Walter In Denver

Bitter's New Idea

Wrote she:

I got an email from an "I'm a former gun owner and believe in the Second Amendment, but" person. Unfortunately, I've not got the energy to give it the response it deserves. So do any readers or other bloggers want to take a stab at politely responding to fisking this email?

I bit, and she sent me the e-mail, here in italics, my responses in bold.

I've been enjoying your page/site/blog/or whatever it's called for a
couple of weeks since finding it on the list of channels on a news
aggregator I have installed. Really appreciate the feisty attitude.

This morning after being away for several days I got to catch up on recent
posts, most of which involve guns, and find I want to join in.

I no longer own firearms, no longer hunt, and never did find target
shooting a whole lot of fun. Now, please don't jump to any conclusions== I
have no issue with people who own guns, people who hunt, or people who enjoy
target shooting.

I did enjoy shooting, otherwise this last paragraph describes me as well.

Where I do cop an attitude is with the reality that those on both sides of
the issue, who are generally the most publicly outspoken, so often have a
rigid, unbending, inflexible, unyielding and shrill attitude which leaves no
room for engaging in a willing dialogue with the intent to find ways
reasonably to meet at least some of the concerns of each side.

There are, I believe, legitimate concerns on both sides-- a concern on the
part of firearms owners for their rights to gun ownership, and a concern on
the part of advocates of strict(er) gun controls for what they see as a risk
to public safety (my choice of terms).

The two sides of this debate may not be finding common ground, but shrillness and rigidity aren't the basic causes. The problem is each side is working at cross purposes. I'll get to that in a bit...

I believe that compromises could be found if both sides felt they could
engage in discussions without risking that such engagement might be showing
a "weakness" which the other guys might take advantage of. Example-- Gun
guys say "All right, you got a point, kids living in a home where there are
firearms are more likely to use farms inappropriately than are kids from a
home where there are no guns. (Now hold every thing, I'm not saying this is
true or false-- I'm only suggesting that this COULD be a starting point for
a discussion where some committed and willing people could seek compromises,
where the other guys could say,"Of course you have a right to own and enjoy
the use of your guns. Given that, what can we do to minimize the problem,
as we see it, of guns getting into the hands of criminals,and bad guys in
general?"

Now, at this point, to say "Guns don't kill people, etc." or, "The Second
Amendment only applies to etc. etc.", would be a real conversation stopper,
so everyone involved has to avoid the knee-jerk resort to the old standbys.

Well, enough. You get the picture. If there's a possibility of trying
this here, great. If not, so be it. It is, after all, your deal, and I'll
continue to visit, read, and chuckle at your stream-of-consciousness diary
entries.

Thanks,
(Redacted)

The hypothetical statement about kids at home with guns is a good enough place to illustrate the positions of each side of this argument. To the gun controller, safety is paramount, and if restrictions on guns would make kids safer, well, that's good enough reason to restrict them.

However, to the gun rights proponent, it's not enough reason. Keeping and bearing arms is part of the right to self defence, a human right, analogous to other basic human rights.

Think of it this way - nothing is more dangerous than a bad idea. Bad ideas caused tens of millions to be killed in the twentieth century alone. I would like to limit bad ideas, but I would never advocate restricting freedom of speech or freedom of the press to do so, because those are basic human rights, and are not negotiable.

If I were to concede restrictions on gun rights I would be denying the status of self defence as a basic human right. The letter writer, by looking for ways to compromise, shows that he fails to understand gun ownership as a basic right.

Posted by Walter at December 7, 2005 05:46 PM