Pistol-Packing Mamas
By Jacob Weisberg and William SaletanPosted Friday, May 26, 2000, at 3:00 AM ETThe spots: "Safe Kids Fund No. 1" and "Safe Kids Fund No. 2," produced by Ackerman McQueen for the National Rifle Association.
Transcripts: Click here for a transcript of "Safe Kids Fund No. 1" and here for "Safe Kids Fund No. 2."
These two ads are all about the pairing and juxtaposition of four words: "gun," "safety," "education," and "politics."
Vid 1
28K | 56K
Download Windows Media Player
Click here to view the adHere's how the NRA sees the political landscape. 1) People want safety. 2) Gun-control advocates say guns are a threat to safety. 3) Gun-control advocates are using this equation to push for restrictive gun laws, which the NRA opposes. 4) Laws promise solutions but involve politics. 5) People like solutions but dislike politics. 6) The generally understood way to achieve solutions without politics is education.
The essential strategy of the NRA ads, therefore, is to connect the word "gun" with the words "safety" and "education," to substitute the word "politics" for the word "law," and to juxtapose "education" with "politics."
Vid 2
56K | 100K
Download Windows Media Player
Click here to view the adThe textbook understanding of debates is that you're supposed to advance, rebut, and defend propositions. What makes each proposition substantive and open to rebuttal is its verb. For example, you're supposed to argue that guns are safe or that proper education of citizens in the use of firearms obviates the need to seek new gun laws through the political process. But in the real world, persuasion is accomplished just as often through sheer association. You don't have to say why guns are safe or how the safety of guns can be guaranteed through education. You don't even have to say that these things are true. All you have to do is repeat the phrase "gun safety education" over and over.
Look at the NRA ads. Each one repeats the phrase "gun safety" five times and the phrase "gun safety education" three times. Each one begins and ends by saying we should set "politics" aside and focus instead on guaranteeing "safe kids" through education.
These phrases implicitly rule out the position of many gun-control advocates—namely, that guns are fundamentally unsafe and that new laws are needed to control them. Once the issue is framed as "gun safety," the question is narrowed to how—not whether—guns can be owned and used safely. The task is to work with guns, not against them. As for laws and legislation, there is nothing to discuss. There is only the cacophony of "politics," which is so unpleasant and confusing that you're better off turning away from it and focusing instead on "education." As the NRA condescendingly puts it, "You're going to hear lots of disagreement about gun politics, but we can all agree on gun safety."
My favorite line in both ads is the part where they say the NRA is demonstrating how to "make a difference" instead of "making arguments." How cynically, ironically true.
—Will
All NRA advertising is basically corporate image advertising. The group has a problem in that a lot of people think its members are fanatics who read the Second Amendment as a license for any person to buy any weapon at any time. This isn't that far off the truth, but the NRA would rather be thought of as a club for sportsmen and hobbyists who do civic good works on the side, something more akin to the Elks Club or the Shriners.
These two spots are an effort toward that makeover. As you note, they dismiss the very notion that the NRA is interested in "politics"—perish the thought—and avoid specific mention of issues such as trigger locks, the gun shows loophole, or the Million Mom March, which the ads were specifically deployed to counter. Instead, the reasonable-sounding "NRA mother," Susan Howard, speaks from the hearth. She says she wants to talk "woman to woman" about gun safety and asserts that the NRA "knows how to make kids safe." Howard and NRA President Charlton Heston then announce that the organization is donating $1 million to teach kids gun safety, and Howard challenges "a million more moms just like you to put up just a dollar each" toward the cause. Adopting the lingo of universal liberalism and the tone of a telethon, she notes in the first ad that "every kid in every school deserves gun safety education, and together, we can make that happen."
You're right on target with your comments about the loaded phrases "gun safety" and "gun safety education" (all puns intended). To most rational people, keeping kids safe from guns means keeping kids far away from guns, and guns far away from kids. To the NRA, however, "gun safety" means teaching kids how to use guns without killing someone else they don't intend to kill. To that end, the NRA seems to be proposing the gun version of after-school driver's ed. In urban areas in particular, the idea of after-school gun use classes will sound completely mad. But "gun safety" is such an innocuous phrase that it sounds like something to be in favor of. You have to think a minute before you realize that universal gun safety education wouldn't have done much about the Columbine massacre—except perhaps to ensure that the killers were good marksmen.
Will these ads be effective? I think the answer to the question lies in another question: Has the NRA underestimated the intelligence of the cable-watching public? I'm sure some viewers will pay scant attention, hear the tinkly music, and leave with the subliminal impression that the NRA isn't so extreme as they thought. Others will think for about three seconds and fully comprehend the wackiness of the NRA's latest proposal. Personally, I wouldn't bet on too many moms seeing this ad and sending Ole Moses a dollar.
—Jacob
Reader Response from The Fray:
[There was an exceptionally large number of Fray postings on this article--several thousand. The vast majority supported the NRA.]
It's deliciously ironic to see such tongue-clucking over media-manipulation of the gun control issue when the gun control allies base their entire strategy on exploiting the emotional reactions of people to horrors like Columbine and demonizing gun owners as macho redneck morons.
--Andrew Piereder
(To reply, click here.)
I watched the Million Mom march on TV. I saw women on there crying because their child had been killed for his jacket, and it saddened me that it happened, but not enough to give up my firearms or shy away from teaching my children about gun safety. You won't stop criminals by not teaching gun safety but you may consider yourself guilty of some accidental deaths of children if you rant against the safety teachings of the NRA.
Just as education about drugs is the key to saving children from trying and becoming addicted to them, gun safety education is the key to all the accidental deaths by firearms. If you're going after the criminals like at Columbine, well then you're picking on the NRA for nothing. There is a clear distinction between teaching gun safety and crime, and its time you realized this in your magazine. If a six-year-old finds a firearm, puts a clip of ammunition in it, racks the slide, takes it to school and shoots another child in the head with it, that's a crime. If a six-year-old finds a loaded gun in the house and runs to tell a grownup, that's gun safety, and gun safety is the key to eliminating the less than 200 accidental deaths with firearms in this country. As for the criminal element you like to write about and blame the NRA for, well the criminals are already wasted humanity, they weren't even taught the value of human life.
--Steve Walizer
(To reply, click here.)
Jacob Weisberg claims the NRA wants to teach kids how to handle guns safely. That is false. The NRA gun safety class has only four points for what a kid should do if s/he encounters a gun: 1. Stop what you're doing (don't keep playing)
2. Do NOT touch the gun
3. Leave the area (don't keep playing nearby)
4. Tell an adult about the unsecured gun
It's not an evil plot by the NRA to get kids to like guns. It's a sensible way to prevent kids from being hurt by guns accidentally.
--Tom Fool
(To reply, click here.)
A desire for common sense gun-control doesn't make a liberal wacko, no matter how many times you say it.
Any day of the week, I'd rather have to duck a bullet coming from one side of the street than have some upstanding citizen-moron turn into Charles Bronson and start cutting loose from the other, doubling my chances of taking a stray round. I don't think it will ever register with you people that this country's frontier mentality is killing children, killing spouses and killing neighbors a whole lot faster than it is killing those whom you consider, with your brain-washed perception, to be "criminals." Guess what? Because you refuse to bend, to give an inch, you are setting yourselves up for a blanket repeal of the 2nd Amendment; ironically, that's not what most gun-control advocates want, but, oh well. It'll be your own rope that you finally hang yourself with.
The leaders of the NRA would like nothing more than to see a continuous, endless flow of weapons to whoever can plunk down the money; what that individual does with the bullets is not their concern. This ad campaign is a sham from the word go; it's a cynical, sick piece of half-assed damage control designed to ease the collective guilt of the culpable. And I'm not just talking about the criminals who pull the trigger.
--Just in Case
(To reply, click here.)
I don't hunt and I'm in favor of gun control (primarily for handguns--I really don't worry much about hunting rifles). That said, I can at least understand (if not agree with) the gun lovers' arguments against gun control based on (1) loving to hunt and shoot for sport and (2) wanting to protect their homes against robbers and intruders.
What I don't understand, however, is when the gun lovers make these bizarre arguments against gun control based on some fear of a communist/socialist/totalitarian takeover of the United States. First, governments don't become communist, socialist, fascist or any other "ist" because of gun control. Societies take that route because the vast majority of the people living in them have hellish lives and are being exploited by some ruling class. An authoritarian government seems like a decent option when your life sucks. Just because many communist or socialist governments have gun control laws doesn't mean that gun control "causes" communism.
Second, do the gun lovers really believe that they can fight off a U.S. government intent on imposing a totalitarian state with a bunch of handguns and hunting rifles? If the U.S. govt wants to impose a dictatorship on us, I think the tanks, missiles and rockets that it owns will win the day. Maybe the gun lovers think that the 2nd Amendment should cover nuclear weapons, missile and tanks--then the people really could fight back.
--Tom Speranza
(To reply, click here.)
Make guns illegal? Sure, it worked for drugs.
Gun laws are, in fact, more restrictive than ever in this country. A significant problem is that criminals will always have access to guns illegally, period. If you don't believe that, look at illegal drugs! Drugs are illegal, yet they don't seem very difficult to get hold of, even when the majority of the illicit drugs are imported into this country. Unfortunately, of the more than 400,000 individuals who tried to purchase guns illegally last year (as flagged in their background checks), less than 12 were prosecuted. Each of these 400,000 people violated a law in attempting to purchase a gun, yet were not prosecuted. How many of these individuals went on to purchase guns illegally? I don't know, but I would guess that many did, and that was preventable through actual enforcement of our laws. We have good laws on the books right now. We have background checks. We need enforcement of those laws, no exceptions.
I am a hunter, and have been for 26 years. I was trained in the safe use of guns, and have subsequently trained my children in gun safety, handling, storage, and proper usage. I am not a threat to you or society, and neither are my guns, unless they fall into criminal hands. It all comes back to the root cause of violence, and guess what folks, if there were no guns in existence at all, there would still be violence and murders. Last I checked, people were killed by stones, knives, fire, and swords long before guns ever existed.
Let's be real here, the core values of our society have dropped, violence is not only more acceptable, but it is glorified through TV and movies. Let's prosecute the people that are violating the laws, and develop education and support programs for our country's youth to try to help them from becoming statistics.
--Tim Minnich
(To reply, click here.)
(5/30)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
The Tiger-Obama Cover Golf Digest Wishes It Could Unprint
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Trial Will Be Fair Enough
AOL's Plan To Flood the Web With Idiotic Celebrity Content
Amazing Photos of Obama's Secret Service Agents at Work
If You Want To Fix Darfur, Fix Chad First
A Close Reading of the Victoria's Secret Christmas Catalog
Reader Response from The Fray:
[There was an exceptionally large number of Fray postings on this article--several thousand. The vast majority supported the NRA.]
It's deliciously ironic to see such tongue-clucking over media-manipulation of the gun control issue when the gun control allies base their entire strategy on exploiting the emotional reactions of people to horrors like Columbine and demonizing gun owners as macho redneck morons.
--Andrew Piereder
(To reply, click here.)
I watched the Million Mom march on TV. I saw women on there crying because their child had been killed for his jacket, and it saddened me that it happened, but not enough to give up my firearms or shy away from teaching my children about gun safety. You won't stop criminals by not teaching gun safety but you may consider yourself guilty of some accidental deaths of children if you rant against the safety teachings of the NRA.
Just as education about drugs is the key to saving children from trying and becoming addicted to them, gun safety education is the key to all the accidental deaths by firearms. If you're going after the criminals like at Columbine, well then you're picking on the NRA for nothing. There is a clear distinction between teaching gun safety and crime, and its time you realized this in your magazine. If a six-year-old finds a firearm, puts a clip of ammunition in it, racks the slide, takes it to school and shoots another child in the head with it, that's a crime. If a six-year-old finds a loaded gun in the house and runs to tell a grownup, that's gun safety, and gun safety is the key to eliminating the less than 200 accidental deaths with firearms in this country. As for the criminal element you like to write about and blame the NRA for, well the criminals are already wasted humanity, they weren't even taught the value of human life.
--Steve Walizer
(To reply, click here.)
Jacob Weisberg claims the NRA wants to teach kids how to handle guns safely. That is false. The NRA gun safety class has only four points for what a kid should do if s/he encounters a gun: 1. Stop what you're doing (don't keep playing)
2. Do NOT touch the gun
3. Leave the area (don't keep playing nearby)
4. Tell an adult about the unsecured gun
It's not an evil plot by the NRA to get kids to like guns. It's a sensible way to prevent kids from being hurt by guns accidentally.
--Tom Fool
(To reply, click here.)
A desire for common sense gun-control doesn't make a liberal wacko, no matter how many times you say it.
Any day of the week, I'd rather have to duck a bullet coming from one side of the street than have some upstanding citizen-moron turn into Charles Bronson and start cutting loose from the other, doubling my chances of taking a stray round. I don't think it will ever register with you people that this country's frontier mentality is killing children, killing spouses and killing neighbors a whole lot faster than it is killing those whom you consider, with your brain-washed perception, to be "criminals." Guess what? Because you refuse to bend, to give an inch, you are setting yourselves up for a blanket repeal of the 2nd Amendment; ironically, that's not what most gun-control advocates want, but, oh well. It'll be your own rope that you finally hang yourself with.
The leaders of the NRA would like nothing more than to see a continuous, endless flow of weapons to whoever can plunk down the money; what that individual does with the bullets is not their concern. This ad campaign is a sham from the word go; it's a cynical, sick piece of half-assed damage control designed to ease the collective guilt of the culpable. And I'm not just talking about the criminals who pull the trigger.
--Just in Case
(To reply, click here.)
I don't hunt and I'm in favor of gun control (primarily for handguns--I really don't worry much about hunting rifles). That said, I can at least understand (if not agree with) the gun lovers' arguments against gun control based on (1) loving to hunt and shoot for sport and (2) wanting to protect their homes against robbers and intruders.
What I don't understand, however, is when the gun lovers make these bizarre arguments against gun control based on some fear of a communist/socialist/totalitarian takeover of the United States. First, governments don't become communist, socialist, fascist or any other "ist" because of gun control. Societies take that route because the vast majority of the people living in them have hellish lives and are being exploited by some ruling class. An authoritarian government seems like a decent option when your life sucks. Just because many communist or socialist governments have gun control laws doesn't mean that gun control "causes" communism.
Second, do the gun lovers really believe that they can fight off a U.S. government intent on imposing a totalitarian state with a bunch of handguns and hunting rifles? If the U.S. govt wants to impose a dictatorship on us, I think the tanks, missiles and rockets that it owns will win the day. Maybe the gun lovers think that the 2nd Amendment should cover nuclear weapons, missile and tanks--then the people really could fight back.
--Tom Speranza
(To reply, click here.)
Make guns illegal? Sure, it worked for drugs.
Gun laws are, in fact, more restrictive than ever in this country. A significant problem is that criminals will always have access to guns illegally, period. If you don't believe that, look at illegal drugs! Drugs are illegal, yet they don't seem very difficult to get hold of, even when the majority of the illicit drugs are imported into this country. Unfortunately, of the more than 400,000 individuals who tried to purchase guns illegally last year (as flagged in their background checks), less than 12 were prosecuted. Each of these 400,000 people violated a law in attempting to purchase a gun, yet were not prosecuted. How many of these individuals went on to purchase guns illegally? I don't know, but I would guess that many did, and that was preventable through actual enforcement of our laws. We have good laws on the books right now. We have background checks. We need enforcement of those laws, no exceptions.
I am a hunter, and have been for 26 years. I was trained in the safe use of guns, and have subsequently trained my children in gun safety, handling, storage, and proper usage. I am not a threat to you or society, and neither are my guns, unless they fall into criminal hands. It all comes back to the root cause of violence, and guess what folks, if there were no guns in existence at all, there would still be violence and murders. Last I checked, people were killed by stones, knives, fire, and swords long before guns ever existed.
Let's be real here, the core values of our society have dropped, violence is not only more acceptable, but it is glorified through TV and movies. Let's prosecute the people that are violating the laws, and develop education and support programs for our country's youth to try to help them from becoming statistics.
--Tim Minnich
(To reply, click here.)
(5/30)