Preventing Gun Rights Debate With Targeted MessagingJohn Galt When facts are not on your side, the strategy must shift towards appeals to emotion, or outright propaganda. We have seen this in the war on terror and the subsequent real wars that have resulted. No WMDs? No matter. Just rile people up enough to the point where they are terrorized without the presence of real terror and now youve got a plan. Another area where emotions trump facts is gun control. And, there again, the establishment admits they are losing on both accounts: emotions and facts. Instead of fully capitulating, however, a guidebook was produced with the title: Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging. Its worth a closer look. There is an intensity gap that has built up over years. In the general public, those who view themselves as supporters of gun rights are more deeply committed to and emotionally invested in their position than those supporting stronger gun violence prevention measures. Notice that Holder discusses the obsession youth seem to have with violence from what they see in the media without ever addressing the U.S. governments obsession with using real guns and violence. This is what an emotion vs. fact argument tends to look like. A true anti-gun, anti-violence message might have included not sending guns to Mexican cartels, or preemptively waging war on the planet. Nevertheless, we see the call from Holder to employ effective messaging through repetition; and for that, ironically, they would need the help of the media. The 70-page document mentioned above is an instruction manual to do just that. An excellent summary of the document has been presented by Ethics Alarms, wherein they rightly point out the hypocrisy that rather than empower people to resist imminent threats of violence, the strategy manual is about exploiting violence for political gain after the fact. 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, the guide points out. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts. Early on, the document it makes it clear that the communication efforts must always concentrate on stirring up emotions, not relying on facts or engaging in substantive debate. A high-profile gun violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence. We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence. [] Recommended phrases to use in forums and interviews include, These are prime examples of how to short-circuit critical thinking and replace it with the obvious emotions any empathetic individual should have toward any violence. There is also, of course, the assumption that gun violence prevention measures involve anything but guns. However, the facts get in the way. Just one study, in fact, obliterates this notion. The Cato Institutes Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizensusedan extensive collection of news reports from over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America. The immediate difference between just this one statement, and what is suggested throughout the effective messaging manual is that it relies on a comprehensive overview of actual reports, rather than the emotional pull of one single event, or theoretical event, i.e. imagine the pain of a mother or father People have been taught through government/media messaging that any appeal to facts is callous, which gets leveraged to prove their non-factual statements. Whereas, the call to facts and logic is precisely the opposite: it seeks real-world solutions to stop violence, not just make people feel good about being involved in failed policies. Another study conducted at Harvard makes the case for gun proliferation even clearer: the more guns a nation has, the less crime it has. This can be further supported on a state-by-state case basis. (Source) However, if one wants really wants to appeal to emotions, dont worry, that is also available to supporters of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. How about some of these stories? Can you imagine the pain of your sister, mother, grandmother, girlfriend or wife not standing a chance against a violent criminal? Read other articles by John Galt Here 