Laurie Toby Edison

Photographer

More About Guns

Marlene Says:

Debbie brought up guns and politics the other day. I am one of her friends who likes guns that she mentioned in her disclaimer. Wanting to periodically talk about guns was one of the reasons I started my own blog at fukshot because guns aren’t really a good subject fit for Body Impolitic most of the time. Now that the subject has been raised, I’d like to throw out a few thoughts that don’t usually get much play in public discourse. I have an unusual perspective because in US politics advocacy for gun rights has become the province of the “right” and gun control has become the province of the “left.” This is interesting situation in that the right of gun ownership is considered completely separate from all other civil liberties. I’m going to talk a little about how and why I think the political discourse has come to function that way. My general perspective is left of left.

I will be more superficial here than is my usual style, but there is just too much to say otherwise.

The current regime of “right”/”left” alignment around gun rights/control came in to existence in the early 1970s. In 1974, the National Council to Control Handguns was founded. This organization would later become Handgun Control, Inc. and even more recently the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. This organization took up arguments against gun ownership based in a desire to make the world a safer place, a desire that rang true with the concerns of liberalism at the time. Nearly simultaneously, the National Rifle Association had a leadership coup. Control of the NRA has rested in the hands of pseudo-libertarian conservatives prone to racial dogwhistling ever since.

Only a few years earlier, in the late 1960s, conservative Republicans in the California assembly were restricting the carrying of firearms in laws directed specifically at the Black Panthers, while the NRA was having serious discussions about sponsoring some reasonable restrictions on gun ownership so as to avoid more draconian restrictions. Hardly a world we would recognize today.

The National Firearms Act, the law that restricts ownership of full-automatic weapons and of artillery, was passed in 1934, partially as an attempt to disarm organized crime, which had built power during prohibition (didn’t work) and also to disarm a potential leftist revolution during the Great Depression (did work, in conjunction with the New Deal).

In the roughly 35 years since the right-left flip of this civil liberty in US politics, gun issues have taken on an interesting political significance. On both pro and anti sides, guns have become a rallying cry and political shorthand for all sorts of things, but mostly the rural/urban split in US society and the accompanying class and racial divides. None of these divides is completely straightforward between right and left, but the gun issue is incredibly useful political shorthand for a variety of fears and resentments and prejudices we have about each other. It is the right’s convincing argument to many that liberals want to make everyone live a certain way through government control. It is the left’s favorite classist/regionalist dogwhistle for a (mostly) imagined hatemongering hillbilly who must be stopped.

When an asshat like Tom Coburn says things about professional elitists and cowards and works something about his liking for guns into the statement, he is making statements about which “side” he is on in a way that defines the “sides” and plays simultaneously on many prejudices and tendencies. He is throwing out a net to catch potential sympathies from a wide variety of people who feel (justifiably or not) wronged by the current system and to endear himself to those people despite the fact that he can or will do very little to make things better for the people he appeals to. (For a sentence there, I could have been talking about my own response to 2008 Obama speeches.)

My personal relationship with guns is just that, personal. I’d like to say here that my interest in guns is not primarily as weapons, but that I acknowledge the weapon aspect as the most important for public discussion and public policy. I’d like to throw out a few anti-gun-restriction ideas that I expect many readers here may have not heard. (The difference between anti-gun-restriction and pro-gun is as important as the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.)

I am a trans woman. Because of that, I can reasonably expect the police to be as likely a danger to me in most of the United States as a source of protection from violence. The idea that the police should have the monopoly on the power to exert deadly force for my protection is completely ludicrous to me.

The scarcity model of gun control does not work for crime prevention, but does work to disarm social movements. If a person intends to murder or intimidate people as a means of support, a gun is of much greater value to that person than the cost increase caused by illegality. Most gun control legislation in recent history has been designed to induce price increases or difficulty of purchase, while having no impact on the operation of the illicit market. That has a greater impact on broad social movements, especially those by the poor. I am in favor of increased enforcement of most existing gun laws.

I may sound a bit teabaggy here, but gun ownership is a civil liberty as important as freedom of the press and the separation of church and state. Refer again to the Black Panthers and specifically their armed observation of police activities as a means of preventing police abuse of the general public. It really worked.

Most of all, more than any of these other arguments, there is one that I never hear spoken: If the “left” in US politics were to treat gun ownership as equal with other civil liberties, it would break loose large portions of the populist base of the Republican party. It would take the sliver of truth out of most “nanny state” arguments made by the right. It would un-do a good portion of Lee Atwater’s successful crusade to entice people to vote against their own interests.

Finally, there is a truth about gun politics that I must point out. Most people who are vehemently opposed to the rights of people to own guns know little about guns and subscribe to fictions about guns that seem completely absurd to those who have guns in their lives. It has become a truism in contemporary politics that people who actually know gays are less likely to hate gays. I’d like to propose that the same social phenomenon is at play in gun politics. I’d like to offer up the comments section of this post as a place where I might dispel some misconceptions about guns and existing gun laws by answering questions.

 

6 Responses to “More About Guns”

  1. Debbie Says:

    I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this post. I did say in my post that I don’t want the police to have all the guns, so not all of this is new to me, but a lot of the history and a lot of the philosophy is new. I’ll be thinking about it for a long time.

  2. The View From North Central Idaho - Quote of the day—Marlene Says:

    [...] August 26, 2011 More About Guns [There are two different and important points [...]

  3. QoD | Gun Totin' Hippies Says:

    [...] August 26, 2011 More About Guns This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, civil rights, QOD. Bookmark the permalink. ← The [...]

  4. Lynne Murray Says:

    I hesitated to comment because I’m not an expert or even a current gun owner, and those who think seriously about these things have probably anticipated most of my thoughts on this–but here goes….

    I spent my grammar school years in Fairbanks, Alaska living both on and off a military base. This was what I’d call a gun-friendly, hunting-oriented atmosphere in the 1950s, and judging from the Sarah Palin nonsense about hunting from a helicopter, it probably still is.

    As a female only child, my father found it appropriate to take me along on target shooting (with a .22 pistol) and on some hunting expeditions (the men had rifles, I just watched) often enough for me to realize that firearms were just one of a long list of athletic pursuits (skiing, skating, team sports, & etc., & etc.) for which I have neither natural aptitude nor enough of a passion to inspire me to work hard enough to develop the skills needed to do them well.

    That said, I understand why someone would want firearms for reasons other than subsistence hunting–even though most of our rifle-bearing foremothers and forefathers probably most often used their guns to hunt for food much more often than to defend themselves. I think responsible gun owning (e.g., using gun locks on guns in homes with children) is reasonable, but the idea of armed citizens fending off a federal government gone rogue seems to lack certain a common sense.

    One reason I have to comment is that after Debbie’s and Marlene’s posts I thought about this so much that I pretty much concluded that the most practical use for ordinary (presumably non-military trained) citizens to own guns would be to deter other such armed citizens from preying on them during the event of a societal melt down. One thing I saw during the 1960s was the degree to which the federal government could escalate its firepower compared to any one (or small group of) armed citizens.

    To put it plainly, the police and military are professionals with deep pockets. At the risk of sounding science fiction apocalyptic (not my favorite literary genre), if, for the sake of argument, armed citizens were to be forced to actually fight with guns for Constitutional rights and survival here in the U.S., much more organization than seems to exist and making common cause with at least some professionals (as we see happening in Libya) would be essential. But others have probably followed this line of thought before me.

  5. Stef Says:

    Great post. I really appreciate the historical perspective. I don’t own or use guns now, but I have enough experience with them that I think of them as tools. I agree with you that familiarity with guns and their uses can dispel fear about them.

    Can you say more about “my interest in guns is not primarily as weapons”?

  6. Marlene Says:

    Lynne,

    One of the common lines of thought about the issue you raise of citizens vs government is that an armed populace may not be a match for an army, but will provide enough resistance that certain kinds of government action would not be politically expedient. Also, the idea of a bunch of armed citizens (colonial Americans) going up against the most powerful military in the world was nearly as absurd at the time of the US revolution. Similarly, Lybia serves as a good example of what modest armament and some determination can set in motion.

    Stef,

    I am a paper puncher, a target shooter. I shoot for pleasure and relaxation. Shooting, if you do it the way I do, occupies all of one’s attention in a way that precludes thinking about all the other stressful things in life.

    I also am a tinkerer by nature and guns are something fascinating to tinker with.

    I have also always been a lover of (and sometimes practitioner of) fine metalworking. Guns have been, for the past several hundred years, the peak of metalworking craft in most cultures that have had them. I have some guns that are as much art as any jewelry or hand-built car.

    I also make my own ammunition and make modifications to my guns to improve their function. I am an amateur scientist of sorts and this sort of pursuit has a long tradition among what the old guys called gun cranks.

Leave a Reply

with FeedBurner

Laurie Toby Edison by Carol Squires

Blog Stats

There are currently 1,223 posts and 3,864 comments, contained within categories.



Themes: