Emotions Against Open Carry

James Carroll over at the Boston globe has contributed an op-ed piece in response to last week's open carry news article that made its way across the wire. Not surprisingly, he takes a tone that has become commonplace for the Globe when it comes to firearms and gun rights: reactive, emotional, and afraid. Carroll opens with a tale of a pre-pubescent encounter with his FBI agent father's gun, and the taboo pseudo-sexual feelings that it brought up within him.

Awe. Trembling. That the gun was my father's was a first clue to potency. Hidden away, yet the gun sent a pulse through the whole apartment, a psychological electromagnet around which my awareness swirled. Long before I tasted the temptations of sex, I yielded to an irresistible prurience by opening that drawer.

Despite Carroll's recognition that his exposure to firearms is linked to national identity, and an at-least begrudging acceptance of the 2nd amendment, he fails to recognize a legitimate need or use of ownership. He naively represents anti-gun bills in congress as being designed to reduce violence (which they have been proven not to) and blames the "all powerful lobbying of the National Rifle Association" for killing them - an implication that they are responsible for the gun death in the States.

Carroll's solution to the problem of gun violence in America? Attack the open-carry movement that exists in states with more liberal (in a classical sense) gun laws.

"Open carry" aims to remove such visceral negativity, though the taboo amounts, in fact, to last ditch gun control. The "normalizing" of guns will inevitably normalize their use....And who, pray tell, will bear, not the arms, but the consequences?

He misses a few key points here that are important to the argument. The first, which is repeated regularly in my posts, is that gun violence exists regardless of the laws in place. It exists when open carry is forbidden. It exists with assault weapons bans. It exists in horrific numbers in places like DC and Chicago where handgun bans have been implemented for years. What Carroll also fails to recognize is that there was a time when guns were not buried away and demonized by society. They were sold in hardware stores and mail order catalogs. .22 rifles were slung over the shoulders of high school shooting club members when riding the New York subways. He suggests that America needs more shame in its attitude towards guns, not less. But attempts at shaming gun ownership and wishing them away has only produced more pain. Legalized open carry allows people to recognize that law-abiding citizens can and do utilize firearms in a responsible manner. A healthy exposure to firearms develops respect and understanding for the weapon, not a crazed desire to misuse it. But all of this is lost on Carroll. When you disregard science, logic, and history; and operate purely on visceral emotion "Shame is the children's last protection."