This article advocates for more objective research on gun violence. I don’t disagree. However, I’m curious as to what makes the author think objective research would do anything to sway the mind of the public? The media and our politicians are much more interested in emotion and shock value than in actual facts.
For example, why do you think it’s not being widely reported that the 10 year ban on ‘assault weapons’ and high-capacity magazines had no measurable effect on crime or gun violence (source: US Justice Department)? Wouldn’t that be an extremely relevant piece of information to put out there, especially as our lawmakers are now talking about reinstating those exact same bans as a way to reduce crime and gun violence?
Or perhaps we could look at the studies that suggest that so-called “mass shootings” are statistically no more prevalent than they were 5 or 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. Maybe that would clear up the misconception that such events are becoming more frequent and causing more deaths every year.
Of course, nobody will ever report these facts. Why? The reasons are twofold. First of all, they aren’t very shocking or emotional. Second, and much more importantly, they don’t fit with the overall narrative that the government can solve all of our problems with the right legislation.
Why is that so important? Because if the government can convince you that they can solve all of our problems, then we won’t have any trouble allowing them to have more and more power. And that’s what our leaders eventually want: more power. Interestingly enough, it’s also what our forefathers fought so hard to prevent the government from becoming. That’s the entire reason for things like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That’s my 2 cents, anyway.