Via Tamera on Gab:
Other things the government can’t stop:
- Spam email
- Phishing email
- Poverty
- Homelessness
- Illegal immigration
- Theft
- Robbery
- Terrorism
- Black markets (including all recreational drugs such as cigarettes, alcohol, etc.)
The government can punish many of those things and reduce the frequency by increasing the cost, but it cannot stop it. What is interesting to me, is that most black markets are created by the government. I’ve read that anytime a tax goes above 15% a black market will form.
But more to the intended point, when seconds count the cops are only minutes away.
I would offer that not only can “government not stop those activities” there’s a reasonable argument to be made that government created those activities in the first place through governmental policies, procedures and actions, if not directly, through creation of an environment suited to fostering them.
“Unintended consequences” is more than a book title, but one must ask in the face of myriad occurrences if the consequences really were unintended, if not initially at least in continuance. If one performs A expecting B result and gets H, M and S instead a rational next step would be to cease doing A entirely, not do more of it.
Yes, ever notice that we manage to have these long drawn-out wars in the finest heroin growing regions of the world?
(I mean if we needed to kill communists, Cuba was only 200 miles away, right? No reason to go all the way to Vietnam.)
And now that A-stan has come to a close, It’s all cheap fentanyl from China?
Ever read how the CIA trained the Los Zetas cartel?
When you say there is a reasonable argument to be made?
I agree and would posit out right evidence of such.
But as Al Gore so famously put it. There’s no “controlling legal authority” to stop it.
Only an endless loop of criminality being interrupted by occasional vigilantly-ism. Sadly, here we go again brother.
The other statement that should be repeated at every opportunity: the purpose of the police IS NOT to protect you. Its job is to draw the chalk outlines and collect evidence after the fact, for the purpose of enabling the capture and prosecution of criminals.
“No duty to protect” is both a clearly visible fact and settled law, all the way to SCOTUS.
This of course doesn’t mean that police never protect, far from it. But they protect because of the decency of individual officers, not because it’s their duty.
Protection comes from accidental coincidences,not from any policy to protect the citizenry.
On the frequency comment, I have made the point against gun controllers that claim mass shootings doesn’t occur in Canada, the UK, Australia, etc, after the passage of their laws. All they’ve done is turn down the frequency, not eliminate the problem. Anywhere guns are in civil hands there will eventually be some visible criminal use of then.
All gun control is arguing is a variation on the acceptance range. Like number of guns in private hands. The value is ideally “zero” to them and the delusional believe that. Others seem to be operating on a formula of 0 < Ideal figure < Bad now, They have this frequency value that is always lower than a shifting baseline of now heading towards zero. Which is unachievable. Witness Japan.
Witness Japan. Where a homemade firearm was just used to murdered their ex-prime minister? That Japan?
The reason Japan is a peaceful place by most accounts is because the people there are generally a peaceful people.
(The occasional Ginseu action on daycare facilities aside.)
Kind of like America without the 15 to 20 major crime cities. And deep down, were really not that peaceful a people. So, we have guns.
As you point out, gun controllers are either liars or criminals. Both of which make guns a necessary part of life.
And Canada and England are always up for immigration, so people that like that sort of thing have options, right?