Waymon Chung
Unit II
America is very well known for its second amendment: the right of the people to
keep and bear arms. Guns have since been displayed by some American citizens like a
patriotic symbol, whether with or without intended humor. Since the rise of mass
shootings and firearm related crimes, guns have received a largely negative image in our
society. This now triggers the question in many Americans: are guns really keeping us
safe? Gun laws have been on the rise to restrict and control gun ownership. Or so the
people think. These laws mainly focus on restricting certain types of ammunition, and
requiring extensive background checks prior to owning a firearm. Of course, this is
affecting all legal gun owners in America, but the reality is that most gun laws have
failed to pass. The problem is not about guns and their restrictions. The main issue here is
that the media is altering people’s perception of what’s actually happening with guns and
gun laws, often using fear to elicit reactions. Other stakeholders in this issue are nonowners of firearms, criminals, law enforcement, the media, and the general public. In this
essay I will address how the projections of guns from the media can affect the public’s
perception of the argument between pro- and anti-guns. I will talk about how the media
preys on emotion and lack of knowledge from the general public. I will also explore the
bias of many people and medias and how they can inhibit the truth. Exploring the
perspectives of Stephen Asma, Slavoj Zizek and Michael Sandel on the issue, we can
learn how people may think gun owners are buying into the government’s deception of
safety, or how the possession of guns can affect one’s defensive ability versus another’s.
Firearms were originally granted by law as a tool for self-defense, especially in
one’s home. People saw firearms as a sign of safety and protection. In the modern world,
firearms have been portrayed by the media as an offensive weapon commonly linked to
murder and crime. Many argue that it’s not the guns that are killing people, but it is that
people are killing people. To counter this, laws have restricted the ownership of firearms
to persons who voluntarily seek medical assistance for any mental health problems. Even
then, if all guns were out of the picture, some people believe that the murderers would
still find alternate ways of murder. All while many other Americans fear that guns play a
large role in mass murders, especially due to a firearm’s ease of use compared to
lethality. Pro-gun Americans often argue that the criminals will always have access to
guns, even if they were illegal. Michael Sandel would argue that increasing the
circulation of guns for legal owners would not bring justice to said criminals, but may
elicit other problems with the law, depending on the situation. Now the issue becomes:
how does an unarmed American defend himself against an armed criminal with intent to
use deadly force? A common saying that many have come across is that when seconds
count, police are only minutes away. Law enforcement will not always be there to save
the day, especially if the threat is blocking the access to contacting law enforcement.
There are numerous cases of home invasions that end up with the owner killing the
invader with a firearm. Stephen Asma would argue that protecting your family is a
priority in this case and saving the intruder would be only secondary. Michael Sandel
would input the fact that if the invader had a gun, then it would be justified for the owner
to shoot first. If the invader had simply entered the home unarmed even with the intention
of crime, Sandel would argue that the owner with the gun would be at an advantage and
should not shoot the intruder unless confronted with an imminent threat. This firearm
advantage is what attracts gun owners to using firearms as means of self and home
defense. This advantage also becomes a problem when there is no set limit to what is
considered adequate for defense.
Although rifles and shotguns aren’t normally seen as threatening because they are
associated with hunting instead of crime, they are becoming a popular target for media to
pick on. Recent firearm laws have restricted magazine capacity and certain accessories
for civilian use. This did not change how the media advertises them. A common term
seen used by the media is “assault rifle.” It is a term that is also frequently used outside of
its original definition. An assault rifle is a rifle with capabilities for selective fire,
including fully automatic firing mode. For civilians to own an assault rifle they would
have to go through very extensive paperwork and background checks, and they are only
available in limited states. Often when used in media discussions, “assault rifle” actually
refers to tactical- or military-looking firearms, as if looks could kill. Despite the misuse
of definition, the media persistently uses terms like this to induce fear into the general
public. Because certain aspect of firearms are not common knowledge to the general
public, the media is able to influence some people’s perspective on firearms. Because of
this, Zizek would argue that the media is not the source of the problem, but it is the
people. Sandel would agree to that it is not a fair argument if not both sides are educated
on the subject. As Zizek would say, the argument between pro- and anti-gun is not the
issue, and the problem would not be solved by eliminating media influence, but rather by
reframing how information educates the general public. By providing reliable
information to the people’s knowledge, Sandel would note that the educated mind would
be able to see that the root of the argument does not stem from two different sides, but
rather from the nature of fear from both parties. Like Sandel, Zizek agrees that an
educated mind would be better at seeing the root of the argument, but instead of it being
the nature of fear, Zizek would say that it would be from the desire for comfort. Both
parties find comfort in arguing for what they believe, because they fear that the other
party will compromise their access to comfort. Whether guns can be determined good or
bad, the truth is that they have been used to both save lives and take lives.
Between the two sides of the argument, a stubborn bias can be just as influential
as the predatory media. Michael Sandel would propose that the nature of the argument
would lead to a necessity to suppress the disagreement, which would prevent mutual
respect to be reached. Both parties are fighting for the safety and concern for their
families. Their bias on the situation inhibits the truth that they are not actually fighting
each other, but rather the true enemies are the criminals and murderers. The media
contributes to this misconception by framing the blame on firearms and all its owners.
Because mass murder shootings are such a catastrophic event that happens so suddenly,
they can trigger rapid escalation in fear. In truth, firearms only accounted for 1.2% of
deaths in the United States in 2011. (Wadman, 2013) While any percentage of death is
undesirable, it is important to see that the source of the problem is not only from gun
ownership, but from multiple related sources as well.
To revisit the issue, the media is altering people’s perception on the current
situation with firearms in today’s society. The problem is that it is skewing the truth by
taking advantage of the general public’s limited knowledge and forcing negative opinions
on them. Whether it can be argued that guns are either good or bad for society, the real
issue is the fear that is caused by how people and media portray firearms. This is
significant because if the general public actively fears firearms, it could end up limiting
the use of firearms for personal protection in areas where it is necessary. As mentioned
before, criminals will always have access to guns even when the law does not allow it.
The question becomes, which do you fear more: guns, or criminals with guns?
Works Cited
Asma, Stephen T. “The Myth of Universal Love.” Evolving Ideas 2014-2015 Edition. Ed.
University College. Plymouth: Hayden-McNeil, 2014. 12-16. Print.
Sandel, Michael. “The Lost Art of the Democratic Debate.” Ted. Ted, Feb. 2010. Web. 5
Oct. 2014.
Wadman, Meredith. “The Gun Fighter.” Nature 496.7446 (2013): 412-415. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 10 Dec. 2014.
Zizek, Slavoj. “First as Tragedy, Then as Farce.” YouTube. YouTube, 10 Mar. 2010.
Web. 5 Oct. 2014.