Photos

Another shot from the January 19th 'Gun Appreciation Day' rally at the Massachusetts State House. See my previous post from this rally for more details.

As I said in my last note, I personally and rather vehemently disagree with the opinions present at this rally. However, I do think it's worth exploring the ideas presented here, if only to better counter them. This shot contains references to some of the most common pro-gun arguments that can be found in the US today. The first is that a society where good people are armed is a safer society, because there is someone to protect people against the bad guys. I suppose in some twisted way that logic makes sense, but of course that's only if you assume that the world can be divided into good and bad people, and that good people will never make a mistake, have an accident, or have a terrible day. On the same day this picture was taken, several people were injured - and thankfully none killed as far as I know - in accidental shootings at gun shows and at similar rallies around the country. The 'shooters' were regular everyday gun owners who simply made mistakes.

For further evidence countering this concept. look no further that the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabriella Giffords in Arizona at a public event. Arizona has among the loosest gun regulations in the country, and there were, according to news accounts, several people present who were carrying guns. None were able to deter the attacker, Jared Lee Loughner; in fact, there were several interviews with a bystander who says that after the shooting he himself drew his weapon and very nearly gunned down another bystander who had done the same. For every story of an armed citizen preventing violence from an armed bad guy, there are hundreds of others that counter it, from accidents to mistakes and beyond.

Another is the argument that 'Tyrants Love Gun Control' - a reference to the idea that the first thing a budding tyrant would do is to attempt to disarm the citizens of a country. While this may even be true, the statement does not work backwards: gun control does not lead to tyrannical rule. At least it hasn't the last time I checked in on most of the established democracies of the rest of the world.

That particular sentiment can also be seen in the sign that reads 'The possession of arms is the distinction between a free man and a slave'. The quote itself comes from a marginal figure in the history of Britain's Whig Party, and is a perfect summation of the fragility of democratic movements of the late 18th century. While I don't want to belabor my points here, those quoting Burgh - or Jefferson or any other 18th century figure - would do well to remember not only the wide gap in technology, but also the very wide gap in political development between those times. It is entirely possible that in the 1770s, in Britain and in the US, the possession of a firearm was the only guarantee of democracy and freedom. It cannot be said to be today.