A professor of economics at George Mason University, Walter Williams, dares to point out that guns are not the problem with gun violence. Guns, having existed long before the outbreak of regular and frequent mass shootings in schools and workplaces, are likely not the sole culprit. Certainly not the sole culprit that gun control advocates want to focus on to the exclusion of any other possible explanation for our problems.
Likely it's the move to officially reject God, push old Christian based values out the window, raise kids to be spoiled narcissists heavy on the hedonism and entitlement, and a general disregard for human life with an emphasis on aiding those would would harm the innocent at the expense of protecting the innocent. That's just a guess of mine, I could be wrong.
I particularly like his emphasis on how ubiquitous guns were 50 years ago, and how easy it was to obtain them. I, too, grew up in a rural community where farmers and hunters drove to school with guns in the back of their trucks as a normal practice. I myself gave a demonstration in speech class how to clean and assemble a shotgun. My only requirement: I wasn't allowed to keep the gun after class, I had to leave it in the principle's office. That's because nobody imagined I or anyone else would go off nut crazy and kill people. And that was the year after the infamous McDonald's shooting I should add.
Nope, our problem is a godless and blasphemous culture of death and slaughter for baseless debauchery and self-worship, materialist hopelessness, and a hatred and contempt for people who refuse to change the definition of Napoleon when I self-identity as the Corsican. It doesn't take a game show host to figure out this, and probably not guns, is the primary mischief.
There could also be...ReplyDelete
Of course as usual we have to do the whole "not everybody who smokes weed goes nuts" but if the practice becomes widespread enough, even if just 1% of the population has a brain or gene flaw that interacts with the drug to cause violence...
First off, I don't see them buying the argument that not everyone who owns guns kills people', so that shouldn't matter. Especially if there is even an iota of connection between pot and violence. But then, again, I think it's all mostly about eliminating gun ownership rights, and not really about the mounting violence, death, misery and mental problems our society is experiencing.Delete
Bingo David! Disarming the populace has been the only reason the leading "experts" and politicians want to control and/or ban guns. This whole thing about guns being the culprit in gun violence(guns don't shoot themselves)is only believed by the ignorant and the sheeple who listen to the experts. Disarming the populace is the goal since they do not want an ARMED revolt against an encroaching totalitarian government as we are now beginning to see today.Delete
Yep. With each passing story on gun control, I become more and more convinced that it's only about adding the right to own guns to the growing list of rights and freedoms that the modern Left is clearly tired of.Delete
Oh I quite agree, the trick is always to try and pull out the confession. If they're willing to entertain banning marijuana again in the interest of saving lives as well as guns, then you at least know if you're dealing with an honest believer.Delete
Otherwise you confirm, like you said, that it's less about lives and more about control.
You make the point that widespread gun ownership was not a problem when craziness was rare. You make the point that craziness is no longer rare. Is this supposed to constitute an argument for widespread gun ownership being a good idea when craziness is widespread?ReplyDelete
Well, it's supposed to be an argument that if we want to solve the problem, we'll look at the cause of the problem, not the tool in question that those warped by the problems happen to be using. Guns easier to get and generally all over the place in the 1970s - no regular instances of mass killings in any place you can imagine. Guns today fairly regulated, still available - mass killings in any place, in schools, by children even being a regular occurrence. My money? The problem isn't guns, and spending 99% of our time on guns is a good way to avoid 99% of the problem.Delete
You can have as many crazies as you want. No gun control will prevent them from getting a gun illegally if they truly want one or kill someone if it is truly what they want to do. So taking MY gun because THEY are crazy leaves me defenseless against the crazies who will still get a gun illegally and still want to kill me. Makes sense huh? So what do I do? Get a gun illegally and take the chance of going to prison? But again that is beside the point. My weapon is to defend myself against a rogue government. They are crazy enough to justify keeping my gun.ReplyDelete
Do you believe you have a right to live your life without fear of someone threatening to kill you? Does your family? Do you and your family believe have the right to defend your lives against an aggressor intent on hurting or killing you? Does someone, a total stranger have the right to tell you or your family when and how to defend yourselves?
How do you defend yourself against someone with a gun if you do not have one? How do you defend yourself against someone with a knife if you don't have a gun or a knife? How do you defend your rights from a totalitarian government intent on taking your rights away if you and everyone else has been disarmed?
I think that was meant to be a response to me, and you just hit the "reply" in the wrong place.Delete
If so, it is really a non-sequitur. The USA 40 years ago was not in the Evil Spock Universe. Today it is. What was safe and reasonable 40 years ago is absolutely useless in determining what might be safe and reasonable today; it is a comparison of apples and oranges. My complaint was not about the conclusion, but about an argument that does not really go anywhere.
You seem to think that small arms would have made a real difference in Tiananmen Square. Nope; sorry, they would not. They wouldn't have made a difference -- at least not a POSITIVE difference -- in the 1991 coup attempt in Russia, either. It all comes down to whether or not you persuade the guys in the tanks. In Russia, they did; in China, they did not. American tanks are likewise impervious to anything you might have in your closet. If it comes down to a shoot-out with a totalitarian government, you have already lost.
There is not an abundance of heavy armor in this country that can cover even a small fraction of this nation. Boots on the ground will always be a necessity and they will be up against an armed populace. Sure, chances are there will be massacres by the thousands, but a defeatist attitude like yours will already have lost the war. I would rather die with a gun in my hands having tried to defend my family than dying from a boot on my neck after surrendering.Delete
Uh huh. I'm sure it would all play out just like in the movie Red Dawn. At least, in your fantasies it would. If any of this goes beyond your fantasies, we're screwed.Delete
Maybe Red Dawn isn't the best comparison. It would be more like Vietnam in the 70s. The US had overwhelming firepower, but the Viet Cong had a stronger will to fight. The Government could win a protracted war, but enough armed citizens running wild would still make it costly. Nobody in China of Russia really tried that. If they had, things might have gone differently for them. It's not about being able to actually win. It's about making the potential war such a nightmare that the government won't want to start it.Delete
I guess what I mean is, if gun ownership had been commonplace in China, the government wouldn't have been so quick to attack Tienemen Square with Tanks, for fear of triggering uprisings and nuisance raids across China. Even though such raids wouldn't be enough to overthrow the government or anything, they would be really bad for the economy, army morale, internal stability, and all those other things that beurcrats care so much about. Again, the point isn't that we could win. The point is we'd be able to do enough damage that it wouldn't be worth conquering usDelete
Lol that's okay Howard. Sit back. No one is forcing you to defend yourself . Forgive us for trying to remain free.ReplyDelete
If you want to remain free, maybe you should start by understanding what freedom is, where it comes from, and how it is maintained. Freedom comes from God, not from the barrel of your pea-shooter, nor from any serviceman. Freedom is something that Thomas More and Edmund Campion had as they awaited execution, but that Queen Elizabeth did not have as she lay on her deathbed. Freedom is what Lazar of Serbia had when he chose to reign in heaven, not on earth. "The chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof" was neither chariot nor horsemen.Delete
The freedom of the martyr does not depend on arms, fine; but what about from a secular perspective? Small-arms resistance only works if the weaker side can persuade the stronger side that the resistance is actually in the right (and that that matters), or at least that it is not worthwhile to annihilate the resistance. Don't give me any nonsense about the French resistance; they would still be under the German boot if it were not for the Americans, British, and Soviets, all of whom were fighting with big-boy weapons. The Continentals were able to drive out the British because the war was distant, costly, and controversial in England; for similar reasons, the North Vietnamese were able to drive out the Americans, and the Taliban are in the process of doing the same thing. Otherwise, it ends like the Warsaw Uprising or Operation Anthropoid.
But maybe there are circumstances under which you might need to use deadly force against your government. We don't even need to imagine them; that is an essential element in several movies every year. In the same way, there are movies about how you might need to kill your spouse. Remember Schwartzenegger's line in Total Recall, "Consider that a divorce?" But if you spend a lot of time talking about how you need to be prepared for that, it may not only be your spouse who begins to have doubts about you.
The Left wants to portray Christians as divorced from reality and a threat to be dealt with. You are playing right into their script.
In the same way, there are movies about how you might need to kill your spouse. Remember Schwartzenegger's line in Total Recall, "Consider that a divorce?" But if you spend a lot of time talking about how you need to be prepared for that, it may not only be your spouse who begins to have doubts about you.Delete
All my fault, eh? Doesn't matter how abusive my spouse might be, how many scars I have, it's all on me, eh?
The USA may be more fragile than you think.
It's okay Howard. Relax. As I said no one is forcing you do defend yourself or your family. Relax :)Delete
Alas that it is the late Walter Williams. But at least Thomas Sowell still lives (as of this posting).Delete