Blood in the streets
Sean linked to a…well, I guess I’ll call it a screed…by one Chris Fitzsimon, complaining about some aspects of the new gun laws that took effect here in NC. I’m not going to go into the specifics and refute his assertions; Sean has done a much better job of that. But one paragraph stood out for me from Chris’ diatribe:
It’s probably not a good idea to argue with a stranger over a parking space at a state park or confront a reckless cyclist on your local greenway. They might have a loaded handgun hidden in their belt.
For those of you new to the gun rights arena, this is the latest incarnation of the classic “Blood in the Streets” meme. I am first aware of in 1987 when Florida began the movement toward modern, shall-issue concealed carry. It posits that once law abiding individuals (law abiding by definition, remember, in order to be eligible for a permit) have ready access to concealed weapons, they will immediately abandon all previously used mechanisms for conflict resolution, and instead will begin a conflict resolution strategy wherein one murders the individual with whom one is in conflict with. For example, in the aforementioned parking space conflict, the previously law abiding citizen will, for some reason, murder the individual attempting to take his or her parking spot, and then presumably resume his or her shopping. This may be an example of guns inciting violence, as Joe Huffman documents here.
The fact that this never happens does not seem to diminish the concern of the anti-gun crowd. The meme was originally applied at the state level, as more and more states adopted modern concealed carry, but inasmuch as 49 out of 50 states allow some form of concealed carry, the anti-gunners are running out of states to apply the meme to. It seems that the new theory is that the meme applies, not at the state level as previously thought, but rather in micro-environments such as parks and playgrounds. Thus, allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons in playgrounds will trigger the previously described change in conflict resolution, and when little Johnny wants to use the swing that little Suzy is on, the citizen will simply murder parent and child and allow little Johnny to use the swing. As you can see, this is much more likely than the “taking turns” conflict resolution strategy currently in place in most playgrounds.
All kidding aside, what kind of a view of the world do you have to have in order to believe this crap? That lurking in each and every one of us is the potential, nay, the desire, to murder our fellow citizens over trivial matters. It is only good folks like Chris Fitzsimon who keep us safe by…making it illeager? Or something…
One of the things that I have picked up in watching and reading the interviews with Jerry Sandusky is that he really doesn’t get how creepy he sounds. He thinks that it is perfectly natural that a grown man would shower with adolescent boys, and that showering would involve “horsing around.” In his view of the universe, that is natural behavior between grown men and boys. In Chris’ view, the natural order of things is that people kill each other over trivial matters, and he and his ilk stand as vanguards preventing the natural order.
And I find that just as creepy.