In a recent online article from GQ, disarmist writer Drew Magary says to "F*CK Ben Carson" because Dr. Ben Carson, the presidential candidate, dares to advocate defending oneself and others.
The writer goes further, to describe Carson's comments as "stupid". He even highlights his description:..the Good Doctor made it clear this week that he is not only willing to replicate Trump’s signature brand of hot-garbage-spewing, but he’ll say even DUMBER shit. Here is Carson from earlier in the week on the Oregon shooter:
You are now bearing witness to an arms race of stupid, because stupid is in such high demand from the GOP base at the present moment.This is classic disarmist technique. He never explains why advocating self defense is stupid. He just declares that it is. It is part of his basic assumptions about reality, or he is simply an evil manipulator.
Having read a couple of his rants, I believe that he actually believes that self defense is irrational. Disparagement of defense of self and others is essential to the disarmist manipulations. Only if defense of self is rendered illegitimate can disarmament of the people be morally justified.
Once defense of self and others is illegitimate, then the right to arms becomes indefensible in any meaningful way; conversely, if a right to self defense is inherent and legitimate, a natural right to arms becomes clear. What good is a right to defense of self and others, if you are not allowed the most effective tools for self defense?
Selling self defense as illegitimate is extremely difficult. It goes against human nature, thousands of years of history, and the moral codes of most of the worlds major religions, including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, Hinduism and most proponents of Buddism.
Many people eschew self defense because they are unwilling to take responsibility for their own defense; others do so because they do not trust themselves to act responsibly; others base their calculations on the assumption that governments are benevolent and will protect them.
These arguments work best in cultures that have been so successful in promoting the rule of law that they are extremely peaceful. That is what happened in England and Wales, and in other parts of the Anglosphere such as Canada and Australia.
Ironically, the more that people believe that violence is common, the harder it is to convince them that self defense is illegitimate. As crime has ramped up in England and Wales, a resurgence in support of the right of self defense has developed.
The disarmists are self defeating when they attempt to use the argument that society is violent, therefore people should be disarmed.
Conversely, disarmament does not make a society safer. In fact, the opposite is true. John Lott has studied the issue more than nearly any other academic. In the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime, Lott presents his evidence that homicide rates increase after gun bans, in every case that he has examined.
This work builds on the findings of the first person to academically study the effect of gun laws. In a Cambridge University study published in 1972, Colin Greenwod found that crime was lower before the gun laws in England and Wales went into effect, as did Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm, in her books on the subject, published years later.
Disarmists' emotional rants and their attempts to frighten people create momentary support for legislation. But as people become educated and the details of the legislation become known, support drops away, and more support for the right to keep and bear arms for self defense is created.
That is why support for the right to keep and bear arms has been ratcheting upwards for the last 50 years.
Definition of disarmist
©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Link to Gun Watch