Guns and the Chattering Classes

Because wading into the gun control debate in America seems to tacitly endorse its shrillest and most partisan participants, most of us don't. And that's a shame.

A recent status update funnelled through my Facebook news feed, for example, suggested that a friend of mine had “[b]een trying to dodge the Fbook/Gun control shit show, but...” and went on to depict a cute-and-funny gun-related bumper sticker.

Even calling it a “debate” is a stretch—sadly, “shit show” is, in fact, a fairer characterization of the “conversation” now taking place.

Another Facebook user recently commented, in response to a verbose but thoughtful post in support of gun rights, thusly: “um is this a history class or facebook? i need a frickin cocktail. phew.” Sorry, no room for substance here. (Love, love, love the response: “it depends on what you think facebook is used for. if you think it should be for short silly things about dogs and cats, then this is the wrong place for this [gun control] discussion.” Hear, hear.)

Sadly, our new media world, dominated by Facebook, Twitter, texting, and tagging, has coarsened political discourse in America in two significant ways.

Firstly, it affords little room for nuance, for substance, for the recognition that many thorny political issues are complex, multi-faceted dilemmas. How can you share a nuanced perspective in 140 characters on Twitter? How can you make a persuasive argument on a bumper sticker, or on a road-side billboard? You can't. You don't. Sure, you can hyperlink to your blog, or somebody else's, where you can pontificate across as many virtual pages as your heart desires, but how much of the mainstream does this really penetrate?

A bias against verbosity and substance permeates Facebook's every nook and cranny—from the way the app is designed, to the peer pressure that governs commenting etiquette. People don't want to talk about serious issues on Facebook, at least not in America—they want to share “silly things about dogs and cats.” Serious issues are uncomfortable, unless they're delivered in a way designed to discourage actual discourse. They are, in fact, what we're seeking to avoid when we run into the arms of our new media gadgets. Reading a newspaper is laborious. Grazing Facebook and Twitter is relaxing.

How many substantive, thoughtful arguments, for any contemporary political or social issue, have you recently read on Facebook, or Twitter? And then: how many snide, stereotyping, exaggerating comments have you read, from ranting partisans, sarcastically referencing “our tax dollars hard at work,” or pillorying “the gun nuts,” or snidely lamenting “so much for global warming.”

In the age of copy/paste, why bother composing any original content or argument at all? Simply click your mouse to share that mindless info-graphic lambasting Mitt Romney (or Barack Obama, or the villain of the day) that you found in your news feed. Share. Re-tweet. Even the very design of the devices we use most often to bat this banter around seems to demand brevity and encourage the trivial—how many times have you typed out War and Peace on one of those tiny keyboards?

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, these instant-gratification vehicles seem especially effective at facilitating echo-chamber dialog. Preaching to the choir. “Let me get this straight... [insert disingenuous comparison]... I think it's time to re-examine our nation's morals” is not an effort to persuade or convince—it's designed to rile those who already agree with you. If you hate Barack Obama (or Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Barney Frank, etc., etc.) and think (consciously or subconsciously) that I share this sentiment, why would you bother explaining to me your hatred? Your anti-[insert politician] rant on Facebook isn't intended to speak to the portion of your friend pool that disagrees with you, or that might yet have no opinion on the matter—you know they'll simply scroll through your rant and give it little thought (if they haven't already removed you from their news feed). It's designed to elicit the mindless “like times a million” and “couldn't agree more” and “yeah, what he said” and “EXACTLY” comments. These are the currency of the medium—the squirts of dopamine and ego-boost that keep us going as we trudge through the workday.

Liberals talk to liberals, and conservatives talk to conservatives, via bumper stickers, info-graphics, and mindless platitudes. And the rest of us post links to laughing baby videos, and humblebrags, and photos of our kids being cute.

So, here's my contribution:

I believe that the constitution's framers intended the right to bear arms literally and liberally, but not completely devoid of regulation. I believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to own many types of guns, but not military-grade assault weapons. Yes, this requires sacrificing a “freedom” that some may be reluctant to surrender, but remember that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. The state has a legitimate interest in limiting gun ownership, to a reasonable degree. Sure, rational beings can disagree on what constitutes a “reasonable degree,” but both ends of the spectrum on this question (all or none) are equally wrong, by definition.

It might be pithy (and magnanimous) to quote Benjamin Franklin and suggest that “those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither,” but this glibly ignores the fact that the entire social contract on which all modern democracies are designed fundamentally represents this exact trade-off—we reasonably trade away some freedoms accorded to us in our natural state, in return for a more orderly, secure, and rational society. As Hobbes put it, life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” A friend of mine (thanks, Mitch) recently suggested that this natural state “can still be found in the modern world, but it is more likely to be in West Africa.” Where I am sure they would welcome Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh with open arms.

On the other hand, I fully support concealed-carry laws, and think CCW permits should be granted more frequently. I believe (as asserted here, attributed here) that CCW permit holders commit crimes at lower rates than the general population. And I believe the data that show a complex relationship, but no direct correlation, between crime rates and increased gun ownership.

I think that “gun-free zones” are counterproductive, and that it's absurd to post “gun-free zone” signs on college campuses and other public buildings, foolishly offering criminals an invitation to do business. I believe the data that suggest that states (and nations) with more liberal gun laws (i.e., permitting gun ownership) see fewer “hot burglaries” (home invasions when the home is occupied at the time) than states and nations with very limited gun ownership rights. I have no sympathy for the simplistic assertion that eliminating guns altogether will make us all safer.

I believe that the mainstream media's perverse obsession with glamorous and gory crime obscures the fact that violent crime rates have been falling for years, and that mass shootings are no more common today than they have been in the past, in spite of the surge in gun ownership and CCW permits—a clear negative correlation.

But I don't believe that guns kill people. Guns being used irresponsibly and/or maliciously kill people. So we shouldn't ban or eliminate guns. We should regulate them, just as we regulate other things that, when used irresponsibly, can harm people. Like cars. And nuclear waste. And food. And drugs. And dangerous chemicals. And ATVs. And kitchen appliances. And commercial food preparation. And barbers and hairdressers.

I believe that, thanks to the power of the NRA and the complicity of politicians of all persuasions, the gun industry enjoys an unparalleled free pass when it comes to regulation. Why do we require seat belts in cars but not trigger locks (or other reasonable safeguards) on guns? Why does the gun industry stand out as virtually the only industry with blanket immunity from consumer litigation?

I also think it's silly to suggest that the answer to school shootings is to post armed guards in schools—that the answer to gun violence is to make gun laws more permissive. This reasoning only makes sense if a) you're the NRA and your objective is to promote gun sales and rile up your power base, or b) you're sufficiently afraid that bad legislation (excessively restricting the right to own a gun) will follow good legislation (reasonably restricting the right to own a gun). Which is the very same argument used by liberals to oppose reasonable restrictions on abortion.

However, I also believe that a blanket ban on guns of all kinds will be as effective as a ban on marijuana, or heroin, or alcohol. I agree with the sentiment that “if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” But it should be difficult to acquire a gun permit, with suitable background checks, mental health histories, waiting periods, and other forms of light regulation. The absurdity of the gun-show loophole should be exposed as such, and eliminated.

Finally, I don't care if gun-related legislation is implemented at the state level, or the federal level. Any argument one way or the other is a disingenuous one, akin to the same specious argument made by racists in the civil rights era (remember “states' rights?”).

Altogether, these are my (varied and nuanced) opinions on the gun control debate, from which both partisan liberals and partisan conservatives can pluck something to mock and hate. But, because all of that won't fit on a bumper sticker, these words won't be read by many. Thank you for being one of the minority.