This is a cool new podcast that my friend Luke T. Harrington started. He wants to interview people that have changed their minds on something big. He said something about wanting the show to be 5% information and 95% therapy for him. I'm still trying to figure out how it's going to be therapy for him!
Ian Barrs is also a friend of mine, though we haven't met in person yet. Gotta love the Internet yet again. I don't know many British expatriate types, who moved to America, dabbled in politics, and are now literally making themselves useful on local Christian radio, hoping to talk fruitfully about issues of concern to that audience and beyond. Suffice to say, Ian is an interesting guy.
I will also very shortly have my own interview episode appear from the show, so that should be exciting. I had loads of fun doing it. Luke is a talented and generous presenter and host, a good interviewer. I think I kinda steamrolled him personally, but hopefully it will be okay. Anyway, I wanted to share some thoughts about Ian's episode.
Ian changed his mind about gun control. He used to think much like other British people, that we Americans are crazy, and would stand to benefit from a similar regime of regulations as exists in the UK. He says he began to research it before he left Britain, and had already mostly changed his mind. I think that I agree with Ian more than I disagree, so I didn't anticipate changing my mind on this occasion.
The most persuasive part of Ian's argument centers around the consideration of judicious armed self-defense. He points out that in Britain right now, it is it illegal to carry anything that could plausibly be used in self-defense. To me, this is extreme; before I move to a consideration of firearms themselves, I think it unwise to preemptively and so strictly limit safety measures taken in self-defense. I think people should be allowed to carry pepper spray, knives, and definitely other non-lethal things, to be used in self-defense. It does seem to be some part of the notion of liberty to be able to act prudently in self-defense, or in defense of others.
As I am sure you know, the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. I choose at this time to sidestep the question as to whether recent conservative jurisprudence has invented a more individual right than the framers intended. Suffice to say, I leave it as a matter of prudence for each individual citizen to calculate the wisdom and prudence of a handgun for self-defense, and rifles and pistols for hunting and target shooting. Guns are used judiciously and prudently all over the country every day without incident. Of course we know that mass shootings seem to happen with some frequency, and we know that social isolation plays a huge role in the lives of those who choose to commit such a heinous crime. I appreciated both men in their sensitivity toward this issue, noting that it would be good for the advocates of gun rights and the advocates of gun control to talk to one another, and to be more aware of the misfortunes and tragedies of those on the other side of the issue.
They also noted that the issue breaks down, as do many things today, along the familiar urban-rural divide which roughly sketches our politics. The use of a firearm in Montana is going to look different than the use of the same firearm in Chicago. I am absolutely in favor of city and state governments being able to impose whatever regulations those communities deem necessary for the safe exercise of this right. In my personal opinion, we have not reckoned well with mental health, and done what is necessary to prevent severe social isolation, which sometimes tends to lead to violence. Each person who contemplates exercising his or her right to bear arms must also contemplate the risk and danger of accidents, suicides, and the small but non-negligible risk that he or she will be killed with their own gun in the commission of a crime. I have no intention of telling anyone what to do, with respect to this right, but I am fully aware that people's experiences impact the way they think about the Second Amendment, and the right it articulates.
I am less inclined to support strict gun control in light of the recent high-profile incidents of police brutality and murder. Total trust in the police as the apparatus of the state seems particularly foolhardy. As a side note, I have the soul of a defense attorney, and I don't think that will ever leave me. This is not to say that I do not carry a great respect for good police, all the way up to the FBI. It is to say that unwavering trust in any human institution is probably unwise.
There seems to be room within Ian's position to argue for more regulation than we have now, for the use of firearms. I appreciated what he said about the United States having a unique culture that will probably disallow the kinds of regulations that exist in the United Kingdom. It is also prudent to recognize that no safety measures related to this particular right will succeed legislatively without the support of those who are advocates of gun rights. I myself do not believe that every advocate of the Second Amendment is careless or callous about the tragic outcomes that may come to pass involving firearms. I do not believe that anyone wants more dead innocent people in the streets. Abuse does not negate proper use. Therefore, it is for us to decide as citizens what those proper uses should be. Let us have our eyes open to the reality on every side of the impact of guns. It should be possible to come to agree on things that we can do better to keep ourselves safe. That is, safe from harm without, and safe from harm from within.
Both men come to us as listeners as fathers and husbands, and therefore, did talk about the responsibility to protect their families, which potentially could change the moral calculus of whether to accept being a victim of someone else's violence. It would be easy for me as a single person to say, "I won't fight back; do as you will", but if I were protecting someone--if I had the responsibility to protect someone else--I cannot so easily conclude that my best way forward is a heroic martyrdom. Whether that means I should use a firearm is debatable, but the questions do highlight the potential problems with a lazy pacifism.
I do also appreciate the existential questions that Luke asks at the end of each interview. What is identity? What is truth? How does one know one has found it? Is it possible to know truth? Even if the particular interview is not about these things--which mine is, sadly for you--it's interesting so far to hear what people say. Ian says he is not a philosopher, but it's almost like he stumbled into St. Thomas Aquinas, on his way to not being a philosopher. I had the thought that I wouldn't mind listening to him on other subjects, especially knowing that we seem to have a very similar worldview.
My interview--about going from a Protestant to a Catholic--should be up soon. I thought mine was a bunch of rambling nonsense, but hopefully Luke can make something out of it in the editing process. I do certainly wish Luke great success in this project, and his other ones. I wish the same for Ian as well.
Ian Barrs is also a friend of mine, though we haven't met in person yet. Gotta love the Internet yet again. I don't know many British expatriate types, who moved to America, dabbled in politics, and are now literally making themselves useful on local Christian radio, hoping to talk fruitfully about issues of concern to that audience and beyond. Suffice to say, Ian is an interesting guy.
I will also very shortly have my own interview episode appear from the show, so that should be exciting. I had loads of fun doing it. Luke is a talented and generous presenter and host, a good interviewer. I think I kinda steamrolled him personally, but hopefully it will be okay. Anyway, I wanted to share some thoughts about Ian's episode.
Ian changed his mind about gun control. He used to think much like other British people, that we Americans are crazy, and would stand to benefit from a similar regime of regulations as exists in the UK. He says he began to research it before he left Britain, and had already mostly changed his mind. I think that I agree with Ian more than I disagree, so I didn't anticipate changing my mind on this occasion.
The most persuasive part of Ian's argument centers around the consideration of judicious armed self-defense. He points out that in Britain right now, it is it illegal to carry anything that could plausibly be used in self-defense. To me, this is extreme; before I move to a consideration of firearms themselves, I think it unwise to preemptively and so strictly limit safety measures taken in self-defense. I think people should be allowed to carry pepper spray, knives, and definitely other non-lethal things, to be used in self-defense. It does seem to be some part of the notion of liberty to be able to act prudently in self-defense, or in defense of others.
As I am sure you know, the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. I choose at this time to sidestep the question as to whether recent conservative jurisprudence has invented a more individual right than the framers intended. Suffice to say, I leave it as a matter of prudence for each individual citizen to calculate the wisdom and prudence of a handgun for self-defense, and rifles and pistols for hunting and target shooting. Guns are used judiciously and prudently all over the country every day without incident. Of course we know that mass shootings seem to happen with some frequency, and we know that social isolation plays a huge role in the lives of those who choose to commit such a heinous crime. I appreciated both men in their sensitivity toward this issue, noting that it would be good for the advocates of gun rights and the advocates of gun control to talk to one another, and to be more aware of the misfortunes and tragedies of those on the other side of the issue.
They also noted that the issue breaks down, as do many things today, along the familiar urban-rural divide which roughly sketches our politics. The use of a firearm in Montana is going to look different than the use of the same firearm in Chicago. I am absolutely in favor of city and state governments being able to impose whatever regulations those communities deem necessary for the safe exercise of this right. In my personal opinion, we have not reckoned well with mental health, and done what is necessary to prevent severe social isolation, which sometimes tends to lead to violence. Each person who contemplates exercising his or her right to bear arms must also contemplate the risk and danger of accidents, suicides, and the small but non-negligible risk that he or she will be killed with their own gun in the commission of a crime. I have no intention of telling anyone what to do, with respect to this right, but I am fully aware that people's experiences impact the way they think about the Second Amendment, and the right it articulates.
I am less inclined to support strict gun control in light of the recent high-profile incidents of police brutality and murder. Total trust in the police as the apparatus of the state seems particularly foolhardy. As a side note, I have the soul of a defense attorney, and I don't think that will ever leave me. This is not to say that I do not carry a great respect for good police, all the way up to the FBI. It is to say that unwavering trust in any human institution is probably unwise.
There seems to be room within Ian's position to argue for more regulation than we have now, for the use of firearms. I appreciated what he said about the United States having a unique culture that will probably disallow the kinds of regulations that exist in the United Kingdom. It is also prudent to recognize that no safety measures related to this particular right will succeed legislatively without the support of those who are advocates of gun rights. I myself do not believe that every advocate of the Second Amendment is careless or callous about the tragic outcomes that may come to pass involving firearms. I do not believe that anyone wants more dead innocent people in the streets. Abuse does not negate proper use. Therefore, it is for us to decide as citizens what those proper uses should be. Let us have our eyes open to the reality on every side of the impact of guns. It should be possible to come to agree on things that we can do better to keep ourselves safe. That is, safe from harm without, and safe from harm from within.
Both men come to us as listeners as fathers and husbands, and therefore, did talk about the responsibility to protect their families, which potentially could change the moral calculus of whether to accept being a victim of someone else's violence. It would be easy for me as a single person to say, "I won't fight back; do as you will", but if I were protecting someone--if I had the responsibility to protect someone else--I cannot so easily conclude that my best way forward is a heroic martyrdom. Whether that means I should use a firearm is debatable, but the questions do highlight the potential problems with a lazy pacifism.
I do also appreciate the existential questions that Luke asks at the end of each interview. What is identity? What is truth? How does one know one has found it? Is it possible to know truth? Even if the particular interview is not about these things--which mine is, sadly for you--it's interesting so far to hear what people say. Ian says he is not a philosopher, but it's almost like he stumbled into St. Thomas Aquinas, on his way to not being a philosopher. I had the thought that I wouldn't mind listening to him on other subjects, especially knowing that we seem to have a very similar worldview.
My interview--about going from a Protestant to a Catholic--should be up soon. I thought mine was a bunch of rambling nonsense, but hopefully Luke can make something out of it in the editing process. I do certainly wish Luke great success in this project, and his other ones. I wish the same for Ian as well.
Comments