Las Vegas Sun

January 25, 2015

Currently: 59° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account


NRA doesn’t speak for all gun owners

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

As a farmer, I need and keep a gun. It is a tool, like a calf-puller, kept handy and brought out when needed. And never predictably. My wife groans to see it, for it is inevitably a sign that things have taken a bad turn and there is no other remedy.

Sometimes the occasion is an act of mercy. Sometimes it is an act of protection. I have killed dogs and coyotes attacking livestock. I have killed possums in the henhouse and recidivist raccoons ravaging the garden. I have killed groundhogs undermining an outbuilding. Sometimes it is a painfully belabored judgment call; sometimes it is a harsh immediacy, as the sunny day when a fox was behaving erratically in the barn lot.

Though unlikely, I must also consider the potential need for a gun for protection against human depredations. Meanness occurs in the countryside as well as the city, and our location is remote enough that whatever trouble finds its way to our doorstep will likely be resolved, one way or another, before official help has time to respond.

On one occasion, in my absence, a rifle was a welcome companion for my wife in her 2 a.m. visit to the barn to see why all the lights were on. Perhaps the stranger she encountered meant no harm and was indeed “borrowing” tools to get his truck started again. I do not, however, like to consider the possibilities of that confrontation in which her safety is dependent on that intruder’s good intentions.

I have also used guns for sport, though I confess hunting has lost all appeal to me in recent years. A good number of my friends and neighbors remain avid hunters, however, and are quite responsible with their firearms (though the newest crop of city-bred hunters worry me mightily with their complete lack of outdoors IQ).

But the point I wish to make, in no uncertain terms, is that the National Rifle Association does not speak for me. For while I am one who believes strongly in the Second Amendment, I also believe gun control is an issue with a tolerable middle ground.

As a farmer, I experience that middle ground of reasonable usage on a daily basis. Consider the example of ammonium nitrate, a bona fide agricultural ingredient with widespread and longstanding use as a fertilizer.

Since its involvement in the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, its availability in bagged form has been severely curtailed, which is an inconvenience for many legitimate users, to be sure. But in the larger scheme of things, its restriction presents an acceptable compromise in a world where the illicit use of such substances presents a growing danger to all of us. And the fertilization of crops continues, in slight accommodation to this new reality, unabated.

The same rule of reasonable restriction may be applied to firearms, with regard to assault rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines. The well-demonstrated danger of such extreme weapons in the wrong hands outweighs any real benefit you might imagine for a legal use.

What, for instance, might be the number of legitimate instances that a home in this country comes under such heavy assault that an assault rifle is required for its defense? Or that a super-size capacity of rapid-fire ammunition is necessary to repel the invaders? The danger is best characterized as imaginary.

It does not require much imagination, on the other hand, to foresee ourselves on the other end of that spectrum — innocent victims in our daily lives, in shopping malls, schools, offices and theaters.

There is little debate that the prime use of these weapons and enhancements is killing humans. Recent experience demonstrates that aggression, not defense, is the main expression of that use. Who among us, not deranged, would claim that as a right?

I remember, many years back, finishing a long day in the field with a crew that was housing a neighbor’s tobacco crop. As we loafed around the water cooler, telling tales of previous harvests, a vehicle found its way down the long farm lane to the empty wagons we sat upon. The driver got out and made friendly banter and then opened up his trunk to reveal quite an inventory of firearms, many of which were illegal at that time.

The one, of course, that got the most attention was the assault rifle with an extra capacity magazine. We watched in amazement as he took casual aim and tore an old outhouse to shreds with a prolonged volley of the large-caliber explosions.

Nobody that day bought a gun. For some, the attraction was high, but the price tag was higher. For others the practical value of such a weapon was unapparent. But the lingering residue from that little event, unvoiced until this day, was my own assessment, admittedly colored over time, of the characters involved.

Put most simply, as a question of local community, the men in whose hands I would most trust those extreme weapons were the same individuals who had no interest in them. And vice versa. NRA’s Wayne LaPierre seems to be speaking for the latter.

James Gash, an Owenton, Ky., cattle farmer, is the author of “Two Kingdoms,” a novel about tobacco wars in the Bluegrass State. He wrote this for the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 5 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. So well said that nothing needs to be added.

  2. I second Jim's motion.

    Carmine D

  3. I wonder if Joe Heck, Dean Heller, and the rest of the more recalcitrant types have read this?

  4. And then there are these violent acts:

  5. A well written article, but its basic premise falls apart right here:

    "The same rule of reasonable restriction may be applied to firearms, with regard to assault rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines. The well-demonstrated danger of such extreme weapons in the wrong hands outweighs any real benefit you might imagine for a legal use."

    The above statement relies on the assumption that a ban on "assault rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines" will reduce "The well-demonstrated danger of such extreme weapons in the wrong hands"

    Unfortunately the real world data and experience from both the previous "assault weapons ban" in the US and similar measures in other countries has shown that bans on certain types of weapons and limits on ammunition or magazine capacity consistently FAIL to accomplish the desired results.

    The writer also destroys his own point with his closing anecdote which includes the phrase "...and then opened up his trunk to reveal quite an inventory of firearms, many of which were illegal at that time."

    So the writer acknowledges that the gun laws in place at the time, including the ban on some of the types of weapons offered for sale that day, were absolutely no deterrent whatsoever to acquisition of those weapons.

    Note that when he said "Nobody that day bought a gun" he cited the high price tag and concerns about the "practical value of such a weapon", but DID NOT say that anyone was deterred at all by the fact that purchasing a fully automatic weapon would have been a felony crime.

    So the ban on the sale of fully automatic weapons was no deterrent to the seller, nor was it a deterrent to the potential buyers, but SOMEHOW a new ban on "assault rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines" would be an effective deterrent?

    So once again, I agree that it a well written article... and I think it does an admirable job arguing why we should NOT waste time passing feel-good laws banning certain types of guns or magazines.