Jonah Goldberg on the Zombie Apocalypse

[billroper]

In today's Goldberg File, Jonah Goldberg of National Review has the following to say about the coming Zombie Apocalypse:

"There are lots of good arguments about gun rights. But it amazes me how often these debates boil down to whether you can imagine that tomorrow will look a lot different than today. So many liberals dismiss the "right to revolution" arguments on the grounds that they can't imagine its ever being necessary. Nor can they imagine a military invasion or a collapse of the social order sufficiently chaotic to justify the laws of self-preservation. And don't even get me started on zombies.

I hope these unimaginative liberals are right. But I can tell you this: When the zombies rise, I won't be racing to the homes of friends who happened to be lifetime members of Handgun Control Inc. I will be heading North to Alaska, where I have family and they have guns, lots and lots of guns. And, more to the point, while the prevalence of guns in our society will do little to nothing to prevent the zombie menace from ever arising, those guns go a long way toward circumscribing the menu of available policy options for the state. In other words, the existence of gun rights makes the "need" for gun rights seem less apparent."

Comments

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that the ability to get as far as Alaska without guns, in the face of a zombie apocalypse, means you didn't need guns to survive said ZA anyway.

[madfilkentist]

If you can make it as far as Canada, the Border Patrol will hold them off with paperwork long enough for you to reach Alaska.

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

And what about the Canadian zombies? Have you seen the McKenzie brothers? They're 2/3rds of the way to being zombies already.

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

As far as I am aware nobody has ever shown any statisical link between gun ownership and authoritarian tendancies or lack there of in governments.

To me the last couple of sentences are only slightly less wingnut than the ones that mention zombies.

Guns

[markiv1111.livejournal.com]

You may have noted the guy in Knoxville who (a) was a psych patient, (b) wasn't taking his meds, and (c) shot at five nurses. The gun haters wanted the guy *not* to be able to get guns. I am quite sure the gun lovers wanted the nurses to carry one gun apiece to be able to shoot back. As a moderate, I have been racking my brains trying to find a way of setting things up so that the nurses could defend themselves *and* the shooter didn't have the gun in the first place. (Except then, whom would one blame if a nurse legally carrying a handgun used it to shoot at the other four nurses? And please don't tell me that this couldn't possibly happen.)

N.

Re: Guns

[scarfman]

I'm with you. I believe in the second amendment, but I don't know what to do about violence: human beings are human beings, and densely populated human beings lash out at each other. I compromise by not having a gun myself.

Re: Guns

[billroper]

I think that anyone who wants to own a handgun ought to have to complete a reasonably rigorous gun safety course at a minimum. That would weed out some of the people who shouldn't have a gun right at the start.

I believe that there should also be some system for disqualifying people from handgun ownership for cause. The trick is carefully defining "cause" so that it's not used to provide a blanket prohibition on gun ownership while still avoiding giving one to psych patients who are off their meds. And maybe allowing someone who is taking their meds and who is quite stable to own one.

As you observe, it's a difficult problem.

Re: Guns

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

This strikes me as pretty reasonable, actually. I like the gun safety course, especially. We have tests you have to pass to be allowed to drive a car, for example, so why for guns?

In my opinion would also have to be some way of tracking gun owners, though, so if one of them who had previously been stable suddenly had a mental breakdown we could remove her guns for safekeeping until she was herself again.

I mean, I understand this might sound a bit nanny-state, but a lot of people who are unstable don't actually start out that way.

Re: Guns

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

(rolls eyes) Oops. That should be "so why *not* for guns?" at the end of the first paragraph there.

Re: Guns

[madfilkentist]

Talking about "gun haters" and "gun lovers" obscures the issue. Guns exist, and will be in someone's hands; the question is in whose hands, who should decide, and how they decide. I'm a supporter of 2nd Amendment rights but would be very uncomfortable having a gun in my own hands. Someone else may think guns are the niftiest thing in the world, but only in the hands of certified professionals.

Re: Guns

[markiv1111.livejournal.com]

"...obscures the issue." I couldn't disagree with you more. (And I'm not sure what the disagreement is, when we are agreed about the question being whose hands, who should decide, and how they decide.) My point actually is simply that 90% of the sound and fury on this topic involves extremists on either side. Me, I wore a button to numerous conventions reading "I'm a militant fence-straddler and I vote."

Nate

[dave-ifversen.livejournal.com]

I will be heading North to Alaska, where I have family and they have guns, lots and lots of guns.

Know anybody in Detroit? If so, it's closer than Alaska. I recall reading somewhere that there are enough *registered* guns in Detroit for every man, woman, and child to possess 5. They have no idea how many unregistered guns there are....

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

It might be safer to try to get through the zombie hoards to Alaska, than to go up against a heavily armed zombie crack dealer in Detroit.

[sweetmusic-27.livejournal.com]

*clears throat modestly* I'm a liberal, and I believe in gun rights. 8)

'Course, I'm an imaginative liberal...

[billroper]

Imagination is a good thing. :)

I have to reject his argument

[capplor.livejournal.com]

As a middle of the middle moderate I have the enviable position of being able to look at both sides & see the crazy. As such I see Jonah Goldberg as part of the Right Wing crazy. Specifically his very warped view of what the Left thinks. (& his distorted view of the political spectrum, but that's a different discussion) I know people on both ends who are gun nuts & people on both ends who are gun phobes. As for the whole "Right to Revolution" thing, what does he think was going on in the 60's?

Personally, I choose not to own a gun, because of the safety issues involved (Yes, I've heard all of the arguments about someone breaking & entering & & ... & I've also seen the stats, I stand as good of a chance of being hit by lightning as I do of standing down a home invasion) But I do not object to someone else owning a gun, as long as they are responsible, keep it locked up when not in use & are not threatening to kill anybody.

I also have to wonder about the choice of the term "unimaginative liberal." Granted Jonah seems to have a very active imagination, and possibly even a creative one (creating that dialectic about how fascists & socialists are the same thing is as fantastic as it is imaginative), but for shear productive creative imagination I tend to look towards those who are moderates or slightly on the left - at least those who are not blinded by partisanship. Some of the farther left liberals I know have very active imaginations about what the Right is plotting. They're just about as correct as this is.

I do not expect a Zombie Apocalypse. I do expect our current government to fail at some point, but do not expect the daft lawlessness that many seem to desire. But I do wonder how many of us here could actually pick up a gun, drop the veneer of civilization, & go out blasting hungry people who are simply looking for a meal? Because if or when an apocalypse comes, that is more likely the form it will take.

That or really big storms because we've rejected the global climate change science too long in favor of something comforting & political.

Re: I have to reject his argument

[samwinolj.livejournal.com]

"But I do wonder how many of us here could actually pick up a gun, drop the veneer of civilization, & go out blasting hungry people who are simply looking for a meal?"

That hasn't been the pattern, at least not in the US, during major disasters. We tend to respond better than that (there are exceptions). Generally, we tend to band together to help victims--witness the Loma Prieta, earthquake, where people got ladders and tried to help survivors off of the collapsed highway. Even in New Orleans there was a lot of social cooperation.

On the other hand, few people would hesitate to shoot a zombie who was trying to scoop out their brains. :-)

Re: I have to reject his argument

[capplor.livejournal.com]

I agree with that. I was one of those people who went about helping other after Loma Prieta.

I seriously don't expect to ever see a real zombie though. Do you?