JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Alot of times all it takes with non gun people, is explaining the reality of a bill, initiative, etc. Rather than let them only hear about it from an anti gun perspective. Many aren't really anti gun, they just assume it's for safety, because that's what they're told.
For or Against.
Most anyone can skew a person's thinking by false interpretations/readings/presentation of the facts, etc.....

Hummmm....think about it?

The Covid Facts and the arguments that ensue.

So imagine.....requiring a voter to read a bill or to vote ONLY after reading the contents of the bill?

No_Time_Fo_Dat.jpg

Anyway.....we elect people to represent us in the Legislature.

You mean like?


Awwww hell.....
I know (in my heart) what their ultimate goal really is. So why not......just change the Constitution?


Aloha, Mark

PS.......For safety. Rrrrright......
Do-it-for-the-kids.jpg

Dare to disagree and you'll be labeled as a Kid Hater (someone who doesn't care about kids or safety).

There is a reason why the Anti-Gun Folks have chosen to claim that they believe in only, "reasonable and common-sense gun controls".

Yeah, disagree. And it's because.....you aren't reasonable and you lack common sense.

"You're dismissed. Talk to the hand".
Talk-to-the-Hand-1.jpg
 
Last Edited:
there will be no america-wide disobedience on gun control. if legislation is passed, 99.99% will comply. abandon that dream.
Most likely not America-wide but I suspect there will be 'pockets' of disobedience, depending on the areas of the country.

I don't agree with a 99.99 compliance - but I'd bet on about 70+% anyway.
 
In my experience most people who *think* they are anti-gun are really just people who either had a bad experience with a firearm, or no exposure to them.

My girlfriend thought of herself as "anti gun" until we started dating and got exposed to guns. After going shooting a few times and learning about it as a hobby, she is now starting to get interested in the self defense aspect. We're in the process of buying her very own first handgun. This is somebody who just a few years ago was "anti gun".

Another example is a friend of mine from NYC. He was born and raised there but now lives in Oregon. The only guns he ever saw were from cops or criminals. He didn't consider himself necessarily "anti gun" but anything besides for hunting he would be asking "why do you need that?". Fast forward a few years and this guy now owns a few firearms of his own and is much more pro 2A.

Point I'm making is that exposure to firearms is one of the best ways to get people on our side. Take a new shooter out and let them learn on small stuff like a .22 then once they're comfortable move from there.
 
Maybe push forth the idea that :
There are more to firearms than self defense , "tactical" ( hate how that word is used ) , hunting or the like.
Some folks own and shoot firearms , simply 'cause its fun and enjoyable.

Or toss out the notion that owning firearms is a choice...one that should be made by an individual.
Not a choice that is made for a individual.
Andy
 
Read through most of the comments and agree with Andy on page 1. It is all about delivery. Another aspect in my mind is with the number of people enjoying the outdoors because of Covid. They get to see a percentage of gun owners left overs and damage. Seen more than 1 sign saying "Be a responsible gun owner and pick up your ...." Yet there are piles of trash left behind. Took a friend to a clean up and he is a stong 2a person. His first quote when we got there was. "Wow, gun owners are not good people out here."
How do you think the "Middle" or nongun owners view this?
Throw in some poaching and murder headlines and I feel gun owners have an image problem even though it might be a small percent that are causing it. Just my 2 cents.
20210409_180206.jpg IMG_4397.jpg IMG_4138(2).jpg
 
His first quote when we got there was. "Wow, gun owners are not good people out here."
The trick would be to somehow 'educate' people so they do not just equate trash left is by nothing but gun owners.

People who leave trash do it regardless of whether they are gun owners or not. Heck We all find piles of trash in non - shooting areas as well but It just so happens a lot of these types are gun owners and leaving shot up trash is just an extension of their uncaring, pathetic and totally non-environmental mentality - And not ALL gun owners are a part of this 'group'.

I almost hate to admit it but I know some of these types. They are little more than 'fringe - acquaintances' and not at all friends but I have a good friend who at one time tended to 'overlap' with some of these types and I have been around them at times.

The interesting part is some of them are generally good people, nice families etc. but they have a degraded (to almost a complete lack of) sense of care about the environment.
 
Question in title but I would add that I am looking for widespread and rapid ways to get the message out. The undecided voters are likely to be from the younger half of the population.

As for all these new gun owners think about one place almost all of them visit to acquire that first firearm.

Washington State residents are going to suffer first if we fail. Oregon residents will be next.
Take them shooting. Make it fun. No hand-cannons at first. Something they can easily hit the target and get a mental "win" right away. People new to something will like it more if they have fast success.

Friendly. Light. Make it a fun day.
 
I apologize in advance for the long post, but bear with me. There are 4 main parts to this issue:
1. Framing the concept of firearm ownership in a way that will resonate with a broad majority of people.
2. Conveying it effectively so that the audience will be engaged and receptive to the content.
3. Distributing it via available media in a manner that will draw attention and encourage redistribution from the audience.
4. Rebutting and countering the tidal wave of negative reactions and arguments that will ensue.

The first part is the easiest, because we are pretty far along in that process - the numerous good methods and arguments mentioned above are evidence of that. I would add that anti-gun arguments are pursuasive to the ill-informed because people like easy answers to big, scary problems. "Lets take away assault rifles" sounds much faster and easier than "let's take meaningful steps to address mental illness and hyperaggreasive behavior so that there will be fewer mass shootings". We live in an instant gratification society where hard things are avoided at all costs, and we should be tailoring our efforts accordingly.

The 2A community needs to get better at providing alternatives and steering the argument in a proactive and positive direction. Instead of saying "vote no on that bill because it won't work and will restrict your rights", we should be saying "i agree that we should be solving this problem. That bill won't work (for reasons I'm happy to share if you want to hear them), but here is something that I know absolutely will..." and provide examples of things we can do to address the root of the problem. The former comes across as stubborn and obstructionist, while the latter sounds positive and helpful. Even if they disagree with your position, it's harder to tune out someone who shares a common goal and wants to work with you to solve the problem.

It helps to reframe the anti-gun assertion into the problem we're actually trying to solve. We don't need to ban AR15s, we need to keep guns (all of them, not just certain types) out of the hands of those who will misuse them. When the real problem is stated, it's hard for anyone to disagree with it. From there it's much easier to win the logic argument with solutions that work, because we already know the anti-gun solutions won't. "Banning alcohol didn't stop people from drinking during prohibition and helped organized crime become far more powerful. Banning drugs has done literally nothing to solve the drug problem while putting billions into the pockets of cartels. So, how will banning semi-auto rifles or 10+ round magazines solve the problem of mass shootings and gun violence?"

Ultimately I think the best method to use is the call to action. "We need to do something THAT ACTUALLY WORKS to reduce gun violence". Demand action, and use the facts about how anti-gun policies don't work as the backbone for that platform. Demanding action to right a wrong is an effective strategy that anti-gun people use constantly, so we might as well use it too. I'm sure a politician or two would run with the concept "at the urging of voters to act swiftly and decisively to reduce gun violence".

The second item is harder because it requires consistency of delivery along with calm, patience, and generally positive demeanor in spite of an ignorant and often unreasonable opposition. Chest-thumping and shouting "shall not be infringed" is not an effective communication method, and as soon as people hear that, they shut down. We have to be the rational adults in the conversation, and not give in to our frustration and snap. We need to avoid sarcasm and condescension because while they may be good for a laugh, they come across negative, smug, and belittling. Same goes for name-calling, labeling, dismissive statements, etc. - that all just reinforces a perception of obstructionism and hostility.

We need to look back at the civil rights movement and learn from it. Martin Luther King's approach was effective because it called upon people to be their best selves in the face of adversity. If we want this to succeed we need to do the same, because make no mistake, this is a civil rights issue at heart. The slightest negativity and hostility will be used against us in the court of public perception, and then distorted even further by media and politicians. Instead, we need to show that we are the underdog being oppressed and abused... and we need to grin and bear it instead of lashing out.

The third is tough because the medium dictates the method of engagement. TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and all the rest would need to be used to spread the content, but each is good for only certain things. We would need spokespersons who are marketable (good looking, well spoken, etc) and who walk the walk when it comes to the previous items mentioned above. The content would need to be designed and formatted to engage the audience - keep them watching, get them thinking, and prompt them to act. If done right, the audience will spread the message all on its own, and encourage others to join in.

For Youtube, content length is not as relevant as quality of production. Generally I would try to keep things short and sweet, 15 min at most for more involved content. For TikTok, 1 min max, preferably shorter. Facebook can be used to share the youtube and tiktok content, along with memes and pictures.

Places to share and promote content are tough if you're taking the free route. Not only do you have to exert a lot of manual effort, you also expose your own profile in the process to trolls and others. If you're putting some cash down you can target specific demographics, geographic areas, income ranges, age groups, genders, etc. You can run ads in youtube that play before the feature content- politicians do that all the time. Typically you have to have a business account to do these things.

Finally, there will always be a rebuttal, and it will always suck. There's no way to avoid it, so there needs to be a plan to address it, and it has to be handled with the same calm and reasonable demeanor as described earlier. Reactions must be carefully managed and judiciously meted out to avoid giving the other side more ammo.
 
Last Edited:
I try to tell them that people who don't obey murder or robbery laws won't obey gun laws. But gun laws do affect your ability to protect yourself when the police aren't there. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away if you are lucky.
 
Idk, I'd venture they see the nra as fanatics. There is no self-regulation compounded by foreign trolls laughing their asses off pitting us against each other in comments/forums. Yes, the brady campaign is the other side fanatics. Both sides fundraise with fear.
 
Use good arguments. I will post some I have used before. Make the arguments real to the people reading/hearing them. Be polite, and avoid slamming political parties. There are some Dem voters who do not agree with their party on gun topics.

LGBTQ people still discuss bashers as a reality. Just like anyone else, they are interested in their ability to protect themselves and their family against bashers and other violence. Things like that still happen in modern day Oregon. People who ignore laws against violence are not inclined to obey more gun laws. Challenge the benefits of laws restricting their self defense because their attackers won't care about gun laws any more than assault or murder laws.

If reducing crime is the reason for new gun legislation, how about consulting real experts? Ask street level police officers, not chiefs or political appointees who must "agree" with a mayor. I have. Every police officer I know or have asked since 1994 have said that additional gun laws do nothing to affect crime. Two popular police organizations recently polled their membership. These are the results:

In 2016, The National Association of Chiefs of Police polled 20,000 police officers and sheriffs. 76% said that armed citizens help law enforcement reduce violent crime. This links to their survey results

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NACOP-surveyresults-2016.pdf

PoliceOne, an organization of about 380,000 active and 70,000 retired officers, surveyed 16,000 members on gun control policies in 2013.
71% of respondents said that a ban on so-called "assault weapons" would have no effect on violent crime. 20% of the respondents said it would make crime worse. This is a link to their results
http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

Police are the experts on guns and crime. These are the guys I believe. Law enforcement officers know more about crime and violence than any other group, and they overwhelmingly oppose these kinds of gun laws.

When professional organizations poll Americans, they poll 1000-2000 people and extrapolate to 320 Million. These two polls were 20,000 and 16,000 officers respectively. They extrapolate to around 900,000 sworn state, local and federal officers. So the confidence level is higher than any normal public polling data.
 
People often accept others' opinions that "sound good" without really thinking it through. They don't ask, "what does that really mean" or "why do you believe that?" There are a lot of opinions being promoted these days vilifying gun ownership as somewhere between silly and evil. If you can frame a few arguments to the people who don't really care one way or the other, they will just decline to sign that petition. It's easier to make the arguments now before those initiatives are on the ballot.
 
MYTH: "Incidents like the Parkland shooting demand gun control"
Deaths from mass shootings get all the headlines, but they are extremely rare compared to other violent crime, even now. There have been 1135 mass shooting deaths since 1966 (Washington Post). The ice.gov website enumerates 2038 homicides committed by illegal immigrants they deported in 2018 and a similar number in 2017. So border control would stop more deaths every year than the total number of mass shooting victims. But that doesn't match the gun control agenda, so it is ignored.
The Douglas High shooting was a textbook case of failure of "the authorities" who want to confiscate your guns and their so-called policies. The authorities tell us: "See Something, Say Something". Local residents called the Broward Sheriffs to the shooter's home 45 times. No arrests, because the Broward County Sheriff chose to take money from the PROMISE program to divert teen offenders to counseling instead of arrests. Residents called the FBI twice. No arrest, even after Cruz posted a video saying he wants to be a school shooter. With no arrests, Cruz passed the background check to buy the murder weapon.
The authorities say the police will protect us. Yet the four Broward County deputies who were on the scene when Cruz started shooting kids stayed outside. The Sheriff ran to a CNN "Town Hall" event to blame the NRA for the murders his deputies let happen. This sequence of real events would fail the smell test for a TV drama.
The Parkland Sheriff, a well-known Democrat political type, did not lose anything except his job. He has his pension and some speaking engagements with anti-gun activists. The people who were killed by his policies, ... you know the rest
 
MYTH: "The violence is because guns are so easy to get now"
Until 1968, modern guns like AR-15's, semi-automatic pistols, even mortars and bazookas, could be bought by mail. Teens in rural areas stored their hunting and competition guns in school lockers. Yet there were no school shootings then. Guns are harder to get now, with background checks and many restrictions in state laws. There is something else in play.
It is not the change in gun availability, it is the change in what angry young men are willing to do. Why else are we witness to London's murder rate exceeding NY City, and their need to ban possession of knives? This is 20 years after they banned all guns in the UK.
Consider also that Chicago blames Indiana for all the gun murders in Chicago, as if their home-grown gangsters would be playing chess if guns did not crawl across the border and tempt them to murder someone. If that was true, why does Indiana have lower gun murder rates than Chicago? Maybe Mayor Pete's hometown has a lot of crime (it does), but most of Indiana doesn't.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top