David French: Why the Left Won’t Win the Gun-Control Debate

[Wendell]

Faced with a generation of defeat in the gun debate, the Left is increasingly turning to one of its favorite weapons in the culture war, stigma. It’s mobilizing its tribe — including progressive corporations, Hollywood, and the mainstream media — to not just make policy arguments but also to shame and insult Americans who disagree. The goal is to make gun ownership culturally toxic.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/gun-control-debate-liberals-wont-win-heres-why/

[M2CattleCo]

They're not winning the debate because they're not debating. They're just kicking our asses and we're not even fighting back.

[blues]

They're not winning the debate because they're not debating. They're just kicking our asses and we're not even fighting back.

I don't agree, especially in regards to fighting back. Plus, in my own opinion, this is a time for artful articulation and reasoning vs. bringing out the hammer. We have to avail ourselves of our elected representatives and members of the media on our side who can present cogent, reasoned arguments based upon the facts. (I would feel a bit better if one or two of the Supremes retired so we could replace them with more 2A friendly jurists.)

I'm all for the hammer...but I'd prefer to reserve it for a lull in the action when it won't come across as a brutish and unfeeling response in the aftermath of a tragic event.

That said, if our backs get pushed to the wall, I'm certainly in favor of going all out.

[Bigghoss]

It's not about winning the debate. It's about getting the vote.

[ranger]

It is all about money. If gun owners voted with their pocketbook and punished those that "attack" us financially - it would get a lot of attention. Yes, we need to vote pro-2A candidates at every level - local, state, and Federal.

[rjohnson4405]

In my experience, more and more people are fighting the obvious manipulation coming from the media. Several friends of friends who I wouldn't have expected it from have openly disparaged people accepting what comes from the media/hollywood/academia without doing their own research.

I have hope the the regular working man and woman aren't as dumb as most think they are. But I've been proven wrong before.

[scjbash]

They're not winning the debate because they're not debating. They're just kicking our asses and we're not even fighting back.

That's largely dependent on the location. A good example is the number of states that have passed Constitutional Carry over the last few years. This is a fight that is largely fought on the state level, and states with strong 2A organizations stand a better chance of winning than those without them. WV is a great example. We have the WVCDL, which has thousands of dues paying members and a reach of tens of thousands. The group leadership has forged excellent relationships with many legislators. At any time a call to action can be sent out and members will light up their legislators' phones and fill the seats in the house and senate chambers. It's amazing to see how effective we are at crushing anti-gun bills and amendments, and by the end of this week the number of pro-gun bills we've got passed in the last few years will be near twenty.

I can't speak strongly enough about joining and working for state level 2A organizations. Participate in membership drives to help grow their numbers. Meet your representatives in person and talk to them. Be there at legislative sessions and make your voice heard. When I joined the WVCDL a few years ago we only numbered about 500 statewide, and were regularly referred to as a fringe group by the media and politicians. Now we are possibly the most effective state level 2A organization in the country. No one considers us a fringe group now.

If your(generic your, I'm speaking to everyone on this forum) state doesn't have a well ran 2A organization, someone needs to start one...

[BillSWPA]

Faced with a generation of defeat in the gun debate, the Left is increasingly turning to one of its favorite weapons in the culture war, stigma. It’s mobilizing its tribe — including progressive corporations, Hollywood, and the mainstream media — to not just make policy arguments but also to shame and insult Americans who disagree. The goal is to make gun ownership culturally toxic.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/gun-control-debate-liberals-wont-win-heres-why/

I really like the article, but unfortunately many throughout history have been persuaded to give up this right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OlongJohnson]

Both of the articles (one by the same author and one by a person he calls a friend) linked within the first paragraph of the original linked article assert that responsible gun owners are generally in favor of universal background checks and "gun violence restraining orders."

I don't personally know any gun owners who support either of those things.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

No offense, but I think there are quite a few gun owners who are quite OK with both of those. When folks are asked about gun control, many say we need it BUT for those who aren't for outright bans, they assume that gun ownership by law abiding and mentally stable individuals will not be hampered. Thus, they are OK with some regulations but oppose the absolutist bans and confiscations.

The type of gun is also relevant. I think some owners who have a self-defense orientation may still not see the need for the EBR paradigm. A study a few years ago demonstrated that some of the hunter crowd fell into this category. Their knowledge of just needing a good bolt gun to hunt convinced them that you don't need an AR.

We constantly have on the Internet - the 5 is enough crowd. Now, there is nothing wrong with carrying a J frame if you acknowledge that you decided to this with a knowledge of how it falls on risk continuum and you train to do such. However, the 5 is enough crowd is notorious for denouncing those who carry more as nuts, paranoid, whatever.

I recall in the good ol' boy Austin gun store - the clerk braying that if you can't do it in 5, you can't get 'er done. Blah, blah.

Last, I'm afraid and have said that the major gun rights organization of which I've belong for years and we have folks from it on this forum, really haven't cracked the PR debate. They adopted a strategy of exciting the choir which may be good for finances and influencing elections in some locales. However, it isn't a long term strategic plan as it is always on defense (send more money!). Wayne's recent major message seems to be:
God gave us the right to have assault rifles to prevent the kindergarten teacher turning your kid into a socialist.

Look how FL (a gun friendly state) seems to have folded in a short period of time and all gun friendly folks (see the Who needs enemies - thread I started) who jumped on the moral panic train. How was all the money spent on those sort of politicians effective?

Better spokespeople and leadership and a more scientifically vetted PR strategy is needed for the long term to avoid the stigma attack. I said it and others have said it is like smoking.

Maybe you can keep the SW Model 10 but forget other things if the moral panic ensues again. Don't count on SCOTUS or the Congress to pass anything proactive gun rights given the only message we get is : Well, at least it isn't Hillary?

Playing defense isn't enough. Can an offense be devised that get laws through Congress? On the state level in gun friendly states, good laws have passed but local bans are increasing as the case for them is more convincing to some in the general population.

I said elsewhere (I do need a life):


Agree to disagree, folks. What actually works as an argument to defend gun ownership is an interesting empirical question.

There is the popular excuse route:
1. 223 isn't powerful
2. ARs are for sport. Don't take my toys! Australia and the UK, did BTW
3. They aren't fully auto so don't call them assault boom-booms
4. They are tools like pliers and only people are dangerous
5. Well, Johnny could have made anthrax or Sarin and killed more people. A bomb did that - so no action is needed if you only kill 20 kids.

Do we know if that works? Did the NRA or other gun organizations do some legit research to test those messages?

Then there are the legalistic, Constitutional, real purpose arguments.
1. Shall not be infringed - Enuf said.
2. We are the militia - Enuf said
3. God said so
4. Defense against tyranny and self-defense. Debate if that was the purpose as you can find various old political sources saying this or that. I've pointed out that the Civil Rights Movement, some progressives (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/07/robert-farago/harpers-cover-story-liberal-gun-owners/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/16/the-liberal-gun-nut/) and some nonstandard conservatives as in the NY Times article will buy into this
5. Defense against foreign invasion. Funny, that used to be a popular theme. 50,000 Chinese in California or Mexico on the way to TX to take our guns. Here comes the UN! Remember those. Really heated. Say that today and you would be seen as an idiot by a majority of gun folk and antigun folk.

Use what works. If you think you have it nailed, good for you. I see merit in many of the statements if used in a manner that would be convincing. Any of them can be stated in a way that only appeals to the choir.

Blah, blah - we can lose the culture/stigma war if not careful and only see a rampage crisis as a fund raiser from choir. That's harsh but the way I see it.

[Hot Sauce]

I find when talking about the issue with anti-gun people it is very clutch to talk about statistics rather about a specific incident. Here are some basics that I make sure to address:



Gary & Kleck+CDC stats (http://americangunfacts.com/) highlight that guns are 40-80 times more likely to be used in self-defense. The other stats that I bring up are deaths by rifles vs. by handguns. Even Clinton-era ATF published materials suggesting that the Assault Weapons Ban would have little if any effect on crime whatsoever given that weapons that fell under this definition were barely used in crimes before the ban. Explaining how the different guns work is useful--most antis assume full autos are what's being debated.




I also explain the inherent dilemma that the type of gun most used in self-defense (pistol) is also the one most used in criminal actions. Because it is portable, no other reason. I bring up that the most popular pistol, the Glock, is most popular for all potential users--civilians, law enforcement, and likely even criminals. It's not any sort of inherent value judgement on Glocks--or any other model of firearm.




What's the result? Getting reasonable liberal folks to understand that focusing on the object is misdirection.




The real issue to overcome is the way people project their personal experience--if they've never been in a fight, or never lived an area where police response times were not adequate--assuming that this mirror image transferred to any average joe/jane in the country.




The assumption that "If I had a gun on me and I'd get angry, I'd be liable to go off, and therefore every gun guy is..." is also a big one to address, mainly with statistics again. The crime rate among licensed CCW permit holders dispels that garbage.


These tend to work for me, in order to at least get reasonable people who have anti tendencies to begin to ask themselves questions. Re-framing the arguments around statistics and questioning their definition of "common sense" tends to also keep the discussions more civil and less emotional.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Sometimes data does work. I had a discussion with someone who was sure that video games led to rampages. It must be because of the surface validity. I said - you know me. I'm a highly trained psychologist, expert in statistical analysis and I have read the literature, meta-analyses and in depth scholarly books on the subject. The effect, if there at all, is minimal. The person knew that I knew my area and grudgingly conceded that while we have to do something, banning games might not be it.

Good post!

[Hot Sauce]

Sometimes data does work. I had a discussion with someone who was sure that video games led to rampages. It must be because of the surface validity. I said - you know me. I'm a highly trained psychologist, expert in statistical analysis and I have read the literature, meta-analyses and in depth scholarly books on the subject. The effect, if there at all, is minimal. The person knew that I knew my area and grudgingly conceded that while we have to do something, banning games might not be it.

Good post!I believe this sort of thinking about video games is actually some of that same sneaky mirror imaging bias. Typically, an older person or politician who has never been into video games thinks to themselves, "If I was playing a violent video game, I'd become more aggressive..." but as you mentioned, there is no statistical basis for coming to such a conclusion.

Relevant quote here, by W. Edwards Deming: "In God we trust; all others bring data."

[blues]

I believe this sort of thinking about video games is actually some of that same sneaky mirror imaging bias. Typically, an older person or politician who has never been into video games thinks to themselves, "If I was playing a violent video game, I'd become more aggressive..." but as you mentioned, there is no statistical basis for coming to such a conclusion.

Relevant quote here, by W. Edwards Deming: "In God we trust; all others bring data."

So, you mean playing Doom for hours back when didn't send my life spinning out of control?

(I was wondering how I was still able to perform my duties despite spending too much personal time trying to reach the next level.)

/s


ETA: I do still wonder if, at least in some cases where the nature / nurture balance is just so, realistic video games don't contribute to pushing that sort of mind over the edge.

[spinmove_]

I’ve been playing violent video games since I was 3. 33 years later I still have yet to assault or murder anyone. Maybe I haven’t played enough of them yet...


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[blues]

I’ve been playing violent video games since I was 3. 33 years later I still have yet to assault or murder anyone. Maybe I haven’t played enough of them yet...


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

You're obviously playing the wrong games. ;)

I used to play violent games with sticks and plastic cowboy guns when I was three. Moreso the sticks since my parents weren't inclined to buy me a new toy gun very often. You can't imagine the number of "Krauts", "Japs" and "Injuns", (pardon the slurs but that was the time we lived in), I was responsible for dispatching. Oh, and the odd alien (the kind from space) as well.

[spinmove_]

You're obviously playing the wrong games. ;)

I used to play violent games with sticks and plastic cowboy guns when I was three. Moreso the sticks since my parents weren't inclined to buy me a new toy gun very often. You can't imagine the number of "Krauts", "Japs" and "Injuns", (pardon the slurs but that was the time we lived in), I was responsible for dispatching. Oh, and the odd alien (the kind from space) as well.

I dunno, Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, Mega Man, Street Fighter, Tekken, and UT have all been my primary staples. I even traveled for a Quake tourney in the early 00s and placed middle of the pack amongst the worlds best at the time...


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[OnionsAndDragons]

I've found that evidence and vetted data can work well if the people in question are either scientifically minded or not staunchly entrenched in their position.

For people that get the FWE when you ask if they have read any of the primary data, the best you can do is plant a seed of doubt. Try to convince them to do a little reading outside their bubble and test their arguments against something other than an echo.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HGGMB]

Sometimes data does work. I had a discussion with someone who was sure that video games led to rampages. It must be because of the surface validity. I said - you know me. I'm a highly trained psychologist, expert in statistical analysis and I have read the literature, meta-analyses and in depth scholarly books on the subject. The effect, if there at all, is minimal. The person knew that I knew my area and grudgingly conceded that while we have to do something, banning games might not be it.

Good post!
This is a very interesting subject. I'm not a Sociologist, and don't claim to be. Though I've spoken with one who did research on the matter.

Her conclusion was that certain violent video games have no negative effect whatsoever on individuals that are considered normal, whatever that definition is. HOWEVER for individuals with psychological issues, again what the hurdle for that definition I can't say, and some detachment from reality, these games can "push them over the edge" in certain situations.

Have to say, that makes sense to me. But if true, what do you do with this info?

Does this jibe with what you know?

[blues]

This is a very interesting subject. I'm not a Sociologist, and don't claim to be. Though I've spoken with one who did research on the matter.

Her conclusion was that certain violent video games have no negative effect whatsoever on individuals that are considered normal, whatever that definition is. HOWEVER for individuals with psychological issues, again what the hurdle for that definition I can't say, and some detachment from reality, these games can "push them over the edge" in certain situations.

Have to say, that makes sense to me. But if true, what do you do with this info?

Does this jibe with what you know?

Sounds a lot like what I was opining in post #14 earlier today. (But I have no specific evidence to support my supposition.)

[HGGMB]

Sounds a lot like what I was opining in post #14 earlier today. (But I have no specific evidence to support my supposition.)
Ah, how did I miss that? We even both used the word "edge."

I don't have a link to the research, but the professor who told me struck me as credible. I could dig up her name if necessary. And for clarification, the person is a social psychologist, not sociologist.

[Robinson]

I dunno, Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, Mega Man, Street Fighter, Tekken, and UT have all been my primary staples. I even traveled for a Quake tourney in the early 00s and placed middle of the pack amongst the worlds best at the time...


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

You probably remember QTest and how geeked out everyone was about Carmack's new 3D engine. I was doing heavy code development at the time and it was the coolest thing.

[spinmove_]

You probably remember QTest and how geeked out everyone was about Carmack's new 3D engine. I was doing heavy code development at the time and it was the coolest thing.

Sadly I don’t. I was a poor console pleb until just after Goldeneye on N64 and discovered Quake3. Doom and Wolfenstein I played on friend’s or family’s PCs until I could afford to build my own.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[BillSWPA]

Here is exactly how we lose:

1). The idea that we have to do “something” to appease the other side, which too many Republicans now seem to have adopted. Concessions should only be made if they come with something more valuable for us, in a way that ensures we actually get it.

2). Arguing the second amendment when talking with anyone who is less than fully committed to our ideology but might otherwise be persuaded. We need to be able to explain exactly why that which we support is beneficial. The statistics in above posts are a good start.

3). Failing to seriously consider the positions we take and how we can realistically persuade others of the value of those positions before we assert them. See the bump stock thread for a perfect example.

4) Being too quick to try to divert blame to something other than guns, such as mental health, without considering how it can come back and bite us.

This fight will ultimately be won by whoever can persuade the middle to vote their way. I do not see much of this going our way with the present strategies of those on our side.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StraitR]

My foray into statistics (Six Sigma green belt) has shown me that data and minitab can be used to produce whatever results someone wants to show, if they're so inclined. Statistics and data are not the truth, as the output is only as honest and pure as the person doing the work.

[Hot Sauce]

ETA: I do still wonder if, at least in some cases where the nature / nurture balance is just so, realistic video games don't contribute to pushing that sort of mind over the edge.If you've got a case of someone who has such trouble separating video games and reality that a video game could push them over the edge... I'm willing to bet there are quite a few more things that will push them over the edge as well. Having said that, I doubt such a characterization would apply to a large chunk of people.


Being too quick to try to divert blame to something other than guns, such as mental health, without considering how it can come back and bite us.This is a very important point. The instinctive "mental illness" diversionary blame is the same kind of gut-feeling-quackery that others apply to guns, and it is just as invalid. The overwhelming share of mentally ill people are not violent, and there is no need to stigmatize them. The instant knowing of who else to blame smacks of the same "Well, we've got to make it look like we're doing something, even if it achieves nothing" crowd that gun owners so correctly detest. As if gun deaths did not exist back when institutionalization was practiced on a much wider scale decades ago.

Bottom line, we cannot claim to be the more sensible ones if we're spouting similar types of bullshit, and using similar bullshit tactics, as the people we're arguing are wrong.

[Totem Polar]

Bottom line, we cannot claim to be the more sensible ones if we're spouting similar types of bullshit, and using similar bullshit tactics, as the people we're arguing are wrong.

This.

And therein lies the rub. Stating the bald truth, like: "there will always be evil in the world, get used to it and be prepared" and replying "nothing; because our policy isn’t broken, privately owned firearms are still a net gain for violent crime prevention in America" when asked what we think we should do about gun control is a really hard sell against a backdrop of media-amplified mass shootings.