An idea for converting Anti's (long)
I'm drawing on the vast array of personalities and experience here on DC to check out an idea. Please tall me what you think. It's kind of long to read. sorry, but I wanted to explain the reasoning to go along with the idea.
Experiment for change.
I often wonder what the reasoning or thought process was behind peoples decisions when they reach different conclusions on a subject or persons actions and they differ greatly than my own conclusions. What life style they might lead or their life experiences that shaped the way they view and interrupt what they see. This is for anything in life, not just the 2A.
When asked why I carry a gun, I can’t think of any answers that are not really obvious to anyone that has put more than a few minutes thought into the subject. Should I reply with “I can’t give you any answers that you don’t already have”? I would equate it to asking a Democrat “why are you a Democrat?” or likewise asking a Republican “why are you a Republican” You already know the answers, maybe not in all the detail that the person you are asking knows, But the nature of their beliefs gives us a pretty good insight into their reasoning. For us, choosing to carry a gun, and be proactive with our personal protection was in most cases a “thought process” the natural way of making decisions, or coming to a realization of our surroundings. It’s where we take time and evaluate all the pros and cons, assess the levels of danger “to” and “not to” carry, verses other means of protecting ourselves. Some people arrive at this decision through an epiphany while contemplating the natural order of their lives and how everything fits into it, this method probably took some time, even years. But the process and subsequent “realization” came naturally so to speak. For others, the decision process may have been made in a quicker fashion after a traumatic experience, where this decision process was followed and most likely the conclusion was reached much quicker.
In this line of thinking, there are at least two possibilities as to who we are dealing with, and the approach to answer the question for each type could be the same. I’m addressing only two, I’m sure there are far more finite differences, for the sake of discussion, we’ll stick with two. First, the individual that has thought through to some degree the cause and effect of society and it’s good vs. bad elements, but reached the conclusion that they are comfortable with allowing others to be their protectors, or feel that the odds are just too great that anything will happen to them. I would think this person would be more understanding of your conviction to take on the responsibility of your own personal protection, and might even be willing to engage in conversation with an open mind as to why you chose differently than they themselves did. I would consider these people to be the “fence sitters”. Second, is the person that puts up a wall and absolutely refuses to even allow the topic to enter their thoughts? The thought of anything ever happening to them in this “civilized society” is so astronomical, you know, “that stuff” always happens to “those people” Besides, that’s what the Police are for, “I don’t have to worry about that.”
This individual is going to be the hardest to explain anything to, and will stonewall any answer you do give. Again, weather through a lack of thought, (opposite to us), or a traumatic experience that sent their minds racing in the other direction, it seems that this person would need to be coaxed into beginning the thought process, anything beyond that would be like trying to mold rock hard dry clay, you have to add some water first, allow it to sink in, add some more water and when it begins to soften, then you can try to shape it a little. These people are definitely the “bliss ninnies” and will never be swayed by any snappy or whimsical answer to the question of “why do you carry”. Any attempt to sway them will be viewed as trying to brainwash them the same way we have been, we’ll, in their view anyway.
Now the question is, how do we sway those who refuse to listen to reason? I’m wondering if maybe we “pro-gun” types need to take on a new tactic, and all the anti’s advertising adds gives me an idea. We need to find a way to draw the anti’s into thinking about a topic before they realize what it is about. Advertisers do it all the time; they post a billboard with only a name or part of a very simple idea, usually not even related to the product they are pushing. It’s just to peak people’s interest. Then a little more is added. Finally you begin to bring into view the idea, not the whole idea, just the start of it. The point is to get the ball rolling, people will stick with an idea better and longer if they reach it on their own. The anti’s are trying it with their double talk groups. Using hunters organizations to recruit members saying they are against only certain types of guns, not the ones hunters use, you can bet your boots, if they get the non hunting guns, they won’t stop there and the hunters will have funded the beast that will then turn on them in the end.
So, I’ve been thinking, (this is usually where I get into trouble) say we start out with some billboards with statistics, maybe one with the number of woman raped and assaulted every hour in the US and a woman’s picture, or some with the number of people murdered every day in this country with a person’s picture. Kind of like a crime awareness thing. (Let them begin to empathize with the person, put a face they can relate to in their mind, No hint of any other message, when people are used to seeing these bill boards. Maybe those are primarily the top half of the billboard, then later come in and add the bottom half, with a personal experience of that person that beat the odds by protecting themselves with a gun, if no shots were fired would be even better example for the bleeding hearts and “old west style shootout” crier’s, just the presence and the confidence of knowing they had the means ability to fight back was enough. It’s time to bring a fight to them that they can recognize, by throwing a little emotional warfare back at them. No stooping to using kids, or getting graphic, no need for pictures of evil guns, just a simple undeniable truth, this person you see here saved themselves with the use of a gun when no one else could help them. I don’t think anything we can do would outright change an Anti into a believer, but if we make it harder for them to dismiss their own natural thought process, and persuade them to follow through that reasoning process a little further than they have before, planting the seeds of reason so to speak. Best outcome, the fence sitters maybe give a little more credibility to the idea, and the Anti’s have one less reason to dismiss the whole idea. I’m sure for the most part, it will have no effect on the hardened anti’s, but the ones that we make stop and think. That’s where we are going to win this war.
Is anyone on here in advertising that could help out with shaping the idea of this approach? And maybe how to pitch it to an organization that can fund it such as the NRA?
Thanks in advance, I appreciate any comments you might have.