Resistance

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"

I've seen this quoted quite a bit, along with confident assertions that "X won't happen in the USA." While a disarmed population would certainly be candy to the powers that be, who could thereafter safely ignore one of the founding documents of the country, I submit that disarming isn't necessary for control, and night-time arrests are straightforward enough even with an armed population.

In fact, we've long had problems with gangs intimidating armed populations. They have asymmetrical information--they know where you are, you don't know where they all are--and they operate by defeat in detail and surprise. A gang might have difficulties if you and your neighbors stood up to them, but at 3am it's just you against their team, and you're half asleep. Or three cars converge on yours when you park, and six guys with guns at the ready start shooting at you from three sides.

I hope nobody takes offense at my comparison of an unjust government with gangsters: it's a venerable observation.

What have people done against the gangs? There doesn't seem to be a sure-fire cure. A few were dealt with through law enforcement, but lots haven't been. Organizing your own gang to counter them has temptations and pitfalls that not every group escapes. I hope it is obvious that expanding police powers is not a solution.

Likewise there doesn't seem to be an easy cure for unjust government.

Fearing guns

AVI's latest got me thinking about fears. Among some people I know the reaction to guns isn't intellectual but visceral. They fear them, and not just as instruments that might be turned against them.

I think Terry Pratchett may have touched on an aspect of it when he suggested that the presence of the gun (otherwise named in his novel) could prey on your mind in an almost magical way. Perhaps for some people there's something about becoming Jupiter and throwing lightning around thats a terrible temptation. If so, I'd expect the same temptation to afflict people who like becoming Jupiter and threatening the world--but if so it gets beaten out of them very quickly because brandishers and threateners aren't part of daily life, except maybe in the big cities. Where, perhaps not coincidentally, there's more support for gun control.

Some people recognize a gun as a tool to make suicide easy, and fear that because of their own inner struggles. That gets my respect.

Perhaps the gun is a reminder that the world is a lot more dangerous than you want to believe, and that makes you afraid? I don't think this fits all of the people I know--it's not a very flattering hypothesis. When I've seen someone carrying, I wondered what they knew that I didn't. But then, I have a fairly good opinion of my own judgment about risk. If I didn't, I might worry more.

If we use the "moral foundations" framework, where does civilian gun carry fit? Look at it from the point of view that you're the person who isn't carrying.

• Care/Harm: The gun is a tool for harming (or plinking/hunting/etc but pretend with me here)
• Fairness/Cheating: If you believe the state/police should take care of everything, a gun is cheating.
• Loyalty/Betrayal: Not obviously relevant. Perhaps the owner plans to protect herself against betrayal, but that doesn't have much to do with this point of view
• Authority/Subversion: If you believe the state/police will take care of everything, a gun is subversive
• Sanctity/Degradation: Not obviously relevant, though perhaps a gun, as a harming tool, is out of place in a holy area--if interpreted very broadly.
• Liberty/Oppression: Not obviously relevant--from the point of view of the non-carrier.

So guns do tick a few boxes that relate to gut political attitudes.