The title actually begs the question what is evil. I mostly chose that word as a tie in to last months post but I intend to sidestep the question altogether and focus on the question "how should we respond to things we don't like". This avoids the tricky value judgments associated with the principle that one persons trash is another persons treasure. The news has recently presented several examples of people taking extreme responses to things they don't like. As I live in the United States the news articles I have been faced with the most are the Orlando Night club shooting and the British politician killed for her position. To be clear I believe deeply that these actions are unacceptable responses to things that the perpetrators did not like. I have no desire to make a place for the violence represented by those examples in my life. However, I am faced with reconciling the principles that I advocated in my post on social media where I encourage everyone to make the maximum possible space for all perspectives and the pronouncement from the pro-immigration advocate Angela Merkel, whom I respect, that multiculturalism in Germany is a failed experiment.
In order to gain some perspective on the issue I spoke with a co-worker who is a gun rights advocate. (I am generally not, although my unique perspectives on the matter are probably the source of another post) Specifically we talked about his perspective on what could have gone differently in the Orlando night club shooting. He did mention in passing that if there were more opposing gunmen that the shooter would have had more trouble. (true) In actuality there was one off duty police officer paid by the club who was armed but he wasn't at the door screening people. He was the reason that the gunman retreated to the bathrooms so quickly and he was also likely the reason that two additional officers showed up within 5 minutes but he wasn't enough to protect people in the bathrooms or bring a conclusion to the standoff in less than three hours. He didn't have a good response to the concern I raised about drunk people with guns but the point he did make was the "No guns allowed" club policy and the bouncer at the door was enforcing no guns meant that no armed presence was protecting the perimeter. From a shooters perspective this made the club a "soft target". The alternate solution to arming patrons would be to place armed guards at the boundaries of soft targets to ensure that everyone who could gain entry are adequately defended. We also talked about gun control and what effect if any an assault weapons ban might have had on the shooters effectiveness. He made two points. First, the genie is out of the bottle. The number of available privately owned assault weapons in the United States would arm most small countries. Additionally, he makes the argument that two pistols with adequate clips would have worked just as effectively as the assault rifle used by the shooter. He said that pistols would cause equal damage, be easier to conceal, and have more maneuverability in close quarters. I find myself somewhat skeptical of this but he has significant experience shooting pistols and is qualified to describe their capabilities. In the end I am forced to agree that in a world where gun ownership is at best marginally regulated then everyone should be allowed an equal footing. The equal footing being to either allow all people to carry guns at all times or create armed guards around soft target zones who will protect these zones with their lives or better the life of the attacker.
To me perimeter guards on soft targets or a fully armed populace paints a picture of a society at war with itself. I was thinking about this when the article from 538 came out showing that terrorism dropped in 2015 from 2014. The article correctly states that terrorism is growing in the west but the amount of terrorist caused deaths in the west are dwarfed by the terrorism in Africa and the Middle East. While Israel has a reputation for being an armed society most of the other countries in this region do not generally allow for an armed populace. This means that a significant portion of the population in this area go around with a much higher chance of being targeted in a terrorist attack than I do and yet do not actively arm themselves in response. I want to admire this attitude but I'm not sure I should. I am unsure of how many of these unarmed people would arm themselves if it were allowed but do not feel they have that option. Do people in that circumstance wish to be pitied? Would they wish to be rescued if it meant being required to live as (poverty stricken) united states citizens afterward? (the fate of american refugees) In either case I wonder if I could stay in a country with that high a risk of terrorist attack? In truth I feel for the victims and the families of the Orlando night club shooting and the victim and family of the British politicians murder but still don't feel personally at risk for that type of action. I explain away the risk by identifying differences. (Not life style or ideology but the fact that I don't go clubbing and I'm not running for office.) I find that I cannot label either of these explanations brave. Rather just the opposite is true. I hide my head in the sand. How would I act if I truly appreciated the risk? I suppose that I will run into gun violence at some point. I definitely don't feel free to wander all times and through all corners of our society.
There is a third possibility, other than living in an armed camp or co-existing with violence beyond my control. The third option is to create or find a society within which I could live without threat of violence. Quite often anti-gun advocates state that this is the very thing they are working for. At this point it almost feels like the theme music for such a platform should be provided by the Beach Boys. Since this society would be a soft target would it be too soft to defend itself against outside influences? Would this society necessitate controls on human thought and emotion to the point where I lost my ability to contribute as an individual? While the idea of living inside a society without violence is appealing, all obvious mechanisms to enforce such a thing quickly provide a slippery conceptual slope to a society that I'm not sure I would like. I suppose that if each person in a society were to voluntarily choose non-violence this would be the best case but how can you measure that? How could you ensure future compliance with present attitudes in an ever changing world? At this point the most obvious available current mechanism is the rule of law. My perspective on this is the implementation of the rule of law independent of interpretation from principles. By this I mean that we all bring some level of personal bias and deeply held principles or emotions to our reading of the Law(s) but as we are so wonderfully diverse that the implementation is better managed dispassionately. If there is sufficient disagreement with either the law or the impact of its implementation and we only use the mechanisms provided by law to change the law we are still representing behavior within the law. I believe this to be the best possible compromise society.
In the end I am forced to conclude that as we observe people attending a "soft target" night club where the gun exclusion is both enforced without threat of violence at the door and patrons are generally compliant with the rule we are observing acts of heroism. I suppose in the selection of a nights activities it was not top of mind for the Orlando night club victims to select opportunities to preform an act of heroism but this choice represents the embodiment of the statement from FDR that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Each of those Orlando nightclub patrons did select in a visible way to live their life in joy and not fear. The British politician was specifically standing up for her beliefs rather than allowing her fears to block her contribution. I do not think that the reality of their fear during the actions of the vile attacker(s) makes their heroism any less real. I do believe that the world is a more peaceful place when advocates of peace advocate for support, peace, and welcome to the world around them. This is no less effective in a positive direction than the negative influence of fear and violence brought by the preachers and actors of hate, anger, and exclusion. Can both parties co-exist? Despite some misgivings I suppose they must. The alternative to coexistence is worse. In the end I think that the only realistic control that can be applied to a society is where individuals and groups have not agreed in principle is the rule of law. Principles cannot and should not be enforced. In some ways enforcement of principle through manipulation of laws may be the most pernicious of sins. I didn't expect to end here when I started thinking about this but in a strange way I am advocating the status quo for the United States and most 1st world countries. This does not mean that I approve of violence but that I believe the struggle for non-violence solutions should occur on an ideological and voluntary level as long as people are willing to abide by the rule of law. Each of us who chooses to live, cooperate with others not like ourselves, and support the rule of law should see those actions as heroic. While the effect is subtle I believe it to have equal power to hate and exclusion.
