Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Why the gun debate is so difficult

Share it:
It's easy to think that a debate about firearms and gun-control would not be that different from anything else. There are many divisive issues after all. And, at the end of the day, unlike many other issues, we all want the same thing, right, for gun violence to end?

However, there are a number of inconvenient truths that make the gun topic particularly formidable, especially in the toxic partisan climate and the "short attention span" world of 140-character quips and sound-bites in which we find ourselves.

I present some of these factors below, in no particular order. While I'm an admitted, and unapologetic gun-rights advocate (and I consider myself a reasoned one), I'm not trying to argue a particular side here. I'm simply trying to point out, after years of studying this issue, some of the common misunderstandings that tend to convolute and undermine the debate itself. While this isn't an attempt to be a "by the numbers" treatise, I have used some numbers below to illustrate the various points and I've attempted to fact-check all of them. If I got anything off by a mile, let me know.

One could perhaps say that individually many of the following points are not unique to the gun debate, but I assert that together they significantly amplify the challenges.

It's personal

Guns are not an abstract idea, like 'a social movement' or 'economic policy'. Guns are real and personal.

Gun-control advocates like to present the image of a tiny minority-fringe of "gun nuts" holding back the hordes of "sane people" but the reality is that gun ownership and suport for gun-rights transcends the "gun nuts" that we see on TV. Real gun owners keep a much lower profile but the numbers show that gun ownership and gun use is widespread. 47 percent of Americans told Gallup in 2011 that they had at least one gun at home (1). Even the lowest numbers I could find show that 32% of U.S. households own guns -- admittedly a decline from the 1973 high of almost 50% but certainly more than a fringe-element (2). Another 2011 Gallup poll showed that a much smaller minority, only 26 percent of Americans, favored a gun ban (3).

This is not a conflict of NRA vs. politicians or Fox News vs. MSNBC. It's real people who are personally and directly affected and interested in this discussion.

It's part of the Bill of Rights

This is the biggest inconvenient truth of them all. We can debate the intent and meaning of the second amendment, the point here is simply that whatever your feelings about it, any laws or other restrictions on guns must pass a constitutional test. We cannot simply wish that away.

It's emotional

Guns are loud and scary. From my perspective that's a good thing. We should be afraid of them. It bothers me that TV and movies make them seem fun. Guns can kill and mame in horrific ways. They are not toys. This is why there is great responsibility in their handling and use. This is why I encourage all parents to take their children (when they are old enough) to a good range, not to traumatize them, not necessarily even to shoot, but to see that in real life, from a safe distance, that real guns are loud and scary and that real people, unlike what we see in movies and on TV, take safety VERY seriously.

Seeing what bad people do with guns brings out strong emotions. We see it on both sides. Guns seem evil to some people and they believe that anyone who owns a a gun must also be evil. Likewise, there are those on the pro-gun category that believe anyone opposing guns is a threat to their personal safety, if not to the constitution and America itself, and therefore such people must likewise be evil. Such emotions drive irrational thoughts and ruin any chance for actual debate.

Another thing about the emotional aspect of this debate is that it seems to foster a sense of privilege on both sides to denigrate and mock the other. This needs to stop if we want to get anywhere.

It's full of myths, distortions, and fallacies

This could be said of most contentious issues, I suppose, but it seems particularly pervasive when it comes to guns. This is not unique to one side or the other. There certainly are probably cases where people are intentionally distorting facts or propagating mythology, especially from those on the extreme ends of the spectrum; but I think more often it's simply a matter of people seeing what they want to see, probably often as a result of the emotional issue above. In the end, these myths and fallacies do not advance the discussion.

It's uniquely American

America was both literally and figuratively founded and forged with guns. Guns have been part of the American landscape from the beginning and are deeply ingrained in American culture. There is no other part of the free world where that is the case to the degree it is in America. Americans own as many as one-third of the guns on the planet (4) and there were 310 million nonmilitary firearms in the United States as of 2009 (5), almost as many guns as people (6).

You cannot simply compare the situation in America with European or Asian countries, pulling out the issue of guns alone, as though everything else is equal. It's not.

We're not as smart as we think we are

When we are are 15, anyone over 20 is an idiot. When we are 25, anyone over 35 just doesn't get it. And so on. It's some kind of fucked up human nature that we think we are unique and everything and everyone that came before us must have been dumber than we are now. Hey kids, guess what? Your Condescending Wonka meme or renowned tweet is nowhere near as intelligent, insightful (or even funny) as you think it is -- oh, and timeless, yeah right.

Likewise, we discount great minds and great civilizations of the past and somehow believe they were foolish or unable to grasp the issues of our day. Depending on how you count, there have been 50 or more centuries of civilization in human history. This presumption that we are really that unique is so incredibly naive and arrogant... what can I say but OMG. LOL.

Well intentioned people and all that...

It crosses party lines

We often simply toss the "gun" issue in with an overall left/right agenda, assuming the pro-gun-rights position implies support generally for a conservative agenda and that the anti-gun position implies support for a left/liberal agenda. The reality is that ones position on gun-rights and gun-control often lives outside that box, standing alone from the usual left or right agenda issues.

In more crude terms, people assume if you support gun-rights then you must also hate Obama and that if you support gun-control then you must love big government and higher taxes. In reality, it's far more nuanced than that. One of the problems is that the loudest and most zealous voices we hear tend to be extreme and attached to either a left or right agenda. This is one of the things that annoys me the most about the NRA, as a (somewhat reluctant) member. They assume because I support gun-rights, then I must also want to hear about all sorts of non-gun-related right-wing politics. I don't. I have exactly the same problem with Jon Stewart. He also assumes that since I support gun-rights, I must be a right-wing G.O.P. supporter on all kinds of other issues.

This is a problem for the law makers (politicians) because it isn't a clean and simple G.O.P vs. Democrat issue so it's risky territory. This is a problem for us, the people with a stake in this debate, because the politicians are going to be the people arguing this debate, which could make for strange bedfellows.

It's extremely messy

This is not an issue where there is a magical "quick fix" and in our modern short attention-span culture, that is not something we want to hear. Ask the deficit... or poverty... or education.

It's not absolute. While there are probably people that would like to see an absolute end to all private gun ownership in America, that's not the position of most gun-control advocates. Likewise, in the real world, there are gun-rights advocates that will entertain all kinds of restrictions. However, these moderate perspectives don't make headlines. We speak as if there are no restrictions in place now, by the way, which of course is not true at all.


Like I said, we really all want the same thing, reducing gun violence. The devil is in the details.

Like everything else in life, it's a trade-off, a compromise. There are costs and risks associated with private gun ownership -- but there are also costs and risks of not having it too. We have to decide what the balance should be for us.

We should demand a thoughtful and reasoned dialog.

Share it:

Post A Comment:


Mike Smith said...

I think there is much to what you say, David; what I cannot get my head around is the inspired outrage that comes from suggestions that we get rid of or at least make it exceptionally difficult to obtain assault/military-style weapons (if that's even possible), high-fire rate (automatic) weapons, and high capacity clips - when connected to the other two - makes alot of bad happen very, very quickly. Those weapons are designed and produced for one purpose - as far as I'm concerned - human carnage on a major scale. I've no objection to personal protection (you don't need an AK-47), hunting, or target shooting. Lastly, the citation of the 2nd Amendment by the folks who are incited to histrionics by what I suggest, conveniently omits the prefatory clause (As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State):"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Mr Blog Too said...

I want to point out that my original post does not not mention "assault weapons" or "high capacity clips" or "hunting" or "target shooting" for that matter.

As for the Second Amendment, my post does not attempt to provide an analysis of the Second Amendment or take a stance on its interpretation. I simply note that the topic is specifically contained in the Bill of Rights which adds to the burdon of any proposed legislation, that being for courts to decide how to interpret the Second Amendment. I'm not stating here whether I believe any particular proposal is Constitutional or not, my point being simply that a Constitutional test applies, and is difficult to avoid, which is not the case for all other topics of debate.

As for the 'assault weapons' position itself, that is a post unto itself. I will make two brief comments though. First, it has been clearly shown in other ban attempts how difficult it is to define 'assault weapons' -- it tends to fall towards how "evil" a gun looks, which is silly. Which brings me to my second point and that's my distaste for stupid laws int he name of "doing something" like most of the TSA and most everything else post-911. Dumb laws that make people feel better but dont really do anything to help the root problem and that's what most everything I've seen is. Whats worse, many of the proposals will make a lot of regular people that have never caused any trouble into criminals overnight. That's stupid and not simply harmless.

Paul X said...

Another unique factor is that guns enable resistance. Thus if they are turned in, there is no possibility of effectively resisting anything the ruling class wants to do with us. Whatever the gun haters think about it, people are not going to hand them over. They are not going to render themselves helpless, and thus contemptible.

As to whether someone "needs" an AK47, the need is clearly determined by the owner, not someone else. Anyway, it's not really about "needs". It's about killing anyone who tries to take them.