Once word got out that the AR-15, a consumer-grade knockoff of the M-16, was used to carry out the massacre in Newtown, it didn’t take long for someone to find the “Man Card” ad campaign.
Concocted two years ago for Bushmaster, the rifle’s North Carolina-based maker, the web ads offer various tests of manliness — Do you “think tofu is an acceptable meat substitute”? Avoid eye contact with “tough-looking 5th graders?” — and suggest that a “Man Card” can be revoked, then reissued with the purchase of a gun.
Comments
This comment has been removed.
I have to agree with Joanna. There is a certain amount of swagger that comes with people who take pride in their gun ownership, that come directly from the culture in which we live. This culture glorifies guns and violence, and creates the perception among too many that guns somehow make them more manly or tough. Women are often seduced into this as well.
How do we change thew culture? There must be strict mandatory sentences for gun violations. There must be strict and accountable limits on the purchase of guns and ammuntion.
Joanna touches on something extremely difficult to address. I admit as a Nam vet to a bias against pols and public figures of today who dodged the war, (including LaPierre, Cheney et al), who now prove their masculinty with their hunting and gun owning exploits. But the fact is it isn't really this childish affinity towards guns that is the problem. The real problem lies with those politicians who campaign on the idea that govt. is your enemy. That we as voting citizens must prepare for the great showdown or the end of the world or some other nonsense. No blue helmets are coming, no black helicopters, no communist hordes the only thing I fear is the crazy with his AR.
Certainly it won't hurt to downplay this love affair with the gun and with violence. It won't hurt to act a bit more civily in the political sphere and stop with these nonsensical attacks upon one's opponent as un-American or seeking to end the American way and thereby instilling fear in the ignorant. Guns in and of themselves I have no problem with. Whey I was younger I liked hunting and still have my hunting guns. But they don't speak to my masculinaty as the gather dust in the closet. No, it's people like LaPierre and his ilk that are the problem that perpetuate the insanity. Perhaps the more sane of us can start to have a rational conversation regarding these weapons and their control.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
"Plenty of teenagers play warmongering video games and lionize “The Dark Knight” without resorting to violence. "
And, only a extremely small percentage of the guns in this country are used in a violent and/or illegal manner.
Strictly enforce existing guns laws. The recent O'Connell case in Quincy comes to mind.
Get help for those of our people who are suffering from mental illness.
Stigmatize the production, sale, and/or distribution of violent movies, TV shows, and video games. I would love to see Matt Damon appear in a series of ads where he does a mea culpa for his Bourne movies.
We as a society have a responsibility to recognize that complex problems require a range of actions to effect solutions.
Why should Matt Damon apologize for his movies? They carry the approriate rating, it is up to YOU as a parent to make sure your children do not watch the movies if it will influence them negatively.
But, I'm certain that there are also adults that are negatively influnced by violent movies, etc. Who is responsible for them?
Say what you will, it's all about penises.
I can see that you have not been to a gun range lately.
If I think about penises and guns I find myself craving kevlar underpants.
Interesting article. Not so sure we need to "stigmatize" anything, but the concept is sound. The problem, as I see it, with "stigmatizing" something like a gun is that there are many people who must use guns for good purposes. People like Police Officers, Security personnel, military. Once we ingrain people with the idea that anyone who uses a gun is somehow "less" or "bad" we create another problem.
But as I said, the concept is sound. Many have spoke of the "gun culture", or asked "what is wrong with our culture?". Ms. Weiss has spoken to the heart of the problem. We need a cultural shift. She speaks of making change via money. That certainly would work. She is right about parents needing to make decisions about what their children play with.
It seems to me that many people want a law passed that would require no effort on their part (they own no guns), instantly solve the problem, and they would be able to continue to allow their children to be inundated with violent games, movies and toys.
It is so much easier to blame an object, a group of people or an industry and then demand a law be passed to "fix" the problem.
I am thoroughly amazed we have not reinstituted prohibition. No one actually needs to drink alcohol. It wrecks livers. Causes diabetes. Drives up health care costs. Kills lots of people in DUI accidents. But, as we all know, a LOT of people like to have a glass of wine, a drink or a beer. But should that be a reason to allow the deaths to continue? Hmmmm, instead we are attempting to change our cultural view of drinking.
Good article!
Good points. I'd like to think a renewed interest in gun safety, trigger locks, and perhaps adaptation of existing or refinement or even new technologies to guarantee that access to a firearm is limited to its intended user will result. As to alcohol, it's more complex. A small amount (as in no more than two beers or glasses of wine per day) actually lowers blood pressure, and the flavinoids in red wine are anti-oxidants (ignoring the fact that alcohol is itself an oxidant). Dark beers are high in iron content, and the alcohol promotes its absorption into the body. There was a time when a family doctor would advise women prone to heavy bleeding during mensis to have a glass of stout to ward off anemia.
I've seen it in comic strips and my own childhood, if I didn't have a toy gun, a stick and imagination let me play 'war' with other kids. And despite playing games like that, I didn't grow up to be a violent person, nor did my playmates. As a teenager, I did have to use a gun to dispatch crop damaging critters when it became neccessary. Despite that background, I don't hunt, nor even own a gun. The people who will commit gun violence will be immune to gun stigmatization as much as they are immune to the message that it wrong to harm and kill others.
Stronger gun control that restrict the entire population will help to some degree, make people feel they are doing something, but it still seems the most effective solution is to target the small fraction that commit the violance. We know who the repeat crminals are, and in most of the mass shootings, even non-professionals saw trouble coming long before the event. These are the folks who will not respond to stigmatization, but require severe criminal penalties, or recognize that long term or permanent isolation in an asylum setting is the most direct and effective solution to protect the public.
Just one minor problem: We don't lock people up in this country unless it is VERY apparent they have become a danger to themselves or others. And that is for very good reason. Someone "seeing trouble coming", especially a non professional, should never be used to incarcerate a person. Imagine the consequences, your local Police Chief could have anyone locked up, because "he saw trouble coming".
If it were easier to commit to hospital for evaluation those who display behaviours predictive of psychosis there might be fewer such events. The bar for very apparent is so high that the first violent act is either suicide, or murder (or murder suicide). Most violence, such as occurred in Colorado or Pennsylvania recently, would be missed due to no warning signs, but the last three spree shootings could have been prevented.
Guns kill people like spoons make you fat.
Ever try to kill someone with a spoon or get fat with a gun? The vast majority of murders are committed in this country using firearms. Easy access to guns, and the vast numbers of guns, means there is inevitably a great deal of gun violence. Further, it's easier to commit gun violence than other forms, because guns are easy to use, as opposed to trying to kill someone with a knife or your bare hands. I don't advocate getting rid of guns because (1) it is impractical given the numbers and mentality of the two opposing sides, and (2) for those whose incomes are such that hunting means having enough to eat (for the record, yes, I know such individuals), taking away their rifles means forcing them to go without. But this 'guns don't kill people' knee-jerk response is just preposterous. It avoids the larger issue of why is it so easy for people who are too unstable and/or violent to get hold of weapons, and why is it so hard to commit to hospital and treat those who display behaviours consistent with volatile and violent outbursts?
This comment has been removed.
Times have changed and we have to change. The question that never really seems to be asked is why does anyone, other than a trained professional who uses advanced weaponry in the course of their profession need a handgun or any type of semi-automatic weapon. After passing certain thresholds an individual should be able to own a shotgun or a hunting rifle, that certainly protects the intent of the 2nd Amendment; combined with a dog, how much more do you need to defend your home, yourself and your family. We shouldn't nuance this issue and dance around it, all handguns, high capacity magazines and all other military style semi-automatic weapons should be turned in, just like when you leave the armed forces and if you don't you’re going to jail. It's not 1791 anymore, it's 2012, approximately 12,000 of our citizens are killed every year by handguns and other forms of advanced weaponry. These weapons make it all happen, make it all possible, irrespective of the mental state of the individual using such a weapon.
ok, I will turn in mine right after the last criminals and nutjobs turn in theirs. Are you going to lead the house to house searches? If so, might I suggest that your insurance company will probably send you a cancellation notice?