Looks like Bloomberg is off and running with his anti-gun campaign...I can't stand that douche-bag. http://gunssavelives.net/blog/video-the-first-graphic-commercial-from-bloombergs-new-grassroots-anti-gun-organization/

Ratings disabled
Comments disabled

Lol 

.

Everyone that watches this needs to flag the video.

done!

That video is done very well.

What we need are similarly high quality videos that show what happens when people do not have guns, but do it in a way that does not turn people off.

It's a skill to produce these types of videos. Advertising agencies are paid big bucks to do it all the time, and it is not as easy as you might think.

The pros make it look easy.

You can bet that even the colors of the clothing the kids wore might have been carefully considered.

That video is done very well.

What we need are similarly high quality videos that show what happens when people do not have guns, but do it in a way that does not turn people off.

It's a skill to produce these types of videos. Advertising agencies are paid big bucks to do it all the time, and it is not as easy as you might think.

The pros make it look easy.

You can bet that even the colors of the clothing the kids wore might have been carefully considered.

To their credit, the left always excels at using emotions, particularly fear, to sell their message.  It's tougher to use emotion for pro-2A messages and be able to get through to academic minded Libs whose only experience with firearms is Hollywood and anit-gun media.
There used to be all kinds of shows where good guys and bad guys all carried a gun.  Those old westerns rarely focused on the weapon as much as on the person using it.
Every now and then a movie will display a morally justified use of guns, like when Gwyneth Paltrow shot Michael Douglas in "A Perfect Murder."  or when Julia Roberts shot her stalking, abusive husband in "Sleeping with the Enemy."  New video ads have to capture that same emotion of defeating evil with a firearm without focusing on the firearm itself.  The focus should be on the criminal and the would-be victim, and how the criminal meets his demise because the victim isn't as defenseless as he thought.

Just brainstorming out loud.  Those are some things I've been thinking about ever since the government began using Sandy Hook as a springboard for their latest gun ban push.

I always think that whenever they show Luger toting Nazis just popping the heads off civilians in mass burial pits, or the Gestapo kicking the sh*t out of people and dragging them from their homes, is graphic enough to show why the 2A must stand.

But you have to get people to connect the two.

That's a good spot.  And there's nothing wrong with the message it sends.  Surely no one here is arguing that kids should be allowed unsupervised access to firearms.  The only "subversive" thing they have done is the hyperlink.  It takes you to a page that says "Join the movement to end gun violence.  Share this video with your friends and family and ask them to join, too."  Then there's a place to provide your contact information and join the organization.  If you don't know what Everytown.org is, you don't realize what you're actually supporting.

Even the phrase "end gun violence" is subtle psychology.

Of course you will AGREE to end "gun violence"

Even gun owners want to end "gun violence"

Countering that, as an example, we can say "Stop helplessness" or better yet, start the "War on Helplessness"

To their credit, the left always excels at using emotions, particularly fear, to sell their message.  It's tougher to use emotion for pro-2A messages and be able to get through to academic minded Libs whose only experience with firearms is Hollywood and anit-gun media.

Reason doesn't change peoples' beliefs.  It really doesn't.  Do you remember the brouhaha a few years back over the idea of amending the Hawaii state constitution's definition of marriage?  The conservative side played the emotion card, running ads featuring a child's confusion at the idea of two men getting married.  The liberal side played rational, getting people who had been oppressed minorities in their day to talk about how their civil rights would not have passed a popular vote.  Emotion won.  And it wins consistently.

Funny how related things seem to pop up all the time.  I came across an article on Facebook, which referenced a quote by David Hume.

Disputes with men, pertinaciously obstinate in their principles, are, of all others, the most irksome; except, perhaps, those with persons, entirely disingenuous, who really do not believe the opinions they defend, but engage in the controversy, from affectation, from a spirit of opposition, or from a desire of showing wit and ingenuity, superior to the rest of mankind. The same blind adherence to their own arguments is to be expected in both; the same contempt of their antagonists; and the same passionate vehemence, in inforcing sophistry and falsehood. And as reasoning is not the source, whence either disputant derives his tenets; it is in vain to expect, that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.

Facts and logic are fine, but are best when used in support of an emotional appeal.  But crafting such an appeal, as demanding as that task is, pales beside the prospect of disseminating it.  We've seen a few attempts.  comes to mind.

Thanks for posting that link. Great video. Will be a shocker to my anti friends who have NEVER even thought of such a scenario.

I paste it here again because it is so good