And as to the solution to the problem you think you see: That has to be social and cultural, just as it was with the “problem” of liquor leading up to and during Prohibition, and as it is for marijuana and other recreational and potentially pharmaceutical drugs.
Which, as you might recall, also became “epidemics” because ignorant idiots insisted they knew the answers, until experts finally talked some sense into them.
Now please be quiet, the adults are talking.
Michael Z. Williamson
February 16, 2016
So You Want To Have A Conversation About Gun Control?
[If you think about it just a little bit you probably will find it odd that ant-gun people can’t see the similarities between prohibition of alcohol, recreational drugs, and guns. Prohibition of the first two did not work and the prohibition of the last isn’t and won’t work. But the anti-gun people somehow belief things will be different with guns. But, they can’t be that stupid, can they?
Some, of course, are. Others have no ability to think rationally. But the higher up the food chain you go the more you realize that can’t explain things. Leland Yee is a special case all his own. But there are numerous others that don’t fit any good model. There is one hypothesis that does seem to work in nearly all the remaining cases and has historical support in other countries.
They want a compliant citizenry.—Joe]
Then again, a lot of pro-gun people are also virulently anti-recreational-drugs, with various arguments.
That might have something to do with federal law making one a prohibited person if one is a user of a controlled substance. ‘User of’, mind you, not ‘convicted of the use of’. The way the law is written, they just have to establish that you have used a controlled substance at some time previous while possessing a firearm. A hair sample would do the trick for some kinds of drugs.
And there’s a good point to be made about altered mental states and possessing a gun, but I would think that should be more along the lines of a DUI than a possessory charge.
And yes, there are some with a puritanical streak. Human nature, really, it’s not going to go away any time soon. The vice of puritanism is hard to eradicate because the only ‘bottom’ there is for this kind of addict to hit is when they are unjustly trapped by their own machinations and realize that they brought themselves (and countless others) to that point. Until then, they enjoy the steady dopamine fix of “going good” to someone, good and hard, and sleep each night in the warm glow of unilateral holiness and sanctity.
“[w]hen they are unjustly trapped by their own machinations and realize that they brought themselves (and countless others) to that point.”
“And” is the key. The two happen together so rarely as to be almost a “Road to Damascus” moment.
Once again we come into the Prohibition issue. I used to say that we failed to learn the lessons of Prohibition, but now I know better– those lessons were learned, and they’re being applied in the WOD, and elsewhere, for profit and as a pretense for the growth of the authoritarian state.
Also, we continually get into the issue of discerning and separating the perpetrators from the duped. It is an important distinction, after they’re arrested and put on trial. All of this distinction stuff was thoroughly explored in the case of the Patty Hearst kidnapping and subsequent bank robbery.
Stop them, then sort it out.
Millions of people have been “emotionally kidnapped” such that they see the wholesale rights violations and the resultant chaos, corruption and death as “necessary” steps in the furtherance of the “common good”. Yes, yes, and forever yes; it is entirely possible for lies, repeated often enough and for long enough, to completely fool otherwise good and nice people. That distinction between perp and dupe is mostly trivial until after the whole movement, perpetrators and duped, robbers and getaway drivers alike, is stopped.
Understanding the difference may however suggest tactics in dealing with the duped. If lies, and emotionalism, and more lies can sway them, then how might the truth sway them back the other way? How does one become “de-emotionalized” (de-hypnotized) once they’ve been led to believe that their emotions (whereby they are led to embrace error) are the very definition of their humanity?
There’s a difference between the failure of the war on drugs and/or alcohol and the war on guns. When alcohol was banned during Prohibition, gangsters and moonshiners had guns to protect their illicit alcohol trade. Currently, mobs have guns to protect their illicit drug trade. But if you ban guns, well then, there won’t be any guns with which the NRA could protect it’s illicit gun trade.Guns are basically at the root of all modern evil!
People are basically good, but they can be trusted with guns only if they are sprinkled with the fairy dust of government power. (from Smallest Minority Blog).
This is Joe’s Deodand theory writ large.
Next I expect someone to whip an AR with a cat-o-nine-tails as punishment for what someone did with a different AR.
When alcohol was banned there was still plenty of alcohol, controlled by outlaws who profited from their government-guaranteed monopoly. When drugs were banned they didn’t go away, but became controlled by outlaws who profited by their government-guaranteed monopoly.
When guns are banned, only outlaws will have guns, and their monopoly won’t be a matter of a luxury commodity but rather one of deadly force. That’s the reason gun restrictions are promoted– An outlaw’s monopoly on deadly force is a feature, not a bug.
You’ve exposed the insanity, and if we could ban insanity it wouldn’t go away either (a ban on insanity would be insane, just like the other bans), but exposing it is the best one can do.
Whiskey and moonshine did not shoot back when they were prohibited.
However, my M-1 Garand and my other firearms will. Big difference.