Sometimes "I Don't Know" is the Right Answer
On the rarity of intellectual humility in the gun debate
When I teach my Sociology of Guns class at Wake Forest University for the 11th time this fall — after a one-year hiatus — I am going to put three intellectual virtues at the core: curiosity, open-mindedness, and humility.
These virtues were implicit in how I taught the course previously, but with support from Wake Forest’s Program for Leadership and Character, I began redesigning the course last summer to make the cultivation of these virtues explicit learning outcomes.
Those who follow me regularly know that curiosity is key to my work on guns. It’s in the title of my book, Gun Curious. It’s central to my promotion of civility around guns. In my recent TEDx talk (video forthcoming), I named it as a key to escaping our national gun debate trap.
Philosopher Jason Baehr defines curiosity as: “A disposition to wonder, ponder, and ask why. A thirst for understanding and a desire to explore.” His slogan for curiosity is, “Ask questions!” This calls to mind Immanuel Kant’s answer to the question, What is Enlightenment? Sapere aude. Dare to know.
Curiosity is related to other intellectual virtues, especially open-mindedness. Baehr defines this as an “ability to think outside the box,” to give “a fair and honest hearing to competing perspectives.” With curiosity, I have tried to embody this virtue in my study of guns in America.
A quote from Baruch Spinoza’s Tractatus Politicus has lived on my Gun Culture 2.0 blog since its inception in 2012 (h/t Reinhard Bendix): “I have sedulously endeavored not to laugh at human actions, not to lament them, nor to detest them, but to understand them.”
Curiosity and open-mindedness inevitably lead to humility. The more you practice them, the more aware you become of what you don't know. According to Baehr, humility is a “willingness to own one’s intellectual limitations and mistakes.”
Even though I have studied American gun culture for 14 years now, there is still much about guns in America I don’t know or understand well. I recently commented on not having much exposure to “gun tubers.” I wasn’t aware of gun cloners, “American Gun Culture’s Biggest Nerds,” until I read about it in the New York Times. My hunting blind spot is well-known and fully-admitted.
Despite my limitations, people still ask me to comment on aspects of the gun reality that go beyond my knowledge and expertise. Which means I am often in the position of having to say, “I don’t know.”
This happened quite memorably with CNN’s John Avlon a few years ago. In a pre-recorded interview, Avlon asked me a question and I answered “I don’t know.” This was included in what was eventually broadcast. At first, I thought it made me look bad, but in retrospect, I realized it modeled something countercultural in our great gun debates in which everyone thinks they have not just an answer, but the answer.
It modeled intellectual humility.
I was confronted again by my limitations recently when Scott Bass from Richmond Magazine called me for comments on young men openly carrying firearms in the Shockoe Bottom area in Virginia’s capital city.
I told him I didn’t know anything about the specific case and that I was unfamiliar with a broader pattern of young people open carrying firearms to perform status in crowded entertainment districts like Shockoe Bottom. He asked for my thoughts anyway.
Although he didn’t quote me as saying “I don’t know,” he did capture some of my surprise and uncertainty:
People openly carrying firearms in commercial areas is interesting. That sounds unique to me.
Although a stereotype of academics is that we are arrogant, in my experience, being a scholarly expert means knowing an incredible amount about a very small part of reality. It is inherently humbling.
The gun debate suffers less from a shortage of opinions than from a shortage of people willing to admit the limits of their own. Saying “I don’t know” won’t resolve that, but it’s a start.
Thanks for reading to the end. Other than my two books, I have never charged for any of the content I produce. Although it is free to you to consume, it is not free to me to produce. If you are interested in supporting this work financially, please consider using the button below to become a paid subscriber to this Substack, or you can make periodic or ongoing contributions through my Buy Me a Coffee patron page or PayPal.
My PhD advisor always cautioned against overconfidence in one’s bright idea. There is always something you don’t know.
Your comment regarding "I don't know" is quite valid, David. In my career, I have found that the statement "I don't know, I need to do more research before answering that question" earned more respect than attempting to fudge or give a wrong answer. As one Safety Professional stated: "In God, I trust; all others bring data." was a rule I tried to follow.
That has been brought home quite clearly in monitoring a blog on a social media site I made the mistake of commenting on. Here, in NYS, all but 2 Counties allow for 12-13 year olds to hunt big game (deer & bear) under close supervision of either the parents or a guardian; the young hunter must be properly licensed (that means passing a Hunter Safety Training course, the supervisor must also be a licensed hunter and supervision is defined as "being within arm's reach". One of those counties is the one I live in, Erie. The County Supervisor has adamantly been against this proposal; after it has been proposed 2x by the County Legislature, it may finally pass for the 2026-2027 season. That means the Legislature must override his veto. Most in the County recognize that it is a purely political position on the Supervisor's part. Personally, I'm in favor.
When a local media outlet posted the news article, the respondents on local social media have been mixed, with those opposing mostly doing so on the basis of emotional feelings. They stridently post in disfavor based on "kids should not be allowed to touch guns!"; "they will just shoot up the woods and anyone in them"; "kids should not be killing animals, they should be playing sports (as in organized sports like hockey, football, basketball, etc.)"; "you no longer need to kill deer for meat!"; "their brains are not fully matured"; to plain "NO!" and "I'm definitely opposed!". Any factual presentation of reasons why this measure should pass are dismissed in a similar manner.
The facts are that those participating in the hunt must follow the above rules. Data collected by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has yielded no accidents (not even falling out of a "buddy" treestand), no technical violations of the regulations and happy young hunters with their parents. Other facts are that most of Erie Co. is fairly rural in nature, the majority of protestors live in an area where hunting (of any type) is prohibited (and wildlife have eaten themselves out of food at times), and hunting is mostly a generational family tradition that parents and relatives' respect. No one is requiring young people to hunt. The real ironic part is that 12–14-year-olds may hunt small game (including turkeys) with a firearm, again under supervision as well as shoot for marksmanship practice.
Before you protest, you may want to learn about what you are protesting for. Get the facts first!