For decades now, many have shunned gun ownership and gun culture due to the outcomes and horrible consequences that guns ‘unchecked’ and used with bad intentions have caused on American families and across the globe. While this a major issue and a debate that will be key in the coming election, there still is a considerable number of people who either oppose or do not have a view on gun control. Around half of Republicans own guns, and 41% of those who call themselves “conservatives,” compared to only 22% of Democrats and 23% of those who call themselves “liberals”.
One qualitative reason is that liberals are more likely to live in big cities, where there is an assumption that violence will be stopped by the police (and by numerous witnesses), rather than by one’s own defensive actions. But, I also think — ideologically — liberal-leaning individuals want to live in a society without widespread gun ownership, and many have decided to “be the change they want to see in the world.” Noble in its aspiration, but easily struck down when you consider all of the happenings across the country in the past couple years. I believe conservatives view it differently because of their proximity to the major metropolitan areas where law enforcement budgets are smaller. I also have began to think about how historical events around sovereignty of its citizens and property rights have been drawn upon to stoke the desire of gun ownership in the US.
But leading by example hasn’t worked. Nor, has holding on to a shameful past either. Gun control has been mostly a political non-starter except for a very brief period at the beginning of the Clinton administration. Conservatives continue to use the issue of gun rights as a rallying cry and cultural wedge issue and Democrats continue to use it to activate its base and demographically divide its citizens.
Now things may be changing. A recent BBC report found that since the election of Trump, liberal interest in gun ownership has spiked. And, you know what, I think that actually might be a good thing. More liberals DO need to be licensed to own a firearm (if not actually owning one). And, here is why:
- ) Credibility
Right now, many conservatives see gun control as a plot to disarm them. David Brooks recently posted a column on the need for liberals to ‘listen’ to those who are anti-gun control with a willingness to engage in a conversation around the issue. And, while Mr. Brooks might have meant that in the most pro-active and empathetic way possible, to the mothers and fathers who lost children (or the neighborhoods plagued with violence) from gun violence, this comes off as absurd and downright disrespectful. But if liberals are also licensed and armed, the calls for things like assault weapons bans, or background checks, or stricter licensing requirements sound more like an arms limitation treaty than a call for unilateral disarmament. It also draws in a larger, more informed, and — most importantly — diverse conversation about these things.
There’s a precedent for this. Half a century ago, the Black Panthers, ardent gun nuts in black militia wear, staged an armed protest at the California state capitol. Shortly, thereafter, the state responded with the Mulford Act. Now, I’m not suggesting liberals stage armed takeovers of government buildings — while some might disagree, I feel the 60s were a very different time, and others might say that people like Cliven Bundy aren’t going about things in the right way. But the larger point is that when people ‘love thy neighbor’ (or in case, join them in gun becoming licensed to carry) there is greater capacity for conversation on what is the right amount of government interaction. - Anarchy
While the chances are extremely low, the total breakdown of public order is quite unlikely given that the majority of us have a huge stake vested in the success of the system. It would take a nuclear war, a civil war or coup, or a major natural disaster to produce a situation in which America reverted to anarchy. There are also unique moments that are shared amongst individuals or demographics that do intensify those odds. I remember seeing the mother of Mike Brown sobbing uncontrollably on television and thinking how hopeless she had to feel to hear the news of her son’s death. Or, I can think of those Native American tribes who have been relegated to reservations by the US government and yet are asked to move again because of oil pipeline. I can see that making people lose faith in the system. I can see that leading to someone taking ‘justice’ into their own hands (right or wrong). There’s actually sort of a historical precedent for this as well. In the episode known as “Bleeding Kansas” in 1854–1861, the U.S. government decreed that slavery’s legality in Kansas would be decided by popular vote. Naturally, this made pro- and anti-slavery people both rush to settle in the state, and it also sparked a guerilla war. The government, paralyzed by the fear of a larger civil war (which soon happened anyway), did little to quell the violence, so the state became a zone of anarchy. Many homes seen death and — later — a nation saw death on one of the highest tallies in American history in the Civil War. However, ‘not arming’ yourself during that time in Kansas might have been gravely foolish.
In short, those are two of my immediate thoughts on getting to a working conversation on the right level of government protection on gun control. Like our US elections, in order to vote one must actively register to participate. Maybe that’s the way both sides will begin to talk if that is truly an outcome that both sides want.
