The way to win

[Crimefree]

Barry Bruce-Briggs pointed out a generation ago that public controversy surrounding weapons control laws degenerates into the venting of raw antagonisms between various factions more often than it matures into creditable public policy research.[3] What gets lost in the contest is a sense of those points that are actually in dispute and those that are
not. Virtually every gun control partisan in this country is, like the typical gun owner,[4] a peaceable, educated member of the middle class who wants to put a stop to the mindless violence that has engulfed the streets of American cities.

References
[3.]See B. Bruce-Briggs, The Great American Gun War, 45 PUB. INTEREST 37, 37 (1976) ("the gun-control debate has been conducted at a level of propaganda more appropriate to social warfare than to democratic discourse").

[4.]The demographic attributes of firearms owners are discussed in JAMES D. WRIGHT ET AL., UNDER THE GUN: WEAPONS, CRIME, AND VIOLENCE IN AMERICA 107 (1983).

~~ OF HOLOCAUSTS AND GUN CONTROL
Washington University Law Quarterly, DANIEL D. POLSBY, Don B. Kates, Jr
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1060075/posts

It is interesting that challenging or refuting directly gun controls assertions simply leads to a conflict situation in which neither proponent will change their mind.

Thus it is obvious that to simply challenge assertions is not sufficient and a better approach must be found.

Please read again what I wrote on finding the common ground and see the way to improve your attack on gun control in order to really convince people who have made up their minds and have any hope of influencing the policy decisions.

Marketing basics
GunSite South Africa™ - South Africa’s Firearm, Tactical & Hunting Discussion Forums.


Image
GunSite South Africa™ - South
Africa’s Firearm, Tactical & Hunting Discussion Forums.

What do firearm owners deserve?
GunSite South Africa™ - South Africa’s Firearm, Tactical & Hunting Discussion Forums.


Of course there is a very small chance that I am wrong and refuting everything government and gun control say with a direct attack is right but then those who thinks so have yet to prove that it is right or demonstrate some success. Never the less it is encouraging to only those who support gun ownership and that in itself is not a bad thing.

But what if I am right? Are you willing to take the chance on what nobody can show will succeed in influencing policy? Is your safety and that of your loved ones not worth considering a different approach that has a better chance of working is needed? At the least trying something different can't be worse than continuing to promote what has never worked and cannot work to influence policy?

There is a volume of evidence that shows what a few people can do in public education that simply cannot be denied. The success of those small but infinitely valuable efforts have changed and influenced many and that is all that one should want. Expecting that one letter, TV show or essay will change the world is looking for the magic bullet.

But nothing will ever be achieved if we simply leave the outcome up to fate or chance and hope for something better from those who have made a deliberate decision to oppress and deny our rights.

Is it not better to fight for those rights rather than just give them away?

Social psychology at work
================

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf

Its a long paper and does cover a comprehensive summary of German laws leading up to and including WWII and the holocaust.

What is important is the recognition of anti-gun vs pro gun is a culture war that only forces both to dig in their heels even further.

What it does try to more than imply is that there is/may be some middle ground where there is none in a culture war.

There is a third option. Rather than engage in pitched cultural
warfare or seek a muted expressive idiom, a more promising
strategy is to explore in greater depth the cultural conflicts
within shared cultural groups

It misses but hints at the intent or the reason for the changes from a pro-gun age to one of dispute with an anti-gun culture.

In the case of the Nazi even the disarming of Jews is down played when this disarmament is a historical fact of every genocide.

The middle ground and controlling influence which is being fought over is simply public safety.

Why even participate in these debates? Why not ignore such
dubious historical claims? Alternatively, why not mute the tone
and the expressive idiom? Why not coax the two cultural factions
to a shared space "expressively rich enough to enable all
parties to find their cultural visions affirmed by the law"?123
The reason, very simply, is that our culture wars are more
complex, multi-dimensional, fragmented, internally divided, and
for all these reasons far more intriguing than we tend to think.

The problem is only gun control realise the importance of public safety. They are and proclaim to be no more than organisations promoting public safety. Therein lies the very easy solution because you cannot promote public safety by decreasing public safety or even risking public safety to unproven and dubious research, beliefs and conjecture.