I’ve mostly stayed silent on the gun debate that reignited because I didn’t feel I had that much to say that others weren’t already saying. And the sheer amount of misleading, obviously cherry-picked statistics from both sides just gave me too much of a headache. I had to tune it out.
But there is something disturbing and it illustrates a dark manifestation of the golden mean fallacy – giving some gun owners a preference over others. Many people in the camp who don’t see self-defense as a valid reason to own a gun say they are okay with sport hunting. Why? So the right to kill innocent wildlife for fun is more important than the right to your life? And make no mistake about it – if people are using guns for self-defense, hunters will continue to do so (prison is better than death, especially death of your family) and enjoy the exclusive privilege. If guns are dangerous to have in the house, it having been purchased for the purpose of hunting doesn’t change that.
More disturbing is that it is almost always sport hunting and not subsistence hunting that is mentioned. Subsistence hunting is protecting one’s existence with a gun every bit as much as self-defense is. A hobby is sacrosanct, but survival isn’t. Something done with leisure time (which those on the top have more of) is favored over what is often a necessity for those on the bottom, who often live where 911 is a running joke. This is why, while I don’t agree with people who don’t want anyone, not even cops, to have guns, I have much more respect for their position than the haphazard positions that assume certain segments of society are inherently more trustworthy than others.
I don’t want to suggest that there aren’t positions intermediate between “no guns for anyone” and “more guns” that make more sense than either. It’s just that most of the ones advanced are more ridiculous than either alone, because they are “guns for me, not for thee” positions. They place some people on a pedestal, like cops, hunters and people who can afford security guards.