Over the last couple of years, an increase in random mass shootings has generated strong emotions regarding the question of gun rights in America. Many Americans (and probably most of the rest of the world) believe strongly that if Americans would pass gun control laws which were a good deal more restrictive, these incidents would occur less frequently. Sometimes, though less often, it is supposed that more gun restrictions will help alleviate the sort of criminal-on-criminal violence which constitutes the majority of homicides in America. Of course, on the other side we have the arguments that strict gun control will either fail to alleviate violent crime or will actually lead to an increase in violent crime, due to a lack of guns among “good guys”. These are extremely vague characterizations, but I think they capture the outlines of what each “side” of the debate wants.

Today, I just want to talk about some of the cultural disconnects which I think we have between gun people and non-gun people.

First, there is certainly something appealing about the belief that, as a civilization, we have moved beyond the need for ordinary people to be armed. Many people want to live in a place where they believe not only that they are quite safe, but that everyone around them agrees. The carrying of a weapon is an implied threat: not necessarily in the sense of a threat directed from the carrier to the frightened person, but rather in the sense that it is a reminder that “Here there be dragons”. And many good people strongly prefer not to think about the possibility of violence, trauma, or danger. Further, regarding those who arm themselves in order to guard against tyranny, many may feel that it’s an implicit breach of the social contract, a threat to resort to violence rather than committing to peaceful solutions. In this way, perhaps some gun control advocates might see robust gun rights as similar to the way in which an engaged couple might feel about a pre-nup: it might seem like an expression of overt distrust and a lack of commitment.

Second, we have the often profound ignorance of gun laws, self-defense, and guns themselves among those who support gun control. It’s just so obvious that gun control in this country is inadequate to them, but you’ll often find that they assume that one can legally go into any gun store and just buy a gun, no questions asked (you can’t), or that fully automatic weapons are available to the average person (they’re not), that AR-15s are extra-powerful (regular hunting rifles are substantially more powerful), etc. In comparisons of this country to Western Europe, it’s assumed that we can reasonably get a handle on the 300 million guns currently in civilian hands in the US. That strikes me as a Sisyphean task, at best, and yet many gun control advocates seem ignorant to its enormity. Similarly, they will advocate for policies (universal background checks, for example) on the grounds that they could have stopped a particular mass shooting, even though the shooter passed NICS background checks. Why does this lead to a cultural disconnect? Well, when someone is threatening to legislate against your hobbies, liberty, or other interests in the name of public safety, it is hard to take them seriously when they show they have not even bothered to do basic homework. Especially when their proposals increase hassle or decrease one’s legal options for self-defense, but the advocates don’t seem to have any clear evidence that the proposals will be successful. (On both sides, there is an absurd belief that the US has become more violent. It hasn’t.)

Third, we often see a frequent commitment to hardline conservative political positions among gun people. It’s hard to take someone’s ranting about liberty seriously when they favor banning flag-burning, look down on immigrants speaking languages other than English, support the drug war, or claim that there is no impediment to anyone’s success in this country except affirmative action or too much gun control. Similarly, constant threats to overthrow the government, overt threats of violence against specific people in the “coming revolution”, etc., all harm the gun rights position. It’s no different from constantly threatening to divorce your wife every time she pisses you off, and then wondering why she seems unhappy with you all the time. Or consider the absurdity of the Cliven family: the man was violating the law; he was trying to use up public resources without charge; he’d had years to pay back fees, and eventually BLM moved in to enforce the law. And suddenly there are idiots from all over the country streaming in to save the family from compliance with the law.

Fourth, there are terrible arguments on both sides. “The last thing we need is more guns!” and “If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns!” are both stupid bumper-sticker slogans. They don’t mean anything, and they’re just based on the emotional responses of their advocates. I saw Andrew Tuohy of Vuurwapen Blog accused of “wiping his ass with the Constitution” for insulting Open Carry Texas. Now, Tuohy didn’t call for a ban on open carry or anything similar. He just wanted people to stop being jackasses. Somehow, a refusal to endorse a certain behavior led, in the fevered mind of his interlocutor, to an attack on the Constitution. I was accused of “liberal thinking” because I suggested that statistical realities about the prevalence of crime in a particular area are useful information when deciding whether or not to carry. On the other side, people will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to insist that guns serve no purpose whatsoever in deterring or stopping mass shootings. That these shootings are rarely stopped without direct intervention by cops or bystanders is seen as irrelevant. More guns isn’t the answer. Except when it is.

Fifth, there is the ideological inconsistency of the gun control crowd. In general, we’re looking at a very pro-liberty crew: anti-drug war, pro-free speech, anti-sodomy laws, pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, pro-voting rights, anti-mass incarceration, etc. Yet suddenly, we get to guns and everyone is fine with throwing up every obstacle they can think of to make exercising a Constitutional right more difficult. An individual’s vote does essentially nothing to safeguard that individual’s rights to life, liberty, and property, yet voter ID laws are treated as an abomination. By contrast, a firearm can (and often does) save an individual’s life when threatened — yet suddenly we’re told that extensive background checks, financial obstacles, gun safes, and all the rest ought to be requirements for gun ownership.

Sixth, there is the frustrating rhetoric of organizations like the NRA, which constantly tries to rile gun-owners up and get us convinced that we’re about to lose all of our gun rights and face mass confiscation. These claims are obviously absurd, but many useful idiots will buy into them without a thought. So let us set the record straight: in almost all American states, gun rights have never been so permissive as they are now. The individual right to own and carry firearms is now part of Constitutional case law. When gun owners are oblivious to these facts, it discredits us.

Whatever side of the debate you’re on, there is plenty of unhelpful argument coming from both sides, and it’s pretty obvious why people on both sides get frustrated.