Guns are the problem

[welsh]

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

[JBen]

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?

[skypilot]

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.

[Gun Nut]

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

[welsh]

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

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...."

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.

[welsh]

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.

[Gun Nut]

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
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Reply With Quote
  
  
• 
  

[COLOR=#3E3E3E]

[JBen]

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.

[welsh]

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.

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.

[JBen]

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".