[Caution: there are plot-spoilers below].
This large novel has made a splash in gun-nut circles (I use the term affectionately). It was said to be quite controversial and difficult to obtain. Now I hear it is selling well and should be orderable from any decent book store, or from the publisher. But it is certainly controversial, a libertarian political polemic about the trials and triumphs of the American "gun culture". The triumph consists of a violent mini-revolution to overthrow all federal gun laws.
As an advocacy novel, I suspect it will not have the impact of Atlas Shrugged (individualism), but will probably be better known in the US than The Camp of the Saints (cultural and racial identity). Another apt comparison might be with horror writer Dean Koontz's best-selling Dark Rivers of the Heart. In that novel the Feds are psychopathic serial killers and the heroes have guns but mainly try to survive unnoticed. (I don't mean to imply that this book is thematically similar to any of those).
As a literary effort, Unintended Consequences is certainly as well done as the average genre novel. Because it is a "message" book the narrative includes long catalogs of government abuses and asides into firearms mechanics. I am not aware of any other novel that goes into such a great amount of detail about the shooting sports. Further, the author is obviously well-acquainted with a segment of the gun culture foreign to me: the dealers and users of machine guns, canon and other destructive devices. Unexpected pleasures include details of the "Bonus Army" march on Washington in 1932, reproductions of old gun advertisements, and "Henry Bowman's" long paper "Prohibition's Ugly Legacy" which discusses the economics of gun control.
This is clearly a "libertarian" rather than a "conservative" novel, even though both ideologies have some concern with gun rights. The heroes express no religious sentiment or ethic apart from "live and let live", and there are many gratuitous sex scenes. I don't think these add much to the story and question whether they are truly obligatory in good fiction. Perhaps the author wants to establish that his shooters are not puritanical hicks, but I suspect many readers will find the scenes off-putting. There are also many descriptions of gruesome violence.
The first two-thirds of the book is the uncontroversial set-up: a series of reminiscences of the twentieth century relevant to firearms which made me quite nostalgic for the days before the gun-control hysteria began in the late 1960s. It is difficult to believe that pastimes once considered wholesome and suitable for the whole family have been so effectively demonized and made into matters of criminal law. Like the first few chapters of "Huck Finn", it made me yearn for an America that has passed and probably isn't coming back.
Most of the protagonists are rich with easy money and lead exciting lives of flying acrobatic planes, parachute jumping and African big-game hunting. This reminded me of the "True Balls" men's magazines of my youth, and I half-expected scuba divers knife-fighting with sharks next. This suggests a serious point though: the gun culture is a subset of the larger world of people who can actually do things, who have skills and crafts other than office work. The "dumbing down" of America has been more than just an intellectual decline; it has meant the suppression of anyone who does more than consume, become mesmerized by the tee-vee and make the approved herd noises that indicate allowable political consent.
There are a few quite moving scenes, as when a survivor of the resistance in the Warsaw ghetto meets a 10-year old shooting prodigy in America and realizes that the boy's knowledge would have made a great difference to the European Jews who had no knowledge of guns. Another such scene is when the boy, now grown, encounters the mechanic who built his father's wartime airplane.
The story brings us up to "now", the time shortly after the fiascoes at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and the Oklahoma City bombing. The narrative could have gone in any of several directions; the author takes it in a radical, revolutionary one. Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms stage a series of raids, intending to plant drugs, counterfeit money and conspiracy evidence on certain firearms dealers and use this as a pretense to shut down the whole industry. Our hero catches and kills them all, and embarks on a devious plan to overthrow the gun control regime. In a low-level spontaneous uprising, hundreds of federal agents are assassinated, as are a number of politicians with bad voting records. Several recognizable political figures, including Janet Reno, are killed in a rather brutal and sadistic fashion. The President, an anonymous post-Clinton stoic, eventually capitulates.
I have several reactions to this final third of the book: (1) it is a dreadful prospect, (2) it is still an exciting story, and (3) it is a bit disappointing to see realism thrown out the window as our heroes engage in unbelievable "James Bond" plot devices. I don't believe that enough competent people would join in the mayhem the way the author describes, or that they would have such a cavalier attitude about it. The principals seem much less heroic when, taking time off from hot sex, they start murdering, blackmailing and planting drugs and child porn on their enemies. I accept that the characters see themselves as soldiers and that vicious things happen in war, but this account seems too stylish and whimsical.
On the other hand, Alan W. Bock, in his Ambush at Ruby Ridge, claims that many members of the federal police believe that imminent conspiracy against the government exists and must be quashed by any means. If we were to enter a period of unrest and violence directed against federal agents became more common, perhaps a considerable number of competent people would join in. John Ross holds that once the people are aroused, the ill-trained feds are no match for the sharpshooting citizenry.
There is another aspect in which the novel has a controversial edge: many of the federal agents are black or Hispanic. Now, this is simply an accurate description: the federal government has been aggressive in recruiting certain minorities. Similarly, many of the assassinated politicians are Jewish, leading one congressman to exclaim, "This is a second holocaust!" Some readers are going to fling nasty invectives at the author for these elements, even though he states more than once that early gun control was part of the Jim Crow laws and celebrates the firebrand organization "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership".
The author quite clearly lays out many dilemmas of the decent citizen. Since freedom is seldom lost all at once, how is it to be retained by that large body of people who simply want to be left alone? What kinds and level of resistance are appropriate? When is political violence justified?
Ross provides an intriguing metaphor: personal defense books discuss how much one can cooperate with criminals. "Give me your money": all right. But what if the criminal says "Put on these handcuffs and get in the van"? No good. You cannot allow yourself to be placed in a circumstance where no further defense is possible. It is better to resist than become helpless, because once in the van your chances vanish. (See Strong on Defense, by Sanford Strong).
Politically, free people face a parallel circumstance. Laws and policies are arguable and a country can legitimately pursue various courses, but there is a line that cannot be crossed, a zone that cannot be entered: the people cannot allow themselves to become defenseless. Giving up the power of physical resistance is as risky to freedom as suspending elections and giving power to a dictator. Once freedom is lost, it is not coming back.
Such prospects seem like fantasy to some people. "It can't happen in America". But children born today will be in their prime in 2050 and their children will see 2100. Who knows what wars, depressions and upheavals will occur between now and then, and what adversities our posterity will face? Ought we to limit their response by disarming them, removing their capability of physical resistance?
In their pursuit of hunting, collecting and target shooting, gun owners ought to be no more controversial than stamp collectors and restorers of old steam engines. Political attention is, of course, initially directed to defensive and military uses. The moral case for allowing private weapons is clear to me: (1) people have a right to defend themselves against attack and the law cannot require them to be helpless, and (2) a free society cannot be maintained unless its members are capable of physically resisting tyranny.
These points are not clear to everyone. The firearms debate is so heated because it is a very pure example of the clash of philosophical premises, what Thomas Sowell describes in his book A Conflict of Visions. We have two sides who persistently talk past one another because each simply cannot see what the other is talking about: they differ in their foundations. For example, consider: Why does genocide occur? One camp will suggest: "economic distress, violent ideologies and cultural conflicts", etc. The other camp will say: "Genocide occurs when there is nothing to prevent it. The human inclination to this type of violence is innate and only countervailing force prevents its expression." People who differ in this way have no hope of reaching consensus on policy matters.
The old slogan "Guns don't kill people, people do" is a concise illustration of the problem. From one point of view that is an evasion. From the other, it is the simple truth that people use their tools, not the reverse. This is the real dilemma for which I see no solution: how to bridge the gap between people who have such different views on human nature.
John Ross has written a one-of-a-kind novel. Although it focuses on firearms, it is about the decline of freedom and virtue on many fronts. I hear a sequel is in the works and I await it with interest.