« It's kind of like . . . | Main | Courage of their convictions »
April 04, 2006
Guns, human dignity, and a nation of cowards
I had a conversation yesterday with a good friend, a man who at one time carried a gun and a badge protecting his fellow citizens on the mean streets. He expressed, not for the first time, a belief that only trained law enforcement personnel ought to carry guns.
I asked him why, given that with more and more states recognizing the right of civilians to carry a concealed weapon, the bloodbath predicted by gun prohibitionists had not materialized. No enraged motorists shooting it out over a disputed parking space at the mall; no homicidal golfers in golf-cart drivebys.
He asked, "If CCW deters crime, why don't we hear about all the criminals being shot by civilians?" I answered that if I was walking to my car at night and was confronted by a would-be mugger, drew my weapon and the crook ran off, wouldn't he agree that a crime had been prevented without a shot fired?
He thought for a moment, then nodded.
I asked why he thought "hot prowls" -- breaking into a home with the owners present -- were so rare in the U.S., while home-invasion robberies were the favored method of British thugs. "Probably because the risk of being shot is pretty high in the U.S.," he said. I agreed, adding that kick-in-the-door burglaries in the U.K. were common because Britain's near-total prohibition on firearms had rendered law-abiding citizens nearly defenseless, a real-world demonstration of the foolishness of unilateral disarmament.
Criminals do a cost-benefit analysis; the easiest score with the smallest risk. Americans are an exceptionally well-armed people. Better to avoid the possibility of leaving a targeted home with more holes than a body ought to have.
My friend sat thinking for a moment, then shook his head and sighed. "I know what it's like to draw down on someone and have to make that split-second decision, shoot/don't shoot, bad guy or wrong guy; I made the right choices, thanks to the training I received and my experience on the street. Civilians are at a serious disadvantage."
With regards to his belief that police officers have sufficient training to reduce the risk of "bad shootings" to a level significantly below that of the general populace, I pointed out that -- according to experts like Don Kates and David Kopel -- the aggregate pool of civilians with CCWs had a smaller percentage of inappropriate uses of lethal force than did law enforcement.
But there's a more fundamental reason why I believe civilians ought to own and be willing to use a gun: because to refuse to do so is an act of cowardice, a repudiation of the worth of one's own life. A bold charge, I know, one I first read in an essay written by a mid-western attorney, more than a decade ago.
Jeffrey Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards" posits that we cannot claim to value human life and dignity and yet be unwilling to use force in defense of our lives and our dignity.
OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.
And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular phone.
Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?
The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, car-jacking, and assault are not about property.
Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.
The preceding paragraph strikes me as so obvious that it ought not have needed to be written, yet the very fact that it seems radical is proof that our understanding of "dignity" and "self-esteem" -- and what their value is and ought to be -- have been perverted. Life is priceless, yet not worth defending, in the parlance of the cultural relativists and pacifists.
Paradoxically, the same people who reject the idea of armed resistance to violent criminals, telling us that the police are best equipped to handle our defense, are also the same people who decry the brutality of our allegedly fascist government and its jack-booted enforcers.
A surprise to no one who knows me, I reject the passive premise of exclusive reliance upon the strength and courage of others.
Snyder then questions the odd proposition that violence committed by proxy, by underpaid bodyguards or Jannisaries, is a more appropriate form of self-defense then actually defending yourself.
Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong -- since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so -- but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?
Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?
One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence.
Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone -- the handgun. Small and light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the "great equalizer." Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many.
There's more to Snyder's essay -- read the whole thing -- but I think the central premise is unassailable; that human life and dignity is worth defending, and that the gun is merely a tool, a means to ensure that the law of the jungle, the Hobbesian view that life must be "nasty, brutish and short" applies to the wolves, more than the sheep.
Posted by Mike Lief at April 4, 2006 12:25 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
“Out On A Limb” is totally “Out to Lunch” on the issue of gun control. OOAL, You should listen to your police officer friend. Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology at the University of Ottawa states brilliantly: "Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate". In my own criminology class, I learned that the level of gun ownership world-wideis directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire.
“Out On A Limb,” why would you want to unleash the horrors of guns on our society to an even greater extent? Guns belong in the hands of police officers! “Out On A Limb,” here are some horrible statistics for our great country that I learned in school:
In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day. (Source: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)
Between 1993-1999, gun deaths in the United States have declined 27%.
In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides.
Of all suicides, 57% occurred by firearm
In 2000, 75,685 people (27/100,000) suffered non-fatal firearm gunshot injuries.
"Out On A Limb," we you read about the carnage above, how can you be so callous as to continue pushing the merits of unfettered firearm possession? I hope that one of your loved ones is not blown away on a bus one day by some freaked out racist like the New York subway gunman! Is that what it will take for you to wake up?!
I just can't figure out what America is so afraid of? Why does everyone feel the need to haul around a piece of steel and lead bullets that have the capacity to kill or mame any loving creature in sight?!?! I'm just mystified by your attitude "Out On A Limb." It scares me to think that I could pass someone on a sidewalk while walking to school or while standing in a store who has an instrument in his possession which would empower him to take my life with the greatest of ease. I don't want to live like that! I don't want kids to live this way!
"Out On A Limb," please reconsider your position! I leave you with a little quote from Ghandi:
"Who am I? I have no strength save what God gives me. I have no authority over my countrymen save the pure moral. If He holds me to be a pure instrument for the spread of non-violence in place of the awful violence now ruling the earth, He will give me the strength and show me the way. My greatest weapon is mute prayer. The cause of peace is therefore, in God's good hands."
Posted by: Sbarro at April 4, 2006 07:46 PM
What a maroon. If 58 percent of the 28,800 gun deaths were suicides, that means 16,700 of those deaths were the lawful outcome of a voluntary act--so we can ignore them.
Of the remaining 12,000, we can assume that a good number were lawful police killings, lawful citizen killings, and self-inflicted accidental (i.e. Darwinian) deaths.
Let's guess that we're now well under 10,000. In 2002, the total deaths, all causes, in the US numbered 2.4 million.
Ten thousand deaths is four-tenths of a percent. Meaning hugging your flu-infected child is about six times more dangerous than is your neighbor's owning a gun.
Posted by: LT at April 6, 2006 10:41 AM