In New Orleans, anyone can get a gun. Scan the headlines, and you'll see that 14-year-old kids, angry boyfriends, vengeful mothers, paranoid shop owners, impoverished students, even folks who seem to own nothing else have, and use, guns.
It's weird to long for the days of fisticuffs and switchblades. Imagine: Without guns, each time someone has a disagreement at a bowling alley or over a bar stool, gunfire and death would not be the inevitable result. If it weren't for a gun--if the intruder had only a knife--my friend Helen might still be alive. I'm not naive enough to believe that gun control would end the problems behind the violence--poverty, drug use, racism, lack of quality jobs, schools, options--but I do believe that eliminating guns from our city would slow the flow of blood into our streets.
Lately, my three-year-old son has expressed an interest in guns. He notices them everywhere: water pistols, toys at the store, even images in his books and movies (those older children's titles weren't as restrictive as newer ones). We don't allow guns in the house (nor are they allowed at his school) and we restrict his access to media, yet his ability to sniff them out is uncanny.
I've asked other parents and teachers about kids and guns, and most agree that boys his age experience a testosterone surge, all those hormones enhancing an interest in wrestling, fighting, and the tools we use to do so. The trick, they say, is to channel those aggressive urges into harmless imaginative play. Some parents recommend sports. Some steer their kids toward crafting their own bows-and-arrows, wooden swords, or toy catapults.
But I wonder, is encouraging him to play with a sword any better than a toy gun? Is it the tool that is the problem, or the acceptance of violence as part of our culture? I definitely want to deglamorize the power that seems inherent with the gun--the power so many turn to when they feel most powerless. For now, a plastic sword seems to quell his interest in a plastic pistol while giving him a sense of power over his (imagined) enemies. I continue to struggle, however, with how to teach my son to harness his violent impulses, to express them without hurting others. As a parent, as a concerned citizen of an increasingly violent city, how do I teach my child to strive for peace despite our city's--our country's--culture of violence?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Lisa Kern
Mary Wollstonecraft
Jon Henner
Redstocking Grandma
Marco Acevedo
Jodi Kasten
Salon.com
Comments
2. I think you're doing just fine right now. Emery's a really good, mellow little kid.
3. As long as Emery knows it's all just pretend, and that when he's REALLY in an argument with someone, he needs to "use his words" instead, I don't see any problem with him pretending to vanquish and smite his enemies with weapons of whatever sort.
4. Check out Jon Henner's piece on "The Society for Creative Anachronism."
http://open.salon.com/blog/jon_henner/2009/03/28/high_stickin
My first gun purchase was at the age of 10 (a 22 rifle) I love the history, the mechanics and skill needed to shoot well. Although I do not hunt as much now, I still love shooting. My wife loves the sport and so does my son. We taught both my son and daughter how to shoot, gun safety, but more important we taught them respect for their fellow humans and that violence is not the answer to problems.
From my personal experience those who have never understood the actual power and responsibility of what a gun will do tend to not respect the idea that a gun can kill someone. Those are the people I try and persuade not to purchase a gun. Even growing up in the 60s, we played army, and cops and robbers, but we understood the difference between play and real life, because many of us had shot real guns and it was drilled into us that real guns kill.
Guns are a hunk of metal and wood. They do not think, they do not feel, they do not make moral judgements anymore than a knife does. Yes, they are a weapon and the preferred method of violence against the innocent. But, there are two kinds of gun violence one directed towards the innocent (aggression) and one directed towards the aggressor (defence) which is 5 times more likely to happen than being used for aggression. What makes a gun the perfect offensive weapon also is the reason it makes it the perfect defense weapon.
Boys tend to be physically aggressive, but most parents channel this into useful endeavors. Most boys learn that hitting gets them hit and combined with learning respect do not grow up to be bullies. If a child is taught to respect life, respect others, and to value the idea that each has a right to be here, most times, that child will grow up non violent and law abiding with or without a gun.
In my 40+ years of being around people who shoot there has not been one incident of anyone I know using their gun in a crime, anger or even for self defense. Maybe it is because those that shoot know it is real and tend to not play around with guns or even joke about shooting someone.
Our culture is most likely not any more violent than anyone else and far less than most. A lot has to do with the media creating a sense of fear, but if you think about it, the majority of people in this country live without violence. Since grade school I have never been assaulted, never needed a gun to protect myself, or considered using a gun on someone. I don't think I am unique because none of my adult friends have never been attacked either.
Also, no judgement directed towards you in any way, but we as a culture seem to infer personal responsibility to objects not people. You say you gave your son a sword for fear a gun would teach violence, but a sword is a weapon. That does not mean your son will become any more violence playing with a sword than playing with a toy gun. And to answer your question, yes teach your son to strive for peace, but don't blame it on the culture because each one of use is responsible for our own actions. We teach our children to love and respect in our everyday living and by example. If guns and swords were magically gone tomorrow, there would still be violence because some have never been taught to respect others. And frankly some are just mean and self centered from the start and will prey on others even if it is with a rock.
I think swords seem more palatable because you don't see anybody walking around with them in real life--they belong more securely to the realm of pretend. But it seems a strange decision to have to make.
M Todd--I agree with you about personal responsibility and gun safety, teaching our kids to respect themselves and others. I, too, come from a family of hunters; my brothers took gun safety classes when they were 11 years old.
Here in New Orleans, however, there seem to be an abundance of guns and a paucity of respect for life. Simple arguments become bloodbaths; a mugging becomes a death. I do know several people who have been killed, and others terrorized, who might not have been if their assailants didn't have a gun. Wounded, maybe, but not killed. And having their own guns wouldn't have helped.
That's why I wonder whether eliminating guns from our city would stop some of the deaths here. Making them illegal doesn't work. Our police force and city officials can't seem to stop the gun battles, the injuries and deaths of bystanders and innocents. So maybe we need a more drastic approach down here. I love Chris Rock's idea: make bullets cost $1000 each.
I don't have the answers; I'm interested in dialogue. And I feel like I'm beginning a battle in my own home, with my son against the cultural message that guns equal glamour and power and are an easy solution to problems. It's ongoing, this struggle between personal responsibility and concern about the violence in my city (which is real, not a media construction; I've noticed it in my own neighborhood).
Thanks, y'all, for furthering the discussion!
States with concealed carry laws have seen a drop in violent crime. Simple criminals look for the weak, if they feel someone is armed they will seek out other victims. When many of these laws were created there was a prediction of blood baths and ensuing apocalypse with private citizens being armed. It just has not happened and the opposite is true.
What is true the cities that have the most stringent gun restrictions have the highest crime rates and the highest deaths by gun violence. Criminals do not purchase guns legally, they do not care if there are thousands of laws against having and using guns, they are criminals.
They will not disarm and the majority of gun restriction laws do not address this fact. We have gun control now, but the only ones following the laws are law abiding citizens and they are not the problem.
New Orleans has its problems. The economy has been devastated which adds to crime and violence. Gangs are also a rising problem in major cities. Gangs are organized criminal enterprises and their main source of revenue is selling drugs. Since the war on drugs the increase of violence has gone hand in hand in the same way prohibition in the 20s gave organized crime its cash cow.
The vast, vast majority of murder victims here (over 90%) have extensive criminal records themselves. Nearly all of the guns used in crimes here are stolen or otherwise unregistered.
While I'm in agreement with you and Ginny that guns, in and of themselves, don't kill people, I think it's easier, both technically and psychologically, to kill someone with a gun than a knife or sword or big ol' rock. There's a de-personalization aspect there--you don't actually stab or club the person, you can be standing a good distance away and pull the trigger. The bullet does the dirty work for you.
(And, of course, with knives and clubs and what have you, there's very few to none innocent bystanders.)
As to whether having your own gun would help in a mugging...well, that depends on the individual situation. I was accosted once at gunpoint, just walking home from work, through one of the priciest neighborhoods in the city, at dusk. The would-be mugger pulled a gun and told me to give him my purse. I told him no.
Now, part of this is that I had already dealt with people's bullshit all day and didn't want to deal with anymore, part of this was that I realized he'd never actually fired this particular gun before (it was an old revolver, which he was holding sideways gangsta-style...I've fired an old revolver before, and I know what the kickback on those babies are like---you do NOT hold the gun sideways unless you want to punch yourself in the chest) and was not actually prepared to fire it, and part of it was that Leeandra is just a wee bit crazy.
We went back and forth a few times on this...him asking for my purse and me calmly telling him no, until I finally said, "Look, I have all of two dollars in my purse, and if you want it, I'll give it to you, but put the gun away." Which he did, then babbled something about how he was "just trying to play a joke on a friend," and ran off. Nobody got hurt, and I kept my purse.
The whole time, what was going through my brain was that this was one scared kid (you could see it in his eyes) who didn't know what the hell he was doing, and that I had to keep him from panicking and shooting me. If I had pulled a weapon on HIM in return, this may have freaked him out into firing. (He may or may not have believed I was an undercover cop or carrying a weapon myself and wasn't just an ordinary Quarter resident in a damn-the-torpedos sort of mood.)
But this is in no way meant to be an all-encompassing "how-to" for dealing with a robbery...it's just that in this particular instance, I don't think me brandishing a weapon would have helped matters, and could very well have gotten me killed.
The world would be a better place if there was no need for guns. But, if guns were gone it would not end violence. You brought up a good point, guns are easy to use compared to a knife or rock. But, the other side of the coin is a gun limits or equalizes the difference between the strong and the weak. For example a 200 pound man has a distinct advantage over a 125 pound women. In order for the women to close the gap she would have to take weight training, defense training like Karate or boxing which may close the gap but not completely. She could arm herself with a bat or knife, but still the advantage is the larger and stronger man. Now if a woman has a gun, she is now superior to her attacker regardless of his size, strength or fighting skills. Even a knife or bat does not give him an advantage. If he has a gun then the field is level or near level depending arms training. I am not so worried about myself, I am 240 and 6' 2" most criminals would not pick me out of a crowd as a first choice to attack. But, my wife is not and neither is my daughter and both know how to use a gun. Actually my wife is very good with a gun, we shoot together and love the sport.
What makes a gun the perfect offensive weapon also makes it the perfect defensive weapon. My wife and I both have conceal weapons permits. We took the training to qualify and also participated in IDPA training. The emphases is on defense not offense. I would say our training is beyond the average criminal and probably a lot of policemen who only qualify once a year.
If someone pointed a gun at me (it has never happened) drawing a gun in return would not be my first option. For me it would be a last resort, but it is an option that I believe law abiding and innocent people should have because unless there is a major shift in attitudes criminals will still have guns.
I'm sorry, but that's just not the kind of life I want to lead.
A block from my apartment, a bartender was shot and killed by three teenage boys in a robbery gone wrong. Unlike me, she cooperated with them and didn't resist, but one of the boys panicked and shot her anyway, then they all ran away without the money. She was a street-smart 39-year-old who was doing nothing more than walking to her car WITH AN ESCORT at the end of her shift.
My boss has several guns and a concealed carry permit. He carries a Glock with him most of the time when he's out in the Quarter. Of course, if I were out in New Orleans at 2 am with a $6,000 camera (he's a photographer) I would want to be packing visible heat too, just as a deterrent.
I have no problems with law-abiding people being allowed to have and carry guns, even handguns. I have considered it myself, given that I work alone in a business and walk home, sometimes after dark. I came to the determination that right now, it wouldn't improve either my actual safety or my perception of it, but I would not look down on anyone else who came to a different conclusion.
I lived for a time in England, where people DO have weapons for hunting, target practice, etc., but it's extremely rare for the ordinary petty criminals to have guns. Somehow, though, ordinary English people don't live either under tyrannical rule by their government OR in fear of some punk shooting them on the streets of London over some stupid foolishness. It's not that I want British gun control laws here, it's that I think a lot of the arguments made AGAINST gun control laws (we're going to be taken over by the government and/or the criminal element if we're not armed to the teeth for our own protection) are bunk.
I've been there, I've lived there, and other than the right to go buy a semi-automatic weapon just for the hell of it, there aren't a lot of day-to-day differences in the freedoms enjoyed by ordinary Americans and ordinary Brits.
Those that see no middle ground with guns. I think most people want gun control, we have it now to some extent. But, what most mean when they say gun control is gun elimination. The constitution inserted the right to arms for two reasons. One for protection and one to keep the government in check. As crazy as that seems, the founder of this country knew all to well what happens when authorities have all the weapons.
England is without its problems. Although they have less gun violence they have much more control over the population. They also have an increasing level of violence and home break-ins and assaults of home owners because there is no fear of being confronted with a gun.
We are one of the freest societies in the world. Not that we are the only democracy, but we do allow our citizens to move freely without government interference and restriction. That freedom can also have it's negative because criminals can do the same.
What needs to be done is a basic restoring of respect for each other and a respect for life. That is hard to do considering one of the top video games is based on driving over people in gun filled cars. It starts at home.
I just get tired of people (not you) who make every country with more restrictive gun control laws than the U.S. out to be a tyrannical dictatorship. Some of those countries obviously are, but many, many of them are not...and the people living there are living lives and enjoying freedoms that are comparable to those enjoyed by Americans.
I don't want elimination of the second amendment. But I DO want mandatory background checks, mandatory and enforced licensing and registration, and mandatory marksmanship training and/or qualification tests for various types of weapons. We do this with automobiles--I'm legally allowed to drive, but not without wearing my glasses, not as a chauffer, not an 18-wheeler, and not a motorcycle. I had to take classes and pass a test to get this license. And if I owned a car (I currently don't), I would have to register it, insure it, and take it in yearly to have the brakes inspected.
These restrictions, while occasionally annoying, seem pretty commonsense to me--a vehicle is a big, hulking piece of metal that, if improperly used or maintained, can easily kill someone, and it's in society's best interest to see that those who legally own and drive them know what they're doing, and that those without proper training and qualifications can be arrested for doing so.
How much more so on a gun, whose very purpose IS to kill things?
You are preaching to the choir. We do have mandatory background checks. In our state guns will be denied for recent domestic violence investigations even without a conviction and requires additional legal appeals before a gun will be legally sold.
I believe in a strong 2nd amendment, but do not find it infringing or weakening the 2nd amendment to require training as part of the right to own a firearm. Rights are not without responsibilities.
If I was in-charge (something some would consider a reason to arm) I would require classes in gun safety, the laws pertaining to when a gun could be used, if there are children in the home additional child proof security would be required, weapons handling and shoot proficiency classes would be mandatory.
That is not to say everyone would have to be SWAT ready, but they would know how to load, unload, store, safe handling and shoot with reasonable accuracy. And they would also have to log in a required amount (I Would say 5 one hour classes min.) of range shooting time with an certified instructor. This would apply to first time gun owners who would be issued a license to own a gun. If they wished to carry there would be additional training involved such as IDPA.
Some believe the 2nd amendment right means anyone without a record can go in purchase a deadly weapon, ask the clerk to show them how to load it and walk out the door. That is irresponsible. Also, a three day waiting period for first time purchases is prudent and would help to cut down on impulse purchases. It would not be perfect, but it would cut down on accidental shootings and those who purchase guns for attempting suicide or because they are angry at someone.
I have had family members and friends who asked me to go help them purchase a gun, I tell them flat out unless you are going to commit to training then buy a dog because I want no part of it.