What Good Are Guns? – Dialectic Two Step
Estimated reading time: 8 minute(s)
I recently posted the image above on social media and I got a thoughtful response from a friend
From a Buddhist perspective, I would think the fact that a gun is for killing a living being makes it hard to argue that its purpose is good.
She makes a good point. From a moral standpoint, guns don’t score well. Their purpose is to do harm. Whether to people or to animals. But then from another perspective assigning a moral value to an inanimate object doesn’t make sense. Guns can only do harm in the hands of a human.
My response was fairly pragmatic:
Weapons will always be a fact of life, from rocks to photon torpedoes. A weapon’s purpose is not necessarily good, but it exists and therefore must be considered. Guns can be used in ways that fall on different points of the moral spectrum. I do not have a functioning gun in my house, but I don’t have a strong moral objection to people hunting deer for subsistence. My wife grew up in Maine where many families relied very heavily on tagging a deer to feed their children. I’m much less sympathetic to sports hunting, especially for endangered species. On the other hand there is no question that using a gun to support criminal activity is unambiguously wrong. Here is where the battle lines are drawn. What deterrents are available to counter criminal use of firearms?
Buddhism does not carry with it the Christian admonition to turn the other cheek. I think that the Buddhist perspective acknowledges and accepts the use of deterrents. While none of us look fondly on the days of MAD (mutually assured destruction). It was effective. There were no nuclear wars between the US & The USSR.
In the US where the second amendment precludes banning guns, owning a gun is a logical deterrent to another person with a gun.But with any deterrence strategy, it’s subject to one-ups-man-ship. It’s starts with a .22 moves on to a .357 magnum, a silencer, and then a semi-automatic assault rifle. So far the Supreme Court still agrees that tanks in the hands of the well-regulated militia is still beyond the pale, but who knows.
Of course, some day, guns will become a thing of the past, replaced by the next brilliant idea – e.g. the phaser, or some other futuristic instrument of death. Ownership of these new weapons will be subject to the same constitutional protections. Here is why the conversation must continue. The Constitution will forever be under interpretation in the context of future advancements in technology, medicine, patent law, commerce, and the make up of the so-called well-regulated militia. The interpretations will change, just as the second amendment has been re-framed in the last 40 years. These changes are political and often reflect the collective voice of the people. So talking and being part of the conversation is important. Taking an intractable position, only removes you from the conversation, making you irrelevant. Keep talking people.
Dialectic Two-Step is an ongoing series of my thoughts on questions that come my way.
Wisdom lies neither in fixity nor in change, but in the dialectic between the two. - Octavio
Get Each Week's Dialectic Two Step In Your Email Box
If you enjoyed this post, please like and share.
The post What Good Are Guns? – Dialectic Two Step written by Andrew Furst appeared on Andrew Furst.
