4 ms·

It's difficult to take that article with more than a grain of salt when there's clear political bias and a lack of proper sourcing from the start. Of course pol

It's difficult to take that article with more than a grain of salt when there's clear political bias and a lack of proper sourcing from the start. Of course political bias is inevitable, but to claim that our gun laws are the result of a takeover by "a minority of radical extermists" is ridiculous. Then when referencing hard numbers and talking about the influence the NRA may have had, she doesn't back that up with anything. Her "notes" are mostly other highly opinionated articles. Had she followed any form of standard or proper notation[1] it'd be easier to believe her. But usually when people fail to make their sources easily available it's because they don't have them/they are low quality. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources] Edit: Just to add another comment to this. Typically when someone claims that something which is supported by a large percentage or even the majority of a given population is the result of "extremism", they themselves are like the extremists, for better or for worse.

andyjohnson0 4y ago
> but to claim that our gun laws are the result of a takeover by "a minority of radical extermists" is ridiculous Why is it ridiculous? Where are your sources for that?
- MathCodeLove 4y ago
  The fact that the majority of Americans have voted time and time again to get our gun laws to where they are today is my source. It's not "extremism" if it wins by popular vote.
  - andyjohnson0 4y ago
    > The fact that the majority of Americans have voted time and time again to get our gun laws to where they are today is my source. Your gun laws are made by politicians who are elected for a wide variety of reasons, not just their stance on firearms. So I think its rather a stretch to say that you have the gun laws that you have due to them being the will of the majority. In fact, according to Gallup, the majority in the US (over many decades) want stricter gun control [1, particularly the second chart]. (And I'm sure the $190 million [2] that gun-rights lobby groups have spent in over the last 24 years contributed to the laws being the way they are.) > It's not "extremism" if it wins by popular vote. That sounds worryingly like the usual justification for the Tyranny of the Majority to me. Not everything that is popular is unextreme or justified - and history is full of instances where societies have ended up in a hole due to this type of reasoning. Democracy isn't just about voting, its about to manage differences. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx [2] https://fortune.com/2022/05/25/nra-contributions-politicians-lobbying-gun-rights-groups-record-2021-ted-cruz/ https://fortune.com/2022/05/25/nra-contributions-politicians...
    - GiorgioG 4y ago
      > Your gun laws are made by politicians who are elected for a wide variety of reasons, not just their stance on firearms. You'd be amazed at how many people are single-issue voters.
      - relaxing 4y ago
        He'd probably wouldn't -- it's right there in the link he provided. Right around 25% of voters say a politician has to support their view on control (for or against.)
    - MockObject 4y ago
      Nevertheless, a large number of US citizens committed to the defense of their right to keep and bear arms simply isn't "a minority of radical extremists", regardless of the vehemence of your disagreement. There is not much political will for more gun control right now. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/16/democrats-gun-owners-522562 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/16/democrats-...
refurb 4y ago
Indeed. Prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act, you could order pretty much any gun through the mail. The political violence and radicalism of the 60’s drove the legislation. Only automatic weapons were controlled before that. So seems silly to claim “radicals took over the NRA” when any type of gun control is a very recent phenomenon. Hell, even during the 80’s most of the US had incredibly lax gun control laws compared to what is being suggested today.
- andyjohnson0 4y ago
  I don't understand why "any type of gun control is a very recent phenomenon" means that a claim that "radicals took over the NRA" is "silly". Whats the reasoning?
  - refurb 4y ago
    The claim is that the NRA was "radicalized". However, the same time the NRA was "radicalized", new more restrictive gun control law was pursued. Why would anyone be surprised the NRA went from "all about recreational shooting" to "aggressive gun rights organization" at the same time restrictive guns laws were introduced? They had no reason to aggressively oppose gun control laws because none were being discussed. It's like saying a homeowner "suddenly became violent" when someone tried to break into his home. There was nothing "sudden" about it, it was a response to an external trigger.

andyjohnson0 4y ago

> but to claim that our gun laws are the result of a takeover by "a minority of radical extermists" is ridiculous Why is it ridiculous? Where are your sources for that?

MathCodeLove 4y ago
The fact that the majority of Americans have voted time and time again to get our gun laws to where they are today is my source. It's not "extremism" if it wins by popular vote.
- andyjohnson0 4y ago
  > The fact that the majority of Americans have voted time and time again to get our gun laws to where they are today is my source. Your gun laws are made by politicians who are elected for a wide variety of reasons, not just their stance on firearms. So I think its rather a stretch to say that you have the gun laws that you have due to them being the will of the majority. In fact, according to Gallup, the majority in the US (over many decades) want stricter gun control [1, particularly the second chart]. (And I'm sure the $190 million [2] that gun-rights lobby groups have spent in over the last 24 years contributed to the laws being the way they are.) > It's not "extremism" if it wins by popular vote. That sounds worryingly like the usual justification for the Tyranny of the Majority to me. Not everything that is popular is unextreme or justified - and history is full of instances where societies have ended up in a hole due to this type of reasoning. Democracy isn't just about voting, its about to manage differences. [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx [2] https://fortune.com/2022/05/25/nra-contributions-politicians-lobbying-gun-rights-groups-record-2021-ted-cruz/ https://fortune.com/2022/05/25/nra-contributions-politicians...
  - GiorgioG 4y ago
    > Your gun laws are made by politicians who are elected for a wide variety of reasons, not just their stance on firearms. You'd be amazed at how many people are single-issue voters.
    - relaxing 4y ago
      He'd probably wouldn't -- it's right there in the link he provided. Right around 25% of voters say a politician has to support their view on control (for or against.)
  - MockObject 4y ago
    Nevertheless, a large number of US citizens committed to the defense of their right to keep and bear arms simply isn't "a minority of radical extremists", regardless of the vehemence of your disagreement. There is not much political will for more gun control right now. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/16/democrats-gun-owners-522562 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/16/democrats-...

refurb 4y ago

Indeed. Prior to the 1968 Gun Control Act, you could order pretty much any gun through the mail. The political violence and radicalism of the 60’s drove the legislation. Only automatic weapons were controlled before that. So seems silly to claim “radicals took over the NRA” when any type of gun control is a very recent phenomenon. Hell, even during the 80’s most of the US had incredibly lax gun control laws compared to what is being suggested today.

andyjohnson0 4y ago
I don't understand why "any type of gun control is a very recent phenomenon" means that a claim that "radicals took over the NRA" is "silly". Whats the reasoning?
- refurb 4y ago
  The claim is that the NRA was "radicalized". However, the same time the NRA was "radicalized", new more restrictive gun control law was pursued. Why would anyone be surprised the NRA went from "all about recreational shooting" to "aggressive gun rights organization" at the same time restrictive guns laws were introduced? They had no reason to aggressively oppose gun control laws because none were being discussed. It's like saying a homeowner "suddenly became violent" when someone tried to break into his home. There was nothing "sudden" about it, it was a response to an external trigger.