Banning Guns, Yes, But Rhetoric is Also Important

The Economist writes in last week's edition (technically still this week's until tomorrow) about the blame game, saying that opportunists should not focus on the rhetoric of American politics, but on the gun laws themselves.

There is no doubt that banning guns in America would contribute a great deal to keeping armed violence down domestically - it is simple logic, less guns, less opportunity for violence and gun accidents. To completely dismiss the rhetoric, or almost completely as in this case, is to isolate only one part of the problem, albeit the biggest one, and ignore the others.

As the article notes, and as people have noted when writing about the Loughner shooting, what is commonly known, is that the right to bear arms is a part of American culture, at least in some circles. It is a part of the constitution (although the interpretation of said amendment can vary and it could be argued that much stricter gun laws could be put in place without violating the constitution) and an issue that has created social movements to ensure the protection of the second amendment and the gun laws that have come out of it. For some people, it is an essential right to own guns and to be able to use them to protect oneself and the family.

The issue is, though, that in a society, or parts of a society, where people have a tendency to invoke violence instead of diplomacy when faced with a threat, or people threatening to use violence through weapons, it creates a hostile environment. There is a reliance on guns and what is seen as the inherent right of every citizen of the United States of America to bear arms. This is as much a problem as the actual fact of owning guns. If people see it as their right to bear arms to protect themselves, they also see it as their right to use them. If a violent rhetoric is then used as a deterrent or as a threat and is combined with the notion of an unalienable right to bear arms, this could lead to trouble.

That it is a problem that guns are so easy to come by, is not something I would deny at all. That the gun control laws are not working the way they should be when Loughner, who allegedly should not have been able to buy a gun because of previous army troubles, can do so anyway, is not something I would argue against at all either. In fact, being Swedish and not understanding why people would at all want to keep weapons in their house that can kill other people, not to mention be used against themselves, I would absolutely argue that legislation that allows this is nothing but counterproductive and idiotic. Why would any state want to give its citizens the easy access to weapons to kill each other, or for children to be accidentally shot to death? It's beyond me. Point being, I do not have a problem with the Economist's call for banning guns. I think it is a sensible argument.

It is when the legislation becomes separate from cultural and social influences that I start seeing a problem. Guns allows for violence, that is true, but there are also other ways of assaulting people. Perhaps it would be harder to kill politicians if there were no guns as personal body guards would probably stop any person trying to lay hands on a politician, but the problem here is that the average person does not have body guards. If a violent rhetoric still exists in society there will still possibly be a problem with violence, because a violent rhetoric in the way that primarily right-wing politicians in the US are using makes it acceptable, in fact, it is an indirect encouragement of violence. If violence becomes normative in discussions about politics, or about any action in society, people start seeing it as something acceptable, and once that happens, what is to say that there will not be people exercising violence against average citizens demonstrating for a cause that the perpetrator(s) do(es) not agree with? This happens in societies where guns are not nearly as readily accessible.

When violence and politics are seen as something that go together, it becomes a problem. A democratic society is no longer democratic where people are silenced through violence, by any means. Violent rhetoric can contribute to a mainstreaming of violence within politics, and it does not matter if it is guns that are being used in visuals, like Sarah Palin and her famous crosshairs, because it is the violence in the rhetoric that is dangerous. If that type of rhetoric is used and people do not have access to guns, they will find other ways to use violence; other means of violent protest. Banning guns is a fantastic idea, but the rhetoric is also very important to watch lest it leads to violence becoming the norm in political debate and discussion, or that violence starts to be associated with politics.

I have said it before: violent rhetoric does not belong in a democratic society, it is counterproductive and may lead to an undermining of democratic principles. Implications and consequences of using a certain type of rhetoric needs to be watched out for. If rhetoric were not important, then politicians would not need nearly the enormous amount of staff and resources that go into politial PR, spin, speech writing etc. Words do matter. So does legislation, but banning things will only work insofar the public is on board with the idea. If the rhetoric persists while guns are banned, violence might still be used in politics. Banning guns is a good start, but there needs to be work done on the rhetoric too.

Sarah Palin and the Consequences of Free Speech

Sarah Palin has done it again, said something of such utter stupidity that the clocks start ticking backwards. Today she has posted a video accusing journalists and other people criticising her violent rhetoric of blood libel, a term most often used (according to above article) "to describe the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. The term, which is centuries old, referred to anti-Semitism and violent pogroms against Jews." Rep. Giffords, who most people are aware of, was shot a couple of days ago in what seems to be at least a partly politically motivated action and her condition is still critical, perhaps not so surprisingly as she took a bullet to her head.

I don't really want to discuss the details of the violent rhetoric of the US right, as there have been others who know more of the subject and can express it better among them Melissa McEwan at Shakesville. Suffice to say that the right wing in USA have been using, condoning and, some might even argue, encouraging violent rhetoric in the form of gun imagery when talking about their political opponents. While it has been fairly clear that this imagery has not been meant to really hurt someone, it is distasteful and horrible. What I really want to discuss is Palin's call for protection under free speech in the face of this horrible event.

Free speech is good. Free speech is great. A lot of productive discussion can come under free speech and democracy and the progress of society would be impossible without it. No person, or few persons, alone can take on the development of a country and its inhabitants. While more voices might sometimes be confusing, it is definitely a benefit for the greater good. That is not to say that rhetoric is not important. I have argued consistently, both here and on my Swedish language blog, that rhetoric is key to how policies are interpreted, implemented and constructed. After all, we all act within the references of what we know, and rhetoric shapes much of our perception of society, which it is also such an important thing to challenge normative rhetoric and the (inappropriate) use of it.

Under free speech, the notion is that you can say nearly whatever you want, as long as there is no direct hate crime or slandering of another person. Fierce opposition is common and encouraged among politicians, especially in today's media hyped society where the harshest words make the best newspaper heading. But with great freedom, comes great responsibility, to paraphrase Spider-Man's uncle. If you are allowed to say nearly whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want, you should also be prepared to take responsibility of the consequences. I am not saying here that Palin and her buddies are responsible for the horrible shooting against Rep. Giffords and the other people, but it can most certainly be argued that their violent rhetoric could have inspired the shooter. This is something that Palin should recognise and own up to. She needn't apologise for the shooting, because she did not hold the gun, but she should at least recognise the possibility that her rhetoric and her imagery have or could have contributed to political violence. If she uses violent rhetoric in politics, there is a possibility it could lead to political violence.

When violent rhetoric becomes the norm within certain political circles, politics will be associated with violence. From putting crosshairs over political candidates, to threatening that people will start picking up their guns if the political outcome is not in their favour, as Sharron Angle did, there is a hazy line to resorting to violent tactics. When violent imagery and euphemisms are used in such political contexts, it indirectly condones such behaviour and might even encourage it. The use of such rhetoric is nothing but irresponsible.

People are not accusing Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle or any of the other users of violent rhetoric, of having pulled the trigger and fired the gun at Rep. Giffords, they are calling for them to take responsibility for abusing words and imagery. Being a person in power, you have to be careful of what you say and how you say it, because people listen to you. That is the whole point of power, you can influence other people to do what you want them to do. If you start talking about picking up guns, or if you make political representatives targets on your website while in a power position, you cannot completely turn your back to the fact that people might act on it. The reason why this rhetoric was used in the first place was to make people passionate about politics, Ms. Angle says. Did it not cross your mind, then, that perhaps making people passionate about gun violence and politics in the same sentence was not such a great idea?

Enjoying the freedom of speech does not mean that you are automatically immune to all criticism, regardless of how harsh it might be - it means the opposite. Now people are using their freedom of speech to make Palin et. al. realise what it is that they did wrong, because in a democracy, violence and politics should not be associated with each other - not from the state against its citizens, nor from the citizens against its state.