I read an enlightening article in a gun mag recently. I can look it up if anyone wants to see it, but it was somewhere in my stack of back issues combined with current issues, so I have no idea where it is without digging.
Anyway, it really opened my eyes to something:
Basically it explained the difference between a "Utilitarian" society and argument versus a "RIGHT".
A Utilitarian argument is "the greatest good for the greater number". These arguments are like when we use John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" book statistics to arguv that "guns do more good than bad".
On the other hand, a RIGHT is inherent and independent of the masses. In other words, just because some idiot misuses a gun, does not affect my RIGHT. My RIGHT is my RIGHT no matter what, period. It does not matter if things were so bad that %90 of guns were being misused by criminals and people are getting shot all over the place, it does not affect MY RIGHT to defend myself. I did not commit those crimes, I am still a good citizen, and MY RIGHT remains as my RIGHT because it is inherent.
For example, people that publish harmful writings are protected by the First Amendment, no matter what they are publishing. We don't have to argue whether or not their writings are helpful to society or hurtful...it does not matter, it is their RIGHT to think, feel, say, and write whatever they want.
We Americans do not live in a "Democray", we live in a "Constitutional Republic". It is not the "greater good for the greatest number". We have a Constitution and "inalianable RIGHTS" that "are not to be infringed upon", period.
I am not saying we should throw away all other arguments, because unfortunatly America has forgotten what a RIGHT is, so we have allowed ourselves to be reduced to the point where we HAVE TO use the Utilitarian argument to appease the masses. In the search to sterilize our society and be protected from cradle to grave, as well as "protect the children", we have thrown away such things as individual RIGHTS. But, I believe he is correct. My RIGHT to defend myself should not be affected by how others are acting, and my RIGHT to keep and bear arms should not be affected by statistics.
Fortunatly, the STATISTICS are HEAVILY in our favor: %99 of guns are not used in crimes, millions of people use guns every year to stop crime, gun control has never been even remotely proven to slow crime and in fact most crime goes up when gun control is enacted, and lastly it has been proven that allowing people to carry guns reduces crime. Yes, the Utilitarian argument is heavily in our favor. Guns do far more good than bad (we just see the few bad cases plastered up on TV). But, that does not change the fact that no matter how many people misuse guns, I have not misused a gun, and it is still my inalienable RIGHT as an American to defend myself with a gun, whether it is for the greater good or not.
[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited October 11, 1999).]
Anyway, it really opened my eyes to something:
Basically it explained the difference between a "Utilitarian" society and argument versus a "RIGHT".
A Utilitarian argument is "the greatest good for the greater number". These arguments are like when we use John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" book statistics to arguv that "guns do more good than bad".
On the other hand, a RIGHT is inherent and independent of the masses. In other words, just because some idiot misuses a gun, does not affect my RIGHT. My RIGHT is my RIGHT no matter what, period. It does not matter if things were so bad that %90 of guns were being misused by criminals and people are getting shot all over the place, it does not affect MY RIGHT to defend myself. I did not commit those crimes, I am still a good citizen, and MY RIGHT remains as my RIGHT because it is inherent.
For example, people that publish harmful writings are protected by the First Amendment, no matter what they are publishing. We don't have to argue whether or not their writings are helpful to society or hurtful...it does not matter, it is their RIGHT to think, feel, say, and write whatever they want.
We Americans do not live in a "Democray", we live in a "Constitutional Republic". It is not the "greater good for the greatest number". We have a Constitution and "inalianable RIGHTS" that "are not to be infringed upon", period.
I am not saying we should throw away all other arguments, because unfortunatly America has forgotten what a RIGHT is, so we have allowed ourselves to be reduced to the point where we HAVE TO use the Utilitarian argument to appease the masses. In the search to sterilize our society and be protected from cradle to grave, as well as "protect the children", we have thrown away such things as individual RIGHTS. But, I believe he is correct. My RIGHT to defend myself should not be affected by how others are acting, and my RIGHT to keep and bear arms should not be affected by statistics.
Fortunatly, the STATISTICS are HEAVILY in our favor: %99 of guns are not used in crimes, millions of people use guns every year to stop crime, gun control has never been even remotely proven to slow crime and in fact most crime goes up when gun control is enacted, and lastly it has been proven that allowing people to carry guns reduces crime. Yes, the Utilitarian argument is heavily in our favor. Guns do far more good than bad (we just see the few bad cases plastered up on TV). But, that does not change the fact that no matter how many people misuse guns, I have not misused a gun, and it is still my inalienable RIGHT as an American to defend myself with a gun, whether it is for the greater good or not.
[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited October 11, 1999).]