Fear and "the other" in the Guns Forum

[Callisto32]

Here on the guns forum, one must notice that both sides constantly accuse the other of being fearful, and that that fear is what drives the position of the dreaded "other." It is these two things, the fear, and the other, that I would like to address.

First, of fear. Often when someone is accusing another of being afraid of something, it comes with at least the implication that such a fear is a bad thing, and that the person is somehow wrong for experiencing it. Whether this is someone being accused of fearing guns, of or fearing other people, it makes no difference. Both sides leave out the fact that fear is, actually, a good thing and part of what allows animals to survive. The ability to feel fear and to react to it keeps us alive. Dangerous situations cause us to experience fear, which in turn causes us, usually, to remove ourselves from that situation. All well and good.

The thing is, dangerous situations are highly context specific. Something that is in one case very dangerous, may be entirely harmless in another. When the ability to discern between these things is not applied, that is when fear becomes dangerous. Fear moves from the tool category and into the master category when we fail to apply reason and rationality to it. For example, sometimes a person aggressively approaching the driver's side door of a vehicle intends to steal your car, other (and much more frequent) times the person intends something innocuous, such as passing by you to get somewhere or tell you that you lost a hubcap or something. The ability to discern between these things by applying knowledge, experience and even a good bit of instinct is an important skill to have. It allows you to deal with the fear you may feel at an aggressive approach in an appropriate way.

The same is true when it comes to guns. Maybe you do have something to fear from a person with a gun. But, in modern American society, there are a great many people with guns for which you have no reason to fear. A person intent on harm is the real thing to be feared, not simply an armed person. In the same way, it is not the common person on the street to be feared, but the person with ill will.

In short, it is not fear that should be derided, but irrational fear. There is some on both sides of this debate, and we would all do well to realize our own shortcomings, as well as those of the other side.


Second, on "the other."

This is a common human problem. Tribalism. We tend to split ourselves up into groups, and assign ourselves membership to one or more of the divisions. We then label the other groups bad and our own groups good. At least, we think of our groups as better, and the others not as good as we are. Whether this is done intentionally or not is immaterial, it happens.

I am convinced it is destructive. Because this is a place for political discussion, I will use the parties as an example. It is easy, here, in a place this is overwhelmingly conducive to your own views, to act in ways that are strong manifestations of this tribalism. Take the examples of the use of the terms "repugs," "repukes" or whatever. To take a large group of people and label them in such a derogatory way is, simply, disgusting. The same goes in the guns forum. "Gun-Nuts" "Grabbers" et cetera. All of this is, frankly, immature, pathetic, and unacceptable and we should all be ashamed of ourselves for sinking to that level.

Often, when you get down to reality, the other is not that different from you. Take the two main parties. If you look at the history of the US, and its parties, you can see that we are due for a party realignment. Both the Democrats and Republican parties are suffering from internal schisms and are not nearly so cohesive a body as it may seem. The Democratic party seems more unified for now, but I think that is just the result of having a new President around whom to rally. Treating an entire body as "the other" does not make much sense if you consider this.

Do with this what you will.


In the interest of disclosure: I am NOT a Democrat. I am a libertarian, philosophically, meaning that I simply do not believe that initiating force against another person for any reason is ever allowable. I am currently officially associated with the Libertarian party, but am distancing myself from that body because of recent turns toward policy that advocate initiating force against others, such as closing the boarders.

Peace

Zane

[tomreedtoon]

1. The five word definition of Libertarinaism.

"I've got mine; screw you."

(I understand that we've exceeded the allotment of the "F word" so I had to use a substitute.)

[safeinOhio]

2. Valid points about labels

I'm not a fan of labels like "repugs" or "gun nuts". Turns complicated issues into black and white terms. Always dangerous thinking and a trap to fall in. Despite living in the computer, discrete, times, the real world is more gray and continuous. Most ideologies have some truth, ideologues are blind to other ideas. Thanks for the thoughtful post. K&R.

[Callisto32]

5. Ah yes,

the "people who believe in liberty are just selfish, terrible people who do not care about anybody else" argument.

Isn't it equally likely that someone will say "I've got mine, I should share some of it"?

Again, when I say libertarian, I mean that believe that it is wrong, ALWAYS wrong, to initiate force against another person. If someone does not wish to share, then you should not have the power to steal from them to force them to share.

Also note that there is a difference between Libertarianism and libertarianism.

[Howzit]

12. Isn't the ideal to influence people to help those less fortunate than themselves,

rather than forcing them by law to do so?

[Callisto32]

20. That is exactly the idea.

[tomreedtoon]

27. People only do good if they're forced to.

Human beings are selfish bastards. All of them. All of YOU reading this. The only reason you do good for anyone is if someone forces you to.

The only reason that the millionaires and industrialists of the 1930's let Roosevelt have the New Deal reforms was because they were afraid that the starving masses would rise up and kill them. And that's the only reason that today's CEO's and rich bastards MIGHT allow Obama to save this nation.

Oh, I'm sure you'll claim Jeebus or Mammon or some nebulous conscience mandates that you do good, but deep down inside, you'd kill and eat your own children if you had a chance of getting away with it.

Or as Captain J.J. Adams said in Forbidden Planet, "We're all part monsters in our subconscious. So we have laws and religion." Which is what Libertarians, all of them, wish to abolish.

[Howzit]

28. "The only reason you do good for anyone is if someone forces you to."

If you do "good" under duress then you are NOT doing good; you are avoiding punishment. Generosity is giving more than can be expected or is legally required, without any expectation of return.

I must not be human because I enjoy helping others. Whether this involves donating my money, time or skills I derive great satisfaction in helping out when the recipients show no expectation that they would receive this. As soon as someone shows an attitude suggesting that I am obliged to help them, my generosity wanes.

You cannot force good behavior by means of law. Making drugs and guns illegal won't stop gang bangers from hurting others to enrich themselves. If gangs are the only roll models some kids grow up with, and crime related to selling drugs is the easiest way to make a living, those problems should be dealt with first. Instead, poverty is ignored and more gun control laws are passed for criminals to ignore.

[tomreedtoon]

40. I enjoy helping others, but I'm a fool. And so are you.l

The smart people are out there grabbing food AWAY from the starving. They are the dominant mode.

Don't assume your eccentricity, or mine, is a cause or a virtue. We're just out of touch with the world.

[Hoopla Phil]

44. If I'm not mistaken it is a violation of DU rules to call a member a "fool".

Perhaps an edit or an apology is in order.

[tomreedtoon]

45. I believe you're thinking New Testament.

And I'm sorry. Would you prefer the word "eccentric" or "deluded, insane person" to "fool?"

Because I freely admit that I do what I do to help others for irrational, stupid reasons. It won't get me into Heaven. I don't think there IS a Heaven. And if there's a God, He's a thoroughgoing bastard who hates His creation.

So basically, what I do to help hopeless and troubled people is pointless and insane. It goes against everything that successful people do in this world. To me, that means I'm a fool.

If you have trouble accepting that moniker, devise one of your own.

[Hoopla Phil]

46. No, I made no biblical reference. My reference was to the D.U. policy

on civility. If you freely choose to self diagnose your mental condition and/or proclivities you are certainly within your rights to do so and post about it if you so choose. To do so in this forum on another DU member is contrary to DU policy on civility.

[one-eyed fat man]

29. Okee dokee, then, you say...

You define libertarians as:

"I've got mine; screw you."

(I understand that we've exceeded the allotment of the "F word" so I had to use a substitute.)

and you believe:

"Human beings are selfish bastards. All of them. All of YOU reading this. The only reason you do good for anyone is if someone forces you to."

So which end of the continuum are you on?

You have your hand out crying "Gimme" looking for your share?

Or do you cheat on your taxes because you resent the government buying votes with your money?

[tomreedtoon]

39. I'm just trying to survive all you greedy zombies.

You're all a bunch of people wandering around singing...

"All we want to do is eat your brains,
That's not unreasonable; I mean no one's going to eat your eyes.
All we want to do is eat your brains,
We're at an impasse here; maybe we can compromise.
If you open up the door,
We'll all come inside and eat your brains."

That's libertarianism and Libertarianism summarized.

[Callisto32]

31. I don't think you know much about libertarians.

Get off your party kick, and stop using Libertarians. Little l libertarianism is a philosophy that rejects the initiation of force against other people for any reason. Force can be MET with force, but you cannot force someone to do something, or hurt them or their stuff without provocation by force on that person's part.

L(l)libertarianism CERTAINLY does not wish to abolish religion, as to do so would be to initiate a major level of force against a HUGE number of people. Heck, I'm married to a pastor's daughter, go to church every Sunday and am the only person under 50 in the choir, you think I want to abolish religion? Are there libertarians that would rather see religion not around? Sure, but if they are willing to use force to abolish it, then they are not libertarians, Libertarians maybe. Do you see the difference?

As for laws, there are some that profess that the only way to a truly free society is to abolish all law and allow the market (that we define as the sum total of all voluntary human interactions, not just the "market" as we tend to think of it now) to deal with all problems, but most, including me, will allow for those laws that merely punish those for initiating force. For example, laws against murder, larceny, trespassing, et cetera would be fine, but those laws that say things like "you can't smoke marijuana" "you can't hire a prostitute" "you MUST pay me so I can do this" and back those laws up with the threat of force in the form of physical caging, or whatever are WRONG.

As for your statement that forcing people is the only way they do good. Think on this. Laws are backed the the threat of physical force. "If you do not do X, I will cage/hurt/rob (robbery is larceny by threat of force or use of force) you." This is something known in contract law as "gun to the head" duress. This is one of the few things that renders a contract VOID, totally gone, entirely unenforceable. When the government does it, we say it is fine. "One rule for me, another for thee." This, is wrong.

[tomreedtoon]

38. Upper or lower case, it doesn't matter.

Libertarian or libertarian, they're the people that want to park their gas-guzzling SUV's on top of my body because they like where I'm standing. And they have a right to anything they can grab.

[Hoopla Phil]

43. My elementary school grammar teacher would disagree with you on that.

And you have a serious lack of understanding "libertarianism". Please read up on it before posting about it as it just makes you look silly.

[Callisto32]

48. It seems like you are just baiting at this point.

(Un?)fortunately, I am smarter than a muskie, and will not bite.

To suggest that a libertarian would harm you to take your stuff is, well, doubly insulting.

P.S.

I drive a Yaris. In it I have averaged 47MPG over 17k miles.

[benEzra]

32. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. Only sociopaths do good only when forced to.

People only do good if they're forced to.

Only sociopaths do good only when forced to. Pretty much everything good I do, have done, and will do, is because I choose to. There is very little that one can be forced to do unless one lives in a police state. Encouraged, yes; facilitated, yes; forced, no.

BTW, "people only do good when forced to" is the mantra of the fundamentalist theocrats and the public health nazis, which are merely two sides of the same authoritarian coin. Most progressives believe humans are inherently better than that; that was the very foundation of the Enlightenment, after all.

[tomreedtoon]

37. Well, aren't most people sociopaths?

Go back and read "The Day of the Locust" again.

[Hoopla Phil]

42. No most people are not.

[Callisto32]

49. This seems like a pretty twisted take on people. n/t

[raimius]

50. No, they are no more than 2% of the population

[benEzra]

51. No, most people aren't.

That's the very reason it's possible to construct a viable definition of "sociopath".

And the fact remains that the vast majority of people do good things for reasons other than being forced to.

[Hoopla Phil]

35. I wonder what my motive was when I changed my elderly neighbors

flat tire was?

[tomreedtoon]

36. Keeping them from killing and eating your cats?

Just a guess.

[Hoopla Phil]

41. Nope, but feel free to guess again and again. LOL n/t

[Israfel4]

3. I'm curious to know at which point

will you fight back to defend yourself or others????

[Callisto32]

4. The generally accepted method, and the one that I ascribe to myself

is that you may defend yourself and others against force initiated by others to the degree to which force was used against you.

For example. If someone verbally attempts to stop you from doing something that does not interfere with others or their property, it is appropriate to meet that with words in kind.

If someone attacks you physically, say they throw a punch at you. You may do what is physically necessary to stop that attack. However if you respond with a level of violence that exceeds the initial attack, then you have become an aggressor yourself.

This principle, I understand, is not perfect as there can be disagreement about when you cross the line into greater force, or at what point a person originally becomes an aggressor.

Really, it boils down to "don't force other people to do things."

[Taitertots]

8. A better method

Is if someone initiates force against you, then you respond with sufficiently overwhelming force.

Break into a house to steal stuff, get shot.
Attack someone physically, get shot.

If someone is using force to deprive you of your personal liberty then you are justified in using any level of force up to that persons death to stop them.

[ManiacJoe]

9. Just for the sake of others reading this,

what you describe is not legal in almost all states.

[Taitertots]

14. Totally legal in almost all states

If someone attacks you, you are within your rights to shoot and kill that person.
If someone breaks into your house and you fear for your life you can shoot and kill that person.

[ManiacJoe]

17. No. You need to review your laws and/or take some training.

In almost all jurisdictions, to legally use lethal force in your self defense, you need to reasonably believe that your attacker is going to kill or cripple you. A simple assault (eg, fist fight) will not qualify. The defender gets to use the same level of force as the attacker.

If someone breaks into your house, lethal force is allowed only if you reasonably believe your attacker is going to kill or cripple you. However, forcefully breaking in often requires tools; and those tools often qualify as deadly weapons, which will usually cover the "reasonably believe" part.

[Taitertots]

19. I just spoke to a lawyer about it less than a week ago

Anyone tries to do physical harm to me or tries to break into my home, I'll find out in court.

Maybe your state has different laws. I'm going to go with the advise of a lawyer from Michigan as to what actions I should take.

[Callisto32]

23. Usually, physical injury is not enough, it must be grievous bodily injury, or some such.

I'm not a lawyer (yet) but my criminal law professor was pretty big on self defense law, and made it clear that just being fearful of minor (non-permanent/disabling/potentially deadly) injury does not usually justify homicide. There are certainly cases where it does, just make sure you get your details right (ask that lawyer to go through the defense element by element for you, and tell you what all of the terms mean) beforehand. The law is a sticky thing, and words rarely mean just what you think they mean. Then when you get a definition, there are usually three or four words that need to be defined in there.

To put it into perspective. The common tort has 4 elements: Duty, Breach, Injury and Causation. It took me more than an hour to establish whether or not the duty element was met on a two hour exam where the question was less than 2 typed pages long, and everything that can be done there can also be done in causation, but it is done differently..... Basically, I am afraid that this lawyer may have given you the definition of when self defense is a successful defense, without going into great detail about what that means. I could certainly be wrong, but if someone told me that a state allows people to kill another when the person is taking a swing at them, unarmed, I would hit the books, hard.

Also, I cannot advocate using deadly force in response to anything less by the other person. What is legal is not always what is right. Frankly, though, in the end it is your conscience you have to deal with and the consequences of your actions that you will have to deal with. I sincerely hope you never have to find out in court.

[X_Digger]

25. Also consider disparity of force..

6'5" beefy guy takes a swing at 4'3" little old lady, she's going to be much more likely to be able to assert self-defense if she pulls out a pistol and shoots him.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. If possible you always respond with greater force, so as to mitigate the threat.

If you punch me I will respond quickly and extremely violently until such a point that you are no longer a threat. That probably means that you can't get up without assistance or at all. Having said that I will do everything I can to avoid a fight. The only person who I have punched (in a non-sporting event), in the last 20 years, took quite the beating after punching my wife. I must admit I did FORCE him to apologize.

David

[Callisto32]

30. Like I said, it's not perfect.

As no human philosophies are. Though, this may fall into it. Did you do the amount of damage to the other guy that he would have done to your wife? If so, then it is perfectly acceptable. If you went beyond that level, then my philosophy requires me to say that what you did was wrong. However, I do personally believe that there are times when righteous vengeance is appropriate, I just don't consider myself qualified to make that judgment call, in most situations so I err on the side of caution and follow the "harm principle." I, luckily have never been in a situation where I was in a position to make such a decision as you have and can't say that I would have done any differently, ESPECIALLY if it was my wife.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. If you punch a woman you deserve to take a beating.

I do respect your position though. It is more of a pacifist position than mine. As I said I will avoid confrontation if possible if physically attacked though the response will be quick and brutal. If possible more damage will be done to my attacker than to me, enough at least to definitely stop the attack.

David

[virginia mountainman]

18. For me, And I practically ALWAYS carry a hidden Sidearm

Here is my reaction in the following circumstances;

Lets say, a parking lot altercation, a minor bump, fault in the accident does not matter..

I am being cussed,....I will apologize, and do what I can to defuse the situation..

I am being cussed, nose to nose, I will step back, and do what I can to defuse the situation..


I am being pushed, I will back up, keeping between my loved ones, and him and again, do what I can to defuse the situation...

He grabs my collar and gets into my face, again, I will back away, and do what I can to defuse the situation.

He Punches me, I will take the punch, and do what I can to defuse the situation...

He punches me multiple times, I will take them, ....and do what I can to defuse the situation.

If he picks up a Stick, tire iron, ball bat, knife, rock, anything that can be used as a weapon, and if he is still some distance away, I WILL DRAW, the next thing I do, will depend wholly on him, it will be his choice, whether or not he stays a lethal threat...

If he is close in, and does that, I will draw and OPEN FIRE, with NO warning.

At anytime, if i see him, reach for a gun, I will open fire, with no warning..

My reaction while armed is completely different than if I was unarmed, at the point where he grabbed my collar, I would stomp his ass...But the gun I carry, requires that I be "non violant" in ALL circumstances. When I was young, I used to be a 'brawler", but now, I am as cool as ice. I MUST BE.

[ensho]

6. neo con repugs ARE disgusting

and since this is in the gun forum:

children by law should not be allowed to handle guns.

[ManiacJoe]

10. Why not?

If the children cannot handle the guns in a well supervised environment, how are they to learn gun safety, proper handling, and marksmanship?

[ensho]

33. for the same reason children aren't allowed to drive cars

because they have IMMATURE brains!!!!

[Hoopla Phil]

34. Not exactly true. Kids can and do drive cars on PRIVATE PROPERTY.

I started driving on the ranch at around 12 years old. Also had my first firearm at 10; a single shot drop block .22 rifle.

[proteus_lives]

54. I went shooting with my dad when I ten.

It's where I learned how to shoot, gun safety and the like. Are you saying I shouldn't have been allowed to do this?

I find it odd because that's pretty much how it's been done since guns were invented, bows and arrows before that. Parent teaches the child.

[spin]

15. Well I'm glad I taught my daughter how to shoot when she

as eight or nine years old.

She successfully stopped an intruder breaking into our home by pointing a large caliber S&W revolver at him. She was seventeen or eighteen at the time.

My daughter was five foot two and weighed less than 100 pounds. But the sight of the "Dirty Harry" sized weapon in her hands caused the bad guy to flee.

[rl6214]

16. That statement brought a whole lot to the discussion.

[Caliman73]

7. Good insight...

Though as you can tell by some of the responses, the logic is lost on people who deal primarily in emotion. I agree that using terms to denigrate people who hold opposing views is destructive. I confess that I have engaged in the behavior, but I do agree that it does not serve any purpose in advocating your ideas. Fear is a useful response, as is anger, hope, trust, etc... when any of those emotions become excessive, they can be destructive. Thanks for the effort.

[Callisto32]

22. We have ALL done it, I think.

I just wish we would be more aware of it and actively avoid it. Several times I have found myself backspacing on the posting client, here. Still, some slip through. I usually instantly regret hitting the post button when I get snarky. Not always....but....usually.

[Howzit]

11. Thanks for a very articulate and polite discussion

I see tribalism or gangster-ism as a major problem too: If we focus first on our areas of difference and call those that disagree with us names, how do we expect to influence them for good? Why not start a discussion with common ground and see where it leads?

[jeepnstein]

13. Ah Zane...

Have you ever seen a really hard-core Libertarian and a Hippie in the same room? They spend all their time changing the subjects because too often they're in agreement and that's just no fun at all. I like you.

The problem with society today is "we" demand all our rights and shun responsibility. Both parties have been enabling this behavior. We spend far too much precious time looking for faults.

As far as arms are concerned, they are a Right. I don't have a right to inflict harm on someone else with one, but I do have a right to protect life and my freedom. The responsibilities that go with this are so great that many in today's society cannot even fathom it.

It's the same as speech. There should be a great deal of responsibility used by people when they exercise their right to free speech. Instead, many act as if their freedoms include the right to use fighting words and incendiary language with no regard for anyone. They go about giving folks the finger, swearing like sailors, and insulting anyone not exactly like themselves. Word have consequences, maybe not as instantly lethal as arms but there is a power in ideas that has changed the world many times over. The pen is, very much so, mightier than the sword after all.

[Callisto32]

21. While I understand the point of the saying, I think it is better to say IDEAS are mightier...N/T

[Callisto32]

24. P.S. I love hippies! They ususally don't want to hurt anybody, and that is all i ask.

[Euromutt]

52. Here's the thing, though...

In short, it is not fear that should be derided, but irrational fear. There is some on both sides of this debate, and we would all do well to realize our own shortcomings, as well as those of the other side.

I think it's generally the case that people on either side of the issue tend to paint their opponent's fears as being irrational. Certain advocates of increased gun control characterize the pro-RKBA crowd as arming themselves against a highly overstated threat, and thereby endangering the rest of society (i.e. they aren't protecting themselves from the problem, they are the problem); whereas certain pro-RKBAers characterize the fears of the advocates of increased gun control as being histrionic, given that the number of crime guns is a tiny fraction (well under half a percent) of the number of guns in circulation, and the number of legal gun owners who commit crimes with their guns is also very small (i.e. something other than the guns are the cause of the problem, and restricting the guns in legal owners' possession isn't going to make the problem go away).

So those who engage in this behavior, on either side of the line, think they're being perfectly reasonable in deriding the other side's fears, since those fears are irrational. And their own are, of course, perfectly well founded, you understand.

[Callisto32]

53. I agree with your statement that both sides think they are justified in their thinking.

That was kind of my point, and I apologize if it was lost. That maybe each side should admit that "my fear is X, and I realized that it is irrational, at least to some degree and I should not use law to force what I believe to be the solution to that fear upon other people."