Are we being selfish?

[Caimlas]

I don't think we're being selfish in the least bit, and here's why:

The issue is not whether or not we should have a right to own this or that AK, AR, pistol, or bolt action - or whatever the flavor of the week is. The issue is "the right to bear arms" which is much moreso an acknowledgment of a concrete principle of human right, not a statement of an individual right to ownership. It is the reservation of the right to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm.

And really, the "rest of the civilized world" isn't all that civilized. Sure, they have high culture, history, education, modern conveniences, and broad social programs, but that's all dressing. Look at the base condition of the society - and the underlying principles - and you'll see a fairly uncivilized "civilized society". There is little to no actual respect for others, their rights, and what have you, as evidenced by the high crime rates throughout most of Europe.

And aside from Europe, what is there to compare to when we're looking for a "civilized" society? Russia? China? Australia? Japan? Firearm rights aside, there isn't much in those societies which I'm envious of as an American.

Is it selfish for a person to demand the right to work for a living? To be secure in their persons and documents? No? The same principle applies here.

Now, the acquisition of "more stuff" when we could be doing something more productive with our money is another argument entirely. One could argue that "buying more guns" is a necessary thing for gun owners to do to keep manufacturers in business, but I'm of the opinion that some people, while not having "too much money", tend to buy more guns and accessories than they could ever reasonably use - but the same can be said for most any other hobby which involves equipment.

 

[CountGlockula]

If your meaning of selfish is: Narrow-minded, all or nothing type of attitude and self-centered; then...YES.

Being selfish does bring a negative connotation where for example at a gun show a guy was purchasing an AR-15 lower and made some stupid comments to the sales guy that sounded immature, insensitive and just plain idiotic.

Also, you need to take in consideration of the stereotypes that gun owners are labeled by: wannabe gangstas, overbearing flag weilding truck driving yahoo and lonely secluded NRA single living dude with a nice safe full of the latest arsenal.

2008 gun owners need to change the mold. Be more open minded. Invite others to shoot and help liberals understand why 2nd Amendment is important to every American. In order to overcome selfishness is to give to others. Why not begin with making friends at the range? Just make sure you show some finesse and discernment.

That's my response.

 

[MDMadrid]

I would not classify the ownership of firearms and self defense as being "Selfish". It would be more appropriate to label it as "stewardship". Most everyone here will agree that we are to be stewards of what we have earned or been given (family, property, life...) so being a good steward of what we have comes with protecting our families and property...which includes the ownership of firearms. Our message to the rest of the world should be, “You need to be better stewards of what you have!” One should always try to bring others up to a higher level not let the others bring us down.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Jorg, where does game theory enter this discussion?

There are several ways one could apply it, the most basic would be a sort of Prisoner's Dilemma with the 4 outcomes being Guns-Guns, NoGuns-Guns, Guns-NoGuns, NoGuns-NoGuns. It does presuppose something else you mentioned in your post which is "lawful gun ownership does not burden the rights of others" where I would contend it does burden others to at least some degree, but it the death of children who play with found guns, massacre shootings, their role in crime, etc. While one could contend that legal, responsible gun ownership would not be a factor in any of these things, it is hard to deny that the prevalence of guns is certainly a factor. I'm going to call them "Social Consequences" for lack of a better term. Whether or not such social consequences do indeed exist or are related to legal and responsible gun ownerhips is not up for debate in this particular exercise. So, if we were to abstract the game down to two people and assign the following attributes to each choice, we would then have our two choices for each player:
Guns: Ability to defend against others with guns but with social consequences.
NoGuns: No ability to stop those with guns, but no social consequeces.

It becomes a bit more complicated when you factor in the fact some folks consider the social consequences to far outweigh the potential for self-defense. That aside, you still have a pareto suboptimal equilibrium at Guns-Guns, despite NoGuns-NoGuns both removing the need for self-defense and the social consequences. This, of course, makes some assumptions that may or may not bear out and is a pretty simple game. Since humans aren't actually very good rational actors, it's hard to predict what we would actually see. It would be interesting to abstract it out a bit more and remove the gun connotation entirely to see if the outcome would be the same. I suspect that in an one-off game, we would see results not unlike a regular PD. Likewise, I think an iterated game would result in the "victim mentality" that one commonly sees in iterated PD games. Iterated same partner games may actually achieve the NoGuns-NoGuns equilibrium, but I strongly suspect partner switching, particularly if it is random/anonymous, would result in a Guns-Guns state, moreso if one abstracts things out further using tokens and such.

Anyway, that's a simple version of what I was tossing around in my head. There are some much more interesting things one could play with, but that probably is outside the scope of this discussion. A more interesting thought would be that of a public goods game, although enumerating that would be a touch more difficult. One could play an interated game where your token could be spent on "self-defense" or "public good" and working out a system for other things. Quantifying the "social consequences" and the like. Yeah, it might work. But it's time to go to the Olive Garden... Lunch > Game theory and guns. I'm going to maximize my rational self-interest in breadsticks.

 

[K3]

There are good reasons why the founders went with a representative republic rather than a democracy.

Mob rule is a bad thing.

 

[v35]

If indeed we are in the minority, are we just being selfish?

For centuries, the history of the United States has been that of an armed minority protecting the rights of the unarmed majority.

For longer than that, the history of most other societies has been an armed minority oppressing the rights of the unarmed majority.

The distinction between selfishness and selflessness couldn't be more clear.

 

[rust collector]

If I thought that giving up my guns would mean that another mother never had to cry over her child's perforated body, I would toss them in a heartbeat. Sadly, that will never be possible.

So long as there is evil, there must be a means to counteract it. Guns aren't the answer, but can help. I really hope someday that we can keep people from wanting to rob, pillage and terrorize. Until that happens, fire must be fought with fire.

And yes, we Americans are a nationalistic bunch, but there is a need for a desire to excel. We could use a few lessons in tact and diplomacy, but we really do want to help.

 

[ArmedBear]

I don't necessarily think that governments and the UN necessarily represent "the rest of the civilized world." Neither do other self-interested parties.

If I thought that giving up my guns would mean that another mother never had to cry over her child's perforated body, I would toss them in a heartbeat. Sadly, that will never be possible.

Far more children have been murdered by these governments that represent "civilization" than by street criminals. If they are stopped, it's by others who also have guns.

Furthermore, by keeping our guns, we aren't stopping anyone from getting rid of his.

 

[Tyris]

Good lord. If the rest of the world is being repressed and stripped of their rights to self defense from man and state, why would it be in our best interest to tag along?

Lets not forget how things work, governments overseas dictate laws to the populace. The government like any living organism thrives by getting bigger, it does so by gaining ever more control -- individuals who can oppose them are a threat, so they pass laws curtailing this threat.

Crime is cited as a reason for gun control by the government and its useful idiots. This is a red-herring, the number of murders committed by criminals is a drop in the bucked to the 80 million dead at the hands of government employees (army, police, torture squads, etc).

-T

 

[macFarlaine]

Come on now enough is enough.Your own history does not exactly make you out to be whiter than white.Native Americans ?,you lambast the rest of the world,particulary Europe as the devils birthplace,a pitt of violence and debauchery.How many of you have actually visited,understand the culture,the mix of cultures,from what I read not many.
As a firearm user I respect your stance,but I get bored and yes pissed at your constant higher than thou attitude when referring to Europe.

 

[forquidder]

Selfishness

If I thought for one minute that giving up guns would produce the peaceful utopian vision that the gun grabbers envision, I'b be the first to hand them over. Studying history and human nature, I know better.
The cat is already out of the bag and, guns will never be erradicated, even in a jackbooted thug police state where warrantless random searches are the norm. The more restrictions placed on them, the higher the percentage of them will be on the black market and in the hands of criminals, the lower the percentage in good peoples hands.
So selfish? No.
Realistic?

 

[PakWaan]

If wanting to be able to defend our lives is selfish, so be it......

 

[davera]

In my opinion, we are not being selfish to maintain the right to keep and bear arms because "the rest of the world" is simply wrong in ALL their assertions regarding gun control.

It is in no way selfish to retain one's ability to defend and/or feed one's self using the most appropriate tools.

 

[Grandpa Shooter]

Grandpa's back!

All I can say is "WOW!" I never thought just asking that question would generate such heart felt responses. I really want to keep this open so let's all keep it on the straight and narrow. Good job so far.

For what it is worth, I have read all of Ayn Rand's stuff and do in my own mind make a clear distinction between "sefishness" i.e. "The intention and desire of putting one's own wants and needs before the well being of others" (My phrasing NOT hers) and "enlightened self interest" i.e. "Recognizing that submitting to the wants and desires of others despite the potential for injury to self is morally wrong." (Again my phrasing)

I do not see where my buying another revolver to add to my harem is injurious to anyone, unless I am depriving someone of sustenance, shelter or safety. If indeed I allow any firearm I own to fall into the hands of someone who will use it in an illegal or immoral manner, then my own conscience and the applicable civil laws will deal with me. And trust me, my own sense of morality and ethical behavior would make living almost unbearable.

Thanks for your insights.

 

[stephpd]

selfish

Yes I think it selfish and glad this country doesn't follow the rest of the world.
And as far as polls, in this country most believe that it's part of our constitution weather they own a gun or not. They might not agree or even understand the issue but most don't think it should be removed.

Now as far as the rest of the world, I've been to many parts of it and it's not that great. We might not have a perfect government but it's better then everything else out there. Wasn't to long ago that Britain had the right to protect themselves, not now, and I think less of them for letting their government remove that right.

The whole Eu thing just boggels my mind. One government ruling over several countries just seems doomed to failure. None of them even speak the same language and somehow using the same currency will solve their differences seems backwards.

And 2/3 of the world is ruled by dictators who came to power with arms telling us that we should be as submissive as the people they rule over is just blowing smoke up my a**.

Do we really want to become like Africa, Asia or South America? As the new kid on the block I tink the founding fathers did a good job of picking out the best of what was in use at that time and disregarding the bad. Do we really want the bad that the rest of the world has to offer?

 

[Deanimator]

We are being "selfish" only to the extent that Black people who don't want to be slaves or Jews who don't want to be soap are being selfish. Demanding that your rights be respected isn't selfish. It's merely demanding that which is right and just.

 

[Hawk]

... and if you believe the polls, the rest of the US wants the same thing.

I'm sure there will be sufficient posts covering safeguards against "tyranny of the majority" and such.

I'll take a different approach and point out that things may have changed regarding the polls you're thinking of.

Gallup '07

51% wanting stricter laws isn't much of a majority. I'd submit that with respect to the domestic situation the opening question assumes a condition which simply isn't so.

I hasten to add that the 51% majority reflects those wanting stricter laws - NOT those looking to end small arms ownership. A safe surmise is that those looking for a complete ban would be only a portion of those wanting stricter laws - hence they may safely be assumed to be in the minority. I'd hazard a guess that realizing they're a distinct minority would not cause them much angst over their apparent selfishness.

Internationally, we get into settler nations vs homogenous cultures and a thousand other reasons why comparisons across borders don't work. Additionally, the amount of disinformation about the state of our firearms laws is profound internationally. Since the opinions of many are based on old western movies and comic books I tend to discount their wishes. A staggering number will propose that we enact laws we already have.

In short, you may be concerned over a non-existant majority domestically and a body of opinion internationally that's, at least to some extent, based on fairy tales and folk stories.

 

[BReilley]

Our country's founding principles embrace self-interest as the invisible hand(to steal from "The Wealth of Nations", ca 1776...) that guides individuals to act in ways that benefit themselves, on the theory that the net result is a benefit to society as a whole.

I don't believe I am selfish in my desire to be on equal footing with a criminal who wants to harm me.

I also believe that as more potential crime victims arm themselves(responsibly) and carry concealed, more potential criminals are likely to be deterred by the simple possibility that their victims could be armed. Obvious benefit to society is less crime.

Is it selfish? Yes, of course. We are selfish beings. Do our selfish actions result in some indirect benefit to others? I'd say yes.

 

[macFarlaine]

You again forget your input into what has happened in the rest of the world.You have been involved in South America,former Communist Europe.The CIA are crawling all over the world inciting uprising,supplying arms training,and when it gets tough you get out and let the people pick up the pieces.
Yes you are selfish,maybe follow through on some of your major mistakes in the world,admit once in a while you may have been wrong.As far as your home ground is concerned well done,I sincerely congratulate you,you are right to fight for what you have.

 

[Tommygunn]

As gun owners, pro 2A, responsible adults, are we being selfish in our adamant defense of our right to keep and bear arms? It would seem that the rest of the civilized world wants to end small arms ownership, and if you believe the polls, the rest of the US wants the same thing. If indeed we are in the minority, are we just being selfish? I see this as a moral issue, not a political one, despite the fact that it has become a hot button for so many people these days. Anyone care to respond?

If we allow what other countries do to dictate our philosophy of existance, we fall prey to all the petty tyrannies -- and gross tyrannies -- that rise and fall throughout the world. Freedom is an unusual and rare thing. Freedom is NOT the normal state of being throughout the world. One or other form of totalitarinaism is.
In the last fifteen years the former Soviet Union began to loosen up, but we see that trend being reversed. The people are unable to appreciate or truly comprehend the responsibilities involved in freedom -- and the leaders are all too willing to capitalize on this and impose a new form of statism on them.
The extreme form of Islamism practiced by Al-Qaeda and other allied terrorist groups can't tolerate freedom -- even within the religion of Islam. They kill and maim their own who won't join their cause.
The rest of the world may haughtily look down their noses at us; they're used to doing so, it makes them feel better about themselves .... and all too often it draws the peoples' attentions off their own government's atrocities where it might be better directed if they truly wanted freedom and justice.
I say we keep what we have.
Our freedom.
And that includes our right to keep and bear arms, as well as those rights protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, complete, with all the blemishes, pimples, and occasional runny sores inherent to our system of freedom and individual respopnsibility.

I will not become a slave of Washington D.C.
Why would I wish to become a slave of the world???

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Tyris wrote:

Good lord. If the rest of the world is being repressed and stripped of their rights to self defense from man and state, why would it be in our best interest to tag along?


Little Johnny: "Mommy, mommy. Let's get rid of all of daddy's guns."

Mommy: "Why would we want to do something so silly as that, Johnny?"

Little Johnny: "Because the rest of the world is making other dads give up their guns".

Mommy; "And I suppose if the rest of the world jumped into a raging fire, you'd ask us to join them? Now eat your malto meal. Then go outside and practice your target shooting with your new BB gun. And don't shoot your eye out, kid!"

 

[Tyris]

Come on now enough is enough.Your own history does not exactly make you out to be whiter than white.Native Americans ?,you lambast the rest of the world,particulary Europe as the devils birthplace,a pitt of violence and debauchery.How many of you have actually visited,understand the culture,the mix of cultures,from what I read not many.
As a firearm user I respect your stance,but I get bored and yes pissed at your constant higher than thou attitude when referring to Europe.

Your first statement strengthens the position that those without guns are on the receiving end of genocides.

Europe deserves its lambasting. Until your gun laws become less oppressive, particularly in the Orwell-1984-bent UK, you'll continue to be on the receiving end of our collective condescension.

-T

 

[harmonic]

Yes, gramps, you're right. Anyone who insists upon owning guns in the face of such opposition is selfish. You need to surrender all of your firearms to the nearest sanctimonious gun disposal govt entity.

I, on the other hand, have no problem with being selfish. I don't care what the bleeding hearts, tree huggers, globalists and anti Americans think.

They have me confused with somebody who cares what they think.

 

[harmonic]

If I thought for one minute that giving up guns would produce the peaceful utopian vision that the gun grabbers envision, I'b be the first to hand them over.

Not me. I like my guns.

 

[macFarlaine]

Our gun laws are the way they are because the majority of people in the UK wanted it that way.There was no great outcry when the ban came into force,and there seems little or no interest in having the ban reversed.
It saddens me,but I live with it.
The USA are not far from Orwells 1984,maybe not with firearms but your big brother watches your every move.