Grolschevik wrote: » I understand where you're coming from. What I'm really getting at is trying to understand the roots of any negative public opinion, and how that can be changed. To a large part I think that opinion is based in ignorance rather than ideology. So, educational outreach, and positive public engagement with whoever.
Grolschevik wrote: » As I said above , I'm a supportive outsider. I also work as and with journalists and PR people. In terms of PR and media, there have been a few very important points made here that relate to public support. Many of you won't like my argumaent, but here it is. First, some selected quotes, with the what I reckon are the most relevant bits bolded: I don't think it is seen as a bloodsport by most people in the same way as The Hunt. See below. Ok, heere's my argument. Again, as an interested ousider who works with the media: The "domino effect"/"death by a thousand cuts" thing is a 'slippery slope' argument. It doesn't wash for something like hunting fox with horses and dogs. Most of the public see that as being in a completely different league. It's a bit like this: for example, when you think about it philosophically and ethically, eating sausages is on the same 'moral' scale as, say, fur farming, but the average punter doesn't see it like that. Because they prefer NOT to think about it like that, to its logical conclusion. That's why I think that fishing isn't held in the same low regard among ordinary urban punters as fox-hunting is. The last thing you want is to be associated in the public mind with support for hunting fox with horses and dogs. You're only going to lose in any association with that in the public mind. You want the ordinary punter to see gun use as on the level of fishing and sausage eating and mouse traps and rat poison, things they don't see or don't want to see as in even being near to the same ethical territory as something like fur farming, to continue that analogy/example. Even the leather industry has managed to successfully keep its distance from fur, except with hardcore vegans. This ^^^. Also bonus points for playing up the sports angle: biathlon, skiing, Olympic target shooting etc. There are thousands of airsofters, too. Connect; don't slag them off as children or Mittys. Connect with the university gun clubs. Trinity has its own small range. Cut out any political talk that comes across as overly American gun rightsy. Cut out slagging off politicians and guards and journalists. Cut out anything that could be interpreted as alt-right. Cut out sovereign citizen/freeman/resisting tyranny stuff. There was at least one on this thread already. Cut out talking of Eurofascism and cultural marxism etc. These are known right-wing tropes that media will pick up on. Be seen to be the respectful, professional, sportmen and women, some of whom who perform a valuable service culling what farmers see as pests, and others who engage in internationally recognised sports. Don't be associated with red-coated, red-faced, twice-a-year law firm partners frothing at the mouth and blooding each other in the woods when not riding roughshod through some smallholders land and scaring his sheep -- because THAT (unfair or not) is the public and media perception of The Hunt. THis is just my take. I don't want to start or get into an argument. Oh, and the media isn't interested in truth, balance and accuracy any more. It's about sales, clicks, lowest common denominator. Goes for Prime Time as much as any tabloid rag. They can't be trusted. Even a supportive journos words will come across differently after editors get their hands on it and pictures and headlines added in.
Cass wrote: » Take the MNSCI for example. Its a sanctuary and a conservationists wet dream. Its been inspected and found to have endangered and rare nesting birds that are not only living there but thriving and growing. The range was even designed to accommodate some species that were there is smaller numbers so as not to disturb them and because of that approach their populations have risen and continue to do so. A credit to the shooting community even though as a range they have/had no responsibility to do as much as they did.
Grolschevik wrote: » What I'm really getting at is trying to understand the roots of any negative public opinion, and how that can be changed. To a large part I think that opinion is based in ignorance rather than ideology. So, educational outreach, and positive public engagement with whoever.
Tea drinker wrote: » How do we interface with these people, the heads of the various organisation make the representations? or all as individuals - to show the support that's available? There's a case and time I guess for both.
For hunting I think it's crucial we play the environmental angle, and by play I mean we are aware of the holistic effects on the environment shooting can have and behave in a manner that better fits that. What can we do to educate ourselves and move the shooting cause forward.
Target shooters I suppose there's less avenues there but not none. I'd have no problem photographing wildlife in the vicinity of clubs to prove the birds and rabbits flourish rather than get scared off with the sound of shooting. What about wilded areas in clubs allowing songbirds to flourish, no pesticides etc.
Grolschevik wrote: » Would they extend the same concern in your direction?
More generally, this forum is one of the public front windows into this world. It regularly shows up on the front page of the site. Ordinary punters may drift in, and I’m sure journalist have it bookmarked for the occasions they need it.
Thread titles and rhetoric are important because of this. There’s always another way of wording stuff.
Instead of a thread title like “getting a pistol through the North”, call it “What are the rules on imports now?” Instead of “I got hundreds of bastard rats lasy night it was like a scene from ‘Nam”, write “I’ve found that setting up this way is very effective at rat control”.
I saw a thread recently about the virtues of a particular night sight. It could have been worded like “it enabled me to track the wounded animal into the undergrowth so I could humanely dispatch it”. But it was actually worded like “it ran off after I hit it but the sight picked up the heat of the fox’s intestines that were hanging out after my first shot, so I was able to find it and finish it off”.
Just put yourself in the position of a randomer wandering in and reading that.
Feisar wrote: » ........ however there may be clay busters and paper punchers out there that are anti bloodsport.
Feisar wrote: » One area in this I'm struggling with to get my head around is the idea what we can pull country sports in generally with us. Many of us start of in the shooting sports due to a hunting background in the family however there may be clay busters and paper punchers out there that are anti bloodsport.
JP22 wrote: » I agree. Several politicians, some members of game clubs, spoke and backed game shooting when last lockdowns were introduced. Have any of our organisations personally written to these politician's seeking their views on and their support for shooting/game shooting/fishing (rural pursuits). Maybe these politicians would support us more if they were written to, met in person, who knows, it will cost little to write to them or meet in person.
Grizzly 45 wrote: » We have tried this, and both the airsofters and historical re-enactors DID NOT WANT to be associated with "gun lovers".
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Politics and money are more involved in the horsey set in Ireland than anywhere else in the World. Whats our bloodstock industry worth to this country PA? This also includes the fox hunting set and there are too many movers and shakers behind the scenes to alienate, as they are also the occasional hunter in there as well. While we may not agree on this sport.it has too much influence to be disassociated from entirely. we dont have to wave flags from the rooftops to show our support,but it certainly is not an ally we can disassociate from.
Cass wrote: » The "horsey" crowd. I don't do it, have no interest in it, but i will not now or ever throw them under the bus in terms of not supporting them for the sake of public image. If that causes us to lose support from some factions, the general public, etc. then its a price we have to pay for one simple reason. and they shouldn't be the first.
Grizzly 45 wrote: » I'd expect a leftist to say that.:D Does that also include anything ALt Left as well??:D
Grolschevik wrote: » As I said above , I'm a supportive outsider. I also work as and with journalists and PR people. In terms of PR and media, there have been a few very important points made here that relate to public support.
Grolschevik wrote: The last thing you want is to be associated in the public mind with support for hunting fox with horses and dogs. You're only going to lose in any association with that in the public mind.
You want the ordinary punter to see gun use as on the level of fishing and sausage eating and mouse traps and rat poison, things they don't see or don't want to see as in even being near to the same ethical territory as something like fur farming, to continue that analogy/example. Even the leather industry has managed to successfully keep its distance from fur, except with hardcore vegans.
Also bonus points for playing up the sports angle: biathlon, skiing, Olympic target shooting etc. There are thousands of airsofters, too. Connect; don't slag them off as children or Mittys.
Connect with the university gun clubs. Trinity has its own small range
Cut out any political talk that comes across as overly American gun rights
Cut out anything that could be interpreted as alt-right.
Cut out talking of Eurofascism and cultural marxism etc. These are known right-wing tropes that media will pick up on.
Be seen to be the respectful, professional, sportmen and women, some of whom who perform a valuable service culling what farmers see as pests, and others who engage in internationally recognised sports.
Don't be associated with red-coated, red-faced, twice-a-year law firm partners frothing at the mouth and blooding each other in the woods when not riding roughshod through some smallholders land and scaring his sheep -- because THAT (unfair or not) is the public and media perception of The Hunt.
Oh, and the media isn't interested in truth, balance and accuracy any more. It's about sales, clicks, lowest common denominator. Goes for Prime Time as much as any tabloid rag. They can't be trusted. Even a supportive journos words will come across differently after editors get their hands on it and pictures and headlines added in.
tudderone wrote: » First thing to do is get the alphabet soup of various shooting orgs to get together and sing off the same hymn sheet, i won't be holding my breath.
meathstevie wrote: » Grizzly 45 wrote: » Grizzly, that video was enlightening. The attitude of some people on that panel was simply mind boggling. Nearly trying to blame legal firearms owners for the fact that violent criminals are violent. Wasn't so much about the content.But just to show how well a very media savvy and trained PR person could deal with an utterly loaded against them panel.Plus it wasn't the usual "Shout down and interrupt your opponent to prove you are right!" type of Irish political discussion programme.:rolleyes: Now,put yourself or one of our reps in this position,and see how they/you would have handled it?;) This leads me on to Cass looking for suggestions; first and foremost as country sports and shooting sports participants we must at every opportunity challenge the fallacy that there is even the remotest of connections between violent gun crime and our activities. 100% We must challenge it individually in conversation with colleagues, family and friends and through our representative organisations in the media and on social media. Again as mentioned, being PR savvy is essential. Yup, and as I said we ALL should be able to rattle off 10 points by heart and back them up with facts on why we are gun owners or hunters at any given opportunity.
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Grizzly, that video was enlightening. The attitude of some people on that panel was simply mind boggling. Nearly trying to blame legal firearms owners for the fact that violent criminals are violent. Wasn't so much about the content.But just to show how well a very media savvy and trained PR person could deal with an utterly loaded against them panel.Plus it wasn't the usual "Shout down and interrupt your opponent to prove you are right!" type of Irish political discussion programme.:rolleyes: Now,put yourself or one of our reps in this position,and see how they/you would have handled it?;) This leads me on to Cass looking for suggestions; first and foremost as country sports and shooting sports participants we must at every opportunity challenge the fallacy that there is even the remotest of connections between violent gun crime and our activities. 100% We must challenge it individually in conversation with colleagues, family and friends and through our representative organisations in the media and on social media. Again as mentioned, being PR savvy is essential. Yup, and as I said we ALL should be able to rattle off 10 points by heart and back them up with facts on why we are gun owners or hunters at any given opportunity.
Grizzly, that video was enlightening. The attitude of some people on that panel was simply mind boggling. Nearly trying to blame legal firearms owners for the fact that violent criminals are violent.
This leads me on to Cass looking for suggestions; first and foremost as country sports and shooting sports participants we must at every opportunity challenge the fallacy that there is even the remotest of connections between violent gun crime and our activities.
We must challenge it individually in conversation with colleagues, family and friends and through our representative organisations in the media and on social media. Again as mentioned, being PR savvy is essential.
tudderone wrote: » HMMMM, but cancer is something i and probably everyone here has some experience of. Either people we know or ourselves suffering from a filthy unfair disease, that shows no signs of being defeated.
berettaman wrote: » I like the idea but almost impossible. Some of these guys are settling scores and undermining each other just to be contrary. I remember that one person would quiet happily preside over the ashes of our sport so long as he gets called the king. Too many fiefdoms and so often good ideas and olive branches are stopped at committee level. Some one will have a quiet word in your ear and that's that. "Original thinking, are you mad?";)
Cass wrote: » I'll make this post short and sweet. We'v covered a lot of good ground with excellent ideas and suggestions, so now it moves onto how do we implement this. Some good suggestions so far but lets see if we can list a few ideas on how to start into a press/PR/political push for the sport. My intention is to start recording ideas on the various steps then centralising them all and creating a plan.
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Munsterlad102 wrote: » I really like your 2nd suggestion but I have a few points to critique your first, if you don't mind. If we hound politicians they could always just ignore us and they could always just bin our letters, which is a probability so that won't really be a source of PR. And you will be committing suicide if you don't have proper PR training to do this right. I speak from personal experience in being involved in a documentary with a shooting segment made in Ireland,and we as a community have seen TWO hatchet jobs done by national media, and two disastrous interviews, where one William Egan[Solr] was set up to be a fall guy,and the last was NARGC playing to a stereotype of two gammons bemoaning the non-ability to shoot pheasants in a covid pandemic.:rolleyes: A good media PR person would have physically pulled Egan out of that debate by the scruff of his legal collar if need be before it had even started that night on Primetime when they would have heard of their opponent, and told the NARGC lads. Go home get the suits and ties on and this will be filmed in an office location when you get back. I can't empathise this enough!! PR is a deadly serious role these days, and it's why multinationals down HAVE to take it seriously.ESp us as gun owners and hunters. We can't just let some good ol boy at the job because, well,he is grand craic, and sure he can write a nice letter, as his handwriting is lovely. If you want a PR figure.You need somone that is NOT the sterotype of what the public thinks is a gunowner. The days of the quilted jacketed, moleskins and fedora/ tweed cap/hunter wellies or baseball cap-wearing in "retard mode"[backwards] and the "I'll give up ma guns "T-shirt wearing PR face of shooting types are OVER! We need a woman/disabled/ethnic minority/trans or a combo of those to represent us as PRIOW we have to smash a stereotype and show that it is "normal" for everyone to be a gun owner /hunter. Just an example of how different media handles a story when faced by a person who knows their stuff and has some PR training. Katja Treibel of Treibel Waffen, Spandau Berlin doing an interview on blank firing pistols and self-defence stuff for a German TV station. One of the toughest women I know. She was undergoing Chemo for breast cancer when she did this interview [2X score, woman, disability] Watch the difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTHTrVroZfY&t=1219s None of them has a pro-gun stance here, harks probably back to the civil war and Blueshirts no doubt!:rolleyes: As for the Naz...Er National Party and Herr Barrett, I'd run far away ...Very quickly...from that edjit and his party:eek:. Yer man that had Brownells Ireland supported them on the basis of this idea of the Swiss militia.:rolleyes::rolleyes: What might work in Switzerland, would no doubt become an utter shambles here. "Joe Soap" in Switzerland, can actually own and possess a full-auto firearm, depending on his region and canton. It's a totally different mindset and traditional outlook to Ireland, and the idea of having a "minuteman" style militia had a lot to do also with Switzerlands terrain and isolation of families and communities. If you want to give your vote or support to the only political movement that actually has a written policy on firearms ownership and self-defence. I'd suggest Libertarian here in Ireland. Free Democrats Ireland, or Libertarian Ireland. PS "Military grade" TRANS. Your rifle /equipment was made for a govt contract to supply Xhundred thousand units, by the lowest bidder possible, in the quickest amount of time within a broad allowance of tolerances on that rifle or equipment. I do not own "military-grade" anything for the above reasons.:D Grizzly, that video was enlightening. The attitude of some people on that panel was simply mind boggling. Nearly trying to blame legal firearms owners for the fact that violent criminals are violent. Talking about twisting facts beyond breaking point and then some. This leads me on to Cass looking for suggestions; first and foremost as country sports and shooting sports participants we must at every opportunity challenge the fallacy that there is even the remotest of connections between violent gun crime and our activities. Certain sections of the media and politicians have peddled that suggestion too often to score cheap points using the “all guns are bad” mantra when it suits them. We must challenge it individually in conversation with colleagues, family and friends and through our representative organisations in the media and on social media. Again as mentioned, being PR savvy is essential.
Munsterlad102 wrote: » I really like your 2nd suggestion but I have a few points to critique your first, if you don't mind. If we hound politicians they could always just ignore us and they could always just bin our letters, which is a probability so that won't really be a source of PR. And you will be committing suicide if you don't have proper PR training to do this right. I speak from personal experience in being involved in a documentary with a shooting segment made in Ireland,and we as a community have seen TWO hatchet jobs done by national media, and two disastrous interviews, where one William Egan[Solr] was set up to be a fall guy,and the last was NARGC playing to a stereotype of two gammons bemoaning the non-ability to shoot pheasants in a covid pandemic.:rolleyes: A good media PR person would have physically pulled Egan out of that debate by the scruff of his legal collar if need be before it had even started that night on Primetime when they would have heard of their opponent, and told the NARGC lads. Go home get the suits and ties on and this will be filmed in an office location when you get back. I can't empathise this enough!! PR is a deadly serious role these days, and it's why multinationals down HAVE to take it seriously.ESp us as gun owners and hunters. We can't just let some good ol boy at the job because, well,he is grand craic, and sure he can write a nice letter, as his handwriting is lovely. If you want a PR figure.You need somone that is NOT the sterotype of what the public thinks is a gunowner. The days of the quilted jacketed, moleskins and fedora/ tweed cap/hunter wellies or baseball cap-wearing in "retard mode"[backwards] and the "I'll give up ma guns "T-shirt wearing PR face of shooting types are OVER! We need a woman/disabled/ethnic minority/trans or a combo of those to represent us as PRIOW we have to smash a stereotype and show that it is "normal" for everyone to be a gun owner /hunter. Just an example of how different media handles a story when faced by a person who knows their stuff and has some PR training. Katja Treibel of Treibel Waffen, Spandau Berlin doing an interview on blank firing pistols and self-defence stuff for a German TV station. One of the toughest women I know. She was undergoing Chemo for breast cancer when she did this interview [2X score, woman, disability] Watch the difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTHTrVroZfY&t=1219s None of them has a pro-gun stance here, harks probably back to the civil war and Blueshirts no doubt!:rolleyes: As for the Naz...Er National Party and Herr Barrett, I'd run far away ...Very quickly...from that edjit and his party:eek:. Yer man that had Brownells Ireland supported them on the basis of this idea of the Swiss militia.:rolleyes::rolleyes: What might work in Switzerland, would no doubt become an utter shambles here. "Joe Soap" in Switzerland, can actually own and possess a full-auto firearm, depending on his region and canton. It's a totally different mindset and traditional outlook to Ireland, and the idea of having a "minuteman" style militia had a lot to do also with Switzerlands terrain and isolation of families and communities. If you want to give your vote or support to the only political movement that actually has a written policy on firearms ownership and self-defence. I'd suggest Libertarian here in Ireland. Free Democrats Ireland, or Libertarian Ireland. PS "Military grade" TRANS. Your rifle /equipment was made for a govt contract to supply Xhundred thousand units, by the lowest bidder possible, in the quickest amount of time within a broad allowance of tolerances on that rifle or equipment. I do not own "military-grade" anything for the above reasons.:D
The Rifleman wrote: » You are right, but whether you like it or not it is tied to the shooting community. PR has been mentioned a few times on this thread and for the shooting community to be allied to hunting foxes with dogs is like tying ourselves to a sinking ship. NEVER will this form of hunting be accepted by normies. It's much easier to explain why a farmer wants you to shoot a fox for vermin control and also a more humane way to kill the fox. Hunting foxes with dogs is defended all the time on this shooting forum when someone speaks against it. How does that look for our community when someone comes along and reads these threads? I find it disheartening that more of ye don't see it this way because this is the kind of thing that immediately turns people off shooting.
Cass wrote: » Fishing is considered as much a "bloodsport" as any and they suffer the same crap we do. Surely we can support them and them us?
riffmongous wrote: » Europe is the way to go, the US is poison at the moment and it's got almost nothing in common with the Irish experience anyway. Look to the central European countries which have very high gun ownership rates and more importantly imo, an actual broad culture of hunting and shooting where the people don't all come off as trumpist gun nuts or the remains of the gentry, Then focus as much on the outdoor/nature/technical aspects as the shooting at the start as it's far more socially acceptable at the moment and just as interesting.
johnboy1298 wrote: » I'd say the biggest thing you could do to further the image of shooting in Ireland is to ban fox hunting with dogs.. I have no problem with shooting birds, deer or foxes for that matter etc but seeing a group of dogs go after a fox is, to me at least, unnecessary. It's something that tarnishes the whole of gun sports as it is cruel and there is no way of explaining the need for it that doesn't sound ridiculous to anyone who doesn't do it. I love the outdoors and often thought about trying shooting but I'd never want to be involved with anyone associated with hunting foxes.
Cass wrote: » Here is one of our biggest hurdles. The other sports. I don't agree with some things but i don't argue against the lads doing it. Its this "give an inch" attitude that has us splintered and always on the back foot. Once again it comes back to death by a thousand cuts. We need to be able to work together which means we have to respect other variations of the sport .
berettaman wrote: » This is spot on. I was listening to a podcast recently (Was it the 2 Johnnies ? can't remember ) and yer man mentioned going shooting. It was refreshing to hear someone talk about going out after rabbits. FFS stop putting pictures of half decapitated foxes or car bonnets filled with woodcock on Facebook and so on, as it reinforces the stereotype and provides ammo to the enemies.
Cass wrote: » Stop posting pictures of overly "gruesome" shots. I hunt and some of the pictures i see make me wonder why anyone would post such a thing. This imagery will never be able to be explained to those not used to hunting and visuals will be remembered quicker than a good speech.
Mississippi. wrote: » Yeah, even the Irish Cancer society refused funding here because it came from a hunt
Cass wrote: » In terms of public opinion how about things like public days. Specifically for people that have never shot. If it gets new members then brilliant but the purpose could be to introduce people to the sport of shooting in a controlled environment and alleviate their fears and misconceptions surrounding firearms. This can happen on ranges and with club (gun club) days too.
Tea drinker wrote: » But members need to see that their leadership is engaging with others and isn't anti social. It's not going to do them any favours, regardless of how much they like the lads or how much work is done locally, if we don't make a unified and visible stance, visible to politicians, we're wasting our time.
Grizzly 45 wrote: » Plenty of other charities that are short of money and not indoctrinated to donate to.
