2A

Okay, I’m clearly not finished ranting about this.  In trying to explore the reasons gun owners feel a need to own guns, I was kind of surprised at how many of them referred to the right to defend themselves against an overreaching government, or in more archaic language, tyranny.  But I don’t see where the second amendment gives them that right.  On the contrary, it seems to me that the language is in reference to the “free State’s” need to occasionally call up a militia in order to defend itself, presumably from outside forces.  But I’m not a legal or constitutional scholar so I can’t really argue that issue.

What I’m really struck by is the idea that these guys with their guns are going to defend themselves against the American government – even with semi-automatic rifles.  Our government has nuclear weapons and other big bombs!  They have bomber planes and missiles to deliver those bombs!  They have rocket propelled artillery and cannons!  They have tanks and armored Humvees!   

But let’s just say that they were willing to stand up to the government in a situation where the resisters believed the government was “overreaching”.  What would that look like?  The armed occupiers at Malheur?  If those guys had actually shot at anyone trying to dislodge them from the facility they would likely have been captured, arrested, and charged with breaking the law.  Would individuals assume the right to resist?  Would a civilian use a gun to stop cops from abusing someone?  Would a civilian resist the National Guard for using excessive force in trying to control a protest?  Would a parent threaten to shoot a CPS worker who came to their house to take their child?  All of these examples are ludicrous, so how does the individual right to ‘bear arms’ actually translate into using a gun?  I think that’s where it gets vague and risky.   

While I’m sure plenty of these guys who advocate for gun ownership and display pictures of themselves and their guns would love the opportunity to wield their guns somewhere besides on the firing range, that’s pretty unlikely to happen.  What they really get out of having guns is feeling a sense of empowerment.  Guns are just big toys that make them feel tough and strong – better than a big pickup truck!  And the bigger the gun the tougher they feel.  It is time for our country to stop feeding this image of the tough white guy.  The #MeToo movement ought to be a wakeup call reminding us that men in this country already have an outsized entitlement problem.  Allowing them to carry guns that are only meant to hurt other people simply puts those who choose not to own guns at risk.  All of these gun advocates will tell you that they are the ‘good guys’ and they’re here to protect us from the ‘bad guys’.  But when I see how angry they get when they think their ‘rights’ are being threatened, I do not trust them not to turn into the bad guys.  And it perpetuates the belief that there are lots of evil people out there who need to be deterred with guns.  It encourages the idea that shooting someone is a legitimate way of solving problems.   

As Abraham Kaplan reminds us, “The First Law of the Instrument states that if you give a boy a hammer, he suddenly finds that everything needs pounding.”  And if you’re a guy carrying a gun and itching to use it, you’re much more likely to skip over any other possibilities for resolving conflicts.  Even cops supposedly trained in other tactics too often jump directly to using a gun in a tense situation.  Look what happened to Charleena Lyles, a tiny, pregnant woman shot to death by Seattle police.  You can’t tell me that some civilian hot-shot with a gun is going to react any better.   

And you’ll notice I’m mostly talking about white guys here.  You’ll never convince me that if a handful of black men attempted to stage a protest while carrying their legally authorized guns they would get off as easily as Ammon Bundy and his crew.   

The United States constitution is an amazing document, and in many ways the authors had the foresight to consider that things might change in the future.  But for the American public to hold so tightly to this one sentence is ridiculous.  It is time for us as a people to declare that, other than law enforcement or military, there is no place in our country for individuals to own and carry guns whose only purpose is to kill many people quickly.  We need to stop placating the egos of white men and start thinking about the lives of everyone else who is at risk of suicide, assault, accident, or murder.  We can say ‘Yes’ to a short list of guns for hunting or personal self-defense, but we need to say ‘No’ to everything else.  No, No, No.  Give up the idea that you should try to rationalize or compromise.  Our integrity as human beings is at stake.  Just say NO.  Go ahead, practice saying that: NO, NO, NO…

Advocacy at its worst

I have begun this post at least three times on paper, and many more in my head.  What I’m really trying to sort out for myself is what the actual difference is between those who so adamantly oppose even any talk about gun control and those of us who believe that we need a whole lot fewer guns available in our communities.  It seems to me that if we can’t zero in on addressing some of their concerns, we won’t make any progress on this issue.  Recently, because I saw some comments on a friend’s post (not by her) that said they had guns to keep their families safe, I thought, “Maybe that’s it.  They’re just afraid.”  And, indeed, Pew research shows that the percentage of gun owners who named protection as the main reason has steadily risen from 26% in 1999 to 67% in 2017.  There is a lot more research on the demographics of gun ownership that you can find for yourself.  The Pew Research Center is a good place to start.  But, back to this idea of fear as a motivator for gun ownership.  The Pew Research Center also has statistics on violent crime which shows that it has declined significantly in the past 25 years.  I don’t want to get into arguing the rationality of their fear based on statistics but there just isn’t any evidence that people are in more danger than they were in 1999. 

But they said they feel the need to have a gun to protect their family and I wanted to know why.  After all, I’ve never felt the need to have a gun, or any other weapon really, to protect myself.  And I thought if we could understand their fears, maybe we can find some other ways to help them feel safe.  So, on that same Facebook post, I tried asking that question – plain and simple.  What makes you feel so threatened that having a gun in the house is necessary?  The first response I got referenced Nazi Germany, government overreach, and the right to bear arms.  Um, okay.  So, I tried again to get them to answer specifically how they would use their guns to protect themselves from ‘government overreach’.  This was only the beginning of the response I received, “First of all what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear to you? What makes your "feelings" more important then (sic) my constitutional rights?”  I think you can see where this is going.  Nowhere in my comments did I actually say anything about gun control or how I felt about anything other than making this statement, “we certainly seem to have a culture that values guns over human lives.”  Anyway, it got much more irrational from there.  He even added this quote (probably wrongly) attributed to Thomas Jefferson, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”  I checked this person’s Facebook page and, at the same time he was ranting about government overreach he was carrying on about respecting the flag and ranting that kneeling during the national anthem was disrespectful to the flag.  So, do you support our country (and its national symbols) or not?  And if you don’t, you can take up arms in resistance but others can’t kneel.  Got it.

And, while I hate to generalize, I see these same sentiments every time I try to explore what it is about gun advocates – because that’s what they are, advocates, not just owners.  There are those who feel the need to have a small hand gun for protection (which I still don’t understand) and those who have a few hunting rifles, but I wouldn’t call them “advocates”.  I met a guy one time who had the 2^nd amendment tattooed on his arm!  And there is a town in Georgia that has a law requiring every household to have a gun.  That’s advocacy!  The truth is, people in the gun advocacy camp see the world much differently than those of us who don’t see much need for personal gun ownership.  They seem to see a world full of evil and much of that evil is projected out onto other people, particularly blacks, Latinos, immigrants, gays, non-Christians – basically anyone who isn’t straight, white, and male.  They seem to believe that those other people are out to harm them by stealing their stuff, assaulting them, using their taxes to pay for ‘welfare pregnancies’ or abortions, forcing their daughters to use the same bathroom as transgender women, protesting against police violence, getting married, not getting married (and having sex anyway), praying to a different god or praying to the same god in a different way, and a host of other bad behaviors.  And their way of defending themselves against all of this bad behavior is to have one or more big guns with lots of fire power.  At the same time, they insist they have, and teach their children, a respect for guns and (innocent) life and that they would never harm anyone except in defense of themselves or their families – all the while posting pictures of their guns or pictures of themselves holding or wearing their guns, or both.  It’s a “don’t mess with me, I’m a tough guy” attitude.  It’s a CULTURE – a culture that thrives on being right, being in power, and having privilege.

So what conclusion have I come to about all of this?  In general, gun advocates believe they’re right about everything, that their way of seeing the world is the only right way, and that they need to defend that way of seeing the world with big guns.  Their stated fears are not logical, rational, or based on any statistical information.  They refuse to place any value on all of the statistics that show that more guns mean more gun violence.  They want their guns, all their guns, and they believe that the right to have guns is a major foundation of their freedom.  Having a gun means you’re free – no matter how likely it is that you or anyone in your family will ever be physically threatened and no matter how many innocent people die for that freedom in mass shootings.

And under those circumstances, the two sides, mine and theirs, will never be able to have a useful dialogue about the issue.  When one side believes their way is the only right way and they get angry at any questions from the other side, there is no room for trying to understand and find some places for compromise.  Even a seemingly heartfelt appeal by a gun advocate misses the mark.  “Pro-gun people believe that owning a gun is one step of many in helping to keep their families safe and their government from becoming too tyrannical.  Anti-gun people believe that the mere existence of a gun is a danger to all. But note that both sets of people desire safety in general.”  This writer admitted that he has no expertise, and his statement above bears that out.  There are statistics that show that the ‘pro-gun’ beliefs are not based in reality and that the existence of guns results in more gun violence.  He then goes on to propose a solution to prevent more school shootings that includes posting armed retired cops and military at all schools and arming teachers and all other school personnel – more guns to solve the problem of guns.  I just can’t go there!

My goal in starting down this path on this subject was to explore ways to honestly engage with the opposition – being a ‘liberal’, that’s what we do!  In this case, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s just not possible.  So, I believe it is time to invoke that Last Jedi quote, “That’s how we’re going to win.  Not fighting what we hate but saving what we love.”  I won’t quit working for more stringent gun control but I will definitely quit trying to engage with gun advocates.

If you’re interested in some good articles on the issue, try these:

Professor John Donohue: Facts Do Not Support Claim That Guns Make Us Safer

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

America As A Gun Culture