Every gun-related massacre brings out the most predictable and primitive reactions to
what is and should be a very nuanced policy discussion. In one outrageously boisterous
corner you have the hysterical elements of the left demanding the immediate implementation
of gun regulation that would, by every metric, fail to prevent each and every tragedy that
has provoked their indignation. In the other corner, you have a reflexively
partisan conglomerate of gun-rights' aficionados who clutch their rifles, thinking the more
they repeat slogans like "molon labe" and "from muh cold dead hands" the stronger
they make their case. In fact, it does the opposite.
At its core, the gun control debate is a matter of culture — this is why it represents
the flashpoint for so much political debate. This culture gap can only be narrowed through
a sincere investigation of the facts — and the facts happen to align all on one side.
First and foremost, the policy prescriptions that progressives adamantly insist upon would
have done absolutely nothing to prevent the most recent tragedy in Texas nor any other.
As is the case with many of the left's empathetically driven policies, they amount to knee jerk
reactions to issues that necessitate a bit more thought than "ban them!"
To the disbelief of many casual news consumers, Senator Rubio explained that no measure yet
proposed would have stopped any of these tragedies. The natural response would be to scoff and
perhaps point to a shadowy NRA mega-donor ventriloquist pulling the strings of their
Senator Puppet. How could it be that not one of the recent massacres could be prevented
by government regulation? The Washington Post then confirmed that reality
did in fact align with Rubio's statements. Not a single mass shooting would have been
prevented by the commonly cited regulations of "closing gun loopholes" or banning
"high-capacity magazines." What's important to understand is that 2/3rds
of gun deaths are by suicide, but they're lumped in with homicide to sensationalize
the matter. Instead of making that important distinction, they use the catch-all phrase
of "gun deaths" to misleadingly make a case for vaguely-defined "gun control"
measures. Even while the same measures they propose are already the law in California,
which is where three of the last five mass shootings took place. Unless, of course, we
banned so-called assault rifles at the federal level. This brings in to question what, exactly
would we do with the 5 million rifles already in circulation.
Although progressives would like to think a buyback program would look like Australia's,
it simply wouldn't. The United States is a country in which there are more guns than
there are people, with a history and tradition steeped in skepticism of government and the
rightful enshrinement of arms as a bulwark against such a pernicious force. Not to mention
mass shootings "were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program
to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions
had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths."
"Nobody should be allowed to have weapons of war," is repeated ad nauseum. And yet,
the overwhelming majority of gun-deaths aren't in the extraordinarily rare vain of a mass-shooting
by assault rifle. They are by the humble Glock, used primarily by and against young, gang-affiliated
men. When considering the facts of the matter,
you begin to understand that guns aren't the problem, but rather the culture of criminality
afflicting certain communities — the reasons for which are no doubt nested in a
larger debate about the War on Drugs, culture, etc. But if the so-called epidemic is almost
entirely centered around suicides and hand-guns, why is it that the AR-15 is always getting
the brunt of the blame? The reasons are primarily cultural, as the
NRA understands. But instead of bridging the divide and shedding light on progressive ignorance,
it inflames. It should be said on the outset that the NRA has done excellent work in the
defense of the 2nd Am., but in fashioning itself as a cultural extension of Trump or
the Republican Party, it does itself and the 2nd Am. a disservice. Yes, the vast majority
of those positively predisposed to guns lean right. This is largely due to the aforementioned
cultural reasons — for a person in Texas it isn't particularly uncommon to see someone
carrying a handgun on their waist, whereas the exact same sight in somewhere like California
would ignite panic. But these cultural phenomenons are irrelevant to the facs and if metropolitan
politicos were presented with such facts, they might be able to push through their culturally
ingrained discomfort and understand the truth of the matter.
But when NRATV fires off something titled "We're Coming For You New York Times"
it reinforces the precise kind of negative stereotypes that amp up metropolitan gun hysteria.
It's obviously silly to take these videos as anything more than cringe-inducing, childish
attempts at pandering to the lowest-common denominator of Republicans, but it didn't
take long for Democrats to do this. It opened the door for political opportunists to offer
a counter-reaction with such absurdly dangerous propositions like New York Congressman Kathleen
Rice's; that we ought to label the NRA a terrorist organization.
It harkens back to a time where top Democrats like then-Vice President Joe Biden likened
those in the Tea Party to terrorists. In this instance, they were referring to their hardline
stance on spending, but it has been a recurring theme by many on the left to paint the right
as a radical fringe who are just one gay marriage away from blowing up City Hall.
A case study in just how culturally-driven this debate is would be the progressive argument
that we shouldn't base our immigration policy on the statistically insignificant occurrences
of radical Islamic terror in the US. Meanwhile, they don't extend the same logic to gun
rights, even while the probability of your dying in a mass shooting is just as unlikely
as if you were to be killed by a terrorist. Statistics
only seem to matter when it suits your narrative in contemporary politics.
When the facts are so evidently aligned with the NRA's position, is it wise to play to
fears rather than to reverse them? Now more than ever is a well-reasoned, substantive
case for gun rights necessary — and this can only be done by turning the most
silly and fear-driven ignorance of guns on its head. This is the wiser and more effective
path than embodying the caricatures drawn up by metropolitan progressives.
Any policy interventions that have any hope of solving gun violence in America require
a sober, specific approach directed, not towards gun themselves, but the afflicted behind them.
Anything short of that is likely a fear mongering play at characterizing political opposition
as soulless monsters who trade lives for blood money.
In the end, we live in one of the most tranquil times in history. Though gun ownership has
skyrocketed by 50%, violent crime, including gun-crime, continues to take a nosedive. It's
easy to capitalize on isolated incidents of tragedy for political gain, but crafting actual
solutions takes a lot more thought.
For more infomation >> ¡Descubre los beneficios del Viagra en las mascotas! | Un Nuevo Día | Telemundo - Duration: 4:48. 
For more infomation >> Mejora su pintura oscura usando Black Light Glaze - Chemical Guys Car Care - Duration: 5:19. 
No comments:
Post a Comment