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
Posts
4 comments:
Disarmists often set a false premise, actually several, and then argue several other points. At times, they fully intend to "lose" the debate on one or more of these points because they already won by getting to set the framework.
This piece is a good takedown of the "stupid" framing but it is evident all across the gun rights battle.
We play this game defending against attacks on semi auto rifles, and we claim "victory" when we "win" by defeating yet another attempt at a ban or a restriction.
Folks, we are LOSING because we let them set the terms of the debate.
Instead of letting them do so, how about we do so?
Let's have the debate about rifles on the automatic front.
Let's play "ban that rifle" in court.
Let's attack the premise, you know, the one the court already spoke to - that banning entire classes of arms is not permissible, that military usefulness obviously covers automatics and sbr's and oh how about supressors too? How about we apply that "technology" track to firearms directly, just like ink pens and printing presses and computers.
How about we attack permission slips at the premise source? How about the Poll tax aspect of them? Maybe the....well you get the idea.
It is a profound mistake to let disarmists set the terms of debate, the framing of the debate and the content within.
When we get off our butts and finally go after their false premise...the only thing they will be able to do is say "that's stupid".
I correspond with a resident of Australia by email from time to time. He informed me that things are heating up concerning gun control there. after gun control went into effect the crime rate rose all most over night by 14% and every one is demanding their guns back.
This is a fantastic comment.
I would like to have some of these disarmists in a fox hole during a fire fight and se how fast they reach for a gun.
Post a Comment