The gun control ideology
Newsletter 2 from the Facebook group “Jamaica crime plan? Let us have GUNS!”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14034788468
The first reaction to our cause from those who are sceptical of it, uncommitted or against it is always bewilderment that good-meaning individuals propose to do away with violence by promoting violence. Firearms are instruments of violence; it is true. Common sense would suggest that to reduce the violence in our country we should discard all solutions that seem to add to that violence. If lay common sense were the only foundation on which decision-making should be based then we would have no need for higher education. The “common sense solution” can, at times, be the incorrect one or the least efficient. The reason for this is that the “common sense solution” is often determined in the absence of facts. Were common sense employed with all the facts present then one would easily see the correct answer that may have been counterintuitive at first.
Common sense told mankind centuries ago that if one sailed too far beyond the boundaries of the world, one would drop off the face of the Earth. Vestiges of this common sense idea still remain in idiomatic expressions that make reference to the four corners of the world. It seemed to make perfect sense. If you stand on a cliff with a view of the ocean stretching seemingly without limit to the point where heaven and earth converge, you will see only a horizontal line where they meet that we call the horizon. Clearly anybody who told you that the world was more ball-like and not flat with a dome-like heaven must have been off her rockers.
The lesson that we should have learned from our ancestors, who made incorrect inferences about the shape and structure of the Earth, is that all the facts taken together can sometimes reveal truths that defy perception and intuition.
The argument for self-defence which seeks to allow interested citizens to defend themselves with the best tool for protection and preservation of life – the gun – is one that produces emotional responses that emerge independent of factual analysis. These emotional responses neglect to make the distinction between justifiable forms of violence as in using violence to defend oneself and unjustifiable forms of violence. It is not always possible to dissuade an individual who intends to use violence against another with words or reason. The threat of violence and, if required, the act of violence are sometimes the only compelling argument in those situations.
It is around these emotional responses that the ideology of gun control has made its nest. Ideology we must bear in mind is a belief system that is impervious to facts. When the facts run contrary to the belief system then it adapts or distorts so that the facts will never deteriorate the structure that holds the belief system together. Ideology is not concerned with what is – the reality or the status quo. Ideology is concerned with what should be or ideals even if said ideals are demonstrably unattainable.
Gun control is as misleading an ideology as there ever was. Even in its name it toys with the emotions. The term “gun control” is a deceptive euphemism. It is a euphemism that subconsciously tries to assert the principles of the ideology as reasonable. Just on hearing the term gun control, the mind might automatically make these deductions: guns are for killing; killing is bad; therefore, we must control the guns to control the killings. Gun control might be more accurately described for what it is: citizen control.
The people who support gun control – gun control advocates – can be divided into three broad categories which overlap to an extent: hoplophobes; pacifists; and statists. Although their backgrounds and world outlook may be different, they all have the common agenda of wanting to keep law-abiding citizens defenceless.
Hoplophobes are the easiest type to understand. Hoplophobes have a phobia. They are afraid of the tool itself and its potential for destruction. They do not feel comfortable in the presence of a firearm. They do not enjoy the sight of them. In fact, the instruments terrify them irrespective of whether the owners of the instruments are agents of the state, law-abiding citizens or criminals. Hoplophobes believe that the way to deal with their fear is simply to rid the world of the object that causes them distress. As with any phobia, if it becomes debilitating to normal functioning then professional help would be the only recommended recourse for hoplophobes.
Pacifists are the utopians among the gun control advocates. They have espoused a worldview that calls for non-violence even in the face of violence. Extreme pacifists reject the right to life. Faced with imminent violence that would prove fatal, the extreme pacifist sticks firmly to the view that violence is never the solution. Pacifists envision a world in which all human beings live in harmony where violent conflict is non-existent and peaceful verbal discourse is the only way to resolve conflicts. Predators absolutely love pacifists. The predator knows that it is easiest to operate when the prey is unaware of its presence. The pacifists, in rejecting the notion that predators exist, do them a favour. The extreme pacifist’s ideal is akin to burying one’s head in the sand and hoping that danger will disappear.
The statists are the most sinister of the gun control advocates. Unlike their counterparts, these are the gun control advocates who are aware that more guns for law-abiding citizens means fewer murders. They seek to strip law-abiding citizens of their guns or keep them relatively unarmed, even if it results in more murders, because they respect the powers of the state and denigrate the rights of the individual. Not only are armed citizens dangerous to criminals, they are dangerous to an oppressive state. It is not easy to imagine widespread state oppression in a context where the majority of the citizenry is well armed. Abusing well-armed citizens would lead to revolt and mutiny – disquieting prospects for the statist. Yes, an armed citizenry would almost require good governance to keep the citizens content and for the statists who wish to enjoy powers on their terms and not on the terms of the governed, giving the governed ammunition against them is an idea that sends chills up their spines.
The gun control ideology and gun advocacy offer two approaches to the primary concern of Jamaicans – murders. The gun control ideology proposes an after-the-fact approach to dealing with murders. Gun advocacy supports a before-the-fact approach.
Since gun control seeks to make the citizen dependent on the government for protection by preventing law-abiding citizens from defending their own lives when the need arises – a dubious proposition as ample historical evidence exists that governments, at times, resort to abusing defenceless citizens – then the ideology stresses an after-the-fact model. The model works on the premise that there is a victim who has just been murdered. The police arrive on the scene, gather clues, interrogate witnesses, collect forensic evidence, apprehend suspects and place the matter before a court of law. When violent criminals have committed enough murders they will leave behind clues and evidence that will eventually lead to their arrest, prosecution and incarceration. If the plan works, those who remain living after-the-fact are overjoyed that the culprits are behind bars. The dead victims have nothing to say on the matter.
Gun advocacy stresses the before-the-fact model. The premise of this model is that you do not need to die for violent criminals to get justice. In fact, right then and there when you encounter the criminal, you have the possibility to repel, apprehend or eliminate your attacker if you are armed. After surviving the attack, the triumphant citizen can call the police for assistance, file a self-defence report and continue with her life. In the before-the-fact model, the would-be victim lives to tell the tale.
In the gun control ideology we see disfranchisement; the citizen is made dependent. Gun advocacy, conversely, is empowerment. Citizens are made into masters of their fate.
Gun control wants you to die so that murderers can be caught.
Gun advocacy wants you to live so that murderers do not.
Are you willing to die for the gun control ideology?
Facebook group: “Jamaica crime plan? Let us have GUNS!”
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14034788468
