How to Fight Gun Control

[Dick]

This is in response to Branden88’s request that I provide some pointers for individuals to get into action. Let me start by thanking Branden88 again for believing that I have something to offer. But it could fill a book what with thousands of hours, thousands of letters and e mails, radio and TV shows etc. The difficulty, therefore, will be to provide some know how without it getting impossibly long. I will therefore start with a general outline and perhaps more detail as the thread progresses.

But first this is a serious business that needs focus. In the NPO-GOSA thread one guy called Paul Oxley a narcissist and another accused me of preaching. The importance of those is that they contributed zero to the thread, and that both writers thought that such rubbish was actually worth publishing instead of using the time and effort for better things. I want none of that in this thread – it is for serious people who want to contribute to the fight for our rights.

The first thing to understand is that this is a political battle, nothing to do with crime control. That was nicely exposed when, at a conference in Jhb I extracted from a representative of the British Home Office that “the British controls have nothing to do with crime.” That was remarkable because government can’t admit it without admitting that its gun control policies are a lie. I therefore expected that that would be widely quoted by our side but it has never been. I strongly recommend that you read up on the British Firearm Act of 1920 which was enacted as a crime control measure when there was very little crime and zero armed crime, but which the cabinet papers revealed was done in fear of revolution in the UK. For we in Gunsite, the guys who ask “why doesn’t government understand that it’s not us its criminals” completely miss the truth. And those who call Adele Kirsten a fool or ignorant are also wrong as those who have had to take her on will attest. Both government and GFSA know perfectly well that crime control is just a smoke screen for the real objective of civilian disarmament. Azhar Cachalia told the Goldstone Commission that the ANC wants total disarmament but that it will be impossible at a single stroke so it will be done incrementally. The FCA was the first big increment and it is no coincidence that we have seen so many subsequent amendments, all of them very damaging.

It is more than anything a battle for public opinion. Haven’t you noticed that GFSA bombards the media, not much else? That’s because GFSA knows that it’s a battle for public opinion. GFSA is in the advantageous position of having wall to wall media support and a government that shares its objectives. GFSA is the propaganda lead, followed by government accepting the GFSA view as the majority public view. That’s why it is so important to deny GFSA that high ground.

An effective association like GOSA is vital for various reasons

1. We must have a visible public presence
2. We must have an organisation to represent us
3. Some things like court cases can only be done by an organisation. Another is research.
4. A good membership is needed to provide money without which an organisation can’t function.
5. A big membership is necessary because that’s what government counts as its opposition. Anything not visible like private individuals is ignored.

Unfortunately neither SAGA nor GOSA has ever had enough members to count for much. At the height of the fight against the FCA in 2000 SAGA had 65000 members. That’s a drop in the bucket and that’s what government interprets as the number of citizens interested enough to keep their firearms. The NRA has 5 million members = one in 66 of the population. If we had that in SA the FCA would never have seen the light of day.

GOSA can’t win without our active back up, and that’s what this thread is about. We are the biggest special interest group in SA - big enough to win this fight, but our silence amounts to telling government that it can do what it likes without protest from us.

What you can do is very simple – lots of letters and e mails to the media, calls to talk shows and participation in live radio and TV. We hadn’t heard of GFSA before 1994 and hadn’t suffered much except for the occasional thread by the NP of twelve gun and then six gun limits. The dust had barely settled after the 94 election when GFSA hit us like an express train. We were caught unawares without a clue how to combat it. They got instant and massive coverage – their media support felt as though GFSA and the media had planned it in advance. I was listening to a radio talk show one evening. Two of the guests were Eric Winchester and Robin Carlisle, both prohibitionists. Carlisle was particularly virulent, and please note that he was a senior member of the DP hierarchy and later the DA. Anyhow, I thought “must do something.” As it was a talk show I called in and told them it was false, antidemocratic and the few other things I could muster. Which wasn’t much because I had little knowledge at the time.

That was my first foray into the media and it just expanded from there. I was the only defender on that show, and the views put forward on such shows were one sided for a long time. Same in the print media – lots of articles and GFSA letters pushing prohibition but no opposition. Indeed one editor told me that GFSA’s message was relevant but mine wasn’t.

You fight it by not letting it pass without protest. Don’t ask where SAGA, GOSA or Martin Hood are, they don’t always know its happening. When you hear a biased broadcast, first send a message to SAGA and GOSA (yes both) and if you are in a group put together for this purpose, message the group too. Even if SAGA and GOSA have acted, go ahead yourself anyway – the more people involved the better. Call the show. Hopefully several others will call as well – that has three effects (1) the show is left in no doubt about the strength of opposition (2) the GFSA guest won’t be able to lie without challenge and (3) if enough of you call the show you’ll drown out most of GFSA support. I’ve seen it done often.

In the beginning you might think “I don’t know what to say or how to articulate it”. That’s normal, none of us does to start with. It comes with practice. You start modestly – just by putting forward one or two basic truths you will contribute to preventing GFSA getting its own way. Its a good idea to be one of a group of a dozen or so guys. You must all assemble a set of facts and stats to which you can refer. If more than one of you gets his call accepted, the second guy puts forward different but equally effective arguments. In time you’ll develop the experience to overwhelm the opposition.

Sometimes its very simple. One morning I was casting bullets in my garage when Radio 567’s Africa Melane interviewed GFSA’s Claire Tailor. She told listeners that research had proved that we are four times more likely to have or gun taken than to defend with it. That was a piece of “research” put together by Anthony Altbeker to fit a predetermined conclusion for GFSA. Altbeker later as good as admitted that it was false but GFSA uses discredited “research” knowing that most listeners don’t know.

All I had to do was tell the listeners exactly where, when and to whom Altbeker had admitted it, and that Tailor was lying. Melane admitted that he had no plan to invite an opposite view.

That was an easy one and the lesson is know your stuff and always pick up the phone or send an e mail, don’t leave it to someone else. The late Sheena Duncan was the originator and CEO of GFSA. Peter Hammond and I were up against her one evening on Radio 786 in Athlone on the Cape Flats. As you will realise radio work is a bit more difficult. The public has no way of knowing that these debates are not about the truth – you find yourself trying to tell the truth while combating a trained propagandist who is doing anything but. The trick then is to be on the lookout for something your opponent says that opens up a possible trap that wasn’t there up to that point. The opportunity came when Duncan said “we just want responsible gun owners.” This is how it went :

Duncan “we just want responsible gun owners.”

Dick “that’s not what your associates have been saying when it suits the audience.”

Duncan “I’m sure my associates have said no such thing.”

Dick “shall I read out the names places and dates?”

Duncan “well, I have never said such a thing.”

Dick “two days ago on the Tim Modise Show you contradicted yourself on that very point – shall I read the transcript?”

Peter “I think, madam, that the time has come for you to tell the truth.”

And she gave it to us. But do you see how she retreated to Plan B at every stage. They were at that time used to an easy time with no opposition. They are unbelievably slippery and never give it up if they can save something out of the wreckage.

A good example was Martin Hood’s TV debate with Adele Kirsten. When Kirsten trotted out the old “more guns = more crime” Martin countered with “tell that to Switzerland.” Kirsten, knowing she was in a minor fix came back with “the Swiss have the world’s highest suicide rate.” You may think “what’s that got to do with it” but Kirsten knew that audiences tend to remember only the last shot of the battle even if it isn’t convincing or true. Martin Hood could have discredited her completely if he’d said that that Swiss suicide wasn’t particularly high, but he didn’t and lost a perfect opportunity.

Anyhow, the point of these stories is to illustrate how slippery GFSA is, and what you need to know to participate in radio and TV debate. But letters to the media are a lot easier and more effective in the total picture. I’ll tell you more about that next time.

[oafpatroll]

Thanks for putting this down Dick. I will be following with interest as you expand on it.

[DaavG]

Thank you Dick, great start

[ady]

Thank you Dick for showing us a different side to the story and how we can contribute in a small way.

Your insight and experience in dealing with GFSA is extremely valuable for us.

[Dick]

Thanks for the encouragement guys. I'll try to finish what I've started but the lack of interest confirms that the number of people willing to actually work for the protection of their rights is vanishingly small. As I see it we have only two chances (1) if we get a coalition in 2024 we might be able to negotiate some amelioration of the worst aspects of the FCA and (2) we in the Western Cape should hope for independence and vote for it if it comes to a referendum.

[Davidc]

Thank you Dick.

We have so much to loose yet we will sit on our hands until it’s gone and wonder what happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tayls]

Thanks for starting this thread and for your input, Dick. I agree 100% with your comments that we (all of us) need to be awake and ready to spring into action to present the "balanced, alternative views" of law-abiding, lawful gun owners, whenever the opportunity presents itself.

In addition (and so as to fore-arm any readers of this thread), perhaps we should also set out in this thread good, substantiated counter-arguments (and examples/cases etc) to the lies and drivel regularly put forward by the anti-gun establishment, such as GFSA and certain politicians (including the "rat in a hat" aka our minister of police (title deliberately left in lowercase for this lower class idiot)).

[Paul]

Today, International Women's Day, Lynette and Neo Luthuli from GOSA Girls On Fire are at Disoufeng Restaurant in Meadowlands, Soweto, hosting a panel on GBV and fighting back for 170 ladies.

WhatsApp Image 2022-08-09 at 10.32.15 AM.jpeg

Thursday, Friday, and Saturday the entire GOSA office, plus volunteers, will be at Sakeliga's KRAGDAG at Rayton (estimated 30 000 visitors).

[Paul]

Week before last Lynette and Hannes were out at OR Tambo interviewing and seeing off the SA Schools team that are shooting air rifles at Bisley as I type this.

[BBT]

Thanks for starting this thread and for your input, Dick. I agree 100% with your comments that we (all of us) need to be awake and ready to spring into action to present the "balanced, alternative views" of law-abiding, lawful gun owners, whenever the opportunity presents itself.

In addition (and so as to fore-arm any readers of this thread), perhaps we should also set out in this thread good, substantiated counter-arguments (and examples/cases etc) to the lies and drivel regularly put forward by the anti-gun establishment, such as GFSA and certain politicians (including the "rat in a hat" aka our minister of police (title deliberately left in lowercase for this lower class idiot)).

Fully agree.
We are sometimes At a loss for words as to how to effectively counter an argument succinctly