a thousand other things could have derailed the whole effort. The hard part is just now starting - the election itself. The pro-Morse and Giron groups are spending literally millions of dollars on radio, TV, and more direct mail campaigns than we had during the State elections, and of course the recall campaign is running on a thread. It could still go either way.

I think that if the recalls go through, we'll have won a victory, but it'll just stimulate the anti-2A groups to try more indirect methods - they'll rewrite the recall laws, first, and then who knows what they'll dream up?

And, sadly, even if we recall Morse and Giron, the laws still have been in effect for over a month now, and will probably remain in effect at least until next spring some time. But, one step at a time.

 

[bdickens]

But back on topic, how exactly can pro-2A forces effectively communicate our message to people who are bound and determined not to hear anything but the emotional appeal?

Without realizing it, you've answered your own question.

By carefully crafting emotional appeals.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...By carefully crafting emotional appeals.

And effectively engaging the emotions of our audiences can be an important part of communicating our messages. The husband who survived a criminal attack to be able to witness the birth of his child, the mother who survived a criminal attack to be able to attend her daughter's wedding, the family who survived a home invasion to be able to attend their son's graduation from medical school, each because he or she had a gun, make a strong emotional message.

We need to be telling factual, well documented stories of ordinary people surviving because they were able to defend themselves. And we need to be doing so in effective ways.

 

[316SS]

And effectively engaging the emotions of our audiences can be an important part of communicating our messages. The husband who survived a criminal attack to be able to witness the birth of his child, the mother who survived a criminal attack to be able to attend her daughter's wedding, the family who survived a home invasion to be able to attend their son's graduation from medical school, each because he or she had a gun, make a strong emotional message.
We need to be telling factual, well documented stories of ordinary people surviving because they were able to defend themselves. And we need to be doing so in effective ways.

More generally, we need to communicate in a way that allows our message to be heard by our target audience. That may or may not be emotional appeals. Perhaps it is choosing an appropriate messenger. An uninformed, left/"progressive" leaning audience might be more willing to listen to Colion Noir, for example, than to an old white guy with an NRA hat.

As in the business world, we need to identify the "low-hanging fruit", i.e. the undecided/uninformed voters that are open to our message. I think the NRA has made small but encouraging steps in that direction. We will never sway the hardcore antis, and we shouldn't try, any more than a beef producer should spend millions trying to figure out how to market to the PETA membership.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

I don't know about the anti-2A folks running scared if we beat them here in Colorado, Queen of T. It's kind of scary to a lot of us that the success we've had up to now is so fragile - a missed word in the recall petition, enough invalid signatures, a more anti-2A judge deciding on the validity of the recall, a Governor with enough b-lls to just declare it null and void, or any one of a thousand other things could have derailed the whole effort. The hard part is just now starting - the election itself. The pro-Morse and Giron groups are spending literally millions of dollars on radio, TV, and more direct mail campaigns than we had during the State elections, and of course the recall campaign is running on a thread. It could still go either way.

I think that if the recalls go through, we'll have won a victory, but it'll just stimulate the anti-2A groups to try more indirect methods - they'll rewrite the recall laws, first, and then who knows what they'll dream up?

And, sadly, even if we recall Morse and Giron, the laws still have been in effect for over a month now, and will probably remain in effect at least until next spring some time. But, one step at a time.

Even if recalled the laws remain in place until changed but if the recall succedes the ant's will have second thoughts. It was their thinking that if they could succede in Colorado then they could prevail anywhere.

So we all need to pony up some cash to support these recall efforts because I can assure you Bloomberg and his cronys are pouring in millions. They know what is at stake but do we.

 

[LewSchiller]

So we all need to pony up some cash to support these recall efforts because I can assure you Bloomberg and his cronys are pouring in millions. They know what is at stake but do we.

This is absolutely true.

 

[Frank Ettin]

More generally, we need to communicate in a way that allows our message to be heard by our target audience. That may or may not be emotional appeals. Perhaps it is choosing an appropriate messenger. An uninformed, left/"progressive" leaning audience might be more willing to listen to Colion Noir, for example, than to an old white guy with an NRA hat.

As in the business world, we need to identify the "low-hanging fruit", i.e. the undecided/uninformed voters that are open to our message. I think the NRA has made small but encouraging steps in that direction. We will never sway the hardcore antis, and we shouldn't try, any more than a beef producer should spend millions trying to figure out how to market to the PETA membership.

Excellent observations, and I agree.

 

[230RN]

316SS remarked,

More generally, we need to communicate in a way that allows our message to be heard by our target audience. That may or may not be emotional appeals. Perhaps it is choosing an appropriate messenger. An uninformed, left/"progressive" leaning audience might be more willing to listen to Colion Noir, for example, than to an old white guy with an NRA hat.

More specifically, we need to communicate. Period. The problem is that the major channels of communication seem to be locked up by the Progressives, although I've seen some "progress" toward our position in a few of those channels. This is partly due to the internet, of course, but the concealed carry movement also helps (which itself may be partially due to the 'net).

So take a reporter shooting.

As far as I can tell, and I hope I'm wrong here, the only real "emotional" appeals that we can use involve the self-defense uses of firearms, and the notion that an armed citizenry is protection against tyranny or invasion.

The first is becoming more legitimized as more and more states have gone shall-issue despite "the police will protect you, call 911" and the "give them what they want and they will leave you alone" attitudes of too many of our citizens, so "progress" (in our sense of the word) is definitely being made here.

The second has been back-burnered by the ideas that the Supreme Court will protect our rights (sure, by that 5-to-4 vote), that protection from tyranny is inherent in our "checks-and-balances" system of government, and that our military is strong enough to cope with any invasion. (Here, I deliberately leave out the "invasion" by unlawful aliens as being another subject.)

This latter is a tough one, largely, as I see it, due to the deficiencies in our educational system, where even the most fundamental ideals of the founding concepts of our nation are being watered down.

So take a teacher shooting.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Deer_Freak]

Another thing gun owners can do is rip the pages right out of the anti gun playbook. They clearly instruct their speakers to make it an emotional argument. They want to ignore facts and push peoples emotional hot buttons.

If your place of worship allows an anti gun speaker to hold a rally. Speak with your wallet. Many of us tithe. Instead of making a contribution to your church make a contribution to the regional assembly that helps struggling churches of your faith. The money will help just as many if not more people and the pastor will learn that the church is not a vehicle for his/her personal politics.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

316SS remarked,

The second has been back-burnered by the ideas that the Supreme Court will protect our rights (sure, by that 5-to-4 vote), that protection from tyranny is inherent in our "checks-and-balances" system of government, and that our military is strong enough to cope with any invasion. (Here, I deliberately leave out the "invasion" by unlawful aliens as being another subject.)

Terry, 230RN

Lots of good points.

If I may add a bit on the part in bold...these people need to understand that the citizens themselves are an integral part of the "checks and balances" system. Our speaking out with such diverse voices is an inherent part of that process.

So many of the people who like to point out that our government (spoken of as some independent entity) will provide all the protections against tyranny we need because of the way it's set up have obviously forgotten the seven most important words of the U.S. Constitution with respect to our freedoms, rights, and avoidance of tyranny:

"We the people of the United States..."

Funny how the first three words were written so large and bold on the original document. It's almost as if it were deliberately done for some purpose, like to say that the power and authority of the government comes directly from its people.

Funny, that.

 

[bdickens]

Way too many people these days really don't give a flying flip about the Constitution. And not just in the .gov, either.

 

[LewSchiller]

Way too many people these days really don't give a flying flip about the Constitution. And not just in the .gov, either.

We were taught that it was the most important document in our country. Today I believe they're taught it's a meaningless document drawn up by old white racists.

 

[indyogb]

I didn't get very far.

"1. Advocates for gun violence prevention win the logical debate, but lose on more emotional terms."

I see it pretty much exactly the opposite - most of their proposals would do nothing to curb "gun violence", but are made on the basis of "needing to do something" or "do something for the children", etc.

The gun control crowd's most effective strategy is the effort to claim anything associated with guns is not 'mainstream', but extreme or radical. So far, they're doing a pretty good job - kids can no longer even say the word 'gun' in a school without an ordeal. God forbid they play cops and robbers using their index fingers and thumbs as pretend .45s - that might require S.W.A.T. intervention.

 

[DNS]

My daughter is in a federally funded screen/creative writing class currently for kids/teens with some as young as eight which she attends four days a week. Pizza, juice, drinks, the works. I'm tempted to call that the lure or bait.

Two contests currently to win a laptop. One of the contests to enter is on gun control.

I've struggled to not get 'involved' on that one and we've discussed her writing what would be an anti gun control piece just for practice. Burns me, the agenda being pushed with federal money on kids. This west Texas area is huge with deer/dove/turkey hunting; kids and adults get their pictures in the paper with the big ones too.

 

[LewSchiller]

Texas is next...People always say it'll never happen but that's what we said here in Colorado as well.

I'm unclear what a gun control advocacy piece would have to do with creative writing. Perhaps she could submit pieces both for and against just to prove it's not the writing but the advocacy in play.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Way too many people these days really don't give a flying flip about the Constitution. And not just in the .gov, either.

That's probably true. And probably most people aren't worried about defending against government tyranny. So what does that mean in the context of learning to more effectively communicate with people about RKBA issues?

I suggest it means that these aren't useful points to bring up in such discussions. We might care about them, but there's an excellent chance that our audience doesn't.

Remember in effective political communication, it's not what we think is important that matters. It's what the audience thinks is important.

 

[SilentStalker]

I see it pretty much exactly the opposite - most of their proposals would do nothing to curb "gun violence", but are made on the basis of "needing to do something" or "do something for the children", etc.

The gun control crowd's most effective strategy is the effort to claim anything associated with guns is not 'mainstream', but extreme or radical. So far, they're doing a pretty good job - kids can no longer even say the word 'gun' in a school without an ordeal. God forbid they play cops and robbers using their index fingers and thumbs as pretend .45s - that might require S.W.A.T. intervention.

This is spot on. Just like they have created terrorist threats all of sudden to validate the need to close embassy's around the globe which then justifies their need to intrude into your personal life via monitoring you. In my mind, all of this was created because the whole NSA thing was brought into the public eye so they had to create a need for this intrusion. Sadly, most people will fall for it, but truth be told they have been monitoring for a long time. The same goes for the gun thing, they want them gone, so they make an enemy out of anyone that owns/wants them. They have gotten very good at this nonsense in the last decade or so. Its too bad I was more worried about women and cars 10 years than I was politics as I may have been able to at least help curtail some of this. I would have needed a lot of help of course but my point is I wish I had been more involved.

 

[r1derbike]

I must confess I was reading with intensity, until I got to the MAIG statistical lies about the background checks et al.

I suppose you may scare more antis with lies, than truth.

Emotion, lies and statistics taken out of context, but some relevant tactics we could use against the antis.

That's what I came away with after reading this. The valid points were few, but noted.

 

[LewSchiller]

Here's a local news story from this evening.
http://www.9news.com/news/local/article/348974/222/Apartment-tenants-told-they-must-get-rid-of-guns

Oakwood Apartments has a new policy prohibiting tenants from possessing "Firearms and Weapons". Unbelievable.

That should mean that nobody can possess kitchen knives as they certainly are weapons. What a thieves paradise...knowing nobody living there is armed.

So...now we have landlords prohibiting firearm ownership.

 

[bdickens]

That's probably true. And probably most people aren't worried about defending against government tyranny. So what does that mean in the context of learning to more effectively communicate with people about RKBA issues?

I suggest it means that these aren't useful points to bring up in such discussions. We might care about them, but there's an excellent chance that our audience doesn't.

Remember in effective political communication, it's not what we think is important that matters. It's what the audience thinks is important.

That's exactly what I'm on about.

Our side pontificates about the Constitution, cites real statistics and factual data, and uses logic and sound reasoning.

And we loose.

Fact is, most people make most of their decisions based on emotion. Some people make all of their decisions based on emotion. And everyone makes at least some of their decisions based on emotion.

Until we learn to reach people through their emotions, we will always be fighting an uphill battle.

 

[Pilot]

That's exactly what I'm on about.

Our side pontificates about the Constitution, cites real statistics and factual data, and uses logic and sound reasoning.

And we loose.

Fact is, most people make most of their decisions based on emotion. Some people make all of their decisions based on emotion. And everyone makes at least some of their decisions based on emotion.

Until we learn to reach people through their emotions, we will always be fighting an uphill battle.

We need to keep communicating the successful use of firearms for self and home defense. There are home invasion where everyone is raped, and killed. Some of these home invasions are just horror shows, and can be stopped if one or more of the family members have a gun, and know how to use it.

 

[goon]

People do make decisions based on emotion. Fortunately, sometimes we are saved from that having too great of an impact because our system of government is set up to require some kind of thoughtful discussion as laws are crafted and passed. Even if a new AWB had passed the Senate last time, it wouldn't have made it through the House.

On emotional arguments, most people don't realize that the police aren't actually responsible for protecting you, your wife, your mother, or your child as an individual. If someone breaks into your house and kneecaps your toddler while you're on the phone trying to get the police to your home, you can't sue the police for not getting there fast enough.
Explain the outcome of Warren v. D.C., the case in which three woman were raped and brutalized for fourteen hours following a call to 911 and assurances that help was on the way. Then ask your anti-gun opponent what you should do in a case like that.
Doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination for anyone near the center to admit that being able to protect yourself and your loved ones isn't such a bad idea.
This argument is based just as much on fear and emotion as some of the anti arguments. But that's not so bad.
I do fear for my own safety and especially that of my loved ones. My reasons for owning guns for self-defense are not only purely logical. We already have emotional material to use, and ours is entirely true and backed up by court rulings.

 

[Hacker15E]

Here's a local news story from this evening.
http://www.9news.com/news/local/article/348974/222/Apartment-tenants-told-they-must-get-rid-of-guns

Oakwood Apartments has a new policy prohibiting tenants from possessing "Firearms and Weapons". Unbelievable.

That should mean that nobody can possess kitchen knives as they certainly are weapons. What a thieves paradise...knowing nobody living there is armed.

So...now we have landlords prohibiting firearm ownership.

1. The landlord isn't prohibiting ownership -- just possession on that property. There is long-standing legal authority for private property owners to have just such a policy.

2. If the Marine is concerned about it, he's free to move. If he were the owner of the property, he'd also be free to set his own rules.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

There was a show on the A&E channel the other day called Panic 911. In one episode a woman is calling 911 and reporting that a man has broken her window and is coming through it. The 911 operator says police are on the way. They talk. She says the man is almost all the way in and she tells the 911 operator she is going to have to shoot. Operator says don't shoot .The Police are still not on the scene. Eventually the homeowner is forced to shoot the home invader in self defense.

This is how we counter the anti's on an emotional basis.

Another counter is to ask what do you do between the time you call 911, providing you can make the call and the time the police take to arrive on scene.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Here's a local news story from this evening.
http://www.9news.com/news/local/article/348974/222/Apartment-tenants-told-they-must-get-rid-of-guns

Oakwood Apartments has a new policy prohibiting tenants from possessing "Firearms and Weapons". Unbelievable.

That should mean that nobody can possess kitchen knives as they certainly are weapons. What a thieves paradise...knowing nobody living there is armed.

So...now we have landlords prohibiting firearm ownership.

1. The landlord isn't prohibiting ownership -- just possession on that property. There is long-standing legal authority for private property owners to have just such a policy.

2. If the Marine is concerned about it, he's free to move. If he were the owner of the property, he'd also be free to set his own rules.

This was favorably resolved. See Castle Rock controversial apartment's policy banning firearms is thrown out:

... The Douglas County Housing Partnership, a multi-jurisdictional housing authority, held an emergency board of directors meeting late Wednesday afternoon.

Board members decided that the policy, which would have prohibited residents from having firearms in their homes, will not go into effect.

The Douglas County Housing partnership owns Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock. It was purchased with federal funds and is supported by local, state, and federal tax dollars....