This summer’s NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling overturned New York State’s law that gave the police discretion as to who demonstrated sufficient need to be allowed to carry a concealed handgun in public. People like Donald Trump were seen as being worthy in the Big Apple, while ordinary city residents got denied as a matter of course. The rest of the state varied, depending on the attitude of local law enforcement toward armed citizens. In this way, New York was much like California, another state in which one’s county of residence, fame, or donations to the sheriff are the deciding factors on being approved for a license.
This is all supposed to have changed, thanks to the Supreme Court, though the aforementioned states are doing their damnedest to obstruct the transition, but the notion that need ought to be the primary consideration with regard to who may own and carry what weapons remains a key tenet of the gun control philosophy.
I am reminded of my early days of discussing guns, gun rights, and gun control on-line, back when there was still a free-for-all on the Mikeb302000 blog. One of the regular participants was Dog Gone, whose choice of John Singer Sargent’s Madame X as an avatar was apt, regularly criticized anyone who identified as someone who carries a gun, calling for ever more restrictive laws on who may and may not be armed. This was amusing, since she herself had at one time legally carried a handgun, thanks to a stalker who was harassing her—she was attacked as vehemently for that by another gun control advocate who haunted that blog during her early days before she made it clear that she wanted to deny to others what she had enjoyed personally. She, of course, had demonstrated a need to protect herself from a danger that she faced right then. She was not, in her view, merely being prepared against the unlikely possible.
If only things were so simple. It would be lovely to go through my day without several extra pounds of metal and plastics hooked onto my belt—though I insist that I can count those as exercise weights. In this fantasy, those who wish harm upon me specifically or humanity in general and as a matter of opportunity would be polite enough to let us know in advance, allowing me the time necessary to collect appropriate weapons prior to the event. This scenario assumes that I would choose to attend, naturally.
At this point, the absurdity is too much even for pulp fiction. Good trainers in the art of self-defense will tell us that avoiding fights is the best way not to get shot. Barring special circumstances—the bad guy kidnapping one’s child, Rembrandt painting, or cat, for examples—if an armed confrontation is announced in advance, the best advice is to schedule other activities at other locations. What gun control advocates do not like to address is the fact that violence can happen at any time and in any place. It is not especially likely in most areas in the United States, but as the mass shootings that grab the headlines show, innocent plans for innocent locales are no protection—but being ready is. How much of a risk each of us face is a matter that we each must decide individually. I would not compel anyone to carry a gun who does not wish to do so, as long as I am left the right to choose for myself. Telling me, however, that I must await a specific need—a specific imminent threat—to justify carrying is to say that my value as a person is not greater than that of the ill intent of random wrongdoers.
But there is another major problem with this thinking of gun control advocates. Imagine for the moment that we could know in advance when bad incidents were to take place and nevertheless felt obliged to show up. What to do? Were this a movie scene, I would slide my pistol inside the waistband of my pants at the small of my back, throw on a tailored suit jacket, and depart with an accompanying soundtrack.
This is yet again the world of bad fiction. I have been carrying concealed handguns daily for some fifteen years, and I am surely not alone in declaring that while I know many things about the process, I learn new techniques now and then, and I still have to attend to what I am doing to make sure that the weapon is not printing against my covering garments and is secure in its holster, that the magazine remains seated and the grip within reach of my hand, and that I am monitoring my environment and avoiding trouble. These are skills that require regular practice, not magic granted to me upon finding the Shard of Need hidden in one of the many vaults of the gun control fortress.
The repeated demand from the anti-gun crowd that we show need before being armed is a negation of the concept of armed self-defense. It is, to borrow a thought from Jeff Cooper, the claim that all a would-be musician has to do is to pick up a guitar that is fortunately at hand and step immediately on stage, thus to be the next Alex Lifeson or Eddie Van Halen.
But gun control advocates are not Professor Harold Hill, and I for one am not fool enough to believe that skill becomes irrelevant if the need is dire.
Don't like abortions? Don't have one.
Don't like guns? Don't own one.