In the midst of the comments section of this article by John Lott, a reader makes a long statement with the general gist of "guns scare me, m'kay?". In the midst of a number of mental gymnastics (carrying guns makes the gun a first response in disagreements, etc.), this is the section which caused my frontal cortex to experience severe heartburn:
"I chose to live in a peaceful society, so I don't carry a weapon as a symbol of my choice. Now, if there were killings taking place on every other corner, I would have to examine this principle anew. In the meantime, I am not armed for a reason: I am showing my peaceful intent every day, every hour, when I am out in the community. An armed person might potentially save someone in the course of a lifetime, but in a generally peaceful world, an armed person is a sign of danger, risk and possible accident, the same as someone would be who choose to drive 85 in a 35 MPH zone.Oh, I could spend a whole post on this one (it's been a long day so I won't), but suffice it to say I am happy for this man. He lives in a world devoid of danger, where his life and well being serve as a personal talisman against the encroachment of worldly evil. His decision to paint myself, my wife, and others like us as nexuses of danger and pervading darkness within our communities shows a distrust which goes beyond mere dislike for those who carry. It smacks of elitism. From his lofty pedestal, this commenter tells me that he is a symbol of what society should strive to be, a more evolved creature who shuns not only the possibility of unsolicited violence, but also the means to defend against this possibility. He lives in a super-plush world.
We have to find a way to live peacefully with each other. If we cannot do that, then I would choose not to live in our society and, lacking effective recourse, elect to live in a more peaceful place."
But this is a fantasy of the commenter's making. I'm a laid back kind of guy; I have never been in a fight in my life, no detention, no police reports exist on me. If I cannot outright avoid conflict, then I deflect it so I won't be the direct recipient. But I am a realist and literalist at heart. It's a select few who live in a world where they will never have to worry about their personal safety. I realize that even by avoiding conflict, conflict can still visit you. It doesn't consume my thoughts, creating a living nightmare of dark shadows and bloodthirsty shades. It simply keeps me aware of my surroundings and gives me (an extremely small level of) comfort that if the situation degrades to the point where I have no other choice, I have one last option to continue living for another day.
Oh, and lastly, I noticed that the majority of commenters who decried the point of Mr. Lott's article were from states where the people are denied the right to carry with relative freedom (i.e., New York, Chicago, Massachusetts, California, etc.). They kept missing two important pillars which support the opposition to gun control extremism:
1. The 2nd Amendment protects us from loss of our ability for self reliance and defense. (Go ahead, bring up the militia and collective rights concepts. We'll have a nice discussion.)
2. Gun culture is ingrained in the very make-up and social DNA in the parts of the country beyond the city lights. Reliance on self is paramount in many decisions of daily life. One of those decisions includes the choice to be self sufficient until the proper authorities arrive to take control of the situation. This grassroots society has a stoic strength which has (and will continue to) stand against attempts to take rights away from those perceived as the minority.
Jeez, I'm tired.
-Guy
Update: Wow, sorry for that rant. I finished up a 12 hour shift, came home, saw that comment, and just "had" to write about it before I went to bed. Note to self: get a couple of hours of sleep and then see if a comment still chaps your posterior...
No comments:
Post a Comment