Guns, revisited I remarked that (1) I’m increasingly dubious about the constitutionality, morality, and even simple efficacy of “gun control,” and that (2) it seems to me that the NRA is one of the biggest single obstacles to a sensible discussion of this issue. Holy cow, did that get me a lot of mail. Next up: abortion, Heinlein, cats, and emacs versus vi.

In the process of convincing everyone on the planet of my political unreliability, I did cite PlanetOut’s report of a a panel at an NRA convention at which, allegedly, various pro-gun eminences made loutishly homophobic remarks. I wasn’t the only person in the blogoverse to note this, either. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit decided to get to the bottom of this story (imagine, actual reporting on a weblog), and in a series of posts of which these two are the culmination, more or less did so. Short version: There are loudmouth dingbats in the NRA; there are also gay pro-gun groups like the Pink Pistols who feel that, on balance, most pro-gun activists are perfectly accepting of them. Sounds like typical subcultural politics to me. Goodness knows people in the science-fiction world, like me, are familiar with the experience of the media coming to our conventions and zeroing in on the borderline schizzes and kids in Spock ears.

Aside from Reynolds’ posts, the other notable blog posts on this were this one from Ted Barlow, and this one from Charles Kuffner. One of Kuffner’s points:

To be fair, Rostcheck, Reynolds, and CastleBravo all recognize that the NRA itself contributes to this image, in no small part by having speakers who, as CastleBravo says, “at best can’t keep their foot out of their mouth and at worst has an anti-gay bias and doesn’t have the sense to keep it to themselves”. None of them, though, really put the finger on what I believe is the leading contributor to this problem and its obvious cure: The NRA’s most visible spokespeople are a bunch of angry white men.

Think about it. Who do you think of when you think of the NRA? Well, there’s Wayne LaPierre, who at this same convention compared the founder of a gun-control group to Osama bin Laden and whose infamous “jack-booted thugs” remark caused Bush Sr. to tear up his NRA membership card. There’s Charlton Heston. There’s…well, I have no idea who else. And that’s my point.

I believe Rostcheck and Reynolds when they say that the NRA is a largely diverse and welcoming organization. So why don’t they act like a smart organization and take advantage of that diversity? I’ve heard of the Second Amendment Sisters. Thanks to Reynolds and Rostcheck, I’ve now heard of The Pink Pistols. I forget who pointed me to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. That’s three gun rights advocacy groups whose members would otherwise be associated with the Democratic/pro-gun-control side of things. I’m sure a bit of Googling would find more. Why the NRA doesn’t give these folks a more prominent role in making its public statements is a mystery to me. I’m sorry, but if the public at large thinks that gun owners are mostly right-wing white men, the NRA has no one to blame but itself.

And that’s it from me on guns for now. I’m still working out what I think on the primary issue; the question of how the NRA should conduct itself is for now relegated to the same place as issues of Siberian land management, or the staging of Wagner operas: I’m sure it’s important but I lack the confidence that I know entirely what I’m talking about. (Quick, now move in for the kill.) [07:53 PM]