 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the greatest works of world literature is The Odyssey by Homer. I don't know if this story is still taught in today's schools, those bastions of learning simultaneously obsessed with denigrating the Western canon and dumbing down assignments in order to keep modern-day students "entertained." In high school, I read a prose version; in college, one written in verse. Not only is The Odyssey an intriguing adventure tale, it also contains lessons applicable to current issues.
One key episode detailed by Homer is the confrontation between Odysseus and Polyphemos, a member of "the Cyclopians...a violent lawless tribe." (The Odyssey, Homer, translated by W.H.D. Rouse, 1937, Mentor Classics, p. 102.) The Cyclopes -- single-eyed monsters -- lived in mountain caves and had use for neither laws nor neighbors...though Polyphemos was not above eating Homer's crewmen. By tricking Polyphemos, Homer managed to blind the creature and escape.
Whenever I read or think about the rabid anti-self-defense folks scurrying about the nations of the world in their nosy, busybody fashion, I wonder at the oddness of their nature, much, I assume, as did Homer of the Cyclops. Mimicking the Cyclops, the victim disarmament crowd views the issue of guns and self-defense with a single eye. While someone can observe the world through one lens, such a person misses the richness inherent in the surrounding landscape.
The "eye" that the most hardcore gun-banners use is the eye of undiluted emotion. Everything they see or hear or read about guns is filtered through their intensely burning fear, hatred, and disgust. How they "feel" about this contentious question is all that moves them, all that concerns them.
In contrast to the kinds of individuals who join such organizations as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Violence Policy Center, and Americans for Gun Safety, other Americans only generally support restrictions on gun purchases and use. Members of this group range from those who would accede to banning guns -- placing them perilously close to the more extreme anti-gunners -- to people who think handguns should be restricted to certain groups of users on to folks who accept the "necessity" of licenses in order to purchase or carry handguns.
I think of this second assemblage as differing from the Bradys of the world by having a complete set of metaphorical "eyes." The problem these people face when deciding how to deal with self-defense is that they keep their second "eye" -- the eye of reason and objectivity -- either closed or narrowed to a slit. In some cases, perhaps, they were never even aware they possessed another eye that could be used to provide them a more coherent and clear vision of "guns."
Citizens who suffer from this self-induced version of intellectual myopia commit -- to a greater or lesser degree -- what Ayn Rand referred to as "an error of knowledge." (See "Galt's Speech" in Atlas Shrugged.) In a society in which mass media harp constantly on the "evils" of guns; on how "dangerous" they are; and which consistently ignores positive uses of weapons, it's hardly surprising that the Average Joe or Jane soaks in this narrow perspective. This flat, skewed view of reality is reinforced as they plod through State-run grade and high schools and exacerbated by predominantly anti-self-defense academics in college. What is amazing -- and a tribute to the deep-seated power of the American tradition of treasuring personal weapons -- is how many souls do manage to escape this net and go on to hunt and buy weapons.
What is sad is just how many of those latter individuals still meekly and unquestioningly accept whatever restrictions are foisted upon their right to keep and bear arms.
I don't mind arguing with people in this second group ("arguing" in the sense of logical argumentation involving the marshaling of evidence and seeking noncontradictory consistency). As Rand says:
I frequently meet people -- often women -- who are uneasy at the mere thought of guns, shooting, and the whole "gun culture." Their knee-jerk reaction is to reject all weapons without analysis of their emotional state. When I offer the usual arguments in favor of self-defense and correct a few of the misconceptions or downright lies of the gun-banners, these folks -- despite their reluctance -- begin to open that second "eye" and start using their rusty and creaking sense of reason. Even if they don't immediately agree with me -- and I rarely expect them to -- they at least begin cogitating and mulling over the points I made. Eventually, they may even begin "seeing" in full stereo depth.
Combining rationality and emotion does, in fact, help us better behold the world. We are not robots nor (should we be) blobs of slobbering feelings. Properly understood, thought informs and reinforces emotion, and feelings in turn help us to appreciate the importance of our beliefs and serve to motivate us to appropriate action to implement those ideas in reality. Using both "eyes" is essential to being fully human, fully "actualized," to use psychologist Carl Rogers's much abused terminology.
A gun control Cyclops, however, is another beast altogether. A recent encounter with one such specimen left me outraged but wiser.
A friend of my wife -- I'll call her "Zelda" -- came one weekend for dinner. This retired widow was born in England before WW II -- did, in fact, endure the Nazi bombing of Coventry -- but has lived in the United States for over half her life. In many areas, she is in agreement with general principles of freedom; she's against "asset forfeiture," for instance, as practiced in the Drug War. When it comes to guns, however, she would do Polyphemos proud.
A now-deceased friend of mine, a physicist, had been in a college seminar room of a nearby university when a mass murder occurred; a disgruntled grad student murdered his adviser and a number of others he had on his hit list. The town where this occurred is infamous for its leftist political stances. Not surprisingly, the anti-self-defense crowd there seized on this incident to cackle for more gun controls. When I lived in that county, in fact, I was forced to get fingerprinted (among other indignities) merely to purchase a weapon: a direct consequence of those howling anti-gunners' propaganda.
When this unfortunate event was mentioned during the course of dinner, Zelda immediately spoke of friends who had pushed for those very kinds of increased restrictions on guns I had endured.
Annoyed, I paused a moment then said, "I don't believe in gun control." During a social situation such as this and knowing my wife is not keen on political discussions, I felt I had done enough to maintain my integrity.
As Rand said, "...one need not launch into unprovoked moral denunciations or debates, but one must speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. When one deals with irrational persons, where argument is futile, a mere 'I don't agree with you' is sufficient to negate an implication of moral sanction....But in no case and in no situation may one permit one's own values to be attacked or denounced, and keep silent." ("How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?", The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 73, emphasis in original.)
Zelda replied with, "I don't want to debate it," and then proceeded to insult gun owners, implying they are stupid and evil for even daring to contemplate that guns are positive things to own or use.
Verbally, I ignored her ad hominem attacks...but you can safely imagine the flames flaring up under my emotions. I responded by trying to explain that we all have the right to self-defense, a most basic human right. I also -- rightly -- said that since Britain had banned guns, gun violence had increased there by nearly 30 percent.
She brushed aside those points and said that she had grown up in a tradition that had no use for guns unlike here in the United States.
Trying to point out the error in her position, I mentioned Sir William Blackstone, a Brit much quoted by the Founding Fathers as they paved the way for the Second Amendment. (She obviously also had no conception that private American citizens sent rifles to England in the early stages of World War II after the Brits pleaded for weapons to defend themselves...and those same rifles were destroyed recently as the Brits' idiocy and hysteria regarding guns took on national scope.)
Ignoring that fact, Zelda launched into a typical sob story beloved by Statists everywhere. Some jerk she had heard of had taken a gun and killed his wife and daughter because of some disobedience committed by the young girl. Zelda said that if the father hadn't had a gun, he would merely have slapped the girl and everyone would still be alive.
(I guess Zelda never heard of baseball bats or knives or hammers or... But she "knew" all would have turned out just fine...)
I told her that there are over 80 million gun owners in this country and only a tiny percentage of them ever commit any crime with a gun. In fact, I said, millions of people are saved from rape or robbery by the defensive use of such weapons.
Zelda obviously felt by then she had me on the ropes since she said, "We'll just have to agree to disagree"...and proceeded to continue her emotional screed!
By then I had had enough. Since the meal had concluded, I cleared the table and proceeded to clean the dishes while the ladies retreated to the deck without me.
Zelda, of course, thought I had left solely because she did not agree with me.
Hardly.
While I work hard to convince everyone to agree with me (!), as I said earlier, I am more than willing to debate the vast majority of the human race who have yet to see the light. The operative word here, of course, is "debate"; not mere assertions, not evasion of the worst kind, not insults and rankest emotionalism substituting for facts, evidence, arguments, and thought. Zelda's violation of her own statements -- hiding behind those code words as she proceeded to implicitly attack and denounce me and my values -- was what ignited my own anger and my outrage. Despite her other positive qualities, in this field, at least, Zelda is pure Cyclops. She could not and would not address my counterpoints...perhaps because deep down she knows that she cannot.
Zelda's intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy are typical of the Gun Control Cyclops tribe. It is futile marshaling facts and evidence when dealing with such people. Nothing you can say, no errors or misconceptions you dispel will sway them. They merely ignore you, lie, distort, or change the subject. Nothing they say is coherent nor reflects the world as it is. The single, corrupting eye of irrational emotionality dominates all.
As individuals with free will, of course, the Cyclopes of the world can change...if they choose to. But unless and until they do, I will recognize them -- no matter how nice they are in other realms -- as dedicated enemies of my freedom and my life.
And they had better remember that I, at least, have weapons and am more than willing to defend myself...especially from a Cyclops determined to eat me...
