Is it appropriate to consider distinct perspectives of the same situation as different questions?

Question

There are two questions looking into the motives of the NRA. The second is mine, focusing on the motives that would be assigned by the opposition. The first focuses the "real motives" of the NRA, quoted as:

I wanted to know what the real motivation behind the NRA is. Is it driven by a true belief in the second amendment or are there financial motives also, something similar to the big tobacco lobby for example?

It might come down to how this question is parsed. In how it reads, emphasis applied, this question aims towards the actual motives of the NRA; attempting to attribute motives to the NRA, short of crawling into the heads of the board, runs the risk of being very subjective, applying the bias of the writer and demonstrating opinions.

However, if the question is parsed as "Is it driven by a true belief in the second amendment or are there financial motives also?" that leaves to much room for the question to be closed as "Primary-opinion Based." As a distinction, my question allows for the citation of what those who oppose the NRA claim about them, allowing for the political realities of the situation.

Answer 1

Yes

Two questions are duplicates when they have the same (potential) answers. When you ask for the opinions of two different segments with different opinions you will get two different answers. That's enough to know that keeping both open is appropriate.

There may be some cases where the opinions of two segments are identical and can be understood from the same sources. In these cases, the questions may be considered duplicates because the set of their potential answers in identical.

For the questions you mentioned - they aren't duplicates. The easiest test is to look at the existing answers to the original question. They don't explain how opponents of the NRA understand the NRA's mission, so the question isn't a duplicate.

Answer 2

No

By creating separate questions to segregate answers from opponents, you're preemptively classifying opponents' positions as wrong. (After all, if their positions were correct, then they would be valid answers to the question about true motivations.)

Example:

^{[This is not a dig at the NRA. I don't care about the NRA. It's an analogy to explain why this bothers me.]}

1. Someone asks "What are the true motivations of the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party?"
2. A supporter of the LEPFP answers the question by quoting the mission statement of the Party:

   The mission of the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party is definitely to not eat people's faces.

3. Someone else, who opposes the LEPFP, answers the same question by saying that the LEPFP's mission statement is a lie, and their true motivation is to eat people's faces. They back up their argument by showing photos of the last 3 times the LEPFP won an election and leopards proceeded to eat people's faces.
4. A supporter of the LEPFP downvotes and flags the opposition's answer, since it conflicts with their beliefs about the true motivation of the party, and must therefore not be a valid answer to a question about the true motivations of the party.
5. The LEPFP supporter creates a new question, asking specifically about "the opposition's beliefs" about the LEPFP's motivations, implying that those beliefs are incorrect, and isolating dissenting opinions away from the original question, which is now an echo chamber of what the LEPFP supporter believes.