Gun Control Debate: Does This New Gun Control Campaign Go Too Far?


A new campaign called They Don’t Work For You has hit the Internet. It absolutely assails the politicians who voted against the expansion of background checks in the most striking of ways. Last week the Senate failed to pass the Toomey-Manchin amendment which would have closed several background check loopholes that currently exist. The bill was six short of the 60 needed to clear the filibuster threat. The amendment has been tabled for now and is unlikely to be brought up again in the near future. 

The website itself is bold, in every sense of the word. It prominently features photos of victims of gun violence next to the Senators who voted against the bill. Bright white text is displayed over the photos of the Senators and victims. The reader is given information about each victim, their age and where they were killed. On the opposite pane is the contact information about each Senator including their Twitter handle and phone number. Here are some screen grabs:

1. "These teachers sacrificed their lives for the children they worked for."

2. "These Senators voted against protecting the children they worked for."

3. Senator John Barrasso pictured next to Olivia Engel who was killed in Newtown.

4. Senator Max Baucus pictured here next to Hiram Lawrence killed in Oakland. 

5. Senator Deb Fischer pictured next to Avielle Richman killed in Newtown. 

On the last page is a large picture of head of the National Rifle Association Wayne LaPierre. The text reads, “These senators don’t work for you. They work for the NRA, who works for the gun industry, whose sole purpose is to sell more guns.”

The website was made by Guts and Glory, a creative  agency based in Brooklyn, New York. They claim to have made the site as a way of expressing their frustration with Washington and to hold politicians accountable. The website also links to a petition you can sign which supports universal background checks. 

So, what do you all think of this campaign will it be a useful tool for gun control advocates or does it go too far?