 |
| "Give Blood" - Public domain |
DeeDee Snavely,
A Tuna Christmas
* * *
Let's weigh in on the latest mass murder, this one at a high school in Parkland, Florida. Why not? Or as the President would say, "What have you got to lose?" I'm sure my words will make all the difference in the world because clearly the National Rifle Association (NRA), the U.S. Congress, the President, and America's gun fetishists are swayed by words and moral arguments.
* * *
I've begun to look at the problem of mass shootings in this way--coldly, cynically, just like our political leaders and gun manufacturers' national "safe space" support group--in an effort to think about strategies that might help end this madness. Essentially, it comes down to this realization: The NRA isn't bothered by mass killings because they're actually good for business. When these crimes happen, more people buy guns, which makes gun manufacturers and retailers happier and wealthier. (Hello, Wal-Mart!)
Happy, wealthy manufacturers and retailers are then likely to give more money to the NRA and to conservative politicians. This, in turn, makes conservative politicians happy, wealthy, and supportive of pro-gun policies.
Which leads me to believe that the NRA's one true love is gun manufacturers and retailers. The image of the "patriot" defending his home(land) and his (property) rights, the brave little "citizen soldier," the well-armed militia--these are just ruses to make gun ownership and gun hoarding seem like patriotism and good citizenship. It brings in the rank-and-file membership, the on-the-ground support, but it obfuscates who their real passions are.
It's as if there had been a National Cigarette Organization (was there?) and the Marlboro Man was trotted out to show how smoking is the perfect symbol of manhood, rugged individualism, and The American Way.
But the first clue about the organization's intent is in the name--it's not the National Cigarette Smokers Organization, and it's not the National Rifle Aficionados League. The emphasis is clearly on cigarettes and rifles, the products themselves. All hail the goods!
* * *
For anyone paying attention, the bodies piling up, the gaping wounds, the kids on the floor screaming in their classrooms as bullets fly overhead, should have suggested long ago that gun manufacturing, selling, ownership, and frequent use are not emblematic of good citizenship.
But might this be an argument rooted in emotions? We're assaulted, figuratively and literally, by so many images of crime and violence, by so many actual crimes and violence, that it's become very easy--even very necessary--to turn on, tune in, and then drop out as soon as possible, in order to handle the reality overload.
So we become inured and even cynical about these crimes. Why didn't they run away? Why didn't they stay put? Why didn't they do more drills? Why didn't they report their fellow citizens for fiery words and thought crimes? Why are they crying? It's their fault, not ours, for letting it continue to happen.
In this climate, though, however well-meaning, we keep using emotional arguments to win over the NRA and its supporters when for them--and perhaps most of us--emotions have nothing to do with it. For the NRA and its menage-a-trois relationship with manufacturers and retailers, it's all about the cold, hard cash. For the rest of us, we're just trying to get through the day, working for The Man, and hoping not to get shot.
I don't know how you easily counter the "pure" Capitalist reason of the NRA or the detached attitude many of us have to adopt to survive. Some people are cold and selfish, and nothing moves them to do the right thing. Others are just worn out and under siege.
But some shocks to the system might help. Normally, I would recommend a few well-tossed Molotov cocktails at appropriate places and persons, but then the NRA and its fanboys and fangirls would advocate that gasoline, lighters, and glass bottles should be restricted--at least until they could make some investments in the right natural resources and industries.
So why not use their implement of choice--guns of all varieties but perhaps with a special focus on the AR-15? I'm not suggesting anyone commit an actual crime. I mean, none of us is a terrorist or a mental patient, right? Ain't nobody here but law-abiding citizens!
Rather start by doing what's completely legal--show up packing heat in classrooms, hospitals, at your kids' recital, at weddings, and at funerals; "stand your ground" whenever you or your property feel threatened; tackle Wayne LaPierre, a member of the Walton family, or Marco Rubio because they look shady and like they might resist arrest.
And then if that doesn't do it, get more creative and emphatic.
* * *
In the U.S., we allowed slavery of African Americans until the 1860s, and once that was done, we had sharecropping and Jim Crow's spoken and unspoken laws to keep African Americans under society's collective thumb. Here's where I would make the stale ol' Southern argument--it was a matter of economics (and a lack of concern for human rights) that kept the system in place. There was money to be made and people's feelings to be disregarded. Capitalism excels at this.
Appealing to people's better angels did help reveal the tragedy, the horror, the abuse, and the cruelty. But it only went so far. People had to protest, fight, and legislate to make things better.
I think appealing to emotions, feelings, and our better natures is important, but sadly you can't expect everyone to be swayed by the same approach. They may not be swayed at all. And thus you have to take bold decisive action--protests, battles (literal battles, in the streets), court cases, and laws--to win.
So the overabundance of firearms to me is like the system of chattel slavery--it's abusive Capitalism and what's being abused is our human rights. We should look back to our past to see how we handled the great moral crises of our times, learn from them, and act accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment