“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
Statements like these got me thinking that there is a fundamental difference in how pro-gun and anti-gun people perceive “good” and “bad.” Pro-gun supporters say things that seem to suggest that they recognize that there are “bad” people in the world, people who would harm others, and so “good” people need to be able to own guns to protect themselves. In this sense, it can acceptable for good people to kill bad people, but not the other way around. The “goodness” or “badness” of the action comes from who’s doing it, not just what they do. Or rather, what they do is an expression of their inherent “badness,” implying that an inherently “good” person wouldn’t kill outside of “acceptable” reasons, like self defense.
Anti-gun people seem to take the position that the action, KILLING, is what is “bad” (if perhaps sometimes necessary), not the PERSON, and a “bad” action is not necessarily a reflection of the overall integrity of the person doing it. From this point of view, the world is not so neatly divided into “good” and “bad” people, but “average” and “extremes.” meaning anyone, even a generally “good” person, is capable of “doing bad,” i.e. killing. Or to put it another way, there is no inherent lifelong distinction between a “good” and “bad” person, except perhaps as defined by an accumulation of “good” or “bad” actions. Again, context matters (such as self defense), but this position implies that while the context defines the action, it does not necessarily define the person. (Ironically, I feel like this position is most in line with the expression “hate the sin, love the sinner,” a very Christian statement, yet I seem to see the more religious people supporting pro-gun ideas.)
These differences are significant. If you believe some people are inherently good and some inherently bad, you must either think there is a way to tell the difference (to determine who should have legal access to guns/be responsible for protecting others, and who should not), or you think there is no way to tell until a “bad” person acts, so everyone should have access and let the outcome be what it is. If you take the position that “good” people can do bad things, it seems more reasonable to limit guns because even the most well-intentioned person can cause harm. This is particularly true if you believe most people are decent and not prone to “bad” actions; this means “average” people may very well be the cause of much gun-related death, and the only way to be “responsible” is not keep a deadly weapon around that can endanger yourself and others.
I feel there must be psychology research into these issues that can suggest practical solutions (certainly, there’s plenty of philosophical debate about “evil”). But what do you think? Am I even on the right track with this line of thinking?
