MNGunTalk.com

Emotion inspires passion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with presenting a sound, logical argument in a way that also invokes emotion. Some people respond more to facts, other people more to emotion. Constructing a message that gets through to both types of people is important to achieving your goals.

When the other side uses emotion, it's empty, hollow, and there is no substance or truth to it, just false emotion surrounding a false argument. This is something we need to avoid, for the very reasons being discussed. However, using emotion, painting a picture in people's minds, in addition to presenting the facts is a very effective way to reach as many people as possible. As long as it's backed by the truth, there's nothing wrong with presenting your arguments in an emotional presentation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TooFewGuns wrote:To me, this comes off as being a bit dramatic and contrary to the basics of economics. While the prices are currently higher for non-toxic shotgun shells, the increase in demand for them would cause shifts in production and increases from the companies that currently make them.

You can have all the production shift and related economy of scale you want but it won't overcome the fact that the commodity price of tungsten (the primary ingredient in lead alternatives) is $12.13/lb while the commodity price of lead is $0.80/lb.

Well, yeah. If you buy .410 shells and you think they're going to be as cheap or cheaper than 12 gauge then you're going to have sticker shock. What this has to do with lead vs. steel is beyond me.

http://www.cabelas.com/product/shooting/ammunition/shotgun-ammunition%7C/pc/104792580/c/104691780/sc/104567580/winchester-reg-aa-shotshells-150-per-case/731068.uts?destination=%2Fcatalog%2Fbrowse%2Fshotgun-ammunition%2F_%2FN-1100191%2B4294751413%2FNe-4294751413%3FWTz_st%3DGuidedNav%26WTz_stype%3DGNU#productChart

TooFewGuns wrote:The current price is higher, yes. That was never in question. Using emotion to push the agenda is my only issue, talking about doing it for the kids or making it a class issue. I do not dispute the price, or lack of scientific evidence on the left. There are plenty of emotional environmentalists on the left, it doesn't make them right. Keeping it to the science and numbers is makes our side look rational and theirs look like nuts.

You (and I, for that matter) are motivated solely by facts - emotion rarely factors into my decision making process.

However, that's not true for everyone - and it's certainly not true for the PAC's supporters and potential supporters writ large.

We have supporters that are factually driven, that are driven by emotion or a good narrative, and others that are motivated for other reasons. Any good activism based communication is going to attempt to hit all of those factors and appeal to the broadest possible audience.

What I can assure you of, however, is that we'll always back up our rhetoric with facts - as we did in this case.

This e-blast reached nearly 10,000 people who have sent hundreds of e-mails to the DNR about this issue - isn't that what we were after?

Bryan

Elemental lead (lead metal) is poorly understood outside of the laboratory. It isn't quite the devil it's been made out to be in all circumstances.

Too many people were raised on horror stories of lead paint chips (which are NOT metallic lead) to view things via an objective or scientific eye.

bstrawse wrote:You (and I, for that matter) are motivated solely by facts - emotion rarely factors into my decision making process.

However, that's not true for everyone - and it's certainly not true for the PAC's supporters and potential supporters writ large.

We have supporters that are factually driven, that are driven by emotion or a good narrative, and others that are motivated for other reasons. Any good activism based communication is going to attempt to hit all of those factors and appeal to the broadest possible audience.

You are exactly correct and a good example of this was the news story with Heather Martens. She argued safety for children and the other guy argued that it would cost him an extra $50 for a $75 gun. You won't win that battle with that argument.

$50 here. $20 there. $10 tax here. Paperwork that must be filled out during business hours there. License fee add on. Ammunition tax. Additional insurance fee. Top it all off with another $200-300 in ammo cost every year...

Pain in the posterior factor starts to kick in after awhile - and you start losing shooters.

Of course, that's all part of the plan...

linksep wrote:

TooFewGuns wrote:To me, this comes off as being a bit dramatic and contrary to the basics of economics. While the prices are currently higher for non-toxic shotgun shells, the increase in demand for them would cause shifts in production and increases from the companies that currently make them.

You can have all the production shift and related economy of scale you want but it won't overcome the fact that the commodity price of tungsten (the primary ingredient in lead alternatives) is $12.13/lb while the commodity price of lead is $0.80/lb.

Black Cloud is steel and non-toxic. Tungsten is not the only option. I understand that the idea is to raise money, and I support MNGCRA and appreciate what they do. The NRA does it too, it has just always bothered me because I see it get turned around in the opposition's ads.

TooFewGuns wrote:

linksep wrote:

TooFewGuns wrote:To me, this comes off as being a bit dramatic and contrary to the basics of economics. While the prices are currently higher for non-toxic shotgun shells, the increase in demand for them would cause shifts in production and increases from the companies that currently make them.

You can have all the production shift and related economy of scale you want but it won't overcome the fact that the commodity price of tungsten (the primary ingredient in lead alternatives) is $12.13/lb while the commodity price of lead is $0.80/lb.

Black Cloud is steel and non-toxic. Tungsten is not the only option. I understand that the idea is to raise money, and I support MNGCRA and appreciate what they do. The NRA does it too, it has just always bothered me because I see it get turned around in the opposition's ads.

I don't know who MNGCRA is - but the purpose of this email (from MNGOPAC) was to get our supporters to send an email to the DNR opposing this proposal.

Bryan

photogpat wrote:Elemental lead (lead metal) is poorly understood outside of the laboratory. It isn't quite the devil it's been made out to be in all circumstances.

I sent an email. This is, can, and will be one of those slippery slope issues and I don't want to budge an inch. Democrats in MN see California as a role model and look what happened to them.

shooter115 wrote:I sent an email. This is, can, and will be one of those slippery slope issues and I don't want to budge an inch. Democrats in MN see California as a role model and look what happened to them.

Thanks shooter! I'm glad the purpose of the email was clear to you. I appreciate you taking action.

My mistake, I thought this was the same thing as the MN Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance. Are you?

TooFewGuns wrote:My mistake, I thought this was the same thing as the MN Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance. Are you?

Nope. GOCRA and MNGOPAC are two entirely different entities.

Both organizations work together, but they are independent of each other.

Well, that explains my confusion. Thanks for the clarification. I edited the title to reflect the correct group. With the similarity in name, I assumed that one was a branch of the other.