The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 23, 2012, 09:07 PM   #176
1stmar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,378
He needs to go...
1stmar is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 09:08 PM   #177
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 1,117
I'd like to see a program that deals with the combination of legal ownership and mental health issues.
Mainah is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 09:16 PM   #178
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerHAAF
All of the school shootings that I've read about were initiated from the inside that's not to say a shooter couldn't have started shooting from the outside through the windows but that just seems to be their pattern.
???

Sandy Hook wasn't initiated from the inside. Lanza shot out the glass beside the locked front door to let himself in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcvbob
Most of the schools I'm familiar with have brick exterior.
And I'll bet they have glass entrance doors, or large glass sidelights adjacent to the entrance doors. How about the secondary entrance/exit doors? How many of them are solid/opaque with no glass sidelights?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 09:25 PM   #179
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 1,117
If you secure every school they'll target daycare centers. Creating a police state doesn't enhance our rights. The nra needs to build the case for the role of armed citizens. Wayne isn't effective at that.
Mainah is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 09:28 PM   #180
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,433
Quote:
I waited to watch Wayne LaPierre on meet the press. Last time I watching him was during the NRA Press Event on Friday. All I can say is that he isn't doing us any favors.
How so? I admit that I've only read the transcript because I haven't yet found a video link that will play well so maybe I'm missing something. That being said, I thought LaPierre did quite well considering that this was basically a hostile interview.

David Gregory seemed to be doing his level best to goad LaPierre into a "gotcha" moment and LaPierre wouldn't give him the satisfaction of it. In particular, I thought LaPierre did a good job in not letting Gregory get away with the "Columbine had a cop and that didn't work argument" in thoroughly pointing out that today's police procedures are different than they were at Columbine. Also, I thought LaPierre addressed the tired old "if it could possibly save one life" argument by pointing out that we've already tried an AWB before and that it didn't prevent Columbine.

Being factually correct is, IMHO, all we've got right now. The media is, by and large, on the other side of the issue and seems to be doing all that they can to portray us in a negative light. As time goes on and people's emotions calm down, I think that the facts rather than appearances will carry more weight.
Webleymkv is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 09:44 PM   #181
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
Originally Posted by zxcvbob
"Most of the schools I'm familiar with have brick exterior."
And I'll bet they have glass entrance doors, or large glass sidelights adjacent to the entrance doors. How about the secondary entrance/exit doors? How many of them are solid/opaque with no glass sidelights?
I also said those could be retrofitted with wire-mesh reinforced laminated glass. That will not stop a bad guy but will slow him down. Give the folks inside a little time to lock the classrooms and hit the weapons locker. (what's missing here?)

There's not a good single answer. If you try to make the schools into Fort Knox, it will cost a fortune and they will be like prisons. If you have an armed guard in every school but don't harden the perimeter at all, the guard will be overrun before he knows there's a threat. But if you do a little of both, you can stop the threat. Even better if you catch the maniac *before* he goes on a rampage.

I have no training in this and don't pretend to know what I'm talking about, but I do know in critical systems you need multiple redundant safeguards -- if you just have one safety and it fails you are toast.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

Last edited by zxcvbob; December 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM.
zxcvbob is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 09:46 PM   #182
No1der
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: NOVA aka Northern VA
Posts: 123
Quote:
How so? I admit that I've only read the transcript because I haven't yet found a video link that will play well so maybe I'm missing something. That being said, I thought LaPierre did quite well considering that this was basically a hostile interview.

David Gregory seemed to be doing his level best to goad LaPierre into a "gotcha" moment and LaPierre wouldn't give him the satisfaction of it. In particular, I thought LaPierre did a good job in not letting Gregory get away with the "Columbine had a cop and that didn't work argument" in thoroughly pointing out that today's police procedures are different than they were at Columbine. Also, I thought LaPierre addressed the tired old "if it could possibly save one life" argument by pointing out that we've already tried an AWB before and that it didn't prevent Columbine.

Being factually correct is, IMHO, all we've got right now. The media is, by and large, on the other side of the issue and seems to be doing all that they can to portray us in a negative light. As time goes on and people's emotions calm down, I think that the facts rather than appearances will carry more weight.
You have to watch these things and see them how the rest of the audience sees these appearances.

Wayne, comes across as kinda creepy on the one hand and completely tone deaf on the other.

That line about "bad guy with a gun vs good guy with a gun" went over about as well as flatulence in Church.

In essence, every time he goes out there he comes across looking like the proverbial "gun nut." Instead of shifting to the victims and using political doublespeak about bipartisanship and the NRA taking a leadership role on this matter, LaPierre just uses obnoxiously bad "sound bytes" that I'm almost certain he thinks sound "cool" when the truth of the matter is that they are anything but.

There are so many ways to make our case and basically allow for emotions to calm but instead of having someone who is a professional talker, Wayne goes out there and puts an unfavorable FACE on the whole gun owner community.

There are a thousand ways I can tell you that I've got an upset stomach and need to go to the bathroom but 950 of those ways are either crude or in bad taste. Not sure if I'm explaining very well what the actual problem is but I hope I did OK in this post.

Instead of worrying about playing tag with David Gregory perhaps someone who can truly lead the conversation should be the one sitting in that seat with Greggory. Wayne just seems to be too happy with himself for being "clever" for every question he thinks he ended up not answering and that is a problem in itself. Cause whatever he's thinking, what he's doing isn't very clever at all and the kicker is that everyone, except for Wayne, knows it. He's pushing John Q. Public firmly into the opposing camps point of view.

Throw them a bone maybe. Find a maker of a 200 Round magazine, or a 150 round magazine or something truly obnoxious and claim that this has absolutely no useful purpose. I don't know specifically what the bone that we can throw them should be but doing what Wayne is doing makes us look insane and creepy.
__________________
I didn't know you could bend it like that?

Last edited by No1der; December 23, 2012 at 09:54 PM.
No1der is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 09:52 PM   #183
RangerHAAF
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2007
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 269
Well whatever is done I think I speak for a lot of us when I say it's gonna be a big and brutal fight coming to keep our guns. I'm not gonna make any excuses for what happened, it was a terrible and fiendish attack on innocents but there is no way to ever know how or when the evil in a man's heart with come to the surface in such a way.
__________________
A Colt Python's trigger pull is as smooth, beautiful and artistic as a Sidewinder sliding on the desert floor. It is concepts like this that the anti-gunners can never comprehend and why we fight so hard to keep them.
NRA Benefactor Life member
RangerHAAF is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 10:01 PM   #184
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 3,888
The initial battle is being lost on the editorial pages and LaPierres' comments are a good part of the reason. His performance is being criticized in everything I've read. Silence would have been more beneficial than his comments.
JWT is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 10:06 PM   #185
No1der
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: NOVA aka Northern VA
Posts: 123
@JWT
You're absolutely right. Silence would have been immeasurably better than what he's doing.

Which makes me wonder a thought I don't like thinking. Is Wayne out there talking on behalf of the 2A or is he talking on behalf of the NRA and what's good for the "bottom line"?
__________________
I didn't know you could bend it like that?
No1der is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 10:21 PM   #186
10-96
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2005
Location: Tx Panhandle Territory
Posts: 4,159
I'll appologize up front for skipping a page of this thread here and there. But I do wish to go back to the idea of armed staff in schools. I tend to wonder sometimes if we, as Americans, haven't become quite accustomed to stereotyping. Not all teachers are doting little gray-hairs. And, teachers certainly are not the only adult staff members commonly found within schools. There are a whole mulitude of Janitors, Maintenance Workers, Coaches, Drivers, Office Staff (Secretarial, Administrative, Career Councelors, Nursing Staff, etc). Some years ago, there was a big push for ETS-ing soldiers to have their military education and experience transfered to college credits so they could be fast-tracked to teaching careers. Where did that go? Surely there must have been some traceable success to that. Even if a Veteran couldn't cut the mustard to teach the 3 R's- could they not teach things like Arts and Crafts, Coaching, Wood Working, Horticulture, Typing, Home-Ec, or whatever fluff courses? An armed staff member could earn thier keep by providing something besides armed presence, don't you think?

Early on, someone mentioned retired LEO's. That has some merit for consideration... why can't that include retired Firefighters, Paramedics, Who Else? Several times folks here have said or alluded to, "America's changing- we need to realize it may be time to change with it and accept and maybe be a part of the change". That's not altogether a bad philosophy, after all- we'll never see 1957 again. Have not a few photos of some type of school staff in Israel been circulated where they have carbines strung across their shoulders? The one I recall seeing most recently was a young lady sporting an M1 Carbine. Those children didn't look the least bit traumatized. And going back to the retired LEO (or any uniformed community professional), another good point on that is getting those folks out fo the house and keeping them active might actually help them live longer. Think about it- how many retirees have ya'll seen or known of who've retired, gone home, and sit in front of their TV's and just waited for coronary/arterial disease to knock em off?

Anyway, paying for something like this is the big question. And, why does there have to be just ONE answer? Why not field a number options, let them stew for 4-5 years, and study each one under (hopefully) cooler conditions?

I realize I may have not contributed a whole lot to this discussion, and for that- I appologize if it's called for.
__________________
Rednecks... Keeping the woods critter-free since March 2, 1836. (TX Independence Day)

I suspect a thing or two... because I've seen a thing or two.
10-96 is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 11:24 PM   #187
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,433
Quote:
That line about "bad guy with a gun vs good guy with a gun" went over about as well as flatulence in Church.
So how should he have put it? I have a hard time thinking of a "gentler" or "more sensitive" way to say that without going over a lot of people's heads. This is a serious problem and, quite simply, there is no magic wand that we can wave to make a warm, fuzzy, feel-good solution to it. The fact of the matter is that no matter what we ban, lunatics will always find some tool to carry out their malevolence with. No matter how good our mental health system is, someone will inevitably slip through the cracks. People that do things like this cannot be reasoned with, appealed to, or bargained with. The only way to combat true evil is to meet it with equal or greater force. Armed school security isn't a comfortable thing to think about, but it's become an unfortunate necessity in the world we live in. There's simply no gentle way to say this without losing the message.

Quote:
In essence, every time he goes out there he comes across looking like the proverbial "gun nut." Instead of shifting to the victims and using political doublespeak about bipartisanship and the NRA taking a leadership role on this matter, LaPierre just uses obnoxiously bad "sound bytes" that I'm almost certain he thinks sound "cool" when the truth of the matter is that they are anything but.
Here's the thing, short of admitting defeat and throwing the NRA's support behind Feinstein and the other gun banners, there's nothing LaPierre could get up and say that the media won't ridicule him and call him a "gun nut" for. Insofar as the media is concerned, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he uses political doublespeak and talks a bunch without really saying anything, then he'll be criticized for being evasive and the media will point their fingers and scream "see, see, he can't defend his position so he has to talk around it." If he's earnest, concise, and straightforward, then the media will cherry pick out "sound bytes" and play them out-of-context to make him look like a nut. At least with the "sound bytes" he gets some facts disseminated, because he'll be vilified either way.

Quote:
There are so many ways to make our case and basically allow for emotions to calm but instead of having someone who is a professional talker, Wayne goes out there and puts an unfavorable FACE on the whole gun owner community.
So how would you make the case while waiting for emotions to calm? The other side doesn't like or want to hear what we have to say no matter how we say it. Gun banners thrive on knee-jerk emotional responses and they're going to drag this out and keep emotion high for as long as they can because, when cooler heads prevail and the rational discussion starts, they don't have a leg to stand on. As I've said before, there are only two things LaPierre could do that won't get him ridiculed and labeled a "gun nut" by the media: give up and let the gun banners have their way or say nothing at all. If we say nothing at all, we let the other side dominate the conversation and an emotional, knee-jerk response is more likely.

The whole media frenzy over this is quite telling to me as they obviously want to "strike while the iron is hot" rather than wait and have a level-headed, rational discussion (not to mention that this is a convenient distraction from the whole "fiscal cliff" fiasco that's making everyone in Washington look bad right now). Because of this, I believe that time is our ally here because I think that when people calm down and go back to worrying about the other issues of life, support for a gun ban will dwindle. You see, the American people, for the most part, have a relatively short attention span. The reason that the media latches on to "sound bytes" the way they do is because they don't want to debate the facts. If LaPierre can get people like Gregory bogged down debating facts like the police procedure at Columbine and the effectiveness of the first AWB, it buys him time to let the emotions of the incident fade.

Quote:
Instead of worrying about playing tag with David Gregory perhaps someone who can truly lead the conversation should be the one sitting in that seat with Greggory. Wayne just seems to be too happy with himself for being "clever" for every question he thinks he ended up not answering and that is a problem in itself. Cause whatever he's thinking, what he's doing isn't very clever at all and the kicker is that everyone, except for Wayne, knows it. He's pushing John Q. Public firmly into the opposing camps point of view.
If the NRA offered up a more eloquent speaker who could "truly lead the conversation," he probably wouldn't be invited to Gregory's show. What I don't think you're understanding is that "playing tag" as LaPierre did with Gregory is about the only way they have for the media to allow them to be heard from. If LaPierre didn't give the media something that they thought they could turn into a "sound byte" or a "gotcha" moment, he'd likely never make it onto the show in the first place. The way I see it, we can do one of two things: we can make an eloquent argument that doesn't offend anyone that won't be reported or we can play the game and at least get the message out albeit not as eloquently as we would have liked. When you're playing with a stacked deck, you can't always do things exactly the way you'd like to.

Quote:
Throw them a bone maybe. Find a maker of a 200 Round magazine, or a 150 round magazine or something truly obnoxious and claim that this has absolutely no useful purpose. I don't know specifically what the bone that we can throw them should be but doing what Wayne is doing makes us look insane and creepy.
If history has shown us anything, it's that pacification doesn't work. We tried compromising and "throwing them a bone" for decades and all we were rewarded with was being stonewalled and ignored when the next piece of gun control came down the pike. It was only when we started being aggressive that we were able to turn the tide. If we "throw them a bone" and give in on 200 round magazines, then when the next shooting happens they'll simply say that the last piece of gun control didn't go far enough because the "gun lobby" wouldn't compromise enough. Gun banners like Feinstein, Schumer, and McCarthy will never admit that they're wrong and that no amount of gun control will end violent crime. You see, they don't want to actually fix the problem because their political careers were built and depend upon gun control being an issue.
Webleymkv is offline  
Old December 23, 2012, 11:56 PM   #188
No1der
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: NOVA aka Northern VA
Posts: 123
Quote:
So how should he have put it? I have a hard time thinking of a "gentler" or "more sensitive" way to say that without going over a lot of people's heads. This is a serious problem and, quite simply, there is no magic wand that we can wave to make a warm, fuzzy, feel-good solution to it. The fact of the matter is that no matter what we ban, lunatics will always find some tool to carry out their malevolence with. No matter how good our mental health system is, someone will inevitably slip through the cracks. People that do things like this cannot be reasoned with, appealed to, or bargained with. The only way to combat true evil is to meet it with equal or greater force. Armed school security isn't a comfortable thing to think about, but it's become an unfortunate necessity in the world we live in. There's simply no gentle way to say this without losing the message.
How would I have put it? I wouldn't have put it at all.

I would have said something about working with both Democrats and Republicans from both houses of Congress. I would have said something about this is "Not just a Gun, or NRA, or victims problem. This is America's problem and we Americans need to work together to fix it." Or something along those lines. I wouldn't even mention the words gun, or magazine or clip and if pressed by a reporter I'd say something along the lines of.

"We recognize that there are many facets to this discussion and we have to bring solutions that protect the public at large but also the 2A rights of everyone." Or something along those lines. Keep it vague, keep it simple and certainly make it sound like I'm open to every and any ideas. "Sure sure, everything is on the table when it comes down to Brass Tacks."

Quote:
So how would you make the case while waiting for emotions to calm? The other side doesn't like or want to hear what we have to say no matter how we say it. Gun banners thrive on knee-jerk emotional responses and they're going to drag this out and keep emotion high for as long as they can because, when cooler heads prevail and the rational discussion starts, they don't have a leg to stand on. As I've said before, there are only two things LaPierre could do that won't get him ridiculed and labeled a "gun nut" by the media: give up and let the gun banners have their way or say nothing at all. If we say nothing at all, we let the other side dominate the conversation and an emotional, knee-jerk response is more likely.
Well firstly you don't say stuff that makes it sound like your solution could also be the plot of a Clint Eastwood Spaghetti Western. If LaPierre could keep his mouth shut another week or send out underlings while a professional speech writer and a speech coach prep him for his first words, that may have done way more good then harm. Instead we're ending up with more harm then good.

Issue a written statement if you look creepy on camera, don't go on Camera. I mean this is all fairly simple stuff and I'm not a professional in the field of making people not come across as creepy.

The problem is that LaPierre is feeding the frenzy and making the news cycle on this that much longer. He's changing the conversation from the AR-15 and Adam Lanza (which was already slowing down due to the holidays) and redirected it to "Look how creepy I can sound on TV" followed by "Hey everyone, I'm an irresponsible gun nut and the answer to everything is more guns."

My God, I near fell out of my chair when I heard him talk about how we needed more guns. Yeah, it might be factually correct but that doesn't mean he had to say it. Why tell the angry villagers with pitchforks exactly what they don't want to hear? I mean be vague and talk about how much you are looking forward to working with lawmakers to make sure that such a tragedy will never happen again.

In other words, yet again. Say stuff that sounds soothing instead of inflammatory.

David Greggory is there to be a tough interviewer, that's his job and if LaPierre wasn't up to the task then he shouldn't have gone on it at all. Better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

Quote:
If history has shown us anything, it's that pacification doesn't work. We tried compromising and "throwing them a bone" for decades and all we were rewarded with was being stonewalled and ignored when the next piece of gun control came down the pike. It was only when we started being aggressive that we were able to turn the tide. If we "throw them a bone" and give in on 200 round magazines, then when the next shooting happens they'll simply say that the last piece of gun control didn't go far enough because the "gun lobby" wouldn't compromise enough. Gun banners like Feinstein, Schumer, and McCarthy will never admit that they're wrong and that no amount of gun control will end violent crime. You see, they don't want to actually fix the problem because their political careers were built and depend upon gun control being an issue.
I'm so sick of hearing this because it's this that makes us sound insane. That's also why I said find the odd maker of clips that hold 200 (TWO HUNDRED) rounds and then throw them under the bus. If a magazine holds 200 rounds it's probably impractical to begin with and that's why it's only a novelty item for the few and far between who happen to come across that particular makers magazine. In other words, find something insanely useless to us and sacrifice it at the alter of good PR.

Barring that, LaPierre could have pulled some insane number out of his butt and said, "Yup, we the NRA are officially against any Magazines that hold 750 rounds as that's just too many rounds for anyone to use in a sporting fashion."

Keep in mind, we (all us gun owners) could give two turds about 750 round Magazines for our AR-15's. Best part is that someone out there probably makes such a magazine which likely jams the gun anyway, aside from looking cartoonish.

EDIT: Wayne LaPierre should avoid saying the word "can't" just like we should stop saying "can't" and instead quickly rephrase our answer with "can." As in, "Sure David Greggory, we are responsible people and that's why we are decrying the production of and sales of 900 round Magazines for the AR-15." See what I did there, I substituted "no, we can't give up 50 Round magazines" to "get rid of those horrible 900 round Magazine imidiately."

Edit 2: I don't do this stuff profesionally, Wayne allegedly does and for that reason along I'd expect more from him.

EDIT 3: SOUND CONCILIATORY so that you can make it look like the other side is the one seeming unreasonable instead of the other way around.
__________________
I didn't know you could bend it like that?

Last edited by No1der; December 24, 2012 at 12:15 AM.
No1der is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 12:14 AM   #189
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
I'm so sick of hearing this because it's this that makes us sound insane.
The only way we will ever take some back of this ground is to have our own grass roots media such as this website and others. I have come to realize that what people see in media becomes the norm regardless if it was previously the norm.

Second we need to float very simple ideas that the average non thinking person can digest without a though... I truly think that focusing the conversation on asking the antis how we outlaw evil can help show just how stupid the anti stance is.. A big part of our problem is people need to know some facts and figures to understand why gun control is a bad idea... People in general don't want to think, they just want it spoon fed, so lets do so..

Tell them evil is the cause - not guns.. Its true..
Tell them guns defend the weak. Also true
Tell them guns stop the evil... again its true..

A sample conversation might go like:
Reporter - So Mr. XXXX what reasonable compromises are you willing to make? You do concede AR rifles aren't necessary and dangerous to the public..

NRA or Gun Guy or whatever - Murders been against the law how long? Thousands of years, right.... including before guns ever existed... So the real question is how do we outlaw evil? No civilization has to date and yet you suggest taking away a tool of self defense is somehow the solution...

Well let me ask you this? If someone breaks into your house tonight while you and your family is home, what are you going to do? Are you going to cower in the corner and pray the police make it in time? Or are you going to use lawful force to stop the evil... Guns protect the weak..

Maybe my approach is overly simplistic but I think this framework fits the society we currently have... Its simple to understand, passes common sense test and puts guns in a good light.. All in something that requires almost no thought..Lastly my point isn't to insult the general citizenry but usually unless people believe they have a stake in a issue they don't think about it, they just go with whatever sound byte sounded the best.

We must win the perception war, not the factual stats war...
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; December 24, 2012 at 12:19 AM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 12:27 AM   #190
No1der
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: NOVA aka Northern VA
Posts: 123
Quote:
The only way we will ever take some back of this ground is to have our own grass roots media such as this website and others. I have come to realize that what people see in media becomes the norm regardless if it was previously the norm.

Second we need to float very simple ideas that the average non thinking person can digest without a though... I truly think that focusing the conversation on asking the antis how we outlaw evil can help show just how stupid the anti stance is.. A big part of our problem is people need to know some facts and figures to understand why gun control is a bad idea... People in general don't want to think, they just want it spoon fed, so lets do so..

Tell them evil is the cause - not guns.. Its true..
Tell them guns defend the weak. Also true
Tell them guns stop the evil... again its true..

A sample conversation might go like:
Reporter - So Mr. XXXX what reasonable compromises are you willing to make? You do concede AR rifles aren't necessary and dangerous to the public..

NRA or Gun Guy or whatever - Murders been against the law how long? Thousands of years, right.... including before guns ever existed... So the real question is how do we outlaw evil? No civilization has to date and yet you suggest a tool of self defense is somehow the solution...

Well let me ask you this? If someone breaks into your house tonight while you and your family is home, what are you going to do? Are you going to cower in the corner and pray the police make it in time? Or are you going to use lawful force to stop the evil... Guns protect the weak..

Maybe my approach is overly simplistic but I think this framework fits the society we currently have... Its simple to understand, passes common sense test and puts guns in a good light.. All in something that requires almost no thought..

Lastly my point isn't to insult the general citizenry but usually unless people believe they have a stake in a issue they don't think about it, they just go with whatever sound byte sounded the best.
I'm not disagreeing with you but the problem that exists is that people are scared and all they know is "AR-15=Pain & Fear & Destruction."

Until just recently, Adam Lanza was the lunatic with a gun. Wayne LaPierre changed the discussion from Adam Lanza to Wayne LaPierre, the NRA and the 2A.

Best way to settle things down is to make an offering of something useless to us in the first place and then when the other side wants even more the original offer can be retracted due to the other sides unwillingness to compromise.

Right now is a bad time to be educating the public because anything we say right now is going to make them dig in even harder and will keep this news story cycling for that many more days or weeks.

The public does NOT trust a single word that we're offering and the more we try the angrier they get. So re-frame the discussion and give them something that they think will be an easy fix while not impacting us or the 2A in any meaningful way. Any offers can always be retracted during "talks" because of "Overreach" by the "Anti-Gun" folks and politicians.
__________________
I didn't know you could bend it like that?
No1der is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 01:17 AM   #191
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
People are not understanding the issue here. That press conference wasn't for the 45% of Americans who own guns, they've never held a press conference like that for us before. That press conference was for the 55% of Americans who don't own guns, and that response was abysmal and tone-deaf to non-gun owners.

And before you say to hell with the anti-gun crowd, not all non-gun owners are anti-gun owners, there is a wide spectrum, just like there is a wide spectrum of gun owners, from the ardent 2A believers to the gun owners who are in favor of an AWB.

That message needed to be crafted for non-gun owners to show that the NRA understood the issue, and would work with those in power to do what is best for the country. They didn't have to mean it, but they had a chance to reach an audience they don't usually speak to. Market yourself. Don't draw a line in the sand and cling to your guns, painting the perfect picture for the media to show. The headlines were overwhelmingly critical, and it was as much the NRAs fault as it was the mainstream media hype
It could not have been said better. The speech didn't help, so I am not sure why they had to "defend" themsives andor their position in the first place.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 01:25 AM   #192
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,433
Quote:
I would have said something about working with both Democrats and Republicans from both houses of Congress. I would have said something about this is "Not just a Gun, or NRA, or victims problem. This is America's problem and we Americans need to work together to fix it." Or something along those lines. I wouldn't even mention the words gun, or magazine or clip and if pressed by a reporter I'd say something along the lines of.

"We recognize that there are many facets to this discussion and we have to bring solutions that protect the public at large but also the 2A rights of everyone." Or something along those lines. Keep it vague, keep it simple and certainly make it sound like I'm open to every and any ideas. "Sure sure, everything is on the table when it comes down to Brass Tacks."
OK, so you do that and then the next day all the editorials scream "NRA unwilling to name specifics" and "First chink in the NRA's armor". You have to understand, this isn't a case of an impartial media and LaPierre just fumbling about, the media is looking for things to attack him on. There is a huge double standard at work here, the President can get up and say "Bipartisan blah, blah, common sense, blah, blah, reasonable, blah, blah, blah" and he gets a pass because he's part of the agenda. LaPierre wouldn't get the same pass. Look at what was reported before Wednesday, the NRA's silence was interpreted as damning evidence of their own guilt. Saying nothing, or saying nothing of substance, could easily be just as damaging as not wording what you're saying exactly right.

Also, you must remember that the court of public opinion is not the only arena, or even the most important one, that the NRA is competing in right now. It is important to make a showing of strength to politicians who are mulling over whether or not to support new gun control legislation. As I said before, the American people have a collectively short attention span. Many, if not most, people are not even aware of who their Representatives and Senators are, much less what they voted on two years ago. The NRA, however, does not have such a short memory and it's important that they send a message to Washington that a vote for gun control won't be forgotten and that the NRA's considerable political might will be brought to bear against politicians who throw us under the bus.

Quote:
Well firstly you don't say stuff that makes it sound like your solution could also be the plot of a Clint Eastwood Spaghetti Western. If LaPierre could keep his mouth shut another week or send out underlings while a professional speech writer and a speech coach prep him for his first words, that may have done way more good then harm. Instead we're ending up with more harm then good.
If he'd kept silent any longer, he'd just accomplish letting the other side dominate the argument for that much longer. As I mentioned, there were already cries for the NRA to answer for their imagined "crimes" in less than a week. If they had stayed silent longer, those cries would have only grown more shrill.

Quote:
The problem is that LaPierre is feeding the frenzy and making the news cycle on this that much longer. He's changing the conversation from the AR-15 and Adam Lanza (which was already slowing down due to the holidays) and redirected it to "Look how creepy I can sound on TV" followed by "Hey everyone, I'm an irresponsible gun nut and the answer to everything is more guns."
I don't think he's drawing it out any longer than it would've been drawn out anyway. President Obama and Sen. Feinstein have already said that the issue will be taken up in January, so the media knows that they've got to keep emotions high until then thus keeping the iron hot long enough for the anti-gun politicians to strike. Like I said earlier, the anti's thrive on emotional response because the facts aren't on their side. If the media is busy trying to discredit LaPierre, then they're not using their time and resources to parade more of the victims across the television screen which would arguably be the more effective tactic for them.

Quote:
My God, I near fell out of my chair when I heard him talk about how we needed more guns. Yeah, it might be factually correct but that doesn't mean he had to say it. Why tell the angry villagers with pitchforks exactly what they don't want to hear? I mean be vague and talk about how much you are looking forward to working with lawmakers to make sure that such a tragedy will never happen again.

In other words, yet again. Say stuff that sounds soothing instead of inflammatory.
As I said earlier, if LaPierre were too vague, then he'd be accused of misdirection (never mind that the other side does the same thing, they're part of the agenda). If they weren't attacking LaPierre and the NRA, they'd still be dancing in the blood of the victims trying to keep emotions as raw as possible for as long as possible. Regardless of what LaPierre says or doesn't say, the media isn't going to just let this fade away, at least not until some other agenda that they want to push even more comes along. The sooner we can get them bogged down debating facts instead of eliciting emotions, the less the chances that new gun control laws will pass. If LaPierre is too soothing, he'll be completely ignored.

Quote:
David Greggory is there to be a tough interviewer, that's his job and if LaPierre wasn't up to the task then he shouldn't have gone on it at all. Better to be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.
One can be a tough interviewer and still be impartial, Gregory was not. He repeatedly cut off LaPierre and/or tried to keep him from thoroughly explaining anything. A tough interview and a hostile interview are not necessarily the same thing and this was definitely the latter.

Quote:
I'm so sick of hearing this because it's this that makes us sound insane. That's also why I said find the odd maker of clips that hold 200 (TWO HUNDRED) rounds and then throw them under the bus. If a magazine holds 200 rounds it's probably impractical to begin with and that's why it's only a novelty item for the few and far between who happen to come across that particular makers magazine. In other words, find something insanely useless to us and sacrifice it at the alter of good PR.
The problem is, that won't placate them. Let me give you a historical example here: The NRA supported the National Firearms Act in 1934. The reason they did this was because, at the time, there was talk of trying to add handguns to the chopping block as well. The NRA's rationale at the time was that by giving them something that's probably impractical and not commonly used to begin with (machine guns, silencers, etc.) that they'd leave more common guns alone.

Fast forward 30 years or so and President Kennedy is killed with a mail-order surplus rifle. The anti's didn't say "well, we banned machine guns and this still happened, maybe we need to look at something besides guns" but instead went after mail-order firearms and enacted the Gun Control Act in 1968.

Fast forward another 20 years or so and there are a couple of highly-publicized shootings with scary-looking semi-auto rifles. Rather than admit that neither the NFA nor GCA prevented the shootings, the anti's chose to go after guns that they dubbed as "semi-automatic assault weapons" and got the '94 AWB passed.

Jump ahead another few years to Columbine and another highly publicized shooting brings not an admission that the AWB didn't work, but screaming about a "gun show loophole" and calls for even more gun control. Unfortunately for the anti's, we'd learned by then that they won't be placated and have thus far shut down attempts at more gun control. "Throwing them a bone" may sound like the safe thing to do now, but it's been shown time and time again not to work.

Quote:
Wayne LaPierre should avoid saying the word "can't" just like we should stop saying "can't" and instead quickly rephrase our answer with "can." As in, "Sure David Greggory, we are responsible people and that's why we are decrying the production of and sales of 900 round Magazines for the AR-15." See what I did there, I substituted "no, we can't give up 50 Round magazines" to "get rid of those horrible 900 round Magazine imidiately."
No, what you did is show the other side, and the politicians, a sign of weakness while throwing some of your fellow gun owners under the bus. Just because they "only" want 900 round magazines today, that doesn't mean that they won't be after the 50 round magazines tomorrow. As I see it, better to keep them tied up with the ridiculous stuff than to let them get to the important things.

Quote:
I don't do this stuff profesionally, Wayne allegedly does and for that reason along I'd expect more from him.
Because you don't do this professionally, what makes you think that you understand the full paradigm of what's going on? I assure you, there's a lot more to it that who can sound the most soothing and comforting on TV.

Quote:
SOUND CONCILIATORY so that you can make it look like the other side is the one seeming unreasonable instead of the other way around.
What you or I see as conciliatory, the other side will characterize as weakness and an act of penance. Being conciliatory suggest that our side is part of the problem. We aren't and we need to make that known.
Webleymkv is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 01:30 AM   #193
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainah
If you secure every school they'll target daycare centers. Creating a police state doesn't enhance our rights.
Providing meaningful security for schools is not the same thing as creating a police state. Our schools are woefully insecure, and instead of bickering amongst ourselves we should be leading the charge to fix the problem. And the problem isn't "guns."

You are (mostly) all thinking about just one, or maybe two issues. One problem schools face is gang-bangers within the school population. Those are the reason NYC schools have metal detectors at the entrances. Problem number two is random nutcases like Adam Lanza, or the two students at Columbine. Our attention right now, today, is focused like a laser on how to respond to a single, mentally-disturbed, 20-year old kid.

I'd ask you to step back for a moment and consider the fact that Adam Lanza should be regarded as a microcosm of a much larger issue facing this country and its schools: terrorism. Remember Beslan? HUNDREDS of kids killed, by Islamist terrorists. How many of you know that Al Quaeda has declared that our schools and our children are "legitimate" targets for terrorist attacks.

Don't believe me? Good -- you shouldn't, because there are only (I think) two members of this entire forum who know who I am in real life. And I'm NOT a counter-terrorism expert. But U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman is. And he says we need to start worrying about how we're going to "harden" our schools. Read it here:

http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...emy-is-denial/

DENIAL. "It won't happen here, we're too small a town." Yeah, well Sandy Hook, CT, is a small town. Consider where denial got them. The Sandy Hook Elementary School had just implemented a NEW security plan, which was supposedly designed specifically to prevent exactly the type of event that transpired. What was their plan? Lock the doors at 09:30.

Except that the doors had GLASS either in them, next to them, or both. Anyone remember the old saying, "Locks are made for honest people"? I'm sure the administrators at Sandy Hook were well-intended but, seriously -- do you lock your doors at night and hang the key outside on a nail next to the doorknob? Isn't that exactly what Sandy Hook School did? Those glass doors or sidelights weren't "bulletproof" glass (which isn't bulletproof anyway). It was ordinary tempered glass. Just about any adult could break it with a kick or an elbow -- it certainly couldn't stand up to even a handgun bullet.

And, once Lanza had the door open, there was nothing as a next layer of defense inside. The principal and the guidance director (or whatever her title was) rushed him, two unarmed women, and were both killed for their efforts. Lanza then had the run of the school.

"But they had a lock-down policy," you say. Yeah ... sort of, I guess. Just how much of a "policy" it was may need to be determined, because so far various interviews have not been consistent about that. What was telling, though, was a Fox News interview with a teacher's aide from one classroom. She said she and her teacher "decided they should" lock the door. (Not "follow the policy" -- they decided on their own.) BUT ... once they decided to lock the door, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE KEY. Fortunately for them, a custodian came along and locked the door, and IMHO that man deserves a medal. But what kind of a lock-down policy doesn't ensure that the teacher has the freakin' key?

Why didn't she have the key? Because nobody in Newtown, Connecticut, seriously believed that there would ever be a genuine incident requiring them to USE their security protocol. This is what Dave Grossman calls "DENIAL." And that's exactly what it is. I've seen it at work in other schools, in other towns. They say they're concerned about security, but when you point out the flaws in their security system they ignore you, because "It can't happen here."

So if one, 20-year old kid could do this much damage with Mommy's guns, just how much damage could one, small terrorist sleeper cell do? Need a hint? Mumbai. How many terrorists did it take to completely paralyze one of the most populous cities in the world? I think the entire group was fewer than ten men.

This is why we need to STOP bitching that "We can't turn our schools into prisons" and "We don't want to live in a police state." People, we ARE under threat. The sleeper cells ARE here. We don't know who they are, we don't know where they are, but we DO know that they are here. And because we don't know when or where they will strike, we have to prepare every school to the best of our ability.

And THAT is why we need to snuff out the administration's "Guns are the problem, more laws is the answer" approach and get people looking at the big picture. The problem we face is not "gun violence," the problem we face is "school security." The next attack may not use guns.

Don't take my word for it. Read Dave Grossman's comments for yourself. Then come back and explain why we shouldn't be "hardening" our schools, and providing overlapping layers of security instead of just locking the (glass) doors at 09:30 and telling ourselves we have a security plan.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; December 24, 2012 at 01:36 AM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 01:46 AM   #194
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
Just in

Read this: http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...-our-children/

And then this: http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...tive-shooters/

It explains why we need guns in schools.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; December 24, 2012 at 01:58 AM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 01:51 AM   #195
No1der
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: NOVA aka Northern VA
Posts: 123
I know the history and you're right that I don't know every single pan that is in the fire. I'm not in a position to know even how many pans there are so I can only go on the bits that I do know.

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree because what you thought was a show of force by LaPierre looked like belligerence to me and probably tens of thousands of other people. You're wrong about public opinion too. If they forget or get bored then it will be difficult to whip them up into an emotional frenzy and have them counter-calling and emailing the same Politicians that the NRA will be threatening behind the scenes.

The Political stage is not what it was 2 years ago and the Republican party is fighting for it's identity and existence. It's very difficult to judge what they will do because they have had an awful lot of horrible PR, non-stop for quite some time now.

Coming out forcefully in this environment is an extremely uncertain move for the NRA to make and it looks like they are in cruise control, which makes things even worse.

My idea of conciliatory is much different from what most people think and I also said repeated to APPEAR CONCILIATORY. Give the general public the warm and fuzzies towards the NRA, then in talks with politicians paint them as over-reaching and make that the reason for pulling or retracting the original conciliatory offer on the grounds of the Politicians being unwilling to compromise to come up with a reasonable solution to OUR combined problem.

LaPierre came off looking horrible and he is the one that is shifting the subject away from mental health and away from armed officers in schools and is instead shifting the conversation to "NRA/LaPierre being unreasonable, unfeeling, heartless, "Gun Nuts," who only care about one thing."

As for the thing about David Greggory, I've seen him be consistently tough on everyone who goes on his show. He's good at what he does, whether I agree with him or not is besides the point. Anyone who goes on a news-talk-show is crazy if he believes that the reporter is his friend or buddy. If Wayne wasn't prepared, which he obviously wasn't, then he should have sent an underling who doesn't count as whatever he says means nothing.

LaPierre is failing us and is stoking the fires of the news cycle. I personally don't believe in conspiracy theories so I firmly believe that for the most part, once the public looses interest the media will too.

As for "throwing them a bone," the "bone" I suggested is something basically out of fantasy and something so absurd that it's dangerous to the operator of the weapon himself. 400 Round magazines are probably out there and being made by some hobbyist niche company, they are cartoonish and nobody with any sense is going to buy one. This makes it the perfect "bone" to throw because it shows that the NRA understands that there is a problem and that they are attempting to help solve the problem instead of posturing and attempting to throw the Fist Amendment under the bus.

Like I said, you and I will have to agree to disagree because I don't think there is any way for either of us to believe that the other is right. The exception being that we both believe in the Bill of Rights.
__________________
I didn't know you could bend it like that?
No1der is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 02:00 AM   #196
No1der
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: NOVA aka Northern VA
Posts: 123
Quote:
Read this: http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...-our-children/

It explains why we need guns in schools.
Just to make things clear, I am not against the idea of having armed personel in our Schools. I just thought that the presentation that the NRA made was done very very very poorly. Their timing couldn't have been worse either.
__________________
I didn't know you could bend it like that?
No1der is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 02:15 AM   #197
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by No1der
Just to make things clear, I am not against the idea of having armed personel in our Schools. I just thought that the presentation that the NRA made was done very very very poorly. Their timing couldn't have been worse either.
I agree that the presentation was rather horrendous. As to the timing ... in such a situation, there simple IS no "good" time. If you speak up too soon, you get called ghoulish and opportunistic. If you try to be civilized and wait an "appropriate" time (however long that is), the other side has taken advantage of your reticence and occupied the high ground. Irrespective of LaPierre's ham-handed presentation, the NRA was in a lose-lose situation here.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 02:40 AM   #198
No1der
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: NOVA aka Northern VA
Posts: 123
I just rewatched Wayne LaPierre on Meet The Press.

Wayne LaPierre hung himself with his own words and David Greoggory did a great job doing his job.

LaPierre said that, in essence, anything is worth trying. At this point Greggory asked him does that include any kind of gun controll and LaPierre said "No."

I think what he should have said is "Perhaps; though I don't know what that would be but I'd be glad to listen to the board that the President put together and listen to their ideas."

That would be non committal while at the same time appearing to be a person who can be reasoned with.

Now I'm just describing how I think this particular interview could have been saved. In a perfect world, Wayne LaPierre would not have appeared on Meet The Press in the unprepared condition he appeared to be in.

In a perfect world where it would be up to me he would have done what I was suggesting earlier in this thread.
__________________
I didn't know you could bend it like that?
No1der is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 03:01 AM   #199
Powderman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2001
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,166
Give up NOTHING.

I agree that the NICS check is here to stay--and I'll go so far to say that it is a valuable tool.

Anything else....NO.

Is anyone here an experienced blade man? If so, you know that you do not go to the point immediately. A knife man will cut the extremities as they present themselves. As it is known--the death of a thousand cuts.

Once we let the camel put his nose under the tent it will never leave without a big fight. We do not want that.
__________________
Hiding in plain sight...
Powderman is offline  
Old December 24, 2012, 08:53 AM   #200
1stmar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,378
This guy needs to go. The article nailed it, he will be viewed as "tone deaf" and be ineffective. It's all been said in this thread, we need to but ethics and morals and faith back in outer schools. This is what happens when you get too PC

http://news.yahoo.com/nra-chief-lapi...165009229.html
1stmar 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 12:15 AM.


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 0.10958 seconds with 7 queries