The New York Times put it succinctly:
“The debate over what to do to reduce gun violence in America hit an absurd low point on Wednesday when a Senate witness tried to portray a proposed new ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines as some sort of sexist plot that would disproportionately hurt vulnerable women and their children. …
But there is a more fundamental problem with the idea that guns actually protect the hearth and home. Guns rarely get used that way. In the 1990s, a team headed by Arthur Kellermann of Emory University looked at all injuries involving guns kept in the home in Memphis, Seattle and Galveston, Tex. They found that these weapons were fired far more often in accidents, criminal assaults, homicides or suicide attempts than in self-defense. For every instance in which a gun in the home was shot in self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides, four accidental shootings, and 11 attempted or successful suicides.”
My husband and I happened to see the testimony the Times was referencing: in it, the young woman told a Senate committee considering the assault weapon ban a poignant story of a woman who had shot intruders and protected her children. One of the Senators on the committee happened to be familiar with the incident she cited, and pointed out that the weapon the woman had used was a shotgun that would still be available to her if the ban passed. The facts didn’t phase the woman offering the testimony, who continued to insist that any effort to limit gun availability would endanger innocent women and children.
Her entire performance reminded me of a religious believer reciting a ritual–impervious to data or evidence contradicting her deeply-held belief.
The analogy that springs to mind is the congregation of simple folks without much in the way of worldly goods who nevertheless continue to donate hard-earned money to pastors living the high life thanks to their credulity. In this case, the pastors are the gun manufacturers and the believers are the fanatic fringe of the NRA.
I know reasonable people who own guns. I know rural folks who hunt. I even know single women who have pistols they have purchased for self-protection. None of them use–or defend–assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and they aren’t the problem. The problem is the True Believers–the people who are emotionally invested in a theology of guns.
People of faith.
“Theology of guns.” Your closing paragraph said it all — reasonable people who own reasonable weapons (or not) for reasonable reasons compared to the vocal cultists, for whom reason seems to be a foreign concept.
Your comparison of the gun craziness to cult-like mindless worship saddens me greatly. Unfortunately, I cannot argue with it.
The “True Believers” are not true thinkers or truth seekers; their minds are set in super glue and their lack of understanding of the 2nd Amenement is monumental…along with their egos. The NRA is an organization, a powerful organization to be sure, but it is NOT a branch of government.
Assault rifles in the hands of soldiers do the job they were created to do, kill as many ‘enemies’ as possible in the least amount of time. In the hands of citizens, well, we’ve seen what they do.
That woman that testified is bat-sh*t crazy and she does not represent me.
Sheila, you’re absolutely right. Why can’t our legislators have your common sense?
To pick a small nit, the correct word would be “faze” in the sentence “The facts didn’t phase the woman….”.
Wow–I wasn’t paying attention. You are quite right.