PDA

View Full Version : Unintended Consequences


Sinixstar
04-20-2010, 2:16 AM
I touched on this briefly in response to a thread - but I think it's worth pointing out some real world examples....

I'm noticing a lot of confusion and blowback from average people about the pro-2nd protests and open carry demonstrations.
The most common thing I hear is "What exactly are they protesting? It sounds like a bunch of crazy militia types who just want to wave guns around, those people scare me."

The thing we need to remember is that as has been said before- battles like this aren't won and lost with the true believers. If you're a hardcore anti, you're hardcore anti. If you're hardcore pro, you're hardcore pro. That ain't gonna change.

A lot of middle america is too distracted by shiney things to have formed an opinion though. As such, many are not even aware McDonald even exists as a case, they're not aware of things like microstamping, ammo restrictions, 1/30 laws, OC/UOC/CCW issues or anything else that gets us riled up. They're not aware of legislation moving through various assemblies around the country. They don't see the quiet (but real) efforts to push for more restriction. Even if they did - they probably don't much care in the first place, as long as they can put cheap gas in their car - and buy junk at the mall.

As a result - what they see - is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCuqGUoqBIE&feature=player_embedded

Now, you and I may or may not agree with this - but when that's the only side of the debate a large number of people are seeing, the result is a bit of a shock to the system. It is in a word - fear. They don't understand why people are angry, they don't understand why people would talk like that or protest in the first place. It scares the hell out of them because they think we're all just being crazy.

So - please, please please. Keep some of this in mind when you deal with the public. The angry rhetoric might work great for riling up the base, but the fact of the matter is this isn't a battle that will be won or lost solely with the support of the base. It's that big chunk of people who can't sit still through a 3 minute video on MTV that will be the deciding factor. STOP SCARING THE PANTS OFF OF THEM. :p


thank you

groats
04-20-2010, 6:48 AM
STOP SCARING THE PANTS OFF OF THEM. :p
thank you

Kind of like telling Dr. King to stop singing "We Shall Overcome", isn't it?

kcbrown
04-20-2010, 8:09 AM
So - please, please please. Keep some of this in mind when you deal with the public. The angry rhetoric might work great for riling up the base, but the fact of the matter is this isn't a battle that will be won or lost solely with the support of the base. It's that big chunk of people who can't sit still through a 3 minute video on MTV that will be the deciding factor. STOP SCARING THE PANTS OFF OF THEM. :p


I think if you're dealing with the public, you have to assume that they don't have any idea why you're doing what you're doing. You have to explain your position from ground zero, every time. If you consistently deal with the public then that could get old, but you have to do it anyway because you have to assume that each new person you meet is completely unaware of what you're about.

And explaining your position from ground zero means you have to give them the background for it as well as information about what you're currently responding to (and why). For anything that isn't by its nature dirt simple, this means you'll have to somehow condense a lot of detail into a few small bites, and a lot could be lost in that, so it has to be done exactly right.

These are very hard things to do, as it turns out.

Dr Rockso
04-20-2010, 8:43 AM
I agree with you. I could vaguely understand these armed 2A protests if there was some pending omnibus gun ban legislation, but since there isn't the talking points from 'our side' just sound nuts to your average TV viewer.

xrMike
04-20-2010, 8:46 AM
So it's NOT a good idea to lug my Solothurn into Starbucks, is that what you're saying? ;)

cmaynes
04-20-2010, 8:59 AM
People singing "we shall overcome" and talking about getting along is a pretty easy thing for others to accept- When we are talking about guns, we are talking about the power of life and death- We enthusiast, and if you will, realists, know that personal responsiblilty involves security- the broad unwashed masses (my wife included) believe that guns can walk down the street by themselves, and kill people every chance they get- they believe that people are incapable of violence UNLESS they have a gun- not recognizing that the violence has nothing to do with the gun itself. The battle needs to be fought and won in the courts- and outside the ignorant publics field of view- those anti-gun folks will NEVER like guns- and rarely change that posture- and even groups with all sorts of legitimacy, like Pink Pistols are not going to convince them.

CGF has done amazing things for gun rights in this People Republic. Support their initiative-

Sinixstar
04-20-2010, 9:08 AM
Kind of like telling Dr. King to stop singing "We Shall Overcome", isn't it?

The difference is - when king was singing "we shall overcome" - even if people disagreed with what he was doing - they got it. They just thought he was wrong.

The problem here is that the majority of the public doesn't get it in the first place. They just see angry people waving guns and talking about taking on the government.

Anger is fine - but anger without some background info just looks like blind rage.

Sinixstar
04-20-2010, 9:12 AM
I think if you're dealing with the public, you have to assume that they don't have any idea why you're doing what you're doing. You have to explain your position from ground zero, every time. If you consistently deal with the public then that could get old, but you have to do it anyway because you have to assume that each new person you meet is completely unaware of what you're about.

And explaining your position from ground zero means you have to give them the background for it as well as information about what you're currently responding to (and why). For anything that isn't by its nature dirt simple, this means you'll have to somehow condense a lot of detail into a few small bites, and a lot could be lost in that, so it has to be done exactly right.

These are very hard things to do, as it turns out.


It's quite simple.


There has been a serious erosion of civil rights over the last several years in this country. We simply fear that certain lobbying interests are trying to pile on by extending this trend to our 2nd amendment rights. We feel it's time to think about protecting what rights we have left rather then further watering down the constitution.


That simple statement will win you more supporters then you could possibly imagine. I however have yet to hear a single person make a statement that simple and direct. It's always something about 'the gubberment is coming for us!' - which just looks :TFH:

GrizzlyGuy
04-20-2010, 9:16 AM
Oy, point taken, that video almost scared me and I'm on the pro side who can read between the lines of what he was saying. I can see how that can't possibly help us with the people who are undecided and have limited knowledge about the issue. It would be real easy for them to erroneously conclude that Mike and gang are dangerous, irrational, paranoid hot-heads who are just looking for an excuse/opportunity for armed revolt against the government. :(

Toast
04-20-2010, 9:27 AM
A lot of these people freak out fellow gun owners too. I own guns and like them as much as the next guy, but a lot of these protesters make me uncomfortable. Running around UOC or OC, waving flags, dressing in camo and talking about armed confrontations really isn't going to help anything.

I'm pretty wary of other gun owners in general though, so :shrug:

thebronze
04-20-2010, 10:28 AM
Oy, point taken, that video almost scared me and I'm on the pro side who can read between the lines of what he was saying. I can see how that can't possibly help us with the people who are undecided and have limited knowledge about the issue. It would be real easy for them to erroneously conclude that Mike and gang are dangerous, irrational, paranoid hot-heads who are just looking for an excuse/opportunity for armed revolt against the government. :(


They aren't?

Pixs
04-20-2010, 10:57 AM
Hi Folks,

I try not to comment on some of the web sites that are linked from post here for the reason that I may not be precisely clear enough to reach the scared people that are looking for some reassurance that they will not be shot on the street or Starbucks.

The point is well taken as presented by the original post. Welcome to the world of sound bite (usually out of context) politics. Normally, I would add LOL but it isn't funny at all. The general public is indeed, for the most part, either uninformed or misinformed and disinterested until it effects them personally.

I, for one, would like to see the inarticulate keep their collective mouths shut in the general media or make some intelligent point that is clear and concise. I'm sorry to say, that video probably did much more harm than good. It is never a good idea to speak with your angry voice in public while the audience contains strangers to your cause.

Best to all,

Pixs

macadamizer
04-20-2010, 1:07 PM
And along those lines, it is probably better to not refer to the people you are trying to reach as

A lot of middle america is too distracted by shiney things ... It's that big chunk of people who can't sit still through a 3 minute video on MTV

and instead realize that this is a better tact:

I can see how that can't possibly help us with the people who are undecided and have limited knowledge about the issue.

It doesn't help anyone to simply assume that people who don't think the same way people do here on CalGuns is automatically stupid, or a sheep being led to slaughter.