Thread: Discussion Document regarding Arms Act

Originally Posted by inglishill

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.

I think @Tentman's point still stands, and it is that how an argument is framed is important. As firearms users, where our own assertions may make sense to us, they may not make sense to someone who lacks technical knowledge of the subject. In the same vein, we may find media articles featuring negative themes around firearms, much less alarming than someone with lack of contextual knowledge of the subject.
This is where it is important to shape advocacy to the audience, which here, is not the rest of us, but the wider public, who probably aren't prepared to do the intellectual heavy lifting needed to understand the deeper complexities of the landscape. I know I am not prepared or just don't have the time to do the same on many other things.

Granted, supporting statements with data is also crucial, but for best results, both of these approaches in tandem. Framing it the wrong way will just make valid assertions appear self serving or disconnected, which makes them easy to dismiss.