Interest groups get more interesting
Before you ask, yes, I actually made a comic for this one.
I chose to research two interest groups on the issue of guns: the National Rifle Association, and Everytown for Gun Safety. Both groups establish themselves as non-profits (thankfully). The typical arguments for and against gun control can be summarized as "people are dying and they really shouldn't die" vs. "people will die anyway, so we might as well give them the right to defend themselves".
The NRA is led by Wayne LePierre, and advocates for the rights of gun owners, in addition to providing and promoting insurance and training. They have successfully lobbied for the loosening of gun restrictions in many states. I will be analyzing the article titled "Guns Down Launches Attack On NRA Carry Guard" on one of the NRA's many publication pages: "America's 1st Freedom". The article's title and opening line ("Liberalism has warped the minds of its adherents to the point that defending yourself against assault is considered murder.") show clear animosity against liberal gun policy. The article, which is in defense of its CarryGuard insurance, offers the very correct idea that murder is never legal and never will be, and that its insurance technically doesn't cover manslaughter. The article also says that race is not a factor, and no one is promoting violence against any race in particular. I feel that the article makes good points based on the situation it is working with, but I will say that while murder is never legal by definition, some murders are weighed more heavily than others, and the demographics of the NRA are definitely skewed towards a certain race. In addition, the article supports itself with "FBI crime data", but I couldn't find the specific data anywhere on the FBI website or anywhere else, and the only source in the article is a link to the news article they try to refute. While the NRA's article says "we all know that tolerance is a one-way street with liberals", its accusatory, anger-filled language, lack of significant sources, and cherry-picking shows a rigid stance towards gun rights.
Everytown is led by previous longtime mayor of New York City: Michael Bloomberg. The interest group advocates for increased gun control policy, and introduces itself as a union of "mayors, moms, cops, teachers, survivors, gun owners, and everyday Americans". Bloomberg formed this group in 2014, by merging 'Mayors Against Illegal Guns' and 'Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America', and was intended to match the NRA in influence. The NRA is much older, and thus has a longer time to strengthen its roots, but Everytown has supported background checks and the prohibition of domestic abusers from attaining firearms, among other things. In 2009, Mayors Against Illegal Guns defeated the NRA by lobbying against the Thune Amendment, which would require states to recognize the firearm permits of others.
Scrolling through the articles on the Everytown website, I notice that significant portions of these articles are lengthy quotes from politicians of influence. I analyzed the article "Gun Lobby Effort to Repeal Oregon’s Extreme Risk Protection Order Law Fails". There seems to be less emotional pull than the NRA article, and more "this is what happened, and this is what we believed." Of course, it is also important to note that the article I analyzed from the NRA was on a sub-site, while the articles I have read from Everytown are from the Press section of their website, with no defined author. Therefore, it makes sense that it is less emotionally-charged. The most rhetoric seems to be in the title itself, with "dangerous" repeated twice. The rest of the article is a short summary, with some cited evidence from Everytown's own research, and a statement from a volunteer of the Oregon Chapter of Moms Demand Action. The legislation supported was already in place, and "allows courts to temporarily prohibit a person from having a gun if law enforcement or immediate family members show that he or she poses a danger to self or others". While I am sure that the factually-geared presentation of information is characteristic of everything the organization puts out, I believe that the organization prefers to persuade through, as it says itself, "commonsense".
Both artifacts I chose to analyze have some kind of attack against an interest group of from the other side. What I found interesting was that both interest groups attempt to persuade the other side of the political spectrum that their beliefs are in the interest of all. For example, the NRA established a program for elementary-aged children 30 years ago to tell them that firearms are dangerous, and children should tell grownups if they see guns while unsupervised. Everytown, of course, doesn't need to defend itself with much other than "lives are in danger", but they are also careful to address the other side with respect (at least, in the articles I've read). This is shown by the quotes "Research shows—and cops will tell you—that common-sense public safety laws reduce gun violence and save lives. We can put a stop to the more than 33,000 gun deaths that happen every year. And we can do it in a way that still respects the Second Amendment", and the lack of "haha you're a loser" vibe in the quote "The gun lobby’s effort to repeal SB 719, led by NRA-backed Representatives Mike Nearman and Bill Post, failed to gather the minimum number of signatures from Oregonians required to qualify for the ballot in 2018."
Both interest groups believe in protecting the rights of the people. The NRA focuses on the right to carry firearms and defend oneself, while Everytown focuses on the right to not get shot. However, the aggressive lobbying of both groups and fight for influence can cause, and has caused, major bipoles to develop, and dissent to rise. I believe that both ideologies are reasonable at their core, and parties should put aside their differences to consider legislation of compromise rather than the all-or-nothing opinion-bashing that we see so much today.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post! Here's a comic.
I chose to research two interest groups on the issue of guns: the National Rifle Association, and Everytown for Gun Safety. Both groups establish themselves as non-profits (thankfully). The typical arguments for and against gun control can be summarized as "people are dying and they really shouldn't die" vs. "people will die anyway, so we might as well give them the right to defend themselves".
The NRA is led by Wayne LePierre, and advocates for the rights of gun owners, in addition to providing and promoting insurance and training. They have successfully lobbied for the loosening of gun restrictions in many states. I will be analyzing the article titled "Guns Down Launches Attack On NRA Carry Guard" on one of the NRA's many publication pages: "America's 1st Freedom". The article's title and opening line ("Liberalism has warped the minds of its adherents to the point that defending yourself against assault is considered murder.") show clear animosity against liberal gun policy. The article, which is in defense of its CarryGuard insurance, offers the very correct idea that murder is never legal and never will be, and that its insurance technically doesn't cover manslaughter. The article also says that race is not a factor, and no one is promoting violence against any race in particular. I feel that the article makes good points based on the situation it is working with, but I will say that while murder is never legal by definition, some murders are weighed more heavily than others, and the demographics of the NRA are definitely skewed towards a certain race. In addition, the article supports itself with "FBI crime data", but I couldn't find the specific data anywhere on the FBI website or anywhere else, and the only source in the article is a link to the news article they try to refute. While the NRA's article says "we all know that tolerance is a one-way street with liberals", its accusatory, anger-filled language, lack of significant sources, and cherry-picking shows a rigid stance towards gun rights.
Everytown is led by previous longtime mayor of New York City: Michael Bloomberg. The interest group advocates for increased gun control policy, and introduces itself as a union of "mayors, moms, cops, teachers, survivors, gun owners, and everyday Americans". Bloomberg formed this group in 2014, by merging 'Mayors Against Illegal Guns' and 'Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America', and was intended to match the NRA in influence. The NRA is much older, and thus has a longer time to strengthen its roots, but Everytown has supported background checks and the prohibition of domestic abusers from attaining firearms, among other things. In 2009, Mayors Against Illegal Guns defeated the NRA by lobbying against the Thune Amendment, which would require states to recognize the firearm permits of others.
Scrolling through the articles on the Everytown website, I notice that significant portions of these articles are lengthy quotes from politicians of influence. I analyzed the article "Gun Lobby Effort to Repeal Oregon’s Extreme Risk Protection Order Law Fails". There seems to be less emotional pull than the NRA article, and more "this is what happened, and this is what we believed." Of course, it is also important to note that the article I analyzed from the NRA was on a sub-site, while the articles I have read from Everytown are from the Press section of their website, with no defined author. Therefore, it makes sense that it is less emotionally-charged. The most rhetoric seems to be in the title itself, with "dangerous" repeated twice. The rest of the article is a short summary, with some cited evidence from Everytown's own research, and a statement from a volunteer of the Oregon Chapter of Moms Demand Action. The legislation supported was already in place, and "allows courts to temporarily prohibit a person from having a gun if law enforcement or immediate family members show that he or she poses a danger to self or others". While I am sure that the factually-geared presentation of information is characteristic of everything the organization puts out, I believe that the organization prefers to persuade through, as it says itself, "commonsense".
Both artifacts I chose to analyze have some kind of attack against an interest group of from the other side. What I found interesting was that both interest groups attempt to persuade the other side of the political spectrum that their beliefs are in the interest of all. For example, the NRA established a program for elementary-aged children 30 years ago to tell them that firearms are dangerous, and children should tell grownups if they see guns while unsupervised. Everytown, of course, doesn't need to defend itself with much other than "lives are in danger", but they are also careful to address the other side with respect (at least, in the articles I've read). This is shown by the quotes "Research shows—and cops will tell you—that common-sense public safety laws reduce gun violence and save lives. We can put a stop to the more than 33,000 gun deaths that happen every year. And we can do it in a way that still respects the Second Amendment", and the lack of "haha you're a loser" vibe in the quote "The gun lobby’s effort to repeal SB 719, led by NRA-backed Representatives Mike Nearman and Bill Post, failed to gather the minimum number of signatures from Oregonians required to qualify for the ballot in 2018."
Both interest groups believe in protecting the rights of the people. The NRA focuses on the right to carry firearms and defend oneself, while Everytown focuses on the right to not get shot. However, the aggressive lobbying of both groups and fight for influence can cause, and has caused, major bipoles to develop, and dissent to rise. I believe that both ideologies are reasonable at their core, and parties should put aside their differences to consider legislation of compromise rather than the all-or-nothing opinion-bashing that we see so much today.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post! Here's a comic.
Comments
Post a Comment