Rather than advocating for the ethical bearing of arms, gun culture is enabling permissive, reckless, and ill-considered behavior that's placing people in serious lethal and legal jeopardy.
It's not entirely surprising, but I keep seeing people getting tripped up in arguing the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario. They're straining at nats and entirely missing my point. My point is that it is not difficult to foresee intersecting claims of self-defense and that part of ethically carrying a firearm is to not provoke others into believing they should fear for themselves.
Moving beyond the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario, my point is that open carry, patrol carry, low ready, militant behavior and dress, and a tactical presence can be, in and of themselves, provocative acts especially in volatile situations. The people who are confronted by such circumstances have a right to self-defense as well, and, as I point out, self-defense requires only a reasonable belief that someone's life is in danger, which is not a difficult burden to meet.
I'm not arguing the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario, I'm arguing that the pro-gun community failed Rittenhouse by engendering a culture that lacks ethical consideration and led to an untrained seventeen-year-old inserting himself into a situation that got people killed, could have gotten himself killed, and led to a lengthy legal process that could have resulted in serious criminal consequences.
I guess I just think we should have this conversation now before another young man, responding to all the praise being heaped on Rittenhouse, inserts himself into a volatile situation, with a gun, that he neither has the training nor maturity to properly handle and ends up with a prison sentence or gets himself killed.
If the community had bound together to stop the violence in the streets in the first place there would not be a reason to open carry or to have to protect yourself. There in, is the failure of our society. In Europe, specifically in Hungary, the violence is stopped before it comes to a point where people have to consider protecting themselves with firearms. It starts with a society's mental state. There is our sickness we need to change our way of thinking about each other. I remember a better society where we all helped each other and looked after our families and our old ones. We didn't open carry back then.
I won't argue against the reality of societal decay, in fact that's a main plank in most of my political arguments. I agree that there have been serious failures in local government's responsibility to protect the citizens and their people. I stood on line for eight hours during Salt Lake City's riot last year when I was still a Deputy Sheriff, and watched first hand both the lawlessness of the mob and the feckless response of a city government unwilling to reassert law and order in the streets.
But do you know what are further signs and catalysts of societal decay? Vigilantism and militancy. When these things develop in society, they do not herald a return to civil society but are too often harbingers of increasing civil unrest and political violence. I don't want to just settle the score as the republic burns, I believe and work towards American renewal.
Yes, it seems so, two wrongs doesn't make a right as the saying goes. If you are trained to use a weapon as a peace officer or a peace keeper you know their use are as a last resort and there are times for when it is appropriate to carry and when it is appropriate to store away. You know that there are rules and responsibility and sometimes it takes effective leaders to ensure those rules are put in place and adhered to. You just can't have unsupervised people wandering around in the streets acting individually or in untrained mobs. Something bad is going to happen and may trigger (pardon the pun) an even worse event that may take some time to get under control. These events over the past few months are perfect examples of such. So where do we go from here? It seems we are headed down a road with little room to turn around. We in some ways are lucky here in Europe because there are much stronger controls on weapons but US citizens are well armed and seems like more are being bought today than in any other time in history. Some cities are trying to restrict the education of use when they should be promoting it. Seems we are all mixed up and working without forthought to solving not this but all of our problems. Makes one think seriously about our religious convictions.
I haven’t thought much about open carry. It’s legal in VA where I’m from but I don’t own a gun (yet). Are you against open carry in general?
Also (if you are), what are your thoughts on openly displaying firearms while riding in a vehicle? I think that can be rude, but a vehicle is treated the same as a house under castle doctrine I believe so laws against open carry don’t apply.
It does bug me when Republican politicians and others fetishize firearms with photos on social media of ridiculous poses etc. but unlike the rest of my family I otherwise like guns and I plan to buy one when I can afford to.
I clarify somewhat in the follow-up newsletter that I'm specifically saying that performative open carry is unethical. I don't presume to suggest that any and all open carry is unethical. It really just comes down to a consideration of circumstances.
I find it unethical, in poor taste, and to be just poor tactics to project that I'm carrying a firearm in a public space. Absent a clear threat to myself and others, for what purpose do I need to openly display my firearm? Not only does this feel performative and a form of virtue signaling, but if my purpose is to stand ready to protect myself and others why would I want to paint myself as the initial target of an attack and/or give up the element of surprise? Especially for off-hip carry and in the case of a strong-arm robbery, a hidden firearm near the wallet pocket can be an easy way to get the drop on somebody who has the drop on you.
But this consideration completely changes in other circumstances. For example, I do open carry when traveling in a personal vehicle, especially if I'm not heading anywhere public. When I was in law enforcement, I trained to deploy my pistol while still seated in my car and I wouldn't have quick access to my pistol if I was carrying concealed. If I were, for example, to come across an officer in trouble during a traffic stop, being able to rapidly deploy my pistol from my hip without moving or shifting and deploying it directly through my front windshield saves me precious moments that could be the difference between reliably coming to the aid of the officer. I also open carry while camping, hunting, and in generally more rural environments not only because it's more socially accepted by those who engage in these activities but also because without a need for the element of surprise it makes more sense to just have the gun more accessible. When I'm layered up in cold weather for hunting, I usually open carry on my hunting vest or rig.
I'm not claiming to have the corner on what constitutes ethical carry, and there are always different considerations and concerns to how to appropriately and responsibly exercise the right to bear arms. But what's concerning is that this conversation is not even being had and gun culture is beginning to project an "anything goes" approach that seems more calculated to "own the libs" than it is to demonstrate ethics and the responsible exercise of our rights.
Thanks for your detailed response! That all makes sense and I think I agree entirely. Haha yeah it would be a little difficult to conceal carry while actively hunting. Hunting was common where I grew up (pretty rural), so I never thought anything of seeing a guy in camo carrying a rifle in the woods. Also, haha I thought of very rural places like Alaska. In parts of Alaska where I’m more likely to see a bear than a person, I’d definitely open carry.
I think you're forgetting one crucial legal ingredient. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defense. The question for the jury wouldn't be whether or not someone's self-defense claim meets the full legal requirements of self-defense, it's whether or not the claim of self-defense introduces doubt towards a guilty verdict. You are correct that there are stronger and weaker claims of self-defense and I agree that Rittenhouse's claim was quite strong and the fact that his actions ended up coinciding with the language of Wisconsin's laws was quite beneficial in making his claim. But even a weak claim can gain the sympathy of a jury member and all it takes is one to throw a wrench in a guilty verdict.
Again, as I try to point out in the newsletter, a claim of self-defense has more to do with someone's frame of my mind and a consideration of the circumstances from their perspective than it does a totality of the circumstances. I think that if someone is able to credibly articulate their belief that someone with a gun is an active shooter, they would be able to gain enough sympathy from a jury to avoid a guilty verdict. I mean, if I were in a crowd and heard shots ring out, if I saw bodies falling to the ground, and I saw someone holding an AR-15 who was clearly firing off his rifle, I would reasonably conclude that this was an active shooter and I would act on that conclusion. And...I wouldn't stop trying to subdue and neutralize what I reasonably believed was an active shooter simply because he was "retreating."
The fact of the matter is that we don't know what was going through the minds of the two people who Rittenhouse killed, so we cannot truly offer an opinion of why they did what they did and we can't rule out the possibility that they had a reasonable belief that Rittenhouse was an active shooter. And, the person who Rittenhouse shot but who survived is on the record saying that he responded the way he did because he believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter.
My argument is not one that's trying to relitigate what happened that night. My argument is that a culture of irresponsible and unethical exercise of the right to bear arms is developing and that tragedies such as what happened that night in Kenosha are the result. There's a growing sense of militancy and vigilantism among a certain sub-group of gun owners and not only is that trend responsible for the frame of mind Rittenhouse had in inserting himself into a volatile situation in the way he did, but it's inviting intense scrutiny and hostility from Americans who are rightly concerned with this behavior and it's canceling out the largely law-abiding behavior of most gun owners.
It's not entirely surprising, but I keep seeing people getting tripped up in arguing the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario. They're straining at nats and entirely missing my point. My point is that it is not difficult to foresee intersecting claims of self-defense and that part of ethically carrying a firearm is to not provoke others into believing they should fear for themselves.
Moving beyond the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario, my point is that open carry, patrol carry, low ready, militant behavior and dress, and a tactical presence can be, in and of themselves, provocative acts especially in volatile situations. The people who are confronted by such circumstances have a right to self-defense as well, and, as I point out, self-defense requires only a reasonable belief that someone's life is in danger, which is not a difficult burden to meet.
I'm not arguing the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario, I'm arguing that the pro-gun community failed Rittenhouse by engendering a culture that lacks ethical consideration and led to an untrained seventeen-year-old inserting himself into a situation that got people killed, could have gotten himself killed, and led to a lengthy legal process that could have resulted in serious criminal consequences.
I guess I just think we should have this conversation now before another young man, responding to all the praise being heaped on Rittenhouse, inserts himself into a volatile situation, with a gun, that he neither has the training nor maturity to properly handle and ends up with a prison sentence or gets himself killed.
This is spot on Justin. Well said.
About as well as I’ve heard this articulated.
If the community had bound together to stop the violence in the streets in the first place there would not be a reason to open carry or to have to protect yourself. There in, is the failure of our society. In Europe, specifically in Hungary, the violence is stopped before it comes to a point where people have to consider protecting themselves with firearms. It starts with a society's mental state. There is our sickness we need to change our way of thinking about each other. I remember a better society where we all helped each other and looked after our families and our old ones. We didn't open carry back then.
I won't argue against the reality of societal decay, in fact that's a main plank in most of my political arguments. I agree that there have been serious failures in local government's responsibility to protect the citizens and their people. I stood on line for eight hours during Salt Lake City's riot last year when I was still a Deputy Sheriff, and watched first hand both the lawlessness of the mob and the feckless response of a city government unwilling to reassert law and order in the streets.
But do you know what are further signs and catalysts of societal decay? Vigilantism and militancy. When these things develop in society, they do not herald a return to civil society but are too often harbingers of increasing civil unrest and political violence. I don't want to just settle the score as the republic burns, I believe and work towards American renewal.
Yes, it seems so, two wrongs doesn't make a right as the saying goes. If you are trained to use a weapon as a peace officer or a peace keeper you know their use are as a last resort and there are times for when it is appropriate to carry and when it is appropriate to store away. You know that there are rules and responsibility and sometimes it takes effective leaders to ensure those rules are put in place and adhered to. You just can't have unsupervised people wandering around in the streets acting individually or in untrained mobs. Something bad is going to happen and may trigger (pardon the pun) an even worse event that may take some time to get under control. These events over the past few months are perfect examples of such. So where do we go from here? It seems we are headed down a road with little room to turn around. We in some ways are lucky here in Europe because there are much stronger controls on weapons but US citizens are well armed and seems like more are being bought today than in any other time in history. Some cities are trying to restrict the education of use when they should be promoting it. Seems we are all mixed up and working without forthought to solving not this but all of our problems. Makes one think seriously about our religious convictions.
Sounds like David French’s argument.
I haven’t thought much about open carry. It’s legal in VA where I’m from but I don’t own a gun (yet). Are you against open carry in general?
Also (if you are), what are your thoughts on openly displaying firearms while riding in a vehicle? I think that can be rude, but a vehicle is treated the same as a house under castle doctrine I believe so laws against open carry don’t apply.
It does bug me when Republican politicians and others fetishize firearms with photos on social media of ridiculous poses etc. but unlike the rest of my family I otherwise like guns and I plan to buy one when I can afford to.
I clarify somewhat in the follow-up newsletter that I'm specifically saying that performative open carry is unethical. I don't presume to suggest that any and all open carry is unethical. It really just comes down to a consideration of circumstances.
I find it unethical, in poor taste, and to be just poor tactics to project that I'm carrying a firearm in a public space. Absent a clear threat to myself and others, for what purpose do I need to openly display my firearm? Not only does this feel performative and a form of virtue signaling, but if my purpose is to stand ready to protect myself and others why would I want to paint myself as the initial target of an attack and/or give up the element of surprise? Especially for off-hip carry and in the case of a strong-arm robbery, a hidden firearm near the wallet pocket can be an easy way to get the drop on somebody who has the drop on you.
But this consideration completely changes in other circumstances. For example, I do open carry when traveling in a personal vehicle, especially if I'm not heading anywhere public. When I was in law enforcement, I trained to deploy my pistol while still seated in my car and I wouldn't have quick access to my pistol if I was carrying concealed. If I were, for example, to come across an officer in trouble during a traffic stop, being able to rapidly deploy my pistol from my hip without moving or shifting and deploying it directly through my front windshield saves me precious moments that could be the difference between reliably coming to the aid of the officer. I also open carry while camping, hunting, and in generally more rural environments not only because it's more socially accepted by those who engage in these activities but also because without a need for the element of surprise it makes more sense to just have the gun more accessible. When I'm layered up in cold weather for hunting, I usually open carry on my hunting vest or rig.
I'm not claiming to have the corner on what constitutes ethical carry, and there are always different considerations and concerns to how to appropriately and responsibly exercise the right to bear arms. But what's concerning is that this conversation is not even being had and gun culture is beginning to project an "anything goes" approach that seems more calculated to "own the libs" than it is to demonstrate ethics and the responsible exercise of our rights.
Thanks for your detailed response! That all makes sense and I think I agree entirely. Haha yeah it would be a little difficult to conceal carry while actively hunting. Hunting was common where I grew up (pretty rural), so I never thought anything of seeing a guy in camo carrying a rifle in the woods. Also, haha I thought of very rural places like Alaska. In parts of Alaska where I’m more likely to see a bear than a person, I’d definitely open carry.
I agree whole heartedly withbwhst you are say but do you think Rittenhouse should have stood down and not pretected himself or his families property?
I think you're forgetting one crucial legal ingredient. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defense. The question for the jury wouldn't be whether or not someone's self-defense claim meets the full legal requirements of self-defense, it's whether or not the claim of self-defense introduces doubt towards a guilty verdict. You are correct that there are stronger and weaker claims of self-defense and I agree that Rittenhouse's claim was quite strong and the fact that his actions ended up coinciding with the language of Wisconsin's laws was quite beneficial in making his claim. But even a weak claim can gain the sympathy of a jury member and all it takes is one to throw a wrench in a guilty verdict.
Again, as I try to point out in the newsletter, a claim of self-defense has more to do with someone's frame of my mind and a consideration of the circumstances from their perspective than it does a totality of the circumstances. I think that if someone is able to credibly articulate their belief that someone with a gun is an active shooter, they would be able to gain enough sympathy from a jury to avoid a guilty verdict. I mean, if I were in a crowd and heard shots ring out, if I saw bodies falling to the ground, and I saw someone holding an AR-15 who was clearly firing off his rifle, I would reasonably conclude that this was an active shooter and I would act on that conclusion. And...I wouldn't stop trying to subdue and neutralize what I reasonably believed was an active shooter simply because he was "retreating."
The fact of the matter is that we don't know what was going through the minds of the two people who Rittenhouse killed, so we cannot truly offer an opinion of why they did what they did and we can't rule out the possibility that they had a reasonable belief that Rittenhouse was an active shooter. And, the person who Rittenhouse shot but who survived is on the record saying that he responded the way he did because he believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter.
My argument is not one that's trying to relitigate what happened that night. My argument is that a culture of irresponsible and unethical exercise of the right to bear arms is developing and that tragedies such as what happened that night in Kenosha are the result. There's a growing sense of militancy and vigilantism among a certain sub-group of gun owners and not only is that trend responsible for the frame of mind Rittenhouse had in inserting himself into a volatile situation in the way he did, but it's inviting intense scrutiny and hostility from Americans who are rightly concerned with this behavior and it's canceling out the largely law-abiding behavior of most gun owners.