This one goes out to all of the anti-rights cultists and "gun control" extremists out there, courtesy of Major Caudill Marko:
We can argue any or all of the points above for hours, but there’s one thing that, on a philosophical level, you will never be able to make me concede:
That intentionally making yourself weaker in the face of danger and aggression is somehow more civilized, moral, intelligent, or enlightened.
You’re not the better human by not fighting back. You’re not the better human for choosing to have no claws or teeth. You’re not the better human for delegating responsibility your personal safety to some underpaid guy or girl with a tin badge. And you damn sure don’t get to claim a halo for your attitude.
(Emphasis in the original.)
To expand on Marko’s point (especially the one he brings up at the end of his post), you are demonstrably less civilized, moral, intelligent, and/or enlightened if you force people – against their will – to disarm in the face of animals and humans who wish to do them harm. There have always been predators. There are always predators. There will always be predators. So long as cellular life runs/crawls/squirms its way around this planet, those three statements will remain true. However, rather than simply succumb to a world where the bigger/badder/faster/stronger predator gets what the bigger/badder/faster/stronger predator wants simply because he is bigger/badder/faster/stronger, we thinking, reasoning, rational (at times) human beings have employed that squishy gray stuff between our ears to develop tools to allow the smaller/nicer/slower/weaker members of our species to exist in our world, content in the knowledge that they would be capable of defending themselves should the situation demand it.
Stripping the capability of self-defense from people without recourse or reason turns us back to the world where the bigger/badder/faster/stronger get what they want, and the smaller/nicer/slower/weaker get screwed. That is not civilized, moral, intelligent, or enlightened.
I have long-since maintained we need to come up with a single, unifying term for "people who force other people to involuntarily be victims for predators". "Victimizers" are typically the predators preying on the victims in question, while "accessory", "accomplice", "facilitator", "abettor", and all the rest of those all lack the psychological "oomph" I am looking for, and "cowardly scumbags who want the government to disarm potential victims in the face of known predatory threats" is just too damned long to repeatedly type out.
I have long-since maintained we need to come up with a single, unifying term for “people who force other people to involuntarily be victims for predators”.
I doubt it would catch on, but I like to call them “Crime Groomers,” akin to those who groom children for sexual abuse.
Perhaps others can find a better term, but I believe that’s exactly the kind of gut reaction you’re looking for.
Well said. From a pure Darwinian point-of-view, those of uswho choose to defend ourselves have a better chance of passing our genes on to future generations. Perhaps we should look at self-defense as a means of improving humanity by removing poor material from the gene pool.
Just say’n.
How about plain old “bully”?
@ Ace:
They aren’t “bullies” per se: while they take great delight in imposing their rules on you, they want OTHER people to do the forcing thing.
You have rules about language here, that kind of cuts back sharply on what I’d like to call them.
@Sendarius: “cowardly bullies”? Or, showing off our edumacation, “pusillanimous bullies”?
Perhaps “bullies by proxy” or “thugs by proxy”?
@Chad: Agreed.
A definition for “bully” is: “To force one’s way aggressively or by intimidation.”
And since Linoge talks about “people who force other people to involuntarily be victims for predators,” I’m kinda going for that particular definition.
Ace wrote:
Sounds like “bully by proxy” is pretty close.
However, Sendarius is correct, which is why I have been using John’s “by proxy” to make it clear that most of these people are not opposed to violence at all, even gun violence. They simply wish to keep themselves free of dirty hands and dirty souls, at least in their own minds.
I think of them, however, (and sometimes speak of them) as “OSHA for Predators.” I don’t know that OSHAP has any “oomph” though.
“Bully by proxy” works, but I think is still missing the emotional resonance we’re looking for.
“Terrorists”? They also use scare tactics to advance their agenda. It’s emotionally loaded.
Walking AIDS viruses?
@ Erin Palette: That is exactly the kind of emotionally-laden phrase I was looking for… Though, I have to admit, I had to look up what it actually meant myself (and now I wish I had not), so I am not sure how well it would catch on in total. “Victim Groomer”?
Hm. Of course, it all depends on how much we use the phrase ourselves – after all, “‘gun control’ extremist” and “anti-rights cultists” are only catching on at various other pro-rights weblogs simply because I keep beating both phrases into the dirt
.
@ MAJ Mike: While I personally hate the analogy, there is something to be said for the truth that “gun control” extremists are incapable of distinguishing predatory violence from protective violence, just like sheep are unable to tell a dog from a wolf – both have teeth. In the extremists’ world, getting rid of us will improve the gene pool just as much as getting rid of criminals will in that we both are “potentially violent” subsets of the whole, so one would have to be careful with that particular angle.
@ Ace: Honestly, I think that hearkens too much back to the playground days, which diminishes the impact of the depravity of these people.
@ Sendarius: Yeah, it is the “from a distance” that makes this difficult.
@ Chad: Hey, I have to constrain myself too
.
@ John Hardin: The “by proxy” element has merit; after all, this does not have to be a single word, just a relatively short-ish phrase.
@ kfg: And that is the clincher – by advocating laws forcibly disarming citizens, they are not disdaining violence – they are encouraging it, both in terms of criminals preying on the defenseless, and the government executing those laws. They are not blameless, and I would definitely like this phrase to reflect that.
@ AuricTech: The concept has merit (in that they weaken people’s defenses so opportunistic predators can strike), but we may be mixing topics too much.