David Joy And Feelings About Guns
BY Herschel Smith6 years, 8 months ago
From one thing to another, and another, and another until all the feelings about anecdotal experiences have been flushed out of his mind into the world. Or something like that.
Two weeks before Christmas, I had a 9-millimeter pistol concealed in my waistband and a rifle with two 30-round magazines in the passenger seat beside me. I was driving down from the mountains to meet a fellow I didn’t know at a Cracker Barrel off I-40 in the North Carolina foothills. He was looking to buy a Kel-Tec Sub-2000, and I had one for sale. Other than that, I didn’t know him from Adam except for a few messages back and forth on Facebook.
We were both members of a Facebook group where people post pictures of firearms and buyers private-message to ask questions and make offers — sometimes cash, sometimes trade. I needed money to pay a buddy for an old ’70s model Lark teardrop trailer, and that rifle wasn’t doing anything but taking up space in the safe.
What I was doing was perfectly legal. In North Carolina, long-gun transfers by private sellers require no background checks. Likewise, it’s perfectly legal to sell a handgun privately so long as the buyer has a purchase permit or a concealed-carry license. But as I headed up the exit to the restaurant where we agreed to meet, I felt uneasy. I was within the law, but it didn’t feel as if I should have been.
He was backed into a space parallel to the dumpster, a black Ford F-250 with a covered bed, just as he described on Facebook Messenger. As I pulled in, he stepped out. He smiled, and I nodded.
“You can just leave it in the seat so we don’t make anybody nervous,” he said as I rolled down my window. There were families in rocking chairs in front of the restaurant. Customers were walking to their cars to get back on the road.
I climbed out of my truck so he could look the rifle over while I counted the money he’d left on his seat. He was about my age, somewhere in his early to mid-30s, white guy with a thick beard. He spoke with a heavy Southern accent not much different from my own. Said he built houses for a living, and that was about all the small talk between us. He liked the rifle. I needed the cash. We shook hands, and off we went.
If you’re wondering what the hell the point of all of that was and what he’s trying to communicate other than sharing an anecdotal experience, you’re not alone. It’s all entirely legal as it should be. It’s called a person-to-person transfer. Let’s continue with his feelings for a while longer.
Where I live in the mountains of North Carolina, I am not alone. With fewer than a dozen guns in the safe, I wouldn’t even be considered a gun nut. Most of my friends have concealed-carry licenses and pistols on their person. If there are 10 of us in a room, there are most likely 10 loaded firearms, probably more, with a few of us keeping backups in ankle holsters. Rarely do we mention what we carry. We don’t touch the guns or draw them from their holsters. They are unseen and unspoken of, but always there.
I can’t remember a time in my life when I wasn’t around guns. When I was a kid, there was a gun rack hanging on the wall in the living room. My father kept a single-shot .410 and an old bolt action .22, small-game guns, though he didn’t hunt anymore. I can remember watching older boys shoot skeet at a junkyard in the woods behind my house, my fingers plugged in my ears while orange clays turned to smoke against a backdrop of post oak and poplar. I can remember the first time my father taught me to shoot a rifle, how he had me sit on the concrete driveway and use my knee for a rest, aiming for a cardboard target in a honeysuckle thicket across the road. I think I was 8 or 9. I pulled the stock in too high on my shoulder, and craned my neck awkwardly to line up the iron sights. I didn’t know what I was doing, but I knew the rules: Always assume a firearm is loaded. Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. Know your target and what’s beyond it.
Okay, so here we are in the South where guns are ubiquitous, and he is sharing an experience and his feelings about that, and we’re left wondering about the point of all of this. So let’s continue a while longer.
The second and last time I had a gun put to my head it was by the police. After a drunken fight, I left a friend’s apartment to walk five miles and sleep on the porch of a buddy’s house across the river. I was walking down the side of Wilkinson Boulevard in Belmont.
Okay, I know right where he’s talking about. So what happened?
I was carrying a shoe box. I saw a police cruiser pass me and make a U-turn at a stoplight up ahead. When the Crown Vic came back, the driver jumped the median and next thing I knew there were multiple cars, lights flashing, officers ordering me to the ground.
They had their guns drawn. There was a K-9 unit, and the German shepherd wouldn’t quit barking. I was lying flat on my stomach, and one officer came forward and put his knee in my back, his service weapon pushed into the base of my skull. They let the dog close enough that I could feel him barking against my ear. They said I matched the description of someone who’d burglarized some houses nearby. They asked what was in the shoe box, and I stuttered, “Papers.” They asked if they opened the box if there was anything inside that would hurt them. With my face in the grass and the officer’s weight making it hard to breathe, I was so terrified that I couldn’t mutter a single word. I just shook my head, and they opened that box to find nothing but a stack of notebook papers, a pile of half-assed stories I’d written. They told me I could get up, and I stood there trembling while they apologized. They gave me a ride across the river and dropped me off at the Mecklenburg County line, told me they were sorry but they couldn’t take me any farther.
So at least that night the cops in Belmont were a bunch of ignorant hicks roughing innocent folks up and assuming something for which they had absolutely no basis and which they could have ascertained with a little intelligent conversation. Actually, I suspect this was the Gaston County Police, but who knows because he doesn’t say? We’ll come back to this in a moment. Let’s continue for a while longer.
Just before the deer strolled behind a cedar sapling, I touched the trigger, and the .308 blew apart the morning. A hundred and fifty grains of copper-jacketed lead hit just behind the shoulder and blood-shot the backside to pudding. The buck stooped forward and sprinted, back legs driving him over tangled ground. He made it 40 yards before he crashed. From my stand, I could just make out the white of his stomach through the brush. I watched his ribs rise with each breath, that breathing slowing, slowing, then gone.
There is a sadness that only hunters know, a moment when lament overshadows any desire for celebration.
Hunting isn’t for everybody, but I’m still not sure what this all has to do with anything. For the love of God, let’s get somewhere, okay?
When the trooper had my license and registration, he went to his cruiser. In a few minutes, he came back to the window and issued me a warning for speeding. I asked if there was anything I could’ve done differently to make him more comfortable when he first approached the truck. The trooper told me what I’d said was fine. He said that some officers might have been uncomfortable with where the pistol was located, being holstered near my wallet, but that he felt we had a good rapport. Depending on the officer, some might have asked me to step out of the truck so they could remove the weapon. He smiled and told me: “But this is South Carolina. Most every car I pull over has a gun.”
Frankly, I think we should be more worried about what the cop intends to do with his weapon than what the cops think about the fact that we have one. But let’s continue still.
Last summer I drove back to Charlotte to visit my father for his birthday. While I was there, I went into a Cabela’s store in Fort Mill, S.C., to buy him a new depth finder for his fishing boat. After I found what I was looking for, I headed across the store to see if there were any good deals on ammo.
There were floor displays of AR-15s, and probably a hundred or more other rifles and shotguns for anyone to walk up and hold. I watched a kid about 8 or 9 pick up one of those ARs and shoulder it to the center of his chest. He held the gun awkwardly, cocked his head hard to the side, squeezed one eye closed to aim and dry-fired the weapon. I watched two men, presumably his father and grandfather, smile and laugh, then break out their cellphones to snap a few pictures.
I remembered how when I was his age, I used to love going to the sporting-goods section of Walmart to look at fishing lures and camouflage clothes. I’d walk over near the register and push the manual turntable on the curio display to look at all the rifles and shotguns. There were usually a few big game guns — a gray stock Remington 783 in .30-06, maybe a Marlin 336 lever action — a couple of pump shotguns, a single shot .410 or 20-gauge. There were always Ruger 10/22s and Marlin Model 60s, the .22LRs kids unwrapped when their grandfathers gave them their first rifles for a birthday or Christmas. There were always guns, but nothing like the assault weapons that line the shelves today.
Maybe it’s how I was raised and the types of firearms my family kept, but the idea of owning a rifle designed for engaging human targets out to 600 meters just never interested me. I keep a Savage 10 in .308 to hunt whitetail and hogs. I have a CZ 920 that’s absolute hell on a dove field. I have a handful of .22 rifles that I use for plinking at the range and hunting squirrels and rabbits each winter. Then there are the weapons I keep for defense — the shotgun by the bed, the pistols — firearms whose sole purpose would be to take human life if I were left with no other choice. I’ve witnessed how quickly a moment can turn to a matter of life and death. I live in a region where 911 calls might not bring blue lights for an hour. Whether it’s preparation or paranoia, I plan for worst-case scenarios and trust no one but myself for my survival.
My friends see no difference between the guns I own and their ARs. One or two of them rationalize assault weapons the same way I justify what sits by my bed. When I ask if those rifles are really the best option for home defense, they joke about the minute hand of the doomsday clock inching closer to midnight. They post Instagram photos of Sig Sauer MCXs and tac vests loaded with extra magazines, their bug-out bags by the door as they wait for the end of the world.
But a majority defend their ARs the same way I defend the guns I use for plinking and hunting. They say they own them because they’re fun at the range and affordable to shoot. They use the rifles for punching paper, a few for shooting coyotes. Every weekend they fire hundreds of rounds from custom rifles they’ve spent thousands of dollars building. They add bump stocks and Echo Triggers to increase rates of fire and step as close to Title II of the federal Gun Control Act as legally possible without the red tape and paperwork. They fire bullets into Tannerite targets that blow pumpkins into the sky.
None of them see a connection between the weapons they own and the shootings at Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, Aurora, Orlando, Las Vegas, Parkland. They see mug shots of James Holmes, Omar Mateen, Stephen Paddock, Nikolas Cruz — “crazier than a shithouse rat,” they say. “If it hadn’t been that rifle, he’d have done it with something else.” They fear that what starts as an assault-weapons ban will snowball into an attack on everything in the safe. I don’t believe that politicians are going to ban ordinary guns or overturn the Second Amendment, but I understand their reasoning because I understand what’s at stake. I think about that boy picking up that AR in Cabela’s, and I’m torn between the culture I grew up with and how that culture has devolved.
Aha! We’re finally there. A gun dude is sharing his feelings about how his culture has “devolved,” and says that he “understands” the reasoning behind politicians and their gun bans.
Would the New York Times have published anything else? The comments are amusing if not downright ridiculous. He is a great writer! He has started a commonsense conversation among gun nuts and the rest of the world. It’s a “moving and beautifully written article.” Who needs a gun that can “spray bullets with one pull of the trigger?” “Concealed carry is a bad idea unless you have a job that requires it.” And this from Dara Resnik.
Thank you, David Joy, for this thoughtful piece. I wonder how many more are like you, and how we can bring them into the open. I think many of them are afraid of what you experienced when you brought up the subject of banning assault weapons to your friend — it’s taboo in gun culture to talk about curbing any gun rights at all. But I know you are not alone in your views.
I imagine given who your friends are, there will be, to use a firearm term, some kick back for having published this piece. But writing it was the right thing to do.
I hate to break it to you Dara, but most of us don’t feel this way. We call guys like David a “Fudd.” You can look it up, dear. And this from Peter.
People on the other side of the divide are fearful of all those paranoid gun-toters hoping that they’re not in someone’s line of fire when things go bad, with reason or without. How have we as a society arrived at this point
I’m more worried about the cops, Peter. And yes, “we as a society” have arrived at this point. At one time, kids carried their guns to school with them. No, I’m not kidding. So point your finger of blame somewhere else.
As for the author, David Joy, he’s apparently now fulfilled his bona fides for selling more books, as well as commenting on NBC, CNN, CBS and ABC.
What he hasn’t done is crafted a commentary that’s anything but a running list of anecdotes and his feelings about them, appended by a statement of agreement with gun bans. And he hasn’t offered any compelling reason to believe that the justification for owning weapons – self defense and the amelioration of tyranny – has changed since the beginning of time.
On April 3, 2018 at 7:06 am, Duke Norfolk said:
I can’t know for certain what’s in his head. Whether he understands the true nature and purpose of the 2A and an AR-15 (and similar).
But what’s clear is that he has simply made the choice to take the easy road and virtue signal; with all the societal rewards that come with it, as you’ve referred to.
He’s a coward and a traitor. Period.
On April 3, 2018 at 9:00 am, Fred said:
“…but the idea of owning a rifle designed for engaging human targets out to 600 meters just never interested me….Then there are the weapons I keep for defense — the shotgun by the bed, the pistols — firearms whose sole purpose would be to take human life if I were left with no other choice.”
Sometimes the people leaving you with “no other choice” are “600 meters” or more away, like the guy in Vegas or like the guys putting your neighbors and family onto rail cars.
——-
Taking the life of an animal should bother you. That’s a good sign. Life is tenuous. The inability for your mind to translate that into a more complete understanding of the natural law is troubling. This doesn’t take intellectual firepower it takes acceptance of ones place in God’s creation and even those who don’t believe in God understand it still, it’s natural. But it takes the willful suspension of disbelief to then come to the opposite conclusion that men shouldn’t have arms. Or the flat out satanic lie that because somebody shot a person that those who didn’t get shot should then have their firearms removed. (at gunpoint by the way)
There are things that are supernatural – of God. There are things that are natural – created by God. There are things that are unnatural – lies of the devil.
It’s unnatural for somebody to want to be defenseless. It is a worker of iniquity that wants another left defenseless. A man who wants his family defenseless is so far removed from the image of God in which he was created that he can only believe lies. The lies have become his own. The people who want you disarmed aren’t planning on disarming themselves. Their smarter than to believe their own lies. Don’t be a dumbass Fudd.
On April 3, 2018 at 9:01 am, Dane said:
What a bummer. I’ve read both of his books and liked them, but I won’t be buying or reading any more of his work.
On April 3, 2018 at 9:27 am, Herschel Smith said:
@Dane,
He went to Western Carolina University. He lives in Appalachia today. If this commentary is any indication (and the summary of his first book seems to dovetail) he uses his skills to paint a portrait of the people of Appalachia as ignorant, crack-head, meth-making, uneducated goobers.
On April 3, 2018 at 11:19 am, June J said:
He made the NYT, good for him. They’re still not getting my guns.
On April 3, 2018 at 2:15 pm, Dane said:
@Herschel,
You raise a good point. His writing is in the same genre as Daniel Woodrell’s novels/short stories (i.e., Winter’s Bone), which is to say gritty, violent, and dark. Given that he profits from tales of drug-induced violence and depravity, he really has no business virtue-signalling in the toilet paper of record. Or perhaps he feels that violence is acceptable only if committed with grandpa’s old snubby, shotgun, or hunting rifle…
On April 3, 2018 at 2:26 pm, moe mensale said:
“With fewer than a dozen guns in the safe, I wouldn’t even be considered a gun nut.”
Joy’s use of the term “gun nut” offends me. Actually, anybody’s use of the term offends me, particularly gun owners. I don’t know how the term first came about but there’s no doubting that it’s used as a pejorative stereotype by gun haters against gun owners. It has connotations of psychological impairments and we know that the antis consider gun ownership and use a mental health problem to be treated accordingly. And we know where that can lead.
And again we allow the terms of the narrative to be defined by our opponents and happily wear this one with pride.
On April 3, 2018 at 2:30 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Dane,
Huffington Post loved his first novel. It’s easy for progs to love you when you make mountain folk look like they came out of “Deliverance.”
On April 6, 2018 at 10:12 pm, Hudson H Luce said:
“…but the idea of owning a rifle designed for engaging human targets out to 600 meters just never interested me”. But that’s the point of the Second Amendment, and pretty much the only point – hunting, and defense against criminals aren’t mentioned at all.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
–Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
It’s pretty clear that the original intent of the Second Amendment was that there would be neither a permanent standing army, nor what was known then as “select militias” – which would be today’s militarized law enforcement agencies, armed government agents, and the National Guard. The intent was that the people would be armed with military weapons, superior in force to anything the government could put in the field. Up until the blatantly unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934, this parity was possible, but due to shootouts between organized labor and police who were sent in to break the strikes, this law was put in place to disarm the workers – the tax on each gun regulated was equal to a month’s pay for an average worker. And the working classes – as opposed to the rentier class from Wall Street – have continued to get screwed over by the Democrats, as well as the Republicans. Of course, non-military weapons would also fall under the coverage of the Second Amendment, because their use in hunting and target shooting would be a part of an individual’s duty to become well-regulated, as a member of the militia.
But it’s the New York Times, and it’s no great surprise that they would misconstrue a basic Constitutional right in this way, much as they inveigh against anyone who uses the First Amendment in ways which do not meet with official approval.