Breaking the Logic of the Gun
Disclaimer: This is a thought experiment, not a metaphor. It is not a suggestion. It is not a commentary. Any resemblance to real life is unintentional but not coincidental. It is a reflection of the explanatory power the thought experiment has for you.
There is a man holding a loaded gun to your head. He says you mean him harm and will never rest in your pursuit to ruin his life, so he has decided you have to die. He cannot be talked out of this by you, because he knows you lie, especially to him about your intentions for him. There is a party of neutral observers. They only know what he has told them. They are a society that does not generally tolerate murder, but they do think it can be justified. They are unarmed.
What can you do?
One: Disarm the man, but do not shoot. Let's say you are successful at disarming the man and now you have the gun pointed at HIS head, but you decide not to shoot. What is a safe next move for you? If he lives, he will pursue his agenda to kill you, because nothing has changed and now he knows you are even more powerful than he thought. The observers now either see you as a threat or as a person capable of defending themselves. Do you spend the rest of your life hunted? Do you think you can convince the observers that you are not a threat to this person? How?
Two: You disarm the man and shoot. Let's say you disarm the man. Now you have a gun to HIS head and, seeing that he will not stop in his pursuit of you, you decide to shoot and kill him. He is no longer a threat to your life, but you have become what he said you would become. The observers, even if some of them understand you might have acted in self-defense and that they would do the same thing, do not condone murder. Can you convince them you were forced into this? What about his followers, those who believed, and are now vindicated, that you are a threat? Are you irrevocably changed nonetheless?
Three: You die, protesting your innocence. You attempt, and fail, to talk down the man threatening you. You speak to the observers of your innocence. You are shot. Some of the observers believed you, and others just can't condone murder even if they aren't sure whether you are a threat, so they arrest the man. You are dead, so what does it matter to you?
Four: You die, accepting your fate. You do not protest your innocence. In a feat of extreme empathy, you tell the man you understand the position he's in and you don't begrudge what he has to do. It's very moving, but the man cannot be moved or persuaded. You are shot. The observers largely take your side because your surrender cannot be read as anything other than peace. They arrest the man and potentially learn a lesson. You are dead, so what does it matter to you?
Five: You run away. Let's be honest, you would be shot while running away. Again, perhaps this makes you a sympathetic victim, but you are dead. Best-case scenario, if you do get away, how do you spend the rest of your life as a hunted person?
Each time I think about this scenario, I'm struck by how futile the conflict between hunter and hunted becomes. You cannot escape the logic of the gun. You must either submit to it as a victim or as a victimizer, which marks you as a target for future violence. (I may write more on the cycle of violence.)
At this point you may be thinking, “Why are you skipping over the diplomatic option? Why is the man ontologically incapable of being persuaded?” First, I want to think through specifically the logic of violence. Second, consider: Whether the man is acting sincerely (in his belief that you are a danger to him) or cynically (because he stands to gain from your removal), what incentive does he have to listen to you? How difficult does his life become – especially after taking the step of publicly threatening you – if he backs down? How much would it threaten his own self-understanding?
What I keep coming back to in this thought experiment is the importance of the observers. Let's play out a few more scenarios:
Six: You appeal to the observers, and they step in. You are able to speak so eloquently that this neutral audience, who are not yet convinced of your badness, intervene and are able to disarm and safely contain the man. This is a good outcome, but consider: How are a population of unarmed observers disarming an armed man? How can he be contained in a way that ensures your safety and also breaks the cycle of violence (does not visit violence upon his person)? How can you stay safe from any of his followers who also believe you are a danger? How will they view this community intervention on your behalf?
Seven: The observers react strongly to the presence and threat of the gun, and intervene before you say anything.
This is currently my best formulation of this thought experiment. It breaks the logic of the gun by making the logic of the gun untenable and removing blame. It requires a uniform response. And don't forget that the gun here is a shorthand for all violence – how do we so successfully react and neutralize all violence? Still, there are degrees of relevance here – after all, this is essentially the current political response to nuclear threat, and that is an important peacekeeping logic that has certainly saved lives (perhaps all of our lives).
Can you think of any alternate scenarios? How does this experiment expand or contradict your thinking? Consider fantastical angles – what would it mean for the logic if you could become invincible to gunfire? How would that upend the man's thinking? Or that of the observers? What if you could die but come back to life?
Thanks for listening. ~