As our nation wrestles with the proliferation of gun violence that is causing tragedy after tragedy on city streets, on school grounds, in theatres, and even in churches, it is amazing that it has been virtually impossible for politicans to agree on ways to reduce the availability and lethality of the weapons which can purchased by the general public. Background checks are resisted or cursory, military-type assault weapons are available, magazine capacity limits are fought, and the existence of the 2nd amendment is interpreted as meaning there should be no controls on guns whatever. The Domino Theory was shown to be a fallacy in Vietnam with regard to communist expansion, it is still presented as fact with gun control--if one type of gun control becomes law today, it will expand until no guns at all will be allowed. This, of course, is nonsense, but not to NRA believers. Why is the US the only advanced, well-developed nation with such resistence to reasonable gun control? Is it just the political power of the NRA, the monetary resources of the gun manufacturing industry that finance it, and the hold that they have on political decision-makers through their lobbying and campaign funding efforts? Or could the reasons go much more deeply into the American psyche, and trace back to that exciting time when our nation was expanding west of the Mississippi and out to the Pacific?
Following the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, nothing was more paramount to the growth and development of the nation than the conquest of the West. The concept of Manifest Destiny gave us license, as if mandated by God, to take over the land by any means possible. Treaties were made with Native American tribes to give our conquest the aire of legality, but routinely broken later with little regard for the effect on those displaced. Any newly-established local justice system was rudimentary at best, and guns were essentially the law of the land. Sheriffs were chosen from those readily willing to risk their life, citizen posses would typically execute summary justice, entire towns and counties would often by taken over and controlled by corrupt interests. Accomplished gunfighters gained a lot of status in the Wild West, law-abiding citizens were often at their mercy and would seek to enlist gunfighters on their side of conflict with dishonest competitors, even notorious outlaws were often celebrated for their exploits. In this context, all throughout the 1800's in the development of our nation, guns were absolutely essential to the preservation of life and livelihood in the 2/3rds of the country west of the Mississippi.
In the 20th century, guns became relatively less essential in developing and maintaining some semblance of social order in the West. Indians had been largely subdued, local justice systems that worked were being established, gunfighters either became a part of the legal system or were social pariahs. But the memory of gunfighters lingered on, their legacy glorified in movies and books, many even reached hero status in the minds of nationwide admirers. Jesse James was called by some the Robin Hood of the West, and Billy the Kid a youthful and fearless outlaw, justified in seeking revenge against a corrupt group of businessmen and law officials who had gained control of Lincoln County, New Mexico, and who had killed an honest rancher who had employed and befriended. Movies made heroes of many gunfighters--the likes of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Doc Holiday, and Bonnie and Clyde among them. While guns could no longer be brandished like in the old West, possession and skill with guns for some became a valuable and even necessary expression of manhood and survival. And a source of entertainment for generations of youth brought up on western movies. Frontier justice may have become a thing of the past, but the Wild West lived on in many hearts and minds throughout the 20th Century.
Could this lingering legacy of the role of guns in the development of our nation underlie the success of the NRA in being able to defeat reasonable gun control legislation in the 21st Century, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of its need and of mounting public support demanding it? There are some positive trends. A smaller percentage of Americans own guns now than 50 years ago, and fewer Americans belong to the NRA now than half a century ago. Yet, the resistence to gun control continues. Is it just politics, the power of money in elections and of political lobbying? Or are those forces just capitalizing on something much deeper, something that goes back to those heady times when our nation was being established, magnified by the way that time and history have captured and glorified those days? The horrors of the way guns are frequently used these days may lessen any residual romantization associated with guns, and a new legacy for gun use may emerge, one what will allow them to be sufficiently regulated so that their misuse will be limited and contained to a degree not now possible. One can only hope this is the outcome, before more unnecessary tragedies continue to occur.
