So, about this dustup yesterday, well, I found it enlightening. I’ve decided that when it comes to the gun issue, there are three kinds of people (yes, I’m being a little simplistic–so be it): Gunners, Nongunners and Ungunners.

Top-of-my-head definitions as follows:

Gunners — People who own guns, they like guns and so forth. Basically, “gun people” in general.

Nongunners — People who don’t own guns, or if they do, they own just one, like a shotgun or something, for use only on a Very Special Occasion, such as when Mr. Bad Guy decides to rummage around their living rooms for treasures. When pressed, these people are (usually) fairly sympathetic to an individual’s right to bear arms, but it’s not an issue that typically animates them.

Ungunners — People who wet their pants at the thought of guns generally. (But, see my UPDATE below.)

Myself, I’m a Nongunner. While I have been on a shooting range once or twice, I didn’t grow up around guns and, just as a for-instance, I have never in my life hunted for anything, preferring to stalk my prey in the meat aisle at Publix (and, while we’re at it, I have also been fishing, but it didn’t do much for me). Now, I don’t have anything against hunting, it’s just not my bag. Given a choice of outdoor activities, say, between shooting deer in the forest or running a marathon, I’ll pick the marathon. But, hey, that’s just me. And I hereby promise that on the off-chance I ever run for office in the future, I will never–never–pretend to be a big hunter when I am not. I hate when politicians do that. Real hunters, it seems to me, can smell a nonhunter a mile away. So, why bother?

Same goes for Gunners, methinks. They know each other too. And, just like any subculture, they get each other. Whereas Nongunners like me sometimes miss the boat.

Example: I didn’t understand what the value was in publishing that database yesterday, and I thought it was unnecessarily intrusive, but I didn’t see the same kind of threat some Gunners did. Uncle, for instance, pointed out that the list basically gave crooks a list of potential targets for gun theft. Odd, because I saw it exactly the opposite way: here’s a list of people I wouldn’t mess with if I were a crook.

But that’s because I’m a Nongunner. It wouldn’t occur to me to think of a law abiding citizen’s gun as something of potential value to a criminal because I just don’t think in those terms. Gunners do think in those terms, and, after considering it from their perspective, I can definitely see their point.

This is why, I think, Gunners tend to be cool to Nongunners (at least, in my experience). We’re likely to give their position a fair hearing, even if we aren’t part of the club. I believe that also why Gunners tend to be so successful politically–they understand the value of winning over the soft middle, unlike Ungunners, who never seem to get off of square one, so obsessed as they are guns by themselves, as opposed to the people using those guns in unlawful ways. Most Nongunners get that guns will always play a part in our society and they understand that the best way to deal with this reality is to make damned sure the playing field is always tilted well in favor of the law-abiding folks. Which ultimately means, like it or not, more guns in the world. And that’s why Ungunners will continue to be left out in the political cold.

UPDATE: Upon further consideration, I want expand my definition of “Ungunners,” above. Certainly all people who wet their pants at even the thought of guns are Ungunners, but not all Ungunners are people who wet their pants at the thought of guns. “Ungunners” also include people who just don’t “get it” when it comes to guns and the gun culture in America, and are inclined to be suspicious of all of it, even if they don’t freak out about it. This writer is a perfect example. (By the way, could someone please tell me why she still has a column at The Tennessean? I mean, read that last paragraph, for instance. How in the world is that sort of thing suitable for a major newspaper?)

Share This