Addressing Hoplophobia

Hoplophobia is an irrational fear of weapons, and most often, of guns. The word itself was coined by Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper in the 1960’s.

Following the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, in August, the media has become so sensitive, and so eager to report on shootings, that any shooting involving more than one person becomes a “mass shooting,” As with any irrational fear, all this does is make hoplophobes’s conditions worse.This, naturally, leads them to seek relief for their fears.

Now, my wife is an arachnophobe – she has an irrational fear of spiders. I can tell you, from years of living with her, and rational discussion in times when she is lucid on the subject, that no amount of rational talk will ever be able to change her. She knows full well the facts – that she is much larger than spiders, that the vast majority of spiders, beyond brown recluses and black widows, do not present the slightest danger to her. Yet – and this is the key point – she wishes to see the complete extinction of every spider from the face of the earth. End of discussion.

So it is, then, with hoplophobes. No amount of discussion of “common sense gun safety” will change them in any way. And we, as rational people, must understand this: that, for them, the final answer is the complete outlawing and confiscation of all guns. End of discussion.

Understand, we can point out, rightly, that criminals will still have guns, as they do in all countries where guns have been outlawed. That doesn’t matter. They don’t, or can’t, understand. That is why they talk about “gun control,” not criminal control. For them, the source of the problem is the guns themselves.

Perhaps the best way to tell it comes from the words of Col. Cooper himself:

We find it perplexing that there are people who do not realize that a right may be neither granted nor withdrawn by the State. If the Bill of Rights were repealed, the right to keep and bear arms would still exist, since it was to defend that right that the Constitution was established. (See the Declaration of Independence.) Thus the state may destroy me, but it may not rescind my right to self-defense. This all seems pretty clear, but frequently I find people who do not understand it.
. . . Regardless of the best efforts of our enemies in Congress, the United States remains the last best hope of Earth. Those other people are going to do their very best to destroy us in the months between now and the next election. We must remember that this is the most serious trouble that our liberties have been threatened with since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. They are going to work very hard. We must work even harder. Regardless of how senseless hoplophobia may be, it exists, and, being a true phobia, it does not respond to reasoned argument. We must defeat it by exposing it as a psychopathic threat to our cultural liberties. When we force our adversaries to the wall and make them admit that they do not care about crime or child welfare or “animal rights,” but just hate us because we are morally better off than they are, we can pick up votes, and votes are what we must have.

Emphasis mine.

I can think of little to add.

So, realize that we are never going to change the hoplophobe with discussion. But, in doing so we expose their irrational ways to the rest of the public, on whose votes we will ultimately depend if we are to retain at least our innumerated rights as they are today. So, don’t give up.

++++

Of course, if one wants to see someone really good at this in action, I refer you to Linoge, of the walls of the city blog. Follow him on Twitter, and enjoy.

Then They Came For Me

First they came for the communists,
  and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
  and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
  and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
  and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin Niemöller, German pastor and theologian, 1946



Some of us have learned the lesson, and are speaking out.

David over at Musings Over a Pint wrote today about the movie For Greater Glory, about the Cristeros War in Mexico, which started in 1925.

If you are worried about government intrusion into the affairs of religious groups, especially the Catholic Church, you should check out his post.

The lesson – if we don’t speak out against injustice at any level, against any group, then we shouldn’t  expect anyone to speak out against injustice done to us. You can pick your own example.

So, Why Do You Carry A Gun?

I get asked that often, and most times I politely explain that I do so to protect myself and my family.

We live in a Southern town, where the idea of gun ownership is never questioned, except perhaps in the negative, as in “What do you mean, you don’t own a gun?” In fact, as you probably know, city ordinances in Kennesaw where I live require every home to have a gun. When I moved in the neighborhood ten years ago, the second or third question, behind where did I grow up and where do I go to church, was what kind of guns do I own. We then compared the guns we were carrying. It was nice.

But at dinner a few weeks ago with some fellow bloggers, Sean Sorrentino, whose profile as a gun blogger exposes him to that question many times more often that I, quoted Tam* and gave a more tacit explanation:

Because F**K YOU, that’s why.

Thanks to the Second Amendment, we don’t have to give anyone a reason why we own guns. I give one to people who ask nicely, because I want to be a good ambassador of gun ownership.

There are those, however, who oppose guns, gun ownership, gun portrayal, gun media, gun owners. And, as Jay G said in an expansion of this thought on his site:

For those whose minds are slammed shut like a steel trap, “BECAUSE F**K YOU THAT’S WHY” works just fine…

Sad that we have to answer that way, but they don’t seem to understand any other reason.

* Edited. Thanks Sean.

The First Death Knell for "May Issue?"

Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation won another battle today, as a Federal judge ruled that Maryland’s “may issue” concealed permit law, which required that citizens show a “good and substantial reason” why they need a gun for self defense, is unconstitutional.

Quoting U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg:

“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

Amen.

+++++

How long until the other “may issue” states’ laws go by the same way?

I am reminded of when I received my first concealed carry permit in Alabama. After everything was set, the Sheriff stuck his head out from his office, and looked me over, and approved the permit.

I didn’t think much of it at the time, because I didn’t know much about “may issue” and “shall issue” permits. But now I know that Alabama is a “may issue” state, meaning, the Sheriff has the last word on who does and does not get a permit. I guess I got lucky.

Of course, I’m white, which may have been a lot of the luck I needed.