Guns, vigilantism, and original sin

Guns, vigilantism, and original sin November 4, 2015

This is, as you’re likely used to by now, one of my more fact-free posts, in which I try to make connections without a heck of a lot of research.  But I wrote about guns the other day, and as a result of the comments to that piece, and some other things I’ve been reading, am thinking the following:

Yes, there is data to be found and analyzed with respect to concealed carry, and the overall impact of gun-ownership by people who, as far as we can tell, are law-abiding.  (Because we all agree that criminals shouldn’t have guns, and wouldn’t have any respect for “gun-free zones” or the like anyway.)  But it seems to me that we’re more likely to view the data in one way or another based on our prior attitudes about human nature, in general.

To put it simply:  do you believe more strongly that

“anyone can snap” or that

“anyone can be a hero”?

“Anyone can snap” = you’re likely to believe that people who acquire guns for self-defense purposes have a high likelihood of getting caught up in some quarrel or another and committing a crime.  Or, even if not, you may misjudge a situation and think you’re defending yourself or others, when there was no real risk.

“Anyone can be a hero” = you do believe that people can successfully use their concealed-carry weapon to protect themselves or others, and believe that the large majority of people, well, are not at risk of the “anyone can snap” behavior.

Here are two reports on an incident in Chicago over the weekend: “Store employees grateful for customer who killed robber,” in the Chicago Tribune, and “Concealed gun permit holder fatally shoots suspected robber during Chicago stickup,” from the Washington Post (it’s the beginning of the month so I can read articles there again).

In the first, the story is told plainly; the robber of a convenience store held a gun and appeared to be threatening the employees’ lives, so a customer shot him, leaving the employees grateful, even though it turned out the robber (who had a long criminal record) only had a paintball gun.  In the second, there’s much more second-guessing, with the author asking whether it may have been a Halloween prank (even though there’s nothing in the description of the event to suggest that) and quoting family suggesting that the shooter should have merely wounded him.

I’m not suggesting an answer here.  It’s just striking to me.  I labelled the post “guns, vigilantism, and original sin” because I wonder whether these reactions tie in, in some way, to our personal thoughts on the latter, and whether we think that all people have within them an inherent evil or goodness.

As always, for your consideration and comments.


Browse Our Archives