Brass Pill Step 1: Steelmanning the case against Guns

Previously on Brass Pill...

Purpose

​The purpose of this Brass Pill series is to fully articulate the series of logical reasonings that led me to responsible firearm ownership.

Intentions

Part of my hope for this series is to help bridge the gap between the public and the pro firearms community.

With that in mind, I want to start in a place where any firearm skeptic can get onboard. 

This is the same place where I began before my journey down the brass paved road.

If we can start side by side and have agreement on every logical step…  

You may be surprised on where we end up!

Let’s begin.

​Steelmanning the case against guns

There are many reasons to be skeptical about guns, but I believe the majority of them fall under the concern of power.

Safety is also a reason, however I think the concept of safety is a function of the perceived power of guns.
​
With that said, here’s the case against guns:

Guns are too powerful to be owned by citizens.

Reasoning

Do you think a regular citizen should be able to own a nuclear weapon?

Probably not, right?

But why not, exactly?
​
I believe it’s due to the potential body count.  Millions of lives in the hands of a single citizen is too much power.

Do you think people should be able to own pepper spray?

Probably ok right?

It’s completely on the other side of the power spectrum. It’s non lethal and can only harm a handful of people in close proximity. Its power is limited.

​The power of a weapon seems to be related to the number of people it can harm and its lethality.

The more people it can harm, and the more lethal, the more powerful the weapon. 

So the real question is…  how much power is too much power for one citizen?

Note: The reason why I use the word “citizen” instead of person is because some gun skeptics believe that certain people, ie law enforcement, should still be able to own and carry guns. We’ll address this later in the series.

​How much power is too much power?

This question is broad, but we can better clarify the lines in the sand by asking a hypothetical.

Should a single citizen have the power to end another person’s life?

Phrased this way… this intuitievely is too much power for a single citizen, which is why we have juries to decide things like the death penalty.

And if the answer is no… then it makes sense that a gun, which has the ability to end a life…

Is too powerful to be owned by a single citizen.

​Closing notes:

If you’re a gun skeptic and agreed with the reasonings above… then great! 

We’re on common ground and can walk together down the brass paved road with the rest of this series. 

If you have comments or have other gun skeptic reasons that do not fall under the umbrella of “power” then I’d like to hear them.

If you’re pro firearm, I think this steelmanning exercise can be helpful.

​It helps me understand where other people are coming from… and creates a foundation on building the bridge to a pro firearm mindset.

Next time on Brass Pill

We’ll be breaking down why 

Should a single citizen have the power to end another person’s life?

Isn’t actually that clear to answer…

Consider… abortion.