The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 23, 2015, 06:47 AM   #1
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
Social Media & Gun Control

When we see media outlets running stories about gun control even obviously anti-gun outlets like CNN will run some version of both sides. While they may challenge and berate gun rights supporters and let obvious lies from their anti-gun guest go unchallenged at least they offer some version of both sides. However, with the growth of social media and the 140 character story there is very little objectivity, rebuttal or accountability. Also, social media travels much faster than traditional news stories as the information is automatically pushed to our device. We also see many corporations, governmental agencies, and individuals responding to these social media trends much faster than they have to traditional stories.

So, as we see more and more people getting most of their information from social media does this change the debate as it relates to gun control? Traditionally we have seen the public generally support gun rights once they hear all the facts. Does this narrower version of the story change that? Are a growing number of Americans only getting one side of the story and in their haste to “do something” will they support worthless regulation to make themselves feel better and follow whatever is trending? Will politicians be less likely to consider the actual facts, but more influenced by social media and the impact it may have on the ballot box?

While I’m not an expert on social media, public opinion, etc. it does seem we are seeing a change in the way our society is responding to breaking news. Thanks to social media very large groups of people can demand immediate change without the traditional evaluation that issues normally receive.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 07:14 AM   #2
wogpotter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 4,811
It depends on the individual media vendor.

I contest most anti-gun falsehoods so on in social media. Its those who use social media with the ability to comment kn return that are preaching to the true believers. You'll never get through to the ones that have already decided, right or wrong, the mind is frozen in doctrine & its unshakable even in the face of good, logical refutation.

What you can, & should, do is to counterpoint so those undecided or neutral, don't get a totally biased one sided version of "truth".
__________________
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”?

Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”
wogpotter is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 08:45 AM   #3
Dashunde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 2,018
I have little doubt that reality is being skewed.
It seems somehow acceptable to toss out negative gun comments and blame the gun for every tradgedy, meanwhile I rarely see any positive news/posts on guns.

I think our current crop of voters understands the benefits of gun ownership in America despite the image problem guns have.

My concern is the future 20+ years from now when our public school "guns are bad" liberal indoctrinated twitterheads are voting in full force instead of people who grew up carrying a pocketknife to school everyday.

Last edited by Dashunde; June 23, 2015 at 09:09 PM.
Dashunde is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 09:05 AM   #4
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
In 20+ years from now, my biggest concern will be thinning out what I've got. Acquisition mode probably will have stopped by then. I'll make sure that my daughter has whatever guns she wants, and after that, well the world belongs to the future generations. Their freedom, or lack thereof, is completely up to them!

Is it really my job to make sure that America's future generations (beyond the generation that I am currently involved in raising) do everything they can to keep their freedom? Maybe I should just take all my guns to the grave with me when I finally kick over. Sealed in PVC and cosmoline, of course. More than likely, they will be safer with me than with the internet generation.
Skans is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 09:15 AM   #5
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Confirmation bias - with multitudes of outlets - lots of folks will pick only those which confirm their beliefs.

There are interesting nuances. With the prison escapees in NY - a supposed antigun state - I have seen on several major networks and cable news, a local interviewed and stating that they are gun friendly, have the guns ready, have pistol permits, etc.

No Tut-tut from the commentators. But then you see a call for gun control from an anti pol.

It goes back to the basic American core belief that:

1. People have the right to have guns to defend themselves

That negates the total ban folks. Yes, there are pockets of total ban in some of the cities.

2. Guns should be kept from criminals and appropriately diagnosed mentally ill.

The rub is how you do both of these.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 10:28 AM   #6
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryLee
...as we see more and more people getting most of their information from social media...
And I see that as the core problem. Social media is the very worst place to get information. Anyone can post just about anything, and most consumers of information through social media are markedly uncritical, accepting as fact unsupported, unqualified opinions that confirm their biases without demanding evidence or good documentation.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 11:08 AM   #7
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Because of its speed, access by anyone, and literally the ability of anyone to say anything to possibly millions of people and still be relatively anonymous, basing any govt policies on social media is the 21st century equivalent of mob rule.

Our Founders understood the danger to rational rule the passions of the mob represent. That's why we have a Republic.

it's a song lyric, but true nonetheless..

"if you listen to fools, the mob rules"!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 11:11 AM   #8
GrailKnight
Member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 61
The worst thing to happen for firearm owners rights is the Internet.
The best thing to happen for firearms owners is the Internet.
__________________
Who Dares Wins!
GrailKnight is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 11:42 AM   #9
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrailKnight
The worst thing to happen for firearm owners rights is the Internet.
I disagree. Social media allows the near-instantaneous dissemination of information to multitudes of people without the traditional news media having to be involved.

The recently proposed M855 ban was retracted largely because of an outcry that spread via social media. The traditional news media lagged behind the curve the entire time.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 12:08 PM   #10
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by carguychris
...Social media allows the near-instantaneous dissemination of information to multitudes of people without the traditional news media having to be involved.

The recently proposed M855 ban was retracted largely because of an outcry that spread via social media...
And that's also correct.

Social media is a tool. Like any other tool it has its strengths and weaknesses. There are things it's useful for and things it's useless for.

It is a highly efficient way to communicate cheaply with a great many people. But it is also an indiscriminate means of communication. It can reach almost everyone, and it can easily be used to communicate garbage, nonsense, lies, and misinformation, just as easily, cheaply, broadly and efficiently as good information.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 12:48 PM   #11
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
I agree with Frank. We all just need to get better at using the internet as a tool. Shame on us if the antis get getter at this than we do.
Skans is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 02:15 PM   #12
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
Often the side in the right will be honest. Limits to the information that you can give honorably.

The side in the wrong will often resort to misinformation. Dengerous in issues of perceived good. For the good of the people is an effective way to win. The side that's wrong will often have paid trolls with corporate backing that can counter with well thought out responses.

Gun owners are often painted in a paranoid light. Most of the pro-gun talking points actually propagate that perception.
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!!
rickyrick is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 02:38 PM   #13
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
Yes, I agree that social media does have a positive side such as TFL. Also, we saw the recent call by what appears to be a majority of South Carolina citizens to remove the Confederate Flag from the capital #ConfederateFlag . So, yes there are good uses, but what concerns me is the unchecked speed with which many of these popular trends take off. I’m concerned that we could see some new piece of legislation gain considerable popular support before anyone has an opportunity to respond rationally to the proposal. Yes, I realize we probably still have enough support in the US House, but what about in the local State Houses. Also, we like to think that the Courts are unbiased, but I think we’re being naive to think that public opinion plays no part in their decisions.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 04:08 PM   #14
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyrick
Often the side in the right will be honest. Limits to the information that you can give honorably.

The side in the wrong will often resort to misinformation. Dengerous in issues of perceived good. For the good of the people is an effective way to win. The side that's wrong will often have paid trolls with corporate backing that can counter with well thought out responses....
That is a fine example of the evil of confirmation bias, and is, in good English, nonsense.

The reality is that lousy information and unmitigated garbage abound on social media on all sides of any issue. But everyone believes that those on the side he favors are honest and honorable and that anyone thinking otherwise is a lying, scurvy cur.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 04:35 PM   #15
Mike Weber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 24, 2002
Location: Northern California
Posts: 238
Quote:
I agree with Frank. We all just need to get better at using the internet as a tool. Shame on us if the antis get getter at this than we do.
Its not that they are better at it than we are. They play by an entirely different set of rules and will quickly resort to every dirty nasty trick they can use to sway public opinion.

I remember a few years ago back when Michael Moore's Bowling For Colombine was about to open in theaters here in the U.S. Moore had a website promoting the movie along with his other movies. A group of about 35 of us many of us from TFL and other gun forums decided to camp out on his forums for about three weeks to dismantle the lies Moore told in Bowling For Colombine and to debate with the people there. We believed that there might be a few visiting the site who were on the fence regarding gun control and we wanted them to hear the truth. Most of us chose to debate the issue without resorting to name calling and personal attacks.

The Gun grabbers on the other hand were constantly resorting to namecalling and even death threats. The place was a real cesspool in terms of the behavior of many of the Moore fans. I remember one conservative homeschooled teenage girl who posted there on the progun side being threatened with rape by Moore's leftist fans. One thing that was odd is that none of us debating with them who remained civil were banned from the site. After about three weeks it became obvious that they were losing the debate and Moore pulled the plug on his own website to shut down the debate.

The Lefts usual tactic is to silence any opposing views. Typically anyone who is pro gun and goes to an antigun website is quickly banned.
__________________
M. Weber
"Molon labe"
http://shootersfreehold.com/
A place for firearms enthusiasts to congregate.
Mike Weber is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 04:54 PM   #16
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Glenn nailed it when it comes to confirmation bias. An anti-gun person will read Daily Kos and Mother Jones. He won't question the information he gets there, and he uses it as talking points to his friends.

The pro-gun person will read the NRA websites and various gun blogs. Unfortunately, too many of us do the same thing. We stock up on slogans or poorly-researched statistics, and we preaching to an echo chamber.

The trick is breaking into the middle and convincing those on the fence. That won't happen on social media. We win when we can convince the mainstream media our cause is just and right.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 05:02 PM   #17
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Tom has it.

I've experienced it myself. When I did the assault weapon / jury article, on various forums, I was denounced as it seemed mildly critical of assault rifle owners and suggesting the UN should come for YOU. One guy on another forum suggested an evil conspiracy between yours truly and Massad Ayoob. At our local gun club, I was invited by the Pres. to talk about the study at our monthly meeting. One guy had a poopy-fit and it ended with the more intelligent types trying to explain it wasn't about the UN or he should give up his guns.

I am convinced that if Kleck and Lott used their methodology and found out that more guns, more crime was the outcome and the results were legit (could have happened) - they would denounced as Commie traitors.

One can argue about the methods and data but the emotion is revealing. If it turned out that CCW states without training had a higher accident rate - would you accept that (if done well) or spew hate at the researcher?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 05:17 PM   #18
wogpotter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 4,811
I literally "just went there" with someone who was twisting, cherry picking & all the usual tactics of mis (if not dis) information.

What I did was to collect supported facts, with provenance, & point out the inaccuracies & outright lies from the OP's commentary.

I know it will have zero impact on the OP, but that wasn't my intent at all, we'll never win the zealot over. When he responded with personal attacks, insults & wild accusations I'd won.

Why?

Because the reasonable middle of the road people seeing the interchange KNEW who the ranting, irrational person was. They were really who I was trying to reach.
__________________
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”?

Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”
wogpotter is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 05:19 PM   #19
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Weber
Its not that they are better at it than we are. They play by an entirely different set of rules and will quickly resort to every dirty nasty trick they can use to sway public opinion...
Again, that's not necessarily true either. See my post 14.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Weber
....After about three weeks it became obvious that they were losing the debate and Moore pulled the plug on his own website to shut down the debate....
You might have thought our side was winning, but did anyone else? And maybe Moore pulled the plug because for other reasons. Again, you've been caught in your own confirmation bias trap.

The reality is that you have no idea why Moore pulled the plug. But it feeds your ego and confirms your bias to believe that he did so because our side was getting the better of his side.

Stop guessing and start requiring validated data, verifiable facts, robust evidence. As Carl Sagan used to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 23, 2015, 11:55 PM   #20
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,435
Quote:
Originally posted by 44AMP
Because of its speed, access by anyone, and literally the ability of anyone to say anything to possibly millions of people and still be relatively anonymous, basing any govt policies on social media is the 21st century equivalent of mob rule.

Our Founders understood the danger to rational rule the passions of the mob represent. That's why we have a Republic.

it's a song lyric, but true nonetheless..

"if you listen to fools, the mob rules"!
This sums things up very well. Public support for gun control is typically based upon a knee-jerk, emotional response to a shocking act of violence such as a mass shooting. The problem with trying to use an emotional response to change public policy within the American system of government is that our government often moves too slowly to effectively capitalize on said responses (they're usually fleeting).

For example, if we look at polls before the Sandy Hook shooting, immediately after, and now, we see some interesting trends. For example, according to Gallup, as of October 6-9, 2011, 43% of respondents thought gun laws should be more strict, 11% less strict, and 44% kept the same. By December 19-22, 2012 (immediately after Sandy Hook) 58% responded more strict, 6% less strict, and 34% kept the same. However, by October 12-15, 2014, 47% said more strict, 14% said less strict, and 38% said kept the same.

The relatively slow speed with which our government works, while sometimes frustrating, is by design. At any given time in our history, you could probably find a point at which, if a national referendum were held, you could have probably gotten enough support to repeal any or all of the Bill of Rights. However, the legislative process slows things down enough to allow cooler heads to prevail and prevent rational argument from being drown out in the heat of the moment.

Historically, the biggest weakness of the anti-gun movement is that the majority of its support comes from emotional responses and that support is usually short-lived. The pro-gun side, however, is much better not only at remembering where various politicians positioned themselves on gun control, but also at reminding people of those positions come election day. This strength has been recognized and commented upon by very prominent anti-gun politicians including Bill Clinton who has mentioned it several times over the years. This is why, when there is a shocking act of gun violence, anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Everytown for Gun Safety, Etc. try to act so quickly: they know they must strike while the iron is hot because their support will be short-lived.
Webleymkv is offline  
Old June 24, 2015, 05:10 PM   #21
Dashunde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 2,018
Anti-gun folks don't seem to have the same conviction - guns are in amongst the other liberal fodder clambering for priority on election day.

On the other hand, I've come to notice that individuals who believe in gun rights tend to stick with that position, hold 2A near the top of their priorities, and actually vote accordingly for life.

We have the advantage of having actually shot a firearm, felt its security blanket and willingness to provide a meal. That sticks with you.

The number one thing we can do that the internet can not is to expose a new person to the fun of shooting.
Getting new people out somewhere they can shoot up junk, wood or other reactive targets is a great way to turn someone who is remotely willing.

My Brazilian (socialist/democrat minded) Mother-in-law, brother-in-law and my wife's best friend are all gun-loving converts due to taking them shooting.
They've held it, fired it, and now understand it and want it for themselves... too bad they can't vote here.
Perhaps I wasted ammo on them?!
Dashunde is offline  
Old June 24, 2015, 08:20 PM   #22
ronl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Posts: 1,100
I think social media is an overall good thing. I can say that without the Internet we would be in a world of hurt. Social media does allow the common man the ability to allow his voice to be heard, even if it is at a minimal volume. Such things as the banning of SS109 bullets, the military banning the sale of spent cases to the public, etc. would have simply been adopted as policy. Social media and alternative news sources are often the only ones putting such things out into the public forum. Public outcry can still have some effect. I can truly say that relying on the MSM for information is a total waste of time, as true journalism in this country has, for the most part, gone the route of the dinosaur.
ronl is offline  
Old June 25, 2015, 01:04 PM   #23
TimSr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
I guess you have to look at pre-internet and compare. Used to be electronic media had a total monopoly on what information and version of the truth was to be released for public consumption, and they were not exactly reverent to the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, today there are no limits on the information that can be put out there, but at least all views can actually be put out there and considered. I'd rather have bad information from multiple sides to evaluate, than have only bad information from one side.

I strongly disagree that news media ever puts out both sides of an issue, even unfairly or biased. When an anti-gun media source puts out a pro gun position, it is for the sole purpose of misrepresenting that position and then arguing against it - the straw man argument, for which Obama is famous in adopting. Even those Sunday morning discussion panels who represent "differing opinions" usually consist of a stack deck who offer varying degrees of support for one point of view.

Most poeple dismiss all the political garbage as such, but the bigger impact in social meida is all the links to local news stories of people using their weopons to defend themselves, something we never got before.

If I'm trying to be informed I'd rather have all the information, and decide for myself what is worthwhile, as opposed to anti-gun media people making that determination for me. That would be about as nutty as allowing someone you are investigating to pick out which emails you get to see.
TimSr is offline  
Old June 25, 2015, 03:26 PM   #24
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
I suppose when I say social media I’m thinking less about the internet in general and more about things like Twitter. Recently we’ve seen a major call for the removal of all references to the Confederacy. Now, whether you think this is a good or bad thing it’s been a long ongoing debate. However, in the last week we’ve seen politicians falling all over themselves to make a change, national retailers removing items from their shelves and calls for even more significant changes. All of this while many of the public polls I’ve seen show that people are still fairly evenly divided.

Now, again, this isn’t about confederate symbols, but the speed with which this thing seemed to takeoff and the way a very vocal minority seems to be getting their way. It concerns me that many younger people receive these 140 character snippets of information and act on them without really considering the complexities of the situation or the rights of other individuals. We already see many anti-gun politicians framing the gun control debate as some sort of racial issue. I worry that the firearms community isn’t getting our voices heard. I realize the NRA makes some efforts, but really are millennials listening to them. Maybe they could encourage more celebrities or politicians to speak out on the issue, but will people pay more attention when Tom Selleck speaks for guns rights or when Beyonce speaks out for more regulation.

Sorry, maybe I’m seeing something that’s not really there, but I fear a wave is building.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old June 25, 2015, 03:44 PM   #25
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
A wave is building, some kind of mixture of guns, race, and conservatism. Today's paper here printed the NY Times hit piece on how right-wing loners were more dangerous to the nation than Islamic terrorists, as long as they omitted the 9/11 attacks. A companion piece about a local homicide stressed in several paragraphs how a killer had ties to right-wing militias, sovereign movements, etc., in a dispute that involved squatters and nothing political or racial.

So the wave is being energized, whatever it is. Regardless of how we feel about the confederate flag, we now have a warning as to how fast politicians will cave in to a screaming minutiae of the electorate, right or wrong.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.13135 seconds with 8 queries