Bushkill, Pa. — IT was midmorning, and the sun was over my shoulder. A breeze rustled the dead leaves still clinging to the oaks, just enough to cover the sound as I fox-footed my way through the undergrowth.
A few dozen yards ahead of me, the doe stopped midstride. Her muscles tightened, and she raised her head and scanned the forest. For an instant, I thought she had spotted me. She hadn’t. She moved on, a couple more yards.
We had been doing this for more than an hour, and now, one way or the other, it was about to come to an end. I pulled the hammer back on my 50-caliber flintlock, and circled above her until I found a place where I had a clear, open shot. I knelt down and drew a bead on her. I took a deep breath, and let it out slowly.
It had been, from a hunting perspective, a terrible season for me up to that point. Three times in the previous week, I had deer clearly in my sights and three times I had fired and missed. That was twice more than in any previous season since I had started hunting, and I had tried to figure out why. Maybe my luck was giving out at last, I thought. Or maybe, now that I’m closing in on 60, my eyesight was. Maybe it was the gun, a primitive weapon that lacks the technological capacity to compensate for my shortcomings.
Deep down I knew that none of those things could explain my dismal season.
And so, in an effort to clear my head, I’d sit down at my computer and scan the news. But that would knot my stomach more. Mass shootings, in Paris, Colorado and Southern California, shootings fueled by hate and fear, and boundless arrogance.
Sitting there, I’d feel my own bile rising at our cowardly refusal to consider any kind of steps that might limit access to rapid-fire weapons of mass overcompensation, to terrorists foreign and domestic. And I’d grieve over the peculiarly American tendency to argue that we need that firepower to protect ourselves against the imagined predation of some overweening government while we ignore the danger that is mowing us down right this minute in our streets, our churches and our clinics.
Illustration by Anthony Russo for The New York Times
And so to escape my rage, or at least suppress it, I’d grab my rifle and head back into the woods.
At last, after more than an hour, there we were, the doe and I. She was no more than 30 feet away. It would be a clean shot. An easy kill. My luck, at least, would change.
And then I eased the hammer down. I rested the flintlock against a tree, clapped my hands and sent the doe scurrying off into the woods.
I could have made that shot blindfolded. I knew the gun was true. But I was not.
It would be convenient to chalk up my decision not to shoot that doe as an act of mercy, or, if you’re so inclined, as a moment of weakness. It would be easy to imagine that in the wake of all the blood that has been spilled and in the din over what exactly gun rights are meant to be, that I lost my taste for the tang of gunpowder. I’ll confess that there were a few moments when I did consider hanging up my gun for good. But doing so would be a capitulation to those Second Amendment extremists in the upper echelons of the National Rifle Association and in Congress who have no clue what the real purpose of a gun is. I would be letting them define me and my weapon.
The simple fact was that I was too poisoned by bitterness to use my weapon honorably.
The anger and fear had robbed me of the one thing that every hunter who understands the awful responsibility that comes with taking a life desperately needs, the one thing that anyone who ever picks up a gun needs. Clarity of purpose.
Though we haven’t necessarily always interpreted it this way, Americans believe the Second Amendment guarantees our individual right to bear arms. That’s fine. I’ll bear mine. But I also retain the right not to pull the trigger unless I can do it with a clean conscience. I will, I’m certain, load my flintlock and go back into the woods. Maybe next time, I’ll take the doe. Maybe I won’t. But if I do, it will be because I found a way to understand my anger and my fear. In the meantime, I’ll be hunting for that understanding.
The New York Times
Dec. 20, 2015
I have been hunting since 11 yrs old. I have killed (and eaten) numerous deer. Growing up in Texas hunting was/is way of life. Hunting ducks, quail, and dove came with the seasons. My parents growing up during the depression in rural Louisiana hunted to supplement their diets. I quit hunting deer in the 70s but enjoy bird hunts. The abhorrence of men killing men in mindless shootings comes from the dark side of the human soul. Since Cain killed Abel it goes on. The gun control people have, in most part, never grew up with guns. For them the simple answer is take guns. Look at the countries who have done this. The rates of murder per capita or more the U S. I was Army during Vietnam and understand violence. Keeping my guns and other Americans is a right not to be taken.
No one is advocating taking your guns, or anyone’s. What I do advocate is first and foremost a return to a culture in this country that is worthy of the rights we have. I also advocate a return to the old *AWB, tightened, but with an exception. If you need one of those semi automatic people killers, and can prove the need, and are willing to go through the same rigorous process used in most states for a concealed carry permit, you can have one. The most critical thing we need to do first, however, is to wrest the conversation away from the extremists on both sides. That requires me respecting your right to pull a trigger and you respecting mine not to.
*AWB: Assault weapons ban, signed into law in the 90’s, with the support of, among others, former president Ronald Reagan, allowed to expire in the 2000’s. It was a flawed piece of legislation, but it was a start. And it could lay the groundwork for the kind of thing I’m proposing.
Ron, in answer to your statement that “Look at the countries who have done this. The rates of murder per capita or more the U S.”
You might want to look at the homicide rates in developed countries that have limited access to some firearms. I think you’ll find that you’re mistaken. But more to the point, I think you’re drawing an arbitrary distinction when it comes to people who support reasoned gun restrictions in this country.
I think you’ll find that many of them, certainly not all – but many – are people like me, who grew up with guns, use them, and are seeking balance.
Seamus, while I share your dismay at the senseless taking of life by people with guns, I cannot share your feelings about limiting rights as an effective way to reduce the death toll.
2/3rds of the gun deaths in the United States are suicides. Rifles (of any type) are generally not a factor in those deaths. The tool of choice for suicide by gun is the handgun, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that Americans have a right to keep a working handgun in their home for their own protection. That horse has left the barn and it’s not coming back. Suicide is a problem we have to work on from a social and mental health perspective, rather than a mechanical one.
After suicides, the next leading cause of firearms death are homicides, of which a very small portion of the annual deaths in the United States are committed with long guns of any type. For 2013, the FBI reported 285 homicides by rifle, out of 8,454 firearm homicides, or 3.3% of total firearm homicides, and less than 1% of total deaths by firearm. I am unaware of how many of those rifles used in those events would meet the definition of an “assault weapon” by the 1994 AWB standard, or any standard you care to propose, but it’s going to be significantly less. Probably dramatically less.
“Assault weapons” are not a big social problem, despite the popular handwringing now on full display.
Step back for a moment and recognize that you are advocating banning something that is popular with millions of people, already in circulation in the tens of millions, and yet in 2013 carries a mortality rate of 0.04 per 100,000 people. Americans are about 300 times more likely to be killed in a car wreck than murdered by someone with a rifle of any sort. There are many more lethal issues in our society that deserve our attention, soul searching and research funding.
Also, the violent crime rate in our country has been in steady decline, including deaths by firearm, and even more specifically, deaths by long guns, for several decades. All this as these firearms have proliferated.
I don’t want to minimize what you feel, but I can’t help but conclude your dismay is being fueled by politics and media more than reality. Otherwise, how do you explain feeling increasingly alarmed by a problem that is in statistical decline?
As a society, we have to weigh our rights and limits on those rights against the realities we face. That assessment should always be done with truth in mind.
Lastly, I want to address this statement: “And I’d grieve over the peculiarly American tendency to argue that we need that firepower to protect ourselves against the imagined predation of some overweening government…”
Our rights are constantly under assault by our government. Every year, the federal code grows with new laws. At some point, over some issue, there will be a straw that breaks the camel’s back. It could be over gun control. It could be 4th Amendment issues. It might be immigration. It could be anything that stirs the masses to say, “this is no longer a representative government.” It’s not like the founders didn’t warn us this was the inevitable end to nearly all governments. When that day comes, as it has so routinely in other places and times, hopefully, Americans will have the tools they need to effect change.
“A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box.” — Frederick Douglas
Hope you can get back into the woods without the heavy heart. My recommendation: Unplug from the media a bit. It’s an amplifier that will drown your soul in toxic noise.
Appreciate the kind thought, Rich. As to your argument, though, I made the same case, based on the same type of UCR stats, back in 1992 and 1993, and it turned out I was wrong. There was a measurable reduction in a certain type of gun violence as a result of the AWB. And I think since then, there’s been a shift in the culture as well, and there’s no denying that these weapons have been used repeatedly to mow down large numbers of people, the DC snipers, on down the line to San Bernadino. What I’m advocating however is a bit different than the old AWB. I want it tougher, to outlaw more semi automatic rifles and not just based on appearance. I’m also calling for greater safeguards to prevent modification. But I’m also calling for exemptions. If you can get a CCP, if you can prove a need, prove a level of competence, undergo a more thorough background check than is now required, and have the signature of your local sheriff or police chief, you can have one.
Seamus, thanks for the response to my comments.
When you write, “mow down large numbers of people,” are you referring to numbers like the 285 long gun deaths I referenced for 2013? When taken in isolation, it seems like a lot of lives. When placed in a context of 310,000,000 people, or a per 100,000 mortality rate, it’s not a lot of lives, relative to other mortality statistics. More Americans drown in their own bathtubs every year than are killed by long guns. Your proposed solution, even outside the context of the 2nd Amendment, becomes outsized relative to the problem at hand.
Also, we haven’t parsed that 285 (or any long gun deaths) number. My gut tells me the most frequently used weapon in that number will be a pump shotgun, something that would be virtually impossible to ban. You’d be battling not only the 2A crowd, but the entire hunting community, including the “more reasonable” NRA members.
The signature requirement of a local top LEO is also a huge problem: No citizen’s rights should be arbitrated by one individual. Police chiefs and sheriffs don’t have universal expertise in firearms and self-defense. Some are even relatively ignorant in such matters. We don’t give police chiefs the authority to decide who can exercise free speech or privacy from government. Why would we give them authority over gun rights?
Consider 2008 the Heller decision: After SCOTUS ruled on the case, the leaders of Washington, D.C. immediately began erecting a bureaucratic maze to deter citizens from exercising the very right SCOTUS had just affirmed, to the point where Heller was forced to sue again. While you might prefer the outcome from such efforts, I would hope you see that such intent can be abused in lots of different contexts.
Thanks again for the response.
Here’s where we disagree Ron. In the thirty years ending in 2012, there were 62 mass shootings in the US which claimed 118 lives and as you know, those have been increasing in frequency since the AWB lapsed. Maybe it’s just a coincidence, of course. But of those, half involved long guns or handguns with magazines in excess of 10 rounds which would be banned under the AWB. So I guess the question is which of those 59 lives is worth less than the inconvenience of having to go through the same procedure one would go through to get a CCP?
Seamus, if it ended there, I think a lot of folks could live with a more extensive check.
We both know it wouldn’t end there. Just as there are zealots on the gun rights side, there are zealots on the gun control side.
Example: Many gun control advocates gnash their teeth over the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005). The only reason that law exists is as an antedote for an attempted end-run around the 2nd Amendment, by a number of municipalities who tried to sue gun makers for criminal misuse of their products. The NRA and other gun lobbyists rallied Congress to give gun makers and gun dealers special legal protections that shouldn’t otherwise be needed. The very people who caused such a reaction, from ill-advised and morally questionable behavior (we don’t sue Ford when a drunk driver in a Taurus kills someone), cry foul over it.
Same thing illustrated with smart gun technology: The NJ law mandating the outlawing the sale of non-smart guns after the first smart gun went on sale effectively killed the ready and waiting free market for smart guns. Predictably so.
For everything you present as reasonable, gun rights advocates see as steps on a slippery slope, as demonstrated by the above examples.
Even if you outlawed high capacity magazines, how does that impact criminals? The San Bernadino shooters violated CA laws and prohibitions for:
1) Background checks (received via illegal transfer)
2) Detachable magazine modification (violated CA assault weapon ban)
3) High capacity magazines (prohibited in CA)
When it comes to controlling criminal behavior, these laws works about as well as drug laws.
America was awash in high powered, surplus military small arms in the 1950s and 1960s. Readily available without background checks. Readily available through the mail. We didn’t have mass shootings very often. Almost unheard of, with few very high profile exceptions. Beginning in 1968, we dramatically increased gun control, and did so again in the 1980s and 1990s, and the number of mass shooting incidents has climbed despite this.
Other factors are at work, and we need to figure out what they are. We have to find another way. I don’t know what it is, but it’s got to be something we haven’t considered.
Well, again, I think you make some good points, not least that there are a variety of factors that contribute to our more murderous tendencies of late, though most of the law enforcement officials I spoke with then and now contend that the AWB did interrupt that trend for a while. But given that, why then throw fuel on the fire? And as for the slippery slope argument, I argue that trying to avoid the slippery slope is going to send us hurtling over the edge into the abyss. I’ve said this before, there’s reasonable regulation. And then there’s what happens when one side goes to the barricades ,refuses to even entertain compromise and then loses. This president isn’t trying to take away anybody’s guns. The next one very well might and outside of about four million or so single issue voters, 296 million Americans may very well cheer her on because of that intransigence. And those clowns in Burns aren’t helping much. The irony is they’re a parody of a kind of mindset in America, but there is an aspect of that mindset that they accurately reflect, and it is one that actually invites defeat and calls it noble failure. Personally, and maybe it’s because I’m from the north, I never understood the romance of defeat. I prefer compromise. And my idea of a compromise involves essentially limiting access to certain types of weapons except where tougher standards similar to CCP’s are used. But when one side makes that or any kind of compromise impossible, a hell of a lot of Americans are going to default to the all or nothing position. I’m not saying that’s a desirable outcome, but I’m saying its an increasingly likely one as a result of the intransigence.
Absolutely fantastic piece. I have a ton to say—but will do so when not typing on my phone.
Excuse this old editor for doing this, but … Decades are not possessive nor contractions. The apostrophe S should be left out of “90s” and “2000s” and any other.
That’s one thing we should all agree upon.
I’ll give up my apostrophe when you pry my cold dead fingers from around it.
It is your Constitutional right to use the apostrophe. Carry on!!
Let Seamus’ keyboard be our last battlefield.