Donal's picture

    Book Review: Shooters



    I wrote this review for another site last May, but it seems pertinent now, so I'm reposting it here.

    Although Abigail Kohn was raised in a liberal Jewish background, it would be hard to reduce her to a cultural stereotype after reading Shooters: Myths and Realities of America's Gun Culture. The book followed from her UCSF dissertation in anthropology, Shooters: The Moral World of Gun Enthusiasts. In May 2001 she posted an article for Reason Magazine: Their Aim Is True - Taking stock of America's real gun culture, and in May 2005 she participated in a Reason Debate: Straight Shooting on Gun Control.

    Her book was published in December 2005, but I only ran across it while looking at reviews of John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime. Based on the Amazon reviews I had a feeling I already knew what Lott's book was going to say, and Shooters was one of their alternate suggestions. I disregarded the peach schnapps jokes that were running through my head and sent for a copy.

    Kohn sought to define what owning guns means to American gun owners. Any city would have had quirks, but I have to admit that San Francisco seemed like an outlier of a place for a study of American gun culture. I know relatively little about guns myself, but I used to work with a lot of guys that hunted and frequented gun ranges, and even some that played paintball. But I had no idea that Cowboy Action Shooting and SASS even existed - and I've never met anyone that calls himself, or herself, a shooter. But America is a big place, and she started near her campus at U Cal SF.

    As I come away from the book, I feel that I learned some interesting history and was exposed to many new ideas, which reflects well on the book. But I also feel that the book was actually less balanced than the dispassionate anthropological tone would indicate. Kohn immersed herself in gun culture - and liked it. She made friends and though the weapons still scare her a bit, she found the shooting challenging and exciting. Through Kohn, these San Fran shooters come across as the sort of people you'd want to meet and have fun with on vacation, and in many ways she seems to have become one of them. That isn't a bad thing, but I don't really see her in the white lab coat.

    Towards the end, Kohn switched gears fairly quickly from observer to political adviser and peacemaker, and while I think she tried very hard to be practical, it is very, very hard to get past the intractable positions on each side. For example, Gun Control Australia, where Kohn is now researching gun culture, writes,

    Kohn is trying to trick the public into believing that American shooters are taking the high moral ground by purchasing, and practicing to use guns. This is a trick and a trick which should be condemned.


    But Shooters gets a more positive review at the TotalDrek blog,

    What makes the book truly useful, however, are her remarks about her fellow academics, as well as anti-gun liberals generally. Seen through her eyes, many of the arguments these people make seem hysterical and ridiculous, born out of ignorance and a lack of thought. This is not to say that gun owners get a thorough white-washing, but rather only that she uses a book likely to be read primarily by academic audiences to make it clear why those same academics are sometimes seen as irrational lunatics. Kohn is to be applauded in this effort, as a better understanding of gun owners as well as gun control advocates can only lead to improvements in our society’s handling of guns generally.

    Indeed, as my friend and I discussed over burgers, despite the fact that he is relatively conservative and a gun lover, and I am relatively liberal, our views on gun control are essentially the same. We both support waiting periods, background checks, and restrictions on particularly dangerous types of firearms like machine guns and very heavy rifles. An approach like Kohn’s that encourages people to see these areas of overlap, rather than simply the hostile rhetoric of the gun control debate, is extremely useful.
    AttachmentSize
    Image icon Shooters.jpg50.88 KB
    Topics: 

    Comments

    Neat.  I grew up with guns and I've always enjoyed them.  I've never shot a living thing and I'm never going to.  In a weird way a life of pure target shooting makes you almost forget that guns are weapons.  Sure, they're dangerous but so are cars.  When you never use either to kill you tend to think of both the same way.  Well, I'm generalizing but you get the idea.

    I've always taken a very local view of gun control.  I think New Mexico's gun laws are pretty much right for New Mexico and that upstate New York's laws are right for upstate New York while New York City's laws are right for the city.  That's imperfect, of course, but I'm willing to let local communities decide how they want to deal with what is essentially a property issue.  You can, by the way, own a gun in New York City but if you want to keep it anywhere but at a licensed gun range you need to get a special permit and show cause for needing it for protection.  I haven't even bothered though I would like to visit one of the local ranges where you can rent and shoot their arsenal in a safe environment.


    Yeah, Ed Shultz talks about his guns all the time back on the Dakota prairies.

    Where I reside during hunting season trucks pull up to the store fronts dt with dead, frozen deer all the time. Everybody has guns. They carry rifles and shot guns in their trucks of course.

    But I don't 'see' anyone packing in the city.

    What is interesting is that back down in the Twin Cities, the big office buildings all have signs saying:

    NO GUNS ALLOWED.

    Of course all government offices, state and federal say the same thing.

    Most bars really do not want guns around people who are drinking.

    There are rational ways to handle this matter..


    I think in places like yours guns are just a practical tool. In some suburbs I think it was more of a lifestyle statement, like owning a pickup when you never actually haul anything. Lately, though, open carry and permit-free concealed carry seems to be more of a political statement.


    Destor23 - believer in Resistance's 'inanimate object theory' which equates guns and cars! Who would have guessed?

    "Sure, they're dangerous but so are cars."....so is water if you drink too much at once. I knew someone killed by a tree, but I don't think guns are like trees.

    Destor - Hey, can you wave cars in the air when the President is holding a rally in town to intimidate others and express your outrage? You said cars are dangerous, right? So waving a car should be as intimidating as waving a gun, right?

    You could hold up a model of a GM Corvair (without seat belts) and perhaps scare some people familiar with its history. An AK-47 though would seem more effective.  People now are out buying guns after this mass shooting, if an SUV rolls on a freeway do people rush out to buy SUV's the next day?

    Guns and cars are not similar or comparable, they have nothing in common at all.


    We all get your point about the strong symbolism of guns but reality-wise as far as attacks are concerned it strikes me as off-base. Actually, these days you've got to protection at large political gatherings or the like against not just guns, but speeding vehicles and vehicular bombs. Manhattan, Paris, London, et. al., these days all have all manner of vehicle barriers, from lowly cement planters or speed bumpgs to tire spikes to high tech electronic metal shields that rise up out of the ground in front of sensitive building, and bring more out when a VIP might be somewhere not well protected.

    Seems to me Rep. Giffords meet and greet was just totally unprotected from attacks, vehicles as well as guns. Someone could have easily mowed her and a bunch of other people standing around her down with a car. And then there's the terminology of "this car came gunning towards the crowd."

    You haven't watched any action suspense movies lately, have you? Nor paid much attention to invnovation of public attacks in general? Need I mention IED''s seem to have become a popular alternative where people are often searched for guns? Never parked in a Manhattan lot under a high rise after, oh, like the '93 WTC bombing, see them check under your car with a mirror before you go in?

    Congresspersons now recognize that nowhere is LIttle House on the Prairie anymore and they've got to hold anounced meetings indoors in secured buildings or other secured areas, not outside in unsecured parking lots:

    http://northport.patch.com/articles/giffords-shooting-to-change-how-cong...

    That's not just about guns. That's about a changed world where everyone in the world can read on your website where and when you're going to have a public meeting next week, it's no longer a case of hanging an announcement up on the supermarket bulletin board.

    You argument about the symbolism is fine, the one about the incredible damage guns to the lives of ordinary people is better--however, the latter can also be matched by car and motorcycle accidents.. But this one doesn't fly with me at all and I am all for more restrictions on gun ownership. I think your clear hatred of guns and willingness to rant about it isn't going to convince anyone that doesn't agree with you and therefore isn't going to take you anywhere you want to go. More likely, some of your arguments if made by many, will make gun lovers paranoid enough about what you want to do, and will work harder than ever to avoid any restrictions.


    So do we chalk artappraiser up with Destor and Resistance as conceptualizing that guns and cars (and motorcycles now) are 'the same', or would modifying that belief risk increasing the discomfit of the gun lovers, and therefore be out of the question?

    I suppose if Giffords had not met constituents in a fortified bunker like the Green Zone in Baghdad, complete with Bremer Walls of concrete, anti-aircraft defenses, checkpoints and armed guards she could have always been accused of lacking the most rudimentary caution according to your arguments.

    That doesn't fly with me. The navel gazing rationales presented by some on this site is at times unbelievable. ciao!


    This might not be your intent, but it seems like you're building an "enemies list" and declaring that commenters are either "with [you] or against [you]". As artappraiser suggests, that's not a very effective method for "winning friends and influencing enemies".

    There are gray areas involved, and similarities exist between guns and lots of other things. Ignoring that does not help you.


    A threatening, irrational person, is beginning to emerge in the character of NCD and should be reported   

    He or she recently stalked me, on a post discussing problems with posting; a subject unrelated to the gun issue.

    He/She absolutely has what appears to be a compilation of an enemies list.

    If someone has the connections, someone with authority should be notified.

    I could provide evidence such as Newton’s laws of physics and inanimate objects, but this person will not accept reason, therefore; I believe this person is unreasonable, irrational and possibly a threat.       


    I was using hyperbole and did not mean to intend that NCD is literally like Nixon or Bush. Unless s/he has bothered to track down your real name, I think any accusations of stalking are also hyperbole.

    Furthermore, I do not believe that NCD is irrational in general, or even wrong on the basics of this point in particular. My disagreement is that there are gray areas here that NCD does not seem willing to entertain.


    I am not kidding you.

    No sooner had NCD and I have a disagreement, on a post dealing with the subject of gun control; he went to another post, I happened to make a comment on, having to do with the ongoing problem of comments being rejected.

    A clear picture of stalking began to emerge. First it started as an insult, that I ignored, then NCD came back reedited the original and became belligerent and over the top hateful.

    I gathered from his comments, about telling the school children that there friend died, because of something I believed. How many a degree of separation is there for deranged individuals to do the civic duty and save the children from someone like me.

    If only he could breach the security of Dagblog, maybe he could instead of stalking me on an unrelated topic, he could just appear at my door?  To try to show me he didn't shoot me, the gun did and with his snarky sneer "how do you feel about guns now, A hole, don't you wish you would have passed a law against them"?      

    At that point it appeared this person is a little deranged. How far would this person go in his mind of association? That we would be considered enemies, that stood in the way of his rational thoughts?   


    An example from a quick google: 5 dead, 12 injured:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/30/netherlands.queen.car/ind...

    Your sarcastic answer about green zones tells me you are the kind who would like to pretend that life in western countries should go on as if we all live in Thornton Wilders' Our Town. Regulated automobiles and regulated firearms are not going to stop these kind of attacks on public gatherings, it's the reality of the world you live in, and there must be extra security measures involved. If you could snap your fingers and outlaw all firearms in this country, those extra security measures would still be needed. Not the least of which because the actual guns would still be out there, just on the black market.

    Furthermore, you seem to see as your enemy many who obviously compare automobiles and guns in order to convince people to regulate guns like automobiles are regulated. You are the one who makes no sense. I happen to think if guns were regulated like automobiles that there would be fewer deaths from guns. Not no deaths from guns, just like with automobiles, which still cause many deaths, and not just all accidental.

    You seem to be on a jihad to convince that guns are evil. What is that going to get you? Actually, the more I think on it as far as people with your attitude is concerned, the more I find the comparison useful. Using the "automobiles are evil and must be abolished" argument hasn't worked out very well as to practical results for environmentalists nor for crusaders against the mayhem they cause. Catalytic converter laws, gas guzzler laws, seat belt laws, air bag laws, drunk driving laws and traffic laws in general, those have gotten actual real results.


    Reading the following, I was reminded of your hyperbolic prediction:: a fortified bunker like the Green Zone in Baghdad. Not exactly:

    Democrats Quickly Resume ‘Congress on Your Corner’ Events

    Jan. 14

    [.....]

    At each event, there appeared to be at least one police officer present — there were more than 20 at Ms. Berkley’s. For some lawmakers, that was unusual.

    [.....]

    Members of Congress have been in talks with the Capitoal Police and sergeant-at-arms about new security measures when they meet with large groups in their districts. In the past, some members have routinely relied on local police departments to patrol their larger meetings with constituents, while others have not had security at such events.

    The Capitol Police and local law enforcement officials conducted a “threat assessment” this week in the Maryland district office of Representative C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger, and “gave us some great tips on how to conduct ourselves at public events,” said Heather Molino, his spokeswoman. The congressman plans to attend a meeting to educate voters about the health care law on Saturday.

    [.....]

    In Chicago, Representative Mike Quigley held his “Congress on Your Corner” event on Friday at a library on the city’s North Side. Mr. Quigley said it was the first time he had ever had police officers, in plain clothes, at a community event. He said he had made the decision in part to make his staff feel safer. “For now, if it makes everyone feel better,” he said.

    [......]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/us/15meet.html?ref=todayspaper

    And reading the following I saw evidence of how your style of rhetoric on the issue is helping the NRA out in killing a high-capacity clip bill:

    NRA: Anti-High-Capacity Clip Bill Just A Scheme To Impose 'Gun Ban'

    .....An unattributed statement posted on the NRA website late Friday, written in the rhetorical style the powerful association has come to be known for, dubbed gun control supporters "gun ban advocates" and the proposals mentioned in the wake of the mass shooting "schemes."....

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/nra_anti-high-capacity...


    What a country!


    As an aside, I did listen to Hal, the Coach and A-Man on KRXA today. I didn't see the alert until about 11:30 but they came back to A-Man, who thoroughly pwned some caller who was complaining that teaching Hispanic history was breeding resentment. The caller further discredited himself by claiming that Judge Roll had been shot because of his stance on immigration.

    "Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these."


    It's only natural to be angry about Hispanic history.  It's very confusing with all the names and the foreign language and all. Also... Spain.  European or Hispanic?  Forget it.  It makes me angry too.


    Except Zorro, right?

    I mean everybody loves Zorro!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gFoERNDBJA

     


    I am not a gun guy but it is a free country and I gather that some people like to hunt wild animals.  OK.  I wish they wouldn't, but I am not asserting my likes and dislikes on others. 

    On the other hand, I do not understand why anyone other than law enforcement ought to have a handgun.  I certainly don't think that the founders intended the Second Amendment to require that people be allowed to own a gun, but the Court ruled otherwise in Heller, applied that to the states in the Chicago case and they also made President Bush the president.  That's how it works.  I'll buy that, reluctantly, too.

    There has to be a place in there for sensible laws.  There isn't, and there won't be, but that says a lot about our country, and it is not something good.


    I used to feel that way about handguns, but it turns out that people do hunt with them. I visited a gun shop last year and some of those handguns look like props from Land of the Giants. As far as carrying guns, some people close up shop late at night with a lot of cash. I'm all for sensible laws, but the gun owners know that Jim Crow laws used to be considered sensible, so they're afraid of laws.


    I do not accept that a person is safer closing up at night with a gun than if he or she did not have a gun, unless they have rigorous and ongoing training about how to respond in an emergency.

    But, Heller really makes this a dumb argument.  I don't see how we can reach my ideal end without repealing the Second Amendment, which will never happen.  So, I endorse the views of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, http://www.nyagv.org/faq.htm, supporting state legislation which

    1. Requires microstamping on all semi-automatic weapons brought or sold into [the s]tate after 2010 to be capable of microstamping an alpha numeric mark on the shell casings ejected by the weapon.
    2. Requires all employees of gun dealers to undergo a Brady background check.
    3. Establishes programs to trace illegal firearms and prosecute gun traffickers.
    4. Requires gun dealers to take steps to keep guns out of prohibited hands such as locking up guns at night; keeping accurate inventories, and training employees to spot straw purchasers
    5. Mandates complete background checks for all gun purchasers, including private sales and gun shows.
    6. Requires safe gun storage/child access prevention. Adults should be responsible for locking up the guns they own.
    7. Regulates the manufacture of firearms. Guns are the only consumer products that are exempt from any federal safety standards.
    8. Requires gun owners in every state to be licensed and trained just like automobile drivers.
    9. Calls for gun registration which can prevent illegal transfers by making gun owners responsible for what happens to their guns.

    Sure Barth I agree with these tenets.

    But the list calls for sanity.

    But most repubs and almost all teabaggers will not accept sanity.


    Follow up book  "Shot'.

    Chapters on people shot, how, why, or just random, suicides gone wrong, kids shot, survivors of massacres, war, emergency room dramas, paralyzed victims, pain, lost love ones, a 'shot' victim in a wheelchair on the cover.


    Latest Comments