Public Argument: Gun Control

Since every time you read, listen to, or watch the news it seems there is a new shooting somewhere, I thought it appropriate to address gun violence and the arguments surrounding it. I, personally, have no problem with guns, but I also have no solution to the current use and abuse of the power and responsibility that accompanies guns. I have always been taught to treat weapons as weapons, assuming guns are loaded and knowing how to use them before given the chance to fire them.  I will not deny that gun violence exists, however I find the arguments surrounding guns rarely offer true solutions to the real problem: the person.

As is typical with these sorts of issues, gun control has a heated debate surrounding it and many passionate individuals on both sides. When it really boils down, it seems the choices are extremely strict laws or no change in laws, or even looser restriction for the legal gun owners. But there are a few things each side wants. In the article I found on Newsmax, the author, Karen Ridder, discusses some of the things each side believes in regards to the issue of gun violence.

Those wanting more gun control point out that a lot of times, shootings are done by those who legally own firearms. They also point out that there are places where gun control is not as strict, but those places aren’t exactly safer. They are also advocating for background checks in hopes of preventing guns from being in the possession of the ‘wrong’ people. Simply stated, they believe stricter laws are the solution.

While this solution has merit I can’t help but feel it isn't enough. It doesn’t seem like it actually deals with the problem. An entire decade of history, the 1920’s, is enough proof, to me, that tightening control over something, even banning it, does not solve the issue in any way. If anything, it could make it worse. Laws do little to stop lawbreakers. However, background checks appear to be a good thing to implement. While things like this can, I’m sure, be falsified, they would certainly bring up any major red flags.

On the other side, people are citing the Second Amendment as the sole reason needed to let them own firearms. They also refute the other side’s crime rate arguments by pointing out that as legal gun ownership increased, violent crime rates have gone down.

It makes sense that if every single person is carrying a weapon, nobody in their right mind would dare attack anybody because they know that person can defend themselves. Even if the criminal knows there is a good chance that a dozen or so people in a given area own guns, I’m sure they would give any thieving or attacking a second thought. The problem I see with this is the probability of everyone being willing to carry a gun. Some people are just not comfortable with that. The other thing is, criminals typically aren’t in their right mind. That being said, if something should happen, the criminal could be stopped before any extensive damage is done, or lives taken.

This issue has been debated for a long time, and every argument seems to go in circles. Hopefully the happy medium solution will be found and implemented. There will be laws that work, but everyone will have the option to carry and own a firearm should they want to. Realistically, the utopian society in which there is no violence, gun related or otherwise, probably will never exist, and we must trust that individuals are raised and taught to respect guns, be safe, and not murder others. I stand by my belief that it is people who are the problem, not guns. The solution, therefore, is a lot more complicated than laws or statistics.

References

Ridder, K. (2014). Gun control pros and cons: 3 points on both sides of debate. Retrieved September 27, 2015, from http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/gun-control-pros-andcons/2014/09/28/id/597212/. 

Ethical Breach

In a world of advertisements we are constantly bombarded with information, making it hard at times to truly look at what is being displayed, and what we are reading. However, when you take a closer look at some advertisements you can see their blatant disregard for their public, no matter what their initial intentions were. The advertisement I chose to discuss is shown below. I find it disregards persuasive ethics by, intentionally or not, being degrading to their audience.

Source: askCLEO.com and www.oddee.com/item_97189.aspx

The main breach I see in this advertisement is disrespect for its audience. At first glance anyone would tell you this is an advertisement attempting to promote women’s health. Further consideration, however, reveals a questionable message. Despite its good intentions, I feel this almost encourages or makes light of sexual harassment. Though it is not explicit, and a lesser example than others, it is still tasteless and highly suggestive. It seems clear the company knew what they were doing; using a fairly attractive, half clothed, male model to hold a sign suggesting his willingness to, as the popular breast cancer slogan goes, 'feel your ta-tas.' However, I don’t believe they were trying to be offensive, but rather slightly humorous. At first most might see it that way, but after a while it becomes sort of uncomfortable. This ad takes things a step too far. 

The primary audience is women, and typically it does not do to be tasteless or crude in the face of breast cancer, or any cancer for that matter. Trying to find the humor in difficult or awkward circumstances is one thing, being boorish is another. In this way they could easily cost themselves valuable audience members, especially since they are dealing with a health issue. It is easy to see how this could not sit well with people, and it could give the companies, foundations, etc. a bad image. Caring for every aspect of women’s health, physical and mental well-being, safety, and survival, should be at the backbone of organizations supporting breast cancer prevention and research. This advertisement does not say, let alone scream, any of those values. Without those values, companies risk their good name and credibility.

That may seem a grim criticism in exchange for one advertisement, but imagine the thousands of similar ethical breaches occurring worldwide. From a public relations standpoint, I am not convinced this was a good route to take in spreading the message, or reaching the desired audience. Consider, for a moment, those who have lost someone to breast cancer. Most likely they were related in some way and often cancer risk is hereditary. Imagining myself in that position I would not find this ad appealing, and especially not humorous, in any way.

In addition, I believe it is things like this that give feminists something to talk about. While it is not the worst example of what has been labeled ‘objectification’, it may serve to call into question our society’s way of looking at women, as well as our treatment of their health issues.

At the end of the day, I feel this advertisement shows disrespect and flippancy towards the target audience. Things such as breast cancer should be handled with a little more care, and those at risk should be able to rely on organizations to provide useful information in a respectful manner.