Is the NRA firing blanks?

There have been a lot of responses to the NRA's response to the Newtown shootings, and it's been interesting to see both liberal and conservative cartoonists reject the group's reasoning. 

Predictably, some on the left are in the "Guns Are Inherently Bad" camp, and their semi-hysterical response really only feeds the fear of an already-paranoid segment of the gun-owning community.

And some on the far right, those who normally stick to illustrating Fox News and Rush Limbaugh talking points, may simply be choosing to ignore the topic rather than depart from the approved script.

But there have been some insightful cartoons from both sides of the aisle and it may be that we really are on the verge of an intelligent conversation.

This in a country where, just four years ago, the right wing was able to stir up rage by quoting a presidential candidate who said that, in hard economic times, both religion and the Second Amendment become very important to a lot of bluecollar people.

It's as bad as if he had suggested that some people were going to want lower taxes and less government spending. How could you vote for anyone who believed that?

And, of course, the far right has boiled down his call for a discussion by both sides seeking a variety of solutions that we can all live with to "He's a-gonna take yer guns away!"

But their frantic spinning and skewing appear not to be gaining much traction, as cooler heads take up the topic.

A couple off the top of the heap:

Rob Rogers tends to be pretty conservative, but he points out a parallel that also struck me in watching Wayne LaPierre on "Meet the Press" last week.

My only quibble with Rogers is that I don't see the NRA position mirroring the 1950s, when the science was still new and open, if not to doubt, at least to debate. I think it's more like the 1970s, when the Tobacco Institute went full-throttle on not just creating its own nonsensical "studies" to actively confuse the debate, but on pursuing a more wide-based smoke-and-mirrors campaign.

LaPierre's interview reminded me of one of those insufferable authors on talk shows who, regardless of what he is asked, artlessly inserts another plug for his book. He was not simply relentlessly "on message" but actively resisted answering Gregory's questions.

And now the topic has shifted away from LaPierre's non-interview-interview to an investigation of how Gregory was permitted to show the audience the difference between the ammunition clip that could be banned and the one that most people agree is reasonable for responsible gun use.

I'm sure that is a conversation that "just happened."

Meanwhile, the traditional chasm between supporters of the Second Amendment and supporters of the First Amendment has opened up yet again, with some cartoons suggesting that the Second Amendment was drawn up with muzzle-loaders in mind.

None of these cartoons, as far as I have been able to tell, were painstakingly carved on wooden blocks and printed out on hand-cranked flatbed printing presses.

However, there have been some less tone-deaf attacks, particularly on the NRA's fanciful notion that the real problem is violent video games.

As I wrote the other day, we've created a paranoid, toxic status quo. But it's silly to focus in on video games as a root cause of mass killings.

My friends and I may not have had video games as kids, but we played endless, endless games of "War" in the woods with our toy guns. Result? A decade later, half of us had volunteered to serve in Vietnam and the other half were protesting the war.

The correlation, as Drew Sheneman points out, simply isn't there:

But Ben Sargent digs deeper, with what I think is the best overall cartoon on the subject, in which he wrap up both Rogers' attack on the NRA's heartless lobbying with Sheneman's doubts about the declared problem in a concise panel neatly illustrating the lobbying group's toxic illogic:

No further comment. Just a standing O.

Comments

[Dave from Phila]

Newtown was a watershed moment for me. Not about the insanity of the easy availability of guns to the general public that serves no purpose other than to kill human beings. I am talking about the violence of video games. I am a flaming liberal. But I am prepared to have an intelligent debate about video games.

When I, like Mike, played war for hours on end as a kid, we pretended to fall and die. But within seconds we were up and ready to play more. It was easier to recognize this was not reality. Also, at least for me, my playing of war with the neighborhood kids stopped after we entered junior high. Now, there is an entire generation that has been brought up playing incredibly violent video games, complete with gore/blood, fighting and killing in sometimes sadistic ways faceless animated people to which the player has no attachment … and they play it well into their 20s. This behavior must have some sort of effect on certain of the children ~ how could it not? This bothers me. And to utterly dismiss this concern without a pause resembles the NRA’s dismissal that the impact of the easy availability of semi-automatic rifles.

I am an attorney. I believe deeply in the rights granted us by the First Amendment. But there are limits to that right. As is anecdotally known, there is no right to yell fire in a crowded theater. I do not know what kind of a limitation would pass constitutional muster. It would be difficult and I suspect something like the definition of pornography … and that really does not work that well. But at least it does keep certain incredibly hard-core filth out of easy circulation.

Maybe the answer is promoting parental responsibility. I do not understand a parent allowing his/her child to play these games.

There is no one single fix. There are many issues to consider when contemplating Newtown. Not just guns and video games, but the state of mental healthcare availability, overall rising anger in our culture (car rage …), stress levels caused by (among other stressors) the war on the middle class and growth of the servant class (retail, restaurant and fast food workers) that cannot earn a living wage even with multiple jobs. But maybe movement (even incremental movement) on a few of these lines will start to address this complex but obviously compelling problem that needs our attention.

[Mike Peterson]

I think you got into it in the last paragraph -- I dislike the emphasis on the video games, not because they're entirely harmless, but because they're only one facet of a cynical, heartless attitude towards other people that is throughout the media and society.

It's not as simple as the games, or movies like "Braveheart" which is just one example of a mainstream movie where the villain is implacably and unreasonably violent and evil.

It's also the constant stream of cop shows that give people the sense that society is dangerous, it's the Lions Club fingerprinting children and terrifying parents and kids, and To Catch A Predator and ... and ... and ...

And comedies that rely on cruelty and insults. And freak shows on TV, either literal freak shows, or in the form of the Horder shows and Dog the Bounty Hunter and Honey Boo Boo and the Kardashians and so forth and so on.

It doesn't matter whether YOU watch this stuff or not. You're surrounded by people who watch this stuff. And absorb it. And make it part of their world view.

I know there are times when treating the symptom solves the problems, but I don't think this is one of those cases. We need to dig deeper and go after the disease.

As I said the other day, it's like treating the wound on Snowden's leg while his guts are spilling out of his flight jacket.

[Dave from Phila]

" ... but I don't think this is one of those cases. We need to dig deeper and go after the disease."

Sadly, I have no faith whatsoever this will occur. Just an honest observation.

[Mike Peterson]

Oh, no, Dave. We have no plans of actually changing anything.

More in the realm of "Paint it and make it new!"

[Jason T.]

Another good colyum, Deacon. I don't usually comment because I tend to want to write, "I agree."

One minor nit: "Rob Rogers is pretty conservative"?

As a Pittsburgher who's been seeing Rogers' stuff for as long as he's been working for the papers here, I'd dispute that. He takes pretty much reliable moderate-liberal positions, and I say that as a knee-jerk leftist myself.

[Mike Peterson]

Yeah, somebody called me out on that on Facebook, too. I was juggling several cartoons, trying to decide which to use. And it was 5 a.m. And I don't know what the hell I'm talking about anyway.