After-action Assessment:

After-action Assessment:
1Jones 5 Cherod M. Jones Professor McCue English 101 7 July 2017 Gun Advertising Persuades Gun Ownership Gun control is one of the most controversial contemporary issues in the United States. The topic of gun regulation and oversight seems to have been further exacerbated by the fact that the issue has been politicized beyond all reasonable proportion. This politicization has led to people digging in on this matter and adopting radical positions, as opposed to working together for a rational approach to gun ownership. Nonetheless, a causal glance at the issue makes it glaringly evident that the United States needs better gun control laws. This is even more important when considered in the context of the recent mass shootings that involved the use of automatic weapons. Gun advertisers have marketed guns to citizens not to increase the safety of individuals, but to increase their own profits. Gun ownership can be divided into three categories according to a time when they were used; guns as a status symbol, guns for safety and protection and guns as an expression of a “fundamental” right (Pollay 23). In the years following WWII, gun adverts sought to portray guns as a status symbol, an item comparable to a car that ever family ought to have. In fact, showing children how to use weapons was advertised as a duty of a proud and responsible parent. Guns at that point were advertised as an item whose ownership was traditional to an American home and a status symbol (Matthews). The next stage in gun advertising can be identified beginning around the 1970s and lasting until the 1990s. It was marked by an increase in crime rates, especially in the inner cities (Spano and Bolland). Therefore, gun manufacturers decided to capitalize on this and began advertising guns as the ultimate defense for the “inevitable” carjacking, mugging and home invasion that might happen to people (Matthews). A shift in advertising can also be seen with the emergence of women as a significant customer base as advertisers changed to target female buyers. Gun advertising in this instance was based on fear and used very effectively. At this point, scholars began questioning the ethics of fear-based advertising with research showing that women were more likely to be in dangerous situations when they had a gun as opposed to without one. This meant that women owning guns were at a greater risk of harm than those without guns (Gorovitz 36). Furthermore, guns were noted for being more “efficient at killing than protecting” (Gorovitz 36). On the other hand, statistics were published highlighting the fact that gun-owning victims used their guns to scare away criminals more than two million times a year (Gorovitz 38). This period can be considered to have ended in 1996 with repeated calls for the regulation of guns. The next period of gun ownership is the current phase of gun advertisements that are mainly conducted by the NRA. They have created a narrative that the government wants to take away the guns of law-abiding Americans and as a result, limit their fundamental right to gun ownership (Cieply 3). The advertisements in this era have primarily focused on promoting an anti-government sentiment and to be against technological advancements. The conspiracy theory approach was spurred by a realization that most Americans are unlikely to buy more guns, and therefore, the adverts focus on persuading the few that buy the guns to buy many guns (Gorovitz 49). Gun advertising in this phase can also be seen as touting themselves as a symbol of masculinity. In conclusion, unless the approach to gun advertisement changes and we have some discussion over the merits of gun control, it will require Federal action to limit unstable and criminals from accessing large caliber guns and ammunition. Gun advertising has been remarkably effective in both increasing gun ownership levels across America and heightening fear to increase profits. Works Cited Cieply, Michael. “Gun Violence in American Movies Is Rising, Study Finds.” The New York TImes 11 November 2013: 3. Online. . Gorovitz, Eric, James Mosher, and Mark Pertschuk. “Preemption or prevention?: lessons from efforts to control firearms, alcohol, and tobacco.” Journal of public health policy (1998): 36-50. Matthews, David. “How gun advertising in America has changed since the 1950s.” 8 October 2015. Fusion. . Pollay, Richard, W. “The distorted mirror: Reflections on the unintended consequences of advertising.” Advertising & Society Review 1.1 (2000): 1-12. Spano, Richard and John Bolland. “Disentangling the Effects of Violent Victimization, Violent Behavior, and Gun Carrying for Minority Inner-City Youth Living in Extreme Poverty.” Criminology & Penology; Sage Journals (2008): 45-47.
After-action Assessment:
There are a couple of pieces of advice that I want to offer — in addition to the comments I made in your turnitin “Grademark” report. First, you are clearly on one side of this argument when you say that it’s clear some kind of sensible gun control is essential. It’s a hot debate at the moment — but the line seems to be drawn between “we can talk about control at some point (if ever)” and “we need control now (if not earlier).” So if you’re going to be on one side of the argument — that’s fine. Just do your best to avoid painting yourself as unbiased/undecided when in fact you have quite a clear point of view. I also think that if you had simply leaned into the angle of advertising from the start — rather than the entire gun debate — you may have been on stronger footing. There are other things to compare this kind of advertising to and how it was wrangled in over the years — such as cigarettes and alcohol — which were forced to steer away from targeting underage customers and now have to be openly clear about the risks and add the tag line “drink responsibly” as well as connections to helplines, etc. You need more direct quotes from your experts to make your points. Everyone was guilty of this and it’s going to be in my announcement to the entire class once I’m through grading. Use the expert language to show that people who’ve done research and work in the field already agree with you. When you’re talking about something that comes in “phases,” it’s important that you’re making a clear delineation between those phases. So, when you talk about the NRA’s current narrative, a key quote from LaPierre or one of the key pieces of advertising would have helped solidify your argument. Your strongest asset here was creativity and a distinct point of view. Lean into that as a strength going forward