I'm hearing a lot about "gun violence" in the news again, and am just as mystified this time around as I am every time around. The very phrase "gun violence" gets on my last nerve - it's confusing to try figuring out why "knife violence", "club violence", "claw hammer violence", etc, are any better than "gun violence", and in fact so much more wholesome that they never even get mentioned. What is the common thread in all of those things? V-I-O-L-E-N-C-E. From my perspective, violence is violence. The tool for it's prosecution matters nary a whit.
It's the violent person who is the problem, not their tool of choice. Bombs kill people every day, and have the potential to kill far more people in one fell swoop than even the most loaded gun, yet we never hear the phrase "bomb violence".
Do these people not realize that "gun violence" guards their very lives every day? What is it when a cop shoots a criminal if not "gun violence"? The cop sure as hell ain't shooting the criminal with a loaded finger or kind words! BIAD very astutely points out that there are two opposed directions in which violence ("gun violence" and otherwise) flows, and both are not equally "bad". For example, just a tiny bit of "gun violence" early on in the recent Florida rampage - i.e. the "gun violence" of perforating the perpetrator - would have gone a long way in eliminating all of the subsequent carnage that we allowed and even promoted by NOT punching a few holes in the little miscreant as soon as he produced his tool of violence!
Can't stop it like that if we don't have guns, but worse yet is to have them and be afraid to use them to stop the carnage. Some of us don't have that particular problem, however. For instance, a few years ago in this tiny town, at a law school ("Appalachian School of Law shooting" - look it up), an immigrant went on a rampage with a gun and killed, as I recall, 3 people. He was stopped by the simple expedient of two other students running to their vehicles and producing firearms with which to shoot back. If it were not for that, the carnage could have been a lot worse. Now admittedly, these gents were well beyond high school age, but the principle remains - folks are less likely to keep shooting if someone around has the balls and the tools to shoot back and punch a couple of holes in the rampaging perpetrator.
.
It's the violent person who is the problem, not their tool of choice. Bombs kill people every day, and have the potential to kill far more people in one fell swoop than even the most loaded gun, yet we never hear the phrase "bomb violence".
Do these people not realize that "gun violence" guards their very lives every day? What is it when a cop shoots a criminal if not "gun violence"? The cop sure as hell ain't shooting the criminal with a loaded finger or kind words! BIAD very astutely points out that there are two opposed directions in which violence ("gun violence" and otherwise) flows, and both are not equally "bad". For example, just a tiny bit of "gun violence" early on in the recent Florida rampage - i.e. the "gun violence" of perforating the perpetrator - would have gone a long way in eliminating all of the subsequent carnage that we allowed and even promoted by NOT punching a few holes in the little miscreant as soon as he produced his tool of violence!
Can't stop it like that if we don't have guns, but worse yet is to have them and be afraid to use them to stop the carnage. Some of us don't have that particular problem, however. For instance, a few years ago in this tiny town, at a law school ("Appalachian School of Law shooting" - look it up), an immigrant went on a rampage with a gun and killed, as I recall, 3 people. He was stopped by the simple expedient of two other students running to their vehicles and producing firearms with which to shoot back. If it were not for that, the carnage could have been a lot worse. Now admittedly, these gents were well beyond high school age, but the principle remains - folks are less likely to keep shooting if someone around has the balls and the tools to shoot back and punch a couple of holes in the rampaging perpetrator.
.
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.’