More on gun ownership

Kevin continues this discussion at the Smallest Minority with a long and somewhat rambling post that sums up much of the blog commentary on the topic (sadly, our own take on the fear of responsibility was left off).

One thing we wish to add is that part of the fear of guns also comes from fear of their owners - and the (for lack of a better word) "otherness" they represent.

It is no accident that most gun owners are portrayed as stump-toothed idiots clad in treebark camo and burying their AKs for when "the free men revolt."

This stereotype is largely wrong, of course.  It is just as distorted as the Sneering Jew of Der Sturmer.

But to those who don't know any better, it seems accurate - and that is the problem we must address.

Gun ownership is falling, no doubt a result of the increasing suburbanization of America.  Guns are increasingly alien and strange, the province of action movies and violent video games.

So part of the task we face is to dispel these myths and educate people.

One way to do that is to righteously slam the moonbats within our own ranks.

When we wrote this post we thought we'd get a stronger response.  Then again, the issue was pretty old by the time we learned of it and people probably moved on.

But much of what we said still applies:  There are no absolute rights, not in the sense that some gun owners wish to have them.

While you may think you have the God-given right to wander around armed to the teeth, in fact you don't.

Rights are always subject to reason.

Now that's a pretty nebulous concept and one the gun zealots have worked long and hard to distort.

But it is a crucial one because without having a reasonable cause, we will lose our rights completely.

What we are saying is that it is not enough to simply assert that (for example) .50 calibre rifles shouldn't be banned because the Constitution protects them.

Instead, a different argument must be used, an argument focused on common sense.

We're not going to make those arguments because that is not the focus of this post - education is.

The police and military are out allies in this struggle.  We are on the same side.

Just as there are good soldiers and good cops, there are also rotten ones.  When people mutter about "taking down the Man if he comes for my guns" they hurt our cause.

So stop it already.

One more thing that is also germane to Kevin's post, particularly the "satisfaction" of shooting a bad guy:  drop it.

While it is an understandable impluse (stemming from a strong sense of morality and justice) to applaud a defensive shooting, please, please, PLEASE do not come across as people who are actually looking forward to it.

We sure as hell aren't.

Given the choice between living a life of peace and safety and one of violence (even righteous violence in self-defense) sane people choose "peace and safety."

One has to be a little bit crazy to want to go out and kill bad guys.

God bless the Marines, but they are a little bit crazy.  It's a good thing, but there's a reason we keep them under tight control until they can mellow out a little.

The case for civilian gun ownership is predicated on the simple truth that peace and safety are not guarenteed, even in the safest, well-policed neighborhood.

That is why we carry.

When non-gun owners learn of this, they are often put off until we explain that we don't want to shoot anyone, we simply want an option other than being a helpless victim.

"Choice" is a popular word - there's a reason why the abortion lobby uses it rather than "pro-infanticide" which is a lot more applicable.

Guns provide choices, they provide options.  The massacres Kevin mentions were the result of no choices on the part of the victims.

The ideal gun owners (in our opinion) is of the Gary Cooper in High Noon mold: quiet, law-abiding, peace-loving and competent.

That should be our model and our public face.

If we want to take the "nut" out of "gun nut," that is how we will do it.

Comments

[Kevin Baker]

And I think you've inspired another (somewhat shorter) post. I should have it up this evening, I hope.

[Kevin Baker]

It boils down to that differential between "violent and predatory" and "violent but protective." In both cases there's a willingness to exercise violence. That willingness is, I think, a genetic component of young males - the difference is in how those young males are, for want of a better term, "socialized." Ideally you want the Gary Cooper High Noon model, but I'll settle for people who are eager, but clear on the difference between "violent and predatory" vs. "violent but protective."