Reply With Quote
Strange. Link wouldn't copy on my Mac but seems to work on my PC.
http://s3.do entcloud.org/do ent...uide-pdf-1.pdf
This manual actually encourages gun control advocates to emotionally exploit major shooting incidents to advance the cause of gun control…
Boutons must know this manual inside and out, all of his arguments are pretty much word for word out of this manual.
The manual urges people to ignore the facts and base every argument on emotion.
Don't know how to link the pdf file but it is at the bottom of the linked article in this paragraph.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/m...make-us-safer/
Democratic strategists have drafted a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.
“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide. “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.”
The 80-page do ent led “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” also urges gun-control advocates use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.
“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.”
You can read the rest of that manual right here.
Strange. Link wouldn't copy on my Mac but seems to work on my PC.
http://s3.do entcloud.org/do ent...uide-pdf-1.pdf
#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.
Ironic tbh. Considering you're a hyper-emo gun lover.#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.
This is unbelievable
A guide to dance on the graves of those killed in mass shootings
#1: DON’T HESITATE TO SPEAK OUT.
There can be a tendency to adopt a quiet “wait and see” at ude when a high-profile gun violence incident happens. The truth is, the most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak. While we always want to be respectful of the situation, a self-imposed period of silence is never necessary
#2: EXPRESS CONCERN FOR VICTIMS (WITHOUT A “BUT”).
#3: DON’T ASSUME THE FACTS – AND DON’T WAIT FOR THEM.
It’s appropriate to open with an expression of concern for the victims and their families.
“No family should ever have to go through what the families of these victims are going through right now. Our hearts go out to them.”
However, all too often, such expressions of sympathy are followed by a “but” statement. (But, the real issue here is . . . But, what we have to focus on is . . .But, what I want to draw your attention to is . . . etc.)
That has two negative consequences. The “but” makes the expression of concern seem less heartfelt and more like something we had to get out of the way before getting to what we really wanted to say. “But” can be read as a way for the speaker to say “I didn’t really mean what I just said.”
And, the “but” breaks the link between the violence people are shocked by and the next thing we’re about to say. Our goal is to establish that link, not break it.
So, we need to use language where our message flows from the expression of concern into our broader argument. It can’t be an abrupt pivot. In these situations, expressions such as “look,” “actually,” and “that’s why” work a lot better than “but.”
#3: DON’T ASSUME THE FACTS – AND DON’T WAIT FOR THEM.
It’s appropriate to open with an expression of concern for the victims and their families.
“No family should ever have to go through what the families of these victims are going through right now. Our hearts go out to them.”
However, all too often, such expressions of sympathy are followed by a “but” statement. (But, the real issue here is . . . But, what we have to focus on is . . .But, what I want to draw your attention to is . . . etc.)
That has two negative consequences. The “but” makes the expression of concern seem less heartfelt and more like something we had to get out of the way before getting to what we really wanted to say. “But” can be read as a way for the speaker to say “I didn’t really mean what I just said.”
And, the “but” breaks the link between the violence people are shocked by and the next thing we’re about to say. Our goal is to establish that link, not break it.
So, we need to use language where our message flows from the expression of concern into our broader argument. It can’t be an abrupt pivot. In these situations, expressions such as “look,” “actually,” and “that’s why” work a lot better than “but.”
“Losing a child, a mother or a husband is every family’s worst nightmare. That’s why we have to tell our political leaders we won’t wait for the next tragedy before they act to prevent the gun violence that’s tearing people’s lives apart.”
Experience tells us that the specific facts of a high-profile gun incident are revealed over time. If we jump to conclusions about those details, we could find ourselves at odds with reality as events unfold.
So, the smartest thing to do is avoid linking our message and arguments to any one set of partially-revealed facts. We shouldn’t assume the facts.
But, we also shouldn’t argue ourselves into inaction while we await clarity about details.
The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time. (“While we don’t know the specifics of this tragedy, we know far too many people are killed by weak gun laws in this country.”)
Of course, once a fact is clearly established, it makes sense to rely on it to advance your case
#4: ASK HARD QUESTIONS.
One way to link our arguments to an event without being trapped by shifting cir stances is to ask questions – ones that point to approaches and policies that we favor, but that resonate with special emotional power at the time of a high-profile shooting.
Where did the gun come from? Did the shooter have to undergo a background check before he got the gun? Did the shooter have a permit for the gun? Did the shooter own more than one gun? Did he have high capacity ammunition magazines with him? How many rounds did he have on him? Did the shooter have to observe any kind of waiting period before he got his hands on the guns? Or did he get them right away no questions asked?
Admitted gun lover here.
After reading through this thing it appears you've also read it too based on all of your emotionally driven responses to gun control.
In some states, “Shoot First” laws give untrained civilians more leeway in the use of force than an on-duty police officer or a soldier on the front lines in Afghanistan.
You can't make this up! When the facts don't fit, STRAWMAN IT!!!
"IF THE FACTS DON’T FIT YOUR STATE, CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE LINE OF ARGUMENT.
Because the strength of state laws varies dramatically across the country, the “leave these decisions in local hands” argument may not resonate in some states especially those that have terrible state-level laws and leadership unfriendly to gun violence prevention measures.
In those cases, it may make more sense to rely on the argument that more guns in more places will make us less safe."
Counter argument to Fast and Furious
"I’ll tell you what’s really fast and furious here. The way the NRA and its allies play fast and loose with the facts – and how furious the American people should be that the NRA’s constant attacks on the ATF help gun-runners get away with murder.”
"Fast and Furious was a complicated program, but stopping gun-running is a complicated business"
unbelievable
If you can point to one emotionally driven response to gun control from me, I'll send you $100.
You're completely driven by emotion. Logic and reason do not factor into the equation one iota.
Remember when you stormed onto the scene after sandy hook?
Remember when you quit posting under TSA and resurrected some 7 year old account you were sitting on. It took me about 5 minutes to sniff your emo ass out. ing moron.
Sure do.
And what the does this have to do with anything?Remember when you quit posting under TSA and resurrected some 7 year old account you were sitting on. It took me about 5 minutes to sniff your emo ass out. ing moron.
Funny how you've yet to make a single comment on the actual manual.
Found one
PM'ing you my paypal info in a minute.
You know you're gonna have to share it before I pay
Im 100% republican on the gun debate
Just more evidence of what an emotional ing wreck you are...
any manual that tells you how to debate is for mentally weak people. Maybe there exists a pro-gun debate manual you could put to use.
I did. It's in my post where I said I found one.
Using another account makes one an emotional wreck? Please explain this stupid thought in more detail.
You don't think there is a similar guide for pro gun debaters?
Agreed, and yet you use the same arguments outlined in said manual.
Haven't seen one, have you? If so care to share?
You didn't answer the question.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
