David Yamane

I Have Been Thinking About This Gun I Own and Asking Myself Questions About Responsibility

I have been thinking about this gun I own. I don’t “need” it, but I enjoy it and use it responsibly, even though I know others do not. Guns are a leading risk factor for homicide and suicide. They claim tens of thousands of lives annually. They are implicated in social ills like crime, criminal violence, child abuse, intimate partner violence, and many other adverse individual and social outcomes. They are easy to get in most places in the United States, limited only by how much money you have to spend.

This leads me to ask the following questions:

When I use this gun, responsibly and unproblematically, should I feel complicit because others do not? Am I morally obligated to push for greater regulation on buying and using it because others misuse it? Should I feel obligated as a good citizen to give it up, knowing that it is associated with death, injury, and abuse? Am I putting my individual rights before the common good?

Actually, when I wrote those words, I wasn’t thinking about a gun I own. I was thinking about all of the alcohol I own and drink. I don’t “need” it, but I enjoy it and use it responsibly, even though I know others do not. Alcohol is a leading risk factor for homicide and suicide. It claims some 140,000 lives annually, more than guns, in fact. It is implicated in social ills like crime, criminal violence, child abuse, intimate partner violence, and many other adverse individual and social outcomes. It is extremely easy to get most places in the United States, easier than guns, in fact, limited only by how much money you have to spend.

This leads me to ask the following questions:

When I use alcohol, responsibly and unproblematically, should I feel complicit because others do not? Am I morally obligated to push for greater regulation on buying and using it because others misuse it? Should I feel obligated as a good citizen to give it up, knowing that it is associated with death, injury, and abuse? Am I putting my individual rights before the common good?

Last weekend, I went on a writing retreat to finish the final manuscript revisions for my book, Gun Curious (subtitle TBD). I got through the preface and 8 of the 10 chapters. I didn’t make it to the conclusion, but I also skipped a chapter in the middle. I revised the introduction, then chapters 1 to 3, then chapters 5 to 8. I skipped chapter 4.

Chapter 4 is called “Living with AR-15s.”

I left for my retreat on Thursday, October 26th. On Wednesday, October 25th, a gunman with an AR-pattern rifle killed 18 people in a Lewiston, Maine bowling alley and bar.

The entire issue of guns in American society is fraught, having become a political wedge issue, the AR-15 in particular. So fraught, in fact, that I thought about dropping the AR-15 chapter from my book altogether. What good can come from trying to write thoughtfully about an issue that is so emotional? And rightfully emotional because the sight of someone walking into a bowling alley with a rifle and shooting people is sickening.

Full stop.

In addition to being awful, mass public shootings like Lewiston and Uvalde and El Paso and Sutherland Springs and Sandy Hook and elsewhere raise a lot of questions. I try to answer some of them in my chapter. The central question being, why do civilians own AR-15s?

Even closer to home, why do *I* own an AR-15?

This returns me to the thought experiment above about owning a particular gun and using alcohol. What responsibility do I have as a citizen for the havoc and harm caused by other people who use these things harmfully and irresponsibly? Should I voluntarily give up this socially evil product for the good of my fellow citizens? Should I advocate for laws prohibiting ownership of a product responsible for the death of hundreds of people annually (in the case of AR-15s) or a hundred thousand people annually (in the case of alcohol)?

I know it makes a difference emotionally, but in the final analysis does it make a difference whether the dangerous product kills fast or slow?

That is a sincere question, one of many about guns, alcohol, and harm that keep me up at night as I think about living with AR-15s.

Thanks for reading beyond the headline. If you appreciate this or some of the other 1000+ posts on this blog, please consider supporting my research and writing on American gun culture by liking and sharing my work.

26 comments

  1. This article, like others you have written, gave me pause. A pause as I deliberated on the questions you pose. Thank you for getting this septuagenarian to contemplate. I reached answers to the questions, both about my alcohol and my about guns.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  2. The answer to your question is NO. Society has failed to address the issue of mental illness, not you. the AR15 is a semi-automatic firearm. Semi-automatic firearms have existed since the late 1800’s. Did we have a problem then? We really did not have problems with them until relatively recently. Your thought experiment with Alcohol can be repeated with cars, all sorts of drugs and more. Do we ban them because some people do bad things with them? Again no.
    Personally I feel that the demonization of firearms is part of the problem, the increasing dependency on the government for solutions and failure to address the mental illness issue are the real causes. But what do I know I am only a firearm owner for 58 years.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  3. David, if I didn’t have to drive up to Los Alamos to see the dentist in a little bit, I’d write a full essay responding to you. But excellent thoughts here that we all need to ponder.

    The short answer is I don’t accept any collective guilt for either my wine-hound habits or my gun nuttery. I expect any American to rise to the top and act responsibly, whether it is with guns, alcohol, or that other great killer, motor vehicles. And that doesn’t preclude some screening. As some here probably know, I had to see a shrink on an annual basis for my job in the nuke facility at Los Alamos. I considered it an honor that Uncle Sam trusted me enough to be in that position and considered the annual visit to the shrink and the random drug tests just “fringe benefits”.

    Not that anyone here should have to do that just to own a gun or a bottle of Double Oaked Bourbon.

    More later if anyone wants to hear my rants.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  5. There is a lot to unpack here, and this would be a good essay assignment at the junior/senior/masters degree levels.

    There are multiple layers to consider: individual level legal responsibility (if any), individual level moral responsibility (if any), societal level legal responsibility (if any), and societal level moral responsibility (if any). These concepts apply to lots of things. They are also related and intersect, but are not necessarily dependent on each other. E.g. some things are legal but widely considered immoral (e.g. prostitution, usurious contracts, gambling, etc.). Your questions tend to focus on the individual level, and generally this is a matter of perspective and values/world view at the individual level.

    There is a big disconnect about guns and the view of moral responsibility in the US. For the vast majority of things, American values tend towards the idea that the individual is responsible for the use/misuse of things and the harm that may come from them. It is not the responsibility of society to dictate use/misuse beyond harm or the threat of _imminent_ harm to another or another’s property. Good examples are alcohol, vehicles, and drunk driving. We don’t restrict car use to those that _prove_ they are free of alcohol or drugs, but society will punish those that misuse both. I can say the same about good vs poor child rearing; we don’t sanction people for being bad parent(s) unless it’s egregious (back to direct harm or imminent threat of harm to the child).

    Guns are a wedge issue used by both parties for their own purposes. Therefore, the topic is subject to near limitless sophistry in order to garner money, votes, and attention. This is how one party gets to the point where they assign individual responsibility for social outcomes to those that literally had nothing to do with those social outcomes.

    In conclusion, and to answer your questions directly:
    0. People own AR pattern rifles for a lot of reasons including self defense, sport, hunting, enjoyment, collecting, etc.
    1. You have no responsibility for “evil” committed by a PERSON using a PRODUCT that is similar to one you own.
    2. I reject the snuck premise that an AR, let alone any inanimate and non-sentient object is evil.
    3. You do not have a duty to advocate for any laws, especially ones that shift responsibility from individuals to objects. These kinds of laws have a long record of being particularly pernicious – if anything anyone that strong believes in individual freedom has a duty to oppose these laws.
    4. No. This question is again shifting responsibility from people to inanimate objects. Just as an alcoholic is responsible for treating their disease, a criminal is responsible for treating their disease/condition.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  6. Great, thanks. Now I’ll have to spend a lot of time I don’t have right now researching the Temperance movement to look for parallels with gun control activism. I’ll never again be able to see Shannon Watts without thinking of Molly Hatchet, or not imagine David Hogg as Major Barbara.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  7. The run on Buffalo Trace products is unfortunate. I know they are ramping up production like crazy but even Buffalo trace is 6-8 years old I purchased a quarter of a barrel – 60 bottles total – in one transaction, no forms to fill out, no background check, no waiting period, no safety test required. If you’re ever in my area, let’s have a drink.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  8. I believe your post revolves around the whole concept of human agency and the errors that can occur when agency is assigned to an object, rather than the agent (person) using that object. Inanimate objects in and of themselves have no agency. Thus alcohol, cars, knives, hammers, guns, etc. have no ability to act of their own volition. These objects only act (or, maybe more properly, react) when used by an agent (person) to achieve a particular outcome. To assign blame to the object when that outcome is socially undesirable is to move agency from the person to the object.

    Now there are fans of “universal” victimization who would like to say that people who perform undesirable acts are merely victims of some sort (poverty, racism, etc.), who themselves lack agency. But even in those cases, you can only shift the blame from the person performing the act to the people (agents) responsible for the “victimization”. The object used must itself remain blameless, since it has no moral identity in the first place.

    From a Libertarian point of view, the only legitimate argument to support banning an object is when there is virtually no way for an agent to use that object to achieve a socially acceptable outcome.

    Your concern that objects that you use to achieve outcomes that are desirable to yourself (and that society finds acceptable) might be used by others to achieve socially unacceptable results ignores human agency, which is really one of our defining features.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  9. I’ve been noting the number of women who’ve suffered sexual assault in the world. You know what it never made me consider doing? Undergoing surgery in order to make me less capable of perpetrating that sort of evil.

    Do you think that the gun haters stop to consider how grossly offensive it is to accuse someone like me of participation in crime simply because I own a similar rifle to the one some other person used to murder others? It’s hateful and bigoted.

    There has to be a reason for that sort of hate. I’ve always believed that the loudest among the gun hater crowd were liars and charlatans. They don’t believe that taking my rifle will solve crime and are working to disarm us for their own unstated reasons. I’m sure that Shannon Watts and the Oompa Loompa of Gun Control, Josh Horwitz, actually want me disarmed, but it’s not because they believe I’m actually likely to commit a crime.

    But the second line gun haters, not the leaders but the ones that make gun hate their identity, seem completely unable to accept that it might ever be moral and good for an ordinary citizen to kill someone. I think they truly believe that it would be better for me to die at the hands of a criminal than to sully my character by killing my attacker.

    I think that a large portion of the Left have taken it as given that there are few if any circumstances where it might be barely sort of lawful and moral to harm an attacker, but the act of preparing for that makes you some sort of monster just “looking for an excuse to kill.” They cannot get the idea out of their heads that possession of a deadly weapon, a “loaded hidden gun in public,” can be anything other than an invitation to murder. It makes me seriously question their mental health if their first thought is “anyone carrying a gun just wants to kill anyone who angers him.”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  10. It looks like the killer in Lewiston actually used an AR-10, but let’s set that aside, and call it an AR-15 for the purposes of this discussion. As one reads through the Mother Jones Mass Shooting Data Base, it appears that roughly 30 of these atrocities have been perpetrated by a killer using an AR-15 (in a few cases it’s not possible to determine what type of rifle the killer used). Let’s err on the side of caution and call this 50 shootings.

    There have been other murders, robberies, and assaults committed with AR-15s. I pay attention to this issue and don’t know of 100 such events, but that’s certainly possible. It could even be 200.

    So, that’s 250. Let’s double it to be certain that we’re being entirely inconclusive.

    Actually, because it makes the math easy and serves to underscore the point I wish to make, let’s double it again and assume that there have been 1,000 violent crimes committed with these rifles.

    An extremely conservative estimate of the number of these rifles in civilian hands in the U.S. is ten million (10,000,000). Ten million divided by a thousand is ten thousand (10,000,000 / 1,000 = 10,000). So, fewer than one in ten thousand AR-15s have been used to commit a violent crime.

    People have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones, as well as the right to the means with which to effectively do so. Most AR-15 owners acknowledge that their rifles are intended for defensive purposes. The evidence is clear that the overwhelming majority (> 99.99%) don’t use them criminally.

    You don’t need to justify you choice of firearm or libation.

    Like

    Reply

  11. The idea that we need to justify our desire to drink alcohol or possess firearms is contrary to individual rights. Of course, individual rights mean individual responsibility, which is an outmoded concept. Few people are responsible for their behavior; it is a result of elements beyond their control. This is an attractive idea and not totally inaccurate, as experience (I could say culture here) influences behavior in implicit ways. A society cannot survive if it adopts that notion. So, no, one should not feel complicit in the acts of others as a function of their own behavior. And the notion of “common good”. Who is to define that?

    I do not think we can give up on trying to educate people – even on issues so fraught with emotion. Feelings are not facts. Such events carry strong emotional impact due to either victim characteristics or numbers or both. The data show that such events really comprise a small minority of firearm-related deaths. The data show that AR 15s are used in only a small number of firearm-related deaths. Silence on such issues only implies acceptance and reinforcement of erroneous thinking.

    An analogy I often make with regard to alcohol (or other drugs) and firearms is that, as history shows, prohibition does not work (at least not completely). What do not realize is that it worked in some ways; overall consumption was reduced, but use was not eliminated – most notably in “serious” drinkers. It lead to a burgeoning black market and the emergence of organized crime to fulfill the need. Interestingly, it was repealed mostly because of lost tax revenue. One can see parallels with the history of marijuana prohibition, which is also slowly disappearing and is often considered as a source of tax revenue. In all of this, consistent with common comments on gun bans, we might observe that the “law-abiding” abstained, but those willing to break the law did not – and others were more than willing to sell them the illegal products. Eventually the prohibitive structure wore down.

    People find a way. Banning certain firearms will work no better than prohibiting certain drugs, but will have much deadlier consequences. This is even more clear when one considers the current context, including the inability or unwillingness to secure our borders. If people and drugs can breach the border, so can firearms. Those who are willing to break the laws will have no difficulty doing so.

    As this is getting long, I will not one last point that I try to make all the time, but most people do not want to consider. Guns have been part of American life form the beginning, which is why the 2A was created. So what has changed that we see such events now? Clearly we have a crisis of culture. Lots of reasons for that can be proffered. I will recount an example of cultural breakdown in my own locale. A few nights ago, in downtown Tampa (an area known as Ybor City), a “mass shooting” occurred. It ended with two young men (one 14 and one 20) dead and 16 people injured (not all by gun fire). It happened at 3 AM as a result of an altercation between two groups (gangs) of young males. I highlight – one of the victims who died was 14 years old, on the streets of Ybor at 3 AM (an area I would not venture into after dark – considering the rules of stupid). It has been suggested but not verified that the 14 year-old drew a pistol. Whether accurate or not, in such a context, do I need to explain what I mean by a crisis of culture?

    I can understand the tragedy of losing an adolescent son, even if I cannot relate to it. However, to consider the role of gun violence, without addressing the idea of a 14 year-old being there at that time, gives me little hope for change. I recognize that even making that observation out loud is considered callous. Perhaps that is why, as a society, we choose not to face the possibility and find it much easier to indict firearms.

    Like

    Reply

  15. Interesting take on the question. One I have been pondering recently as my patience with gun owners and the gun industry. And I have reached the conclusion that I would in fact give up my guns if I could become convinced that my giving up my guns would make an iota of difference in what ails this country in general, or the “gun problem” specifically. I have come to the conclusion that it would not and so for the present at least I will continue to keep and own the only really effective tool for defending myself and mine from a portion of the population which might seek to harm us.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  16. As a bourbon aficionado and AR15 owner, I see a significant difference between alcohol and rifles.

    Recreational ethanol use has very little real value to society. Some people benefit from its value as an anesthetic, and it does support many jobs, but like most, I don’t need it to live.

    Rifles, on the other hand, keep many people alive. Wide disperal of lethal force capability is the foundation of American political stability. As intensely as segments of the US population hate each other, it’s not possible for one side to eliminate the other.

    Human history is a story of nearly nonstop slaughter. Democide, genocide, ethnic cleansing, colonial exploitation or slavery follow when a group has a disproportionate advantage in ability to apply lethal force.

    We’re watching this principle applied in the eastern Mediterranean now. If the communities of southern Israel had been armed to the level of average American suburbs, Hamas would not have attacked the way they did, knowing odds of success were small. If Gaza were armed as well as a similarly sized US city, the Israelis would not have invaded.

    Grain alcohol fun, but unnecessary for most. AR15s and like insure the political stability most take for granted.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.