What We See As Defensive, They See As Offensive.

image

I’m not 100% certain in my thinking here, so please pardon me as I write this stuff down in an attempt to clarify things in my own brain, and then, perhaps, maybe yours as well.

Hey, when they said blogging is “intellectual prototyping”, they weren’t kidding!

That quote from Col. Cooper got me thinking: I have never once thought of my guns as a means to acquire something. Instead, I agree 100% with Maj. L Cauldill Marko Kloos: I don’t carry a gun to impose my will on others, I carry so others cannot illegally enforce their will on me.

I see the gun, especially the handgun, as a civilizing force, as a means to achieve reason. The reality is, though, that the vast majority of illegal deaths caused by firearms are committed with handguns. What I use as a civilizing force, others use in an extremely uncivilizing manner.

Same gun, different results.

That means something, and I’m not sure what. It’s a loose thread in the sweater of my rational mind, and I’m sure to be picking at it some more as the weeks go by.

This Post Has 5 Comments

  1. 10,000 people were killed last year by drunk drivers, and there are millions in AA. But I’m not addicted, and I don’t drive drunk, so I’m able to buy and enjoy alcoholic beverages without reservation or legal restriction. I’m not embarrassed nor made fun of, and I’m free to discussmy favorite drinks with others through any forum.

    To me, my choice to carry a gun is the same.

    1. and the if the gun ban folks get their way that civilizing force of your handgun goes away and all we are left with is criminals and cops with guns. Like NYC

  2. Kevin you are into something good. I have worked thru this same conundrum more broadly. I think it boils down to assigning personal responsibility, or as my lawyer friends tell me: tort law.

    What tort seeks is to assign responsibility for harm to an individual or group (excluding for convenience the benefit principle, which would make this way too long)

    So law assigns responsibility to people, at least in theory. Biblical law certainly follows the principle that people are good or evil depending on what they do.

    The problem arises when societies choose to avoid the hard truth of personal responsibility by blaming objects or talismans. Taboo objects about in every society: guns, drugs, a woman showing her face in public or without her husband/brother present, dancing… The list is virtually limitless.

    These “things” are identified as the primary cause of evil behavior and therefore outlawed. That act allows the social group to avoid taking responsibility for bad choices, like sexual assault, overdose, promiscuity, murder, etc.

    In my view, that is merely scapegoating. It’s manifestly maladaptive for a person or a group. It violates the foundation of tort and established natural law principle.

    Scapegoating is also easier because people can avoid the reality of good or evil. They don’t have to take responsibility or do unpleasant things. Just blame the “thing”, outlaw it,’punish those who possess or provide the taboo object; then all will we well. Of course, everyone facing reality knows that banning things don’t solve a problem. Problems are only solved by limiting maladaptive behavior, like assault, fraud, and theft.

    So with guns. The progressives demonizes then because they don’t want to take responsibility for personal safety, and perhaps accept responsibility for the risk that comes with some of their lifestyle choices. The same reason they once sought prohibition of alcohol. They also ask government to use force to punish those who don’t agree, the ultimate manifestation of avoiding personal responsibility by demanding coercion on their behalf.

    Pro 2A people tend to take responsibility for their choices and actions. Guns are a tool to fend off the evil that exists in this world. Pro 2A people tend to pay their bills, follow the law, and generally mind their own business and expect others to do the same. When faced with violence, they will do their best to stop the offending behavior without harming the aggressor. The tort principle in action.

    So in my view it comes down to accepting personal responsibility or demanding to place responsibility elsewhere.

    Prohibition never works for any product. We are all better served when laws address Bad behavior instead of tangible but inanimate things. Inanimate objects do no harm until a person uses the thing for good or ill.

    I suspect the pro 2A community will have little success arguing tort or personal responsibility. It can help us understand the issue more fully tho.

    Out government policies for the last 100 years or so have created a dependent class taught to blame others for their woes. This is alive and well today, and remains the root of the popular anti-gun (or anti-anything) psychology. Until we again take responsibility for our choices as individuals and a nation, we will continue blaming various boogeyman (inanimate or otherwise) for the problems in our midst. Irrational fear and scapegoating are never the answer.

  3. It means that it’s not the guns that do the civilizing, but civilized people are.

    1. Ack; that was lousy grammar. That’s what happens when you type with two different thoughts in your head at once. How uncivilized.

Comments are closed.