A reader writes - continuing the gun culture debate

I've received an email from Frank regarding my recent articles on gun culture. He goes into quite a bit of detail which readers may find interesting and takes exception at the idea that continuity of ownership is a requirement for the existence of a positive gun culture (as I suggested).

I include most of Frank's mail here and also respond to the continuity issue.

Dear John.

I write in response to your postings re gun culture. I agree with some of what you say and disagree with some, which I point out below. I also ask how are we to get to your stage one? So have a read and let me know your thoughts. This may appear disjointed, but it started as comments, but then I thought an email would be better and have produced something that is not fully at ease as either.

"I stand by much of what I wrote on the subject, particularly the reasons why gun culture has all but vanished (though no one has really called me out on that one yet)"

I believe you’ve hit it on the head as to why gun culture has all but vanished as you say:

"Then the state broke it. By degrees.

Gun culture was strangled to the point where continuity was lost and it is because of that loss that my full support for the liberalisation of gun ownership in the general populace is not forthcoming. I blame the state."

A key (I believe) point I will take issue with is the necessity of continuity you say:

"This culture was a learnt one. It required a continuity of ownership and the sharing of knowledge over each generation."

I agree the culture was learnt, I agree that it had continuity of ownership and the sharing of knowledge over each generation, and I agree that these are desirable and valuable aspects. I would disagree that continuity of ownership is required. I believe that people have the innate capacity to learn and develop in response to changing circumstances and environment, if it were not so we would never have coped with any technologies ever.

Of course, I agree with Frank here. There is no doubt that people are perfectly capable of learning all that is necessary to re-introduce a beneficial gun culture to the UK. Continuity of ownership, as he points out, is not a pre-requisite. What I was trying to express, very badly, is that continuity of ownership positively encouraged the gun culture that prevailed to continue to do so. It's a bit self fulfilling I know, but breaking that continuity (and the benefits it provided) was a great deal easier than creating it again will be.

If you are a government, or an anti-gun organisation, your biggest enemy is public perception. If that perception is that guns are useful tools then you are on a hiding to nothing. That positive perception of guns is often built through experience and observation and, I think, it is more likely that these things will occur if continuity is maintained across generations. You will be brought up experiencing the positive aspects of gun ownership and your perception will be that opposing views (guns are the cause of gun crime etc) will appear odd.

Frank was right to bring me up on the continuity issue. It is not a pre-requisite as such.

So from my point of view I do have a problem with the idea that gun culture that requires a continuity of ownership, but that is irrelevant because the issue for me is more liberal gun laws coupled with responsible gun ownership.

Quite clearly regardless of my personal view any campaign or practical attempt to change the gun laws will need to set out its goals and those goals have to be sensible and achievable. The idea of a no licence required, simple criminal check at point of sale as I believe might be advocated by some American commentators is simply unachievable in this country at present; and without criticising anyone because we’re all different, I think that scenario might frighten a lot of people. So when you say:

"Let’s say the state, as stage one, began to issue licenses for gun ownership on the pre-requisite that prospective owners passed a proficiency test. This is an example of the kind of structured approach I would support."

I say excellent I’d be happy with that. When you continue on and talk of the state never subscribing to measures that will help re-introduce a beneficial gun culture we part company again somewhat. If we take your scenario, the big difficulty will be in getting the state to change the law; if we were to campaign for a liberalisation of the gun laws, it could only win public support with the likes of a proficiency test. Once that law change was in place there would be no need of state intervention for either the training or the test (although it may be considered desirable for the actual test to be carried out say by a police officer, if that is so it shall be catered for in the legislation, and the state will have to do it); basically the free market will take over, people will either join existing clubs, form new clubs, trainers either working with or retired from the army/police would become available via the free market mechanisms to offer that training. If it were a popular measure, chances are the police and army will find their trainers haemorrhaging to the private sector in the short term.

I think it is important that the law in our country is changed and I don’t think we can ever get the culture back without first getting the gun ownership back; but as you rightly point out we wont simply be able to put the clock back to the 19th Century when people could simply walk into an ironmongers and buy a gun (I believe that scenario would work (from a practical viewpoint), and if I read you correctly you do not, but as I don’t believe that scenario can be successfully fought for (from a political viewpoint) and not for say 50 years minimum, the sensible route for me is the scenario you suggest) . It could even be that a goal like that (to return to 19th century gun liberalisation) is simply impossible and it could even be undesirable.

Moving forward I think the gun culture we need would develop from your stage one proposal. So I’m going to be cheeky and ask: "How do we get to stage one?"

My view is that in the first instance there is the need to set up a campaigning organisation that will need to develop a sensible detailed policy proposal (probably along the lines of your stage one) and go out and campaign for it. Whilst I accept that the likelihood of short-term success is remote, unless and until a group is putting out a sensible message on gun legislation it simply will not happen. I accept that any such organisation is unlikely to have funds to hire professional staff and advertising, but even if it could start to put the case it might succeed in raising public awareness. Obviously if it is something the public have no interest in then it’s never going to get anywhere anyway, but at least it might be able to get people thinking about the idea.

I’m tempted to ask if I may, if you would be prepared to put on your website a request for expressions of interest in joining and helping to run such a group, just to see if such a thing might be feasible. I’m not actually asking you to do this at this stage, but within me I feel it is something worth campaigning for, and such group is worth setting up.

I know I've jumped the gun here a little by posting Frank's request but I have done so because I believe some organisations may already exist in the UK with this agenda. The one I do know of is Cybershooters which exists

To distribute information which is relevant to the campaign against unreasonable UK and world-wide gun controls; to provide a co-ordination forum for UK and overseas shooters and shooting organisations; to disseminate other information of general interest to shooters and gun owners.

They take a pro-self defence stance on gun ownership. It's not about sport only.

Perhaps readers in the know might like to suggest others and/or, perhaps, comment further upon this debate.

[Comments open]

Posted by John at January 31, 2005 01:20 PM | TrackBack