Bearing Arms - A Rational Response?
I found myself in a gun-control debate earlier today.
Alex Weaver:
So far as I can tell, keeping and bearing arms in civil life is a means for certain kinds of people to assuage deep and overwhelming emotional insecurities, not a rational response to any threat faced by our present society.
My response:
That’s quite the stereotype. Would you happen to have any evidence demonstrating that law-abiding firearms owners must have such insecurities?
[Another commenter] is correct to point out that concealed carry is useless against car-bombing and other such indirect methods of attack, but you (Alex) went far beyond that to decry defensive weapons use entirely (including a potent dose of ad hominem for good measure).
Are you prepared to back up the assertion that, facing an assailant who is armed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, or even just muscular strength and who is intent on committing murder, rape, and/or the infliction of serious bodily injury, it is irrational for innocent parties to have available a reliable method available to deter said attacker?
I’m no “gun nut” (although I suspect you would disagree). I fully support reasonable efforts to block the sale of firearms to those who are morally deficient and/or mentally unstable, and to dramatically strengthen the training, skill, and background check requirements for concealed carry permits. However, I cannot comprehend the reasoning of the ultra-dogmatic anti-gun position.
Criminal defense aside, suppose the government’s recent headlong plunge into tyranny continues unabated. Would this not constitute an ever-growing threat toward rational, liberal society? Are you so steeped in anti-firearm sentiment that you would deny everyone the means to throw off another repressive government, should that become necessary? (If you contend that small arms are insufficient to resist a modern superpower army, please direct your attention to Iraq.)
Alex Weaver:
Kevin, none of what you posted has any coherent relationship to either my actual position or my statements. Observing that the comments of Christopher here and in other threads, and of most others I’ve encountered who share his views, appear to reflect an intense emotional “need” to possess weapons in general and firearms in particular which is entirely divorced from the level of actual risk of the person in question facing any of the scenarios you describe, but which may be highly relevant to the level of threat posed to other citizens in connection with the gratification of said “need,” and is not even an anti-gun position, let alone “ultra-dogmatic.”
What I posted has a very straightforward, coherent relationship to Alex’s attack on gun owners. He made two assertions: (1) that gun ownership is a method for assuaging emotional insecurities, and (2) that gun ownership is not a rational response to any modern threat. I requested evidence for the first assertion, since the burden of proof is on the accuser, and provided two strong rebuttal examples to the second assertion (defense against criminals and defense against tyranny).
If Alex had claimed that a subset of gun owners, in his experience, exhibit emotional immaturity, I would not have objected, but there was no such disclaimer. If he had claimed that, for any given person living in a modern society, the level of risk of an attack in which a defensive firearm could prove useful was rather low, I likewise would not have objected, and that likewise was not even remotely made clear.
The statement that “bearing arms is [...] not a rational response”, without appropriate qualification, is dogmatic. I will be more than happy to consider retracting my assertion of Alex’s ultra-dogmatism pending further clarification toward that end.
I have no idea whether Alex will follow me over here, but he (or anyone) is free to jump into this discussion at any time.
I was following your argument. I often find secular humanists to be very anti gun. Quite frankly I dont understand why. They are usually pro choice in everything else:abortion,drugs,sex, etc. I have always thought that they viewed the 2ndA. as the redheaded stepchild of the bill of rights.
NRA Christian
18 Aug 08 at 11:13 pm
Thanks for the comment.
Well, here’s one atheist / rationalist / freethinker / secular humanist who’s highly pro-Second Amendment, subject to the constraints I outlined earlier.
Kevin
18 Aug 08 at 11:41 pm
I also believe in the right and necessity to keep and bear arms.
The prevention of tyranny by our government notwithstanding, in a world where violent criminals are released from prison back into society, and gun control laws encourage violent criminal behavior, it has become a necessity for citizens to be armed for self-defense. While the overall risk to an individual to be a victim of violent crime is small, the threat still exists, and seems to be higher in certain geographic areas and occupations. For the victim of a violent crime, gun possession is as vital as possession of a fire extinguisher by a homeowner with a kitchen fire–perhaps even more vital. Oddly, society’s past response to violent crime has been to disarm the potential (and eventual) victims, rather than the criminals (which is not possible–criminals WILL acquire and carry guns regardless of gun control laws), exacerbating the violent crime problem, and the vulnerability of the public. The anti-gun forces do have one thing correct, that death by violent crime is a public health concern in the U.S.; but they totally get it wrong in how to treat the issue, to solve the problem. More guns do not result in more violent crime, in fact, there are statistics which prove exactly the opposite. The U.S. has seen the tragic results of Gun Free Zones in several school, court house and church massacres. When the anti-gun proponents wake up and realize that THEY (along with the criminals) are responsible for these senseless deaths, and that only law-abiding gun owners are affected by gun control laws, then perhaps the nation can finally work together to rationally reduce violent crime, through the empowerment of its citizens through the bearing of unconcealed and concealed guns. Until such time, all the rest of us can do is work to defeat them through supporting pro-gun legislation and politicians, as well as carrying (a) defensive firearm(s) when appropriate.
2A Defender
19 Aug 08 at 8:51 am
Spot on!
(Although I would love to introduce you to the “Enter” key…)
Kevin
19 Aug 08 at 2:50 pm
I’m a former Marine. And yet I view the perceived need to bear arms as an emotional response to problems that are beyond anyone’s control. I have to laugh at false sense of security that many civilians imbue into their firearms. I’ve been in combat zones and depended on my weapons many times. But at no point did I pretend that any of my weapons were preventing some inconceivable harm from befalling me.
There is one and only one way that any gun can effectively keep you safe. You have to actively go out and eliminate the threat. Not the way grandpa does when he hides his duck hunting rifle under the pillow, but the way police officers do when they go out on patrol.
I’m completely in favor of more and more people doing things to that effect. It works. No matter what libertarians claim, the fact remains that the majority of crime is prevented and the majority of criminals are stopped by police officers. But that’s not the tone of the dialogue that I hear from the gun crowd. They shy from everything - the training, responsibility, and the dedication. I don’t hear them talking about the need for more police officers on the street. I don’t hear them volunteering to put their own lives on the line to fight crime. They just want guns as some sort of panacea to the things that make them really scared.
That’s why I take everything coming from the NRA crowd with a grain of salt. They’re implying that our police forces are too incompetent to keep our society reasonably safe. Yet, they claim that untrained civilians can do a much better job simply by hiding guns under their pillows, in their pickup trucks, or wherever they want.
bbk
19 Aug 08 at 10:25 pm
But at no point did I pretend that any of my weapons were preventing some inconceivable harm from befalling me.
Thank you for your comment, but civilian defensive firearm ownership is not about preventing nebulous, inconceivable harm; it is about preparing oneself to have a chance at preventing actual harm. It is easily verifiable that such harm is done by Bad Guys every day.
Situation 1: A CPL holder is out in public, minding his/her own business. A bad guy pulls a gun, a knife, a blunt-force weapon, etc. The CPL holder draws a lawfully purchased and inspected/registered handgun. The bad guy stops, and is covered at gunpoint until the cops show up. Or, the bad guy continues his assault, and is neutralized. Result: lawful civilian defensive possession of a firearm has kept innocent people safe.
Situation 2: A bad guy breaks into a house in the middle of the night with a weapon, and invades the master bedroom. The homeowner identifies and, with a lawfully purchased shotgun, neutralizes the threat. Result: lawful civilian defensive possession of a firearm has kept innocent people safe.
There is one and only one way that any gun can effectively keep you safe. You have to actively go out and eliminate the threat.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for proactive crime prevention, to the degree that it’s reasonably possible. I’m a Libertarian (not an anarcho-capitalist) and have no problem with a tax-supported police force.
However, please don’t tell me that there’s no justified reason to prepare for reactive crime defense as well. Police cannot be everywhere, protecting everyone, at once.
But that’s not the tone of the dialogue that I hear from the gun crowd. They shy from everything - the training, responsibility, and the dedication.
There are certainly firearms enthusiasts who shy away from training and responsibility. I don’t appreciate being lumped in with them. I am on record as wholeheartedly supporting a drastic increase in the training requirements for CPLs and the strengthening of background checks for firearm ownership in general.
Kevin
20 Aug 08 at 11:16 am
I am on record as wholeheartedly supporting a drastic increase in the training requirements for CPLs and the strengthening of background checks for firearm ownership in general.
I commend you for that opinion, but that seems to have more in common with the gun control people than with the NRA. What about the archetypal slippery slope argument of the NRA? Isn’t it what this is all about? Gun control is not and has never been about foregoing the right to bear arms, it is about having a rational set of guidelines to keep gun ownership from becoming more of a liability than a benefit to free society.
But, I don’t buy the argument that it helps to be “prepared” for the inconceivable. A single cop working in a professional environment is a thousand times more effective than a civilian using a gun for self defense. If you’re a gun owner, you’re more likely to get struck by lightning than to shoot someone in self defense. If you’re a woman, you’re actually 100 times more likely to be the victim of a weapon than to be saved by one you own. If you’re a child, you’re more likely to be accidentally killed by a parent’s firearm than to be protected by it. But if you pool the money that just a couple hundred people spend on buying guns in any given neighborhood, you can actually pay a cop for a full year and get an actual benefit out of it.
So, being “prepared” to defend yourself is exactly what I had been referring to. It just doesn’t happen. People win the lottery every day, too, but does that mean we should all be playing it? No, it’s a waste of 5 bucks. Same with handguns. They’re a waste of money when used simply for “preparedness.” Nothing more than filling a paranoid psychological need.
bbk
20 Aug 08 at 9:08 pm
Sorry, but before you jump on me about it, I have to acknowledge that any numbers I put out in the above post are not from a source, but instead just back-of-the-envelope estimates from what I would consider common sense and/or from data that I saw as best as I can remember it. But I’m not trying to turn this into an academic discussion, just a common sense one.
bbk
20 Aug 08 at 9:41 pm