When the Cause Goes Too Far
by Robert Russo
At Virginia Tech last Thursday the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (whom I have praised before) had an unusual guest speaker, the gun dealer who sold Seung-Hui Cho one of the handguns he used in the massacre. Eric Thompson of Green Bay, Wisconsin spoke respectfully and candidly at his own expense, although his very presence there sparked outrage among the administration and others. In the words of their spokesman "I find it terribly offensive to learn that the gun-seller of the weapons used in the Virginia Tech campus murders would set foot on this campus".*
The biggest threat to our Second Amendment rights is perception, which can also be our greatest tool. Gun owners are perceived as an isolated minority with outdated views apart from the rest of society, which is why they must be presented as ordinary people inseparable amongst our coworkers, classmates and friends. The SCCC achieves this by revealing to people just how commonplace the need for concealed carry is and that it is a precaution that divides no one. Gun lobbyists are also perceived as being heartless, trigger-happy extremists who care more about their right to bear arms than the lives of victims. Undying promotion of our cause by any means necessary is not enough to change this misconception. A finely-crafted message must accompany it, not for existing members like Mr. Thompson's audience, but for outsiders like the school's administration.
Just as it is wrong to think permit-holders are uncompassionate toward gun-related violence, oppose gun control and place their personal rights above human lives, it is a mistake to think gun manufacturers and retailers don't feel great pain and responsibility when their product is used in this way. They are not guiltless. Therefore it is important to set an example that they are not the unscrupulous monsters they've been made out to be, by remaining neutral tradesmen of their wares, not engaging in this fight to the shocking point where the supplier of a murderer's weapons is visiting the scene of the crime to make a political statement. Nothing this man could have said can make up for the negative press his appearance there has caused. It is an abuse of his position in this matter. People now have more reason to get the wrong idea about a legitimate student organization than they did before.
Any successful civil movement requires tact. When a talk show brings out the child molester or arsonist as a surprise guest that is sensationalism, not a cause against child abuse and arson. Many frustrated political activists like the NRA have made a habit of overzealousness, which leads to one-sided journalism giving people the impression we are obsessed and incapable of listening. Victims' families and friends feel like they are being opposed for feeling grief like it's a political position. The best use of an advocate's voice is not preaching to the choir but reaching out to the opposition, showing them we are human beings no different than them.
As libertarians we are responsible for tempering ourselves from being too political and Machiavellian in pursuing our goals. The only thing all permit-holders have in common is their mode of self-defense, so don't make the cause any more than that. Don't make it a sportsmen's club. Being right doesn't mean "cornering" our opposition, it means selling the point. Our opponents include devastated people who did not become this way by choice, and if we threaten this sentiment they will grapple with us forever. We must also take personal responsibility for the trends we start and face some difficult questions. Violence increasing among students because of the call to arms is a distinct possibility, more so than a gunman being stopped in self-defense. (Just as a licensed handgun being misused sends a huge political blow while saving a life with one makes barely a ripple.)
On an unrelated subject, I was amazed the university allowed this, saying "Free speech is a hallmark of university life".* No, it isn't. Students have zero say over academic decisions, whether it's a teacher's grade or dorm policy. The financial aid center operates as if all students are deaf and dumb. If an assembly this offensive to the administration was allowed to take place, why isn’t there an antiacademic league burning the school's flag and calling for the president's resignation? (or at least a change in the school menu). It is not for this administration that we should tread carefully but for ourselves. I read this story at www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/25/vatech.guns/index.html. The SCCC's take is at www.concealedcampus.org/eric_thompson.htm.
*http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/25/vatech.guns/index.html
Question of the Week: Strategically speaking, students arming for defense is not as easy a platform for the public to get behind than banning all guns. How can we improve our PR standing instead of simply fighting tooth and nail and making people more agitated? Send your opinions to russo@richmondliberty.org.
If you have topics of interest to libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!