 |
| A recent meme that caught my attention on Facebook, which in part provoked me to write this. . . |
When I go to the mall, I typically leave my firearms home. I know some folks, however, who do prefer to enter such places armed. They prefer packing heat as the expression was back in the day. . . And, yes, I know, who goes to the mall these days.
Kidding aside, this has been and continues to be a provocative topic in American culture for some time now. It goes to the heart of the ongoing debate over the 2nd Amendment. It has become doubly relevant in a country where it seems you very well could encounter a shooter when running to your local mall, grocery store, cinema or even your child’s school. And then on top of that you had the US Supreme Court this June find New York state’s 100-year-old law restricting the carrying of firearms in public unconstitutional.
So, in the aftermath of that Supreme Court decision and likewise, the ongoing controversy regarding how to best deal with shooters, the debate over the carrying of firearms in public is very much alive. Are people who choose to carry firearms a solution to the challenge of a shooter? There was at least one incident where a shooter was stopped fairly quickly by a civilian with a firearm, and it is claimed that this is much more common than we think. (Newsweek, 7/19/22)
Returning to the Supreme Court decision, it was stated that the carrying of firearms in public is very much part of our 2nd amendment right. In short, their argument was that we have the right to defend ourselves with firearms both in our residences, in our homes, and likewise in public. Of course, the decision goes on to qualify that and provide some details regarding the type of weapons we can use, etc. The important point is that it is clearly stated that the second amendment protects our right to bear arms in public for self-defense. (US Supreme Court-NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, No. 20–843)
This essay, however, is not challenging the 2nd amendment, nor the recent decision of the Supreme Court, which now clearly guarantees our right to carry firearms in public. What I want to do here, however, is point to the consequences of carrying firearms in public. I do this by first introducing an ancient text, that seems to have some relevance here. I hope to point to a theme found in this text and illustrate how it is useful today in looking at whether firearms are to be desired in public spaces and at public events.
Now the text I want to appeal to is Plato’s Crito, which was written sometime around 399 BCE. It was probably one of Plato’s first written works. Typically, it is bundled together with two other short works of his, the Apology, and the Phaedo. All written it is believed in the same time period and involving the last few weeks of Plato’s mentor and teacher, Socrates, right up to his execution, involving him drinking a hemlock tea, as dictated by an Athenian court. Each of the three, the Apology, the Crito, and the Phaedo are written in the form of a dialogue involving typically multiple interlocutors. In each, Socrates is the main protagonist or interlocutor. Plato would follow this format of a dialogue in all of his writings. And in most of these, the main protagonist or interlocutor would continue to be Socrates.
Now it can quickly be pointed out that there were no firearms when Socrates was executed in 399 BCE. I am interested in this text, however, not because of any insights it offers regarding weaponry and our right to such. Rather, I look to Plato’s text for what it offers regarding our following of laws and likewise what it is to be a citizen. In short, I want to suggest that the carrying of a firearm, concealed or open, seems to intuitively challenge the obligations of citizenship, even if the law specifically grants you such a right.
Some Background on Plato, Socrates, and the Crito
As I said above, the text to which I refer is Plato’s Crito, which focuses on Plato’s mentor Socrates time in an Athenian jail basically waiting for execution. Socrates, of course, being one of the fathers of western Philosophy, the creator of what has become known as the Socratic method, and the primary character in so many of Plato’s dialogues or writings. It is worth noting that as interesting as Plato’s text are, they are problematic regarding Socrates.. We know that there was a historical Socrates, but it is just very hard to tell where the real Socrates ends, and Plato’s character begins.
The basic backstory regarding Socrates, however, is that he was a thoughtful and inquisitive man, an Athenian, who simply enjoyed exploring and discussing topics with one and all, friends and strangers. He enjoyed a good conversation. This became complicated, however, when he was informed by a friend that the Oracle of Delphi, a religious Priestess at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, had commented that it was he, Socrates, who was the wisest amongst Athenians. This baffled Socrates. He could not comprehend how the Oracle, who was a respected leader in this religion, which focused upon the Greek god of Apollo, arrived at such. Socrates was after all just a stone mason, a regular citizen of Athens who simply enjoyed exploring various ideas and topics with friends.
How could it be that such a man was the wisest? Again, he was a stone mason. So, after learning of the Oracle’s thoughts on this, Socrates spent much of the rest of his life attempting to disprove the claim. His conversations going forward would often involve him searching out, engaging, and talking to those who were held in esteem-those who would typically be seen as the wisest. These included political leaders, generals, teachers, etc. His intent was to illustrate that these people he spoke to, the teachers, and guardians, the leaders of Athens, were obviously wiser than he.
His intent was to illustrate that he was not the wisest, yet again and again, through these conversations, these dialogues, he would reveal that those he engaged did not have a full grasp of the domains they were supposedly authorities on. And this was routinely the consequent of these conversations. This practice he had developed soon started to be seen as a method, as a way to test and explore ideas and hypotheses-to basically determine if something was true or made sense. This method today thrives in the law, in philosophy classes, in general in the liberal arts and it is known as the Socratic method.
Going back to Socrates and his conversations it seemed that the people he would engage in these dialogues, who were seen as Athens’ brightest and smartest, would ultimately have to concede that they really did not know for a fact what it was they had acted upon or had allowed them to achieve what it was they were recognized for. They could not definitively assert the value of their actions and achievements.
Soon enough Socrates was avoided by such folks. He was seen as a troublemaker, as someone challenging Athens’ ruling class and likewise its culture, its traditions, and mores. In short, if you turn to your political and military leaders, your wisest teachers and so forth and illustrate that they in fact cannot satisfactorily explain to you why what they are doing is just or what it is they actually know, it is a problem.
Socrates became known for these dialogues. He was a bit of a celebrity. He acquired a group of supporters or fans, young and old, who were intrigued with his method and its results. This group of supporters would enjoy him again and again pointing out to his interlocutors that what they had just offered regarding why something was good, or just, or simply known was problematic-it did not make sense.
Ultimately, this led to a certain frustration or annoyance with Socrates. It was something like Scooby Doo meets the emperor’s new clothes. And it was from this frustration that Socrates ultimately found himself in front of an Athenian court charged with corrupting the youth of Athens.
It should be noted that at this time Athens was dealing with politics worse than our own in 2022. They had already gone from a kind of democratic system to an authoritarian system and back, and it was in the midst of this that he decided to prove that he was not the wisest. (Perhaps his decision to pursue such in such an environment is the proof of such-right there.) On top of this, some of his friends and disciples were engaged in these politics. In short, they were seen as part of the authoritarian regime that Athens was struggling with. It is very likely that it was not so much that he had corrupted the youth but that he had the wrong friends.
The outcome of Socrates’ trial in the midst of all of this was that he was found guilty of corrupting the youth of Athens and that he was condemned to death. He would at a prescribed date and time drink a hemlock concoction they had brewed for him, and he would die. Until that date and time, he was remanded to an Athenian jail under guard, though typically, he was allowed to see his friends until that date. It is suggested in the Crito that it was a series of small bribes that facilitated his being available to his friends until his death, despite being in that Athenian jail.
Now as it turned out, the date of his execution had to be pushed back because of an envoy to another city state-some type of bureaucratic-diplomatic snafu. He sat in this jail waiting for this envoy to return for roughly a month, waiting to be executed. And, it should be noted that at this point Athens was not a fully free and independent state. It is possible I suppose that someone somewhere outside of Athens needed to sign off on the execution. (So much for pure speculation. . .) For whatever reason, however, his execution was delayed for roughly a month till this envoy returned. And all of this is relevant here as the dialogue we are exploring takes place the night before the ship and envoy return back to Athens. At least that is as per Plato.
The Dialogue Proper – The Crito
So, on that night before the return of the envoy, Crito, a close friend of Socrates bribes a guard and sits with Socrates in his cell as he sleeps. Crito sits there pondering the fact that soon Socrates will be gone. Socrates wakes and realizes his friend is sitting there with him.
A conversation ensues. Crito shares his frustration. He laments that he will be seen by others as allowing this to happen-that he and his friends and fellow supporters of Socrates could have easily saved Socrates life. Socrates will have none of it. He argues that it is not a question of what others think. We do not act based upon what others think. Rather, we act upon what we believe to be right. Even if we follow one, a doctor or trainer in the gym, we follow them because of the knowledge they have in the domain or field they specialize in. Again, we do what we believe is right. We follow the best course.
Crito persists in wanting Socrates to escape, flee Athens, and with that live another day. Ultimately, Socrates responds, requesting that he now be allowed to offer his own argument on the matter, his reasoning on why he must stay in his cell and await his execution-delivered to him by the Athenian city-state. He states that if Crito is able to point to a flaw, a weakness in his reasoning on these matters, he, Socrates, will reconsider his actions. If, however, Crito is silent and only nods in agreement, if he has no challenges to Socrates’ thoughts on the matter, then the conversation is over-the topic has been covered and only to be acted upon. Crito agrees.
Socrates proceeds then to reaffirm that one must do what one thinks right, regardless of what others think. Likewise, we must act upon what is believed right, regardless of the consequences of such an action. In short, even if what we think right will likely lead to our death, we must still choose it. Such a claim does make us pause, but yes, most would ultimately agree with this as did Crito. In short, there are beliefs that are worth dying for. We need not determine what they are, but only that there are such beliefs.
Socrates continues on this path, stating that if this is true-that we do what is right, then it should not be the case that we ever respond to another with an action this is improper or not good. Even if the action of another is unjust, it does not justify us embracing an equally evil or immoral act. Retaliation or revenge does not justify doing something improper or unjust. We of course must decide what is an appropriate response to those around us, but one’ response should never involve what we see as wrong.
Again, numerous examples can quickly be imagined where this is challenged, but again, I want to say that grudgingly, our first preference would be to consent to this – that it is always wrong to lie, steal or kill, even if these were visited upon us by another and we now desire to respond in kind. The desire might be there but that does not change the fact that we still see them as wrong.
Socrates, who has now claimed, that it is only proper to do what is right, regardless of the opinions of others, and likewise, the situation one finds oneself, proceeds to apply this to his current situation. Even though he finds himself in an unjust situation, to choose to flee, to bribe guards, escape the prison, and avoid execution would still be wrong.
He takes this to the next level. If he were to flee, and avoid execution, he is basically asserting that he need not comply with the laws and the decisions of the Athenian government. If he is able to ignore these laws and these institutions, what prevents others from doing so? He goes on to ask what prevents the government from not being overthrown? I actually might beg to differ here. There is no need to overthrow such a government. One simply does what one desires, the laws of such a state are without consequence. One ponders not what their consequence is but rather what one can get away with regarding such states and laws.
In short, Socrates needs here to provide a rationale for why he feels obligated to the Athenian city-state. Why must he, in his case follow their laws, even as this means that he will lose his life? If he is to do the right thing, and the right thing in this case is to stay in this prison and allow the Athenians to kill him, why? Why is that the right path?
Socrates’ answer to this question is not to appeal to the forms or a theory, but his personal history. His answer is that he chose to live his life, raise a family in Athens. He was in the Athenian army. It was in only service to Athens, as a member of that army that he ever left Athens. That was the only time he ventured outside of Athens, to fight for that city-state. After a long-life lived in Athens, it is only now that he decides it is time to move on. On all other occasions, he had chosen to abide by Athenian law. Up until this moment he lived as an Athenian, he was a citizen of Athens.
Now that they have taken issue with his conduct, found him guilty of corrupting the youth of Athens, and sentenced him to death, now he ponders departing. There is a certain logic to it. Yet Socrates, is saying that as much as he would like to avoid this sentence, to do so would be a betrayal of all those years living in Athens. It would be a betrayal of the life he lived.
He sees in his life in Athens a debt, an obligation that he believes he owes to the Athenian city-state. Athens gave him a good life. He compares it to relations such as a child to a parent, or a student to a teacher, even a slave to a master. He might have gotten ahead of himself on the last one, but he has touched upon something. They, Athens, had given him a good life, and he, by fleeing, would betray that.
One cannot simply abandon such institutions as family, education, and the state when you decide that it no longer suits you. And yes, there are instances of divorce or dropping out of a school or college. Each of these, however, is typically an ordeal. One does not simply walk away from such. None of these allow an individual to simply disappear, not without consequence.
One’s history, one’s life largely binds one to the institutions they are involved with. Even when departing one city or country for another, it is one’s history that guides and dictates how one behaves in the land one now finds oneself. It is part of the baggage brought with one, but this is perhaps something for another tale. In short, how and where one lives one’s life does effect how one proceeds. It is simply very hard for that not to be the case.
Socrates proceeds to suggest that in this history with the state, with the city, with his fellow Athenians an implicit contract has been drawn. Further, for him to now flee, would be to violate that contract. He argues that he is betraying the state and the people that have guided and educated him. It could be argued that Athens, at least in some ways, brought him to this. And Socrates would probably agree to this, but quickly respond that he always accepted up until now what he had been offered. Never once had he refused Athens’s gifts to him. Until today, and by choosing now to flee this city he denies or negates the prior 50 or 60 years that he lived peacefully in Athens. All of that apparently meant nothing to him as he is ready to just throw it away.
At one point he hints at or suggest that to flee and live out his life somewhere else is to simply reduce life to the having of meals. If a lifetime of actions and engagements can so easily be abandoned, what else is there but the immediate? With the negation of one’s past, one is left with only the immediate moment, with no guarantee that what was valued a moment ago will not be abandoned in the next. Even a meal can be abandoned if one fears that they are about to be found by the authorities. The immediate is all that is left and seems to allow one to act in any way, but Socrates is asking what kind of life is that? Is such a life?
In the end, Socrates is arguing that there are things we believe are good, that are just, and these are unchanging. A person knows what is good and what is not. Further, Socrates argues that these come to be grasped, discovered, in a life, in a community. In his case the city-state of Athens. This relation of what is good and what is shared, what is acquired, mastered, does entail an obligation-one must respect one’s decisions, one’s ideals, one’s history and those one has chosen to surround oneself with. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of oneself, of what one holds to be good, of what is just, and finally of the community of which one is a part. Again, to flee is to betray all of that.
Even though Athens has now decided that it must take his life, Socrates cannot, he is unable to ignore the fact that Athens has given him his life. Roughly 50 or 60 years in this man’s case? We do not now when he was born. We know only when he died, when he drank the hemlock, as per the order of execution in 499 BC.
As he is an Athenian and regardless of their decision to take his life, he is unable to deny the fact that he lived his life there, as an Athenian. That is what he is. To abandon that would make him what? I believe the answer is that he would be nothing. He would just be another criminal fleeing prosecution. He is because of the life he lived in Athens obligated to stay and face his execution.
Crito offers no challenge to this position, and they are agreed that there is nothing more to discuss. (The full dialogue or essay is found here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html.
Firearms and Obligations
Now how does all of the above tie into an ongoing debate of the 2nd amendment and carrying firearms in public, whether in the open or concealed? As I hinted above it goes not to the question of the right to bear arms but rather explores some basic ideas about the nation-state, its citizens and the obligations of each and it is with these questions in mind that we examine the right to carry a firearm in public. And again, we are not challenging the legal and constitutional questions but rather the moral and ethical aspects of such. We are taking the argument that Socrates appealed to in his dialogue with Crito which challenges the idea that he should escape the prison he is being held in, and avoid execution, and want to now apply it to our discussion of the right to carry firearms in public.
The first thing that pops out, however, when suggesting such is that in our contemporary debate there is nothing illegal being pondered here. No one is advocating doing something illegal. It is established today that carrying a firearm in public is legal. The carrying of a firearm in public is a right we have under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution. What I want to illustrate here courtesy of Plato’s Crito and specifically Socrates' arguments in that dialogue is that the carrying of a firearm in public is immoral and unethical.
I, like Socrates, now owe an explanation of why I believe that carrying a firearm in public is not a good. Why it is wrong. And it is here that I feel the introduction of the Crito and Socrates is powerful. The reason for carrying a gun in public being wrong is that it too is a challenge to the implicit contract between the state and its’ citizens.
The carrying of a firearm in public in the US today, like fleeing Athens for Socrates, challenges or negates the life lived peacefully up to that point. Carrying a firearm in public, I suggest ignores or negates the fact that up until now it was the law in places like NYC, and more importantly simply not something done in much of the US. I want to suggest that the embrace of firearms for personal protection in public places now challenges the institutions, practices, and traditions we have previously embraced. These may not be totally abandoned as in Socrates’ case, but the carrying of firearms in public would effect, and disrupt the way in which we engage. It disrupts and weakens our institutions. Again, it challenges the implicit contract that Socrates points to.
So how does carrying a firearm in public betray and challenge the state and its citizens? How does it disrupt and challenge our institutions, practices, and traditions? It does challenge the state directly in that carrying a firearm in public provides an alternative to the state. The person with the firearm if assaulted or finding him or herself in a situation requiring that he or she defend or protect themselves, has much more latitude in how they respond as they are now armed.
They are no longer reliant upon the police. They no longer have need for those in proximity to assist them when needed. This can be argued as good or bad, but it clearly makes one less reliant upon the state, its justice system, the police, and even those around one. Why wait for the police or cry out for help if you can handle the matter yourself? And yes, self-reliance is a virtue but then being part of a community is likewise a virtue and there is a tension between the two.
The fact that a weapon provides an alternative to the institutions and others around one is the first challenge. There are others. The carrying of a firearm I suspect will lead us to distrust, fear, and just cause uncertainty regarding those who carry a firearm or who we think are carrying a firearm, maybe. But perhaps it doesn’t matter because I now have my firearm. My trust in others has been replaced with my trust in my Glock.
It is often the case that you may not trust someone. You may feel that they are trying to manipulate or intend on harming you, perhaps steal from you. Likewise, when you are around firearms, there is a risk. Regardless of one’s training, they can accidentally go off and I am assuming that if one is carrying in public that the weapon is loaded. The simple carrying of loaded firearms is another reason perhaps to distrust, regardless of whether the one is felt to be a good or bad person. Legitimate or not, based upon fact or not, it is another thing we must now ponder in assessing those around us and who we trust or not.
And we really do not know who is carrying a firearm. We do not know if they have been trained to carry a firearm, whether this person has any experience using a weapon in public? We wonder if they have shot their weapon at a firing range. And how does that really prepare them in any fashion to use that weapon in a crowded street or restaurant? Have they even pondered such before entering a venue with a loaded firearm?
These are the things one can ponder regarding a person or persons carrying a firearm in a public place. Asking oneself, do I trust these persons? Do I trust this community? Do I have any obligation to such a community? What is their obligation to me? Perhaps there simply is no obligation.
And what if the person with a firearm in public does kills or harm someone? Police kills are one thing. Police are typically not charged for such incidents, even if the incident was found to not be justified. Murders are entirely different from a police kill. Do we now require a new category or concept to differentiate a death due to a civilian with a firearm? If we now intend to defend ourselves in this way, this seems a relevant question. If we are allowing people to carry, we should acknowledge that there will be consequences to this. When they kill someone by accident, is it manslaughter, or is it more like a police officer who made a reasonable mistake with a deadly consequent?
Imagine the person who chooses to not to load their firearm. They may feel that simply carrying it is protection in itself. He or she may never intend on using it. Yet that can cause complications if someone else, who does intend on using their weapon, notices this person and their weapon, but is unaware of the fact that the weapon is unloaded and that the other only has it to impress or intimidate. In short, the consequent may not be the desired intimidation but rather a preemptive strike. In a sense, the weapon, carried in public, even though not even loaded, caused this “preemptive strike”. The weapon made the person carrying it a target.
Now that open carry is embraced, how in an active shooter situation do the police determine who is friend and who is foe? It can be imagined that a shooter the police are after simply blends back in claiming to be a citizen with a gun and wanting to help. It certainly is possible that the police may confuse the supportive citizen with the shooter. What differentiates them?
All of these scenarios complicate and challenge our current system of justice. It puts a strain on the police as they must now acknowledge that most people are now welcome to carry a firearm, and yet there are moments when someone with criminal intent will kill with a firearm. Possession of a firearm is no longer grounds to challenge a person. Now one must wait till the actual crime is obvious. There is now one less way in many cases to differentiate between good guy and bad guy. Both are or could be armed.
All of the above challenge the trust of the public. All of these and thousands of other hypothetical and actual situations will weigh on us as we ponder the question of whether it is now actually safer to walk the streets as we now carry a firearm. All of this brings us to question the role of the police. With citizens now able to carry firearms, are we now more responsible for our safety and the police more responsible for responding to crimes? Will it become the case that the police will more and more arrive only after something has happened, to pick up the pieces? Will public safety become the responsibility of individuals?
A long time ago I suspect that it was decided that it was typically best to leave our guns at home. I suspect there were reasons for this conclusion, and I suspect the above are some of those reasons. I suspect that in the end it is simply easier to engage in business, and likewise engage in life when not carrying a firearm.
Imagine the distracted citizen as he or she frantically ponders where they left their firearm. “I was showing my new Colt to someone at the pizza shop, but then I put it back in my holster. Or did I put it in my gym bag as I was heading straight home? I was tired. . .”
We have millions of firearms in the United States. There are more firearms in the US today than people. I suspect that enough of the above will happen for people to realize that carrying a firearm is not the best way to defend oneself. It might just be that being a citizen or even just a resident of a modern country which has a system of justice, and a police force and security guards and folks around you who are not armed but do have cell phones and who respond if you yell out and who understand the concept of private property and likewise one’s right to be left alone, yet will come to one’s aid if necessary, and so forth. All of these together make us far safer than carrying a firearm. Again, this is the implicit contract to which Socrates pointed to and which we have it seems forgotten.
Just as Socrates saw flight as a negation of all that he had and did in Athens, so I see our carrying of firearms in public places as an intrusion upon or a violation of our lives, of those we engage, of the communities we live in, and lastly a problem for our local police and justice systems. Both challenge and threaten the lives and the communities we have made.
