Sunday, March 25, 2018

The Anti-Rationalism of Pro-Gun Activism



Recently, I stumbled across this inane meme (above). Not once. Not twice. But FIVE times on my various social media accounts. So, allow me to respond.

***

If social media existed when the Constitution was written then right to privacy laws would likely have been included in it. But that's why we have the 9th Amendment anyway, because it clarifies there are moral laws & rights that aren't included in the Constitution as it is not an exhaustive text.

That said, there's a difference between calling for a ban of a lethal weapon which was used to murder all your friends vs. calling for more rights.

One is a response to a problem and the desire not to be murdered by a lethal weapon, mainly a gun. Which is a real problem in America. Although fatal school shootings aren't on the rise compared to previous years, they still register a higher fatality rate than soldiers in active service. That says all you need to know about the gun problem via statistics.

Also, when it comes to "ownership" of weapons, freely giving up weapons to maintain civil and peaceful society is a form of progress. The most peaceful societies on the planet do not allow weapons. Of the few who do, their regulations far outstrip those of standard American systems. In societies like Finland, with high gun-ownership per capita, they are offset from the U.S. by having amazingly good universal socialized health care, including more than adequate care for mental illness, among low poverty and disenfranchisement rates among its citizens.

Basically, in America, angry and poor people without access to good mental health care are arming themselves. And a lot of this "their taking away my rights" paranoia has led to people doubling down on their desire to own something they don't inherently need for happiness or survival in the modern world.

Privacy is far more important than guns in the digital age, and if you don't see this then, by all means, feel free to go build a log cabin somewhere remote and live off-grid until you're able to partake in civil and polite society again. I mean, that's about the only real way you're going to be able to hold onto your guns *or privacy, for that matter* in the future. By waiting till the Feds show up to your front doorstep and pry them out of your hands.

But this just goes to show the crux of the gun problem isn't so much the proliferation of guns, although that is a symptom of bad gun policy. But the fact that so many people think they need to "own" guns when they are merely confusing the desire to maintain an unnecessary privilege with a right.

Yes, in 1789 a well-organized militia could fend off the United States military. It was not a robust military.

Yes, in 1861 the North and the South fought and you could have a need for self-defense in such a scenario as enemy soldiers tramping through your fields and property. But in today's world, the 2nd Amendment's intended purpose of overturning a corrupt government is impossible. A single drone strike would end any militia or insurrection and 'we the people' simply are underequipped to take on a state of the art military, regardless of how many guns we might have. I mean, they can literally kill you with a flight simulator. Game over, man.

And, even I admit, there could be valid reasons to have shotguns and rifles on farms and for hunting, but with much stricter gun access laws and in a limited capacity. And I'm not talking about mere regulations. But real restrictions. Like you have to prove you need the tool for its said purpose and obtain a special license for it. After all, they don't let just anyone use large commercial vehicles like heavy equipment and airliners. There are a whole slew of regulations and special licensing that is required to use such tools and machines. They're specialized. And in a way, so are weapons designed to kill.

So do I see Hogg's comments as hypocritical. No.

He's sayings these are separate issues about different kinds of rights. And we can either evolve our thinking on the issue or keep going around in circles because people don't want to relinquish a lethal tool designed for killing just because.

I know the standard fair whataboutism styled arguments. But what about cars? But what about hammers? What about all the crazy murderers who'll still resort to stoning you with rocks if they really want to kill you? Well, yes, life is a fragile thing and we can die from any numerous causes. Even eating too much cheese.

But, come one. Let's be adults here. Cars, hammers, and rocks were not deliberately designed with the function of killing others. That's a side effect of bad safety when using a device improperly. Guns are no different in that they can be extremely unsafe, except in the way of their standard function of killing is also extremely unsafe. And that sets them apart in a degree from, say, hammers and cars where hammers and cars are no different (i.e., their standard and proper function is non-lethal. Cars are for transportation and hammers are for construction. Guns are for killing).

And only in a non-rational debate would these self-evident truths about the true function and nature of a gun be so brazenly ignored.

As for the argument, well, 'bad-guys will still find a way to get guns' doesn't necessarily hold either. Because even if they do, it doesn't mean they'll use them. In Japan, for example, which has some of the strictest gun laws on the entire planet, the Yakuza (Japanese mafia) do in fact get guns. They typically shoot up each other, and very rarely turn their weapons on the public.

There's a very good reason for this.

When it comes to crime, it pays to stay off the radar of law enforcement. Because having an illegal gun in Japan is like waving a big red flag that says, "Arrest me! Arrest me! I'm up to no good!" And criminals tend to shy away from drawing too much attention to themselves just as a matter of habit. So, I've never bought into that argument that criminals everywhere would arm themselves and then turn their weapons on the public. It seems to be a kind of paranoid thinking that leads one to conclude that anyone you don't like who happens to get a gun will try and harm you with that gun, hence the need for more guns.

I think the usual rationalizations gun proponents use just don't hold up under rational scrutiny. I've considered them and thought about them for over a decade now and I haven't found one that relies on the inherent strength of a basic rational tenet that isn't propped up by whataboutisms and poor moral rationalizations that conveniently seem to ignore the stronger counter-arguments to the position. Like, literally disregard the arguments because they don't fall in line with the gun-mentality, to call it that. And that's a sign of dogmatism. Something that's dangerous whether or not guns are involved.

Kid President once said if your dream is stupid, get a better dream. I think that applies here too with the entire gun debate. It's not stupid for people to have the healthy desire not to become a victim of gun crime. What is stupid, in my opinion, is in the light of so much gun crime to think it's stupid for a person to want to ban guns out of their fear of guns rather than do the irrational thing -- which is to arm themselves with more guns -- of which they are afraid of being harmed by.

That's a very irrational response to not wanting to become a victim of a gun-related crime and or death. If you're afraid of dying by eating the sashimi of the poisonous puffer fish, you don't go on a raw puffer fish eating binge to counteract this very real fear and potential risk to your safety and life. That's entirely irrational. If you don't wish to die by poisonous fish, you simply avoid eating raw puffer fish at all costs. Problem solved.

And yet, there are at least 6 deaths a year from eating raw poisoned fish meat. So, when I see people claiming more guns will solve our gun problem, this is what I think of. It's the ole puffer fish excuse. It's just a bit irrational.

(Coincidentally enough, the rate of gun death in Japan is equivalent to the rate of death by the consumption of poisoned fish. So, scaling up the analogy to 300 million American gun owners should show you the absurdity of the gun rationale. Just saying.)

Being a gun culture simply for the masturbatory lust for guns is a stupid dream. Let's all grow up and realize that the value of life should outstrip the value of ownership of lethal weapons. We don't let people carry around vials of lethal poison just because they feel it's their right to do so. That's insanity. Why should it be any different with guns?

Really, the only real moral argument for owning a gun is to safeguard oneself from a present and imminent harm. Something that is threatening one's life and the life of their loved ones. But, in America, in many cases this threat is simply another person with a gun. Think about that for a moment. Then, you'll see the solution to ending this threat is quite simple.


Advocatus Atheist

Advocatus Atheist