License to Kill

Inheritance, Susan Langdale

Doc: They're going to kill you with no hard feelings
John: And you're going to sit there and let 'em do it.
Doc: Yeah, well, I feel for you, but I'm consumed with apathy.
Why should I mix in?
--Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
_________

[n.b.: Apologies to our readers -- our postings have been haphazard the past week, as Ranger has been at the Mayo clinic for some testing. Not to worry--it is all to the good, and we're back in the saddle again.]

Ranger occasionally notes articles from gun magazines and catalogs he finds culturally illuminating. In this way he strikes a wide stance, though not in the Craigian sense. "Why the Gun IS Civilization" was featured in the recent Dillon Blue Press, named not for political affiliation, but the color of their reloading machines.

The opening sets up a false dichotomy: "Human beings have only two ways to deal with one another: reason and force." This mindset of imposing one's will upon another nicely encapsulates the arrogant mindset of our martial administration. And perhaps this is why Schopenhauer was so depressed (The World as Will and Representation.)

Writer Kloos presumes an initial shared rationality, along with an arrogant egoism. His paradigm disallows the other guy from "winning" an encounter, because you will have a gun (=The Great Persuader.) But what if the other guy has a gun, too? What if he wants to "persuade" you, as much as you want to persuade him. It brings every such encounter down to the O.K. Corral scenario.

The argument fails on many accounts, but mainly because it presumes might is right, and moreover, your might --because you are the "rational" owner of the titled concealed weapon --trumps the other guy's might. Kloos assumes he will be the winner because he is the guy in white, vs. Black Bart.

But when one packs a big enough gun, reason becomes distorted. Just ask the Iraqis. Because they would not reason, we had to use force. And because we will not reason, they must retaliate in kind. That is the civilization of the gun. Those who live by the sword, will die by the sword.

"In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion," and later, "When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force."

Another false presumption and causal relation here, as reason does not equate with persuasion. For instance, propaganda is a form of persuasion not necessarily based upon truth or reason. And Ranger can deal with you even if you are armed to the teeth.

Kloos argues for the "force equalizer" effect of guns, but clearly if he sees all interaction as forms of coercion ("persuasion"), he is de facto presuming a strength disparity -- a superior force will bend the inferior argument to his will. A gun does not insure that you will have the upper hand. It is a false sense of security. If both parties in a persuasion scenario wield guns, than what equalizes their force? Their rationality?

The problem is, most gunnies are dangerous precisely because they want to shoot people. If someone comes knocking on their front door, they are not amenable to being persuaded; they will shoot first, and ask questions later.

While this may be a justifiable recourse if someone is trying to enter your home unbidden, our own Governor Jeb Bush took the so-called castle law one step further back in 2005 . By signing the No-Retreat bill, he approved the use of deadly force in public places, as well, if one feels under threat, i.e., too forcefully persuaded (Florida Boosts Gun Rights.) There is no compulsion anymore to take the middle course, which is leaving a confrontation.

"The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded." False. Even if you were armed to the teeth, Ranger could put your family under duress. Carrying a gun does not insure you have the upper hand in every situation.

Kloos is also presuming that all gun owners act with restraint, and that the gun "only (limits) the actions of those who would (interact with me by via) force." Clearly a statement lacking in reason, as not everyone who is killed by a gun was the aggressor in the interaction.

The gun is one way to counter a physical threat, but it no more constitutes civilization than a stone-tipped spear does. It is the mark of a civilization in its early stages. And it has limits. Society will be civil when it will not need recourse to guns in order to insure reasoned behavior on the behalf of its inhabitants.