The unassuming and unwitting catalyst of societal woes."The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said."
Thanks to the aptly named Hell in a Handbasket for the above article.
I find the anti-gun gambit on the political front to be a lazy and convenient source of explaining away crime. The politicos on the left have convinced many that if we simply do away with guns violent crime will subside to a more manageable problem. It's much easier to parade the gun around and assure the masses of it's evil than it is to delve in to the intricate nature of ethnic, economic, even tribal elements of crime not to mention the intellectual slavery of those that bear the yoke of institutionalized social welfare. Those that are born with the assurance that no matter what rung they reach on the ladder of life, they will be kicked back into the depths and so should embrace this gift of sustenance that the mighty gubberment prescribes.
Ah, but the gun. A mechanical device is easily demonized. What's more nightmarish than a 3 pound hand held device that delivers just barely sub-supersonic particles of lead at the behest of a few ounces of finger pressure? A bane to society to be sure.
No doubt they, those sleek and vicious harbingers of death, are the cause of societies greatest woes. After all, they make crime incredibly easy. Like a mouse, simply point and rob a store, commandeer a car, kidnap a child or extinguish another sentient being (human or otherwise.) They're certainly a lot sexier as an anti-hero of life than a welfare check, a crumbling housing project or a popular culture that increasingly embraces a bland and exceedingly narcissist's (in some cases nihilist) visage of "life."
All hail the mighty Gun! The God of crime and the greatest political subterfuge of American history.
15 comments:
The original Megatron transformer was a robot in one mode, a gun in the other. Boy, too bad Michael Bay couldn't have found a way to make THAT work in this summer's TRANSFORMERS movie.... :-)
Hah, y'know, my home state of Missouri (sometimes pronounced "misery") recently made two significant legal changes.
1. reduced the wait for getting a gun; that very morning, lines formed at gun shops around the state.
2. made same-day marriage licenses available by eliminating the 3-day wait.
So I figure, of course, that the domestic violence figures are going to jump soon in Missouri, or at least domestic homicide.
Why? Not because of the guns, per se, but because both marriages and guns can now be had without much thought and planning. Go out and get 'em now, if you want 'em!! Guns and spouses. Then later think, oh shit! And get rid of one.
shane,
I read somewhere that Bay purposefully omitted Megatrons original, er, transformed state in favor of a jet (if I remember correctly.) Not sure why. How was the movie? Remember the original animated movie?
curtis,
"Go out and get 'em now, if you want 'em!! Guns and spouses. Then later think, oh shit! And get rid of one."
Lol!
I must be dense: are for or against gun ownership? I couldn't tell.
Heh. Quite for the Second Amendment, vegas. Sorry for the confusion.
I wonder - if the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution today, they might have written instead:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear quantities of fertilizer, nitromethane, or TNT, shall not be infringed."
Perhaps in the future it would be:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to seek and retain l337 h4x, shall not be infringed."
Curtis Gale Weeks, after noting that the waiting period in his home state for both purchasing a gun and getting a marriage license had been reduced, said the following....
"So I figure, of course, that the domestic violence figures are going to jump soon in Missouri, or at least domestic homicide."
"Why? Not because of the guns, per se, but because both marriages and guns can now be had without much thought and planning. Go out and get 'em now, if you want 'em!! Guns and spouses. Then later think, oh shit! And get rid of one."
It is an accepted trope by those opposed to gun ownership that the very presence of a firearm means that it must be used sometimes, usually to tragic effect.
This is simply not true, and the facts prove this.
I'm not going to bother to post all the links here, mainly because this comment is too long as it is. Just go here, and don't forget to read the comments.
PS Thanks for the link, Soob.
James
All I know is that Britains are getting the snot beat out of them everyday by "youths" and gangs and everybody else, cause they won't defend themselves. And they won't defend themselves because the government has promised to defend them for them, that's after all why they took away their guns, eh?
James,
"It is an accepted trope by those opposed to gun ownership that the very presence of a firearm means that it must be used sometimes, usually to tragic effect."
James, this wasn't my point at all. If 99.99994% of newly married and newly armed couples never suffer a case of domestic homicide, nonetheless the ability to buy a gun quickly may in fact lead to a slight jump in domestic homicides -- particularly if the hassle of waiting 3 days for a marriage license is entirely removed. Spur-of-the-moment marriages are more likely to end badly than those that have been planned out well in advance. Most of the time, a divorce or an annulment will occur; but perhaps other types of dissolution may occur.
The "gotta have 'em in every household, preferably several guns in every household, to defend against the raging hordes commin' to kill us!" crowd has a trope as well. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. My slightly tongue-in-cheek comment above was borne from an observation that those people may be doing the killing after finding out that their great loves are not their great loves after all. It's psychology-based: what do some people (albeit a very minor portion) do when they suddenly find out they are "trapped"?
adrian,
I've often given thought to how the 2nd amendment realistically holds up beyond the 19th century as military technology evolved and weaponry (or arms) became bigger, badder and less realistic for the average Joe to own.
It is an interesting question: Had the Founding Fathers been aware of the F-16, M-1 Abrams or the cruise missile would they have been a bit more specific in drafting the 2nd Amendment?
ymarsakar, see my post [1] on the Scottish knife control!
james,
You're welcome.
Heh. Forgot to add the link.
1. http://soobdujour.blogspot.com/2007/04/knife-control-yeah-really-in-scrolling.html
On the 2nd Amendment: it's important to remember the caveat to the "Right to Bear Arms". Namely, the acknowledgment of the importance of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
The text of the 2nd Amendment that was ratified by the House and Senate reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The version distributed to the states had different capitalization ("M" to "m", "S" to "s") and deleted the first and last commas.
For the amusement of all, it might come as a surprise to many "able-bodied males" who are citizens of the U.S. and between the ages of 17 and 45 to learn that they too are members of the "Militia":
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
"The Regulars are coming! The Regulars are coming! To arms!!"
It is an interesting question: Had the Founding Fathers been aware of the Internet and satellite TV would they have been a bit more specific in drafting the 1st Amendment?
The 1st Amendment would have taken 10 pages, to satisfy all the interest groups and DC power factions.
Heh, yeah shane, the idea that no male of qualifying age has any right to resist conscription might ring a few bells today, eh?
triticale,
I'd like to think not. I'd like to think that the 1st amendment knows no subjective bounds in terms of how it was drafted. Reaslistically, however, I suspect the founding fathers would have acted much in the same fashion our own government has and enacted restriction regarding the broadcast of certain content.
Remember, the FCC (as draconian and backwards as it is) isn't a restriction of free speech rather a restriction of broadcasting.
Post a Comment