A reader Adam LaBonte writes:
In the ongoing debate about the “epidemic of gun violence” in our nation, it occurs to me that this so-called epidemic should be perceived by progressives as a two-part problem: guns and violence. It naturally follows that such promoters of more gun restrictions should be equally committed to supporting anger management classes, tougher sentencing for violent criminals, and whatever other peacenik type things they believe will spread hearts, rainbows, and unicorns across our great country. But they don’t . . .
Violence is part of the human condition, much more a part in some folks than in others, obviously. At times, conflict can only be resolved with violence. Without concerted efforts to address violent behavior both in prevention and deterrence/rehabilitation/punishment, gun control in and of itself serves no purpose. At least not for “the children”.
The notion that if we just removed guns from the equation, violence nationwide would be reduced is a fallacy. As a society, we’d merely trade one tool for another. Furthermore, we all know that a disarmed society would experience an unheard-of level of victimization.
Using objectification to make violence in our nation a gun problem rather than a behavioral one might jibe with the progressive ideology, but at the end of the day it doesn’t accomplish a whole hell of a lot – apart from increasing the number of new gun owners, gun and accessories sales, and agitating an enormous group of Americans who value their Constitutionally protected rights.
That’s really the part that gets me about “gun violence.” Human beings did a fair job killing one another in the several thousand years before gun powder was even invented. It’s not exactly a new concept…
That’s because it’s common sense. And the anti-whatever types that just want a headline don’t care about history or common sense. They want to sensationalize, and do that by lying or bending the truth to get a reaction.
Not to mention, if they admit people can be evil, then that means they could be evil. And God forbid that happens. It’s blind ego and elitism at it’s finest.
Ever since “…and Cain slew his brother, Abel”.
I wonder if there was a “Moms Demand Action Against Rocks” in prehistory?
..not to mention, … pointed sticks…
Crime is the preferred Progressive method of social control. They want to take away guns so the criminals can do their job.
And that otherwise law-abiding gun owners become criminals and are thus controllable.
Nice tight package, hey.
While a depressing thought, I do believe you are right.
Elementary, my dear Watson.
Liberals know that it’s easier to control citizens than criminals.
Citizens follow the law, criminals don’t.
So, like the criminals they coddle, liberals take the path of least resistance and pass law after law after law to control us.
Tdiinva has a point. It’s not that they’re actually trying to stop crime or violence, it’s that by removing firearms from the law abiding, it encourages reliance on the state for safety, which means more people will support measures to increase funding to the government so they can “do their job”. It’s not about reducing violence at all.
That which enfeebles the people empowers the government; that which empowers the people enfeebles the government.
If you’re believing all my biblical friends out there, It took all of 4 people on the planet before the first homicide happened. Good thing God hadn’t outlawed rocks.
Classic example. Two’s company, three’s a crowd, four is apparently cause for moyda.
Which means Cain’s children were borne by….. OH MY!! 😀
A little googling, and it turns out he had 23 sisters…
Playah!
Also incest, though that is not nearly a funny enough comment.
Well as the saying goes… it’s not about the guns… it’s about the control.
It’s no really surprise that it’s the left leaning people in our society that favor gun control. Because, generally speaking, it’s the left leaning politician’s that are currently pushing for more and more top down oversight of out society.
A bit off topic, I know. But I stand by the statement.
is violence part of the “human condition”, or is it because violence, and threats of violence are used to raise children?
What an asinine question….
Even people who were raised on a diet of sunshine and rainbows and participation awards are capable of violence. Hell, they are probably more capable of violence than anyone (just look at how violent progressives become when you throw inconvenient facts at them). Violence is an innate part of human nature, not a learned behavior. And BTW, you really sound like a leftist with your comment.
sounds like I hit a nerve
Aren’t they the same thing?
Mental health and gun training… A tool or weapon is defined by how it is used. Violence CAN be reduced. The capacity for change and the reality of change present the gap we need to close. And none of that requires more restrictions on gun ownership!
You’re spot on but you’re also preaching to the choir brother. The Antis willingly ignore fact, logic, and statistics and spout off BS to further their misguided cause. The sad thing is there are people stupid enough to follow them.
Graph of homicide rates in Europe before guns. If graph is legit, the homicide rates were much, much higher before firearms came to be:
http://extranosalley.com/?p=44540&utm_source=feedly
If you take away guns by force, people are going to fabricate their own means of protection. That doesn’t stop the violence factor. And I’m talking about your everyday innocent people that are victims of criminals. Give every bank teller a hand gun, I think bank robberies would be cut drastically. Convince store cashiers. Guns will be here forever one way or another.
Good points.
Gun control is all about “Control”. Guns are just a liberal media supported, progressive traitor, statist agenda target…
The State will protect you. Trust the government. We know what is best for you. We will tell you where to live, what to drive, what to eat and where to s**t.
“You don’t need a gun…..it will only get you hurt”…..MY bodyguards need them…but You don’t.
That is how progressives think. They are mostly middle upper class white folks who never really worked a day in their lives. They subjugated American blacks for their votes. Lied to gays and immigrants with false promises.
Not that they care one damn bit about those people. They consider them beneath their ivory tower. They give a few dollars to PETA or any other such group and sleep well thinking they are “Making a difference”.
They are lost and confused. Usually they are ignored. Our problem now is that we have a President who is a card carrying progressive. Sure, he pretends to be black when it suits his agenda, but none of his inner city welfare voters have a Harvard Law degree. They don’t have a 7 digit bank account.
We must put these progressives down hard. Attack on every front. No compromise. Make them scared, inconvenienced, bothered, worried.
They only stick to their principles when they dont mess up their perfect little lives. Make it hurt and they will slither away.
The Anti’s live in a pretend universe where the removal of guns equals the removal of violence. Did that work in Britain? Did that work in Australia? The Anti’s just do not get the concept that Statists want to take the guns so the government can control everyone. The Anti’s are pawns. Sheep. Slaves. And they don’t even realize it! Yoda would say, “Deer in the headlights, they are”. And what happens to the deer caught in the headlights??!!
I don’t know about anyone else but it seems that I’ve leaflet been debating with myself the topic of wether people are naturally good, or naturally evil. The optimist side says people are naturally good, whil the realist side says people are naturally evil, and that the way we become good is through upbringing ect.
Just wondering if anyone else has dwelled on this fact.
A great many people have throughout history and the fields of theology and philosophy are essentially based on exactly that question.
I think the question is too vague. You can think of the natural state of man as being chaotic neutral, apt to be good or evil by degrees depending on circumstance. In any individual sense though this is meaningless. Whether a person is good or evil largely depends on their experiences, particularly in early childhood, and their mental state. Some people are naturally inclined towards good while others are inclined to evil and most are neutral until some series of experiences defines their inclination.
Muddying the waters further, it isn’t clear cut what ‘good’ and ‘evil’ mean.
I also think the question is naïve and to some degree irrelevant. It’s more important to determine if a particular person is good or evil and that is perhaps best done by studying their actions.
Your question opens the door to endless debate and a lifetime of study which can only ever lead either to convincing oneself that for oneself the issue is settled. All others will have to continue to debate the issue and frankly, given that people have been pondering it for over 5000 years I doubt there will ever be a definitive answer.
The human Will is intrinsically good; it’s the spirits that can get cold and unfeeling and downright heartless. (everybody’s got both, more or less in balance; Heart is the balance point.)
The democratization of weaponry is probably the single greatest development in the social history of technology, when it comes to the reduction of the actual use of force by criminals and governments against innocents.
Yup, while we are stating the obvious, and the Earth is round. Yet there IS the flat Earth society.
The only question we should ask an elective representative or local, state and federal employee is….why is it necessary to control a law abiding citizen? I submit they will look at you perplexed and without ability to answer.
It’s not anti gun position, the arugument is anti lawful self protection for law abiding citizens. Anti’s have no foundation for the moral high ground, only ludicrous logic that harms people.
It’s about control. The Democratic Socialists cannot advance their social re-engineering of the U.S. as far as they would like until even the remotest possibility The People might rise up in armed revolt is eliminated. Has nothing to do with “guns”. Has nothing to do with human violence.
Thought experiment: imagine a situation you could put two people in where one could not kill the other.
Human violence is not dependent on tools, but on the will to do violence. You don’t “cure” that, you control it voluntarily, Most of us do, even if it is merely recognizing that not killing other humans is a matter of acting in one’s own best self-interest. More nobly, we control our violent urges because we recognize killing other people is morally and ethically wrong and violates their rights which we respect as we would want others to respect ours.
So, yeah, it is about controlling people. It is about denying the source of human rights as an inherent property of being a human and transferring that source status to The State. This allows The State to exert even more control over The People.
I suspect the Democratic Socialists think that the concept of individual liberty and self-determination is no longer relevant and, in fact, counterproductive to the contemporary State. I also suspect they believe a free market economy is neither relevant nor useful in the “utopia” they envision for the future. Control of People, control of resources, control of social structures, control of ideology and control of morality is what matters to them and the advancement of their agenda.
What ever happened to gangs? They’re never mentioned in the media anymore. Gang related shootings that used to plague our streets have vanished. Gang members robbing/raping/murdering people has ceased. Maybe they should use the same tactics to eliminate “Gun Violence” as they did to eradicate the gang problem in this country. Surely that would solve all of the problems and not infringe on anyone’s rights. All they would have to do is re-name “Gun Violence” to “Failed Anger Management”, or “Violent misunderstandings”, or “Negotiations Gone Awry” or other such nonsense. OR they (the MSM) could go back to telling the truth and give credit where credit is due. We still have gangs, and they account for 70% to 90% of the non-suicide gun deaths. Efforts towards curbing gang violence will do more to stop “Gun Violence” than if every single hair-brained anti-gun law proposed in the past 8 years was signed into law.
Go watch the TV series “Gangland” then you’ll want to carry two guns and a knife! Those pieces of SH?T are the reason we carry.The bleeding heart Liberals need to seriously get a clue!!! Hopfully some of the Anti politicians get victimized by these savages and are unarmed.I’m not promoting violence only that these knuckleheads get a taste of their anti agenda medicine from a street prospective,then hopefully(probably Not!!) they realize they are actually creating more deaths.
Comments are closed.