Previous Post
Next Post

(courtesy Gays With Guns Facebook Page)

“There is a segment of the American population who believes passionately that guns are critical for personal protection against both violent individuals and governmental intrusion,” opines, correctly. “They believe nothing should prevent them from getting the guns they need to do that.” Amen. And then . . .

There is another, larger group of Americans who believes passionately that we have created an environment that makes it far too easy for those who intend to kill to have access to all the firepower they want.

Assuming that authors Ann Christiano (Frank Karel Chair in Public Interest Communications, University of Florida) and Annie Neiman (Ph.D. candidate in Sociology, University of Florida) are suggesting that more Americans support gun control than not, wrong., January 2016:

Support for gun control in general has diminished lately in other measures. In an ABC/Post poll in October, the public divided almost exactly evenly between giving a higher priority to protecting gun ownership rights or enacting new gun control laws, 47-46 percent. That marked a shift from early 2013, when we found a 12-point preference for new gun control laws.

Strangely, the authors prefer an August 2015 survey by Pew Research. Facts schmacts. Let’s get this gun control thing done! As Professor Harold Hill taught us, you gotta know the territory!

Researchers have discovered that people who are more liberal tend to support solutions framed with language of equality and protection from harm.

People who are more conservative tend to support solutions when they are presented in the context of protection for themselves and their families, respect for authority and preserving what is sacred.

Sounds about right to me. According to the Sunshine State activist authors, “here’s an example of how one cause got it right:”

When Brian Sheehan, director of Ireland’s Gay Lesbian Equality Network, developed a strategy that led Ireland to be the first country to support marriage equality, he and his team didn’t root their message in the values of the people who already supported the issue–values like equality, fairness and social justice.

Instead, they built a campaign for a particular audience that would be fundamental to passing the marriage equality referendum: middle-aged, straight men. They crafted a message centered in this particular group’s values of equal citizenship and family. Last May, Irish voters passed marriage equality by nearly two to one, making marriage equality real in a country where–just a decade earlier–it was a crime.

So . . . tell me what you want what you really, really want . . .

Imagine what the world could be like if we approached change by understanding the mindset of those who we hope to affect and engaged them by talking about what matters to them. Could such an approach allow us to move forward as a society on the issues that will define us–even one as controversial and emotional as gun control?

Unfortunately/fortunately, neither Ms. Christiano nor Ms. Neiman can mark us down as ripe for their strategy. They have no suggestions for convincing half of America to set aside the constitutional amendment prohibiting government infringement of Americans’ individual right to keep and bear arms.

Is there such a strategy? There is! Wave the bloody shirt! Make people believe that they and their families will be safer with gun control than without it. Which isn’t true, and right-thinking Americans — especially those with guns — aren’t about to buy it.

But point taken. The pro-gun rights side should keep hammering home the message that society is safer with gun rights than without. Which it is. And that gun rights are equal rights; for the LGBT community, for African Americans for everyone. Are you listening NRA?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I have said it before but once more; people call for a rational conversation about guns, and then turn around and bemoan the NRA and similar groups as ‘domestic terrorists’ while waving bloody shirts and claiming it is due to ‘automatic assault rifles’ being readily available. Its not hard to understand why conversation is being stifled. One side is offering nothing but platitudes like “if it saves one life” while hiding behind the ignorance of the populace to push their message.

    • No one’s asking for a Conversation.

      One side points to the Constitution and says STFU or let’s go.

      The other side gets whispered in their ear by satan and says “ok master”.

      • I was referring to the hollow requests by gun control advocates that consistently use the phrase “we need to have a conversation” which essentially implies that they are getting stonewalled. It is not a stonewalling of factual information, rather it is a stonewalling predicated upon lack of standing, lack of knowledge, and clear constitutional violations on multiple levels with proposals offered by gun control advocates.

        • They are not asking for a conversation. This is nothing but a rhetorical tactic they use so they can then say ‘we had a conversation and guess who won?’

          That is all.

        • The left uses the same tactic for race relations… “we need to have a new conversation, so sit down, shut up, and accept what we say and want because you have to be a minority to understand discrimination.” Never mind that Whites have suffered reverse discrimination for decades over something they never had control over or involvement in.

          These people are not stupid in how they approach pro-gun issues. They know exactly what they are doing. They have an agenda and a plan. They know that the majority of their talking points are pure BS. That does not matter. It didn’t matter to the communists who used the same tactic to stamp out dissent. Get on the wrong list in the old USSR and you will never rise within soviet society.

    • There is no conversation to be had.

      If you don’t like the protections afforded to all of us by the 2nd Amendment – convene a constitutional convention and amend the constitution.

      • Or better yet move to Canada, Australia, or Europe which already accomplished what they want already. They all want us to be Europe and worship Europe as utopia incarnate so why not move there?

  2. “What We Can Learn from Gun Control Advocates”

    Anything we want, get the heavy terrycloth towel and the bucket of water.

    People say that doesn’t work, but they haven’t been punched in the junk with dampened terrycloth over their face.

  3. Nice Sig pic btw.

    Funny how a little red white and blue, and Sig says ‘Murica.

    GOD [please] BLESS AND KEEP IT.

    • You are confused. SIG says Swiss. A big step up from saying Austria, Brazil, Turkey, Russia etc.

        • All mine say Exeter.

          Not that the others would not say ‘Murica. FNH/FNX/FN are Belgiuministic and they still sing God Bless America when you put your finger on the trigger.

  4. I find myself thinking (I know–big mistake) that too many people find it easier to “outsource” tasks that people took on a generation or two ago (e.g., self-defense, being a present parent, being a present spouse, providing for a family).

    “Why do I have to think about icky guns? If I’m attacked, I’ll just pause my game and dial “9-1-1”. Problem solved.

    Maybe I’m being too cynical. And, maybe not.

    • Self-sufficiency is no longer a valued attribute in a large portion of society. Specialize and compartmentalize; there are people for that. Well at least until there aren’t.

      • Specialization is for insects.

        –Robert Heinlein

        A concept well worth remembering, in my opinion.

        • Specialization is also for humans, it’s how we have been able to develop such advanced technologies. Even in ancient times, people specialized to make excellent things, from weapons, to pottery, to buildings, etc…that said, specialization shouldn’t come at the expense of complete and total lack of basic skills in other things. For example, basic metalworking, woodworking, electronics, mechanic, cooking, baking, sewing, etc…skills were all very commonplace back in the early 20th century even though people still specialized.

  5. We could learn to lie and deceive , to make up statistics , twist the numbers and cry when someone is killed because they were not allowed to be armed and defend themselves .
    We could repeat the mantra over and over again , ban gun free zones , let us defend ourselves .
    I actually have been surprised at the numbers of people who have used their common sense and reversed their thinking on gun free zones after the continued onslaught upon them .

  6. People respond to the language of equality by the questions asked.

    What equality can I expect from a criminal or terrorist? None

    How can I be equal in capability to their aggressiveness? Gun

    What defense is available to have a chance of survival? Gun

    How can a community defend against inequality? Gun

    What is the most cost effective tool to gain equality with criminals? Gun.

    In the battle for equality, a gun is the answer.

    • This. This is exactly the argument that we need to be making. While we are correct when we point out facts, statistics, and reasoning, sometimes you need to use the vernacular of the people. Equality is something that leftists claim to strive for above everything else, so simply ask the. “why do you not believe in equality when it comes to defense?” “You say that those on wall street shouldn’t have more power than those on main street but here you are advocating for those on mainstreet to be disarmed in favor of keeping those on wallstreet safe.”

    • Exactly right. Physically, the old are not equal to the young, the weak are not equal to the strong, the meek are not equal to the aggressive.

      The gun has correctly been called “the equalizer”. That’s not just a marketing slogan. In many cases every day in the real world it is the truth.

  7. “What We Can Learn from Gun Control Advocates”

    First and foremost, they are as dedicated to their ideology as we are. Hatred fuels them.

    The bad news is, they will use any and all means available to them to do so.

    They will lie, mis-represent and deceive to reach their end goal.

    We had better be able to meet them and match them on the field of public opinion or we will lose this fight…

    • The obsession to STOP something you do not understand or do not agree with is the first step to psychosis.

      Survive! is the universal imperative for life. Non-survival actions are a form of suicide.

  8. This article, long as it was, can be boiled down to the same old “It’s not the message, it’s the messaging that’s the problem!”. In this case it is combined with the idea that gun rights are all about feelings.

    One passage I found disturbing was this:

    ” how to drive positive social change that reflects what the science tells us is in the public’s interest.”

    What science? Who conducted said science? How free of bias are the scientists who conducted it? What measure of peer review has been conducted? Who has attempted to replicate the results of the initial experiments? How was this replication observed? Who peer reviewed the replication?

    Who is the public? What is their interest? What philosophical underpinnings define interest, and what define the public?

    What is social change? What is the difference between positive and negative social change? Who made the definitions of social change? What other beliefs did they have and how do they mesh with the concept of social change?

    This also stood out to me:

    “People on each side agree the threat from violence is real, but support different responses to that threat–either regulate the sale of guns or make sure a gun is in the hand of every good guy.”

    The threat of violence is not limited to the possession/use of guns. The criminal with the boot knife or folding baton, or surrounded by five more thuggish friends is also a threat of violence, even though there is no gun present.

    I’ll make a simple suggestion to them- stop lying. When it comes to gun control, they always lie. We have plenty of experience with that up here in Canada, with the drip, drip drip of incrementalism. It’s never just one thing- there’s always another ban, another restriction around the corner. It wasn’t enough to restrict pistols. They later banned all pistols with 4 inch and under barrels. Now there are pushes for more bans, more restrictions, more rules. We see in Australia a push against “Manually Operated Rapid Fire Weapons” (leverguns, pump rifles). It wasn’t enough to severely restrict ownership of semi-automatic long guns.

    Everything is ratchet-affect slippery slope for them. Enough already.

    • If it was “social science,” it wasn’t “science” at all.

      As a idealistic Chemistry Ph.D. candidate a couple of decades ago, I had an interesting debate on the Scientific Method with an equally idealistic Sociology Ph.D. candidate.

      Her message was that experimentation was designed to ‘prove hypotheses.’ Mine was that experimentation was to objectively test hypotheses without emotional investment in the outcome.

      Anecdotal, I know. But I doubt she came to that ‘conclusion’ regarding what “science is” on her own.

      • The other fool being a “PR” specialist/BS artist and both are of the University of Party/Fl. Who needs to take them serious.

      • “Social science” is necessary to see trends within society and to understand what motivates society. Which then is used for social engineering, to steer society in a better direction. “ADA of 1990 is good example”. But like all other tools it can be abused and misused.

        Social science is what keeps us from allowing the Holocaust from happening again. We study what lead the NAZI to do what it did and establish safe guards to prevent that from happening again. For example we abolished “the worst of” the “Eugenics program” here in the USA, Like “mandatory sterilization”.

        What your observing and commenting on, is the “ABUSE of social science”

    • If they stop lying, then they don’t get what they want. They know this, which is why they lie or twist the narrative.

      Thus the constant re-branding of the product they are trying to sell. Till they get a winner.

      Unfortunately this time they hit on key words, that resonates with the people, who do not follow the conversation about rights to protect themselves and such. And those people also do not have the time to go do research of their own to make their own informed decision.

      So when they hear “gun safety” “common sense gun laws” “No buy for terrorist” They take it at face value, because the the saying itself is true in and of its self . Not knowing that what really happens is “strips due process” or “appeals” “silence free speech” “Declares entire classes of people as criminals just for existing, With no way for those people to prove they are NOT criminals, in any way or form” “subjects people to illegal search and seizures, which under {any other} circumstances is not allowed.”

      When this happens what we need to do is explain to those people without going into the gun debate and ask them questions that have no direct link to guns.

      “Just because you have such and such label like “mental illness” or “race” do you believe you should be classed a criminal for no justifiable reason and have your constitutional rights revoked based on a whims and unsubstantiated claims of another person?”

      “Just because your of a certain labeled class. Do you believe you should have your right to free speech blocked?”

      “just because your of a labeled class, do you believe that you should have your “due process rights revoked? when accused FALSELY of wrong doing?”

      “Have you ever been faced by someone who tried to do severe harm or kill you?” “if you have, did you defend yourself?” If you hadn’t did you wish you could?” (DO NOT mention guns)

      {{I been there and was forbidden to defend myself, I paid the price of not defending myself and I suffer for that for more than 25 years now. I wish I had had a tool of force multiplayer then, if I had a force multiplier then, To defend myself, I do not think I would be messed up today that is partial reason for being disabled today. }}

      “Should the CDC be allowed to do research {“to push their own political agenda”} that would be harmful to the people?”

      “Should people be allowed to sue automakers, when a drunk driver, kills multiple people with the car made by the manufacturer?”

      “should people be allowed to sue Plane manufacturers, when for the first time ever, hijackers use the planes to hit the world trade center?”

      “how are these common sense?”

      “how do they make you safer?”
      Again don’t mention guns.

      And then after that conversation you mention that the bills and actions being submitted “regarding firearms” violate you in all of the above fashion. And thus can not be common sense and does not make you safer.

      • Very nice job.

        Saving this one, too.

        Now we are getting into it. Discussing how to deal with people who have no use for facts and general logic. The ideas about conversation submitted today are actually logical, but phrased in a way that lets the illogical person walk down a path to a logical conclusion.

        (RF and gang) This list of questions, and the others submitted should be every significant gun rights organization, every “constitutionalist” politician. The “gun lobby” needs to be on the offensive, not fending off unending, inexhaustible attacks.

  9. So they are advocating a hearts and minds strategy? All this talk of “common sense” and having a “conversation”. These words make their solutions/goals sound benign enough but how many of us really find much “common sense” in having a conversation about limiting rights given to us by nature or a creator? I’m no more interested in conversing about relinquishing rights to those who are in no position to dictate rights than I am in having a conversation about taking a pay cut.

    • “These words make their solutions/goals sound benign enough”

      Cf: tautology and Begging the Question Fallacy, aka “circular argument.”

      Start the conversation with the belief that your “premise” (which is really your conclusion) is true, then use it to “prove” the truth you seek to prove.

      They use the premise of “common sense” and “reasonable,” because they’ve already concluded their solution is “common sense” and “reasonable.”

      • How do you defend against the common sense of a murder?

        Ask 49 dead (Oops they’re uh well non communicative forever) and wounded citizens in Orlando? Go ahead media…shove your cameras in their faces and ask if they thought a a good fag with a gun would limit the death and destruction that day. Maybe the media could walk the dance floor and answer the ring of a dead fags’ phone and explain common sense to a mother worried about their son.

        What is reasonable meaningful restrictions on bearing arms when a murder is decending upon you. What does in that moment does restriction mean…for those who died in the name of gun control…all we offer a salute or the means to defend themselves and others.

        What is no longer reasonable is elective representatives, despite evidence and action of criminals, systematically removing the right to defend. Common sense has left their conscience.

      • This is certainly true, however I would also maintain that they use these terms to further inundate their base and general population (“sheeple” if you will) that their objectives are, as I stated, benign and that only heartless, hateful bigots would stand against their goals. They know, in their heads, that they are right but they have to get the lazy-thinking base and public thinking that way too. Think about if the MSM shifted their focus more towards self-reliance and defense and covered DGU and gun control failures- I’d bet that the general public would consider our side’s thinking to be common sense. To us the most common sense thing to do when being shot at would be to shoot back. However gun-control progressives see that as being a non-sensible reaction.

  10. What We Can Learn from Gun Control Advocates?

    How to digest immense quantities of paste?

  11. After a class on the 2nd Amendment in my Civics class I had a young lady say “I was against guns until today. You totally changed my mind.” One at a time. One at a time.

    In a very liberal setting I have to couch gun rights in a way they can understand. I go with a woman’s right to control her body. If a woman can control her body does she not have a right to protect her body? Heads usually start nodding. Then I ask small females how are they going to protect themselves from someone larger, stronger, and faster? More heads nodding. Light bulbs go off.

  12. What I have learned in the context of my hobby occupation as some kind of freelance gun rights advocate here in Germany (I do talks and presentations in front of whatever group or political party wants to hear about the issue) is that those people in the audience who are more on the skeptical side almost always argue their objections in a highly emotional manner.

    Their case is always built around some kind of very specific scenario acting out in front of their inner eye: “But if people can suddenly have guns, and I was on my way home late in the evening and I meet someone, how could I then be sure that he is not armed?”

    “I don’t need drunk dickheads drawing their revolvers and start shooting around in my favorite bar late on a Saturday night!”

    The main problem a pro gun-advocate is facing here is the fact that the antis’ arguments hit the reptilian brain of such people dead center, effectively circumventing the abstract reasoning/logic compartment which is the frontal cortex of the grey matter lump inside our skulls.

    That is a very effective strategy because there is no way to trump emotion with logic, no matter how good your data or reasoning might be: I can point to experience in the U.S., Switzerland or the Czech Republic and statistical facts all day long, tel lthem that things like that actually never happen, it’s of no use. Their caution and fear stick, and that precludes any possibility of skeptics overthinking their position.

    If people like us want to sway them (not to speak of die-hard antis where the prospects are less than bleak anyway), we need to adopt that very same approach.

    We must thus find and invent ways and slogans to penetrate others’ reptilian brains as thoroughly as the anti crowd with all their empty ButThinkOfAllTheChildren-style rhethoric.

    Just leaving this here. I haven’t come up with too many of those verbal persuasion bombs myself so far. Maybe men can be tickled by appealing to their pride and (innate?) desire for being strong and able-bodied. As for the perpetually concerned soccer moms, I don’t know.

    Trump is *very* good at this kind of game, by the way.

    • “The main problem a pro gun-advocate is facing here is the fact that the antis’ arguments hit the reptilian brain of such people dead center, effectively circumventing the abstract reasoning/logic compartment which is the frontal cortex of the grey matter lump inside our skulls.

      That is a very effective strategy because there is no way to trump emotion with logic, no matter how good your data or reasoning might be:…”

      THIS – so much this.

      And they will lie with *glee* while doing it.

      I seriously wonder if we are truly up for this battle…

    • Well said.

      Even here in the US, where guns are a fact of life for the most part, I encounter people similar to what you describe.

      My favorite trope is where people who are against guns paint a picture of how any gun owner is just a kettle of rage ready to explode.

      They imagine a gun owner. Just a normal guy, with a wife and a kid. He’s stuck in traffic on the way home from work, and gets frustrated. He decides “that’s it!” and whips his gun out and just starts methodically killing all the commuters around him.

      Frankly I think the media we export has something to do with that. Because what I just described is depicted in some form or another in our films.

      There’s precedent for that, too. In the early 1980s, everyone overseas thought Americans worked in the oil industry and wore cowboy hats, because of “Dallas”.

  13. Hundreds of years ago, every idiot knew that the world was flat. Today, every idiot knows that a gun’s only purpose is to kill.

    Wanna win the Culture War? Expose the idiots for the idiots they are and expose the politicians for the crooks they are.

    • I’m with you. The manner in which to expose them is the tough part. When the anti-gun crowd owns both the media (in the mainstream form) as well as the highest offices in law enforcement, exposing them is hard. Sites like TTAG fight the good fight but reaching out to those that “know” about guns predicated on a 60 second “Now This” video with boldface yellow words from MSNBC is difficult when their idea of being informed is reading the trending headlines on twitter and calling it a day.

    • Well, we’ve just seen what exposing one politician for the crook she is got us…

    • I’d argue that the gun’s purpose is to kill, and that all the non-killing benefits from it are because it is very good at killing things.

      Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  14. What I have learned from gun control advocates is: Don’t do what they have done, because it has failed miserably.

    Public opinion has steadily turned against the idea that gun control can reduce crime. The NRA now has over 5 million dues-paying members, compared to thousands of “facebook friends” that the anti-rights groups claim as members but who never cough up a dime for the cause or even show up to a local rally.

    Over the last 30 years, state laws regulating the carrying of firearms have gradually loosened. What was once a felony is now allowed by permit, and in many states not restricted at all. That trend continues and the Constitutional Carry movement marches on.

    The number of gun owners continues to increase, as evidenced by the record number of FOID cardholders in Illinois. This is compelling because the U.S. population is more urban and less rural than ever before. The “gun culture” has infiltrated the big cities.

    Gun sales continue to set records year-over-year, and the guns that hoplophobes hate most – “high capacity” double stack semi-auto pistols and AR-15 platform rifles, continue to dominate the sales data.

    Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen to about half of what we saw in the mid-90’s while Americans have tooled up in record numbers.

    The statists have won some legislative victories in the most liberal states, and an occasional judicial victory in those same areas. But honestly, if I was a gun-hating liberal, I would be wallowing in despair, desperately searching for a new strategy, knowing that I’m losing this culture war, big time.

    • “What I have learned from gun control advocates is: Don’t do what they have done, because it has failed miserably.”

      Really? They are giddy with glee over what they just pulled off in California, Curtis.

      They took notes in other states, don’t you doubt it!

      • I mentioned the recent legislative victories in a few states.

        Even in California, gun ownership will continue to rise. The same trends will continue despite the bureaucratic nightmare they have created. Pro-gun rights voters will increase in number.

  15. Live now ; @ and C-Span , Dhimmitude democrats pushing DEFECTIVE , Freedom killing , due process denying , secret list anti gun bills ; calling them ‘ Bi-Partisan ‘ — H.R. 1217 and H.R. 1076 and the YET unlabled NRA bill that also SHREDS Due Process. — N.R.A. is pissing off millions of members by agreeing to NO – FLY , Prove yourself innocent. Keep Calling – E – Mailing Congress -202-225-3121 , Tell N.R.A. to read and respond to gun groups open letter below. —- Call Chris Cox – 703-267-1141 , No More Compromise.

  16. I think there is real value in what is being proposed here. I have recently engaged several very liberal individuals in a discussion about guns. In the face of my onslaught of facts and arguments, they all softened and then said something to the effect of “I don’t want to ban guns, I just think they should be harder to get.” In response, I pointed out that making guns “harder to get” will have essentially no impact on my ability to obtain them. I have plenty of time and the money to spend to buy the guns I want. What making guns “harder to get” does is it takes guns out of the hands of those without resources. For the individual who, as a result of their income level, is forced to live in the inner city, the need for a gun may be far more acute than for me (for two reasons at least – that I live in a low crime area and that I already have several guns to protect myself when needed). So by making guns “harder to get,” the liberal view effectively discriminates against those with few resources. This equitable view strikes a cord with liberals and is consistent with Robert’s point. In this regard, the argument is not that guns for everyone is equitable, because the counter-argument is that whatever restrictions we place on guns are equally applied, thus equitable. The better argument is that any restriction impacts certain groups more and that is inequitable. None of this is to suggest that our main arguments are to be ignored or need to change, but that there are certain approaches that may appeal to a liberal mindset.

    • A trip to home depot, and stop at Wally world, I have a gun with ammo for 35 dollars including tax. Get creative add 50 bucks, I’m walking in public in the open, with a gun, no one knows I have.

      The whole construct of gun control is a farce and nothing more than restrictions of citizens rights.

  17. We can learn that the argument is won before it starts, in how the argument is framed. We can learn that you’re playing to the audience, always. We can learn that most “decisions” come from feelings associated with the topic. And we can learn that allowing them to look unsavory is far more effective than arguing facts. Why do you think they work so hard at that?

    For example, look at the anti’s quotes in today’s post about “willfully ignorant.”

    The *frame* of the argument, before the ignorance of facts, is: “There is no good reason for citizens to have guns, so *any* cost or risk is too much.”

    The *payload* of the argument is how distasteful this guy is, the way he looks, talks, etc. He’s not cool, so be “anti-” you’ll be exiled from the cool kids’ table.

    This works because assumed frames get accepted without scrutiny. It takes work to tease them out. And all the words and arguments being made are distraction. So, imagery about “hot casings.” Vivid descriptions of noise and power of firing. Casting the character of the shooter as *this kind of guy.* All distractions and emotional weight to the unspoken argument: “There’s on good reason for citizens to have guns, so any risk is too much.”

    This works because the association of “that kind of person” likewise bypasses scrutiny. Distracted by those pesky facts, nobody notices that the other-side is cast as the people who got picked on in Jr High lunchrooms. (Remember the relentless pitch about “President Boyfriend?” Similar hagiographies were written at the time about JFK – good looking, athletic, sharp dresser, blah, blah, blah.)

    There’s a reason the anti’s get so wound up when anybody but an OFWG starts getting out front about guns.

    We can learn:

    – Construct to imply the argument you’d like to have just accepted.

    – Allow them to look distasteful. (Not hard.)

    – Call out the presuppositions in their stuff, with mockery and stories.

    – The sound bites & tropes they recite are *crafted*, not by the useful idiots parroting them, but deliberately, then fed to the chattering hordes.

    Off the cuff, a possible response to “flying brass kills”-guy:

    “So, how many chokings before we ban chicken-wings?”

    “That’s terrible. You know, people get killed all the time doing things they enjoy, and that’s a shame. I don’t mean crazy-dangerous stuff like hang-gliding, or surfing with the sharks.”

    Either way, anti- person now has only bad moves left.
    – “Ban everything that hurts anybody, like chicken wings.”
    – “Ban the stuff that’s too dangerous, like hang-gliding. Oh, wait, some of my friends hang-glide.”
    – “Ban the stuff that’s pointless, like surfing with the sharks. Oh, wait, some of my friends shark-surf.”
    – “But there’s not up side to guns…”
    – “Only bad, crazy, silly people have any interest in guns…”
    – “You suck, because you suck…”

    Arguing facts is fine. Ultimately, we’d like to throw the “conversation” to facts, reason, and consequences. BUT, that’s kinda a last resort for most people.

    We want to respond, always, to:
    – Leave the other guys only bad moves.
    – And make them look distasteful in the process.
    – And if you can, make them mad, which makes them look like schmucks, and leads to unforced errors.

    Practically, compare every response you might make with “So, when did you stop beating your wife?” YOur response should always, always, always leave them in a place just like that.

    This is the anti’s game, which the pro’s resolutely refuse to learn. Fortunately for us, they’re bad at it. Being better isn’t hard at all, once we realize the game.

  18. What have I learned? Never retreat-never surrender. Nothing to talk about. The left is FOS. We got many millions of powerful toys-don’t push us. We WILL WIN…and that’s what I learned from the gun control scum.

  19. As someone with one of my masters in media communication and who has taught it at the graduate level, here’s what I think we can learn from the anti-gunners:

    > The audience is not the opposition. You will never convince them. The audience is the undecideds in the middle and they are a huge group. The anti-gunners get that. The POTG, not so much Arguing with antis is pointless.

    > Our arguments are too logical and cold. We need to go visceral. If the antis are getting traction “waving the bloody shirt,” we need to get traction that way also. Every successful DGU should be a commercial or a viral video, with a an exciting reenactment and an interview with the defender and any people he or she saved.

    > We need to get more people out to the range. It won’t convert everyone, but it will convert a lot of people and it will take some of the passion out of the people it does not convert. I think this LGS that if offering free gun training for the LGBT community is genius PR. We ought to have that all over the country and think up more promotions like that.

    • Very well said! Unfortunately, DGU-hyping is not a viable approach in jurisdictions where carrying is banned no matter what. The U.S. have it better in that regard since there is way more raw material which can be formed into propaganda hitpieces.

  20. It’s not a conversation if it has a preordained outcome and it sure as hell isn’t a civil conversation when the other side opens up with “You’re all a bunch of uneducated, racist, xenophobic, gay hating rednecks living in your WT trailer parks and only caring about getting to play with your dangerous toys while people are dying in the streets”.

    A conversation goes both ways and must be held by individuals who are rational, honest and serious about getting to a goal they can agree about.

    A few of examples of how the proponents of gun-control fail in at least one category listed above.

    When gun-controllers talk about gun-control they very, very often cite numbers like 30,000 or 33,000 deaths per year due to “gun violence”. Now this is a semi-factual statement designed to be misleading however, I will give the other side the benefit of the doubt at this point because it is certainly true that around 30,000 people a year die from a GSW. However, about 21,000 of those are intentionally self-inflicted aka “suicides” and this is where the gun-controllers honesty comes into question because if you suggest, as Wayne LaPierre did, that mental health is something we need to look at in terms of reducing “gun deaths” the gun-controllers dismiss such a suggestion out of hand. That is rank dishonesty right there. Suicide, by definition, is a mental health issue. Ergo, you must either remove suicides from your death statistics and talk solely about ways to limit murder and negligence or you must accept that mental health is a key component in 2/3rds of the dead people you’re citing as a need to “do something”. You can’t have it both ways and still call yourself honest and you can’t simply ignore 20K+ suicides and call yourself serious about the problem.

    Guns in schools are a perfect example of how gun-controllers are not rational. You can hash out the arguments of CCW for teachers/administrators vs. having armed police on campus etc, those are perfectly fair debates to be had.

    However, the knee jerk reaction of “We don’t need more guns in schools” is patently irrational. We have full auto submachineguns and actual assault rifles protecting airports. We have handguns and semi-auto rifles protecting armored car deliveries. We have handguns, shotguns, assault rifles, submachineguns, SBRs, SBSs and explosives protecting our towns and cities in the form of the police. No one argues that these things make our airports, money or grocery stores less safe. So why can’t we do the same thing, in some form, with schools? What makes school’s so special? Arguments that the kids might be traumatized are bullshit. You don’t see gun-grabbers arguing that children are traumatized by seeing a Brinks truck, an armed cop or airport SWAT team do you? Of course not. This is a completely irrational argument. It also shows that when it comes school shootings gun-controllers are completely and totally unserious about solving the problem.

    Then you have something like Orlando/San Bernardino where the same people arguing for a suspension of due process and a suspension of 2A rights are the same folks arguing to let loads of people into the country when we can’t vet them. That’s like sending a child to their room over a leaky faucet instead of turning off the water and fixing the faucet. It makes absolutely no sense.

    The root problem with gun-controllers is that not a single thing they put forward would stop a single mass shooting or gun related murder/suicide/negligent death. Not a single one. Yet when we look at the crime stats we can see that most of these murders are committed by a small group of people with lengthy criminal histories. Lock those motherfuckers up for a good long time! Oh, we can’t do that because “disparate impact” aka “that’s racist”.

    Just look at the FBI’s numbers somewhere around ~340 people murdered with rifles of all types last year. That’s bolt action, semi auto (gasp!) lever action, single shot, pump action, flintlock etc all combined. So banning “assault weapons” would at best deal with some fraction of ~340, but even if it stopped 340 murders, every single rifle murder, it would pale in comparison to preventing 10% of suicides which would be around 2100 lives saved. That’s 6.18 times more effective! We’re constantly told “Well if it saves one life” yet the same people saying that would rather save a maximum of 340 lives as opposed to a maximum of 21,000!

    I guess some lives are more important that others. So much for the equality the Left is always talking about huh?

  21. “Ann Christiano (Frank Karel Chair in Public Interest Communications, University of Florida) and Annie Neiman (Ph.D. candidate in Sociology, University of Florida)”

    A good example of “cultural marxism”!
    ” Public Interest” always means “left-leaning”, collectivist solutions to problems which usually do not exist.

    Sociologists always suggest “left-leaning” and collectivist solutions to “social problems” which usually do not exist.

    Both need to be stripped of all direct and indirect public funding.

  22. Our side can advocate for protecting the civil rights of ALL people, especially minorities by unceasingly talking about how the 2nd Amendment unites us together regardless of the who, what, when, where, or why, of what divides us; and constantly talks about how each gun control victory is taking something FROM the left, how each infringement is an affront to EVERY citizen. We can continue to frame this discussion as recognizing that the state and its legislators are removing the rights of all people, and that such infringements make us weaker and more dependent on the state.

    We must constantly talk about how each statist victory is a loss for the people. No person deserves to be raped, murdered, or have their civil rights violated, but in our world that happens daily because there are bad people who WANT to hurt us, and WE have a right to choose the manner in which we defend our lives and civil rights. If we provide an environment in which our differences matter for little and our uniting factor is our shared rights, then perhaps we have a real line of attack against the statists, gun grabbers, and general douche bags of the modern era.

  23. Just lie and emote like the gun control crowd does, and you will win the hearts of all the lemmings and proles out there.

  24. For those convinced there is a target demographic that can be persuaded, have an emotional message that will get through to them. Pick something they value (maybe ask what that might be), ask if safeguarding that value is so important to them that they would consider that even a .1% (one tenth of one percent) chance of saving that value is worth taking extreme defensive measures. Introduce weapons to the conversation.


  25. I would like to point out that those of us that are freedom loving proponents of firearms ownership along with the Second Amendment understand that it is NOT our respect for authority , but being sure that authority respects us, is what this is all about.

  26. People fall into two categories:

    Category A:
    People that believe in gun control believe the govt. can successfully stop the behavior of criminals, extremists, and/or crazy people if enough of the “right” laws are written. They are more than willing to forfeit their right and responsibility of armed self defense to others whose response time and effectiveness is uncertain.

    Category B:
    People that do not subscribe to the concept of gun control do not believe anyone can control or stop the behavior of criminals, extremists, or crazy people, no matter what laws the govt. passes. With that knowledge, they have chosen to arm themselves with the skills and mindset through personal training and believe that is sufficient for their own self defense and safety.

    I don’t know about you, but there are far too many uncertainties and risk in Category A mindset.

    I know which category mindset I’d trust my life and the lives those I care about with.

  27. The simple fact is that our rights shouldn’t depend on how many people want to infringe on it.

    • “Shouldn’t” is not a legal construct or defense. All our rights are subject to the legislative and constitutional processes. Many here have noted that the authority to deny guns to the mentally ill, or convicted felons is routed in the “due process” concept of law. “Due process” is whatever the majority of legislators (all levels), and the majority of courts, say it is.

      The “due process” of the no-fly and suspected suspected terrorists is that on can always appeal the decision that put them on either list. Interestingly, there is no formal appeal process. The mere fact that a theoretical means of appeal exists constitutes “due process”. You have already seen the anti-gun congress refuse to pass any “no-buy list” legislation that requires “due process” (meaning government must submit a request to a court) prior to being placed on a list.

      Your rights are not actually yours, at all; only what the government permits. Wooda, shooda, cooda are meaningless thoughts. Unlikely this nation will ever see a return to first concepts. We do not have the votes on our side to even start. Enjoy what you can, for as long as you can. Take pictures of what you still have of freedom, so you can tell all your great grand children about it.

Comments are closed.