Yesterday, I published an excerpt from an haaretz.com editorial: [American Jews] have always been among the most enthusiastic advocates of legislation that will regulate gun ownership in a reasonable way.” In my ongoing effort to understand the dangerous disconnect between Jews’ experience (Holocaust) and actions (supporting gun-grabbing pols and policies) I’ve focused on the word “reasonable.” I’m not talking about the misguided belief in “reasonable” gun control; a concept perpetuated by the United States Supreme Court (no less). You don’t have to be Bruce Krafft to know there is no such thing, logically speaking. No, the word triggered a more general contemplation of haaretz’ world view . . .
Some people (e.g., a large number of American Jewish intellectuals) believe that reason and intellect can overcome irrational emotions and naked aggression. They operate under the assumption that reasonable people who sit down for a reasonable discussion can reach a reasonable conclusion about unreasonable people, which will then have a reasonable impact on unreasonable aspects of society.
If someone within society is unreasonable—say a man uses force to steal something that doesn’t legally belong to him or kills a rival in the course of buying and selling illegal narcotics—there are reasons for that. Reasonable men can use reason to discover the reasons for undesirable behavior and take reasonable measures to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
Punishment is part of the process. It also stands to reason (supposedly) that society can and should take preventative measures to stop these detrimental behaviors before they occur. Measures such as education. Economic redistribution. And yes, gun control. Regulating gun ownership in a reasonable way—despite (or because of) the unappreciated possibility of evoking the law of unintended consequences–to prevent crime.
Here’s the problem: we don’t live in the best of all possible worlds. We live in a world with unreasonable people. People who are insensible to sensible arguments. People who are, for the lack of a better word, evil. Some of them ready, willing and able to inflict violence (i.e. death or grievous bodily harm) upon others for a variety of reasons—or no reason at all.
Gun rights advocates live in the real world. They know bad people do bad things no matter what good people do to stop or punish them. They realize that unbridled hatred and personal vendettas can take on a life of their own, regardless of any and all attempts to mollify misunderstanding and malice. As gun blogger Wee’rd Beard and his electronic cohorts’ recent personal attacks (From the Prick’s Mouth) prove, some people are simply beyond reason.
Gun control advocates don’t see it. They believe that reason (good) trumps criminality (evil) even when it doesn’t. In other words, gun control isn’t perfect but it’s right and just and the only reasonable alternative to (what they predict would be) the result of total firearms freedom. The Wild West. Blood in the streets. If an innocent dies as the result of gun control advocates’ futile attempts at criminal disarmament they feel . . . wait for it . . . vindicated. See? We need more gun control!
It’s sick. Elevating social justice (i.e. government control) over individual responsibility to combat criminality puts a society on a fast track to tyranny, fascism and mass murder. While I don’t doubt gun control advocates’ desire to ensure peace and tranquility, they forget that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In truth, there is no solution—“final” or otherwise—to evil. We can only guard against it, and fight it with all our might when it arrives on our doorstep. In most cases, as individuals. Preferably, with a gun.