Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: It’s All Opportunism

August 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

I never cease to be amused when some castigate or criticize others for being “opportunistic.” There seems to be a kind of sanctimony in that judgment . . . something like “I am principled; they are opportunistic.”

Perhaps that’s so. Yet, if one is to avoid current events entirely and simply opine on what one believes are the priority issues facing our society and culture, one would not engage in the “opportunism” of commenting on things like the Virginia Tech shootings.

Yet, those who wrap themselves in the flag of “principle” can’t seem to resist suggesting that Virginia Tech, and all campuses, and everywhere, including commercial jets!, would be far safer if anyone could be packing heat. This of course assumes that everyone’s a marksman, and that these trained marksmen will stop more criminals and psychopaths than random violent acts would be, in a sense, encouraged. In other words, with more guns in public, will it be more likely that someone who would otherwise simply lose his or her temper be tempted to pull, and even use, a weapon?

It seems unknowable whether the incidence of violence would increase or decrease were firearms more commonly in public. But, regardless of the merits of the argument, I suggest such advocacy is “opportunistic.” In this case, tin-eared opportunism, in my opinion. Aside from converted gun folk, calling for more guns when the blood has yet to dry in Blacksburg comes across to many as callous. It certainly does to me.

Thinking back to my college days, I’m not real sure I’d want to go to class with another 18 year old who is carrying a weapon. Students who’ve just left the nest and are discovering who they are have a tendency to act impulsively. I recall students storming out of philosophy classes, angry at what the professor had said or what grade he or she gave a student. I could imagine pistol-brandishing incidents replacing my memories of an angry kid storming out, and, for me, that’s not a pretty picture.

So, in this case, the appropriate response to Blacksburg is to not be opportunistic. Voice one’s condolences, and resist the temptation to potentially profit politically over this tragedy.

-Robert Capozzi

Comments

As a regular reader of The Free Liberal website, I appreciate the often nonconventional points of view that the editors and commentors bring to light. However, Mr. Capozzi’s latest opinion piece of the Free For All blog (which contains so many mischaracterizations bordering on outright falsehoods that I’m not even sure where I should begin) is something I must take issue with.

The overall implication of his post seems to be that the gun rights/pro right-to-carry movement is using the Virginia Tech tragedy as an excuse to suggest that “anyone and everyone needs to buy and carry a gun, everywhere,” and that this is cynical opportunism at its finest.

Leaving that point aside for the moment, he from the beginning shows a serious misunderstanding of how right-to-carry works. Consider the following quote: “Yet, those who wrap themselves in the flag of “principle” can’t seem to resist suggesting that Virginia Tech, and all campuses, and everywhere, including commercial jets!, would be far safer if anyone could be packing heat.”

Oddly enough, Mr. Capozzi, I can’t recall a single conversation with a fellow gun rights activist where he or she suggested that everyone who has the ability to pick up a handgun and conceal it under an article of clothing or in a purse should be legally able to do so, in any location he or she chooses. None of them I’ve spoken with want convicted violent felons, the mentally unstable, or those too young to make rational decisions to carry. Though there are exceptions, most also do not favor allowing unrestricted carry (even for permit holders who have passed all the required legal steps) in certain areas, such as courtrooms, or airliners.

And now on to the second mischaracterization. Allow me to quote Mr. Capozzi again: “This of course assumes that everyone’s a marksman, and that these trained marksmen will stop more criminals and psychopaths than random violent acts would be, in a sense, encouraged. In other words, with more guns in public, will it be more likely that someone who would otherwise simply lose his or her temper be tempted to pull, and even use, a weapon?”

Newsflash: Permit holders are those who are, in every state, at least 18 years of age; 21 in most, and as high as 24 in some, have passed a background check, submitted fingerprints, and in no small number of right-to-carry states, attended required courses on firearms safety and training, and when the threat or use of force is and is not legally allowed. In short, these are the very people -least- likely to ever do anything violent. Perhaps next time a quick check of how many total permits have been issued vs. how many have been revoked post-issuance for violent or otherwise criminal behavior (hint: the second number is an extremely small fraction of the first, on the order of statistical insignificance) by permit holders would be in order before you opine forth with the much-overused “Dodge City/Wild West/Road Rage Killings/Random Violence” battle cry shouted by uninformed opponents of the right to self-defense. You might also take into account that at least two of the mass murderers were stopped by a citizen with a gun, during the Pearl, Mississippi school shooting and at the more recent tragedy at a mall in Utah.

However, the thrust of the original blog post was not to discuss the “merits of” vs. “potential problems with” concealed carry itself, but rather, to accuse supporters of the right to bear arms of being opportunistic after a deadly school shooting. I reference the above statement:

“It seems unknowable whether the incidence of violence would increase or decrease were firearms more commonly in public. But, regardless of the merits of the argument, I suggest such advocacy is “opportunistic.” In this case, tin-eared opportunism, in my opinion. Aside from converted gun folk, calling for more guns when the blood has yet to dry in Blacksburg comes across to many as callous. It certainly does to me.”

Mr. Capozzi, we can agree to disagree, if you so choose, on how effective the responsible, background-check-cleared citizens who opt to carry a concealed handgun are at stopping or deterring criminals. What I cannot understand is that your accusations of opportunism were directed at the supporters of self defense rather than its opponents, who have shown vastly more willingness to exploit tragedies like this one for their own gain than any group of gun rights/self-defense activists ever have. One needs only look at the respective press releases put out by the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (www.nra-ila.org) and the Brady Campaign (http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=24061.0&printer_friendly=1)
to see the glaring difference. There is no call for any political action whatsoever in the NRA’s…it is the Brady Campaign that is using the deaths of 32 innocents to further a political agenda.

So why, then, do you point the finger at the wrong side? I can only guess, perhaps, that you encountered a gun rights activist, either online or in person, who did speak of the Virginia Tech shootings as evidence for the need to lift the ban on weapons which is standard policy on the bulk of college campuses. While I would agree with said activist that “gun-free” zones, considering that these mass shootings have occurred in locations (schools, Post Offices, shopping malls) that banned nearly everyone from possessing a gun, are only in reality “defenseless target” zones, I too sometimes wonder if the immediate aftermath is the best time to try and bring this fact up.

Yet, for all your accusations of “callousness,” and for my own pondering about timing, it would be appropriate to remember that sometimes tragedies do make people question their preconceived notions about order and society, and it is at this point that they may be receptive to new ideas. Both the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina brought on a surge of gun purchases and signups for firearms instruction classes. People realized that no matter how valiantly law enforcement tries, they sometimes are unable to be in the right place at the right time in sufficient numbers, and that therefore, those who wish to protect themselves and their communities should take steps to be more effective in doing so.

Finally, it is worth noting that when gun rights advocates bring up their case after a major tragedy, it is more often than not a defensive measure, rather than a calculated move for policy gain. We gun owners have realized, after too long, that reasoned, well-thought out arguments that take weeks of on-and-off persuasion to deliver, while very effective in convincing the unconverted one-on-one, do not work as well in the mass media environment. The gun control movement presents horribly flawed policies in response whenever a mass murder happens, but they do so effectively, with emotionally loaded statements that do not take a lot of time and energy for the average viewer or reader to process. The debate has become, for lack of a better description, a War of Memes. We who stand for the right, should the need arise, to defend oneself or others with a firearm can no longer afford to allow ourselves to be defeated in the battle for minds of the unconverted by thirty-second, emotionally charged sound bites. No, neither I nor my fellow activists want or hope to persuade everyone to rush out and buy a gun and get a concealed carry permit. Possession of either is a major responsibility and should not be taken lightly. But I would like people who have previously only had the “it’s all these awful guns” point of view thrown at them one anguished statement after another to also have the option to consider the “what if one person, just one person, had the means and the training to resist and to save innocent lives” perspective.

Posted by: Darren | April 18, 2007 09:05 AM