How many visitors leave your Website disappointed because they didn’t find what they expected? There’s no telling. But you can be sure that some do.
I just left two Web sites disappointed. One was the Brady Campaign for Gun Control and the other was the National Rifle Association. There’s a lot to like about both sites. They’re well-organized and persuasive. But I went to them looking for some specific information: What do serious gun-control advocates or serious firearm enthusiasts make of handguns and assault weapons? In particular, I was hoping that either site could shed light on something reported in “The Editorial Advantage” last week.
A frequent contributor to this blog, Gabe Goldberg, wrote a post which mentioned in passing that he and his wife had recently enjoyed recreationally firing an Uzi submachine gun and a Glock semiautomatic pistol while vacationing in Las Vegas.
This nearly floored me. Gabe is a civilized, well-educated social liberal. He is also a fearless and outspoken individualist. He fired an assault weapon and reported on it as just one of several Las Vegas activities, along with visiting Hoover Dam and the Pinball Hall of Fame and catching a Blue Man Group performance.
He found an interesting way to introduce his discussion of targeting messages—it certainly got my attention—as a natural follow-on to his being in Las Vegas for the International Consumer Electronics Show. In Las Vegas, people can enjoy activities that aren’t readily accessible in most places, like gambling and shooting. Lots of people do.
But anti-gun sensibilities run deep, so I asked Gabe if we could promise readers an explanation at a later date. He didn’t understand what bothered me, and because I wasn’t entirely sure either, I went to the NRA and Brady Campaign sites for a balanced discussion of the opposing side’s views and found …. nothing.
I Googled my way to a couple of excellent pieces, one by the noted child psychologist Bruno Bettelheim on the Rogue Community College site and another that originally appeared in the Washington Post entitled “My Boys Like Shootouts. What’s Wrong With That?”
I read about the functional role of gunplay and other war games in helping children “master rather than merely repress aggression,” in Bettelheim’s words. I chuckled over the Post author’s account of taking away his sons’ play swords, only to have them resort to celery stalks. Boys will be boys (and girls play war games too, if their parents let them).
There’s a lot of interesting research on the psychology of firearms. Much of it would strike gun enthusiasts as supportive of their cause. Much of it would make gun-control advocates feel the stronger evidence is on their side.
Why isn’t any of it on either group’s Web site? Perhaps for the same reason that few other advocacy groups publish articles that could be considered “ammunition” for their opponents. They view a Web site as a bully pulpit. It is, but it can be much more.
A Web site that educates visitors about all sides of a story carries a lot of weight as a promotional tool for the cause. It reinforces the views of the converted, and it can help to sway people who are on the fence. Most important, it is a valuable resource in its own right, besides being simply a mouthpiece for the cause.
Sometimes all it takes is an FAQ addressing misconceptions or apprehensions about the cause. See, for instance, the PETA FAQ page. Clearly aware that many people regard them as extreme, the organizers created an FAQ page listing the most common objections to their position and answering them all in a cool-headed way.
It’s the essence of effective persuasion. You see yourself from the other person’s perspective, and you gently bring him or her over to your side. Maybe it’s harder when the subject is a loaded gun.
17 Comments
Good points about the two sites you mention. I have found that most useful information is usually found at blogs and forums.
Google up or Youtube “Knob Creek” and you will see a LOT of civilized people celebrating their empowerment! There is a great new video floating around.
Their bodies, their choice!
http://current.com/items/87302871_shooting_machine_guns
Try that, celebrate diversity and go away HAPPY!
An UZI is not a assault weapon. Get the terminology right if you are going to use it.
“Gabe is a civilized, well-educated social liberal. He is also a fearless and outspoken individualist. He fired an assault weapon and reported on it as just one of several Las Vegas activities..”
Oh, my. Where to begin? First, he didn’t fire an assault weapon. That’s a term made up by hoplophobes to scare the witless. He fired a submachinegun.
Next, doesn’t exercising Constitutionally-protected, God-given rights kinda fit in with being a “fearless and outspoken individualist”?
You have hit upon a subject with which I have personal experience. I ama recreational shooter who punches holes in paper targets with both handguns and rifles. I have been a shooter for over a decade. My wife has no problems with my hobby and has encouraged me to teach our children both firearm safety and how to shoot well. However, I have found no way to get my wife to try sport shooting with me, due to her negative experiences with firearm victims when she worked in an Emergency Room as an intern in medical school. The emotional and negative experiences with gunshot wounds have, as she admits herself, overcome her rational understanding that sport shooting is an entertaining and safe hobby. Any suggestions on how to reconcile her rational understanding with her emotional reaction?
Suzanne, the NRA site you linked to is a gateway to many others, all tailored for a particular function of the association. NRA has long had a page addressing common “misconceptions or apprehensions”:
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=209
Without knowing the specific article you could find no information on, chances are it is something that was picked up by bloggers–or maybe should be? While NRA has a blog of sorts, you’ll find, like in any bureaucracy, timely responses generally don’t come from large organizations that already have priorities on their agenda.
In terms of what “serious” activists on both sides of the issue want for handguns and “assault weapons”, that’s easy. Serious gun controllers want to ban them and serious RKBA advocates will not surrender theirs. Intermediate steps like licensing, registration, etc. are just that–increments on the way to a goal. But I do want to make sure you know what an “assault weapon” really is, and how confusion has been intentionally generated in order to facilitate banning them:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n6_v27/ai_17491710
What floors me is why you think “civilized, well-educated” people would not vslue firearms and be proficient in their use? Is it because you don’t include shooters in your social circle? You might be surprised at the academic credentials and achievements of many in the gun rights movement. That is, as long as you’re open-minded and not predisposed to dismissive stereotyping.
I’d also ask what you find either deep or sensible about being anti-gun. There’s just an overwhelming amount of material out there on the internet right now–covering everything from the intent of the Framers to the statistics demonstrating their protective and deterrent benefits, but it’s easy to get lost. My suggestion: Google “The Best Defense” by Robert Waters and then pick up a copy and read it. If that doesn’t whet your appetite to lexplore more, and maybe start to grok that everything the media has told you may not quite be so, I’m not sure anything will.
My other suggestion: Look up the name Paxton Quigley. Contact her. Talk to her and learn her story, maybe read one of her books, and what would be excellent is to take one of her classes. Or find a local class, and not to sound sexist, but preferably one conducted for women by women. I know I’m being guilty of stereotyping in this, but in my experience, women with no firearms experience are already intimidated enough, and on the whole find such an environment less threatening. Caveat: Make sure they are NRA certified and come with excellent testimonials. I truly think you’d gain a whole new perspective.
I have had the pleasure on separate occasions of introducing a lifelong democrat woman from Chicago, a Santa Monica liberal and a Japanese businessman to shooting–something alien to all three of their worlds. I won’t go through the details here, but suffice it to say, I had them all grinning like kids in a candy store and eager for more. That’s not to say it’s for everyone, but you never know–and at the very least, knowing how to handle a firearm, or at the very least how to safely unload one–is a skill every adult should be responsible enough to learn.
Finally what light were you hoping to have shed that you’re still not clear on? I don’t claim to be an authority on much, but have plenty of contacts who are. If there’s something you’d like to know, you’ll find plenty of people like me willing to help you find out who has the answers.
You will have to excuse me for picking out a single portion of your post to comment upon, but it is just the way my brain works.
Your fourth paragraph both strikes me as slightly confusing, and slightly concerning. Mr. Goldberg went and fired a relatively common semi-automatic firearm, as well as what seems to be a fully-automatic pistol (of which I am quite jealous… those are hard to come by these days). However, this event apparently surprised you, because Mr. Goldberg is, in your own words, “a civilized, well-educated social liberal” and “a fearless and outspoken individualist”.
Now, if I understood that paragraph properly, I have one question for you: Why do you find “firearm enthusiast/shooter” and “civilized/well-educated/liberal/individualist” to be mutually exclusive, or at least contradictory, sets?
Oh, sure, there are the stereotypes that we all know and love of a ‘bacco-chewin’, swearin’, drinkin’, stump-jumpin’, shotgun-slingin’ redneck, but surely you are not basing your post upon such a comical representation of the culture of firearm enthusiasts as a whole?
If my understanding of your post is in error, I apologize, but that is how it came across to me, your reader. If you have any specific questions or clarifications you would like, feel free to ask.
All that said, and since I probably should address the rest of your post, you are quite correct – both the Brady Campaign and the NRA webpages do a horrible job presenting the core aspects of each of their respective campaigns. I certainly hope you dropped each of their webmaster’s a note, and directed them to this post… who knows, they might take it to heart, and try to improve!
We fired a Glock semi-automatic pistol (one shot fired per trigger pull) and a full-automatic Uzi submachine gun (repeat fires while trigger is held). My wife chose the Glock after asking for the lightest semi-automatic pistol. I picked the Uzi.
My and my wife’s political and social leanings didn’t lead us to the firing range or influence our enjoyment of the experience or change our feelings about firearms one way or another.
An interesting aspect of visiting the range was noticing that instructors (all shooters received instruction, this wasn’t just “Here’s a gun, go shoot”) wore sidearms. I asked about this, and our instructor replied that since there was no background check on shooters … they never knew what might happen.
Wow in the last 4 years I’ve trained professors, lawyers, doctors, school teachers,
engineers, CPA’s, & a CEO or two.
Everyone I’ve trained seemed civilized, & many have been well educated, a few were social liberals, but I never held it against them,and overlooked their faults.
Suzanne,
Here is a comprehensive document that “answers” many of the myths that gun-control proponents present as facts.
Obviously, this document is written by freedom advocates, but it should provide you with what you found missing on the NRA’s website.
http://www.rmgo.org/images/GunFacts4-2-Press.pdf
“It’s the essence of effective persuasion. You see yourself from the other person’s perspective, and you gently bring him or her over to your side. Maybe it’s harder when the subject is a loaded gun.”
Many gun-control proponents will simply refuse to hear our side of the argument. They just refuse to listen to anything except “guns are bad” and they believe their side of the argument is somehow a widely accepted fact.
The best way to persuade a gun-control proponent to leave us alone is to actually introduce them to our hobby. After a lesson or class in firearms safety and operational training in the type of firearm they are going to be using, I would take them to the range and start them with a .22 bolt-action rifle and a single round. That is my personal favorite for a first gun because it was my first gun. After they have demonstrated their ability to handle a firearm safely, they can try larger caliber rifles and handguns. Most people who have never handled a firearm enjoy the range trip quite a bit. Their fear was mainly from the fact that they had never handled a firearm in their life. They get to see the hobby that we enjoy. Golfers in particular usually like target shooting quite a bit.
My suggestion to you is to take a firearms safety course that includes time on the range. Usually they cost about $50-$100 and last a day, but they provide the firearm and ammunition. Maybe then you might have to admit you enjoyed it and that you don’t have to be anti-gun to be “civilized and well-educated”. Most of the people I go to the range with are engineers (myself included), software developers, network administrators, and operations managers.
As an example of the above, my wife was never exposed to firearms, but is usually open to trying anything once. After my safety lesson and .22 bolt action introduction, she had a great time. Now she accompanies me to the range every time although rifles are her favorite type to shoot.
“Many gun-control proponents will simply refuse to hear our side of the argument. They just refuse to listen to anything except “guns are bad” and they believe their side of the argument is somehow a widely accepted fact.”
Similarly, many anti-gun control proponents will simply refuse to hear the pro-control side of the argument. They just refuse to listen to anything except “the Second Amendment says don’t regulate firearms” and they believe their side of the argument is somehow irrefutable. Gun control doesn’t necessarily mean immediate and total confiscation, though it seems that some or many anti-control believers react as though it does.
It puzzles me that it’s easier to buy and own guns than it is to buy and drive cars. Cars need registration and insurance, drivers are tested and need licenses. Guns can apparently be bought freely with minimal controls, at least at gun shows. But cars bought at car shows are treated the same as cars bought at auto dealers.
To me, the words “well regulated” in you-know-which-document ought to enable enforcing reasonable procedures for buying/owning firearms but that doesn’t seem to be the interpretation of anti-(any sort of)-control believers.
The greatest difficulty with the gun control debate is the sheer ignorance (regarding firearms) that gun-control advocates display. It is incredibly hard to take anything they say seriously when they don’t know anything about what they are talking about – witness this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryCe4yoRVaA.
This is not just any senator, this is one who’s whole career is based on gun control, and she has NO IDEA what she is trying to ban.
“The greatest difficulty with the gun control debate is the sheer ignorance (regarding firearms) that gun-control advocates display. It is incredibly hard to take anything they say seriously when they don’t know anything about what they are talking about – witness this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryCe4yoRVaA.
This is not just any senator, this is one who’s whole career is based on gun control, and she has NO IDEA what she is trying to ban.”
So this one senator and video impeach all arguments for even the slightest restrictions on firearms? It extends to all gun-control advocates being ignorant and not knowing anything about what they’re talking about?
The greatest difficulty with the gun control debate is the unwillingness of gun fans to actually engage the issue’s nuances, vs. dealing in absolutes and dismissing the discussion because of … one senator and one video. And dismissing everyone with contrary opinions as ignorant and uninformed. (Of course they are, else they’d agree with you, right?)
I will not dismiss all opinions that disagree with mine. Actually, this observation comes mainly from going out and trying to find out how it is that a large number of people can look at the same world I do and come to such completely different conclusions than I do. I learn a great deal. Sometimes, I even change my mind ;)
However, this is not just one senator. This is the face of gun control. This a person who has crusaded for 11 years now on the subject… but has never bothered to learn anything about it. That is incomprehensible to me.
As far as absolutes go… I believe I have a fundamental right to defend myself and my loved ones. I believe that by definition that means a right to do so effectively. Here and now, that means firearms. So…
1. No ban on firearms.
2. No registration (see #1)
3. No laws designed to make guns unusable.
Other than that, just about anything is on the board for discussion.
I must say I am a bit disappointed that this discussion ended here.
One Trackback
[...] Harris thinks that both the NRA’s and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership’s webpages stink. Yeah, I find that both pages lack in the info department as well as the ease of navigation [...]