One dire scenario with two different endings.
There's a young woman in a park, taking nature photos around sunset. She's suddenly grabbed around the waist from behind.
From here, the story can go one of two ways, depending on the speaker.
A right-wing story-teller might continue;
Her strong assailant, knowing guns are banned, threw her into the bushes and sexually assaulted her.
While a left wing type might say;
She quickly drew her pistol, reached around her torso and fired twice into her cousin, who was surprising her with a hug
The broad debate is largely a storytelling competition, to try and convince us that people are either more evil than they are stupid (right), or more stupid than they are evil (left).
If humanity is stupid, we can't be trusted with guns, and if humanity is evil we really need to have them.
I read an excellent FEE article claiming that we could have had cell phones 40 years earlier, if the state hadn't actively prevented it.
Which got me thinking about our dire scenario.
If she's attacked while disarmed, in a situation where she would have otherwise chosen to be armed, then moral culpability for the attack must be shared between the party which disarmed her and the party which attacked her.
I'm sure if I snatched a gun from a policeman's holster, then stood by as somebody else punched him, I'd be considered an accomplice to the assault.
If I hated fire extinguishers, and threatened to attack you for owning one, and your house burned down, that's on me.
I've taken your ability to fight the fire, now the fire has taken your house and I'm partially responsible.
But what if I notice your fire extinguisher and don't say anything, then one day you bludgeon your wife to death with it?
Is that on me?
(I could have taken away your weapon but I didn't, and now she's dead.)
Of course it isn't.
That's on you.
You did a bad thing and I'm not even slightly culpable.
If the cop goes on to shoot Walter Scott eight times in the back; that's on him.
If the girl in the park accidentally shoots her cousin, that's on her.
Nobody else is responsible.
However;
If she's attacked and can't defend herself, then anyone who championed the gun control policy which disarmed her is an accomplice to the crime.
If she kicks a squirrel, that's on her.
If I tie her to a tree to prevent her from kicking squirrels, and bears come and eat her, that's on me.
The best way to avoid responsibility for terrible things which happen to other people, is to stop making choices on their behalf.
He'll still beat his wife with the fire extinguisher; and she'll still ventilate her cousin; because evil and stupid are here to stay, but at least your hands are clean.
If you think you can do a better job of running other people's lives than they can, you're just adding more stupid to the world, and if you're willing to sacrifice their freedom for your safety, you're only adding more evil.
Have a great day.
Unofficially we may get harsher treatment in the legal system if we defended ourselves in Australia then the attacker. People are not stupid, (uneducated maybe but not stupid) in switzerland they have plenty of guns per capita and comparatively insignificant gun crime. Are we prepared to say the swiss are less stupid, or more responsible then we are? I dont think that most would want to admit that. For the people who have been educated in gun usage I don't see a problem with gun ownership. Resteemed
I've thought a lot about why the Swiss have relatively little gun crime despite lots of people having assault rifles in their homes in Switzerland (because so many military reservists are required to keep their military weapons in their homes). I think it may have a lot to do with a different culture and lower rates of violent crime in Switzerland. To become more informed prior to posting this, I looked for statistics on Swiss vs. US crime and found some numbers that show that while overall crime rates in those two countries are similar, the murder rate is about six times higher in the US than in Switzerland even after adjusting for the population difference. That doesn't really fit the narrative of either side in the gun control debate in the US, but I think that's the main reason. If you don't want to murder anyone, having a gun in the closet doesn't result in you murdering people. If you are a criminal who wants to kill people, having a gun handy might very well make the difference between whether you do it or not. Is there some way we could figure out how to have fewer criminals (outside of prisons) in the US instead of focusing only on whether or not there should be fewer guns?
I think there is a way to do it and in my opinion it is through education, now this is just my guess and I say this not through experience, but speculation of countries like Switzerland that have compulsory service. An education that instills a sense of responsibility (for self, community & country; maybe in that order) and a sense of self reliance. Self reliance, because I think that as people lose opportunity (lose the means of production; i.e. no jobs etc) that their economic situation will potentially become worse. I also think it is inevitable that they will lose the means of production, however with the right education, maybe people can re think their consumerism (i know this is wishful thinking).
The reason I mention self reliance as a solution is firstly, because crime is mostly relegated to areas of low socio-economic conditions, you don't need to be an academic to know this or why this is. Secondly, I suspect that re-evaluating ones expectations for life may be required in the future.
I'm not American, but I'm willing to bet the "American dream" is not a house with some land, a vege garden and some chooks. My impression of the American dream is ridin' dirty in a Bentley with a couple of hookers and some cocaine.
So for me education and a cultivation of a more honorable culture, would be the key. On the proviso that their is opportunity to improve ones situation through hard work.
I suspect that the solutions prescribed for creating fewer criminals are beyond what we would like to see Government being involved in anyways. Mainly early childhood experience plays a crucial role, exposure to violence, parents in prison, poverty and lack of opportunity for social mobility --- these are all factors that create a perfect stew for creating criminality in larger numbers in today's culture.
@somena
I don't think that government involvement needs to be increased, just adjusted (i.e. adjusting education) to promote a more well rounded human being. School doesn't do this, not even here in Australia. Obviously I understand that any government has little interest in improving anything, my opinion is that a stupider population is better for them.
I mostly agree with this, however some kids develop their criminal ideas almost instantly, when somebody convinces them of their oppression (from experience, luckily I grew out of that) and the person goes out to get theirs. Otherwise yes, a lot of this stuff can be dealt with at a young age.
Largely agree with that, however to expound on the "exposure to violence" part, I think it really depends on the type of violence and the motivation behind the violence. I know some people who have had been more exposed to extreme violence at a young age, in war torn countries and have immigrated here to be well rounded, law abiding citizens. On the other hand, I have seen people who are exposed to say typical low socio-economic violence and absolutely go on to criminal behaviour. I also want to make note that I am not referring to: violent music, movies and video games, as there have been studies done that refute this claim. Generally speaking a sane person understands reality from fiction (or at least used to).
We (western nations) have a lot to be concerned about and the governments have a lot to answer for (degrading of education), as we are slowly having the ability to provide for ourselves, taken away (automation). I am of the opinion that it will only get worse, therefore crime will only get worse.
But in many ways, unless the stats are being juked in some ways, crime is actually going down in North America.... most types of crime anyways. (If I am not mistaken. I could be wrong,, but I could have sworn I saw some reasonably cited stats on this subject)
I have actually heard this as well, but never checked. On the other hand I have heard that Chicago is crazy. Often the devil is in the detail (i.e. crime being confined to certain areas) when it comes to stats. It reminds me of the "Wire", the departments were changing the stats, not proof of course, but if they thought of it, I am sure that it has crossed the minds of others.
I think there was a youtube video of Thomas Sowell somewhere on this subject, I'll try and locate it.
Thanks for the RS and input, Louis. I agree entirely.
The only country that we're supposed to compare ourselves to is the US.
The only stat we're supposed to look at is 'Gun deaths'
(Which includes suicides, shootings by police, legitimate shoots in self defense, and a whole tonne of murders which would have been committed another way in the absence of a gun.)
Hi @mattclarke I've written an article about you, Check it out if you can, thanks.
30 Best Steemians Of The Day To Follow 24th July 2017
https://steemit.com/steemit/@jzeek/30-best-steemians-of-the-day-to-follow-24th-july-2017
Thanks mate. I'll have a look.
Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.
Well said. I could not say it better. Pepper spray may be a compromise in the one instance but not a good one. Any evil is in the hearts of people and that is worse than the gun or fire extinguisher. Addressing the heart rather than the object being used would help alot. However there will always be evil hearts as long as this old earth continues. Thanks for sharing. - Troy
Thanks, mate. She wouldn't be allowed pepper spray either, here in Australia.
As an American who grew up in the South with a grandfather who had a gun hidden behind every door in his house, and a dad who bought me my first high powered rifle for my 12th birthday, let me just say you are the strangest Australian I have ever met.
But I sure wish there were more Aussies just like you.
Thanks mate. I think our current nanny state of affairs maybe came about because we're so laid back.
A guy wants to pass a new law, says we desperately need it, so we give him a fair go.
Then the next guy and the next.
Suddenly we're drowning in petty bullshit rules, scratching our heads over how it happened.
That's a great point. When it comes to politics, I've noticed Aussies tend to be pretty passive. As they say, "She'll be right."
It is sad to see how different news anchors and people will depict a story in different ways to exaggerate the problem to critique on society.
It is true that we need to be able to practice our freedom of safety since without it, we can only be dictated, controlled and enslaved.
I agree with you completely. Great article. Thank you for sharing.
Great article cheers mate.
Great post Matt, If we live in a society that is safe and you don't need any means to protect yourself, why are the police armed to the teeth? The government is constantly arming the police with more and more weapons, but apparently we don't need them. So now we have just had new laws passed in Australia that allows the government to put armed soldiers on our streets. They will be given the right to shoot and kill anyone the government deems to be a so called terrorist. So they have all the guns and we can't have them, isn't that what all dictator do? Cheers
Scary isn't it.
You don't need to have done anything, either. They can just say you were planning something, and provide zero evidence at trial; because there isn't a trial; you're just summarily executed in the street for something they claim you were thinking about.
Guns don't kill anyone, it's the nut behind the butt. A gun is just a tool, like an axe or a screwdriver each of which make a good weapon also. Cheers
Despicable evil trolls, they make me sick.
As you say, the nuts behind the butts. Generally I believe every man must have the right to build a fire, and to own a weapon to protect himself. History has shown, your worst enemy is your government or your doctor - after 50 years it's always fact that they have done terrible things to the community.
I don't think doctors should be put in the same basket as filthy politicians, at least most doctors want to help you not terrorize everyone.
Silverbug, that is very true. However, the problem is that they are victims of their training and the pharma industry who have to push them their product. In Germany the average life expectation of a medical doctor is between 50 and 60 while for everyone else it is over 80. In Germany the rate of incorrect diagnosis is estimated at between 48 and 56%. This data has alarmed me. That is why we urgently need a blockchain "medibook".
"The best way to avoid responsibility for terrible things which happen to other people, is to stop making choices on their behalf." @mattclarke, you have a gift for taking an issue and boiling it down to a simple common-sense conclusion.
Thanks, @tlester :)
I've been a little absent recently, as we took a holiday and my wife broke her foot.
I have ideas for posts, but little writing time.
Me too. Life sure is busy but just popped on steemit yesterday after a bit of a break. So sorry to hear about your wife's foot! Having littles will be even more challenging. Hoping for a speedy recovery for her. :)
You raise some interesting questions here @mattclarke. I'm personally anti gun, but I take your point.
'Anti-gun' you don't want one, or 'anti-gun' I shouldn't be allowed to have one?
Based on the gun shit show in the US I'm going to go with option 2. But like I said, I see your point, and I do think Australia is an overprotective nanny state. So I conflict myself.
At least you're thinking about it :)