I Don´t Have to Show Need
by dischord
(distribution permitted and encouraged)
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 your needs, or more broadly, that your 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 to the need of crime control. Means require evidence.
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 to answering the "why do you need" question rather than asking it, 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 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 our 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 the saving of lives be maximized by eliminating a bunch of piddly, feel-good proposals that divert resources. 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. Let´s take back the "saving lives" high ground. Let´s stop sacrificing our children at the altar of their politics.
by dischord
(distribution permitted and encouraged)
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 your needs, or more broadly, that your 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 to the need of crime control. Means require evidence.
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 to answering the "why do you need" question rather than asking it, 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 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 our 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 the saving of lives be maximized by eliminating a bunch of piddly, feel-good proposals that divert resources. 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. Let´s take back the "saving lives" high ground. Let´s stop sacrificing our children at the altar of their politics.
