I recall seeing an interesting argument from some conservative folks about the Harry Potter series and gun ownership over the past year or so. Or rather, it was an accusation of hypocrisy on the part of liberals who love both the Harry Potter series and advocate for strict gun control or even a total ban. The contradiction essentially boiled down to the fact that almost every magically-inclined man and woman in the world carries a wand: a powerful instrument which could seriously injure or kill, in either self defense or attack. Therefore, so the line of reasoning goes, advocates for more strict gun laws and especially bans who also happened to be fans of the series are hypocrites, for loving a vision of a fantasy world apparently incompatible with the vision they hold for their own. I remember seeing this come up a few times, and I don’t recall seeing a counter-argument, nor did one occur to me at the time, so I wanted to take a brief look at it here.
Disclaimer: I’m a gun owner, as is my wife. I used to find them fascinating and fun to shoot. The history and craftsmanship are still of interest to me. I can no longer feel very good about engaging in this interest anymore, so I don’t, but I’m not without knowledge or passion on the subject. I have changed my views to some degree on gun ownership, and frankly I’d very much like if we as a nation weaned ourselves completely of them. Anyway, on to the main point.
There is a key distinction between the wands and spells of the JK Rowling’s vision of the magical world and the firearms in ours, and it really should be obvious, but it wasn’t even to me initially. In Rowling’s universe, the person is the power. They do not have a choice in this. When we first meet Harry as a young child, he’s subconsciously removing the barriers for a snake at the zoo, thus freeing it. One can’t buy or otherwise acquire these abilities in the raw – you have them or you don’t. When a child with magical ability comes of age, they receive an invitation to an appropriate institution for training. If we flip things for the real world, it would be as if some of us were born with knives for arms. I’d like to think we’d engage with these folks’ development in an appropriately safe manner.
But in the wizarding world, the wand merely channels and focuses the power in the witch or wizard. Which power, again, is not a choice. More on that in a moment.
Building on this, the other important point to be made is that Hogwarts and the other magical schools exist for the training of the children in the safe, responsible use of this power. This is a vital check on what is essentially a force of nature. Witches and wizards exist, and the only options are genocide, mass chaos, or strict training and accountability. Thus, the existence of Hogwarts, far from being an argument in favor of firearms, is actually a damning critique on lax restrictions and training. The misuse of magic is taken seriously, and the penalty for some actions, including a killing curse, is quite severe.
The importance of this fundamental distinction in nature is clearly revealed in the more recent lines of Rowling’s stories (Fantastic Beasts), which deal with the devastating and tragic consequences of ignoring (or, more specifically, suppressing) this force. Much of the story thus far centers the chaotic and immensely powerful projection of raw magical force they call an Obscurus, and the gifted young man whose tragically abusive and suppressed childhood inflamed the monsterous force inside. His guardian’s failure to validate his identity and provide a supportive path had disastrous consequences. The relevant lesson to take from this tale for our world seems to me quite the opposite of the pro-gun argument, and therefore does not provide a pitfall of hypocrisy for gun control advocacy.
For Rowling’s world, magic is an inescapable reality for many people, and the fantasy powers that be have taken responsibility for its proper use. It cannot be left alone, raw – they either learn to control it or it controls them. For us though, guns and other destructive technological abilities are not innate to our humanity. We set ourselves down a path long ago, but it doesn’t have to be this way, and some nations and their citizens have begun to reverse course. Where wands and training harness existing chaos, guns escalate and enhance our violence. The two do not necessarily fill the same role, nor the same purpose. Violence is an option for one, while the other is violent by its very created purpose.
We as a nation are now so far along this bloody path that many have accepted that the only solution to the problem is more of the problem. Retrench. Double down. More armed guards in schools, even in places of worship. Guns in the home of every (law-abiding) citizen. But we do not have to live so close to violence or carry on its work in our past. I can’t stress this enough. We were born with 5 fingers on the end of each hand not a six-shooter flanked by a live grenade. Tools of violence turned on each other are not inherent or essential to the human experience (although one could be forgiven for assuming so, given our history). I believe gun culture is both a symptom and an escalating force in our national divide. We got an entire generation of young folks who are clueless about things (like cassette tapes or floppy discs, or land lines) their parents accepted as commonplace or vital – could we forget guns if we wanted to? One can dream.
Can we both heal our divide and keep our guns? Maybe, but I don’t really care – I want to be a part of creating a world without violence, where guns for any purpose are unnecessary, obsolete. I will not lament their loss even a little if we succeed or if we fail. As someone who still clings to some remnant of faith and a desire to follow Jesus, guns have become more and more antithetical to how I believe I should live. If I need to, I’ll count the ways for you that a white American Christian male clinging desperately to gun rights is abhorrent to me.
Well, that got long. Probably overkill. But if it saves a trip around the nonsensical-argument carousel so folks can get at what they really mean more quickly, I can live with that. I’m also a fan of the Harry Potter series, and while it did annoy me to see the misconception, more important to me is how it indicates a faulty presupposition with a fast-growing history of tragic consequences for us.
Final note: Harry is noted for his insistent use (a few lapses in policy notwithstanding) of defensive magic as an offensive tool even against the greatest evil threat their world faced. There’s a lesson in there somewhere….
The Flour Hour 