Many of my readers are probably familiar with the term “gun culture 2.0,” as it is most notably associated with Dr. David Yamane and his work on the modern culture that surrounds firearms. Yamane attributes the term, however, to Michael Bane, and I do recall Bane referring to the contemporary gun culture as “2.0” even many years ago now. Essentially, the “gun culture 2.0” that Yamane and Bane refer to is the community that has emerged over the past several decades that is preoccupied mainly with the role of guns in self-defense, as apposed to hunting or recreation as defined in the previous gun culture of the United States.
As it turns out, being now in my mid-40s, I have lived both gun cultures. Admittedly, as an adult I have been entirely entrenched in gun culture 2.0, having carried concealed since, literally, my 21st birthday when I was able to get my carry permit. However, in my youth, and greatly due to the environment in which I grew up, I lived among a dedicated 1.0 gun culture. Essentially, in the rural, agriculture-based environment of my youth, guns were a ubiquitous tool that, literally, everyone owned, and used to dispatch critters that threatened livestock, and to hunt. Everyone owned rifles and shotguns, and almost all men in this environment hunted, although almost nobody carried a handgun on body. Of course, this was before the concealed carry Shall Issue permit revolution which greatly fostered and contributed to the contemporary 2.0 culture.
Recently, I watched a movie that I have not seen in over thirty years, but upon watching it again I remembered how the film left an impression on me when I saw it as a kid, probably about twelve years old at the time. The film is typical of the 1980s era horror/monster movies. Grade B films, most often, but if you are around my age or older you completely understand when I say, we love these films because of the nostalgia involved. All you fellow 80s and 90s brats know what I mean. While all generations think life was better in their youth, we are correct in that assessment. Everything was just better, even the stupid horror movies were better than stupid horror movies now, despite dated visual effects.
Anyway, the specific film under discussion here is a movie called Watchers, released in 1988. I probably saw it some time in the early 90s. It is not to be confused with a recent movie entitled The Watchers by M. Night Shyamalan, nor should you confuse it with three or four other sequel films that were exceptionally horrible, even for 80s/90s era straight-to-video standards. Rather, the film discussed here was released in 1988 and stars Corey Haim, the young actor from other notable horror films of that time such as Silver Bullet and The Lost Boys.
The film Watchers is based on the book of the same name by author Dean R. Koontz. Years after seeing the movie, some time in my late teens, I read the book. Per usual, the book is far superior to the movie, but the movie holds up well for the time, and I recommend it if you have not seen it.
Dean Koontz was ahead of his time with the plot: essentially delving into genetic engineering even in the 80s, which would have been at the infancy of such things. The story follows the escape of two genetically modified animals from a government lab, one a golden retriever dog with advanced intellect, designed as a spy, and the other a mutated humanoid/ape-like monster designed as a killing machine for use in war. The twist is that the monster hates the dog’s guts, and everywhere the dog goes the monster follows, leaving a trail of death in its wake as it searches for the lovable dog, which ends up in the care of Corey Haim’s protagonist.
So, upon watching the film for the first time in thirty-plus years, it dawned on me how it proves a true representation of gun culture 1.0. The sheriff deputies who appear in the movie are carrying revolvers and using shotguns, of course, but the standout weapon is the gun that the teenaged Corey Haim uses at the end to finally bring the rampage to an abrupt halt; a lever-action Winchester 30-30.
Yeah, it would seem that it does not matter how mean your teeth, claws, and attitude may be, 30-30 has a rather decisive effect on anything that bleeds. Perhaps it was the impression left by this film in my youth, among the many westerns that glorify the lever gun, that led me to be such a fan? As you have read on this blog, I love the lever action rifle as a “go-anywhere” gun, though I prefer the 357 Magnum over the 30-30 for my needs, and I am confident that the 357 out of a rifle would have made short work of the OXCOM as well (acronym for the monster in the movie). Of course, 30-30 and 357 Magnum will both do wonders to end violence committed by the far more common two-legged monster, and that monster is far more common around my parts of the world than are OXCOMs. Though, I would not doubt that there are OXCOMs in Baltimore, probably high on PCP and fentanyl to boot.
The reason this movie so well represents gun culture 1.0 is the pristine and nostalgic environment of the film, set somewhere in Northern California in the mid 1980s, the era appropriate firearms, but also the employment of the gun. Once the character finds out, with only moments to spare, what is pursuing his newly adopted dog, as well as himself and his loved ones, he quickly retrieves the lever rifle, left to him by his now-absent father, and loads it. Perfect representation of gun culture 1.0. The rifle was ubiquitous, but unlike us 2.0 practitioners, people did not keep an AR15 and plate carrier at the ready in their bedroom; most had a rifle or a shotgun, probably unloaded, in a closet somewhere. During this scene the hero escapes the home with the dog and his mother to live another day, and the 30-30, now kept at the ready, finally gets used to good effect at the end of the movie to fix the problem.
Since my mind works in such ways (as yours likely does as well) my takeaway from this particular sequence in the movie, even as a child, was, “why would you not keep the gun loaded and ready in the home?” When the OXCOM breaks down the door, our good guy quickly finds and loads the rifle (well-filmed, showing him panicked and fumbling with the cartridges, thus the reason to keep you lever action rifle LOADED). The single round he gets in the gun at least fosters an escape. Had it been loaded, well, the movie could have ended right there and then. But, I would propose that this seemingly ill-prepared combination of having the formidable tool, yet not immediately ready, typifies gun culture 1.0.
Why keep a rifle unloaded in the closet, buried under a pile of clothing? Was life in the 1980s immune to the human threat? Hardly. In fact, some of the most horrific home invasions were committed during that decade. See my article on the Dryden Massacre, an incident I was certainly aware of when I saw Watchers all those years ago. It would seem that a loaded 30-30 in the closet was a very good gun culture 1.0 solution to any problematic creature, be it a home invader, a bear in the yard, or the OXCOM (LOVE the OXCOM premise, this movie needs a modern re-boot with good visual effects). Even now in gun culture 2.0, I think a lever rifle is a great choice to have at the ready if traveling to, or living in, restricted vicinities.
The great change between 1.0 and 2.0 is not just the inevitable advancement in gear technology, but in the mindset. While almost every home in rural and suburban areas had a long gun, there was probably only a small fraction of households that kept the tool ready, specifically for defending the home. This was an era well before AR15s being common, and long before having red dot optics and lights on a home defense gun. Despite that, the common tools such as pump shotguns and lever rifles that were in every house were more-than capable of defending the home from both two-legged and four-legged threats. The mindset, however, was not as wide-spread as it is with gun culture 2.0.
If made today, would the good guy get a Glock 19 out of a hand safe, probably the most common home defense solution among normie suburbanites of gun culture 2.0? I would prefer the 30-30 if dealing with a large, furry critter with claws. If Corey Haim’s character was a gun culture 2.0 enthusiast practitioner, then certainly, when first encountering the OXCOM in a modern remake he would unload a magazine on it from his appendix-carried Glock 19, buying time to make it to his AR15 and plate carrier to finish the job.
Oh, wait, the movie is set in California, so in a contemporary remake, depending on where in California, he may have nothing at his disposal except foul language and a baseball bat. However, the movie is set in a mountainous small town, not downtown LA or San Fran, so he would probably arm himself, and in a state that neuters modern sporting rifles and restricts magazine capacity, it might as well still be with a lever rifle, so what do ya know! Turns out the gun culture 1.0 weapon remains a solid choice, so long as you KEEP IT LOADED!
In closing, I highly recommend Watchers for a night when you have nothing better to do. Despite the dated effects it is entertaining, and very nostalgic if you are around my age. This film deserves a re-boot. HOWEVER, even though it would seem obvious to off the OXCOM with an AR15 these days, NO! Stick with tradition and smite the beast with a lever gun.
For the best prices on ammunition, shop Ammoman.com https://www.ammoman.com/
For the ammo I use for training, go to: https://www.ammoman.com/9mm-blazer-brass-124-grain-fmj-5201-1000
Reflex Handgun 
Leave a comment