Yesterday I asked readers to make a positive case for the value of guns. Thanks to everyone who contributed; it was one of the most heavily commented upon posts ever for this blog.
Here’s a recap of what people said. Guns are valuable for:
- The exercise of power, both physical and psychological, over others
- Hunting, both for sport and for food
- The application of force
There were lots of qualifications and explanations, but the value added by guns reduced to these three goods, the first and third of which are quite similar, and the second of which seems to be an instance of both one and three.
I also asked by junior high students yesterday to list things a gun is good for, and the items on their list all fall within these three (their first item was vidid and telling: guns are good for threatening people–a clear example of exercising power).
Murphy got to the heart of the matter: guns are for the exercise of force, and force has a value all its own. Today, let’s tackle that question: what is the value of force?
Surely someone will point out that there are different kinds of force. Surely someone will point out the different ways people exercise force, from compelling their child to obey to shooting someone to funding wars through taxes.
What say you? What is the value of force? Where and when is it most valuable?
YoRocko! 
One value of force is keeping people safe (police patrolling the streets, parent grabbing their child as the child walks in front of a car, punishing a child by grounding him/her after he/she snuck out, etc). This may also come under “keeping order” in order to maintain a “civil” society?
Public safety and the preservation of order: check. Thanks Eric.
To restrain evil. In a fallen world, there are some who would wish to do harm to others. The threat of force can be a restraint. Actual force (whether preemptive or reactive) can be a restraint. Reactive force (when someone has already done harm), can prevent more harm. Preemptive force can prevent harm to many by bringing harm to one or a few.
Jimmy Stochl, taking a break from Spring Training to post a comment on my blog! I’m honored, sir. So add restraint by way of threat or reaction (is that deterrence?) and prevention of harm to others. Thoughtful and specific. I would expect nothing less from you.
Recently, my wife has read and then re-read a book by Harvard psychologist Martha Stout, entitled The Sociopath Next Door. Her shared insights and the segments that I’ve read have had a profound impact on my/our worldview. The most disturbing of Stout’s assertions is that up to 4% of the population fit the description. That is, one of 25 people physically/developmentally lacks a conscience. They are incapable of empathy or true love for other people. One in 25 teachers, one in 25 clergy, one in 25 businesspersons and so on, though I’m guessing that some professions draw a little higher percentage, ie. politicians. One of the defining characteristics is that sociopaths (here is how it relates to the blog topic) get off on dominating others.
If Stout’s estimates are correct, then we really shouldn’t be shocked at the pervasiveness of evil through forceful acts that so regularly upset us. In fact, it’s almost shocking that with all of our “freedom”, there aren’t more of these acts. Furthermore, I’m finding it much easier to compartmentalize the notion of a fallen world. How can we fault someone who is incapable of love? The best we can do is distance ourselves from them to avoid the imposition of their will upon us. Of course, the danger in this is that we’re finding it easy to pass off the behaviors of those around us that we don’t like as sociopathic (especially our son’s English teacher).
I’m good with Jim’s reactive and preemptive force….maybe that is what we (I’m throwing myself in with the 96% because I cry when I watch ET) are tasked to do when confronted with the forceful actions of those S.N.D.s.
Brother Randles, throwing his highly informed weight behind the value of force applied both preemptively and re-actively, especially in restraining the actions of sociopaths, who, disturbingly, are many.
there is pure force…like killing someone, or using a tazer..to complete stop someone from doing something they are intent on doing.
But most of the time, force is used to convince a person to decide for themselves to do something else… to change their course of action.
I’m trying to finish SND right now. I am convinced that a former friend was one of those sociopaths. He is not particularly criminal in his choices, but he dramatically affects the people around him because those people bend their minds to justify his actions. “It’s because…” and “He has reasons for doing what he does and it is my job as a friend to be kind and merciful.” And one of his (girl)friends has twisted herself into knots trying to justify his behavior towards her.
SHE chose to stick around this guy. He made his choices and she complies. She twisted herself to find a way to make it right. And nothing I can do can convince her otherwise.
The force that other use on us is nothing compared to the force we use on ourselves.
I suppose we could divide force into two categories: physical and logical. A rhetorial argument can be incredibly motivating.
Physical force is usually combined with a logical argument to persuade a person of another path.
Okay, SND is on the book list
oh yeah.. I like what Jim said
Why doesn’t God use force on us? Why doesn’t He just put a gun to our heads and demand belief?
Dispersions have been cast on claims for the value of force by Ron. Welcome to the party, Ron.
Violent force is one thing, but there are other forms of force… Economic force has led to a great deal of sin (poor Fantine!!!!). And boycotts and protests could be forms of non-violent force, couldn’t they?
Absolutely. Coercion is force, and that’s what all advertising is, right?
the threat of force is a really positive thing. The rule of law is something that makes everyone cooperate. When their in confusion about what the law is, or how it will be enforced, people tend to start shuffling around and see what they can get away with.
riots, protests…
But the rule of law (which is the threat of force, really, up to and including exercising deadly force) keeps things safe. Which is why we are mostly glad to have the rule of law in place.
Keeping it fair, to protect liberty, is where the balance must be struck. And it is hard to maintain it.
God *does* a form of holding a gun to our head. We cannot step off a cliff without encountering the consequence of gravity.
that’s a use of force.
His laws tend to have their own consequences
Apart from military or law enforcement I can see me value in force. Defending yourself too often turns into a horrible tragedy.
Military and law enforcement are defense of others, right?