necessarily going to put a stop to it. I look around and see a lot of
Third World countries where, if the citizens had weapons, they
wouldn’t have the government they’ve got. So I think that maybe
people are being a little short-sighted in arguing for gun control and
at the same time realizing that the government they’ve got is not
exactly a benign one.
Your point illustrates exactly what I think is a major fallacy. The
government is far from benign—that’s true. On the other hand, it’s
at least partially accountable, and it can become as benign as we
make it.
What’s not benign (what’s extremely harmful, in fact) is
something you didn’t mention—business power, which is highly
concentrated and, by now, largely transnational. Business power is
very far from benign and it’s completely unaccountable. It’s a
totalitarian system that has an enormous effect on our lives. It’s also
the main reason why the government isn’t benign.
As for guns being the way to respond to this, that’s outlandish.
First of all, this is not a weak Third World country. If people have
pistols, the government has tanks. If people get tanks, the
government has atomic weapons. There’s no way to deal with these
issues by violent force, even if you think that that’s morally
legitimate.
Guns in the hands of American citizens are not going to make the
country more benign. They’re going to make it more brutal, ruthless
and destructive. So while one can recognize the motivation that lies
behind some of the opposition to gun control, I think it’s sadly
misguided.
Becoming a Third World country
A recent Census Bureau report stated that there’s been a 50%
increase in the working poor—that is, people who have jobs but are
still below the poverty level.
That’s part of the Third-Worldization of the society. It’s not just