Arizona gun store won't sell to Obama voters

[Whistler]

Yeah, you got me. I'm probably also vegetarian and left handed and a fag. Now knock it off.

Look, 50% of the country didn't take your/my/our/whoever's arguments seriously. We need to be *growing* the shooting community, and that means not alienating people who aren't already a part of it.

You know what the self-image of an immigrant rights activist is? A person who cares about individual human dignity. You know what the self-image of a self-defense rights activist is? A person who cares about individual human dignity. There is a common language that can be spoken here, and this us-versus-them mentality is bullshit and gets us nowhere.

You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't infantile? DON'T throw public tantrums.

You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't ignorant? DON'T assume you know everything -- or even anything -- about them because of how they react to your tantrum.

You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't bullies? DON'T call them incapable of exercising a fundamental constitutionally guaranteed human right.

You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't paranoid clingers? DO drop the siege mentality.

The shooting community is its own worst enemy when it comes to PR, and its shit like this at the core of it. This behavior only appeals to the single demographic that needs NO outreach from us.


If you're worried about another AWB, or mail-order ammo ban, or whatever, and GIVEN that an Obama win already puts us all behind the curve on these fights, we as a group need to STOP making the anti's job easier. Don't act like a goddamn clown, and don't cheer on those among us who do.

Not to be repetitive but how's that strategy been working for the last 40-50 years? While I respect your opinion on the best approach and even agree with some of your thoughts on a personal level, our unfettered access to firearms, ammunition and places to shoot are diminished daily as we "hold the moral high ground" in the face of emotional, groundless accusation and falsehood. The opposition is louder, they draw more attention and invoke more emotion, theirs is obviously a more effective strategy or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Switch your argument for a moment and direct it at the anti-gun crowd, how many of them would agree with or embrace your approach? I think I know the answer because I see their "tantrums", "ignorance", "bullying" "siege mentality" in every one of these conversations including your quaint parenting reprimand.

In a Utopian world we might be able to engage in meaningful dialog grounded in facts without name calling and baseless accusation but that's not this world. In reviewing the state of battle and the effectiveness of various strategies Sun Tzu might advocate adopting that of the enemy as a more effective counter strategy.

The firearms community was well represented in years past with school sanctioned and other youth shooting events, no one thought twice of a boy walking along the side of a road with a shotgun draped over his arm. All the sterling examples of safe and recreational gun ownership conveyed the message you promote and were universally ignored in preference of uninformed emotion and opinion. Not uninformed because no one took the time to send a positive message, uninformed because they just don''t care about or respect anyone's rights or opinions contrary to their own narrow view of the world at large. I don't lobby to diminish or restrict their rights under the Constitution even though I may disagree personally and I don't want to fight with them at all, I want them to have the same level of tolerance for me that I afford them and leave my rights alone.

[IShouldDoThisAllTheTime]

Not to be repetitive but how's that strategy been working for the last 40-50 years?

I can only speak to what has worked for me, personally. I know a LOT of sensitive vegan bike riding Boulder/Seattle/SF types. I've learned that people who care about human dignity really do respond to the self-defense/firearms argument when presented from that angle. But if you're doing a really good impersonation of an overbearing bully with something to prove, you've lost them.

Think about it this way: are you going to give more credence to discussions of vegetarian diet when it's coming from some screeching dreadlocked waify chick looking for an excuse to splash you with red paint, or when it's coming from Mac Danzig?

I've had really good results talking to be as if we're all sane adults. It's not universally successful, but name something (other than the MAN STOPPER 45) that is. On the other hand, if you start out talking to someone as an enemy, guess what happens?

[Ronin13]

I can only speak to what has worked for me, personally. I know a LOT of sensitive vegan bike riding Boulder/Seattle/SF types. I've learned that people who care about human dignity really do respond to the self-defense/firearms argument when presented from that angle. But if you're doing a really good impersonation of an overbearing bully with something to prove, you've lost them.

Think about it this way: are you going to give more credence to discussions of vegetarian diet when it's coming from some screeching dreadlocked waify chick looking for an excuse to splash you with red paint, or when it's coming from Mac Danzig?

I've had really good results talking to be as if we're all sane adults. It's not universally successful, but name something (other than the MAN STOPPER 45) that is. On the other hand, if you start out talking to someone as an enemy, guess what happens?

I don't think you're understanding what Whistler is saying here... Which by the way, well put! The point he's making is that we've been trying the mature adult approach and it gets us nowhere, so maybe we need to appeal to what they (by "they" I mean the loud-mouth liberal anti's) understand, emotion and extremes. On a one-on-one basis, yes, most people will be sane, rational folks, but you have those exceptions, the ones that do jump head first into argumentative talk against guns that won't. When talking about that kind of anti, you have to understand that they don't want tolerance or sanity when discussing the "evil black guns," they want to be right, and they believe they are right, second amendment be damned. They believe the 2nd is this ancient part of our bill of rights, that in a modern "civilized" society has no place. I've had discussions with people who see no rational argument for carrying or even owning firearms, you try to present them with factual evidence and they dismiss it as if you got it from some extremist blog, or are "living in a scary fantasy world." Worse, they claim you got it from the biggest lie of all "Fox News!" AHHH! You must deal with the most friendly of people who are willing to accept differing views. I approach these people with a responsible, reasonable, and calm demeanor, and still they resort to name-calling, and claims that guns are bad mmkay... God forbid I bring up the actual fact that Police rarely arrive as the crime is being committed, they usually show up when the person involved becomes the "victim."

[IShouldDoThisAllTheTime]

The point he's making is that we've been trying the mature adult approach and it gets us nowhere

As demonstrated by ever-dwindling number of shall-issue states? By SCOTUS ruling that the Second Amendment is a collective right and doesn't affect state or local law? By campaign spending limits being upheld despite First Amendment concerns?

I think the premise that we've gotten nowhere is crap. It's a mixed bag, but that's life.

so maybe we need to appeal to what they (by "they" I mean the loud-mouth liberal anti's) understand, emotion and extremes.

Why? You'll never reach them anyway. Because they're being emotional.

It's the vast majority of more or less rational people in the middle trying to make sense of the world who matter, and those people -- those VOTERS -- don't want to see more poo flinging. These are the folks who find phrasing like "common sense gun laws" so appealing. They're tired of powerfully emoted bullshit and just want a realistic option that works. That antis have made a strong play to hijack the "reasonable" position is the biggest external challenge we have to face.

IMO it's emotion and hysterics that lost "us" the election. The Tea Party rode in on an economic mandate in 2010, then immediately switched course and started fighting the culture wars. That looks awfully unfocused and emotional and untrustworthy to the great more or less rational middle. We could have spent the last two years being focused and effective, but we didn't do that, so the election went to the team with the best PR team.

IMO.