Examining The Gun-Control Topic from a Rational Perspective (Part 2)
Polarization Re-Added
One Could Compare The NRA To a Cult
Any topic should be
examined from a rational perspective, free from rhetoric or those
promoting absurd conspiracy theories and making false claims.
Unfortunately, many become blind to their own fear and paranoia,
believing those absurd claims rather than embracing sound reasoning. One
could liken this to being in a cult.
For many, whatever the organization says becomes true. Even though no politician made promoted policies that would take away people's gun's, if the NRA declared that any random politician wanted to take away people's guns, then that claim magically becomes true for many. They don't need evidence to support their claim; "Evidence is for idiots!", " You can just take their word for it", "They have your best interest in heart!".
Their is a word for a group that makes absurd claims and uses fear as a instrument of control, declaring that they are a pillar of trust, demands control over thought, and manipulates people to blindly following their word at all cost; it's called a cult.
People want the claim to be true. For many wanting these claims to be true, just wishing for it makes it so just out of shear will. They don't want their views debunked by fact-checkers. Many want to believe they are persecuted souls that fear the men with fancy suits coming to take away their guns and send them to concentration camps. It's the mindset of the paranoid. They believe the claims, despite them not being based on actual merit, because it fits into their worldview. The persecution complex because real for those that blindly embrace whatever claim their preferred masters declare.
One could liken the NRA as the political equivalent of a cult. Wayne LaPierre is the NRA's version of David Koresh. They sell the idea that they can stop Armageddon if you only "trust him". The only difference between the two is that Wayne's LaPierre nightmare scenario doesn't have to be played out to validate his beliefs. The reason for this is that he and the NRA only wants your money, and if they can get it by selling fear, then so be it. Their leaders are only in it for the money and notoriety, and never about the "cause" that they proclaim. The "cause" is a front to control members and become the thought police and control people as they manipulate them (for their money). Sad for an organization that use to have merit and credibility at one point, but traded it in for the love of money, and using fear-mongering to get that green.
They will immediately demonize anything that they perceive to be a threat to their profits, even if it's politically neutral or don't have any political motivations. Because of the NRA's grip on the political system, government funded health groups were prevented from doing a objective study of gun violence from a health perspective because it was seen as infringing on people's rights, even if the group had no political affiliation or motivations. Yet, the NRA will declare these groups as threats because their a danger to their bottom line. Groups that have advocated for objective research on the topic have been condemned as anti-gun frantics by the NRA. Their is no middle ground from the NRA's perspective.
It has become serving to big money donors and the gun manufacturers, showing little interest for the typical gun owner. If their wasn't a monetary motivation into protecting people's rights, then they wouldn't be defending it. One could even go as far to say that the NRA, and excuse my language, don't give a damn about people's gun rights. They are only interested in collecting your money.
This claim sounds highly sensationalized. However, data can back up this claim. I like data because it allows me to form a opinion based on numbers and not political rhetoric or party doctrine. Going through data collected by OpenSecrets.org (linked below), I discovered that the NRA receive the vast majority of their contributions from organizations, not individuals. That alone should should say something. In fact, the NRA collected 59 times more money from PAC's (Political Action Committee, which are essentially groups specifically deigned to raise money to support or defeat candidates) than from individuals. For those that say that big money isn't a issue. the following stats would very much beg to differ.
The NRA spent around $10.2 million in lobbying from 2017-2018. Their spending of supporting and defeating candidates amounted to around $9.5 million for 2017-2018. The data also shows that the NRA isn't politically objective either, and they have a preferred political slant and bias. $5 million was spent supporting Republican candidates, verses the $44,000 against them, while $4.3 million was spent against Democrat candidates, vs. $12,000 for them.
To say that the organization loves spending money is a understatement. Unfortunately, for those in the NRA who love money, they discovered how to make insane amounts of it real quickly: by scaring the living crap out of people. If you tell gullible people and organizations with loads of money (since this where the vast majority of their funding comes from) very sensationalized claims that boogeymen are out to establish a authoritarian state, and they're counting the seconds to take away your guns, then those gullible groups will start donating like crazy believing that their are politicians out to get them and that these threats are real.
The gun manufactures have a piece in the pie as well. Their is a reason why the NRA want the Second Amendment to be interpreted as owning any gun to your hearts content without regulation. It isn't because they are genuinely concerned with your gun rights. They see millions of new potential members that they can collect fees from. The more guns, the more members: simple as that. Simple economics my dear Watson.
Getting new members is relatively easy as well. Even though the Second Amendment was never under threat or their was never a possibility of people's guns being taken away, one can create many new members if you tell the general population that Obama is counting the seconds to pass legislation to prevent people from acquire them, and will send you to FEMA concentrations camps(Thank you Alex Jones)if you resist , a claim that doesn't reflect reality.
Pages were ripped from history books as well. After World War 1, the country entered into a economic recession. During this time, several labor strikes occurred. Even some some strikers expressed interest and sympathies to Communism, the vast majority of workers showed no interest in the system, striking for the things that they always were in need of: better pay and safer working conditions. wealthy Capitalist found a new scapegoat to blame their issues on: Communism. The 1920's Red Scare was set in motion by this point. These Capitalist bosses labeled all strikers as Communist agitators that were out to destroy Capitalism, even though this was very far from the truth.
Using these scare tactics, the NRA labeled the student protesters that participated in the nationwide protest after the Parkland Shooting as Radicals that were against the Second Amendment, anti-gun, and planning on taking away people's firearms, which was also far from the truth. Engaging in Whataboutism, they took views of extreme students on the fringes and redefined it as the the mainstream view for the entire student body.
Because it's a profit-driven entity, It's in the best interest of the NRA to arm the general population. The NRA moved away from a respectable past because they loved the color of money. Because they used fear as a instrument to profit from, a whole generation of people have been taught that the Democrats are anti-gun Marxist out to create a authoritarian state, and they are on the verge taking away people's weapons any second now. Despite no one advocating such measures, many hear the words echoed by the NRA as "call to arms" to "take back the country". Since this is a issue of economics, the NRA presents the picture that you either have to believe in unrestricted access to any type of gun that you want to your hearts content without regulation. Again, unrestricted gun access means millions of new members to collect tribute from.
Not only that, Russia have a vested interest as well. At this point, there's a Russian connection within the organization, infiltrated by various individuals over the past couple of years. Their money made it into the NRA war-chest as well.
The sad thing is that the NRA could have gotten their money, while still having credibility, because many potential members wanting guns for self-defense or hunting (and politically neutral on the topic) would have gravitated towards the organization anyway. Hand-guns and sporting rifles were never a threat. Even in countries that have very restrictive gun-control, like Australia, it's possible for law-abiding individuals to acquire such guns legally. The reason for this is that such weapons serve as much a defensive as much as a offensive purpose. One could effectively defend their home and life with them. They also can't rapidly mass-murder dozens quickly with such firearms. If people feel that their is a valid need to get small arms or hunting rifles, then get them. There's no entity that's stopping you or ever planned on stopping you to get that firearm, because gun regulation doesn't mean that. As noted earlier, it's possible to be in favor of gun regulation and even being a gun owner because regulation doesn't mean taking guns away from people or infringing on their rights. Memes that declare that "maybe they should hold the criminal accountable instead" are moot as they often are in the vast majority of cases. However, this isn't stopping the violence.
What troubles me is when people buy guns cause they feel that the "government is out to get them". Over the years, I've talked to a couple of gun-owners that are NRA members. They basically said that their members just because they can get discounts on their bullets or use the firing range (some require NRA membership for legality reasons). They actually despise the politicization of the NRA, and get offended when they exploit fear in the news letters proclaiming that the Democrats are out to get them.
The NRA constant use of unfounded fears to collect money to pay off politicians gets old for those that discover that those fears weren't rooted in reality. Especially when those unrealistic conspiracy theories never materialized (because the chances of them occurring wasn't in the cards to begin with).
For many, whatever the organization says becomes true. Even though no politician made promoted policies that would take away people's gun's, if the NRA declared that any random politician wanted to take away people's guns, then that claim magically becomes true for many. They don't need evidence to support their claim; "Evidence is for idiots!", " You can just take their word for it", "They have your best interest in heart!".
Their is a word for a group that makes absurd claims and uses fear as a instrument of control, declaring that they are a pillar of trust, demands control over thought, and manipulates people to blindly following their word at all cost; it's called a cult.
People want the claim to be true. For many wanting these claims to be true, just wishing for it makes it so just out of shear will. They don't want their views debunked by fact-checkers. Many want to believe they are persecuted souls that fear the men with fancy suits coming to take away their guns and send them to concentration camps. It's the mindset of the paranoid. They believe the claims, despite them not being based on actual merit, because it fits into their worldview. The persecution complex because real for those that blindly embrace whatever claim their preferred masters declare.
One could liken the NRA as the political equivalent of a cult. Wayne LaPierre is the NRA's version of David Koresh. They sell the idea that they can stop Armageddon if you only "trust him". The only difference between the two is that Wayne's LaPierre nightmare scenario doesn't have to be played out to validate his beliefs. The reason for this is that he and the NRA only wants your money, and if they can get it by selling fear, then so be it. Their leaders are only in it for the money and notoriety, and never about the "cause" that they proclaim. The "cause" is a front to control members and become the thought police and control people as they manipulate them (for their money). Sad for an organization that use to have merit and credibility at one point, but traded it in for the love of money, and using fear-mongering to get that green.
They will immediately demonize anything that they perceive to be a threat to their profits, even if it's politically neutral or don't have any political motivations. Because of the NRA's grip on the political system, government funded health groups were prevented from doing a objective study of gun violence from a health perspective because it was seen as infringing on people's rights, even if the group had no political affiliation or motivations. Yet, the NRA will declare these groups as threats because their a danger to their bottom line. Groups that have advocated for objective research on the topic have been condemned as anti-gun frantics by the NRA. Their is no middle ground from the NRA's perspective.
It has become serving to big money donors and the gun manufacturers, showing little interest for the typical gun owner. If their wasn't a monetary motivation into protecting people's rights, then they wouldn't be defending it. One could even go as far to say that the NRA, and excuse my language, don't give a damn about people's gun rights. They are only interested in collecting your money.
This claim sounds highly sensationalized. However, data can back up this claim. I like data because it allows me to form a opinion based on numbers and not political rhetoric or party doctrine. Going through data collected by OpenSecrets.org (linked below), I discovered that the NRA receive the vast majority of their contributions from organizations, not individuals. That alone should should say something. In fact, the NRA collected 59 times more money from PAC's (Political Action Committee, which are essentially groups specifically deigned to raise money to support or defeat candidates) than from individuals. For those that say that big money isn't a issue. the following stats would very much beg to differ.
The NRA spent around $10.2 million in lobbying from 2017-2018. Their spending of supporting and defeating candidates amounted to around $9.5 million for 2017-2018. The data also shows that the NRA isn't politically objective either, and they have a preferred political slant and bias. $5 million was spent supporting Republican candidates, verses the $44,000 against them, while $4.3 million was spent against Democrat candidates, vs. $12,000 for them.
To say that the organization loves spending money is a understatement. Unfortunately, for those in the NRA who love money, they discovered how to make insane amounts of it real quickly: by scaring the living crap out of people. If you tell gullible people and organizations with loads of money (since this where the vast majority of their funding comes from) very sensationalized claims that boogeymen are out to establish a authoritarian state, and they're counting the seconds to take away your guns, then those gullible groups will start donating like crazy believing that their are politicians out to get them and that these threats are real.
The gun manufactures have a piece in the pie as well. Their is a reason why the NRA want the Second Amendment to be interpreted as owning any gun to your hearts content without regulation. It isn't because they are genuinely concerned with your gun rights. They see millions of new potential members that they can collect fees from. The more guns, the more members: simple as that. Simple economics my dear Watson.
Getting new members is relatively easy as well. Even though the Second Amendment was never under threat or their was never a possibility of people's guns being taken away, one can create many new members if you tell the general population that Obama is counting the seconds to pass legislation to prevent people from acquire them, and will send you to FEMA concentrations camps(Thank you Alex Jones)if you resist , a claim that doesn't reflect reality.
Pages were ripped from history books as well. After World War 1, the country entered into a economic recession. During this time, several labor strikes occurred. Even some some strikers expressed interest and sympathies to Communism, the vast majority of workers showed no interest in the system, striking for the things that they always were in need of: better pay and safer working conditions. wealthy Capitalist found a new scapegoat to blame their issues on: Communism. The 1920's Red Scare was set in motion by this point. These Capitalist bosses labeled all strikers as Communist agitators that were out to destroy Capitalism, even though this was very far from the truth.
Using these scare tactics, the NRA labeled the student protesters that participated in the nationwide protest after the Parkland Shooting as Radicals that were against the Second Amendment, anti-gun, and planning on taking away people's firearms, which was also far from the truth. Engaging in Whataboutism, they took views of extreme students on the fringes and redefined it as the the mainstream view for the entire student body.
Because it's a profit-driven entity, It's in the best interest of the NRA to arm the general population. The NRA moved away from a respectable past because they loved the color of money. Because they used fear as a instrument to profit from, a whole generation of people have been taught that the Democrats are anti-gun Marxist out to create a authoritarian state, and they are on the verge taking away people's weapons any second now. Despite no one advocating such measures, many hear the words echoed by the NRA as "call to arms" to "take back the country". Since this is a issue of economics, the NRA presents the picture that you either have to believe in unrestricted access to any type of gun that you want to your hearts content without regulation. Again, unrestricted gun access means millions of new members to collect tribute from.
Not only that, Russia have a vested interest as well. At this point, there's a Russian connection within the organization, infiltrated by various individuals over the past couple of years. Their money made it into the NRA war-chest as well.
The sad thing is that the NRA could have gotten their money, while still having credibility, because many potential members wanting guns for self-defense or hunting (and politically neutral on the topic) would have gravitated towards the organization anyway. Hand-guns and sporting rifles were never a threat. Even in countries that have very restrictive gun-control, like Australia, it's possible for law-abiding individuals to acquire such guns legally. The reason for this is that such weapons serve as much a defensive as much as a offensive purpose. One could effectively defend their home and life with them. They also can't rapidly mass-murder dozens quickly with such firearms. If people feel that their is a valid need to get small arms or hunting rifles, then get them. There's no entity that's stopping you or ever planned on stopping you to get that firearm, because gun regulation doesn't mean that. As noted earlier, it's possible to be in favor of gun regulation and even being a gun owner because regulation doesn't mean taking guns away from people or infringing on their rights. Memes that declare that "maybe they should hold the criminal accountable instead" are moot as they often are in the vast majority of cases. However, this isn't stopping the violence.
What troubles me is when people buy guns cause they feel that the "government is out to get them". Over the years, I've talked to a couple of gun-owners that are NRA members. They basically said that their members just because they can get discounts on their bullets or use the firing range (some require NRA membership for legality reasons). They actually despise the politicization of the NRA, and get offended when they exploit fear in the news letters proclaiming that the Democrats are out to get them.
The NRA constant use of unfounded fears to collect money to pay off politicians gets old for those that discover that those fears weren't rooted in reality. Especially when those unrealistic conspiracy theories never materialized (because the chances of them occurring wasn't in the cards to begin with).
Links of Interest
National Rifle Association (Criticism)
Wikipedia
WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Wayne LaPierre (Criticism)
Wikipedia
WWW.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
N.R.A. Seeks Distance From Russia as Investigations Heat Up
NYTIMES
WWW.NYTIMES.COM
NRA in crisis: how the gun group became ensnared in the Russia inquiry
The Guardian
WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM
Trust Issues
I use to largely
conform to the mindset described above. However, when I learned that the
conspiracy theories and rhetoric wasn't true, and that nobody was out
to get me or planning on creating concentration camps to punish gun
owners, I've been had. The Republican Party lied to me about this and
other issues over the years.
Many people have misgivings about the Democrat Party as well. Even though I'm largely sympathetic to them, I refuse to whole-heartily embrace them because I've been burned before. I can be burned again. People open declare that they don't trust the Democrat Party. I have trust issues as well, so I can relate in this manner.
Despite this though, having trust issues doesn't provide the excuse to assume that the groups in question are lying pieces of crap. Despite my prejudices against the Republican Party and the NRA, my views aren't written in stone either. If they can make a compelling case without resorting to biased rhetoric, then I'm all ears.
Many people have misgivings about the Democrat Party as well. Even though I'm largely sympathetic to them, I refuse to whole-heartily embrace them because I've been burned before. I can be burned again. People open declare that they don't trust the Democrat Party. I have trust issues as well, so I can relate in this manner.
Despite this though, having trust issues doesn't provide the excuse to assume that the groups in question are lying pieces of crap. Despite my prejudices against the Republican Party and the NRA, my views aren't written in stone either. If they can make a compelling case without resorting to biased rhetoric, then I'm all ears.
Conclusion
Within the
abortion topic, their is a stigma that birth control = abortion even
though their separate entities, that same mentality exist within the
gun-control topic as well. Many people see as gun control = banning
guns. This isn't the same thing.
I also try to back
up as many of my opinions on data and statistics as well, and not
conform to political biases and stereotypes. That's why I'm very
selective of the sources that I use when looking at the numbers. Often I
examine MBFC (Media Bias Fact Check) to consult the sources that I use
in my articles. Sources that are mostly objective, but have slight to
moderate liberal bias, like The Guardian, BBC and CBS News, are used
because they have extremely high factual reporting scores. Sources like
OpenSecrets and Wikipedia are very objective and free of political bias,
while still maintaining high factual reporting score as well.
This article is greatly influenced by the video "The Complete Moderate's Guide to Gun Control" by YouTuber KnowBetter. He has really awesome content on various topics, and I highly recommend checking it out.
This article is greatly influenced by the video "The Complete Moderate's Guide to Gun Control" by YouTuber KnowBetter. He has really awesome content on various topics, and I highly recommend checking it out.
I can make the very safe assumption that the vast majority of gun owners are very proficient and responsible gun-owners that utilize their firearms as tools to protect their family or used in hunting. I can also make the safe assumption that the vast majority don't subscribe to the extreme polarized views constantly touted by the NRA. They want to be in a organization that just reflect their interest, and not promote divisive content that doesn't accurately reflect reality.
Their is a issue though. It's very easy for those that don't exercise the same restraint to get their hands on firearms as well. They poses both a safety and heath risk.
At this time, even I would admit that gun-control by itself isn't the solution. Their are many contributing factors to violence. These acts would still happen. Even in countries with strict laws, shootings do still happen. However, many come to the conclusion that if you can't stop it, it's not even worth a try. Again, this is a pathetic response. While it can never be eliminated, can be significantly reduced. The Sanctity of Life is a worthy topic that demands deep exploration. As noted in my abortion topic, just being against abortion doesn't make a person "Pro-Life". that same mentality applies here as well.
This is a complex issue. It's not black-and-white that many people make it out to be. In several ways this article, is very reminiscent of my abortion topic one. Making abortions illegal isn't going to make it magically go away, like how outlawing guns (which isn't realistically feasible as their are now more guns than people in this country) won't making killings stop. As like the abortion topic where it's possible to reduce abortions without infringing on woman's rights, it's possible to reduce gun violence without infringing on people's rights to bear arms.
The firearms equivalent of safe sex and birth control is common-sense gun control measures that still provide law-abiding citizens the right to own guns. Measures that require a vigorous background check. People with criminal records can't own them. Many states ready have this, but it needs to be implemented on the national level. Within the abortion topic, their is a stigma that birth control = abortion even though their separate entities, that same mentality exist within the gun-control topic as well. Many people see as gun control = banning guns. This isn't the same thing.
Another comparison between the two is that like how In order for the abortion topic to be addressed in a civil manner with all parties involved, anti-abortionist activist will have to be a active participate in that dialogue. It's the same in the gun-control debate as well: gun owners will have to participate in it as well.
Gun violence, like abortion, can be greatly reduced if poverty is addressed in a national scope. Poverty is a contributing factor to gang and drug violence as well. Rejecting extremism is important as well. Not promoting violent rhetoric helps too. We need to celebrate life instead of guns. Guns are tools that people have a right to own, but they are not symbols of freedom that many make them out to be. Their tools that have their place, and that's it. We lose when we feel that the right to own guns overrides the Sanctity of Life itself.
Wrapping Up..... (For Real Now)
Don't base that vote on the fears of invisible boogeymen.
I'm not going to
tell people how to vote. I made my case based on collected data and
formed opinions based on those numbers. This article is here to let you
know how I feel about the article. If you agree with me, then more
power. If you respectfully disagree with me on equal terms, then that's
fine too. My conclusions were made by the data, not by party policies
of either political party. In my own personal opinion, being a
Independent and a moderate rocks. Free from the tribalism of the
political parties. I will end the article with this:
Vote based on the issue and not how others tell you to vote. If you agree with common-sense gun regulation from a rational perspective, vote Democrat. If you disagree with common-sense gun regulation from a rational perspective, vote Republican. Vote base on how you feel. but don't vote how the Republicans, Democrats, or the NRA tells you to vote. Don't base that vote on the fears of invisible boogeymen. If you vote for your party instead of the issue, then the system just failed you.
Vote based on the issue and not how others tell you to vote. If you agree with common-sense gun regulation from a rational perspective, vote Democrat. If you disagree with common-sense gun regulation from a rational perspective, vote Republican. Vote base on how you feel. but don't vote how the Republicans, Democrats, or the NRA tells you to vote. Don't base that vote on the fears of invisible boogeymen. If you vote for your party instead of the issue, then the system just failed you.
Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA
FRONTLINE
WWW.PBS.ORG
FRONTLINE
WWW.PBS.ORG
Joe Biden says he will champion a ban on assault weapons, not all guns
PolitiFact
WWW.POLITIFACT.COM
Editors Personal Note: I'm upset because
organizations making absurd, inaccurate claims that are
sensationalist in nature forces me to defend a politician that I'm not
particular fond of. Like the Washington insider tool of the
corporate DNC above. However, when one makes fact-checking a cause, that
is bound to happen. Even Trump needs a bone tossed to him once in a
awhile.
Comments
Post a Comment