Addressing Guns at the Level of Culture

Three years ago on a sabbatical, I spent some time studying the gun culture. I read a few books by sociologists who had interviewed gun enthusiasts and spent a fair amount of time on the websites of organizations like the NRA and the Gun Owners of America. (One thing I did not do, which I intend to do in the near future, is attend a gun show and talk to folks; I have to admit the prospect is a bit unnerving).

 At the same time I have paid attention to the people most outspoken in favor relaxing restrictions on guns, and why they think that is so important. A couple weeks ago I attended a gun violence prevention rally and a small group of pro-gun counter-demonstrators were waving American flags and signs while their long guns were conspicuously strapped over their backs. They looked pathetically ridiculous to me, but they were dead serious, and in the next day’s news they were displayed nearly as prominently as the gun violence prevention advocates; for good or ill they have the media’s attention.

Then  I thought about my June 6 posting (“It Starts with the Guns, Stupid!”), which attracted 4-5 pro gun advocates who berated my position that guns should be more fully regulated (expanded background checks, one handgun a month limits, mandated reporting of lost or stolen guns) so as to discourage straw purchasers. I got comments like the following:

•             owning a gun is a protected right in America. You don't have to agree...but so long as it is protected, requiring finger printing for that right is not only unconstitutional…”
• 
  
•  -        So if you do rid America of firearms what do you recommend for people to use for self-defense? Should I be limited to pepper spray when attacked by a thug 20-30 years younger than me? Who put you in charge to decide what self defense method is the best for me?
• 
  
•  -       Gun control means that whomever has the guns is in control. Who do you want that to be?
• 
  
•  -        So one gun a month is an acceptable infringement of the 2nd Amendment? Then I guess you also support a one comment a month in order to exercise the 1st Amendment? Or a one time a month application of the 4th Amendment if hassled by the Cops? Or a once a month use of the 5th Amendment?

Despite several attempts to say I wasn't against legal gun ownership, these critics took my comments to mean I covertly wanted to rid all guns from all persons. Statistics and facts about the relationship between the prevalence of guns and gun-related injuries and fatalities were not persuasive.  In the end the only things I could get them to agree with was (1) they had a basic mistrust of the government and so opposed any sort of government regulation and (2) they believed that violence is inevitable so they felt a need to arm themselves in self-defense.

Now, I grant you I don’t endorse this way of thinking, but I have come to the conclusion that any effective strategy to reduce the prevalence of guns in our society needs to address the issue at the level of culture.  In a recent NY Times Op Ed Brendan Nyhan wrote about “When Facts and Beliefs Collide.” While he was speaking about global warming debate (more specifically why certain climate change detractors aren't convinced by scientific facts), I think his insights apply equally to the issue of guns. He writes “The deeper problem is that citizens participate in public life precisely because they believe the issues at stake relate to their values and ideals…”

When Nyhan speaks of values and ideals, he is talking about what makes human beings unique and about the power of culture. Culture is what gives people a sense of meaning and belonging, who I am and who I belong to.  People will go to the mat for their values and ideals. Values and ideals are the origin of some of the world’s greatest good (Think: King’s “I Have a Dream” speech) and most incredible evil (Think: Hitler’s “Final Solution”). People will often allow their reason and common sense to be guided by values and ideals, and they interpret their reality through the lens of those values and ideals. That’s why, as Nyhan points out, people with strong values and ideals are not swayed by facts, logic or reason. They have no need of them because their culture has already given them their truth.

For pro-gun advocates, the Second Amendment is the center of their truth. The right to bear arms is an all-encompassing ideal that shades everything they believe. They believe that if every home had a gun in it, we would all be safer. From who or what I am not sure, since everyone would have the ability to shoot each other, but that is their belief. When I heard young woman who I deeply respect say that to me recently, I nearly fell off my chair. For me a gun in every home is frightening, to her it was safety.

All of which brings me back to culture. Guns and violence are deeply embedded in the American social psyche; in some quarters they are central to what it means to be a man, a husband, a father.  Our heroes, our favorite movies, our favorite TV shows, our sports – center around the use of violence to solve problems, and often that violence involves guns. Guns are the ultimate expression of individualism; one can protect his (usually it is a he) loved ones without need of help from others. For many the gun culture is a source of camaraderie, much like old Army buddies gathering for reunions. And let’s not forget, it is a huge business. God, family, patriotism, manhood, freedom – all get wrapped up with the right to bear arms. Values, ideals, beliefs – these are the stuff of culture.

Somehow we must find a way to engage the pro-gun folks on this level – the level of their values, beliefs and ideals. What that looks like and how that is done, I am not sure. However, there was a time when smoking was considerate sophisticated and cool; now it is seen as pathetic and pitiable. Culture changed around tobacco; it can change around guns.

It has too or we will never break the polarization that exists. Simply focusing on facts will not win the day. Political victories in this age of big money seem few and far between. High profiling shootings, not to mention the nightly tragedies in many urban communities have not created a sense of urgency. I am not suggesting we ignore the facts, or stop pursuing political avenues or turn fatalistic toward the daily carnage. However, I am suggesting that unless we can engage American pro-gun culture on the level of ideals, beliefs and values, we will never prevail.

Basic Grammar, Guns and the Supreme Court

In recent years colleges and employers have bemoaned the apparent decline in U.S. children’s ability to read and write. As a college professor who often teaches first year students and adults returning to college, I can attest to the often abysmal state of student writing these days. Experts attribute the decline in basic literacy to several causes: email/instant messaging, television, lower academic standards and the like. I would like to add another culprit to the list: The U.S. Supreme Court.

This past week the court ruled that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun. Now, while I admit to being a supporter of gun control laws and background checks, I have no problem with hunters, collectors and law enforcement personnel owning guns. While I don’t think it is particularly safe or wise to keep a gun in one’s home (since most murders are crimes of passion committed by people who know each other), I don’t even object to someone legally owning a gun.

But let’s be honest: the Supreme Court notwithstanding, a clear and simple reading of the 2nd amendment in no way gives a blanket right for anyone to own a gun. Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

While the nature of the English language has changed somewhat in 232 years, there is a clear link between the phrase “the right of the People to keep and bear arms” and “a well regulated militia.” Grammatically speaking, the right to keep and bear arms is a dependent clause that relates to the presence of a well regulated militia. The plain sense of the sentence simply means that the right to own a gun only applies when the person is part of a local militia. If a student interpreted the sentence any other way, they would get it wrong on their English 101 test. I guess the five justices who voted for the majority need to take an English refresher course.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with a blanket right to own a gun; rather it was established so that communities on the frontier could protect themselves from would-be invaders. Individuals kept guns around so as to be ready to answer the call, much like volunteers in the local volunteer fire department stand ready to respond when the fire alarm sounds. In other words, owning a gun had to do with civil defense not personal rights. An understanding of the basic rules of grammar and sentence structure makes that clear.

I would not be so concerned if this was not such a grave issue. First, the issue of guns and what to do with them is a major crisis in this country. Much like the gambling industry, the gun industry operates a shadow market beneath the legal market. The looser the laws are for legal gun owners, the easier it is for illegal gun sales to go on. The gun manufacturers and their political front, the National Rifle Association (NRA), know this, and so block any effort, however rational, to control or regulate the sales of firearms. The gun industry’s “growth market” are the straw buyers and illegal gun dealers whose products flood urban city streets. By enshrining the right to own a gun in the Constitution, the Court has now made it much more difficult to have a needed conversation on what to do about gun violence in this country. Laws alone will not stem the epidemic of gun violence in our cities, schools and elsewhere, but they can help.

Secondly, the Court made it that much more difficult for communities like Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia, who are trying to address their violence problems with stricter gun control laws. Such communities are decried for not addressing their problems while not being given the tools to do so. Justice Scalia writing for the majority said “gun violence is a serious problem” but “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table;” in other words, we feel your pain (wink), but we are not going to help you.

We need to have a healthy dialogue about what to do about the violence in our cities and schools, but the court has just made dialogue that much more difficult by giving the NRA the cover of the Constitution. As long as the NRA is lining the pockets of politicians at local, state and federal levels, Democrat and Republican, we won’t be able to truly address this issue without becoming polarized. What we need is to have a sensible conversation that finds common ground between lawful gun owners and those who want to control the sales of guns. It can be done.

A couple years ago Hilary Clinton proposed common ground with pro-lifers by saying while we may disagree on abortion, let us agree on reducing the need for and instances of abortions. Some prolifers, including me, were willing to meet her at that point. We need that kind of dialogue on guns as well. The 2nd amendment no more guarantees one’s right to have a gun than the 1st amendment guarantees a woman’s right to abortion. Both are complex and deep moral issues where we need to have extensive dialogue in order to find some common ground.

The justices supporting this latest opinion need to review the basic rules of grammar. Otherwise, America’s children might get the idea that words even at the highest level mean nothing and you can make any sentence, even a sentence in the Constitution, say anything you damn well please. This week the justices not only made a mockery of the Constitution, they also perverted the English language, and in the process made it more difficult for the kind of rational conversation that needs to occur on the issue of guns and violence in our society.