Guns have been so politicized in the United States that even unobjectionable ideas can become divisive.

Take the term “gun safety,” for example. Everyone favors it, but “gun safety” has been co-opted rhetorically by the gun control movement as part of its 21st-century rebrand.

Same for “law-abiding gun owners,” but in the opposite direction. It is something unobjectionable that people resist because it has been deployed rhetorically by the gun rights movement. So, you can read phrases like “so-called law-abiding gun owners” in the academic literature on guns.

Some people have tried to shift rhetorically away from “law-abiding gun owners” to “responsible gun owners” to emphasize particular behaviors rather than standing relative to laws that are always subject to change. (E.g., Today, I am the legal owner of an AR-15; tomorrow, I could own an illegal gun. Either way, I am the same responsible gun owner, unless you want to define responsibility relative to legal standing, in which case this is a distinction without a difference.)

I uncovered this four-fold table in my notebooks recently. It is undated and has no explanatory text, but I think it may have emerged from a conversation with Rob Pincus, who often helps me see gun things in new ways.

The idea here is that we shouldn’t just think about whether someone is a “legal” gun owner or not, or a “responsible” gun owner or not, but to think about the different ways these two statuses can relate to each other.

We find some interesting statuses to consider when we read across the “diagonals” in the NO-YES and YES-NO boxes (as opposed to with the diagonals in the NO-NO and YES-YES boxes).

What do we make of someone who does not legally own firearms, but who behaves responsibly with those firearms. Someone, for example, who was convicted of a non-violent felony when they were young and have lived good, upstanding lives ever since? Are they “criminals” in a meaningful sense? Or are they more like the felons who have served their time and would like to exercise other rights of citizenship like voting?

In the opposite box, what do we make of someone who legally owns firearms, but behaves irresponsibly with them? As I wrote in that box on the table, “BAD.” And when I say bad, I don’t mean Michael Jackson bad.

NOTE: Reposted from my Gun Curious blog, as of possible interest to readers here.

I’ve had some personal and professional setbacks so far in 2023, but I’ve also had some amazing opportunities to bring light to culture war over guns in America. I’m grateful for that. In this post, I want to share some of what I have planned for the rest of 2023 for anyone interested.

Light Over Heat YouTube videos: Having taken a longer than expected hiatus then returned and consulted with my guide John Correia of Active Self Protection, I am going to keep posting these short videos on various topics concerning guns and gun culture. They may not be as regular as I hope or as polished, but I believe there is an audience for them and they certainly support my educational goals.

Sociology of Guns syllabus: First up is putting together the syllabus for Sociology of Guns V9.0 that I will be teaching at Wake Forest University this fall. I’m doing this a bit earlier than normal because I’ve been asked by The Conversation to contribute a piece about my course to their “Uncommon Courses” series. I’m really excited to share what I’ve learned about having productive conversations about guns through teaching this course.

University of Wyoming College of Law Firearms Research Center workshop: Next I will be headed to Fort Worth, Texas for a workshop sponsored by the new Firearms Research Center at the University of Wyoming College of Law (in conjunction with the Duke University Center for Firearms Law). I will be presenting the chapter of my book-in-progress on Gun Culture 2.0 that addresses the evolution and contours of concealed carry laws in the US.

I’m excited to learn more about firearms law from actual legal scholars and historians, especially in the dynamic new post-Bruen world we’re living in.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in American (ELCA) gun trauma statement consultation: When I return from Texas I will be consulting on the development of an ELCA social message on gun trauma in the U.S. Regular readers of this blog will know in January I presented a paper to a gathering of the Lutheran Ethicist Network in Chicago (subsequently published as “Understanding and Misunderstanding American Gun Culture and Violence” in the Journal of Lutheran Ethics).

I agreed to continue serving as a consultant because I believe the group was interested in having brave and empathetic conversations about guns – something we need more of.

Vail Symposium Conversations on Controversial Issues – Gun Violence: Shortly after the ELCA consultation, I will be packing my bags for Vail, Colorado. Not for a vacation but to serve as a panelist on gun violence in America as part of the Vail Symposium’s “Conversations on Controversial Issues” moderated by Clay Jenkinson. I’m excited to be part of the Vail Symposium because it asks a question I think is vitally important to consider: “How can we get beyond the usual Culture Wars argument—’Do Something about Guns!’ and ‘From My Cold Dead Hand’—to a rational, reasonable, nuanced, and mutually-respectful national conversation about gun violence?”

Beginning our discussions of guns with our commonalities rather than our differences is something I have been thinking about more and more in the last year.

After a hiatus for a travel travel excursion to Yellowstone National Park, I have some important field research events scheduled.

National African American Gun Association (NAAGA) National Convention: First, I will be attending the NAAGA National Convention in Atlanta at the end of July. I have long been arguing that Gun Culture 2.0 is inclusive in ways that previous gun cultures were not and I think NAAGA is leading the way on this front. I’ve met some of their leaders — Philip Smith, Douglas Jefferson, Chad King — but I’m looking forward to spending even more time with them and the members.

They certainly add nuance to the master scholarly narrative of guns as racist in American society.

Avidity Arms PD-10 manufacturing and testing: Some time in July or August I plan to visit and learn more about Rob Pincus’s pistol project, Avidity Arms. The company manufacturing the PD-10 pistol is just up the road from me in Fletcher, NC. Way back in October 2017 I had a chance to shoot a prototype, serial number D00001, so I’m looking forward to seeing the version that came to market, how it is made, and how it shoots.

Sociology of Guns V9.0 launch: Sociology of Guns V9.0 kicks off in late August. As noted above, the syllabus is still in progress, but I will definitely be taking the class to the gun range, as usual, and have some guest speakers in from out of town. The line-up is still tentative at this point, but I’m looking at Randy Miyan (my fellow member of the Homo Sapiens Projectile Club and executive director of the Liberal Gun Owners), Greg Ellifritz (retired police officer and training guru), Rob Pincus and Michael Sodini (responsible gun ownership and suicide prevention advocates via Walk the Talk America), Mathew Littman (executive director of gun violence prevention organization 97Percent), and others who have visited class before and some who have not.

I’m grateful that so many are willing to contribute to the class largely at their own expense.

Liberal Gun Club National Convention: After getting the semester started, I will be head to Vegas Baby! Not for the gambling and nightlife, but for the Liberal Gun Club’s National Convention. Like my trip to Atlanta for the NAAGA National Convention, this field work experience is going to be vital as I craft my Gun Culture 2.0 book as a counterweight to the dominant narrative of of American gun culture as a story of democracy-destroying right-wing fanatics.

American Academy of Religion (AAR) annual meeting for congregational security project: It’s hard even for me to remember sometimes that I have a long-delayed but still ongoing project on congregational security, funded by a grant from the Louisville Institute back in 2018. After getting the project started, we were disrupted by COVID and its aftermath, by my collaborator’s retirement, and my own personal challenges. But we continue to believe that the issue is pressing and people want to know more about it, so we’re going to meet up at the AAR annual meeting in San Antonio in November to finish out the grant and get some momentum going forward.

Other goals for 2023: By the end of this year I hope to have two things accomplished with respect to my book projects.

For my book Gun Curious, which is being written with a general (non-academic) audience in mind, I hope to have secured a publisher and finished the manuscript so the book can be out by next summer. That timing would be nice because I could hit the road with Sandy in our travel trailer to drive around the country hawking the book.

For my book Gun Culture 2.0, which is being written with an academic audience in mind, I hope to have secured a publisher and made good progress on finishing the manuscript. The academic publishing timeline is much longer, but if it would appear in late 2024 or early 2025, that would be most excellent.

Those goals are somewhat aspirational, but the encouragement I get from participating in events like those noted above, as well as from the small but committed audience of readers of this blog sustains me in these aspirations.

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.

A recent editorial in the American Journal of Public Health included gun educator Rob Pincus and the definition it proposes is more adequate to the reality of how responsible gun owners want to store (and stage) their firearms at home.

As I discuss in this week’s Episode 8 of “Light Over Heat,” the sort of dialogue and collaboration that yielded this editorial may be a good path to promoting light over heat on the issue of guns.

Background to this week’s episode is that I appeared on the Red, Blue and Brady podcast last summer to talk about new gun owners and Gun Culture 2.0 and the hosts were very professional. One of the hosts, J.J. Janflone, said if I was ever in DC I should come by the Brady offices, so when I was there in January I took her up on her offer.

I had a very interesting and productive conversation with several Brady staff, in particular about the “End Family Fire” initiative and the issue of safe storage of firearms. They define “family fire” as “a shooting involving an improperly stored or misused gun in the home that results in death or injury.“

Although we disagree about the correct definition of safe storage, the goal of reducing “family fire” via safe storage is something many can agree on. And that’s a start.

Please surf over to my “Light Over Heat” YouTube channel and SUBSCRIBE to follow, RING THE BELL to receive notifications, and SHARE so others can learn about this work.

This is the eighth and final final reflection essays, written by a student whose initial reflections on our field trip to the gun range can be found here. (Link to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh reflection essays.)

By Grace Taylor

This class has made me think a lot about the role of guns in society, gun culture, and gun safety, as well as why different groups are so divided about whether the fact that so many people own guns is a good thing or a bad thing, and how we can make gun ownership less dangerous.

As I write this, it is hard to think about everything we read and talked about in class and not think about the terrible school shooting in Michigan last week, where parents bought their son a gun for a Christmas present, and then he went to school and used it to kill four of his classmates. I realize that these kinds of people are not the “normal” gun owners, and that millions and millions of people own and use guns safely and responsibly, but it is hard to think about the role of guns in society and not let the Michigan shooting, and all the school shootings before it, influence my thoughts.

I learned a lot this semester through our readings and our speakers, but I am not sure I completely “changed my mind” about guns in general. Going back to our field trip to the range, one thing that really stuck with me was just how dangerous the guns seemed when seeing them up close, and eventually using them. Firing them, especially the AR-15, felt intense, even violent, and it is not something that I particularly want to do again. We spent so much time on safety, and all the risks of shooting a gun, and I was very impressed by how good those rules were. But my first thought back then was that, if we need so many rules to treat guns safely, doesn’t that show how dangerous they really are, and do we think most people are going to be strict enough or smart enough to follow those rules.

That was also my reaction to several of our speakers. I respected how serious John Johnson and Melody Lauer were about training people to use guns safely. I respected how Rob Pincus wants gun-rights groups to be more honest about the dangers of “guns in the everyday,” and how he works with mental-health professionals to deal with the role of guns in youth suicide and other difficult situations. But I could never quite understand how they could be so clear about the risks and dangers of guns, and still be so enthusiastic about millions and millions of people owning guns as part of their everyday lives.

In general, I just could never understand or relate to this great excitement about guns, how guns are so tied up in people’s sense of culture and identity, and why people seem to need to own guns to somehow show the world who they are. There is a difference between saying owning a gun is a right, or shooting guns at a range is fun, and being so enthusiastic about people being able to do concealed carry of guns as they go into town or go shopping, because it makes them feel good or makes them feel safer.

The relationship between guns and personal safety is another thing I did not quite understand. Several of the articles we read, and several of the speakers we heard, talked about how people carry guns because they are so worried about the risk of crime and violence and threats to their personal safety: “No one needs a gun until they do” [quoting John Johnston]. But when I read interviews with these gun enthusiasts, or watched some of the videos we used in class, they seem to have such an extreme view of the dangers in society, like that there is a robber or a killer just waiting to attack them every time they leave the house. Every time I found this opinion, I wondered if they really believed that. Also, if gun-rights advocates are so concerned about risk, why aren’t they more concerned about all the risks of widespread gun ownership, from negligence, to accidental shootings, to mass shootings, to guns and mental health. I know all of our speakers were very worried about this kind of risk, and they have great training to help people deal with those risks, but pro-gun politicians do not seem to be, and so many laws are making it easier and easier for people to carry guns without training.

All of these issues about guns, personal safety, and what is happening with the current legislature came together for me in my final paper. In other sociology classes, I have looked at how to best try to address the problem of domestic abuse and intimate partner violence, and how to keep women and children safer and help them leave abusive relationships. Because of my prior knowledge on the problem of intimate partner violence, I thought it made sense for me to look at the role that guns play in the problem. The research was so clear that if there is a gun in the house, or if an abuser has access to a gun, the risk of the woman being killed by her abusive partner goes way up. With a gun, it is so much more likely that intimate partner violence turns into intimate partner homicide.

Yet the federal and state laws that could be used to protect women and children, and get guns out of the hands of abusers, are not nearly as strong as they should be, and the enforcement of the laws is weak and inconsistent. My paper talks about the Boyfriend Loophole and the Stalking Loophole in the federal laws. These are such obvious problems, but Congress has not been able to fix them in 20 years. State laws can be stronger, but there are still many states where judges and police cannot order guns to be removed from a home where abuse is taking place, and there are other states where guns can be removed but do not have to be removed. Again, I just do not understand how, if gun-rights advocates are so concerned about personal safety, they would not be doing everything they can to support laws to get guns out of the hands of abusers who threaten women and children.

In this class, I learned to respect people like John Johnston and Melody Lauer, Rob Pincus, and all the outside speakers who were so serious about minimizing the risks and dangers of gun ownership and maximizing safety. I still don’t understand their enthusiasm for guns, and I don’t agree with it, but I think if their view was more common, we could create a safer society, and deal with problems like the connection between guns, domestic abuse, and intimate partner homicide.

Here is the fifth of several such essays, written by a student whose initial reflections on our field trip to the gun range can be found here. (Link to the first, second, third, and fourth reflection essays.)

By Claire Doe*

I did not grow up with guns but rather in fear of them. Raised in a family that was uninterested in guns and in a community that was predominantly liberal, my first understanding of guns came from media accounts of Sandy Hook and the conversations surrounding code red, school shooting drills in elementary school. I still remember the first code red drill of my educational career in third grade, my classmates and I were huddled together away from all the windows and doors confused as to why we would ever become a target of violence. There was simply nothing more terrifying than going from everyday, energetic classroom activities to the jolting static of the intercom and hearing the stomach dropping words “code red.” In school I always had a plan in my mind: where I would hide, how I would escape, if I would be willing to jump out the second story window, what I would do if I was in the hallway or bathroom, and if I had hugged my parents goodbye that morning. Everyone always said it won’t happen here or stop worrying about what you can’t control, but the stories of students who never made it home after leaving for school were inerasable from my mind. How could I be expected to sit and do nothing when even my high school teacher told our entire class our school was listed as high risk for a shooting because of the high academic expectations? 

Growing up in the generation of school shootings has predominantly shaped my perspective of guns in America. In high school I even became heavily involved in organizing my school’s walkout after Parkland. After hours planning and making signs, administration forced us to stay within school gates and sent away all the local media outlets we had hoped would further carry our messages. I understood that guns were a complex, hot political topic but my growing frustrations overshadowed any interest I had in considering other perspectives that did not validate fears. To many this perspective may be flawed and problematic but I feel it properly reflected the breaking point I, as well as many of my peers, were at after twelve years of feeling failed.

With time and growth however, I realized how unhelpful my limited mindset was and thus I was excited for the opportunity to participate in a class that I hoped would finally be a space of engaging and productive conversations about guns. 

At the start of this semester I told all of my friends and peers about how I would be going to the gun range as a part of this course. I was excited to have a hands-on experience but also nervous considering my lack of gun knowledge and previously discussed fear of guns. I firmly believe that the gun range experience was a critical first step towards engaging in meaningful and productive conversations about guns. It certainly was a worthwhile and educational experience. Not only did I leave the range feeling slightly more confident in my knowledge of gun safety but could better understand the sport aspect of target shooting.

At the same time however, having had the experience of pulling the trigger, hearing the shot fire, and feeling the kickback I realized how much more powerful guns were then I had previously realized and how much skill it takes to shoot. Moving forward into the course, the gun range established three main things for me: a gun safety briefing is essential and made me more comfortable around guns, target shooting is a challenging sport, and guns are really, really powerful. 

Class discussions and course readings further expanded my knowledge about research on guns in America as well as the gun culture of America. I valued the reliability of the information we were discussing as I feel it can be difficult to receive unbiased information on the issue of guns and gun control. Reading about research methods and statistics I began to realize the ways in which data on guns can be miscommunicated, completely blown out of proportion, or simply undermined in the media. In order to gain a whole, unbiased perspective on guns it is important to not limit gun research to only criminals or long time gun owners but to individuals across society.

The idea of gun culture 2.0 supports the idea that gun owners in America are shifting with societal changes. Prior to this class I would have had no idea that new gun owners in America [are often] liberal women wanting to protect their family. As an individual who once fully supported the idea of the government buying back all guns, I now understand both the legal complications but also the cultural complications of eliminating guns from the equation.

Engaging in readings and class discussions introduced me to a new understanding of gun culture in America, but hearing the perspective of experienced guest speakers really grew my viewpoint on guns. Rob Pincus and Craig Douglas were both incredible speakers from which I felt I learned a tremendous amount. I appreciated that both Pincus and Douglas not only addressed the social perceptions of guns but how we should address guns being used in negative, unnecessary capacities.

Pincus’s work with Walk the Talk America highlighted how impactful the gun community can be in gun safety and mental health awareness. Additionally, I felt his emphasis on gun owners’ responsibility in ensuring their firearms do not get into the hands of unauthorized users is something that is not discussed enough.

Douglas’s discussion of police use of force and the current state of police training was also particularly fascinating. Understanding how guns can be misused as a first method of action by police, points to how issues of power and authority also impact gun culture. The interactive experience that Douglas presented was incredibly eye opening to the intensity of police work and something I believe many people would benefit from experiencing.

After listening to Rob Pincus and Craig Douglas, my mindset of gun reform shifted from legislative to more conversational, where healthy conversations about mental health and encouraging proper gun training could be a more realistic answer to America’s gun woes. 

In my own research I explored how guns have become such symbols of masculinity and power within America and in doing so learned a tremendous amount about the history of guns as well. There is no denial that guns are a major part of American history and that their inclusion in the Constitution will keep them around for years to come, there is an opportunity to shift the narrative of guns. Young boys should not be socialized to see guns as a predominate entity in which they are expected to display masculinity nor should they feel the pressure to exhibit such masculinity in the first place.

I hope that future generations do not have to experience the fear of school shootings and the misuse of guns but this class has taught me there is a lot of groundwork ahead for these narratives to change. I am not entirely sure the most effective way to shift the narrative of guns to include conversations of mental health and decreasing the emphasis on masculinity, however this class has highlighted the importance of diligent research and engaging in critical conversations.

Guns are undoubtedly embedded in American culture and I believe they can have a place in society if and only if difficult conversations about mental health, toxic masculinity, and the responsibility involved in owning a gun are had and actionable plans are made to combat current gun violence.

*Pseudonym

Here is the fourth of several such essays, written by a student whose initial reflections on our field trip to the gun range can be found here. (Link to the first, second, and third reflection essays.)

By Dalton Collins

I began this class by attending the gun range field trip and then reflecting on my experiences during it. I come from a gun owning family, but the role of guns for my parents has always been self-defense. When my father was a lone-wolf bachelor he kept a loaded gun in his home and subsequently in our home after he met my mother and had my brother and me. I grew up being semi-aware that we had guns, but it was not until my grandfather fell ill with Parkinson’s disease and began to give out inheritance that guns became something of interest to me.

Gradually, guns became something for recreation, but before my parents would allow us to hold a loaded gun we had to be educated. My firearm education began at the local police station, then I attended a hunting and firearms safety class, and my education culminated in my dad talking to us about gun safety before allowing us to shoot for the first time. From this point on guns took on a recreational part in my life through target shooting and skeet. Early in my college career I would actively go casually shooting with my high school friends. When COVID hit I lost interest in guns, and they returned to being a tool for self-defense to me.

My firearm politics have always been supportive of the Second Amendment. I believe in rigorous and sufficient firearms education to ensure safe handling. I am not opposed to required gun courses in American high schools. I support the right to concealed carry, but I also think that the process to purchase a gun should be rigorous.

These views were disorganized until I began this class. After the range field trip, I began to consider what I believe about firearms and their place in society. As with my first reflection, I still believe they are dangerous, should be respected, and those who own them should know how to use them safely. Rob Pincus brought to my attention the risks of storing firearms. After he spoke to us, I added safe storage to my beliefs.

When the writing assignment was first assigned, I knew I wanted to look at self-defense. I have always been casually curious about the degree to which self-defense has any effect on crime. From my perspective, the left views self-defense with guns as dangerous in and out of the criminal situation. On the reverse side, the right views good guys with guns as the only way to stop bad guys with them. For my paper I wanted to escape politics and come to understand how the millions of guns in millions of hands in the United States do or do not contribute to self-defense.

While my opinions on guns have not necessarily changed, they have instead strengthened, my knowledge of them has increased tenfold. I delved deep into the available literature to understand defensive gun use in the United States. My paper ultimately created more questions than answers, but I came out of it with a new understanding of self-defense in the United States.

Going forward I want to keep up with emerging data and research on defensive gun use. I want to see an agreement reached within the field on how best to measure it. Already I have been able to talk about my knowledge of it with friends and family. Even pro-gun family members doubt the prevalence of defensive gun use.

With my own personal relationship to guns, my research has led me to desire owning a defensive firearm and possibly a concealed carry permit when I move into an apartment for law school. I feel educated on firearm safety and usage which makes me want to have one for peace of mind and possibly self-defense if the need arises.

I still have not regained my fondness for recreational usage of firearms, but I appreciate the role they have played in my life. In addition, I hope to see liberal gun owners more forthcoming. As someone who is left leaning, it makes me feel more confident in my views to see others embracing firearms. I do not believe guns should be a right-wing thing. In my view they are way too politicized, and having this view challenged in class has changed my perceptions. Going forward, I would also like to see more research on liberal, LGBT, and people of color gun owners in the United States. I think by understanding these “atypical” gun owners and the role of defensive firearm use in the United States we can have a full picture for policy making decisions.

Here is the third of several such essays, written by a student whose initial reflections on our field trip to the gun range can be found here. (Link to the first and second reflection essays.)

By Hannah Coates

Honestly, when I signed up for this course last Spring, I was expecting it to be a class from a liberal-lens. In the context of Sociology and public health, I assumed we’d be discussing the harms of guns in society and better ways to circumvent their use. However, I think that naivety epitomizes why courses like this are necessary, especially within a liberal-leaning department.

Getting the opportunity to grapple with all of the opposing viewpoints, sentiments, beliefs, passions, and genuine fears in the process of this course, through live speakers as well as merely through raw research analysis, I feel like I have gained a much more comprehensive understanding of the role guns do serve in America for so many people and why.

While I wouldn’t say I have a concrete opinion on all gun issues now, I feel like I can understand and anticipate the nuances that make them controversial, and I could engage (and probably at least partially agree) with advocates from both sides. In my life going forward, I am eager to see how this knowledge will shape my opinions, conversations, and policy pursuits in the future.

Overall, I feel like the best way to frame the growth I’ve made is to outline some of the beliefs that I came into the class with, and then to update them with where I stand now.

Beliefs I had about guns:

(1) We would be better off if nobody had guns at all

While I could understand the need for guns out of self defense of other people with guns, I thought that not having them in the first place would eradicate much of the violence. It is true that the presence of guns makes the likelihood of violence/harm by guns greater. However, it is also true that there are times that guns are the only form of defense against other forms of violence, especially when differences between power and ability come into play.

Melody Lauer really helped elucidate this point to me when she spoke about females in situations of actual or threatened domestic abuse or whose former abusers were being released from prison. Going through the thought process of how I would handle a situation like that in my own life helped me realize the difficult binds that people are forced to face and the ways that guns have the potential to minimize some of that vulnerability––or at least give people some peace of mind that it will.

(2) Giving up guns would be a small sacrifice in the name of public safety

Guns are also a big part of people’s lives in the context of sport. In the same ways that darts, slingshots, archery, and golf are enjoyable outlets for people who like target-based activities, guns can be very cathartic and enjoyable for people. While I used to think that it was nonsensical to put someone’s life at risk for the sake of sport, this class helped reveal to me that that is a phenomenon that occurs all the time, and which we tolerate in a million other contexts. The danger comes more from the user than from the gun, and there is a natural adrenaline release that comes from shooting one.

Something powerful for me was the class discussion that one of the speakers [Randy Miyan of the Liberal Gun Owners] brought up regarding humanity’s evolution alongside, and sometimes even attributed to, projectiles. This relationship is predisposed, and for many people it would be a detrimental loss, even in the name of sport alone. Additionally, war, hunting, policing, and personal safety are all areas in which guns are invaluable to countless Americans, and I’ve learned that this is not a relationship I really have a right to judge, especially because those who respect and appreciate guns are usually not the ones causing the problems (though accidental gun injuries and death are common, as they are with many kinds of equipment). Many people truly believe that they are furthering justice and protecting others by carrying a gun, and while I don’t agree with that or think it is safe for non-professional civilians to feel as though they can mitigate controversial, split-second life-or-death decisions regarding the lives of others, I can understand why some people would think this way. 

(3) Different types of guns make a big difference in the amount of violence committed

I really believed that military-grade weapons and the big automatic rifles and AK-47s were a big component of the problem, and that if civilians were disallowed from accessing them that there would be fewer mass shootings. A lot of this opinion came from the Las Vegas Strip shooting in 2017 with an AR-15, which felt (and was) so unnecessary and egregious. However, I have learned that the vast majority of shootings occur with handguns, which are hard to even regulate due to their prevalence on and off the mainstream market. Changing this would likely put more people in harm’s way (or believed harm’s way) than it would protect, seeing as Gun Culture 2.0 predominantly endorses guns for the sake of self-defense. Perceptions of danger, societal instability, gun prevalence in the area, and having a family can be big indicators of people feeling the need to take extra precautions to defend themselves, and now more than ever since the spike of 2020+. Seeing that most people who choose to buy a gun do feel safer in mental preparation for an emergency, there is real ease that guns can provide for people, even if they never end up using them. And, in general, the guns most commonly in the home/used by individuals who are not using guns for sport are handguns. Though guns are often the source of threat, they can also be the only source of a sense of safety for many.

(4) Gun owners are mostly White, southern, conservative, middle aged men (Duck Dynasty vibes)

While this trend of Gun Culture 1.0 has irrefutably carried into Gun Culture 2.0, there is also a much broader range of gun owners that have stepped into the picture. Gun ownership is not bound by race, gender, age, political orientation, or geography, as recent times have been especially indicative of. The phrase “Guns are normal. Normal people own guns,” has really come to shape my current conception of gun owners, rather than secluding the image to this one subgroup.

Watching the videos, hearing about the rise in female gun ownership, and speaking to a female gun advocate who is regularly surrounded by female gun advocates was especially eye opening to me. It was also helpful to read the literature related to masculinity-driven ownership, which can help to explain why this had so much of an impression in my mind. Additionally, hearing from so many liberal gun owners and listening to the arguments there was interesting for understanding the ways that guns have been unnecessarily politicized and could actually help promote aspects of a liberal agenda.

(5) The Second Amendment is outdated and would not have been intended to apply to the technological advancement level of guns today

While I formerly really believed that this was an oversight in the Bill of Rights, and the Founding Fathers would regret this today (you know, along with things like slavery and mass discrimination),  I am coming to understand the degree to which guns are woven into the fabric of the nation’s spirit. While I don’t necessarily agree that it should be this way, I can see why, in a country founded upon the premise of individualism, freedom, and anti-monarchy representation, this would be something that would carry into the realm of guns. Obviously, in the 18th century there was a greater need for guns in order to hunt for food, protect one’s property, police, etc., however, guns also served, and continue to serve, social and emotional needs as well.

(6) Stricter gun laws and mandatory trainings would be universally good

I had always thought that gun control was a no brainer, and the thought of not requiring training sessions legitimately correlated in my mind to trying to drive without going through Driver’s Ed/a Driver’s Test. However, Rob Pincus, John Johnston (still not over this name), and Melody Lauer were helpful in explaining the downfalls of increased requirements for many people.

I thought that a lot of their arguments took a pretty dismissive approach towards the prospect of an actually-useful state-administered training program, and I was more inclined to think that this is something that could be improved in a manner that makes it worthwhile. But overall, I liked Rob Pincus’s discussion of how trainings can be promoted commercially, and I think that is a compelling route in our highly capitalistic nation. I think training is so important, and I’m glad that trainers/educators like Rob, John, Melody, and Craig Douglas help teach people to use guns responsibly, I just don’t think the existence of training options alone is enough to drive people to pursue them. There needs to be an actual requirement or a highly compelling incentive for people to get comprehensively trained.

The readings and the speakers’ explanations of the complications that requiring training makes in owners’ lives for issues of time, money, travel, etc. is definitely valid, and could discriminate and criminalize the poor, who likely would need the guns more, which makes this a tricky issue to navigate. I’m definitely still on the fence with this, but I think the best hope comes from manufacturers and shop-owners incentivizing training with discounts and rewards of that manner.

Overall, throughout the course I struggled with the concept that one human life is more valuable than another in the context of self-defense, but I guess I’ve landed in the opinion that if the perpetrator is taking multiple lives then their elimination would be net-positive. In a very ideal situation though, alternative measures could be taken to detain them and then provide help. There were some conversations that took place where comments were made that relied upon the presumption that feelings of threat could warrant the taking of another life, and I struggled to conceptualize that considering how much subjective bias goes into one’s interpretation of threat.

Areas I still would love to know more about in order to cement some of these ideas and develop more objective opinions include:

(1) International context

I know that the US is a really unique case when it comes to guns, so in many ways this would not be comparable to other nations whatsoever, but I do find it really interesting to think about some of the countries where not even police carry guns, and to think about other approaches entirely. I think this could help in presenting alternative perspectives to a myriad of gun issues.

(2) The process of constitutional appeal

As Rob Pincus made clear, the 2nd Amendment stands, meaning that no matter how much we debate about it, it is still the law of the land. What is the process like though in order to change it? Is this an option that would ever be remotely possible in America’s future? Though I don’t think it should be eradicated, it would be helpful to better understand the process of modifying it or the level of reality that it will ever not exist when contemplating approaches and options.

(3) The future of gun advancement and availability

In order to develop opinions about gun control and policy in general, I think it’s important to try to look into the future and make predictions about their progression, so policy can be flexible towards their shifting role and presence. 

(4) More about guns themselves, how they work, what the differences are between kinds

We definitely did a brief overview of some of this, but I remember thinking multiple times throughout the course that I would be able to better understand arguments and references that were being made if I knew more about the inner workings and uses of certain types of guns when and where. While I have a sense of  “handguns,” “rifles,” “assault weapons,” as general categories, I don’t know which gun names fall into the specific category, and I think a chart, graphic, index, or guide could help in understanding what the guns are capable of and how much access the general public has to getting them (/levels of regulation depending on type of gun).

Thank you for a wonderful and highly informative semester! This has been invaluable in my development and understanding of guns in America.

Here is the second of several such essays, written by a student whose initial reflections on our field trip to the gun range can be found here. (Link to first reflection essay.)

By Mary Clark

Looking back on my initial reflection from the Mocksville gun range trip, I can most definitely say that I have expanded my understanding of guns as they appear in American Society today. To review my previous experience with guns before this class, I have been a fence sitter for the majority of my life and this class allows me to continue to sit on the fence, with academic literature backing my inability to choose a side—or if there should even be sides in the dialogue.

As a registered Democrat in a red state, I have grown up with the concept of guns but not the actual physical existence of them in my life. One of the critical limitations of my previous experiences with guns, which I noted in my range reflection, was that I never think about guns in a daily, non-violent context. I have only ever seen them in drama shows or in the violent deaths on the news. Particularly in the context of police use of force against individuals of colors, I have been socialized to dislike guns and the things I associate with them. This class as been able to open my eyes to the complexities of gun ownership and how it has been normalized for many.

Guns can be a hobby to someone, like knitting or water aerobics, while the level of danger is drastically different, there are individuals that approach gun ownership and use with the same level of casual enjoyment. Not only to people casually use guns, but there is a growing demographic that own guns that would categorize themselves as ‘normal people’. This class has been able to open my eyes to the culture of normal gun owners, that are not die hard, bleeding heart advocates of guns, but are also not in the camp of destroying every firearm. Somewhere in the middle there are thousands of people that own guns for various reasons, and don’t have such extreme views about them. This has been one of the core focuses of the Sociology of Guns.

In an ideal world, I would still want to eliminate guns; that aspect of my beliefs on guns has not changed throughout the course. I am not a naïve romantic, however, to think that the elimination of guns all together would ever happen, in the United States especially.

One of my favorite class discussions covered this when Rob Pincus came to speak with us. The most valuable take away from his discussion with us is understanding that legally guns aren’t going anywhere because of the 2^nd amendment. Pro-gun groups and right leaning people have been using the 2^nd amendment for years in—what felt to me—like a much more inflammatory way that forced more division. The conversation seemed to end at constitutional rights and  nothing more could be done. Pincus’s ability to acknowledge the shortcomings and valid fears of the general American public, helped me to be more opened minded and excited about the work he was doing.

Like I mentioned at the beginning, I have always toed the line of gun rights because I understand the value of hearing and listening to others. There are people—more than I expected before this class—that want to own guns and they are equally a part of this country as I am.

The thing I love the most about Pincus’s conversation and the general takeaways from this class were continued conversation and open-mindedness, as you say consistently, “Normal people own guns”.  Not only do normal people own guns, but they don’t feel comfortable talking about their ownership, which limits the safe and practical use of the weapon.

The concept that comes to mind when discussing the normalized use of guns, was the inconsistency with concealed carry laws. I wrote in my original reflection “The closest I have ever come to a gun is in a rural North Carolina Walmart where the open carry policies are loosely enforced.” Little did I know before this course began, that often times those carrying weapons are not properly equipped to respond in an emergency, but because we are not interested in having open-minded conversation, very few people have questioned the certification and licensing process for carrying guns in public. Lack of knowledge seems to be the place where things go south, where individuals that are overconfident do not train, store, or carry their guns properly.

 The realization I had while completing my research project was unexpected. When I originally sought to construct my research question I wanted to look at the historical and ongoing use of gun for women. As a searched “Gender” AND “Gun ownership” into the ZSR resource generator, I found the complicated ownership of guns for men. We discussed gender briefly, as well as the intersection of race and gender as it pertains to guns, but I was drawn to the use of guns as an extension of toxic-hypermasculinity. I believe this lack of open-minded conversation overlaps with hypermasculinity to create lethal consequences that disproportionately affect men. The module about suicide and gun injury exemplified the way men are so strongly affected by guns.

Overall I enjoyed the thorough dialogue about various topic in this class. Additionally, I enjoyed the open-mindedness of the group, with people ranging in perspectives on guns. The class dynamic made for interesting conversation that helped me to better understand perspectives that were different than mine. Going forward into the future, I hope to continue having productive conversations with people about guns that are not limited to a hostile political binary.

COVID made some things different this semester. In fall 2020, I taught the course online. I was happy to be able to meet this semester face-to-face, but we were required to wear masks in the classroom, which definitely inhibited discussion. Perhaps not more than meeting on Zoom inhibits discussion, but certainly compared to the first 5 times I taught the course under normal circumstances. I also kept the enrollment down to 13 students (instead of 16-18) in order to allow for more social distancing in class.

Despite the challenges, the course realized my aspirations in teaching it. This can be seen most clearly in the final reflection papers students submitted for the course. Over the next week or so I will be posting some of these papers here, so stay tuned.

And read on for a brief review of the course and additional information about the final reflection assignment.

My collected posts post provides links to a description of every course module we covered this semester. As usual, the course hits its peak at our very first meeting when we make our annual field trip to the gun range.

The students’ first assignment is to write a reflection on the field trip experience and think about how it fits in with their prior understanding of guns. Some of those field trip reflections were posted on this blog in September.

Although in a sense the course is downhill from the range trip, there are still plenty of highlights. Guest speakers who graciously make their way to Winston-Salem provide many of those. This year we welcomed John Johnston (again) and his colleague Melody Lauer (first visit) from Citizens Defense Research to discuss the place of training in the concealed carry revolution.

Gun educator Rob Pincus of the Second Amendment Organization and Center for Gun Rights and Responsibilities made his fourth class appearance to discuss gun injuries (especially suicide) and ways of encouraging gun owner responsibility while protecting gun rights.

Craig Douglas of Shivworks also made a return visit to class to discuss the issue of police use of force. In addition to discussing issues of policing with the students, he also ran an experiential learning lab scenario with two student volunteers to highlight the challenges of police decision-making under stress.

And Executive Director of the Liberal Gun Owners Randy Miyan made a second trip out of the North Carolina mountains to share his perspectives on guns and liberalism. As he told my students, “You can have a soft heart and believe in armed self-defense.” He also introduced the students to the idea of projectile weapons as an anthropological reality among Homo sapiens.

The major assignment students complete in the course is a seminar paper in which they move beyond their personal views (articulated in their field trip reflection essays) and adopt a scholarly approach to the question of guns in society. Students consider the role guns actually play in society by systematically engaging sociological theories and studies (called “the scholarly literature”) on one specific aspect of the broader phenomenon. Because there is a limited number of topics I can cover in a single semester, I encourage the students to choose a topic that is of interest to them that they want to investigate further. The topics students chose this semester can be found here.

Before submitting their final seminar papers, students present their seminar paper works-in-progress to their classmates at semester-ending Celebration of Learning. After submitting their seminar papers, they write a final short essay reflecting on the semester:

In this final essay, you will revisit your previous personal experience with and understanding of guns in the U.S. (as expressed, e.g., in the field trip reflection essay) in light of your consideration of the role guns actually do play in American society. Reflecting on what you learned from completing your major writing assignment, as well as the class more generally, discuss how your mind has (and/or has not) changed. Conclude this paper by considering what more you need to know in order to make informed choices about your own participation with and the place of guns in the communities in which you live and will live in the future.

The first of these reflection essays will be posted here tomorrow, so tune in then.

He’s really a gun educator more than a gun trainer, per se.

He also goes far out of his way to make it to class, twice driving the 500 miles from St. Augustine, Florida to Winston-Salem, North Carolina the morning of class, and once doing it as a round trip in a single day! (At his own expense, I should add.)

This year I asked Pincus to come in the week we were talking about negative outcomes with guns, and the related issue of gun rights and responsibilities.

Pincus offered my students the perspective of someone who is 100% in support of the Second Amendment and 100% in support of gun owner responsibility for preventing negative outcomes. Rather than legislating responsible behavior, Pincus favors normative change within gun culture, making irresponsible behavior not illegal but culturally unacceptable.

Central to his message was gun owners’ responsibility to prevent unauthorized access to one’s firearms. As we were discussing suicide the week he visited, he highlighted that the person who should not be accessing one’s firearms could be oneself.

In the wide ranging Q&A with students, the issue of mandatory training came up. This had been previously raised when John Johnston and Melody Lauer visited earlier in the semester, as the students read about concealed carry “training” in chapter 5 of my book, Concealed Carry Revolution: Liberalizing the Right to Bear Arms in America. (Don’t forget to leave those 5 star reviews after you buy it!)

Obviously some of the students are still trying to get their minds around the idea that mandatory training should not be required for gun ownership or carry. Pincus recorded his answer to this question and made it available on YouTube.

I’m grateful that thoughtful people like Rob Pincus and John Johnston and Melody Lauer and Craig Douglas and Randy Miyan (this year) take time from their busy schedules to talk to my students. If you want to help offset the cost of this, please consider throwing a few drinks my way so I can throw some food and drinks their way.