Not a Sesame Street Song
A note at the outset:
I admit, it really does amuse me when these discussions break down into gun owners talking about their armories.
At any rate ... movin' right along.
• • •
Iceaura said:
Does that qualify as gun culture?
Probably, but I do admit that in the political back and forth it sometimes seems as if none of the firearms lobbyists are listening. In truth, the gun culture you describe is much more in accord with what people like me would expect simply as a courtesy to law and, well, other people.
But the gun culture I'm referring to is the one that is so prominent in the political discussion; were it not for that prominence it wouldn't even be a subject. But it's the sort of culture we hear about in songs like Pearl Jam's
"Glorified G"[sup]†[/sup] or Floater's
"Thin Skin"[sup]‡[/sup], the NRA attitude that our society will truly be free only when we've all bought guns from the lobby's industrial customers and conduct ourselves civilly because we never know who's going to shoot us for looking at them wrong.
And I know it bugs you that people fixate on this part of the gun culture, but for the rest of us it is the most prominent voice in the debate. It's like that recent story about full-blown concealed-carry in a town, and all it took was a couple hours before one responsible gun owner violated the law demanding that another responsible gun owner prove that he was a responsible gun owner. Dude even drew his gun. And the thing is that anyone could have seen that coming, except it's just absolutely unacceptable to make that point. Emphasizing their rejection of the sort of "responsibility" that actually requires one to be responsible, the gun culture dominating Second Amendment advocacy is terrifying—it's anything
but responsible gun ownership.
Consider the story of the guy who accidentally shot his seven year-old kid to death with an illegally-possessed handgun that he didn't bother to check for a live round. I don't get why those who would argue against prosecution would say, "He's suffered enough". After all, a drunk driver doesn't get that credit, and the device with which he injured or killed someone wasn't even designed specifically for the purpose of killing.
It's also why the famous Spider Man line is bullshit:
With extraordinary power comes extraordinary responsibility. It sounds nice as a philosophy, but nobody really seems to believe it, do they? We can say that the gun culture I'm responding to flatly rejects this philosophy for themselves, but seems to consider things like pencils or chicken eggs some sort of extraordinary power.
And for gun owners and advocates like yourself, I can see how our focus on this cohort is frustrating. But, to the one, they have extraordinary influence over the public policy discussion, and, to the other, it doesn't surprise me when, given a choice, a gun owner like yourself chooses to side with these grotesquely irresponsible gun owners.
Therein we find another hit that my side of the argument responds to. Okay, we get it, you're a "responsible gun owner", but you're also ferociously advocating for these horribly irresponsible, dangerous, menace-to-society gun owners and advocates.
It is almost as if every aspect of law and justice must necessarily bend in order to exempt the poor, defenseless gun owners who never did anything wrong except accidentally kill some people and then complain that they owe no accountability to society for their acts.
So it's true; I don't understand why you, for instance, advocate for such extreme irresponsibility. But the "gun culture" you describe sounds a lot more like the myth of responsible gun ownership I learned about when I was a child and have never managed to witness.
Here's a simple example of the frustration: The
bullet that I found in my garden does not appear to have come from any sort of crime or police pursuit and shootout. That is to say that the lack of gunfire in my neighborhood on the probable night of its arrival, and the lack of any later reports of violent crime or police activity that might possibly have landed a nine millimeter round in my garden after it ricocheted off some part of the row house strucutre, suggest that this was not a bullet fired in any specifically criminal act. Indeed, I would be willing to bet that if I could find the gun owner this round belongs to, we would find someone who describes himself as a "responsible gun owner".
Perhaps to you and me, he isn't. Well, I can tell you for certain that in my opinion this is not a "responsible gun owner"; unfortunately, from our prior discussions on the subject, I cannot discern whether or not you find losing track of shots fired and shooting other people's homes irresponsible or not.
And that's kind of sad, actually, because while I suspect you would say it's irresponsible gun ownership, I am also aware that in your outlook such acts should not bear any penalties, and not even if that round strikes a person.
Across the spectrum, what it seems to come down to is that firearms advocates really like the political value of the idea of "responsible gun ownership", but simply haven't the stones or integrity to live up to it. And the functional problem seems to be the prospect that if one kills the wrong person with their gun, they might not be allowed to own a gun again.
And when that's the point on the line, well, yeah, that's problematic to say the least.
That's a sad division 'twixt you and I. The few liberals who are also gun owners that I know don't follow your path. Hell, the one who owned an assault rifle agrees that the things should be illegal, and only had one because he could. One of my friends got rid of his gun after he realized that he didn't really need it, since his martial arts training made him a walking lethal weapon, and anyone who wanted to kill him could do so with a rifle from longer range, and the nine millimeter handgun would do him absolutely no good. The other scaled down to one handgun and a shotgun when he got engaged. And no firearm would have helped prevent the burglary, since nobody was home to shoot the bad guys.
He's also the second person to point a handgun at my head and then make the excuse, "It's not loaded." On this particular occasion, he was correct. But I still remember the National Guardsman who pointed his bran' spankin' new nine at me twenty years ago, laughed when I hit the deck and rolled out of the room, chided me that it wasn't loaded, pulled the slide to prove the point, and then we all watched the live round spinning through the air as it tumbled to the floor.
Every "responsible gun owner" I've ever known revels in stories describing grotesquely irresponsible gun ownership. And as I noted to TCS above, these stories are funny to them unless they are related by someone like me, in which case they suddenly pretend that this is a rare and grotesque violation. Like the story about beating the deer to death with the butt of a .44 magnum because the hunter was too drunk to have remembered to properly load his gun, and ended up with nothing for his rifle and two rounds left over in the revolver. It's absolutely
hilarious when a "responsible gun owner" tells us that story, but if I pass it on to another "responsible gun owner"? Sad thing was that one of the guys at the table that night, expressing their horror, was present at the earlier telling, and when it was related by a fellow gun owner (specifically, one not involved in this incident, but with personal knowledge according to the actual participants) it was hilarious. But knowing someone who didn't carry a gun was in their midst?
There is a long list. Getting drunk and shooting off a ton of rounds in an orchard? No backstop? Hey, the trees will stop the bullets. Fuckin' hilarious when one "responsible gun owner" is telling another. And the only reason I got to hear that story was that I was sexually involved with the "responsible gun owner" telling it. And I got to watch the other "responsible gun owners" in the room laugh and wax romantic about their own similar adventures. Startin' up a posse to chase down a freaking
accountant wanted by authorities for embezzlement? Gather up at the tavern, get drunk, wander around in the streets with your rifle slung over your back, your sidearm strapped on. Ginny got the call from the waitress and looked at her daughter and I: "Go pick up your father, please. They're all just wandering around drunk in the street." The bullet holes in the ceiling where the guy botched his own reloading? Putting a kitten in a tabletop vise, retrieving the nine, and blowing pieces out of it in revenge for pissing on the garage floor and getting some on your toolbox? These are all braggart, romanticized tales I've heard from so-called "responsible gun owners".
And these are people who seem to think they can get away with this and just threaten anyone who wants them to behave responsibly. After all, they've got guns.
The thing is that I should not need a firearm to protect myself from "responsible gun owners". Indeed, the phrase suggests I shouldn't need to protect myself or anyone else against "responsible gun owners".
Again, the "gun culture" you describe and inquire about sounds much more familar to me than the one we're dealing with. But the fact of their existence is of little help to those who are victims of other "responsible gun owners" in the gun culture. You know, people like the late Charles Vacca, and the parents of the unnamed nine year-old who shot him to death. And therein we find a reminder: Just because Charles Vacca was part of this gun culture did not exempt him from victimhood according to its outcomes.
Even setting these things aside, and focusing on the gun culture you describe, instead, the questions still arise. So the NRA wants guns in the hands of dangerous criminals; there's nothing surprising there, since a society in which we're all packing heat is what they're after. But it's always puzzling when people like you choose to side with such irresponsible outlooks because your "libertarianism" makes you afraid of people who are just sick and tired of sacrificing innocent people for the sake of "responsible gun owners".
It would be nice if the gun culture you describe actually represented the prevailing influential attitude in our public discourse, but it doesn't. And, yes, it would be nice if the "responsible gun owners" would make a stand against the deadly gun culture dominating the firearms policy debate in our society, but they won't.
I would agree that the parents' actions in the case of Charles Vacca's death. If anybody other than the instructor had been the one who died, I would recommend manslaughter charges against the parents. Hell, I probably still would, but the idea that the dead was a willing party to the shocking, neglectful, extremely dangerous behavior gives them a good-faith defesne, so there would be no conviction, except maybe in a metropolitan area like Seattle where it would be hard to find a jury that
wouldn't convict.
And part of the functional problem that remains between the idyllic gun culture you describe and the menacing gun culture people object to is that, given a choice, you will support the menace.
But, yes, if gun culture was predominately what you describe, then you and I, and the rest of society, would be having a much different discussion, one more satisfactory to your priorities.
And in the context of my question, that is rather quite disappointing. At the end of the day, we might agree that it is shocking neglect, but you, also, will remain afraid of the phantom nanny-staters, as you have previously and emphatically declared, and as far as you've expressed, it would
seem, at least, that you would be offended by any prosecution of these parents.
____________________
Notes:
[sup]†[/sup] "Got a gun; fact I got two. But that's okay, man, 'cause I love God! Glorified version of a pellet gun. Feels so manly when armed!"
[sup]‡[/sup] "This is the time, this is the place; hope you never have to see with that face; stand with the sun in your eyes and you never question why. Tell another story of reaction, get it? All you wanted was a shotgun shell in."
