Back in 2017, when I first re-posted this essay from 2012,I noted that it was written in response to the reaction at the time from the Second Amendment-hating Left to the shocking murder-suicide of of the Kansas City Chiefs’ Jovan Belcher. Nobody remembers the incident now, but the reflex reaction of the Axis of Unethical Conduct to virtually every mass shooting or nationally-publicized gun violence incident has remained constant. Now much of the “justification” for the assassination of Charlie Kirk has focused on his statement that mass shootings are the price we pay for the Second Amendment, and that the price is worth it. Maybe that position got him killed. His statement was 100% correct, of course, and when I was reminded that I had made almost the exact same assertion in the post below, I realized that I was ethically bound to repost it now. to Some of it is obviously dated (the reference to juvenile Carl in “The Walking Dead,” for example), but I have re-read it, and would not change a word of its substance.
Do I fear that this position puts me in the cross-hairs? No, because EA has relatively small circulation, and I don’t matter. But even if it did put me in personal peril, I could not and would not allow that possibility to stifle my opinion or my willingness to state it. That is what the bad guys want, and have been working to accomplish for many years. That is one of the reasons Charlie Kirk was killed.
Here, once again, is that 2012 post:
***
The shocking murder-suicide of of the Kansas City Chiefs’ Jovan Belcher has once again unleashed the predictable rants against America’s “culture of guns” and renewed calls for tougher firearms laws. Yes, reasonable restrictions on firearms sales make sense, and the ready availability of guns to the unhinged, criminal and crazy in so many communities is indefensible. Nevertheless, the cries for the banning of hand-guns that follow these periodic and inevitable tragedies are essentially attacks on core national values, and they need to be recognized as such, because the day America decides that its citizens should not have access to guns will also be the day that its core liberties will be in serious peril.
Here is Kansas City sportswriter Jason Whitlock, in the wake of Belcher’s demise:
“Our current gun culture ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it… If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”
I don’t disagree with a single word of this. Yet everything Whitlock writes about guns can be also said about individual freedom itself. The importance of the U.S. “gun culture” is that it is really individual freedom culture, the conviction, rooted in the nation’s founding, traditions, history and values, that each citizen can and should have the freedom, ability and power to protect himself and his family, to solve his or her problems, and to determine his or her fate, without requiring the permission, leave or assistance of the government. Guns are among the most powerful symbols of that freedom. You can object to it, fight it or hate it, but you cannot deny it. Guns are symbols of individual initiative, self-sufficiency and independence, and a culture that values those things will also value guns, and access to guns.
Whitlock’s statement argues for building a counter-America in which safety, security and risk aversion is valued more than individual freedom. There is no doubt in my mind, and the results of the last election confirm this, that public support for such a counter-America is growing. The government, this segment believes, should be the resource for safety, health, financial well-being, food and shelter. It follows that the government alone should have access to firearms. This requires that we have great trust in central government, a trust that the Founders of the nation clearly did not have, but one that a lot of Americans seem ready to embrace. Giving up the right to own guns and entrusting government, through the police and the military, with the sole power to carry firearms represents a symbolic, core abandonment of the nation’s traditional commitment to personal liberty as more essential than security and safety. I would like to see the advocates of banning firearms admit this, to themselves as well as gun advocates, so the debate over firearms can be transparent and honest. Maybe, as a culture, we are now willing to make that choice. If so, we should make it with our eyes open.
The cultural links between personal autonomy and guns are still very strong. One can hardly watch television or movies without seeing a drama in which the protagonist’s access to firearms defines his or her determination to avert danger, achieve justice or defeat evil. In “The Walking Dead,” for example, the fact that human beings have guns is the only thing keeping the world from total destruction and chaos. Carl, a thirteen year-old boy in the show, now wields a pistol like a gunslinger, and this symbolizes his premature entry into adulthood as well as his ability to take care of himself and his family. In the real United States, the one that isn’t over-run with zombies, owning a firearm is rarely essential or wise, which is why it is tempting to accept Whitlock’s conclusion that the freedom to have access to one it is unnecessary. I believe, however, that the right to bear arms is inextricable from the right to personal autonomy and freedom, as inconvenient and occasionally deadly as that fact may be. If we lose one, I believe the other will quickly follow. As with personal freedom itself, the right to own guns will be abused by the anti-social, the criminal, the stupid, the reckless and the irresponsible, and people will die as a result, just as they die from over-eating, driving too fast, drinking too much, sky-diving, bungee-jumping and keeping tigers as pets; just as they may die from playing NFL football, partying too hard or going hunting with Dick Cheney; just as they may die from putting too much carbon into the atmosphere or buying food with too many additives in them.
The right to be free creates the opportunity to be irresponsible, and ethics is the collective cultural effort to teach ourselves, our children and our neighbors not to be irresponsible without having to be forced to be responsible at gunpoint, with the government holding the gun. I know it seems harsh and callous to say so, but I am not willing to give up on ethics—the belief that enough of us can do the right things even when we have the freedom to do the wrong things—to prevent the occasional school massacre or murder-suicide.
I think that is giving up too much.
[In 2017 I added, “I would change one thing, upon reflection: the last sentence. I would cut the “I think.”]
Ethics Alarms 
Thank you for the repost.The”gun culture” as an excuse to take away our inlainable right, as you point out. Myresponse to those who use that canard is that it is not ” the culture of guns” it is “culture of death” that has overtaken humanity.
This phrase come from St. John Paul II. The “culture of death” explains the violence not only to the unborn but to violence in genral. it is the ‘culture of deaath’ that fuels terorisim, it is the culture of death that fuels school shooting, it is the culture of death that is the foudnation for racial riots. The list can go on.
What must be devolped is the opposing “culture of life.” The acceptance of dialogue, to overcome spersoanl and/or societal issues., The aceptance of the dignity of the other. the inculturation of “self sacrificing” of our egos over and above the sacrificing of others.
At the beginning og this week, my church canoniinzed a young man of the early 20th century.Pier Frassati. St. Pier said , before his death in 1924 “Modern society is drowning in the sorrows of human passion, and it is distancing itself from every ideal of peace and love.”
Myresponse to those who use that canard is that it is not ” the culture of guns” it is “culture of death” that has overtaken humanity.
Looking it history, it has done so since before writing was invented.
I would like to see the advocates of banning firearms admit this, to themselves as well as gun advocates, so the debate over firearms can be transparent and honest. Maybe, as a culture, we are now willing to make that choice. If so, we should make it with our eyes open.
I would also like them to admit that their rationale applies to the rest of the Bill of Rights- unless they expect the legal elites within the judiciary to uphold their pet civil rights even if their pet civil rights undermine public safety.
Now here is Paul Harding.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-gun-enthusiast-still-claim-their-right-to-bear-arms-is-more-important-than-public-safety/answer/Paul-Harding-14
All of your Constitutional Rights come at the cost of safety.
For example, you would be much safer if I could search houses, cars, and people whenever I wanted to, for any reason, or no reason at all. I’d catch more real bad guys. You know those stories about creeps who keep sex slaves locked in their basements for years? I’d find those victims and rescue them. That neighbor of yours who might have a meth lab that is going to send poisonous fumes into your child’s bedroom window, or explode and burn down your house? I’d find out for sure whether a lab was there.
How about all those guys who are probably child molesters, and we’ve got some evidence, but it isn’t enough to convict in front of a jury, especially with that defense attorney throwing doubt all over our evidence? Those guys are on the street right now, and a child you love may be their next victim.
Give up your rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, and I’ll make the world safer for you. No question about it.
The only problem is that if you give up all those rights, which are really just restrictions on the things I’m allowed to do to you, what’s going to keep you safe from me?
Every right you have increases your danger from other people who share that right. Free speech? It allows monsters to spread hateful messages, possibly about a group to which you belong, just the same as it allows you to petition your government with legitimate grievances.
That free speech even allows you to argue in favor of discarding freedom and liberty as just too dangerous to trust in the hands of ordinary people. Now that, my friend, is what scares me – that people with opinions like that will spread them to weak-willed individuals who haven’t really thought through the consequences. I won’t argue for taking that right away, though, despite the dangers. That would be even more scary than you are.
Yes, some people in a free society are always going to abuse those freedoms. Criminals are going to hide behind the 4th amendment to conceal the evidence of their crimes. People who commit horrific acts are going to hire excellent defense attorneys who can convince a jury that doubt exists. And, yes, some people are going to use guns to commit murders.
Freedom is scary, but lack of freedom is scarier.
In the wake of events like this, when the left is calling for more gun control, you often will bring up the point how does this proposed law prevent this event from happening? This fits the murder of Charlie Kirk very well. The weapon used this time was a Mauser bolt action rifle chambered in 30-06. It is the 3 or 4th most common hunting rifle, chambered in the quintessential deer hunting round. Little has been said about how Robinson sourced the rifle yet. This design has been built since the late 1890’s in Germany. The rifle had a synthetic stock, so it was more likely recently built but it could have been a replacement stock for an old rifle. Given that he had family with a law enforcement, hunting and shooting family, this is likely a hand-me-down rifle.
The gun community is a bit divided. On one side there are those that think ownership of a AR-15 and semi-automatic handguns should be widespread and those guns be easily available. Then there are those who think there should only be bolt action rifles, pump shotguns and revolvers. The former derides the latter as “Fudds”, in reference to them being dumb like Elmer Fudd. There is a good chunk of the philosophy by the former that if they’re arguing over machine guns, the overton window is far from talking about bolt action rifles.
So here we are talking about a bolt action rifle, with nearly no laws proposed beyond an absolute ban on ANY type of firearm in private hands preventing this. It is my conjecture that the rifle was already in the family; if it wasn’t, purchasing laws would do little since anyone buying a bolt action rifle doesn’t set off the fear of mass shooting alarm bells.
As an aside, I’m also noting the reporting highlights the fact that half of America’s only knowledge on guns is “guns are bad.” Gun nuts love mocking reporters and gun banning politicians for the absolute ignorance on something they are so fervent on banning. EVERY SINGLE report I’ve seen talking about the rifle included a lengthy description of what a bolt action rifle is. Most of the right doesn’t need that description, they know the difference. But to the reporters, this is probably informational. I also note they love throwing out the term “high powered rifle.” This time it is apt. But they often miss-use the term. An AR-15 is not a high powered rifle. The proper term for the 5.56×45 used in the AR-15 is “intermediate power.” Before automatic rifles were on the battlefield, the rounds used were designed to kill with one shot. But those rounds were too darn heavy for use in an automatic rifle, so between the Korean and Vietnam wars the US switched from the 30-06 to the 5.56. It often does not kill with one shot. That’s not to say it can’t, see the events in Kenosha with Kyle Rittenhouse. In many of these mass shootings over the last few years, the number of wounded but not killed is as high as it is. In the Christchurch Mosque murders, there were 40 who survived after being shot. I don’t want to dismiss how bad it is to be shot and survive, but that’s better than the alternative. I highlight this as another example of the ignorance, but also have pause in mentioning this as it is a good thing that the mass shooters are ignorant of the fact that they’re picking the most popular but not most effective rifle available.
I am not raised in a gun culture and never held a firearm in my fingers. But maybe somebody can educate me on the constitution here. Isn’t the reason why we have a Second Amendment to help us secure us against a tyrannic government, and therefore help us secure the other rights such as free speech?
I am looking at the the UK where decades ago after a mass killing of children the government decided to ban and confiscate guns. Now laws have been passed to restrict free speech; about 30.000 people are arrested each year for “mean” posts at the social media.
I deplore all the killing in the USA, but I do not want a meek, compliant and powerless population under a tyrannic population either. I am a bit afraid that all the gun-banners from the left want the USA to become what the UK is today.
“I am a bit afraid that all the gun-banners from the left want the USA to become what the UK is today.” -CVB
I am more than “a bit afraid” of this, I am downright convinced of it. It’s a shame that more people have not studied the history of disarmed populations around the world. Almost every genocide has been preceded by gun registration and confiscation.
I recall a quote attributed to H.L. Mecken -but perhaps he was quoting A.J. Liebling,- (paraphrasing) “Freedom of the press is only valuable to those who own one.” In the same vein, the freedom to keep and bear arms is of little value to the man who choses not to “keep and bear” them.
I consider myself a member of the “gun culture” since my youth. I grew up around firearms and became a hunter and shooter at a young age, always being taught “safety first.” I purchased firearms through the mail before the Gun Control Act of 1968 stopped that. I chose an occupation that involves the carrying of firearms (and potentially the use of them) on a daily basis. For over forty years I carried a firearm -often more than one- whether on duty or off duty. I have continued that practice since my retirement in 2014, although I aways carry concealed these days unless I’m on my own property.
I was nearly an adult before I realized that some people actually feared or even loathed firearms. Their fear and loathing often extended to anyone who is a firearms enthusiast. I consider
I still have a hard time understanding why anyone who is legally eligible to do so doesn’t get a handgun permit, learn how to shoot, and then carry a firearm consistently. I don’t know how I would live with myself if there were an attack on my family -or anyone else- when I was present, and I was unequipped or untrained to respond effectively. (In that same vein, I also trained my wife to shoot, and she also carries a concealed handgun.) For anyone who says, I have no need for one.” I can only reply, “You mean, ‘I haven’t YET had a need for one.’ Whether you will have a need for one in the next hour, day, week or year is mostly a matter of luck. And when you do, you will need it RIGHT NOW.” I recently saw a tee shirt bearing the slogan, “I carry a handgun because I can’t carry a policeman.” My favorite remains, “When seconds count, police are only minutes away.”
Yes, as soon as the Second Amendment can be done away with, the rest of our rights will soon be taken away. James Madison said, “Whenever there is interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done.” Can anyone doubt that these conditions exist in our current political climate?
I think you should go to a range where you can rent a gun and have someone instruct you on it’s safe use.
Shooting is a lot of fun, and can be quite addictive, which is why I believe there are so many guns in this country.
In gun culture, you’ll find people are very serious about gun safety, and if you violate a rule, you will get called out. All the time. By everybody. Without fail.
You’d also do well to realize that “all the killing in the USA” happens in areas like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, DC, etc. If one removes the stats from cities like those, the numbers plummet. That’s definitely not “gun culture”, just a culture where anything goes to get what you want. The gun is just an effective tool in furtherance of that.
deacondan86 mentions a culture of death, and really, I think that’s the bigger issue. It started with Eve eating the fruit, and none of us are immune. It’s sure gotten way out of hand, and the leftists, the AUC, Ben Crump, Al Sharpton, the credit card companies, drug dealers, or any other Snake Oil salesman who will get rich on your failure to take a good, hard look in the mirror about the choices you’ve made are the biggest issues.
The “moralists” on the left look at people of faith (who are not immune to even colossal mistakes) who strive to follow that faith, the sacrifice it requires of us to live a moral life, hard work because so doing is how we best serve others, and from that reward and peace follow, and wonder why they can’t achieve it.
They virtue signal, live hedonistic lifestyles, think that sex has no emotional or spiritual value, kill little babies in the womb, encourage transgenderism to the point of buthering 15 year old kids and everything else so they won’t feel bad about themselves, and woe to you if you tell them they won’t find joy and happiness that way.
Frankly, it’s why Charlie Kirk was shot.
Guns are the least of the problems.
“Isn’t the reason why we have a Second Amendment to help us secure us against a tyrannic government, and therefore help us secure the other rights such as free speech?“
That’s part of it, particularly important and relevant at the time. It’s also, at its core, considered (ike the First A.) a “natural” or “God-given” right. It’s the literal basic existential right of a human to have the means to effectively preserve his own existence, freedom, and self-determination.
There is no good answer for this one. You free for a meal in the next couple of days?
[YES! Not today and probably not tomorrow, but maybe. Monday?]
Ok, I don’t leave until Tuesday
An abundance of historical examples prove that Leftists don’t stop assassinating people just because those people have been disarmed.
Nope, it just makes it easier to move ahead. The Ottomans not only collected weapons but they collected utensils that could potentially be used as weapons they’re by the Armenians. You know the rest.
Mark Glaze, the former executive director of Michael Bloomberg’s Astroturf “Everytown” anti-firearms organization once remarked “Because people perceive a mismatch in the policy solutions that we have to offer and the way some of these mass shootings happened, you know, it is a messaging problem for us, I think. … Is it a messaging problem when a mass shooting happens and nothing that we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting? Sure it’s a challenge in this issue.”
Glaze was speaking about a particular variant of criminal firearms use, but his admission holds true in this case, and to an even greater degree. The firearm and cartridge apparently employed here were developed and put in use over a century ago. Until the Kennedy assasination they were available by mail order through ads in the backs of various magazines, from Sears, Western Auto, and your local hardware store. They’re perhaps the most common combination used in hunting North American land animals larger than maybe a coyote. The rate of fire is only marginally faster than a single shot rifle. It’s the epitome of the type of firearm the grabbers claim they have no intention of banning in the interest of “gun safety”. If he bought the rifle himself, there’s been no evidence yet that the shooter would have been denied the purchase after a background check, would have been thwarted with a trigger lock, or that he would previously have been red-flagged. Considering the advances in private fabrication and computer-driven object “printing” (never mind the illegal trade), such restrictions would be even less potentially effective than in the past, and only becoming more so.
Calls for more “gun safety” legislation are typical “dosomethingism” from the left, with a good dose of non-sequitur and straw-man “dead children” thrown in. The only “something” that might (and only “might’…see last sentence in previous paragraph) have had any effect here seems to be the total banning and confiscation of all privately held firearms…something that many of the antis would like, but not something that is actually going to happen. It’s unethical to advocate for something that can’t and won’t happen.
Absolutely.
And remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
One of the more aggravating things about how progressives are rationalizing Kirk’s assassination is by sharing memes that contain cherry-picked extractions from longer comments. Kirk was a gifted off-the-cuff speaker; his answers to questions were often three or four minutes long. The left’s anger is mostly drawn from eight- or ten-word snippets.
Here is the complete segment from which the left extracted the “Charlie Kirk thinks gun deaths are acceptable” argument. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1354776096313606
And the money quote from that segment:
One argument I hear often is that the only purpose for guns is killing people.
Hunting and sport shooting aside, they seem to miss one obvious other purpose for guns.
Guns level the playing field by allowing smaller, weaker people to successfully defend their lives when threatened with physical harm by larger, stronger people.
And with that in mind, dare I say the word . . . women?
But I guess the Left would prefer that most women be at a perpetual disadvantage against most men when physically threatened or attacked.
–Dwayne
God made us, but Sam Colt made us equal.