Maggie's Farm

Let me begin by saying that I, as well as all of Maggie's readers, are deeply moved by the loss these families suffered.  By no means would anyone here seek to diminish that or belittle the feelings these people are sharing. 

That said, after the grieving there must be logic informing how we review these events.  I am sure many gun-owning parents might be offended by Ehrens' statement.  But we all have a right to be offended, so getting angry is only going to make Susie look good and reasonable to the misguided folks who support "the cause".

As a result, I wondered what I could say about the testimony provided.  The main thing that came to mind is that people who are emotionally compromised should be allowed to speak, but their views should be taken with a grain of salt, and their testimony be considered less impactful simply because it's less likely to be rational and more likely to be emotional.

When we engage emotional outbursts, even if those outbursts are completely justified in the wake of an horrendous event like Newtown, we enter the realm of potentially compromised decision making.  Oftentimes, when the death of another is the cause of an emotional incident, the immediate reaction is to point fingers and assign blame.  It's entirely possible that blame will be misplaced, particularly if a tool becomes the focus of rage, rather than the individuals who used the tool irresponsibly.  I cannot blame the ax Lizzy Borden used to kill her parents, after all.

The seemingly rational, in emotionally charged testimony, is glorified as heartfelt, and logical.  The mistake is that being heartfelt makes it rational.  In fact, it often isn't logical or rational at all.

Susie Ehrens engages a logical fallacy, that loving guns means you cannot love children, because guns have killed children.

Just because I love guns does not preclude my ability to love children.  My wanting to keep the right to bear arms intact does not mean I value guns more than people.  These are unconnected choices that Susie Ehrens has illogically connected.  The emotional experience has informed their testimony and the fallacy is born.  Their testimony is so heartfelt and so important to them, few can argue the illogic without seeming to be bloodthirsty and cruel.  In fact, nothing is further from the truth.

David Wheeler, who lost his son in Newtown had his own emotional spin:

[David] told a panel that Thomas Jefferson said government was instituted to protect our unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He said that those words and their order were no accident.

“The liberty of any person to own a military-style assault weapon and a high-capacity magazine and keep them in their home is second to the right of my son to his life,” he said.

Thomas Jefferson did not put those words in that order accidentally.  You can't have liberty or pursuit of happiness if you do not have a life.  But the gun used in Newtown was not a military-style assault weapon.  In addition, my owning one does not automatically deny another person's child a right to life at all.  Wheeler, whose loss cannot be measured, has all our support and sympathy for that loss.  But he employs a logic that is, again, both heartfelt and incorrect. 

My point of view is that guns are important.  They are not just for hunting.  It has been conjectured that Admiral Yamamoto once argued against an invasion of the mainland US using an unsubstantiated quote, "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."  Whether he said this or not is immaterial, the point is accurate. 

More importantly, we must remember that our public officials swear to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.  In a sense, this is all our responsibility.  Therefore, my right to own a gun is every bit as important as another person's life, regardless of Jefferson's order, simply because not owning a gun could prevent someone from undermining and overthrowing the Constitutional order, even if that threat is internal.  This, in itself, is a potential guarantor of future children's rights.

Along those lines, I will leave those who gave testimony in Newtown a quote from Ben Franklin which they should consider long and hard, especially since Connecticut's already stiff gun control laws did little to prevent a tragedy.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.