Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
You know, I think that actually DOES explain some of the publics appetite to focus on mass shootings.
We all know that if you choose to associate with people in the gang/drug world, your risk goes way up. But that's your choice to do that, you know the risks going in. If you live lawfully, but get nailed at the movie theater, that will instill more fear. Going to see Batman, or attending first grade, should not be in the same category of "risky life choices" as associating with crack dealers, or trying to pass a gang initiation. People think: if I play with fire, I could get burned, fair enough. But, if I choose to not play with fire, and I still could get burned, OK now I want that fixed.
I could see the general public having a higher tolerance for gang violence, and a lower tolerance for random mass shootings, if they believe that such a situation is a reflection of outcomes being more connected to personal choices than chance. If I said, I could wave a magic wand, and guarantee you that your risk of being an innocent victim in a mass shooting were cut in half, but the cost of that would be that gang-on-gang homocides were to double; I bet most people with be more OK with that tradeoff than if you said, lets change nothing.
Fact is, many people believe that mass shooting = rifles, and gang shootings = handguns, so as long as they believe that, of course they will be more inclined to support a focus on rifles. The media doesnt help, but obviously they are not in the business to inform people, they are really in the business to maximize ratings and thus advertising revenue. The NRA doesnt help either, but then they too are not in the business to represent the interests of gun owners as much as they are in the business to represent gun makers. I'd argue both of those very influential players are a bigger part of the problem than the government is.
All true. Politicians and gun control advocates need to stop using gun violence statistics as a whole for their argument. This sways the public's opinion.
Imagine that on every network their news anchors spewed the fact that in all of the mass shootings that occurred this year only 14 out of the 300,000,000 firearms that exist in this country were used to perpetrate those shootings. ONLY 14! 10 hand guns, 2 shot guns, and 2 rifles. (Even those figures are stretched because not all of those weapons were used in the crimes. Some were found at the scene unfired.)
Imagine that all gun control advocates were pounding their fists while giving this data to the public following up with "WE MUST GET THESE MASSES OF WEAPONS OFF THE STREETS".
What kind of reaction would John Q. Public have if politicians were giving this data as well while proposing the restrictions of our constitutional rights?
Do you think it may cause people to stop and think for themselves for a moment? Do you think opinions may differ from what they currently are? Maybe people would realize that their chance of even knowing someone involved in a mass shooting is incredibly remote. Like lottery jackpot winning remote.
Using false data to push an agenda is something our government shouldn't be doing. I know it's been done since the beginning but when it comes to using false data to infringe upon the 2nd amendment, free thinkers need to ask what is their agenda. Why is the government using the deaths of innocent Americans to further an agenda which won't likely stop innocent Americans from being a victim?