Kevin at Smallest Minority has been nominated for Greatest Blog Post Ever for this: Those Without Swords Can Still Die Upon Them. If you haven't read it before, take a look when you can. It's an interesting piece.
One of the things that keeps coming up from some people is the 'guns are evil' or 'guns are dangerous and should be banned' argument. There are variations on it, but it boils down to 'if you get rid of guns the bad people will be less dangerous and you won't have accidental shootings; so there!". When the people making this statement do acknowledge that bad people won't turn in weapons just because you tell them to(you, of course, become a Bad People if you refuse to turn in yours), they usually come down to two ideas: that eventually the Bad People will run out of guns/ammunition, and that it's a good idea to get arms out of the hands of honest people even if it won't help crime problems because nobody needs to own them. That last is, I think, their real Truth that leads them; they've decided that nobody has a reason- or a good enough reason- to own guns, so they shouldn't be allowed to. They don't trust themselves with weapons, so they don't trust anyone else either. They'll make exceptions for minions of the State, military and law enforcement, but that's it(it should be noted that the really rabid adherents of this idea don't like LE having arms either, and would rather get rid of the military, too). They are putting complete trust in the State to protect them and discount any right to self-defense. Yeah, for some that's a bit drastic, but for many? Seen any of the information about what's happened in Britain over the years? If you defend yourself with your bare hands, in your own home, against an attacker and the Crown Prosecutor thinks you used too much force or, at any time, had any intention of harming your attacker, you go to jail. And most of the 'you don't need to own guns' people think we should be more like Britain.
This includes the pacifist and 'no violence' types. The pacifist doesn't think force other than moral argument should be used against anyone for any reason, the 'non-violent' types don't think force should be used except in extremis with exceptions; and those exceptions almost always include only the use of force by the state. I have little to no respect for either of them. They both depend on other people to keep them safe, so they don't have to dirty their hands with violence and weapons, and don't think anyone else should be allowed to defend themselves. Oh, some will allow as to how you should be able to defend yourself with your bare hands, but use of weapons shouldn't be allowed; if you can't do it bare-handed, you should run. I just love the idea of these people telling an old woman or a pregnant woman or a mother with children that she should just run away(after, if necessary, jumping out a window) rather than take a weapon in hand. It's idiotic, but it makes sense to those who think you shouldn't be allowed to use violence even to protect self/family/home.
There are some pacifists who say "I don't want the state to use violence even to protect me", but that's really a bullshit statement. I wrote once before that a government cannot adopt a two-tier system where force can only be used to protect some of the people but not others; claiming you want them to do just that is insane. And saying you won't use force to protect citazens from the bad guys no matter what is inviting the bad guys to do whatever they want, because force won't be used to stop them. A society that tries to work that way will go the way Britain is going. Take a look at this book, or go read The Policeman's Blog and see if you like that idea. Rampant political correctness that won't let you do or say anything that might hurt precious feelings somewhere, you can't use force without having the threat of firing and/or jail hanging over your head... There are restrictions on the powers/authority of law enforcement for good reason; they also must have the authority to act as and how needed in times of trouble or the job can't be done. The crooks tend to be people who only respond to force or the threat of it, and waving your magic fluffy bunny wishing wand won't change that, and it won't make bad guys suddenly stop hurting/robbing/raping/killing people and make them amenable to reasoned discussion.
And last, among the 'guns are icky' people are those who have no problem with self-defense, but don't think guns should be used. I used to know a lot of these when I was messing around in the Society for Creative Anachronism. They'd tell- with great relish- the stories about someone using a sword or axe or knife on a burglar or attacker; they'd speak of the knife or sword they kept by the bed and how they'd use it on anyone who broke into their house. But mention firearms, and they sniffed up something terrible. Guns were bad, guns were not 'honorable', guns were excessive use of force. Slicing someone's guts open with sharp steel was acceptable, but guns were 'excessive' force... And 'honorable'? Why in the name of whatever would you give a rat's butt about giving 'honorable combat' to a rapist/buglar/murderer who is attacking you? I didn't understand it then, and I don't now. In fact, I think it's idiotic. The right to self-defense, using whatever force necessary, is the most basic right of a human being; restricting it, especially for reasons of political correctness or just because you don't like it, is a definate step toward tyranny; if people are not allowed to protect themselves they become ever more dependant on the government, and that's something tyrants like, even-maybe especially- if they don't think of themselves as tyrants.
I'll throw in another category as the 'not too-violent' people. These are the people who say a knife is nice but 'it shouldn't be that sharp because it's dangerous'(no, I'm not kidding, I have heard that). Or, as some lady wrote in a local weekly, "People should be allowed small guns for hunting and maybe self-defense, but that's all". Yes, you should be able to own this BUT; yes, you can defend yourself BUT. Again, you(and themselves) cannot be trusted so various restrictions must be placed on you so you'll be 'safe'.
You also get combinations of the above, and very often they'll be either unwilling to believe that you can't agree with them, or will dismiss you because, obviously, if you were smart enough to really understand, you would agree with them; therefore, since you disagree, you're not smart enough to be worth listening to.
This has all been covered by different people in the past, I just felt the need to lay this out after rereading Kevin's piece.
No comments:
Post a Comment