5 ms·

As others have pointed out, there are other 2A advocacy groups that are single issue focused. I have a hard time believing that the NRA has accidentally become

As others have pointed out, there are other 2A advocacy groups that are single issue focused. I have a hard time believing that the NRA has accidentally become involved in mass incarceration. That being said, if the dilemma is gun violence, you've presented a false dichotomy for options. Harsher criminalization likely doesn't do anything, it may just make recidivism worse and temporarily relocate violence into prisons. Economic violence and inequality is the root cause for much of the gun violence in the US (along with some cultural psychological heritage related to frontier life and individualism, but this is a more difficult issue to solve). Deep poverty, racist and invasive police, lack of access to nutritious food, lack of access to childcare and quality education, etc. Not just for people of color (although they disproportionately suffer from inequality), but for white poor people as well. Economic violence is the backdrop for violent crime, and if the NRA actually cared about solving their image of being an advocacy group for middle income whites and cops, they would spend time lobbying to solve these issues, not locking up poor people.

bmelton 10y ago
I don't disagree with much that you've said at all. That said, when has "let's fix socio-economic disparity" been seriously considered by our legislature for anything? It doesn't fit into a soundbite, and is both too nuanced and locality-centric to be easily cottoned to in a federal bill. It's far too pragmatic to fit into the necessity of a 'do something' response. Aside from the infeasibility of it in today's political climate, great points all around.
- knucklesandwich 10y ago
  I just don't subscribe to that kind of realpolitik. There's nothing infeasible about presenting these kinds of solutions, there's only people unwilling to present them or those who do a bad job of it. Plus what's the proof that this is even the case? Even aside from the ethical coherency of viewing civil rights as a comprehensive struggle for ordinary people, there are political advantages as well given you can widely expand your coalition across racial and income barriers. People of color own guns and enjoy using them, but will back a candidate supporting background checks, assault weapon bans, etc. if their alternative is pro-gun law & order racist.
  - bmelton 10y ago
    Sure. There are plenty of white gun owners who do the same. The NRA doesn't have a lock on any particular demographic other than the obvious one, which is anyone who is willing to prioritize gun rights as their #1 issue. This includes people of all political and ethical stripe, and including minorities, though they aren't terribly well represented by the NRA. That said, if the goal is to just get the NRA to do more outreach to minorities, they're making inroads (though slowly). They've got minority presenters, such as Colion Noir, who echoes many of your sentiments. > "It's not a gun problem, it's not even a violence problem. It's a culture problem, it's a poverty problem, it's a history problem" I don't disagree that they've been painfully bad at it, but as they get savvier with their shifting demographics and older, whiter board members get replaced with others, I have little doubt that they'll become more effective at representing a broader swath of the American populace. That still doesn't make fixing socio-economic disparity fall particularly well under their single-issue umbrella (IMO).

bmelton 10y ago

I don't disagree with much that you've said at all. That said, when has "let's fix socio-economic disparity" been seriously considered by our legislature for anything? It doesn't fit into a soundbite, and is both too nuanced and locality-centric to be easily cottoned to in a federal bill. It's far too pragmatic to fit into the necessity of a 'do something' response. Aside from the infeasibility of it in today's political climate, great points all around.

knucklesandwich 10y ago
I just don't subscribe to that kind of realpolitik. There's nothing infeasible about presenting these kinds of solutions, there's only people unwilling to present them or those who do a bad job of it. Plus what's the proof that this is even the case? Even aside from the ethical coherency of viewing civil rights as a comprehensive struggle for ordinary people, there are political advantages as well given you can widely expand your coalition across racial and income barriers. People of color own guns and enjoy using them, but will back a candidate supporting background checks, assault weapon bans, etc. if their alternative is pro-gun law & order racist.
- bmelton 10y ago
  Sure. There are plenty of white gun owners who do the same. The NRA doesn't have a lock on any particular demographic other than the obvious one, which is anyone who is willing to prioritize gun rights as their #1 issue. This includes people of all political and ethical stripe, and including minorities, though they aren't terribly well represented by the NRA. That said, if the goal is to just get the NRA to do more outreach to minorities, they're making inroads (though slowly). They've got minority presenters, such as Colion Noir, who echoes many of your sentiments. > "It's not a gun problem, it's not even a violence problem. It's a culture problem, it's a poverty problem, it's a history problem" I don't disagree that they've been painfully bad at it, but as they get savvier with their shifting demographics and older, whiter board members get replaced with others, I have little doubt that they'll become more effective at representing a broader swath of the American populace. That still doesn't make fixing socio-economic disparity fall particularly well under their single-issue umbrella (IMO).