From: auvenj@mailcity.com ("Jason Auvenshine")
Subject: Re: [lpaz-discuss] Heads up Connecticut
To: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com
Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:07:00 Rick Tompkins/Kathy Harrer wrote:
>>>I just never felt the need to own one and frankly just didn't
>give much of a damn one way or the other until recently. I still don't own
>a gun, and at the rate things are going it's likely I won't be able to
>choose whether or not to very much longer.
>
>Better get some, fast, don't you think? Or who will you count on to protect
>you and your family from, oh, I don't know, home invaders? Car-jackers?
>Burglars who don't run when you say "Boo?" Do you think the cops will
>protect you from the possible depredations of the thugs of the world? Or
>will they just show up after the fact and draw outlines in chalk and fill
>out endless paperwork?
>
>What, or who, are you depending on?
I have no illusions about the cops protecting me. My choice not to own a gun is based on my assessment of the likelihood:
1) I will be attacked or threatened in a way where a gun would be useful to have.
2) AND, if so attacked or threatened, I would be able to effectively use a gun to defend myself and/or my family.
3) AND, in the process of defending myself I would not directly or indirectly bring additional harm to innocents.
Key in my consideration is that I have a two year old in the house. That means I can't in good conscience leavea loaded gun laying around. But having an unloaded or trigger locked gun further reduces the likelihood of #2. Compounding THAT is the fact that my eyesight is bad, particularly in the dark, decreasing the likelihood of both #2 and #3. Still #1, #2, and #3 are possible, so that possibility must be weighed in the balance with the possibility that some harm will come to me or my family from misuse of the gun. Such as it being found by my son, or going off accidentally, or any of the myriad of other things that also can happen with a firearm. As near as I can tell, the two likelihoods are positively correlated. In other words, the more accessible a gun is for self defense, the more likely an accident will be.
So, in my own personal estimation the best strategy for me and my family is to secure my home (security door, good lighting, and two large dogs), keep non-lethal weapons (pepper spray) handy, and hope for the best. Is that strategy a risk? Yeah. Life's a risk. Somebody could shoot my dogs, ignore the lights, break in through a window, and kill me and my family before the nearest cop would even set down his donut. Not owning a gun is a risk. Owning a gun is also a risk. It's kind of like flying a commercial airliner versus driving your own car. In the first case you trust your life to others, in the second case you take your life in your own hands. The car may feel safer, but statistics indicate the airliner actually _is_ safer. Either way, you pay your money, you take your chance, and if something happens you're going to feel it was because you made the wrong choice (if you even survive to feel anything at all).
My political contention about all this, however, is that it is MY CHOICE not to own a gun. It's my right to own a firearm, or not, based on my own decision as to its usefulness. It scares the hell out of me that it might not be MY CHOICE for very much longer. Just because at this time and in my own estimation, my life circumstances aren't compatible with gun ownership doesn't mean fr a second I would apply that judgement to anyone else. Also, I might change my mind and decide that not owning a gun is more of a risk than owning one. Furthermore, the mere fact that there are those in government who would presume to make that choice FOR me, my family, and everyone else, makes me want to own a gun more than any potential for a home invader or a car jacker.
>>Kent has written often in favor of the "educate people and then liberty
>comes as a sea-change" approach to politics, as opposed to the
>"incremental" approach. I'd really like to see that sea change come, but
>the enemies of liberty sure as hell seem to be doing very well with an
>incremental approach. We're losing gun rights, not by a sea change but by
>a steady increase in overt and covert, public and private infringements.
>
>1. Why do you think that educating people systematically or piecemeal,
>one-on-one and/or in groups, is anything but an incremental approach?
Perhaps the distinction is "teaching" versus "doing". I'm taling about DOING incremental steps; political manuevering and tactics designed to get us closer to the strategic goal of liberty, without necessarily announcing that goal to the world.
>2. Can you show instances where the "incremental" approach of which you
>speak has been successful? It has been advocated and supposedly tried for
>many years, by many thousands of people. What are the results? Has the NRA
>been instrumental in the repeal of any gun laws? Or has the NRA made it
>safe for politicians to be ani-gun? Has any government, at any level,
>given up meaningful ground as a result of people asking for "just a little
>more liberty?" Where? When? Has there been _any_ general progress toward
>liberty in this country in the last 80 years? I suggest that wherever there
>have been even small victories, "unreasonable people" and "extremists" have
>been "to blame" for the most part.
I don't know all the history behind these changes, but two "incremental improvements" that come to mind are:
* Re-legalization of gold ownership. We want to abolish the whole federal reserve fiat money system, but at least citizens are allowed to own monetary gold now. I think this happened in the early 1970's.
* Laws permitting home schooling. We want to abolish public education altogether. But at least several states have passed laws allowing those who wish to legally remove their children from public schools and teach them at home now.
>>It seems to me that as long as people are basically comfortable there will
>be a big resistance in the public towards ANY radical departure from the
>status quo.
>
>This is precisely why they need to be educated in the ideas and value to
>them of liberty. They don't know what it is, and (perhaps therefore) they
>don't care.
No disagreement with educating people. My experience has simply been that most people who are in a comfortable rut just flat out don't care. They won't pay attention long enough to learn. If it can't be explained in a 30 second commercial or a 60 second sound bite, they don't have time for it. So they adopt a mental heuristic: "The status quo is OK (after all, I'm comfortable aren't I?) so I'd better not support anything too 'extreme'. If a relatively small change sounds good, yeah, I'll go for it -- if I'm not too busy and if it isn't raining on election day." And these are the people who even care enough to vote.
People who AREN'T in a comfortable rut for one reason or another (youth, personal circumstances, etc.) are much more likely to listen long enough to learn and support our whole agenda.
>>The point of all this is, what if the "incremental" approach is the only
>effective way to move public policy on many of our core issues, so long as
>we have a population composed of basically happy people?
>
>Are you advocating a policy of lying to "the people" in order to get them
>to vote for or otherwise support your objectives? Be like the other guys in
>order to fight them? Are you saying that thieves, liars and murderers must
>be met with their own tactics and actions, or there is no hope?
At this point it is a thought exercise; I'm not advocating anything. What if the only way to effectively fight fire IS with fire? I've said before on this list, I think by writing & getting feedback on my ideas. That means you'll often hear me say things that are not anywhere close to a final or firm opinion.
To use the example of taxation (which is theft), what if the only way to get rid of it is to substitute a federal sales tax for the income tax, and then gradually reduce it? Principle says we're advocating theft if we advocate a federal sales tax. I certainly don't want one. But what if we lose the war because we aren't willing to sacrifice on a few battles, but the other side is?
Again, I'm NOT advocating that. I'm just "thinking out loud" in response to observing how we appear to be losing the battle for gun rights. These are the sorts of questions that will get asked a lot if we are able to re-unify the state party.
>>Or is there some innate reason why the "incremental"/"tactical" approach
>works for taking away freedoms, but not for getting them back?
>
>Yes, there is. Think about it.
You bet I will. Still thinking...
--Jason Auvenshine
Send FREE April Fool's Greetings to your friends!
http://www.whowhere.lycos.com/redirects/American_Greetings.rdct