23 February 2018
I appreciate that Kentucky and Ohio are open carry states. Though I’ve never been a big fan of guns myself, or of cars, explosions, or other loud things, I’ve also never been uncomfortable around them. They’re just tools, after all, like hammers and automobiles. None of them are “dangerous.” With the same hammer you could build a church or cave in the back of my head. One act would be a crime against humanity, the other act simple homicide. Either way, the hammer remains guiltless.
Just like guns.
Still, aware as I am of the hysterical dread that many lefties have of “gun violence,” I like that open carry makes guns more and more visible day after day. By definition, the more something is seen, the more “normal” it becomes, and “normal” is less scary than “weird.”
Normalize responsible tool use.
Carry your piece.
update 180224: Back Fence (correspondent KR) responds,
“#1 Hammers and cars are dangerous. Look up the definition.”
A valid technical point. Toothpicks and teaspoons are “apt to do harm” under the right (wrong?) circumstances, too. Fortunately for the rest of my argument, the dictionary cites no moral component to danger. Please excuse my presentational error in not pointing out that the quotation marks employed were intended to signal the focusing of an otherwise inadequate, but approximate expression. Clumsy of me.
“#2 [G]uns are more dangerous than hammers or cars.” Maybe. Based on body count it looks like automobiles and firearms (at about 40k per year) are just about neck and neck, and hammers (at under a thou) are way trailing. Even so, hammers out kill rifles per se. Though long guns can make for dramatic front page long range accuracy, overall, the handgun is the favorite for homicides and suicides. Again, checking the Ghengi-meter, it is body count that sways the argument for this actuarial analyst.
“#3 [H]ammers and cars are not built for the purpose of killing. Guns are. …[T]hey serve no purpose in daily life.” First of all, it really doesn’t matter to me that Louisville intended its Slugger to be used for swattin’ horse-hide over the back fence if Negan’s using it to splinter my skull. Second, you are disingenuous or misinformed if you are stating that a gun’s sole purpose is homicide. Not only is it inaccurate, in light of the mountains of evidence showing that the very brandishing of a weapon can be the peaceful solution to an otherwise arduous ordeal, but it is insulting to the great numbers of competitive shooters (of which I am not one, see disclaimer above about “loud things.”). It is even more insulting to the survivors of violence whose prudent foresight saved them or their loved ones (or other innocent strangers) from further abuse. Of course you’re absolutely right otherwise. Violence and the “implements of violence” (those specialized tools designed to advantage the otherwise weaker over would be predators) have no use in daily life. By definition, because attacks of a violent nature are not, thankfully, a “daily” occurrence. The trouble is, emergencies are always unscheduled, so precautions are just sensible. We’re told that God created all men, but we’re also told that it was Sam Colt who made them equal. Whether you are a ninety pound waif or a three hundred pound bruiser, it only takes a few ounces of muscle to squeeze that trigger.
“#4 Using hyperbole (“hysterical”) and pejoratives (“lefties”) doesn’t make it any easier … to engage in meaningful discussion.” –Maybe not, but it does make it more enjoyable for me. Besides, I thought “leftie” was descriptive, an obvious abbreviation for collectivist. But more fun and friendly, like “Greeniac” or “Losertarian.” Most hopplophobes are NOT hysterical, but hysteria is often exhibited in the presence of firearms. There is iconic footage of a burly cop shouting “GUN!” and tackling a little old lady because she was safely holding her pistol and pointing it toward the ground and threatening nobody with it.
“[#5] Thank you for leaving your gun at home.” (correspondents EA & AM confer their approval on Back Fence’s comments, but significantly not on mine. That’ll show me!.) Knowing your feelings I would hesitate to bring any guns onto your turf, just as I would not smoke anything in a “smoke free” environment. And not to be toooooooo much of an [jerk] about it, while I respect your rules in your house, in the public school I’d prefer to suspect that there is a .38 tucked into the inside pocket of the “School Marshall’s” herringbone blazer. I know many teachers are averse to the notion, and they are excused. I may not have trusted Mister Math or Professor Sociology with guns, but I suspect that Doctor Agronomy or The Dragon Lady would have handled themselves just fine. (And thoroughly no disrespect intended, because I fucking LOVE MISTER MATH!)
update 180225: Al Assassid (correspondent AM) responds,
“[Y]ou say it yourself… there are those you would not trust with guns.” Correct, but I lean more toward due process than prior restraint. Those who are demonstrably dangerous and unbalanced SHOULD be disarmed, forcefully if necessary, but it’s going to have to be a rare and justifiable event to satisfy my sense of jurisprudence. Al Assassid goes on to posit a scenario in which Mister Math goes nuts and because I let him have all those guns he takes out the glee club. However, because Doctor Agronomy is also present and packing, he stops Mister Math’s rampage short, but not before a few stray slugs leave Doctor Agronomy’s piece and take out a couple of students in Home Ec. Summing up, Al Assassid says, “[Y]ou don’t get it both ways; you can’t have everyone armed and no innocent people dying.”
“[T]here is nothing to prevent Mister Math and Professor Sociology from owning the biggest baddest gun arsenal anywhere except…“ their complete lack of interest in owning firearms. It’s not that I don’t trust their intentions, I just think they’d fumble the task. As for innocents in danger, it’s always very sad, and I always do the math. History has demonstrated the superior efficacy of decentralized networks over the top down hierarchy, and when seconds count the police are minutes away. And sometimes people do make terrible irreversible mistakes. In a union of some 320 millions, horrendous anomalies are going to arise and it’s up to the rest of us to be alert to danger. Overall, six fresh corpses (if it came to that) would be less tragic than seventeen. If we can’t count on Barney Fife pissing himself outside the back window, it’d be nice to know that the retired Ranger art teacher was holding iron.
update 180226: Al Assassid reminds me that “it is really, really bad to kill or even harm anyone.” Oh but dear, karma is so tricky. If we have to use violence or threats of violence to disarm people, we are right back in that wheel. Judgment and vigilance and reason, oh my! I never pretended these were easy puzzles, just that in the real world we have to face some awful truths sometimes. I feel terribly for the victims of violence, INCLUDING the homeowner who shoots the intruder. I expect it must be horrid to live with that. But still… Don’t. Break. Into. My. House.
update 180227: Al Assassid concedes that “it would start a war if the 2nd Amendment were repealed,” but ultimately hopes to “cheer a bunch of teenagers taking down the NRA. Peacefully, of course.” I respect Al Assassid’s peaceful tactics and benign intentions, but do not share her concerns about those wimps at the NRA. They’re the moderates on this issue. For serious victimization prevention advocacy, check out the Gun Owners of America ( https://www.gunowners.org/ ) or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership ( http://www.jpfo.org ).
update 180305: Correspondent TW (“Assault rifles are used to kill, period”) takes exception to the notion of “hysterical dread” and asserts that “gun violence” is a fact, but seems to forget that factuality and hysterical dread are not exclusive properties. It is a fact that falls from great heights can ALSO hurt acrophobes, hysterical dread notwithstanding. TW appeals to the authority of an anonymous vet who claims that “an assault rifle is for killing people,” casually insulting the legions of sport shooters and defenders of hearth and home who seem to have found good purposes for weapons other than homicide. Finally, TW asks, seemingly apropos of nothing, “Which government bureaucracy do we want to pay for — the one that determines who can own an assault rifle… or the one that bans assault rifles?” False dichotomies are as cheesy as straw men. Neither, please. TW continues not to get me. I want to reclaim these Responsibilities of the Unorganized Militia, not bleat for more government interference.
update 190913: correspondent AK calls for a “modern interpretation of [the] Second Amendment,” neglecting the fact that Eighteenth Century English is as precise today as the day it was written, and that it remains the responsibility of the Militia to be at least as well armed as the Occupation. As George Washington counseled, the Second Amendment is the teeth of the Constitution.
AK also complains that “nowhere does [the advocate for safety and freedom] state WHY he needs a gun.” Like do-gooders before him, AK demands detailed descriptions of freedom actually working before he’ll consider loosening restrictions. As for why I may have needed a gun (or a fire extinguisher, or car insurance), that may well be “essential information” AFTER the fact. Beforehand it is usually unknowable. The correct answer to “Why do you need a gun (or a flashlight, or a seat belt)?” is “I don’t know. I actually hope I DON’T, but if I do I’d sure hate to be without it.”
update to update 180224, 190924:
In addition to clumsiness on my part I also suspect insincere nitpickery on the part of correspondent Back Fence.
