The reason I think the NRA missed an opportunity to educate the public via say the press conference is because the NRA's press conference was hotly anticipated, and a lot of people who normally wouldn't pay any attention whatsoever to the NRA were paying attention. That was the time to explain things in some detail. Just do it cordially, say to people, "Even if you disagree with our position, we want people to fully understand why we hold the position we do," something like that. Just saying, "These things are not true!" about the media claims as LaPierre did makes me want to bang my head against a wall. I feel like yelling at him, "You should have explained why they are not true!"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SPEMack618
I say ignore that glaring error on behalf of the media in regards to the term "assualt weapon" and focus on making Congress and our State Legislator's understand that the 2nd Amendment means I can have an "assualt weapon" if I want to or an "assualt rifle" if I can afford it.
|
The problem with this though is that unless played very carefully, it is one way the media make gun owners look like nuts and fruitcakes and loony-toons.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bumnote
Every tissue is called a Kleenex and every adhesive bandage in called a Band-Aid. Every semi-auto rifle with even a hint of "military" in it's appearance will and likely forever more be called an "assault rifle". It's a stigma, it's biased...and it's not likely to change in the immediate future.
Even if the NRA tried to change that, the mainstream media won't care and the common person...both anti, semi-pro or undecided isn't interested in a semantic debate over the term and it's use. IMO it's not important anyway at this point. Improving the image of us gun owners is. Showing us gun owners in a more accurate light would do far more. Once we start gaining ground on that front, the word's impact as used right now will soften or change all together. The correct use of "assault rifle" is a very small battle that would get won by winning other battles, both legislative and PR, which are far more important and have a bigger impact on the large picture.
|
It's my own opinion, but I think one way to help change the image of gun owners is to emphasize the wrongness of the term "assault weapon" and always be calm and professional when doing it. Don't put anyone on TV who will get emotional-acting over it, or else then people could think, "Some gun maniac getting all bent out over the semantics..."
But I think if done right, it could change people's minds. Also, I do think people care about if a term is completely incorrect. If people are calling to ban a gun because they think it's a weapon of mass death and you explain it's nothing of the sort, and that is why you are opposed to such a ban, I think a lot of people are reasonable enough to listen. The trouble is how to reach them via short commercials and ads. The people who don't care are the ideologues bent on gun control anyway. But otherwise, it's not just semantics, it's about pointing out that this isn't just a semantic issue.
One point to consider though on explanatory ads, have you seen the ads explaining why we should drill for oil and natural gas on Fox News? Those are more lengthy by commercial standards, but yet must be successful because they keep running them. I think if the NRA ran some type of professional ad explaining to people about the term assault weapon and hence why they are opposed to an AWB, that they could change minds and appear more positive.