Grasping at Straws: Report Spins 6-Year-Old NSSF Study to Push Gun Control
The Trace twists an old NSSF report into something anti-gun.
by Dave Workman and Lee Williams
A new report at The Trace—the pro-gun-control publication backed by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg—is using, and essentially misrepresenting, a six-year-old study on messaging, done for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, to suggest American gun owners “could be persuaded by the value of reforms that are vigorously opposed by the gun industry, gun rights groups, and Republican lawmakers.”
The NSSF study, conducted in 2019 for the firearms industry trade association by Responsive Management of Harrisonburg, Virginia, was done so that NSSF members, from industry chiefs to local retailers, “to provide information that they need to be successful in their communities,” according to NSSF Public Affairs Director Mark Oliva.
The study was obtained by The Trace, which is apparently doing a series of articles, to contend so-called “gun reforms” might be embraced by American gun owners. These reforms “include universal background checks, red flag laws, and even a gun registry,” The Trace says.
The Trace is considered by critics to be a Bloomberg-financed “propaganda newsroom” to promote gun control. That The Trace has sometimes published stories “in partnership” with other publications, such as the New Yorker and New York Times, has alarmed critics who suggest this underscores misgivings about the media’s anti-gun bias.
In an interview, Oliva says The Trace article—done in partnership with Rolling Stone magazine—“is grasping at straws… There’s no ‘there’ there.”
Put more bluntly, Oliva said Trace author Mike Spies is “Trying to hurt us, but I don’t think he’s landing a punch.”
The NSSF study, titled “Communicating with the American Public About Firearm Ownership: The Effectiveness of Pro- and Anti-Firearms Ownership Messages” actually amounts to an effort not unlike what the gun prohibition lobby produced in 2012 following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, but with a far different objective.
That 80-page document was revealed by a series of articles in The Gun Mag and at the old Gun Rights Examiner. It was titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” and was the basis of a 2014 book co-authored by Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, titled Dancing in Blood: Exposing the Gun Ban Lobby’s Playbook to Destroy Your Rights.
As explained in its introduction, “Preventing Gun Violence…” was the result of research which “drew a vivid portrait of the attitudes and opinions of a number of key audiences and offered clear messaging guidance for those advocating more vigorous efforts to build public support for critical gun violence prevention measures.
“This guide is intended to help organizations and individuals choose effective arguments and language when communicating with the public on behalf of stronger public policies to prevent gun violence.” Translation: It helps gun control advocates with their messaging.
And what is the message anti-gunners want to disseminate? In their own playbook, anti-gunners caution, “Do talk about preventing ‘gun violence.’ Don’t talk about ‘gun control.’”
“Do advocate for ‘stronger’ gun laws. Don’t use the term ‘stricter’ gun laws.”
It is all about semantics and what many in the Second Amendment community have come to identify as “camo speak” — words or phrases designed to mask the end goal and mislead the public into supporting the effort. Simply put, gun control proponents, evidently including authors at The Trace, change the dialogue.
Both Oliva and Gottlieb cited a perfect example of this is advocating for so-called “universal background checks,” which—independently of one another—they said is a term which camouflages the true intent, which is gun registration.
“The devil is in the details,” Gottlieb cautioned. “Universal background checks equals universal registration.”
Oliva added, “For (universal) background checks to work, you need to have a national registry. That makes people very nervous.”
It is this environment in which firearms makers and retailers can use help in discussing gun ownership with the public—including sometimes skeptical or nervous first-time buyers—and that’s where the NSSF’s research from 2019 offers some guidelines.
Oliva said via email that The Trace is “trying to spin the study.”
“The study examined the reasons some argue for gun control,” he said. “We never validated any of those arguments. We’re not embracing any of these arguments.”
On the telephone, Oliva stated candidly, “All these arguments for gun control fall apart.”
The study notes that the top arguments in opposition to firearms ownership “pertain to the danger to society theme, as well as the argument that posits that firearms are not necessary,” which are essentially emotion-driven.
1. No civilian needs a military-style firearm.
2. Easy access to guns is why the U.S. has a gun problem.
3. The U.S. has a much higher rate of gun violence than other similar, wealthy countries.
4. Gun violence is an epidemic in the U.S.
5. Gun violence is a public health crisis.
However, the study observes, “Although these people, or at least some of them, have fairly set feelings that will be difficult to change, they are still people to which outreach should be directed. For these respondents, the rights, defense, and skills/recreation themes resonated the best.”
Their top 5 arguments are:
1. Self-defense is a basic right.
2. Americans have the right to own a gun
3. Current gun laws are not enforced; criminal use of a firearm is already illegal.
4. Owning and training with a firearm teaches important skills, including responsibility, accuracy, safe gun handling, self-defense, and strategies to avoid dangerous situations.
5. Gun ownership is protected by the Constitution.
Meanwhile, the 2012 gun control “playbook,” as it was described by Second Amendment advocates, contained passages which appear to have become central arguments for gun bans and other restrictions: “The notion that today’s weapons are different in kind from what was available in the past is an especially powerful idea and helps make the case for new levels of concern and scrutiny around access to weapons.”
Elsewhere, the playbook—which was not mentioned by The Trace, even for comparison—included this point: “It’s not just about words. Powerful and emotionally-engaging images are vitally important reinforcers of strong messages. For example, intimidating images of military-style weapons help bring to life the point that we are dealing with a different situation than in earlier times.”
Indeed, relying on emotion rather than facts was the key element:
“#1: Always focus on emotional and value-driven arguments about gun violence, not the political food fight in Washington or wonky statistics.”
So, while the gun prohibition movement prioritizes emotional arguments, the NSSF study focused on facts and data. It would be up to the reader/consumer to determine which was, and remains, the more common-sense approach.
Dave Workman is editor-in-chief at TheGunMag.com, which is the official publication of the Second Amendment Foundation.
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
Gun controllers have no good arguments. Never did. The sole reason that miserable movement still exists is because it is generously funded by billionaires (and until recently - US taxpayers).
They fund “intellectuals” (who are just pretentious pricks who like to overwrite every single sentence in a pseudo-profound manner) who publish hit pieces and come up with new euphemisms.
The emotional element is what gets dragged out after every well publicized/politicized shooting. It is the only bloody rag the Anti-2A side has.
Facts become damned; the perpetrators of these events are criminally in violation of high level misdemeanors (>6 mos. Jail time) or felony violation of Federal or State weapons laws long before the actual act.
The recent Minn. shooter is an example. If they worked at a cannabis dispensary, they sampled the goods; a Federal 922 prohibited possessor. (Please, lets not be delusional, it used the weed.) The descent in to emotional distress should have triggered any Minn red flag laws.
Frankly, as long as the Progressive Democrat Elites are willing to toss firearms related charges in the commission of criminal acts; any "gun control" laws; the law is nothing more than hypocritical hyperbole.