Looking at the actual playbook there are some interesting things. This is particularly intriguing:
Advocates for gun violence prevention win the logical debate, but lose on more emotional terms.
This is followed by these “Key Messaging Principles”:
#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.
#2: TELL STORIES WITH IMAGES AND FEELINGS.
#3: CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.
If they “win the logical debate” then why not play on that turf rather than engaging on the emotional battlefield?
Read the playbook. It’s conformation of the things we have been saying for years. They don’t have facts they have emotions. They literally believe that being a victim grants them moral authority:
Many of the most active advocates and voices in the gun violence prevention movement are people who have personally lived through a life-changing gun violence experience. That painful reality gives such spokespeople special moral authority.
If you or a loved one were raped does that give you the moral authority to demand all men be put in jail or neutered? If you or a loved one were destitute does that give you the moral authority to demand others give you their property? If you or a loved one were slandered or libeled does that give you the moral authority the demand “sensible laws to prevent slander and libel” which infringe upon the right to freedom of speech?
The answer is no. And to those that believe they have moral authority because they or a loved one were injured by someone with a gun the answer is also no.