This I believe: people have a right to own guns
as an extension of their absolute right to self-defense. This I feel: I
hate the sight, touch, smell, and sound of handguns. (Undoubtedly, part
of my visceral reaction comes from having been accidentally shot through
the leg by a .22 caliber when I was seventeen. The bullet came within
a few inches of destroying my ankle.)
At first, I assumed that my unswerving defense
of 'Second Amendment rights' would automatically endear me to all other
pro-gun advocates. I was wrong. Although my politics received a nod of
approval, members of the 'gun culture' -- those to whom guns are a lifestyle
statement -- immediately and persistently focused upon my distaste for
guns themselves.
Defending gun-rights has no more made me a fellow-traveler
of the gun culture than defending the rights of prostitutes has made me
a 'sister' within that community. Indeed, my interaction with both communities
has been strangely similar in one regard: I keep being assured that if
I could get past my psychological barriers and try it, I'd become
a convert.
My response to guns comes from experience, not
ignorance, and I have no intention of bowing to peer pressure. My emotions
are personal, and not open to political critique. But the situation has
made me reflect long upon handguns and the gun culture. I say 'handguns'
because I do not have a similar distaste for rifles. I was born into and,
as an adult, (my husband and) I returned to a rural community where hunting
rifles abound. Last winter, farmers shot dozens of wild dogs in the deep
woods adjacent to our property -- and they were right to do so. The dogs
were killing new-born lambs at an alarming rate. For the farmers, guns
are as much a tool of agriculture as tractors. But I've never seen a farmer
so much as hold a handgun.
This fact has cemented a connection in my mind:
handguns are used to kill people. If the killing is required for self-defense,
my political objections evaporate. My emotions do not.
Various spokesmen for the gun culture have advanced
an intriguing argument that, if correct, would make my refusal to pick
up a handgun immoral. Two of these people are friends for whom I have unusual
respect: the SF writer L. Neil Smith and the fine theorist Sunni Maravillosa.
Both of them make this claim: everyone has a responsibility to defend him/herself
as effectively as possible so that others do not have to assume the undue
burden of protecting to them. A corollary is 'Guns are the most efficient
means of self-defense.'
In a thought-provoking essay entitled "Freedom,
Feminism and Firearms," Sunni presents a compelling scenario. Namely, you
are a woman at home alone with a small daughter when 'Mr. Thug' decides
to drop by. Sunni asks, "What are your choices?" She answers, "You
can dial 911..." but "response times...in many cities are long enough to
virtually guarantee that Mr. Thug will do his worst." Or...you can cry
"help!" at the top of your lungs and hope that a neighbor sprints to your
rescue. Sunni's next question expresses her theme, "But honestly, if you
haven't chosen to take measures to protect yourself, why should the neighbor
trouble himself to help you, and put his safety at risk?" In essence, a
socially responsible person will act to effectively defend herself, and
nothing is more effective than a gun. (In fairness, this conclusion is
more implied than stated in Sunni's essay. It has been explicitly and repeatedly
stated by L. Neil.)
Much of this argument is morally compelling to
me. That is, I don't believe anyone should be legally responsible for harm
that befalls a good Samaritan coming to the rescue. But I would feel tremendous
moral guilt if anyone were injured while attempting to rectify my irresponsibility.
Yet I reject the notion that guns are the best method of defense or that
the right to use a gun somehow implies the duty to do so.
Guns are merely one means of self-defense and --
for those who are psychologically unable to kill another human being, like
me -- they are an utterly ineffectual means. It would be far better for
me to carry Mace, which I would use in a flash to protect myself. To stretch
a responsibility for self-defense into a duty to own guns is comparable
to equating a responsibility to exercise free speech with a duty to exercise
one particular form of speech, such as public lecturing or writing editorials.
What constitutes the 'best' expression (of self-defense or speech) will
be defined by a wide range of circumstances, including the personality
of the individual involved.
Some insiders consider this to be moral turpitude
on my part. I am enough of a sympathizer with the culture, however, to
wish that members-in-good-standing would not alienate fellow-travelers
by demanding they share a lifestyle choice rather than merely sharing a
political stand that defends that choice as valid.
