What kinds of arguments are we making as gun owners? Classical rhetoric classifies arguments into three categories of persuasion, ethos (appeals based on the character of the communicator), logos (appeals based on logic and reasoning), and pathos (appeals founded on emotion). Of course, we participate in all three, but we can look at and be careful about the kinds of arguments we participate in.
If I say, “My favorite class to teach is Power, Ethics, and Design, and I am a safe and proud gun owner,” I am relying on ethos. I am saying, “Look I’m educated, I think things through, and so you can rely on me to have thought through gun ownership before choosing to buy a firearm.” The folks at Of Arms and the Law, lawyers who examine precedent, constitutional rights, and case law to argue in support of gun rights rely partially on ethos – they are highly educated lawyers, so their opinion should matter.
There are other ethos-driven arguments in the gun community. There’s the “I’m a common guy an’ I like common things. I talk straight, shoot straight, I love natural things, and ain’t nobody gonna pin me down.” It is an ethos that emphasizes simplicity, directness – the breath of fresh air in the face of politics.
Unfortunately, a lot of politicians have played this hand, to the point that most people don’t trust what’s under the surface of this authenticity-based ethos. The point is we have to look at how we build our ethos and who is using our ethos. If we want to express something with integrity we need to understand both what it means to act with integrity and what it means to convey a message with integrity.
We all also participate in logos, appealing to audiences through logic at one time or another. Academics, the news, and lawyers like this approach to supporting an argument. Dave Kopel, the research director for the Independence Institute, is probably the strongest author in the gun-rights movement, but a lot of gun bloggers have been taking more of this approach in the past couple of years. I’m glad to see our logos driven arguments becoming stronger.
Pathos, the use of emotion to support a position, is one we don’t use often. In Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore’s movie about the failed-bombing-turned-shooting at Columbine high school, there is a scene where he meets with Charlton Heston to discuss the shooting of one six-year-old child by another, shortly before Heston holds an NRA rally in Flint, Michigan near where the event occurred. Moore was making an argument driven by pathos, while Heston tried to respond with ethos arguing he owns guns based on rights and tradition.
What kinds of arguments could we make based on pathos? I think some of the stories on my website do a bit of that. I think some of the double gun bird and game magazines make such pathos driven arguments. I’m wondering if there are more arguments based in emotion in support of gun rights that might cross-over to touch the non-gun enthusiast.
For definitions of logos, ethos and pathos visit http://www.rpi.edu/dept/llc/webclass/web/project1/group4/