Hoplophobia on 5 Dollars a Day

Now this just straddles the line between goofy and sad, from the AP via Fox News:

PHOENIX — Travel icon Arthur Frommer says he won't be spending his tourism dollars at the Grand Canyon, or anywhere else in Arizona, because the state's laws allow people he described as "thugs" and "extremists" to openly carry firearms.

The author of budget-travel guides said on his blog Wednesday that he was "shocked beyond measure" by reports that protesters openly carried guns and rifles outside a Phoenix building where President Barack Obama spoke on Monday.

Frommer says he won't personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons as a means of political protest.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon says he spoke with Frommer Thursday and invited him to visit the city to clear up any possible misconceptions about safety.

There are a whopping six states which don't allow some degree of open carry. Even California and Illinois allow it in rural areas. Obviously Frommer, like a lot of people, didn't know about this. And yet, remarkably, it never affected him before now. No doubt, he has been to Arizona in the past, when open carry was perfectly legal, and yet he never objected before. Only now, at this moment, did Mr. Frommer become concerned that people, somewhere, might have guns hanging outside their waistbands, rather than inside.

Perhaps we should pay closer to the operative part of Mr. Frommer's statement:

I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest. I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there.

The AP clipped that quote. It's clear from the whole quote that Mr. Frommer's objection isn't just to civilians carrying "loaded weapons as a means of political protest," but to open carry of any sort.

Then there is Mr. Frommer's misinterpretation of the nature of the protest. I can't speak for the intentions of any individual, but I know something about the mindset of these kinds of protesters. They were wearing and carrying guns for two reasons:

First, because they could, and because they believe that a right, unexercised for fear of reprisal, is an illusion. There is a growing, and very grass roots, movement towards normalizing firearms possession in public. I sympathize.;

Second, and I think more relevant in this case, because carrying weapons openly is a mark of free, responsible Americans. Free, in the sense that their actions are not limited according to their rulers' caprice, or indeed by another man's prejudices (like those of Arthur Frommer). Responsible in its literal sense, meaning that they are subject to the consequences of their actions. It's a way of saying, "Here I am, a free adult American citizen, who is perfectly capable of contracting for my own medical care, and living or dying by the result."

In ancient Rome, magistrates were preceded by fasces, physical symbols of their authority. In much the same way, an American citizen carrying a firearm is carrying a physical symbol of his inherent liberty. This, I think, was the symbolism intended by the chaps at the Arizona event.

Mr. Frommer misses this interpretation, and I'm not surprised. He is experiencing a condition called hoplophobia--an irrational fear of arms. He specifically raised the question of his own safety, and the safety of other travelers, in places where firearms can be worn openly. (In my entire life, 25 years of which were spent in Arizona, I've seen it done no more than twice.) And this is how we know his fear is irrational. Can anyone think of a scenario where one of the vanishingly small number of Arizonans openly carrying a firearm might take it upon himself or herself to open fire on an 80-year-old travel editor? Can anyone tally the rate, preferably expressed in incidents-per-million, at which innocent tourists were gunned down by open-carrying Arizonans?

Writes Frommer:

According to the Phoenix, Arizona, police, people with guns including assault rifles do not need permits in Arizona, but can simply carry such weapons with them, openly and brazenly, when they gather to protest a speaker at a public event. The police also acknowledge that about a dozen people carrying guns, including one with an AR-15 assault rifle, milled about outside the event at which President Obama spoke.

I won't dwell on the distinction between "in a public event," "at a public event," and where the protesters in question were. The protesters weren't inside the security cordon, or threatening the president or any attendees, which is reasonable. (Wise is another question.) I don't think any reasonable person has an objection to security restrictions around the president. (That is, so long as the president goes places where such restrictions are fairly justifiable. If the president were to attend a gun show, on the other hand, I think such restrictions would suddenly become very hard to justify.)

But I must say, I'm amused by Mr. Frommer's rhetorical flourishes. "Openly and brazenly"? I don't suppose it would be possible to open carry secretly and meekly. Really, though, it's the "milling about" outside the event. It really brings to mind union thugs "milling about" outside a factory, ready to beat up scabs, doesn't it? If you're "milling about" outside an event like this, surely you're intent on violence; the milling proves it! The lack of actual violence at the event is a mere technicality. The mere visibility of the guns is more violent any actual violence could really be, isn't it?

--

It's worth saying, from reading Frommer's blog post, that he's a cautious guy. He didn't come out of the dock blaring for a boycott, and he said he wanted to learn more about Arizona's gun laws. That's a more measured statement than I would expect from a lot of people, and I salute him for it.

Comments

[Kenneth Pike]

I don't really have anything to add. I think it is a fascinating conversation... particularly the idea, apparently becoming ingrained in our culture, that the only reason to carry a weapon is to commit a crime. Makes an interesting case for doing certain things "simply because I can"--because in fact failure to exercise certain rights may lead to eventual stigmas against such exercise.

But mostly I wanted to not that the Dental West comment is the most topical linkspam I have ever seen. And I get a lot of spam.