4 ms·

What Do Guns Say?

6 points by callum85 12y ago

stcredzero 12y ago
In a way, this op-ed is begging the question, which could be phrased as: "Should a citizen carrying a firearm be regarded as an inherently threatening act that others are entitled to protection from?" Unfortunately, the author uses the conclusion to answer his own question: "The moral bravery political protest demands is no longer enough; to protest in response now requires the physical bravery to face down men with guns." In the society I know, only a tiny minority of private individuals would commit any kind of lethal violence in such a context. Basically, the author is (probably unintentionally) supporting his position based on people's known inaccuracies when estimating personal risk. There is no question that any such legislation curtails the freedom of one party; the question is whether this is proportionate and justified. It will eventually come down to prevailing social norms. In this, the pro gun forces are already losing the battle of emotional impressions and imagery across much of the US. However, this is not uniform across the entire country. Also, as it is fundamentally a matter of perceptions and social norms, the "debate" has basically come down to both sides vilifying the other as somehow crazy or subhuman. The underlying issue is not the threat of violence in the public square. It's that this country has lost the concept of "loyal opposition" and real debate in the public sphere.
- hga 12y ago
  "It will eventually come down to prevailing social norms. In this, the pro gun forces are already losing the battle of emotional impressions and imagery across much of the US." Citation needed, I believe. Outside of the usual suspects, plus very recently and perhaps temporarily, Colorado, the vector of pro-gun facts on the ground is very strong. Those states did their usual things in response to Sandy Hook, but at net the legislation passed has been pro-gun, and hasn't stopped. Or look at the nationwide sweep of shall issue regimes, 1987-2011, followed by Illinois, and now California and Hawaii, brought to heel by the courts (if and when finished, that'll cover 90% of the population). As for the "debate", there is indeed none. But that's been true for decades, as or longer than I've been alive, e.g. look at the immediate indictment of the right after JFK was shot by a Communist who was upset at his policies towards Cuba (a blast of cognitive dissonance they've never recovered from). One of the reasons my side is arming ourselves so very thoroughly is that our opponents are very clear in how they view us, and end game they want. This recent use of open carry in political speech (well, besides avoiding bashing by union thugs in that first case of an Obama speech in New Hampshire) is, I sincerely hope, a clear message that the cost of their implementing their desires is going to be intolerably high. And perhaps the strongest force in preventing our cold civil war from turning hot. Something else occurred to me: the organs of the state routinely carry openly. I can't see how that isn't itself also political speech, something particularly obvious when they herd the hoi polli into "First Amendment Zones", or arrest people at public meeting for speaking more than their alloted 2 minutes, etc. etc. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, especially seeing as how it's an enumerated Constitutional right!
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    Citation needed, I believe. Note that I didn't say who was in the majority. The SF Bay Area has a lot of people who will hate on someone and, if they can, exercise power to express their instantaneous displeasure with someone who seems to be pro-gun. One of the reasons my side is arming ourselves... Honesty now: Did you jump to a conclusion about which side I'm on? (Also a question for 3rd party readers.) perhaps the strongest force in preventing our cold civil war from turning hot. Color me skeptical. I don't see much in the public sphere that one side or another doesn't label inflammatory. In fact, much of what I see which is a fairly neutral attempt at intellectual discussion is immediately pigeonholed as being on one side or another. If one is indeed interested in "preventing our cold civil war from turning hot" then there needs to be a concerted effort in understanding and finding common ground with the other side. I just don't see it. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander So are California and New York's shenanigans with the 2nd amendment a valid expression of state's rights? especially seeing as how it's an enumerated Constitutional right! Just harping on this (IMO valid) point isn't going to get the point across. At least, not at this point. The side with the power enforcing its will on the side with less power isn't a good default mode of operation.
Zigurd 12y ago
I have never heard of a protester getting maced or beaten at a protest where the protesters are armed. Maybe Occupy needs to learn a lesson from those "rednecks." It is a lesson that cuts in both directions: In addition to obviously raising the stakes for police who might be tempted to provoke unarmed demonstrators, committing a crime while armed is going to get you much more serious charges, so one thing you can infer is that armed protesters are going to be more careful of their behavior.

6 points by callum85 12y ago

In a way, this op-ed is begging the question, which could be phrased as: "Should a citizen carrying a firearm be regarded as an inherently threatening act that others are entitled to protection from?" Unfortunately, the author uses the conclusion to answer his own question: "The moral bravery political protest demands is no longer enough; to protest in response now requires the physical bravery to face down men with guns." In the society I know, only a tiny minority of private individuals would commit any kind of lethal violence in such a context. Basically, the author is (probably unintentionally) supporting his position based on people's known inaccuracies when estimating personal risk. There is no question that any such legislation curtails the freedom of one party; the question is whether this is proportionate and justified. It will eventually come down to prevailing social norms. In this, the pro gun forces are already losing the battle of emotional impressions and imagery across much of the US. However, this is not uniform across the entire country. Also, as it is fundamentally a matter of perceptions and social norms, the "debate" has basically come down to both sides vilifying the other as somehow crazy or subhuman. The underlying issue is not the threat of violence in the public square. It's that this country has lost the concept of "loyal opposition" and real debate in the public sphere.

hga 12y ago
"It will eventually come down to prevailing social norms. In this, the pro gun forces are already losing the battle of emotional impressions and imagery across much of the US." Citation needed, I believe. Outside of the usual suspects, plus very recently and perhaps temporarily, Colorado, the vector of pro-gun facts on the ground is very strong. Those states did their usual things in response to Sandy Hook, but at net the legislation passed has been pro-gun, and hasn't stopped. Or look at the nationwide sweep of shall issue regimes, 1987-2011, followed by Illinois, and now California and Hawaii, brought to heel by the courts (if and when finished, that'll cover 90% of the population). As for the "debate", there is indeed none. But that's been true for decades, as or longer than I've been alive, e.g. look at the immediate indictment of the right after JFK was shot by a Communist who was upset at his policies towards Cuba (a blast of cognitive dissonance they've never recovered from). One of the reasons my side is arming ourselves so very thoroughly is that our opponents are very clear in how they view us, and end game they want. This recent use of open carry in political speech (well, besides avoiding bashing by union thugs in that first case of an Obama speech in New Hampshire) is, I sincerely hope, a clear message that the cost of their implementing their desires is going to be intolerably high. And perhaps the strongest force in preventing our cold civil war from turning hot. Something else occurred to me: the organs of the state routinely carry openly. I can't see how that isn't itself also political speech, something particularly obvious when they herd the hoi polli into "First Amendment Zones", or arrest people at public meeting for speaking more than their alloted 2 minutes, etc. etc. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, especially seeing as how it's an enumerated Constitutional right!
- stcredzero 12y ago
  Citation needed, I believe. Note that I didn't say who was in the majority. The SF Bay Area has a lot of people who will hate on someone and, if they can, exercise power to express their instantaneous displeasure with someone who seems to be pro-gun. One of the reasons my side is arming ourselves... Honesty now: Did you jump to a conclusion about which side I'm on? (Also a question for 3rd party readers.) perhaps the strongest force in preventing our cold civil war from turning hot. Color me skeptical. I don't see much in the public sphere that one side or another doesn't label inflammatory. In fact, much of what I see which is a fairly neutral attempt at intellectual discussion is immediately pigeonholed as being on one side or another. If one is indeed interested in "preventing our cold civil war from turning hot" then there needs to be a concerted effort in understanding and finding common ground with the other side. I just don't see it. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander So are California and New York's shenanigans with the 2nd amendment a valid expression of state's rights? especially seeing as how it's an enumerated Constitutional right! Just harping on this (IMO valid) point isn't going to get the point across. At least, not at this point. The side with the power enforcing its will on the side with less power isn't a good default mode of operation.

Zigurd 12y ago

I have never heard of a protester getting maced or beaten at a protest where the protesters are armed. Maybe Occupy needs to learn a lesson from those "rednecks." It is a lesson that cuts in both directions: In addition to obviously raising the stakes for police who might be tempted to provoke unarmed demonstrators, committing a crime while armed is going to get you much more serious charges, so one thing you can infer is that armed protesters are going to be more careful of their behavior.