Monday of this past week, a gunman killed twelve people in a Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. Somewhat disturbingly, there have been enough mass shootings over the past year that the shock one would think this sort of incident might inspire has been mostly nonexistent, but aside from it will nonetheless be part of the ongoing PR battle between those who favor gun control, led at the moment by President Obama, and those who oppose it, led by the National Rifle Association.
The idea of using tragedies for PR purposes would probably seem tasteless to many, and rightly so, but it is a necessary evil in the system we have for those who want to accomplish anything. President Obama has already spoken again in favor of gun control in light of the recent tragedy, making the same points as he made after previous shootings--that we need stronger gun control to keep ourselves and our children safe from tragedies such as these. Obviously, the desire for safety among people in general is a strong urge, so it makes sense to appeal to that desire in promoting gun control measures (whatever one may think of the measures themselves).
On the other side, the NRA, led by Wayne LaPierre, has inevitably made an opposing set of arguments. While it is an obvious strategy to tie gun control to safety, LaPierre and friends must counter this by arguing that gun control is ineffective and the true key to safety is "good guys" with guns to stop the "bad guys" with guns. These arguments, no newer than the argument that gun control will make the country safer, have shown up already from gun control opponents. Further, a common strategy of the NRA, whether one agrees with it or not, is to argue that gun control violates the second amendment, thus appealing to Americans' respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Further, in recent times LaPierre and others have shifted the focus from guns to mental instability, arguing that the mental health system in America is doing a poor job of keeping track of dangerous individuals, which conveniently takes attention away from the guns the NRA wants to keep readily available to the average citizen.
Thus, as ugly as the reality of it may be, and wherever one's sympathies may lie, both sides of the gun control debate have and will continue to use tragedies such as the navy yard shooting to promote their agendas--and given the current political system, such a strategy is their only choice.
Maybe I haven't been checking the right media websites, but I surprisingly haven't heard much news on the Navy Yard shooting. When the shooting happened the schools, that's all anyone could talk about. I feel as if the shooting happening on secure military grounds in the nation's capital should be bigger news than it has been. Maybe it's because both sides are starting to create their response to the new incident, but sooner or later, people will want answers. Using these tragic incidents as a gain for political stance is upsetting, but they can't simply refuse to comment on something so close to their argument.
ReplyDeleteAlexa,
DeleteRespectfully, I disagree with your comment that using tragic incidents to further a political agenda is upsetting. Tragic incidents like school and military base shootings are the best opportunity that politicians have to prove to Congress and the public that change is necessary. As unfortunate as it is that tragedies like this continue to occur, they give merit to politicians' arguments for or against gun control.