Trusty Springfield’s, pump action
shotguns, and Saturday Night Specials
Three discourses on the acceptance of gun ownership in Tallahassee, Florida
MASTER THESIS CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Author: Aardie Novin
Number: 5985773
Supervisor: Alex Strating
First and second readers: Rob van Ginkel and Yolanda van Ede
August 26
th2014
Master Cultural and Social Anthropology
aardie_novin@hotmail.com
Summary
The aim of this thesis’ was to provide insight into the following research question: How does the
acceptance of gun ownership relate to ideal conceptions of being American? The ideal conceptions
are defined by four concepts: individualism, equality, liberty, and capitalism.
Chapter one described the ‘back office’ of guns; a specific discourse within the borders of a gunsmith’s shop in which arguments for the acceptance of gun ownership were mainly rooted in terms of aesthetic, mechanic, or historic sympathies. I drew upon four theorists (i.e. Miller, Carrier, Kopytoff, and Trentmann) that provide a framework in how these arguments can be understood.
Chapter two elaborated on the cultural theory of risk (Wildavsky & Dake: 1990) that framed the discourses of the chapters three and four. The cultural theory of risk theory starts with the premise that three general cultural orientations (i.e., hierarchical, egalitarian, and individualistic) withhold a particular set of social norms that determine how risks and threats (e.g., gun ownership and gun-‐related situations such as crime) are perceived. In other words, whether one believes guns contribute to safety or not, depends on the social norms that construct ones worldview.
Chapter three drew upon conversations outside the gun shop that included pro gun arguments from a white American perspective. In order to understand the underlying mechanism of these pro rights beliefs, the arguments set forth by gun owners were framed in the cultural theory of risk. In sum, I have demonstrated that the white American gun owners I spoke to follow a individualistic cultural orientation, in which threats on self-‐reliance, self-‐ support, and individual autonomy are perceived as high.
Chapter four described African American perspectives regarding Tallahassee and the gun issue, which are different from those of white Americans. They described a system of political, educational, and residential institutions that reproduced inequality between white Americans and African Americans. For them, historically firearms represent the struggle against oppression and racism. The pro rights arguments by African Americans today are still grounded in the fight over egalitarian social relations.
I have established direct links between the acceptance of gun ownership and the ideal conceptions of being American. It seems that the visible segregation today and the continuous construction of boundaries between races through historic and contemporary racial discourse resulted in a difference in ideal conceptions of being American. While the individual and
hierarchic cultural worldview, widely embraced by white American gun beliefs, pursues individualism and capitalism, African American gun owners root their arguments in terms of equality and liberty.
Content
(word count: 23.444)
Introduction
6
Moore, Heston, and the gun debate
6
The ideal conceptions of being American
9
Theoretical framework
10
Commodities, materialism, and market exchange
10
The cultural theory of risk
11
Then and now: a resonating discourse
11
Settings and methods
14
Tallahassee: pushing back control
14
Residence
15
Gun shops
16
1
The ‘back office’ of guns
17
The shop, its workers, and its customers
18
Commodities and possessions: symbolic representations
21
Appropriation in market exchange
23
Biographies
24
The significance of practices
26
2
The cultural theory of risk
28
Relevance
28
Explanation
29
3
A white American perspective
31
Tallahassee: a white American perspective
31
Cognitive derivatives
33
Consequential arguments, statistics, and stories of victimization
33
An overreaching government
36
Moral derivatives: non-‐instrumental arguments
37
The founding fathers and the second amendment
37
Gun bans
38
To shoot or not to shoot
40
4
An African American perspective
42
Perceived and experienced: consequentialist arguments by African
43
Americans
Tallahassee: an African American perspective
44
Institutional segregation
46
Pushing for control and rights: a contradiction?
47
The contradictions of the gun issue
49
Conclusion
51
Chapter summaries
51
The relation between the acceptance of gun ownership and the ideal
55
conceptions of being American
Discussion
56
References
58
Acknowledgements
61
Introduction
‘A well-‐regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’
(The Second Amendment in the United States Constitution)
Moore, Heston, and the gun debate
Only once I held a gun in the Netherlands, a 9mm Walter from a befriended policeman in training. It was in his house in Amsterdam, where he took his duty arm from the safe and showed it to me. I held the gun uncomfortably in my hand; finger forcefully removed from the trigger while looking through the sight. With the object in my hand, I thought of Bowling for
Columbine, a documentary film by Michael Moore, in which the widespread ownership of
firearms in American society was criticized. In the movie, the gun control activist Moore interviewed Charlton Heston, a well-‐known former actor and pro gun ownership advocate, about his motivations to keep loaded firearms in his house. It struck me that the movie pictured Heston as an irrational, heartless figure, without any interest in the convictions and reasoning behind pro-‐gun beliefs. Although I believed that keeping several loaded firearms in a house was unnecessary and arguably dangerous, I focused on learning how Heston’s motivations should be understood and what place these beliefs have in American society.
On a macro level, surveys show that an estimated 46 percent of American households possess a total of 320 million firearms. Official figures state: ‘gun ownership is higher among whites than blacks, higher among middle-‐aged people than among young people, higher among married than unmarried people, higher among richer people than poor, and higher in rural areas and small towns than urban areas’ (Kleck 1997: 71).
The anthropologist Abigail Kohn states that: ‘regional differences in gun ownership are important factors in relation to how guns are owned and perceived.’ (Kohn 2004A: 2) At a political level, these regional differences are expressed by state legislature that ‘perhaps more than Congress, passes laws that have a direct impact on the day-‐to-‐day life… how much you pay in sales tax, how much time you have to vote, how you obtain a gun.’1 (Chen: 2013) Examples of
state laws are regulations for purchasing, possession, and registration. But laws also determine specifically whether one is allowed to carry a gun hidden or openly, or in what situations deadly force is permitted without duty to retreat. In general, it can be indicated that the states in the
northeast region of the USA have the strictest policies towards guns. In the southeast though, almost no states impose specific laws for regulation, permit, or carry in public.
The documentary’s interview is highly instructive for what is popularly understood as the ‘gun debate.’ On the one hand, this specific conversation flawlessly illustrates how the gun issue is debated in the United States on national level. On the other, the arguments given by Heston in favor of his personal gun ownership present only a particular view within the pro gun ownership group. I emphasize that ‘numerous positions along a continuum regarding beliefs and policy preferences about guns [exist]’ (Utter & True 2000: 67), varying over region and people. Therefore, Heston’s arguments must be seen in the light of a wealthy middle-‐aged white Republican living in the south of the United States.
In form, the interview presented two opposing sides typical for the national debate. Heston characterized one group; popularly know as the ‘pro rights’ camp. Moore embodied the other faction, signified as the ‘pro control’ side. Clearly, both men had strong, but opposite beliefs about gun-‐ownership and use. Just like in the interview, the two sides on both ends of the spectrum do not attempt to come to a mutual understanding of each other’s perspectives. Ferocious attempts are made to uphold personal views that signify the deeply rooted motivations behind the acceptance of gun ownership.
Generally in content, pro gun rights advocates like Heston accuse the opposition of an irrational fear of guns and invalid provision of agency to the object without considering that of the user. A famous quote by the largest pro rights lobby group The National Rifle Association (NRA) of which Heston is an active ambassador, is: ‘Guns do not kill people, people kill people’.2
On the other side of the aisle, supporters of gun control like Moore are concerned about the relation between the widespread gun ownership and high number of gun-‐related deaths, enhanced by the absence of legislative restriction. Their attempt is to push for more legislation to ‘control’ the 320 million firearms owned in the United States.
Heston explains his possession of several loaded weapons in his house as a matter of protection against ‘bad guys’. Although Heston never got victimized, the loaded guns gave him a safe feeling. When Moore continued to ask if he really needed the guns for protection if he never had to use them in that sense, Heston responded that the second Amendment gave him the right to do so.
Here, two central topics of the gun debate came across. The first argument stresses that guns are defensive tools that protect against criminals. As another NRA quote goes: ‘The answer for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun’.3 Even when situations to use a gun for
protective means never occurred, they possibly function preventively. Correspondingly,
2
Unofficial slogan of the NRA used on promotion material such as bumper stickers.
3 A statement by the NRA director Wayne LaPierre on a 2012 press conference.
statistics show that gun ownership is highest in neighborhoods where criminality is lowest (Kleck 2013: 563).
The second argument is fundamental. The historic event of the state’s formation in 1787 with the shaping of the constitution and the bill of rights, in which the right to keep and bear arms is included, determines the fundaments of civil rights today. These rights were given by God and as Heston explained, written down by ‘wise old dead men who invented the country’. Because not people, but God gave Americans the Second Amendment (i.e. the law that sets forth the right to keep and bear arms), governments may not infringe on this right. It is argued that changes to the Second Amendment are forcefully rejected, because every restriction compromises a fundamental human right given by God. There seems to be a religious attachment to the Second Amendment. However, the meaning behind the Second Amendment has been subject to heated debate, until 2008 when the Supreme Court recognized the individual nature of the right (Kleck 2013: 563).
Heston explains the reason for the United States’ high crime rates compared to other nations like Australia, United Kingdom, and Japan in two ways. First he draws upon American history, which ‘has a lot of blood on his hands.’ It has been widely accepted that the right to own guns was essential to build a free and independent nation. Accordingly, the United States comes from a ‘frontier history’ where people needed to defend themselves against real and direct dangers such as oppressing governments, indigenous people, and wild nature. Guns were the ideal tools for individual protection, especially in remote regions where governmental institutions like the National Guard or military where not as present as in larger cities. The monopoly on violence was not solely in hands of the military or National Guard. It is perceived that because of the absence of government, people needed to govern themselves including the protection against and punishment of ‘evil’. Within the debate, ‘evil’ comes in many forms. Guns help to gain power against criminals, foreign powers, and a domestic overreaching government. Heston’s second argument was that the United States’ high crime rates were a consequence of the ethnically mixed society. Although Heston would not go as far to call the gun problem an ethnic problem, it distinctively stresses a specifically ‘white’ perspective on the gun issue. African Americans or Hispanics will not refer to America’s frontier history, the holy fundaments of the Second Amendment, and the perceived threat of victimization. Their motivations are rooted in the necessity for protection, since these groups of people get victimized more often (Kleck 2013: 564). Consequently, the gun issue revolves around a diversity of perspectives depending on the people included.
However, the interview specifically, and the debate on gun ownership generally, continuously includes typical North-‐American concepts such as freedom, materiality, and individuality. Heston emphasizes that he chooses to own a loaded gun, referring to free
individual choice, a core value of American identity. Moreover, he owns several guns, which arguably stresses the significance of possessing valuable commodities over the need to protect oneself. Finally, he exercises his right to do so, a freedom that an overreaching and tyrannical government attempts to take away through procedures of registration and restriction.
This endorsement of believes, central to an American identity that is deeply included in the gun debate provided the following central question of this thesis: How does the acceptance of
gun ownership relates to ideal conceptions of being American?
The aim of this thesis is to examine the relationship between these ideal conceptions of being American on the one hand and the acceptance of gun ownership on the other. In order to provide insight in this relation, it is of essence to identify what is contained in relevant discourses. The current study draws upon three general discourses, each described in separate chapters. Chapter one portrays a discourse specifically existing within the borders of a gun shop. Chapter two explains the central theory that will be used to frame a white American4 as
well as an African American perspective of the gun issue. Chapter three draws upon consequentialist and non-‐instrumental arguments for gun ownership by white Americans, which are heavily included in the national debate. Finally, chapter three demonstrates an African American perspective that includes Tallahassee’s social segregation. Before introducing these discourses more in detail, I will elaborate upon the ideal conceptions to which the arguments for the acceptance of gun ownership will be related.
The ideal conceptions of being American
The ideal conceptions of being American used in this thesis are partly derived from the ‘American Creed’ and the ‘American Dream’. In his study of race relations within the United Stated, Gunnar Myrdal defined the American Creed as deeply held fundamental beliefs, highly valued by all Americans that kept the ‘melting pot’ of the United States together. Myrdal’s creed emphasized three ideals: equality, liberty, and justice, which underline the equality of opportunity and equality before the law.5 Because justice seems to incorporate a specific brand
of equality, I incorporate this ideal into the general value of equality.
It is argued that the ‘American Dream’ is an extension of the creed, and I will draw upon it for my purposes. The American dream stands for the ability to be successful regardless of who you are and where you are born. This principle revolves around the individual: with hard work ethos and agency one can achieve anything. The fourth conception therefore is individualism. However, the American Dream and the American Creed today, are based on a system that
4 The native term for American’s with European ancestors is ‘white American’. The term is similarly used in this
thesis.
involves and rewards liberty and individualism. That is, in a capitalist society individuals are motivated to capitalize on their skills and knowledge in order to gain success. Therefore I incorporate capitalism, and its importance to American society today, as the final ideal conception. In sum, this thesis aims to relate the acceptance of gun ownership to ideas of equality, liberty, individualism, and capitalism.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework is divided in three sections along the lines of the introduced discourses, which are presented in the following chapters. Here, I describe the three sections of the framework to contribute to a preliminary understanding of the way gun owners’ arguments are theoretically approached in this thesis.
Commodities, materialism, and market exchange
Chapter one paints the picture of a gunsmith’s gun shop in which gun owners bring in firearms to get them repaired, renovated, or ‘dolled up.’ In addition, the shop is a place for buying and selling consigned guns, due to its dealer license. Accordingly, in order to grasp the discourse within a shop that is entirely dedicated to guns as objects that can be bought, sold, repaired, and dolled up, the theoretical framework of this chapter provides an approach to understand concepts such as commodities, materialism, and market exchange.
In his influential work The Gift (1954), Marcel Mauss classified societies based on a distinction between two types of exchange: gift-‐exchange and commodity-‐exchange. The former, he argues, is seen mainly in small-‐scale ‘traditional’ societies, and has a moral purpose. That is, the gift contains a qualitative value of the owner. ‘Hence it follows that to give something is to give a part of oneself’ (Mauss 1954: 10). The receiver in his turn is indebted to the giver and has a moral obligation to return a gift. A reciprocal relationship between the giver and receiver is born, where economic value is subordinated.
On the contrary, Mauss argues, is commodity-‐exchange, or market-‐exchange, prevailing in Western capitalist rational market economies in which ‘alienable, impersonal and anonymous items, devoid of moral and social considerations or obligations’ (Rus 2008: 81) are exchanged. Within commodity-‐exchange the seller pursues maximum profit and the buyer intends to gain from the item’s quantitative value in which both parties calculate their self-‐interest. Hence the dichotomy between gifts and commodities stands for a broader contradiction. That is between social and moral concerns on the one hand and economic rationality and commercial profit on the other.
agree that the dichotomy is not as straightforward. For example, Carrier is convinced that the relationship between individuals and objects holds more, than mere utilitarian needs. Commodities are not merely anonymous but contain meaning. They possess symbolic values that construct social and personal identities. By acquiring particular items one signals group membership and distinguishes himself from others who possess other commodities. Consequently, buying goods is not merely for utilitarian reasons (Carries 1995: 1).
A particular approach to understand commodities and its exchange comes from Jean Baudrillard and later by Mary Douglas. Baudrillard stressed that consumer needs do not exist on an individual level, but are part of a collective system, conditioned by producers. Douglas follows these ideas and emphasizes that commodity purchases satisfy utilitarian needs, but more importantly build social relations and construct personal identity through the symbolic meaning they carry. Through consumer practices, consumers define their place in the world. The extraordinary focus on particular brands today is, according to Douglas, illustrative for the way consumers thoughtfully choose items that are consistent with how they see themselves and want to be seen by others. She writes that consumer choices must be seen as ‘moral judgments about everything’ (Trentmann 2009: 298), directly related to an individuals identity.
America’s contemporary market economy of late capitalism thus not merely exchanges impersonal commodities withholding quantitative values for the purpose of profit maximization. In the symbolic sphere of exchange (consumption) moral and social considerations exist. As Rus shows, even with buying a case of sugar, one makes choices of where, which one, and how to buy. I presume that guns and their exchange in the United States relate to the construction of identities, building of social relationships, and displaying group membership. In the United States where 98 percent of the population lives in a ten-‐mile radius from a federal licensed gun dealer6, the symbolic sphere of gun consumption is particularly
widespread and public.
In the United States, guns are passed on from generation to generation within families, are sold in pawnshops to receive money quickly, or forgotten in basements for years. According to Igor Kopytoff, the life path, or biography of a commodity ‘reveals a wealth of cultural data’, (Kopytoff 1986: 67), such as the owner’s social class, network, and buying power. By examining where a gun has been, to whom it belonged and how it got to the current owner, one reveals how social and economic values differ as it travels across different spheres of exchange. Indeed, guns are objects that have a long life expectancy due to its durability, and thus may travel across a wide range of regions, people, and are used for diverse purposes.
The cultural theory of risk
Chapter two presents the cultural theory of risk initially developed by Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky. This theory will be extensively explained in chapter two and aims to understand the underlying mechanisms that construct beliefs within the gun debate. As the discourses outside the gun shop will demonstrate, arguments both pro control and pro rights rely heavily on statistical and empirical evidences. The cultural theory of risks provides an answer to the question which, and why, evidences are perceived as truths where others are rejected. Arguments are thus rooted in concerns about the impact of gun ownership. Some assess the consequences as positive, others as negative, resulting in opposing beliefs. The reliance on the consequences of gun ownership by the participants of the gun debate seems to be framed in perceptions of risks and fears. Or in other words, the consequentialist arguments are rooted in concerns over potential threats. The question then arises, how, and why, these threats are perceived. Why for instance, is carrying a gun in public perceived as necessary to reduce particular threats? Or why is the general registering system of firearms perceived as dangerous? The cultural theory of risk provides a convincing argument for these questions. The theory will be used to form an understanding of the two discourses presented in chapters three and four.
Then and now: a resonating discourse
The interview between Heston and Moore introduced the gun debate from a white American perspective that will be further described in chapter three. However, corresponding to the different perspectives and beliefs concerning gun ownership, I draw in chapter four upon a number of African Americans who elaborate on their views of Tallahassee’s society and gun ownership in specific. The theoretical framework aims to support the understanding of such a perspective, and includes approaches of contemporary mechanisms of segregation. I draw upon Massey who elaborated extensively on residential segregation in the contemporary United States. I follow Ruef and Fletcher who show how historic discriminatory institutions reproduce themselves and uphold inequality between ethnicities. These scholars demonstrate that the majority of changes of these institutions are merely ‘old wine in new bottles.’ The objective of this chapter is to demonstrate contradictions within the gun issue and the general pursuance of the ideal conceptions of being American.
Indeed, as I will describe, gun ownership for African Americans is a not only a contemporary but as well historic matter. Because gun ownership is a social issue, it stands to reason that an introduction of the historic context is at place that constructs a discourse, which still today, diversely ‘conditions behavior and belief’ (Takacs 2009: 1).
According to the theorist Patrick Wolfe, the racial regime of early colonial America imposed contrasting roles on indigenous people and Africans. Both groups were racialized in a
particular manner that functionally corresponded to the settler’s agenda. During the period of enslaved Africans, the offspring of slaves were classified automatically as slaves. Consequently, being African meant being slave. While African slaves increased the owners’ wealth, indigenous people formed an obstruction to territorial expansion. Settlers aimed to end the expensive and exhausting rounds of war against the natives over land, thus other ways of claiming territory were applied. One strategy was to construct a social division of the indigenous ‘race’. According to Takaki (1993) ‘the social construction of race occurred within the context of competition over land’ (Takaki 1993: 32). In other words, natives were racialized within the borders of ‘savagery’, opposing white ‘culture’, in order to claim territory. A hierarchic division was born between ‘civilized’ and ‘savage’ (ref). A ‘society of difference’ based on inequality came to be, where groups of people were included (for example, Irish immigrants were included over time) or excluded from the American imperial project. Ideal conceptions of being an American citizen were opposed to those of ‘others’ like Africans and natives.
One core value of being American that was not distributed to natives or non-‐white immigrants was the possibility of possessing land. Because natives were conveniently not classified as citizens, they ‘did not share the same freedoms as non-‐Natives to buy, own, and sell [land]’ (Lomawaima 2013: 337). Although the Natives got symbolically the same rights to own property through the Dawes Act, realistically they were left outside as ‘allottees’ opposed to citizens. This meant that only non-‐Native citizens were able to claim territory. As Lomawaima points out, non-‐Natives were able to be homeowners, a qualification that became in the twentieth century ‘an ideal goal, anchoring US identity’ (Ibid). Again, strategies of opposing Natives against ideal conceptions of being an American citizen were folded out. Owning property, claiming to be it as someone’s individual belonging, may shed light on why it is accepted to protect it forcefully.
But the segregation of American society is not merely an historic feature, Takaki argues. The dominant Anglo-‐centric historical narrative currently taught in American high schools tells the story of an America that has fought bravely to become a global power from the frontier settlement it once was. In this story however, America is defined ‘white’, build solely by white settlers, and erases Africans and other non-‐ white immigrants out of American history. Therefore, Americans are taught they are exclusively white or white in ancestry. The opposite is true, Takaki claims. The United States has been a racially mixed society since the first settlers sat foot on the Virginia shore (Takaki 1993: 2). According to Takaki, the consequences of putting non-‐whites outside a shared history can hardly be overestimated. A large part of American identity is founded on this perceived history, he stresses. Even so importantly, groups of people are defined as ‘others’, not sharing the same history.
Opposing ‘racial others’ does not only occur inside the borders of the United States though. On a press conference after 9/11, President Bush defined the ‘war on terrorism’ as a ‘clash of civilizations’, claiming that the rational good West was under attack by an irrational, intrinsically violent Islam. According to Takacs (2009), Bush’s administration carefully drew the attention away from race with the ‘clash thesis’. However, Muslims were reduced to Arabs, which objectified the ‘other’ in concrete and target-‐friendly terms (Takacs: 2009: 1), similar to the historic discourse of ‘savages’ and ‘civilized’.
Takacs, who draws on Cambell, explains this resemblance between the historic and current discourse. She states: ‘the conflation of difference and danger has been central to the formation and maintenance of ‘American’ identity’ by articulating frontier wars, western movies, and political speeches. Cambell describes the identification and persecution of alien ‘others’ as an American national ritual, which gives individuals a sense of themselves within a shared community. Central in this discourse, according to Takacs, is fear. In a Foucauldian way, fear is used by sovereign powers to discipline and control. Fear of moral decay for instance, she describes, habituates individuals to uphold a high work-‐ethos and control themselves and their neighbors.
The similarities between the centrality of fear in American racial discourse stated above and the gun issue is striking. It is therefore that chapter four also engages in the discussion of how, and why certain threats are perceived, drawing upon the cultural theory of risk. It does so by demonstrating from an African American perspective that historic and contemporary racial discourses go hand in hand with reproductive institutional mechanisms that cause struggles over equality in general and gun ownership in specific.
Setting & Methods
Tallahassee: pushing back control
This thesis’ fieldwork took place in Tallahassee, Florida, the capital city of a southern American state illustrious for its loose gun legislature, some of which nationally controversial, and home of more than one million Concealed Carry Permits (CCP). Within Tallahassee, around ten gun shops are located, including licensed pawnshops, which do not stock guns, but buy and sell relatively fast for cheap prices. In addition, the city boasts three public gun ranges of which one is outdoors and charges no entrance fee. Gun shows take place four times a year, where dealers from Florida, Georgia and Alabama can be found.
Demographically, around 60 percent of the population is between the ages of 18 and 44, mainly due to the large Universities the state capital has. 60% of the population is white, 34 percent black of which 4% Hispanic, which leaves another 6% for all other ethnicities.
Politically, the Republican Party has dominated Florida for almost ten years. Though it is considered as a ‘swing’ state in which the voters are evenly distributed among republicans and democrats. Florida is seen as a center for pushing back gun control laws enabled by a large number of active lobbyists initiating new policies. For example, in 2011 the NRA pushed ‘The Firearms Owners Privacy Act’ in Florida, which forbids doctors to ask if the patient has a gun at home. In order to understand Florida’s gun laws better within the American context, the following comparison is made. Here Florida’s legislature is held next to those of the state of New York, which has one of the strictest gun policies, to show two poles of the spectrum.
The data is primarily collected through conversations, observations, and participation at my residence, gun shops, a gunsmith’s shop, and an African American church. In both my residence as in the gunsmith’s shop, I was able to generate sufficient rapport between ‘informants’ and myself that an informal sphere was created where conversations were held openly and honestly. Here, the three methods of conversations, observations, and participation came together in what Clifford Geertz would call deep hanging out (Geertz: 1998). In church, I got acquainted with a group of youngster that showed me through a group discussion a particular perspective on the matter. Next, I describe how the empirical data is obtained through deep hanging out at first my own residence, the gun shops, and the gunsmith’s shop.
Residence
I shared my residence with my host James, his brother Tom, and nephew Joey. James, a 31-‐year-‐ old high school teacher, appeared to be very inviting and introduced me to a group of friends with whom I could discuss the issue in informal settings on casual moments. The group consisted mainly of white, American-‐born students and graduates that either were raised in the city or moved to Tallahassee for college. It surprised me how open, enthusiastic and interested they were when discussing gun ownership. We eat, drunk, talked, played games, and went out together which gave me a complete image of how everyday live is experienced by this group of students in Tallahassee. Some of them owned guns, others did not, forming interesting dynamics when discussing the matter. It resulted more than once in group discussions where the different sides consisted not only of pro or con trying to convince each other, but where serious attempts to build an effective discussion with mutual understanding was made.
The day after my arrival I explained my purpose of staying to James, and only moments later I sat with his pistol in my hands, amazed by the apparent normality to have a gun in one’s house. He described the brand, showed me how to load it, and with serious intentions, he outlined his view on the right and the need for self-‐protection. Similarly, his brother Tom and nephew Joey owned a gun. This house, with its three residents, who all individually owned a gun, introduced me to some of the complexities around the issue. Although all three owned a
gun, motivations to do so varied among them. Tom for example, bought his revolver from his sister because she needed the money. The gun in this sense is a commodity that holds financial worth. It can be sold and resold, without loosing its value. Joey had a different reason. He was applying for his Concealed Carry Permit (CCP), in order to carry his Beretta .45 to a large number of public places ‘just in case something happens’.
Gun shops
In addition, several gun shops were visited across town, where I familiarized myself with a broad range of gun seller, buyers, and collectors. ‘Gun shops’ refer to stores where guns are legally sold such as pawnshops, selling stores (including Wall-‐Mart), gunsmiths, gun shows, and indoor shooting ranges. During these gun store visits, I had to fall back on observations and conversations, which proved to be troubled and sturdy in the beginning, but more comfortable in the end. I presented myself as a student with a sincere ambition to understand ‘their gun culture’. In my own society, I explained, guns are generally perceived as objects of crime and are not widely individually owned. In other words, guns are not part of my daily world. This resulted in that I had no experience shooting, or any knowledge of guns whatsoever. In order to understand the matter, I needed to speak to as many people for whom guns are ‘just as natural as growing tulips in Holland.7‘
Next to spontaneous conversations, several recorded interviews were held in the gun shops that provided valuable insights. One particular visit to a gun shop, more specifically a gunsmith, resulted in a job offer, which I happily accepted. The gunsmith offered me the opportunity to get acquainted to a large group of gun owners and learn about a guns’ mechanics and repair processes. The shop, its workers, and its customers demonstrated a specific discourse within the gun issue, which the following chapter presents.
1 The ‘back office’ of guns
Customer: ‘Wauw, sweet, that looks a lot better than I thought it would.’ [Customer racks the gun] ‘It looks awesome, I love that. Now I won’t be ashamed
when I flip it out when I need to.’
Gunsmith: ‘Well hopefully, you don’t need to.’
(Masters of Gun and Rod, March 2nd)
Masters of Gun and Rod is a gunsmith’s shop where I spend several weeks participating in the
daily workings of a gunsmith. The shop is basically the only place in Tallahassee where old rifles are repaired, missing parts replaced, and guns cerakoted in any color of the rainbow. There is an old man though, somewhere in his seventies, at the other side of town, who was Tallahassee’s gunsmith for a long time. However, due to his age (and to his grumpiness typical for gunsmiths some argue), he only works when he wants and selects his projects carefully. His shop does not work like Masters of Gun and Rod, where one can walk in with a box filled with parts and say: ‘This was once a gun, before I dissembled it. Please fix it.’
It is therefore that Mark and Margret, the people who run the Masters of Gun and Rod shop, are literally covered in work. In the shop, one stumbles over the many guns and rifles, waiting to be repaired, colored, or cleaned until their owners can pick them up again. I noticed the work pressure and offered my help to get some work out of their way. Moreover, it was a unique opportunity for me to actively participate and collect data from the people who work with guns on a daily basis.
What follows is an ethnography of a gunsmith in which I paint a narrow, but detailed, picture of how gun ownership is endorsed through a discourse that exists specifically within the gunsmith’s shop. This chapter describes a place on a micro-‐level where gun politics are not very salient given that the gunsmiths and their costumers are relatively equally minded individuals in terms of gun politics. Specifically, conversations do not consist of themes such as whether the second amendment should be considered an individual or collective right, or if AR15’s should be banned. Instead, conversations revolve around other, more ‘everyday’ topics or around characteristics of the gun itself: how it looks, how it feels, or shoots.
This chapter is structured as follows. First, I portray the shop with its workers and customers, including my entrance and relationship towards them. Second, I link situations, conversations, and observations, to theoretical discussions that support my arguments.
