VforVoluntary49 Posted February 11, 2013 Posted February 11, 2013 As we all know, in the news recently, the wave of anti-gun pro-gun propoganda has been flowing all around, but this post really isn't for one side or another or even about the gun issue at all. It's more a question about how/why people have this major disconnect between the propoganda and what is fed to them, and their daily interactions. Gabby Gifford (the former representative who was attacked and shot years ago) has been in the news and interviews coming out in support of gun control, but why? By that I mean, why don't people realize that she has a vested or rather personal and emotional interest in favoring more gun control. I think that we all sympathize with a victim of a random attack and this is not attacking Giffords personally in any way, but I think any rational person would be able to know that she almost certainly will be for LESS gun control. It's be like victim of a burglary pushing for longer police response times-it just would not make sense. We don't interview cancer patients on how to treat cancer, because they are emotionally attached in one aspect and the other that they usually aren't experts on the topic-but there is this disconnect at times. I work in retail while in school and it is amazing sometimes how strongly media propoganda works on people. They will come in and ask questions about certain products, and whatever I recommend (whether it is my store's personal brand or a outside brand) people respond 9 times out of 10 with skepticism and a wary eye because they don't know my motives/etc. But then other times people will come in after seeing a commercial for a product and absolutely 100% trust what the advertisement said, even though it is blatantly obvious that the commercial for a product will be glorifying the benefits of that product! Same with if they saw the product on a TV show or a celebrity endroser, and I just don't understand where the disconnect comes in with people between personal interaction vs propoganda and why one is constantgly met with distrust when the person can be directly questioned one on one, but then the other is often fully trusted even though there is no way to interview the advert company or endorsers to delve into their personal reasoning. If any one has any comments or theories I'd love to hear them, and thank you for your time.
DoubtingThomas Posted February 11, 2013 Posted February 11, 2013 Can you identify some pro-gun propaganda for me? I think you set up a bit of a false dichotomy. AFAIK, the propaganda is entirely anti-gun and even the pro-gun statists are willing to cave for more state regulation and control, just so long as they get to keep their guns. As far as why the rational disconnect between the statististically compelling data that private gun ownership reduces crime and the chance that someone will be victimized; your guess is as good as anyone else's. I think most of us would assume the state simply wants the general public disarmed before economic problems come to a head. They'll trot out any and all people willing to be their star-victims in order to further that goal without spelling it out.
Recommended Posts