Guns, Guts and God

http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/08/24/your-god-given-right/

There have been many terrible shooting incidents in just the last few months, let alone the last few years in America. And every time it comes up, there tend to be two polarized sides to the issue of guns and regulation: stricter management of permits and limitations on types of guns you can carry or own and those who advocate more leniency and openness with carry or concealed carry permits. The ideas are both for protection, though one can argue the former side is much more about managing gun sales than permits, since those are difficult enough to get that most people would just try to get guns illegally, which is still able to be done. The latter is about maintaining protection by the citizens and for citizens. Even the mere pulling out of a gun in a situation can diffuse the violence that might result, because we have a very visceral reaction to guns as something dangerous, moreso than blades. The last time I even discussed gun rights in “On Gun Rights and Civil War” I noted that we should be responsible in our use of weapons, which still stands as a point I would make clear with gun enthusiasts. Of course we have a right to protect ourselves, but self defense should not be exaggerated to the level of vigilante justice, as much as I might admire Frank Castle, otherwise called the Punisher in Marvel Comics, in a childish sense as an anti hero. Fundamentally, we ought to recognize the danger of guns, but not to the extent of letting our concern grow into fear and paranoia. A gun is a tool and by itself, apart from modifications and advanced technology, does not fire by itself. It takes an agent behind the tool to utilize it in any way, effective or otherwise. So I’d say we focus not on the tools, but the users.

Gun control does not, in itself, protect people any more than disease control absolutely protects people. The former is more unpredictable than the latter, though, since the legality of guns does not affect criminals, while viruses and bacteria are bound by limitations of biology that enable us to develop immunities over time and understand how they work. We cannot expect people to just obey laws restricting guns when there will always be access to them outside the law. The solution would be not to enforce stricter gun laws, as it would only disarm people that would otherwise use guns in a responsible manner. The mere abuse of guns by criminals does not mean law abiding citizens should be prevented from getting access to them. Gun control should therefore be distinguished from gun regulation, which is simply making sure people understand the dangers of guns and are educated in proper use, as well as limiting access to people who may pose a threat to others in possessing a gun that can be loaded. Gun control may as well be called gun suppression in the case of trying to keep legal gun use as rare as possible for ordinary citizens, maintaining it only with law enforcement and the military. This excessive form is no better than a deficient policy of just letting anyone get access to a gun without any sort of waiting period or other such protocol involved with gun registration, permits and such. A balance, however difficult to precisely pinpoint, is better than letting laws go too far or fall into disuse.

Gun carries in general, do not, by necessity, encourage more violence. If anything, it can be said to have the reverse effect. And proper training will ensure that, not only will people be able to defend themselves without excessive violence, but will not be victims of attackers because they cling to a ridiculous absolute pacifism that suggests they should not even defend themselves with any amount of force, let alone nonlethal violence. A shot to the arm will hurt as much as a shot to the chest and disable the attacker all the same with the incredible pain that results from the impact. Basic training of aiming, gun maintenance and the like will all be a precaution and one may never have to actually use that knowledge in practice, but a preventative measure is not always something actually realized if one is safe in where one travels and goes in groups as much as possible in dangerous areas. Pepper spray is an alternative that can work, especially with women who are commonly frightened of guns, it appears. But this doesn’t mean that there aren’t guns that a woman can use without concern of risk to herself. I’m no gun expert, but that’s the beauty of gunsmithing as an art: you can design functional weapons for pretty much anyone with enough time. I was at a gun store a few weeks ago and there were guns small enough to fit in an average man’s hand and some that were practically as long as one’s forearm, and I’m talking handgun, not something much larger in caliber and power. There is a sense of danger that comes with owning one, much more than even an entire collection of live steel blades. Guns kill instantly or maim horribly, swords are archaic and antiquated in use: they only appeal in fantastical stories with anachronistic manifestations; or lightsabers and vibroblades from Star Wars. With that in mind, gun use should and does commonly have safety measures and rules governing their use. 1) Treat every gun as if it were loaded, 2) Do not aim at something unless you intend to shoot it, the list goes on. I don’t consider myself a gun enthusiast, but as Batman demonstrates (I know, using comic book characters as examples undercuts the seriousness of the argument, but permit me my fandom), even if you have had traumatic experiences with guns, you should not let that past experience make you unwilling to see the gun for what it is, become knowledgeable about it and understand it as others use it and why they use it. Experience with guns dictates that you take a position of one who wants to use it, but it also necessitates a sense of self control in taking on such a dangerous weapon.

The right to arms is not something explicitly protected by religion in the slightest. There are arguments in the bible that suggest pacifism, particularly in the Gospels with Jesus. The most obvious that comes to mind is turning the other cheek. And the argument of the right to bear arms being a God given right seems stretched, since the most basic of natural rights given by God tend to be: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The means by which your liberty is secured would not necessarily be arguable towards using weapons if the creator of the universe supposedly gave you those rights. Wouldn’t it also protect them in its own way? Of course, there is a counter claim that this would encourage idleness, so God would grant us permission of self defense. I’m not denying that, but it’s implicit, not explicit, in terms of an argument from theology. Fundamentally, I won’t say that religion prohibits any such ideas of self defense and a right to bear arms, but if you’ve read my blog even a bit, you know I don’t think we should really use religious tradition or faith to justify any position we hold, no matter how logical and correct it may happen to be. Defend gun rights with philosophy and logic, not tradition and convictions about the supernatural.

Guns are altogether a duplicitous weapon, both aiding and harming us depending on the intent behind their use. The fact that they are dangerous because of the unpredictability and otherwise dangerous nature of humanity does not mean they should be destroyed. Disarmament is the path to a utopia where we could be killed by any natural threat, such as beasts, let alone the chance of attack from people who manage to design and construct weapons themselves post pacifism, and extraterrestrials, should they come to our planet and be hostile in nature. Guns should be an option in the same vein as abortion, in the sense that we should familiarize ourselves with them even if we ourselves do not prefer to utilize the process or tool in question. They should be safe: properly maintained and regulated from explicitly dangerous people as best we can, legal: not prohibited merely because they could be dangerous or there is a moral objection to them, and rare: we should be able to resolve problems without guns, but should be able to use a gun if the situation demands it. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Fight, Flight or Force

http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/06/12/why-is-this-an-issue/

I’ve already described myself as a martial pacifist, one who does not go looking for fights, but nonetheless advocates preparedness and self defense in pressing circumstances and this topic will reflect that. I could bring up various incidents that no doubt have actually happened, but the general circumstances are better to explain what the overall theme here is. An assailant is killed by someone who defends themselves with a weapon, a rapist is killed by the victim’s father after they catch them attempting or in the act, a burglar is shot dead by a homeowner after they break in. These are just a few of the somewhat unique situations that complicate homicide law and jurisprudence and I think that this sort of distinction is not splitting hairs at all. But we shouldn’t see this as purely retribution or restitution but strive for equity and fairness in all situations as much as possible.

We tend to have two common options in our head when a combat situation arises directly: fight or flight. This is based in a biological response triggered by neurochemical reactions in the brain. In order to preserve ourselves, humans will run in order to save themselves as opposed to fighting what may be an opponent too great for us unless we are adequately equipped. A fairly recent event comes to mind when talking about the fight or flight response and it’s not pleasant. Whether Trayvon Martin provoked his attacker or Zimmerman acted on a degree of racial bias against Martin and shot him thinking that he was in immediate danger, the severity of the action reflects something that has become acceptable in society: shoot first, ask questions later. I’m not against the use of guns for self defense in a responsible manner, but viewing them simply as tools for killing instead of waging war in defense of justice and others reduces the gravity of their existence and function. We use the gun for the primary purpose of defense, of course, but the violent nature of it also necessitates that it be used with a great deal of discipline and training. This is why gun permits are a good even if they also limit the legality of higher grade weapons. There is a whole other issue with the military having access to such powerful weapons and potentially abusing the public’s trust in them by turning those things used to protect their rights into objects that suppress those rights in the form of martial law or a totalitarian state. Even the use of martial arts to defend oneself demand a responsibility many people don’t think of when enjoying the brutality of MMA on pay per view or the like. Of course there are rules involved, but a sense of honor or discipline is not there as much when martial arts are used in a sport context. It is very much an individual sort of sport, not something you can share with a team to the same extent. You can have similar goals, but not the same degree of individual will, training, and such. That aside, either way, using weapons of any kind: guns, swords, knives, blunt objects, or fighting with your body as a weapon, you should not take it to excess and view any threat to you as an immediate or direct threat to your life at that moment. Of course a mugger may just want your wallet, but they may want to take your life to do so. But this does not mean you should kill them to stop this act. Incapacitation or use of basic force can alleviate the situation just as well. Diplomacy and negotiation can do the same for international conflicts. Of course, these don’t always work, but the use of violence should be a last resort, morally and ethically speaking.

There is such a thing as justice without sinking to levels of vengeance and the violence associated with it. Martial pacifism is a good buffer to temper out what can be otherwise excessively emotional incidents that could lead to manslaughter. There are nuances in talking about justifiable homicide or imperfect self defense? Not all homicide is justifiable, unless we talk about fear of imminent danger to oneself or others. And immediate threats do not always imply death, though humans are not so tough that we can’t be killed in ways we think we could survive. And there is also the distinction between life and wellbeing. Being raped is certainly a terrible scar on one’s psyche, but one can reasonably get through it with therapy and support. To say a person can kill another because they are going to rape someone or even have been caught in the act seems to take it too far. This is not to say that I condone rape at all or see it as a lesser crime, but killing someone takes away any possibility of redemption or real justice in mediating differences and punishing those who have done wrong in appropriate and humane ways. Rape does damage a person, but does not take away their future entirely as death does. Imperfect self defense is similar to the justifiable homicide concept in that the reasoning behind using deadly force is not always justified. Bare fists are not as much of a threat as a knife which is not as dangerous as a gun. This sort of relationship of risks is part of imperfect self defense’s somewhat slippery slope. Imperfect self defense does not reduce culpability, but only the liability of one’s crimes.

I’m not saying one can’t use force to defend others or oneself. That’s justified in many forms of pacifism to the extent that you don’t use violence. Non resistant pacifism is an exception to this in that it says even use of force is unethical because we should be able to always resolve problems with words and not our hands to hurt others. Or there is a notion that love always prevails as a virtue even if you have to die to prove it. Both of these are unrealistic and idealistic in their approach to the real world where this doesn’t always work. But we also shouldn’t resort to violent force to solve problems that could be solved in forceful ways without the potential for death or mortal injuries. If moderation in all good things is necessary for moral behavior, as Aristotle at least implied, then protecting others should not be taken to excess or deficit and use appropriate force for the situation. As vile and contemptible as people may be, killing them does not take away their crimes, nor vindicate those who have been victimized by them. I must emphasize the idea of appropriate force, because it varies by situation. Experience can dictate this, but without that, a dual principle of restraint and assertiveness is key. You shouldn’t let your emotions overtake you. If a criminal is raping your family member, it is not a justification for you to kill them on account of the closeness you have with the person being violated. And even someone being killed does not mean you should exact the same thing against the one who did it. It doesn’t solve the problem of murderers overall, nor does it really vindicate the one who was killed. Incapacitation, knocking the person unconscious or otherwise keeping them under control should be the first goal in neutralizing a tense and dangerous situation such as the ones I brought up at the beginning. You should not simply eliminate the person, since this negates a principle in justice that each crime is different and should be judged by the evidence and nature of the individual who committed the offense.

As much as force can solve problems, violence should never be our first impulse, unless the situation absolutely demands it. This sort of discernment is difficult to gain, but can be done over time and experience. Peace should be a goal, but we should not be opposed to fighting for it when it is necessary. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

On Gun Rights and "Civil War"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/234185?GT1=43002

While searching for an article to mull on, I stumbled across one concerning a "liberal" argument for gun rights by extension of a similar argument for bodily autonomy justifying abortion rights and more precisely civil liberties in the sense of freedom of volition. Not to mention the counterpart that is privacy, a right to responsibly behave in whatever way you deem fit as long as it does not interfere with either the public at large or the government in general. And within 10 minutes of reading the article, I thought; why not connect this real issue to a fictional one brought up in comics regarding superheroes and other superpowered individuals (anti hero or otherwise)?

What I speak of in particular is a well known conflict that occurred in Marvel Comics, known by the name Civil War. The premise hinges on the formation of a Superhero Registration Act. While it doesn't do anything like what the government attempts in the tv series Justice League Unlimited which was outright creating a counter force to act against the potential threat that the Watchtower and its associates posed to the world, this act would require all superpowered beings: mutants, mutates and even those such as Iron Man or Punisher, to register with the government as "living weapons of mass destruction". The difficulty comes about when Captain America and others oppose the act by virtue of it violating both civil rights (the pursuit of happiness in particular, I'd wager, but also liberty) and the right to privacy granted as a given to all superheroes with secret identities. But those on the side of Registration, including Spiderman, argue that "with great power, comes great responsibility" and that the Registration would enable superheroes to become accepted by the general public and not be viewed as a rogue threat or a danger to society.

Now I imagine you're wondering how this has any relevance to the continuing debate on gun rights, but bear with me. Imagine you have a single gun in your house. Even a basic revolver or 9mm possesses a comparable level of power to any person in Marvel with enhanced skills or special abilities. You can wound someone, but without proper training, you can just as easily kill them. Now this doesn't mean I'm arguing for more or less gun control by this line of argument. My point is similar to the dichotomy in "Civil War". Superheroes could be very dangerous if they take the law into their own hands and become vigilantes in the strongest sense. An example comes from the series Justice League and DC by association. The Justice League in an alternate timeline overthrew the world government. And this was when it was merely 6 people: Superman, Green Lantern, Hawkgirl, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter and Batman (Flash having died in this timeline). The point is that without self control, restraint and general moderation of one form or another, anything can become an excess or a deficiency, particularly superpowers. You can possess a weapon, but not know how to use it and it becomes useless to protecting yourself or your loved ones. But you can view the weapon as a means to any end, including taking justice into your own hands and it threatens the same lives you meant to protect. So my general thoughts on gun control are similar to if I possessed superpowers. While others might use it in a variety of ways, I choose to take responsibility and not only train my powers, but also use them prudently and within a limit that I enforce upon myself: not only because I think it is necessary for myself, but because it protects the people around me. And similarly if I possess a gun or if in some alternate universe, my hands were considered deadly weapons, I would exercise an equal amount of self control and discipline so that I could both protect people from harm outside myself and from harm that might be caused by myself.