.jpg)
I saw this odd little collection of portraits when it came across the desk recently. Not surprisingly, its arresting cover stuck in my mind. In a sense, it's an ingenious idea: take a massively decisive issue and actually go into people's houses and talk to them. Photographer Kyle Cassidy did just that for Armed America: Portraits of Gun Owners in Their Homes. In addition to the portraits, Cassidy includes each gun owner's answer to the question, 'Why do you own a gun?'
I have to admit, I'm conflicted about the whole gun control issue. On the one hand, I can understand people's appreciation of guns for recreation--I have, and still do, go target shooting on occassion. But I've also seen the damage these same firearms can do when in the hands of even the most careful marksman. Cassidy, to his credit, does a pretty good job of portraying people neutrally (and as an aside, I loved the humorous touch of including the family pets in the family portraits). There are plenty of people here who own guns for the pleasures that hunting and target practice bring to them. There are some surprising gun owners (a chef who wanted to shoot a wild turkey to get a sense of where food really comes from, the artist who needed a shotgun for a bronze casting, the collector with his 12 lb cannon) and some that make a lot of sense (law enforcement officers, fomer military and engineers of all sorts intrigued by a gun's mechanics). But when I read phrases like 'since the bad guys had guns, I should have one, too' or 'I refuse to become prey,' I can't help but wonder how much gun proliferation has turned into a circular argument: since most everyone can have a gun, I should have one too to protect myself from all those people with guns.
The argument has often been made that many nations (especially in Europe) with stringent gun laws have nowhere near as many instances of accidental shootings or the type of rampages that occurred at Virginia Tech or the Omaha mall. On the other hand, the lawlessness following Hurricane Katrina is cited repeatedly as an example of government breaking down, and citizens needing to defend themselves. Perhaps. With the right to bear arms so deeply entrenched in culture (and the Constitution), it's hard to see where (or if) the line should be drawn. As Cassidy's portraits demonstrate, the distinction between who own a gun and why is nowhere near black and white.
.jpg)
2 comments:
Hello, and thanks for this review. I'm one of the folks in the book. I've seen a lot of reviews of it since it came out, many of them by people who just seem to want to point and say "Look at all the crazy people!" or "Look at all the phallus worshippers with their toys out!". You've done a fine job of not calling us crazy, thank you.
As for the circular nature of the argument for defensive firearms, I think you've missed it just barely. I don't keep my defensive guns (as opposed to competition guns, and hunting guns, and historical guns) because "most everyone can have a gun". "Most everyone" doesn't frighten or concern me at all. I assume everyone I meet is as honest and safe to be around as I am until proven otherwise. The ones to be concerned about can't legally own a gun, and may not as it often turns out, but even in the relatively safe town where I live we had a serial rapist a few years back, home invasions happen, carjackings, street muggings...there's no need to go on. While it's certainly true that no item of property is worth killing (or dying) for in the minds of most of us, there are unfortunately too many of those who believe otherwise to go out in the world defenseless.
I'm glad that you liked the review. I'm not going to get into a discussion about whether guns are necessary for personal defense, or what sort of gun control (if any) could keep weapons out of the hands of those who can't or shouldn't have them--that is not the purpose of this blog. I do agree with you, however, that making blanket statements about any group does little to foster a conversation about a potentially polarizing issue like guns. Cassidy's book is a step forward in moving the argument from the talk shows and radio programs and into people's living rooms, where it can be discussed (one hopes) in a more rational manner.
Post a Comment