January 1996 Column: "Bunch Up!"

One of my favorite quilts is one designed and made by Michigan quilter 
Gwen Martson. It is a lot of bright pastel letters carefully applied to a 
solid background. The letters spell out the message, "Girls? It's time to 
stand up and bunch up." She explains, in the text that accompanies the 
photo, that the phrase is something she overheard a woman address to a 
group of friends, presumably indicating a need for the group to coalesce 
and stick together.
It's not a phrase I've ever heard before, but one that has a lovely 
resonance—there's something old fashioned about it, vaguely Southern, 
or rural, anyway, perhaps even feminine—I can certainly hear a man 
exhorting a crowd to "stand up," but the "bunch up" is, I think, distinctly 
female. (I like, too, that Martson has immortalized a colloquialism in a 
traditionally female medium—quilting—and thus passed it on to a 
generation of women who may never hear the phrase uttered.)
The political landscape, although as subject to change as quickly as the 
real thing, seems unlikely to yield any direct, open attack on gunowners. 
That is to say, on the federal level, at least, there doesn't seem much 
opportunity for the gun grabbers to pass the type of bill that affects you 
immediately a la Brady or the semi-auto ban or the magazine capacity 
limit. To be sure, it is never a good idea to let your guard down, but as 
Federal politicians begin the year, their major preoccupation is likely to be 
job security, and not direct action that is likely to annoy big groups of 
constituents. Look instead for the kind of cloaked gun grabbing and 
erosion of civil rights that comes in things like the Anti-Terrorism bill. Or 
the Justice Department's notion that they should be allowed to wiretap 
phones in urban areas on the off chance that they would overhear a crime 
(presumably a Federal crime) being plotted.
At the state and local level, the news has been mostly good, with a similar 
prognosis for 1996. Right to carry bills moved in a lot of states (see News, 
Page 8 for more on this, as well as Karen MacNutt's column containing a 
few caveats on concealed carry laws on Page 43). There were a number of 
victories on this front last year, and advocates in a number of states that 
came close, but failed, are poised to begin the hard work again. Women 
were at the forefront of the right to carry movement in a number of states, 
notably Texas, where a law passed and Colorado where licensing reform 
failed. There's no secret as to why there are more women involved in this 
process; it is a combination of two factors. First, there are simply more 
women activists on the firearms civil rights side than there used to be. 
Secondly, pro-gunners have finally learned an important lesson: speak 
softly but carry a big stick. In this case, the "softer" speaking comes from 
the traditional source of such voices, women. The "stick" is really one 
which belongs to the (mostly male) legislators themselves—the notion that 
women command some special deference and that women's "needs" are 
somehow more legitimate than men's.But it is a stick that can be easily 
turned against its owners by women activists. 
One activist in out west told me that at a hearing not long ago she read 
almost exactly the same statement as a male activist had read at a previous 
hearing before largely the same lawmakers. She was met with respect, if 
not acquiescence, while the man had been laughed at for requesting the 
government's permission to protect himself.
Nevertheless, as the year begins, it is time for standing and bunching, 
especially by women gunowners. It appears likely that the major onslaught 
by the anti-gunners will come in the form of "social policy," rather than 
actual legislation. This is just smart thinking on their part. While you're 
on the outs in terms of what you know is attainable, you might as well 
spend your time wisely, laying the groundwork for the time when you are 
back in control. If you control the language used in the discussion of 
anything, you control the whole shooting match.
The social policy approach is already underway, you have only to look at 
the talk shows and "infonews" shows that are so prevalent right now. The 
talk shows, especially, twist already convoluted assumptions to present a 
snapshot of America that is airbrushed beyond recognition.
Recently, a producer for one of these shows called to remind me that we 
had become acquainted when he worked for a different show. The show 
he now worked on was doing a show on "young girls who are learning to 
shoot for self protection." When I asked how old these "young girls" were, 
he said he thought teenagers were what the host had in mind. It would be 
more common, I said, to find people in that age group (male and female) 
learning to shoot for recreational purposes. Young people, by and large, 
have very little notion of their own mortality, and consequently, a blithe 
disregard for their personal safety. In any event, I said, I didn't know 
anyone who fell into that category.
A day later, another gentlemen, from the same show, called. I was busy, so 
much as I love to hear the pitch these brilliant ideas are sold with, I 
mentioned that I had just talked to his colleague, and that I couldn't help 
him. Some wheedling insued, and I asked if this concept was based on an 
incident they had read or heard about, one which cried out for further 
exploration of the issue. I was told that it was merely the wish of the host 
to explore the subject.
When talk show hosts decide what reality is, and then send their minions 
scrambling to prove it, we are in deep trouble. Similarly, legitimate news 
organizations will often decide that certain subjects would make great 
copy and then send reporters out to prove it. Look for these types of "in-
depth" reports on your news programs during sweeps weeks, the period of 
time in which viewership is measured (February, May and November). 
Last month, one of our news teams probed child safety, a rather broad and 
laudable subject for review. However, the commercials that ran with it 
blared, "How can you protect your child from domestic violence?" I was 
under the impression that domestic violence was violence perpetrated by 
one family member on another, just as I was under the impression that it 
rarely involves a parent shooting a child or vice versa. 
The segment I saw (one of several in a multi-part series) focused on gun 
violence in the schools. To be sure, this is a more common occurrence 
than it used to be and one that deserves careful attention. It is not, 
however, a subject that can be reduced to a four minute television segment 
complete with children-in-age-only bragging to the cameras about their 
"pieces."
In fact, until a few years ago, the term "gun violence" didn't even exist. 
Like other fanciful media terms ("assault weapon" comes to mind) it is 
used to specifically color debate on the issue. Shouldn't plain old 
"violence" or even "weapon" (as opposed to the more neutral "firearm") 
convey a sense of danger, even dread, without the modifiers? Violence—
of all kinds—is more common in all types of schools than it used to be. 
But by talking about gun violence, instead, or hysterically implying that 
anything bad that happens to your child is "domestic violence," we are 
buying the exact bill of goods we were intended to, perverting the real 
meaning of things to fit a predetermined agenda. And, I think, many of 
these terms are aimed specifically at women, who are presumably more 
interested in the welfare of their children, and less apt to understand such 
highly technical concepts as "assault weapons."
So, while there's mostly good news ahead for all gunowners, it's still a 
good idea to stand up and bunch up.
Peggy Tartaro,
Executive Editor