From: [b--t--s] at [bbn.com]
Newsgroups: info.firearms.politics
Subject: Memo to the women at the NRA
Date: 26 Oct 93 15:42:56 GMT
FYI, here's a copy of a memo I am sending today to Sonny Jones, who is the
director for women's personal protection at the NRA.
Memo
To: Sonny Jones
From: Lyn Bates
Date: October 26, 1993
Re: Recent TV appearances
___________________________
I'm just sending this quick note to you, hoping you will pass it on to the
relevant people.
It is absolutely wonderful that the NRA (and your program, in particular)
is getting so much media attention! I'm sure you are being swamped with
comments, but I really wanted to add my congratulations and suggestions.
I didn't know about the Oprah show in time to watch it, but the general
feedback I've been hearing from folks who did is that unfortunately Marion
Hammer was not at all effective. One person (a gun-owner with a
gun-avoiding wife) told me that he was embarrassed that the NRA couldn't
find someone more able to use the media to put their points across.
Another person (on the national electronic mail network) said that she
"came off like Norman Bates' momma - cold, stiff, empty claims." In
particular, the 43:1 statistic was apparently mentioned without rebuttal.
I did manage to catch Tanya Metaska's performance on the Today show this
morning, and was quite pleased. She looked good, kept her cool, and knew
what she was talking about! However, on the principle that one can always
do even better, I'd like to make two comments about why her presentation
didn't have as much impact on undecided, middle-of-the-road viewers as it
should have had:
1. The 43:1 claim was not refutted. This claim is the #1 sound bite that
HCI has, and they are hitting hard with it because it is very effective.
You need to have a clear, simple, effective sound bite in response.
Unfortunately, her rejoinder "The study that those numbers came from only
considered homicides" is completely ineffective in making people
realizethat there is another interpretation to the study. That comment
makes people think, "Of course the study dealt with homicides! Homicides
are what guns are all about, and that's why they are bad and I don't like
them."
In our presentations for We are AWARE, we have found that a much more
effective response to the 43:1 statistic is something like this:
"The study that those numbers came from completely ignored the fact
that 99% of self-defense instances don't involve anyone being killed.
Once that is taken into account, the fact is that a gun is is
245 times more likely to be used to defend against criminal threat
than to commit criminal homicide."
That response does several things:
- It fits most sound-bite limitations; even if it is cut after the first
sentence, most of the impact is maintained.
- It sounds authoratative without overwhelming detail.
- It's main point is easy to grasp (the 43:1 people ignored an important fact)
- It has a quantitative conclusion that "sounds bigger" than 43:1.
- It is very unlikely that the opposition has a good response ready!
2. Here's the second point that Tanya could have made stronger. Her
primary message was "We're showing women how to make their own PLAN for
self-protection", and she frequently repeated the notion of "plan" as the
central goal of the Refuse to Be a Victim program. Unfortunately, most
viewers, and certainly the fellow who opposed her, were thinking "Sure,
the PLAN they are pushing is for women to buy guns." She should either
have been much more explicit about the fact that the program doesn't
involve any firearms training or she should have said something very
tantalizing like "Your assumptions about what is in this program are
completely wrong; Boy, will you be surprised when you find out what is in
it! If you want to find out, call for our booklet ..." Now I know that
she tried to do this, but it didn't come across well.
Sonny, please take all these comments in the constructuve way they were
intended. I'm truly delighted at all the press coverage and media
attention, and hope to see _you_ on the tube sometime soon!
- Lyn
PS. The statistics I quoted came from Preston Covey (head of the Center
for the Advancement of Applied Ethics at Carnegie Mellon University) in an
essay called "Gun Stats and Mortal Risks". His reasoning is as follows:
The figure of 960,000 gun defenses a year is the top-end estimate from
Kleck~s analysis of the research to date. The figure of 750,000 gun
defenses a year is more conservative and less liable to dismissal; it is
in the midrange of the 606,000 to 960,000 variance that Kleck allows. I
state the assumptions and rationale for the various estimates below.
CRIMINAL HOMICIDE: A gun is 245 times more likely to be used by a
non-criminal to defend against criminal threat than to commit criminal
homicide. (Assume 30,000 gun deaths per year; subtract suicides @
15,000: 30,000 - 15,000 = 15,000; subtract fatal gun accidents @ 1400
(per 1991): 15,000 - 1400 = 13,600. Assume a conservative rate of
self-defense (again, a midrange estimate) @ 10% of gun homicides in
general: .9 x 13,600 = 12,240 gun homicides not in self-defense. Assume
the finding of the 1991 Chicago Police Department in-depth study of
20,264 homicides from 1965-91 that 75% of gun homicides are committed by
criminals with prior records: .25 x 12,240 = 3,060 criminal homicides by
people with no record. 750,000 gun defenses per year divided by 3,060
= 245.)
ACCIDENTS: A gun is 535 times more likely to be used to defend against
criminal threat than to accidentally kill anybody. (Assume 750,000 gun
defenses per year divided by 1400 fatal gun accidents in 1991 = 535.)
HOMICIDE in general: A gun is 50 times more likely to be used to defend
against criminal threat than to kill another person. (Assume 750,000 gun
defenses divided by 15,000 gun homicides including self-defense = 50.)
SUICIDE: A gun is 50 times more likely to be used to defend against
criminal threat than to be used in suicide. (Assume 750,000 gun
defenses divided by 15,000 gun suicides = 50.)
=======================================================================
Lyn Bates
Vice President, We are AWARE
email: [b--t--s] at [bbn.com]
The usual disclaimers apply.
=======================================================================