Not Only Misguided, But Troubling

I really do not have a firm opinion on gun control, gun use, and gun ownership.  I think that bromides such as “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people” and “If we make guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns,” like most if not all bromides, are overly reductionist and simplistic.  I also think that hard line stances such as that vocalized recently by the National Rifle Association that seem unwilling even to consider and dialogue with different points of view don’t do much good.  On the other hand, I very much see room in that dialogue for some of the concerns vocalized by the most ardent supporters of the most expansive forms of gun rights.  There is at least something worth considering in the idea that if government agencies and administrations have access to particular weapons while citizens do not, then there is potential for violent oppression.  Also, while I think there are reasons to consider such things as mental health as conditions for gun ownership, there are important questions to ask about who gets to declare someone mentally healthy, how people get declared mentally unhealthy, and how the power to make such determinations might be abused.  One can, for instance, look at histories of male institutions’ treatment of women to see how declaring individuals mentally unfit has been used as a means of oppression.

I also think there is, as with anything in democracy, a need for recognition of a multiplicity of points of views on what guns mean.  I see guns as a means of injuring and/or killing others.  Such action might be justified at times in instances of defense, but it remains such action.  That said, I have to recognize that others might find additional meaning in guns, and democracy would ask of me not to dismiss those other meanings, even if they are not the meanings I would make.

So, I think I can understand and accept why people would advocate for broad and unrestrictive gun rights.  But then, when I see things like this “Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children” Facebook page (you have to login after clicking on that link or already be logged in), I think I am rightfully troubled, and I can understand why other groups would want to restrict rights to own guns and other weapons, especially for many of the folks expressing themselves on that “Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children” Facebook page.  Here’s why:

When I see this Facebook page, I do see all kinds of accounts, images, slogans, and comments advocating broad and unrestrictive gun rights.  However, many other accounts, images, slogans, and comments on this page offer some quite disturbing additional sentiments as well.  There seems here to be a real lack of interest in understanding what racism is, how racism works, and how we might seriously reflect on and work to eliminate racism.  Indeed, some things that appear on this page are overtly racist.  Additionally, there is clear expression of demeaning stereotypes and incredibly simplistic overgeneralizations of Muslims and Islam on this page.  Latino/a immigrants face similar treatment on the page.  The page also includes very anti-democratic and ahistorical sentiments about how everyone in the U.S. should speak English.  Meanwhile, many sentiments demand deference to military service and authority while openly mocking other forms that national service and authority might take, as if shows of force and violence are the only legitimate ways of protecting and serving.

When I see all of that stuff, I can very much understand why folks would want to keep guns away from such people.  Last winter, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA declared that it is “good guys with guns” who stop “bad guys with guns,” and that seems to correspond with the sentiments offered on this Facebook page.  Yet, when I look at the page, I see a lot of folks who are not “good guys” for the reasons I have outlined in the previous paragraph.

The overused Spider-man line is that “with great power comes great responsibility,” but it very much appears to apply here.  If you want to advocate for broad and expansive gun rights, there would seem also to be need to show that those rights will be used responsibly, reflectively, and thoughtfully, with a willingness to think about and seek to understand the complexity of your relationships with other people and other perspectives.  Democracy may very well involve freedom to own guns, but it also means the willingness to work to listen to and understand the other folks with whom one shares that democracy, even when their religions, backgrounds, and viewpoints differ from yours.

I want very much to include the folks expressing themselves through that “Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children” Facebook page in dialogue on how as a society we treat and/or legislate guns, but when I see what else is being expressed on the page, I’m not sure how to include them because there doesn’t appear to be the necessary reciprocation of inclusion.  So, then I think I could ignore these folks.  After all, there are ardent supporters of expansive gun rights who do seem willing to enter into legitimate and considerate discussion with other perspectives.  And I do think that the very hardline folks expressing themselves in such problematic ways at this “Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children” page are outnumbered significantly by more reflective folks of all sorts of positions.  Yet even that choice concerns me, and it does so because those folks on that “Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children” page seem to think that they are “good guys”—that their causes are right and that they have the right to defend themselves and their perspectives with their weapons.  When they’re combining their support of unrestricted gun rights in the name of defense with the articulation of the kinds of racist, anti-Muslim, Anglocentric stuff that I also see on that “Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children” page, I think I should be worried about how those folks will use their weapons and whom they will use them against.  And feeling like they are being ignored seems like it could fuel their fire, as they would insist that they must rebel and overthrow what they see as tyranny, even as they are unwilling to examine the forms of tyranny that they themselves espouse.

Think I’m overreacting to what I see on this Facebook page?  I hope you’re right.  Again, I want even the most ardent supporters of unrestricted gun rights to be involved in dialogue about guns and other weapons.  But go and look at some of the comments on the webpage about what folks expressing themselves there want to do to Muslims, Arabs, “illegal immigrants,” and folks who don’t speak English.  It is, to put it mildly, seriously misguided.  It is also quite troubling.