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.

QUOTE=Grolschevik;115987108]Then you need to ask yourselves why that is, and address the reasons. And ask ‘why?’ about the reasons behind the reasons, and behind those reasons again. Also, you wouldn't give up if you didn't hit the mark with your first shot, would you?

Has that influence helped the cause of the ordinary shooter?

Would they extend the same concern in your direction?

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 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.

Not getting at anyone, but language use and appearances are especially important to a sport that finds itself under threat.[

Cass wrote: »

That is true and if so, well, so be it. We aren't pleasing everyone anyway so we have to move on with what we can change.

One area is language. We try to stop the use of the word weapon, rightly so, we can apply this to other areas. Its a sport we have and i reject the use of the above term because it signifies a negative. So if we all reject it and use the word sport or fieldsport its a small step but in the right direction.

We will have to change but not to the detriment of our sport or the values contained within.

Tea drinker wrote: »

It's cultural, the media traditionally associate guns with crime - either the IRA and subversive element or the drug gang type. That's the message people are used to receiving about guns. We don't have a broadcast medium of our own to counter the the broadcaster we pay for! I think RTE need to understand they have to present us fairly, or else they'll get more complaints than they did for the "God arrested" skit at Christmas ;-)
Having said that WE need to be careful of our PR that the rabble don't become motivated to attack us and RTE for screening an OMG pro gun agenda!
IMHO We're not going to reach anyone thru youtube.
But there's nothing to stop us investing in a quality 30 minute video showing competitions, showing like Cass said the conservation areas and environmental impact, and the hunting aspect too, how it gets from a cleanly dispatched animal (almost no difference to dispatch of a factory animal) to a healthy meal for a family. There's any amount of presentable stuff that WE find interesting, and the above could be a nice presentation to a politician.

Cass wrote: »

H
Our only focus should be on correcting disinformation where and when we can and working to highlight/call out (perhaps even stop) the continuous, subtle, links between criminals and legal firearm owners whenever its implied.

GooseB wrote: »

A very positive aspect of shooting in my opinion that really should be spoken of more, particularly if trying to educate the "general public" on shooting sports is the inclusiveness and equality of it. From a target shooting viewpoint, a 19 year old girl can potentially shoot beside a 90 year old man and both shoot against each other more or less equally.

At the top level the sexes may have separate events but less formally there's really no need to separate them. Similarly, a person with a particular disability may be able to compete pretty much equally against an able bodied person. The shooter can be any age, orientation, race or creed - of all sports, shooting has to be up at the top as one of the best levelers out there. "It's all about the nut behind the bolt" as I was told.

Like it or not, "inclusiveness" is the way of the world now, particularly among the typical demographic that forms the anti gun brigade and mindset. The target aspect of the sport lends itself well in that regard and could potentially be capitalised more.

Apologies for the target-centric post but that's where I fit into the shooting jigsaw. I'm definitely not anti hunting, but I do think the target side of the wider shooting community is the easier side to get outsiders/the media/politicians - all the groups mentioned over the multiple pages of this thread so far - to see that guns are "weapons" about as much as golf clubs are "weapons". Hunting as an introduction has 2 major shocks, 1. The "oh my god it's a gun" and 2. The killing. Target shooting only has point No.1 so is an easier introduction to get started off with at least.

Cass wrote: »

How is that relevant to Ireland? I ask because thinking like that is once again applying an American solution to an Irish problem.

There has never been a mass shooting in Ireland and we have access to only semi auto (forget the misnomer used) firearms. If politicians want to use such events in other countries then our job is to discredit their implication that such an event can happen here as "only a matter of time". If they [politicians] want to ban something for fear of an event then we must point out the flaw in their thinking and how holding one group of people responsible for the actions of an entirely separate group is unjust, and possibly unlawful.

As for the media. News cycles don't last long enough for the media to worry about being precise with their terminology. They apply the same vocabulary to firearms as the general public and any attempt (as we seen with the letter writing campaign to RTE) will be largely ignored or explained away.

Make no mistake, regardless of the level of co-operation we do or don't get this won't be easy, won't be a victory of any sort and still will not be accepted by a portion of the public. Our only focus should be on correcting disinformation where and when we can and working to highlight/call out (perhaps even stop) the continuous, subtle, links between criminals and legal firearm owners whenever its implied.