Conversations with a High School Senior on the Ethics of Gun Ownership and Gun Control

About a month ago I was contacted by a young man who wanted to talk to me about gun ownership. I'm always happy to make time for young people, and there was something about this one which told me he was worth the effort. 

What follows is a cut-and-paste of our correspondence, redacted for his privacy and posted with his permission. I've been interviewed by adults who have been less prepared and whose questions were much less sophisticated, and it was a pleasure talking to him about my thoughts on the Second Amendment. 

My goal in all this was not to sway him to my point of view, (although I would be lying if I said I never hoped for that); instead, my hope was that even if he disagreed with my conclusions, by "showing my work" he would be able to see how I arrived at them. 

His words are in italics and indented. 

Hello Ms. Palette,

I hope this email finds you well. My name is [Redacted], and I'm a high school senior. In my ethics class, I'm currently working on a study of gun control laws in my state ([Redacted]) and the arguments on both sides of this topic. In my research, I found your organization, Pink Pistols, and I believe that you hold a very strong and fascinating perspective on self-defense. As a queer person living in a right-leaning state, I sometimes do feel nervous about my own safety, so I take interest in your advocacy.

I was wondering if it would be possible to interview you for my project. I would like to learn more about your and Pink Pistols' stances on a few ethical frameworks regarding this issue. I don't want to take up too much of your time, so it would only be a few questions, over email, that you are free to answer at your earliest convenience. If you cannot for whatever reason, I completely understand. Thank you for your time.

[Redacted], 

I am happy to help. What would you like to know?

Thank you so much, I really appreciate it! Here are the questions:

1) Many pro-gun advocates in the U.S. cite the Second Amendment as their reasoning for being opposed to stricter gun laws. Do you believe that this is a strong argument, and is it one that you adhere to?  

2) Another ethical framework under which we could view pro-gun movements is libertarianism, who essentially believe that people should be free to do as they want up to the point of harming other people. They are opposed to the government creating laws on moral grounds or creating laws to protect people from each other. In your opinion, is libertarianism a valid and strong reason to be against gun control? Is this a philosophy you agree with? 

3) How might you respond to those who point at other countries, whose firearm suicide and homicide rates went down after gun laws were put into place? 

4) Pro-gun beliefs are often seen as conservative or right-leaning views, held by people who are sometimes opposed to queer rights and queer liberation. Have you ever spoken to liberals or leftists who worry for their own safety and want to practice self-defense, but are also conflicted about supporting a cause that is seen as right-wing? 

[Redacted], 

Before we proceed, I need to ask:

1. What is your deadline on this? These questions have complicated answers and I want to explain my reasoning thoroughly, but neither do I want to be the reason you turn in your assignment late. 
2. In what capacity do you want me to respond? My answers as the head of Operation Blazing Sword may be different from my answers as a private citizen. 

A rough draft of the project is due on November 1st, but if that's too soon, no worries—I have some other things I can write about for that first draft. If I could get your responses sometime during that week, though (before Saturday the 5th), that would be great! In terms of how you should answer, I'd prefer if you spoke as the head of Operation Blazing Sword.

Thank you, [Redacted]! That's what I needed to know. 

My plan is to dedicate an email to each question you have asked so that I can give you as complete an answer as possible. 

1) Many pro-gun advocates in the U.S. cite the Second Amendment as their reasoning for being opposed to stricter gun laws. Do you believe that this is a strong argument, and is it one that you adhere to?

That is a strong argument, and it is one that I agree with, but it is not the whole of my conviction. 

The keystone of the Bill of Rights is that the Constitution does not grant rights, but rather it recognizes rights which are inherent to human existence -- the Founders called these "Natural Rights", as in "they were granted to us through nature" -- and restricts the Government from infringing upon those rights. In other words, we have those rights whether or not any government says that we do. Bolstering this is the 14th Amendment, which states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Therefore, not only do gun laws violate the Second Amendment, they violate the 14th Amendment as well.

The Second Amendment enshrines not just our right to self-defense, but our right to defend ourselves in the most effective way possible: for example, the average adult man is a foot taller and 30 pounds heavier than the average adult woman, and has 6 inches more reach and greater muscle mass. A man wishing to harm a woman has an advantage, and this is before we take into account age, health, and so forth. An elderly person, or a disabled person in a wheelchair, is not only at a physical disadvantage in a fight but is also unable to retreat to safety. A firearm used in self-defense mitigates many of these disadvantages and tips the odds in favor of the innocent victim. 

Finally, gun laws only stop the law-abiding. A man determined to commit the heinous crimes of armed robbery, battery, sexual assault or murder will not be deterred by the minor crime of violating a gun law; he will simply ignore it (in the case of "gun-free zones") or bypass it (in the case of acquiring a firearm illegally). Contrariwise, his victims -- who are almost assuredly innocent and law-abiding -- will be rendered defenseless by laws which restrict or prohibit firearm ownership, and this makes them easier to victimize. 

The entire purpose of both Operation Blazing Sword and the Pink Pistols is to be firmly on the side of the innocent and to prevent their victimization by enabling them to defend themselves in the most effective manner possible. Gun control laws only help the criminals. 

To close, I wish to state my logical thesis for why I believe that Gun Rights = Queer Rights = Natural Rights:

·  You have the right to live.

·  There are people who wish to harm us because we are queer.

·  Guns allow us to defend queer life.

∴ Therefore, guns preserve queer lives.

·  Guns cannot preserve queer lives if queer people cannot carry them.

·  Gun rights means that all non-prohibited people can carry guns.

·  By carrying a gun, we can defend our queer lives.

∴ Therefore, gun rights are pro-queer.

·  Self-defense is a natural right.

·  Living and loving as you wish, so long as it harms none, is also a natural right.

·  Gun rights ensure that the above rights are respected.

∴ Therefore, gun rights = queer rights = natural rights.

Please let me know if I have answered your question completely or if you need anything clarified. When you are satisfied with this I will proceed to your next question.

Yes, that's perfect. Thank you for your detailed answer—go on to the next question whenever you're ready!

Happy to!

I'm skipping question #2 for now. 

3) How might you respond to those who point at other countries, whose firearm suicide and homicide rates went down after gun laws were put into place?

Firearm suicide rates. Firearm homicide rates. I find it incredibly telling that these arguments always use these qualifiers, as if it were some sort of "gotcha" that making something harder to legally acquire reduces the frequency of its use, while at the same time framing it as an either/or scenario. Tell me, did overall suicide and homicide rates go down in those countries after gun laws were enacted? Did they rise? Did they stay the same? Find that answer in your research and you will see the true effectiveness of these laws. 

While I'm on the subject, I want to digress for a moment and state how utterly disgusted I am by this conceit on behalf of gun prohibitionists. By concentrating only on firearm-related violence and ignoring all other forms, they show that their true purpose is not to prevent violence but rather to disarm the people who they think shouldn't be armed. (And from my previous answer, you know I feel that disarming me is empowering those who mean to harm me.) They are sending the tacit message that other forms of homicide and suicide are just fine so long as guns aren't involved. This is sickening and abhorrent. Someone being beaten to death by a blunt object is just as much a tragedy as is someone being shot to death! If anti-gun organizations truly cared about saving lives they would be anti-violence in all forms. End of digression. 

So, homicides. A lot of people think that word is synonymous with "murder", but it's not. It just means "one human killed another." A father shooting an intruder who is about to rape his daughter is a homicide. It's also not a crime, and is known as justifiable homicide. The same holds true for when the police have to kill a mass shooter, or someone who has taken a hostage and is threatening them, or any number of other threats to public safety. So when you do your research, try to determine what happened to criminal homicides, not just homicides overall. 

As for suicides: I don't know about other countries, but I know that in the USA over half of all suicides are by firearm. (Also, more than half of all "gun deaths" are suicides.) Does this mean that if we get rid of guns we will eliminate suicide? Of course not. What's more, since you can kill yourself with a single-shot weapon, in order to stop suicides-by-firearm (instead of, oh hey, better mental health to prevent suicides in general? Just a thought) we would need to ban all firearms to potentially stop half of all suicides... and this of course incorrectly assumes that if we get rid of guns entirely, we will stop half of all suicides. I suggest you compare countries by suicide rate side-by-side with countries by strictness of gun control laws; you will see that many countries with strict gun control laws have a suicide rate equal to or higher than ours. In fact, let's specifically look at Japan: their firearm laws are some of the strictest in the world (I believe that China and Singapore have stricter laws, but don't take my word for it, check for yourself) and yet their suicide rate is almost identical to ours. 

To summarize:

1. Stopping violence is more important than controlling guns, and anyone who says otherwise simply wants to disarm the innocent. 
2. Suicide is a problem which exists independent of firearm accessibility. Again, disarming the innocent will not suicide. 
3. If politicians and gun prohibition groups actually gave a damn about people they would care less about gun laws and more about better mental health accessibility and stopping crime. (On a related note, watch this TED Talk by Dr. Gary Slutkin about treating violence like a contagious disease. I think you'll find it interesting.)

Again, let me know if you need more from me on this. 

That looks great—thank you for providing a few sources; I'll make sure to look into those as well!

Comment in Follow-up Email: How could I have forgotten North Korea? Good Lord, have mercy on my poor old brain...

4) Pro-gun beliefs are often seen as conservative or right-leaning views, held by people who are sometimes opposed to queer rights and queer liberation. Have you ever spoken to liberals or leftists who worry for their own safety and want to practice self-defense, but are also conflicted about supporting a cause that is seen as right-wing?

Yes, and this is the reason Operation Blazing Sword exists. I don't know how much you know about that, so I will assume you know nothing and will direct you to this interview (I start at the 34 minute mark) and our website. 

2) Another ethical framework under which we could view pro-gun movements is libertarianism, who essentially believe that people should be free to do as they want up to the point of harming other people. They are opposed to the government creating laws on moral grounds or creating laws to protect people from each other. In your opinion, is libertarianism a valid and strong reason to be against gun control? Is this a philosophy you agree with? 

I have been giving this a lot of thought, which is why I saved it for last. This is a difficult question to unravel, because the philosophy of little-l libertarianism is inextricably linked to the big-L Libertarian Party of the USA, and agreement with some or all of the philosophy may be seen as an endorsement of it. Because you have asked me to answer in my capacity as the head of Operation Blazing Sword and Pink Pistols, any endorsement of any political party (deliberate or otherwise) is something that I try to avoid. OBS/PP is not a partisan entity -- in fact, engaging in partisanship would endanger our 501c3 status -- and so other than our commitment to the Second Amendment and opposing gun control, we try to keep our political stance as neutral as possible. This enables us to have a "big tent" type of organization to match our philosophy: if the Second Amendment is for everyone, and it is, then surely our pro-2A organization is also for everyone. 

All of this is to say "If you do end up using what I say next in your paper, please do me the kindness of using what I just said above in your paper as well."

Without showing favor to the Libertarian party, the philosophy of little-l libertarianism says that if you have a particular right, you also have the concomitant responsibility to go with it. If I am the victim of a crime that threatens my life, I have the right to stop that crime from happening, but I also have the responsibility to match my defense to the severity of that threat. For example, if someone is threatening to hit me with their fist, under most circumstances and assuming a parity of force (i.e. height, weight, muscle mass, physical fitness, and so forth are equal) that doesn't grant me the right to shoot that person with a firearm. (Please, for the love of God, don't bring up George Zimmerman or that'll be another 500-1000 words.) This would, however, most likely confer to me the right to use Aikido, or pepper spray, or some other non-lethal means to stop an assailant from striking me. But on the other hand, if I have been given good reason to believe that my assailant can carry out a threat to kill me, I can match lethal force with lethal force and use a gun to stop them. 

And, as I stated earlier, gun control laws only disarm the law-abiding and further empower law-breakers. 

As I understand little-l libertarianism, it is chiefly about the belief in our right to live our lives in peace. Little-l libertarians mean no harm to anyone who doesn't try to hurt them first. This is the heart of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), one of the chief tenets of libertarian philosophy. 

Or, as the "ancient Tibetan philosophy" states: Don't start none, won't be none. 

To answer your other question: It is the policy of OBS/PP to be against gun control laws in general, as my previous answers have made plain. Therefore, any philosophy which people use to reach that same conclusion is valid and strong, be it libertarianism or some other form of -ism. 

As an example, I like to break the brains of far-left gun prohibitionists by showing them that Karl Marx himself was for gun ownership and against gun control:

From Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, London, March 1850. Again, this is not an endorsement of little-c communism, nor of the Communist Party. 

I hope that I have answered all of your questions satisfactorily. Please let me know if you need elaboration upon or clarification of anything I have said in this or previous emails. 

I think that's everything, yes. Thank you so much for your thoughtful responses to my questions. You've offered a lot of insight. I am someone who was raised in a fairly left-leaning household (especially relative to the right-leaning state I live in) and I've always tentatively supported increased gun control, but hearing the perspective of someone who is both pro-gun and pro-queer is refreshing, and I wish it were more common.

Thank you again for all your time and dedication! I wish you all the best.

As you can see, this was time and effort well-spent with a very sharp young man, and I look forward to seeing the great things he will undoubtedly accomplish in the future. 

And yes, of course I offered to put him in contact with an Operation Blazing Sword volunteer to teach him safe firearm operation and storage once he came of age.