(05-31-2022, 08:44 AM)MarioOnTheFly Wrote: I'm a non American. I can see pros and cons on this debate. I dont think it's really a gun issue. Probably more a culture issue from my perspective. But when I say "culture"...this is so complicated that the word doesnt do it justice.
On one hand, I completely understand Americans for wanting to own guns for their own protection, be it from unchecked government or crazy individuals. On the other hand, it certainly provides easier access for these nuts. Would a gun ban reduce these mass shootings....? If I had to bet on it...I would say probably NO.
You're right, it's more of a culture problem than a gun problem.
And a "gun ban" might reduce the number of mass shootings, but it will not reduce the number of mass killings because it does not address the root causes of the problem. The de-socialized and alienated folks will just find other, more creative, means of lashing out at their targets.
The very notion that "gun crime" is somehow more heinous or destructive than the root cause of "crime" is a symptom of the insanity taking hold here. Dead is dead, and the deceased do not care that it was a gun that took them out instead of a bomb, a knife, or a crowbar. They are just as dead, either way. Until we disabuse ourselves of the stupid notion that the implement is causing the crime, and address the root causes of the crime instead, it will continue.
"Hate crime" is another, equally meaningless, label they are applying. If one man kills another, it can be fairly well ascertained that he didn't much love the man he killed, so why tack on a meaningless qualifier, like "HATE crime" or "GUN crime"? They do it to muddy the waters, to shift the focus away from the root causes which they themselves are generating, crime itself, towards another track that can never be adequately controlled - in these examples, "guns" and "hate". It frames it into an unsolveable problem, which will give them generations of fear-fodder, an inexhaustible supply of it. The very coining of those phrases is an attempt to make the populace feel more vulnerable and afraid... and it misdirects their fear away from what should be scaring the crap out of them. It is simple misdirection and misinformation at it's finest.
If we take Canada as an example, they illegalized something on the order of 1500 types of what Trudeau calls "assault-style weapons", whatever the hell that is, a couple of years ago. Instead of reducing "gun crime", it rose. Now he is agitating to do more of the same by illegalizing hand guns across Canada. If the first bans didn't work, what makes him think more of the same will suddenly start working? Isn't doing the same thing over and over again and always expecting a different result one of the definitions of insanity?
Why do they steadfastly refuse to address the root causes, instead focusing on mere inanimate objects?
Because that IS what they are doing, ignoring the roots while addressing the wind. I'm certain they are NOT doing it for "our" protection, the protection of the people. I'm equally certain they do not care about the rise of batshit crazy folks committing these atrocities, because they continue to manufacture them and ignore their increase, while at the same time dismantling our defenses - "defunding" police and the like - and putting ever more wolves into the sheepfold to attack us. The only conclusion I can reach is that they are intentionally promoting these horrid events in an effort to disarm the populace altogether, because a disarmed populace is an eminently terrorizable and controllable populace. They are focused on protecting and expanding their OWN power, and give no shits about us peons under their thumb. If it were otherwise, their efforts would reflect that.
Should they get a total gun ban in place, there would still be guns being smuggled in by criminals, FOR criminals. It would only be the average Joes that would be disarmed and at the mercy of all comers. It would leave The People defenseless in the face of attacking wolves. Not totally defenseless, of course. We can be just as inventive when it comes to mayhem as the next guy. Just because we are peaceful does not mean we are harmless if pushed. For example, if I were utterly disarmed, but felt myself to be at threat, I can ring this place with layers of defenses and destructive devices that would decimate any interlopers indiscriminately with nothing more than a knife, a hank of paracord, maybe some fishing line and a folding e-tool shovel, and what nature provides beyond that. It would then be a VERY dangerous proposition to approach my house, more so because all those devices would be on auto-pilot and kill whatever moved, not making a decision behind a set of gun sights as to threat level. Those devices would not even care if the interlopers did or did not have any guns - they would simply function with no fear, remorse or emotion.
If I can do it, it's a sure bet there are more out there capable of the same.
Is that really a better solution than just letting us remain "armed" and more discriminating in evaluating visitors? Why not just leave us alone in peace, and instead go after the perpetrators and reduce their numbers by stopping the manufacture of them?
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’