Gungrabber's playbook leaked

>Anyone want to write a counter arguments.
If you have writing experience and are an effective rhetorician or are well versed in statistics/legal precedent as they apply to the issue at hand, email me at:
[email protected]

glocktalk.com/threads/preventing-gun-violence-through-effective-messaging-a-democrat-playbook.1498714/
This is over 5 years old.

>that you can't win with facts either.
The second amendment is a fact. Don't like the 2nd amendment? Who cares.

Attached: HAHAHAHAHA!!.jpg (765x605, 156K)

>#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.
direct copy + paste from the pamphlet. I like how they don't even joke around- they straight up admit that their focus is on manipulating emotions rather than analyzing and discussing "wonky statistics".

Attached: 1527180248810.png (627x442, 452K)

Why does this remind me of Lenin? Seriously

This has been true for all of history. The way to motivate people to do something is to play on their emotions.

>s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf
> Key messages:
> TWO: People’s right to be free from violence in their communities.
> THREE: The changing nature of weapons towards more powerful, military-style ones that make us less safe
Well, starting from the assumption that assault weapons are the problem in communities most stricken with gun violence isn't a great start. Seems like banning pistols and providing mental health care to older rural men should be top on their list.

Also, these people are fucking OBSESSED with the NRA. I love me some SAF and Firearms Policy Coalition, but clearly the NRA is doing something to make these people go full stalker mode.

>the NRA is doing something to make these people go full stalker mode.
Brand recognition, methinks

>My right to live trumps your right to own a gun

How do you respond to this kind of rhetoric?

Well, so far my right to own a gun hasn't violated your right to live.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they are one and the same.

"Your right to live doesn't trump my right to defend my family"

"right to life- do you support abortion"?
normie: "of course! it's a woman's right to chose!"
"then your mother chose to let you live, you have no right to it"

>high capacity clips
It's like a twinge in my bad knee, it still stings every time

Treating mental illness amongst ageing men from rural settings could save more lives than magically eliminating all weapons in inner cities.

Better mental health all round in rural communities could help the entirety of American culture.

Your right to choose how you live and protect your life doesn't trump my right to choose how I live and protect my life

"people who value safety over liberty should move to fucking china get the fuck out of my country ya faggot"

Attached: pilot dab.png (551x502, 381K)

Good luck getting them to go though. For my hometown, in less severe cases, the stigma alone could do more financial harm to their business than the disease.

My right to live trumps your wanting to take my gun.

Given that half our murders are nig on nog, I'd have to say you're fulla shit.

talk about projecting, jesus fucking christ

Attached: irony.jpg (842x830, 169K)

>Advocates for gun violence prevention win the logical debate, but lose on more emotional terms.
>pro-gunners are driven by pure emotion

This is gonna be a difficult read

Attached: muh facts.jpg (845x466, 71K)

what the fuck?

You're so hostile, Phil. Anyway, he might be right. I can't find the absolute numbers of suicides by white rural people, but the white suicide rate is ~300% as high as any other ethnicity aside from Native Americans.

Multiply that rate by the larger white population, and it's probably explains why we have a suicide rate at 200% of our homicide rate.

Attached: 1999-2016_Gun-related_deaths_USA.png (838x674, 85K)

People got killed before gunpowder weapons. Just like in London, Nice, or Jerusalem, what makes you think you'll be immune?

Also, the Swiss have more guns per capita than the rest of Western Europe and with lower homicides than average, compared to Germany or France. Why? Because their culture is about helping each other and contributing to the community. And in the rest of the EU and the US it's always been about "ME ME ME MEEEEEEEE." Then you realize that it's not just you that inhabits the earth.

Because its communism

great argument for border security here

Attached: build that wall.jpg (488x535, 37K)

It's called Confirmation Bias. The British used to do this when they occupied Ireland prior to the interwar period. Whenever an Irishman wanted to call for independence or called out abuse of power, the secret police just labelled him as "delusional."

>assault weapons
>assault weapons
>assault weapons
>no explanation of what an assault weapon actually is

Here's a pointer for arguing with antigunners or people who are on the other side, pointing out that "assault weapon" entails a bunch of cosmetic traits that have no effect on the intrinsic lethality of the gun has zero impact. They don't care because that pistol grip can kill more babies. Instead, don't even try to bring that up. Instead, point out that the term is politically loaded and unhelpful and doesn't do anything to fundamentally change the fact that guns are being used to kill people in horrifying mass-shooting scenarios. The *better* point to bring up is why these mass shooters are very often known to law enforcement well in advance, were felons barred from owning guns in the first place, or could have been stopped immediately had law enforcement done their job.

This does two things: you are acknowledging their fears and recognizing that there is a problem. You are no longer a gun nut from their bad political cartoons, you are a reasonable person with a different perspective (if they are arguing in good faith). You can propose solutions to improve training for student police officers and security, improve the background check database so people don't slide through the cracks, and even align with a light form of red-flag laws by enabling law enforcement (or forcing them) to come down on people planning similar attacks.

Your opponent now has to engage with those reasonable, measured solutions before they move back to assault weapons. If they try to force the conversation back, they look disingenuous. It works incredibly well.

NEVER:
>say that because rifle deaths are such a low percentage, people shouldn't care. They do.
>write off suicides. They also care
>go immediately in with "good guy with a gun" stories, there has been strong conditioning against it
>get too involved in minutia of how firearms function, they don't care.

Considering that the Bolsheviks used the same "direct action" tactics they're doing, I can see that.

Point out that cars kill more people and ask why your right to live doesn't trump there right to go places conveniently

Their low gun violence rate is because ammo is exceptionally difficult to come by. Culture plays a role, but a smaller one than you think.

I like these "how to counter" sections- it's either always change the subject or move the goalpost

Attached: change the subject.jpg (847x898, 118K)

Yea. Here's the best one for each point.

Attached: 1549061368354m.jpg (1024x576, 204K)

> [Switzerland's] low gun violence rate is because ammo is exceptionally difficult to come by.
First I'm hearing of this in how it's more difficult to obtain than ammo in the rest of Europe. Can you explain this in more detail?

I believe it's government issued ammo that's controlled, but I might be mistaken. I'll also argue about the prevalence of bar fights and knoife crime in the capital vs in London, Melbourne, or Glasgow.

I'm going to shoot one of these fuckers.

get a load of these "sources"
obviously no bias here folks

Attached: sources1.jpg (765x1807, 1.4M)

Attached: fuck off.jpg (480x360, 36K)

I mean the fucking gun-grabbing gated-community progressive faggots. I'm so sick and tired now.

My initial post is kind of right, kind of wrong. Based off what I've seen, the government does not hand ammo around easily anymore. It's kept in a central armory and given out in times of necessity. Private ammo sales just require ID, address, and a clean background check. Not that bad actually.

Some things to consider
>carrying in Switzerland is incredibly difficult
>most people keep their guns well out of reach with the barrel removed

The culture around guns is entirely different than US gun culture, they're mostly seen as a tool for national defense and sport instead of self-defense. The comparison isn't particularly effective.

>(((GREENBERG))) QUINLAN ROSNER RESEARCH

Swiss guns seem like an extension of their culture, though (community vs individual). Just like how a lot of gangsters consider their guns only as "Tools of the Trade."

"Don't be a nigger and avoid breaking into people's homes; you'll live just fine."

Just go through and replace gun violence with "black people" or "black violence."

>The comparison isn't particularly effective.
I would argue that Switzerland is so safe despite it's guns for the same reason large, rich Texas suburbs are so safe despite being armed to the teeth. It's also the exact opposite reason why South Chicago or Little Woods, New Orleans have such high homicide numbers.

Very few people in Plano or Bern have to shoot at people to make their living. Prohibition and readily available guns don't mix.

No comparison of [country x] to the USA is a fair comparison. No country remotely has anywhere near the guns per capita and the population of the US, let alone even the gun laws. Boiling these issues down to just "muh gun lawz" completely ignores the other serious issues countries face as well as the difference in cultures and economies.
Gun culture in any country is an extension of their overall culture, as with any subset of a countries culture. There is a direct correlation between an individualistic culture and lax laws vs a collectivist culture and strict laws, both legal and social.

And sometimes there are logical exceptions to a rule, which exist to provide a more accurate conclusion to a question rather than just saying, "It's absolute and just how things are. Get over it." Just like how it's more difficult to get autoloaders in Britain (compared to Italy) or handguns (compared to Switzerland).

That one's actually not that bad. If they jump on the new's first report of an incident "50 people killed, 4 gunmen using fully-semi-fully automatic baby killing assault cannons, 17 police officers shot!" and then it turns out that 2 people were killed by one gunman with a hi-point who fired at police and missed, they'll look pretty fucking stupid. Jumping on whatever the news says early on is completely worthless for any argument in any situation.

Stop deflecting shamus

Because the factual evidence absolutely fucking destroys any argument gun grabbers have.

>Your right to live hinges entirely on your ability to protect yourself against those who don't respect that right

>the ATF is out of control
>we should make it stronger

>they're not going after gun traffickers
>yeah dont you agree we should crack down on them?

democrats and other centrist liberals are seriously some of the dumbest people on earth

As a rebuttal, that is the spark which causes a chain reaction of moral panic. Just like how the Rwandan Genocide was sparked by a false flag assassination, which was then blamed on the minority Tutsi tribe.

The best thing is to take a proactive approach. We already have an archive of information on previous gunmen, so we take what is already documented and find specific patterns to predict who the person what and what possible motivations were behind it. Just like how people commit suicide for various reasons. And if someone decides to put bars on a widow to prevent someone from jumping to their death, they'll just light a bunch of charcoal in the room (like they do in Japan).

You take away one method, but the social problem is still there. And there will still be victimization.

>Other side says "they should go after the criminals, not us."
>You should say "you should want them to go after criminals"
What the fuck is the message here?

Attached: 1487255650340.jpg (640x801, 91K)

As a centricist myself, I can agree with that. I always get disgusted when some idiot twists my words around to either stab me in the back or terrorize other people, just because their existence offends them. But narcissists are typically like that, so I shouldn't be surprised either.

>yfw the ATF is better at stopping illegal immigrants than ICE
Holy fucking shit Fast and Furious 2 when?

Attached: 1548450773303.jpg (1900x4120, 3.41M)

>aganst tyranny
>fights for slavery
Oooof

>"If the NRA wants a stronger, more effective ATF, they should put an end to their decades-long efforts to undermine it."
>"If the NRA wants a stronger, more effective ATF..."
>"...wants a stronger, more effective ATF..."

Fuck off. That's not the argument at hand!
The NRA doesn't want a stronger more effective ATF. Nobody wants a stronger more effective ATF. Nobody wants the ATF period.
That's MY counter argument. Fuck the ATF just get rid of it altogether.

Attached: 1422798376359.jpg (245x204, 18K)

>my right to live in an AIDSless country trumps your right to gay butt sex

>The South's wish to separate from the Union was strictly and solely motivated by slavery

I'm a Yankee and I even I know that's a bullshit thing to imply you short bus-riding smooth brain.

No2 is
>Islam has nothing to do with terrorism so stop calling them terrorist or they will commit terrorist acts
tier

And still extremely relevant.

You should really look up their constitution then. Confederate states had LESS rights than Union ones, and slavery was a constitutionally given right on par with the bill of rights in the Union. There were explicit provisions preventing any state from having any choice on slavery or the practices thereof, and most everything else was copypasted from the Union document.

My best rhetorical attempts to push back against gun control are that they

1. Almost always favor the rich and influential
2. Guns are the great equalizer and allows women to defend themselves against attackers who previously would win by default
3. Gun control has historical roots in racism, and the reality of enforcing gun control would be a tremendous disaster as the war on drugs was on black communities

Throw some Karl Marx quotes about "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition surrendered. Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary"

Good point. I wasn't able to read more then a few lines in my attempt to point out fallacies.

>You are no longer a gun nut from their bad political cartoons
Yes you are.

This
If someone is so far gone and stuck on their own side that merely being on the "wrong" side makes them view you as some caricature, than they're already too far gone to really do anything about.

>There are virtually no restrictions on the type of weapons available for purchase in America, including assault weapons and ammunition magazines that store up to 100 bullets and can shoot 20 rounds in 10 seconds.

lol, wut?

They said it themselves user, appeal to emotions, not facts, an easy way to do this is trying to use the scariest language possible.
At this point I'm amazed leftists don't call "assault rifles" WMD's or some retarded shit.

Shit like this is why I don't bother trying to convince anyone who's anti-gun anymore.

You've got to keep on trying. It's endlessly frustrating, I know how receiving the same stupid questions, pearl-clutching hysterics, and shrieking can really wear a person down, but you've got to keep on trying. We all do. People don't throw up their arms immediately, profess that they're wrong, and offer to suck your dick. It's a slow process where people may or may not change their views, and they sure as shit won't tell you.

It's a blind act of faith, but that's political engagement in a nutshell. The alternative is leaving people in the claws of the fellows who wrote this report.

I agree with you in principle, but almost all the people I talk to live in liberal echo chambers in places like Portland. I could spend 3 months convincing them otherwise, and then within 3 days their echo chamber undoes everything I could do.

maybe I just need to pick my battles lol. also nice digits

And...that makes them fighting for slavery? Stop trying to rewrite history. We will always remember Lincoln's lies and bigotry.

Staymad, darky.

You can say whatever the fuck you want about their intentions and you might even be right, but the fact that southerners are getting sick of your shit and look to the confederate flag as a symbol to tell yankees to stick their opinions up their ass is as true today as it's ever been.

Quads of truth. Complacency will have you buried in a landslide of brainwashed idiots.

Honestly look at their playbook and counter it in the same way. Show them a picture of beaten up women and old people who didn't have a gun to defend themselves. Show them the stats on the real correlation with "gun violence".

Attached: 1522739398106.png (1281x642, 328K)

Is this the Talmud?

Here's another good start, packed full of infographics: imgur.com/a/2Zr1PeA

>And...that makes them fighting for slavery?
...Yes? They certainly weren't fighting for state's rights, since those were the same except where they had less of them.

>I. Sec. 9. (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

>IV. Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Other than these, the confederate states were limited pretty much just like the union ones. Everything a Union state could not do... A confederate state also could not do.

>How do you respond to this kind of rhetoric?
One word: "WRONG"

Niggers aren't people

>Show them the stats on the real correlation with "gun violence"
Do not, I repeat, do not ever do this to try to convert a leftist.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you have, how many mountains of official statistics from respected sources you show them, the second you bring up "well, you know, race kinda plays a factor..." you're some evil nazi and absolutely anything you say past that point will be ignored entirely.

Dubs of truth

Your right to live trumps jack shit. It's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not life above all else. If you are so concerned go live somewhere else that has no freedoms that you don't like.

Gun control was started by literal racists to strip the newly freed slaves from their God given right to bear arms and defend themselves. These WHITE MEN were so afraid of peacefully armed blacks that they passed laws to ensure they could always "feel safe" around their former property. These former slaves had to suffer unjust persecution at the hands of their would-be owners starting with the stripping of their second amendment rights and then, feeling a sense of power over their "property", pushed in all the Jim Crow laws and segregation and the like.

It even continues to this very day. Whites own more guns than blacks due to oppressive gun control laws "protecting cities." We all know the only thing they're protecting is their sense of power, allowing them to freely "gentrify" predominantly non-white neighborhoods and force the "coloreds" into yet another ghetto. If the gun disparity wasn't there, do you really think they'd be so comfortable kicking families out of homes they've lived in for generations only to tear them down and erect hipster hangouts?

Gun control doesn't just weaken people of color, either. Women, statistically more likely to be raped than men and often less physically strong than men, own fewer guns than men. Who rapes these poor women? Hint: men. If more women carried guns, I bet some of those rapists would think twice.

Even worse! Our LGBTQ+ friends and family members are among the most vehemently persecuted members of society. They also statistically own fewer guns than their most frequent oppressors, white heterosexual cis-men. If they had better access to guns, don't you think they'd feel more empowered and equal? Don't you think "gay bashing" would go away if they were legally armed?

In short: don't let racists, sexists, bigots, and misogynists get their way. Oppose gun control in all forms. Take back your right to bear arms. As they say: God made man but Samuel Colt made them equal. Be equal. Own a gun.

They weren't listening in the first place. Trying to convert a leftist is a lost cause anyway. Present the facts so that the fence sitters in the peanut gallery will observe how the leftists chimp out and disregard all reason when presented with facts that do not conform with their worldview.

>ATF playing 42D chess arming Cartels so they kill all potential illegal immigrants