The Philosophy of Self Defense

J

Jeff Thomas

New member
One of the things that impresses me the most about current firearms 'discussions' and politics is the huge philosophical differences regarding self-defense.

The anti-self defense / anti-gun crowd seem to believe some or all of the following:
1. It is not practical to defend yourself;
2. The correct action is to wait for an LEO;
3. I couldn't hurt another human being;
4. If you can't get it done with 10 bullets, you're going to die anyway;
5. It will never happen to me or my family;
6. A firearm is more likely to kill me or my family, so I don't even want to be around them;
7. Guns just scare me.

And so on.

Others, including LEO's, take some or all of the following positions:
1. Guns are a tool, and I can and will train to use that tool;
2. I can't know what situation I will encounter, so I want as many rounds of ammunition as the firearm is designed to efficiently use;
3. I have primary responsibility for my life and the life of my partner / family. Backup and / or LEO's will come as soon as possible, but they probably won't be there in time to avoid the initial violence;
4. Violence is a fact of life, and always has been. I need to accept that, plan how I would deal with it, and take responsibility for myself and my family / partner.

Again, I'm sure you could come up with additional perspectives.

IMHO, the current political debate is almost more interesting because of the vast difference in these two philosophies.

I'm curious how other TFL members view this gulf. When did civilians / humans / Americans begin to believe that their defense was someone else's problem? How do otherwise logical human beings fool themselves with many of the arguments in the first section above? Is this mainly a matter of 'group think', and the almost faddish acceptance of what for many of us is illogic?

I wanted to discuss this a bit in order to better understand and better debate some of these, IMHO, idiotic beliefs.

Regards from AZ
 
I believe that the "anti defense" took root in the cities and East Coast in the early 60's, and then spread first among areas (suburbs, etc) where folks began to expect "services" and more services for their tax dollars. It evolved and as more and more parts of the country became "civilized" through TV and other media it spread. All this coincides with the growing federal power which also promoted the attitude of dependence and paternalism and increased taxes....it all grew together.

Excluding the cities of the West, I think the South and West and Northwest(including Alaska) are the last bastions of the old pioneer, rural spirit of self-reliance.

I'm rural...30 min from any services....I hardly believe any bad guy is going to wait for 30 min to make the play fair. I also don't have any city services...no trash pick-up, water, street cleaning, etc. Thus, I'm not used to dependence or that someone else will fix it for me.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
I largely agree with DC. I tend to date the rise of federal power with LBJ's Great Society. Sure, FDR did a lot of "Socializing", but it was relatively benign when compared to what followed LBJ.

The Kenedy/King murders didn't help, insofar as public attitudes. The fact that a lot of the '60s/'70s Hippies are today's elected officials, school teachers and college professors also contributes.

Overall, gun control was first aimed at ethnic minorities. To a certain extent it still is--"Saturday Night Specials" are most purchased by poor people: Percentage-wise, ethnic minorities. In today's world, it's generally urban vs. ex-urban or rural. But don't forget to add to this mix those people who only wish to disarm non-governmental people.

FWIW, Art
 
DC, Jeff,

The problem goes back much farther than any modern point of reference.

In the beginning, people got their own food and found their own rock to sleep under. I'm talking about the real beginning here. People got their own meat and their own fruits...

...Then one day one person spent the morning killing an animal...they got meat. Another person spent the morning gathering fruit. They met up at noon, and decided to share.. so they both took the afternoon off.
..Then someone noticed all this going on, and started to organize this sharing of labor..directing certain people to get meat, certain ones to get fruit and maybe some to improve shelter. Of course, the organizer took his little cut from the supplies as well. Eventually, some people started building tools and implements that helped the hunters, the gatherers and the builders to be more efficient.. they would trade these goods for a share in the supplies and shelter.

For a time, these four classes of people might have gotten along quite well.. all contributing something to the survival of the group. then one day they might've met one of the less enlightened groups, and when they came upon the piles of stuff and cool implements, they likely wanted no part of Group A's social Contract, and they simply took waht they wanted.

Thus, the 5th Profession, the warrior. A class of people was formed to protect the "civilized" ones. The hunters, gatherers, builders, craftsman and leaders trusted their welfare to the warriors, but the leaders still controlled the warriors access to the fruits of the other classes.

That has been the way it has worked, more or less, on small scales and large scales throughout human history. People will always be willing to give a little of waht they have, in order to have an easier life.. whatever that means....

We know that giving up control over your life means giving it to someone else.. yet our civilization is designed around such compromises.. to make life "better."

I am not convinced that The Social Contract works in groups that are large enough to preclude every member knowing every other member.. once you have annonymity you lose accountability. Without accountability, people abuse the social contract and take advantage of the others in the group when the warriors aren't looking. To combat this tendancy, we have laws, religions and morals to give people guidance and encourage them to keep in line with the theory of the social contract. Sometimes it works, othertimes......

[This message has been edited by Rob (edited June 10, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top