Kairos and opprotunity in relation to the firearms debate

                I believe that the ancients seized on something that is usually overlooked in modern society. I believe that most persons in modern society are aware of the concept of Kairos, however, they have a hard time articulating the concept because we don’t have a specific term for the concept in our language. The authors of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students do an excellent job teaching the true meaning and examples of the word, and examples of kairotic situations.

                One thing I took away from the reading is that kairos can depend heavily on several factors. The first factor, of course, is timing. However, timing can be highly subjective in nature, depending on the audience. The authors of our textbook use the debate around the “Second Amendment Right / Gun Control” issue to illustrate how modern-day rhetors use a tragedy in order to further the debate because the subject has been brought forward due to current events. It seems to me that the phrase “timing is everything” speaks to the issue, and the different groups around the debate have a different opinion toward what the “perfect timing” would be.

                To illustrate my previous statement, in the past, some people have been critical of the National Rifle Association and associated Second Amendment groups because of the delay in which they mobilize to the national stage with an argument. The mindset of these organizations is that the right to bear arms is a given and any arguments that are to be made are in the defensive toward the goal of protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. Most of the time, these organizations release press statements after the tragedies have stabilized and are not actively in progress.  On the contrary, gun control groups such as the Brady Campaign and the politicians that associate themselves with gun control issues feel that the time immediately after, and sometimes during the tragedy is an excellent time to launch anti-Second Amendment arguments, because they wish to polarize the body of the American people to take immediate action in the heat of the moment.

                I, like all other people, have an opinion on this issue. I also have an opinion on why the different groups take the stances that they take.  I believe that the majority of the Second Amendment groups, with the exception of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy, take the defensive and reactive stance to the argument, because they believe that the American people, as a whole are already guaranteed the right to bear arms in the United States Constitution and that active arguments to expand the Second Amendment are not possible because it would exceed the framework of the United States Constitution and would not be in the intent of the founding fathers. While groups such as the National Rifle Association do push for reform in cases where they believe that the people’s rights to bear arms have been infringed, these arguments do not spike after, or during a tragedy.

                On the other hand, I believe that gun control groups feel that they must attempt to capitalize on the tragedy at hand because they believe that in order to further their agenda, they must get a majority of American citizens who vote to side with them on the issue. Because no educated and responsible American citizen will willing and voluntarily give up rights that are afforded to them by the United States Constitution, I believe that the gun control movement in America represents a minority voting bloc and that these groups are aware of their political status. Because of this status, I believe that these groups attempt to sensationalize the tragedy as much as possible in whatever way possible so that they can get a majority of American voter’s opinions to become emotionally charged so that they will vote for politicians who are openly pro-gun control so that they are able to emplace new restrictions. I believe that the goal of the information campaign is to get American voters to vote emotionally rather than rationally.

                In response to the gun-control information campaign, I believe that Second Amendment groups such as the National Rifle Association believe the time to start their information campaign is in response to the information campaign that is produced by the gun control groups. In the Second Amendment information campaign, I believe that these groups attempt to illustrate the results of what the future would look like if the populace was unarmed and at the mercy of armed criminals with no way to defend themselves, and how the vast majority of responsible firearm owners use firearms for sport and self-defense purposes. I believe that these arguments serve to begin to sway people back to rational thought which is not radicalized by sensational statements to make “knee jerk” reactions that have unintended consequences.

                With all this being said, I do believe that all of these groups have an ideal that they strive toward, and that is a society with little to no “gun violence”. Everyone has the same goal, however, the problem is that there are different schools of thought that lead to the same goal. I do believe it’s worthy of note that the National Rifle Association, in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, collaborated with security industry experts and offered low-to-no-cost school security consultations in an effort to make schools safer. Part of the security plans included increased police presence, armed school security presence, remotely lockable doors, and hardened “safe zones” to make the schools safer. I mention this, because even in the debate, at least one of the sides involved stepped away from the debate to take action of some sort. I think that these security enhancements are something that both sides in the debate can agree is a good thing and will, at least in the interim, help to make schools safer and save the lives of children.