If these guys can do it

Keggers

I'm sitting here watching a nationwide segment about wrestling, before that babies swimming and baton twirling. Has anyone ever considered the bonuses if we got a segment about airsoft on. It would be a great chance to clarify some misconceptions about the sport, opinions?

CrazyRabbit

Same old arguments for/against this.

We can keep quiet about the sport until it 'grows too big to ban it'. This will take a long time though and leaves the sport vunerable to scumbags messing around with AEG's in public causing AEG's to be banned,

Or,

We get as much publicity as possible and try to increase the number of players rapidly. The goal is the same....make it too big to ban it. However, with this approach, you attract the attention of panicky mums, and politicians out for a quick vote grab exercise (like a certain politician in bray)

I'd be in favour of a positive segment on Nationwide. If it addressed the fears of the panicky mums and vote grabbing politicians, and reassured them, then it should help.

No guarantees either way though.

daz801

ye i think this would be a good idea!! somthing like this would be good

TerrorFirmer

There was an entire segment on 'baton twirling'??

daz801

Michael-O'Neill wrote: »

i like bannanas

may i ask what the hell are you talking about! lol

kdouglas

Michael-O'Neill wrote: »

i like bannanas

You're obviously new here, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but troll-like comments such as this are not appreciated.

coys

well the way i see it as mentioned before as long as it is done in in a well organised manner and the main segment should be about the fact that aeg's cannot be modified to fire live ammunition and the sport is of less bodily risk than paintballing.
just my 2c

Keggers

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

There was an entire segment on 'baton twirling'??

Yup but I don't think they use the term 'Twirling'

Anyway KD could you add a pole with a Yes, No kinda get up?

kdouglas

Poll added.


Personally, I think airsoft has gotten to a point now that something like this could be done. My main concern would be ensuring that the piece is done in the correct manner and not spun as some hysterical reactionary bull.

Hivemind187

This is a bad idea.

Here's why.

The story in airsoft is not the "fringe sport and handful of nobodies take on the might of the government to have their passtime". The story in airsoft "controversial sport that puts your children at risk on the streets".

It doesnt matter what way you try to pitch it. Airsoft kit look like guns. People do not react to logic or rationality, they go on emotion. The emotions that anyone unaccustomed to what we do will be fear, trepidation, anxiety and anger at their availability. Any piece of programing will direct all of that onto the community as it has done in the past.

Radio has the argument but not the visual. Newspapers have the visual but not the mutually supporting (and feeding) emotional content of other panicky parents. Television has both and its really REALLY bad news.

ED E

Ok, this has worked very well in other countries as shown below. Very positive and good for the sport. BUT, I agree with Hive on this one. The Irish media, as we've seen before, can come out with a load of cr@p. Certain tabloids a while back carried almost identical articles that were all very flawed. Irish media dont seem to like good news, they want controversy, controversy and more controversy. They'll pick at us with lies and twisted facts. Bad Idea!

What might be a good idea is if we organised a promo video. This could be put on peoples social networking profiles, websites, youtube ect ect and promote the sport that way. But inviting the media in, no way.

New Zeland:

US:

Philipines(Appears Positive):

Utah:

France:

The list goes on and on...

weeder

i voted yes but heres a good question, why are terms like weapon and "war game" frowned upon in ireland(that said im very partial to using them myself) when other countries dont really give a damn about it

Hivemind187

While the above videos may appear to support the argument (though Lethal does not himself) closer inspection shows that they do not do so.

1) New Zealand (I think this one is actually Australia isnt it?) Mostly factual but with a hint of "They are very scary and that makes them dangerous". Not a reasoned or rational comment to make but it is inevitable.

2) US. Is a show from the History channel about civie world applications of military equipment. Good coverage is almost garaunteed by the target audience. Not exactly the kind of angle Nationwide would be taking.

3) Phillipines. Combat and military show. Again, likely to give a straight account because of the target audience.

4) Utah (which, incidentaly, is in the US). Fox News. Listen to the inflection given on the words chosen. "Wargames" "Hard core" etc all painting it in a certain extreme view. To us it seems fine but look at it through the eyes of a parent. "Hundreds of rounds at a time" etc. It is essentially good coverage but there is that slight edge to excite the masses, in Ireland those tones and inflections would have effigies bunring in the streets. Also, Utah ... Mormons. 'Nuff said.

5) I dunno. It's in French. But I think I've made my point.

ED E

Hivemind187 wrote: »

3) Phillipines. Combat and military show. Again, likely to give a straight account because of the target audience.

It actually seems to be a piece as part of a bigger programme, similar to prime time, though I may be wrong. Maybe somebody with the correct lingual skills could comment.

EDIT: Its definitely NZ hive, not Australia.

whydave

think i read in AI that it's banned in Australia

Frank the Manc

airsoft is illegal in austrailia at the moment

beat me to it.

Hivemind187

weeder wrote: »

i voted yes but heres a good question, why are terms like weapon and "war game" frowned upon in ireland(that said im very partial to using them myself) when other countries dont really give a damn about it

Its to do with cultural maturity.

In Ireland the response to any issue, regardless of its severity or threat, is to light the torches and re-point the pitchforks. The simple fact is that the vast majority of reporting on issues, the vast majority of the general public and the vast majority of our custodians and polticians have the emotional maturity of a 9 year old.

There are a couple of other things going against those words and phrazes.

Ireland has extremely strict gun laws which prevent most people from ever encountering the real thing in the wild (so to speak). The US, France, Spain, Portugal, Canada and most Asian nations have an armed police force and much wider circulation of firearms. The result? A lot less hysteria about them since they are simply a fact of life. Strangely, this has not affected peoples responses when it comes to having one shoved in their face though, which only goes to show that it is the intent rather than the object that is the real danger.

Ireland has a long history of conflict. Either with terrorists, occupational governments or the shenanigans in the bleachers of a GAA final. Any reference to war or to combat tends to illicit the kind of nanny-knows-best response you get from most parents when their child wants to climb the apple tree in the Garden. "you'll fall and hurt yourself and then your brother will want to do it to and he'll hurt himself". In the eyes of these people the mere mention of something that they associate with danger conjures images of bodies strewn left and right and mothers wailing in the night.

Ireland is also a very conservative country. Their is this very peculiar mindset to the nation at large and one of its major properties is "We dont like change". Like it or not, Airsoft represents something new, something that the average paddy in the pub doesnt understand fully and is for that reason confused and frightened by it. Dont bother trying to educate this type though, the mentality we are dealing with is best expressed by our old friend Mr Joe Duffy who couldnt grasp the simplest of concepts with regard to muzzle velocities and energy ... something a few airsofters have ahd trouble with too I admit but they, at least, have an interest in learning.

It might seem like I'm being very hard on the Irish public but you have to look at the realities, from the experience we have had over the last two years we can extrapolate the future results. And they arent good.

One last thing.

There was positive coverage on Drivetime Sports one night in January this year. There was no positive upsurge in attendance at games and a marginal one in Tony's site hits (from what I recall). Compare this to the surges we get from controversy (T4BB - Joe Duffy - Go Tactical Vs. Liz McManus etc).

No, for my money the likes of Salute! is the way to go. Positive increase in numbers, targetted marketting and virtually no fallout. Salute is the Neutron Bomb of our PR!

Hivemind187

Airsoft is not banned in Oz.

It's restricted to devices which can not use full-auto and by a number of other daft restrictions.

Hivemind187

Lethal_Bullet wrote: »

It actually seems to be a piece as part of a bigger programme, similar to prime time, though I may be wrong. Maybe somebody with the correct lingual skills could comment.

EDIT: Its definitely NZ hive, not Australia.

My bad. could have sworn that it was Oz.

As for the Phillipino one, I didnt watch the whole thing and by comment is based on the editing and titles, I may well be wrong about it being a combat show, but again we are talking about a culture entirely different to the one we have here.

Nodin

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Its to do (.......) of our PR!

Sadly, thats all too true, every word.

The only positive note is that I've noticed a steady growth in the number of historic renactors and military displays over the last decade or so, which may perhaps signal some hope that society may (at some stage) decide that an interest in things military is not a sign of a mental illness of some undefined nature. That being said "sex" has been around for many a moon now, and it still gets the hysteria going on occassion......

CrazyRabbit

So, after reading the above it seems the view of the general Irish public is that they are nothing but a bunch of immature emotionally hysterical idiots incapable of seeing airsoft for what it is.

I for one have a slighty more confidence in the general public's abilty to use the brains God gave them.

Of the hundreds of people I've shown my airsoft AEG's to (and that covers a wide range of people), only one has ever replied with "Ban them! Ban them!". Everyone else has listened to the facts and are happy to allow them to remain legal so long as children aren't shooting each other with them. In my personal experience, people don't get hysterical & certainly don't run to their local TD demanding them to be banned. If anything, Irish people are very apathetic.

We've heard a few of the nanny brigage on the radio shows, many of whom just wanted stricter controls, and that's about it. Hardly 10,000 strong protesters outside the Taoiseach's office demanding the banning of airsoft.

The only time we've ever heard anyone call for airsoft to be banned is when they were introduced to Airsoft without the facts, and they were basing their opinion on rumour and speculation.

Present Airsoft in a positive light with all the facts and it will be seen as 'ok', especially if it's shown on a respected TV show. People believe what they read and see on TV.
So far, we've only see bad newspaper articles, but it's only a matter of time before RTE news does a news segment on the 'danger of airsoft' and how thugs are using AEG's to terrorise their communities. We should be trying to beat them to it with a positive, factual segment on TV...even if it doesn't have the same number of viewers as the RTE news.

kdouglas

Crazy: Single people, i.e. a person, are intelligent beings who can be informed of the facts and shown that there is no real danger behind this. But People as a whole/group, are panicky mis-informed fools who indulge in hype far too easily.

Dealing with a single individual and showing them an airsoft gun and explaining what it is and what it does is a completely different kettle of fish from going on prime time television and addressing many hundreds or thousands simultaneously, based on this I personally would prefer a more direct approach such as Salute and similar events.

ED E

Now that Rabbit has mentioned it, I think the "beat them to it" approach has some merit, the problem being once we invite the tv crews in the reporter can say what they want, they can, as hive mentioned, add those subtle inflections that attack the sport. What we need to do is get a reported playing regularly, then we can assure the piece will be on our side

For the moment though, KD is right IMO. Salute should be a big promo. I dont know of any other millitary/millitary vehicle shows in the country, I presume there are probably more. They should be looked at. I think there may be a millitary avation show(remember going to one, no idea when or where), that could be a suitable promo location. Also, the shooting gallery idea, if properly controlled, could be used at many other "fairs" which are on all the time. This whole thing might be a suitable aim for an "IAA subcomitee", I'm willing to volunteer any time I can, if you're interested.

OzCam

Sadly, I agree with hive on this.

Even if the segment was positive (and we'd almost need to produce it ourselves for that - no chance) it would just be spun by lazy journalists and short-sighted politicians for their own purposes. If that sort of spinning and controversy didn't work, most of the crap Talk Radio using up precious wireless frequency would have gone bust long ago. :mad:

There are dedicated journalists and politicians in this country, there's just precious few of them and they get drowned out most of the time.

What are we doing at Salute? Can I help?


@weeder: the word "weapon" implies something used with the intent to cause injury. Yes it can cover anything from a rock to an ICBM, but it's the perceived intent that's the issue. That's why it's generally avoided. It took me quite a while to stop myself saying it too :-)

CrazyRabbit

kdouglas wrote: »

Crazy: Single people, i.e. a person, are intelligent beings who can be informed of the facts and shown that there is no real danger behind this. But People as a whole/group, are panicky mis-informed fools who indulge in hype far too easily.

Dealing with a single individual and showing them an airsoft gun and explaining what it is and what it does is a completely different kettle of fish from going on prime time television and addressing many hundreds or thousands simultaneously, based on this I personally would prefer a more direct approach such as Salute and similar events.

At the same time, one could argue that in a one-on-one situation, the person has to take your word for it that you are being truthful. But, if they see/hear these facts on a TV program, then are are much more easily accepted as fact. People believe what the media tell them. It's kinda like the wikipedia effect...."if it's in wikipedia it must be true".

The only real problem I see with a TV segment is trying to ensure that it is truly 100% positive.

My greatest fear for airsoft is this; At some point you can guarantee that some idiot is going to do something really stupid with an airsoft gun. And it may make the 9pm news. When it does, that incredibly negative news story is going to be the first impression of airsoft for hundreds of thousands of people. First impressions count, so let's try to be the ones making that first impression!

I really don't see how I can make it any simpler than that. Wait for the negative media coverage, or go out and seek the positive media coverage now. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Puding

the issue i have is at the moment we are ignored even the silly stupid stuff that could put airsoft in a bad light is ignored and not really reported, you suddenly make us very high profile people dig up the dirt does not matter how good the promo video and tv shot is, it the youtube idout that they find i worry about

Hivemind187

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

So, after reading the above it seems the view of the general Irish public is that they are nothing but a bunch of immature emotionally hysterical idiots incapable of seeing airsoft for what it is.

Thats not what I said at all. You attempting to skew what I have said to undermine the facts and evidence by resorting to ugly emotional pleading and pseudo-liberal gibberish.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

I for one have a slighty more confidence in the general public's abilty to use the brains God gave them.

Good for you. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. That, however, does not make it a fact or anything worth basing such a monumental leap of faith on.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Of the hundreds of people I've shown my airsoft AEG's to (and that covers a wide range of people), only one has ever replied with "Ban them! Ban them!". Everyone else has listened to the facts and are happy to allow them to remain legal so long as children aren't shooting each other with them. In my personal experience, people don't get hysterical & certainly don't run to their local TD demanding them to be banned. If anything, Irish people are very apathetic.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you are a computer tech and not a student of politics, sociology or the media. Just to put your comment in a little context.

The fact is that this is an argument from personal experience backed up by nothing other than your "word". Hardly a convincing argument in the light of 2 years accumulated experience from interactions with the media, the public, the government and the gardai siochana which is saying entirely the opposite of your assertion.

Every loud mouth ding-bat you heard on Joe Duffy or any of the other radio shows or comments in newspapers generally represents a further 1000-2000 people (based on population of Ireland). How do I know this? Because its the same principal that is used to work out magazine readership and television viewing statisitics. Thats a lot more people than we have and thats only the ones who have made up their mind already.

As for running to their TD's. Ask Peter Sharpe about that.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

We've heard a few of the nanny brigage on the radio shows, many of whom just wanted stricter controls, and that's about it. Hardly 10,000 strong protesters outside the Taoiseach's office demanding the banning of airsoft.

Again, I might point out that there is a limited number of people who can be heard on any given radio show and the ones that phone in are a small representation of the general public.

I would also point out that yes, there have indeed been calls for airsoft retailers to be closed and these dangerous toys to be restricted or banned. Liz Mcmanus herself demanded this in a press release and when confronted with the evidence duly ignored it and continued her campaign of misinformation.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

The only time we've ever heard anyone call for airsoft to be banned is when they were introduced to Airsoft without the facts, and they were basing their opinion on rumour and speculation.

Which is exactly what any news crew will be. Which will lead to mistakes. Which leads to misunderstanding of the message we would be trying to convey. Which leads to confusion in the viewer. Which leads to suseptibility to rumour and mythology.

Evidence submitted: DriveTime Radio piece from jan/Feb. Essentially positive but contained enough errors to change the meaning of certain elements. Luckily none were damaging to airsoft as a whole, but that may not have been the case.

No individual is going to become an expert on airsoft enough to be anything other than intimidated and concerned for the safety of their kids or themselves by seeing such a presentation.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Present Airsoft in a positive light with all the facts and it will be seen as 'ok', especially if it's shown on a respected TV show. People believe what they read and see on TV.

You dont read TV.

Facetiousness aside, how exactly are you going to justify that statement? What evidence can you submit to show that it will all "turn out ok" because "we can present the facts".

Fact: A Dozen dickheads flew a number of planes in to the Twin towers.

Fact: 1/4 of the US believes that it was the CIA flying remote control planes in to the towers and that the passengers are all still alive but under new identities in Utah.

The facts of anything can be presented and it will catagorically not change peoples minds where those people are operating from an emotional response rather than a reaonable one.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

So far, we've only see bad newspaper articles, but it's only a matter of time before RTE news does a news segment on the 'danger of airsoft' and how thugs are using AEG's to terrorise their communities. We should be trying to beat them to it with a positive, factual segment on TV...even if it doesn't have the same number of viewers as the RTE news.

Thats fine. Let them. Then we sue them for saying that airsofters facilitate crime.

You'll notice that shooters rarely get any stick or coverage. Ever wonder why? They use real guns which do get nicked and can actually kill people. It's because they stay off the radar and don't antagonise a culture that is already apprehensive about their kit.

No matter how well worded. No matter how well presented. You are not speaking to rational, logical and reaonable individuals. You are speaking to the "public". An entirely different entity, a group consciousness if you will. It's scared, irrational, emotional and usually reactionary. The positive elements will be glossed over with the single, resounding and echoing cry of "THEY LOOK LIKE GUNS!!!!"

Michael-O'Neill

kdouglas wrote: »

You're obviously new here, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but troll-like comments such as this are not appreciated.

oooooh sorry:eek::eek::eek:

Michael-O'Neill

daz801 wrote: »

may i ask what the hell are you talking about! lol

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true [/FONT]

gandalf

Michael-O'Neill wrote: »

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true [/FONT]

Ok I have seen multiple threads where you have posted nonsense. I see one more and you're banned for a month.

Michael-O'Neill

oops i miss understud. i thought you were asking would it be good to bann aisoft in Eire so i said no but i ment yes if its not about how "dangerous" they are:)

Hivemind187

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

At the same time, one could argue that in a one-on-one situation, the person has to take your word for it that you are being truthful. But, if they see/hear these facts on a TV program, then are are much more easily accepted as fact. People believe what the media tell them. It's kinda like the wikipedia effect...."if it's in wikipedia it must be true".

The only real problem I see with a TV segment is trying to ensure that it is truly 100% positive.

My greatest fear for airsoft is this; At some point you can guarantee that some idiot is going to do something really stupid with an airsoft gun. And it may make the 9pm news. When it does, that incredibly negative news story is going to be the first impression of airsoft for hundreds of thousands of people. First impressions count, so let's try to be the ones making that first impression!

I really don't see how I can make it any simpler than that. Wait for the negative media coverage, or go out and seek the positive media coverage now. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Your last line could not be more apt. It does indeed have "no brain".

Yes. There is always the possibility of some dingus getting capped in a car park by a plain clothes detective for brandishing a rifle at him (infact this has very nearly happened once to my - and more importantly the DoJ's knowledge).

Yes. That story could wind up on the news and that would be rather difficult to just explain away.

Just like the calls to ban super-soakers in the mid nineties because the RUC were slotting adolescents because they thought they were real guns. Did they ban them? Did they ****! Airsoft was available there before it was available here.

Its the same fear we all have Crazy and the truth is that no matter what you do to control it something like this will eventually happen and eventually someone will die. I'm not going to lie or pretend it wont. I hope to hell that it doesnt and that I am over stating the issue but I dont think I am.

When it does happen, it wont make a blind bit of difference in any useful way whether we made a good first impression or not. They will look like guns. They were involved in the death of a person. They will be blamed though the device is not responsible. Theree will be calls for the banning of airsoft. And the result will be restrictions on purchase, import and use. Thats it.

There is no way to ensure a 100% positive piece of reporting because it wouldnt be reporting then - it would be advertising.

As for people believing everything they see on TV or hear on the radio or read in the newspaper or books. Thats incredibly naiive a view.

The fact is that a lot of people can be made aware of a subject through these mediums but you will not alter there emotional reactions on strong subjects like gun control, abortion, religion, war, politics, sex, rock and roll, paedo-priests or any other hot button topic. Why? Because they are emotionaly involved in it.

The only way you can change someones mind on these topics is a) you have a reasoned discussion with them face to face (doesnt always work) or b) they are open to having their mind changed and go seeking the info themselves. There is a difference between spreading awareness (which is what news does) and spreading education (which is what all of our collective efforts - including yours Crazy - have been driving towards).

I'm not trying to be obstructive, I'm telling you the facts from my experience and knowledge - this is much more complicated than you think.

Nodin

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

So, after reading the above it seems the view of the general Irish public is that they are nothing but a bunch of immature emotionally hysterical idiots incapable of seeing airsoft for what it is.

I for one have a slighty more confidence in the general public's abilty to use the brains God gave them..

I for one, based on experience, don't.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

We've heard a few of the nanny brigage on the radio shows, many of whom just wanted stricter controls, and that's about it. Hardly 10,000 strong protesters outside the Taoiseach's office demanding the banning of airsoft. ..

It took no protestors whatsover to make legislation relating to real firearms the most (or one of the most) restrictive in Europe. It took no incidents with legal firearms (.22 and shotguns) whatsoever to have that tightened, periodically - laughably when you consider what the criminals are now packing. Nobody was ever shot with a crossbow when - a few years back - they were put under firearms legislation and require a firearms license.

I collect militaria and related items, all 100% legal and above board. Yet I keep it on the QT, precisely because of the fear it would be stood on at a ministerial whim if it gained a high enough profile, so that somebody can look like they're doing something during their period in office.

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

The only time we've ever heard anyone call for airsoft to be banned is when they were introduced to Airsoft without the facts, and they were basing their opinion on rumour and speculation. ..

Facts are irrelevant in presenting the case, which is the sad part of it all. The majority of stabbings involve domestic kitchen knives. Try getting that across during "knife panic-frenzy" week, as happens now and again.

CrazyRabbit

Reply in bold

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Thats not what I said at all. You attempting to skew what I have said to undermine the facts and evidence by resorting to ugly emotional pleading and pseudo-liberal gibberish.


Hivemind, my post wasn't in direct reply to yours. I was not trying to skew anything you said. I didn't even quote you. I was responding to what appeared to be the collective perception stated in many posts in this thread that the public is basically stupid & close minded. This is feel is wrong, and my proof would be the very dramatic shift towards a very liberal Ireland over the past 15 years or so. Obviously people are open to new ideas that previously would have been taboo, or scary.

Good for you. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. That, however, does not make it a fact or anything worth basing such a monumental leap of faith on.

You are also entitled to your opinion. That, however, does not make it a fact either.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you are a computer tech and not a student of politics, sociology or the media. Just to put your comment in a little context.

The fact is that this is an argument from personal experience backed up by nothing other than your "word". Hardly a convincing argument in the light of 2 years accumulated experience from interactions with the media, the public, the government and the gardai siochana which is saying entirely the opposite of your assertion.

I'm not a computer tech, though I used to be many years ago. I am a Project Manager primarily, with some programming on the side. This Project Management role involves a great deal of risk analysis (albeit not in regards to dealing with the media), but it is something I am skilled at.

We are all students of sociology, and I've a long standing strong interest in politics. What I lack in degrees I more than make up for in experience over my 32 years. And you are not the only one that's had meetings with government officials or the Gardai. I've had 5 meetings with Bertie Ahern/Mary Harney (regarding funding for mental health care & clinics that treat sexually abused people). I dare say I may be equally experienced in this area as you.


Every loud mouth ding-bat you heard on Joe Duffy or any of the other radio shows or comments in newspapers generally represents a further 1000-2000 people (based on population of Ireland). How do I know this? Because its the same principal that is used to work out magazine readership and television viewing statisitics. Thats a lot more people than we have and thats only the ones who have made up their mind already.

You can no more prove that statement than I can disprove it. For all either of us know, there was 5 anti-airsofters calling Joe Duffy and 100 pro-airsofters. Unless you have some stats from the Joe Duffy show, your assumptions are pretty useless. And by your same argument, for every 1 pro-airsofter that you heard on the Joe Duffy show, there was also 1000-2000 members of the public who supported airsoft

As for running to their TD's. Ask Peter Sharpe about that.

Precisely my point. They ran to their TD because their first impression of airsoft was the wrong impression. They lacked facts on the matter and made assumptions. It is these type of people that we NEED to target with a positive image. These people didn't attack airsoft because they are idiots. They did so because they wrongly seen airsoft as dangerous due to their lack of knowledge on the subject.


Again, I might point out that there is a limited number of people who can be heard on any given radio show and the ones that phone in are a small representation of the general public.

I would also point out that yes, there have indeed been calls for airsoft retailers to be closed and these dangerous toys to be restricted or banned. Liz Mcmanus herself demanded this in a press release and when confronted with the evidence duly ignored it and continued her campaign of misinformation.

If Liz had been presented with the facts about Airsoft prior to going on a crusade, I have to wonder if she would have bothered? At the very least it would have made her have second thoughts. Yes, some people will always be against airsoft, and some will never care either way. But the undecided are a very large majority (purely because they haven't heard about it), and I'd rather they hear about Airsoft from us than from Liz or those die-hard anti-airsofters.

Which is exactly what any news crew will be. Which will lead to mistakes. Which leads to misunderstanding of the message we would be trying to convey. Which leads to confusion in the viewer. Which leads to suseptibility to rumour and mythology.

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to pain. Pain leads to suffering. You are beginning to sound like Yoda there. My point is still valid. News crews will cover this 'airsoft issue' at some point. They won't get it 100% perfect, but it will be a thousand times less accurate if we are not the ones bringing the story to them. How is better for them to do this story without our imput? And they'll only get that input if we approach them.

Evidence submitted: DriveTime Radio piece from jan/Feb. Essentially positive but contained enough errors to change the meaning of certain elements. Luckily none were damaging to airsoft as a whole, but that may not have been the case.

And if it was us who had gone to DriveTime with this story and helped them review it for accuracy, it would have been a better piece. And if we did have input, imagine how negative the show would have been without it? This supports my argument not weakens it.

No individual is going to become an expert on airsoft enough to be anything other than intimidated and concerned for the safety of their kids or themselves by seeing such a presentation.

Nobody said the general public needs to become airsoft experts. You don't need to be an expert in rockclimbing to know it can be safe when proper care is taken. The general public know the basic facts about rockclimbing such as safety ropes and harnessing being used. Likewise with airsoft, they just need to know that you can't take out their kids eye or kill them with an airsoft gun. 2-3 facts is enough to satisfy most of their concerns.

You dont read TV.

I believe any politician or public figure would agree with the statement that people do believe what they see on TV, and do believe what they read in the papers. Hell, just look at the crap in the tabloids. And people believe it because it's all one-sided.

Facetiousness aside, how exactly are you going to justify that statement? What evidence can you submit to show that it will all "turn out ok" because "we can present the facts".

What evidence can you submit to show that it will not all "turn out ok"?

Fact: A Dozen dickheads flew a number of planes in to the Twin towers.

Fact: 1/4 of the US believes that it was the CIA flying remote control planes in to the towers and that the passengers are all still alive but under new identities in Utah.

The facts of anything can be presented and it will catagorically not change peoples minds where those people are operating from an emotional response rather than a reaonable one.

Can you imagine how much more widespread those conspiracies would be if they weren't disputed? Yes, some people are always going to believe the worst. We can't stop some of the negative publicity that airsoft will get, but we sure as hell CAN counter it with some positive publicity. If we don't then it all becomes a one sided affair and you'll end up with a large proportion of the public believing the very worst about airsoft.

Thats fine. Let them. Then we sue them for saying that airsofters facilitate crime.

Are you volunteering to pay for this lawsuit? Not that it would even be successfull since RTE news are legally allowed to state their opinion. At worst they may breach some regulatory guidelines about reporting fairly on an issue.

You'll notice that shooters rarely get any stick or coverage. Ever wonder why? They use real guns which do get nicked and can actually kill people. It's because they stay off the radar and don't antagonise a culture that is already apprehensive about their kit.

Purely because very very few people even realise that real steal legal shooters exist. They are practically a myth. That may suit them, but airsoft needs a much larger community. They also generally don't go around killing people either...that may have something to do with them staying off the radar.

No matter how well worded. No matter how well presented. You are not speaking to rational, logical and reaonable individuals. You are speaking to the "public". An entirely different entity, a group consciousness if you will. It's scared, irrational, emotional and usually reactionary. The positive elements will be glossed over with the single, resounding and echoing cry of "THEY LOOK LIKE GUNS!!!!"

With the right facts, publicity & education, there will be a resounding and echoing cry of "THEY LOOK LIKE GUNS, BUT I NOW KNOW THEY ARE HARMLESS TOYS!!!!!"

Hivemind187

<self snip>

kevteljeur

Lads, come on. It's good to have discussion on this, and as long as everyone stays reasonable, we can all have something to agree or disagree with. They are, after all, opinions. No throwing of strops.

Nodin

kevteljeur wrote: »

No throwing of strops.

...not over the one joule limit at any rate.

OzCam

This is one of those ...discussions where both parties are diametrically opposed, but partly right.

I have some experience with both shoddy journalism (at the receiving end) and Risk Analysis. I can agree mostly with Hive, because that's the way this country works these days. But I also think that CR has a point.

It's vital to have a contingency plan, especially in PR terms. And it's probably good for us to mostly keep a low profile in the press. But I don't agree with being completely reactive either. Sitting back and waiting for opponents to launch an inevitable "attack" deprives you of any initiative or manoeuvering (sp?) room.

May I make two suggestions:

1. Make all possible outreach efforts, emphasising "Safety First", at events like Salute and air shows where at least the audience is likely to be receptive already. Maybe if we wear goggles, it'll look silly but it'll at least prompt people to ask why. Vaccinating people is always worthwhile, whether its against prejudice, ignorance or Polio.

2. Review and debate the low-profile policy at least annually, preferably twice a year. That debate should take place in a room, maybe with a vote. Both sides of this debate should be able to make their case and carry others with them. A change of policy like that should require a clear majority, but I do think it should be reviewed regularly as the public news environment changes. Discussing this issue on public boards is not the most productive way to do it due to the limitations of the medium. I guess that would be an IAA matter (sorry if this isn't the right place for this suggestion).


If the sport does go public for the wrong reasons, let's at least have a plan to take the initiative and argue our case with facts and conviction. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

Hivemind187

OzCam wrote: »

This is one of those ...discussions where both parties are diametrically opposed, but partly right.

I refuse to agree to that

OzCam wrote: »

I have some experience with both shoddy journalism (at the receiving end) and Risk Analysis. I can agree mostly with Hive, because that's the way this country works these days. But I also think that CR has a point.

Simply because someone has a point doesnt validate or lend credence to it.

I studied journalism and part of that study is understanding how the system of media works and how that system manipulates public opinion either by accident or by design. Delliberately walking into that pit of vipers is not going to do us any good believe me - there is no physical way that we are going to be able to make a 100% positive piece happen without producing a 1 hour puff piece documentary ourselves.

OzCam wrote: »

It's vital to have a contingency plan, especially in PR terms. And it's probably good for us to mostly keep a low profile in the press. But I don't agree with being completely reactive either. Sitting back and waiting for opponents to launch an inevitable "attack" deprives you of any initiative or manoeuvering (sp?) room.

The fact is that there are contingency plans. The reason that contingency plans arent made public is because that makes them public to anyone trying to make gains from damaging airsoft.

As for being completely reactive, thats not the case either. However, its a matter of targetting the right people and instiotutions. there is no point in trying to get the press to do any kind of positive coverage - no good journo will do "positive" and the bad ones will lie and make us out to be Nazi's or something. By targetting the correct civil departments and dealing with the issues we already have we'll get a lot more done than jumpiong up and down shouting "PAY ATTENTION TO ME!! I NEED TO BE AKNOWLEDGED!!"

As for "attacks" not a single one of them has been sucessful in any way as yet because we have responded correctly to the threat - with logic and reason. Not publicity stunts and skirmishes in car-parks.

The way we win isnt in our ability to avoid the question or to spin the situations that arrise (maneuvering) but it how weak their attacks are on a solid defence. Defences which have been built through the media exposure we've had in the last two years.

OzCam wrote: »

May I make two suggestions:

1. Make all possible outreach efforts, emphasising "Safety First", at events like Salute and air shows where at least the audience is likely to be receptive already. Maybe if we wear goggles, it'll look silly but it'll at least prompt people to ask why. Vaccinating people is always worthwhile, whether its against prejudice, ignorance or Polio.

Other than a few cases of utter bone-stupidity the vast majority of airsofters dealing with the general public or non-softers are spot on in their approach. Particularly at the already receptive shows you mention. Experience shows us though that trying that kind of thing at a place where people are not expecting it tends to have different results. T4BB is a microcosm example of this where to the credit of those involved it was safe and everything was fine but to the uninitiated spectator it was apparently frightening and disturbing. You'll get the same reaction in a news paper or on a news broadcast - only the first 7-10 seconds of material is actually absorbed the rest may as well not be there save for the minority of people who continue to listen (I'm not going to dig out the stats on it but you can look them up or ask someone in the business and they'll confirm this).

All journalism works on the principal of an inverted pyramid. You start with the broadest strokes to get the general gist across. With airsoft that will be "Weekend Warriors in Swords" or "Grown ups playing with replica machine guns!" it will not be a considered and calm approach simply because it takes too damn long to say and you'll lose the interest of the reader of viewer in the process.

OzCam wrote: »

2. Review and debate the low-profile policy at least annually, preferably twice a year. That debate should take place in a room, maybe with a vote. Both sides of this debate should be able to make their case and carry others with them. A change of policy like that should require a clear majority, but I do think it should be reviewed regularly as the public news environment changes. Discussing this issue on public boards is not the most productive way to do it due to the limitations of the medium. I guess that would be an IAA matter (sorry if this isn't the right place for this suggestion).

The IAA has an AGM and as the name suggests it's held annually. The representatives on the committee are elected to make decisions and do what is best for the community based on all available information. If an opporuntity presents itself in which positive awareness of airsoft can be encouraged it will be taken, just as it ha been in the past (DriveTime Sports). However, I remain adamant that deliberately antagonising the media into reporting on us is a bad idea - as bad as walking into a Gardai station with a pistol in your pocket.

OzCam wrote: »

If the sport does go public for the wrong reasons, let's at least have a plan to take the initiative and argue our case with facts and conviction. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

Fallschirmjager

do you hear the click, thats a land mine....


well here is my tuppence worth....

i think we should make all the new media types our own. We should aim to produce very high quality web movies about how much fun it is. Blog ourselves to death, lets make the new medium of web 2.0 --- ours. the good news is a lot of this is already happening and with minimum coordination we could have a very powerful and consistent message. we already have the websites to host, its all there for us to own.

therefore we supply ample raw material to show the super positives of our game. i would even go so far as to show them at shows as an educational process or just how fun it is -- hand out web links etc. lets use the web as our route to deliver our message.

now we dont need money, we have the experience here on this board to do this we just need to decide what/how and more importantly when.

now you may ask why, if we are doing it already? well a professional sheen to some of our videos would go a long long way of positioning ourselves as positively as possible. I am not implying that any video out there is not professional, so before you go getting all upset there Lash LaRue, and your spurs start jinging and a jangling...just relax its a suggestion about coordination and standards and advertising...

lets talk about the tourists, the multi cultural aspects, the jobs (lets not forget how much we are now adding), the health aspects etc

we can all start putting those in our sigs on any site we are on to show what we are really about. humour, which airsoft has in spades...will be one of our most powerful weapons...just my opinion...

TheDoc

I think everyone jsut gets way ahead of themselves.

Airsoft as a "sport" is still in its ****ting dipers, airsoft is not even a sport. Theres nothing competitive ( yes ipal coming) but theres no structure etc.

I'm not getting into a debate of how airsoft is not a sport, cause its not end of and i dont wanna weight this thread down even more.

Has anyone thought of the negetivity that would be brought by releasing a media segment, telling the country, how airsoft is legal, how you can pretty much buy them once your over 18?? I can guarantee you what will happen...and tell you how long you have before we get arse ****ing regulations or worse a ban outright.

I have to agree with hive in parts, I find the general irish public misinformed, confused, paranoid, objective to change and for the most part retarded.

I remember some years ago being involved in a pr stint for GAME upon the release of GTA San Andreas where me and other staff and managers were attending a meeting for concerned parents.

And I came out of that forum, completely cemented that the irish public are ignorant and not willing to listen to information.

Why is everyone in a rush to make airsoft booming and have floods of people in??

For 2 years in, it looks fine to me, its being made stable, we know its hear, not all press is good press, actually, very little is. As i stated above, the more players we get, the more chance there is of incident, the more chance of legislation changes intervention etc.

Also advertising to the countrys thugs and **** bags that if your over 18 you can buy what looks like a real gun, is gonna have them wanting one.

You just have to work in an airsoft shop or hang around long enough to see the dangers that arise...and the possible disasters waiting to happen.

I wish some people would think outisde the box, i dont know if most of you havnt been involved in other sports, but a "sport" doesnt mean **** unless its atleast 20 years old.

So why dont we all stop pumping the idea machine for a year or two...and jsut make sure the game is kept stable, we avoid incidents of public relations disasters..

and just enjoy shooting each other every weekend.

To be fair you might think some points harsh, and yeah im new to the game still even after a good few months.... and for all the good intentions that start, they are ideas that arnt gna work and havnt been thought through...and jsut spark contraversy on this place among others.

Let Airsoft be I say...its fine the way it is...we grab a few more players thats fine....

But it looks like everyone want to skip natural progression and envolement to have a power epic game...that can be banned with a pen stroke overnight.

What i would prefer seeing in the future ( next 2 years of airsoft) is sites to be built up to be dynamic, variable professional looking, which can only happen in time and cant be rushed.

And if you REALLY wanna go and make a video....make a video to teach people how to take their hits, cause ive noticed that its a rising problem going on, especially with youngsters.

It seems we all assume the world and its mother of airsoft reads boards to learn bought rules. The next few years should be spent honing in on problems within the game, such as taking hits, safety briefings ( to this day i still havnt had an airsoft one, lucky for me im not thick and played paintball) and improvements such as variety of sites.

Also, it would be useful for people who involve themselves in these types of threads, to actually try be constructive, and not show off how big their education of experience dick is tbh...

Rhinocharge

From little acorns great oak trees grow.
Young days yet.

Sparks

Hivemind187 wrote: »

You'll notice that shooters rarely get any stick or coverage. Ever wonder why? They use real guns which do get nicked and can actually kill people. It's because they stay off the radar and don't antagonise a culture that is already apprehensive about their kit.

Just noticed this. Not that I disagree with Hive's main thesis here, but speaking as the chap who was the PRO for the olympic shooting NGB for two years, I have to say it's a tad more complicated than Hive's laid out.

Shooting has pushed heavily for years to get more PR. We've had setbacks and triumphs as a result. It's been a fight - not so much against the media, though the Irish Times is a pain, but against our own people. Because of the 30 year ban that the Troubles brought in, the "keep the head down" approach was continually taken by our NGBs and PROs for years. I'm not criticising them - given the times, they did what they thought was right and I wasn't there, so I can't judge. When I came on as PRO however, the Troubles were over and we were still keeping the head down. So I spent the last eight years, either as PRO or Secretary of the NGB or outside the NGB helping to mod the Shooting forum here, all trying to get rid of the head-down approach and to get us to open up and seek publicity.

It was a kicker of a fight, because both sides had good points in their favour. Hive has pretty much laid out the same argument the side against publicity in shooting was laying out. Thing is, the side arguing for publicity had a few points on its side that were difficult to refute:

• The average age of shooters was late 40s and rising because noone knew of our sport;
• Our sport was getting hammered in legislation and in any dealings with the government or state bodies because we never had public opinion on our side because we never said anything;
• Our sport was underfunded and not sponsored at all, because the ISC and OCI do not fund, they invest and they seek medals and photo ops as a payback; and companys do not sponsor a sport that noone sees or knows about;
• The only folks who did say anything in public had a free hand as a result and were always made up of the crazy loons you wouldn't want talking on behalf of Robert Mugabe lest they mess up his public image - but because we said nothing, they spoke for us. We're still cleaning up their mess;
• Some of us were proud of our sport, sick to death of being asked to hide it away like it was wrong, and downright angry at the notion that we were somewhat shady despite being personally signed off on by the Gardai.

The last point was somewhat more emotional, but no less effective to us.

I won't say Hive is wrong; I won't say that the way I pushed our sport towards was either right or easy. There were and are good arguments on either side, and airsoft has to choose its own path. Heck, I'm not even involved anymore, I just saw our name being mentioned.

I will however say that faced with the same choice but shown the outcome (both good and bad) from going public, I'd make the same choice over again in a heartbeat. I still feel that my sport is nothing to be ashamed of and is something to be proud of and I'll happily stand toe-to-toe with folks who feel otherwise and call them on it - and less emotionally, I'm still willing to spend six hours writing up press releases and planning out media campaigns for events and doing the legwork to make it easier for a lazy reporter to use my copy instead of doing a quick hatchet job on my sport.

I would prefer it if more folks in the sport took up the FIS's media training courses though...

CrazyRabbit

Thank you Sparks for putting it better than I ever could. Your vast experience in this area is very welcome as far as I am concerned.

Your 2nd bullet point was at the core of my previous posts...

"Our sport was getting hammered in legislation and in any dealings with the government or state bodies because we never had public opinion on our side because we never said anything; "

It's good to have the Gardai and the DOJ on our side and the IAA has done a great job in that regard. However, they will turn on airsoft in a hearbeat if the general public takes a serious disliking to it. So it is the public we need to convince.

So yes, we can keep quiet about airsoft and allow it to grow at the relatively slow rate it has done over the last 2 years. But, keeping quiet isn't going to win over the public. Of course, it doesn't scare them either.

If we do go on the PR offensive, many people may indeed be howling for a ban. BUT, if we control that PR as much as we are able to, then we should end up with a lot more supporters than detractors. And of course, no tv/radio show or newspaper is going to get the facts 100% right, but if we make it 95% then it's a win.

If we don't go on the PR offensive, then it's only a matter of time before something serious happens and we get a ton of negative publicity which will be only 5% factual about airsoft. First impressions do last, so we will have lost the publics support. It's much harder to make a supporter out of a anti-airsofter than it is to make a supporter out of someone who hasn't decided yet.

You see, it's not a matter of publicising the existance of airsoft or not. That is going to happen anyway whether we like it or not. It's just a matter of either waiting for negative publicity or proactively seeking as much positive publicity as we can.

There is danger in the approach I propose. But there is an equal danger in sitting back and doing nothing (from a public PR point of view). I for one, do not want to bury my head in the sand and wait for the inevitable public bashing of airsoft.

Hivemind187

Sparks wrote: »

Just noticed this. Not that I disagree with Hive's main thesis here, but speaking as the chap who was the PRO for the olympic shooting NGB for two years, I have to say it's a tad more complicated than Hive's laid out.

Shooting has pushed heavily for years to get more PR. We've had setbacks and triumphs as a result. It's been a fight - not so much against the media, though the Irish Times is a pain, but against our own people. Because of the 30 year ban that the Troubles brought in, the "keep the head down" approach was continually taken by our NGBs and PROs for years. I'm not criticising them - given the times, they did what they thought was right and I wasn't there, so I can't judge. When I came on as PRO however, the Troubles were over and we were still keeping the head down. So I spent the last eight years, either as PRO or Secretary of the NGB or outside the NGB helping to mod the Shooting forum here, all trying to get rid of the head-down approach and to get us to open up and seek publicity.

It was a kicker of a fight, because both sides had good points in their favour. Hive has pretty much laid out the same argument the side against publicity in shooting was laying out. Thing is, the side arguing for publicity had a few points on its side that were difficult to refute:

• The average age of shooters was late 40s and rising because noone knew of our sport;
• Our sport was getting hammered in legislation and in any dealings with the government or state bodies because we never had public opinion on our side because we never said anything;
• Our sport was underfunded and not sponsored at all, because the ISC and OCI do not fund, they invest and they seek medals and photo ops as a payback; and companys do not sponsor a sport that noone sees or knows about;
• The only folks who did say anything in public had a free hand as a result and were always made up of the crazy loons you wouldn't want talking on behalf of Robert Mugabe lest they mess up his public image - but because we said nothing, they spoke for us. We're still cleaning up their mess;
• Some of us were proud of our sport, sick to death of being asked to hide it away like it was wrong, and downright angry at the notion that we were somewhat shady despite being personally signed off on by the Gardai.

The last point was somewhat more emotional, but no less effective to us.

I won't say Hive is wrong; I won't say that the way I pushed our sport towards was either right or easy. There were and are good arguments on either side, and airsoft has to choose its own path. Heck, I'm not even involved anymore, I just saw our name being mentioned.

I will however say that faced with the same choice but shown the outcome (both good and bad) from going public, I'd make the same choice over again in a heartbeat. I still feel that my sport is nothing to be ashamed of and is something to be proud of and I'll happily stand toe-to-toe with folks who feel otherwise and call them on it - and less emotionally, I'm still willing to spend six hours writing up press releases and planning out media campaigns for events and doing the legwork to make it easier for a lazy reporter to use my copy instead of doing a quick hatchet job on my sport.

I would prefer it if more folks in the sport took up the FIS's media training courses though...

An eloquent answer. In fairness I did over simplify a tad (ok ... maybe a big tad). But the specific element I was pointing to stands.

The differences between Airsoft and Shooting are great, especially at the moment.

Shooting has been around for hundreds of years and has always (and will always) have its proponents, many of whom have wealth, influence and status. Airsoft, in Ireland at least, has been around for 2 years.

Shooting has huge ammounts of legislation surrounding it governing what can and cannot be purchased, by whome, under what circumstances and how it should be possessed. Airsoft has a single piece of legislation, that is not directly written for it and as such there is wanton and indescriminate sale of goods to anyone regardless of age, criminal record or intent.

Airsoft has dedicated people who respond to the drek that appears in the media already providing press release information etc. All of this material is ignored (I know because I wrote it and submitted it myself) in favor of the hysterical tag line. Unscrupulous tabloidists are not interested in whether we have a case to fight or whether we have any kind of legitmacy - they see gun, they see ease of availability and they go for the jugular. It bleeds a lot better than fat-dads and wannabes playing soldier in a field.

Understanably the point about the troubles makes some sense, however we have enetered a different era now. The media has stirred up all kinds of hysterics regarding gun and knife crime (largely by over stating the statisitics and over-reporting the peculiar cases) - the result of which is we now have a paranoid public comobined with a anything-to-please-the-voters style of politician. Deliberatly throwing ourselves to the wolves makes no sense under such circumstances.

I agree with Sparks that there is need for concerted and qualified effort on the PR front for airsoft as well as shooting - but surely not while the act of drawing attention to ourselves would draw attention to the failings of the government to properly legislate the issue? Surely that can only result in the kind of knee-jerk legislation we saw with regard to knives, mushrooms, garlic pills and the age of consent?

weeder

gotta rememer this, there only toys even if they look real if anto's mates find out he robbed a shop using a toy hell be laughed at imo,

Hivemind187

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Thank you Sparks for putting it better than I ever could. Your vast experience in this area is very welcome as far as I am concerned.

Your 2nd bullet point was at the core of my previous posts...

"Our sport was getting hammered in legislation and in any dealings with the government or state bodies because we never had public opinion on our side because we never said anything; "

It's good to have the Gardai and the DOJ on our side and the IAA has done a great job in that regard. However, they will turn on airsoft in a hearbeat if the general public takes a serious disliking to it. So it is the public we need to convince.

So yes, we can keep quiet about airsoft and allow it to grow at the relatively slow rate it has done over the last 2 years. But, keeping quiet isn't going to win over the public. Of course, it doesn't scare them either.

If we do go on the PR offensive, many people may indeed be howling for a ban. BUT, if we control that PR as much as we are able to, then we should end up with a lot more supporters than detractors. And of course, no tv/radio show or newspaper is going to get the facts 100% right, but if we make it 95% then it's a win.

If we don't go on the PR offensive, then it's only a matter of time before something serious happens and we get a ton of negative publicity which will be only 5% factual about airsoft. First impressions do last, so we will have lost the publics support. It's much harder to make a supporter out of a anti-airsofter than it is to make a supporter out of someone who hasn't decided yet.

You see, it's not a matter of publicising the existance of airsoft or not. That is going to happen anyway whether we like it or not. It's just a matter of either waiting for negative publicity or proactively seeking as much positive publicity as we can.

There is danger in the approach I propose. But there is an equal danger in sitting back and doing nothing (from a public PR point of view). I for one, do not want to bury my head in the sand and wait for the inevitable public bashing of airsoft.

For the last time. Try to understand this incredibly simple premis.

YOU

WILL

NOT

CONTROL

THE

MEDIA

Once you start the PR ball rolling you can not control it in the wild. If a single journo gets it into his head to ride roughshod over us for the sake of a few by-lines (and they will - we've seen it already) we will have signed our own death warrant. You wont get 95%, you wont get 70% and unless you manage to be worth half a page you wont get 20%.

And I sweaqr to you, the only way to get a half a page (more than 3 minutes airs time) - even in a tabloid - is to be doing something naughty.

I'm pretty sick of your accusations of "doing nothing" and "burying our heads in the sand". There is a methodology to every step that is taken, it is examined, considered and acted upon based on available evidence. Jumping uop and down and demanding "something must be done for the good of all arisoft-kind!" is no better than a uninformed reactionary nut-cases out there.

I understand your intention and it is well meaning but ultimately confused, misguided and shows a poor understanding of playing field.

Yes, eventually something will happen. However, we have already made our first impression - or did you miss the last two years?

So what, exactly, are you going to say to a public that has a 7 second attention span, barely reads past the first sentence of any newspaper article, wants a quick fix to every problem regardless of the fallout and has a habit of blaming inanimate objects for problems rather than the individuals behind them?

Seriously, I see a lot of "lets do this" and "lets do that" and "**** you - We should have an airsoft pride parade!" but none (other than Falls) so far has given any useful or critical analysis of what we should put together to achieve those goals.

Let me show you who we have to convince (because you clearly dont get it).

1) The Public
2) The Public
3) The Public
4) The DoJ
5) The Gardai
6) The cusoms people
7) Parent groups
8) Schools
9) Regional politicians
10) Print media
11) Broadcast media (including radio and television)
12) Lobby groups
13) Real steel shooters
14) The Public

Thats just the condensed list. Why have I mentioned the public 5 times? Because there is more than 1 "public". You have your liberals. Your conservatives. Your hippy-love types. You have angry parents. You have victims of crime. You have the old, the young, the male and the female. You have business people and front line employees. You have christians, muslims and paranoid-conspiracy-theorists. You can not hope to convince all of these different strata of society of the same thing at the same time because each one has a different over-all mindset depending on a number of factors and each one of them will percieve what you say in a different light. Thats how you get more than one newspaper carrying the same story but told in a different way.

So if you know how to do all of that, concisely, without misinterpretation or the potential for misunderstanding, pitched to lay people without prior knowledge or science backgrounds and kleep it entertaining - in under 3minutes or 500 words ... I'd sincerely love to hear it.

Hivemind187

weeder wrote: »

gotta rememer this, there only toys even if they look real if anto's mates find out he robbed a shop using a toy hell be laughed at imo,

Naiive. It's not anto's mates we worry about, its the shopkeeper and his staff threatened with what appears to be a gun that will sink us - and likely **** up their lives for a while.

Puding

where as the person who was robed would not be laughing...

that who i care about

(dame hive wass faster

CrazyRabbit

Hivemind187 wrote: »

For the last time. Try to understand this incredibly simple premis.

YOU

WILL

NOT

CONTROL

THE

MEDIA

Once you start the PR ball rolling you can not control it in the wild. If a single journo gets it into his head to ride roughshod over us for the sake of a few by-lines (and they will - we've seen it already) we will have signed our own death warrant. You wont get 95%, you wont get 70% and unless you manage to be worth half a page you wont get 20%.

And I sweaqr to you, the only way to get a half a page (more than 3 minutes airs time) - even in a tabloid - is to be doing something naughty.

I'm pretty sick of your accusations of "doing nothing" and "burying our heads in the sand". There is a methodology to every step that is taken, it is examined, considered and acted upon based on available evidence. Jumping uop and down and demanding "something must be done for the good of all arisoft-kind!" is no better than a uninformed reactionary nut-cases out there.

I understand your intention and it is well meaning but ultimately confused, misguided and shows a poor understanding of playing field.

Yes, eventually something will happen. However, we have already made our first impression - or did you miss the last two years?

So what, exactly, are you going to say to a public that has a 7 second attention span, barely reads past the first sentence of any newspaper article, wants a quick fix to every problem regardless of the fallout and has a habit of blaming inanimate objects for problems rather than the individuals behind them?

Seriously, I see a lot of "lets do this" and "lets do that" and "**** you - We should have an airsoft pride parade!" but none (other than Falls) so far has given any useful or critical analysis of what we should put together to achieve those goals.

Let me show you who we have to convince (because you clearly dont get it).

1) The Public
2) The Public
3) The Public
4) The DoJ
5) The Gardai
6) The cusoms people
7) Parent groups
8) Schools
9) Regional politicians
10) Print media
11) Broadcast media (including radio and television)
12) Lobby groups
13) Real steel shooters
14) The Public

Thats just the condensed list. Why have I mentioned the public 5 times? Because there is more than 1 "public". You have your liberals. Your conservatives. Your hippy-love types. You have angry parents. You have victims of crime. You have the old, the young, the male and the female. You have business people and front line employees. You have christians, muslims and paranoid-conspiracy-theorists. You can not hope to convince all of these different strata of society of the same thing at the same time because each one has a different over-all mindset depending on a number of factors and each one of them will percieve what you say in a different light. Thats how you get more than one newspaper carrying the same story but told in a different way.

So if you know how to do all of that, concisely, without misinterpretation or the potential for misunderstanding, pitched to lay people without prior knowledge or science backgrounds and kleep it entertaining - in under 3minutes or 500 words ... I'd sincerely love to hear it.

Well I am pretty sick of your condescending, negative and dismissive attitude. You have one hell of a superiority complex and it really shows your last few posts. Everyone else is wrong, and you are right. You are highly educated in these matters and everybody else is an uneducated fool. End of story. That's what I see in pretty much all your replies.

Do whatever you want. I'll be there laughing when the politicians are bowing to public pressure to ban airsoft because all the public have seen is negative half-truths and lies.

Hivemind187

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Well I am pretty sick of your condescending, negative and dismissive attitude. You have one hell of a superiority complex and it really shows your last few posts. Everyone else is wrong, and you are right. You are highly educated in these matters and everybody else is an uneducated fool. End of story. That's what I see in pretty much all your replies.

Do whatever you want. I'll be there laughing when the politicians are bowing to public pressure to ban airsoft because all the public have seen is negative half-truths and lies.

I'm not going to respond to someone who is allowing emotion to cloud their judgement.

I dont question your knowledge of IT or project management, if I had reason to I would defer to it. Likewise, when someone has more understanding of a subject than you the only logical and rational position is to defer to them.

Oh, and you didnt answer the question.