What is your reply when someone asks you why you "need" a gun?
-------- http://www.theopinion.com/engine/article.asp?id=841
Gun Justification
by Sean Oberle
Saturday, August 12, 2000
If you debate gun issues, you come across variations of this question:
"Why
do you need that type of gun" or "that many guns" or "a gun that fast."
The
assumption is that there are no grounds to oppose a proposal without
proving
it violates a need, or more broadly, rights depend on needs.
Such a question strikes me as an imperious conceit – it turns on its
head
our
American tradition of making government answer to us. In fact, the
proper
question always has been "Does the government need to stop me?" In other
words, I am free to possess any property, gun or otherwise, or partake
in
any
activity unless government proves need (and power) to forbid it.
That assertion, of course, brings up the question of just what the
"need" is
behind gun control. Citations of murder rates are not prima facie
evidence
of
a need for gun control, but of crime control. Gun control is but one
proposed
means. Means require proof.
Show me that a proposal both respects rights (including limited powers)
and
truly works to meet a real need, and I probably won't complain. Fail on
either count, and I'll oppose it. Is it too much to ask not only that
the
government demonstrate its proposals can work, but that it back off if
those
proposals are proven ineffective – regardless of my rights and its
powers?
For example, I don't even get to a question of rights in opposing
waiting
periods. The proponents have failed to prove that waiting periods work.
In
fact, the opposite has been demonstrated: waiting periods don't
measurably
help crime. Thus, the defense of waiting period rests in a morally
bankrupt
hypothetical, "if it saves just one life." It is morally bankrupt for
two
reasons.
First, nearly any proposal –- say painting all guns pink to make them
unattractive to uptight men –- will conceivably save at least one
life.
However, society has limited time, workforce and monetary resources.
Enacting
a bunch of proposals that save one life here and two lives there
undermines
effective proposals by pulling resources from them.
Second, if saving one life causes worth, then the corollary is true -–
causing one lost life counters that worth. For every "passion crime"
stopped
by a waiting period, I can point to a woman who died waiting for a gun
she
decided to buy when the police didn't offer enough help with a stalker.
So,
who are more valuable -– people dead due to the existence or to the
lack
of
waiting periods?
However, because we've flipped the "why do you need" question, the gun
controllers never stop to think about such dilemmas. Never questioned,
they
never consider the waste and negative results of their proposals. Never
challenged, they fall easily into equating intent with outcome.
The end becomes the intent, and the intent gets blurred with the true
need
of
saving lives. The moral imperative becomes trying, not succeeding. Thus
they
think that we who oppose their proposals also oppose the intent behind
them.
"Kids are dying! Why do you need those guns?" they shout in the belief
that
my side is selfish and callous, standing in the way of a societal need.
We aren't –- we're standing in the way of ineffective and risky
proposals
for
fulfilling the true societal need – crime control. Actually, we are
trying
to
force society to effectively address the problem. We are insisting that
eliminating a bunch of piddly, feel-good proposals that divert resources
maximizes the saving of lives. We are insisting on a net sum of lives
saved
rather that a shifting of death from one group to another. We are the
ethical
ones, because we look at results.
We must remind them: "I don't have to explain why I need a gun. You have
to
explain why you need to take it away." And keep questioning every step:
"Is
gun control the need or the means?" and "Will that work?" It's not about
controlling guns, it's about the kids.
It's time we took back our traditional dominant role of demanding to
know
why
someone needs to control us. You see, kids are dying, and those selfish,
callous gun control brutes are standing in the way of saving them with
their
illusions about gun control. For the kids, let's start making them
answer
our
questions and bring them back to reality.
-------- http://www.theopinion.com/engine/article.asp?id=841
Gun Justification
by Sean Oberle
Saturday, August 12, 2000
If you debate gun issues, you come across variations of this question:
"Why
do you need that type of gun" or "that many guns" or "a gun that fast."
The
assumption is that there are no grounds to oppose a proposal without
proving
it violates a need, or more broadly, rights depend on needs.
Such a question strikes me as an imperious conceit – it turns on its
head
our
American tradition of making government answer to us. In fact, the
proper
question always has been "Does the government need to stop me?" In other
words, I am free to possess any property, gun or otherwise, or partake
in
any
activity unless government proves need (and power) to forbid it.
That assertion, of course, brings up the question of just what the
"need" is
behind gun control. Citations of murder rates are not prima facie
evidence
of
a need for gun control, but of crime control. Gun control is but one
proposed
means. Means require proof.
Show me that a proposal both respects rights (including limited powers)
and
truly works to meet a real need, and I probably won't complain. Fail on
either count, and I'll oppose it. Is it too much to ask not only that
the
government demonstrate its proposals can work, but that it back off if
those
proposals are proven ineffective – regardless of my rights and its
powers?
For example, I don't even get to a question of rights in opposing
waiting
periods. The proponents have failed to prove that waiting periods work.
In
fact, the opposite has been demonstrated: waiting periods don't
measurably
help crime. Thus, the defense of waiting period rests in a morally
bankrupt
hypothetical, "if it saves just one life." It is morally bankrupt for
two
reasons.
First, nearly any proposal –- say painting all guns pink to make them
unattractive to uptight men –- will conceivably save at least one
life.
However, society has limited time, workforce and monetary resources.
Enacting
a bunch of proposals that save one life here and two lives there
undermines
effective proposals by pulling resources from them.
Second, if saving one life causes worth, then the corollary is true -–
causing one lost life counters that worth. For every "passion crime"
stopped
by a waiting period, I can point to a woman who died waiting for a gun
she
decided to buy when the police didn't offer enough help with a stalker.
So,
who are more valuable -– people dead due to the existence or to the
lack
of
waiting periods?
However, because we've flipped the "why do you need" question, the gun
controllers never stop to think about such dilemmas. Never questioned,
they
never consider the waste and negative results of their proposals. Never
challenged, they fall easily into equating intent with outcome.
The end becomes the intent, and the intent gets blurred with the true
need
of
saving lives. The moral imperative becomes trying, not succeeding. Thus
they
think that we who oppose their proposals also oppose the intent behind
them.
"Kids are dying! Why do you need those guns?" they shout in the belief
that
my side is selfish and callous, standing in the way of a societal need.
We aren't –- we're standing in the way of ineffective and risky
proposals
for
fulfilling the true societal need – crime control. Actually, we are
trying
to
force society to effectively address the problem. We are insisting that
eliminating a bunch of piddly, feel-good proposals that divert resources
maximizes the saving of lives. We are insisting on a net sum of lives
saved
rather that a shifting of death from one group to another. We are the
ethical
ones, because we look at results.
We must remind them: "I don't have to explain why I need a gun. You have
to
explain why you need to take it away." And keep questioning every step:
"Is
gun control the need or the means?" and "Will that work?" It's not about
controlling guns, it's about the kids.
It's time we took back our traditional dominant role of demanding to
know
why
someone needs to control us. You see, kids are dying, and those selfish,
callous gun control brutes are standing in the way of saving them with
their
illusions about gun control. For the kids, let's start making them
answer
our
questions and bring them back to reality.