{"id":9100,"date":"2012-12-30T16:37:40","date_gmt":"2012-12-30T16:37:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/12\/30\/what-the-gun-debate-is-fundamentally-about\/"},"modified":"2012-12-30T16:37:40","modified_gmt":"2012-12-30T16:37:40","slug":"what-the-gun-debate-is-fundamentally-about","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/12\/30\/what-the-gun-debate-is-fundamentally-about\/","title":{"rendered":"What the Gun Debate is Fundamentally About"},"content":{"rendered":"

At bottom, the gun debate boils down to a conflict of visions<\/em>, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Sowell. This is well-explained by Mchael Medved in The Liberal God Delusion<\/a>.  Excerpt:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

Consider the current dispute over the right response to gun violence. At its core, this argument comes down to a visceral disagreement between relying on self-defense or on government protection. Gun-rights enthusiasts insist that the best security for law-abiding citizens comes from placing formidable firearms into their hands; gun-control advocates believe we can protect the public far more effectively by taking guns away from as many Americans as possible. In other words, conservatives wantto address the threat of gun violence by giving individuals more power while liberals seek to improve the situation by concentrating more power in the hands of the government. The right preaches self-reliance while the left places its trust in the higher power of government.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The same dynamic characterizes most of today\u2019s foreign-policy and defense debates. Right-wingers passionately proclaim the ideal of \u201cpeace through strength,\u201d arguing that a powerful, self-confident America with dominant military resources remains the only guarantee of national security. Progressives, on the other hand, dream of multilateral consensus, comprehensive treaties, disarmament, grand peace deals, and vastly enhanced authority for the United Nations. Once again, liberals place a touching and naive faith in the ideal of a higher power\u2014potential world government\u2014while conservatives insist that the United States, like any nation, must ultimately rely only on itself.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For the liberal, the weapon, not the wielder, is the cynosure of his moral disapprobation, and it doesn't matter whether the weapon is a semi-automatic pistol or a nuclear device.  It is baaaaaad<\/em>, as such and in itself, and so must be banned.  For the conservative, the focus is on the wielder, not the weapon, for only the wielder is a moral agent.  If Israel has nukes, that is not a problem.  But it is a big problem if a rogue state such as Iran does.  Iran does, but Israel does not, call for the destruction of other states.<\/span><\/p>\n

The difference between my shotgun and Stanley 'Tookie' William<\/a>'s shotgun resides not in the shotgun but in the fact that he is or (thankfully) was<\/em> a moral cretin whereas your humble correspondent, despite his manifold minor faults,  does not deserve such an appellation.  <\/span><\/p>\n

It's the wielder, not the weapon, that counts.  Wise up, liberals.<\/span><\/p>\n

Related post:  Farrell, 'Tookie,' Hannity and Colmes, and Bad Arguments<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>On Calls for a 'Conversation' About Guns<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>The Problem: Gun Culture or Liberal Culture?<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>More Gun Links and Observations<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Guns and Punitive Taxation<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At bottom, the gun debate boils down to a conflict of visions, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Sowell. This is well-explained by Mchael Medved in The Liberal God Delusion.  Excerpt: Consider the current dispute over the right response to gun violence. At its core, this argument comes down to a visceral disagreement between relying on self-defense … Continue reading “What the Gun Debate is Fundamentally About”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112,32,56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9100","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-alcohol-tobacco-and-firearms","category-current-affairs","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9100","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9100"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9100\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9100"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9100"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9100"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}