The Moral Value Of Firearms

Now, some of you may look at that title and think "Errrr, wat?"

Some of you may think you know where I'm going with this.

Some of you may actually know.

We'll see.

So, a few weeks ago, I was riding in my truck with two coworkers, one who is a good friend, and one who was a relative stranger. My friend and I were discussing the idea of "weapons of mass destruction," and why they are morally different from, say, a rifle.

For those of you who don't know, the difference is simple; a rifle can be aimed. WMDs cannot, in any meaningful way. A firearm is a weapon which can be used against single targets, allowing the user to limit its impact to morally allowable combatants, that being soldiers.

WMDs cannot; by their nature, their effects are uncontrollable; the person who uses such a weapon accepts in advance that collateral damage - civilian collateral damage - will happen; he or she accepts in advance that they are setting off a device of destruction whose effects cannot be controlled, limited, targeted; they're using a weapon whose intent and purpose, whose reason to exist, is to create horror.

Therefore, they are not morally the same.

So, fine and good, but listening in to our discussion gradually had the effect of perking up the ears of our other coworker, who began somewhat shyly to issue forth questions from the back seat.

She asked first, "So, WMDs are different from guns, because guns can be targeted, and I get that, but... Why not ban guns? If your purpose is self defense, why isn't a knife or baton enough?"

And I said, "Will you let me expound a bit? That's an important question, and the answer isn't short."

She made the mistake of agreeing.

So.

You may not realize this, but human beings are equal only in the eyes of the law.

Some are taller, therefore having a longer reach; some are stronger, some are quicker, some are better trained; but we're all different.

So melee weapons are a fool's game.

Wait, wait, let me back up a bit and try that again.

In a world where guns don't exist, and hand to hand is all there is, everything you have belongs not to you, but to the first bigger, stronger person who attacks you.

Wait, wait, that's not how I want to say this.

Ok, let's put this in perspective.

Let's use a real-world example. Say we have a fit, well-trained, ~20-year-old American who got busted out of the Army in one corner, and an average woman in her 30's in the other. She has money, and he's been broke for months and doesn't have a great sense of moral conviction.

She's armed with a knife.

He wants her purse.

He approaches, threatens her, she pulls her knife.

Now, in the comforting fantasyland a lot of people seem to live in, this evens the odds instantly, and he will of course back off.

In real life, however, he's quite likely to take the knife away from her, and then hurt her quite badly while he takes her stuff; she would have been better off to throw her purse at him and run away.

Please note I am not advocating anything as a course of action yet. That part comes later. I'm just describing the likely outcome.

Now, change it up a bit. Same two, but this time, when he threatens her, she pulls a gun.

He's way, way more likely to run away instead of attacking.

Why?

Simple. A gun has range. In order for you to attack with a knife...

...Well, the Army has a saying about opponents who are equally armed; "If the enemy is in range, so are you."

And at that point, training, physical fitness, strength, size, skill, simple bulk, all come into play.

If a good small man fights a good big man, assuming equal levels of skill, the big guy usually wins; in hand-to-hand, strength matters.

But.

A gun doesn't require hand to hand. A gun requires moral conviction - "defending myself is the right thing to do" and a couple of pounds of pressure from your index finger.

Even if the perp is wearing Kevlar, if you zap him center mass, he's going to fall on his ass, and be extremely disinterested in continuing to pester you. Regardless of caliber; you shoot someone, they're pretty much done for the duration of that fight, or at least long enough for you to get away.

...A lot of guys mock smaller caliber weapons as "girly guns." GOOD. If a female can be comfortable with a bitty .22, let her. I guarantee if she shoots you in the face with a 22, you will be just as dead as if I tag you with a .45 jacketed hollowpoint, and - and this is the important bit - she will have successfully defended herself.

Paint the fucking thing pink if it makes her willing to carry it.


Put Hello Kitty decals on the goddamn thing, I don't care. Because the point of a gun is protection.

You see, a gun is a tool nearly unique in human history in its capacity to level the playing field.

If you have a gun, and you're farther than a couple of yards away, it literally doesn't matter anymore how fit, fast, strong, or deadly in hand to hand your target is, if you commit and can point your finger correctly, they're dead, or at least unable to pursue.

Which is the whole fucking point. 

Any other tool leaves the potential victim at far greater risk. Mace? Some people can resist it. Pepper spray hurts me like a motherfucker, but I guarantee you can spray me full in the face and I can still take you.

Tazers are likewise iffy. Again, they hurt like hell, but unless they're super juiced up - like, beyond what the cops can legally carry - it's possible to drive through it.

Batons? Knives?

I don't recommend you come at ME with that stuff, anyway, but you're free to think it makes you Billy Badass if you want.

A gun is different for the same reason longbows - and to a smaller extent, crossbows - were responsible for the demise of the mounted knight as a force for battlefield control. It takes less training, less skill, less time, less effort...

In fact, anyone can pick up a gun, and defend themselves successfully.

What do I recommend?

I recommend - to everyone, regardless of gender, skill level, age, or circumstance - to take a firearm safety course.

Learn about them. You won't be as scared, if they're familiar to you.

Then go to a shooting range and beg for help. I flatly guarantee that the proprietors of any such establishment that's open to the public will quite happily take you in and help you find a firearm that is comfortable for you to use; right size, not too much recoil, not too loud (for those easily startled,) even, as I previously mentioned, the right color.

Carry a gun.

You have that right; the entire intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee forever your right to defend yourself, even against your government.

Because our Founders understood the moral value of firearms, too; firearms are the only tool, the only weapon, that puts an average citizen on a relative plane of force with those who would victimize them. No other means of defense can do so; only a firearm has the ability to give Joe or Jane Average the ability to protect their lives and property against an assailant with a good chance of preventing harm entirely.

They created the Second Amendment to write that protection - that specific protection - into the most basic of our country's laws. They did so not because they thought the courts and police would be unable to deal with street crime, but because they had just fought a ruinous war against a tyrant whose first step was to try to disarm them, so they couldn't defend themselves.

And they were afraid that despite all the protections they'd built in to our government, at some future point, such a war might need to be fought again.

And they acted specifically to give us the best chance in such a conflict that they could.

The moral value of firearms is that they alone, unlike any other tool, can secure your right to your life, which is the fundamental, inherent right upon which all other rights are based.

They are the only tool that gives you parity of force; no other device can do this.

So carry one.

And if anyone tells you guns should be banned, you shouldn't be asking about school shootings, gun-free zones, or statistics.

You should be asking, "what agenda do you wish to pursue that requires me to be unable to stop you?"