Once Again: Gun Control

.
The issue of gun control has polarized the nation ---and the world--- so much that each side has largely given up trying to engage the other in any sort of meaningful dialog, which makes it difficult for politicians running for office.

The data and statistics of the issue have been studied at length, and there is little argument that guns are dangerous, etc, etc.  Let's look at the issue from a slightly different angle.  I'm sure that this approach must have been tried before, but ignorance gives me courage.  What is the psychology of the whole business?

The other day I saw (a video of) the fabled Charleton Heston speaking on the subject, and he was calmly deploring the fact that the anti-gun lobby (as the NRA characterizes it) tries to demonize gun ownership, and cast doubts on the morals and the civic-mindedness of gun owners.  I thought hard about the matter, and tried to put myself in the position of a gun-owner, brought up in a gun culture, whose parents and uncles and aunts have all owned guns, the proud descendents of pioneers, who "tamed the West" by the use of guns.

Some of these folks simply consider guns to be tools.  It is something you use to defend yourself, and when necessary, your neighbors, some of which are idiots who refuse to take up arms themselves, and always call on their (more responsible, gun-owning, courageous) neighbors to protect them.  Owning the guns is, in the mind of gun owners, a cherished privilege, but also a duty; sometimes a burdensome one.

Other gun owners think of them as a precious piece of equipment for hunting.  If all else fails, and prices of groceries rise out of control (which will happen, they think, if the price of oil continues to rise!) they can at least feed their families with game.  When the time comes, they feel, they can force the states to give up this foolishness of setting limits on hunting seasons.

Yet other gun owners probably don't think about their guns very clearly at all, but nurse deep suspicions about the constitution of the society in which they find themselves: in contrast to the simple world of Ozzie and Harriet and the TV series of the fifties, society is full of immigrants and riff-raff, people of dubious motives and doubtful values.  Subconsciously ---or quite consciously--- these people probably feel that it is the gun in the gun closet in the hall that keeps the creeps from invading the sanctity of their homes, and making outrageous demands on them (such as a cup of sugar, for instance).

The question is not whether these people would be willing to compromise on their ownership of guns, but how they would feel if gun ownership were to be curtailed in any way.  A whole generation of men has grown up not needing to have very hairy chests simply because owning a gun is sufficient evidence of their testosterone levels.  Unfortunately, I truly can identify with gun owners, and I can easily imagine how threatened they would feel if gun ownership were to be circumscribed.

Another sort of objection comes from a still more reasonable source, namely logic.  To see this, we have to see parallels between the sort of disasters that flow from unrestricted gun ownership, and the sorts of disasters that arise from reckless driving.

We are all familiar with the stories of the drunken revels that take place during hunting season, occasionally resulting in one of the members of the hunting party being ---sometimes fatally--- shot.  I know for a fact that these incidents fill responsible hunters with fury, and rightly so.  Many gun-owning families are scrupulously careful about gun education and training.  When a gun accident occasionally takes place in such a family, they are utterly humiliated, and no doubt shunned by their fellow gun-owners.

The same happens when a member of a responsible family of car-owners happens to be drunk while driving, and accidentally kills somebody.

Meanwhile, of course, all sorts of people are manufacturing slogans to defend one law or another: Guns Don't Kill People; People Do.

It might be a bit unfair to suggest an analogous slogan: Cars don't kill people, People Do.

But one can easily imagine how that slogan would be quickly altered to read: Cars Don't Kill People; Alcohol Does.  It's hard to avoid the observation that the auto manufacturing industry is larger than the alcohol manufacturing industry and the beer brewing industry combined.  Still, the link with alcohol does muddy the water in the case of driving under the influence, and vehicular homicide.  We can't ban the sale of cars just because a small minority of car owners choose to drink and drive.

In that case, the Gun Lobby can argue, is it reasonable to restrict gun sales just because a small ... well, anyway, a large minority of gun owners choose to shoot people dead, for whatever reason?

This is all very well, but no objections by the Gun Lobby can excuse their opposition to a ban on assault weapons.  Clearly a responsible citizen anxious to protect his wife and his neighbors is not about to buy an assault weapon for his gun cabinet.  Clearly a hunter eager to bring home an eight-point buck is not going to hunt him with an assault rifle.  An assault rifle is bought solely for the purpose of violent crime, or possibly, defense against violent crime.

Is the line between an assault weapon and a traditional firearm so vague that gun owners fear some sort of "ban creep" that would gradually ban all guns?  The opinion of this non-expert is that this is most certainly not the case; assault weapons are a clear category whose strict control makes perfect sense to me.  Such guns are only useful to gangsters and militia.

Finally, just from personal observation, I seem to notice that even simply arguing against gun control seems to give some individuals a certain amount of sexual satisfaction!  Even men who do not now, and have never in the past, owned guns become flushed and excited when they defend the right of their more heavily armed buddies to own their guns.  Guns are sexy even at a distance.

So, to sum up, taking these dangerous toys away is too hard, since they are so tightly bound with American concepts of manhood and virility, and even their defense is a matter of pride for a certain sector of the population.  Even female lawyers, politicians and gun-owners get excited over the issue of gun control, which seems to suggest that testosterone is not something that inspires the male sex exclusively.

I hope none of my readers were hoping to find a solution here; I'm merely saying that the problem is complex, and is complicated by motives that are some of them very emotional, some very cynical, and some very mercenary.

Arch