| dc.description.abstract | When we open the paper in the Netherlands, almost all the news we read involving guns is negative. Guns are not as freely available in the Netherlands as they are in some parts of the United States and mass shootings are not common in the Netherlands. The sheer scope of guns in the US aroused our interest. Therefore, we wanted to take a look at the other side of gun ownership, the ‘positive’ side sort to speak. The Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, is after all a right ratified in 1791. The research we have conducted in Flagstaff, Arizona focused on gun owning citizens of Flagstaff, Arizona. We wanted to take a look at the ‘gun culture’ and how gun owners perceive their right to carry a firearm in modern day American society. Knowing that the country itself is divided on the topic, we choose Arizona as it one of the milder states involving gun legislative control in the US. Our main question was: how do gun owning citizens in Flagstaff, Arizona give meaning to freedom and security, what does it mean to them and how should the ‘gun-culture’ be interpreted within this context?
One of the things that was common for our informants was their strong belief in freedom and individualism as foundational principles of the United States. The gun owners we spoke did not want to ban guns, some did express their desire for more gun legislation, but abolishment of guns was out of the question. Whether our informants were for more gun legislation or less, almost all of them shared their doubts about the American government. This doubt, was one of the reasons, that filled the need for owning a gun, because the Second Amendment was founded on the belief that the law-abiding citizens could step in when the government turns out to be corrupt. Our informants feel more independent and thus ultimately more free thanks to the right to keep and bear arms. Taking that right away or talking about taking that right away by the government, goes against everything that the Second Amendment stands for.
From an outsiders perspective the free availability of firearms in combination with excessive gun violence gives cause to more legislation, but our informants did not agree. First of all, our informants think that you should not look at the firearm a crime was committed with, but that it is better to pay attention at the person behind that particular firearm. Even when there would be more gun legislation, the persons that commit crimes are still in society, and if they want to commit a crime they will still do it anyway. Most of them emphasize the idea that a lot of gun tragedies and gun violence occur in places where there are strict gun regulations, or even prohibition of firearms. So according to our informants there is no crux between social liberty and social security. They even argue that, because everybody is allowed to carry a (concealed) firearm in Flagstaff, being able to own and carry this gun, protecting yourself and your fellow citizens, contributes to the (social) security in Flagstaff. It is necessary that you act as a responsible citizen and are able to protect your social environment. There is no friction between social liberty and social security according to our informants. Rather, these two complement each other: when law-abiding citizens have social liberty through the use of firearms (thus: are able to keep and bear arms) they think that it improves (social) security.
What is the case for all of our informants, is that freedom is a highly valued right. For most of them guns are a physical representation of that right and this right is eventually mediated through these guns. It is a tradition that binds our informants and makes them feel proud to be an American citizen, a fundamental characteristic of their identity. There were differences in standpoints towards the availability of guns and 'gun owning citizens' and can therefore not be seen as a unified front, or homogenous group. Finally we can say that even though our informants are connected through their right to keep and bear arms, they have conflicting opinions towards gun legislation. According to us, these differences will be of pivotal importance in the ongoing debate around guns in the United States of America. | |
