Thread: Discussion Document regarding Arms Act

Originally Posted by Tentman

One of the big things in this will be how any changes are "framed" for the public and media.

There was an excellent example right in the first few posts to the linked Facebook thread.

Instead of saying "we should have semi auto centrefires back" we "frame" this as "the current regime for semi auto centrefires - the P endorsement - should be widened to allow suitably vetted persons to possess semi auto centrefires for x purposes"

I'm sure Colfo etc will be onto this sort of thing but we all need to be saying similar things to the wider public we interact with.

Sure, but it is a submission. What do you then follow that up with? Most statements like that will be disregarded by a panel because you have no evidence to back up what you are proposing.

To be fair, it should most probably read, "the current regime for semi auto centrefires - the P endorsement - should be widened to allow suitably vetted persons to possess semi auto centrefires for x purposes" - This should then be followed by a qualification of the statement. I realise the statement says 'for x purposes' but the most important part of the submission is not only the 'why' but the 'the data from the trusted source tells us that the outcomes are net positive if this were to happen as evidenced by scenario y'.

No 3 alluded to this above, I was just fleshing it out within the discussion.