The madness of the gun debate
I sat down at my desk, gathered all my data, images, videos, and links. I was ready to make my point about the gun control debate. I spoke my words, cleaned up the audio... and stopped.
I pulled the plug.
I have major problems with either "side" of the debate.
The amount of fancy graphs and maps and percentages and laws... I realized it all misses the entire fucking point. And most of it is false. No amount of correlation will lead you to the answer.
On one hand, we have a crowd demanding change. A change in law, to control and limit the accessibility of firearms.
One the other, we have a crowd demanding change. A change in law, to free and proliferate the accessibility of firearms.
Neither of these crowds have the answer to the problem: violence used against innocent people.
No amount of law or freedom will affect this reality. No amount of enforcement, no amount of preparedness, will stop someone determined to kill.
So long as there are humans pushed to desperate ends, so long as there are individuals who prefer violence as a means to an end, we will not escape this reality.
We are raised in a culture of death. Some justifiable, necessary even; most... not. While self defense is the most viable option for the living, the only way to stop wanton acts of violence is to dismantle the context that breeds it.
And I have little hope mankind is ready for such a feat. We thrive on it. We feed on it.
The very debate breeds it.
All of us. Every day. We consume emotion, we consume our environment, we consume each other.
This is our human condition, but it need not be our damnation.
This does not mean we are powerless.
Quite the contrary... We have the ability to transcend this culture, but we do not, will not, achieve this through coercion or force. It can only be achieved by choice, by preference.
Increasing the cost of coercion can only go so far, as there are infinite ways to inflict harm.
No, we must find a way to reach our fellow man at their lowest and darkest points. The most isolated and misunderstood are the most vulnerable to worst ideas, and thus, they are the most likely vehicles to act out.
It's not about what "we" need to do as a society. It's not about telling anyone what they can or cannot have. It's not about control.
It's about decentralizing the human condition itself, and thus, minimizing the preference for violent coercion beyond any one individual.
Are we even capable? Is there an answer? Or as humans, are we just mad?
Various legislation effects the suicide and accident rate....by firearm. The murder rate has not relationship to guns, at all. Even after a long, hard, professional, look at the date, you cursory glance shows the same underlying truth.
The movement of firearms into the "illegal" world follows a pattern too. If we could decentralize this, it might help. Sad truth: with over 100 years of centralization (10 classes of FFL) the US pretty much "cannot" decentralize the right to bear arms.
this is a big bussiness for certain nation! the debate represent stakeholder in power! no one can stop them! too much cost to pay, if you want to try!
no it's not, the small arms industry is not even in the top 20 for lobbying.
You use a lot of strong word, strong mind construct. This is the time of social engineering, leading and misleading opinion to gain major support to dominate one another. This the time where hard works is not enough. This is time for change, change is mind, change in attitude, change in power!
If there are still shootings in public schools, why do not they demand public schools closing?
For real. We cannot count on police or the schools to protect us..
it's a lot harder to use violence against armed innocent people than unarmed people gathered behind a gun free zone sign.
For me, I believe very strongly that gun violence will reduce in the US if there are laws on ground to prevent citizens from having access to lethal firearms. The recent shooting only succeeded because the villain had access to a lethal firearm. If he hadn't, the casualty would have been minimal.
Access to lethal weapons should not define our civilization. For now, gun control is overdue. We need to control guns to save mankind.
Guns have been around since like the year 1,500 and they are not going away anytime soon. Heck, people can build them at home after a trip to the hardware store.
So you don't know that there is a black market for guns? How did banning work with drugs? No one has access to those right?
I'm not sure I agree. While prohibition can stem demand slightly, the desire for violence can simply shift vehicles. Where do we draw the line?
Bombs, guns, acid, knives, vehicles? We have plenty of notable mass casuality events with out firearms.
I don't think controlling these things will ever strike at the root of the problem.
No kidding.
Why do so many pot smoking liberals think that laws can eliminate guns?
I almost see it as evolution. We came from the jungles, brutal and bloodthirsty... the dominance hierarchy, which is violence or government, in the animal kingdom extends to our ancestors and as we've evolved, our DNA, our governmental, philosophical, technological capabilities evolve and the light at the end of the tunnel is this freedom of violence and coercion, some anarchic utopia where the monopoly of force has been dissolved each individual is powerful and free but not yet... we have not the consciousness as a species, but the trend is heading that way?! NO!?! AM I CRAZY!?!
Interesting views and views of those who have commented. I agree that it is tough any which way you look at it. As a
Canadian who only had a gun to shoot the vermin in the back 40, I have not use for guns outside of that. Canada has gun control through heavy checks on who is applying for the firearm and registration of such arm. Lethal Arms are not sold (unless in the underground of course). We still have shootings but very few based on someone who has some form of mental illness.
I have also visited other countries like England and Ireland where even the cops don't have guns. And then there is Israel where guns are seen everywhere, but you know that the are held by well trained men an women.
So what does that mean? Is it a deep cultural difference on how we look at guns, or arming ourselves? I don't know, but there is certainly a rift in how to deal with the important issue happening in the United States.
While the debate may "miss the point", the statistics are pretty clear that less guns equal more violence. So indirectly, the conversation is about violence, and the camp that wants to take the guns away, whether it's conscious to them or not, desires more violence.
More like.. more gun LAWS = more gun VIOLENCE... I don't think the quantity of guns per area really matters like Japan and Austria are low in violent crimes but one is strapped to the gills? Maybe I'm wrong..
I think racial and cultural differences have a massive impact on violence as well. Blacks commit the most gun violence in the US by far.
Of course, when it comes to the Florida shooting, the real discussion is psychiatric meds. ALL THE DAMN MASS SHOOTERS ARE ON MEDS THAT HAVE SUICIDAL AND HOMICIDAL THOUGHTS WRITTEN ON THE DAMN SIDE EFFECTS LIST. Ungh.
100% agree. Also how about not making schools gun free zones... Think globalists call it fish in a bucket.
Full article here if you wanna check it
very well said