We all have metaphorical blind spots, areas of knowledge in which—often without taking any notice of the situation—we are devoid of a sufficient quantity of facts to draw intelligent conclusions. On occasion, this blindness can be willful, as in my choice to know as little as possible about that American game played in coolish weather by two teams who use their hands to toss about an ellipsoid object.
What is that activity called, again?
In any case, as in the case of my disinterest in the “hand about the pointy egg roll” game, the consequences are minor. I am compelled to have more worthy topics of conversation for the bars that I do not go to, and I occasionally get stuck in traffic on errands around Fayetteville, since the University of Arkansas engages in this purposeless passing back and forth of said egg roll from time to time. To quote Hannibal Lecter, “tedious, very tedious,” but not particularly harmful.
At other times, such as when a presidential candidate does not know that our nuclear weapons are typically to be delivered by bombers, ballistic missile submarines, or land-based missile complexes or when a nominee to be the head of the Department of Energy does not know what the Department of Energy does, things become a bit more serious. And given the composition of our nation—a constitutional democratic republic—when members of the citizenry eligible to vote neglect to inform themselves on matters of public policy, we end up with ignorant presidential candidates and Cabinet nominees.
Another aspect of these blind spots is that in cases when we are in fact well informed about many other areas, it is easy to imagine that we also know enough about the one topic of personal obliviousness to be getting on with. With regard to the aforementioned sport, I realize that my lack of knowledge left me unqualified to speak on Colin Kaepernick’s abilities as a player, so I kept my opinions concentrated on the civil and human rights aspect of his protest, but this was a situation in which I knew what I do not know. If my sink is producing a slow drip, I might decide that since I learned about O-rings when Sally Ride passed a document to General Kutyna who then got the hint to Richard Feynman, surely I can solve the problem on my own and end up finding myself in a clutter of parts and a much more active leak.
This sort of thing can happen even to professionals who specialize in one, but not in another subset of the given field, as when, for example, a trauma surgeon might wish to pontificate about epidemiology. If experts are going to be like bikini salespeople, knowing more and more about less and less, they then have a duty to consult with those in the know. This is especially true given the inability of so much of the general public to determine what makes a person qualified to speak on which topics. A lab coat in a commercial covers a host of small print about how the smiling fellow on screen is an actor.
I raise all of this in response to a phenomenon that I have observed all too often, namely the attitude among otherwise intelligent and educated folks who believe that they do not need to understand the many details about guns, the gun community, gun violence, or the nation’s gun laws. Today’s example was someone who wondered why we allow domestic abusers to have firearms.
This was a complaint made in general terms, and the legal situation could be improved, but the person making that comment did not appear to know that under federal law—specifically, the Lautenberg Amendment—anyone convicted of a misdemeanor act of violence against a domestic partner is prohibited from possessing a firearm. (All persons convicted of felony offenses of any type are prohibited.) Now we could do a lot more here. Law enforcement from the cop on the street to the prosecutors in court could treat these as serious crimes, though this would involve a large measure of housecleaning in the precincts. We could provide abuse victims with the means of escaping. And we could bring the force of the law to bear early on, rather than allowing an abuser to escalate, which would also have the effect of forestalling potential mass shooters.
But all of that discussion is undercut when advocates for policy changes are unaware of how things currently stand. And when so many supporters of gun control, in my experience, cannot explain the operation of various firearms that they would like to ban, have no clue about the history of homicides and gun laws in one of their favorite countries to cite, England (the latter had no demonstrable effect on the former), or are unable to say what specific research proposals they would like to see the CDC fund, this is the equivalent of talking about agricultural policy with someone who believes that food is grown in plastic packaging in the back room of a grocery store or energy generation with someone who insists that wind turbines cause cancer. Yes, said people have the right to feel outraged over so many deaths, but uninformed emotion rarely leads to wise legislation.
It is worth considering why gun control advocates appear to the world in this condition. As with any technical field, there are esoteric portions—the banning of 7.62 NATO rounds from civilian hands, while leaving .308 Winchester available is an illustration of what would rise only to the lesser arcana—but a whole lot of the subject is within easy reach.
For an explanation, I must turn to an episode of The Simpsons. Homer has acquired a revolver and unsurprisingly behaves irresponsibly with it. Marge leaves with the children to stay in a hotel, and by the end of the twenty or so minutes, Homer sees the error of his ways, begs for Marge to return, and gives the gun to her. The last thing we see is Marge striking a gun fighter’s pose with the weapon.
Therein lies the temptation. The fruit of knowledge of good and evil offers no samples free of consequence. Learning about guns gives one access to their power and their burdens. Doing this erases innocence. The newly aware must join those of us already informed in the arena of moral ambiguity—and moral agency. I, as a gun owner and writer on matters related to firearms, cannot shake my head and wish someone else would do something. At the same time, I cannot satisfy myself that the simplistic set of solutions offered by others would do any good. I know too much, having spent time learning the history, the relevant criminology, and the tactics.
There is also the devious little niggle that if opponents of gun rights ever learned about guns, they might want to own one, might want to take on that personal responsibility instead of leaving the matter to others.
And that would never do.
Nice essay. Thank you.