In my “Light Over Heat” video this week (see also below), I express appreciation for and also highlight questions I have about an essay by Brown University anthropologist Ieva Jusionyte* that was published recently in the Boston Globe. The essay was titled, “Living with a gun” and the URL says “Why I bought a gun.”
It is short and well written and I encourage you to read it for yourself (follow this link and just close the pop-ups offering newspaper subscriptions to see the whole essay).
In my video I talk for longer than it will take you to read the essay about my thoughts. Among the shortcomings for me — literally, she does not go far enough — is that she hints at but does not fully lean into what I call “the paradox of guns.”
I write about this paradoxical nature of guns in the conclusion to my book, Gun Curious:
What B. Bruce-Biggs called “the great American gun war” in 1976 has only intensified as our political system has grown increasingly polarized and guns have become a wedge issue in our worsening cultural divide. One consequence is that dichotomous thinking dominates what are complex and multifaceted realities. Guns are seen either as the salvation or destroyer of democracy. We can either have gun rights or public safety. To borrow an image from my friend Randy Miyan, we find ourselves in a Chinese finger lock over whether guns are good or evil.
If there is a single overarching lesson I have learned in my search for the truth about American gun culture, it is the importance of understanding that guns are not one thing, but many—and paradoxical at that. They are fun and frightening, dangerous and protective, diffuse and concentrated, unifying and divisive, attractive and repulsive, interesting and controversial, useful and useless, good and bad, and neither good nor bad. This is to say, guns are not inherently anything. They take on different meanings according to the various purposes to which people put them. Which is a long-winded, professorial way of saying that the meaning of guns is their use in society
Jusionyte does better than many people writing about guns today in pointing to their complexity. But being viscerally appalled by them (her words) ultimately holds her back.
*I apologize to the author for mispronouncing her family name even though she told me how to pronounce it: You – syo – neat – ay.
I didn’t have a big negative reaction until the section “am I part of the problem” at which point once again, I feel like I am wearing a big scarlet letter on my chest as a gun owner. Just as I don’t hold myself as accountable for drunk drivers because I drive (and was once hit head on by a drunk driver), or the problems of alcoholics because I drink, I don’t hold myself accountable for that tiny minority of people who misuse guns in crime.
There is a war on guns at the New Mexico legislature right now, so excuse me if I am less than the usual cheerful person that I sometimes am.
Going back to that old violin analogy. Just as owning a violin doesn’t make you a virtuoso, owning a gun doesn’t make you an effective spokesperson on gun issues. It is hard enough to be an effective spokesperson or virtuoso if you actually work hard at those things.
Being a first responder does give one credibility when talking about the negative aspects of guns. Ieva Jusionyte, like Dr. Jim Webster (a member of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence) work or worked on the negative side. Dr. Jim was a trauma surgeon in a big city. So they are entitled to their opinions as far as gunshot wounds.
I wonder if those who come into firearm ownership via Gun Culture 2.0 are more prone to see guns as either/or, either as lawful self defense or as this lady does, as something that she bought but which makes her profoundly uncomfortable. Having grown up with Gun Culture 1.0, and having seen the drift into GC 2.0, I suspect a lot more people only see guns as black or white: shoot or be shot.
As a psychologist, I am most struck by how hard she works to ensure that she does not become comfortable with the gun. Having worked with people with phobias, the pattern is clear. She set out hating it, expects to hate it, thinks we all should hate it, then is somewhat surprised that she still hates it. She hates the “loud minority” who do not hate it with her. There is no openness to experience or true desire to understand. At best, she wants it as a symbol that might give her the credibility to dissuade others – without attempting to change her attitude.
She not only finds the gun a hideous insult, but finds those who do not see it as such a hideous insult – a loud minority. She imbues the gun with magical, mystical and malevolent qualities. I suspect she fears it might come for her if it were not locked up. She makes it sound as if she had to walk into a pen with swine and swill to purchase the gun she clearly did not want and is dedicated to not liking. She is concerned she is part of the problem. How is she ever to really understand the issue when she is so closed minded about it. And how could she ever be a credible voice when she not only berates others who own guns, but even berates herself for owning it?
The disgust for the physical object itself, a sentiment deliberately cultivated among the anti-gun crowd, permeates her description its mere presence as essentially defiling her home.
Her one rational act — buying a gun to protect herself in an increasingly dangerous urban environment — she frames as irrational. She must disparage her own intellect & instinct to cleave to the narrative.
In her worry about becoming ‘part of the problem’, I read a subliminal meaning: the ‘problem’ not being ‘gun violence’, but rather the growing erosion of the anti-gun narrative, brought on by the jump in gun ownership among demographics previously holding neutral or negative views on firearms. Ultimately, I suspect she fears she might end up loving her gun.
Cf. some of Prof. Yamane’s students’ essays, where they express (more forthrightly than Jusionyte) shame for having enjoyed so much the range day experience of shooting guns.
Professor Yamane, I do enjoy your videos, but one thing that I find maddening, especially from intelligent, well educated, and thoughtful people is the animation (by which I mean the act, process, or result of imparting life, spirit, or activity to an inanimate object.) or the personification of firearms. The canard is that firearms are evil, bad, double-plus-ungood. The term “gun violence” is especially infuriating. Firearms are inanimate objects. They can be neither good nor evil and are thus outside the realm of morality. COL Jeff Cooper in his book The Art of the Rifle put it well:
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
Perhaps the above might give Ms. Jusionyte some comfort if you have occasion to communicate with her.
Given that firearms are inanimate objects The term “gun violence” and Ms. Jusionyte’s ponderance of her gun’s contribution to “the problem” are moral copouts. It minimizes both human agency and the perpetrator’s resulting responsibility for the outcomes of the violence they chose to commit.
Another excellent (and short) essay, “Why the Gun is Civilization”, (munchkinwrangler (dot) blogspot (dot) com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization_5678 (dot) html) by Mr. Marko Kloos from March 2007 might open Ms. Jusionyte’s mind. Mr. Kloos makes the argument that the gun enables civil discourse because we can only deal with each other by either reason or force and going armed in defense of self encourages others to use reason to persuade us instead of force.
Lastly, Ms. Jusionyte may wish to read Mr. Jeff Snyder’s “A nation of Cowards” originally published in The Public Interest which is a journal published by National Affairs, but available on (the excellent resource for all things related to the right to keep and bear arms) RKBA (dot) org under the “comments” header. Mr. Snyder makes an excellent moral case for the ownership and carry of firearms.
I hope Ms. Jusionyte can find the peace she seeks. The Romans understood human nature well. They understood that if one would see peace, one must prepare for war (go armed). We should understand the inverse is also true: if one would see war, one has but to prepare for peace (disarm).
I’d also like to thank Zendo Deb at wheelgunr (dot) blogspot (dot) com for bringing me to your blog tonight.
I think this is a great point – and I think that such an unreasoning and unreasonable fear of an inanimate object tells us far more about the person than the object. In psychology, we might consider this projection – projection of one’s own issues onto the object. I suspect she is afraid of her won ability to control her behavior.
Gun Culture 2.0 
Every single ‘fact’ she cites is false.
LikeLike
I didn’t have a big negative reaction until the section “am I part of the problem” at which point once again, I feel like I am wearing a big scarlet letter on my chest as a gun owner. Just as I don’t hold myself as accountable for drunk drivers because I drive (and was once hit head on by a drunk driver), or the problems of alcoholics because I drink, I don’t hold myself accountable for that tiny minority of people who misuse guns in crime.
There is a war on guns at the New Mexico legislature right now, so excuse me if I am less than the usual cheerful person that I sometimes am.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Going back to that old violin analogy. Just as owning a violin doesn’t make you a virtuoso, owning a gun doesn’t make you an effective spokesperson on gun issues. It is hard enough to be an effective spokesperson or virtuoso if you actually work hard at those things.
Being a first responder does give one credibility when talking about the negative aspects of guns. Ieva Jusionyte, like Dr. Jim Webster (a member of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence) work or worked on the negative side. Dr. Jim was a trauma surgeon in a big city. So they are entitled to their opinions as far as gunshot wounds.
I wonder if those who come into firearm ownership via Gun Culture 2.0 are more prone to see guns as either/or, either as lawful self defense or as this lady does, as something that she bought but which makes her profoundly uncomfortable. Having grown up with Gun Culture 1.0, and having seen the drift into GC 2.0, I suspect a lot more people only see guns as black or white: shoot or be shot.
LikeLike
As a psychologist, I am most struck by how hard she works to ensure that she does not become comfortable with the gun. Having worked with people with phobias, the pattern is clear. She set out hating it, expects to hate it, thinks we all should hate it, then is somewhat surprised that she still hates it. She hates the “loud minority” who do not hate it with her. There is no openness to experience or true desire to understand. At best, she wants it as a symbol that might give her the credibility to dissuade others – without attempting to change her attitude.
She not only finds the gun a hideous insult, but finds those who do not see it as such a hideous insult – a loud minority. She imbues the gun with magical, mystical and malevolent qualities. I suspect she fears it might come for her if it were not locked up. She makes it sound as if she had to walk into a pen with swine and swill to purchase the gun she clearly did not want and is dedicated to not liking. She is concerned she is part of the problem. How is she ever to really understand the issue when she is so closed minded about it. And how could she ever be a credible voice when she not only berates others who own guns, but even berates herself for owning it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The disgust for the physical object itself, a sentiment deliberately cultivated among the anti-gun crowd, permeates her description its mere presence as essentially defiling her home.
Her one rational act — buying a gun to protect herself in an increasingly dangerous urban environment — she frames as irrational. She must disparage her own intellect & instinct to cleave to the narrative.
In her worry about becoming ‘part of the problem’, I read a subliminal meaning: the ‘problem’ not being ‘gun violence’, but rather the growing erosion of the anti-gun narrative, brought on by the jump in gun ownership among demographics previously holding neutral or negative views on firearms. Ultimately, I suspect she fears she might end up loving her gun.
Cf. some of Prof. Yamane’s students’ essays, where they express (more forthrightly than Jusionyte) shame for having enjoyed so much the range day experience of shooting guns.
LikeLike
Professor Yamane, I do enjoy your videos, but one thing that I find maddening, especially from intelligent, well educated, and thoughtful people is the animation (by which I mean the act, process, or result of imparting life, spirit, or activity to an inanimate object.) or the personification of firearms. The canard is that firearms are evil, bad, double-plus-ungood. The term “gun violence” is especially infuriating. Firearms are inanimate objects. They can be neither good nor evil and are thus outside the realm of morality. COL Jeff Cooper in his book The Art of the Rifle put it well:
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
Perhaps the above might give Ms. Jusionyte some comfort if you have occasion to communicate with her.
Given that firearms are inanimate objects The term “gun violence” and Ms. Jusionyte’s ponderance of her gun’s contribution to “the problem” are moral copouts. It minimizes both human agency and the perpetrator’s resulting responsibility for the outcomes of the violence they chose to commit.
Another excellent (and short) essay, “Why the Gun is Civilization”, (munchkinwrangler (dot) blogspot (dot) com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization_5678 (dot) html) by Mr. Marko Kloos from March 2007 might open Ms. Jusionyte’s mind. Mr. Kloos makes the argument that the gun enables civil discourse because we can only deal with each other by either reason or force and going armed in defense of self encourages others to use reason to persuade us instead of force.
Lastly, Ms. Jusionyte may wish to read Mr. Jeff Snyder’s “A nation of Cowards” originally published in The Public Interest which is a journal published by National Affairs, but available on (the excellent resource for all things related to the right to keep and bear arms) RKBA (dot) org under the “comments” header. Mr. Snyder makes an excellent moral case for the ownership and carry of firearms.
I hope Ms. Jusionyte can find the peace she seeks. The Romans understood human nature well. They understood that if one would see peace, one must prepare for war (go armed). We should understand the inverse is also true: if one would see war, one has but to prepare for peace (disarm).
I’d also like to thank Zendo Deb at wheelgunr (dot) blogspot (dot) com for bringing me to your blog tonight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this is a great point – and I think that such an unreasoning and unreasonable fear of an inanimate object tells us far more about the person than the object. In psychology, we might consider this projection – projection of one’s own issues onto the object. I suspect she is afraid of her won ability to control her behavior.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] [6] The Paradox of Guns […]
LikeLike