A CASE FOR BANNING....?

Causes – we all have at least one that’s close to our heart. They are a symbol of our successful participation in a safe, democratic, capitalist economy.

The more affluent the individual, the greater the diversity of causes the individual can support in his leisure time, itself a luxury of western society.

We have more free time than ever before, in which to contemplate the minutiae of the world's wrongs and injustices, time to think about all the things we don’t like and how we might best go about stopping them.

In fact, we have become a nation of “stoppers” as the many thousands of electronic petitions raised each and every day clearly demonstrate.

Thanks to online petitions and social media, one no-longer need have any resolve whatsoever to launch a cause.

A few moments at a keyboard are all that’s required and the automated systems will handle the rest, doing a virtual door-knock of hundreds of thousands of complete strangers, on the off chance of stumbling upon others who hate what we hate.

If you doubt the online petition system is built specifically to service anger and exploit the burgeoning outrage economy, just try to think back to the last time you were invited to sign a petition in support of saying 'thankyou', or recognising a job well done. 

We are less tolerant than ever before. So many causes today are stakeholder based, which is to say if I don’t like something, if I don’t understand it, if I have no use for it or if it challenges my comfort zones, it should be banned.

The gun debate is an obvious case in point. Those who don’t own guns, don’t like them, can see no merit in their presence in the community, or fear them on principle, have decided gun ownership must be stopped.

And why not? They have absolutely nothing to lose. It is a cause demanding no sacrifice whatsoever and that’s the most satisfying cause of all.

I had an interesting online conversation this morning, which highlighted just how similar the anti and pro-gun lobbies can be in terms of their individual determination to retain a freedom, regardless of the perceived danger said freedom may pose to others who consider it dangerous, even life-threatening.

The discussion took place on, of all things, a website devoted to homesteading (what we children of the 60s called “self-sufficiency”) and focused on whether a gun is an essential tool for the homesteaders’ kit. 

While this was a contentious issue, the vast majority of contributors appeared rational, sincere and civil so I introduced the proposition that hunting is a legitimate homesteading activity. 

The rationale for this claim ran along the lines that when done responsibly, hunting is the embodiment of the principles of humane, free-range 'husbandry' and organic, sustainable meat harvest, conducted in a traditional manner.

Suffice to say, people did not warm to my proposition. 

Not because it was wrong per se – in fact most agreed guns could be useful in the right hands – but rather some objected vehemently because “just one gun in the community is one too many”, such is the risk guns pose to public welfare. 

No, if guns are to be used to euthanize or slaughter stock, some maintained, they should belong to someone else, a butcher or a vet perhaps.

This was the view expressed by a particular contributor who by now was off on a “we must ban all guns for the sake our children and our children’s children” tangent.

Suddenly the thread was invaded by a number of new contributors who were vehemently anti-gun and the discussion, which until this point had been a civil and productive one about homesteading, became a platform for anti-gunners emoting about school massacres and drive-by shootings. 

It soon became obvious there was no chance the thread could be salvaged, so I decided to have a little fun.

I’d noticed that the avatar of the most vocal among the anti-gun invaders, featured a rather elaborate beehive. Whizzing off to do a little covert cyber-stalking, I discovered she was a backyard beekeeper living in Melbourne where she had two Langstroth hives situated in her suburban backyard.  

Returning to her previous comment that just one gun in the community is a gun too many, I asked her if she’d door-knocked all the neighbours on her block to establish if anyone objected to her keeping bees.

She was aghast. “I know my neighbours don’t mind, because I give them lots of yummy honey” she protested. 

“But what if they move and you get new neighbours who do have objections, would you get rid of your bees then? And how about the people over your back fence, do they mind if you keep bees?” I asked. 

“It’s none of their business” she said. “People have been keeping bees for hundreds of years, why would they object?” she asked.

It was here that I suggested that if, like me, any of her neighbours was fatally allergic to bee stings, they may object to her increasing their risk of death by a factor of 60,000 or more, simply because she likes to harvest her own honey.

What would happen if everyone on the block decided to have a backyard hive? It could potentially increase my risk of death by a factor of millions; surely no one has the right to do that just because they like honey?

Of course a number of people immediately flew to her defence and the gist of their individual defences could be summed up as follows: 

“Having a beehive in my backyard doesn’t automatically put my neighbours at risk.  I’m a responsible, licensed beekeeper.  My hives are inspected and positioned well away from fence lines. 

"The odds of a neighbour being stung by one of my bees is minute. Anyway, bees are everywhere and always have been. 

“There are no guarantees in life and the benefits my family and neighbours enjoy from the fresh honey and other products I share, not to mention the increased pollination rates in their own gardens, outweigh any imagined danger.” 

This is a perfectly justifiable stakeholder-based defence. 

They like bees and want to keep hives, so they’re naturally unwilling to bow to the capricious vagaries of neighbour paranoia.

But with just a little strategic editing, the shoe fits equally well on the other foot...

“Having a gun in my home doesn’t automatically put my neighbours at risk.  I’m a responsible, licensed firearm owner. My gun is inspected and stored securely well out of harm’s way. 

“The odds of a neighbour being shot by one of my bullets is minute. Anyway, guns are everywhere and have been for hundreds of years.

“There are no guarantees in life and the benefits my family and neighbours enjoy from the fresh meat and leather products I share, not to mention the benefits associated with knocking over the odd feral pest, outweigh any imagined danger.”

It goes without saying everyone said there was no comparison. That was their position because it’s the position that serves them best. 

But while the number of deaths resulting from beestings may be comparatively low at present, who knows how it may grow in future, as the number of backyard hobbyists grows, establishing suburban hive densities with no historical comparison.

Of course the solution to the bee threat is obvious. Don’t grow anything that’s likely to attract bees i.e. flowers. Keep your lawns mown, fill your garden with ornamental foliage plants and your risk of death by bee diminishes to almost nothing.

In the same way, avoiding areas famed for their criminal activity, avoiding dark allies, not joining a hunting club, and wearing brightly coloured clothing while bushwalking will all reduce your odds of being shot to infinitesimally low levels. 

In fact most of us do this each and every day. It’s the instinct of self-preservation at work.

However, when we don’t have any personal investment, or 'stake' in the thing we fear, we tend to demand its complete abolition as the first best option, just to be on the safe side, regardless of the level of hardship and disappointment its abolition may cause others.

We don't care about that. What we care about is our own comfort zones and those of people we approve of. 

Tolerance is considered the great virtue of the 3rd Millennium, however, as I have pointed out in previous articles, embracing things that do not challenge us is not tolerance.  

It is simple self-indulgence and that is no virtue at all.

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now....

©gmallard2016 all rights reserved 

Follow the Hunters' Stand on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/a-case-for-banning.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.