Guns! Commence arguing!
By Michael Newberger | gargoyle@flagler.edu
Standing in line by the door was the ideal American family. The mom and dad were holding hands, the son was about 11 and talking to his little sister, and she was the kind of redhead girl commercials use to show how “wholesome” a product is. It was nice to see such a portrait of family togetherness in this day and age.
Did I mention the cute little girl was holding a snub-nose revolver?
No this wasn’t a scene from some kind of horror movie where the little kid kills everyone. This was at Shooter’s Gun Range in Tampa, which I visited with my cousins (one of whom is employed by the range.)
Personally I tend to be a little more of a Democrat than Republican, so at first I was afraid that when I entered the premises I’d be ousted as an Obama-loving socialist (and therefore a gun hater). The story my cousin told me about the mentally unstable man who took the range over and had a standoff with the police or the drunk lady who shot herself the same month didn’t exactly help either.
That morning my cousin picked me up from my house with his collection (arsenal?) in tow: a semi-automatic M4 assault rifle, a World War II-era British Enfield bolt action, and my grandfather’s old target pistol. Just to make things more American we ate breakfast at McDonald’s because McGriddles taste like freedom.
The range is about the size of your average furniture store and is pretty unassuming. That is until we walked in and were met by a replica of those Chinese Terracotta soldiers and the largest selection of guns I’ve ever seen, all ranging from classical to tactical. Contrary to previous held views, everyone was incredibly friendly. I wasn’t ostracized for wearing thick frame glasses and everyone was incredibly safety-conscious. So much for my stereotype that it would be nothing but Unabomber types who wanted to blow up Post Offices.
The biggest shock — which made me feel both great and a little disconcerted — was that I’m a pretty damn good shot. I’ve shot guns a little bit in Boy Scouts growing up, but not tactical assault rifles made to take out terrorists. The reason that it kind of weird-ed me out was the fact that the M4 looked, down to the sights and magazine reloads, like it does in “Call Of Duty,” which I play like a religious fanatic. So maybe parents shouldn’t let the youngins play that game. By the end of our range time I felt accomplished and a little physically shaken from all the firing. Also I got lead poisoning, which is exactly as fun as it sounds.
We make a pretty big deal about firearms in this country. When I started writing this, the tragedy in Arizona happened, sparking gun rights arguments like a match thrown into a copious amount of gasoline. And boy, oh boy, is America divided. But I think the divisions don’t exactly work because they’re just broad stereotypes. Democrats like myself tend to think of gun enthusiasts as “nuts” who believe the end-times are nigh, which I was completely guilty of. And Republican gun-fans, like my cousin, tend to think of Democrats like a bunch of Orwellian wimps who want to completely ban our personal rights, starting with firearms.
Why do we do this? If you think about who gets the most attention in the argument, we only see those whose stances are almost comical in their extremes.
On the right we see good ol’ boy commentators who think that packing heat at church and the local supermarket actually makes things safer and that rocket propelled grenades should be easily available for purchase at your local Walmart. On the other extreme we see egghead liberals who think that guns and anything dangerous in general should be banned in the hopes of making one perfect society, which to me sounds kind of boring.
In between there’s a large group of perfectly sane people who just happen to disagree. Instead of shouting and stereotyping those we disagree with, I think we should look at their side of the question. The gun owners I talked to at the range thought of it as a hobby and something to protect their homes and family while treating the weapons in the safest way possible. People for gun control that I know think that they’re safer with fewer guns in society. Who’s wrong in this equation? No one.
People tend to disagree. That’s one of the things that makes our country so great. If you disagree strongly with a stance and the believers of it, I say go and see it from their perspective. You may walk away from the experience with a new found respect for the people you disagree with. Or you may still think they’re crazy. But to write off a stance, and the people who believe it, isn’t just lazy. It’s bad for democracy.
2011 Gargoyle Anthology Award Winner: Silver Award for Commentary
[...] http://gargoyle.flagler.edu/2011/02/guns-commence-arguing/ [...]
it is good to give things a fair shake,however,gun restrictions will never make us safer in my my opinion. the fact is,the more gun laws you create,law abiding citezens will be disarmed,and then criminals,who were the target of even more restrictive laws in the first place will scoff at new regulations and continue to illegally own weapons. i own guns for two reasons,for self defense and im a collector. the weapon i own for self defense is a modern glock pistol,and the rest of my guns are antiquated mauser and enfeild rifles made from about 1898 to the early 1960s. micheal is right the majority of gun owners are not nutjobs in any case,many of them are just normal people who enjoy engaging in a sport. less gun laws make people safer because they enable citezins to take responsibility in defending themselves, the fact of the matter is that the police cannot always be around to protect us,their are not enough,and in many cases we as citezins should take responsibility for our own safety. observe the virginia tech shootings,or the more recent shootings in arizona,if individuals at either of those places had been allowed to exercise their rights to protect themselves,then not as many people would have been killed and wounded. the only thing that will make us safer is ourselves,taking responsibilty to make ourselves safer. firearms are also power,in a sense a populace who owns firearms personally,is a powerfull and free populace. im not trying to say that their is going to be a reveloution in this country and we all have to be ready for it,but i am saying that an armed citezenry has the abilty to make thier government listen,using extreme measures if neccesary. long story short,gun restrictions dont make people safer,people who are going to use a gun in a crime will have it whether it is legal for them to have it or not,and the idea that a person who is going to commit a crime of passion with a gun because he got mad and picked it up is asinine as well,an angry person who is acting irrationally could just as easily pick up a hammer or a bat or knife as a gun,ban those too because they are dangerous? i dont think so. the only thing that will make people safer is for people to take more personal responsibility for their own safety and to quit relying on others to keep them safe,fireamrs ownership allows people to take that responsibilty to protect themselves and their families,and should not be infringed with more and more regulation that do nothing to stop criminals but only hinder law abiding citezins.
I think anyone who is completely against guns should consider taking a course at the front-sight institute just outside Las Vegas. I can almost guarantee with certainty that anyone who does will be convinced that guns are not evil. Every time I’ve been there I’ve met at least one person who came to the training with an anti gun mentality and left without it.
Jason
I don’t understand how you say that most people aren’t extremists, and then you tell us not to hold extreme views.
Those people who believe that people should be imprisoned and lose their guns and their rights for merely buying, selling, lending/borrowing, and possessing a magazine that holds one more round than a wholly arbitrary limit – they are wrong, especially when they claim that this is “common sense”.
Well said, mr. Newberger. As a liberal gun owner, id like to see a little more emphasis on those of us in the middle of this discussion. I like my gun. I like shooting my gun. Heck, I like cleaning my gun! But I also wish that my conceal and carry permit took longer to get, and was MUCH more difficult to obtain. I wish there was a waiting period of as long as it takes to complete a thorough examination of my background, however that needs to be done. I want it to truly be a privilege to own a firearm, so that not only would I have it, but I would have the pride of being considered worthy and responsible enough to own it. Imho, the purchase of ammunition should require the permit for the weapon, as well. Gun control is not gun denial, nor is it freedom denial. its simply our way of making sure that those of us who wish to own guns are able to do so safely and responsibly.
Michael newberger needs to wash his hands after shooting (helps prevent lead poisoning)
The real problem is that nobody examines the issue from a logical, economic, perspective. Lets look at our track record on controlling things:
1. Guns. They are everywhere. The technology is so antiquated that anyone able to gain acceptance to a college should be able to build their own functional firearm with the internet, 50 bucks, and a day of time.
2. Illegal Drugs. We tried this once, with alcohol, to similar results that we have today. Everyone who wants a drug can easily acquire it. Our attempted control has only resulted in increased black market activity, and the sacrifice of tax revenues to the coffers of Mexican cartels.
3. Prescription drugs. The country has had a quiet internal conflict over the practice of importing drugs from Canada. It remains a no-no, but one can easily acquire almost anything they want from the internet.
4. Information. Check out the MP3 war. Most are unaware of the government intervention into what is essentially a copyright dispute. Blank CD’s and Cassettes have carried a large surcharge mandated by the government that is paid back to the RIAA, due to their logic that blank mediums will only be used to steal from them. Needless to say there has been absolutely no headway made here.
None of these industries has been hurt in the slightest by the government’s attempts to govern them. Not only does it seem very unlikely that they would meet with any greater success with firearms, but that we should allow the purveyors of such ineptitude to hold a monopoly on firepower. Many of the gun control advocates will throw forth the sarcastic mantra of “Could you really fight the government with small arms?”
…I say it seems that Iraq and Afghanistan have been doing so for 10 years.
Certainly people disagree and some make straw man arguments and for some reason think no one should flame the straw man. For example, when a columnists states that those gun \nuts\ who want 33 round magazines for their Glocks probably also think they have a right to their own personal nuclear warhead, why shouldn’t they flame the straw man? Or, when a columnist claims the liberals want to totally ban handguns…wait a second…according to the track record of the Brady Campaign, they do…and they go ahead and call it sensible; yet denying it in general on their website.
Does gun control make us safer? Maybe that’s the wrong question. How about, does gun control make us less free? What’s more important to Americans? Freedom or safety? Do we have an inalienable right to be safe? Should we rely on others like the Brady Campaign to protect us from gun violence and injury? Would it even work? What about knife violence?