The New Republic (you know, that magazine that gun owners don’t read), has published a very well-written article by Walter Kirn entitled “What Gun Owners Want“, with the subtitle “I’ve owned six guns. I’ve drawn them on bad guys. I want to be understood.” He’s right about that much, we do want to be understood. But in his attempts to explain us he’s describing phenomena that are far from unique to guns and their enthusiasts, using language that can only be described as somewhat ominous.
He describes the enjoyment of shooting as though it were some sort of drug, as though the feeling that “You want to do it again, again—again!” is somehow unique to shooting rather than a function of the human mind’s response to doing something it enjoys. People who love running want to keep running. People who love playing squash want to keep playing squash. The statement “…this appetite, this desire for a small, acute struggle that you can win. Win consistently. Repeatedly.” could just as easily refer to someone playing Farmville all day. His description of the phenomenon is factually accurate, but the manner in which he describes it in the context of guns plays right into ignorant fears about them.
He continues the trend with his description of inculcation into the firearms culture, where he is closer to the mark in some ways. Gun enthusiasts are eager to bring new people into the fold, and they do see themselves as embattled and defensive. But, again, this is not unique to the firearms culture. Anyone in a community of people who enjoy something to which the larger community is either indifferent or outright hostile will behave in exactly the same way; they will be happy to see you, they will be highly motivated to help you join them in their activity of choice, and they will provide support “through a series of pats on the shoulder and other encouragements.” What person wouldn’t give the newbie a pat on the shoulder when he’s done well?
I could very nearly perform a simple find/replace on these portions of the article and render them perfectly adequate to describe my experience with fencing, or aikido, or Linux, or Magic: The Gathering, or any number of other hobbies into which I’ve been introduced, shepherded, and inculcated by a community of more experienced enthusiasts. So what is the point of bringing it up in this context? Is he playing to TNR’s audience, which probably already half-believes that guns are an addictive entree into a cult of toothless ammo-hoarding bunker-builders?
This lack of real-world context pervades the entire piece. Yes, owning a gun makes you think in ways that you didn’t previously, makes you consider options and scenarios that might not otherwise occur to you. So does owning a car. I never once considered driving cross-country, or taking up road rallying, or running over my asshole boss until I owned a car to do these things with. Yes, firing a gun can alter your reflexes and make you perceive things differently. So can dance lessons, which is why football players learn ballet to improve their grace. Or competitive debate, which has altered my thought processes so profoundly that I can’t not apply the concept of stock issues to almost every problem I encounter.
If Mr. Kirn’s objective in writing this article was, as the title would indicate, to help people understand gun owners, I would argue that he has mostly failed. He has relayed information about gun owners and gun culture, and he has described what it is like to a fire a gun and why people enjoy it, but he has failed to place any of it in context and make it relatable to the average person. One could argue that he shouldn’t have to, that a reasonable reader would recognize the similarities to their own hobbyist communities and think “Hey, gun people are just like us!” But as I’ve illustrated previously here and here, guns are different. People who don’t understand them are unlikely to think about them or their enthusiasts rationally, and Mr. Kirn knows that, or ought to.
A scant handful of strategically-placed similes could have made this a fantastic piece, one that I’d link to my non-gun friends with direct orders to read it immediately. Instead it just reads like another scare piece. Red meat for TNR’s usual demographic, perhaps, but almost devoid of value in advancing the gun control debate.