Currently Browsing: How Not to Win
Dec 3, 2009
Posted by Sebastian in How Not to Win | 9 comments
A very honest admission from Dennis Henigan, VP with Brady Center, about the difference between our two communities. He’s speaking of his book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy:
Third, the “hogwash” votes reflect not only motivation, but organization as well. It is fascinating to me that organized efforts have been underway to sink the book under the weight of “1-star” reviews. On several websites followers are urged to send in negative reviews of the book (without, of course, urging them to read the book first). Gunbroker.com urges readers to “bury this book,” while giving helpful instructions on how to do amazon.com customer reviews. The Maryland Shooters Association suggests that its members post some “good” (meaning bad) reviews on amazon. These efforts obviously have had some success. Amazon prominently displays an “average customer review” for each book, which for Lethal Logic struggles to reach “3-stars” against the organized “1-star” campaign.
Two forums does not organization make, I would say. I’m not even sure how highly trafficked those forums are compared to, say, AR-15.com or PAFOA. So if Dennis Henigan is feeling the heat now, I can’t imagine what he would think of a serious Zumbo level campaign. But have no fear Mr. Henigan, we in the gun rights community seem to reserve the greatest ire for our own, rather than you folks on the other side. I would not be so quick to judge a whole community by the actions of a few.
I am of the opinion that we should obtain and read the books and writings of our opponents. A confident movement does not feel the need to elevate itself by disparaging others, hiding from controversy, or seeking to achieve victory in the public debate by shouting down opposing ideas without taking them seriously or understanding them. That’s how we go from a strong and confident movement to a weak one. That’s how new tactics and strategies creep up on us and gain momentum.
Ultimately, without building our own intellectual and academic case for gun rights, and taking the opposing wisdom on guns seriously, we would have lost Heller. What Dennis is witnessing might be a demonstration of grassroots energy, which our side certainly has in spades over their side, but it’s displays a lack of seriousness that I think we need if we’re going to keep this ball moving. If you’re going to give Dennis Henigan’s book a bad review, I think you at least ought to read it and come up with some real arguments for why it’s bad.
Join the Conversation (9 comments)
Sep 7, 2009
Posted by Bitter in Gun Rights Organizations, How Not to Win | 3 comments
When I clicked through to read the bizarre AP report on the shocking(!) revelation that PACs raise money to donate to politicians friendly to their cause, I couldn’t help but notice some very bizarre statements by the head of the Tennessee gun group profiled. Apparently the AP got hold of his pitch for raising PAC money:
Harris wrote that his goal is to raise $240,000, or $1 for every person with a handgun carry permit in Tennessee. But he acknowledged that that goal is likely unrealistic.
“Sometimes you make aspirational statements when you ask for money,” Harris said. “Although I would be tickled to death if we did, I have no expectations of raising a quarter-million dollars for the PAC.”
First, I love the pitch idea. It’s very tangible for people to understand and embraces those who don’t feel like they have enough money to participate in politics. If you have $1 to give, you’ve made a worthwhile investment. In a recession, that stands a chance at encouraging participation. Second, I appreciate that he is realistic in his goals. One thing sorely lacking among some on our side is any sense of political reality when it comes to participation by their gun owning peers. For practical planning purposes it is wise to realize that you may not meet that goal, and for this particular group, there are more than fair concerns with it.*
However, why the hell would you tell the Associated Press that you have no intention of meeting your goals? It’s one thing to predict a likely outcome, but it’s another to announce your failure for the world – donors and politicians included – to read. If I lived in Tennessee and received the donation request, I would have told Sebastian we should give because it’s a good cause and a good pitch. But if I read this article before the check went out the door, the check would never go out the door. With Harris already announcing to politicians that their PAC won’t be hugely successful, I’d suggest our check instead go to PVF where NRA will flex its muscle and tell politicians that gun owners are ready to give in order to protect our rights. If the state group is publicly conceding defeat in the press, then that tells me they aren’t interested in really flexing their muscle to make this happen.
Lesson: Be realistic, but don’t tell the world you plan to fail. Steer the conversation toward how motivated gun owners have been lately, especially in regards to politics. If the reporter really wants to talk money, talk about other ways gun owners have demonstrated they are ready to open their wallets with the run on guns and ammo. We’re already voting with our wallets, and now we’re ready to make that happen in the political world.
Another weird little element that caught my eye may or may not be a big deal. It’s possible that the reporter is making hay about it and Harris just commented on it, but I would be curious to know how they are handling this from a practical standpoint:
In the recent newsletter, Harris warned supporters that if they give more than $100 per quarter, their names and other identifying information will be included in campaign finance disclosures. Telling potential donors about that threshold in advance can help avoid uncomfortable situations later, he said.
“I want to make sure that if I call and say ‘who is your employer because I’ve got to put it on the form,’ that they don’t all of a sudden say ‘give me my money back,’ ” he said.
I can understand that the reason he probably did that is because gun owners are pretty sensitive about these things. With the reports published online, there is fair concern for people who aren’t “out of the closet” as gun owners in their professional lives. But to be honest, I would have been much more subtle about it. Rather than making a big deal, just make the donation check off amount $99 instead of $100. If you list higher amounts, then just put an asterisk with a notation at the bottom that more information is required for those giving $100 or more in a quarter. It’s subtle, but it gets the point across.
Hopefully, this is a case where the AP is creating a minor controversy where there is none. Given the overall nature of the article, it could easily be seen as such. However, if that’s the case, there was really no reason for Harris to talk about it at all. And even if he felt the need to elaborate, don’t say it’s because you’ll lose donations. That reinforces to serious donors that you plan to fail. Even if a donor does send in $100, don’t call him and make the only options give up the information or don’t give at all. The suggestion should be that they give $99 so as to support the cause and still have their privacy respected.
Lesson: Keep your trap shut when it doesn’t need to be open, especially when the person on the other line is clearly writing a piece that blows things out of proportion. There’s no need to create added paranoia with gun owners. Believe me, there are a few that are paranoid enough to cover us all. If that paranoia keeps regular Joe Gun Owner out of the political donation process, then you’ve lost when you really didn’t need to given a reasonable alternative.
*Using the state’s search report function, I cannot turn up any results from 2008 or 2009 with contributor information. According to filing records for donations made to candidates, they have not been any reported donations since 2000. At that time, they donated $125 to 19 candidates for a grand total of $2,375. Because I could not find contribution or PAC records from that year, I don’t know if they only had $2,375 to give away or have been sitting on much more since that time.
Join the Conversation (3 comments)
Jul 13, 2009
Posted by Sebastian in How Not to Win | 2 comments
It would seem that a Washington woman is taking the ammunition supply problems a little too hard.
Clallam County Undersheriff Ron Peregrin said Teresa Nadine Dumdie of Port Angeles threatened four other customers with a .22 caliber handgun at 4:54 p.m. Friday outside the store at 3500 E. U.S. Highway 101.
No one was injured.
Peregrin said Dumdie had argued with customers in the store after they had asked her to stop cursing and yelling at an employee.
He said she was upset with the employee, saying she had sold her the wrong kind of ammunition.
After she received her refund, she walked out to the parking lot, removed a gun from her car and confronted the customers she had argued with earlier inside the store, Peregrin said.
Threatening staff and customers is generally not the best way to resolve customer service woes. It’s also likely to be a fast track to losing that gun so you’ll never have to worry about buying ammunition again.
Join the Conversation (2 comments)
Jun 19, 2009
Posted by Bitter in How Not to Win | 13 comments
In the gun issue, many gun owners are quick to demonize the media without a second thought. I don’t completely blame anyone for a healthy dose of cynicism, but sometimes I wonder where it’s coming from and whether it’s appropriate.
Yesterday, SayUncle noticed that his knowledge of laws didn’t mesh with what an article in the Nashville City Paper claimed on the topic of guns where alcohol is served. The reporter claimed “extensive legal research” provided by a law firm that was hired to challenge the law. Uncle requested the research from the reporter and then I saw Rustmeister’s decidedly cynical comment assuming that Uncle would likely never receive the research at all, even referring to the research in scare quotes. Why assume the worst in this case? I responded that folks should have a little faith, alternative papers are often very reliable for demanding evidence.
But that got me thinking about the deeply rooted hatred for the media that many gun owners have. Many are willing to burn the bridge with reporters without a second thought. Why is that? (I might add that the reporter did send Uncle the data.) Do gun owners seek to live in a world where they truly believe that everyone is out to get them? Or would we be better off balancing a healthy cynicism that only a few people are out to get us with an understanding that this is a complex issue that many people in and out of the media don’t get?
Obviously, I suggest the latter. Yes, the mainstream media is, in general, not friendly to our side of the gun issue. But, we also need to realize that many don’t really have much of an opinion about it or have an opinion that could be swayed to neutral with just a little friendly outreach. Why do some want to assume the worst and burn the bridges to those who we can sway? Does it just feel good? I don’t understand. I want to create a more gun-friendly media, and maybe not everyone shares that desire.
While I’m not saying that gun owners should turn the other cheek if there’s a bad article out there, here are a few things I think folks should consider before assuming the worst (and saying as much) about a reporter:
- Remember that not everyone knows guns. It’s okay and not a cardinal sin of journalism to not know the ins and outs of every single issue. (Remember, in the days of bigger newsrooms, journalists could specialize much more than they do now.)
- Remember that on the legal side, the gun issue is extremely complex. Many lawyers don’t understand the complexities in various local, state, and federal gun laws unless they have spent their careers studying gun laws specifically. We’ve all known other gun owners who get these details wrong, we can’t expect that every reporter is going to get it right all the time, either.
- The fundamental question one should be asking is whether or not the reporter was fair to the issue or made an attempt to be. Did they interview both sides? If they didn’t, were they upfront about any potential biases?
- Consider the source. Is the beef with a mainstream newspaper, local television station, web-only publication, national outlet, or alt-weekly? I would expect more colorful language from some outlets than others, but that doesn’t inherently make one piece more biased. (I expected a New England alt-weekly reporter who I took to a range to refer to me as a chick. I did not expect to see the same term to be applied after an interview with the New York Times.) What about the perceived wrong bothers you, and is it something appropriate or inappropriate to the source?
- Don’t treat reporters like shit. I can’t tell you how many gun owners I’ve met who want to try and make reporters covering them feel unwelcome. I’ve met a few who actively seek them out if they know they are at an event and try to make the most extreme and anger-filled arguments just to make them squirm. Why? What purpose does that serve? Would they behave that way around a new shooter? If they say no, then why treat the person next to them like that just because of their profession? Just like being on your best behavior is required for reaching out to new shooters, you should act your best when journalists are around. It’s simply the decent thing to do. If you want to grow the community, the same rules apply.
- Finally, for a pet peeve, before someone starts off on the evils of reporters, make sure the person you’re referencing is actually a reporter. Before saying an entire paper is outrageously biased in their coverage, folks need to double check the section of paper they are reading. I can’t tell you how many times I’ll see someone bitching about how biased reporters are or a paper is when they are linking to an op-ed or a columnist. It’s not a matter of reporting bias if it’s not in the news section. It’s not inherently a sign of editorial bias if it’s not one of the paper’s unsigned editorials. (There are other factors here, but the point is just to double check what section you’re reading.)
Going back to the specific case with Nashville’s City Paper, there’s significant room for improvement, but I don’t think the reporter deserved denunciation or assumptions of the worst based on this particular article. In this case, before the data was even sent there were a few folks pointing out that there were different interpretations of the law that could have stumped the reporter. Looking at what the law firm compiled, I believe that’s the case based on the laws in the list I do know. Perhaps more importantly, the reporter did make clear that the firm providing the data was working on a legal challenge to the new law in Tennessee.
In all, I think it’s time to stop throwing all members of the media under the bus in our movement. We shouldn’t seek to burn bridges that don’t need to be burned. It’s fine if there is a true sin and bias is far beyond any limits of reasonable understanding, but we should take a moment to ask whether it does cross those limits. If it doesn’t, try a bit of honey instead of vineagar. If you make an effort to educate, you could easily find yourself becoming a source to answer future questions the next time the subject comes up.
Join the Conversation (13 comments)
Mar 8, 2009
Posted by Sebastian in How Not to Win | 20 comments
Obama voters are exactly the people we need to reach, which makes this unfortunate:
Thirteen-year-old Lane Dunkley just wanted to go hunting with his grandfather.
What he got was a lecture on politics.
[...]
But when father and son arrived at the lesson, the volunteer instructor, Kell Wolf, asked if any of the students voted for President Barack Obama.
Reddy, a transplanted Californian — and former Marine — raised his hand.
According to Reddy and others in the room, Wolf called Obama “the next thing to the Antichrist” and ordered Reddy and Dunkley from the room. When Reddy refused, Wolf said he would not teach “liberals” and would cancel the course if Reddy didn’t leave.
So Reddy and Dunkley left, as did a few others.
I can sympathize. People who fled California because because the state has been made difficult to live or do business in, who vote for a guy who wants to make every corner of America just like California? It’s frustrating. There’s dozens of places today that are facing this phenomenon, and the natives are the ones who suffer for it.
But what if Lane Dunkley discovered he really enjoyed hunting with Grandad. What if Grandad, likely being a native Oklahoman, could have perhaps talked some sense into the boy on a hunting trip? The only way to make people interested in preserving your way of life is to make them understand it, and you can’t do that by excluding outsiders from it. I understand how Kell Wolf is feeling, but he’s being short sighted. The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation did the right thing.
Join the Conversation (20 comments)
Feb 24, 2009
Posted by Sebastian in How Not to Win | 11 comments
It’s for sure now. The Des Moines register is reporting it.
“This was completely blown out of proportion,” Kohorst said. “They were going to come through and meet with the townspeople and just practice going in and out of their homes. They were never, ever going to confiscate guns or anything like that.”
I agree that it was blown way out of proportion. The Mayor seems to not quite understand the objections to the exercise.
Talk show host Alex Jones of Austin, Texas, whose syndicated radio program is carried on about 60 stations, said he had received phone calls on and off the air from people in Arcadia and nearby towns who objected to the plans.He said he believes oil companies, in concert with central banks, are creating a worldwide economic crisis to set up a world government.
“This is part of an acclimation for martial law,” Jones said of the National Guard’s plans.
If that’s his paranoia, I don’t understand it either. There are certainly good reasons to object to the military using civilian communities in exercises, but that it’s part of an internationalist conspiracy is not among them.
Company A is an infantry unit that served in Afghanistan for 13 months in 2004 and 2005, and it is expected to receive orders to return overseas within the next 24 months, Hapgood said.
OK, so I was wrong about one thing. They were training for Afghanistan rather than Iraq, as I speculated over the weekend.
“We have been doing training in our communities for decades, so this is very routine business for us,” Hapgood said. “We were quite surprised when we received e-mails from out of state criticizing the event. We have a responsibility to have our men and women ready to go into combat, and we are not going to change that.”
Well, that’s what they’re saying now, of course. After the paranoidosophere blew the lid on their secret plans, what else are they going to say?
A man who described himself as a “Nevada citizen” wrote that it was good the exercise was called off: “It is possible that there would have been some dead Iowa Guardsmen.”
Way to win hearts and minds, good citizen of Nevada!
Join the Conversation (11 comments)
Feb 2, 2009
Posted by Sebastian in How Not to Win | 11 comments
This is not an example of how to do it:
Michael Guzman, a senior at Texas State University and president of the grassroots gun group called “Students for Concealed Carry on Campus,” is worried that the two issues will be “muddled” together by the media once the respective bills are filed, causing confusion among lawmakers and regular Texans.
Plus, there appears to be another element causing tension between the members of SCCC and the Virginia-based group OpenCarry.org — one of competing interests.
“If these open carry guys get enough attention with the introduction of their bill, it’s going to knock off our bill,” Guzman said. “Our biggest obstacle is another gun rights group. It’s ridiculous that two gun rights groups are going to be canceling each other out.”
Guzman’s concern is a legitimate one, but that’s not something that’s a good idea to go expressing to the media. If they understand that gun groups are divided on the issue, you can expect a divide and conquer approach from our opponents, which is a pretty effective tactic. To some degree, it’s much harder to hide these kinds of priority disagreements now than it has been in the past, but I think we ought to try to keep it relegated to the back waters of Al Gore’s Internets (like this place).
I think changing both laws would be a good thing for Texas, but there might only be room for one pro-gun bill this year. I won’t toss my 2 cents in as to which it should be. That’s for Texans to figure out.
Join the Conversation (11 comments)
Nov 11, 2008
Posted by Sebastian in How Not to Win | 26 comments
Congressman Broun of Georgia is warning of an Obama dictatorship:
Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.
“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun said. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”
Obama needs to invoke Godwin here and declare victory. I’m not exactly in favor of Obama’s plan for national indentured servitude of young people, but can we dispense with the fear mongering and start worrying about why large numbers of Republican voters stayed home this election? Can we start worrying about why young people are increasingly lost to Republican candidates? Obama won. Get over it. He’s not going to be the moderate centrist people are hoping for, but he’s also not going to be Hitler or Joe Stalin either. I can promise you I won’t like what’s coming, but right now we have to worry about being strong opposition, not floating paranoid theories about brownshirts. I expect to find that kind of crap coming from obscure web sites and blogs (you know, like this one), not from the mouth of a United States Congressman.
Join the Conversation (26 comments)
Oct 31, 2008
Posted by Sebastian in How Not to Win | 23 comments
… you know the rest. I wanted to comment on a few things:
Fuck the Fudds.
They have been selling our gun rights down the river for the last 50 years.
They are ones who have allowed the anti-gun politicans to get away with the lie that the 2nd Amendement is about hunting.
And this:
I am on record supporting the banning of all Hunting Firearms that don’t have a self-defense purpose. Kill Bambi with your teeth, Hunters, if you can. The 2nd Amendment enumerates your right to self-defense, not some diaphonous right to shoot pheasants tied up in little cages under bushes that the guide releases when you get close.
All this is doing is helping the gun control folks is pull on the pry bars that they’ve wedged into the fissures of this movement. This is exactly the attitude that I jumped on Dan Cooper for, just coming from our side instaed of his. Understand that we need hunters in the gun movement. As many as we can get. We do not have the numbers to stand individually on our own, so that means we need to support the “fudds” even if all of them don’t always support us.
We have the data, and the arguments, to show that hunting is in every bit as much danger, and perhaps more, as gun rights are. Hunters may soon come to find they need us more than we need them. When it comes to that, we need to stand by them. The proper remedy is to convince hunters their interests lie with ours, and divisive language isn’t going to help achieve that.
Let the gun control people work the pry bars, we should be out there with cement trowels trying to smooth things over, not actively helping work the fissure.
Join the Conversation (23 comments)
Oct 31, 2008
Posted by Sebastian in How Not to Win | 12 comments
As many of you know, I’ve been trying to recruit volunteers for pro-gun campaigns. I’ve had a fair amount of luck getting people on my mailing list, having roughly doubled it in size. But I’m having a real problem getting people to even show up at a rally with the possibility of great seating. I’m wondering whether I’m doing something wrong, or not making the right pitch.
One reason people court our vote is because when it does come for election time, sportsmen typically do turn out to the polls. But it takes more than that. Candidates have to see sportsmen, and they need to talk to them. They have to understand us, and understand our concerns. They don’t get that if we’re just a number buried in sheets of polling data. Already, in my district, I’m down to two endorsed state representative candidates. I have two other Republican candidates that didn’t even bother to turn in their NRA questionnaire this election, and so are big “?” in the voting guides.
Politicians aren’t going to notice us if they don’t see us at rallies, in the volunteer offices, on the streets, and in the election booths, and in their mailboxes. The reason my county is slowly pivoting from pro-gun to anti-gun is because sportsmen, who are numerous in this area, are doing nothing to prevent it. It takes more than voting and complaining. Gun owners and sportsmen really need to get off their butts and make the politicians pay attention to them. That means supporting the good guys, just as much as it means bashing the bad ones.
Join the Conversation (12 comments)
