I had signed up for the Gun Talk Truth Squad letter and I thought this one was important enough to share.
Gun Talk is a radio show and podcast run by Tom Gresham. I highly recommend it. The following article was written by him.
It can be read in its entirety here
http://www.guntalk.com/site51.php
"The Changing Landscape for Firearms Policy
Let me get to the punch line first. Messaging is everything. That's it. The messages the public receives on firearms and their uses, the effects of firearms on crime or self defense, and the ability of the media and others to slant this information, will decide the fate of gun rights.
The public will base their opinions on what is "factual" on the information they get. Why do you think that so many people think that the "assault weapons" covered in the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994 were actually machine guns?
Public opinion will determine the fate of gun rights. Yes, we have the Second Amendment, but even that can be taken away with enough public opinion. That's what makes the messaging so vital.
The gun ban industry understands that, and it has set out to change the message by funding anti-gun "research." Last Sunday I had noted economist and gun researcher John Lott on the radio show, (listen here: http://guntalk.libsyn.com/guntalk-2013-12-15-part-a-1). He told us about New York mayor (and multi-billionaire) Michael Bloomberg's gift of $250,000,000 (yes, a quarter of a billion dollars) to Johns Hopkins University to fund (in part) research on firearms. It's a safe bet that the dozens and dozens of research papers this groups cranks out will never reach the conclusion that guns in the hands of good people save lives.
Why should you care? Simple. Imagine a decade or more of media fawning over the stream of anti-gun "research" coming out. This moves public opinion. This changes how the public votes. Even though the information is bogus, it's all the public knows because it's the only message going out.
Lott wants to change that with a research group that takes a realistic look at firearms in America. The problem is that he doesn't have a billionaire behind him. He said that if he could raise a half-million, that would really get things going. If you can throw even a small donation (maybe the cost of a box of ammo?) their way, that would help. If you are in a position to give more, that's great. This is important work. If we get steamrolled by a crush of junk science "research" on guns, we will lose public support for individual gun rights. Take that to the bank.
Lott's group is the Crime Prevention Research Center. Find them on the web at http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/. "
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Gun Talk is a radio show and podcast run by Tom Gresham. I highly recommend it. The following article was written by him.
It can be read in its entirety here
http://www.guntalk.com/site51.php
"The Changing Landscape for Firearms Policy
Let me get to the punch line first. Messaging is everything. That's it. The messages the public receives on firearms and their uses, the effects of firearms on crime or self defense, and the ability of the media and others to slant this information, will decide the fate of gun rights.
The public will base their opinions on what is "factual" on the information they get. Why do you think that so many people think that the "assault weapons" covered in the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994 were actually machine guns?
Public opinion will determine the fate of gun rights. Yes, we have the Second Amendment, but even that can be taken away with enough public opinion. That's what makes the messaging so vital.
The gun ban industry understands that, and it has set out to change the message by funding anti-gun "research." Last Sunday I had noted economist and gun researcher John Lott on the radio show, (listen here: http://guntalk.libsyn.com/guntalk-2013-12-15-part-a-1). He told us about New York mayor (and multi-billionaire) Michael Bloomberg's gift of $250,000,000 (yes, a quarter of a billion dollars) to Johns Hopkins University to fund (in part) research on firearms. It's a safe bet that the dozens and dozens of research papers this groups cranks out will never reach the conclusion that guns in the hands of good people save lives.
Why should you care? Simple. Imagine a decade or more of media fawning over the stream of anti-gun "research" coming out. This moves public opinion. This changes how the public votes. Even though the information is bogus, it's all the public knows because it's the only message going out.
Lott wants to change that with a research group that takes a realistic look at firearms in America. The problem is that he doesn't have a billionaire behind him. He said that if he could raise a half-million, that would really get things going. If you can throw even a small donation (maybe the cost of a box of ammo?) their way, that would help. If you are in a position to give more, that's great. This is important work. If we get steamrolled by a crush of junk science "research" on guns, we will lose public support for individual gun rights. Take that to the bank.
Lott's group is the Crime Prevention Research Center. Find them on the web at http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/. "
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
