|
Firearms
First, I will lay out my basic philosophy on the topic, then, in general terms, address some counter arguments which might be made in response.
My philosophy is simple: Individual right of self defense against intended harm precludes the hypothetical consequence to the general welfare of the public if a firearm is the instrument of individual self defense.
Now to address some counter arguments as they come to me and as best as I can recall them.
Total or major banishment of guns has succeeded in multiple countries, lowering crime rates.
Re: As I said, I am being general in my contentions; and as this is a moral issue for me, even if such statistics are true, they really would not persuade me away from my beliefs on the matter. But it is fair to ask whether or not those supposed successes are applicable in the United States. The strongest point to be made for firearm control is the presumptive benefit to society by virtue of the inherent nature of most people to be law abiding, thereby making the gun problem lessened, one hopes. But it is also inherent in people that they remain true to their nature, good or bad. I will grant that firearm control can succeed. I wish tranquil times to all societies who have chosen strict limitations on the ownership of firearms, but not every society is guaranteed such success, which may not be possible with the nature of some of them. Since this is imperfect, it leaves what I hyperbolically call "sacrifices for statistics." Such sacrifices are those individuals who were violated in some way which perhaps could have been resolved by a firearm in their favor. I place high value on them, as they, like many others, are limited on what they can rely on for their well being.
But you acknowledged the intent is to lessen the overall crime rate, and you did not contend that it would not do so. And that's a good thing.
Re: That is true, but I am not trying to play psychic. My objection is with the notion that a person must be reliant on the ableness of the community, from neighbors to police officers when it cannot always viable. And intent matters greatly to me. I know this may sound cruel; like reversed priorities to some people, but if it comes down to a man's right to use deadly force, or the threat thereof, in protection of his person and family, et al, I will always put that above the children slain as a result of the alleged firearm culture (negative context).
But the firearm culture is the problem. It's an endless cycle of violence.
Re: Which also causes one to ask whose benefit it would be if strict firearm control were enacted. Would violent people cease their nature because of it? Not likely. From a strategic standpoint, and safety in some cases, arms are preferrable because of they're superiority against most other weapons, designed and adopted, so a weak person may be wise in having a gun ready against a person not armed. It is not the obligation of intended victims to be weaker than those assaulting them.
Guns don't often work in common situations.
Re: That's probably more often the result of human error, which is an inescapable part of life. And we can apply human factor of human error not only to a defendant's use of a firearm, but to his attacker's use. It is error and circumstance which affords a person the opportunity to use his gun defensively. In other words, situations are not the same and not universal in result. And the firearm's capacity for defense and attack remain a physical fact upon which a person in the former position may need to survive.
PS. At some later date I might address this issue further.
-------------------------------------------------------
Firearms 2
Earlier today I was told that what I need to understand about the gun control debate comes from understanding the effects of deaths by gun misuse on children. I was told that I need to investigate such tragedies. The implication being, that if I understood on that level, I would be an advocate for stricter gun control. Such a presumption is wrong. I submit that my own presumption of myself is as valid as those which anyone else make of me.
My view on guns comes from a belief in the right of self defense against intended harm and the capacity of guns vs. all other lesser tools/weapons to meet the needs of that right.
While it is terrible that many die because of gun use, it does not supersede a right of self defense, the necessity of which is situational and can therefor not be disproven. Nor can the effectiveness of guns in the practice of self defense be disproven. In both cases, there is a human element to consider.
Gun ownership should have some restrictions. But what kind is another debate.
It was also suggested that homes with children should not have guns in them, but that is unfair. In the first place, because it would take a round about way to attempting automatic mass gun banishment, and in the second place, because, instead of restrictions based on personal competence, or proof of a lack of it, it is a restriction that presupposes incompetence. Again, we return to the human element. In order to accept the application of a statistic on the dangers of gun ownership in homes with children, it must first be accepted that those human elements which largely contribute to disrespecting those dangers are inherent and unavoidable. I do not accept those as universal constants.
--------------------
Europe, et al, on America’s gun culture.
As should be expected, the Virginia Tech massacre has resumed the gun debate. Of course those in Europe, often critical of the US’s gun culture, have weighed in, as is their right.
But a right does not guarantee a person uncritical tolerance, and I cannot give it to Europe on one very important, for me at least, issue: We, the US, are not uncivilized, barbaric, nor are we inferior to you because we have a large amount of guns, or so much, as it is seen, gun related crime.
I am tired of this simple understanding of what civilized is. The conceit is appalling, and the irony is staggering. Civilized is not something only measured by consequences, it is also defined with respectful consideration of the rights of individuals, of the principles of self reliance, self defense, and trust in the populace of a nation to act well toward itself. If civilized can be defined by results, than near any method can be seen as just, so long as it is presented well enough. The irony is in the greater self reliance on neighbor and government that is consequential to more restrictive gun laws, when such trust in US government is so often seen as American naiveness.
Sadly, many in Europe and elsewhere do not respect the underlying principles of why people own guns, or support others owning them. The issue is not about agreeing with gun ownership, it is about understanding it, and not putting people down with sanctimonious, too often erroneous, assumptions about their culture and why they believe in what they do.
I have always tried to make some effort to be fair, but there is only so much I can take. Europe, et al, you have never been, nor shall you ever be, more civilized than me, and my country’s gun culture does not prove you right. To believe to the countrary is to prove you arrogant.
|
Views 50 
Please 
