by Dan Savage
Law-abiding gun owners, according to the National Rifle Association, aren’t angry; they’re merely realistic. This is a dangerous world we live in, and they need their guns to protect themselves, their families, and other law-abiding citizens from all the damn criminals (and the damn liberals who coddle them). Whenever some lunatic pulls out a gun in a school or a business and starts blowing people away, the National Rifle Association helpfully suggests that the problem isn’t too many guns in the United States but too few guns. If only the murdered teachers, students, or coworkers of the deranged shooter or shooters had themselves been armed, they could’ve returned fire and saved lives. Guns aren’t the cause of gun violence, the NRA insists, but the solution to gun violence. The more guns, the more better.
Never mind that a school cafeteria filled with hundreds of students blasting away at each other would result in more deaths; never mind that the presence of a gun in a home triples the risk of a homicide taking place in that home; never mind that the presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide by five times; never mind that Japan, which strictly limits gun ownership, had just 28 gun deaths in 1999, compared with 26,800 in the United States; never mind that England’s murder rate is one-sixth that of the United States, as New York Times op-ed writer Nicholas D. Kristof points out; never mind that firearms were used in approximately seven out of every ten murders committed in the nation in 1999.
And never mind the fact that the United States is already swimming in guns. There are 200 million privately owned guns in the United States, 65 million of which are handguns. If the presence of guns prevents violence, the United States should have the lowest levels of violence in the industrialized world, not the highest.
Never mind all that.
If the NRA, its members, and the conservative politicians they buy and sell ever admit that handguns make the United States an infinitely more dangerous place than, say, Canada, we still can’t ban even handguns for two very important reasons.
First, if handguns are banned, only criminals will have handguns. “Gun control laws raise the cost of obtaining a firearm,” Bork writes in Slouching Towards Gomorrah. “This is a cost that the criminal will willingly pay because a gun is essential to the business he is in.” Banning handguns ultimately won’t work, Bork insists, “[because] illicit markets adapt to overcome difficulties.” Bork’s argument against gun control could easily be applied to drugs: Since illicit markets adapt to whatever law enforcement measures are taken, it makes no sense to ban illicit drugs. Likewise, banning rap music, pornography, and sodomy—all things Bork would like to ban—won’t work because illicit markets will sprout up to meet demand. Bork is a hypocrite, applying one argument to the proven evil of handguns, while using another for the dubious “evils” of rap, porn, sodomy, and so forth. What’s more, Bork’s argument against banning handguns falls apart when you consider the evidence. Judging by the comparatively low murder rates in Great Britain, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand, it seems that criminals do indeed have a difficult time coming by handguns.
Things get more problematic for gun-loving drug warriors when you consider the economic costs of gun violence. “A study of all direct and indirect costs of gun violence,” according to Handgun Control Inc., “including medical, lost wages, and security costs estimates that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year.” Conservatives point to the same figure—$100 billion in economic losses—when they argue for continuing the war on drugs. If the cost of drug use makes an open-and-shut case against legalization, how come the identical cost of gun violence isn’t an open-and-shut case for a ban on handguns?
The other big argument against banning handguns is, um, let me see. . . . I had it right here a second ago. Christ, what was it again? Let me do a quick search on Google. Oh, right, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“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.”
The Second Amendment presents a huge problem for people like me—that is, for big fans of our nation’s founding documents—particularly that pursuit of happiness stuff in the Declaration of Independence. Owning guns clearly makes some very angry Americans very, very happy, and I’m not interested in coming between a heavily armed person and his definition of happiness. Also, unlike fundamentalist Christians, my conscience doesn’t afford me the luxury of picking and choosing which bits of favorite centuries-old documents I’m going to take literally. If I want the full-meal-deal on the Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment, I feel somewhat obligated to sign off on the full-meal-deal on the Second Amendment. After all, it does say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, which seems pretty straightforward.
But is it?
To his credit, Robert Bork acknowledges that the Second Amendment doesn’t necessarily grant the average citizen the right to keep and bear arms. He characterizes the amendment as “ambiguous.” “The first part of the Amendment supports proponents of gun control by seeming to make possession of firearms contingent upon being a member of a state-regulated militia,” Bork writes in Slouching Towards Gomorrah. “The next part is cited by opponents of gun control as a guarantee of the individual’s right to possess such weapons, since he can always be called to militia service. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.”
The First Amendment, on the other hand, is much less ambiguous than the Second (which has never stopped Bork and other conservatives from attempting to punch holes in it): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The First Amendment has a fan base, as does the Second Amendment, and it’s a shame that there isn’t more overlap between the two groups. Much mistrust and mutual contempt separates the fans of the First and Second Amendments. As a First Amendment fan, I can’t resist pointing out that the First Amendment does come first, but in the hopes of bringing Firsts and Seconds closer together, I’d like to clear up a couple of misconceptions. First off, First Amendment fans tend to live in crowded urban areas, and we’re afraid of getting shot. Second Amendment fans tend to live in less populated areas, and they’re afraid that people from urban areas are going to come and take their guns away. On behalf of all First Amendment fans everywhere, I’d like to tell Second Amendment fans that we’re not coming to take your guns because—hello!—we’re afraid of getting shot and you people have guns. If we came and tried to take your guns away, you would shoot us—I’ve seen Charlton Heston say exactly that on CNN a half a dozen times. So, really, we’re not coming for your guns.
If it’s not too much trouble, Firsts would love Seconds to find ways to make it harder for your guns to fall into the hands of the people who shoot at us on the subway or, for that matter, we’d like you to keep your kids from blowing their own heads off with your guns. To that end, we’re for gun training, registration, licensing, trigger locks, gun safes, smart guns that fire only when they’re being held by their owners, banning cop-killer bullets, and banning handguns and other concealable weapons. See? We don’t want to take your guns. We just want to make the world a safer place.
(Why do Firsts care so much about protecting the children of Seconds? Because most Firsts are liberals, and liberals are very concerned about other people, especially children. That’s why liberals are all over trigger locks and safe storage laws. I mean, come on—most of the people out there pressing for mandatory trigger locks and safe storage don’t have guns in their homes. Their ki
ds aren’t around guns, and so it’s not their kids who’re getting their heads blown off in garages and basements. Maybe their concerns are misplaced; kids who grow up around guns are likelier to be right-leaning gun nuts when they grow up. If gun foes want to turn the tide against guns, maybe they shouldn’t work so hard to save gun-owners’ children. Just a thought.)
It seems to me that Firsts and Seconds could compromise. This may get a little confusing but try to follow along: Seconds want the most liberal reading of the Second Amendment, while Firsts want the most liberal reading of the First; most Seconds favor a conservative reading of the First Amendment, and most Firsts favor a conservative reading of the Second. There’s room for a deal here. If Firsts agree to sign off on a liberal reading of the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed), and Seconds sign off on the most liberal interpretation of the First Amendment (complete separation of church and state, total freedom of speech), perhaps we could end most of the culture war. Gun nuts don’t have to worry about People for the American Way coming for their guns anymore, and First Amendment fans can write, print, publish, film, videotape, and chat on-line about anything we care to.
Is it a deal?
It was a Saturday afternoon when I first walked into the Bullet Trap, the place was pretty crowded, and the man behind the counter laughed when I asked if I could get a shooting lesson. The Bullet Trap doesn’t give lessons on the weekends, he said, because they’re way too busy. He told me to come back on Monday. I wasn’t going to be in Plano on Monday, I pleaded, and then I made the mistake of telling the truth: I made a special trip to Plano to learn how to shoot; I was writing something about guns; I had to fly home the next day. Couldn’t they squeeze me in?
The man behind the counter gave me a long, hard look. Then he asked me where I was from. It didn’t occur to me that “where are you from” could be a trick question. When I told him I was from Seattle, he snorted and rolled his eyes.
“That’s a pretty liberal place, Seattle. Did someone send you down to Texas to write something negative about guns?” he said, leaning over the counter.
No, no, no. I assured the armed, menacing man behind the counter that I wasn’t writing something negative about guns—to the contrary! I was in beautiful Plano, Texas, because I wanted to write something positive about guns. There might have been a gun range I could have gone to in Seattle, I explained, but I didn’t want to learn to shoot from someone who had gone soft living in Seattle, a guy who felt he had to apologize for shooting a gun. I wanted to learn to shoot from a guy who had never once doubted his right to keep and bear arms—and I wanted to learn to shoot in Texas because Texas and guns go together like rigor and mortis. Among the gun nut states, Texas is the gun nuttiest.
Yes, sir, I was in Plano because I wanted to write something positive about guns, something upbeat. Glowing, even.
The man behind the counter—his name was Dave—called his boss over, an even larger, more menacing man. (Now, none of these guys were menacing in reality, but they were all armed.)
“This fella is from Seattle,” he explained to his boss, “he’s in Plano special to learn to shoot, and he’s going to write something about it.”
The Bullet Trap’s boss asked me if I was planning on writing something positive or negative, and I explained again that it was my intention to write something complimentary, something that would show gun owners in the best possible light. Christ, I thought to myself, for a bunch of rough, tough, armed-to-the-teeth types, the men who worked at the Bullet Trap seemed awfully nervous about the power of the printed word. What were they so afraid of? If Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, John Hinckley, Mark David Chapman, the school shootings in Pearl, West Paducah, Jonesboro, Springfield, Littleton, and Santee, and the ten children shot and killed in the United States every day aren’t enough to convince the federal government to do something about the 200 million guns in this country, shit, then nothing I could write was going to get the Second Amendment repealed.
Fearing that my trip to Plano was going to be for nothing, I played my trump card. Write something negative about guns? Me? Goodness, no!
“My dad was a cop,” I said, “I grew up in a house with a gun. I’m not afraid of guns. Really, I’m not here to write some big guns-go-bang exposé.”
I didn’t tell the men at the Bullet Trap that my dad was pro-gun control, of course, or that I thought the 65 million handguns in the United States was a social and economic disaster, or that I admired countries that banned the possession of firearms by average citizens. I guess I misled them. Despite misleading the men at the Bullet Trap about my own personal feelings about guns, I wasn’t entirely misleading them about my intentions. I think guns are a sin—and I think it’s clear that Jesus would be on my side on this issue—but I was working the pro-sin/pro-sinner angle, and I would find something nice about guns if it killed me.
Hearing that my dad was a cop, and that I grew up in a house with a gun, opened doors for me at the Bullet Trap. Cop for a dad, house with a gun: I may not have looked like a gun owner—jeans too baggy, hair too short, gut undetectable—but I was one of them. The boss okayed a special Sunday afternoon class. I was told to come back at 2 P.M. tomorrow.
Just as an aside to gun nuts who might be reading this.
Gun nuts talk and talk about needing guns to protect the rights and freedoms that all Americans enjoy, but when the rights and freedoms of Americans are under siege, gun nuts are nowhere to be found. I don’t recall seeing any NRA members, for example, ever protesting an assault on the free speech rights of Americans by the feds—or the federal government’s successful efforts to undermine our constitutional protections against government surveillance and unreasonable searches, their attempts to regulate speech on the Internet, limit abortion rights, and ban any public expression that’s in any way sexually explicit. Where were all the freedom-loving gun nuts when the director of the Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati was arrested and (unsuccessfully) prosecuted for displaying Robert Mapplethorpe’s photos?
So while gun owners are always saying that owning guns is about defending freedom, the only freedom gun owners seem interested in defending with their guns is the freedom to defend their freedom to own guns. For a freedom fan such as myself, this seems a little limited. All that firepower—200 million guns—dedicated to defending just one freedom? Charlton Heston, the actor and president of the NRA, says he “cannot stand by and watch a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States come under attack,” and yet I don’t recall seeing Charlton Heston on television complaining about John Ashcroft’s recent assaults on, say, attorney-client privilege. If gun nuts want to convince non-gun nuts of the value of an armed citizenry, perhaps they should use their guns to defend all of our freedoms, not just your freedom to own guns.
According to Doug Honig of the American Civil Liberties Union, some gun groups have started to come around; upset by Ruby Ridge and Waco, some gun groups have engaged in polite protests against proposals to increase federal police powers. To me it seems like a case of too little too late—and why so polite? I mean, I thought the point of gun ownership was getting to use guns to defend our freedoms. If gun owners found all the rights Americans are guaranteed by our Constitution worthy of defending to the death, perhaps non-gun owners would be more sympathetic to the rights of gun owners.
It’s just a thought.
When I showed up on Sunday, I was introduced to Paul, the man who would teach me to shoot.
Paul was my age, with a helmet of thick, blond hair. Like everyone else at the Bullet Trap, he was wearing a button-down, collared denim shirt tucked into a pair of black jeans. He had a slight drawl, and before he would let me pick out or handle a gun, Paul took me through his Four Big Rules for Safety.
“First, all guns are loaded,” Paul said, “that’s the first of four big rules. Some people say, ‘Treat all guns as if they’re loaded,’ but that introduces some doubt in your mind. B
y telling yourself to think a gun might be loaded, you’re also telling yourself that the gun might not be loaded. You’re introducing subconscious doubt. You don’t want to have that doubt. Say no to doubt. Tell yourself, ‘All guns are always loaded,’ and you’ll always treat a gun as if it’s loaded.
“The second Big Rule: Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on a target and you’re ready to shoot.
“Third, never allow the muzzle to point at anything you’re not willing to destroy. Some people think that if they point the gun down and toward themselves,” Paul said, pointing the gun down and towards his crotch, “they’re being safe. But if that gun goes off, you’ve gone and destroyed something you might not want destroyed.
“Finally, four: Know your target and know what’s beyond it. If you miss your target, its a tactical disaster and it’s socially irresponsible. If you’re going to shoot at it, hit it. If you can’t hit it, don’t shoot at all.”
Paul handed me some additional safety rules to read.
“These are the rules of the range,” Paul said. “Read them, and I’ll be right back.”
The list was long, and the type was small. When I got to number 17, I read this: “At this time, please inform the Range Officer that is helping you that ‘Barney is a great kids’ show.’ This will let him know that you are reading these rules.” I was done reading the list when Paul came back, and he asked me if I had anything to say to him.
“Barney is a great kids’ show,” I said.
“Good boy,” said Paul.
I told Paul I wanted to shoot a variety of handguns, and he recommended that I start with a .22-caliber pistol.
“It’s easier to get used to shooting a .22, since there’s less recoil. They’re accurate up close, less accurate at longer ranges.”
Some of the .22s in the case Paul walks me over to are so tiny they look more like PEZ dispensers than like guns. Most of the guns made for women are .22s, and some of the guns in the case have pink and light blue handles. “You can get ’em in lots of different colors,” Paul said. “That way she can have a different color gun for every day of the week, if she likes.”