Agnostic.com

3 3

LINK Why the NRA Always Wins - POLITICO Magazine

Like a religion? It's also about privilege. It's about fear culture. It's about cognitive dissonance.

It’s not the money. It’s the culture.

Your burning outrage about the Parkland school massacre is already starting to flicker. The special counsel’s indictments of the Russian hacker operation, and President Donald Trump’s dizzying response to them, is competing for your attention (“This is code red” says New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman). And what’s that shiny object over there? A case for impeaching Justice Clarence Thomas? (“Drop everything and read this” urged HuffPost Editor-in-Chief Lydia Polgreen.)

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association and its allies are maintaining their maniacal focus. Rush Limbaugh went on Fox News, right after an interview with several Parkland survivors critical of the gun lobby, to scold those who “bash the NRA” and insist the only solution to school shootings is “concealed carry in the schools.” The NRA’s 24-7 streaming network NRATV echoed the sentiment with the familiar refrain, “we need more good guys with guns.” Hosts complained that the school had only one armed guard, while advertising the NRA’s “School Shield” security initiative to freshly terrified school administrations.

Why does the NRA always win, despite the repeated national traumas, and despite poll after poll showing a majority in favor of stronger gun control measures? It’s not the money. It’s because the NRA has built a movement that has convinced its followers that gun ownership is a way of life, central to one’s freedom and safety, that must be defended on a daily basis.

The gun control majority gets worked up only in the days after public mass shootings, even though such events accounted for only 71 of the 38,658 annual gun fatalities in 2016. Then the news coverage shifts, political prospects for action diminish, and the majority gravitates to other political matters while guns continue to take lives in suicides, domestic violence incidents, other crimes and accidents every day.

Since the progressive political prism views campaign cash as the scourge of democracy, gun control proponents are quick to blame NRA donations for why Congress seems immune to public opinion. In a powerful speech last week in Florida, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School senior Emma Gonzalez excoriated “politicians who sit in their gilded House and Senate seats funded by the NRA telling us nothing could have been done to prevent this” and added, “To every politician who is taking donations from the NRA, shame on you.”

But it’s a mistake to attribute the NRA’s success entirely to its campaign spending. The dollar amount was considerable in 2016: $54.4 million. But that money was not spent on the entire Congress. Thirty million went to Donald Trump, the rest mainly to six Republican Senate candidates in competitive races, five of whom won. For most members of Congress, the amount of money they get from the NRA is a tiny percentage of their overall hauls. If money were the only reason for their gun rights stances, Michael Bloomberg could offer to double whatever the NRA gives them and flip their votes.

To beat the NRA at its own game, the gun control movement needs to better understand how the NRA has built an army of single-issue voters.

NRATV is a new piece of the puzzle, having been launched only in late 2016. But it’s a window into the culture that the NRA has nurtured for decades. Every minute, the network pumps out a message that can be delivered regardless of external events: Liberal elites want to take away your guns and freedom. Terrorists and criminals lurk everywhere and you need to know how to defend yourself. And by the way, look how cool guns are and how powerful they make you feel!

Some shows are standard conservative political talk show fare, with hosts who wear T-shirts emblazoned with “Socialist Tears” and mock mainstream media figures for alleged bias (the network is particularly obsessed with CNN’s Don Lemon).

Other shows are more like reality TV, such as “Love at First Shot,” which follows women novices as they get firearms training for “hunting, personal protection and competition” and learn the “lifestyle and cultural elements of being a gun owner.” The show “Noir” recently offered a slow-motion tutorial on how to be that “good guy with a gun” if you’re in a movie theater when a mass shooter enters. “They don’t always talk about gun issues,” gun policy expert Dr. Robert Spitzer said of the network to Time magazine, “It’s about beliefs and how people view the world.”

Who knows how many watch NRATV—the point is that it’s a distilled version of the message the gun lobby has been pushing into the culture for decades. That worldview keeps the NRA on-message when events don’t cooperate. But for frustrated and desperate gun control advocates, mass shootings goad them into chasing marginal proposals that have a real, or perceived, link to the immediate crime.

The Columbine school shooting prompted activists to prioritize the “gun show loophole” since the killers bought guns at a gun show where a background check wasn’t required. The Charleston church massacre led to calls to close the “Charleston loophole,” which allows someone to get a gun if a background check isn’t completed after three days. After the Las Vegas massacre, many demanded a ban on “bump stocks” that allow for more rapid firing.

Not only did activists fail to enact these policy ideas, the ideas, however laudable, don’t have much relevance to the vast majority of gun deaths. They can’t help motivate people after memories of the last massacre fade.

Gun control proponents don’t necessarily have to emulate the NRA and, say, launch a TV network. But they might consider marshaling the financial resources of Bloomberg, and other multimillionaires, and emulating one of the most successful public service advertising campaigns in history: the anti-tobacco “truth” campaign.

Hundreds of millions have been spent since 2000 by what is now called the “Truth Initiative” on edgy ads that turned teenage perception of what smoking represents from cool rebellion to corporate dishonesty. The ad campaign is not the sole reason, but it is widely credited for helping drive smoking levels among teens down from from 23 percent to 6 percent.

Like the tobacco industry, the NRA has been cultivating an image of guns as a source of freedom and cool, with the extra value of protection from grievous harm. A large-scale countercampaign could help reverse that image, highlighting the damage guns do every day: the depressed never getting another chance for mental health services, the children dying from home accidents, the domestic abuse victims who never could escape. Other spots could depict life where guns are controlled around the world, to show what is possible. A partnership with Hollywood could bring gun issues into more TV shows and movies, similar to how Hollywood was successfully pressured to stop making cigarettes look cool.

Such a campaign would have two main objectives: In the short run, keep the gun control majority engaged on a daily basis, and in the long run, reduce the demand for guns in areas where the NRA exerts political influence.

As heartwarming as it is to see high school students organize anti-gun marches, they are no more likely to be successful in busting the NRA narrative, or separating politicians from NRA money, than the parents of Columbine and Sandy Hook. The gun rights community is steeled against succumbing to sympathetic victims, as they have convinced themselves that they are above the politics of knee-jerk emotion.

Social conservatives are fond of the insight, “Politics is downstream from culture.” There is a big gun-rights culture that has a grip on our politics. Until there is a gun-free culture that can rival what the NRA has cultivated over decades, no national trauma, no matter how searing, is going to move the political needle.

Lukian 8 Nov 25
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Considering your Canadian why are you so worried about gun control in America? We have a lot more rights when it comes to guns here in the US than you do in Canada. A lot of Canadians would like to have a right to carry a 357 magnum revolver to protect themselves from dangerous wildlife in Canada’s wild and remote area’s but are denied that right by the gun control nuts. Here in the US we do have that right mainly thanks to the NRA and other pro gun groups for which I’m thankful.

What exactly is a "Gun control nut?" Someone perhaps who wants to see people protected from gun violence.

Kind of rational isn't it? Not nutty at all.

Everyone has a right to discuss this topic. Don't be shushing someone for bringing it up.

If you don't like a topic you are free to walk past it.

I'm an American who would LOVE to see more gun control. It is insane the people who can just go get a gun with no background check for criminal history or mental status in some states.

Also with no wait period in some.

How about we promote kids going to school and not being afraid for their very lives? How about that.

I actually support the right to bear arms. But lets use some logic with that.
Not be crazy about giving one to everyone and "cowboying it out".

There is no reason in this reality that "everyone needs a gun". Not everyone hunts for subsistence.
Not everyone needs to defend themselves.

That's all bs.

Let's get a tad more real and stop the crazy.

There's somewhere in the middle to explore here.

@RavenCT Depriving someone from the right to carry a self defense pistol especially in a wild remote area seems kind of idiotic to me so the people who deprive you of that right must be nuts.

@Trajan61 Now I don't actually know they do that in Canada. I imagine they let them have rifles or shotguns which would probably be more effective than a handgun with wildlife wouldn't it?

It's what I'm familiar with from friends who hunt. Other than bow hunters of course.

Yup that is the case:
[adfg.alaska.gov]

Taken from the article: "Non-restricted firearms include most ordinary hunting rifles and shotguns. These may be brought temporarily into Canada for sporting or hunting use during hunting season, use in competitions, in-transit movement through Canada, or personal protection against wildlife in remote areas of Canada. Anyone wishing to bring hunting rifles into Canada must be at least 18 years old; properly store the firearm for transport; and follow the declaration requirements.".

From every show I've seen in such conditions a rifle or shotgun is the preferred weapon. A pistol would not be the weapon of choice. And really wouldn't be the weapon of choice if you planned to eat the meat.

@RavenCT A 357 magnum revolver which is capable of stoping most any wild animal is a lot more convenient to carry than a shotgun or rifle. In Canada you do not have a right to carry a loaded pistol or for that matter even own a pistol and also when you are transporting a rifle or shotgun they are required to be unloaded so basically you have no rights when it comes to carrying any gun for self defense. You obviously are not very familiar with guns as is the case with most of the gun control folks.

@Trajan61 I don't live in Canada. I had to Google the Info. lol

I do not think people need to own every gun in the world to be safe from wild animals. Any hunter knows where they need to be carrying bear spray and where they need to be locked and loaded.

I know how to shoot and have for a number of years now. I just don't think all humans should have weapons. I've had to hold restraining orders several times in my life due to working in Mental Health - people can get fixated. You really don't want fixated people with weapons.

There's a lot that needs to change.

This post was actually about American gun laws and how the NRA lobby has such a stranglehold on our Political front. And it surely does.

I'd like to see someone "Science the crap" out of this issue. That would make far more sense. Find out the true faults in the system and regulate them.

Find out which people are safe enough with guns - how to let them have guns - which ones - how many - all of it.

Make it safer for everyone in the country.

It does not have to be all or nothing. But right now it's just not logical.

I watched a film where an 18 yo picked out a gun in a Texas gun shop based on color.
It was a pink gun. That's what she wanted. It was her 18th birthday.
That is in no way responsible gun ownership.
She didn't need a class in how to load/unload or discharge the weapon.
She had no clue.

That's pretty crazy. We can do better. We should do better.

@engineer6582 I don't want to ban firearms.

I want reasonable gun laws. Everywhere. And I want them the same across State lines so they're enforceable.

Trying to go to a shooting range or hunting - across a state line can be a lesson in the insane gun laws that happen.

One state wants the weapon locked up in the truck of the vehicle - the other wants it on your person in plain sight - another wants it concealed carry or it's brandishing.

So I guess you're meant to pull over at the State line and switch how you carry? (Which let me tell you would really freak out the cops.). That's just common sense that we need it the same across the board so the cops don't have to switch their attitudes State to State. Everyone would know what to do and what was expected.

Make the laws sane enough that the cops don't kill you for wanting to go target practice at a range.
Or for going hunting and having the weapon in the wrong location because you're traveling up state.

It is just nuts right now and any sane gun owner knows that. (I bet we've all met "That" gun owner at least once?). lol

I do understand the mindset of not wanting the weapons taken away. But I've also met the population that absolutely should never have a weapon. And there just is not regulation right now to prevent that.

Gun shows alone make that a nightmare.

Maybe we'll see it all change in our lifetimes and in a good way. I think there will be a middle ground where people who enjoy guns can have them safely without those who shouldn't getting them.

In fact it's still hard to get an order to remove guns from someone's possession who should absolutely have them removed permanently.

I guess it would be like letting a person who was too vision impaired have a car? You know they're not going to be okay with it - why would you do that in the first place.
They need constant supervision or something is going to go wrong, So do something to prevent it.

@engineer6582 Not in my own experience it's not a good thing. If you can almost see the hallucinations that someone is having? It's time for that person to not have access to weapons.
That's just it. There are too many human situations to figure out laws for - and too many modern weapons - to go by old laws.
The laws that were intended to protect us from the Crown when this country was founded are killing people now. That's what needs to change.
We really don't need to be killing each other. (Or that's my hope).

@RavenCT You sound just like a typical gun control nut!

2

Wonder what would happen if someone shot up a gun show?

ooooo, eeeee, ouch! That would be a death wish but would also test the good person with a gun hypothesis (I shouldn't have said that.... I'm not encouraging this at all)

2

There are so many things that are fun but illegal nowadays, but owning an assault-style, rapid fire rifle is not one of them.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:230921
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.