AP Photo Opinion Gun Lovers Aren’t Heartless. They’re Just Pessimists. I know—I’m married to one.

Sophia Raday is the author of Love in Condition Yellow: A Memoir of an Unlikely Marriage.

“How can you, with a straight face, make the argument that more guns will make us safer?” President Barack Obama asked on Friday.

I can answer that question. I’m in the progressive camp, but I’m married to my political opposite, a Republican police officer and soldier. We’ve had eighteen years to compare notes on many political issues, and out of all those arguments, I have gained an understanding and a measure of respect for the conservative worldview.


When something as horrible as the shooting in Oregon happens, progressives want to pull some shred of meaning from it. So let’s do something already, we say, in increasingly exasperated and angry tones. Let’s learn. Let’s change things. But we might be more effective in getting something done about mass shootings if we actually understood the opposition. Researchers studying conflict and extremism believe you can get a lot further in negotiation with an adversary if you acknowledge what is sacred to them. And believe it or not, gun-rights advocates—at least by virtue of their politics—are not heartless.

It must be understood that gun-rights advocates, like many conservatives, tell a very different story about the world than we progressives do. In their narrative, the earth is an inherently dangerous, often hostile, and definitely competitive place. Unlike us, they do not take as given that deep down, all people are basically good. They believe there is evil in the world, that there will always be evil in the world and that evil must be consistently and stalwartly confronted. In their story, it’s up to every one of the good people to stand up against malice. Otherwise, evil gets the upper hand. So, when a mass shooting occurs, their view of American society as overly permissive, and therefore an insufficient bulwark against ever-threatening evil, is only confirmed.

Liberals scratch their heads at the NRA member’s passion for firearms. People like Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin—whose post-Sandy Hook letter refusing to enforce any additional gun regulations is now going viral—seem like callous monsters to us. We find it odd and twisted to be so attached, so passionate about an amalgamation of metal and explosives whose raison d’tre is destruction. What we don’t get is that for conservatives, and Second Amendment defenders especially, the supreme virtue is self-reliance. The unconscious story underlying much conservative thought is a tale of good versus evil. Think of movies such as the Dark Knight, or Braveheart, or Star Wars. The virtuous individual must draw on his own talent and courage to defeat evil within and without. He cannot rely on others to carry his weight for him, especially not the government, which is a greedy slug at best, a fierce tyrant at worst in the lore of the pro-gun camp.

The importance of individual responsibility underlies conservative opposition to many government assistance programs: food stamps, health care, social programs in general. But to many conservatives, nothing is more basic than an individual’s right and responsibility to safeguard his own life. Ceding the ability to defend oneself to a stranger? It’s not just feckless or weak; it’s self-betrayal. And that’s where the right to bear arms comes in. A gun on your hip gives you individual power against the tyranny of violence. It gives you the opportunity to be the hero. Hence the American right’s fetishization of the firearm. It is the symbol of an individual’s ability to defend his life. It’s the linchpin to freedom.

You may notice I am using the “he” pronoun to characterize the strident pro-gun advocate. That’s because there are a lot more men than women in the gun rights camp. Indeed, attitudes toward gun rights constitute one of the biggest gender gaps in American public policy. In a 2012 Pew Research poll, women elevated gun control over gun rights by a 24-point margin, while men leaned the opposite way, prioritizing gun rights by a 10-point margin.

Researchers explain this (tautologically to my mind) by saying that men are more likely to defend gun ownership because they are far more likely to own firearms. That simply raises another question: why do so many more men own guns? The obvious answer is that more men anticipate a need to defend themselves. The potential for a life-threatening conflict is more present in their minds. Perhaps this is somehow genetic. Or due to environmental factors. Or a consequence of men being more likely to have experienced a physical fight. Whatever the case, it is certainly true that men, even with today’s advances in gender equality, often bear primary responsibility for a couple’s or a family’s security.

It seems obvious that the more physical conflict looms in one’s imagination, the more dangerous the world appears. Perhaps that’s why police officers overwhelming oppose gun control. Cops see the results of gun violence, which makes their strong support of gun rights sort of odd to the progressive perspective. After all, they and their brethren are too often the targets of gun violence. Plus, they needn’t personally fear gun restrictions since they would almost certainly be exempt. Nor should it bother them to yield control of their security to government agents since, well, they are the government agents. Yet despite all that, police officers want an armed citizenry. And not by a small margin. Over ninety percent believe there would be fewer casualties if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident. Over eighty percent think arming school administrators and teachers is a good idea.

Why? The conventional answer is that conservatives and gun-rights supporters are more likely to become police officers. That’s clearly part of it, but maybe there’s more to it. Perhaps police officers experience the world as dangerous and threatening, in the same way that passionate gun-rights advocates do. Perhaps because of all the dysfunction they see in their jobs, they believe evil is an inevitable part of life. Perhaps their job experiences confirm a worldview where the best answer to evil is widespread sleeper cells of ready-for-action, preferably packing, good guys.

In sum, for a pro-gun American, limiting access to firearms is an assault on the very core of his identity. Because he does care. In fact, he wants to save the day. Take away his right to bear arms now? When evil is increasingly evident? That’s sending him out to face the playground bully with his hands tied behind his back.

As far-fetched as all this may seem to a progressive, it’s not ignoble. It’s not heartless. It’s a radically different viewpoint that we progressives would be better served understanding rather than demonizing.