America and Guns - Part 2 of 3

Gun Owners, Interested Parties, and Non-Owners

To understand the debate about guns, we need to answer the questions:
"Who owns guns?" and "Why?"
"Who does not own guns?" and "Why?"
"Who are other interested parties to the debate?"

Gun Owners

Gun owners include a variety of people and their reasons for ownership are as diverse as they are.  In 2010, approximately one-third of all adults in the US reported owning a gun.  This is down from a high of about 54% in 1977 (source UPI).  While reports vary, 33% - 40% seems a likely figure.  Men are much more likely to own guns than women.  Gun ownership is concentrated in some homes where multiple firearms are owned.  This accounts for the greater number of guns than households owning them.  Let's look at different groups of gun owners.

The first group is the closest to our history. They are sports persons both male and female who use guns for hunting or sport shooting. They are responsible gun owners who are trained and careful in using firearms. While they consider their guns as available for self protection, that is not their principal reason for owning guns. They enjoy the sport.  As a member of my high school rifle team, I can attest to the challenge and satisfaction of target shooting.  It's not for everyone, but it is a legitimate sport / hobby.

The second group is the police. They own guns as part of their profession. Guns are their tools. They are highly trained and very careful. Their work brings guns into their homes.

The third group is the military. Their weapons are numerous and very deadly. They are kept in secure storage and used under controlled conditions. As a result of their professional use of guns, military personnel own their own guns. When members leave the military they take with them their training and familiarity and respect for firearms. Barring personal psychological problems, they can be expected to be responsible gun owners.

The fourth group is criminals. They own weapons for the purposes of status, intimidation, and outright injury and murder. Because they are criminals, without respect for the law, legal prohibitions on gun ownership are essentially meaningless to them. As long as there is a black market for guns, these people will own and use them. Laws do not control the lawless, except to put them in jail after the fact.

The fifth group is citizens concerned about being the victims of crimes. These people can be in the inner city, suburbia, or rural areas. Some may have been personally threatened or physically hurt and truly need a gun for self protection.  Others are faced with living in dangerous neighborhoods where a gun feels like a necessity just like it was on the frontier. There is a historical connection and rationale for why these people own guns.  Other gun owners are in less dangerous situations, but their personal perception of danger is high. As Shakespeare once wrote, "Nothing is, but thinking makes it so."

Either because of a personal past experience, the experience of a friend, or just the events on the news, these people feel somehow safer owning a gun. For them, a gun is seen as a great equalizer. It enables a farmer or a rancher living in an isolated area to be his own first line of defense before help arrives. It equips a 110 lb, 5'2" person to counter a 6', 200 lb person or a 75 year old to resist a 20 something drug addict turned robber. However, the usefulness of a gun is related to the ability of the user to handle it properly and keep his/her wits under great pressure. The training and expertise of people in this group has to be very mixed.  Unlike police gun training that can teach both shooting skills and usage in pressure-packed situations, civilian practice does not replicate the stress of an actual confrontation in which a gun would be used.  For capable people, gun ownership can make them safer. Incompetent gun owners are, however, a danger to themselves and others.

The sixth group is persons worried about the power of government or the collapse of civilized society. They own guns for self protection against crime, but more importantly for protection against an abusive government or social disorder. For them, 1776 could happen again tomorrow. If it does, they will be ready. They envision a military-style conflict between civilians and the government or a rampaging mop and hence support civilian access to military weapons. Today’s military conflicts are a far cry from those of early America. In colonial times, the military weapons advantage was limited to cannons and cavalry. There were no rocket propelled grenades, machine guns, mortars, helicopter gunships, drones, etc. There was far more parity in arms between the civilian militia and the professional soldier. The need for military weapons for civilian protection against the government is a moot point today given the total great disparity in armaments.  Incidents of societal breakdown are too few and far between to merit military-style firearms.  In the words of Joe Biden, "Get a shotgun."

The "government danger to democracy" gun owners may be technically proficient with their firearms, but their mental state is perhaps the most suspect of any of the groups. Fortunately, their fantasy of government resistance has not turned into overt action. Talking about what they would do, or could do, seems sufficient as long as they own weapons to make those thoughts plausible in their own minds. No rational person would truly believe he could prevail against the professional armed forces of the United States.  Lending credence to their viewpoint drags the gun debate to an unnecessary extreme.

The last group of people who own firearms are the casual owners. These people have a gun around the house because they once used it when they were younger, or inherited it from a relative. They are not active gun users and have no particular reason for owning the gun except they somehow came into possession of it. Having it is no hassle; using it is of little interest.

Non-Owners

Non-owners outnumber owners with probably two-thirds of homes not having a gun.

The first group of non-owners is those who simply have never been around guns, are not in circumstances where there appears to be a need to own a gun, are not afraid for their own well-being, and who are not comfortable with handling a gun. These people are ambivalent about gun ownership. They don’t see a need for one themselves, but are not especially concerned that someone else owns a gun.

The second group is those who are opposed to gun ownership. They do not want to own a gun and they are concerned that other people own guns. For some, that concern is limited to the type of gun someone else owns (e.g., assault rifle), while others oppose any form of private gun ownership.

Interested Parties

Three other groups who are not owners, but who are closely connected to them need to be mentioned.

The first are gun manufacturers and importers. These firms have a vested interest in promoting gun ownership. They appeal to sports persons, to worried citizens, to government tyranny resisters. From the standpoint of a gun producer, it matters little why you want a gun, only that you want one. That is not to say that gun firms are reckless or irresponsible in promoting gun ownership, only that they benefit from many different ownership scenarios and cannot be expected to turn away business.

The second are the retail gun sellers. These range from big stores like Gander Mountain, to the small, local gun dealer, to the personal sellers at gun shows. This is truly a mixed group. Sellers, like manufacturers, benefit from any rationale for buying a gun. It is hard for a seller to know the true motivation of a buyer even if he wanted to. Businesses have some interest in not selling to obviously deranged, dangerous, and untrained people because of potential liability. For that reason, they are probably somewhat more responsible in their practices. Expecting sellers to police the marketplace may work for the professional ones, but it is no protection against those sellers whose only interest is in the sale. With 200 million guns already in private hands, controlling sales of new guns has a limited usefulness.

The third are the gun owners’ associations, of which there are many.  The most well known is the National Rifle Association, the NRA. These associations speak on behalf of their members, but those members represent varied segments of the gun owners’ population. Some may promote sporting gun usage, others target shooting, others antique guns, etc. Many of these associations have good and valid reasons for supporting gun ownership for the groups they represent. However, mixed in with the gun owners are the gun makers and gun sellers. These groups have access to the associations as well. Their agenda for promoting gun ownership can be entirely different. It is the mixing of the message and the money of gun producers/sellers with that of gun owners through the gun associations that creates much of the confusion in the gun ownership and gun control debate. It muddles the message.

With this wide array of gun owners and gun spokespersons, it is easy to recognize why the debate over gun ownership is so confused. Parties to the debate come at it from various perspectives. 

Given the diversity of gun owners and the differing positions of non-owners, it is not surprising that polls on gun ownership produce mixed results. The population has mixed feelings. From out of the mix emerge the voices of those who are most passionate and best financed. This becomes the national gun associations, gun makers, and anti-gun organizations. All of which invoke interpretations of the constitution to promote or limit gun ownership. Is there a solution to the problem of guns in America that satisfies these conflicting views? Probably not. Is there a workable solution that accommodates all sides? Perhaps.