Why can't we throw it back at them?

[ChaoSS]

The anti gun crowd constantly uses half truths and outright lies that are just close enough to the truth to get away with their propaganda. Why aren't we using the same tactics?

Consider the following:

Under various federal laws currently in place, firearms suppressors are highly regulated, and flat out banned in certain states. While these laws are certainly well intentioned, and fill a valuable role in preventing criminals from being able to gun down innocent children and other victims stealthily, making almost no noise and arousing no suspicion, the laws currently in place are outdated and poorly written. Consider that our current laws define a suppressor as anything that can lower the noise of a firearm by any amount, at all. This loophole allows malicious rogue agents of various agencies to incarcerate people who use suppressors that do no more than lower the sound to a level that is somewhat tolerable, while still very loud. Because of this loophole, individuals who keep guns locked up in their homes in case they ever have to defend themselves from criminals are unable to purchase the tools necessary to make certain that if, god forbid, they ever are forced to use the weapon in self defense, they don't do permanent and irreparable damage to their hearing and that of their children. Children who are now forced to grow up with their hearing impaired because of the malicious exploitation of this "silencer" loophole in the law.

End the suppressor loophole now. Our children's health is at risk.





Ok, so that may be a little overblown in places, but it is essentially what they do to us. And I didn't even get into the fact that technically, if they feel so inclined, the ATF could go after you for having throw pillows in your house, since those could function as a suppressor. There's all kinds of good material here, and it could be effective when pointed at the right crowd.

 

[Twmaster]

We do not use half truths and lies like they do because if we do we are no better then them.

Keep it honest. Keep it simple. Liars nearly always are exposed.

 

[ChaoSS]

And yet, did I really lie? Hell, if you consider what most people would see as the real reason for a ban on suppressors, you could change the law to only ban (or regulate, as the case may be) those suppressors which drop the noise below a certain level, ie, "whisper quiet", and it would fall neatly within the supposed spirit of the law.


I'm just presenting it in a different light, the way our enemies have been doing. Cold facts don't move people.

 

[Twmaster]

Cold facts don't move people.

That is a sad truth.

 

[Nicky Santoro]

The anti gun crowd constantly uses half truths and outright lies that are just close enough to the truth to get away with their propaganda. Why aren't we using the same tactics?

Even if our side would stoop to those tactics, they have the media on their side. Their message will get out no matter how untruthful. Ours will wither on the vine.

 

[Armor Snail]

I think it's ironic that many European countries have strict rules for firearms acquisition yet encourage the use of suppressors for hearing protection and courtesy of others in the vicinity. Selling them without restriction.

Not that I would trade with their laws. Ever.

Just an observation.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[hso]

We shouldn't ever resort to lies and half truths. It invalidates our positions.

We should use emotional appeals since they get more traction with people than just logic and facts alone.

I've often pointed out that the European countries encourage the use of suppressors and make them off the shelf items as a way to protect the shooter's hearing and reduce any annoyance/inconvenience to others. Our suppressor law is outdated and predicated on the entire roaring twenties and mafia hit man model of suppressors only being used for murder. Old fashioned and out of touch, the protection of peoples' hearing is a sound argument for doing away with suppressor regulations.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Because when the popular kids are caught in a lie it's a non- issue. When we get caught in a lie it's proof we can't be trusted with firearms.

Another reason, when you use the enemy's tactics you generally discover to your sorrow they use those tactics more effectively than you can. Including being one step ahead since they are more likely to anticipate the next lie.

How does the old saying go? Never argue with a fool, he'll pull you down to his level then beat you with experience.

 

[rondog]

I think most gun owners are people that value their privacy, and therefore are averse to "banding together", whereas most antis, Liberals and Socialists are sheep that just love grouping in herds and bleating in unison.

 

[hso]

Do you consider the Founding Fathers and those who fought to give this country life to be sheep bleating in herds because they grouped together? The vets at Athens?

Don't stoop to oversimplified simpleminded catch phrases if anything is to be accomplished.

 

[Geno]

I believe that in England, rifle owners are required (or as hso said) at least encouraged to use silencers. But to the point of the thread, no, never use deception of any form. Stand by what is right, and proper and argue for that same in a lawful and ethical means.

Our member "Odd Job" might be a good person to ask about the silencers in England.

Geno

 

[ChaoSS]

I don't think that we should be limiting our arguments any more than the enemy does. What I wrote is not really a lie, it's just, say, stretching the truth. Really, it's not even doing that, just, implying that things are different than they are. How does one argue with that? Well, they can come back with facts, but people close their minds to the facts, just as they do to ours.


It's about using catchphrases, when you say that the government is using a loophole in the law to prevent us from protecting our health, and our children, why, that's just unconscionable. No one wants to listen to the facts, the facts that the suppressor law is intended to do just that, why, no one wants to hear that. Just think of the children. And since the facts well and truly are on our side here, the counters to this argument are hard to come by.


Another tactic used by the opposition is in slowly eroding our rights with "common sense" legislation. Well, throw that back at them. Stop trying to end the laws on suppressors. Let's start by trying to get suppressors redefined to something that allows most or all suppressors on the market to be unregulated, and the only things that would be regulated would be the ones that suppress "too much" noise. Maybe then, 10 or 15 years later, when it becomes apparent that the law isn't doing anything, maybe then it could be removed.



BTW, I've only been discussing suppressors here, but the arguments can be similar on all things 2A.

 

[jim243]

Don't stoop to oversimplified simpleminded catch phrases if anything is to be accomplished.

It is exactly what you need to do. I believe the phrase is fight fire with fire. The media does not concern themselves with what the truth is and as Adolph Hitler and Mayor Bloomberg have proven, repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.

If one was to say that all Anti-Gunners are trying to kill us by taking away our right to defend ourselves, it would not be far from the truth. When you have idiots that say a women should keep her legs closed so she will not be raped, or buy a shotgun to protect yourself against gun toting criminals, you know your safety and well being is not what they are after. I blame them and their gun free zones for the tragic deaths of those children at Sandy Hook. They knew there was a possibility of problems and even set up an ineffective safety system that did not work against guns. The catch phrase should be "I don't want to be another Sandy Hook victim, I carry a gun!"

Like I said, fight fire with fire. It is the only thing that works. Remember that history is written by the victor, will that be written by the criminal standing over your dead body after trying to rob you, or by you standing over their dead body explaining to the police how you had to defend yourself.

Jim

 

[ChaoSS]

Jim, I agree, and I think I phrased it badly in my original post. I'm not suggesting lying.

Our enemies do it though. The whole Sandy Hook story is full of lies, and I'm not even talking about conspiracy theory stuff. For example, there was the oft touted lie that 11 children (or whatever the number was, it changed a few times as I remember it) escaped when he stopped to reload (thus the high cap mag thing). The truth was that a few kids escaped when his gun apparently jammed, as he was not shooting his magazines empty anyway, and there were a few kids who escaped his attention by hiding in a closet. Yet somehow all of these kids they claim escaped when he reloaded.


I'm not suggesting outright lies like that. I'm merely suggesting that we choose how we phrase things to have the biggest emotional effect, even if that isn't the clearest way of expressing the truth. (how's that for double speak?) Oversimplifications are good too, sometimes they work wonders.


FWIW, I regularly see people lie on our side too. Specific statistics get skewed, claims are made that can not be substantiated, and more often than not, these claims go uncorrected. If it brings people to our side, if it makes people think and start looking at the facts, that may not be a bad thing.


I'm just tired of our enemies using emotional appeals against us, and watching our own side spout out facts to deaf ears. Start appealing to the hearts of the people, not their brains.

If you love your children, protect them with a gun.

 

[powder]

The most recent part of the anti-gunner avalanche of lies, un-truth, and misjustices lies on the border with AZ/Mexico.

The "Fast & Furious" case NEEDS to be gut wide open and spread across the table, starting with the Federal and State politicians who tried to use it as a platform for more gun control laws, and then move backwards through that scenarios unraveling in an investigation. Unrelenting, never giving up, until Washington is apologizing and there are politicians under Sheriff Joe's care in Maricopa County.

While I DO appreciate the OPs sentiment in fighting fire with fire, we just plain need to use the glaring light of the truth on THEIR lies and go national with it.

....and I tell you what-if you think you can sit back and let "somebody else" do it, get off your ass. You know what an APP is? " Armed prohibited personnel" is what the confiscation squads are going after in California.
http://www.ar10t.com/forums/political-discussion/13874-ca-begins-gun-confiscation-squads

Time to get to work on Fast and Furious: make some calls to NRA, don't take stonewalling " security matters" as an answer, as a Law Enforcement agency is liable and answers to US!

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I believe that sticking to the facts and actually understating, rather than hyping your case, will work out better in the long run.

I make an effort to avoid getting angry or insuulting in answering anti-gun arguments.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Two observations.

1. Your attempt at propaganda in the original post, while clearly illustrative, was completely un-inspiring. Your further defense of it is even worse. "Think of the children"?? Not the children of anyone who doesn't have a gun, thus not the children of the majority of Americans. Your appeal to an audience outside of non-gun owners just hit bottom.

2. As someone who is in favor of increased gun control in some respects (and decreased gun control in other areas), the persistent notion among the users of this forum that the only possible reasoning for increased gun control is "half truths and outright lies" or an "avalanche of lies, un-truth, and misjustices" demonstrates that you do not understand the position of some of us that are in favor of increased gun control and, until you actually DO understand, you are unlikely to ever have significant impact on anyone's views outside of those who already agree with you.

There are facts on both sides. There are emotional appeals on both sides. There is a balance somewhere in between. BUT... many people who care the most about it (on both sides) don't see that.

 

[beatledog7]

One observation:

If you are in favor of some sort of increased gun control, your reading of the Second Amendment is rather liberal. There is already far more infringement than it allows (which, in case you missed it, is zero).

On topic, I don't favor using the antis' tactics against them. I've been down every side of this argument, and I have tried to believe we should fight their way, but I can't. I don't favor using their twisted language. I favor using truth and reason to fight their attempts to further infringe upon our RKBA. I favor using proper messaging, but not at expense of truth. I don't know if we will succeed, but I know if we fight their way--using deceptions and skewing reality, we're as wrong as they are.

I like to win, but I abhor dishonest tactics. Truth and fair play will win the war even if they lose some battles.

 

[rondog]

Do you consider the Founding Fathers and those who fought to give this country life to be sheep bleating in herds because they grouped together? The vets at Athens?

Of course not. That was then, a long time ago. I'm talking about now. Back then it was necessary and nearly everyone was on board. Nowadays is totally different.

You know what I'm saying, stop trying to twist it around. Modern gun owners aren't as likely to band together into groups for political reasons, most are people who prefer their privacy and anonymity. Those anti's fighting against us like nothing more than to form into groups against us.

 

[bdickens]

Why would you stoop to misinformation and lies when the truth is on your side? Just tell the truth.

Gunfacts.info has collated into one place many of the real facts and figures that stand in direct opposition to the many lies and distortions that the antis spew. http://www.gunfacts.info/

 

[ChaoSS]

Who said anything about misinformation? Who said anything about outright lies? Just, presentation.


If cold facts swayed people, we'd be out of this mess already.

 

[beatledog7]

Who said anything about misinformation? Who said anything about outright lies? Just, presentation.

If cold facts swayed people, we'd be out of this mess already.

What should we do then--warm the facts?

There are some whose opinion will never be changeable because they "think" with their feelings. Some folks you can get to hate all puppies if you can show them a child being harmed by someone wielding a puppy. So be it.

I agree that presentation is key and that we must present only what we can demonstrate to be true. Cold, hard facts can sway people whose ideology is flimsy--it takes time and effort, and we will find it deeply frustrating at times, but it can be done.

It must be done. This isn't just about RKBA--it's about freedom.

 

[ChaoSS]

That's the point, we play on emotions, the same way our enemies do. They show guns killing little children, we show little children being saved by guns.


You remember the recent ads by (I think) MAAG? The little children sitting there with various items, one of which is a gun, and the caption "one of these is illegal"?


Well, picture the child, sitting just like that, with a gun in his/her lap, on a tv ad, with that innocent child voice, "Last week while Daddy was in the shower, a bad man tried to kidnap me. Nancy Pelosi wants to make sure that kids like me don't get the chance to tell our stories" Or whatever. You get the point.


Emotions, emotions, learn to use them, learn to stop making people tune out.

 

[beatledog7]

Yes, messaging matters.

I can see how an ad such as you describe could be very effective. I go round and round in my mind about using blatant, raw, emotional appeals. I would prefer not to as long as rational presentation of facts and reason can still be effective.

But maybe we've already visited and departed from that place.

 

[ChaoSS]

I think I would prefer to do whatever works.

Some people respond well to facts. Others respond to emotional appeals. Others respond to a message being given over, and over, and over again. Most people respond, in some measure, to all three.