Guns are the problem

MikePal usually picks these things up, but maybe he missed it. CBC radio carried a broadcast with the OFAH reacting to a bill-board advertisement by Crime Stoppers in London Ontario, which stated: "GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM." The OFAH's concern was the advertisement used too broad a brush, which might create problems for law-abiding firearm owners.
To exaggerate the point: someone see an individual out crossing a field to go hunting, calls it into Crime Stoppers for the reward, and the next thing that happens is the individual is confronted with a SWAT team. NOTE: I did say this is an exaggerated incident.

You don't stop hunting because because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

MikePal usually picks these things up, but maybe he missed it. CBC radio carried a broadcast with the OFAH reacting to a bill-board advertisement by Crime Stoppers in London Ontario, which stated: "GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM." The OFAH's concern was the advertisement used too broad a brush, which might create problems for law-abiding firearm owners.
To exaggerate the point: someone see an individual out crossing a field to go hunting, calls it into Crime Stoppers for the reward, and the next thing that happens is the individual is confronted with a SWAT team. NOTE: I did say this is an exaggerated incident.

You don't stop hunting because because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

---

Not that exaggerated for Jonathan Login.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

MikePal usually picks these things up, but maybe he missed it. CBC radio carried a broadcast with the OFAH reacting to a bill-board advertisement by Crime Stoppers in London Ontario, which stated: "GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM." The OFAH's concern was the advertisement used too broad a brush, which might create problems for law-abiding firearm owners.
To exaggerate the point: someone see an individual out crossing a field to go hunting, calls it into Crime Stoppers for the reward, and the next thing that happens is the individual is confronted with a SWAT team. NOTE: I did say this is an exaggerated incident.

You don't stop hunting because because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

---

well i had that happen to me last summer not a swat team but had two cruisers coming from opposite directions thru a farmers field lol some one mistook my mono pod as a rifle i think
and that was with a camera

It is really scary when the police point a shotgun in your face. I know. And I wasn't armed at the time.

It's a stretch to suppose that the billboards in question might lead to cops being called on a legit gun owner, in spite of the confused messaging.

In the case of Jonathan Login, the call came not because of a campaign to report illegal guns but because he was spotted with a gun in the area of a school. That's not to defend the OPP's reprehensible handling of the situation. But the call, and the police reaction to the call, was motivated by a panic over school shootings. That's going to happen regardless of any billboard.

.......................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

.......................

---

x2 ..LOL..

A bit of follow up:

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.c...lem-billboards

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

your link didn't work for me...

this one does.. http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.c...them-offensive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

your link didn't work for me...

this one does.. http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.c...them-offensive

---

Thanks MikePal, I tried it after posting it, found it didn't work went back to find correct connection was just about to re-post correct version. Looks like I stop too soon when I attempted to copy link. Thanks again.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting
-Gun Nut

The line I found must intriguing in the write up was the Crime Stoppers board's outreach before approving the billboard ad : " [COLOR=#333333]The message was presented to both firearm and non-firearm people for opinion[COLOR=#333333]. At that time we had good feedback and the board approved it for display."
[COLOR=#333333]Who exactly were the firearm people they sought the opinions of, and what could they have been thinking. That guns jump up off the table, load themselves shoot people and commit other such crimes. Guns are inanimate tools that do nothing of the kind. Nor does the argument, that the availability of guns, constitute a problem, we have some of the most stringent gun control law on this continent, and criminals seem to find their way around them, through the importation of illegal firearms. In fact our stringent approach to gun control was probably the prime factor in stimulating the illegal firearm trade. There is now a push to decriminalize and legalize marijuana use as a means to impact the illegal trade in it. If this is going to work so well in the case of marijuana, why wouldn't putting less impediments to the acquisition and possession of firearms do the same for them? You mean It doesn't boils down to what gives you a high? Sorry, I couldn't resist the tease.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Always wondered where these groups find "firearm people", the local cop shop?

Public perception is whacky a best...7 years ago I walked into my property to deer hunt in the archery season; I was carrying my recurve over my shoulder and was early so I relocated a trail cam and took my time walking in around the bedding areas; 20 minutes after I walked in just before I was about to climb up the tree I heard yelling nearby; I walked back so I could get a look and two OPP were walking up through the front field yelling for me to come out and talk to them. After several minutes I was told that a "neighbour" who lives around 250yrds away on the opposite side road with a line of sight to where I park had seen a "guy" walking into the woods with a "huge black military gun".... so I said..this gun? showing them my recurve... They shook their heads; I am military and my wife is LEO, I get the issues of firearms crime. This was a joke though; it ruined my hunt...I drove the hour back home very bitter. The Officers spoke to the helpy helper neighbour; I remarked to them that she must have a good set of binos as her line of sight is limited from her place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

Who exactly were the firearm people they sought the opinions of....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patvetzal

Always wondered where these groups find "firearm people", the local cop shop?

---

I can answer that one, at least partially ... the guy who wrote the statement from Crime Stoppers, who is a member of their board of directors, is a hunter and gun owner. Not sure if he's the only gun owner who saw it in advance, or if there were others.

They were looking at it from their point of view, assuming it would be taken in context ... the slogan they chose was hardly the best even given that point of view -- it would not surprise me if half the people who drove past the billboards thought they'd been put up by a gun control group -- but contrary to some of the shouting they got on Facebook, they are not a gang of antis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by recurve40

The Officers spoke to the helpy helper neighbour; I remarked to them that she must have a good set of binos as her line of sight is limited from her place.

---

I almost wonder if the helpy helper neighbour wasn't really trying to help the poor innocent deer ... your ruined hunt was just what she wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by recurve40

The Officers spoke to the helpy helper neighbour; I remarked to them that she must have a good set of binos as her line of sight is limited from her place.

---

I'd be willing to bet a weeks pay that they "tore her a new one" when they went back to talk to her.

Had an encounter with regional police(probably called by neighbour) last spring claiming illegal discharge
turns out they were wrong and did not know the areas where discharge was not prohibited

[QUOTE=welsh;990724]I can answer that one, at least partially ... the guy who wrote the statement from Crime Stoppers, who is a member of their board of directors, is a hunter and gun owner. Not sure if he's the only gun owner who saw it in advance, or if there were others.


I get it that he may have been part of a group attempting to spearhead a concern. But they are focusing their attack on the wrong item. Does this guy hunt by ordering his firearm to go out and get him game. I can just see it, he says to his gun, " Go get me a partridge for dinner," the gun jumps out of it's lockup, heads for the door, jumps in the car, tells the car to take it to its favour hunting spot. Arrives at the spot, loads itself up, heads out into the bush, comes upon a grouse, goes bang and kills it, some how retrieves it, unloads, returns to the car and tells it to return to home base. Finally it get backs turns the grouse over to its owner to pluck and dress, after all it has no hands, then returns to its lock up." That anthropomorphize idea of guns. For guns to be the problem, they would have to be capable of such actions. To repeat it once again, guns are inanimate tools. If there is a problem it rests the hands of the individuals using them. They should take a new run at the billboard thing, and place the blame where clearly belongs, something like: PEOPLE WHO MISUSE GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM. There were other versions of the billboard on the internet with a bit different twist which said: ILLEGAL GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM, that is equally absurd. IMHO.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

They should take a new run at the billboard thing, and place the blame where clearly belongs, something like: PEOPLE WHO MISUSE GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM.

---

Given that the aim of the exercise is to encourage people to report illegally-owned firearms before they're misused, that's not going to achieve the goal. The fact is that although "Guns Are The Problem" is a particularly clumsy message, there probably isn't a way of getting the message out there in six words or less that won't offend people who take it out of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Given that the aim of the exercise is to encourage people to report illegally-owned firearms before they're misused, that's not going to achieve the goal. The fact is that although "Guns Are The Problem" is a particularly clumsy message, there probably isn't a way of getting the message out there in six words or less that won't offend people who take it out of context.

---

I comprehend what you're saying, but again look how you said it. "Encourage people to report illegally-owned firearms." You are making the firearm the subject not the individuals that owns them. It would better to say "Encourage people to report people who own illegal firearms. Then, of course, you must deal with the lawyer, who points out that illegal firearm owners, are not the ones necessarily responsible for domesticate violence, where a spouse is shot, in such cases it is legal firearms that are being misused by the person(s) that owns them. It is a small point, but we need to get away from blaming the tool and place the blame squarely where it belongs on the tool's user. We seem to be locked in a mode of blame the sin and not the sinner and that is BS.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

It's a stretch to suppose that the billboards in question might lead to cops being called on a legit gun owner, in spite of the confused messaging.

In the case of Jonathan Login, the call came not because of a campaign to report illegal guns but because he was spotted with a gun in the area of a school. That's not to defend the OPP's reprehensible handling of the situation. But the call, and the police reaction to the call, was motivated by a panic over school shootings. That's going to happen regardless of any billboard.

---

Sorry this is so late in the conversation but I was busy all weekend long.

welsh,

I don't think it is a stretch that this billboard will have police being called on legit owners. We have to factor for the lowest denominator within the gene pool I think and we will have to account for people who have a beef with what outdoorspeople do (PETA for example). We are going to have people who see a legal firearm. It has already happened (Login was one instance). This message will drive home encourage more of this behavior. People who will be doing knee jerk calling will not take the time to observe and think. Making a blanket statement allows latitude of action who really shouldn't have it.

As for Login, he was simply an example of how an innocent 911 call turned into a series of miscommunications (between caller and the dispatcher and then the dispatcher and the officers) which then turned into a blatant abuse of Login's rights. The police were extremely heavy handed when it wasn't required and Login wasn't an isolated incident (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/54...me-ridge-mall/). While the Hamilton incident was better handled by the police, the man still was taken into police custody and the paintball marker was confiscated. As soon as the police found out it was a paintball marker and not a real gun, that young man should have been on his way (with a ticket for smoking indoors). He wasn't pointing the marker at anyone or threatening anyone (which would have come out in the investigation). His only "firearm crime" was not having the foresight to realize people might mistake his marker for the real thing. Not exactly something which required a confiscation of personal property I think. I don't have an issue with the police treating this incident as an actual firearm but when what actually took place was discovered, I can be critical of what they did.

Dyth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

We seem to be locked in a mode of blame the sin and not the sinner and that is BS.

---

I don't understand why we're locked in the mode of thinking this is about blame. It isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

Sorry this is so late in the conversation but I was busy all weekend long.

---

Hunting, I hope..... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

We have to factor for the lowest denominator within the gene pool I think and we will have to account for people who have a beef with what outdoorspeople do (PETA for example).

---

Setting aside the animal-rightsers, whose motives are malicious, the reason people call the cops when they see a person with a gun is that they perceive that people with guns are dangerous. I don't believe these billboards would create that perception; what makes people's minds jump to crime when they see a gun is what they see in the news. That's the dynamic that powered the Login mess: people jumping to their worst fears.

The reaction to the billboards has grossly overestimated how much effect a few billboards can have. The anecdotes posted in this thread, and incidents like the Login incident, are rare. I get seen with a gun often in the fall and haven't seen a cop called over it yet, and I'm not the exception. In terms of hunter hours afield, how many nuisance calls get made? All that news coverage of shootings and crime -- it takes over the entire news cycle several times each year -- and yet these nuisance calls hardly ever happen. A handful of billboards in a couple of backwater Southwestern Ontario cities isn't going to make much of a dent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I don't understand why we're locked in the mode of thinking this is about blame. It isn't.



Hunting, I hope..... :)



Setting aside the animal-rightsers, whose motives are malicious, the reason people call the cops when they see a person with a gun is that they perceive that people with guns are dangerous. I don't believe these billboards would create that perception; what makes people's minds jump to crime when they see a gun is what they see in the news. That's the dynamic that powered the Login mess: people jumping to their worst fears.

The reaction to the billboards has grossly overestimated how much effect a few billboards can have. The anecdotes posted in this thread, and incidents like the Login incident, are rare. I get seen with a gun often in the fall and haven't seen a cop called over it yet, and I'm not the exception. In terms of hunter hours afield, how many nuisance calls get made? All that news coverage of shootings and crime -- it takes over the entire news cycle several times each year -- and yet these nuisance calls hardly ever happen. A handful of billboards in a couple of backwater Southwestern Ontario cities isn't going to make much of a dent.

---

http://forums.oodmag.com/images/icons/icon1.png

[COLOR=#333333]

http://www.oodmag.com/community/imag...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Gun Nut http://www.oodmag.com/community/imag...post-right.png
We seem to be locked in a mode of blame the sin and not the sinner and that is BS.



"I don't understand why we're locked in the mode of thinking this is about blame. It isn...."

We are locked in to blame, because the billboard stated "Gun are the problem," If guns are the problem that is a statement of blame centered/focused at guns as being responsible for whatever the woes maybe. The reality is that whatever the woes maybe they are not the fault of the gun, but rather the individuals in whose hands the gun rests. The view seems to imply because gun are such a weapon of conveniences, if there were no guns there would be no woes, so guns have to be the problem. That is one dimensional, short sighted thinking. People have been causing woes (with knives, swords, axes, hammers, spears, and poisons) long before guns came on the seen. And will continue to do so, even if guns were completely removed from the scene. The sin is not the gun if it is misused, the sinner the one who misused the gun is to culprit. People who misuse guns are the problem. We do not have a gun problem, we have a people problem. However, we are reluctant to deal with the people problem, preferring instead to focus the attention on some inanimate object. Imagine the fun we are going to have with self-driving cars: oh the accident is Honda's fault, no Honda had it right General Motors is the one that messed up. Tom is the one with the problem, no its Bill, he shouldn't have bought that cheap GM trash. Something to think about!

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

We are locked in to blame, because the billboard stated "Gun are the problem," If guns are the problem that is a statement of blame....

---

You're interpreting it as blame, i.e.:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

The view seems to imply because gun are such a weapon of conveniences, if there were no guns there would be no woes....

---

That's purely your interpretation. Nobody is actually making that argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

However, we are reluctant to deal with the people problem, preferring instead to focus the attention on some inanimate object.

---

Also purely your interpretation.

It's obviously possible to deal with both illegal guns and criminals at the same time. In the Crime Stoppers context, we have to realize that many people would be reluctant to report a friend or family member who was, for example, dealing drugs. They might not see this as a big deal. But if that guy is carrying a gun, we may convince people that this is a problem, as much for the safety of their friend/family member as anything else, and that they should report him anonymously.

So while the messaging is not so good here, guns themselves and not people lie at the heart of the strategy.

We as hunters & gun owners are as much victims of our own perspectives as the Crime Stoppers board. We need to take the blinkers off & remember that it is not always about us & our guns.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Hate to state the obvious, but oddly, Crime Stoppers were quick to pull the billboards.
no harm, no foul?

So why pull them (at no small cost) ? That mere fact that seems to be forgotten, would seem to suggest that..............And atleast in this instance is all that needs to be said/debated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

You're interpreting it as blame, i.e.:



That's purely your interpretation. Nobody is actually making that argument.



Also purely your interpretation.

It's obviously possible to deal with both illegal guns and criminals at the same time. In the Crime Stoppers context, we have to realize that many people would be reluctant to report a friend or family member who was, for example, dealing drugs. They might not see this as a big deal. But if that guy is carrying a gun, we may convince people that this is a problem, as much for the safety of their friend/family member as anything else, and that they should report him anonymously.

So while the messaging is not so good here, guns themselves and not people lie at the heart of the strategy.

We as hunters & gun owners are as much victims of our own perspectives as the Crime Stoppers board. We need to take the blinkers off & remember that it is not always about us & our guns.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

---

I'm a willing student, could you expand on this statement a bit more:
"[COLOR=#333333]We as hunters & gun owners are as much victims of our own perspectives as the Crime Stoppers board. We need to take the blinkers off & remember that it is not always about us & our guns."

You don't stop hunting because you get old. You get old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut

Regardless of how quickly they responded by having the billboard taken down. It got both radio, and newspaper coverage, for that brief instance. It has created an impression either for good or ill. An advertisement doesn't have too reach saturation levels in order to leave an impression. Withdrawing the offensive article, is not exactly a recanting of the idea. When will they be putting up another billboard stating: WE HAVE DETERMINE GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Allow me to rephrase.

backpedaling and taking the signs down ( fast and at cost) equates to an "admission" of "wrong doing". Seemed Somewhat pointless to argue whether or not there was any blaming the guns or potential for the public to report people with guns.

No harm, no foul?
crime stoppers obviously felt the billboards were offside, albeit not until after the fact and people complained about it, just as some here are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

I'm a willing student, could you expand on this statement a bit more:
"We as hunters & gun owners are as much victims of our own perspectives as the Crime Stoppers board. We need to take the blinkers off & remember that it is not always about us & our guns."

---

Illegal guns in the hands of criminals are a problem. Not "the" problem in the sense of being the root of all evil, but a problem nonetheless. All the online caterwauling from gun owners (the threats to sue, the promises never again to donate one single dime, the demands for retractions and apologies, the wild conspiracy theories) ignored that simple reality. Those thumb-suckers on Facebook behaved as if it was all about them -- especially the people who supposed that this was actually a police conspiracy to undermine gun ownership.

These billboards were never about legal gun owners, yet lots of legal gun owners reacted as if the message were directed at them personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

backpedaling and taking the signs down ( fast and at cost) equates to an "admission" of "wrong doing" ... crime stoppers obviously felt the billboards were offside....

---

If you read Crime Stoppers' full statement, it is clear that they do not think the billboards were offside -- which is why some people continued to throw hissy fits after the fact, complaining that they were not groveling and begging forgiveness. Their statement could be paraphrased as, "Okay, if you're going to be jerks about it...."

The billboards were covered because Crime Stoppers did not want an ongoing circus that would distract from their organization's goals.

But have they learn their lesson yet? Are they likely to hold council with the groups representing the broader firearm arm community such as the OFAH and the NFA, should they come up with some other hair brain idea. Feeding the existing paranoia about guns which currently pervades our societies, is not exactly helpful or necessary. As well it may result in setting law enforce on the trail of law-abiding firearm owners, distracting them from pursuing the real criminal element.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

Are they likely to hold council with the groups representing the broader firearm arm community such as the OFAH and the NFA, should they come up with some other hair brain idea.

---

Likely not. If you were crafting an anti-crime message, why would you invite the input of groups that want to superimpose their own, unrelated messages?

Again, it's not about us.

I did read the statement, and it didn't really surprise me, one way or the other. What might people expect them say?......"OMG we are so sorry, we didn't think how it sounded or that it implied"?????

That said, if they really felt there was nothing wrong..aka no harm in it and thus no foul....no doubt some gun owners getting vocal plays a roll. Rabid antis can get vocal to, and that rarely triggers a responce. How many complaints did they receive? Don't know but I'd be surprised if it was over 1,000. < hardy numbers that would cause an organization to yank a campaign and flush good $ down the drain.

Edit add.
at the end if the day it was very poorly worded/phrased. If it resulted in 1 call, and 1 legal owner being questioned or harrased, that's 1 too many. Hence it came down.

Guns are not the problem. Neither are any other inanimate objects.

It was simply another attack on gun owners whether it was supposedly veiled or not. Intent is irrelevant. They are either incredibly inept or deceptively sly.... hmmmm.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.....(or billboard), it was incidental and not deliberate. It won't influence the unwashed masses one way or another right? Now we understand why the pen is mightier......

Many Canadians think guns are illegal anyway, because of this type influence along with the biased media. Just more of the same right?

Even OFAH quoted "It is inaccurate; misinformed; offensive; and perhaps, most of all, disappointing."

Yep, gotta watch those lil ol backwater town anti gun campaigns, whether intentional, fallacious or dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Illegal guns in the hands of criminals are a problem. Not "the" problem in the sense of being the root of all evil, but a problem nonetheless. All the online caterwauling from gun owners (the threats to sue, the promises never again to donate one single dime, the demands for retractions and apologies, the wild conspiracy theories) ignored that simple reality. Those thumb-suckers on Facebook behaved as if it was all about them -- especially the people who supposed that this was actually a police conspiracy to undermine gun ownership.

These billboards were never about legal gun owners, yet lots of legal gun owners reacted as if the message were directed at them personally.



If you read Crime Stoppers' full statement, it is clear that they do not think the billboards were offside -- which is why some people continued to throw hissy fits after the fact, complaining that they were not groveling and begging forgiveness. Their statement could be paraphrased as, "Okay, if you're going to be jerks about it...."

The billboards were covered because Crime Stoppers did not want an ongoing circus that would distract from their organization's goals.

---

"Illegal guns in the hands of criminals are a problem." Would that Crime Stoppers had used this exact wording they may not have draw the criticism of the firearm community at large. That said, if individuals are not in a position to realistically determine the background of someone in possession of the gun, or examine their licencing. Again your point about, a drug dealing family members in possession of a potentially illegal firearm, is well taken, I doubt, however, that family is anymore likely to turn them in because of the gun, if they have done so for drug dealing. In the meantime, what is mostly likely to be reported are, "legal guns in the hands of law-abiding firearm enthusiasts which should not a problem." It is again only my interpretation, but when you focus solely on guns being the problem, you draw undo attention upon anyone walking around with a firearm in their hand. Then if you add the incentive of offering a reward to anyone for ratting such out, you have definitely made having a gun in your hand a problem, whether it is legal or illegal.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

I doubt, however, that family is anymore likely to turn them in because of the gun, if they have done so for drug dealing.

---

Your absolutely right.....they live by (and stay alive) by adhering to a stronger Billboard message: "Snitches get stitches"

Crime Stoppers is never going to trump that with their lame billboards trying to convince them otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I don't understand why we're locked in the mode of thinking this is about blame. It isn't.



Hunting, I hope..... :)



Setting aside the animal-rightsers, whose motives are malicious, the reason people call the cops when they see a person with a gun is that they perceive that people with guns are dangerous. I don't believe these billboards would create that perception; what makes people's minds jump to crime when they see a gun is what they see in the news. That's the dynamic that powered the Login mess: people jumping to their worst fears.

The reaction to the billboards has grossly overestimated how much effect a few billboards can have. The anecdotes posted in this thread, and incidents like the Login incident, are rare. I get seen with a gun often in the fall and haven't seen a cop called over it yet, and I'm not the exception. In terms of hunter hours afield, how many nuisance calls get made? All that news coverage of shootings and crime -- it takes over the entire news cycle several times each year -- and yet these nuisance calls hardly ever happen. A handful of billboards in a couple of backwater Southwestern Ontario cities isn't going to make much of a dent.

---

A little bit of hunting was in there but mainly getting ready for moose camp.

I understand what you are saying and yes, what created and drove the Login mess was people jumping to their worst fears (as well as a lot of miscommunication). I disagree what people fears about guns is what they see on the news. Lack of experience with firearms coupled with the fact most people understand how dangerous firearms are when used by either the untrained or the criminal element is what makes people fear firearms because they don't equate other objects used in crime on the news quite as dangerous as firearms. However, when asked why they fear firearms they fall back to the illogical argument that "Guns are bad" or "Guns cause crime" putting the blame on the firearm rather than the user. I agree the billboards don't create this type of irrational fear but they certainly will reinforce it.

This type of irrational fear will make people do irrational things like call the police on a law abiding firearm owner when he is not doing anything wrong. If there is any doubt about that, I propose we try an experiment when I get back from moose camp, we can send Yedi into downtown London with an uncased firearm and see how long it takes people to call the police and how long it takes them to show up.

Dyth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

"Illegal guns in the hands of criminals are a problem." Would that Crime Stoppers had used this exact wording they may not have draw the criticism of the firearm community at large.

---

Agreed, but fit that on a billboard. ;)

The problem with slogans is they need to be snappy. Consequently, sloganeering is never very accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

That said, if individuals are not in a position to realistically determine the background of someone in possession of the gun, or examine their licencing. Again your point about, a drug dealing family members in possession of a potentially illegal firearm, is well taken, I doubt, however, that family is anymore likely to turn them in because of the gun, if they have done so for drug dealing. In the meantime, what is mostly likely to be reported are, "legal guns in the hands of law-abiding firearm enthusiasts which should not a problem."

---

The reality is that, thanks largely to tips, London police have made a series of busts over the past year for guns and drugs.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

"Don't drink and drive"
"speed kills"
"fatigue kills"
"Don't text and drive"
"guns are the problem"
"don't play with fire"
And many many many more.

Anyone but me see the vast difference? One identifies a thing, the rest describe actions.

its a a horrible message/slogan. Honestly don't know why it's being debated or defended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

If there is any doubt about that, I propose we try an experiment when I get back from moose camp, we can send Yedi into downtown London with an uncased firearm and see how long it takes people to call the police and how long it takes them to show up.

---

Good of you to volunteer Yedi for the job. We wouldn't want him getting bored. :)

I don't think there's any doubt as to how that would turn out, but let's remember that context matters. In a sense, he would be "doing something wrong," in that carrying a gun in downtown London violates social norms. A better question is how many times Yedi will have to walk into a field carrying a gun and wearing camo before some passing driver calls the cops on him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

its a a horrible message/slogan. Honestly don't know why it's being debated or defended.

---

Honestly don't know why you say anyone's defending the slogan.

Let's see ... "confused messaging" ... "the slogan they chose was hardly the best even given that point of view" ... "'Guns Are The Problem' is a particularly clumsy message" ... "the messaging is not so good here."

That's what I've actually said about the slogan. The point I am making is not that the billboard slogan was good and effective, but that it was (a) not directed at legitimate gun owners, and (b) would be unlikely to have any real effect on legitimate gun owners, and also that gun owners ought to stop being hypersensitive little muffins and throwing ridiculous hissy fits (threats to sue on nonexistent grounds, etc.) over every perceived slight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Good of you to volunteer Yedi for the job. We wouldn't want him getting bored. :)

I don't think there's any doubt as to how that would turn out, but let's remember that context matters. In a sense, he would be "doing something wrong," in that carrying a gun in downtown London violates social norms. A better question is how many times Yedi will have to walk into a field carrying a gun and wearing camo before some passing driver calls the cops on him.



Honestly don't know why you say anyone's defending the slogan.

Let's see ... "confused messaging" ... "the slogan they chose was hardly the best even given that point of view" ... "'Guns Are The Problem' is a particularly clumsy message" ... "the messaging is not so good here."

That's what I've actually said about the slogan. The point I am making is not that the billboard slogan was good and effective, but that it was (a) not directed at legitimate gun owners, and (b) would be unlikely to have any real effect on legitimate gun owners, and also that gun owners ought to stop being hypersensitive little muffins and throwing ridiculous hissy fits (threats to sue on nonexistent grounds, etc.) over every perceived slight.

---

It does him good to get out.

Context does matter. No doubt about that. Crime stoppers, in the past, have been able to place a lot of information on their billboard signs. In this matter they did not. Perhaps if they had added more context by making the picture of the firearms a bit smaller and adding the word illegal, legal firearm owners may not have had so much of a beef.

If fit seems to be the problem, may they should invest in a lager billboard.
"SMALL BILLBOARDS ARE THE PROBLEM" - How's that for something snappy.
You mean to say the police were doing okay in catching up to those involved in drugs and having illegal hardware?
Why on earth, would Crime Stopper, bother to do something so ____________, that it is liable to garner tips, which are likely to draw the police, away from focusing on criminal activity.
Welsh, I'm pretty sure you can't turn this sow's ear into a silk purse no matter how good your intentions might be. It doesn't mean you have give me and perhaps others something to think about. The fact that Crime Stoppers has taken down the sign, at lease suggest to me that they realized that it was less than adequate, and might have produced some unforeseen consequences.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

Why on earth, would Crime Stopper, bother to do something so ____________, that it is liable to garner tips, which are likely to draw the police, away from focusing on criminal activity.

---

Why are people so convinced this campaign would have generated all kinds of false tips?

There's no reason to suppose it would. The public is not as stupid as people like to suppose. People know that you can own guns legally. They're not going to start calling in tips on their suburban neighbours just because they saw a billboard.

I'm going to propose an alternative explanation for all this fuss, one people don't want to hear: this is all about people getting butt hurt because of a billboard with a message they don't like. All the rationales about it being likely to result in nuisance calls etc. are concocted after the fact to justify the emotional reaction. And no one will let go of those rationalizations, for to do so would be to admit that the real problem was that the billboards hurt their feelings.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

The same could be said in responce. Those who are rationalizing it.........can't let go they, are butt hurt no one agrees, etc. always the same, inevitably insult people's intelligence....

quite simply it sends the wrong message. For starters people associate Crime Stoppers with what exactly? Whether it would, could generate dozens of calls is utterly immaterial. ONE call is too many. But not unlike the commissioners alarmist report

theres a huge upswing in restricted firearms ownership
"guns are the problem"

they arent. Period, full stop. And it sends a subtle message. The wrong one period full stop.

this really ( imo) shouldn't be argued/debated. It starts and stops with
"wrong message"
and 1 call as a result....not dozens, one.

unless someone can justify just ONE person being stopped, question and or harassed......how many are "acceptable" then Welsh? 12, 24,36? Just call it collateral damage?

I tell you who's butt hurt, those that are against gun ownership and /or for more gun control. It was clearly the wrong way to address criminal activity. It follows, if guns are the problem then everytime a gun is seen in captivity "I must report it....."

Why is it so hard to comprehend a CLEAR statement that GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM? Crime Stoppers knew exactly what they were saying.

Gun owners kicked up about it and rightly so. It was a prejudicial attack on gun owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Why are people so convinced this campaign would have generated all kinds of false tips?

There's no reason to suppose it would. The public is not as stupid as people like to suppose. People know that you can own guns legally. They're not going to start calling in tips on their suburban neighbours just because they saw a billboard.

I'm going to propose an alternative explanation for all this fuss, one people don't want to hear: this is all about people getting butt hurt because of a billboard with a message they don't like. All the rationales about it being likely to result in nuisance calls etc. are concocted after the fact to justify the emotional reaction. And no one will let go of those rationalizations, for to do so would be to admit that the real problem was that the billboards hurt their feelings.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

---

“The public is not as stupid as people like to suppose.”


I don’t think anyone has suggested that the public is stupid. It would not be stupidity that would bring people to call in tips. Like the paranoia of firearm enthusiasts, that causes them to react to anti-gun sentiments, out of fear their rights to own and use firearms are slowly but surely being eroded. The public suffer from an equal paranoia that guns are harmful, and pose a threat to their safety and well being. A billboard stating, GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM, feeds in to both these paranoia, cutting across the boundary between both the legitimate and non-legitimate uses of the gun. It does matter that Crime Stoppers is represented on the billboard, it is sending the message that all guns are the problem. In other words, without any qualification, it releases the public from any intelligent evaluation, that you have suggested, and places a target on anyone with a gun in their hand. You may argue about the lack of space, or about the need for a snappy phasing, but you cannot argue that the phasing does in anyway, asking the public to make a distinction between the legitimate and non-legitimate uses of guns. Guns are a problem regardless of who is in possession of them. However, that may not be problematic for you, as it would appear to be for the rest of us.

You don't stop hunting as you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

But not unlike the commissioners alarmist report

theres a huge upswing in restricted firearms ownership

---

The commissioner's report doesn't say that. You keep insisting the commissioner's report is alarmist, but all this really tells me is that you haven't read it.

Here you go. Read it and tell me where the alarmist language is. Here's a tip: there is no discussion of an increase in restricted firearms. There are just columns of numbers in Table 11-1. Same as every year: columns of numbers. Yup. But they used alarmist columns!
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/2015-co...irearms-report

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

ONE call is too many....

It starts and stops with
"wrong message"
and 1 call as a result....not dozens, one.

unless someone can justify just ONE person being stopped, question and or harassed......how many are "acceptable" then Welsh? 12, 24,36? Just call it collateral damage?

---

Ah, yes. This is a familiar argument. I believe we normally see it expressed as, "But if it saves one life...."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Crime Stoppers knew exactly what they were saying.

---

I've talked to the people involved on both sides. No one believes this. You're seeing monsters under the bed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

I don’t think anyone has suggested that the public is stupid.

---

To me, the idea that people would call in tips on legitimate hunters solely because they saw a slogan on a billboard does presume that the public is stupid. I don't think it's true that the general public is "paranoid" or even afraid of firearms, and I don't believe opinions on firearms can easily be manipulated by a billboard slogan.

What's really happening here is simple: gun owners have for years invested themselves in the idea that guns are not the problem. The idea that the gun does not pull the trigger, that the entire problem rests with human behavior and not inanimate objects (or even with access to those inanimate objects) is central to the ideology of gun ownership.

Anyone who puts up a billboard saying otherwise, then, gives grave offence. It is not the possibility that someone could be the subject of a false Crime Stoppers tip (a tip that would, I should add, have no effect; it's not a 911 call) is not the real issue here. The real issue is an apparent attack on a core belief, made by a group associated with law and order. It is the sight of the hated idea gaining traction in the public discourse that flips people out -- an emotional reaction. The rationalizations follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

To me, the idea that people would call in tips on legitimate hunters solely because they saw a slogan on a billboard does presume that the public is stupid. I don't think it's true that the general public is "paranoid" or even afraid of firearms, and I don't believe opinions on firearms can easily be manipulated by a billboard slogan.

What's really happening here is simple: gun owners have for years invested themselves in the idea that guns are not the problem. The idea that the gun does not pull the trigger, that the entire problem rests with human behavior and not inanimate objects (or even with access to those inanimate objects) is central to the ideology of gun ownership.

Anyone who puts up a billboard saying otherwise, then, gives grave offence. It is not the possibility that someone could be the subject of a false Crime Stoppers tip (a tip that would, I should add, have no effect; it's not a 911 call) is not the real issue here. The real issue is an apparent attack on a core belief, made by a group associated with law and order. It is the sight of the hated idea gaining traction in the public discourse that flips people out -- an emotional reaction. The rationalizations follow.

---

• [COLOR=#333333]
  "It is the sight of the hated idea gaining traction in the public discourse that flips people out -- an emotional reaction. The rationalizations follow."
  
  I take from this that the hated idea is, GUNS IN AND OF THEMSELVES WITH OUT ANY ANIMATOR CAN NOT CAUSE HARM TO PEOPLE, that you imply is a fundamental belief of the pro-gun group, which out of an emotional responds, they will not allowed to be challenge. Now I would have thought, such an idea was not a belief but a fundamental reality. Therefore GUNS in and of themselves without an animator ARE NOT A PROBLEM. That is not an idea fuel by a emotion, it a rational reality. A group attacking such a premise, unless they can prove otherwise should be call to account, for not other reason than to inject some sane into their thinking, before they add a new level to paranoia to the public's perception of guns.
  There was a judge, I recall, who at the peak of the gun control frenzy, took the attitude that guns had but one purpose and that was to kill. He undoubtedly might well have agreed, GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM. I suspect as hunter we from time to time reinforce that idea. However there a lot recreational shooter out there who have not interest in hunting and focus upon cutting paper and smashing clay. They have found shooting a gun an enjoyable past time, which sort of turns the judge's notion somewhat upside down.
  
  You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
  - Gun Nut
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  http://www.oodmag.com/community/clear.gifReply With Quote
  
  
• 
  

[COLOR=#3E3E3E]

Here's a tip for you Welsh, your not intellectually superior to anyone. Well read,and very articulate..yep. But that and a nickel will get people a cup of coffee.

"That is not an idea fuel by a emotion, it a rational reality." So true Gun nut.
And further, most of the anti gun, Gun control propents (here in Canada) base their arguments on emotion, not rational thought. The statistics will very clearly show, that no matter how many guns there are. We don't have problems, and further violent crime etc is trending down..
Funny that.

Crime is a problem
Suicide is a problem
Domestic abuse and stalking is a problem ( Gee talk to women who fear for their safety about LEO and our justice system) who have had nightmares dealing with them, over the do nothing, do little realities and have nothing good to say about them/it........
Instead and Im going to steal one of your favourite terms.
Guns are made the boogey/straw man

I was attempting to draw a parallel, using the press release which was, to illustrate how word choices................Was not suggesting that both were alarmist. Believe I said "Not unlike the report" (release),they both send subtle messages to the public. Maybe a poor choice to use and I can see where/why you drew the wrong conclusion.

For the record, I'm kind of chuckling because on one hand your arguing the public isn't that stupid and it's highly unlikely to generate a flood of calls against legal owner/legal activities. I agree. On the other hand, your arguing ( often) that a lot of gun owners ( also the same public) are stupid and gullible. :)

"If it saves one life"
Yup, so I take it then you now agree with shall issue, open carry and castle law?

One more analogy, how do you think the a campaign from MADD would fly if they pasted billboards with the slogan."Alcohol is the problem".

I know your one for statistics.
How many people are killed in Canada by guns, how many drunk driving. And in this case/anology
Drinking and driving is illegal, where as gun ownership isn't. So if either ( MADD or CS) actually had more leeway to run a slogan like that.....and oddly they never have, never will.
Wonder why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

Now I would have thought, such an idea was not a belief but a fundamental reality.

---

All ideas are beliefs. Some beliefs are true. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Obviously, the gun does not pull the trigger. But that's beside the point.

People did not respond on FB by saying, "I'm disappointed in your choice of a slogan that expresses a long-discredited idea, etc., etc." They responded by saying, in essence, "I am angry and I intend to hurt you," via threats of lawsuits, promises never again to donate a dime, personal attacks on the board of directors, etc. And, when the billboards were covered, complaints that Crime Stoppers had not issued a grovelling apology and debased themselves sufficiently to redress the wrong.

This was an emotional response.

In short, I'm not particularly interested in why the slogan was bad. My interest is in the over the top reaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Was not suggesting that both were alarmist. Believe I said "Not unlike the report" (release),they both send subtle messages to the public. Maybe a poor choice to use and I can see where/why you drew the wrong conclusion.

---

You've repeatedly made the claim that the commissioner's report was alarmist. To quote you from another thread:
For a writer you have a real hard time with English. See just earlier, and the references to the commissioners report. Not the least of which is trying to suggest/argue it wasn't alarmist.

This is not to mention your actual words in this thread:
But not unlike the commissioners alarmist report....

Do I need to point out that the adjective "alarmist" in this phrase clearly and unequivocally modifies the noun "report?"

The report in question reports the same stuff each year, in dry bureaucratese. It's evident you've never read it and just want us to think you have. Now you've been caught out. This would be a good time to stop trying.

I'd have to dig up the original thread and Press release in that thread that people were responding to. Context is your friend and not one of your strong points. . I'm utterly disinclined. In part because it has nothing to do with the price of tea in China, it's clear your um, not happy that things aren't going the way you want, and people aren't bowing to your intellectual superiority ( see many condense ding comments that get people's backs up ) and are now deflecting towards something else. A tactic usually by people when......

in in short not biting.

so Welsh,
A) how much collateral damage would be acceptable
B) would "Alcohol is the problem" be acceptable
C) explain why And if not, why is "guns are".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The commissioner's report doesn't say that. You keep insisting the commissioner's report is alarmist, but all this really tells me is that you haven't read it.

Here you go. Read it and tell me where the alarmist language is. Here's a tip: there is no discussion of an increase in restricted firearms. There are just columns of numbers in Table 11-1. Same as every year: columns of numbers. Yup. But they used alarmist columns!
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/2015-co...irearms-report



Ah, yes. This is a familiar argument. I believe we normally see it expressed as, "But if it saves one life...."



I've talked to the people involved on both sides. No one believes this. You're seeing monsters under the bed.

---

You're being typically naive and deceitful.

Their written answer was a denial of intent and then they turned around and tried to justify their ridiculous billboard.

Were you caught up in the drug sweep with your "sources" Welsh?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/...bust-1.3086680

Just one other thing I want to add unless "called" into it.

Way back, I said I was surprised this was even being "debated". How people react on FB or social media should be of zero concern to the issue at hand. Just as its of zero concern ultimately when Cecil's get shot, there are always going to be people who take to social media and T off.

Was the slogan appropriate or not.
done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Context is your friend and not one of your strong points.

---

Um, yup. Lots of room for context and nuance here:
But not unlike the commissioners alarmist report....

Yup. I can see how context could intervene between "alarmist" and "report" and somehow prevent that adjective from modifying the noun, and nullify the tacit claim to have knowledge of said report. There's so much nuance there, which I just ignored.

You had not read the report, but you still wanted to tell us what it said.

Keep digging!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

so Welsh,
A) how much collateral damage would be acceptable
B) would "Alcohol is the problem" be acceptable
C) explain why And if not, why is "guns are".

---

Let me send you back two pages:
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...l=1#post991078

Please try to follow the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Were you caught up in the drug sweep with your "sources" Welsh?

---

LOL. You do realize that the Windsor Crime Stoppers organization has no connection to the London Crime Stoppers organization except in name, right? That these organizations have separate boards of directors?

Anyway, you seem to have missed the point that I've talked to the people involved on both sides. Nobody who has actually talked to the Crime Stoppers people believes the BS you're spewing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Um, yup. Lots of room for context and nuance here:
But not unlike the commissioners alarmist report....

Yup. I can see how context could intervene between "alarmist" and "report" and somehow prevent that adjective from modifying the noun, and nullify the tacit claim to have knowledge of said report. There's so much nuance there, which I just ignored.

You had not read the report, but you still wanted to tell us what it said.

Keep digging!



Let me send you back two pages:
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...l=1#post991078

Please try to follow the thread.



LOL. You do realize that the Windsor Crime Stoppers organization has no connection to the London Crime Stoppers organization except in name, right? That these organizations have separate boards of directors?

Anyway, you seem to have missed the point that I've talked to the people involved on both sides. Nobody who has actually talked to the Crime Stoppers people believes the BS you're spewing.

---

So you are selling the BS that CS board ran this by both sides of the gun "issues" crowd(according to their own words) and it passed muster? Then you state that you asked both sides of the issue and that has some legitimacy? You're a poor comedian Welsh among other things and have zero credibility with gun owners who really know you. You are unbeliveably full of it.

No legitimate gun owner or unbiased board member would approve that offensive wording on the billboard.

Then when called on their poor administration they tried to rationalize their bias and then play CYA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Then you state that you asked both sides of the issue and that has some legitimacy?

---

No, I said that I have spoken to the people involved on both sides of this, and none of them believe your nonsense line that this was a deliberate attack on gun owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

You're a poor comedian Welsh among other things....

---

Care to clarify what those other things are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

No legitimate gun owner or unbiased board member would approve that offensive wording on the billboard.

---

See post #14.
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...l=1#post990724

Please try to follow the thread.

There was no possible way to meet the "intent of the message"(if we assume their intent was unbiased).

The reasonable interpretation of Guns are the Problem, in Crime Stopper's context, is that "consumers" would report illegal guns via phone.

It then follows a legal determination of legal gun ownership would have to be deduced and a phone call placed. I submit nobody calling would know legitimacy of gun ownership therefore any calls placed would be biased and prejudicial.

There is no way for the public to determine legality of a gun in possession of a person, so ANY and ALL guns "viewed" were deemed illegal and calls would be made. That is the danger created and the bias of their message.

For you or them to deny the ability to think logically thru that message's wording, at even a minimalist level continues to indicate willful deceitfulness and or utter stupidity on your collective parts.

I awake every morning knowing that in the eyes of Canadian Government, I am a criminal by statute of a BS law and that I can have my rights trampled at whim by an PHONED IN investigation, falsely arrested, charged and drug thru a "legal process" that is intended to discourage gun ownership, deny rights and have property seized.

Me seeing Monsters under the bed? No just wormy little backstabbers pretending to be gun owners and biased Non Profit organizations taking donations from citizens unaware of their intentions.

Not biting Welsh, other than to say. You obviously have time and motivation to dig up old threads. To what purpose is both "uncertain" and clear. Do suggest if you have that much time and energy on your hands to prove nothing......... Read the press release in that thread, and some of the quotes -and wording in it. I think you often use an eltist expression that runs like "straw men", red herrings and my oh my isn't it funny how your trying so hard to shift focus, deflect, start yet another fight. Could it be because your butt hurt ( poor you, must really hurt that ego) because people (no one agrees with you on this) disagree, and aren't bowing to your superiority?

Now seeing as how your busy as always insulting people's intelligence etc, insinuating they are dim witted, wear tin foil hats ( another favourite of yours),are caterwauling, blah blah blah.

do try stay on topic, keep up with us.
Is or isn't it appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

I awake every morning knowing that in the eyes of Canadian Government, I am a criminal by statute of a BS law and that I can have my rights trampled at whim by an PHONED IN investigation, falsely arrested, charged and drug thru a "legal process" that is intended to discourage gun ownership, deny rights and have property seized.

Me seeing Monsters under the bed?

---

You've answered your own question, in the preceding paragraph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

No just wormy little backstabbers pretending to be gun owners....

---

Thanks, man. I love you too.

Good to see it finally settled.

In summation:
the slogan is not appropriate. It is therefore offside, horribly worded, choose a label. All will be accurate.

Given the above, if some or many take varying degrees of exception. They are perfectly justified, it's "offside". And if some few go even further and spew some vitriol, they A) are perfectly entitled to feel how they feel and B) have some justification.
Again, the wording is "offside".

Which begs the question. Why argue it? Why make something of it. Why.......

Much ado about nothing.
Funny all that (and yes I to could point back a lot further to having first said.
"I'm surprised this is being debated, and some subsequent comments that get people's backs up)

which is really um.....perplexing.....given the slogan was
choose a label be it offside, confusing, really bad choice of words.

people, be they gun owners, or consumers have every right to sound off when ads are..........

what a collasal.........

It is clearly Prima facie. They state Guns are the Problem. Therefore any gun is the problem. Their intent stands on the face of what they themselves posted on the billboard.

Text has meaning when it is read and comprehended by the consumer. There is no way to interpret their meaning other than Guns are the Problem, thus their intent is clear upon their own stated face value.

The fact that you and they, according to your claim of consultation with "them," claim no intent simply has no significance. The words mean what they mean.

Now they and you, wish to walk back the message and then they further claim it was reviewed by both sides of the gun issue(according to their letter responding to complaints. No reasonable gun owner would agree to such a biased wording to be place on a billboard.

It is clear their intent was biased simply because of the wording AND the way it was received. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from the wording "Guns are the Problem" unless one delves into sheer stupidity and/or the lack of remedial understanding of English, society and law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Good to see it finally settled.

---

Nobody has ever been debating this question. Nowhere on this thread. I pointed that out yesterday, yet you spent this morning insisting we debate the point.

Yup. Good thing that's finally settled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

It is clear their intent was biased simply because of the wording AND the way it was received.

---

To be clear, neither the NFA nor the CCFR agree with your position.

Yes, I'm "claiming" to have spoken to them, also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

To be clear, neither the NFA nor the CCFR agree with your position.

Yes, I'm "claiming" to have spoken to them, also.

---

See, your confusion seems to be that they denied intent and you believe that. Mine is that the wording IS intent and Proves that intent regardless of what they admit. One can't simply unring a bell.........

So throw something out there. Make the point you want. Then say you ment something else to avoid fallout.
End result. You got what you wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

See, your confusion seems to be that they denied intent and you believe that.

---

Gosh, you can't mean ... oh! can it be? Do people sometimes lie?

Wow! That never occurred to me!

I'm just trying to figure out what the best way to figure out the truth would be. Could it be to actually talk to the people involved in the controversy, find out what you can about them, and talk to the various parties involved about each other party?

No! You'd get a far more accurate read on things by just making assumptions!

Pop quiz, : if they were, in fact, antis and did, in fact, intend those billboards as an anti-gun message, why wouldn't they just take the flak and leave them up? What would it cost them? London-Elgin- Middlesex Crime Stoppers isn't hurt when some guy in Alberta yells he'll never give them another dime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

It is clearly Prima facie. They state Guns are the Problem. Therefore any gun is the problem. Their intent stands on the face of what they themselves posted on the billboard.

Text has meaning when it is read and comprehended by the consumer. There is no way to interpret their meaning other than Guns are the Problem, thus their intent is clear upon their own stated face value.

The fact that you and they, according to your claim of consultation with "them," claim no intent simply has no significance. The words mean what they mean.

Now they and you, wish to walk back the message and then they further claim it was reviewed by both sides of the gun issue(according to their letter responding to complaints. No reasonable gun owner would agree to such a biased wording to be place on a billboard.

It is clear their intent was biased simply because of the wording AND the way it was received. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from the wording "Guns are the Problem" unless one delves into sheer stupidity and/or the lack of remedial understanding of English, society and law.

---

Skypilot I may of misjudge you a bit, in that one threat where you were leveling personal attacks, you seem to come across as all bluster and little substance. When you shift away from that, as you’ve done in the threat, you seem to have a real capacity to offer some well intended and astute insights and arguments. I was impressed. You may well have been doing this all along but the other stuff kept getting in the way of me listening to you.


You don’t stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

Skypilot I may of misjudge you a bit, in that one threat where you were leveling personal attacks, you seem to come across as all bluster and little substance. When you shift away from that, as you’ve done in the threat, you seem to have a real capacity to offer some well intended and astute insights and arguments. I was impressed. You may well have been doing this all along but the other stuff kept getting in the way of me listening to you.

You don’t stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

---

Thank you.
You will come to understand more about certain anti gun "ink stained wretches" who are members here and always drum the coyness of their anti brethern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Thank you.
You will come to understand more about certain anti gun "ink stained wretches" who are members here and always drum the coyness of their anti brethern.

---

Calling someone an "ink stained wretch" who doesn't agree with you and implying welsh is one displays either immaturity or low intelligence. You might not agree with what welsh says but he is entitled to his point of view without elementary school behaviour from you. He respects your opinion enough to refrain from that behavior perhaps you should give him the same respect.

I had to dig out the dictionary to keep up with this thread.............................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

Calling someone an "ink stained wretch" who doesn't agree with you and implying welsh is one displays either immaturity or low intelligence. You might not agree with what welsh says but he is entitled to his point of view without elementary school behaviour from you. He respects your opinion enough to refrain from that behavior perhaps you should give him the same respect.

---

Mind your own business or report my posts.

Did you notice the quotation marks while you were playing the white knight? Welsh uses that term himself, about himself as he basks in his own elitness and deceitfulness about gun owners.

Perhaps you should strive for more comprehension of the actual matter and you may reach a better understanding of what is really going on.

Lol Welsh I suggest you go back and read all the post on pages 2 and 3 where people were in essence voicing opinions as to why they though the message was offside. You and you alone while you acknowledged the message was and I quote "clumsy" which isn't the same as saying............

You were either excusing it, or belittling people who sounded off about it, then belittling people (the butt hurt comments and more).

Page 1 there's a link to OFAHs response. I'll save you the trouble of suggesting you didn't bother to read it and providing a link aka.....OFAH thought it was offensive. Read that again OFFENSIVE. Guess in your esteemed opinion the OFAH are caterwauling paranoid children overreacting and more.

And more pages of you insulting people, more pages of people explaining why they thought it was offside.
Example...Calls to police. If it results in just one, thats one too many.


But in the end, its not appropriate, its offside ergo people have every right.........The bloody point . its a horrible message, its offside ( which is milder than what OFAH thinks).

Good job proving nothing, insulting peoples intelligence and excusing what we all knew all along, and you a least clumsily acknowledged. It was a horrible slogan and as such.....
/boggle, not exactly the smartest thing

As I said, Im surprised....
Context and comprehension are your friends

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Mind your own business or report my posts.

Did you notice the quotation marks while you were playing the white knight? Welsh uses that term himself, about himself as he basks in his own elitness and deceitfulness about gun owners.

Perhaps you should strive for more comprehension of the actual matter and you may reach a better understanding of what is really going on.

---

Until you become a moderator on this forum, you can stick your instructions up your arse. You posted on a public forum and I or anyone else can comment on your post. If you don't like that, perhaps leaving and starting your own forum is what you should do.

welsh can use any term he wants to describe himself if he so chooses. You shouldn't. Basic manners bud.

As I said, report the posts if you find issue.

Why presume to give me instructions after just advising me not to do the same?

You'll figure all this out eventually. Have you read Welsh's "work" by any chance?

Apparently not.

How about we call it a day!