The NRA’s Latest Bald-Faced Lie

The NRA is running a new ad on the Internet. The ad is on the home page of the Washington Post. The ad claims, “80% OF POLICE SAY BACKGROUND CHECKS WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON VIOLENT CRIME.” There is also a video that goes along with the ad. The poll was conducted by Police One. The poll is not merely a real representation for what the real sample size would say. The poll wasn’t even random sampling, but rather promoted on the site for members who have views just like the NRA. The poll didn’t really give a true representation of the amount of people or in this case police that would agree that mental well being would have an effect on shooting incidents. Apparently the 80% representation is based on question which is posted below. When contacted by the author of this article which can be found below, the NRA and Police One gave no response.

This article is definitely an example of an opposing view. At the forefront of the gun control controversy is the NRA. They have been huge components in making sure that the laws don’t become more strict. They would prefer to have the laws where they are or even less lenient. The NRA has no real concern for violence caused by guns. There most important concern is preserving their 2nd amendment. The work of the NRA in no way really aids in helping to prevent violence. If anything they help create violence by protesting and requesting for less strict gun laws.

This is the ad that is currently on the Washington Post webpage.


This is an example of the question posted on the NRA survey that was questioning whether or not mental health would make a difference in the amount of shooting incidents.



Gun Violence, the numbers…0.0…

Gun Control is DOA in Congress


This image is an example of an opposing view. It is an image from the article Gun Control is DOA in Congress. The majority of the article centers around the fact that have control over the guns is a disturbance to the 2nd Amendment. The author of the article contends that rational individuals would be more suitable for guns and that gun control would not need to be needed. The author expounds on the fact that we cannot really determine the mental well-being of an individual because of the fact that at any moment minds can change. The author thinks that the laws that are in place are already strict enough. The author only supports making sure that we give guns to sane individuals. This is almost a contradiction to what he states first because he says who can actually measure the sanity of an individual being that it constantly changes.

This is an opposing view in that the author almost asks that gun control not exist and that free reign be given for the purpose of gun use. The author doesn’t support the notion that guns cause violence. He rather supports the idea that it is all in the person at that time.