Last updated on 2013.05.06
Black Hills Pioneer outdoors columnist Dan Carlson wades into the political muck this week. He should have worn higher waders.
Evidently enraged at the desire of 90% of Americans to impose some sensible restrictions on firearms, Carlson issues this remarkable condemnation of the social contract:
The bombing at the Boston Marathon demonstrated something American's [sic] must wake up to.
Government cannot protect us [Dan Carlson, "What Now?" Black Hills Pioneer, 2013.04.25, p. 13].
Government cannot protect us... right... which explains why the Tsarnaev brothers' terror spree was stopped by roving citizen posses, not law enforcement officers armed and trained by government.
In the spirit of Carlson's title, I ask him "What now?" If government cannot protect us, does Carlson advocate we return to the state of nature?
Carlson rambles further into this absurdity:
The tragic events in Boston showed just how easy it is for people bent on killing other people to do so. And not one semi-automatic "assault rifle" was needed to kill and maim nearly as many Americans as our worst mass shootings [Carlson, 2013.04.25].
True... as long as Carlson includes "maim" in his awkward phrase. The Tsarnaevs could have more killed more people if they had assaulted the marathon crowd with large-magazine rifles.
But remember: Carlson's point is that restricting access to firearms won't stop bombers. It is true that terrorists can use a variety of instruments to kill and maim. But that doesn't mean it makes no sense to impose restrictions on instruments like assault rifles that have no utility other than to kill lots of people quickly.
Carlson calls the Congresspeople who put the gun lobby's bidding above the will of the people "Constitution-defending heroes." Carlson then concludes with some gratuitous public-school bashing over a classroom discussion a middle-schooler told him about:
He explained how his class had been discussing the events in Boston when the social studies teacher asked each student which Constitutional rights they would be willing to give up if it meant they'd live in a safer world.
I told him of Ben Franklin's famous line, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." But if this is the public-school mindset being pushed on our kids in a red state at the heart of America in the wake of a terror attack, God help us [Carlson, 2013.04.25].
But Carlson contradicts his own Franklinesque wisdom:
We saw the intensity of the manhunt in and around Boston as special law enforcement units in full tactical array went door to door in search of the suspects.
I asked a deputy friend how police were able to do such searches without warrants. He told me police usually knock, explain the situation and usually residents eager to help grant access [Carlson, 2013.04.25].
When teachers ask Socratic questions to get kids thinking about the hard tension between liberty and security, we're bastards ruining America. But when regular citizens surrender their Fourth Amendment rights to police in full tactical gear, they are admirable civilians of whom Carlson is proud.
Stick with the sports page, Dan... and remind me why you need an assault rifle to take on the wily duck.
Our government cannot ~wholly~ protect us from evildoers; we all must take part in ensuring our communities and ourselves are safe. Just as we all have a duty to our community to provide for its general welfare. I worry about how much of our liberty we're willing to sacrifice for perceived security.
The Boston event was brought to a close by the vigilance of a civilian who, rightfully, notified authorities better trained and equipped to deal with the situation. Had Tsarnaev invaded the man's home, my hope is the homeowner had a means to defend himself... My, what an interesting conversation we would be having if Tsarnaev had been detained / killed by an armed civiliian while breaking into their home...
I don't feel right about how Boston was shut down to hunt for two people using IEDs... I worry about the precedent this sets.
"Stick with the sports page, Dan... and remind me why you need an assault rifle to take on the wily duck."
And that's the question that hasn't been answered. Why does anybody need an assault rifle or 100 round drums or 30 round clips? If you need a 30 round clip to shoot a deer you shouldn't have a gun
I wonder when Obama and his followers of gun control will draft legislation in response to Boston. Anyone buying a pressure cooker must pass a background check and anyone buying a 16 qt pressure cooker should have to have a special license as they are considered large capacity. Remember this will all be for your safety.and everyone should willingly comply or it may appear you have something to hide. We MUST do this for the safety of all. And to stop the madness.
Imagine life in a country where the government could and did completely protect its citizens.
Is this the same Dan Carlson that used to preach from his weather forecast on a local teevee station?
If those pressure cookers had been placed at a little angle rather than shooting horizontally, heads would have been shot instead of legs. A lot more people would have died. Maybe an act of God made it so little carnage compaired to what it would have been.
Good question, Larry! I need to find a bio.
Is there a Popular Mechanics article or some such press yet explaining the mechanics of the blast pattern?
Stan, I'll bet we could come up with a list of novels and movies about societies like that... and I'll bet not one of them paints a happy picture. Total protection is a bad idea, in government and parenting. But Carlson's sloppy thesis uses language that points too far in the other direction, making people think they cannot protect themselves through the instrument of government. That's defeatist baloney. Government exists darn near everywhere specifically because we protect ourselves better through government than through any other means.
Wayne, I agree that we've been running too hard toward security at the expense of liberty. That's part of why I feel such distaste for our school gunslinger law: in response to a miniscule threat to our security, we authorize action that would daily infringe on the liberty of children to learn and teachers to teach without fear of accidental death. The school gunslinger law also harms liberty by telling children we can't have faith in civil society and must act like vigilantees in a liberty-less state of nature.
My Franklin genes also lead me to advocate repealing the Patriot Act.
JC's comment, however, is just silly. No pressure-cooker legislation is on the way, because President Obama, like every other rational patriot in the country, recognizes the absurdity of outlawing kitchenware and the fundamental difference in danger and utility between pots and guns. A nut can't walk out of Walmart and immediately kill a dozen people with a crock pot. We don't legislate based on what MacGyver can do with a household item.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same theory of the state of nature... where you have absolute liberty at the expense of any tangible security. To say the state of nature is "liberty-less" doesn't fit.
We could contend the school sentinel legislation restricts liberty by encouraging increased authoritarian presence on school grounds (armed resource officers, etc.), but to make contentions we should have the freedom from fear of accidental death isn't unlike saying we should have the freedom to never hear offensive language...
Accidental death from firearms are miniscule compared to other firearm deaths (nationally, there were 680 in 2008). The risk of an accidental shooting isn't anything to worry about - just as we shouldn't worry about a gunman coming to a school in South Dakota and shooting up the place.
You and I come to the same conclusion on the need for this law, but for wholly different reasons.
Technically, Wayne, liberty only exists in the context of a society with laws to guarantee rights. The absolute freedom of action in the state of nature is not liberty, strictly speaking. It's also pretty paltry freedom: you are "free" to do whatever you want, but you're probably spending most of your time fighting to keep your life and your meager belongings. Because that "freedom" was terribly unsatisfying, we created society. Liberty under the social contract is preferable to the freedom of the state of nature for pretty much everyone but the biggest and baddest.
I don't have to worry about any accidental shootings in school right now. Bring guns in, and I have to worry. True, it's a miniscule worry, perhaps as miniscule as the threat of a shooter. But that small disadvantage outweighs the paltry and uncertain solvency.