Debate with my anti-gun brother (who is a judge)

[jakemccoy]

rainbowbob,

Please don't take my comments here the wrong way because, really, I am just trying to better myself and mean no harm.

I'm curious about your brother's background. What kind of guy was he growing up? Did he play sports? Was he involved in any clubs? What were his interests? Is he heterosexual? What were your parents like? Was it middle class?

...etc...

Don't feel obligated to answer if you think I stepped over a boundary. It's just that if I ever have a kid, I want to make sure that I don't raise someone who's a pacifist at all costs. I just wouldn't be able to deal with it.

Again, I'm asking you these things for my personal benefit, not to put down your brother or anything. By the way, thank you for sharing with us.

-Jake

 

[mgregg85]

When "violence doesn't solve anything" comes into play, I prefer to quote Heinlein.

“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and -- thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

 

[rainbowbob]

I'm curious about your brother's background. What kind of guy was he growing up? Did he play sports? Was he involved in any clubs? What were his interests? Is he heterosexual? What were your parents like? Was it middle class?

...It's just that if I ever have a kid, I want to make sure that I don't raise someone who's a pacifist...

This is going off thread a little but what the hell - I'm the OP.

First of all I must say I don't mind your inquiries at all, and I will answer them shortly. I hope that I don't have to explain or defend the history I share here. It is what it is.

But...secondly I have to kind of laugh about your misconceptions on child-rearing. I'm sure you will do the best you can, as most of us do. And then they will become whatever they damn well please whether you like it or not!

As to your questions about my brother's childhood. It is interesting you ask because I was just thinking about that this morning.

My brother was and always has been straight - married for 39 years - two kids. Let's get that out of the way first. Let me also say I think that it may be entirely irrelevant.

He did not play sports and was not athletic.

His interests were more academic...I suppose he would be called a geek these days. He had a very early interest in computers - before they even existed in the form we know today. He built a crystal radio kit, and then a ham radio kit, and then a "computer" kit - all by the time he was 13 or 14!

Our family was typical 50's-60's middle class. Mom stayed home and our father was a career LEO. He carried a gun every day (concealed) and never taught any of us four boys a single thing about shooting.

We all joined the Boy Scouts. Having two older brothers, I learned all my knots and other qualifiers for "Tenderfoot" long before I was eligble to join.

When I was young, I was fanatical about "playing guns". I took it very seriously and usually "won". I remember distinctly one day him telling me that he never wanted to play guns again - and he never did.

When I was about 13 or 14, I shot my best friend in the eye with a BB rifle in response to him shooting me. I didn't touch a weapon of any kind for about 35 years after that. He's still my best friend and has been for about 45 years. And he still can't see jack out of his right eye.

My brother was certified as a "Concientious Objector" during the Viet Nam War. I had a high lottery number and did not enlist. My best friend didn't qualify because of his eye.

 

[RPCVYemen]

My brother was certified as a "Concientious Objector" during the Viet Nam War.

That suggests to me that he likely has a deep moral objections to violence, and has probably thought about it a lot. My guess is that a son of a career LEO who chose to become a CO thought deeply about the issues.

You had to at least be able to convince the draft board - often not a friendly audience - that your beliefs were sincere. Remember, the draft boards (in general) we very much pro-war. Most draft board were volunteer (as I recall, maybe I am remembering that incorrectly), very likely to be WWII and Korea vets who were very gung-ho. That's the folks you had to convince of your sincerity.

Depending on when it was during the war, you could not object only to the Vietnam War, you had to show that you objections to war were deeply morally felt. Draft boards varied quite a bit in different areas of the country, but if you weren't a member of the one of the three traditional "Peace Churches" (Quakers, Mennonites, or Brethren), you could expect to be grilled pretty intensely on your beliefs.

Usually this meant a very different moral fiber than someone who fled the country or strung together deferment after deferment (or hid behind his daddy's skirts in the Texas Air Guard ).

Is your experience of your brother that he is a moral person who thinks deeply abut these things? His answers to your questions appeared to be thoughtful and respectful. Is his rejection of CCW consistent with his general moral philosophy?

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

As I pointed out to him at the end of our exchange:

We share equally the desire to reduce the effects of violence on innocent people.

We just don't agree on how best to accomplish that.

That is true of every anti I have met and talked with. I have hears a lot of nonsense and wacko rants on THR about "what antis believe", but I every person I have talked with personally was motivated by "the desire to reduce the affects of violence on innocent people". I am the only active shooter in my family or extended family (though some of my in laws have allowed me to take my nieces and nephews shooting).

I am glad that you were able to recognize that with your brother. Congratulations - a lot of pro-gun folks never get there.

 

[RPCVYemen]

It's just that if I ever have a kid, I want to make sure that I don't raise someone who's a pacifist at all costs. I just wouldn't be able to deal with it.

Speaking as a father, if you can't handle philosophical differences with your kids, think a long time before you have kids. Your kids may grow up to be a cookie cutter copy of you, but they may not.

Most will reject some/all of your political beliefs for at least a time (usually in college), some will not.

But...secondly I have to kind of laugh about your misconceptions on child-rearing. I'm sure you will do the best you can, as most of us do. And then they will become whatever they damn well please whether you like it or not!

You nailed this one, Bob.

Kids don't come with guarantees.

Mike

 

[rainbowbob]

Is your experience of your brother that he is a moral person who thinks deeply abut these things?

Yes...although I don't think he has really thought this all the way through. His comment that he "...doesn't want to play..." strikes me as pretty naive for an intelligent man that sees the results of crime every day. My point is: We don't get to decide if we want to play - that choice is made for us by the bad guys.

His answers to your questions appeared to be thoughtful and respectful. Is his rejection of CCW consistent with his general moral philosophy?

Yes...but again I don't think he has thought it through. He uses the threat of violence every day in his job. How can he say with a straight face that "...violence is never the answer..."?

 

[jakemccoy]

RPCY wrote,

Speaking as a father, if you can't handle philosophical differences with your kids, think a long time before you have kids.

Naw, I'll just have kids, thanks though.

 

[Winchester 73]

Rainbowbob,your anti-gun brother is a lost cause.
I had the same brother, who died in 1987 of heart disease.
Millionaire,Marxist,made no sense,forget about him.
Move on and leave this loser in your wake.Blood is NOT thicker than water.
Been there,tried that,Winchester 73.

 

[Cuda]

I might suggest your brother re-read the Bill of Rights. That might set him straight.

C

 

[Winchester 73]

rainbowbob,respectfully,you brother is a lost cause.
Try to move on and leave this uncomprehendly individual in your wake.

 

[RPCVYemen]

I might suggest your brother re-read the Bill of Rights. That might set him straight.

Is anything Rainbow Bob's brother in any way inconsistent with the Bill of Rights?

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

Yes...although I don't think he has really thought this all the way through. His comment that he "...doesn't want to play..." strikes me as pretty naive for an intelligent man that sees the results of crime every day. My point is: We don't get to decide if we want to play - that choice is made for us by the bad guys.

That may or may not be a naive remark.

The classic pacifist answer to your claim the you will let the and guy make the choice to "play" or not:

• Why would you choose to let "bad guys" make any moral/ethical choices for you? After all, they're bad guys.
• Why would you choose to empower bad guys?
• You won't let a bad guy date your daughter or borrow your car, but you'll let him make the single most important moral choice in your life - to take another human life?

Hard core pacifists will tell you, "I'd rather die than let bad guys choose the course of my life. I choose the course of my life."

Over such people, the bad guys have no power at all.

I am not saying that I agree with that analysis - but that may be the thinking behind the "I don't want to play". He may be saying, "I am not letting the bad guys make any moral/ethical choices for me. Once I have decided what's right and wrong, no crack head with a gun can force me to do what's wrong."

I only being this us because because your brother was a certified CO, which means that an unfriendly group of vets decided that he was a sincere pacifist. While there were many potential avenues for objecting in conscience to the Vietnam War, I think that most people who actually completed the process were pacifists.

Have you ever talked to him about why he was a CO?

Jake McCoy, are you frothing at the mouth yet?

Mike

 

[rainbowbob]

Hard core pacifists will tell you, "I'd rather die than let bad guys choose the course of my life. I choose the course of my life."

Over such people, the bad guys have no power at all.

Mike:
Your comments make no sense to me at all. My point was, you don't get to decide whether or not you're going to play. The bad guy makes that choice for you when he assaults you. The only choice you have at that point is HOW you play - not IF you play. Like it or not - the bad guy HAS chosen the course of your life when he chose to end it. Your choice to defend yourself is the ONLY choice that has any chance of taking that power away from him.

It is absurd to say that a bad guy who destroys your life and the life of your family - with no resistance from you - has "no power at all".

He may be saying, "I am not letting the bad guys make any moral/ethical choices for me. Once I have decided what's right and wrong, no crack head with a gun can force me to do what's wrong."

That may be an accurate description of the thought behind "I don't want to play". But I will never understand the idea that self-defense is "wrong".

Jake McCoy, are you frothing at the mouth yet?

Why are you using this thread to needle Jake? And by the way...He didn't ask for reproductive advice.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Hard core pacifists will tell you, "I'd rather die than let bad guys choose the course of my life. I choose the course of my life."

Over such people, the bad guys have no power at all.

My answer to that is, when the bad guy shoots or knifes you, then tortures and rapes your wife and daughter, I submit he does have power over you.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Like it or not - the bad guy has chosen the course of your life when he chose to end it. Your choice to defend yourself is the only choice that has any chance of taking that power away from him.

There are principles for which some people are willing to die. Not everyone has principles for which they are willing to die, and not everyone who had principles for which they are willing to die has the same set of principles.

If you have a set of principles for which you are willing to die, then you chose the course of your life, but maybe not the length.

If you have decided that you are willing to die rather than to kill another human being - classic pacifist position, and you let a bad guy force you to kill instead of die, you are letting him chose the the course of your life. If you have decided that you are willing to die rather than to kill another human being, and you refuse to let a bad guy force you to kill instead of die, then you are not letting him choose the course of your life.

Why are you using this thread to needle Jake?

I meant it as a joke, since Jake had said he couldn't stand it if his kid turned out to be a pacifist, and I was explaining a pacifist position. I apologize if it offended.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

That may be an accurate description of the thought behind "I don't want to play". But I will never understand the idea that self-defense is "wrong".

I happen to agree with you - I was attempting to illuminate what might be the thought behind the "I don't want to play" statement, not arguing that what was behind the statement was correct.

And I don't really know if your brother is a pacifist. I assumed he was if he was a CO during Vietnam. I also assumed that he had thought through these issues. The standard draft board question in that era was the "grandmother rapist" question, i.e., "If someone was raping your grandmother, would you shoot him?" Ask your brother - I'd bet $1 that he was asked that question, and answered "No!", or the draft board would not have given him CO status.

BTW, I reject pacifism, I have chosen a set of principals such that I believe that we have a moral obligation to resist evil with whatever tools are available - including lethal weapons. My guess is that your brother would not agree with me.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

My answer to that is, when the bad guy shoots or knifes you, then tortures and rapes your wife and daughter, I submit he does have power over you.

The classic answer is that he only has power over your body, not over you. Most religions have martyrs, and martyrs are often considered heroic. Who is more powerful - the man who kills the martyr, or the martyr? I think that all religions answer with one voice.

Mike

 

[20nickels]

Bob, thanks for sharing these conversations.

This is one of the more informative threads I've read in some time because your bro is an intelligent person who, like many many Americans, have just went ahead and made uninformed decisions on where they stand with RKBA.
He can change. Not because you are right, which you are, but because he clearly values your opinion. His view of the constitution is par for the course for somebody in his line of work. This doesn't excuse it, but just points out that the norm needs changed- One person at a time. Education is the key. Nice work.

 

[rainbowbob]

...If you have decided that you are willing to die rather than to kill another human being...

Truthfully, I had never even considered this option as possible - let alone morally superior. The idea of willfully baring one's breast for the killing blow - when resistance is still possible - is beyond my comprehension I guess. It contradicts basic human - or even animal - nature. It contradicts the idea that God gave us this life and we are bound to honor that gift.

My brother is an atheist, by the way. If anything, I would think that a non-religious philosophy would not include reverence for your assailant's life - particularly above your own and your families lives.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The classic answer is that he only has power over your body, not over you. Most religions have martyrs, and martyrs are often considered heroic. Who is more powerful - the man who kills the martyr, or the martyr? I think that all religions answer with one voice.

The man who sacrifices his wife and daughter -- whom he has a duty to protect and defend -- can hardly call himself a martyr.

 

[rainbowbob]

"If someone was raping your grandmother, would you shoot him?" Ask your brother - I'd bet $1 that he was asked that question, and answered "No!", or the draft board would not have given him CO status.

Mike:
I seem to remember (it's been forty years!) him saying something about that kind of question. And you are right that he answered "correctly" (i.e., the answer that would obtain his C.O. designation).

Back then, I was convinced we had no business fighting a civil war in Viet Nam. My brother (who is three years older) had a lot to do with convincing me of that. I did not want to fight that fight. That did not mean (then or now) that I believed that fighting was NEVER the answer. I knew I would never be able to make a case for C.O.

I have to wonder if my brother painted himself into a philisophical corner when he answered that question. He knew the answer he had to give to obtain his C.O.status. He did not want to think of himself as a liar - so he convinced himself that the "correct" answer was actually true. To maintain his integrity - and not admit the hypocrisy of giving what may have been a "false" answer - he has remained locked into this philosophy for forty years. I have changed my mind about a lot of things in the past forty years - I'm not sure he has.

 

[rainbowbob]

The man who sacrifices his wife and daughter -- whom he has a duty to protect and defend -- can hardly call himself a martyr.

Vern:
Great point. Even if a man is alone and is only sacrificing his own life in that moment - he is still sacrificing the well-being of his family.

What "cause" has he furthered by this "martyrdom"? If the cause is a deeply held belief that is part of a much larger movement (e.g., Gandhi's political/religious/nationalist movement) - maybe it can be justified.

An individual atheistic decision to sacrifice oneself in the mistaken belief that it will further the "cause" of non-violence seems pointless and irresponsible.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

And frankly, when I defend myself, I defend you. There is a civic duty to defend against a criminal attack -- it makes attacks on other citizens less likely.

 

[jakemccoy]

"A Nation of Cowards" is some good reading and touches upon many of the issues raised here. It may be the most memorable pro-gun piece I've ever read, particular this passage:

Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so -- but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?

rainbowbob, challenge your brother to remove the armed guards from his courtroom.

(However, I do recall that you already brought up this idea in some format.)