Ever heard that one? I think in some senses it is true. I once knew a teacher who was adamantly against the death penalty (I am mildly against it), but yet when an inquiring student asked, “what about if YOUR daughter was murdered, would you want the murderer executed?” She said without blinking, “yes I would.” Was she hypocritical? Probably. From what I have seen, many on the left like legislating idealistic theories that work well in safe, wealthy neighborhoods, and in the halls of the Academy. It is easy to say, “who would ever need a gun for protection?” when you live in a neighborhood where your most dangerous neighbor is that old guy who once hit a parked car. However, once someone in your nice neighborhood gets robbed, then suddenly the tune is changed. I have seen such attitudes in grad school, which I used to refer to as a cloistered community, because of how out-of-touch with the rest of America the students and faculty there were. When George Bush was elected in 2000 most there were sure there had to have been vote tampering, because they didn’t know anybody who voted for Bush, not that anybody would have ever admitted it there anyway, for fear of persecution. That future ministers, who were going out to serve average Methodist parishes throughout the U.S, had this attitude is an entire different article.
Anyway, I recently came across an interesting article that is related to this, The Way of the Gun: A Gay Liberal Explores Ohio Gun Culture by Taking Matters - and Weapons - Into His Own Hands by Brian Thornton. After Brian and his friends were victims of crime one too many times (living in Cleveland will do that to you), he decided it was time to defend himself. Even though he enjoyed shooting guns, after he visited the firing range for the first time, he still worried about what could happen:
But a couple of hours later, my high is fading, and I have a minor freak-out. I remember a moment in the stall when I saw a moving target’s shadow enter the periphery of my vision. What if that had been a person running into my line of sight? What if my target was a human instead of a piece of waxy paper? There are 39 holes in the bull’s-eye — dead center of where a chest would be.
I could have killed someone several times that morning. Despite how pleased I am with my shooting prowess, how proud I am for overcoming my fears, I don’t think I could ever hold a gun again. I could never kill another human.
While I understand what he is saying (who wants to ever take a human life?), his fears seem a little irrational at this point. Those who have grown up with guns know that guns are very safe when used properly. Because the media highlights shooting accidents among children (child drownings in bath tubs are far more common), and crimes committed with guns by thugs, many people don’t know that the vast majority of guns in this country are used safely and legally. Plus, a firing range is actually a very safe place, and it is highly unlikely anybody is going to run into anybody’s line of sight. Nobody wants to ever take a life, but the fact is most crime is prevented by simply showing a weapon.
You see, criminals prey on the weak, and simply showing a criminal that you are protected in some way, is enough to show that you are not a victim. One researcher interviewed two convicted murderers and asked them why they killed the random person that they did. They said that they initially were going to “ice” a cab driver or drug dealer, but soon realized that these folks were often armed and would fight back. So, they saw a guy walking by with a musical instrument case, and decided he would be an easy target. Criminals go after easy targets.
However, this article does not end on an anti-gun note:
IT’S SATURDAY NIGHT, and I’m driving downtown toward Cleveland to meet friends for drinks. I send a text message to one to find out where he is. His boyfriend responds: “Dan and I were attacked. I’m at Lutheran. I’m OK. Just getting checked out.”
…I learn that my friends were attacked by a group of teenagers as they tried to get into their car. Eddie has pains in his ribs and a scrape on his leg. Dan is just shaken up. Eddie’s wallet is gone.
As I drive, I am suddenly overcome with a mix of anger, fear and frustration — emotions that again make me reevaluate my position. More friends affected by crime, and no way to protect ourselves.
But there is a way we could protect ourselves, something Jim helped me learn just weeks before: We could all start carrying guns.
It seems irrational, but fear is irrational. And I begin to understand how that fear could drive people to arm themselves. I’m not on either “side” like Toby Hoover or Jim Irvine. I, like so many Ohioans, fall somewhere in the middle. Guns still feel like the ultimate solution, something I’m not ready to embrace yet.
But if the police won’t or can’t protect me and my friends, taking matters into my own hands doesn’t seem irrational anymore.
I have to agree with Brian’s final assessment: it is not irrational to want to protect yourself and your loved ones. Many people, sitting from their good neighborhoods, say “let the police protect you,” but a holstered gun (or pepper spray, etc) is an instant responder, while the police response time could be anywhere from 5-15 minutes. It would be great to be able to carry a policeman in your holster! It is easy to speak in academic theories or idealistic dreams when you are in a good neighborhood, safe with plenty of money and time to think and speculate about reality. However, the minute your child is mugged or your house burglarized, things may change. Suddenly you may want the rights that you, when pontificating in your safety, once tried to deny others. Suddenly, those “gun nuts” seem like ordinary people who care about their safety and that of their family (of course, I am talking about regular citizens here, not “militia types”).
I am glad that Brian Thornton has finally decided to defend himself. I hope that soon he and his friends will no longer be the weak victims that punk criminals seek out.
