When I tried to sell my book Gun Curious to New York-based book editors at large publishing houses, I said there were three audiences for my book:
Gun enthusiasts will be a natural audience for Gun Curious because it tells their story fairly and factually. But firearms skeptics will also want to read this book to understand better the motivations of those who cling so fervently to their guns. And interested outsiders—the broad and deep middle, including the gun curious—will appreciate how the book richly describes an unfamiliar but intriguing social world.
These book editors — and other liberal cultural elite gatekeepers like those at the WaPo, NYTBR, Atlantic, and New Yorker — are definitely among the firearms skeptics I had in mind as an audience for my book.
What I miscalculated was the lack of desire of firearms skeptics to understand gun owners and gun culture on its own terms.
— Prof. David Yamane in Limited Vision, Limited Interest in Understanding American Gun Culture
10 Responses
“What I miscalculated was the lack of desire of firearms skeptics to understand gun owners and gun culture on its own terms.”
Don’t feel bad, its not your fault. Their lack of desire is self-generated – they want the control and that’s their agenda. If they were to acknowledge the truth that they don’t understand the subject matter actually by being willing to accept, using your words (but its more), understanding “gun owners and gun culture on its own terms” their whole narrative for their desired control begins to fall apart. So their “lack of desire” is simply part of their agenda.
They don’t want to understand anything about their opposition because they don’t care. Coexisting was always a lie. They only care about dominating. That isn’t a theory. Look at the past few years.
The prevailing attitude among the anti gun cadre is:
“My mind’s made up. Don’t confuse me with facts.”
LKB, perchance are you planning any comments or analysis on the three petitions of cert. to the High court, as outlined in this video? :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BduZtUbikI
The petitions in question being “Barnett v. Raoul”, “Harrel v. Raoul”, and “Bevis v. City of Naperville”…
Right now, except *maybe* for the Hawaii case (which ought to be summarily reversed on the 2A issue), I think SCOTUS is going to hold all 2A cert petitions until after they decide Rahimi.
I had hoped that they would grant cert in Range, have it briefed and argued, and then hold the decision in Rahimi until after announcing the Range decision. They could then either remand Rahimi for rehearing in light of the new Range standard for convictions, or just DIG it (cert petition Dismissed as Improvidently Granted). But Range keeps getting relisted, and it’s now too late in the term for them to grant cert on it and have it argued before Rahimi is likely to come out. So we have to wait on Rahimi (and see if ACB continues her apparent conversion into a Beltway denizen).
Correction: I should have said Rahimi and Cargill (which will be argued later this month).
While Cargill is more of an APA case, it will have overtures that will drive the various AWB cases.
But I think Rahimi is going to be the main driver. If ACB and Roberts wimp out, Bruen could well be reduced to a shell.
The left simply does not care. Their lack of caring is evident in their rhetoric and actions. They speak often of “common sense” all the while refusing to accept the “common sense” enshrined in the Constitution.
People are afraid of things they don’t understand. Once a gun control advocate gets a chance to shoot on the range with a thoughtful person it plants a seed of doubt in their mind. This seed grows quietly over time and that thing they feared is less scary. They release their grip a bit. So reach across the aisle in a non-hysterical manner. It isn’t their fault they didn’t learn or get a chance. Be compassionate and take them shooting.
That only works with those who have an open mind. Most “gun control advocates” don’t.