View Full Version : Anti-gun talking points section?
As we're seeing an unprecedented attack on gun owners, these groups and politicians are highly funded and have multi-million dollar PR firms who test every word and talking point.
These messages are amplified by the mainstream media as fact.
We need to win over the non gun owners who aren't necessarily anti gun but have been hearing the lies spewed by politicians, the media and gun control groups.
Some politicians are true believers about restricting the gun rights of Americans, the majority are driven by the number of calls and letters they receive and only care about reelection.
Has there been any discuss about creating a sub forum here that can be a repository for counter information to the gun control narrative?
I believe if you have a conversation with someone who is (reasonable) being up good data and debunking the narrative will go long way.
Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
We need to win over the non gun owners who aren't necessarily anti gun
You’re never going to win them over running Trump... or trump like candidates.
I’m a hardcore libertarian. I believe in actual small government, ending the war on drugs completely and I believe that crew served artillery should be sold in the lawn and garden section of Walmart.
The republicans need another Ronald Reagan not Donald trump.
You’re never going to win them over running Trump... or trump like candidates.
I’m a hardcore libertarian. I believe in actual small government, ending the war on drugs completely and I believe that crew served artillery should be sold in the lawn and garden section of Walmart.
The republicans need another Ronald Reagan not Donald trump.
Beto likes Reagan to ;)
https://fb.watch/dsP9LFV9FD/
Beto likes Reagan to
https://fb.watch/dsP9LFV9FD/
A president can only sign into law what congress sends to him. Sure Reagan supported the 94 ban, that’s why congressional races are entirely different than national elections for President.
High capacity semi automatic rifles have been available for sale in the USA for over 100 years.
The forefathers intended to allow citizens the right to purchase the same arms available to the government.
9mm Parabellum was designed in 1901.
If 18 year olds are not responsible enough to buy a rifle or shotgun, they are not responsible enough to vote. If 18 year olds cannot responsibly handle firearms, then selective service should start at 21.
The AR-15 was a civilian rifle first. Colt bought the rights to the AR-15 in 1959 and offered it for sale - M16 entered service in 1964.
Andy
P.S. tn1911 - how does your post answer the OP?
P.S. tn1911 - how does your post answer the OP?
He asked how to attract non gun owners who aren't necessarily anti gun, I told him to find candidates who can actually unite the country not circus clowns...
BoringGuy45
06-05-22, 15:59
There needs to be more aggression and less stonewalling when it comes to the pro-gun side to the debate. The only arguments I hear are 1) "Gun laws don't work, so there's no point in even trying," and 2) "I don't care if more gun laws would work or not! 'Shall not be infringed'!!"
There needs to be equal outrage on the pro-gun side after mass shootings and calls for action to harden soft targets, increase security, and even demand greater access to guns! When a shooting happens, we seem to get rocked back on our heals and feel the need to apologetically rationalize our position. Have some audacity, damn it! Instead of trying to hold the line, we need to push forward. The call shouldn't be to just keep guns out of the wrong hands, but to get guns into the right hands. When they "Less guns!" we shouldn't reply "Do nothing!" We should reply "F**k you, MORE guns!"
He asked how to attract non gun owners who aren't necessarily anti gun, I told him to find candidates who can actually unite the country not circus clowns...
He asked for data to allow a debate on gun rights, not talking points that support the opponents of gun rights.
Andy
A president can only sign into law what congress sends to him. Sure Reagan supported the 94 ban, that’s why congressional races are entirely different than national elections for President.
Reagan wasn't president in 94. I also think he was getting fuzzy at this point.
The important thing to remember about Reagan is AFTER he was shot, he still told Handgun Control Inc. to F O.
Here's the key point.
Good guys and bad guys seem to use almost exactly the same firearms. Police use AR-15s, law abiding citizens use AR-15s and criminals use AR-15s. Back in the 30s it was the same story Dillinger and the FBI were both rolling 1911s and Thompsons. Regulating Thompsons did not end the days of Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger and the rest. Shooting them with Thompsons and 1911s did.
He asked for data to allow a debate on gun rights, not talking points that support the opponents of gun rights.
Andy
The title of his thread is literally “talking points...”
He asked how to attract non gun owners who aren't necessarily anti gun, I told him to find candidates who can actually unite the country not circus clowns...
We need them to become pro-gun regardless of candidates
#1 - It is the Bill of Rights, Not the Bill Of Needs.
The title of his thread is literally “talking points...”
You are so right. Obviously he needed "circus clowns" and "unite the country" to win non gun owners to our side - mea culpa...
There needs to be more aggression and less stonewalling when it comes to the pro-gun side to the debate. The only arguments I hear are 1) "Gun laws don't work, so there's no point in even trying," and 2) "I don't care if more gun laws would work or not! 'Shall not be infringed'!!"
There needs to be equal outrage on the pro-gun side after mass shootings and calls for action to harden soft targets, increase security, and even demand greater access to guns! When a shooting happens, we seem to get rocked back on our heals and feel the need to apologetically rationalize our position. Have some audacity, damn it! Instead of trying to hold the line, we need to push forward. The call shouldn't be to just keep guns out of the wrong hands, but to get guns into the right hands. When they "Less guns!" we shouldn't reply "Do nothing!" We should reply "F**k you, MORE guns!"
This. Absolutely this.
The AR-15 was a civilian rifle first. Colt bought the rights to the AR-15 in 1959 and offered it for sale - M16 entered service in 1964.
Minor point, the AR-15 was always developed as a military rifle. Paraphrasing “The Black Rifle” here, but after seeing demonstration of AR-10 chambered in .222 Remington in 1958, the U.S. Army ordered 10 copies of the prototype. For this order ArmaLite built 17 AR-15s. Later in the year ArmaLite created a 20 year letter of understanding with Colt for to manufacture the future rifle.
I only say that because, IMHO, I think the argument that the AR-15 is a “civilian rifle” falls short. Ownership of military service type rifles is exactly what the 2A protects.
The_War_Wagon
06-05-22, 18:00
[QUOTE=gsd2053;3036612]Beto likes Reagan too
Beto likes weiners in the can! Obama-brand!
https://i.ibb.co/n344f67/weiners-in-the-can.jpg
This probably won't win anyone over, but.....
I refuse to have my Constitutional rights curtailed due to the acts of lunatics, sociopaths, psychopaths, criminals, or terrorists. I am not a criminal and never have been. Make me one with the wave of a pen and you can go f**k yourself.
Maybe I'm getting more crotchety the older I get? I will legally fight against any gun control push to my utmost (which ain't much for any of us) ability......but in the end I really don't GAF what they pass.
This probably won't win anyone over, but.....
I refuse to have my Constitutional rights curtailed due to the acts of lunatics, sociopaths, psychopaths, criminals, or terrorists. I am not a criminal and never have been. Make me one with the wave of a pen and you can go f**k yourself.
Maybe I'm getting more crotchety the older I get? I will legally fight against any gun control push to my utmost (which ain't much for any of us) ability......but in the end I really don't GAF what they pass.
I’ll keep letting ABNAK write my posts for me.
Inkslinger
06-05-22, 19:44
I’ll keep letting ABNAK write my posts for me.
That’s where I’m at as well. Make me a criminal, get ready for criminal shit. I will not go gently into that good night…
He asked for data to allow a debate on gun rights, not talking points that support the opponents of gun rights.
AndyActually, I was asking if we've ever considered a section here that data can be posted.
So, say you're in a debate with someone and they bring up suicide, there's a suicide sub forum that has data.
The same for mass shootings, background checks etc.
Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
Diamondback
06-05-22, 19:53
Actually, I was asking if we've ever considered a section here that data can be posted.
So, say you're in a debate with someone and they bring up suicide, there's a suicide sub forum that has data.
The same for mass shootings, background checks etc.
Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
Good idea.
Also, since many of the masses are mouthbreathing retards ruled by MUHFEEWINGS! rather than logic-guided thinkers, it occurs to me we need to start developing our own "emotional hypodermic needles" to counteract theirs. Cases where someone who died because the law forcibly disarmed them when Freddy Felon came to ply his trade, or a kid getting access to the parents' guns saved Mom's life in a home invasion. The Lefties already openly published their playbook and are working it by the numbers... we need to study it and look for monkeywrenches to throw in the works that will resonate in the MUHFEEEWINGS! of the Average Mouthbreathing Retard.
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/9056/
"Why is it that when a cop shoots someone, it's the cop's fault; but when someone else shoots someone, it's the gun's fault?"
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity will respect the less important and arbitrary ones. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
- Cesare Beccaria
Minor point, the AR-15 was always developed as a military rifle. Paraphrasing “The Black Rifle” here, but after seeing demonstration of AR-10 chambered in .222 Remington in 1958, the U.S. Army ordered 10 copies of the prototype. For this order ArmaLite built 17 AR-15s. Later in the year ArmaLite created a 20 year letter of understanding with Colt for to manufacture the future rifle.
I only say that because, IMHO, I think the argument that the AR-15 is a “civilian rifle” falls short. Ownership of military service type rifles is exactly what the 2A protects.
It is true to say the AR-15 was sold on the civilian market before it was adopted by the U.S. military. It is an important distinction, since the left's position is that an AR is a "weapon of war" sold on the streets of our country.
It is also true to point out that before 1934, civilians could buy any weapon used by the military and the passage of the National Firearms Act in that year had no measurable effect on crime.
Civilians could purchase firearms through the mail prior to 1968, and the Gun Control Act passed that year did not disarm a single criminal.
It may be helpful to point out that both of these acts were driven by racism and xenophobia.
Most gun control measures make it more difficult for economically repressed citizens (the left believe that means people of color) to protect themselves.
Far more people have died of drug overdoses in the last two years than gun violence.
I saw a video today from Colion Noir debunking Bidens claim that guns are the #1 killer of kids.
They conveniently don't mention that the study lists 18 and 19 year olds as children. He also goes into detail that the majority of these deaths are either suicide or gang land killings in the inner cities. Suburban and rural "children" are still more likely to die in a car crash.
It is true to say the AR-15 was sold on the civilian market before it was adopted by the U.S. military. It is an important distinction, since the left's position is that an AR is a "weapon of war" sold on the streets of our country.
You make some great points but the above simply isn’t true. The AR-15 was developed for combat, used in combat and a adopted my the U.S. military before it was ever sold to civilians.
1961: Uncle Sam purchases 1,000 AR-15s for testing by U.S. advisors in South Viet Nam (ARPA Project AGILE) where they use the AR-15 in combat.
1962: USAF orders 8,500 AR-15s and officially adopts the rifle as the replacement for for their M2 carbines. The US Navy follows suit and makes a small order to equip it’s SEAL teams with the AR-15
1963: The DoD orders 104,000 rifles now designated the XM16E1 (for the Army and Marines) and the M-16 for the USAF.
1964: Colt sell the AR-15 to civilians for the first time as the SP1
Just trying to be honest about the discussion points. The Colt revolver, the 1911, the M-1 Garand, the AR-15 & the Glock 17 were all designed as weapons of war. When it comes to defending my families life and Liberty, a weapon of war is exactly what I want.
From Pew Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
US Firearm deaths in 2020:
24,292 suicides (54%)
19,384 murders (43%)
535 unintentional
611 involved law enforcement
400 undetermined circumstances
People will note this is an increase in the NUMBER of deaths over prior years but this number almost always is an increase because the population also increases at a much faster rate. The number of deaths per capita was worse in the 90's and the 70's than it was in 2020; for which figures are available. The way the data is recorded through the years, was less specific as to the weapon that might have been used.
Have to be careful about the death per capita statistic also because of how the results are grouped. Wyoming is credited with a stupidly high death rate of 25/100k, but it represents 18 homicides for the entire state in all of 2020. Illinois averaged that many in a week and sports a death rate of 9.7/100k. (Johns Hopkins, Bloomberg Report (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/sites/default/files/2022-05/2020-gun-deaths-in-the-us-4-28-2022-b.pdf)) This is a source that includes 19 year-olds as children.
The term "mass shooting" presently has no unified definition. As such, there are very broad criteria that are accepted as a "mass shooting" by propaganda outlets like the Gun Violence Archive which calls any shooting where at least four people (other than the shooter) were injured. So if you hear an unbelievably large number of "mass shootings" being described, be alert that some sources are deliberately casting a wide net to fluff the numbers.
In 2020:
Chicago had 709 shooting deaths (Sun Times (https://graphics.suntimes.com/homicides/))
LA had 460 shooting deaths (Public Policy Inst Calif. (https://www.ppic.org/blog/gun-deaths-drive-californias-largest-ever-rise-in-homicides/))
Philadelphia 414 shooting deaths (Philly Gun Violence Statistics (https://billypenn.com/2022/01/10/philadelphia-gun-violence-statistics-2021/))
Houston had 343 shooting deaths (Journal of Family Strengths (https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1453&context=jfs))
Baltimore had 298 shooting deaths (Baltimore Sun (https://homicides.news.baltimoresun.com/?range=2020&cause=shooting))
So that's more than 10% of the murder involving guns brought to us by five major cities.
1. If you look at the Heller decision it said that it applied to guns that are in common use at the time. There are more companies making their version of the AR than any other longarm. According to the National Shooting Sports Federation, one of out of every five firearms purchased in this country is an AR-style rifle, Americans now own over 20 million AR-15s. That number does not include millions of other types of semi-auto military style rifles. A lot of people enjoy owning and shooting ARs for a wide number of reasons, from target shooting to defense.
2. Given these numbers, any type of prohibition or registration is doomed to fail. Hard drugs are illegal and see how well that worked.
3. One argument that I make is that I like to have the same defensive firearms that a police officer would have if he were coming to rescue me in a life threatening situation since he cannot appear instantly if my life is in danger. Many experts consider the AR-15 to be the most effective home defense longarm.
4. If I look at the constitution and the original writers, they saw an armed citizenry as a bulwark against a an out of control government. This one makes me a bit uncomfortable because it gives the vibe of tinfoil hats, but JFK did say this about the second amendment: "By calling attention to “a well regulated militia,” the “security” of the nation, and the right of each citizen “to keep and bear arms,” our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
You make some great points but the above simply isn’t true. The AR-15 was developed for combat, used in combat and a adopted my the U.S. military before it was ever sold to civilians.
Can I pretend I work for the White House and make the "truth" fit the natrative?
Andy
From Pew Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
US Firearm deaths in 2020:
24,292 suicides (54%)
19,384 murders (43%)
535 unintentional
611 involved law enforcement
400 undetermined circumstances
Over 93,000 people died of drug overdoses in the same year https://nida.nih.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2021/08/drug-overdose-deaths-in-2020-were-horrifying-radical-change-needed-to-address-drug-crisis
From the linked Pew study "the peak of 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974." - six years after passing the 1968 GCA.
Andy
I only say that because, IMHO, I think the argument that the AR-15 is a “civilian rifle” falls short. Ownership of military service type rifles is exactly what the 2A protects.
Pretty much what SCOTUS said in Miller. 2A ain’t about duck hunting.
It is about civilians owning weapons of war so we are not Ukraine.
The_War_Wagon
06-06-22, 09:55
A fine selection of pro-gun memes can defeat the mightiest of hoplophobes.
https://i.ibb.co/17W3gBy/2-A-meaning.png
Hell even Archie Bunker can still defeat them, 50 years later.
http://youtu.be/psHZ10zjnR0
Hoplophobes emote - they don't think. Arguing logic with them is like playing a game of basketball with a bowling ball - wrong tool & tactic.
BrigandTwoFour
06-06-22, 11:08
It's not a bad idea to have some kind of repository for statistics that support our side of things- but you have to keep in mind that we continue to struggle in this debate because statistics fall on deaf ears. Humans, in general, are terrible at assessing relative risk. While it makes logical sense to use arguments like the chances of being killed by an AR-15 in a mass shooting are less than getting struck by lightning, the emotional side still says the number is greater than zero and they would rather control for such a risk at your expense.
Frankly, our side gets too wrapped up in trying to use logic and numbers while the other side also presents their own sets of numbers (tortured as they may be) to counter us. That ends up being a net neutral. Even more, every time we argue about the nuances between a civilian AR-15 and a military M4 and "No military in the world uses this!" then we just come off as pedantic weirdos in the face of people who want solutions and not obfuscation.
We have a messaging problem because the gun-owning community has an identity crisis. Part of it, who I think of as "old guard," want to be seen as nothing more than peaceful citizens who enjoy target shooting, hunting, and and the trappings of being a gun owner in general. That's fine, I'm for it, but this is the same group who comes up with inane terms like "Modern Sporting Rifle" to try and put up a smoke screen that we all in fact own weapons. Another part of the community is all about tactical LARPing, punisher skulls, and "F You, No!" attitude without spending any time actually gaining proficiency and becoming responsible or capable with what they own.
In my opinion, we should be leaning into the fact that so many people have become gun owners for the first time in the last few years. We should absolutely own the fact that we see gun ownership as owning weapons, no different than humanity's history with martial arts, archery, fencing, and more. I want our side to espouse the benefits of a population who takes self defense seriously, and encourages their fellow citizens to be capable and prepared to take care of themselves in an emergency- whether it's the weeks after a hurricane or a civil disturbance.
Our job shouldn't be trying to counter the oppositions numbers. Instead, we should be calling them out for using tortured numbers to scare everyone- and espousing that the actual benefits of widespread responsible gun ownership outweigh their made-up numbers anyway. We need more emotional reasoning, anecdotes, and "real talk" moments. We also need a hell of a lot more good "brand ambassadors" willing to educate and inform without judgement or being pedantic between "clip" and "magazine."
BrigandTwoFour
06-06-22, 11:14
To add one more thought...
I get incredibly frustrated, as I'm sure you do, that we have to go on the defense as soon as these events happen. The other side already has drafted bills and talking points ready to go, they just needed an inciting incident to break them out. We spend so much time just trying to counter their same-stuff-different-day policy ideas that we don't even bother proposing anything to counter it. Nods to "mental health" and "enforcing current law" are well and good, but where are the proposals?
In fact, where is our effort to move the needle by scratching the defunct sporting clause? Why aren't "we" lining up to remove suppressors from the NFA? Where are our proposals to actually impact the social/economic issues that tend to underpin violence?
Honestly, I don't actually think we have any pro-gun politicians on our side. The GOP doesn't care about us or our desires. They just want our vote, and realize they can get it by merely being the party of status quo in the face of an opposition who is actively trying to screw us.
Diamondback
06-06-22, 11:59
We DO have some pro-2A activists in Congress, but invariably when we have a majority McConnell and McCarthy or their counterparts send the bill to die in committee. Perhaps because they don't believe in it, perhaps it's because Weasel Wayne the Sissy-in-a-Dress Fudd wants the issues kept around for NRA "failure theater" grifting.
Also, it is worth noting that the majority of the populace, both our side and theirs and PARTICULARLY the so called "moderates and independents," are FEELers not THINKers. They don't want to expend intellectual effort, we need to find things that hit them in the "MUH FEEUWZ!" like a Louisville Slugger to the solar plexus, like the Houston woman whose stalker tracked her down and forced her to Swisscheese him or the story I was just reading a few hours ago about a pregnant woman who found herself having to defend her husband's life against a multi-man home invasion crew with an AR. We need to start flooding the world with citable case-studies like this, also that Nicole Brown Simpson DIED because of CA waiting periods denying her a weapon that would have given her a fighting chance.
Also, since many of the masses are mouthbreathing retards ruled by MUHFEEWINGS! rather than logic-guided thinkers, it occurs to me we need to start developing our own "emotional hypodermic needles" to counteract theirs. Cases where someone who died because the law forcibly disarmed them when Freddy Felon came to ply his trade, or a kid getting access to the parents' guns saved Mom's life in a home invasion. The Lefties already openly published their playbook and are working it by the numbers... we need to study it and look for monkeywrenches to throw in the works that will resonate in the MUHFEEEWINGS! of the Average Mouthbreathing Retard.
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/9056/
Sounds good. What do you have?
Diamondback
06-06-22, 14:35
As noted in my prior post, Nicole Brown Simpson is a candidate for Case Study #1. Closely rivaled by Suzanna Gratia Hupp having to watch her parents die in the Luby's Massacre because TX law at the time required her to keep her sidearm locked in her glovebox instead of on her person where it could do some good.
Stats and talking points for days:
https://crimeresearch.org/cprc-original-research/
Statistics and facts are only for the reasonable.
Diamondback
06-06-22, 17:59
Statistics and facts are only for the reasonable.
Like I said... when dealing with MUHFEELZtards, which are sadly a majority, you have to use anecdotes not data and play their "FEEWINGS!" violin strings better than the other guy.
Like I said... when dealing with MUHFEELZtards, which are sadly a majority, you have to use anecdotes not data and play their "FEEWINGS!" violin strings better than the other guy.
So true.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.