Ideas for Mitigating the Anti-Gun Attempts!

So here is how you may win: viral, positive PROPAGANDA
You think that everyone that has never shot a gun is anti-gun? That's false, most people that don't have a gun and have never touched a gun DO NOT CARE.

You would never be able to take every voter to the range and most politicians here wouldn't be caught dead shooting a gun. All you want is to have them listen to you.

From the posters on this thread, Milsups4Me has it right, produce videos, articles, anything that can reach a mass audience where someone calmly and convincingly explains why we want (if not need) guns. There are many facets of gun ownership other then hunting or sports shooting. I like to build guns.
Get the Museum of Fine Arts to do an exhibit on firearms. Have a section where people can handle guns without any fear of shooting themselves. If that's successful, have similar smaller exhibits in other major MA cities.
 
Last edited:
Bring back shooting galleries. We all know the cheezy one at Hampton. Stuff like that, only better, and more of 'em.
 
Get the Museum of Fine Arts to do an exhibit on firearms. Have a section where people can handle guns without any fear of shooting themselves. If that's successful, have similar smaller exhibits in other major MA cities.

Uh huh. The Berkshire Museum does an annual "Festival of Trees" during the holiday which is not called Christmas. One year they had a "condom tree". Our First Graders who took the tour had a few ... questions.

Let's see what the ... homos at MFA do with a symbol as powerfully phallic as a gun. Oh, let the fun begin, as visitors are invited to handle each others "guns".

No thanks.
 
Show a more positive attitude towards the state here: it's not all bad.

Encourage gun owners moving to the region from other states to join the fight. Suggesting gun owners move to other states is exactly what the antis want.
 
Show a more positive attitude towards the state here: it's not all bad.

Encourage gun owners moving to the region from other states to join the fight. Suggesting gun owners move to other states is exactly what the antis want.

We have them right where they want us! [grin]
 
How about an NES/GOAL:

Toys for Tots?
Red Cross blood donation day?
Gazette Santa donation (Worcester T&G charity)
send some ladies to some AWARE training from a shelter like "Abby's House"?

LARGO used to do a lot of things like this: http://www.largo.org/
 
How about an NES/GOAL:

Toys for Tots?
Red Cross blood donation day?
Gazette Santa donation (Worcester T&G charity)
send some ladies to some AWARE training from a shelter like "Abby's House"?

LARGO used to do a lot of things like this: http://www.largo.org/
TFT and Globe Santa are pretty far away. But the blood donation is doable and an excellent cause.

Why don't you contact GOAL and volunteer to set it up? If you need contact names at the Worcester Red Cross Blood Bank I can give you a couple; I've set them up before for my Lodge.
 
considering there hasn't been a reply in over 3 months, i think this may have become a cold thread... i dont know about you guys, but i really like the idea of the turkey shoot, and im actually going to talk to the board at my club (Southborough R&G) to see if they would be willing to host such an event... not only that, but I'm right now working on a getting a new job, which would be a drastic increase in salary, so im making a commitment right now...

if i get this new job, im going to start planning this event, and I'll buy 2 10/22's to make it happen

it shouldnt stop at a turkey shoot either... how about a shoot for the cure? (get some of those pink 10/22's, the guy at basspro said they've got too many)

Shoot to raise awareness
Shoot to feed the hungry
Shoot for Haiti relief
Shoot for Make-A-Wish
Shoot the Tumor's
Big Brothers and Big Sisters Shoot
Shoot for Susan G Komen
Shoot for 4H
Shoot for the troops

come up with an appropriate prize for the winner's, sell shirt's and give all the profit to a non-profit... i fail to see how any TV station can put a negative spin on charitable actions....

These are excellent ideas. But --you knew a but was coming-- unfortunately, a lot of the clubs out there see shoots like turkey shoots as a chance to raise money for themselves. So by the time you are done, the charity won't have much left. But without a doubt, these above ideas are a great way of finding common ground with the surrounding communities.
 
How about a northeastshooters account on Youtube.com

Maybe someone can record shooting tips/ safety/ local shooting events etc and post it online. The video content would have to be approved by NES and, or the account controlled by Derek.
 
Uh huh. The Berkshire Museum does an annual "Festival of Trees" during the holiday which is not called Christmas. One year they had a "condom tree". Our First Graders who took the tour had a few ... questions.

Let's see what the ... homos at MFA do with a symbol as powerfully phallic as a gun. Oh, let the fun begin, as visitors are invited to handle each others "guns".

No thanks.

Ok, you're not invited..how about that?
 
IDEA 3 (actually, this is a VERY old one, preceding this forum):

GUERRILLA MARKETING 101: Rearrange magazine racks at Borders, Barnes and Noble, etc. so that the Guns and Ammo, Shotgun News, and all the other gun magazines are up front at eye level in front of the Golf and Oprah and Women's Day magazines.

GUERRILLA MARKETING 102: Leave old copies of your own gun magazines at the doctor's, dentist's office, barber shop, other waiting room type areas. Don't forget to tear out your name if you want to remain anonymous.

Don't play chicken-s***. The liberals are the anonymous junkies afraid to show their names. Announce who you are because you're not afraid of them instead of "tearing out your name to remain anon"...
 
Don't play chicken-s***. The liberals are the anonymous junkies afraid to show their names. Announce who you are because you're not afraid of them instead of "tearing out your name to remain anon"...

I tear the name and address off my wife's old "Good Housekeeping" magazines I bring in for the ladies to look at in the lunchroom. I don't quite get you there.
 
Don't play chicken-s***. The liberals are the anonymous junkies afraid to show their names. Announce who you are because you're not afraid of them instead of "tearing out your name to remain anon"...

I'm not concerned about anonymous liberal junkies, I'm concerned about actual junkies. "Here's my address, I have firearms, steal my shit."
 
Each 'bad' thing that happens has a 10x effect against legislation getting changed. Having the child who got killed using a fully automatic weapon at the gun show, a horrible accident from a situation that should not have ever been allowed to happen brings simple sentiment to legislators: If we ban guns, then these accidents don't happen. If we ban gun shows, then these accidents don't happen.

The non gun owners, who may or may not have had positions, clearly think that more regulation is needed if these incidents occur.

I personally believe that some of the positions from gun groups are detrimental to the total cause. Instead of making a big deal for the 1% of the needs (I know we all want belt fed 50 cal fully automatic machine guns with target tracking and exploding ammo;-), why not get the mainstream done first?! How about a national policy for all states on the basics. there are shades of grey to each issue, taking the extreme position and not compromising won't get it done, especially on non mainstream issues.

We need to think long term and strategically and realize you can lose some battles and still win the war.

Sometimes I believe as Pogo said, we have met the enemy, and it is us.
 
In hopes of reviving this thread. Maybe create a sticky, "MA-November 2012 take a non shooting month". Ask all members in MA to commit to take at least two nons to the range during November and report back in on their nons experience and attitude after they shoot. I agree the change required is legislative and to do that we need the mainstream with us. Anyways just throwing an idea out
 
To make progress, one must understand the other side. Most liberals and democrats have zero experience with firearms, and they support the current AWB and any future gun restrictions because they feel a need to protect schoolchildren from firearm violence, and because the media and friends they are surrounded by tell them it's a good idea.

They don't understand enough about guns to realize how stupid and ineffective the existing laws are, or how ineffective the newly proposed laws would be, because they don't have any friends to explain it to them. The best thing you can do is befriend a liberal and explain to them why the laws they are "liking" wouldn't actually work, and ALSO propose some logical alternatives for how to achieve the desired goal of protecting school children other than banning guns.

Democrats don't want to ban guns because they have some irrational hatred for guns. Rather, they want to ban guns because it's the only way they can think of to protect the children. If your arguments make sense, then you may be able to convince them that there is a better alternative, and maybe they will share that logic with their other friends.

First, it is important to have a suggestion for how to prevent gun violence in schools that doesn't involve banning guns, because you can't expect them to stand around and do absolutely nothing while this problem continues to get worse and worse -- and you also can't expect them to agree that arming school teachers is a solution to the problem, because honestly no parent wants their school to turn into some kind of military zone, and there is also a lot of deadly force by police in the media, so the idea of putting more gun toting trigger happy guards into schools isn't exactly comforting to most people.

Republicans also care about protecting their children, right? So there is no reason not to work together on this. I honestly don't understand why democrats and republicans can't work together on this issue, but the problem is nobody listens to the other side.

It is a well known fact studied by psychologists that every mass shooting inspires further copycat shootings. Before Columbine, no kid ever even thought of doing this....but once it was done, every disgruntled loser saw it as an option, and the more prevalent it becomes, the more normal it becomes, the more of a good idea it seems like...it's a way for those depressed kids to get revenge against the world, and to become famous. So, why not take this away from this? Why should they get to be famous? I would support a ban on the media from reporting any details about the shooter, such as his/her name, photograph, etc. This way, kids don't get to become instantly famous by committing a mass murder, and that may remove most of the incentive.

Secondly, it is important to educate democrats exactly why current and future gun legislation is or would be ineffective at preventing future mass murders. For example, explain to them the fact that the MA AWB does not actually ban "assault weapons" (which are already restricted by the NFA), but rather it just bans specific cosmetic features that have no effect on lethality (such as vertical foregrips, etc), as well as specific makes and models of guns (such as the AR-15 an AK), which are functionally identical and no more dangerous than any other common semi-automatic hunting rifle or handguns which are not banned. I have many liberal and democratic friends, and once I have explained this, they have never failed to agree that such a law is stupid and serves no purpose. Therefore, it is easy to get them to agree that, if any weapons should be banned, it should be because they are objectively more dangerous -- not because they have certain cosmetic features or nomenclature. That in itself would be a big win for gun owners who are constantly having to deal with ridiculous cosmetic restrictions.

Most democrats think they want to ban semi-automatic rifles, but not hunting rifles or defensive handguns. It must be explained to them that in fact, most hunting rifles are also semi-automatic, and equally dangerous...and also that having a shorter barrel on a handgun does not make it any less dangerous than a long rifle. If anything, I would argue that a handgun may be more dangerous, because it can be more easily concealed and brought into a public space. Once they realize this, it becomes clear that all semi-automatic guns are basically equivalent from a functional perspective, and banning any particular subset of semi-automatic guns would be completely pointless. Therefore, unless they think they can get bipartisan support to ban ALL semi automatic guns (which they know they can't), they might as well consider pursuing some other legislation that might have a better chance of actually saving lives (like, for example, my above anti-hero proposal).
 
To make progress, one must understand the other side. Most liberals and democrats have zero experience with firearms, and they support the current AWB and any future gun restrictions because they feel a need to protect schoolchildren from firearm violence, and because the media and friends they are surrounded by tell them it's a good idea.

Quite a well thought-out post with lots of good points. Unfortunately most of them will only work on people with open minds who are willing to listen to views contrary to what they may believe.

Unfortunately many anti-gun people ARE irrational and cannot be swayed by logical arguments. Case in point: I was holding a candidate's sign in a Town election last fall. For part of the time I was paired with the candidate's fil, a nice enough gentleman at first. But it was getting colder and I remarked that I wished I had my new NRA jacket with me.

Well, you would have thought I had stabbed him in the ass with a hot poker. This guy went from zero-to-bitch in about 1.2 seconds, started going off on the NRA as a bunch of nuts and stupid red-necks along with a few other choice adjectives which I don't recall right now. Well I tried to discuss this with him calmly but he would not listen. At one point I told him that many police officers supported us but this just sent him into another tirade about police and how they were all corrupt. He finally turned to me and said that the only reason I wanted an AR-15 was that it gave me an erection.

How do you have an intellectual discussion with a person like that?

Your points are well-taken and they mirror much of how I address these issues with people who have no knowledge of firearms. But you have to be prepared for those who cannot or will not engage in honest and open discussions.
 
I know maybe 10 people who own guns. I think 8 of the are Democrats. To them, the more important issues in the past have been the fact that Repubs have been more anti liberty. Anti gay marriage, (remember, the R platform up to recently was against gay marriage!), anti choice for women, etc. They have not really seen their gun rights eroded and these other issues are more important to them, so they vote D. They are not flaming liberals, but more libertarian. Fairly fiscally conservative, and pretty much purple on the political spectrum. But for instance, many have said they will never vote for a person who is anti choice. To them, having to choose between a person who says they are pro choice but wants magazines of only 10 rounds is better than the person who is anti choice and will let them have 17 round mags.
 
I know maybe 10 people who own guns. I think 8 of the are Democrats. To them, the more important issues in the past have been the fact that Repubs have been more anti liberty. Anti gay marriage, (remember, the R platform up to recently was against gay marriage!), anti choice for women, etc. They have not really seen their gun rights eroded and these other issues are more important to them, so they vote D. They are not flaming liberals, but more libertarian. Fairly fiscally conservative, and pretty much purple on the political spectrum. But for instance, many have said they will never vote for a person who is anti choice. To them, having to choose between a person who says they are pro choice but wants magazines of only 10 rounds is better than the person who is anti choice and will let them have 17 round mags.

unfortunately that's very true, Rs under W sucked in terms of liberty and as currupt and dishonorable Ds are, Rs aren't the shining opposite, just the other end of the same turd. Unfortunately both R and D want to increase .gov, just different aspects of it. That's fundamentally the problem.

In terms of logic and many Ds ... emotion works best. Make shit up, make them cry. That's been SOP for Ds for decades.
 
Quite a well thought-out post with lots of good points. Unfortunately most of them will only work on people with open minds who are willing to listen to views contrary to what they may believe.

How do you have an intellectual discussion with a person like that?

Your points are well-taken and they mirror much of how I address these issues with people who have no knowledge of firearms. But you have to be prepared for those who cannot or will not engage in honest and open discussions.

So true. I had (operational word 'had') friends that I new were pro-gun control. Nice people, but they were unashamed liberal Democrats and knew I was a Libertarian. We always agreed to disagree and not talk guns or other hot topics.

Over a year ago I went to dinner with them. Conversation was normal up until the end where Supreme Court nominations came up and I said I was pro-Gorsch for his strict constitutional interpretation and among other things, protection of the 2nd Amendment. You would have thought I said I loved Hitler. She went off on me for all the mass shootings and how the AR-15 was the tool of the devil (my interpretation of her words). Her husband, who had gone with me to a full-auto range in Las Vegas, piled on. Even though he had shot an M4 and liked it, he thought they were too powerful even in semi-auto for a normal person to own. My sticking to facts about DGUs and how ARs were no different than other semi-autos except for their furniture had no effect. The hysteria increased, finally ending with the wife telling me I had the blood of children on my hands and how this meant the friendship was over as they walked out the door. Most telling to me was her husbands comment - "Don't you see, he thinks he's winning." WTF? Attempting to counter emotion and having a fact-based discussion is "winning?"

Maybe some of you wouldn't have thought twice about telling them to GFY, but I had almost 20 years friendship with them, which I didn't take lightly. In general I'm good with agreeing to disagree and voting/donating to further my causes. But after a week thinking on the rants and personal attacks I had to agree she was right. There was no unwinding their behavior, and similarly I feel that there is no way to break thru irrational emotional thought of most anti-gunners. We need to focus our efforts on the open-minded and those who are not already emotionally vested.
 
Irrational is, as irrational does.

MsHappy plays Bridge. Most of the people there are Libs. One long-time partnership dissolved because Trump won. The partner on the losing side of the election could not tolerate their partner being pro-Trump (or possibly just against Hillary). I wonder if the Lib would have seen it as reasonable if the election had gone the other way, and the Con had broken up? I bet not, as that would have not made sense.

My point - what we (mostly) see as reasonable and sensible is seen as insane and irrational by the libs.....and the other way, around!
 
Unfortunately many anti-gun people ARE irrational and cannot be swayed by logical arguments. Case in point: I was holding a candidate's sign in a Town election last fall. For part of the time I was paired with the candidate's fil, a nice enough gentleman at first. But it was getting colder and I remarked that I wished I had my new NRA jacket with me.

Well, you would have thought I had stabbed him in the ass with a hot poker. This guy went from zero-to-bitch in about 1.2 seconds, started going off on the NRA as a bunch of nuts and stupid red-necks along with a few other choice adjectives which I don't recall right now. Well I tried to discuss this with him calmly but he would not listen. At one point I told him that many police officers supported us but this just sent him into another tirade about police and how they were all corrupt. He finally turned to me and said that the only reason I wanted an AR-15 was that it gave me an erection.

How do you have an intellectual discussion with a person like that?

It's an emotional topic on both sides of the aisle. Republicans can get pretty emotional and closed minded about these issues too. Imagine if that gentleman had started the conversation by praising Maura Healy for reinstating the AWB. It would probably make your blood start to boil, and you would start telling him what an idiot he/she was. He would try to defend himself and MIGHT even make some good points, but you probably wouldn't listen to them because you already didn't like him...right? That's probably how he felt when you brought up support for the NRA.

I think the only way to have a productive conversation from the other side of the aisle is to start by listening to what they have to say. The moment you realize they are not on "your side," instead of arguing with them, try hearing them out first. Don't let you know that you disagree with them. In fact, act like you agree with most of what they are saying...if you do that they will let down their guard, they will be open to listening to you...and then you can carefully pick some issues that you might want to disagree on, and they might actually listen to you then. You won't be able to change their mind about everything all at once, but maybe you can change their mind about one thing.

Over a year ago I went to dinner with them. Conversation was normal up until the end where Supreme Court nominations came up and I said I was pro-Gorsch for his strict constitutional interpretation and among other things, protection of the 2nd Amendment. You would have thought I said I loved Hitler. She went off on me for all the mass shootings and how the AR-15 was the tool of the devil (my interpretation of her words). Her husband, who had gone with me to a full-auto range in Las Vegas, piled on. Even though he had shot an M4 and liked it, he thought they were too powerful even in semi-auto for a normal person to own. My sticking to facts about DGUs and how ARs were no different than other semi-autos except for their furniture had no effect. The hysteria increased, finally ending with the wife telling me I had the blood of children on my hands and how this meant the friendship was over as they walked out the door. Most telling to me was her husbands comment - "Don't you see, he thinks he's winning." WTF? Attempting to counter emotion and having a fact-based discussion is "winning?"

That's pretty sad to hear how it broke up your long term 20 year friendship. It sounds like the wife was really overly emotional. Not a good position for her husband to be in...once she is in that emotional state, if he doesn't back her up, he's going to have hell to pay later on. I think your only recourse in that situation, when you see someone getting that emotional, is to drop the subject, nod and agree, and let them cool down. The conversation with your friend might have gone differently if his wife wasn't there at the same time.
 
Back
Top Bottom