Back to gun-free zones, I think that there is a cargo cult
thought pattern at work. The purpose of carrying weapons for virtually everyone
who does is to be ready for self-protection at a moment’s notice. That speaks
of a sense of insecurity, because if one truly felt secure then one would not
bother lugging around multiple pounds of metal on their person. It is the rare
individuals who comprise the “virtually” qualification that drive the perceived
need. A safe place could be defined as where the perceived need for a weapon
would disappear as no aberrant individuals could possibly be about. A place
that truly felt secure to all present would de
facto be a gun free zone.
So a safe place is a place where people don’t
have a need for weapons. For a long time we in America have been accustomed to
that sense of safety and security, even to the point of feeling violated when
reminded that it is not absolute. Some refer to that feeling of violation as
hoplophobia, the irrational fear of weapons and those who wield them. People
crave the security we have when weapons are not necessary. True security is
difficult and even show security is intrusive (looking at you, TSA). So why not
cut to the chase and mandate de jure
acting as if a place is secure. If you don’t allow guns, then no one will see
guns and not be reminded that there is a reason to feel insecure. They’ll never
see the gun until they come face to face with a person who is not part of
“virtually everyone”. Not feeling insecure is a far cry from being as secure as
possible, and that is the failure of the cargo cult reasoning at work.
No comments:
Post a Comment