The debate over gun control and 2nd Amendment rights is stuck in an us vs them mentality
I’ve got a friend who’s a gun-nut.
OK. Obviously that’s an unfair, charged statement designed to spark an emotional response. But that’s the point. In today’s “us vs. them” politically charged environment people read “gun-nut” and tend to have one of two responses. If you aren’t part of the gun-culture you might imagine an ultra-right-wing, NRA-fundamentalist with a gun rack on the back of his F-150 and a confederate flag on his porch. If you’re a gun-enthusiast you might find the term “gun-nut” offensive and assume that the author who used that term is a free-wheeling, over-educated liberal elitist who would happily tax you to death to give free meals and healthcare to unmarried welfare queens.
Where public discourse is concerned, there does not seem to be a lot of middle ground when it comes to gun usage, ownership and the 2nd amendment.
In my friend’s defense, he is good natured enough not to take offense to the phrase “gun-nut”, but he would agree that “gun-enthusiast” might be a better choice of words. By way of a little background, he is a retired Navy SEAL. He spends his retirement blacksmithing, writing fiction and gaming with his wife and friends (this is how I know him). But his chief passion is investigating and debunking people who make false claims of valor (claiming bronze stars, purple hearts, SEAL membership on a curriculum vitae, etc.). He is an honorable man and one of the most intelligent people you could ever know. He loves his children, dotes on his wife and is a fiercely loyal friend.
And he’s a gun-nut.
He lives in remote southern Missouri, out of sight from the rest of the world, in the middle of vast acreage. On the political spectrum he’ll tell you that he believes all politicians are crooks, but he comes down especially hard in the “Obama-is-the-spawn-of-Satan” camp. On Facebook he regularly shares pro-gun-culture articles, literature and cartoons. He sees any attempt at regulation as an infringement on his constitutional rights and regularly rages against what he sees as an ever encroaching government restriction on his liberties. Essentially he’s a “you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hand” sort of guy… and he means it. He freely admits to carrying a concealed weapon at all times, whether around the house or at the grocery store. He sees the world as a dangerous place with dangerous people in it, and the only way to stay safe is to be at least as dangerous as the people who would harm you. From his perspective more guns are better, so long as those weapons are safe in the hands of the people who are carrying them.
That is precisely the frame of mind that makes people on my side of the spectrum very nervous. I am not part of the gun-culture.
I live in a stereotypically liberal, elitist, educated, progressive part of the country. If people are carrying weapons they keep it to themselves. In the social circles I travel, to openly admit to gun enthusiasm is to invite mistrust and judgment. People in my world tend to share on their facebook walls the meme that says self-righteously “Guns make you safer the same way plastic surgery makes you more beautiful – only in your head. The rest of us just assume you have self-esteem issues.” Although I and most of the people I associate with appreciate the right to bear arms, and indeed don’t want that right taken away, we choose NOT to carry weapons, and feel more comfortable if we knew that nobody else in the room were carrying either. We would be happy in a world with no guns.
From his perspective more guns are better, so long as those weapons are safe in the hands of the people who are carrying them.
|
In stark contrast to my friend, the world I live in is an inherently safe place because most people are following the rules. We’re all trusting each other to do the right thing, and that’s how we stay safe. The only reason to carry a weapon is if you don’t trust your community, and that threatens the harmony.
My friend’s world is in balance because everyone is pointing a gun at everyone else. My world is in balance because the people in it trust each other not to hold a gun. His balance is threatened when he can’t defend himself with a weapon from an aggressor. My balance is threatened when someone becomes an aggressor with a weapon. He would call my world naïve. I would call his paranoid. He would tell you that lightning could strike at any time, and you’d better be prepared. I’d tell you that you can’t shoot lightning. He would point to the Constitution citing gun ownership as necessary for maintaining a militia. I would point out the passage that mentions a “well regulated” militia. He would make the case that gun ownership is the last defense against a tyrannical government. I would point out that his home arsenal won’t make a difference, when the government comes with drones, artillery and tanks, to which he would respond “Let ‘em come. I’ll put up a hell of a fight.”
Even if I can’t relate to his position on guns, I certainly can understands why he thinks the way he does. He is a Navy SEAL. He has trained himself to the highest levels of his profession. He has been in situations and seen parts of the world that most of humanity is happy to pretend doesn’t exist. He is trained to instinctively assess potential threats and vulnerabilities in any situation, foreign or domestic, urban or rural, and have a plan to safely (and aggressively if necessary) navigate those threats. The level of training required to reach the ranks of the Navy SEAL’s does not leave you when your service is over. It becomes part of your tapestry. It is who you are and always will be. We asked him to see the world this way so that the world we lived in could carry on in blissful ignorance.
In short, my world would not be possible without his protecting it. But it’s also worth pointing out that his world would not be possible without mine to protect. These world-views are the competing extremes in the gun debate spectrum. So where then is the actual reality? Which is right? The only certainty is that the two extremes are talking right past one another without making any attempt to listen and understand. If the question is “a world with guns” vs. “a world with no guns”, there can be no compromise. It’s one or the other. Most rational people would acknowledge that the truth lies somewhere in between.
The only reason to carry a weapon is if you don’t trust your community, and that threatens the harmony.
|
If the objective is to find a compromise, then the first step is for both sides to try to understand one another. Thus far I have been unable to find anything worth citing where the anti-gun-culture tried to make its case to the gun-culture in a way that didn’t come across as haughty and condescending. But Dan Baum was recently interviewed for The Atlantic where he made a very interesting case trying to make the gun-culture understandable to non-gun-enthusiasts in a way that goes beyond 2-dimentional stereotypes. It’s worth a read. ((http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/what-liberals-need-to-understand-about-gun-guys/273736/ ))
Ultimately, I’ve got children of my own that I’ve got to raise, and values of my own to pass along to them. I’ve got to raise them to function in the world as I see it. I look at the world my friend lives in and think, given his experiences, it has no more or less credibility than mine. As my view of the world is focused through the lens of raising my children, the chief and most relevant difference that I can see between my friend’s gun-world and un-gun-world is that in my world there are far fewer bullets.
—
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please support our efforts by joining our Premium Community. Click the graphic below to register.
—
Photo by Vincepal/Flickr
Given the clients I work with generally come from high crime areas, in the past 15 years, I’ve talked to these guys about guns and gun control. I’ve asked the question to some of the guys this simple question. If you thought your victim had a concealed weapon, would you have robbed him/her? All of them said no. I asked, If you thought the store owner or resident of the home had a gun, would you have robbed them. They said No. When I asked these guys if guns were ban in the city of Chicago, would they still have… Read more »
I’d like to frame the argument in a fashion I think the progressive community can better relate to. Proponents say they have a clear constitutional right. Many court cases have help up that right. Local and state politics continue to chip and twist that “right” in many ways both pro and con. Opponents use horrible pictures in an attempt to move public opinion. Opponents are clearly on record saying the current initiatives are only the first step in hopes of a total ban. Proponents view the oppositions call for “compromise” as just conceding that first step towards the desired total… Read more »
I’m a liberal in many ways, mainly economic (wanting to control corporations and their influence on government,) but, at the personal level, I’m a libertarian. I’m a six year Army vet (62-68,) and have guns. I don’t carry them because they’re mainly for home defense. I agree with BlacksmithSEAL. Virtually everyone on our country lane is armed, and I think it’s a good thing. Hopefully, people who intend bad would think twice about venturing onto our properties, and I think this is fine. I think it’s less likely that people might need guns against the government than it is that… Read more »
All fair and, sincerely, thank you for the clarifications. My understanding of the distinction comes from the 1994 SAW ban, or “Semi automatic assault weapon ban” (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/saws-and-lcafds.html). 19 semi-automatic guns were banned for possessing detachable magazines and two or more “cosmetic” features, thus classified as “assault weapons.” So, not all semi automatics are classified as assault weapons, except those nineteen. So confusing semi automatics with assault weapons is not a media misrepresentation, but a governmental definition as to what constitutes an assault weapon. Assault weapons, by this definition, are not limited to only those that can auto fire. The debate… Read more »
well say your a farmer who has a corn field and you have a pig problem. those are BIG problems. like where you need an AR-15 so you can take out as many as possible quickly as possible. without an AR-15 you’d lose a lot of crops my friend.
politicians use the word “assault weapon” to refer to a scary sounding feature on a gun. The scary sounding feature does not in fact increase the deadliness of the gun, but it usually does make the gun safer to use. Incidentally, roughly 50% of murders are carried out with guns handguns (another 35% with knives, blunt objects, and hands). At most 12% of murder are carried out with weapons that could theoretically use more than 10 bullets. The reason for these stats is of course obvious to anybody that spends more than 10 minutes thinking about these things. The markup… Read more »
The term “assault” is used only with weapons that are capable of being fully automatic in firing… i.e. one pull of the trigger and hold it will result in multiple bullets being fired. A “semi-automatic” cannot be fired on “fully automatic”. A “semi-automatic weapon” fires one bullet for every pull of the trigger… and at the end of the function it discharges the spent brass shell casing and cycles in preparation for firing the next bullet. There is no such thing as a “semi-automatic assault weapon”. The term “assault weapon” has been horribly, irresponsibly and INCORRECTLY used by the media… Read more »
Would you give universal conceal carry to get universal background checks? In compromise each side gives up something. What do you want to give up to get whats most important to you? The 2nd amendment is not a hunting and fishing licenses. It is clearly about self defense, particularly defense against tyranny. You might say, small arms won’t protect you against tanks and drones. Well look what was accomplished with a pressure cooker, box cutters, and fertilizer. Technology isn’t to the point where tanks and drones are everywhere yet. The other fallacy is that the government isn’t dangerous http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316783/5-month-old-taken-away-parents-wanting-second-opinion-sick-son.html?ico=ushome%5Eeditors_choice_six_of_the_best this… Read more »
For those that don’t realize it… I am the ” Navy SEAL” described in the blog… and I am a gun enthusiast. In the 1980s I lived with my first wife and our 4 children in Huntsville Alabama, and had a home built in a nice, clean, new, modern subdivision. Within about 6 months a series of horrendous attacks/rapes started occurring.We quickly found our entire area under intense police surveillance… but the attacks continued. We got a large dog and kept a very close eye on our kids and the streets, always aware of those in the area… who belonged… Read more »
Thanks for sharing your story(s), BlacksmithSEAL. If I had your experiences, I’d own a gun. In fact, when we were living in Chicago’s northwest side, with a baby and a toddler, two gangbangers were shot dead in our alley. This is not unusual in Chicago, but regular gun shots were new to us. I’d been mugged and pistol whipped in better neighborhoods before, and in all of these instances, I considered buying a gun and learning how to use them. I’d shot a few guns before with some hunters, but ultimately my ignorance would’ve caused more problems than it was… Read more »
I agree with you man! I mean as a Conservative in South Carolina this is extremely true. Why would you trust everyone you meet in these times? Look at the numerous rapes, murders, etc that happen because we don’t have good men and men like you who I applaud for your service who have enough common sense to carry a weapon on their person and are trained in using it.
Enthusiast question: Did you ever work with a Howard Wasdin in the Seals? I read his book was real good and just had to ask.
BLACKSMITHseal, You are not who gun reformers are worried about. You having a gun makes the world safer. But the casual attitude of many people who should have very limited access to guns makes the world a more dangerous place. So, when you talk about rules of conduct, both legal and moral, I think you should think about using the word ‘we’ instead of ‘me’ because the standards that allow you the freedom to use guns responsibly are misused by others and create needless violence. The common good is more important than frankly what is good for certain select individuals.… Read more »
The common good is more important than frankly what is good for certain select individuals. So true: 1) In the name of the common good women shouldn’t be allowed to murder the fetus growing inside them unless it has a genetic defect. The US is currently on the wrong side of the fertility curve and needs fresh productive workers to pay for the elderly. 2) In the name of the common good, people shouldn’t be allowed to produce hateful speech, which is defined pretty much as anything the government might consider hateful. 3) In the name of the common good,… Read more »
It’s not your right to drive your car drunk and kill people Or pollute the stream running through my backyard Or put me in danger with any kind of irresponsible gun behavior I don’t care what you do that doesn’t effect me That’s why we take your car away if you can’t drive sober, but no one seems to have a problem with that. Why are you ok with people being penalized for mis use of one kind of dangerous product and not another? Why aren’t you mad about idiots you probably see on the gun range when no one… Read more »
Thank you for writing this. I completely agree that it’s VERY important to try and see each other’s point out view. I am most interested by this part: “In stark contrast to my friend, the world I live in is an inherently safe place because most people are following the rules. We’re all trusting each other to do the right thing, and that’s how we stay safe.” From what I understand, BOTH sides actually believe that their position is “trusting each other to do the right thing.” Those who favor restriction-free gun ownership believe that the average citizen can be… Read more »