"Us v. Them" mentality/Gun Ownership and Carry

[jaymark6655]

I think the type of person that is saying "don't do it, they win" is not open to hearing anything.  "They" want to create that they vs us mentality and spread because they know dividing people is the only way to shut down discussions on a topic and gain support in pushing for confiscation.  If people are willing to listen than truth and fact can overcome their attempts to spread fear and push people to make decisions purely on emotion, not what they want.  Obviously all non-gunners are this way and those are the ones that discussing and range time can show them that what they have been led to believe is not true, like your friend.  I also think we have to stop fighting among ourselves.  Hunters cannot condemn other hunters based on method (mod archery vs traditional vs BP vs modern FA) or gun owners cannot fight about what types of carry should be allowed or not.  Anti's love this, because we are arguing for them.  I cannot count how many times this week I have read that most firearms owners support stronger gun regulations and only fanatics and the NRA oppose more regulation.  All it takes is one guy saying that owning firearms for hunting is okay, but there is no need for anything else and the anti-gunner has support and can say, "see that gun owner he supports a pistol ban or a magazine capacity reg; you don't need more than one shot for hunting."

[pianoman9701]

Here is a pretty accurate write-up on the situation.  I read this quite a few years ago (4 or 5 years), but it is still as true today.   

http://www.gunblast.com/Grossman_Sheep-Wolves.htm

Good write up with great points about the different views people have of the world and of violence.

[pianoman9701]

I think the type of person that is saying "don't do it, they win" is not open to hearing anything.  "They" want to create that they vs us mentality and spread because they know dividing people is the only way to shut down discussions on a topic and gain support in pushing for confiscation.  If people are willing to listen than truth and fact can overcome their attempts to spread fear and push people to make decisions purely on emotion, not what they want.  Obviously all non-gunners are this way and those are the ones that discussing and range time can show them that what they have been led to believe is not true, like your friend.  I also think we have to stop fighting among ourselves.  Hunters cannot condemn other hunters based on method (mod archery vs traditional vs BP vs modern FA) or gun owners cannot fight about what types of carry should be allowed or not.  Anti's love this, because we are arguing for them.  I cannot count how many times this week I have read that most firearms owners support stronger gun regulations and only fanatics and the NRA oppose more regulation.  All it takes is one guy saying that owning firearms for hunting is okay, but there is no need for anything else and the anti-gunner has support and can say, "see that gun owner he supports a pistol ban or a magazine capacity reg; you don't need more than one shot for hunting."

Well, and I think that sometimes, people realize they don't want to sit there and just die if this happens around them. My friend came to that realization last week. If there's a mass shooting, she doesn't want to go out with a whimper. Many of the rest don't understand yet that non-violence isn't an option when dealing with one of these scenarios. As in the narrative that Headshot posted, these people are sheep with their heads in the sand. If there's no sheepdog when the wolf shows up, they die, period.

[Netminder01]

I'd enjoy a reasonable conversation over beer/BBQ with a group of HuntWa members with opposing views of what the problem is - and what needs to be done.

The public dialogue is a growing title wave against the 2nd amendment and there are more people than ever looking to institute radical change and forking over $$ to support efforts; many of whom are not informed. We (broad pro 2nd amendment folks) need to get out of only defending our position and creating strategies to help inform & educate people otherwise ground will continue to be lost by us.

I've said plenty on this topic but I believe a new, much more modern organization is needed than the ones facing massive brand perception problems like the NRA.

[Fl0und3rz]

Congratulations on reaching one rational thinker and changing a perspective.


Cross posting this, showing no correlation of firearms restrictions with (Intentional Homicides + fatal gun accidents).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/


In the US v. Them context, it may help to show that a person genuinely concerned about reduction of homicides and fatal gun accidents can recognize that more restrictions on lawful owners prove fruitless. 

[300rum]

I personally think that gun owners and the NRA are doing a great job.  Our rights were much more on the ropes in the 80's and 90's then they are now.  Most Americans believes in the right to own and use firearms in defense.  Back in the 80-90's they believed that guns we're o.k. for hunting.  Big, Big change.  The news media has towed the liberal line, that is what hasn't changed. 

[pianoman9701]

I'd enjoy a reasonable conversation over beer/BBQ with a group of HuntWa members with opposing views of what the problem is - and what needs to be done.

The public dialogue is a growing title wave against the 2nd amendment and there are more people than ever looking to institute radical change and forking over $$ to support efforts; many of whom are not informed. We (broad pro 2nd amendment folks) need to get out of only defending our position and creating strategies to help inform & educate people otherwise ground will continue to be lost by us.

I've said plenty on this topic but I believe a new, much more modern organization is needed than the ones facing massive brand perception problems like the NRA.

What do you think of the new orgs. like NAGR?

[Netminder01]

I'd enjoy a reasonable conversation over beer/BBQ with a group of HuntWa members with opposing views of what the problem is - and what needs to be done.

The public dialogue is a growing title wave against the 2nd amendment and there are more people than ever looking to institute radical change and forking over $$ to support efforts; many of whom are not informed. We (broad pro 2nd amendment folks) need to get out of only defending our position and creating strategies to help inform & educate people otherwise ground will continue to be lost by us.

I've said plenty on this topic but I believe a new, much more modern organization is needed than the ones facing massive brand perception problems like the NRA.

What do you think of the new orgs. like NAGR?

Beyond a quick glance at their website which they should hire me to help, I've not looked into them at all.  Are they a group that you support and how do you compare & contrast them to the NRA?

[pianoman9701]

I'd enjoy a reasonable conversation over beer/BBQ with a group of HuntWa members with opposing views of what the problem is - and what needs to be done.

The public dialogue is a growing title wave against the 2nd amendment and there are more people than ever looking to institute radical change and forking over $$ to support efforts; many of whom are not informed. We (broad pro 2nd amendment folks) need to get out of only defending our position and creating strategies to help inform & educate people otherwise ground will continue to be lost by us.

I've said plenty on this topic but I believe a new, much more modern organization is needed than the ones facing massive brand perception problems like the NRA.

What do you think of the new orgs. like NAGR?

Beyond a quick glance at their website which they should hire me to help, I've not looked into them at all.  Are they a group that you support and how do you compare & contrast them to the NRA?

I support them with an annual membership. Their tactics initially were to attack the NRA as the old guy in town. I wasn't thrilled with trying to break up the forces. But they're a growing org. I also belong to several others, mostly more local - SAF CCRKBA, etc.

[Fl0und3rz]

A converted "Us" story.

Every time a tragedy like the recent one in Roseburg, Oregon takes place there is a knee-jerk reaction to blame the gun. Right on cue there are calls for more gun control, more background checks, and more arguments by politicians aiming to convince you that disarming law abiding citizens will stop senseless acts of violence. What you rarely hear in the media are the stories of people who have used guns to protect themselves.

Not “gun nuts” as some would like to call them, but regular, average, everyday people. People who at one time believed because they lived in a small town they were safe. People who grew up with a dad as a police officer and believed the police could always protect them.  People who never really even wanted a gun in their home. People like me.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/06/guns-are-not-the-problem/

[Stein]

IMHO, the NRA has perception problems because they are big and effective and thus a target.  Any org that does well will face equal attention from the anti crowd.

[smittyJ]

The public dialogue is a growing title wave against the 2nd amendment and there are more people than ever looking to institute radical change and forking over $$ to support efforts; many of whom are not informed. We (broad pro 2nd amendment folks) need to get out of only defending our position and creating strategies to help inform & educate people otherwise ground will continue to be lost by us.

I've said plenty on this topic but I believe a new, much more modern organization is needed than the ones facing massive brand perception problems like the NRA.

I respectfully dissagree, I believe they are a very vocal minority. That being said, I have had several respctful discussinos lately with antis and when they truly listen you can shift the discussion to root causes and get some agreement. One of the issues is changing their view of the NRA from a manufacturers mouthpiece to an organization of average citizen / voters like you and I that was created to promote gun safety!

[pianoman9701]

The vocal minority mixed with the loud-mouth press and liberal politicians, added to the focus on these mass murders confuses and scares the people on the sidelines who aren't gun people and don't understand those who are. Many have no access to guns or the people who own them. Much of the state of CA are sheep who believe that if they don't own guns they're somehow helping the effort to reduce gun violence. My wife grew up in CA. It wasn't until she moved to WA and was married to a man from KS that she ever even held a gun, never mind fired one. We have to change the conversation.

When politicians tell people that it's the all-powerful NRA that's at fault in all the killings, we have to show people that it's murderers who are at fault and the NRA is only powerful because they represent 5+million people in the US. People who don't know say that concealed carry people should be required to take courses. We need to point out that there are virtually no gunfights in our streets between CCL people and the these people are statistically the most law-abiding citizens in the nation by far. That up to 2,000 illegal acts per day are thwarted by armed citizens. How many of those might have turned into murders? Our gun murders in the US are down 50% since 1991 while gun ownership has doubled. We need to emphasize that the NRA trains more people in gun safety, including government employees, than all other sources combines, including the military. We need to emphasize that there are an estimated 85 million gun owners nationwide who don't kill someone everyday, every year. We need to emphasize that gun control historically kills far more people than gun rights. 8 million killed by Hitler. As many as 50-60 million killed by Stalin. tens of millions by Mao. 2-3 million by Pol Pot. 1 million+ in Rwanda (mainly killed by machete). 1 million in Sudan by the Janjaweed militia. This is far from the whole list.

[Netminder01]

The public dialogue is a growing title wave against the 2nd amendment and there are more people than ever looking to institute radical change and forking over $$ to support efforts; many of whom are not informed. We (broad pro 2nd amendment folks) need to get out of only defending our position and creating strategies to help inform & educate people otherwise ground will continue to be lost by us.

I've said plenty on this topic but I believe a new, much more modern organization is needed than the ones facing massive brand perception problems like the NRA.

I respectfully disagree, I believe they are a very vocal minority. That being said, I have had several respectful discussions lately with antis and when they truly listen you can shift the discussion to root causes and get some agreement. One of the issues is changing their view of the NRA from a manufacturers mouthpiece to an organization of average citizen / voters like you and I that was created to promote gun safety!

Respectful disagreements are perfectly fine by me; I get just as much satisfaction by swaying your perspective than those disagreements which are not respectful!! Let me provide a bit more detail to what I mean by stating the NRA has a brand perception problem.

This is not a subjective point of view, but rooted in facts and supported by data. It's not to say the NRA isn't effective in the areas they're most known to support and fund (lobbyists, lawmakers, etc) however, the war on our rights has a new and more modern front line; it's social and media channels. Effective strategies have been created and being implemented to alter the narrative and target those who've been on the fence and usually uninformed (the middle).

Each time there is a social flashpoint (let's say a mass shooting), via targeted social and digital strategies, messages are being quickly sent to influencers who have a large following and then disseminated to their own followers through social sharing. This is all being tracked and monitored through social tools illustrating the tactics being used are antiquated and the youth (Millennial and younger) believe the NRA are out of touch. One example of this is that the visceral reaction people have with the NRA brand and the assumption they know what it stands for. Another example is Hillary's comments just yesterday comparing the NRA stance on guns to that of Iran's on social justice issues.

This younger demographic are the primary recipients of targeted marketing messages intelligently seeding those sound bites / talking points and it's working. This is the area the NRA is lacking the most and in the long run, by not evolving, it will weaken our rightful hold on the 2nd amendment, the actual conversation we should be having and seizing the opportunity to educate the public and those mostly prone to be influenced - and to influence others.

Just by having a FB page, YouTube and Twitter does not mean you're resonating with the younger demographic. The method (content and social strategy) for interacting with the younger demographic is entirely different than say 45+ M/F and my position is the NRA is not only losing this fight - but not even in it.