Bloomberg's Everytown Alternative View?

[Styx]

I was reading an firearms article, and it cited Bloomberg's Everytown. That site has a bunch of bias and non bias satistics, rhetoric, bar graphs, polls, etc in which other sources reference. It's filled with data that goes undisputed outside the hardcore firearm community. It got me thinking why doesn't the progun side have their own Everytown that offers an alternative "glass half full" fact based point of view of firearms. That list all recorded cases where gun owners used firearms in self defense and other data? To bad the progun side doesn't have a progun multi billionaire who will fund gun right causes, or are as organized as the enemy is.

 

[wayneinFL]

I was reading an firearms article, and it cited Bloomberg's Everytown. That site has a bunch of bias and non bias satistics, rhetoric, bar graphs, polls, etc in which other sources reference. It's filled with data that goes undisputed outside the hardcore firearm community. It got me thinking why doesn't the progun side have their own Everytown that offers an alternative "glass half full" fact based point of view of firearms. That list all recorded cases where gun owners used firearms in self defense and other data? To bad the progun side doesn't have a progun multi billionaire who will fund gun right causes, or are as organized as the enemy is.

You mean like GOA, SAF, NRA? Not funded by billionaires, but there are organizations out there.

 

[AlexanderA]

All those "facts" and statistics aren't going to convince anyone, pro or con. The whole gun debate is driven by emotion. That, and tribal polarization.

 

[Styx]

All those "facts" and statistics aren't going to convince anyone, pro or con. The whole gun debate is driven by emotion. That, and tribal polarization.

Well it can also be driven by emotion by showing an alternative view of victims of crime, e.g., women, parents, elderly, etc, defending themselves. Or even polls showing how Americans are pro gun. The NRA and other groups are typically only reactive, and suck at messaging. I see local or national stories everyday about regular people who used a firearm to defend themselves, but there's no one stop source or any source whatsoever that's collecting and showing thus data.

 

[Hartkopf]

It’s not just one billionaire funding the antis. I’m sure that when the Davos crowd talks strategy about world domination, gun control gets covered.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Billionaire Bloomberg funds Everytown.
Billionaire Soros funds IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms).

What we have are membership organizations funded by the members.
Styx: "The NRA and other groups are typically only reactive, and suck at messaging."
I noticed that back in the 1960s. It seems to always be pro gun rights defenses against anti gun attacks.

 

[Roverguy]

Even if we were to assume that facts and figures had a role to play outside the courts in influencing views on gun issues, the media is almost entirely in the bag for banning civilian ownership of firearms, so only Bloomberg’s “facts and figures” get covered.

 

[wayneinFL]

Well it can also be driven by emotion by showing an alternative view of victims of crime, e.g., women, parents, elderly, etc, defending themselves. Or even polls showing how Americans are pro gun. The NRA and other groups are typically only reactive, and suck at messaging. I see local or national stories everyday about regular people who used a firearm to defend themselves, but there's no one stop source or any source whatsoever that's collecting and showing thus data.

I don't know that any amount or quality of propaganda would be as effective as what the NRA is doing well.

NRA is good at increasing the number of people who have skin in the game.

The NRA is regularly outspent in lobbying efforts, campaign contributions, advertising, etc. Why do you think they EVER get a success?

It's because anti-gun activists don't have any skin in the game. They saw some antigun propaganda and it sounded good so they post a meme on Facebook. Yeah, there's a few who have been negatively impacted by crime, but mostly they just follow the propaganda. Antigun organizations have always been funded mostly by large donors, because the slacktivists who read the propaganda won't even bother to send $20.

When a bill is defeated it's because 100 to 1 they're getting calls, emails, letters, visits from gun owners. It's because gun owners are personally affected.

The NRA spends most of its funds developing the shooting sports, training instructors, advising range development, etc. Bringing more shooters into the fold has been the most effective strategy so far.

 

[wayneinFL]

By the way, I think the irony is hilarious. Everytown bills itself as a grass roots organization funded by a $50 million donation from a billionaire. And they rebranded gun control as "gun safety", while the only organization promoting actual gun safety on any scale is the NRA.

 

[AlexanderA]

When the antis talk about "gun safety," they mean safety from guns -- by banning them.

Opinions on guns are baked in -- no amount of "facts" is going to move the needle.

The closer that the antis edge toward confiscation, the more they alienate the vast bulk of the voters. People in the middle, especially the blue-collar working class, want their guns -- or even the potentiality of getting them in the future, if they don't have guns now -- because it's the final way they can assert their personal autonomy in a world that economically and otherwise seems to be conspiring against them.

If the Democrats keep plugging gun control, thinking it will help them make headway in the suburbs, they'll be in for a big surprise when their erstwhile blue-collar supporters abandon them.

 

[Skribs]

I could be mistaken on this, but I think the only thing that turns someone from anti-gun to pro-gun is crime.

Bill Burr has a bit about wanting to get a gun, but deciding not to because his girlfriend wouldn't approve of him bringing one home. Then, they move to LA, and their car gets broken into, and suddenly she wants a gun. My sister is on the fence on her opinions on guns. But the more she reads about break-ins in her town, and the less she trusts the government, the more okay she is with her husband having them. And when I watch youtube videos of a guntuber trying to turn an anti into pro-gun, the anti showed up because they're starting to think "oh, I need a gun."

I find there are a lot of philosophical ideals that fall apart in practical application, and being anti-gun is one of them.

 

[LiveLife]

I am sure back in 1776, then the world's prominent "billionaire", the king of British empire did same to propagate the narrative against the colonials and certainly there were British sympathizers who wanted to suppress free speech and gun ownership.

And the larger coastal city states' mob rule mentality tried to impose on the rights and liberties of the smaller rural states; hence why the founders chose a constitutional Republic over pure democracy as our form of government, separated governmental powers and instituted Electoral College instead of popular vote.

240 years later, I guess human nature to impose majority mob rule on rights of minority gun owners hasn't changed much.

I sure hope the past precedents of judicial/legislative/executive branches representing "We the People" to protect the rights, including voting rights to elect their representatives of black slaves and minority women along with modern forms of First Amendment free speech rights will become permanently enforced.

Even in 2023, right to self protection, especially from those who want to impose their will on the minority, elderly, disabled still applies, regardless of religious preference, sexual orientation or political affiliation.

Long live the Republic.

 

[Mosin77]

We have plenty of bloggers etc. who do good work assembling pro-gun statistics etc. This is important to keep well-meaning intelligent members of our “side” from becoming disheartened or actually convinced to switch sides by some slick talking activist. That being said the mass of people are swayed by emotion.

The average non gun owner truly has the impression from TV, movies, news, elementary school safety videos, etc. that guns are dangerous, unpredictable (they “just go off” sometimes!) death ray type devices, which often shoot their owners, and which are frequently used by people to commit crimes and murder, (indeed they seem only to be made for killing people or Bambi) and so a reasonable person, confronted with only this perspective, is certainly going to feel that a simple solution to this threatening bogeyman is to simply ban or heavily restrict the things, and that furthermore, only extremely well trained police and other agents of the government ought to be trusted with them -and that if a mere civilian wants to own one of these devices, he should probably be restrained from it for his own good.

The average gun owner on the other hand, rationally understands that it’s just a tool, that responsible people can use tools safely, and that the government has no right to disarm him any more than the British had to disarm the colonials. (He needs good statistics and the like to keep him from making “reasonable compromises,” forgetting sometimes that although he is reasonable, the opposition is much more motivated by something akin to religious faith and won’t accept any compromise.)

 

[bdickens]

I was reading an firearms article, and it cited Bloomberg's Everytown. That site has a bunch of bias and non bias satistics, rhetoric, bar graphs, polls, etc in which other sources reference. It's filled with data that goes undisputed outside the hardcore firearm community. It got me thinking why doesn't the progun side have their own Everytown that offers an alternative "glass half full" fact based point of view of firearms. That list all recorded cases where gun owners used firearms in self defense and other data? To bad the progun side doesn't have a progun multi billionaire who will fund gun right causes, or are as organized as the enemy is.

Well, the real facts are out there and they're easy enough to find for anyone who takes a notion to. But if you think that what passes for news outlets in this day and age is going to bring them to light, then you have today's propaganda outlets confused with reporters of fact.

 

[AlexanderA]

I could be mistaken on this, but I think the only thing that turns someone from anti-gun to pro-gun is crime.

There's another reason, as well.

I read several liberal, left-leaning forums. There's a growing undercurrent among them that they should arm themselves, out of fear of persecution by the conservative side. The same is true among the LGBTQ community.

This leads to some cognitive dissonance, because their "tribe" is generally antigun. They end up taking the position of "OK, disarm the conservatives, but let's arm ourselves." This is the so-called "middle ground."

Gun control is not politically neutral, as to who benefits and who suffers. Never has been.

 

[P5 Guy]

Why are there no pro-gun billionaires?

 

[AlexanderA]

Why are there no pro-gun billionaires?

Because widespread gun ownership doesn't serve the interests of the economic and political elite. Guns are a populist issue.

That said, there are undoubtedly a few pro-gun billionaires. They are being very quiet about it, because it will only hurt them if the word gets out.

 

[Skribs]

I read several liberal, left-leaning forums. There's a growing undercurrent among them that they should arm themselves, out of fear of persecution by the conservative side. The same is true among the LGBTQ community.

I'm purposefully ignoring the rest of your post as I don't want to get too political, but I agree that they should be doing this. Just as they should be trying to reduce government power, so they "suffer" less when Republicans are in charge.

 

[roscoe]

There's another reason, as well.

I read several liberal, left-leaning forums. There's a growing undercurrent among them that they should arm themselves, out of fear of persecution by the conservative side. The same is true among the LGBTQ community.

This leads to some cognitive dissonance, because their "tribe" is generally antigun. They end up taking the position of "OK, disarm the conservatives, but let's arm ourselves." This is the so-called "middle ground."

Gun control is not politically neutral, as to who benefits and who suffers. Never has been.

Keep in mind that the 'left of center' population is not monolithic. I would estimate that 60-70% of the folks in my circle who I consider liberal (or at least as gauged since 2016) are armed, many with assault rifles. Any libertarian liberal or ex-military liberal is definitely armed. The problem for gun rights is that we (as gun-owners) have let gun ownership become a left-right issue when it should definitely not be so. The libertarian-authoritarian axis is logically orthogonal to the liberal-conservative axis. But yelling for gun rights when you don't really believe it (on the right), or telling people that anyone with an assault rifle is evil (as on the left) have become ways to rally voters motivated by anxiety. So instead of a broad, steady consensus we get whipsawed by whoever is in power.

 

[AlexanderA]

Keep in mind that the 'left of center' population is not monolithic. I would estimate that 60-70% of the folks in my circle who I consider liberal (or at least as gauged since 2016) are armed, many with assault rifles.

I've said before that the "hard left" is not antigun (at least as regards themselves). (Karl Marx himself said that under no circumstances should the workers allow themselves to be disarmed.)

The core of the antigun movement is almost apolitical, regarding other issues. It's made up of iconic suburban "soccer moms" who know nothing about guns, but are worried for their children. These people are being exploited by the professional antigun leadership (including the establishment press).

The pro- and antigun forces have become subsumed in partisan politics, so that their positions have become orthodoxy in their respective parties. But there's a lot of posturing and hypocrisy, on both sides.

 

[roscoe]

I've said before that the "hard left" is not antigun (at least as regards themselves). (Karl Marx himself said that under no circumstances should the workers allow themselves to be disarmed.)

The core of the antigun movement is almost apolitical, regarding other issues. It's made up of iconic suburban "soccer moms" who know nothing about guns, but are worried for their children. These people are being exploited by the professional antigun leadership (including the establishment press).

The pro- and antigun forces have become subsumed in partisan politics, so that their positions have become orthodoxy in their respective parties. But there's a lot of posturing and hypocrisy, on both sides.

Strong agree. This is why I quit the NRA and now give money to 2AF - the NRA leans so hard into partisan politics, including things like immigration that have nothing to do with gun rights (see Dana Loesch) that I just couldn't stomach it. They can raise money by ginning up hysteria, but this is a poor long-term strategy because the Gen-Z kids lean left, and we need to be in the business of persuading them that you can be gay or pro-environment and still want to protect the individual right to defense. Tying gun ownership to lifted diesel pickups and red-state values is gratifying to some people because they feel it 'pwns the libs', but it won't garner new votes from the generation we need most to persuade.