Firmin Debrabander in The Atlantic:

But there is an unfortunate lesson playing out for those who have armed themselves to feel safer—and for all of us, too. The gun-rights movement has worked hard to push an increasingly radical agenda that undermines both our personal safety and our civic fabric. To that extent, there is something almost tragic occurring here: The well-meaning citizens who arm themselves in droves, perhaps even in public, are in that very process threatening the peace and order they seek to preserve, and claim to uphold.

Stand Your Ground laws are a prime example …

[ … ]

LaPierre’s argument for being armed boils down to this: Americans are on the verge of—or already sinking into—a state of anarchy, where it is each man for himself. In that state, “the government can’t—or won’t—protect you…Only you can protect you,” he warns …

Another favorite gun rights saying is that “when seconds count, police are minutes away.” In other words, it’s better to have a gun on you, or an armed ‘good guy’ in the midst of a shooting, when police cannot arrive soon enough. But first responders arrived at the scene of the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting within three minutes of the first police radio broadcast of the attack. Police arrived on the scene at the Aurora movie theater 90 seconds after being called. How small ought that window be to satisfy gun-rights advocates? Perhaps it can’t be small enough. In their view, guns must be ever-present if society hopes to keep order. This logic implicitly undermines law enforcement’s role in society. The world is just too dangerous, it argues, and cops are outmanned and outgunned (again, thanks to the NRA’s efforts). Armed citizens are therefore needed to fill those gaps when cops are not present—no matter how small or short those gaps may be—in order to keep the peace.

[ … ]

Rule of law is essential for maintaining the peace in civil society. It is also an act of faith: People presume and trust that everyone else around them will act lawfully and safely. For example, I must presume that the driver in front of me will obey the laws of the road; I must also presume that he will not, Mad Max-style, swerve around to aim a rifle at me and start firing.

Good grief.  There are so many problems with this article that it’s hard to know where to start.  I can only offer several rejoinders and let the readers fill in the blanks or complete the analysis.

The “rule of law” as the author sees it has to do with ordered collectivism, but the problem is that collectivism is only ordered for the benefit of the ruling elite.  As to the question “How small ought that window be to satisfy gun-rights advocates? Perhaps it can’t be small enough,” the window will never be small enough.  There is no perhaps about it, so Debrabander doesn’t have to wonder.

Assuming that the police are always there to benefit the innocent and defend the just is tantamount to dereliction of duty to yourself and your family.  And there is the rub between Debrabander and many readers.  His article of faith, that he “must presume that the driver in front of me will obey the laws of the road; I must also presume that he will not, Mad Max-style, swerve around to aim a rifle at me and start firing,” not only runs contrary to the facts, but he has no reason to believe such a thing.

I prefer Gordon H. Clark’s definition of faith: it is a belief system, not a set of irrational propositions that have no relation to any other propositions.  I have reasons for my belief system.  Mr. Debrabander has no rational excuse for his stated belief that everyone will obey all laws.  He read that nowhere, he heard that nowhere, he cannot ensconce or place that proposition syllogistically within any belief system on earth.

Finally, like so many collectivists, he misses the point of ownership and bearing of arms.  Since he believes in tyranny, he doesn’t understand that tyranny must be rectified. Arms are for the amelioration of tyranny.  Kurt Hofmann and I agree that guns are for self defense, as long as one defines self defense in the context of both personal self defense against ne’er-do-wells and defense of self, family and community against the state.  Only when Debrabander comes to terms with this concept will he differentiate himself from the Nazi’s of Germany, who also believed in the rule of law as they sent Jews (and also Christians) to their deaths by the millions.