Gun Chat, continued

The issue of gun control sure gets people going—witness the comments on my previous post. I once had a work colleague who would go all sputtery and splotchy-faced at the mere mention of the phrase “gun control”; co-workers would sometimes do it just for the show.

That’s not surprising, since the “right to bear arms” has become a kind of religion to a lot of people. It even has a sacred text—the Second Amendment—subject to radically different interpretations. And, like other religions encrusted with myth and fantasy, it is largely impervious to rational argument. But I still think we should try.

I have some familiarity with guns and, in fact, used to be a pretty good shot. (I still have my Junior NRA sharpshooter trophy to prove it.) I don’t necessarily think that all people should be denied the privilege (note the word) of owning one, but I think that privilege should be at least as controlled and regulated as the privilege of owning a car.

But truthfully, people who just love and fetishize guns scare me. I well remember how nervous I felt driving through the deep South in the 60s looking kind of hippie-ish and wondering if Bubba in the pickup with the gun rack might just decide to take a potshot at the “outside agitator”. And I’m white. “Easy Rider” wasn’t just fiction, and Martin was quite right to bring up the sordid history of how race is mixed up in this whole question.

Actually, I think that racial fears remain an unspoken element in the whole gun rights movement. I don’t know about all the plaintiffs in the DC case, but the ones I’ve seen pictured are all white, including the woman who wants a gun at the ready to protect her home in crime-ridden Georgetown. So many of the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists seem to live in monochromatic suburbs or exurbs where the chances of needing a gun to protect their homes (from what?) are about equal to being struck by lightning. (Yes, I know there are some black gun rights supporters, but they are not running the NRA.)

Sure it’s possible to construct a scenario where having a gun might keep you from being a crime victim—assuming you had instant access to a loaded gun and the bad guys didn’t already have the drop on you. But this kind of notion is mostly just fantasy, and the odds of a scenario in which that gun becomes part of some tragic mistake or is fired in a blind rage are a lot greater. And yes, it’s comically easy to flout the DC law by making a quick trip to Virginia or South Carolina for a gun buy with few if any questions asked. But that’s an argument for strengthening gun laws nationwide, not for gutting all gun control measures.

Because that’s what’s really at issue here. The gun lobby—led by the NRA—has consistently fought to overturn any restriction on gun ownership whatever, and the DC decision (though limited in its scope) will become relevant case law for that effort if it stands. They don’t just want you to be able to have a handgun in your home, they think you have the right to buy as many AK-47s as you want and take them anywhere you want. They have gotten legislation passed to indemnify gun manufacturers from liability for the consequences of their products—an immunity not shared by any other industry. This is sheer lunacy and contrary to any rational idea of a civilized society.

Which is why I’ll take whatever puny protections the DC gun laws provide. I really don’t want our neighborhood gangbangers to be able to carry guns legally. At least now, they can be arrested if caught packing, and this gives the police some leverage. It ain’t much, but it’s something.