Not too long ago in Idaho, along the banks of the Salmon River, lived a man who went by the name of Buckskin Bill. He lived off the land, and was something of a hermit, often accompanied by only his 30-millimeter rifle in the gun tower he built overlooking the river. His sworn enemy was the National Forest Service, and had fortified his land—on which he was allegedly squatting—to defend against its agents. Nothing and no one would take away his freedom, he swore. He liked his way of life and would stop at nothing to retain it.
Buckskin Bill and his miniature cannon are illustrative of the gun culture that grips much of America today. Whether it is reasonable or not, reactionary citizens believe the government is attempting to subvert their values and way of life, and believe that their guns—large, scary guns, of the sort seen in Arnold Schwarzenegger films—are the only things standing between them and a progressive, totalitarian government.
When politicians, especially the liberal variety, start talking about gun control, these reactionaries get very skittish. Rather than seeing a good-natured effort to reduce the availability of guns to criminals, they view it as a sinister plot to rid “real” Americans of their guns and thus relieve “the people” of their last recourse against the government.
Along with anti-government paranoia comes the belief that well-armed, law-abiding citizens should always be their own means of self-defense, though this manifestation of the gun culture is more pernicious and open to abuse. Many people carry weapons believing that if they were ever in a situation ranging from a store robbery to a mass shooting, they would be able to take out the perpetrator and restore order. This degree of machismo is silly and destructive. In most situations such as these, civilians with guns would only add to the chaos and likely result in more carnage.
In 2007, in my hometown of Moscow, Idaho, there was a mass shooting. A man named Jason Hamilton, armed with an AK-47, barricaded himself in a church tower and started shooting. One civilian, armed with a handgun and the invincible attitude that comes from having (allegedly) just watched Die Hard, rode his bicycle to the scene instead of staying where it was safe. Of course, he was shot four times, though luckily he survived. The perpetrator shot himself in the head before a SWAT team could, and the wannabe hero proved to be just another casualty.
Moscow is a little blue oasis in the middle of a very red state. I am fairly well acquainted with the gun culture, having lived in rural Idaho, which loves its guns, for roughtly 18 years. In spite of the pervasive gun culture in Idaho, I despise the laws that allow people like Jason Hamilton and Aaron Alexis (the Navy Yards shooter) to legally acquire guns of any sort, much less the assault weapons toted by the former and the tactical shotgun used by the latter. A system that allows someone to purchase or own weapons after having domestic violence complaints filed against him or having shot the tires of a neighbor’s car —like Hamilton and Alexis respectively—is broken.
As with many issues, there is a stark urban/rural divide on guns. My parents own a small farm which is both their hobby and their retirement project and, as such, we own guns. Three of them, in fact, which puts us about dead-last for firepower in rural Idaho. My parents also both hold Master’s degrees and vote Democratic.
Of course, we do not own them for self-defense or to defend ourselves against the IRS, and our guns are not exactly the ones that are up for debate. But many guns that our neighbors have certainly are for those anti-government purposes, and they are not about to give them up. Guns offer a sense of security against the “urban elite” that supposedly wishes to impose its will upon the rural everyman. Many gun owners take pride in the illusion that they are the front line in the fight against tyranny.
The gun culture is the main inhibitor of change on gun policy. Members of the gun culture hate the idea of diminished access to guns—and believe that any restrictions will reduce the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families and their ideals. This overly self-confident and arrogantly self-reliant culture is why, in the current environment, we will have little or no change in gun control. The gun culture has disproportionate sway over legislators—specifically non-coastal Republicans and red-state Democrats—who will not vote for any gun restriction out of fear of losing donors and elections.
To alleviate the gun problem, first we must change the gun culture. People need to learn from the example of the man in my town who was shot four times as he rushed into the line of fire, thinking he could do the police’s job better than the police.
Gun owners must be convinced that public safety is not contingent on their ownership of assault weapons, and that making it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to acquire firearms will not prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning guns. Only then will legislators be safe to enact reasonable restrictions, without the fear of losing elections to gun-crazy near-psychopaths. The government, both local and national, must instill confidence in the population and remind constituents that democracy and separate powers, not paranoiacs with big guns, protect the American experiment.
Buckskin Bill and his gun make for a great story, but a pervasive gun culture does not make us fit to be a city upon a hill, with all eyes upon us. It makes for a violent society and a cautionary tale to those who observe us.