Kent McManigal proposes that we elect him President of the United States. I’ve never heard of him before today, but as with most of us, he would no doubt be an improvement over the status quo.
One major plus, in discussing the issue of “gun control” he displays a grasp of the fundamental abstract principle which must be mastered in order to formulate rational conclusions on any issue, including, of course, “gun control”.
I suspect he would agree with me that “gun control” is a misnomer.
I would suggest his term, “victim disarmament” is more accurate.
I would also suggest this illustrates an understanding of an essential fundamental abstract: the nature of causation.
For the finite human mind to manage causation effectively, it must ground it in the nature of the entities involved in the observed phenomena.
Thus, “guns do not kill people, people kill people.”; an obvious fact, but what of it’s implications?
From the perspective of entity-based causation, “gun” is an inanimate, human-created and operated device; incapable of acting on it’s own volition, as it has none.
“Person”, on the other hand, is a self-actuating, conscious, reasoning entity. It is capable of acting on it’s own initiative.
Thus, the phenomena we observe involving the use of a firearm can only be explained in terms of human decision-making.
It cannot be effectively or usefully explained in terms of the nature or availability of firearms.
In the process of structuring a rational social enviornment for humans, therefore, one must focus on the nature of the actor in the particular activity in question.
In the myriad cases of human activity, one finds an actor with a unique and incomparable ability to formulate it’s own behavior; to remember and grasp the implications of past events, and project into the future.
This dictates a mimimum of social constraint on the individual, and a maximum of individual accountablity for one’s actions.
Liberty and responsibility; the yin and yang of autonomony, man’s natural state. A natural state in no conflict with technological advance, or the practical requirements of comtemporary civilization.
From this perspective, then the “gun control” issue is clarified. It is fumdamentally impertinent to attempt to solve the problem through restrictions on availability of a device.
Limiting access to firearms only serves to diminish the self-defense capabilities of law-abiding citizens. While through it’s illegitimate application, erroding the citizen’s confidence in the law.
Those against whom they have legitimate self-defense concerns will merely find the means to circumvent the restrictions, in the case of criminals, or exempt themselves, in the case of authorities.
“Gun control” can therefore be better described as “citizen control” something of which we seem to have accumulated an over-abundance lately, for a purportedly “free” society.
Mr. McManigal, I believe, deserves serious consideration.
—The Bikemessenger