(Our Spokesman-Review ran this cartoon today, so I thought I'd comment on it here.)
There are fundamentally two kinds of people in society: law-abiding; and non-law-abiding.
And there are two subsets of law-abiding people: those who choose to lawfully carry handguns for self-defense against violent criminals; and those who choose not to.
Bennett's cartoon portrays a false "hierarchy of fear" — a misguided/misinformed notion of who has legitimate cause to fear whom.
Both armed and unarmed law-abiders are, more or less, fearful of the threat of criminal violence, and understandably so. It's just that the former has taken reasonable — and lawful — measures to address that threat.
But contrary to this cartoon, unarmed law-abiders have nothing to fear from armed law-abiders, because allowing law-abiding people to carry handguns for self-defense only puts violent criminals — not other law-abiding citizens — at risk.
I think law-abiding people who oppose allowing other law-abiding people carrying handguns for self-defense have one or two issues.
First, they may fear that otherwise law-abiding people will somehow become violent criminals by virtue of the fact that they are now armed. This is a false notion that has a totemic view of handguns themselves inspiring violence in previoulsy non-violent people.
Second, they may be uncomfortable with the fact that, while others have taken reasonable measures against the possibility of encountering criminal violence, they themselves have failed to do so. This is a very real discomfort, I'm sure, but it's no reason for them to force others to go about in the same unprepared condition as they put themselves in.
Someone once said, "There are no victims, only volunteers. You volunteer by looking uncertain and afraid. You volunteer by being (as grass-eaters usually are) unprepared to deal with the hazards of life."
While you certainly don't have to arm yourself against violent crime, why do you oppose others doing so? And when they (we) do, why are you scared of them (us)?
The Backpacker
(Our Spokesman-Review ran this cartoon today, so I thought I'd comment on it here.)
There are fundamentally two kinds of people in society: law-abiding; and non-law-abiding.
And there are two subsets of law-abiding people: those who choose to lawfully carry handguns for self-defense against violent criminals; and those who choose not to.
Bennett's cartoon portrays a false "hierarchy of fear" — a misguided/misinformed notion of who has legitimate cause to fear whom.
Both armed and unarmed law-abiders are, more or less, fearful of the threat of criminal violence, and understandably so. It's just that the former has taken reasonable — and lawful — measures to address that threat.
But contrary to this cartoon, unarmed law-abiders have nothing to fear from armed law-abiders, because allowing law-abiding people to carry handguns for self-defense only puts violent criminals — not other law-abiding citizens — at risk.
I think law-abiding people who oppose allowing other law-abiding people carrying handguns for self-defense have one or two issues.
First, they may fear that otherwise law-abiding people will somehow become violent criminals by virtue of the fact that they are now armed. This is a false notion that has a totemic view of handguns themselves inspiring violence in previoulsy non-violent people.
Second, they may be uncomfortable with the fact that, while others have taken reasonable measures against the possibility of encountering criminal violence, they themselves have failed to do so. This is a very real discomfort, I'm sure, but it's no reason for them to force others to go about in the same unprepared condition as they put themselves in.
Someone once said, "There are no victims, only volunteers. You volunteer by looking uncertain and afraid. You volunteer by being (as grass-eaters usually are) unprepared to deal with the hazards of life."
While you certainly don't have to arm yourself against violent crime, why do you oppose others doing so? And when they (we) do, why are you scared of them (us)?