Forgetting some of our traditional arguements, and forgetting the technicals of automatic verses semi-automatic firearms, we have to recognize that there are fundimental world-view incompatibilities within our culture. Sadly, no arguement we can make -- in most cases-- will be very effective in pursuading those of the anti-gun lobby or mindset.
Our arguements will fall on deaf ears because of the old axiom "there are none so blind as those who will not see."
Our arguements will fail because the anti-gun crowd BEGINS with the assumption that guns are bad, evil, immoral, whatever. When you begin with the desired conclusion as your hypothesis, you are practicing intellectual dishonesty.
In our society, it is comfortable to blame an ITEM rather than a PERSON. In our world of psychoanalysis and sensitivity, we are unwilling to squarely place blame for tragedies on the person who made a willful decision to commit an act. No. Those of the anti-gun camp NEED to have faith in humanity in order to live in thier comfortable bubble. To achieve this, they develop a thought process that asserts that the tradegy would not have occured if the perpetrator did not have the ABILITY to take that action. You see, ABILITY IS EQUATED TO ACTION in this mindset.
You can't wholely lay the blame on them for this irrationality. What passes for news media and crime shows in this country has basically made a lot of "intellectual" and "enlightened" people into idiots-- blathering idiots, at that.
I've referenced on a number of posts that-- because of my job-- I sit in front of a TV 8-9 hours a day with either CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg, MSNBC, or Foxnews on EVERY working day. After years of this, I think I have a fairly good-- if unscientific-- idea of these stations.
News has become entertainment shows. There is less "News" in the news than there is editoralizing. Because of the "Real-Time" quality of news programs now, reporters and anchors are not only free to, but REQUIRED to make commentary on what is going on AS IT IS HAPPENING. They are free from the harrassment of fact-checkers and research. Instead, they have to spout that they BELIEVE as absolute facts. These facts are rarely accurate, and falsehoods are never specifically retracted. False statements that are caught are handled by just altering the statements in future reporting.
However, the damage is done since most of us grap a kernal of news here and there-- and cannot sit all day to wait for them to correct. Those falsehoods become fact once the NEWS said it.
In a desire to make news 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, requires discussion of issues CONSTANTLY. This usually goes the direction of over-reactive and purely idiotic debate in order to engage the audience.
Just this week, a 4 year-old had used a deactivated cell phone to dial 911 almost 300 times in a month. Surely enough, Fox news had a debate shortly after the discussion asking the question "Should deactivated cell phones be able to dial 911."
Earlier, the question was asked "Should the USA go to a London-style surviellence system?" after the London attempted bombing.
Every news story-- regardless of the topic-- becomes a discussion of radical alteration of culture and policy based upon rare and isolated events.
For the record, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are tied for first in this "editoralizing" quality of the news. CNBC is great in that they don't really care unless the stock market will react. Bloomberg TV is probably one of the best programs to obtain news from if you want the facts laid out for you with no spin or commentary. Just get used to the split screens and reading a ticker.
I sincerly hope people would not get their understanding of firearms from "cop" shows-- but you KNOW they are.
I can't watch an episode of the various incarnations of CSI or Law and Order without blatent falsehoods being present. They have a need to make everything more sinister than it is. This works on the "enlightened" anti-gun crowd.
Through this rambling diatribe, I have tried to decide how I would tie to the main point I wished to make. Because I'm still on my first cup of coffee and the fog of sleep hasn't lifted quite yet, I'll make a jerky transition much like teaching a kid to drive a standard transmission.
I often think that John Lennon has done more harm to our culture and society than anyone I can think of when he wrote 'Imagine." He held before us a vision of a Eutopian, Enlightened culture of mankind where violence and hatred does not exist. Benevolence and goodwill are the normal. Greed and anger do not exist.
Sure, its nice to think about. It is a flight of fantasy. Sadly, however, a certain percentage of our society see that ideal and those that have been shaped by Lennon's ideals as an obtainable goal. They so desire to live in such a world that they have lost thier understanding of society at its very core.
The "Enlightened" anti-gun crowd, for the most part, cannot be pursuaded because they do not want to focus their eyes squarely on the REAL problem.
It isn't firearms. It's people. Thier world-view does not have an answer for addressing the evil in people. Oh, I am not saying that PEOPLE as a whole are evil. Quite the contrary. Most people are decent and good folk. However, none can dispute that we have examples of truly evil people in our society and our history. It need not be a Ted Bundy or a Cho. Those have become icons of evil. We have examples in the mundane rapist sitting in San Quintin to look to. Sadly, evil is not as scarce as we would hope it to be.
This quality in some persons is what throws a monkey-wrench in the world view of the "Enlightened." The world they envision cannot fit an evil person into the equation and make it work. Grasping at straws, they seek to explain away the evil in terms of psychological condition and attempt to rehabilitate and "cure" the person. Hell, there is even a pill to CURE SHYNESS now.
In the interim of "curing" our society, we must minimalize the potential harm that those poor psychologically-destressed persons can do to themselves and others. To achieve that end, the TOOLS used must be eliminated. This goes back to the ability. In this thought-process, an assumptive hypothesis functions where a person would not CHOOSE a destructive course of action had they not had the ABILITY to do it. The reasoning is that a fanciful desire or thought may enter the mind, but because there is no real ability to follow through that desire or thought, it becomes a fleeting and forgotten thought without the ability to see it through. Again, the premise is that it was the ABILITY-- not the desire-- that was evil. You see how it is convientently the tool and not the person that bears the blame.
I will close this VERY long discourse with this thought:
It will always be something with the anti-gun visonaries.
Today, we must get rid of assault rifles and semi-automatics.
Next, it will be those bolt action "Sniper" rifles.
Later, it will be anything that is not single shot.
After that, they will want to ban anything that has rifling in the barrel because they are too accurate and easy to make a lethal shot.
We will all be using Liberator .45ACPs for firearms before they get around to just getting rid of ALL guns.
If you read all of this, I am astounded by your diligence and I thank you for that.
All the best!
-- John
