Must I
Use a Gun to be Moral?
by Wendy
McElroy
This I believe: people have a right to
own guns as an extension of their absolute right to self-defense.
This I feel: I hate the sight, touch, smell, and sound of
handguns. (Undoubtedly, part of my visceral reaction comes from
having been accidentally shot through the leg by a .22 caliber
when I was seventeen. The bullet came within a few inches
of destroying my ankle.)
At first, I assumed that my unswerving
defense of 'Second Amendment rights' would automatically endear
me to all other pro-gun advocates. I was wrong. Although my
politics received a nod of approval, members of the 'gun culture'
-- those to whom guns are a lifestyle statement -- immediately
and persistently focused upon my distaste for guns themselves.
Defending gun-rights has no more made me
a fellow-traveler of the gun culture than defending the rights of
prostitutes has made me a 'sister' within that community. Indeed,
my interaction with both communities has been strangely similar
in one regard: I keep being assured that if I could get past my
psychological barriers and try it, I'd become a convert.
My response to guns comes from
experience, not ignorance, and I have no intention of bowing to
peer pressure. My emotions are personal, and not open to
political critique. But the situation has made me reflect long
upon handguns and the gun culture. I say 'handguns' because
I do not have a similar distaste for rifles. I was born into and,
as an adult, (my husband and) I returned to a rural community
where hunting rifles abound. Last winter, farmers shot dozens of
wild dogs in the deep woods adjacent to our property -- and they
were right to do so. The dogs were killing new-born lambs at an
alarming rate. For the farmers, guns are as much a tool of
agriculture as tractors. But I've never seen a farmer so much as
hold a handgun.
This fact has cemented a connection in my
mind: handguns are used to kill people. If the killing is
required for self-defense, my political objections evaporate. My
emotions do not.
Various spokesmen for the gun culture
have advanced an intriguing argument that, if correct, would make
my refusal to pick up a handgun immoral. Two of these people are
friends for whom I have unusual respect: the SF writer L. Neil
Smith and the fine theorist Sunni Maravillosa. Both of them make
this claim: everyone has a responsibility to defend him/herself
as effectively as possible so that others do not have to assume
the undue burden of protecting to them. A corollary is 'Guns are
the most efficient means of self-defense.'
In a thought-provoking essay entitled
"Freedom, Feminism and Firearms," Sunni presents a
compelling scenario. Namely, you are a woman at home alone with a
small daughter when 'Mr. Thug' decides to drop by. Sunni asks,
"What are your choices?" She answers, "You
can dial 911..." but "response times...in many cities
are long enough to virtually guarantee that Mr. Thug will do his
worst." Or...you can cry "help!" at the top of
your lungs and hope that a neighbor sprints to your rescue.
Sunni's next question expresses her theme, "But honestly, if
you haven't chosen to take measures to protect yourself, why
should the neighbor trouble himself to help you, and put his
safety at risk?" In essence, a socially responsible person
will act to effectively defend herself, and nothing is more
effective than a gun. (In fairness, this conclusion is more
implied than stated in Sunni's essay. It has been explicitly and
repeatedly stated by L. Neil.)
Much of this argument is morally
compelling to me. That is, I don't believe anyone should be
legally responsible for harm that befalls a good Samaritan coming
to the rescue. But I would feel tremendous moral guilt if anyone
were injured while attempting to rectify my irresponsibility. Yet
I reject the notion that guns are the best method of defense or
that the right to use a gun somehow implies the duty to do so.
Guns are merely one means of self-defense
and -- for those who are psychologically unable to kill another
human being, like me -- they are an utterly ineffectual means. It
would be far better for me to carry Mace, which I would use in a
flash to protect myself. To stretch a responsibility for
self-defense into a duty to own guns is comparable to equating a
responsibility to exercise free speech with a duty to exercise
one particular form of speech, such as public lecturing or
writing editorials. What constitutes the 'best' expression (of
self-defense or speech) will be defined by a wide range of
circumstances, including the personality of the individual
involved.
My personal disagreement with the gun
culture was an entirely cordial one until one incident chipped
away at my good will. While attending a barbecue at a firing
range, a 'friend' attempted to 'convert' me. One of his
'arguments' involved pointing to his small sons who had no fear
of guns. When I handed the firearm back to him -- still hating
the very feel of it -- he expressed disappointment in my flawed
character. To wit, I am not and I never will be a member of the
gun culture.
Some insiders consider this psychological
response to be moral turpitude on my part. I am enough of a
sympathizer with the culture, however, to wish that
members-in-good-standing would not alienate fellow-travelers by
demanding they share a lifestyle choice rather than merely
sharing a political stand that defends that choice as valid.
www.american-partisan.com
