It is guaranteed that if you write anything on the internet that is less than high praise for the American 2nd Amendment to the constitution, you will shake the crazy tree and trolls will tumble out all around you. So, here goes.
A dear friend has been piping up on Facebook lately with urgent warnings about many of his ultraconservative beliefs. Today it was a somber warning about the danger of losing the 2nd Amendment. Like many, he truly believes that we are in imminent danger of losing it to some dark and secret government conspiracy. I could offer in the comments that this is highly unlikely, that trying it could lead to a civil war and the demise of our democratic republic. As far as secret conspiracies go, it is worth remembering that three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.
Commenting would only be ineffective and inflammatory and would result in damaging our lifelong friendship if I crossed swords with him. I don’t want this outcome even though I believe that he has gone off the deep end. I won’t offer criticism to his plainly crazy rantings. Why do I feel the need to comment?
Here is where it all goes nonlinear. To people like my friend, not falling in line with his 2nd Amendment belief is equivalent to giving support for eliminating guns. I have always had a nagging suspicion that there can be such a thing as an unhealthy fascination with weapons and their use. Even though I am not a gun enthusiast, I realize that attempting to remove guns from citizens would be like digging up a badger’s burrow bare handed and trying to yank the angry creature out while avoiding its dangerous gnashing teeth and sharp claws. It would be a fool’s errand and would end in a draw.
My friend’s early fascination with firearms fed his interest in joining the Navy when in his 20’s where he served on a missile frigate. There he learned a valuable trade that would later lead him to a highly technical career in the semiconductor field with much international travel. He chose well and did well. He has a strong moral center based on deeply conservative principles. I’m proud to know him.
While my friend served in the Navy facing actual hostility, I was in college thrashing around studying chemistry. His time was spent honorably defending the country. I spent a year in Air Force ROTC only to realize that I wasn’t military material. He gets to speak about preserving our rights with some authority and I get to speak about organic chemistry, with questionable authority.
In reality, we both get to voice our opinions about our democratic culture but the greater credibility can often go to the military veteran. They put their lives on the line for all of us- a very concrete contribution. My choice of becoming a scientist and contributing to the understanding of the molecular universe is much more abstract and remote. It can be hard for many to see the social benefit of a lifetime of contributing to science. In some ways scholarship is very self-centered and even hedonistic. My contribution seems to have been to help in the safe operation of a chemical plant and to help fellow employees maintain a comfortable living. Seems pretty tame.
It has been my experience that many boys pick up an interest in the martial arts and weapons in middle school. I think there is a legitimate nature or nurture question here but that is for someone else to consider. Middle school is an awkward time of hormones and conflicting behaviors and feelings. The feeling of control over your surroundings with new skills in fighting and weapons is natural and strong. This is an awakening that many boys experience.
After an NRA course in hunter safety as an early teen, I recall walking around a river bottom in the countryside alone with a .22 caliber rifle looking desperately for something to shoot. It was exhilarating. Luckily for the wildlife, no living targets appeared. Just having the gun in my possession made me want to fire it. And therein may be the problem.
It seems to me that the pure exhilaration of handling and shooting a firearm is an irresistible attraction to some people. You know, like sport shooting. There are people who just need to shoot at things. I’ve experienced it. Within the limits of lawful behavior, it’s not wrong to shoot at inorganic things.
The problem arises when people shoot other people as a way to resolve conflict against a background of law and order. The ability to commit violence from a safe distance is a plus with firearms that is lost on no one. Perhaps we should just yield to it and bring back dueling with pistols between consenting parties?
So, here is my conclusion. The US will continue to suffer through individual and mass shootings well into the future. As a society, there will remain a critical mass of people who will oppose any sort of gun control despite the positive counter examples from other countries. Empirical evidence doesn’t matter, only voting does and even that is now in question. The mindless gun violence will subside only when we stop wanting to display our personal power with threats of violence. There must be a large-scale phase change in psychology and some reasonable alterations in the legal environment behind it. Perhaps after a devastating world war Americans, or whoever is left, will decide to lay down their arms and choose non-violence. But I doubt even then it would happen. Violence is a primate thing that is hard wired into our brains.
