A resident of Texas recently declared at a campaign event that he will be voting for Beto O’Rourke, thanks to the candidate’s stance on gun control. He explained that he is a responsible gun owner who possesses five guns, of which none can shoot more than five hundred yards or that hold more than six bullets, and is worried for his two sons, boys who are athletes about whom he does not worry when they are out in the world, but who, he feels, are at risk in school, since their physiques do not give them protection against being shot. He claimed in an interview at the event that we—presumably American politicians or perhaps voters—are “afraid to say these weapons of war are not needed in society.”
There is much here that anyone who is active in support of gun rights will latch on to—dare I say, will see as red flags—as signs that the person in question is a Fudd, someone who wants to keep the guns he sees himself as having a use for, but feels free to attack the rights of others. I would ask him to bear in mind that any firearm can lob a projectile out over distances much greater than five hundred yards, including what I presume to be his revolvers, given the six-round limit he claims to have. He should also consider that if he has what gun control advocates think of as hunting rifles, those chambered in cartridges often used for that purpose can kill a human at half again as far as he imagines, if not twice the range or more.
His concern over the safety of his sons is understandable, but here again, there are some facts to consider. In the United States in 2022, there are more than seventeen million teenagers enrolled in high schools around the country, and while school violence of all types is a concern, “the rates of violent victimization and serious violent victimization at school are low and have been decreasing since the 1990s,” according to the National Institute of Justice, a research agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Children can be at risk in many places—in their own homes especially, and Texas is currently the state with the highest number of abuse victims—and mass shootings in schools remain a rare event, despite the attention that they inevitably receive in the media.
As I have suggested before, we who support gun rights have a burden of addressing the desire for safety that goes beyond a mere statement of the data. The man anticipating voting for Beto O’Rourke assigned himself the label of responsible gun owner, and this category must be defined, given how frequently gun control advocates use it to divide the public.
In their rhetoric, a responsible gun owner does not object to the many laws either proposed or enacted in the gun control platform. Said gun owner is pleased with revolvers, two-chamber shotguns, and bolt-action rifles, seeing no need for any type of self-loading firearm—certainly none that use a magazine holding more than ten rounds. The guns of this exemplar of responsibility are supposed to be safe from bans, at least for now, at least until gun control advocates get around to coming after whatever firearms this O’Rourke supporter and his ilk possess. Responsibility in the view of opponents of gun rights is an exact synonym for submissiveness.
Perhaps this would make some people feel safe for a time, though I ask my fellow Americans on the left to remember the many incidents of police violence in recent years and the spread of right-wing extremism in law enforcement over the same period. These are the agents of the government who would carry out the laws that gun control advocates seek.
There remain, though, the worthwhile question of what constitutes a responsible gun owner. My readers will be unsurprised to learn that I do not see a list of the guns one owns or does not own as contributing anything to the definition. Yes, a responsible owner will not leave weapons around for children to play with and will not transfer them to someone clearly deranged or about to commit a crime, but it is possible to be either responsible or irresponsible with a flintlock musket, a .22 target pistol, a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine, or a .50 caliber Barrett. Jeff Cooper’s advice on safe handling—in summary, treat all guns as loaded, do not point a gun at anything you are unwilling to destroy, keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot, and know your target and what is beyond it—goes for any design of firearm ever invented. Add on a recognition that using a gun while impaired by one substance or another is a bad idea, and the bottom line is that anyone who can avoid harming innocents in general life is likely to be in safe possession of personal weapons, as well.
But I want to carry this further. A responsible gun owner will also know the laws regarding the use of force and will avoid getting into things that require a gun to get out of. This is not meant as a comment on Stand Your Ground laws or a disparagement of the man in Indiana who stopped a mass shooting. It is a broad reminder that the fewer incidents we get involved in, the fewer holes we are likely to find in our persons. Stay out of trouble if possible. Be the calm voice in trouble if that is what must be. And get out of the situation in as expeditious a manner as is available, with the caveat that helping others to escape may be the right thing to do. Just like carrying a gun, these choices are no guarantee, but the will improve the odds.
Next, know the facts. Do not be swayed by rhetoric, be it the speechifying of any side in the issue of gun rights. If a source is saying things that feel believable, doubt it. The right wing loves gun ownership, by and large, and the left often condemns that. What each presents—and I do mean each—will be accordingly biased. Get a good sense of what claims of fact each side makes. Check those claims. For example, Sigmund Freud did not write that a fear of weapons is a sign of sexual immaturity, no matter how often that meme gets tossed around, and most other popular quotations about guns are bogus as well. (George Orwell is the real origin of the comment attributed to him—see the banner for the citation.) And even if the facts are accurate, look at the interpretation that is being made on top of them—cherry picking is a favorite method of data analysis, regardless of political orientation.
The last point I wish to offer here disqualifies the father who promises to vote for Beto O’Rourke. Do not sacrifice rights for any reason—not because they are risky, not because giving them up will gain political advantage, not because any god or government tells us to. There is no responsibility if we lack the opportunity to choose the good and bad options. In the absence of rights, a person may be compliant or defective, but not human.
I admit here that committed gun control advocates will not accept my sense of what a responsible gun owner is, but I would like to think that a solid majority of the American people can see the soundness of my formulation. Responsibility is a choice made while in possession of ability, and it is one that the vast majority of gun owners make with regard to safety. It is one that we must make in our political activities as well.
Gunpropledge.org offers a simple way for Gun Owners to not only approach “Responsible Ownership”, but also to work overtly with peers to achieve it AND demonstrate their commitment to responsible ownership to the world. This commitment & demonstration can both reduce negative outcomes involving guns and serve to refute many of the attacks Gun owners face about not “doing something” or “caring” in regard to deaths involving firearms.