Final Paper - Weapons In The War

The gun control debate is not a new phenomenon. As with any major political or social issue, those who are heard the best are often those with extreme polar opposites in their respective viewpoints. Lost in the cacophony are those who advocate a middle ground. Their calls to reason are muffled by those advocating a particular piece of legislation or political agenda. Both sides of the debate are driven by a mixture of emotions - particularly fear - fear of crime, fear of violence, fear of a society out of control, fear of far-reaching government interference and regulation. The propaganda used by both parties of the gun control debate has resulted in two warring factions. The debate on gun control versus gun rights has been waged for decades, and each side is quite vocal in their support of their particular viewpoint. With the use of political and editorial cartoons in various major newspapers, each side has a powerful tool to use to perpetuate the "war". Each side has their own advocates within this genre, and uses them extensively when the political hot topic of gun control rises to the top of list in our society - usually after some major event involving guns and violence. The cartoonists are good at what they do - inflaming the public's opinion through the use of pictures and words. They are well-versed in the use of rhetoric, and use it well. The tools that the cartoonists use only seem to fabricate products of propaganda, thereby adding to the "noise".

One example is the cartoons that appeal to American’s patriotic values and the fear of government interference and regulation. These are geared toward those Americans who support less restrictions and controls of gun ownership. Many of them make reference to the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which in itself is a hotly debated topic.

These cartoons use the social mindset the fear of government interference as their main tactic in their propaganda against gun control. Fear is a great motivator, and in the gun control debate it is used extensively. In the “Target” cartoon the choice of words used in the target areas are designed to prejudice the argument by achieving a dramatic effect – that being that if the gun control faction wins, then there will be complete confiscation of all guns legally purchased and owned. Another way of an explanation is to say that if one hits the target, then they win the prize – in this case, the complete confiscation of all guns. The “Vulture” cartoon depicts a vulture as a caricature of the Liberals and their attempt to rewrite the Second Amendment. A vulture sometimes represents a scavenger – something that will go to great lengths to get what they want, and the artist, by depicting the Liberals as a vulture, seems to show that the Liberals will do whatever it takes, by whatever means necessary to rewrite the Constitution to suit their purposes. The third cartoon depicts a “patriot” waking up from his nightmare that Americans would willingly allow themselves to be disarmed. The Patriot seemingly fought for the freedoms that we currently enjoy, and the idea of people allowing those freedoms to be taken away is reprehensible to the Patriot. This type of rhetoric appeals to the popular opinion held by those who are against any form of gun control, and stimulates and excites this group to favor a particular position – that being that any form of gun control is dangerous, a “slippery slope” that only leads to the abolishment of the Second Amendment, intrusive interference by the government, and eventually the total confiscation of all guns. While each of the artists obviously holds the opinion that gun control is wrong, it seems ironic that they would use cartoons to get their point across. The gun control issue is a serious subject in this county, and yet they use humor in an attempt to “rally the forces”.

Why has gun control been such a difficult, controversial and intractable issue in American politics (and culture)? The first answer is because of the nature of regulation. Whenever the government seeks to apply its coercive powers directly to shape individual conduct, the prospect of controversy is great, especially in a nation with a long tradition of individualism (Spitzer, p. 10). Why is it that there cannot be some type of middle ground in which both sides of the debate can come together and implement a reasonable solution to the issue? Many people have quite strong opinions on whether laws governing guns should be stricter or less so. It is not hard to see why there is so little middle ground in the debate. Those advocating stricter laws are often categorized as those looking for an easy answer to the problem of crime. They are seen as sympathetic to a system in which the government has greater control over what we do and say. “Those who oppose gun laws are often viewed as a group willing to endanger the general public in order to continue to enjoy their own use of guns. They are feared and labeled as vigilantes and advocates of anarchy.” (Crooker, p xxxiii). The NRA magazine goes so far as to call them “gun grabbers”.

There does seem to be an agreement in our society that there is a need for some regulation of firearms, and yet the advocates on each side of the debate are so blinded by their own rhetoric that they fail to be able to see any type of bigger picture – the idea of working together for an acceptable solution. Our country has laws that prohibit the sale of handguns to children, convicted felons, those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent, as well as those convicted of domestic abuse. There are few who argue with these particular laws. Why is it then, that is is seems impossible for both sides to reach a common ground? In spite of sharing these common ideas, the opponents in the debate disagree on almost every other issue. First and foremost, they cannot agree upon the interpretation of the laws or upon the effect of the laws on crime and public safety. Gun rights advocates fear giving up any freedoms, that any compromise will only provide the gun control advocates a means to demand further restrictions, and yet we have a myriad of gun regulations that seem reasonable. Although gun control is primarily seen as an issue of great public concern, it can also be seen as an actual “movement” with the objective of passing laws… that produces the desired result. (Hook, p 10) This does not seem unreasonable, and yet seems impossible.

Paxton Quigley, author of Armed and Female, and noted firearms training instructor, has taken a middle ground. She supports gun ownership, but does not object to a proposal that would require that a person’s firearms skills be tested. In her book she states, “You might say that all laws in some ways restrict someone’s freedom. Yet we recognize the need for demonstrating the necessary skills to drive a car or fly a plane, or perform open-heart surgery. This quote is from a woman who was a volunteer in Robert Kennedy’s 1968 presidential campaign; she was traumatized by the senator's assassination and worked for the passage of federal gun control legislation. In 1968, she was also a volunteer in setting up the first gun-control political action committee, the Emergency Committee for Gun Control. "What changed her mind? In 1986, she says, a close friend of hers was raped. Ms. Quigley drove her friend to the hospital. Seeing the trauma her friend went through, Quigley said she "was determined this would never happen to me." "Quigley then began thinking about how she would defend herself if she were attacked. Ms. Quigley is based in Los Angeles, with a master's degree in anthropology, and has built a successful firm that teaches self-defense to women. So why is it so unacceptable to have enforceable laws that require gun owners to demonstrate their abilities?” Public safety has become an issue in the forefront of the political debate post-9/11. There are moderates who try to bridge the gap between the two groups. They agree that gun rights exist, but that, as with most other rights, we can tolerate reasonable restrictions on those rights in the interest of public safety.

There have been many recent events involving the public and guns. The most recent, on a local level, is the shooting and killing of a man who walked into the Capitol Building in Denver. On a national level, the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech is still relatively fresh in the memory of the population. In both instances, people’s lives were in danger. Unfortunately in the Virginia Tech shooting, innocent lives were lost. It has become a hotly debated topic as far as further regulation of gun ownership as a result of the shootings, and yet there seems to be no voices of reason to come to some sort of compromise on the issue. As a result of the shootings there has been a call to action to further limit the sale and ownership of guns. This is not the answer, and yet the reaction of the gun control faction is always the same – regulate guns for those people who legally purchase and use the weapons.

A cartoon published the day after the Virginia Tech shooting by Mike Lane, and first published in the Baltimore Sun newspaper is a prime example of the knee-jerk reaction to the shooting. Upon first review of this particular cartoon, one can relatively easily surmise that Mr. Lane is inferring that the NRA, with their political influence and money upon Congress, was a direct and major contributing factor to the shooting. The cartoon’s layout shows a respectful President Bush praying by a tombstone depicting a school massacre. Behind him, looking aloof and wringing their hands, are caricatures of a man representing the NRA (National Rifle Association) – with a revolver in his pants pocket, and another man representing Congress and the money given to members of Congress by the NRA. In the background it looks as if it’s raining, with lightning above the tombstone. The cartoon was drawn in black-and-white, which lends more of a somber mood to the cartoon.

The rhetorical strategy used by Mr. Lane is that of “cause and effect”. He shows the larger-than-life caricatures of the NRA and Congress standing behind President George Bush at a graveside, with a tombstone representing the school massacre. He draws the representations of Congress and the NRA looking away from the tombstone – almost like that of a small child not able to look at his mother and admit to stealing the last cookie out of the cookie jar. While Mr. Lane does not come out and directly state in words in his drawing that the NRA with their large coffers and political influence upon some members of Congress, he does make a strong statement with simple drawings.

It can be agreed that the National Rifle Association is a powerful political group, with enormous political alliances and influences within both state and federal government agencies. It seems that once a shooting has been identified anywhere in the United States, there are those who are eager to place the blame directly on the shoulders of the National Rifle Association. The media, as well as some citizens, automatically try to twist the information regarding a shooting, especially a school shooting, into a forum upon which to get up on a soap box to squarely place the reason for the shooting on the shoulders of the NRA and its members. These people state that the political influence by the NRA upon certain members of Congress in getting laws and bills related to gun control either vetoed or filibustered to the point of not successfully passing a vote in Congress is the real reason that an individual will decide to take guns in their hands and randomly (or sometimes purposefully) start shooting people. There is a truism … well understood by all successful politicians: Three quarters of effective lawmaking is “law busting”. (Davidson, 53).

There is no doubt that this cartoon was drawn with a definite pathos appeal to the audience. The citizens of the United States, as well as the world, were in a state of shock as a result of the shooting. This cartoon, while serious in tone, seems to appeal and inflame the audience – to want to find somewhere to place blame for the shooting. It is a very effective strategy. The ethos and pathos used in publishing this particular cartoon - by playing upon the emotions of the viewing audience who were still in shock and outrage as a result of the random act of violence at a school – is quite effective. The cartoon immediately leads the viewer to have negative view of both Congress as well as the National Rifle Association. This cartoon was published the day after the shooting – much too soon for law enforcement officials to have determined the motive and/or cause for the horrible act of violence. Mr. Lane’s choice of visuals used in the cartoon automatically leads the viewer to have a negative opinion of the National Rifle Association as well as those members of Congress who are swayed by the organization. Mr. Lane very effectively is able to demonize both political groups while also showing the President of the United States seemingly unaware of what is really going on behind his back (according to the cartoon and its artist). While this cartoon makes a very powerful statement, instead of flaming the emotions and anger toward members of Congress and the NRA of the readers of the newspaper, this cartoon could have been just as effective by showing President Bush standing at the grave, with the family members of the shooting victims standing behind him – and perhaps a more fitting tribute to the victims and their families.

As with any major shooting incident in this country, it seems that the two extreme sides to the gun control debate once again rise to the surface. Gun control advocates paint a seemingly appealing picture, directly linking the “easy availability of handguns and the resulting deaths” (Davidson, 59) with the idea that once the country is completely rid of handguns or that the ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens is so regulated that those law-abiding citizens don’t want to deal with the yards of paperwork that would be required to own and/or purchase a gun, that gun-related deaths will drop dramatically. The opposite stance to this, one supported by the NRA, is that which can be seen on various bumper stickers throughout the United States – “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Mr. Lane’s cartoon only incites this debate.

In our current society the political pattern in the gun control debate is repetitive. It is a cycle of public outrage to a horrific event, a call to action to prevent further similar events, and a reaction to that call – usually one intended to prevent an over-reaction to the primary event. A key question to be asked is not whether these policies are wise or prudent, but whether or not a rational policy can result from this cycle. While good policies can potentially be a result, it cannot be attributed to a sound process. (Spitzer, p 17). What sets the gun control debate apart from other political topics is about the balance between the responsibility of the individual to protect the community, and the individual rights of gun owners. There must be a common ground. Gun control proponents should abandon their propaganda calling for a complete ban on gun ownership. Not only will a complete ban never happen, it is questionable whether we should even want it to happen. There are at least 200 million guns already in circulation. It seems likely that a ban on guns would only prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing them. Until a way is developed to take the guns out of the hands of criminals, a complete ban on the legal ownership of guns seems highly unlikely. (McClurg, p. 27)

The opponents of gun control need to relinquish the notion of the “slippery slope” ideal – that once laws are enacted restricting gun ownership, the inevitable conclusion will be a ban of all guns. They need to be more willing to consider the public’s safety and make concessions to this. Gun owners need to evaluate the gun regulations that are proposed simply on the merits of the individual proposal, without the “what-if” scenarios attached. The extremist views that are hostile to compromise and accommodation must be tempered with reason and logic….. The war of words between both sides must stop. It is time to come together and peaceably work out a solution for the regulation of firearms, while protecting the individual freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

Works Cited

Websites
http://www.manyfacets.com/dan/propaganda.html

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/McClurgA1.html

http://www.reason.com/news/show/32181.html


Cartoons
www.ctsportsmen.com/news/gun_cartoons.htm


Books

Crooker, Constance Emerson. Gun Control and Gun Rights, Westport: Greenwood, 2003.

Davidson, Osha Gray. Under Fire – The NRA And The Battle For Gun Control. New York, Holt, 1993.

Hook, Donald D. Gun Control – The Continuing Debate, Bellevue: Second Amendment Foundation, 1992.

Nisbet, Lee. The Gun Control Debate – You Decide, Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2001.

Spitzer, Robert J. The Politics of Gun Control , New York: Chatham House Publishers, 1998.

Quigley, Paxton. Armed and Female, New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1989