Going Shooting in a Gun Loving State

A little over a year ago, I completed my senior honors thesis on American federal gun control. In my thesis I compared the American federal gun control system to that of Australia, using Australia as a model for reform in the U.S. In many ways the U.S. and Australia are similar both culturally and legally, making Australia the best country for an international comparison of gun control. Prior to 1997, Australia had a very weak gun control system because each state had its own system. After Australia's worse mass shooting occurred in 1996, known as the “Port Arthur Massacre,” the Australian Prime Minister at the time, John Howard, and the federal government overcame the adversity of pro-gun sympathetic politicians to implement a comprehensive federal gun control system.This system greatly improved the shortcomings of having individual systems in each state. Since 1997 Australia has had decreasing numbers of gun-related deaths. In the eight years before Port Arthur there were thirteen massacres in Australia, each with four or more deaths, but since the reform there have not been any massacres of this kind. Overall the 1997 National Firearms Agreement has been successful.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard wore a bullet proof vest to an angry pro-gun rally in the state of Victoria in 1996.  Source: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/.

During the year of writing my thesis, I developed knowledge about guns, gun control law, gun history, and gun culture in the U.S. I did not grow up with any family members that went shooting or hunting, nor is my home state of Massachusetts a place where shooting or hunting is very popular. It is one of the states with the strongest gun control laws. The Law Center to Prevent Violence gives Massachusetts's gun control laws a "B+". While I was writing my thesis, some of my professors and peers asked me why I chose to write on this topic. They assumed I chose the topic because I had some personal connection to gun use. I thought the fact they all made the same assumption was interesting. Did they think no one would be interested enough in this topic to write extensively about it, if they did not have a very personal interest in it? Going to college in Connecticut (which received an "A" grade by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence), and living in the north-east, which generally has strong gun laws (but not every north-eastern state does as I will discuss later in this post) and the gun lobby is looked poorly upon, I thought people would not automatically assume a desire to write about gun control at length meant I was personally invested in guns themselves.  Rather I thought they would think that I was a concerned individual about gun violence, as I am. I think the questions by my professors and peers can possibly be explained by the liberal thinking people tend to have in the north-east, where people assume a person's a desire to talk about guns at length correlates with gun fanaticism. I am certainly no gun fanatic, but writing my thesis did push me towards wanting to shoot a gun.

In addition to my Public Policy & Law degree, under which I completed my thesis, I also studied for an Anthropology degree. My Anthropology education taught me that to best understand a culture one must “do as the natives do” and immerse oneself in the culture. As my thesis progressed, I became more interested in shooting a gun myself, as a way to understand gun lovers’ point of view, and simply because I was personally interested in how it felt. I had read much about why people love guns in my research, so I wanted to see what it was like for myself. I did not end up having the opportunity to go shooting during the actual writing of my thesis, but I knew it was something I wanted to do in the near future.

When I found myself living in Portland, Maine for my first post-graduation job, I knew this would be the perfect opportunity to try shooting. Mainers love guns. It is not surprising given that the state is almost wholly wilderness. Living in Maine, a state with a report card grade of “F” from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, was ironic given my thesis topic. What is also ironic is that my job in Maine is in a federal government office that has the duty to prosecute people who break federal laws. Therefore the office prosecutes individuals in Maine who break federal gun control laws, the very laws that I suggested policy improvements for in my thesis. Interesting though, Maine is one of the states with the lowest number of gun deaths per capita in the U.S. (10^th lowest in 2010). Could it be that Mainers are just really good examples of responsible hunters and shooters, despite the state's weak laws? However gun trafficking is a problem in the state and I have heard about this firsthand in my work place. Maine exports significantly more guns involved in crimes out of the state than it imports and has a crime gun export rate that exceeds the national average. In 2009, Maine had the 25^th highest rate of crime gun exports. While within the state, Maine's weak gun control is not hurting Mainers, the weak laws are letting guns easily move out of state where they can be dispersed country wide and may be involved in fatal incidents. Given all of these ironies, I absolutely had to shoot a gun while living in this state.

My research for beginner shooting opportunities in the Portland area ended with signing up to take a clay target shooting course at L.L. Bean in Freeport, Maine. If you are from the north-east., you will know L.L. Bean and I would guess it is likely many Americans countrywide are familiar with the clothing and outdoor recreation store. It has a well known “100% Customer Satisfaction Guarantee” marketing scheme and catalog that comes by mail. L.L. Bean sells guns in store and also offers an hour and a half clay target shooting course for the very, very low price of only $20. I could not pass up picking up some of the guns in store to see what they felt like before the class began. Only some of their guns are put behind glass. The instructors of the course were two older gentlemen, clearly true Mainers. They have many years of shooting experience, so I felt like I was learning how to shoot from the right people. The below photo is me with one of the instructors. He reloaded the gun every time I shot and also “pulled” the clay target for me each time, but only after I said "pull" of course. During the hour and a half I probably got to shoot the rifle about ten to fifteen times. I even hit the clay target on my first shot ever! I was a bit nervous and scared about the kick-back I would get on the gun when I shot it, but it was not as nearly as strong as I anticipated. The shooting was great fun and harder than it looks to nail that clay!

Probably the most interesting, funny, and ironic moment of the day came at the beginning of the course before we had even begun shooting. The instructors were speaking to the group, going over rules, and explaining the parts of a gun. They asked the group if anyone had every shot before. A few people raised their hands and the instructors asked them what they have shot before, such as clays, targets, etc. One gentleman, spoke up, in an Australian accent and said "Kangaroos". I was shocked. Not only was an Australian in Maine surprisingly, but here at L.L. Bean's shooting course of all places! Given my thesis topic, this was just too funny. The man explained that he and his wife now live in Boston, but back in Australia he shot kangaroos. From what I observed of his shooting abilities, he wasn't the best clay target shooter. I guess kangaroos are a bigger target to hit ;-). For those of you who don't know much about Australia or the kangaroo population there, it is extremely large. Kangaroos are sometimes considered to be a pest because there are just so many of them. So people shoot them for sport and to simply lower the population. As a result, one can buy kangaroo meat in Australia and it is exported worldwide. Also, kangaroos are often a hazard on roadways, much like how deer get hit by cars in the U.S.

Here I am shooting clay targets at L.L. Bean!

After taking the class, I reflected and thought about whether the experience has shaped my empathy for gun owners or my opinions of guns. I believe it has not impacted either. Through writing my thesis I came to the conclusion that those people who enjoy guns should be allowed to have them. I do not support taking away any American’s Second Amendment right in the U.S. Constitution. However, I strongly believe that the Second Amendment must be limited to protect public safety. Those who enjoy using guns for sport, hunting, or protection, should by all means be able to obtain one. However, adequate measures must be in place to ensure that only responsible people can purchase firearms. I believe that Australia’s federal gun control system, the 1997 National Firearms Agreement, creates a strong comprehensive system. But as I discussed in my thesis, not all aspects of it will be achieved or successful in the U.S., such as imposing strict storage requirements and a month long waiting period prior to purchasing a gun. The National Rifle Association (NRA) holds great political power in the U.S. and do not look kindly upon any law that is at all a seemingly “strong” or “strict” measure. 

The two areas in which I believe need immediate reform in the American federal gun control system and most likely to be achieved are the prohibition laws relating to people with mental illnesses and a history of domestic violence. These two areas, time after time, are an aspect of gun violence events in this country. I also believe these are relatively uncontroversial areas of reform. Who would not support keeping guns out of the hands of those with mental illnesses and domestic violence abusers? For example, a 2013 Pew poll found people supported a policy that prevents people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns, by 80% to 16%. NRA members cannot disagree with prohibiting these types of people in principle.

However the NRA and its fanatic supports attempt to argue that limiting in any area of gun law creates a “slippery slope” to the prohibition of all guns. They also attempt to argue that “a good guy” with a gun can stop “a bad guy” with a gun. Firstly, the prohibition of all guns is America is simply a reality that can never exist. In 2008, the Supreme Court stated in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that individuals have the right to bear arms for self-defence, but this right is not absolute and can be regulated in the name of public safety. Therefore, a “slippery slope” can never be possible and this pro-gun argument is of no significance.

Source: http://danhagen-odinsravens.blogspot.com/

 In regards to the latter argument about "good" and "bad" guys with guns, putting more guns into circulation by arming every citizen does not mean we would live in a safer society. In a specific instance when a mass shooting happens, it is possible that “a good guy” with a gun could shoot and kill the shooter. It is possible, but does it really happen? No. Mother Jones studied 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012, and none of which were stopped by an armed citizen despite the great number of gun owning and carrying people in the U.S. In some instances gun violence may have been prevented by a person brandishing a gun, but the armed citizens who intervened was seriously hurt or killed. In commonly cited cases by the pro-gun side, individuals who intervened were actually law enforcement officers, not normal citizens. These individuals have experience in these types of high pressure, fast moving situations and obviously felt confident intervening. Therefore this idea that having an armed society will be enough to protect us from "bad guys" with guns is not legitimate. More guns do not make us safer. 

The more guns that are introduced into the population means they are more likely to be used on a whim and it is more likely that accidents will happen. When there is no gun present to be used, people do not have the choice to use it or misuse it. The below cartoon I believe illustrates perfectly the belief of some pro-gun advocates that armed citizens can successfully hinder mass shootings. But what happens in a real life situation is not as simple as the cartoon portrays it. The lower picture portrays the citizen shooting the "crazy person" before he is able to shoot her. But in real life, it is likely he would shoot her before she is able to wield her gun successfully. 

Source: NBC News

Our focus needs to be on limiting the amount of guns circulating in the population and taking them out of the hands of people who should not have them— criminals, especially domestic violence offenders, and those with mental illnesses. In my next post I will discuss the problems with our current gun laws relating to prohibiting people with mental illnesses and domestic violence histories from accessing guns, and discuss how Australia provides a model to learn from in addressing these two areas.

Written by: The American.