It was heavy and cold. It reminded me of the metal cast I made in my 8th grade industrial arts class. The only other time I touched a gun was 15 years before when my wealthy boyfriend in Minnesota showed me his father’s firearm — the one he used when they went duck hunting in the Boundary Waters each year.
The National Rifle Association volunteer instructor didn’t know what I meant when I said I had no experience with guns. It felt like at any moment it was going to explode and blow my hands to bloody pieces.
I asked, “How should I hold it?”
He said, “It’s common sense. Just point it in a safe direction.”
“What is safe?” I asked.
“Well, don’t point it at anyone,” he laughed.
So, I held it pointing up toward the ceiling.
“Oh, no. Don’t do that!” he said quickly and moved my hands so it was pointing down toward the ground at a slight angle.
Everyone I talked to at the Women on Target instructional shooting clinic at the North Berwick Rod & Gun Club in the fall of 2010 said they felt gun safety was common sense. It was all new to me. Most of them had grown up around firearms. They talked about using them “for protection.” While a few of the women were there to learn to shoot, they had all held guns before, and most were there improving their skills.
For those of us who grew up with limited or no access to firearms, they are frightening instruments of destruction. After the horrors in Newtown, and when any news of gun violence feels close and personal, it seems natural to some of us to immediately insist we institute strict controls on the purchase and sale of guns. We can’t understand how anyone would disagree.
Before we can even have productive discussions about “gun control,” we need to speak the same language. For many people in the United States — about one-third of Americans own guns, according to General Social Survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago — learning gun safety is just a part of growing up. There aren’t checklists and tests, but there is a lot of common sense shared day in and day out. They are taught from the beginning that guns are for protection or for sustenance or for both. They are sophisticated tools, each having their own purpose. They aren’t scary.
When we who consider guns as dangerous weapons talk about them, we tend to ignore the reality of many Americans who feel safer when they think of guns. I’m not suggesting we all need to start feeling safe because of guns, but if we want to have effective conversations about the role of firearms in our country, we need to understand the different realities.
Addressing our fear of guns will be useful, too. When murders happen so close to our lives that we can’t ignore them, it seems like gun death is very, very common. An immediate threat. However, according to the National Center for Health Statistics more people die each year from poisoning than they do from firearms deaths. After poison comes death by car wrecks. Firearms deaths are third. Of course, that’s too many people dead. But it’s not as dire as recent tragedies can make it seem.
But, the children. We want to keep our children safe. Well, did you know that according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the No. 1 cause of death for children are injuries, such as car wrecks, suffocation, drowning, poisoning, fires and falls? One child dies every hour from injury. Firearms fatalities don’t even make the list of common causes.
Despite the understandably urgent desire to find clear answers, we don’t yet know how to address firearms safety. I lean toward the idea posited by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Hemenway, author of “Private Guns, Public Health,” suggests creating a National Firearm Safety Administration, just as 40 years ago we created the National Highway Traffic Administration. This makes sense to me as the NHTA allowed data collection, so we could know which policies worked to reduce traffic injuries. This time we could do it for guns. Again, there are no easy answers.
We all want to be safe. No one wants any more children to die. We want to end gun violence, of course. However, the answer isn’t as simple as “getting rid of all the guns,” or even as simple as stricter controls on the purchase and sale of guns. Firearms safety — or “gun control” — can only be addressed effectively when we understand the meaning behind the metaphor of “gun.” When we understand what “gun” means to us, we will be able to have productive conversations that might lead to answers. We who essentially fear guns, for whom guns appear more dangerous than useful, must acknowledge that for many Americans, the true and deep metaphorical meaning of “gun” is safety.
Heather Denkmire is a writer and artist who lives in Portland.



“Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense; and this right shall never be questioned.” – Maine State Constitution (1819)
The words “for the common defense” were removed some years ago (in large part due to the work of John Martin). Section 16 of Article I of the Maine Constitution now reads:
” Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”
Yeah that’s the answer! Everyone should be packin iron! I would feel so much safer…
I will give you a good analogy. If you now board a crowded airplane, do you feel 100 percent safe that no one will try something stupid on the airplane? Now, can you just imagine if during the ticketing process, the gate agent issued a “Louisville Slugger” to every adult passenger? Ya think anyone would try anything stupid? Just sayin’.
and that’s in itself is a problem, I don’t feel threatened when I go to the store, or the post office, or a school or an airplane. Now if everone was packin, even a Louisville, you are assuming that everyone is of a like mind as your self… now what if the group is split and violence breaks out that violence will now be much more deadly… just sayin… Do you really want everyone to carry a gun, you feel that would minimize gun violence? really?
As long as a person hasn’t committed a crime that prohibits them from having and carrying a gun, no I don’t have a problem with it. Another analogy. 2 different communities in close proximity. One community has few if any gun owners, the other has a very high percentage of gun owners. Which community do you suppose would have the higher percentage of home invasions or breakins?
no one has every once suggested “every single person should be carrying a concealed weapon”
The reasonable and rational voice I hear most often from the community concerns the idea of “obligation to carry”. If you have military or police training, or if you are a skilled recreational/competition shooter you have a duty to carry and protect yourself and innocents. If a person of sound mind and level temper and said individual possesses the skills and capacity to use a firearm in a lethal force situation then yes let them carry.
My CCW lapsed a few months ago and I had moved and not changed over my ID yet and with the business of my work it took me several months to get everything switched over and renew my CCW. I am still waiting on the new card. I don’t feel unsafe, paranoid, threatened. I know the probability of a situation arising that would require lethal force is so minimal that I probably will never encounter it armed or unarmed. If something were to arise and I was unarmed I would do my best to escape or deescalate the situation, however, I prefer to always have as many options available to me as possible. If something were to happen and innocent people, friends or family were harmed in a situation I could have ended or impacted with my skills I would feel some level of responsibility. It is the same idea as good Samaritan laws those can help must.
You got 100 chances that some one would.
So if I build a battleship in my yard that shoots Volkswagon size shells 20 miles there will be no questions?
No, someone will stop you from having explosives, which simply sitting in your backyard, are a risk to your neighbors. And if you manage to fire your 16″ guns, you will be arrested for recklessly firing them…just as if you fired a pistol indiscriminately.
It would be great if we had more research on gun safety. However, the gun lobby has defunded this as much as possible, for its own political reasons. See http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/
Well, the gun lobby hasn’t defunded it…the members of Congress who have are beholden to their money have. My gripe is with them.
“Metaphorical meaning” be blowed: people with guns are safer. If you want the true meaning of guns, it’s that small elderly women aren’t at the mercy of large young men with rocks.
Over-intellectualizing is bad enough, but breathy over-intellectualizing is ludicrous.
If you dont know how use a firearm safely, responsibly and effectively, then you need to educate yourself! Fear of the unknown is just an excuse/agenda!
Yes,self-defense is the main reason for weapon ownership today. Sadly though, in the world today vileness, 1/2 truths, misinformation, out right lies and cover ups of facts has become the norm. We also have a problem with those who want to control our lives by unjust laws. America lost it’s way when those controlling our schools and Gov’t took right & wrong out and replaced it with “it’s all relative” Not every person can win in life. This leads us to the problem. When some realize they can not have what others have, they become angry, which leads to hate, hate to violence. Even worse are those who use this anger to further their agenda. Think of how much vile hate mongering feeds our elections, they don’t win on issues but by the hate pundits use..Some in america have no sense of right & wrong or for that matter care. When college professors and media fuel this hatred and promote discourse in life, those with no sense of right and wrong strike out in violence. Sadly sometimes with guns. It is time for a common sense discussion about the lost values and morals fueling the violence, not the tool used in releasing the rage and anger being breed by the few.
It’s also time to reel in the mutation of the “tool”.
Thanks for proving my point of the non stop hate mongering of progressives. “common sense” discussion does not mean anger driven comments. Guns are not the problem, angry people are.
Spot on !
I would only add that the other danger is those who like to neatly label everything under a ‘mental illness’. Mental illness like Physical illness covers a wide rage of issues below it.
And the dishonesty plays from both sides. The ‘pimps’ are working the masses to promote the agenda.
And having said that if we look what our University system has produce over the last 50 years, one failed social experiment after another.
Between the learner and the Catholic church we have mental illness roaming the streets and poverty at at all time high. One group opens the door to lunacy while the other says don’t get an abortion bring some more children into your world of poverty.
One group creates the drug epidemic while the other try’s to save your conscience.
One group spreads the freedom of STD’s while the other delivers even more poverty from other nations.
Thanks, but no thanks. (I’ll keep my gun)
Importantly, there’s a provision for intense data collection within Australia’s gun control measures, passed in 1996 and studied here. http://jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Australia-Gun-Law-Reforms.pdf Of course, those reforms also included the banning of semi-automatic weapons. It appears that the combination of all these reforms was quite effective.
Two people were wounded late Sunday when gunfire erupted at a local
movie theater, sending panicked moviegoers rushing to exits and ducking
for cover, police and witnesses said.
A lone suspect was in custody after being wounded by an unidentified
law enforcement officer, a Bexar County Sheriff’s Office spokesman said.
Conditions of the two people wounded were not immediately released,
nor was it disclosed where they were when they were wounded, or the type
of gun that was used.
Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php#ixzz2FRtTzXHb
(Excerpt of story text)
After the suspect reached the theater, an off duty Bexar County
Sheriff officer who was working at the theater shot at him and possibly
struck him, Antu said.
“She took all appropriate action to keep everyone safe in the movie theater,” Antu said.
Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php#ixzz2FRvhJaH2
In this instance the off duty cop would be the same as any CCW citizen who is properly educated in the use of firearms. In this instance the officer is Female. I can’t help but wonder if the school principal had been armed and educated in the use of firearms how differently the atrocity in Connecticut would have been.
Keeping a gun in a school is problematic. You have to keep it secured so there are no accidents and no theft. But if you do so, you probably can’t access it quickly enough if there is a gunman bent on killing as many people as quickly as possible. Moreover, if the teacher or principal is not highly trained, it’s unlikely he or she will be able to operate like someone who is well-trained. Finally, who is going to pay for the weapon and ammunition and fund the initial and on-going training for someone is not a public safety officer?
US airline pilots are able to take special training (at their own expense) and become certified to carry a weapon on the commercial aircraft they fly. I’d bet some teachers would be willing to do this to so they could protect their kids if needed.
Most teachers I know develop a rapport with their students. As with the principal at this school, I will bet that given the opportunity that many are already trained only prevented by law from carrying at work. Many more will be willing to learn. Get between a teacher and her kids or threaten her students would most likely be like getting between a wildcat and her kits. Not a pleasant thought for the one who contemplates this scenario.
Furthermore,. just because a teacher decides to carry does not mean that he or she will make it known to the students. It’s a “need to know” thing.
Just what we need, teachers with concealed pistols. Real life isn’t like it is in the movies, when the good guy pulls out his pistol and shoots dead the assailant between the eyes while the assailant holds a hostage at gunpoint. Pistols are nowhere near as accurate as rifles. It would be very rare for someone in a school to get an assailant armed with a rifle into a position to be shot with a pistol without risking the lives of others.
A gun for self-protection is worthless if you can’t shoot it safely. You still have to identify your target and what’s behind your target — and control your emotions and physiological responses to the environment and situation.
The Secret Service practices extensively. Teachers and other school officials aren’t going to be able to devote that much time to prepare for what is, quite frankly, an extremely rare situation. They’re teachers, not bodyguards.
considering the principle in Connecticut was willing to charge without anything in her hands, we should make sure tools are available if needed. weather it be tasers, baseball bats, or firearms with or without lethal rounds i’m sure that pricipal would have like to have anything to help. control of any defensive tool would take alot of planning, but when you consider armed gaurds or steel lockdown bunkers, it would be something that we can do sooner then later
You understand what I am posting better than some. It is not necessary to make mandatory that teachers carry firearms. It should be simple logic that those who work in school systems not be prevented from being able to defend themselves or their students should the need arise. Yes there are inherent difficulties to be overcome but the continuation of designated areas where the weakest among us are known to be defenseless to those who intend mayhem and atrocity is not acceptable nor are there any acceptable losses because the fantasy minded wish to believe that “it can’t happen here”..
unfortuatly, the media and the pol’s want anything but a rational deliberate conversation. We need to lead the effort and explain reasonable thought
Israeli teachers are armed with Galil rifles in the class room. They are select fire AK pattern rifles.
Though pistol cartridges are far underpowered compared to a rifle cartridge accuracy at ranged under 25 is nominal. A common 2″ barrel .380 pocket pistol can easily shoot 3″ groups at 15ft. Proper technique and muscle memory can be trained into a new shooter in 300-400 rounds. In the end though not ideal a pistol would be better than nothing at all they do have the added benefit of being easily concealed and retained on the carriers body.
as far as devoting time to training. Teachers have more time off than any other professional I know. 8 weeks typically in the summer months and a week every couple of months throughout the year. That is far more time than I get off and I am able to find range time at least every 3-4 weeks.
Maybe we should lock down all the schools so that the gunmen can’t get it.
And when your kid comes home injured you don’t ask why the teachers were not doing their required supervision? YEAH RIGHT!!!
Sorry but you’re implying that some kid in a rage or off the wall mad man is well trained. that is far from reality. If at the very time the Newtown shooter shot out the door for entry ANY armed person may have taken him down first, that is just fact. We have a sheriff in our HS who is unarmed. He could stop NO person from doing anything. Remember, as you disarm the law bidding citizens, you create victims of criminals and Gov’t that will go after those that can not defend themselves. History proves this time and time again.. Also we pay for alot of waste in schools, take from that waste and let the “trained” Sheriff in our school carry his firearm that we already paid for and trained him in using. Again simple common sense, not propaganda talking points.
Agreed
If such a scenario happens in any setting the gun stays on the person who is properly trained and shown to be proficient with said weapon thus avoiding any problematic storage and access……the public or those that support the entity where such a person wears and bears the responsibility should pay…..
what about police who walk into a school with a gun on their hip magazine loaded and a round in the chamber? how many of those guns have been used in school violence?
I will pay ammunition and help train any school offical willing to learn and carry. I am sure we can start community funds for affordable used firearms.
On body carry is the only way to keep a weapon for defense, google “hell box” if you want more info on the subject.
The real issue is not basic gun rights but rather the our ability to prevent specific people from gaining access to guns on the basis of criminal background or mental capacity. Mass killings are generally tied to the latter group. Background checks need to be made mandatory for all gun sales (including gun show and private sales) and the checks should be expanded to include signs of mental instability, such as incidences of domestic disturbance, road rage, drug or alcohol abuse, bullying, etc. Mandatory training in gun use for new owners could be a sensible new requirement. If nothing else, instructors might pick up on clues not readily apparent to the average seller.
“Mass killings are generally tied to the latter group. Background checks need to be made mandatory for all gun sales (including gun show and private sales) and the checks should be expanded to include signs of mental instability, such as incidences of domestic disturbance, road rage, drug or alcohol abuse, bullying, etc.”
First, people with a mental illness are NOT more likely than the rest of the population to commit violent acts.
Second, psychologists and psychiatrists CANNOT predict with reliable accuracy whether a particular person is going to be dangerous.
Third, one person’s bullying is another’s assertiveness. Quite frankly, it’s absurd to think it would even be remotely practical for the government to conduct background checks into whether someone “bullied” another in high school or whenever, or whether someone yelled out his car window at another driver. Under the Constitution’s due process clause, you cannot use a history of “bullying” or “etcetera” to deny a person the right to possess a gun.
Anyone arrested for domestic abuse, assault, road rage or OUI should be prevented from owning guns. The lawyers can sort out the constitutionality.
Not everyone who has been arrested is guilty, or even charged with committing a crime.
I believe education and understanding are the first steps that need to happen in this discussion. Those on either side that are unwilling to learn and understand should not be a part of it. Irrational fear and Knee jerk reactions will give us regulations that do not work
Love the title…”Inside the mind of a gun lover…” as if one is an oddity to be studied.
When I was in high school, I used to bring my father’s shotgun to school, right in through the front door, so I could hunt after school. I left the gun and my ammo in the principal’s office, then retrieved them when school was over for the day. This was in the early sixties. and was in that bastion of liberalism: Massachusetts. My, how times have changed; but not all for the better. But even then, people didn’t have this inbred fear of a hunk of metal and wood that so many do today, and most folks realized the gun is just an inanimate object. It is said: “Evil does not exist within a gun. It exists in the minds and hearts of those who would pull the trigger for evil purposes”. This the pure truth.
We are barking up the wrong tree in the crusade to ban guns. If guns, any or even all guns are banned, evil will find a way. We need to learn how we can keep guns, or any weapons, out of the hands of those who would harm us. All of these mass killings have one common denominator. They have all been carried out by angry mentally ill people who want to die, but want to make a name for themselves in the process. This is why they almost invariably commit suicide when authorities show up. We need to find ways to identify these people, and get them treatment in some effective form. This our real challenge.
Criminals prefer unarmed victims… And DICTATORS prefer unarmed citizens !
Honestly, this is a pretty weak article. Its not about firearm safety or even perception, its about the common good. If you own a gun and don’t know what you’re doing, on average, only you or your family gets hurt. However, if you do know what you’re doing and you’re an evil person our society sufferers People aren’t scared of guns because of its “metaphoric” meaning, but because in the hands of a madman they can kill 20 children in a few seconds. I might not be scared of a gun in your hands, but there is no way to make sure you and people like you are the only ones holding guns. Additionally, very poor use of statistics. Just because guns don’t kill as many people as cars doesn’t mean gun deaths aren’t a disproportionate problem. We need cars and use them constantly. They provide a substantial economic benefit that far outweighs the loss associated with car wrecks. We don’t need guns to be safe, we live in a nation of law and order. I understand that guns provide a great many people a substantial amount of joy, but that collective joy is dwarfed by the heartache that the families of those children are feeling. Or loss the families of the next massacre will feel. I respect guns and I enjoy guns, but i would trade my licence today for a nation free from these quarterly massacres.