“Guns Don’t Kill People, Rappers Do” is the title of a song by Goldie Lookin Chain, a group that try to satirise hip hop and modern life. If you watched the video above, I apologise for making you do so.
Moving quickly away from the Welsh comedy hip hop scene on to more serious matters: Why do so many people get extremely angry when the topic of gun restrictions is discussed? I’m genuinely interested. I don’t want to use the word ‘triggered’ but some responses to various discussions could be described as such.
I know many of you are American, and fiercely protect your right to keep and bear Arms under the Second Amendment but can’t we discuss things civilly?
Many other articles on Substack are discussing reasons for the recent tragic mass shooting so I don’t want to get into that. In this thread I want to try to understand why there is such anger when discussing the removal of fire arms.
It is a hugely nuanced topic. I understand that most gun owners don’t kill people. I know people feel safer when they have a weapon. I realise that the last few years have convinced more people than ever that a gun may be necessary in the near future. However, if the shit does hit the fan, a gun might buy you a bit of extra time, but unlikely. Furthermore, if some even more dystopian future does occur, I would prefer that every other hungry, angry, raiding person didn’t have a gun.
My view is that private use handguns should be banned, as they are in the UK. The UK’s worst school shooting happened in 1996 in Dunblane, Scotland. A teacher and 16 pupils were killed. As a result, in 1997 handguns were banned, with an exception for licensed clubs. Furthermore, a £150 million buyback scheme was introduced which saw more than 160,000 guns and 700 tons of ammunition surrendered. Since then there has only been one mass shooting in the UK.
Yes the UK still has gun crime but it’s low. Firearm death rate per 100k in the UK is 0.23, in the US its 12.21.
I’m not saying the UK is amazing, it’s not, it has many other issues, knife crime for example. I’m not insulting America or any other country that hasn’t banned guns. I just want to explore why discussing the issue provokes such anger.
On other posts, I have been told to stay out of American affairs because I’m from another country. These were public posts on Substack, discussing gun control. Surely, we all come to Substack to discuss different ideas. If you want to discuss British politics with me, all the better. If I want to discuss Covid mandates in Canada, that is my right. Discussing any issue is the way to the best solution. Not allowing the discussion of ideas that you disagree with is what has been happening over the last few years and we’ve all seen how that’s gone.
Don’t unsubscribe because you disagree with me. It is healthy to disagree and will add more to future debates.
So, why the anger over a discussion which is purely intended to try to stop kids getting shot at school? And convince me that guns shouldn’t be banned - amicably.
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Yes, this is a good invitation to an important discussion.
I'm New York born and raised. I lived through the bad crime years of the '70s; I had a gun shoved in my side during a failed mugging; I've always been repulsed by guns and had great scorn for all that vast America between the East and West coasts; those people had, I thought, nothing in common with me.
When I lived overseas for 18 months just before and in the aftermath of 9/11, my family were threatened to the extent that we had cops living in our compound, and we turned our storage room into a safe room with the addition of a strong lock on the inside of the door and a long gun that must have been left over from the Afghan Campaign that Kipling wrote about. I hated having that thing there; it was taller than I.
Nine years ago I moved to a NE libertarian state where most people have guns and open carry is legal. Felt like alien territory.
These past two years have schooled me but good. I finally, in the tarnishing of my golden years, understand the remarkable prescience of our Founders. They were horribly flawed in their personal lives but their understanding of human nature in general and the particulars of tyranny and how it succeeds are, I think, unmatched in political discourse of any human era for which we have written histories.
I'm not a particularly brave person and have never handled a gun. But I believe, and always have, from the time I was a kid, that though you may crush me I will go down fighting. I've watched what has happened in the UK, a place I've been visiting since I was 23 years old and where I have beloved friends, and what happened in Australia--a place I thought was as tough or more than the US, and I understand now why those crazy survivalists in their Idaho bunkers that I, to my shame, mocked all my life till now, weren't in the least crazy or at least not in the way I thought.
The gun tragedy in this country is entirely a result of failed families. Freedom is horribly costly. When people have the freedom to raise their children as they see fit, inevitably some of them will terribly harm their children. When you cannot incarcerate everyone who uses drugs, you will inevitably have people who so harm their children beginning in utero that those children will never be normal. When you do not have the right to inspect every household daily, or weekly, or monthly, you will inevitably have families where children endure unspeakable horrors and become full-grown without ever having properly matured.
This is the cost of having inalienable rights. I never understood, before, why this cost must be paid if we are not to become Shanghai right now or ever, or Melbourne, or Birmingham, during the worst of the past two years. There is no authority wiser than we individuals in the aggregate but authority will never be convinced of that and can only be kept in check. It won't happen by conversation but by the knowledge that they can't take all of us down and had better not try.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Thank you for your very intelligent essay. I grew up in the Midwest where hunting guns in the house (not even secured) were very common but I never heard of any tragedies like we just experienced. I agree that the breakdown of the family and overuse of all psychotropic drugs are a big contributor to our current mental health crisis. The last two years have convinced me of the importance of the second amendment.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I don't know how much TV you watch, but it's been a wonder to me how so many of the elite class and pretenders to same just love shows about the delightful serial killer or contract assassin next door, while they shriek about all them troglodyte gun owners in flyover country.
These people have no grasp, in the slightest, of real life.
Your comment sounds funny but I don't get the references! I'm confident speakling to what I know about but here I have to plead ignorance. Do inform me, if you like, no pressure.
Don't you think that the utter corruption of the Democrat party at the hands of one HRC (abetted by an FBI that targets me as enemy, and millions of Fascist-at-heart Deep State actors, media, AND "voters") is worthy of exposure?!?!
Absolutely. I think it goes a bit deeper though, as those are disposable actors in a larger play. If only they are held accountable, as opposed to the actors holding the stage and propping the puppets, we'll just have one puppets.
IMO, the familial breakdown and overuse of drugs dovetails nicely with the shipping of good paying meaningful work out of this country. My former factory based hometown is in utter shambles now. The economics are driving this trend.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Britannia is now a prison camp complete with cameras and going so far as to ban steak knives.
Yet the camp is as violent as ever and the inmates are now resorting to acid throwing. But it’s a chronic low grade violence that simply becomes background noise and acceptable/tolerated. I would claim it’s worse as you are more likely as a citizen to be a victim of this background crime than a mass shooting. Just like shark attacks generate more press than a “normal” drowning. But people scream to “do something” about said shark but are 10000X more likely to drown.
It’s like the idiots driving alone wearing a mask but texting on their phone. The phone is 1000000X more likely to get them or someone else hurt or killed.
People are idiots when it comes to evaluating risk.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Life in a penal colony is dangerous. Life in a crumbling civilization is also dangerous. These are not the first crumbling civilizations of “modern” man.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Steak knives are not banned in the UK, where did you get that farcical piece of information from? Our lockdowns were hard and unnecessary, but the vaccine passport scheme failed spectacularly. We've had zero restrictions or mandates since the beginning of the year and we never put masks on young children. I don't think the UK handled the pandemic well in any way since they abandoned the initial plan to mirror Sweden and follow the WHO's 2019 pandemic suggestions, but to call it a penal colony is hilariously inaccurate.
I'm pretty sure you could find all sorts of bonkers individual stories if you look hard enough. That doesn't mean it's representative of the UK as a whole.
Am I correct in believing that in Canada, unjabbed citizens cannot leave the country or even use public transport? That's never been the case in here, so I think it's pretty rich for a Canadian to be calling the UK a prison camp 😏
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
You said it so much better than I. Now, go to a range and take some lessons. Guns are nothing to fear, and target shooting can be fun. Then get a good quality hand gun with a large clip and a biometric gun safe. Practice frequently at the range, and so you can truly go down fighting.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Funny thing. A friend recommended the Jack Reacher books, and I was resistant to reading them because of Tom Cruise playing the character, and she told me to imagine Reacher looking like Sean Bean and that was the remedy.
Anyway, in one of the books, Reacher is tracking down clues and ends up at a shooting range, and the owner challenges him to a little contest, and the descriptions of the rifle, its calibration, the discipline and the mental calculations involved in accurately shooting at a target had me absolutely mesmerized. First time in my life I could begin to understand the attraction and, again, the discipline, the self-mastery required to be good at that, and I seriously thought, "I would like to learn how to do that."
Unfortunately I'm extremely bad at eye-hand coordination, and spatial relationships, and patience in general, and I don't have good wrist strength, and altogether I think I'd be pretty bad at it and must learn more appropriate to my skillset ways of killing someone trying to kill me.
But I sure do understand now, as I never ever did before.
SCA, you could start with a .22 - there is just about no kick, and you can focus on developing the right stance, grip, and action. (The hardest people to teach are those who think they already know it all!) You might be surprised how much you enjoy it. Guns are precision machines that save lives, and it's a valuable skill to learn. Good luck!
One of the reasons I never learned to drive was the fear of hurting/killing someone else because of my incompetence in handling a potentially deadly machine. I understand my abilities and my deficits very well.
But one of the most surprising things ever to happen to me was when I was preparing to move up here from NY, and still had the touchingly naive hope that I could afford a tiny little cottage in the country, and my adult child, already here, said I would be well-advised to plan to have a firearm in that cottage too. I'd have lost good money ever wagering my kid would say something like that.
It's a sad reality tho. Even I, who shies from guns much for the same reasons you stated (and I grew up with them and learned to shoot...) have a pump-action shotgun in my 'cottage'. My husband bought it, we figured between his voice and the CHa-CHunk, that any potential badness would leave quickly. Now he's gone and with coyotes nipping at our properties here, I'm having to consider actually learning to use it.
I was discussing with my from-childhood friend last night that urban-dwellers haven't a clue as to the normal everyday hazards the natural world contains. A new friend up here showed me the deep gouges running up the outside of her kitchen left by a bear who wasn't pleased at not being able to get in and serve itself breakfast. It ripped the bird feeder right off its post too. Quite educational.
(I think the FBI stats undercount. And what stats anywhere include the instances where a perp doesn't perp just because of the fear of good, honest citizens shooting back?)
Yes. me either. But nothing says want to go out and buy a gun like your government telling us we cannot have one. Not interested in adding guns to my current repertoire. I agree with Van Morrison I never realized I was so Dangerous.
Well, the individual is always dangerous to the State. That is why we must "re-corral" the State when we, over time, allow our fences (Declarations and Constitutions) the (seemingly) inevitable corruption.
Jefferson was a very complicated person and would have been the first to admit it . You're right (you & Van Morrison & Jefferson) all citizens need to be viewed as dangerous by the state. Only citizens who are unafraid of being dangerous are capable of being confident enough to chose real leaders.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Yes to so much of this. I can relate and am relieved to see this. I can't talk with family about this; they just say " well, the government's not going around shooting children"
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Ha, yes. They don't see that they're outraged about this but not about children who have died after the. shots only because of the media coverage.
It's rough to be out of the matrix (at least in part) and watch your loved ones behave like puppets, swayed by whatever's on the news, saying the same phrases, using the same words....
As Dylan sang in “Slow Train” about loved ones turning into puppets…. He was accurate about the Slow Train. Yes, this struck me immediately that gun violence gets them while public murder by medical fascism fails to reach them. Besides the vaccinations the government does shoot children - so far it hasn’t become an outright overt shooting war. It’s still mired in the covert wars infesting our big cities where kids and families are dying from fascist politics. And Ruby Ridge and Waco are good examples of more overt incidents wher the collapse of our civilizations was in view.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Awesome response. There is no UTOPIA this side of heaven. Only the best of bad options. Sadly, America (and the west) is showing signs of a deep spiritual malaise and a drift into paganism. Having said that, i thought this was a reasonable response to yesterdays utter tragedy...https://www.readtangle.com/texas-school-shooting-robb-elementary/
No one is a pagan. That's a slander imposed by "mainstream religions" once they'd decimated enough adherents of earlier faiths to have little organized opposition.
I don't, but I think human beings have an innate yearning towards the Infinite Unknowable, and there's no Only Approved Way of thinking about it. Far too much of people attempting to make God in their own image and then being sure they've found the Truth.
Agree with point one wholeheartedly. I’m sure it’s obvious but my bias is Christian....here’s a thought, if you don’t agree with ‘pagan’, how about ‘humanist’ or ‘statist?’ Every human must worship something, we are made for it. The question is, what is the object of our worship? An ultimate being outside the material universe: the ‘infinite unknowable’ or something part of this world? If it’s the former, all religions can’t be true as they are contradictory. So which one is true? If it’s the latter, we are left with the tyranny of the ‘state’ the ultimate power we’ve seen nakedly exposed these past two years. And the end game of that is really ugly...
Every religion has at its core a tiny perception of the Divine which is then thoroughly shoveled over with manure by the faithful.
I just disagree with the suggestion that "pagans" are somehow inferior or wrong in their spirituality. Humanists or statists aren't concerned with the infinite but with the here and now; that they turn their concerns into secular religions is just the inescapable nature of being human.
Everything is ugly. Life is hard and people don't stay domesticated. Civilization was invented to try to put limits on our natures but each generation has to be re-tamed.
So you would support the second amendment but not the first which includes freedom of conscience? I am not a christian, I don't think I am anything but I could be accused of paganism (nothing wrong with that), but I am spiritual and know I will face my creator without interference or mediation of meddling Karens and profiteers of any flavor in the end.
What happens when we have to set things back again? Are all of the 57 flavors of christianity we see here going to fight each other over souls again? It's happened before, because everyone thinks they are 'right'. It doesn't enthuse me to support people who would hate me or even kill me just because I don't bow to their priesthood.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I'm an Aussie. I have mixed feelings about guns, and gun rights.
Yes, it might be useful to be able to defend yourself with a weapon that can be lethal at a distance. And I'm against restrictions on people's rights on principle.
However, I am also shocked at the number of gun injuries in the US, particularly over the past few years with all those "peaceful" BLM protests. It's not just the mass shootings - it's the casual violence that happens from time to time. (And yes, I have been to the US, in fact spent 6 months in California in 1988, and while I was a bit shocked to see cops wearing visible handguns - not something we had in Australia at that time - I was also pleasantly surprised at how safe rural California was, as a place to live.)
Here in Australia (unlike in the US) it does not need to be #1 priority to have emergency treatment for lung puncture wounds in your first-aid kit...
It is true that there might be a sinister aspect to a ban on gun ownership. But honestly, are you likely to come out on top if you should shoot a government official coming to harass you about something (eg to kill your live-stock or to remove you to a quarantine camp)?
I think I prefer the Aikido principle: when your opponent comes to strike, be somewhere else.
This is not a casual or random thought - I trained in Aikido for over 10 years, including 3 years in a traditional dojo in Japan. And while I have never been in a real physical fight, I did find this training in mindset useful during my 5 years working in high security correctional facilities.
From my perspective of distance, mass shootings in the US are entirely consistent with a mindset that the best way to deal with an opponent is to shoot/bomb/obliterate the crap out of them - which is unfortunately the American way. Mass shootings at schools are the same Shadow manifestation as mass bombings in Vietnam or Iraq - just a bit closer to home. Perhaps the debate should shift to include some of these attitudinal and cultural factors? Because once everybody gets so completely polarised, no rational discussion (let alone resolution) is possible.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
The only thing we have in this country that makes us unique from every other nation-state is our foundational principles and the documents that enshrine them.
We're all human with the same flaws, the same cruelties, the same impulses, good or bad, that everyone else has. But our Bill of Rights and our Constitution are the perfect fruit of the Western Enlightenment and our Founders, though flawed, often profoundly, in their ordinary lives, achieved something that had best not be messed with.
We were settled not only by transported criminals and vagrants, as you were, but by every crazy breakaway sect of people from everywhere who refused to be compelled into obedience to a governing authority, secular or sectarian, and the only thing that forged us into one people was believing in an ideal that's really hard to maintain, consistently, in real life. I never in my life thought I'd end up a defender of the Second Amendment as I am now, but two years into the Plague Era will change anyone.
Mass killings in this country are almost 100% committed by people who everyone knew were fucked up as hell and nobody did anything about it. They'll use cars if they ain't got guns and knives if they ain't got cars.
Like. So agree. mass killings are commiotted by people who EVERYONE knows are crazy as hell, but nothing CAN be done about it because we have liberalized our laws and no one who can walk talk and feed themselves can be locked up against their will
This so sounds like the sort of “answers” being so bandied about. Locking people up will solve all of our problems. Just pass liberal laws allowing us to lock everyone up. Of course we will need to raise taxes to underwrite all those prisons.
At this point, no one is advocating for the old way or institutionlization, but we have an entire population of mentally ill that will not take their meds and are pushing people into subway cars and having out and out catatonia on the streets. We are advocating for a middle way. I have a schizoid cousin, I know of what I speak. He tried to burn my grandmother up in her house, the most they could keep him was 10 days observation. we are talking about committal laws that no longer exist, and humane places to put them.
You have a point of course. Just so we don’t fail to lock up the psychopathic sociopaths at the helm of our governments, institutions, corporations and the World Economic Forum/Davos/Fourth Industrial Revolution who are so seriously and publicly out to rule we the people and our planet. We must recognize serial abuse everywhere it occurs and take reasonable steps to procure our safety and safety of others.
There are actually quite a few people in Australia besides those "transported criminals and vagrants"!
And there are many things about the US that I admire, including the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
There are many people in the US with values and principles that I admire, too.
But the overall cultural milieu of a country is something hard to define or even to describe, and harder still to attribute origin to. Right now, the overall presentation of the US - internationally - is that of an aggressive bully, who has been in unchallenged power for too long and feels they have the right to obliterate anyone who gets in their way.
Yes, we did poorly when we became an empire. The Founders warned against it, but this seems to be a human imperative to bend others to our will. Our geography and our resources led to a prosperity that, as with all riches, corrupts.
As a born and raised New Yorker, whose ancestors came here in the 1910s-1920s, I lived most of my life with a lack of appreciation for and a certain contempt towards that "American Way" thingy. Living overseas changed me. Made me understand that with all its ugliness and strange provinciality, we had a unique strength.
(And yes I know you ain't still all from ruffian stock! But it gave you a flavor like ours, to start with. But you guys couldn't let go of that attachment to the motherland...)
We've actually got a pretty good constitution too. Only problem is that our current government ignores it, and we don't seem to have the tradition in our legal system of referring back to our Constitution and making sure we align with it.
Unfortunately, corruption (by power, money, whatever) seems to have invaded both our countries, as well as many other western nations (UK and NZ come to mind, as the other main English speaking ones). Let's call it the Deep State, which is as good a shorthand as any for the infiltrating evil. Anyway, that is the main issue as far as I can see, and my heart sinks at the prospect of trying to fight that with guns...
But slavery is even worse.
I don't have the answer, not by a long stretch. But we have to keep trying to find one, however we do it.
It is the Deep State and the deep state is represented by the Fourth Industrial Revolution of the World Economic Forum. This body politic formed in 1971 - they’re stated goals involve ruling wthe world - which they are.
The average Australian has a vastly better quality of life than the average American and in fact that applies to developed nations in general. Americans on average have the poorest quality of life and the least freedoms in the developed world. They may not know it but it is a fact.
Partially right. Just that the opportunists who first sailed to the US had a mixture of backgrounds & motivations. The result of their colonization however was the near extinction of a more settled people who, compared to us, by rights of any sort should have run things. I defend the 2nd Amendment too but I also defend grounded sanity. We are amongst the ruins of world civilizations- certainly not just “Western” ones. The mass insanity we inherit is distinctly our own as misguided humans.
The problem is that despite your foundational principles, which by the way, are 18th century thinking, Americans have on average the poorest quality of life and the least freedoms in the developed world.
So, while you might think you are unique it is not in a good way and citizens in other developed nations are just immensely grateful they are not Americans.
You have more mass killings than any other country on the planet, first or third world. Only in America do you regularly have school children slaughtered. Only in the US do toddlers regularly kill friends, parents, siblings, neighbours with a gun they managed to find.
Your American amendments are out of date and not just irrelevant in a modern world, they are destructive and deadly.
So much for being unique. that was and is a total failure.
Right. Only 21st century thinking is good and wholesome and applicable.
You are a bigot, a boor, and I dream of the 22nd century when you will be forgotten and ignored, unlike my wonderful Western Civilization and the salvation it offers the human individual, evolved over centuries and centuries of bloody struggle and sacrifice.
And yet, I do hope the police get there in time to save your sorry ass.
Understand where you’re coming from but as a resident of a round planet “Western” seems relative and I wish I shared your faith in any civilization, lol. Salvation has been a key offering of any real spiritual teachings since the dawn of time. Civilization does not feel that it has ever been particularly good at offering salvation but seems to offer those same old false promises. My hope for the 22nd Century is that there is still life remaining on Planet Earth - including hopefully wild, free humans.
Yes, "Western" IS rather parochial, and "Classical Liberal" is a more accurate term anyway, but I mean no exclusivity: I fully believe that, while ALL cultures have much to offer, the future of mankind lies in the liberating of the individual from his State/collective, and I am the optimist.
But, "wild"? I think that is what makes the firearm the fourth greatest invention (property rights, incorporation, currency, firearms, farming).
As long as we are pitted against each other we will stay divided. Divided we allow the monsters to win. It is that simple. There is a spirit to being American which goes way beyond “American.” Read Thomas Paine.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
@Mara
yep, you've got it right there when you ring in the concept of bombings. For that's the probably result of removing all guns. Suicide bombings. Ordinary bombings. Arson. Mass poisonings - any and all alternatives.
For the problem is, as you say, in the psychology, both of the USA and of the offenders.
And as Ann Coulter points out the basic problem is the crazy are being 'released' into the population. They're refusing to keep them separate.
Take away those guns and those crazies remain there.
Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter
Around 1970 the rate of mass shootings skyrocketed from 4 per year (1900-1970) to 29 per year.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
@arthur brogard
I doubt that it is that simple.
For reference, I am a retired clinical psychologist in Australia, and worked in the mental health system (and for 5 years in the correctional system) over that time period when psychiatric hospitals were being closed (across the world), in favour of community mental health (which was supposed to be with community support, but that was skimped on).
The vast majority of psych patients are not violent. They ended up with lots of other problems, but I doubt they can be blamed for the increase in violence in the community.
We did have one mass shooting here, in Port Arthur in Tasmania, in 1996. It was attributed to Martin Bryant, who had both intellectual and psychiatric problems. However, there is a lot of evidence that raises doubt, similar to the JFK shooting.
I did also have one experience in 1989 of one paranoid schizophrenic, released prematurely, who shot and almost killed a fellow worker.
However, such incidents are very rare.
More violence is committed by psychopaths - and psychopathy is not considered a treatable mental illness, so for the most part, these are not people who would ever have been part of the psychiatric population.
When working in corrective services, I encountered both paranoid schizophrenics and psychopaths - though again, these comprise only a tiny fraction of the prison population.
In fact, there are more psychopaths on the free side of the razor wire. (Look at politicians if you want a good sample to study.)
Working in community mental health (and other community services), the biggest risk to worker safety was drug intoxication (meth, speed, etc).
Which is a complex problem, a symptom of many other problems including societal breakdown, and not to be dealt with simply by a "war on drugs".
I very much doubt that paranoid schizophrenia would lead anyone to go into a school and shoot everyone. I'm not going to speculate about motive, but I'm inclined to give credence to the theories about mass shooters being MK-ultra-ed or otherwise mentally programmed, with or without the help of drugs. (I don't have any personal experience of such things, but know it is very possible.)
If not, there would have to be a very complex intersection of causes.
As for the "crazies", I seem to remember that gun rights advocates have been screaming loudly against having a gun licence contingent on some sort of mental health check - go figure!
The US is also the most heavily medicated society on the planet and we know that can create mental health problems, and it is the most heavily vaccinated country on the planet with horrifically high levels of Autism - brain damage - and no comprehensive studies ever done to ascertain if vaccines play a part.
Combine such chemical brain damage with an angry culture and easy access to guns and you get massacres.
Can anyone in the US spell 'expert?' Americans consume most of the world's medications and more than 80% of painkillers. Americans are the most drugged culture on planet earth. And then there are the vaccinations. No wonder there is so much brain damage, particularly in the young. Less than 5% of the world's population and there you are popping 85% of the world's drugs. Drugs and guns, the American way of death.
Yet it leaves an apparent strange coincidence to be explained.
Probably the devil is in the detail, as usual.
Coulter doesn't make clear how many of her examples were 'released' into the populace as against those that were never removed from it.
And she seems to conflate an argument or an appeal for removing more of the mentally ill than is the practice. On the grounds that they once did? Or on the grounds that they never did but should? It's not clear to me which way she's going.
I would like to see a lot more data and data analysis.
This kind of behaviour is obviously very much contemporary scene related. i.e. it could not have happened in the past for the tools were not there. And today it has a 'nurturing' background of gun violence on tv movies, youtube vids, the news and a string of historic incidences. i.e. the ready availability of tutoring material. plus the ready availability of all kinds of drugs any of which may exacerbate loss of reason and control. Plus the rise of the web and commensurate 'immediate world wide fame' which never existed before. Previously you could set off with an 'I'll show them' attitude and you meant your immediate family etc. Now they can set off with that attitude and reasonably expect to be for a day at least possibly world wide news.
Like it could be simply a 'fashion' amongst a certain group of mentally unstable people. A tempting road to follow with its own prompts and rewards, a path that has 'reached its time'.
So is there such a group that would be/is susceptible to this kind of allure? How large are they? Where are they? How did they 'act out' prior to this?
I see overlap, too. While Coulter's 'solution' may be wrong she also clearly desires more people with mental problems to be taken into care and that's a different thing to the question of not releasing those that are there: but it is very close to it and very pertinent.
While releasing people they will have been doing other things, too, and it is perhaps those things that have led to this upsurge. Releasing on the one hand, lowering the general level of outpatient care on the other perhaps, I don't know. i.e. the answer may not be precisely in that one feature Coulter sees the coincidence in but in something very close to it.
A bit like the Vitamin D and covid. Many, such as the FLCCC alliance swore by Vit D but others claimed it was of no benefit at all. There was apparent solid irrefutable evidence in the simple fact that a large sample failed to find a single patient with covid who had acceptable levels of Vit D.
Yet on the opposite site apparently irrefutable evidence that it didn't work represented by well controlled trials where they administered it in 'correct doses' and so on - and found no improvement.
Paradox.
But no. It turns out that when sunlight makes Vit D it makes melatonin I think is the name.
When you give Vit D pills you don't give melatonin.
It wasn't so much the Vit D as the melatonin, or perhaps the two in concert, I don't know but the point: you can be 'right on the target' and still be subtly wrong.
Maybe Coulter is 'subtly wrong'.
But as with ignoring Vit D it would be wrong to ignore the releasing of the mentally ill.
And we've had no analyses of this thing anywhere near the analyses we had of covid.
That's what I say. I'd like to see more data. And, yes, I agree, it's not 'that simple' but the devil's in the detail. What is 'that' ? Well I think it is 'mental health' and care.
And relevant to that is that immediately the gun thing comes up we see an outbreak of tremendous hostility and anger, hatred, calls for dramatic punitive or coercive action..... Mainly on the part of the 'non gun' crowd. That's interesting, eh?
As always, a simplistic view is most probably wrong! (Or as you say, the devil is in the detail :) )
The thing about Coulter's message that concerns me most, is lumping ALL "mentally ill" people together into a single category. And then expounding on how they should be treated...
I don't think there is any doubt that in the days when incarceration in a psych hospital was the preferred treatment, there were many people there who should not have been. And certainly not kept there for years.
My psych training was in 1979-80, when anti-psychiatry was the thing, along with experiential psychotherapies (which I found very exciting). To this day, I am still ambivalent about a lot of psychiatric dogma, and in particular, the use of psychiatric medications. However, I well remember when I was going out to my first psych ward job in a remote part of Australia, and asking for advice of a more experienced psychologist. He told me: "A lot of the people in a psych ward are not amenable to talk therapies."
And so it proved...
I am talking about severe clinical depression, as well as schizophrenia & other extreme conditions.
The unpalatable truth is that those horrible psychiatric medications were what enabled mental patients to be released into the community, to function in a sub-optimal way but still better than a psych hospital.
For most of them.
But anyhow, back to guns... this sort of response, at this time, seems awfully like a desperate rush to find someone (or a group of someones) to blame.
"...Yes, let's lock up a whole group of people, and we can feel safe again!"
And we get back to the same arguments that get thrown around when any discussion of a "safe internet" gets going: who is going to determine who/what is safe and who/what is dangerous?
We had something similar here, with proposals to make "non-release" orders for prisoners who were deemed to be "dangerous". On the face of it, it seems like a great idea. But who decides? And is the process valid? Should you really lock someone up indefinitely, simply because of what they MIGHT do?
As someone who sometimes wanders well off the path of "normal", I feel a bit nervous about it all... I've never seen the Mental Health Act & its provisions for involuntary assessment and treatment abused, but it is not hard to see how it might be.
And as an aside, I think most of us here know who would need to be locked up in order for us to feel safe!
Yep. Sometimes there's no doubt. I don't remember the details of just who and when but i am sure that many of these school shooters have actually been running around threatening to do exactly that or very close to it.
And the famous Tasmanian school shooter had a history of mental instability of some sort and yet had a large collection of guns, I think, which he doted on and was left with them.
Overall there's clear signals often and they've been ignored.
I don't worry about it but I'm well aware of the dangers of involuntary assessment and treatment - notionally I fear it. Though I don't think about it most of the time. Like I fear all authority and accept it grudgingly as I admit it is necessary to have it here or there.
The lockdowns and the maskings and distancing worried me so much because of exactly that. They are the same thing. Look at Shanghai now.
American culture is aggressive, prone to bullying and discrimination and immersed in fear and rage. Make it easy for people to get guns and you will have some enraged, bullied, paranoid, fearful, hysterical, deranged individual 'fighting' back in the only way they know how - the American Way of the gun.
And as meaningless. Americans know bits of their own mythology which they call history but are ignorant as to the history of the rest of the world and therefore lack perspective. Then again, your school system is the worst in the world where a school is as good as the wealth of the suburb in which it sits. You do not even have free universal education. People fight to buy a house in suburbs with the best schools where they pay massive amounts of money in taxes to send their kids to those schools. Being poor in the US is a life sentence. No wonder so many crack.
Paranoia certainly feeds some colorful tall tales. Unfortunately for us all this kind of endless mindless criticism of the "other" - whether it is "America", "Russia", "China", "Europe", "Australia". "Germany" whatever, demonstrates the gigantic fear of the "other" in the human heart.
Except many who criticise the US for its gun insanity know what they are talking about while many criticising Russia and China have never been there. Also remember the Americans are the only ones who are forever bleating how exceptional they are and how everyone should be like them. Indeed, the US has been waging wars for the past century to force people to be like them. If there are many opinions it is because of those reasons. Many however, like myself have family and friends in the US and have spent a lot of time there. We know what we are talking about.
I have lived in a war zone and said no thanks to a gun offered by a friend. More people die who own and try to use guns than do those who have no gun. Guns kill. That is why they exist. They are weapons of murder. Assault rifles in particular whose sole goal is to slaughter as many humans, of any size, as quickly as possible. No sane individual needs such a horrible weapon.
Apparently the world did as automatic weapons quickly became the planet’s weapons of choice at the guerilla level. Nukes are their weapon of choice for mass suicide.
Rejoin the real world. Automatic weapons are used in civil wars and not to arm citizens. There is no comparison with the American way of madness and the gun.
We reap what we sow. Our intentions, motivation for what we do and how is more than critically important. There is a revolution and it is not being televised.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
The gun tragedy is because you have so many guns and such easy access to guns. Look at other developed nations which have strict gun regulations if you want to see what a difference it makes. They also have failed families but they don't slaughter children in school as regularly happens in the US.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
The same bunch who are whining about school shootings are the ones who have murdered certainly >5M people worldwide with their Covid Plandemic and much more to come with their deadly vaccine including >100K children. And that's just the beginning, they are deliberately trying to provoke Russia into a Nuclear War and Soros just good as admitted it. So only a few billion killed, maybe a few 100M children - Oh, who cares about that? This is 100% pure politics.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Restrictions lead to regulation which leads to more accountability in terms of who can own a gun, which leads to fewer gun massacres. logic. The harder it is to get a gun, the fewer guns. The fewer guns the fewer opportunities for deranged people to do horrific things with guns. No sane society should ever, ever, ever, ever allow the sale of assault weapons.
If you talk about assault weapons you are totally admitting you know nothing about guns. There IS NO SUCH THING And, more regulations mean only law abiding people will follow them. CRIMINALS DON:T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT LAWS AND REGULATIONS. You are probably talking about a semi automoatic (used by police and most people for self defense) and our criminals have been buying huge quantities since the ban.
Assault weapons are semi-automatics designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. They wipe out kids faster than adults so you can understand them as the weapon of choice for such massacres.
Assault rifles - fully automatic weapons - were invented for the crushing need the USA had to go kill Vietnamese. Chickens come home to roost. Our actions and intentions do create equal and opposite reactions. We reap what we sow.
Yes, the fully automatic weapons eventually used in Viet Nam had origins in Nazi Germany, in the Soviet Union and as had evolved in the Viet Nam and now later wars. Very efficient killing machines. https://philologiavt.org/articles/10.21061/ph.228/
The insanity in a crumbling civilization doesn’t come from guns. The “from my cold dead hands” doesn’t get us far either. Oddly it was in the insane ramblings of a POTUS JOE where we may have an answer. He stated soon after his “election” that the American people would be crazy to go against their government as the government had Nukes and gunships. Guns are tools. Humans are tool users. Hammers don’t hammer nails, and electric mixers don’t make cakes. In our final descent into complete public hysteria and madness perhaps we can blame the Nukes. Good article if only to raise the point about free speech and discussion.
Hammers don't hammer nails, etc... but the government does have nukes (and other nasty weapons, much more lethal than anything you can get at home, as well as non-lethal weapons such as LRAD & ADS). And it will be the government who nukes people. (And personally, I'd put my bet on Joe Biden over Vlad Putin as the one who is more likely to push the button.)
Against LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) and ADS (Active Denial Systems) you need a bit more than a gun, even a fully automatic assault rifle.
If it is the government we are worried about, in asserting our gun rights, then maybe we need to be a bit strategic and start investigating how to defend against this level of weaponry.
A person could not defend against the weaponry that the government could bring to bear in 1787, either. Cannons could easily be brought to bear against any individual homeowner and bombard him from a distance beyond the range of his rifle The point of gun ownership with respect to deterring state tyranny is not that any one individual can stand up to the state but that, cumulatively, 100+ million armed citizens are too much for the state to overcome.
Yes, of course that is central that there are too many of us and too few “rulers” - I mean State armies. Today there are presumably billions when you consider us worldwide. It’s no longer just “The State” with cannons but the looming WEF backed Planetary Occupying Force, with WHO & fellow enforcers with drones, robots, Nukes, gunships etc. Anc yet we the people might win to have a few survive as free wild humans at least. What’s at stake? A slave planet where “The Matrix” looks like a walk in the park?
I am sorry to trouble you SCA, but I am trying to find a hyperlink I thought I had found here, about a civilian who owned a gun shop, is in Utah, and wrote an essay on I think his blog about guns and violence, especially in terms of how you stop someone who wants to shoot up a school, by allowing teachers to conceal carry? Does anyone here rember the link? It was a fabulous essay, brought up some truths that must be faced...
seems to me your either not thinking straight or not writing what you think.
you seem to be saying that if we are not to become shanghai we must give up our freedoms and allow home invasion by authorities any time, incarceration of all (illicit) drug takers and a whole raft of things: that would make Shanghai out of us.
And 'no authority wiser than we individuals in aggregate but authority will never be convinced of that' ? Authority IS the manifestation of the 'wisdom' of us individuals in aggregate.
And 'the gun tragedy is...' Prove that ! It's a postulate without proof.
I would contend otherwise. I would contend it is a result of a nation without leadership. You're not a country, you're a shop. You sell munitions. You sell warfare. That's all you do. That's all you are.
You value the dollar above all things. Success is seen as having the dollars and a good achiever is quite distinctly seen as one who scrabbles and fights his way to the top. Making scrabbling and fighting the view of the world, the norm and the paradigm.
That's the ethos into which you're all born.
And you expect national health and sanity from that?
That's my contention. I can only state it. I can't prove it. And you can't prove yours. Hence you have to say 'I think..' You should not postulate.
You have a nation full, apparently, it looks like from overseas, loud mouthed violent postulants - that is bombasts, dogmatists, embryonic dictators... Seems to be the national character. The national politics is not a constant search to find a better political way, it is an all out brawl between two essentially identical sides - i.e. lackey of the shopkeepers in the end.
p.s. Ann Coulter has written today or yesterday on this and she points out the upticks in gun violence can be traced directly back to the releasing of the mentally unstable into the community - apparently a deliberate policy decision by the govt. of the day.
I am not sure I comprehend what it is you are trying to say. Quite why China or Shanghai get a mention is beyond me.
compare the US with virtually no gun regulations and its slaughter rate to other developed nations which do have gun regulations. That is the answer.
There is no freedom in a gun obsessed society. Quite the opposite. Americans live with levels of fear, and for their children, which people cannot even imagine in other developed nations. Americans are the least free people in the developed world.
No some areas with more guns than avg USA have less gun crime. This is all about the deliberate destruction of the US social fabric by the Davos Psychopath Parasite Monsters. They are evil and have talked about bringing down the USA for 50yrs now. Finally they are succeeding. Gun crime is a symptom, not a cause.
They are doing a whole lot more than releasing mentally unstable into the population. i.e. Destruction of industry, destruction of the middle class, crony capitalist kleptocracy on steroids destroying the infrastructure, energy poverty, forcing people into big crime ridden cities with no good prospects, forced massive college costs and debt, deliberately encouraging crime and terrorism, mass uncontrolled immigration, excess violence in entertainment and a lot more.
Yep. Right on. It's a crazy environment and getting constantly crazier. We noticed it in the first days/months of the internet when for the first time we could communicate, interact, with ordinary americans on a daily basis. People we'd never met and ordinarily, pre internet we never would have met.
British, NZ, South Africa, Canada - or English speakers from foreign lands - they all discussed and argued, quarreled, disputed issues, yes. But noticeably without the venom and vicious ad hominem attacks and the swearing and foul language and the screaming desire for violence and constant invocation of it.
Stuff from that direction was always clearly different and different in that neurotic way.
That's my fault. It was a reply to SCA. I should remember by now that these threads don't connect up replies with comments. We need to take the trouble of putting in such '@SCA' which I've just edited my post to do.
Yours probably would benefit from something like that - '@abrogard' perhaps . :)
p.s. I just did it again. Replied to you and forgot to put an '@' up there. Had to come back and do it.
Agree and believe we need to examine the structure here more closely lest we get a dissolution into less and less understanding as we may see in other social media such as Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. The structure selects for narcissistic delusion and chaos.
May 25, 2022·edited May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
If you look at Emma Woodhouse's charts on twitter, for example: The uptick in gun violence in mid 2020 did NOT have anything to do with a sudden increase in the availablity of guns owned by responsible citizens.
This is a clear a picture as one ever needs to dispense with the idea that gun-control is the solution, or that accessibility to guns was the problem. Both are clearly falsified by these charts. Any good data scientist should see the plain truth of that.
The number of 'average guns per household' has always been high in the US through the decades. In certain cities in Texas, the guns per household ownership rate is very high, and the gun crime per capita is very low. This tells you that gun ownership is not, itself, the core problem.
What changed mid 2020 was Democrat-led city policies, which created the tinderbox conditions that ignited during the riots, and also the subsequent push for "defund the police".
Culturally, the US has experienced a decay in societal norms and values (so have all western societies to some degree) as traditional family structures, a common understanding of moral behavior, and organized religion becomes less prevalent.
Preventing law-abiding citizens from owning guns doesn't address the root of the problem, which isn't the gun. It's the mind. It's some deep disease in the culture.
I'm one of those US citizens who will tell you, with a steel look in my eye, "what part of non-negotiable do you not understand." We will NOT concede this point, EVER. We will die first.
There is a *reason* that the founding fathers of the U.S. placed the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution directly after the 1st. Because it is the "last line of defense" between citizens and tyrannical governments, who have nakedly exposed themselves in the COVID-era. We've all seen now what authoritarianism looks like, and we've had enough of it.
The right to own guns is NOT a concession granted by the state to the citizen. It is an inalienable right BELONGING to the citizen, part and parcel of the right to self determination and self-defense, that may not be interfered with by a government. That which is not granted may not be revoked. European countries have long since inverted this relationship.
All other fundamental rights of free people derive from the right of free speech and the right to self-determination; the US is the last bastion of this kind of "citizen before government" rights structure.
There is a problem to solve, yes. But it isn't the gun. It's the culture. And that's the harder problem to address, because it forces politicians to look in the mirror. It's much easier to blame an implement and sieze it, rather than to admit that your Democratic governance, your perverse cultural norms, your disincentivization of moral behavior, and dystopian ways of viewing the relationship between people and state are at the root of the problem.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Agree with all that you said. The decline of families, the increase in mental illness and failed public policies all contribute to this complex issue. When these adults were growing up, I feel certain that many educators along the way shared their concerns with the parents/guardians of these children, only to be met with excuses and blaming of the teachers.
That is correct - all of it thanks. That gun violence erupted in a highly symbolic place as it did with the horrific sacrifice of teachers and children needs to strike us sell deeply. We are all politicians from birth whether we accept it or not. Personal responsibility and the innate ability to understand when we’re being played and why is essential.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
It triggers us. It is guaranteed in the Constitution that I can have one, yet we are CONSTANTLY having our rights eroded. Talking about anything that curtails that right makes a lot of us mad.
To be frank, I interpret the Constitution to mean I should be able to own any weapon that the government does, so we should actually be having the discussion about how to expand our ability to buy larger weapons.
May 25, 2022·edited May 28, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
And now, to add insult to injury to a fiercely independent nation, our "leader" is hell bent on capitulating responsibility for our personal HEALTH future to an international "organization" with a fake medical doctor head, who will determine our future... yes, I admit, it makes this American angry, very angry, and very worried. Unfortunately, "we, the people" do NOT get to vote on if we want the World Health "Organization" in charge of the health of Americans !
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
As a pacifist, I actually agree with you - However I think non-compliance from every American in key positions would undermine the beast faster and better and with less loss of life than violence and weapons that kill. Imagine if those IN the military chose to risk their lives for the constitution instead of obeying false orders that betray us, the American People. If those giving the orders are committing treason, they should not be obeyed. But that doesn't mean we have to be violent. It can be done with love, in peace!
Christ is a wonderful example. See my latest article, which references his example. Ghandi is a mixed bag, but there is much to be inspired by, as well as to critique...but above all his mission was only partially a success because rested on only one individual profoundly committed to the inner and outer practices of satyagrah. Were the masses to decide on a peaceful we the people movement, backed up by strategic violins playing their songs to ensure success - it could work.
Can you elaborate? I guess what I am saying, is the people looked to him rather than having a group of individually masterful, loving, peaceful people coming together in peaceful satyagrah. Movements die when people look to one leader and fall apart when the leader is shot or falls due to scandal. Spiritual maturity is a requirement for a successful movement of peace.
People need to follow their inner compass and allow the divine to organize a loving coalescing of peaceful elevation of how our world operates. Only when we are free as individuals and also spiritually mature (ie not prone to reacting in rage or out of frustration or even a need to survive at all costs) can we operate at the level necessary for peace to work.
I'd be happy to elaborate further, but am unable to express it any more succinctly. I simply used an example. Of course the people "looked to him", that was the point. I think you've completely misunderstood what I meant to say, lol, of course it's always an impediment with this mode, much different than discussing with my university students in a classroom setting. I also would not disagree with your view that "movements" die when people look to one leader, in some instances that has proved true, in many others, it has proved false. Not sure about the "when the leader is shot" part, or that spiritual maturity (a VERY desirable trait to be sure) is a REQUIREMENT, I would say that is an opinion, but, no argument.
We are in times unprecedented. The old has not worked. But what we have going for a peaceful elevation that dissolves what does not work for humanity as a whole is that the world is waking up. Never before have so many, all over the world. I believe it CAN work.
Much of the old most certainly did and does work. We are in a mess because the structures of society have been discarded and because anything goes. When you live in a world where a man can say he is a woman and many in society want to reinvent biology, language, society and reality then we are in dire straits. The world has never been more deluded nor more asleep. The Western World anyway which is so Woke it is unconscious. Literally functioning from the dangerous realms of the unconscious.
But I wrote a funny post that has an interesting patent in it and my post about Barr contains some humor as well...my post about the Brook Jackson case has a little humor but mostly I swear because I feel really passionately about it.
Exactly, why aren’t pro 2nd folks talking about rolling back federal gun laws? Sitting around and waiting for the next law to fight is a loosing strategy
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I don't own a gun, but know many who do. We live in a fallen world. The concern I have, especially after reading history and in particular about the French Revolution, is when only the people in power have weapons.
I'm not sure if you heard about the Christmas parade tragedy in Waukesha, but man is capable of evil using any multitude of methods, including his hands. The bottom line is the heart of man and its desperate need for redemption.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
NE, I’m American & appreciate your opinion even if I disagree, & I absolutely don’t think hostility should enter the conversation.
The same plow-downs w/ vehicles have also happened in Europe. If crazies don’t have a gun they’ll use a vehicle, hammer, knife, axe, saber, etc.
If the past 2+ years have shown us anything in the US, it’s that an armed citizenry may be the only thing standing between us & an ever more tyrannical government. All of the worst rulers throughout history 1st disarmed their people.
In addition, crime & mental illness are out of control here & in the name of “equity”, they either aren’t arrested @ all or are released same day. There are tons of stories of people defending themselves from criminals breaking into homes, etc.
As to what happens if things really go dystopian, I’d like to hope to take out a couple of tyrants coming to confiscate my guns or arrest me on trumped up charges before they kill me anyway.
Finally, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Why would guns kill people if a car doesn’t kill people too? No one ever says an object kills people except when it’s a gun. Can’t have it both ways.
You make so many valid points, grounded in fact, I can't comment on them all. But the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a subtle concept that those who just "don't get it", will never "get it". It's similar to the abortion issue; it is tied so deeply to so many emotional, spiritual, and personal experience events that I personally do not believe it's possible to come to agreement through force. Of all you commented on about this subject, the present laws, the mental illness factor, and all the other aspects which relate to the overwhelming and ever growing homeless "problem", I think all are excellent points, but above all is the critical one you mentioned; That the most horrifying events throughout all of known history began with those in charge disarming the masses ! Why those of all political parties and persuasions do not agree on that one thing is a true mystery ! The "details", such as should a person of 18, or a person of 21, be able to buy this type of weapon or that type, should children below the age of 12 be able to own a pocket knife ? I, a female, had a good sized one at age 10, 5th grade. Our family, with no cell phones, no television, no I Pads, and no Facebook or Twitter, spent every weekend at our small crude (no TV, no AC) lake cabin. I spent much of my time doing various things with my pocket knife... none of them involved killing anyone or anything, unless you count being taught how to clean the scales off the fish (already dead) my parents caught and we either fried up over an outside fire, for dinner, or, had quick frozen to take home for our freezer !
Thx much, Anne Marie. I totally agree w/ the tie-in w/ guns & abortion. The same group who thinks guns kill people are the same ones howling “my body, my
choice” but ONLY for abortion, not poisoned jabs. Never mind that abortion is the killing of people too.
I honestly don’t think “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is that subtle (except to the most obtuse) if you just sub any other inanimate object - knife, car, bomb, hammer, saber, etc. for “gun”. If anything, whether it is subconscious or not, the left = tyranny eventually, & an armed citizenry is a defense to that wet dream they have for too down, centralized control.
It is not the responsible, ethical, normal gun owner who does these things; it is the criminals &/or deranged. I don’t know how that guy was able to legally obtain the guns he got, esp since he’d been o record as saying he was going to shoot up a school one day, I think he’d had some mental health care in the past, & he was on the local police dept’s radar. Maybe something in the purchasing of firearms needs to be tightened up, but confiscation is not the answer. The criminals AND the politicians & celebs will still be armed &/or have armed protection.
All true. It's always "drip, drip, drip" and that SHOULD be a signal to ALL of us that no matter HOW HORRIFYING, we should not all immediately jump to all these emotional displays (now note, I am NOT referring to the grieving parents and families), I mean the general public always fueled by the MEDIA, who then sit back and "report the show. But, as you commented, it is now "dripping out", that indeed the young, alienated, man had mental health issues, as well as a multitude of social issues. Tightening existing laws might be the answer in SOME locations ( you can't get much tighter than found in some locations not matter how many new laws you make). Confiscation will never work, it only gives politicians an additional lightening rod to prod the masses who don't even realized how they are being manipulated all the while feeling virtuous that they at least care ! It's a complicated matter... aren't they all... LOL !
The left will NEVER admit that “mental health” or mind-altering “drugs” are what kill people. This is the party that encourages crime, legal marijuana, homeless, crapping in the streets, “safe zones” to shoot up, abortion as birth control. Speaking again of abortion, the fact they pretend to care so much about little kids or others killed in these types of mass violence (but ONLY if the dead are the “right” color(s)) is pretty unhinged when you consider they have zero problem killing the most innocent, up to the moment of birth - just a “clump of cells” until then, I guess - & in CA I think they are promoting infanticide up to 28 days post-birth! I might be wrong about that but would you be surprised if it’s true? W/ CA, I wouldn’t be
I completely agree with you with one small caveat, when any of us state or write "the left" does this, or the "right" does that, I do think we are not being clear so we are not misinterpreted. I am including myself, not "preaching" to you or anyone else. I have friends who state they are
"Democrat", they have voted for many democrat presidents, not all, but many. They STRONGLY oppose abortion, all abortion. They admit they certainly voted for Biden, and honestly add that they did not, and do not, expect their leader, the president, to "take sides" on qualitative issues, they, like me (primarily a Republican, sometimes Libertarian, and on occasion, locally in particular, I support a democrat board member or university trustee. So as to be clear, I agree with your comments, I just hope to we can"t get away with putting people into "left" and "right", because in the minds of SOME people, it means if you support the right to abortion, then you automatically support early release, or no bail, or blanket citizenship for illegals living here, and it's simply NOT the case. That's all. I am not trying to be "confrontational" LOL, just wonder, do you understand what I mean ? Do you know any people personally who are not "left" or "right", but have individual personal views on social issues, such as oppose all abortion but support public welfare programs, or oppose certain tax laws federally, and support certain local ones ? Just wondering how people in general feel about this idea that there is one clear line, like we had as kids in dodge ball, and you were on one side or the other ?
How many examples does it take. NYC has made it impossible for most law abiding citizens to own any fire arm, just look at the outcome of that ! ! They feel like ducks in a shooting gallery, and that remark did not come from me, it came from some guests from NYC who came to visit us here in Florida (with the intent of relocating if they are able to find acceptable accommodations for moving their business). They also pointed out (as we had already seen on TV), that the few criminals without guns (most have NO problem getting MULTIPLE hand guns they told us), but a few who don't have a gun, just push people onto the subway tracks, into traffic, or into the Hudson River ! !
I'm not saying he's a bad dude, just that the military has been investigating and holding treatment related patents for that time duration and they are only beginning to do clinical trials that the public knows about circa 2020 and even those have seemed to pause or fall off the radar...So what I'm saying is we've had a viable treatment for a cadre of viruses that have taken lives at the time of EUs being issued, thus making them void. Therefore, in addition to the fact that the EUs should be retracted based on the lately divulged data from Pfizer and other studies showing irreparable harm to many not seriously at risk of death at all, the EUs were issued on a false basis, since the government has held the patents for this broad spectrum antiviral treatment based on a natural product. Griffithisin is a red algae. The recombinant kind is made using tobacco. Peace and freedom and love to all and forgiveness for the gov. Come clean, come clean and deceive us no more!
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
It’s two things - this message about a reasonable conversation is being pushed by either hypocrites or uninformed people. In US, there are over 2 million self defense uses of a firearm, and about 20.000 gun homicides. For every person hurt there are 100 saved, and in the homicide group they included criminals shot by civilians or police.
Rifle firearms are 2% of those homicides (according to FBI), fewer than empty hands and feet murders.
They ignore that “if only saves one life”, at the same time pushing for abortion which always kills one.
Plus, look at EU and Australia to see what an unafraid government can and will do to their population - it used to be treated as conspiracy theory and now we’re seeing concentration camps for potential cases of flu.
And about Britain, didn’t you have a law against sharp knives now that you’re a gun free paradise?
It's a long way behind America, but I do take your point – there are enough firearms in private ownership for there to be significantly more homicides by firearms, all other things being equal. The point is that obviously all other things are not equal.
It's obviously a complicated issue, but I suspect there are many fewer illegally held firearms in Canada, and that the licensing system for legal ownership rules out a lot of people who objectively you would not necessarily want to be in possession of firearms!
The problem is (and I know I'm stating the obvious here) that the US Constitution is clear on the right to bear arms.
It needs a new amendment to change that and I'm not even sure, horrific as incidents like this latest one are are, that I would vote for such an amendment if I were able.
It won't do anything about illegal firearms (and I might want to protect myself against people carrying those), and it won't do anything against the overreach of the state (and after the experience of the last two years I can see myself wanting to protect myself against that, too).
It's not an easy question, and I think a lot of the heat and light in the debate is caused by people, particularly on the prohibition side, pretending that it is.
'There's been a school shooting, so we should ban guns' is superficially attractive but ultimately simplistic and wouldn't actually do much about the problem, I think.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I'm American, grew up in a rural area where gun ownership and hunting were the norm. I would guess there were guns in pretty much every home in town (this was in the 1970s/80s). There were guns in gunracks in the pickup trucks of kids at my high school. Yet in the entire 18 years of my childhood before I moved away, there was only one incidence of gun violence and I remember it because it was so rare and people often talked about "The Shooting" as it was referred to (a husband shot his wife's lover). But we also had a close-knit community where children were seen and supported. I'm not sure what's changed in modern-day America, but it's not gun ownership.
To answer your larger question, I'd say that it's defensiveness that triggers the anger. If you say you support gun rights or the second amendment, you can be called a murderer or worse by the left. They literally blame you for children dying. That's a horrific thing to say to someone and it's really hard not to feel angry. I will get up and leave before entering into a conversation on gun rights with anyone in my liberal-leaning community -- it's not worth being called names. They NEVER want to actually hear my perspective. They just want to tell me I'm wrong -- not just plain wrong, but EVIL and wrong.
What changed was economic. The moving of factories and meaningful work overseas. And then to be told by our tomentors that the very predictable reactions to this gutting were OUR fault? That our lax moral fiber was driving this even as all real jobs and means of supporting oneself with dignity disappeared?
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Why does gun control need to be discussed at all? It is a natural law that you have the right to defend yourself. Our 2nd Amendment to the Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Full stop. Some people will kill using any tool available: cars, rocks, knives, fists. But no one is calling for car control or knife control. Why not? Because our government knows they have to disarm the population to enact their tyranny. Covid showed their totalitarian tendencies but they want full control hence the call for gun control every time there is a shooting. We look at the UK and Australia and see how well gun control worked there. No thanks. Australia got away with their abuse because they knew people could not fight back.
There are other things that can be done to harden schools/buildings against this sort of shooting. But the politicians are not interested in those solutions. Schools in urban areas have metal detectors and armed officers which is why these events happen at suburban schools. Then there are those individuals who refuse to have an armed officer in schools. The people who
Commit these atrocities are looking for easy targets. We need to solve the problems at the schools and make it harder for crazy people to do their damage. Locked doors are an easy fix. You go through one door and the second is locked. Now they are trapped. And law enforcement can be called. There are other measures that are not expensive but politicians don’t bother with that. My final thought. As a woman, a hand gun is the great equalizer. If someone tries to attack me I can’t physically compete but my hand gun can and will. Cheers.
Socially cohesive society is what WEF wants It can only happen. The only cohesiveness that is truly non-violent TRULY from sovereign divine love which comes from recognizing our unity and therefore refusing to harm one another for selfish gain or exploitation and so on. Social cohesion can't be forced by rules and regulations, as it just becomes another version of diabolical control. I wouldn't want to go back to the middle ages with heretics being burnt. Respect for one another's lifestyles when they are different is easy when you are confident in your own choices. It is the destroying our natural bonds and communities or tries to disconnect us from our hearts and souls that is the problem. We need more space for uniqueness, not less, IMO.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Thanks for starting a civil discussion about this topic and being open-minded enough to listen.
The argument is so simple and clear, I’m surprised anyone disputes it. To draw from a comment I made at the el gato thread that sparked this discussion:
Gun laws don’t stop criminals from getting guns. Gun laws don’t stop murders from occurring.
All they do is stop law-abiding citizens from having the ability to defend themselves against criminals, tyranny, and genocide.
Margaret Anna Alice - I understand that Americans have historical reasons for so fiercely defending their rights to bear arms, as enshrined in their Constitution. However, the issue is neither simple nor clear (though your argument may be).
The US has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the world (exceeded only by some South American countries).
It is true that it is people who kill, not guns. Yet easy access to a lethal killing weapon seems likely to be a factor. (And almost impossible to prove one way or the other, as the figures can be interpreted in different ways.)
From my perspective over here in Australia, the civilian gun violence in the US seems to be just another facet of the general US readiness to resort to violence in order to get their way, whether to overthrow a regime, or to bomb the shit out of a country (as in Vietnam and Iraq).
It is the same urge that makes people turn to their guns (or gun rights) to resolve a conflict. If you don't have a gun, you have to find another way. If you do have a gun (or nukes, or long range missile systems, or whatever) then it is easier to rely on that (or the threat thereof) than to find another way to solve the problem.
And yes, of course we have murders here in Australia too. Just nowhere near the same level. I doubt that we are a more peaceful people, or with less mental health, drug, gang or other social problems for our size.
I am sure that in a healthy community, with responsible gun ownership, the level of gun violence would be very low. But in a healthy community, perhaps those guns are not very necessary, either.
And in an unhealthy community, arms escalation does not seem like a very workable strategy to me, whether you are trying to gain an advantage over your neighbour, your enemy or your government.
I am totally horrified by the suggestion (mooted around after Sandy Hook) that the way to stop school shootings would be to arm the teachers...
Anyway, I wrote more extensively about my views in my earlier comment, so I won't repeat it here. I do understand both sides of the argument, though for myself I am ambivalent/neutral. But it is actually a very complex issue, not simple at all, and I think as a society and as individuals, we need to find better ways of resolving problems than violence.
I appreciate your thoughtful comment, Mara, and you’re right, it is more complex than I distilled here. I don’t have the time to give you a proper response right now, but I am thinking of addressing this issue in more detail in an upcoming post or discussion thread. Thanks for being open to the nuances of this topic!
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Imagine you’re having an argument with your spouse. You’re trying to explain your side calmly and rationally. Your spouse does not seem to be listening to what you’re saying, does not address any of your points, and keeps saying the same thing over and over. You try to address what they say; they ignore it and continue to repeat the same thing. Are you eventually going to get fed up? Maybe even angry?
This is why people are angry about this discussion. They’re fed up of the other side not listening.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Exactly. And I say this as a "senior citizen" who was anti-gun until the Obama administration, when I actually listened to the pro-gun arguments and did an about-face.
I think this applies to both sides. In fact, it is not clear to me which side of the discussion you are imputing to the "spouse" and which to "you". (But I'm assuming that "you" is the gun rights party, since that seems to be the preferred position of most people commenting here.)
I'm saying this as an Aussie who understands both sides of the argument, and still feels ambivalent. From here, it seems like most people feel that the other side is not listening.
It might seem like that, in the here and now, but this is not a discussion that started five minutes ago. It was old before I first became aware and started investigating back in the 1990s. 2A defenders constantly put evidence on the table, for instance demonstrating that the current "this must be done" thing has been tried before and has 1. not worked, and/or 2. has created worse consequences. 2A attackers use demagoguery (politicized emotional manipulation) to set evidence aside and insist more loudly/dramatically "this must be done". After a while, anyone will tire of being patiently rational in the face of hysteria.
At this point, all of the methodologically coherent evidence fails to support the hypothesis that restricting the right to keep and bear arms would improve any of the variables the restriction-advocates [say they] wish to affect. Their basic counter-argument to evidence-based reasoning is that true gun control (like true socialism) has not really been tried. Unconvincing.
There is a way to amend the Constitution, and everyone knows it. Americans who feel the 2A is outdated could, and in my opinion should, focus their efforts on amending the Constitution. They are profoundly disinterested in doing that work. Given decades of pointless hysteria achieving negative results, why have leaders of these agitations not invested in any way even to strategize the tiniest first step toward Constitutional amendment? I would say it's because at heart they know they are wrong. Others more cynical than I might say they are getting what they want (raising funds, building careers, gaining traction in party circles, virtue signalling at no cost). Actual progress toward their stated goal is, apparently, irrelevant.
People who are experiencing virus totalitarianism as a wake-up call regarding government overreach and intrusion could learn a lot from 2A defenders. As John McClane would say: 'Welcome to the party, pal.'
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I don't have a gun and think that having one comes with responsibilities. However, I totally support 2nd amendment rights. I don't know how to put it into words, but "Awaken with JP" had a great video -- done with humor -- about the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, I am having trouble finding it now to place a link here... I think that having a gun isn't just about protecting your family and home, but also about protecting yourself from a tyrannical government. I never really thought that the US Gov't would become tyrannical until the past couple of years! I respect and appreciate responsible gun owners.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
One of the biggest arguments against individual gun ownership is the massive militarization of our police in tandem with growing corruption of our political system. I'm in NYC where handguns are outlawed but NYPD would be the worlds 7th largest military force if we were to rank by spending and they have offices around the globe. Spend any time at the wrong protest event and it feels like an occupying force not public servants protecting my free speech.
As a country kid we all had BB-guns and knew folks who hunted so only automatic weapons have ever been objectionable to me until now despite being traditional anti-war pacifist lefty.
Since COVID my government has no respect for my fundamental human rights or bodily autonomy and the fact that our Red States are armed to the teeth gives me a very comforting sense that they stand between freedom and locked down like Australia or NZ or China.
Pfizer has killed and maimed more people than all our mentally unstable attackers combined. Instead of funding a bloodbath in Ukraine and endless billions for clot-shots we might invest in mental health, drug and homeless services and stop shipping tanks to our local cops. When your government is the greatest purveyor of violence and continue to declare citizens terrorists giving up our guns seems badly timed.
Oct 16, 2014 — The Pentagon has provided at least $28 million worth of equipment to 128 police departments and sheriff's offices across NY State..
2021 ACLU -
The federal government arms local police forces in the United States with weapons of war. A program called “1033,” for the section of the act that created it, allows the Department of Defense to give state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies military hardware. Since its inception in 1996, nearly 10,000 jurisdictions have received more than $7 billion of equipment. This includes combat vehicles, rifles, military helmets, and misleadingly named “non-” or less-lethal weapons, some of which have featured in police raids and police violence against protesters, including recent protests for racial justice.
May 25, 2022·edited May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
How refreshing (regardless of your "politics", opinions on individual fire arm ownership, etc. what stands out is you have actually considered your own background and experiences, have thoughtfully considered those, and researched newest information and events... HOW REFRESHING, not just another ideologue screaming the (meaningless "F" word) at anyone who has a different view. You actually explained your evolution, the process, impressive !
The US gov't at the behest of its owners in Davos has murdered over 600k in Syria, similar number in Libya and over a million in Iraq. And now 5 million with the Covid virus they helped to develop and likely release. And ~100M will die due to economic deprivation and hunger due to their Plandemic, very many of them children. Now tell me why I should get wound up about a school shooting?
Perhaps I am completely missing the point, but, why one should even care about 19 children being shot in cold blood is nothing to get wound up about based on the premise that millions have and will die in other ways, just does not seem to be a the type of rational foundation that would be accepted if one were on a debate team at a competition. Isn't that similar to the justification of a former secretary of state who said (of embassy employees), there dead now, so what difference does it make ! Again, perhaps I just don't understand your example, not questioning your opinion !
I never said you shouldn't care. I said don't blow a gasket, have some perspective. People have a rather irrational focus on spectacular events.
50k/yr die in car crashes, horrible deaths and injuries of young & vibrant children, it's ho-hum, no news here.
A plane crashes, 300 people die, it's a horrible urgent front page headlines. 10,000 kids die in shootings, but one at a time, it's ho-hum but 19 die in one shooting, it's a national emergency.
We stand on the verge of global nuclear war and its not even on the news. 19 kids die in a shooting, that a total national focus. The nuclear war is preventable. The random act school shootings are very difficult to prevent, can be done but that is very long term, nuclear war prevention is NOW!
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
After reading both your post and the comments, I see that it isn't the pro/anti-gun discussion you're interested in, but in the emotion surrounding it.
You ask why some people can't civilly discuss the issue, and to that my only answer is, "I don't know." Some (many?) people are immature thinkers and cannot formulate a cogent argument, therefor they lead with emotion. Emotion runs high on this issue because it is one of both personal safety and our rights as Americans.
On the personal safety front - I have spent my life back and forth between the UK and the US, as well as traveling extensively around the world since I was a young child. I understand that people outside the US often see news of a mass shooting here and immediately go to "they should ban guns." The thing is, most of us here who support gun ownership do so because we notice that the places that have these mass shootings are, by and large, "gun free" zones. Criminals do not follow laws. Criminals will not trade all their guns to the government for a few hundred dollars. Criminals will actively seek to predate the weak and defenseless. If we give up our guns, we are all the weak and the defenseless to the criminals who have not given up theirs.
As far as our rights as Americans - maybe you have heard the old adage that the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) is there is back up the First Amendment (right to freedom of speech and expression). This is true, but it does not end there, it also backs up our other rights and keeps the federal government in check. You may have noticed, for example, that we did not have the quarantine camps here that were prevalent in Australia and China; the second amendment is a part of the reason why. We did not have police (even in my deep blue state that was the last to lift its mask mandate) hauling people off because they weren't contact tracing, or because they were more than 10 miles from home, or because they were on the beach without a mask; the second amendment is part of the reason why. Our government treads carefully because many of us still take the Gadsden flag seriously.
Every so often we let down our guard, but then institutions like the WHO and the WEF rear their heads and start talking down to us about globalism, elitism, and the collective good (which sounds like a bad deal for anyone who isn't them), and we once again thank our Founding Fathers for their prescience and wisdom in giving us the gift of self-defense and checks on power.
So, the reason people are so emotional when it comes to the Second Amendment? Because without it we would likely already have lost our republic, and we love it too much to give it up without a fight.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
"... I would prefer that every other hungry, angry, raiding person didn’t have a gun." I understand this is your Substack and I enjoy your articles, it's just hard to want to have a conversation with someone who wants to impose their way of life onto yours so they can feel comfortable or safe or whatever. If other people not owning or using a gun makes one group of people feel safe, how different is that from the current paradigm of wanting to force medical procedures on others for safety, etc?
I said “I would prefer”, I’m not trying to impose anything on you. I was just putting my position across but my main discussion point was why many people can’t discuss the topic rationally.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Well again, if we want to keep it simple, it can't be "discussed" rationally because "civility" it not really taught, modeled, explained, or valued in ANY of the countries where I have spent any amount of time, it's not just here in the states. Of course mankind has always been emotionally driven, but, "civil" discourse, as many like to call it, has been on the decline for a LONG time. When "Covid" arrived, any last vestiges were abandoned. Husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, cousins, uncles, and aunts all turned on each other. Family "loyalty", or "civil discourse", didn't even come into the equation, it was "dog eat dog", vaccinated and non vaccinated, all turned against each other, like the American civil war. Brother from a border state who decided to join the "south", ready, willing, and able to kill his brother who made the decision to fight for the north ! Now, here we sit, finally (and sadly) realizing our vaccines did not protect anyone, and we are left with permanently fractured families now ! Those who flaunted their vaccinated "status" with jewelry and social "posts", who cut off loved ones, are unable to say they made a "mistake", a "mistake" millions of us made, we wanted to believe, so we took a chance, so what ! But, it's the inability to make up with family, to "mend fences" fractured by Covid, that is the same principle really, as the "gun debate"... all of this is HUMAN nature, emotionally driven creatures, of course it "could" be different !
Your main point may have been about discussing the matter rationally, but you also asked why people react with anger, & your readers are answering that question as well. It didn't sound like a rhetorical question; you said you wanted to understand.
It's different because in both cases, it is the person with the needle, or the gun, who is a threat to the bodily integrity of other people. For me, it is not so much your gun ownership that I find a threat, as it is your refusal to understand the other side of the debate.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Hello N.E. I am an American and I think it is ridiculous that people will not discuss the topic with you or anyone else. However, I do not agree with your gun control views, but I expect you to have those views given that you are from the UK and were not brought up around guns. I was brought up with guns in the household and I have carried one for a quarter century, so I do not look at it the same way that you do. I have to run right now, but I will comment more a bit later when I have more time. Thanks for your excellent work!
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Leaving aside the fact that it's a constitutional right, and those are precious, and that in a country irretrievably full of illegal guns it's not a bad idea to have some legal ones, I'm amazed you ask.
I'm English but I suggest that armed US civilians are maybes the only thing actually stopping the new world order from actually taking over pretty much immediately.
Biden (like arguably every US president since Reagan, and a few before) is constrained by one thing, and that is the knowledge that if he pokes the US people a little too hard, and too obviously, it could end up bad for a lot of the people he sends to do the poking, and by extension for him, his crackhead son, and the rest of America's ruling elite.
Let's not kid ourselves that the US government or any others really care about the loss of life, especially given the shit they've pulled on us all on five continents over the last two years.
Let's not kid ourselves that doctors care, either, given that medical negligence is the third biggest killer in the US, killing (Johns Hopkins figures, 2018 ie PRE Covid) 250,000 to 440,000 people per year.
As for the media, please don't make me laugh.
Shit is about to get properly real and I for one am glad that there are a lot of weapons in the hands of ordinary Yanks.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
It can be - it is here, now. Unfortunately, the majority of the gun prohibitionists don't want a discussion; they've made up their minds, and they want you to agree or be quiet.
Jasmine, that is not correct. But the discussion starts and ends with the Constitution. We don't want to discuss the 50 thousand killed on the road every year. Let's have a discussion about that.
Actually, I'm open to a conversation about any of it! I've never owned a car because early on in my life I realized that it was a deadly weapon.
My ideal is a small community that makes deliberate decisions about what is or is not acceptable for its people. Given the near-impossibility of that at this point in our world, I think the Constitution is about as close as we can come to a document that prevents government from interfering with our natural rights.
I agree with both of you, if I understand you correctly. It's about the Constitution, and it's about what's possible. Given the reality that the 2A is an enumerated right in the US Constitution, why do people say they hate it but never pursue strategies to change the Constitution? I have some ideas but have yet to hear someone against 2A rights suggest (much less do anything about) that silver bullet.
And you did bring up how marvelously the prohibitions have worked in your country. But, that's YOUR country. Your people are different and it makes all the difference.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
My 56 year-old American perspective...1) The criminals are heavily armed and are not going to turn in or give up their guns (and even if they did, plenty more would just stream across our Southern border.) Law-abiding people deserve to be able to protect themselves in all situations. Rifles don't work in many settings. 2) Taking away guns does nothing to help mental health issues and the overprescription of psychotropic meds for kids, but it does stop me from being able to protect my family from a nut bent on hurting us. 3) Our founding Fathers put the 2nd amendment in place to allow the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. They were brilliant men with amazing foresight. Never have we needed that capability more than we do now. 4) Unlike the UK, the United States has really vast expanses of wilderness across the country in which many could see refuge in a dystopian situation. Being able to hunt and protect yourself from others is critical. We do not intend to go gently into that bad night. 5) Guns have been readily available in the United States since its founding, but crazy people shooting up schools is a fairly recent occurrence. Guns did not cause the problem. 6) Using the occurrence of a school shooting to insist that guns are taken away from everyone is no different from taking one legitimate covid death as a reason to mandate vaccines for everyone. It's a massive government overreach that does nothing to address the true issue of damaged kids and mental illness. 7) And on a personal note, crazy people who want to kill someone will - I'd much rather be shot than hacked to death with a machete any day.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
This Canadian likes to shoot, a lot. I play shooting games, look up IPSC. We don’t take cars away from everyone when drunks get behind the wheel do we?
Besides crazies will take to driving vehicles into busy Christmas parades or on sidewalks during sunny afternoons on Toronto’s busiest street (simply cuz he couldn’t get laid).
We don’t treat mental illness at all in North America. For instance we care more about peoples right to live on the street in sub zero weather than locking them up against their will (and treating them).
May 25, 2022·edited May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Agree, however... the "rest of the story" should also be told. We shockingly, horribly, inhumanly, turned our extensive mental health support and treatment facilities into macabre houses of horror. The state and the regional facility near me when growing up were indeed, houses of horror, not just rumors. Chained human beings, put into boiling hot and icy cold baths, left tied into beds in their own excrement for several days at a time, and the most sadistic, even dull witted, people they could find, worked there. There were a "few" legitimate doctors, but most had some kind of past, some incidents, that left them few options career wise. This took YEARS to all come to light, the inhumane treatment. Had I NOT lived through that time, and had a neighbor who had the misfortune of having a "committed" family member, an uncle who was mentally "defective" as it was called then, I would never now be able to understand how the sights I SEE on the streets, in the alley, DAILY, are, as horrible as they are, better than the alternative, the "committing" of people to a life FAR more horrible than any jail cell. Yes, I do think we could, IF we had the will, develop humane places for all of our "defectives", we have the money and the land to establish all manner of dignified living conditions where many (not all of course) of these "street folks" could even thrive, perhaps even experience the emotion of "happiness" for the first time. Not 100% perfect solution, but... we could TRY ! !
May 25, 2022·edited May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Yes but doing a 180 and letting people sleep on the street at -20c while smashing their head against the sidewalk doesn’t somehow correct the wrongs does it? I’ve seen this myself. The homeless issue is now coming up to the suburbs, there is a lady sleeping in bus shelters not far from me. It’s new and sad as hell.
Edit: The homeless has become a massive industry in Toronto where $55,000 is spent per homeless person. It simply gets sucked up by govt salaries.
True, yes of course, I too have seen a man sitting against a wrought iron fence daily, all day, every day, for weeks, just banging his head,not gently, against the post, all day long. I tried once to distract him by stopping and asking if he'd like a coffee and a sandwich (not mentioning for him to STOP, just thought perhaps, I could distract him), but he was not even aware I was was there, or offering him a snack ! There are no easy, or permanent, solutions, but in the USA, and as you say in Canada, much money and effort is wasted in ways we KNOW will not, do not, work. But we have so much LAND here (except in the populated East coast), where we could establish farms, communes if you will (though certainly some would begin the name calling of "communist"!), where people could at least live in cleanliness, perhaps a few would gain self-esteem (?), animals could be raised, crops, could have sanitary personal hygiene facilities like any boy or girl scout camp, like military barracks. Recreation facilities like ball fields, horse shoe pits, basketball courts are very inexpensive, it just seems there are ways to provide "something". If people ask HOW could we even get them to such a place from the city, I say, we spare no expense or logistical problem getting illegal immigrants to any location they desire, we charter planes, hire buses, it COULD BE DONE !
It used to be done here. Within 30 miles of me there is a huge farm that sheltered hundreds of such people. When they turned out the people from the hell holes, they also closed down the farms.
Yes. Time we found a solution in between the "SCIENCE" of yesteryear with the mentally ill and the "let them into the community with no support" that we do now.
Yes ! The "trouble is", actually pursuing a legitimate quest to do that would.... "NOT fit the agenda", the agenda of look as if you are seriously seeking solutions, but be very careful NOT to get too close as you might "offend some important voting block" ! Look busy, look concerned, look sincere, but learn the fine art of actually changing nothing !
High past time. We are talking the 70ś...it been about 50 years and we need to hold our politicians and lawmakers accountable . The left destroys everything they touch. That is the only constant in life I am beginnig to believe.
Yes, I fear that my experiences were not isolated, I think the combination of low pay, a very difficult and stressful environment, does not attract those who are able to obtain a position in more desirable conditions ! To some degree (and NOT to smear all the caring professionals) I suspect the same situation also exists in our V.A. facilities. The "state/federal" government has never excelled at running most such facilities, Walter Reed (where the elites of D.C. are treated) would be an exception (we had a niece who worked there, the care was top notch and they were highly selective when she applied).
Yup. We are the only countries that cannot (not do not, CANNOT) lock people away who are a danger to others. And we are letting in milions of mentally ill and criminal people over our borders as we speak.
Again, BINGO ! If I wrote what my grandparents went through when they came here from Germany. The period of isolation, the HEALTH testing, even EYE SIGHT had to be 20/20 or very near ! People today would never believe it if they did not have relatives in their family who LIVED IT ! How, who, why did our requirements concerning health, character, requirement of having a skill or trade, ability to support self.... How, who, why did all this change to the point where you don't even have to come in a legal way ?
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
We have gun control in France. Yet, it hasn’t stopped 2 mass shootings where the crazies were roaming the street without any possibility for anyone to do anything about it. The USA has 350millions odd people yet you will remove a fundamental right based on the action of a few crazies?! How is that any different from the Covid fascists?! You take the uk as an example as if before dunblane it was a country where mass shootings happened on a regular basis. It most certainly didn’t so your point is moot that the gun controls that were introduced had any effect whatsoever. When it comes down to it, you are just as influenced by the media when it suits your prejudices as anyone, principles be damned.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Because the anti gun side has not been discussing amicably for years, and arguably never has. More generally, it is the same side that will cancel you for not being woke, or has vilified people for the last 2 years for not toeing the line on official Covid narrative. So I get that enough is enough and civility might take a backseat. Note however that law abiding gun owners have not gone on actual riots or rampages unlike the alleged « progressive « anti gun crowds.
May 26, 2022·edited May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
So I see a few comments but I'll add my own perspective. I grew up thinking guns were bad and that there was no need for it. If we have no guns, then we'd have no violence.
But as I started getting older my perspective changed and I started looking at things in a more nuanced manner. I watched a few documentaries (which I admit will be biased) that kind of changed how I approach guns, and led me to sort of change my idea that we should ban all guns. This went on for a few years but it didn't change much to be honest.
And then the pandemic hit. I mentioned it in one place but I come from an Asian background and many Asians are adamantly against guns. Then when many Asians believed that they would be targeted for being Asian they tried getting a firearm and couldn't get through (long wait, overcrowded, low supply, etc. etc.)
But that solidified it for me. How can people scoff at those who want to own firearms only to rush and try to obtain them when the time felt necessary? You don't own a firearm for the times when you want/need it, you own a firearm with the idea that you will never have to use it (for self-defense at least).
So that really just altered my perspective. We're dealing with a lot of mental health issues in this country. We're dealing with many people who feel the need to take their anger and resentment out on others. They're being told that the world sucks and there's no reason to believe you can live a fruitful life. Honestly, look at many of the Substacks around here talking about the end of the world being near or that we should all be scared- do we really believe this supports a nation of healthy-minded individuals?
Our society is a recursive one that rewards and enforced negativity, and when it manifests in a horrendous tragedy we walk around asking "how could this have happened?"
So the issue is not guns, it's the manifestation of anger, resentment, and hate that projects itself through harming others. We can't remove the avenues of harm when the intent to harm remains. We need to figure out how to create a more healthy society before we remove things that are otherwise entrenched within our Constitution.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
So, why the anger over a discussion which is purely intended to try to stop kids getting shot at school?
Because the discussion isn't purely intended to try to stop kids getting shot at school, kids getting shot at school is just a convenient pretext to further the goal of disarming citizens and removing the 2a protection of an inherent right.
If the discussion was intended to stop kids getting shot at school, it wouldn't focus on the gun at all, if the guns were the problem it would be a common occurrence. The left runs straight to "take the guns" at every chance, I'm not sure I've ever seen them run to "let's work on the moral fabric of our society", quite the opposite actually.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
One thought is that responsible gun owners, who have existed in this country for a couple hundred years, are not the problem. There is a law that you shouldn’t murder people. That doesn’t stop people from being murdered. A person can drive a car into a group of kids. A person can go on a stabbing rampage. Do you outlaw cars and knives? How about we start with paying better attention to whether people buying guns have been a “problem” to law enforcement in their past? How about we start enforcing laws already on the books which could prevent people who shouldn’t be buying weapons from obtaining them? Why should law-abiding citizens lose their rights because of mentally ill people? How about we look at how drugs that transgender people are taking to make their transition might trigger side-effects such as a propensity to homicide? As well as other drugs we are pumping into young people today in an effort to “treat” mental issues.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
The right to bear arms is a God given right that our Government was established to protect, so that right is enshrined in our Constitution. I would die to protect that right.
You don't understand because you aren't part of the heritage that had to fight for independence. I think thats why the Aussies, who are otherwise freedom minded, rolled over so quick on guns. Americans also have a more robust sense of free speech than you Europeans who are willing to allow "hate speech" laws to hamper expression. Not unfollowing.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Our Constitution doesn't bestow unto us the right to bear arms, it merely recognizes our God-given right to do so. "...shall not be infringed" seems fairly clear to me.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Yes I'm American, and yes, it is a very complicated topic. but the short, uncomplicated, answer for me (NOT personally a gun enthusiast), is very simple. Banning, or otherwise attempting to "ban" anything, simply does not work. When you begin to seriously consider preventing individuals who have never done anything illegal, criminal, etc. (like some, not all, terrorists, mentally ill, disillusioned, and rejected people), it is a slippery slop, a Pandora's box, when you disarm an entire nation (and everyone KNOWS there is no TOTAL disarming of course), the eventual outcome will not be desirable, enslavement is always the final outcome. Obviously, the vision and wisdom of the founders of this nation were indeed a true gift, perhaps for those of us who do believe there is God, that gift was from God. HOW people choose to USE guns, or knives, or auto jacks or crow bars, was not the divine plan. Perhaps acceptance, kindness, a willingness on the part of younger people especially, to accept other students, students with big ears, or small eyes, students who stutter, or lisp, or who can not run as fast or as far as others, perhaps, if we did not look for IMPERFECTIONS in others, it would not prevent all tragedy, but, in many ways we make and shape "imperfect people", while they are still young. From my youth, I remember the boy who, while a toddler raised in a very undesirable family situation (2 alcoholics), got under the sink cupboard and ate lye. His disfigured face, tongue, teeth, and mouth were surely a more horrifying school life than the actual pain of the event itself. I, like all the other grade school children, "kept our distance" from him. He never went on to high school, and while he never became a killer, his criminal record has kept him incarcerated most of his adult life, with only a few months of freedom here and there. Does that make me a "bleeding heart" ? I think not, my point is NOT that he should not pay for his crimes, my point is, perhaps the incidence of violent mass shootings "could" be significantly at least reduced, if individuals who are saddled with physical and mental imperfections, were at least treated with kindness. A "no bullying on this campus" crusade is NOT effective, HOW we view and treat others MUST begin in the home, before school age, and be taught by example. We could (and did) "ban" alcohol, we definitely did NOT succeed in stopping alcoholism, abuse, etc. No, it's not "guns", our fore fathers were correct !
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I just turned 66 years old. When I was a kid, my grandfather gave me a couple 22 cal guns and told me "don't ever tell the government you have these." I still haven't. My grandfather was no redneck nut - he was a Stanford grad and took over a good business from his father and made it a lot more successful. I was a high school science teacher and now am doing real estate successfully. I live in S California. I'm not a dumb redneck either.
We Americans don't want to give up our guns because we don't want to be slaves. Look at Australia. My cousin's wife is British and has the same attitude you express here about guns. I really have to admit I don't get it.
The current world actions of the covid planscamdemic and the move towards digital (not)currency and the Great Reset are a move by the world level tyrants to turn us back into serfs.
The bad guys, including the government bad guys, will always have guns.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
“Yes the UK still has gun crime but it’s low. Firearm death rate per 100k in the UK is 0.23, in the US its 12.21.”
If you factor out suicide and gang violence, firearms death rate in the US is very low as well.
We can’t prevent people from simply sauntering over the southern border. They ignore immigration laws, so it’s illogical to think they would obey gun laws.
Concealed carry permit holders commit almost zero crime of any sort, yet stop a lot of it.
If you take the guns away from the good people, then only the bad people will have the guns that the Mexican cartels will have no problem bringing over the borders in massive quantities, just as they do drugs and sex slaves.
I will be convinced that “banning guns” will work when banning drugs and sex slaves works.
Not knowing the problem always makes the solution seem obvious.
And, by the way, as a religious principle, I’m strictly committed to a life of non-violence. But those are *my* principles, and I’m grateful to have been granted the wisdom to not try to project them on others.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I’m in Australia but closely follow US and UK politics. I used to be very big on gun control but the last couple of years of Covid insanity, censorship, and massive government overreach has made me wary of disarming the populace. I even thought about buying a gun! I don’t know what to think now about US school shootings. I’ve found other articles which link the school shooters to heavy drug use and social isolation very compelling.
A prerequisite to enacting effective gun control is that you need people to trust their government. Given we are now at a time when trust in government is at its lowest and continuing to decline I don’t think much can be done.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
The people in power benefit from the tribes screaming at each other. We’re trained to yell about it. Proof is in the choice of language and framing among the talking heads. Hope that answers the question.
Why measure deaths per 100k in population? If guns are the problem, as you suggest, we should look at gun deaths per 100,000 guns. According to Google, there are 390 million guns in the US, with a population of 330M, and 600k guns in the UK with a population of 55M. Using your .23 number means there were 126 firearm deaths in the UK, or 1 death for every 4743 firearms. Here in the USA, (and again using your numbers) there were 40k firearm deaths. Dividing the 390 million guns in the USA by the 40k deaths yields 1 death for every 9750 guns. In other words, the more accessible guns are, the lower the death rate.
This matches what you see just here in the US. In cities where gun ownership is severely restricted... like Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, LA, Wash DC and New York - Crime is a much bigger problem than in places where guns are easier to get like Dallas, Denver, OK city, or Phoenix. Guns are not the problem and do not deserve the blame, the people pulling the trigger are the problem, they deserve the blame.
Love the comment.. I live in Phoenix/Scottsdale where it seems every house has a minimum of 3 guns. Random home invasions do not happen much here even though Phoenix (comparatively) is a poorer/rougher town than say, San Francisco where break-ins are far more common. Everyone in AZ knows every house is likely armed and breaking into that house carries greater risk than breaking into one in SF. Therefore it doesn’t happen. The gangs/drug crowd are responsible for the gun deaths here. The rest of us just go to ranges and get/stay comfortable using one.
Excellent, M. Bagholder. I had thought of this aspect in general, but was too lazy to dig out any numbers (call it a personality flaw), so it would have sounded like a theory.
Thank you for the "ammunition." (I hope my pun does not offend.)
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I have a PS followup to my previous post: If the USA could send $40 billion in aid to a foreign country in the blink of an eye, why couldn’t the government spend 40 billion to secure our schools and increase access to mental health services? As opposed to taking away the rights of its law abiding citizens?
It's called buying influence. You didn't think it was a gift, did you? Foreign "aid" always comes with lots of deals and caveats, anything from influencing which people get support for a bid for leadership to outright concessions on natural resources. Far cheaper than a trade deal or a war for oil.
It's basically the same as "work for welfare"-programs: the receiver hasn't got a real choice, so can be offered a raw deal which from the outside looks charitable and liberal and progressive.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Because this is a settled argument in the USA. The left side has lost. So they have to resort to screetching as they are powerless. Change the second amendment if you want change, and good luck with that. The law is on the side of gun owners. There is nothing that left can do.
May 26, 2022·edited May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Thanks for the invitation for open discourse. It's very much needed, in many areas that are polarised.
I don't have much to add from personal experience. I never owned or wanted a gun. Thought about it during a recent terror attack near my home (I live in Israel). But it's hard to get a license here if you don't work for security forces, so I'll continue to take my chances without one.
Looking at the world though, I don't think it would do much to reduce tragedy. Yes, it would probably reduce the number of dead in school shootings and maybe other mass shootings. That is one clear advantage. But I think it wouldn't much change other types of violence where most people get murdered. People who live a criminal life mostly use illegal guns anyway. And they can murder with other weapons, as you are seeing very well in the UK.
There is one big problem with banning guns and other weapons of self defence (in the UK you'll probably start banning sticks and stones soon!). It sounds silly to state it, but here it is:
People who want to commit crimes don't care that it's illegal, they will get it and use it anyway, BECAUSE THEY CHOSE TO BE CRIMINALS. They haven't stopped robbing, raping and murdering because those things are illegal, right?
Meanwhile, people who are law abiding are left with no legal right to carry a weapon to defend themselves against armed criminals, which basically means the law is giving criminals an extra advantage.
Beyond the crime issue, it's hard not to notice governments and NGO's don't want private citizens to own guns. They claim that's because they want less people murdered, but com'on man... They don't really care about that. It's clear to my mind they just want a monopoly on power. With no legal guns for citizens, the only people who will have guns are security forces loyal to the state, private security paid by the rich, and gangs. That's a good enough reason to support the right to carry in my mind.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
So I’m an anomaly.. Always voted left. Family on Obamas campaign etc.. Had a gun as a kid but haven’t in 30yrs.. As of 2020 I’ll never vote blue again, bought 6 guns including 3 AR’s, 2 handguns and a shotgun including 5000 rounds.. I keep all in a big safe only I (locally) know the combo for..
The left has increased crime through the roof and gone off the deep end. If you’re black you get away with anything now. Rob houses etc and it’s the white home owner who goes to jail when the black guy broke into your house trying to rob you. BLM and the Dems money and racist tactics have gone so far including pushing new world order, vaccine pushes seem never ending.
Not gonna be caught unarmed when there’s a food shortage(diaper shortage) and 10 people crash my house for my materials. My son and I will take at least 5 before we go down..
My excuse is the environment today. Simple..
School shootings don’t make sense to me. They’re crazies. Way more bad people who could use a bullet than a kid.. Those are nut jobs. I’m shocked there’s not more honestly becaus there are far more crazies out there than schools.. Bad guys will always have guns so the good guys have to as well.
As my grandfathers bumper sticker said.. :”When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.” Truth..
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Something else to add: "assault weapons". Is everyone who has commented here, and mentioned "assault weapons", aware that the ONLY difference between an AR-15 and your basic hunting rifle is COSMETIC??? They both work the same!!! In other words, "assault weapons" are "semiautomatic".... which means ONE shot per trigger pull. Semiautomatic is NOT a machine gun. The AR platforms *look* scary, all black and polymer with lots of accessories and doo-dads... but it's the same thing as putting bumper stickers and curb feelers on the family sedan. It's all cosmetic, nothing to do with how it works/fires.
Please, for the love of G-d, try researching something before vilification. Look up what a Class 3 Special Occupational Tax is, and then look up how a semi-auto action actually functions.
The much-discussed Assault weapons ban of 1994 banned COSMETIC features. Literally a set of grips or a pistol grip would determine if a given gun was "ok" or banned. Utter stupidity. Like banning a car based upon its colour, or how much chrome gee-gaws it had. Or how big the fuel tank was (by which I mean banning larger capacity magazines).
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I was surprised to see such vehemence in response to your comments (on other articles) today, but I'm a relative newcomer to the concept that the right to bear arms is a fundamental one.
All the things that you research and write about - at heart none of it matters unless some entities (governments, or governments working on behalf of corporate interests) can coerce us because they have the guns/military complex to make people submit. Most of the pandemic coercion has been much more subtle - social pressure, co-option of "science". etc - but I think that we're all well aware that when push comes to shove, those who control the weapons can make us do anything.
Here's something interesting - I live in a major US city on the northeast corridor. When my friend went to a gun safety and shooting class in town, he was surprised to see that it was overwhelmingly Black women who were taking classes. It's possible that they - like people in rural America - are aware that they cannot count on police to come to their aid (in time, or at all) and feel that the safest thing is to take matters into their own hands.
Thank you for this open letter today! we should be able to talk about this, and though I'm a recent 2nd Amendment convert, I do think that all options should at least be on the table for calm discussion when we're faced with yet another school shooting.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I wish I could understand why we need to sell an AR 15 to an 18 year old who has a history of emotional problems. Is there not a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who clearly should NOT have them? Believe me I don’t want the government taking guns away from law abiding citizens who pay their taxes and work hard and deserve the right to bear arms. Why cant we at least discuss how to make sure a kid who is disturbed can’t just walk in a place and buy one. Maybe it’s not possible to set up safe guards like that. I don’t know. Don’t know if it will even work cause like many have already said on here. If a person wants to kill he will find a way.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
When somebody made up their mind to kill innocents, the availability of the gun won’t change their path, may just replace the gun with a truck (which this kid already had) or a can of gasoline and matches…
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
There was a recent discussion on the “What Bitcoin Did” podcast with Peter McCormack (a Brit) and Cody Wilson (American). They discussed US vs. English views/culture on the matter. One of the conclusions is that each country is where it needs to be, culturally.
May 26, 2022·edited May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I'm not American but have spent a lot of time in the US and have many American friends, so I feel I understand the thinking better than most non-Americans.
The Second Amendment was put in place deliberately for very good reasons - that citizens should be able to defend themselves against both criminals and tyrannical Government. In the US this was, of course, a response to the British tyrannical rule and firmly establsihed that the principle that American citizens would never agin become slaves to Government. Britons more than anyone should understand this as encapsulated in "Britons never will be slaves - Rule Brittania" but the issue is, if push came to shove, what would Britons actually be able to do about it other than sing!!
Should guns be banned for law abiding citizens, both these groups would then have a monolopy on violence and tyranny would be free to flourish unchecked. The US founding fathers were not stupid and crafted one (two if you include The Bill of Rights) of the greatest documents ever created by humanity. These people deeply considered every aspect of these documents before commiting them to writing and the Second Amendment is also deeply considered as part of the overall doctrine of "checks and balances"
The Constitution, in totality, resulted in far less tyrannical overrech in the US response to C-19 compared to most othet western "Liberal democracies" (Australia, New Zealand and Austria particularly come to mind) and the Constitution must be understood in its totality.
Given this recent demonstration of totalitarianism by "Liberal" Governments, I would have thought that this point was more than amply demonstrated and I'm very surprised that the author would adopt such a position having been deeply opposed to the totalitarian Government responses globally. Next time, these responses might go even further and entirely destroy ALL civil liberties and human rights.
You can be opposed to totalitarian Government and have reservations against mass gun ownership (although this discussion has made me see if from other view points which is good).
May 27, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
You've said this a few times and I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean. Are you referring to the crackdown on truckers?
"Gun ownership" is simply not the same as recognition of an unalienable right in the foundational document of a free country. I'm no expert on Canada so this is an honest question - are Canadians subjects, via the Commonwealth? Either way, it's a totally different mindset to have one's polity grounded in a baseline of being ruled (however many or few privileges the population may have gained) versus having a polity grounded in individual rights that cannot be infringed no matter who happens to be sitting in the office running things at any given moment.
When Americans say things like "Come and take it" in this debate, it is not an angry or emotional response. It's the bottom line. It is a statement of fact-based empirical reality. As Mao observed, Political power grows from the barrel of a gun. We don't intend to forfeit that.
Many comments are saying the US had less harsh lockdowns because they have guns, whilst Australia had worse lockdowns because they have strict gun controls. But this doesn't add up when you look at Canada who have guns but the unvaccinated still can't leave the country.
Thanks for clarifying. I think 'less-harsh than elsewhere because guns' could have some plausibility *if* it's a shortcut summary for 'less harsh (in some ways in some places) because of the same factors generally driving the American culture or regional personalit[y|ies] more willing to accept reasonable levels of risk in exchange for desired levels of liberty and autonomy'. If the argument is that there's a direct connection, I don't find it makes sense even for the US, much less as a comparison across countries.
In nearly all lockdown comparisons, however, the dependent variable is horribly underspecified and perhaps immeasurable, so I personally don't find them very interesting.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I suspect the vehemence is for the same reason as the polarising debate on lockdowns and mandatory vaccination... The encroachment on freedom. My bugbear is always being treated like a child because others behave irresponsibly with their freedom. Address them and punish them; don't punish me (everyone) because you are to afraid to call out their folly.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I think a common sense discussion of potentially further regulations on long rifles like AR 15’s. AK 47’s (not hunting rifles) might be a good place to start. However, the founding fathers of the Constitution of the United States had a great debate (documented in the Federalist Papers) regarding the right to bear arms under the second amendment of the Constitution. The right to own a firearm was for the purpose of hunting and self protection. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was also to ensure that we the people could stand up against an enemy foreign or domestic which included standing up against an oppressive and tyrannical government to ensure our freedom. During the Plandemic, I have seen what has taken place in Australia (I’m sure many Australians regret giving up their firearms in 1996) Canada, and many other countries that quite frankly are not much different than China. Just saying….
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I don't think that it's discussing the issue that provokes anger. It's the unwillingness of some on the opposites sides of this issue to listen to the other side that is often misrepresented. For many years of my life, I did not feel the need to own a gun.
For one, I did not need to hunt to provide food for my family and to me that was the only reason to hunt. To me it was never a sport or a challenge to kill an innocent animal. I have always had money to buy my food.
That being said, there are many who do rely on hunting, even in today's world to put food on the table. Should that be denied? And as time has gone on and in this world I now see that one should have that option. If need be, I would still want to provide for my family and hunting is one source to do so. To hunt you need a rifle or perhaps a shotgun, a handgun is useless for that purpose, And in reality an AR, which contrary to what some believe does not stand for "automatic rife". It is just a normal rifle with the capacity to hold more ammo. The "AR" in AR-15 stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", not "assault rifle".
Also, through the years with the rise in crime in many of the large cities in the US, where many gang members have "illegally aquired weapons, many citizens feel that they need some form of protection and can you blame them? There is simply not enough police to cover every area in a given city or town. 911 may not save your life. The last thing I would want is to hear someone in my house and not be able to have the means to protect my family. Why should that right be denied, and yes, in the US, it is still a right. So there again, I think this is justifiable to own a weapon.
I realize this is a no-win situation for anyone., It tears my heart when some nut-case preys on innocent people and unfortunately, many of these idiots target schools because they realize they are a no-gun zones, so these children are unprotected. Would stricter gun laws help? That's debatable, a killer always find a way to kill whether it be a gun, knife, or whatever. No-gun zones are a form of stricter laws. Does it help?
Finally, and I know it's an over used cliche, but it is true. Is that when guns are taken away from the people, those in charge can do what ever they want, and one only has to ask themselves: compare the police of today with those of of 50 years ago. We have gone from the friendly officer on the street to the tactical swat teams today armed with their "assault weapons" if that's the term you like to use. Why is that you just might want to ask yourself!!!
May 26, 2022·edited May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
To be fair, others have made my points already. But I wish to add my voice, if for no other reason than to have a chorus rather than a solo. You ask, NE, why is this "debate" not civil???? Well, my first point would be that it is difficult for we Americans to be civil when someone starts talking about taking one of our G-d given NATURAL rights away. When a liberal who in one breath is talking about requiring ID to vote being racist and voter suppression, in the next breath wants all kinds of laws and limits slapped on my natural right to own whatever weaponry I choose and not ask mother-may-i to a soul... yeah, that can be why we get a little irritated. Try this thought game first: when wanting limits on my Right to Keep and Bear Arms, strike out "guns" and insert "speech", or "voting", or any of the other Rights enshrined in that lovely Constitution of ours. If a Right can be limited by Government fiat, it's not a Right but a privilege. I call Bullshit at that point.
Next, since I'm sure it will come up: "why do you need a semiautomatic weapon"? For the 10 gazillion-th time, a "semiautomatic weapon" fires ONE round per trigger pull. It works EXACTLY the same in practical terms as a Double-action revolver. (A single-action revolver requires an additional step, that of a hammer cocking before firing.) Literally 95% of ALL available guns today, whether rifles or handguns, work this way. Some shotguns do as well. The problem here is that people who have gotten their ENTIRE knowledge of how guns work from Hollywood or the media have confused or conflated "semiautomatic" with "FULL automatic (i.e. machine guns).
In Most states, machine guns actually are still legal. They are collector's items and hideously expensive and terribly regulated. If memory serves since 1934 when the National Firearms Act was enacted, there has only been one crime committed by a legally possessed machine gun and that was committed by a cop with his personally-owned machine gun. And as far as the question why does someone need a machine gun? Why does Jeff Bezos need a multimillion-dollar yacht? Why does my neighbor need a nice boat? Why do I need more than one motorcycle? The answer is because each of us want that and are able to pay for it. None of anybody's business what I own or you own.
This whole thing about save the children and get rid of guns just pisses me off. Nobody was screaming to get rid of SUVs when the moron drove through the parade in Waukesha. A lot more people are killed every year by driving accidents and drunk drivers then are killed by guns.... yet no one seems to be proposing to have a background check on SUV owners. Or, prophylactically, to have an alco-sensor in every car because some people chose to drive drunk. We don't punish ALL just because of the actions of a very few... even the horrific actions.
May 26, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
I'm not sure why people get angry when talking about the right, or privilege, to have a gun. I didn't agree with or understand this right until about 7 years ago, when I recognized my government does not represent the population any longer. I switched to supporting private gun ownership. It's the last bastion of individual rights in any country. Yes if the military came out full force, the people would not be able to withstand that with guns. But private ownership of guns keeps it from getting to that point. Overtaking a population physically is less of a choice, there is less chance that governments think it's even a possibility. The price we pay for this level of freedom, collective freedom of our population to be physically overrun, is the mass shooting of innocent people. It's a steep price, and a heartbreaking, heart-wrenching one.
Not to mention real. I have never even shot a gun, let alone owned one, and the fear of not being able to, perhaps in face of a terrible crime wave, or other direct threat to me or my family and friends is not hypothetical.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
The typical American psyche is right out of Orwell's "double-think" concept where you can hold two completely contradicting beliefs or thoughts at the same time. We American's "think of ourselves" as peaceful and law abiding even while our government (the one we fund with our taxes) is in the act of murdering, slaughtering and starving the poor around the globe each day, every day, decade after decade as they have been doing throughout my 70 year lifetime. Our societal "norm" is that our government is completely lawless and uses violence to "get its way." The government's justification for this lawlessness is the pathologically self-absorbed belief that "we are the exceptional nation." Perhaps it is that nationally embraced narcissistic conceit that some deranged individual Americans end up mirroring when they decide that "they are the exceptional person" who has the right to kill others because their "feelings" or "beliefs" render them so very "exceptional" and above human life and the law. Just like our government. As a well traveled retired therapist I will say that if there is a people on planet earth that as a group are "less reflective" and more "self-absorbed" than we Americans - I have yet to meet them.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Lastly, there is a war in Europe which could have easily been avoided, where the us government is sending billions worth of weapons which will kill 1000s, with a substantial proportion that will end up in the wrong hands, and where the same us government is not even interested in talking peace thereby prolonging the deaths and destruction on a country level. Seems to me that however incredibly sad the event in that school is, the sense of outrage is a tad unbalanced.
May 25, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Man, this is sad and hilarious. It's sad that you haven't learned what's actually happening in the world even as its been thrown in your face for years. You are not trying to prevent kids from getting shot, you're supporting the disarming of a nation by an illegitimate communist government while repeating the slogan that you're trying to save kids. Do you ever think about how the authorities always know about these shooters? You think that's a random, unsolvable problem?
You know there are concentration camps in China right now, right? "Quarantine camps" in Australia? Plans for quarantine camps going through legislatures in America? That's the government you want to see disarming the people?
Of course, you think all of this is a conspiracy theory and rather than addressing the reality, you'll pretend it doesn't exist. Remember vaccines? It's just like that. Since you deny the observable reality in front of you, you disregard why the second amendment was written. We have an illegitimate president implementing a global agenda he can't even rationally consider, much less explain, and you think disarming the citizenry is a proper response to a school shooting? Where is that motivation every weekend in Chicago? In fact, why is the most restricted Democrat Communist enclave in the country a battlefield in the first place?
You are repeating what you heard on television but trying to sound like you're the nice, rational guy. There's no discussion to be had. The people will not disarm, particularly not after watching the government assume power in a 5-year long coup culminating in a stolen election, while they censor us and call us domestic terrorists.
Your post is a result of being in the censored leftist bubble on Twitter. The ignorance is shameful at this point.
I'm more interested in why we can't have a rational debate. I don't claim to have the answer to the problems nor think my view has to be the correct one.
We can’t have a rational debate because the side that blames the guns is already irrationally misdiagnosing the problem and then focusing the discussion around that misdiagnosis.
Once again, people who think and reason within the Central Narrative misunderstand the point of contention altogether. The left (communists) and the “center” (people who prop up global communism but pretend otherwise) are having a conversation completely detached from observable, empirical reality.
Just like how they think abortion is about women’s right to choose what to do with their body (it’s not), but vaccine mandates are about protecting everyone else even if it just saves one life. There is no actual principle anywhere. There is no reason. There is no understanding of what the other side actually believes.
America is done with taking these people seriously, and it’s spreading through the rest of the world as well.
And isn’t it amazing that the same people are always leading the narratives and always wrong in exactly the same direction - the one that comports with the global agenda? Always. Everything they push for is rationalized by “helping others” as they further the agenda of the global communists plotting our future in Switzerland.
Yes, this is a good invitation to an important discussion.
I'm New York born and raised. I lived through the bad crime years of the '70s; I had a gun shoved in my side during a failed mugging; I've always been repulsed by guns and had great scorn for all that vast America between the East and West coasts; those people had, I thought, nothing in common with me.
When I lived overseas for 18 months just before and in the aftermath of 9/11, my family were threatened to the extent that we had cops living in our compound, and we turned our storage room into a safe room with the addition of a strong lock on the inside of the door and a long gun that must have been left over from the Afghan Campaign that Kipling wrote about. I hated having that thing there; it was taller than I.
Nine years ago I moved to a NE libertarian state where most people have guns and open carry is legal. Felt like alien territory.
These past two years have schooled me but good. I finally, in the tarnishing of my golden years, understand the remarkable prescience of our Founders. They were horribly flawed in their personal lives but their understanding of human nature in general and the particulars of tyranny and how it succeeds are, I think, unmatched in political discourse of any human era for which we have written histories.
I'm not a particularly brave person and have never handled a gun. But I believe, and always have, from the time I was a kid, that though you may crush me I will go down fighting. I've watched what has happened in the UK, a place I've been visiting since I was 23 years old and where I have beloved friends, and what happened in Australia--a place I thought was as tough or more than the US, and I understand now why those crazy survivalists in their Idaho bunkers that I, to my shame, mocked all my life till now, weren't in the least crazy or at least not in the way I thought.
The gun tragedy in this country is entirely a result of failed families. Freedom is horribly costly. When people have the freedom to raise their children as they see fit, inevitably some of them will terribly harm their children. When you cannot incarcerate everyone who uses drugs, you will inevitably have people who so harm their children beginning in utero that those children will never be normal. When you do not have the right to inspect every household daily, or weekly, or monthly, you will inevitably have families where children endure unspeakable horrors and become full-grown without ever having properly matured.
This is the cost of having inalienable rights. I never understood, before, why this cost must be paid if we are not to become Shanghai right now or ever, or Melbourne, or Birmingham, during the worst of the past two years. There is no authority wiser than we individuals in the aggregate but authority will never be convinced of that and can only be kept in check. It won't happen by conversation but by the knowledge that they can't take all of us down and had better not try.
Thank you for your very intelligent essay. I grew up in the Midwest where hunting guns in the house (not even secured) were very common but I never heard of any tragedies like we just experienced. I agree that the breakdown of the family and overuse of all psychotropic drugs are a big contributor to our current mental health crisis. The last two years have convinced me of the importance of the second amendment.
I don't know how much TV you watch, but it's been a wonder to me how so many of the elite class and pretenders to same just love shows about the delightful serial killer or contract assassin next door, while they shriek about all them troglodyte gun owners in flyover country.
These people have no grasp, in the slightest, of real life.
Check out my article on Bill Barr - you may find additional reasons to consider why it's happening the way it is.
https://lilychili.substack.com/p/lets-solve-this-over-chocolate?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2&s=w
Hmm...but, but, but he withstood DJT long enough to give us Mr. Durham. And maybe you missed him on Gutfeld!
He just *can't* be *all* bad!
Your comment sounds funny but I don't get the references! I'm confident speakling to what I know about but here I have to plead ignorance. Do inform me, if you like, no pressure.
Don't you think that the utter corruption of the Democrat party at the hands of one HRC (abetted by an FBI that targets me as enemy, and millions of Fascist-at-heart Deep State actors, media, AND "voters") is worthy of exposure?!?!
Absolutely. I think it goes a bit deeper though, as those are disposable actors in a larger play. If only they are held accountable, as opposed to the actors holding the stage and propping the puppets, we'll just have one puppets.
^I get the idea of "he can't be *all* bad because of bla bla bal that is a siv that doesn't hold water...but the specifics I am uninformed on.
IMO, the familial breakdown and overuse of drugs dovetails nicely with the shipping of good paying meaningful work out of this country. My former factory based hometown is in utter shambles now. The economics are driving this trend.
Britannia is now a prison camp complete with cameras and going so far as to ban steak knives.
Yet the camp is as violent as ever and the inmates are now resorting to acid throwing. But it’s a chronic low grade violence that simply becomes background noise and acceptable/tolerated. I would claim it’s worse as you are more likely as a citizen to be a victim of this background crime than a mass shooting. Just like shark attacks generate more press than a “normal” drowning. But people scream to “do something” about said shark but are 10000X more likely to drown.
It’s like the idiots driving alone wearing a mask but texting on their phone. The phone is 1000000X more likely to get them or someone else hurt or killed.
People are idiots when it comes to evaluating risk.
Life in a penal colony is dangerous. Life in a crumbling civilization is also dangerous. These are not the first crumbling civilizations of “modern” man.
Steak knives are not banned in the UK, where did you get that farcical piece of information from? Our lockdowns were hard and unnecessary, but the vaccine passport scheme failed spectacularly. We've had zero restrictions or mandates since the beginning of the year and we never put masks on young children. I don't think the UK handled the pandemic well in any way since they abandoned the initial plan to mirror Sweden and follow the WHO's 2019 pandemic suggestions, but to call it a penal colony is hilariously inaccurate.
In Britain, we arrest people for carrying potato peelers . . .
https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/16197023.man-court-potato-peeler-public-place/
I'm pretty sure you could find all sorts of bonkers individual stories if you look hard enough. That doesn't mean it's representative of the UK as a whole.
Am I correct in believing that in Canada, unjabbed citizens cannot leave the country or even use public transport? That's never been the case in here, so I think it's pretty rich for a Canadian to be calling the UK a prison camp 😏
Excellent reply. I relate to many points.
You said it so much better than I. Now, go to a range and take some lessons. Guns are nothing to fear, and target shooting can be fun. Then get a good quality hand gun with a large clip and a biometric gun safe. Practice frequently at the range, and so you can truly go down fighting.
Funny thing. A friend recommended the Jack Reacher books, and I was resistant to reading them because of Tom Cruise playing the character, and she told me to imagine Reacher looking like Sean Bean and that was the remedy.
Anyway, in one of the books, Reacher is tracking down clues and ends up at a shooting range, and the owner challenges him to a little contest, and the descriptions of the rifle, its calibration, the discipline and the mental calculations involved in accurately shooting at a target had me absolutely mesmerized. First time in my life I could begin to understand the attraction and, again, the discipline, the self-mastery required to be good at that, and I seriously thought, "I would like to learn how to do that."
Unfortunately I'm extremely bad at eye-hand coordination, and spatial relationships, and patience in general, and I don't have good wrist strength, and altogether I think I'd be pretty bad at it and must learn more appropriate to my skillset ways of killing someone trying to kill me.
But I sure do understand now, as I never ever did before.
How many total Civil Wars has America experienced so far? Funny but this one is occurring in the midst of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
SCA, you could start with a .22 - there is just about no kick, and you can focus on developing the right stance, grip, and action. (The hardest people to teach are those who think they already know it all!) You might be surprised how much you enjoy it. Guns are precision machines that save lives, and it's a valuable skill to learn. Good luck!
One of the reasons I never learned to drive was the fear of hurting/killing someone else because of my incompetence in handling a potentially deadly machine. I understand my abilities and my deficits very well.
But one of the most surprising things ever to happen to me was when I was preparing to move up here from NY, and still had the touchingly naive hope that I could afford a tiny little cottage in the country, and my adult child, already here, said I would be well-advised to plan to have a firearm in that cottage too. I'd have lost good money ever wagering my kid would say something like that.
It's a sad reality tho. Even I, who shies from guns much for the same reasons you stated (and I grew up with them and learned to shoot...) have a pump-action shotgun in my 'cottage'. My husband bought it, we figured between his voice and the CHa-CHunk, that any potential badness would leave quickly. Now he's gone and with coyotes nipping at our properties here, I'm having to consider actually learning to use it.
I was discussing with my from-childhood friend last night that urban-dwellers haven't a clue as to the normal everyday hazards the natural world contains. A new friend up here showed me the deep gouges running up the outside of her kitchen left by a bear who wasn't pleased at not being able to get in and serve itself breakfast. It ripped the bird feeder right off its post too. Quite educational.
I have never shot or owned a gun, but my mental health needs the right.
https://dailycaller.com/2022/05/26/fbi-active-shooters-citizens/
(I think the FBI stats undercount. And what stats anywhere include the instances where a perp doesn't perp just because of the fear of good, honest citizens shooting back?)
Yes. me either. But nothing says want to go out and buy a gun like your government telling us we cannot have one. Not interested in adding guns to my current repertoire. I agree with Van Morrison I never realized I was so Dangerous.
Well, the individual is always dangerous to the State. That is why we must "re-corral" the State when we, over time, allow our fences (Declarations and Constitutions) the (seemingly) inevitable corruption.
Jefferson, that damn Democrat, said it better.
Jefferson was a very complicated person and would have been the first to admit it . You're right (you & Van Morrison & Jefferson) all citizens need to be viewed as dangerous by the state. Only citizens who are unafraid of being dangerous are capable of being confident enough to chose real leaders.
Yes to so much of this. I can relate and am relieved to see this. I can't talk with family about this; they just say " well, the government's not going around shooting children"
Except for...
Ha, yes. They don't see that they're outraged about this but not about children who have died after the. shots only because of the media coverage.
It's rough to be out of the matrix (at least in part) and watch your loved ones behave like puppets, swayed by whatever's on the news, saying the same phrases, using the same words....
Actually I was thinking about Ruby Ridge...
And don't forget Waco.
oh, duh. Right. I have only the vaguest sense of what happened there.
I was the same until quite recently.
As Dylan sang in “Slow Train” about loved ones turning into puppets…. He was accurate about the Slow Train. Yes, this struck me immediately that gun violence gets them while public murder by medical fascism fails to reach them. Besides the vaccinations the government does shoot children - so far it hasn’t become an outright overt shooting war. It’s still mired in the covert wars infesting our big cities where kids and families are dying from fascist politics. And Ruby Ridge and Waco are good examples of more overt incidents wher the collapse of our civilizations was in view.
The FBI, according to TLVA, grooms those who do shoot children.
Bravo
Awesome response. There is no UTOPIA this side of heaven. Only the best of bad options. Sadly, America (and the west) is showing signs of a deep spiritual malaise and a drift into paganism. Having said that, i thought this was a reasonable response to yesterdays utter tragedy...https://www.readtangle.com/texas-school-shooting-robb-elementary/
"showing signs of a deep spiritual malaise and a drift into paganism."
Are pagans not spiritual?
Yes. Even shooters are spiritual beings. Evil ones. And we pagans are 99.99% good peeps, too.
No one is a pagan. That's a slander imposed by "mainstream religions" once they'd decimated enough adherents of earlier faiths to have little organized opposition.
Interesting take. Disagree but interested...Got a book recommend for me?
I don't, but I think human beings have an innate yearning towards the Infinite Unknowable, and there's no Only Approved Way of thinking about it. Far too much of people attempting to make God in their own image and then being sure they've found the Truth.
Agree with point one wholeheartedly. I’m sure it’s obvious but my bias is Christian....here’s a thought, if you don’t agree with ‘pagan’, how about ‘humanist’ or ‘statist?’ Every human must worship something, we are made for it. The question is, what is the object of our worship? An ultimate being outside the material universe: the ‘infinite unknowable’ or something part of this world? If it’s the former, all religions can’t be true as they are contradictory. So which one is true? If it’s the latter, we are left with the tyranny of the ‘state’ the ultimate power we’ve seen nakedly exposed these past two years. And the end game of that is really ugly...
Every religion has at its core a tiny perception of the Divine which is then thoroughly shoveled over with manure by the faithful.
I just disagree with the suggestion that "pagans" are somehow inferior or wrong in their spirituality. Humanists or statists aren't concerned with the infinite but with the here and now; that they turn their concerns into secular religions is just the inescapable nature of being human.
Everything is ugly. Life is hard and people don't stay domesticated. Civilization was invented to try to put limits on our natures but each generation has to be re-tamed.
So you would support the second amendment but not the first which includes freedom of conscience? I am not a christian, I don't think I am anything but I could be accused of paganism (nothing wrong with that), but I am spiritual and know I will face my creator without interference or mediation of meddling Karens and profiteers of any flavor in the end.
What happens when we have to set things back again? Are all of the 57 flavors of christianity we see here going to fight each other over souls again? It's happened before, because everyone thinks they are 'right'. It doesn't enthuse me to support people who would hate me or even kill me just because I don't bow to their priesthood.
But that is deliberate and comes from the very top. When this plan of theirs goes down, the odd school shooting will be of negligible interest.
I'm an Aussie. I have mixed feelings about guns, and gun rights.
Yes, it might be useful to be able to defend yourself with a weapon that can be lethal at a distance. And I'm against restrictions on people's rights on principle.
However, I am also shocked at the number of gun injuries in the US, particularly over the past few years with all those "peaceful" BLM protests. It's not just the mass shootings - it's the casual violence that happens from time to time. (And yes, I have been to the US, in fact spent 6 months in California in 1988, and while I was a bit shocked to see cops wearing visible handguns - not something we had in Australia at that time - I was also pleasantly surprised at how safe rural California was, as a place to live.)
Here in Australia (unlike in the US) it does not need to be #1 priority to have emergency treatment for lung puncture wounds in your first-aid kit...
It is true that there might be a sinister aspect to a ban on gun ownership. But honestly, are you likely to come out on top if you should shoot a government official coming to harass you about something (eg to kill your live-stock or to remove you to a quarantine camp)?
I think I prefer the Aikido principle: when your opponent comes to strike, be somewhere else.
This is not a casual or random thought - I trained in Aikido for over 10 years, including 3 years in a traditional dojo in Japan. And while I have never been in a real physical fight, I did find this training in mindset useful during my 5 years working in high security correctional facilities.
From my perspective of distance, mass shootings in the US are entirely consistent with a mindset that the best way to deal with an opponent is to shoot/bomb/obliterate the crap out of them - which is unfortunately the American way. Mass shootings at schools are the same Shadow manifestation as mass bombings in Vietnam or Iraq - just a bit closer to home. Perhaps the debate should shift to include some of these attitudinal and cultural factors? Because once everybody gets so completely polarised, no rational discussion (let alone resolution) is possible.
The only thing we have in this country that makes us unique from every other nation-state is our foundational principles and the documents that enshrine them.
We're all human with the same flaws, the same cruelties, the same impulses, good or bad, that everyone else has. But our Bill of Rights and our Constitution are the perfect fruit of the Western Enlightenment and our Founders, though flawed, often profoundly, in their ordinary lives, achieved something that had best not be messed with.
We were settled not only by transported criminals and vagrants, as you were, but by every crazy breakaway sect of people from everywhere who refused to be compelled into obedience to a governing authority, secular or sectarian, and the only thing that forged us into one people was believing in an ideal that's really hard to maintain, consistently, in real life. I never in my life thought I'd end up a defender of the Second Amendment as I am now, but two years into the Plague Era will change anyone.
Mass killings in this country are almost 100% committed by people who everyone knew were fucked up as hell and nobody did anything about it. They'll use cars if they ain't got guns and knives if they ain't got cars.
Like. So agree. mass killings are commiotted by people who EVERYONE knows are crazy as hell, but nothing CAN be done about it because we have liberalized our laws and no one who can walk talk and feed themselves can be locked up against their will
This so sounds like the sort of “answers” being so bandied about. Locking people up will solve all of our problems. Just pass liberal laws allowing us to lock everyone up. Of course we will need to raise taxes to underwrite all those prisons.
At this point, no one is advocating for the old way or institutionlization, but we have an entire population of mentally ill that will not take their meds and are pushing people into subway cars and having out and out catatonia on the streets. We are advocating for a middle way. I have a schizoid cousin, I know of what I speak. He tried to burn my grandmother up in her house, the most they could keep him was 10 days observation. we are talking about committal laws that no longer exist, and humane places to put them.
PS. He took an ice pick to my tires, and I will still not stay in the same house with him.
You have a point of course. Just so we don’t fail to lock up the psychopathic sociopaths at the helm of our governments, institutions, corporations and the World Economic Forum/Davos/Fourth Industrial Revolution who are so seriously and publicly out to rule we the people and our planet. We must recognize serial abuse everywhere it occurs and take reasonable steps to procure our safety and safety of others.
There are actually quite a few people in Australia besides those "transported criminals and vagrants"!
And there are many things about the US that I admire, including the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
There are many people in the US with values and principles that I admire, too.
But the overall cultural milieu of a country is something hard to define or even to describe, and harder still to attribute origin to. Right now, the overall presentation of the US - internationally - is that of an aggressive bully, who has been in unchallenged power for too long and feels they have the right to obliterate anyone who gets in their way.
Just saying...
Yes, we did poorly when we became an empire. The Founders warned against it, but this seems to be a human imperative to bend others to our will. Our geography and our resources led to a prosperity that, as with all riches, corrupts.
As a born and raised New Yorker, whose ancestors came here in the 1910s-1920s, I lived most of my life with a lack of appreciation for and a certain contempt towards that "American Way" thingy. Living overseas changed me. Made me understand that with all its ugliness and strange provinciality, we had a unique strength.
(And yes I know you ain't still all from ruffian stock! But it gave you a flavor like ours, to start with. But you guys couldn't let go of that attachment to the motherland...)
We've actually got a pretty good constitution too. Only problem is that our current government ignores it, and we don't seem to have the tradition in our legal system of referring back to our Constitution and making sure we align with it.
Unfortunately, corruption (by power, money, whatever) seems to have invaded both our countries, as well as many other western nations (UK and NZ come to mind, as the other main English speaking ones). Let's call it the Deep State, which is as good a shorthand as any for the infiltrating evil. Anyway, that is the main issue as far as I can see, and my heart sinks at the prospect of trying to fight that with guns...
But slavery is even worse.
I don't have the answer, not by a long stretch. But we have to keep trying to find one, however we do it.
It is the Deep State and the deep state is represented by the Fourth Industrial Revolution of the World Economic Forum. This body politic formed in 1971 - they’re stated goals involve ruling wthe world - which they are.
The average Australian has a vastly better quality of life than the average American and in fact that applies to developed nations in general. Americans on average have the poorest quality of life and the least freedoms in the developed world. They may not know it but it is a fact.
Partially right. Just that the opportunists who first sailed to the US had a mixture of backgrounds & motivations. The result of their colonization however was the near extinction of a more settled people who, compared to us, by rights of any sort should have run things. I defend the 2nd Amendment too but I also defend grounded sanity. We are amongst the ruins of world civilizations- certainly not just “Western” ones. The mass insanity we inherit is distinctly our own as misguided humans.
The problem is that despite your foundational principles, which by the way, are 18th century thinking, Americans have on average the poorest quality of life and the least freedoms in the developed world.
So, while you might think you are unique it is not in a good way and citizens in other developed nations are just immensely grateful they are not Americans.
You have more mass killings than any other country on the planet, first or third world. Only in America do you regularly have school children slaughtered. Only in the US do toddlers regularly kill friends, parents, siblings, neighbours with a gun they managed to find.
Your American amendments are out of date and not just irrelevant in a modern world, they are destructive and deadly.
So much for being unique. that was and is a total failure.
I'm very glad you're not American, too.
Well, the US could do with a bit more sanity but not a price I am prepared to pay.
The constitution was a work of genius. It recognized that people will be people. It is still.
How do you define sanity? Genuinely curious.
Right. Only 21st century thinking is good and wholesome and applicable.
You are a bigot, a boor, and I dream of the 22nd century when you will be forgotten and ignored, unlike my wonderful Western Civilization and the salvation it offers the human individual, evolved over centuries and centuries of bloody struggle and sacrifice.
And yet, I do hope the police get there in time to save your sorry ass.
Understand where you’re coming from but as a resident of a round planet “Western” seems relative and I wish I shared your faith in any civilization, lol. Salvation has been a key offering of any real spiritual teachings since the dawn of time. Civilization does not feel that it has ever been particularly good at offering salvation but seems to offer those same old false promises. My hope for the 22nd Century is that there is still life remaining on Planet Earth - including hopefully wild, free humans.
Yes, "Western" IS rather parochial, and "Classical Liberal" is a more accurate term anyway, but I mean no exclusivity: I fully believe that, while ALL cultures have much to offer, the future of mankind lies in the liberating of the individual from his State/collective, and I am the optimist.
But, "wild"? I think that is what makes the firearm the fourth greatest invention (property rights, incorporation, currency, firearms, farming).
As long as we are pitted against each other we will stay divided. Divided we allow the monsters to win. It is that simple. There is a spirit to being American which goes way beyond “American.” Read Thomas Paine.
@Mara
yep, you've got it right there when you ring in the concept of bombings. For that's the probably result of removing all guns. Suicide bombings. Ordinary bombings. Arson. Mass poisonings - any and all alternatives.
For the problem is, as you say, in the psychology, both of the USA and of the offenders.
And as Ann Coulter points out the basic problem is the crazy are being 'released' into the population. They're refusing to keep them separate.
Take away those guns and those crazies remain there.
Ann Coulter @AnnCoulter
Around 1970 the rate of mass shootings skyrocketed from 4 per year (1900-1970) to 29 per year.
https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1529269373034168325?cxt=HBwWioCwmY6Zh7kqAAAA&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email
@arthur brogard
I doubt that it is that simple.
For reference, I am a retired clinical psychologist in Australia, and worked in the mental health system (and for 5 years in the correctional system) over that time period when psychiatric hospitals were being closed (across the world), in favour of community mental health (which was supposed to be with community support, but that was skimped on).
The vast majority of psych patients are not violent. They ended up with lots of other problems, but I doubt they can be blamed for the increase in violence in the community.
We did have one mass shooting here, in Port Arthur in Tasmania, in 1996. It was attributed to Martin Bryant, who had both intellectual and psychiatric problems. However, there is a lot of evidence that raises doubt, similar to the JFK shooting.
I did also have one experience in 1989 of one paranoid schizophrenic, released prematurely, who shot and almost killed a fellow worker.
However, such incidents are very rare.
More violence is committed by psychopaths - and psychopathy is not considered a treatable mental illness, so for the most part, these are not people who would ever have been part of the psychiatric population.
When working in corrective services, I encountered both paranoid schizophrenics and psychopaths - though again, these comprise only a tiny fraction of the prison population.
In fact, there are more psychopaths on the free side of the razor wire. (Look at politicians if you want a good sample to study.)
Working in community mental health (and other community services), the biggest risk to worker safety was drug intoxication (meth, speed, etc).
Which is a complex problem, a symptom of many other problems including societal breakdown, and not to be dealt with simply by a "war on drugs".
I very much doubt that paranoid schizophrenia would lead anyone to go into a school and shoot everyone. I'm not going to speculate about motive, but I'm inclined to give credence to the theories about mass shooters being MK-ultra-ed or otherwise mentally programmed, with or without the help of drugs. (I don't have any personal experience of such things, but know it is very possible.)
If not, there would have to be a very complex intersection of causes.
As for the "crazies", I seem to remember that gun rights advocates have been screaming loudly against having a gun licence contingent on some sort of mental health check - go figure!
The US is also the most heavily medicated society on the planet and we know that can create mental health problems, and it is the most heavily vaccinated country on the planet with horrifically high levels of Autism - brain damage - and no comprehensive studies ever done to ascertain if vaccines play a part.
Combine such chemical brain damage with an angry culture and easy access to guns and you get massacres.
Thank goodness someone allowed the experts free reign, lol.
Can anyone in the US spell 'expert?' Americans consume most of the world's medications and more than 80% of painkillers. Americans are the most drugged culture on planet earth. And then there are the vaccinations. No wonder there is so much brain damage, particularly in the young. Less than 5% of the world's population and there you are popping 85% of the world's drugs. Drugs and guns, the American way of death.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-17963222
Wrong. Most paranoid schizoś can get very violent..my cousin case in point.
@Mara
You would seem to have a good point there.
Yet it leaves an apparent strange coincidence to be explained.
Probably the devil is in the detail, as usual.
Coulter doesn't make clear how many of her examples were 'released' into the populace as against those that were never removed from it.
And she seems to conflate an argument or an appeal for removing more of the mentally ill than is the practice. On the grounds that they once did? Or on the grounds that they never did but should? It's not clear to me which way she's going.
I would like to see a lot more data and data analysis.
This kind of behaviour is obviously very much contemporary scene related. i.e. it could not have happened in the past for the tools were not there. And today it has a 'nurturing' background of gun violence on tv movies, youtube vids, the news and a string of historic incidences. i.e. the ready availability of tutoring material. plus the ready availability of all kinds of drugs any of which may exacerbate loss of reason and control. Plus the rise of the web and commensurate 'immediate world wide fame' which never existed before. Previously you could set off with an 'I'll show them' attitude and you meant your immediate family etc. Now they can set off with that attitude and reasonably expect to be for a day at least possibly world wide news.
Like it could be simply a 'fashion' amongst a certain group of mentally unstable people. A tempting road to follow with its own prompts and rewards, a path that has 'reached its time'.
So is there such a group that would be/is susceptible to this kind of allure? How large are they? Where are they? How did they 'act out' prior to this?
I see overlap, too. While Coulter's 'solution' may be wrong she also clearly desires more people with mental problems to be taken into care and that's a different thing to the question of not releasing those that are there: but it is very close to it and very pertinent.
While releasing people they will have been doing other things, too, and it is perhaps those things that have led to this upsurge. Releasing on the one hand, lowering the general level of outpatient care on the other perhaps, I don't know. i.e. the answer may not be precisely in that one feature Coulter sees the coincidence in but in something very close to it.
A bit like the Vitamin D and covid. Many, such as the FLCCC alliance swore by Vit D but others claimed it was of no benefit at all. There was apparent solid irrefutable evidence in the simple fact that a large sample failed to find a single patient with covid who had acceptable levels of Vit D.
Yet on the opposite site apparently irrefutable evidence that it didn't work represented by well controlled trials where they administered it in 'correct doses' and so on - and found no improvement.
Paradox.
But no. It turns out that when sunlight makes Vit D it makes melatonin I think is the name.
When you give Vit D pills you don't give melatonin.
It wasn't so much the Vit D as the melatonin, or perhaps the two in concert, I don't know but the point: you can be 'right on the target' and still be subtly wrong.
Maybe Coulter is 'subtly wrong'.
But as with ignoring Vit D it would be wrong to ignore the releasing of the mentally ill.
And we've had no analyses of this thing anywhere near the analyses we had of covid.
That's what I say. I'd like to see more data. And, yes, I agree, it's not 'that simple' but the devil's in the detail. What is 'that' ? Well I think it is 'mental health' and care.
And relevant to that is that immediately the gun thing comes up we see an outbreak of tremendous hostility and anger, hatred, calls for dramatic punitive or coercive action..... Mainly on the part of the 'non gun' crowd. That's interesting, eh?
@arthur brogard
As always, a simplistic view is most probably wrong! (Or as you say, the devil is in the detail :) )
The thing about Coulter's message that concerns me most, is lumping ALL "mentally ill" people together into a single category. And then expounding on how they should be treated...
I don't think there is any doubt that in the days when incarceration in a psych hospital was the preferred treatment, there were many people there who should not have been. And certainly not kept there for years.
My psych training was in 1979-80, when anti-psychiatry was the thing, along with experiential psychotherapies (which I found very exciting). To this day, I am still ambivalent about a lot of psychiatric dogma, and in particular, the use of psychiatric medications. However, I well remember when I was going out to my first psych ward job in a remote part of Australia, and asking for advice of a more experienced psychologist. He told me: "A lot of the people in a psych ward are not amenable to talk therapies."
And so it proved...
I am talking about severe clinical depression, as well as schizophrenia & other extreme conditions.
The unpalatable truth is that those horrible psychiatric medications were what enabled mental patients to be released into the community, to function in a sub-optimal way but still better than a psych hospital.
For most of them.
But anyhow, back to guns... this sort of response, at this time, seems awfully like a desperate rush to find someone (or a group of someones) to blame.
"...Yes, let's lock up a whole group of people, and we can feel safe again!"
And we get back to the same arguments that get thrown around when any discussion of a "safe internet" gets going: who is going to determine who/what is safe and who/what is dangerous?
We had something similar here, with proposals to make "non-release" orders for prisoners who were deemed to be "dangerous". On the face of it, it seems like a great idea. But who decides? And is the process valid? Should you really lock someone up indefinitely, simply because of what they MIGHT do?
As someone who sometimes wanders well off the path of "normal", I feel a bit nervous about it all... I've never seen the Mental Health Act & its provisions for involuntary assessment and treatment abused, but it is not hard to see how it might be.
And as an aside, I think most of us here know who would need to be locked up in order for us to feel safe!
Yep. Sometimes there's no doubt. I don't remember the details of just who and when but i am sure that many of these school shooters have actually been running around threatening to do exactly that or very close to it.
And the famous Tasmanian school shooter had a history of mental instability of some sort and yet had a large collection of guns, I think, which he doted on and was left with them.
Overall there's clear signals often and they've been ignored.
I don't worry about it but I'm well aware of the dangers of involuntary assessment and treatment - notionally I fear it. Though I don't think about it most of the time. Like I fear all authority and accept it grudgingly as I admit it is necessary to have it here or there.
The lockdowns and the maskings and distancing worried me so much because of exactly that. They are the same thing. Look at Shanghai now.
The World Economic Forum formed in 1971. Think they’re not mixed up in this? Check out the website and list of partners. It’s planetary.
American culture is aggressive, prone to bullying and discrimination and immersed in fear and rage. Make it easy for people to get guns and you will have some enraged, bullied, paranoid, fearful, hysterical, deranged individual 'fighting' back in the only way they know how - the American Way of the gun.
Wow. They who are ignorant of history will be like wind in the Buffalo grass. That’s about as American a wisdom as you are going to get.
And as meaningless. Americans know bits of their own mythology which they call history but are ignorant as to the history of the rest of the world and therefore lack perspective. Then again, your school system is the worst in the world where a school is as good as the wealth of the suburb in which it sits. You do not even have free universal education. People fight to buy a house in suburbs with the best schools where they pay massive amounts of money in taxes to send their kids to those schools. Being poor in the US is a life sentence. No wonder so many crack.
Paranoia certainly feeds some colorful tall tales. Unfortunately for us all this kind of endless mindless criticism of the "other" - whether it is "America", "Russia", "China", "Europe", "Australia". "Germany" whatever, demonstrates the gigantic fear of the "other" in the human heart.
Except many who criticise the US for its gun insanity know what they are talking about while many criticising Russia and China have never been there. Also remember the Americans are the only ones who are forever bleating how exceptional they are and how everyone should be like them. Indeed, the US has been waging wars for the past century to force people to be like them. If there are many opinions it is because of those reasons. Many however, like myself have family and friends in the US and have spent a lot of time there. We know what we are talking about.
I have lived in a war zone and said no thanks to a gun offered by a friend. More people die who own and try to use guns than do those who have no gun. Guns kill. That is why they exist. They are weapons of murder. Assault rifles in particular whose sole goal is to slaughter as many humans, of any size, as quickly as possible. No sane individual needs such a horrible weapon.
Apparently the world did as automatic weapons quickly became the planet’s weapons of choice at the guerilla level. Nukes are their weapon of choice for mass suicide.
Rejoin the real world. Automatic weapons are used in civil wars and not to arm citizens. There is no comparison with the American way of madness and the gun.
We reap what we sow. Our intentions, motivation for what we do and how is more than critically important. There is a revolution and it is not being televised.
The gun tragedy is because you have so many guns and such easy access to guns. Look at other developed nations which have strict gun regulations if you want to see what a difference it makes. They also have failed families but they don't slaughter children in school as regularly happens in the US.
The same bunch who are whining about school shootings are the ones who have murdered certainly >5M people worldwide with their Covid Plandemic and much more to come with their deadly vaccine including >100K children. And that's just the beginning, they are deliberately trying to provoke Russia into a Nuclear War and Soros just good as admitted it. So only a few billion killed, maybe a few 100M children - Oh, who cares about that? This is 100% pure politics.
Don't forget the abortion crowd. What's that death toll now? 30 million?
Nonsense.
All you have to do is look at the most gun-restricted cities in America to know that's BS.
Restrictions only lead to gun bans. I have heard Canada is weekly away from more virtue signalling garbage from our current tyrannical govt.
Restrictions lead to regulation which leads to more accountability in terms of who can own a gun, which leads to fewer gun massacres. logic. The harder it is to get a gun, the fewer guns. The fewer guns the fewer opportunities for deranged people to do horrific things with guns. No sane society should ever, ever, ever, ever allow the sale of assault weapons.
If you talk about assault weapons you are totally admitting you know nothing about guns. There IS NO SUCH THING And, more regulations mean only law abiding people will follow them. CRIMINALS DON:T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT LAWS AND REGULATIONS. You are probably talking about a semi automoatic (used by police and most people for self defense) and our criminals have been buying huge quantities since the ban.
Assault weapons are semi-automatics designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. They wipe out kids faster than adults so you can understand them as the weapon of choice for such massacres.
Assault weapons are actually automatic fire rifles. Don't let facts get in the way of your hate.
"Assault weapons" LOLOL!
Yes, assault weapons. Uvalde gunman legally bought AR rifles days before shooting, law enforcement says.
AR-15 style rifle
An AR-15 style rifle is any lightweight semi-automatic rifle based on the Colt AR-15 design.
The term "assault weapon" is a made up term by the same people who have been lying to us about the vaccines for the past 18 mos.
Assault rifles - fully automatic weapons - were invented for the crushing need the USA had to go kill Vietnamese. Chickens come home to roost. Our actions and intentions do create equal and opposite reactions. We reap what we sow.
No, fully autonatic weapons like machine guns are not easily purchased or owned, by the law abiding...but the criminals manage to get them.
Wrong. Assault rifles were invented by the Germans in 1944. STG44 was the world's first assault rifle
Yes, the fully automatic weapons eventually used in Viet Nam had origins in Nazi Germany, in the Soviet Union and as had evolved in the Viet Nam and now later wars. Very efficient killing machines. https://philologiavt.org/articles/10.21061/ph.228/
Chicago is a good example of how very strict gun laws work in practice.
The insanity in a crumbling civilization doesn’t come from guns. The “from my cold dead hands” doesn’t get us far either. Oddly it was in the insane ramblings of a POTUS JOE where we may have an answer. He stated soon after his “election” that the American people would be crazy to go against their government as the government had Nukes and gunships. Guns are tools. Humans are tool users. Hammers don’t hammer nails, and electric mixers don’t make cakes. In our final descent into complete public hysteria and madness perhaps we can blame the Nukes. Good article if only to raise the point about free speech and discussion.
Hammers don't hammer nails, etc... but the government does have nukes (and other nasty weapons, much more lethal than anything you can get at home, as well as non-lethal weapons such as LRAD & ADS). And it will be the government who nukes people. (And personally, I'd put my bet on Joe Biden over Vlad Putin as the one who is more likely to push the button.)
Against LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) and ADS (Active Denial Systems) you need a bit more than a gun, even a fully automatic assault rifle.
If it is the government we are worried about, in asserting our gun rights, then maybe we need to be a bit strategic and start investigating how to defend against this level of weaponry.
A person could not defend against the weaponry that the government could bring to bear in 1787, either. Cannons could easily be brought to bear against any individual homeowner and bombard him from a distance beyond the range of his rifle The point of gun ownership with respect to deterring state tyranny is not that any one individual can stand up to the state but that, cumulatively, 100+ million armed citizens are too much for the state to overcome.
Best post in this forum. Nothing else to add. Thank you, M. Wolf!
Yes, of course that is central that there are too many of us and too few “rulers” - I mean State armies. Today there are presumably billions when you consider us worldwide. It’s no longer just “The State” with cannons but the looming WEF backed Planetary Occupying Force, with WHO & fellow enforcers with drones, robots, Nukes, gunships etc. Anc yet we the people might win to have a few survive as free wild humans at least. What’s at stake? A slave planet where “The Matrix” looks like a walk in the park?
Figure our way out of that dilemma and I’m sure you’ll win some sort of medal.
I am sorry to trouble you SCA, but I am trying to find a hyperlink I thought I had found here, about a civilian who owned a gun shop, is in Utah, and wrote an essay on I think his blog about guns and violence, especially in terms of how you stop someone who wants to shoot up a school, by allowing teachers to conceal carry? Does anyone here rember the link? It was a fabulous essay, brought up some truths that must be faced...
https://illinoisconcealedcarrytrainingcenter.com/armed-utah-teachers-practice-responding-to-school-shootings/
Thank you. Not the one I was trying to find, but echoed this. The guy wrote a long essay...really long.
Try searching RealClearPolitics?
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/22/utah-already-allows-concealed-weapons-on-campus-could-arming-teachers-stop-shootings/AP%202018/AP%202018/AP%202018/AP%202018/
https://www.ammoland.com/2014/01/utah-concealed-carry-in-schools-zero-school-shootings-coincidence/#axzz7UWxJcatN
Closest I could find.
I think that is the guy!!! Thank you so much. I will try and find his post now...cannot tell you how much I appreciate this. Blessings to you.
Hmm...I certainly have read similar, and lately. I am searching...
Thankyou so much. Want to kick myself for not saving. Tried looking in history...nope. Appreciate your time and energy.
Sorry I don't remember seeing that. I just tried Googling with the info in your comment but no luck.
Dang it, SCA, every time I read you I wonder why I haven't subscribed. You have been budgeted, in my precious time and money.
It's only your precious time I ask for. No filthy lucre required...
(Thank you.)
@SCA
seems to me your either not thinking straight or not writing what you think.
you seem to be saying that if we are not to become shanghai we must give up our freedoms and allow home invasion by authorities any time, incarceration of all (illicit) drug takers and a whole raft of things: that would make Shanghai out of us.
And 'no authority wiser than we individuals in aggregate but authority will never be convinced of that' ? Authority IS the manifestation of the 'wisdom' of us individuals in aggregate.
And 'the gun tragedy is...' Prove that ! It's a postulate without proof.
I would contend otherwise. I would contend it is a result of a nation without leadership. You're not a country, you're a shop. You sell munitions. You sell warfare. That's all you do. That's all you are.
You value the dollar above all things. Success is seen as having the dollars and a good achiever is quite distinctly seen as one who scrabbles and fights his way to the top. Making scrabbling and fighting the view of the world, the norm and the paradigm.
That's the ethos into which you're all born.
And you expect national health and sanity from that?
That's my contention. I can only state it. I can't prove it. And you can't prove yours. Hence you have to say 'I think..' You should not postulate.
You have a nation full, apparently, it looks like from overseas, loud mouthed violent postulants - that is bombasts, dogmatists, embryonic dictators... Seems to be the national character. The national politics is not a constant search to find a better political way, it is an all out brawl between two essentially identical sides - i.e. lackey of the shopkeepers in the end.
p.s. Ann Coulter has written today or yesterday on this and she points out the upticks in gun violence can be traced directly back to the releasing of the mentally unstable into the community - apparently a deliberate policy decision by the govt. of the day.
Well worth consideration:
https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1529269373034168325?cxt=HBwWioCwmY6Zh7kqAAAA&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email
You are this and you are that. Gee, don't you have a wonderful life not being us.
We aren't anything you accuse us of being.
And how dare you accuse anyone else of "not thinking straight or not writing what you think." I should have stopped reading you at that point.
You write gobblygook.
I am not sure I comprehend what it is you are trying to say. Quite why China or Shanghai get a mention is beyond me.
compare the US with virtually no gun regulations and its slaughter rate to other developed nations which do have gun regulations. That is the answer.
There is no freedom in a gun obsessed society. Quite the opposite. Americans live with levels of fear, and for their children, which people cannot even imagine in other developed nations. Americans are the least free people in the developed world.
I cannot make sense of most of your post.
No some areas with more guns than avg USA have less gun crime. This is all about the deliberate destruction of the US social fabric by the Davos Psychopath Parasite Monsters. They are evil and have talked about bringing down the USA for 50yrs now. Finally they are succeeding. Gun crime is a symptom, not a cause.
@SmithFS
Yes, its a symptom of releasing mentally unstable into the population.
The incidence of mentally unstable is another question...
https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1529269373034168325?cxt=HBwWioCwmY6Zh7kqAAAA&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email
They are doing a whole lot more than releasing mentally unstable into the population. i.e. Destruction of industry, destruction of the middle class, crony capitalist kleptocracy on steroids destroying the infrastructure, energy poverty, forcing people into big crime ridden cities with no good prospects, forced massive college costs and debt, deliberately encouraging crime and terrorism, mass uncontrolled immigration, excess violence in entertainment and a lot more.
@Smith FS, All developed nations have released the mentally unstable but only the US has the level of gun massacres.
Then again the US is also the most medicated and vaccinated country on the planet and that does not help brain function.
@SmithFS
Yep. Right on. It's a crazy environment and getting constantly crazier. We noticed it in the first days/months of the internet when for the first time we could communicate, interact, with ordinary americans on a daily basis. People we'd never met and ordinarily, pre internet we never would have met.
British, NZ, South Africa, Canada - or English speakers from foreign lands - they all discussed and argued, quarreled, disputed issues, yes. But noticeably without the venom and vicious ad hominem attacks and the swearing and foul language and the screaming desire for violence and constant invocation of it.
Stuff from that direction was always clearly different and different in that neurotic way.
@Rosslyn Ross
That's my fault. It was a reply to SCA. I should remember by now that these threads don't connect up replies with comments. We need to take the trouble of putting in such '@SCA' which I've just edited my post to do.
Yours probably would benefit from something like that - '@abrogard' perhaps . :)
p.s. I just did it again. Replied to you and forgot to put an '@' up there. Had to come back and do it.
Agree and believe we need to examine the structure here more closely lest we get a dissolution into less and less understanding as we may see in other social media such as Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. The structure selects for narcissistic delusion and chaos.
@ Abrogard,
That explains it and yes, good idea.
If you look at Emma Woodhouse's charts on twitter, for example: The uptick in gun violence in mid 2020 did NOT have anything to do with a sudden increase in the availablity of guns owned by responsible citizens.
This is a clear a picture as one ever needs to dispense with the idea that gun-control is the solution, or that accessibility to guns was the problem. Both are clearly falsified by these charts. Any good data scientist should see the plain truth of that.
The number of 'average guns per household' has always been high in the US through the decades. In certain cities in Texas, the guns per household ownership rate is very high, and the gun crime per capita is very low. This tells you that gun ownership is not, itself, the core problem.
What changed mid 2020 was Democrat-led city policies, which created the tinderbox conditions that ignited during the riots, and also the subsequent push for "defund the police".
Culturally, the US has experienced a decay in societal norms and values (so have all western societies to some degree) as traditional family structures, a common understanding of moral behavior, and organized religion becomes less prevalent.
Preventing law-abiding citizens from owning guns doesn't address the root of the problem, which isn't the gun. It's the mind. It's some deep disease in the culture.
I'm one of those US citizens who will tell you, with a steel look in my eye, "what part of non-negotiable do you not understand." We will NOT concede this point, EVER. We will die first.
There is a *reason* that the founding fathers of the U.S. placed the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution directly after the 1st. Because it is the "last line of defense" between citizens and tyrannical governments, who have nakedly exposed themselves in the COVID-era. We've all seen now what authoritarianism looks like, and we've had enough of it.
The right to own guns is NOT a concession granted by the state to the citizen. It is an inalienable right BELONGING to the citizen, part and parcel of the right to self determination and self-defense, that may not be interfered with by a government. That which is not granted may not be revoked. European countries have long since inverted this relationship.
All other fundamental rights of free people derive from the right of free speech and the right to self-determination; the US is the last bastion of this kind of "citizen before government" rights structure.
There is a problem to solve, yes. But it isn't the gun. It's the culture. And that's the harder problem to address, because it forces politicians to look in the mirror. It's much easier to blame an implement and sieze it, rather than to admit that your Democratic governance, your perverse cultural norms, your disincentivization of moral behavior, and dystopian ways of viewing the relationship between people and state are at the root of the problem.
Excellent! You saved me a lot of frustrating phone typing.
I have a bluetooth-keyboard for my phone and I type rather fast. Glad I captured the same sentiment you wanted to express.
I have a Bluetooth keyboard for my phone too, but it's in the room down the hall and it's wine time. :)
Ah. Perhaps you need a Redtooth keyboard in your tasting room.
Agree with all that you said. The decline of families, the increase in mental illness and failed public policies all contribute to this complex issue. When these adults were growing up, I feel certain that many educators along the way shared their concerns with the parents/guardians of these children, only to be met with excuses and blaming of the teachers.
Well said. I’m in agreement.
That is correct - all of it thanks. That gun violence erupted in a highly symbolic place as it did with the horrific sacrifice of teachers and children needs to strike us sell deeply. We are all politicians from birth whether we accept it or not. Personal responsibility and the innate ability to understand when we’re being played and why is essential.
It triggers us. It is guaranteed in the Constitution that I can have one, yet we are CONSTANTLY having our rights eroded. Talking about anything that curtails that right makes a lot of us mad.
To be frank, I interpret the Constitution to mean I should be able to own any weapon that the government does, so we should actually be having the discussion about how to expand our ability to buy larger weapons.
And now, to add insult to injury to a fiercely independent nation, our "leader" is hell bent on capitulating responsibility for our personal HEALTH future to an international "organization" with a fake medical doctor head, who will determine our future... yes, I admit, it makes this American angry, very angry, and very worried. Unfortunately, "we, the people" do NOT get to vote on if we want the World Health "Organization" in charge of the health of Americans !
As a pacifist, I actually agree with you - However I think non-compliance from every American in key positions would undermine the beast faster and better and with less loss of life than violence and weapons that kill. Imagine if those IN the military chose to risk their lives for the constitution instead of obeying false orders that betray us, the American People. If those giving the orders are committing treason, they should not be obeyed. But that doesn't mean we have to be violent. It can be done with love, in peace!
Gandhi, Christ, ? Seems it could be accomplished !
Christ is a wonderful example. See my latest article, which references his example. Ghandi is a mixed bag, but there is much to be inspired by, as well as to critique...but above all his mission was only partially a success because rested on only one individual profoundly committed to the inner and outer practices of satyagrah. Were the masses to decide on a peaceful we the people movement, backed up by strategic violins playing their songs to ensure success - it could work.
As far as Mahatma Gandhi, it was the example to the people, not the man.
Can you elaborate? I guess what I am saying, is the people looked to him rather than having a group of individually masterful, loving, peaceful people coming together in peaceful satyagrah. Movements die when people look to one leader and fall apart when the leader is shot or falls due to scandal. Spiritual maturity is a requirement for a successful movement of peace.
People need to follow their inner compass and allow the divine to organize a loving coalescing of peaceful elevation of how our world operates. Only when we are free as individuals and also spiritually mature (ie not prone to reacting in rage or out of frustration or even a need to survive at all costs) can we operate at the level necessary for peace to work.
I'd be happy to elaborate further, but am unable to express it any more succinctly. I simply used an example. Of course the people "looked to him", that was the point. I think you've completely misunderstood what I meant to say, lol, of course it's always an impediment with this mode, much different than discussing with my university students in a classroom setting. I also would not disagree with your view that "movements" die when people look to one leader, in some instances that has proved true, in many others, it has proved false. Not sure about the "when the leader is shot" part, or that spiritual maturity (a VERY desirable trait to be sure) is a REQUIREMENT, I would say that is an opinion, but, no argument.
Where has that actually worked?
We are in times unprecedented. The old has not worked. But what we have going for a peaceful elevation that dissolves what does not work for humanity as a whole is that the world is waking up. Never before have so many, all over the world. I believe it CAN work.
Much of the old most certainly did and does work. We are in a mess because the structures of society have been discarded and because anything goes. When you live in a world where a man can say he is a woman and many in society want to reinvent biology, language, society and reality then we are in dire straits. The world has never been more deluded nor more asleep. The Western World anyway which is so Woke it is unconscious. Literally functioning from the dangerous realms of the unconscious.
You're kidding, right?
Not kidding. Really serious.
But I wrote a funny post that has an interesting patent in it and my post about Barr contains some humor as well...my post about the Brook Jackson case has a little humor but mostly I swear because I feel really passionately about it.
Exactly, why aren’t pro 2nd folks talking about rolling back federal gun laws? Sitting around and waiting for the next law to fight is a loosing strategy
I don't own a gun, but know many who do. We live in a fallen world. The concern I have, especially after reading history and in particular about the French Revolution, is when only the people in power have weapons.
I'm not sure if you heard about the Christmas parade tragedy in Waukesha, but man is capable of evil using any multitude of methods, including his hands. The bottom line is the heart of man and its desperate need for redemption.
NE, I’m American & appreciate your opinion even if I disagree, & I absolutely don’t think hostility should enter the conversation.
The same plow-downs w/ vehicles have also happened in Europe. If crazies don’t have a gun they’ll use a vehicle, hammer, knife, axe, saber, etc.
If the past 2+ years have shown us anything in the US, it’s that an armed citizenry may be the only thing standing between us & an ever more tyrannical government. All of the worst rulers throughout history 1st disarmed their people.
In addition, crime & mental illness are out of control here & in the name of “equity”, they either aren’t arrested @ all or are released same day. There are tons of stories of people defending themselves from criminals breaking into homes, etc.
As to what happens if things really go dystopian, I’d like to hope to take out a couple of tyrants coming to confiscate my guns or arrest me on trumped up charges before they kill me anyway.
Finally, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Why would guns kill people if a car doesn’t kill people too? No one ever says an object kills people except when it’s a gun. Can’t have it both ways.
You make so many valid points, grounded in fact, I can't comment on them all. But the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a subtle concept that those who just "don't get it", will never "get it". It's similar to the abortion issue; it is tied so deeply to so many emotional, spiritual, and personal experience events that I personally do not believe it's possible to come to agreement through force. Of all you commented on about this subject, the present laws, the mental illness factor, and all the other aspects which relate to the overwhelming and ever growing homeless "problem", I think all are excellent points, but above all is the critical one you mentioned; That the most horrifying events throughout all of known history began with those in charge disarming the masses ! Why those of all political parties and persuasions do not agree on that one thing is a true mystery ! The "details", such as should a person of 18, or a person of 21, be able to buy this type of weapon or that type, should children below the age of 12 be able to own a pocket knife ? I, a female, had a good sized one at age 10, 5th grade. Our family, with no cell phones, no television, no I Pads, and no Facebook or Twitter, spent every weekend at our small crude (no TV, no AC) lake cabin. I spent much of my time doing various things with my pocket knife... none of them involved killing anyone or anything, unless you count being taught how to clean the scales off the fish (already dead) my parents caught and we either fried up over an outside fire, for dinner, or, had quick frozen to take home for our freezer !
Thx much, Anne Marie. I totally agree w/ the tie-in w/ guns & abortion. The same group who thinks guns kill people are the same ones howling “my body, my
choice” but ONLY for abortion, not poisoned jabs. Never mind that abortion is the killing of people too.
I honestly don’t think “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is that subtle (except to the most obtuse) if you just sub any other inanimate object - knife, car, bomb, hammer, saber, etc. for “gun”. If anything, whether it is subconscious or not, the left = tyranny eventually, & an armed citizenry is a defense to that wet dream they have for too down, centralized control.
It is not the responsible, ethical, normal gun owner who does these things; it is the criminals &/or deranged. I don’t know how that guy was able to legally obtain the guns he got, esp since he’d been o record as saying he was going to shoot up a school one day, I think he’d had some mental health care in the past, & he was on the local police dept’s radar. Maybe something in the purchasing of firearms needs to be tightened up, but confiscation is not the answer. The criminals AND the politicians & celebs will still be armed &/or have armed protection.
All true. It's always "drip, drip, drip" and that SHOULD be a signal to ALL of us that no matter HOW HORRIFYING, we should not all immediately jump to all these emotional displays (now note, I am NOT referring to the grieving parents and families), I mean the general public always fueled by the MEDIA, who then sit back and "report the show. But, as you commented, it is now "dripping out", that indeed the young, alienated, man had mental health issues, as well as a multitude of social issues. Tightening existing laws might be the answer in SOME locations ( you can't get much tighter than found in some locations not matter how many new laws you make). Confiscation will never work, it only gives politicians an additional lightening rod to prod the masses who don't even realized how they are being manipulated all the while feeling virtuous that they at least care ! It's a complicated matter... aren't they all... LOL !
The left will NEVER admit that “mental health” or mind-altering “drugs” are what kill people. This is the party that encourages crime, legal marijuana, homeless, crapping in the streets, “safe zones” to shoot up, abortion as birth control. Speaking again of abortion, the fact they pretend to care so much about little kids or others killed in these types of mass violence (but ONLY if the dead are the “right” color(s)) is pretty unhinged when you consider they have zero problem killing the most innocent, up to the moment of birth - just a “clump of cells” until then, I guess - & in CA I think they are promoting infanticide up to 28 days post-birth! I might be wrong about that but would you be surprised if it’s true? W/ CA, I wouldn’t be
I completely agree with you with one small caveat, when any of us state or write "the left" does this, or the "right" does that, I do think we are not being clear so we are not misinterpreted. I am including myself, not "preaching" to you or anyone else. I have friends who state they are
"Democrat", they have voted for many democrat presidents, not all, but many. They STRONGLY oppose abortion, all abortion. They admit they certainly voted for Biden, and honestly add that they did not, and do not, expect their leader, the president, to "take sides" on qualitative issues, they, like me (primarily a Republican, sometimes Libertarian, and on occasion, locally in particular, I support a democrat board member or university trustee. So as to be clear, I agree with your comments, I just hope to we can"t get away with putting people into "left" and "right", because in the minds of SOME people, it means if you support the right to abortion, then you automatically support early release, or no bail, or blanket citizenship for illegals living here, and it's simply NOT the case. That's all. I am not trying to be "confrontational" LOL, just wonder, do you understand what I mean ? Do you know any people personally who are not "left" or "right", but have individual personal views on social issues, such as oppose all abortion but support public welfare programs, or oppose certain tax laws federally, and support certain local ones ? Just wondering how people in general feel about this idea that there is one clear line, like we had as kids in dodge ball, and you were on one side or the other ?
*top down 🙄
Right now they are trying to kill us with nuclear weapons. Soros just admitted that at the WEF conference. Guns & school shootings? Trivia.
How many examples does it take. NYC has made it impossible for most law abiding citizens to own any fire arm, just look at the outcome of that ! ! They feel like ducks in a shooting gallery, and that remark did not come from me, it came from some guests from NYC who came to visit us here in Florida (with the intent of relocating if they are able to find acceptable accommodations for moving their business). They also pointed out (as we had already seen on TV), that the few criminals without guns (most have NO problem getting MULTIPLE hand guns they told us), but a few who don't have a gun, just push people onto the subway tracks, into traffic, or into the Hudson River ! !
Yeah, like that will work with evil people at the very top trying to tear down our social system.
Defund Harvard/MIT - it's where a lot of the funding comes from for them to do their research in partnership with DOD and so forth.
Also Louiseville/DOD
https://louisville.edu/medicine/research/cancer/news-1/the-team-of-kenneth-palmer-and-other-uofl-and-u-s-researchers-receives-dod-funding-to-develop-and-test-nasal-spray-to-prevent-covid-19
Kenneth Palmer is at least a partial inventer of multiple patents for griffithsin and recombinant versions that date back FAR before the pandemic.
I'm not saying he's a bad dude, just that the military has been investigating and holding treatment related patents for that time duration and they are only beginning to do clinical trials that the public knows about circa 2020 and even those have seemed to pause or fall off the radar...So what I'm saying is we've had a viable treatment for a cadre of viruses that have taken lives at the time of EUs being issued, thus making them void. Therefore, in addition to the fact that the EUs should be retracted based on the lately divulged data from Pfizer and other studies showing irreparable harm to many not seriously at risk of death at all, the EUs were issued on a false basis, since the government has held the patents for this broad spectrum antiviral treatment based on a natural product. Griffithisin is a red algae. The recombinant kind is made using tobacco. Peace and freedom and love to all and forgiveness for the gov. Come clean, come clean and deceive us no more!
It’s two things - this message about a reasonable conversation is being pushed by either hypocrites or uninformed people. In US, there are over 2 million self defense uses of a firearm, and about 20.000 gun homicides. For every person hurt there are 100 saved, and in the homicide group they included criminals shot by civilians or police.
Rifle firearms are 2% of those homicides (according to FBI), fewer than empty hands and feet murders.
They ignore that “if only saves one life”, at the same time pushing for abortion which always kills one.
Plus, look at EU and Australia to see what an unafraid government can and will do to their population - it used to be treated as conspiracy theory and now we’re seeing concentration camps for potential cases of flu.
And about Britain, didn’t you have a law against sharp knives now that you’re a gun free paradise?
As I said, Britain is not a paradise. Canadians own almost as many guns as Americans and look what’s still happening there.
Interesting stat. As a Canadian I didn’t know that. We definitely DO NOT have a 2A attitude/culture here though!
It's not really correct.
America has 8x the firearms ownership rate of Canada; only 2.9% of Canadians own firearms.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/26/world/us-gun-culture-world-comparison-intl-cmd/index.html
Fair enough, maybe not as many as America but it is no 7 in the world for gun ownership.
It's a long way behind America, but I do take your point – there are enough firearms in private ownership for there to be significantly more homicides by firearms, all other things being equal. The point is that obviously all other things are not equal.
It's obviously a complicated issue, but I suspect there are many fewer illegally held firearms in Canada, and that the licensing system for legal ownership rules out a lot of people who objectively you would not necessarily want to be in possession of firearms!
The problem is (and I know I'm stating the obvious here) that the US Constitution is clear on the right to bear arms.
It needs a new amendment to change that and I'm not even sure, horrific as incidents like this latest one are are, that I would vote for such an amendment if I were able.
It won't do anything about illegal firearms (and I might want to protect myself against people carrying those), and it won't do anything against the overreach of the state (and after the experience of the last two years I can see myself wanting to protect myself against that, too).
It's not an easy question, and I think a lot of the heat and light in the debate is caused by people, particularly on the prohibition side, pretending that it is.
'There's been a school shooting, so we should ban guns' is superficially attractive but ultimately simplistic and wouldn't actually do much about the problem, I think.
A lot of Canadians support it. Americans less so.
I'm American, grew up in a rural area where gun ownership and hunting were the norm. I would guess there were guns in pretty much every home in town (this was in the 1970s/80s). There were guns in gunracks in the pickup trucks of kids at my high school. Yet in the entire 18 years of my childhood before I moved away, there was only one incidence of gun violence and I remember it because it was so rare and people often talked about "The Shooting" as it was referred to (a husband shot his wife's lover). But we also had a close-knit community where children were seen and supported. I'm not sure what's changed in modern-day America, but it's not gun ownership.
To answer your larger question, I'd say that it's defensiveness that triggers the anger. If you say you support gun rights or the second amendment, you can be called a murderer or worse by the left. They literally blame you for children dying. That's a horrific thing to say to someone and it's really hard not to feel angry. I will get up and leave before entering into a conversation on gun rights with anyone in my liberal-leaning community -- it's not worth being called names. They NEVER want to actually hear my perspective. They just want to tell me I'm wrong -- not just plain wrong, but EVIL and wrong.
Thanks that’s a great explanation for where the emotion is coming from
What changed was economic. The moving of factories and meaningful work overseas. And then to be told by our tomentors that the very predictable reactions to this gutting were OUR fault? That our lax moral fiber was driving this even as all real jobs and means of supporting oneself with dignity disappeared?
Why does gun control need to be discussed at all? It is a natural law that you have the right to defend yourself. Our 2nd Amendment to the Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Full stop. Some people will kill using any tool available: cars, rocks, knives, fists. But no one is calling for car control or knife control. Why not? Because our government knows they have to disarm the population to enact their tyranny. Covid showed their totalitarian tendencies but they want full control hence the call for gun control every time there is a shooting. We look at the UK and Australia and see how well gun control worked there. No thanks. Australia got away with their abuse because they knew people could not fight back.
There are other things that can be done to harden schools/buildings against this sort of shooting. But the politicians are not interested in those solutions. Schools in urban areas have metal detectors and armed officers which is why these events happen at suburban schools. Then there are those individuals who refuse to have an armed officer in schools. The people who
Commit these atrocities are looking for easy targets. We need to solve the problems at the schools and make it harder for crazy people to do their damage. Locked doors are an easy fix. You go through one door and the second is locked. Now they are trapped. And law enforcement can be called. There are other measures that are not expensive but politicians don’t bother with that. My final thought. As a woman, a hand gun is the great equalizer. If someone tries to attack me I can’t physically compete but my hand gun can and will. Cheers.
A socially cohesive society is the best way to prevent these tragedies. But the evil overlords are deliberately trying to destroy our society.
Socially cohesive society is what WEF wants It can only happen. The only cohesiveness that is truly non-violent TRULY from sovereign divine love which comes from recognizing our unity and therefore refusing to harm one another for selfish gain or exploitation and so on. Social cohesion can't be forced by rules and regulations, as it just becomes another version of diabolical control. I wouldn't want to go back to the middle ages with heretics being burnt. Respect for one another's lifestyles when they are different is easy when you are confident in your own choices. It is the destroying our natural bonds and communities or tries to disconnect us from our hearts and souls that is the problem. We need more space for uniqueness, not less, IMO.
Thanks for starting a civil discussion about this topic and being open-minded enough to listen.
The argument is so simple and clear, I’m surprised anyone disputes it. To draw from a comment I made at the el gato thread that sparked this discussion:
Gun laws don’t stop criminals from getting guns. Gun laws don’t stop murders from occurring.
All they do is stop law-abiding citizens from having the ability to defend themselves against criminals, tyranny, and genocide.
Margaret Anna Alice - I understand that Americans have historical reasons for so fiercely defending their rights to bear arms, as enshrined in their Constitution. However, the issue is neither simple nor clear (though your argument may be).
The US has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the world (exceeded only by some South American countries).
It is true that it is people who kill, not guns. Yet easy access to a lethal killing weapon seems likely to be a factor. (And almost impossible to prove one way or the other, as the figures can be interpreted in different ways.)
From my perspective over here in Australia, the civilian gun violence in the US seems to be just another facet of the general US readiness to resort to violence in order to get their way, whether to overthrow a regime, or to bomb the shit out of a country (as in Vietnam and Iraq).
It is the same urge that makes people turn to their guns (or gun rights) to resolve a conflict. If you don't have a gun, you have to find another way. If you do have a gun (or nukes, or long range missile systems, or whatever) then it is easier to rely on that (or the threat thereof) than to find another way to solve the problem.
And yes, of course we have murders here in Australia too. Just nowhere near the same level. I doubt that we are a more peaceful people, or with less mental health, drug, gang or other social problems for our size.
I am sure that in a healthy community, with responsible gun ownership, the level of gun violence would be very low. But in a healthy community, perhaps those guns are not very necessary, either.
And in an unhealthy community, arms escalation does not seem like a very workable strategy to me, whether you are trying to gain an advantage over your neighbour, your enemy or your government.
I am totally horrified by the suggestion (mooted around after Sandy Hook) that the way to stop school shootings would be to arm the teachers...
Anyway, I wrote more extensively about my views in my earlier comment, so I won't repeat it here. I do understand both sides of the argument, though for myself I am ambivalent/neutral. But it is actually a very complex issue, not simple at all, and I think as a society and as individuals, we need to find better ways of resolving problems than violence.
I appreciate your thoughtful comment, Mara, and you’re right, it is more complex than I distilled here. I don’t have the time to give you a proper response right now, but I am thinking of addressing this issue in more detail in an upcoming post or discussion thread. Thanks for being open to the nuances of this topic!
You may appreciate hearing Dr. Meryl Nass’s thoughts on the subject:
https://merylnass.substack.com/p/school-shootings-i-am-sorry-but-this
That is an interesting article, and I'm afraid I am inclined to agree with her.
Thank you for sharing.
And thank you for being open to nuanced thinking around all this!
Glad you appreciated it, and thank you for the same, Mara!
Imagine you’re having an argument with your spouse. You’re trying to explain your side calmly and rationally. Your spouse does not seem to be listening to what you’re saying, does not address any of your points, and keeps saying the same thing over and over. You try to address what they say; they ignore it and continue to repeat the same thing. Are you eventually going to get fed up? Maybe even angry?
This is why people are angry about this discussion. They’re fed up of the other side not listening.
Exactly. And I say this as a "senior citizen" who was anti-gun until the Obama administration, when I actually listened to the pro-gun arguments and did an about-face.
I think this applies to both sides. In fact, it is not clear to me which side of the discussion you are imputing to the "spouse" and which to "you". (But I'm assuming that "you" is the gun rights party, since that seems to be the preferred position of most people commenting here.)
I'm saying this as an Aussie who understands both sides of the argument, and still feels ambivalent. From here, it seems like most people feel that the other side is not listening.
It might seem like that, in the here and now, but this is not a discussion that started five minutes ago. It was old before I first became aware and started investigating back in the 1990s. 2A defenders constantly put evidence on the table, for instance demonstrating that the current "this must be done" thing has been tried before and has 1. not worked, and/or 2. has created worse consequences. 2A attackers use demagoguery (politicized emotional manipulation) to set evidence aside and insist more loudly/dramatically "this must be done". After a while, anyone will tire of being patiently rational in the face of hysteria.
At this point, all of the methodologically coherent evidence fails to support the hypothesis that restricting the right to keep and bear arms would improve any of the variables the restriction-advocates [say they] wish to affect. Their basic counter-argument to evidence-based reasoning is that true gun control (like true socialism) has not really been tried. Unconvincing.
There is a way to amend the Constitution, and everyone knows it. Americans who feel the 2A is outdated could, and in my opinion should, focus their efforts on amending the Constitution. They are profoundly disinterested in doing that work. Given decades of pointless hysteria achieving negative results, why have leaders of these agitations not invested in any way even to strategize the tiniest first step toward Constitutional amendment? I would say it's because at heart they know they are wrong. Others more cynical than I might say they are getting what they want (raising funds, building careers, gaining traction in party circles, virtue signalling at no cost). Actual progress toward their stated goal is, apparently, irrelevant.
People who are experiencing virus totalitarianism as a wake-up call regarding government overreach and intrusion could learn a lot from 2A defenders. As John McClane would say: 'Welcome to the party, pal.'
I could post my opinion, but it is much easier to just sign my name to this post here. Thank you, M. Cat. May I plagiarize you?
Hah! Spread the word - you're welcome.
I don't have a gun and think that having one comes with responsibilities. However, I totally support 2nd amendment rights. I don't know how to put it into words, but "Awaken with JP" had a great video -- done with humor -- about the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, I am having trouble finding it now to place a link here... I think that having a gun isn't just about protecting your family and home, but also about protecting yourself from a tyrannical government. I never really thought that the US Gov't would become tyrannical until the past couple of years! I respect and appreciate responsible gun owners.
One of the biggest arguments against individual gun ownership is the massive militarization of our police in tandem with growing corruption of our political system. I'm in NYC where handguns are outlawed but NYPD would be the worlds 7th largest military force if we were to rank by spending and they have offices around the globe. Spend any time at the wrong protest event and it feels like an occupying force not public servants protecting my free speech.
As a country kid we all had BB-guns and knew folks who hunted so only automatic weapons have ever been objectionable to me until now despite being traditional anti-war pacifist lefty.
Since COVID my government has no respect for my fundamental human rights or bodily autonomy and the fact that our Red States are armed to the teeth gives me a very comforting sense that they stand between freedom and locked down like Australia or NZ or China.
Pfizer has killed and maimed more people than all our mentally unstable attackers combined. Instead of funding a bloodbath in Ukraine and endless billions for clot-shots we might invest in mental health, drug and homeless services and stop shipping tanks to our local cops. When your government is the greatest purveyor of violence and continue to declare citizens terrorists giving up our guns seems badly timed.
Oct 16, 2014 — The Pentagon has provided at least $28 million worth of equipment to 128 police departments and sheriff's offices across NY State..
2021 ACLU -
The federal government arms local police forces in the United States with weapons of war. A program called “1033,” for the section of the act that created it, allows the Department of Defense to give state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies military hardware. Since its inception in 1996, nearly 10,000 jurisdictions have received more than $7 billion of equipment. This includes combat vehicles, rifles, military helmets, and misleadingly named “non-” or less-lethal weapons, some of which have featured in police raids and police violence against protesters, including recent protests for racial justice.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210512154701/https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/federal-militarization-of-law-enforcement-must-end/
How refreshing (regardless of your "politics", opinions on individual fire arm ownership, etc. what stands out is you have actually considered your own background and experiences, have thoughtfully considered those, and researched newest information and events... HOW REFRESHING, not just another ideologue screaming the (meaningless "F" word) at anyone who has a different view. You actually explained your evolution, the process, impressive !
The US gov't at the behest of its owners in Davos has murdered over 600k in Syria, similar number in Libya and over a million in Iraq. And now 5 million with the Covid virus they helped to develop and likely release. And ~100M will die due to economic deprivation and hunger due to their Plandemic, very many of them children. Now tell me why I should get wound up about a school shooting?
Perhaps I am completely missing the point, but, why one should even care about 19 children being shot in cold blood is nothing to get wound up about based on the premise that millions have and will die in other ways, just does not seem to be a the type of rational foundation that would be accepted if one were on a debate team at a competition. Isn't that similar to the justification of a former secretary of state who said (of embassy employees), there dead now, so what difference does it make ! Again, perhaps I just don't understand your example, not questioning your opinion !
I never said you shouldn't care. I said don't blow a gasket, have some perspective. People have a rather irrational focus on spectacular events.
50k/yr die in car crashes, horrible deaths and injuries of young & vibrant children, it's ho-hum, no news here.
A plane crashes, 300 people die, it's a horrible urgent front page headlines. 10,000 kids die in shootings, but one at a time, it's ho-hum but 19 die in one shooting, it's a national emergency.
We stand on the verge of global nuclear war and its not even on the news. 19 kids die in a shooting, that a total national focus. The nuclear war is preventable. The random act school shootings are very difficult to prevent, can be done but that is very long term, nuclear war prevention is NOW!
After reading both your post and the comments, I see that it isn't the pro/anti-gun discussion you're interested in, but in the emotion surrounding it.
You ask why some people can't civilly discuss the issue, and to that my only answer is, "I don't know." Some (many?) people are immature thinkers and cannot formulate a cogent argument, therefor they lead with emotion. Emotion runs high on this issue because it is one of both personal safety and our rights as Americans.
On the personal safety front - I have spent my life back and forth between the UK and the US, as well as traveling extensively around the world since I was a young child. I understand that people outside the US often see news of a mass shooting here and immediately go to "they should ban guns." The thing is, most of us here who support gun ownership do so because we notice that the places that have these mass shootings are, by and large, "gun free" zones. Criminals do not follow laws. Criminals will not trade all their guns to the government for a few hundred dollars. Criminals will actively seek to predate the weak and defenseless. If we give up our guns, we are all the weak and the defenseless to the criminals who have not given up theirs.
As far as our rights as Americans - maybe you have heard the old adage that the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) is there is back up the First Amendment (right to freedom of speech and expression). This is true, but it does not end there, it also backs up our other rights and keeps the federal government in check. You may have noticed, for example, that we did not have the quarantine camps here that were prevalent in Australia and China; the second amendment is a part of the reason why. We did not have police (even in my deep blue state that was the last to lift its mask mandate) hauling people off because they weren't contact tracing, or because they were more than 10 miles from home, or because they were on the beach without a mask; the second amendment is part of the reason why. Our government treads carefully because many of us still take the Gadsden flag seriously.
Every so often we let down our guard, but then institutions like the WHO and the WEF rear their heads and start talking down to us about globalism, elitism, and the collective good (which sounds like a bad deal for anyone who isn't them), and we once again thank our Founding Fathers for their prescience and wisdom in giving us the gift of self-defense and checks on power.
So, the reason people are so emotional when it comes to the Second Amendment? Because without it we would likely already have lost our republic, and we love it too much to give it up without a fight.
Beautifully put. Thank you.
"... I would prefer that every other hungry, angry, raiding person didn’t have a gun." I understand this is your Substack and I enjoy your articles, it's just hard to want to have a conversation with someone who wants to impose their way of life onto yours so they can feel comfortable or safe or whatever. If other people not owning or using a gun makes one group of people feel safe, how different is that from the current paradigm of wanting to force medical procedures on others for safety, etc?
I said “I would prefer”, I’m not trying to impose anything on you. I was just putting my position across but my main discussion point was why many people can’t discuss the topic rationally.
Well again, if we want to keep it simple, it can't be "discussed" rationally because "civility" it not really taught, modeled, explained, or valued in ANY of the countries where I have spent any amount of time, it's not just here in the states. Of course mankind has always been emotionally driven, but, "civil" discourse, as many like to call it, has been on the decline for a LONG time. When "Covid" arrived, any last vestiges were abandoned. Husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, cousins, uncles, and aunts all turned on each other. Family "loyalty", or "civil discourse", didn't even come into the equation, it was "dog eat dog", vaccinated and non vaccinated, all turned against each other, like the American civil war. Brother from a border state who decided to join the "south", ready, willing, and able to kill his brother who made the decision to fight for the north ! Now, here we sit, finally (and sadly) realizing our vaccines did not protect anyone, and we are left with permanently fractured families now ! Those who flaunted their vaccinated "status" with jewelry and social "posts", who cut off loved ones, are unable to say they made a "mistake", a "mistake" millions of us made, we wanted to believe, so we took a chance, so what ! But, it's the inability to make up with family, to "mend fences" fractured by Covid, that is the same principle really, as the "gun debate"... all of this is HUMAN nature, emotionally driven creatures, of course it "could" be different !
Your main point may have been about discussing the matter rationally, but you also asked why people react with anger, & your readers are answering that question as well. It didn't sound like a rhetorical question; you said you wanted to understand.
It's different because in both cases, it is the person with the needle, or the gun, who is a threat to the bodily integrity of other people. For me, it is not so much your gun ownership that I find a threat, as it is your refusal to understand the other side of the debate.
Ah, the pot calling the kettle black.
I think you have just demonstrated my point.
You're adorable!
Hello N.E. I am an American and I think it is ridiculous that people will not discuss the topic with you or anyone else. However, I do not agree with your gun control views, but I expect you to have those views given that you are from the UK and were not brought up around guns. I was brought up with guns in the household and I have carried one for a quarter century, so I do not look at it the same way that you do. I have to run right now, but I will comment more a bit later when I have more time. Thanks for your excellent work!
Leaving aside the fact that it's a constitutional right, and those are precious, and that in a country irretrievably full of illegal guns it's not a bad idea to have some legal ones, I'm amazed you ask.
I'm English but I suggest that armed US civilians are maybes the only thing actually stopping the new world order from actually taking over pretty much immediately.
Biden (like arguably every US president since Reagan, and a few before) is constrained by one thing, and that is the knowledge that if he pokes the US people a little too hard, and too obviously, it could end up bad for a lot of the people he sends to do the poking, and by extension for him, his crackhead son, and the rest of America's ruling elite.
Let's not kid ourselves that the US government or any others really care about the loss of life, especially given the shit they've pulled on us all on five continents over the last two years.
Let's not kid ourselves that doctors care, either, given that medical negligence is the third biggest killer in the US, killing (Johns Hopkins figures, 2018 ie PRE Covid) 250,000 to 440,000 people per year.
As for the media, please don't make me laugh.
Shit is about to get properly real and I for one am glad that there are a lot of weapons in the hands of ordinary Yanks.
Let's go Brandon.
Um, Americans decided in 1776 that they didn't want to be like Britain anymore. Next question.
No one’s asking you to be like Britain. Just asking why gun control can’t be discussed without hostility
It can be - it is here, now. Unfortunately, the majority of the gun prohibitionists don't want a discussion; they've made up their minds, and they want you to agree or be quiet.
to be fair, most gun advocates don't really want a discussion either. This is one of those subjects....
Jasmine, that is not correct. But the discussion starts and ends with the Constitution. We don't want to discuss the 50 thousand killed on the road every year. Let's have a discussion about that.
Actually, I'm open to a conversation about any of it! I've never owned a car because early on in my life I realized that it was a deadly weapon.
My ideal is a small community that makes deliberate decisions about what is or is not acceptable for its people. Given the near-impossibility of that at this point in our world, I think the Constitution is about as close as we can come to a document that prevents government from interfering with our natural rights.
I agree with both of you, if I understand you correctly. It's about the Constitution, and it's about what's possible. Given the reality that the 2A is an enumerated right in the US Constitution, why do people say they hate it but never pursue strategies to change the Constitution? I have some ideas but have yet to hear someone against 2A rights suggest (much less do anything about) that silver bullet.
I'm not hostile. Nobody is hostile. It's called commitment to liberty. Mkay?
And you did bring up how marvelously the prohibitions have worked in your country. But, that's YOUR country. Your people are different and it makes all the difference.
My 56 year-old American perspective...1) The criminals are heavily armed and are not going to turn in or give up their guns (and even if they did, plenty more would just stream across our Southern border.) Law-abiding people deserve to be able to protect themselves in all situations. Rifles don't work in many settings. 2) Taking away guns does nothing to help mental health issues and the overprescription of psychotropic meds for kids, but it does stop me from being able to protect my family from a nut bent on hurting us. 3) Our founding Fathers put the 2nd amendment in place to allow the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. They were brilliant men with amazing foresight. Never have we needed that capability more than we do now. 4) Unlike the UK, the United States has really vast expanses of wilderness across the country in which many could see refuge in a dystopian situation. Being able to hunt and protect yourself from others is critical. We do not intend to go gently into that bad night. 5) Guns have been readily available in the United States since its founding, but crazy people shooting up schools is a fairly recent occurrence. Guns did not cause the problem. 6) Using the occurrence of a school shooting to insist that guns are taken away from everyone is no different from taking one legitimate covid death as a reason to mandate vaccines for everyone. It's a massive government overreach that does nothing to address the true issue of damaged kids and mental illness. 7) And on a personal note, crazy people who want to kill someone will - I'd much rather be shot than hacked to death with a machete any day.
Well said.
This Canadian likes to shoot, a lot. I play shooting games, look up IPSC. We don’t take cars away from everyone when drunks get behind the wheel do we?
Besides crazies will take to driving vehicles into busy Christmas parades or on sidewalks during sunny afternoons on Toronto’s busiest street (simply cuz he couldn’t get laid).
We don’t treat mental illness at all in North America. For instance we care more about peoples right to live on the street in sub zero weather than locking them up against their will (and treating them).
Agree, however... the "rest of the story" should also be told. We shockingly, horribly, inhumanly, turned our extensive mental health support and treatment facilities into macabre houses of horror. The state and the regional facility near me when growing up were indeed, houses of horror, not just rumors. Chained human beings, put into boiling hot and icy cold baths, left tied into beds in their own excrement for several days at a time, and the most sadistic, even dull witted, people they could find, worked there. There were a "few" legitimate doctors, but most had some kind of past, some incidents, that left them few options career wise. This took YEARS to all come to light, the inhumane treatment. Had I NOT lived through that time, and had a neighbor who had the misfortune of having a "committed" family member, an uncle who was mentally "defective" as it was called then, I would never now be able to understand how the sights I SEE on the streets, in the alley, DAILY, are, as horrible as they are, better than the alternative, the "committing" of people to a life FAR more horrible than any jail cell. Yes, I do think we could, IF we had the will, develop humane places for all of our "defectives", we have the money and the land to establish all manner of dignified living conditions where many (not all of course) of these "street folks" could even thrive, perhaps even experience the emotion of "happiness" for the first time. Not 100% perfect solution, but... we could TRY ! !
Yes but doing a 180 and letting people sleep on the street at -20c while smashing their head against the sidewalk doesn’t somehow correct the wrongs does it? I’ve seen this myself. The homeless issue is now coming up to the suburbs, there is a lady sleeping in bus shelters not far from me. It’s new and sad as hell.
Edit: The homeless has become a massive industry in Toronto where $55,000 is spent per homeless person. It simply gets sucked up by govt salaries.
True, yes of course, I too have seen a man sitting against a wrought iron fence daily, all day, every day, for weeks, just banging his head,not gently, against the post, all day long. I tried once to distract him by stopping and asking if he'd like a coffee and a sandwich (not mentioning for him to STOP, just thought perhaps, I could distract him), but he was not even aware I was was there, or offering him a snack ! There are no easy, or permanent, solutions, but in the USA, and as you say in Canada, much money and effort is wasted in ways we KNOW will not, do not, work. But we have so much LAND here (except in the populated East coast), where we could establish farms, communes if you will (though certainly some would begin the name calling of "communist"!), where people could at least live in cleanliness, perhaps a few would gain self-esteem (?), animals could be raised, crops, could have sanitary personal hygiene facilities like any boy or girl scout camp, like military barracks. Recreation facilities like ball fields, horse shoe pits, basketball courts are very inexpensive, it just seems there are ways to provide "something". If people ask HOW could we even get them to such a place from the city, I say, we spare no expense or logistical problem getting illegal immigrants to any location they desire, we charter planes, hire buses, it COULD BE DONE !
It used to be done here. Within 30 miles of me there is a huge farm that sheltered hundreds of such people. When they turned out the people from the hell holes, they also closed down the farms.
? ?, just seems there in no end to the LACK of contingency thinking is there ?
Yes. Time we found a solution in between the "SCIENCE" of yesteryear with the mentally ill and the "let them into the community with no support" that we do now.
Yes ! The "trouble is", actually pursuing a legitimate quest to do that would.... "NOT fit the agenda", the agenda of look as if you are seriously seeking solutions, but be very careful NOT to get too close as you might "offend some important voting block" ! Look busy, look concerned, look sincere, but learn the fine art of actually changing nothing !
Isn't that it in "a nutshell", as if no one can THINK of any possibilities between two extremes ! !
High past time. We are talking the 70ś...it been about 50 years and we need to hold our politicians and lawmakers accountable . The left destroys everything they touch. That is the only constant in life I am beginnig to believe.
Yes, I fear that my experiences were not isolated, I think the combination of low pay, a very difficult and stressful environment, does not attract those who are able to obtain a position in more desirable conditions ! To some degree (and NOT to smear all the caring professionals) I suspect the same situation also exists in our V.A. facilities. The "state/federal" government has never excelled at running most such facilities, Walter Reed (where the elites of D.C. are treated) would be an exception (we had a niece who worked there, the care was top notch and they were highly selective when she applied).
And dont forget, people who are internally troubled are drawn to become psychiatrists and psychologists. not all, but quite a few.
Yup. We are the only countries that cannot (not do not, CANNOT) lock people away who are a danger to others. And we are letting in milions of mentally ill and criminal people over our borders as we speak.
Again, BINGO ! If I wrote what my grandparents went through when they came here from Germany. The period of isolation, the HEALTH testing, even EYE SIGHT had to be 20/20 or very near ! People today would never believe it if they did not have relatives in their family who LIVED IT ! How, who, why did our requirements concerning health, character, requirement of having a skill or trade, ability to support self.... How, who, why did all this change to the point where you don't even have to come in a legal way ?
We have gun control in France. Yet, it hasn’t stopped 2 mass shootings where the crazies were roaming the street without any possibility for anyone to do anything about it. The USA has 350millions odd people yet you will remove a fundamental right based on the action of a few crazies?! How is that any different from the Covid fascists?! You take the uk as an example as if before dunblane it was a country where mass shootings happened on a regular basis. It most certainly didn’t so your point is moot that the gun controls that were introduced had any effect whatsoever. When it comes down to it, you are just as influenced by the media when it suits your prejudices as anyone, principles be damned.
As is the point of this thread, why can’t the issue be discussed amicably
Because the anti gun side has not been discussing amicably for years, and arguably never has. More generally, it is the same side that will cancel you for not being woke, or has vilified people for the last 2 years for not toeing the line on official Covid narrative. So I get that enough is enough and civility might take a backseat. Note however that law abiding gun owners have not gone on actual riots or rampages unlike the alleged « progressive « anti gun crowds.
So I see a few comments but I'll add my own perspective. I grew up thinking guns were bad and that there was no need for it. If we have no guns, then we'd have no violence.
But as I started getting older my perspective changed and I started looking at things in a more nuanced manner. I watched a few documentaries (which I admit will be biased) that kind of changed how I approach guns, and led me to sort of change my idea that we should ban all guns. This went on for a few years but it didn't change much to be honest.
And then the pandemic hit. I mentioned it in one place but I come from an Asian background and many Asians are adamantly against guns. Then when many Asians believed that they would be targeted for being Asian they tried getting a firearm and couldn't get through (long wait, overcrowded, low supply, etc. etc.)
But that solidified it for me. How can people scoff at those who want to own firearms only to rush and try to obtain them when the time felt necessary? You don't own a firearm for the times when you want/need it, you own a firearm with the idea that you will never have to use it (for self-defense at least).
So that really just altered my perspective. We're dealing with a lot of mental health issues in this country. We're dealing with many people who feel the need to take their anger and resentment out on others. They're being told that the world sucks and there's no reason to believe you can live a fruitful life. Honestly, look at many of the Substacks around here talking about the end of the world being near or that we should all be scared- do we really believe this supports a nation of healthy-minded individuals?
Our society is a recursive one that rewards and enforced negativity, and when it manifests in a horrendous tragedy we walk around asking "how could this have happened?"
So the issue is not guns, it's the manifestation of anger, resentment, and hate that projects itself through harming others. We can't remove the avenues of harm when the intent to harm remains. We need to figure out how to create a more healthy society before we remove things that are otherwise entrenched within our Constitution.
So, why the anger over a discussion which is purely intended to try to stop kids getting shot at school?
Because the discussion isn't purely intended to try to stop kids getting shot at school, kids getting shot at school is just a convenient pretext to further the goal of disarming citizens and removing the 2a protection of an inherent right.
If the discussion was intended to stop kids getting shot at school, it wouldn't focus on the gun at all, if the guns were the problem it would be a common occurrence. The left runs straight to "take the guns" at every chance, I'm not sure I've ever seen them run to "let's work on the moral fabric of our society", quite the opposite actually.
One thought is that responsible gun owners, who have existed in this country for a couple hundred years, are not the problem. There is a law that you shouldn’t murder people. That doesn’t stop people from being murdered. A person can drive a car into a group of kids. A person can go on a stabbing rampage. Do you outlaw cars and knives? How about we start with paying better attention to whether people buying guns have been a “problem” to law enforcement in their past? How about we start enforcing laws already on the books which could prevent people who shouldn’t be buying weapons from obtaining them? Why should law-abiding citizens lose their rights because of mentally ill people? How about we look at how drugs that transgender people are taking to make their transition might trigger side-effects such as a propensity to homicide? As well as other drugs we are pumping into young people today in an effort to “treat” mental issues.
At least drug prohibition has been a splendid success. ;-)
Pharma enjoys probably the most success of all. Often to our detriment.
The right to bear arms is a God given right that our Government was established to protect, so that right is enshrined in our Constitution. I would die to protect that right.
You don't understand because you aren't part of the heritage that had to fight for independence. I think thats why the Aussies, who are otherwise freedom minded, rolled over so quick on guns. Americans also have a more robust sense of free speech than you Europeans who are willing to allow "hate speech" laws to hamper expression. Not unfollowing.
Our Constitution doesn't bestow unto us the right to bear arms, it merely recognizes our God-given right to do so. "...shall not be infringed" seems fairly clear to me.
Yes I'm American, and yes, it is a very complicated topic. but the short, uncomplicated, answer for me (NOT personally a gun enthusiast), is very simple. Banning, or otherwise attempting to "ban" anything, simply does not work. When you begin to seriously consider preventing individuals who have never done anything illegal, criminal, etc. (like some, not all, terrorists, mentally ill, disillusioned, and rejected people), it is a slippery slop, a Pandora's box, when you disarm an entire nation (and everyone KNOWS there is no TOTAL disarming of course), the eventual outcome will not be desirable, enslavement is always the final outcome. Obviously, the vision and wisdom of the founders of this nation were indeed a true gift, perhaps for those of us who do believe there is God, that gift was from God. HOW people choose to USE guns, or knives, or auto jacks or crow bars, was not the divine plan. Perhaps acceptance, kindness, a willingness on the part of younger people especially, to accept other students, students with big ears, or small eyes, students who stutter, or lisp, or who can not run as fast or as far as others, perhaps, if we did not look for IMPERFECTIONS in others, it would not prevent all tragedy, but, in many ways we make and shape "imperfect people", while they are still young. From my youth, I remember the boy who, while a toddler raised in a very undesirable family situation (2 alcoholics), got under the sink cupboard and ate lye. His disfigured face, tongue, teeth, and mouth were surely a more horrifying school life than the actual pain of the event itself. I, like all the other grade school children, "kept our distance" from him. He never went on to high school, and while he never became a killer, his criminal record has kept him incarcerated most of his adult life, with only a few months of freedom here and there. Does that make me a "bleeding heart" ? I think not, my point is NOT that he should not pay for his crimes, my point is, perhaps the incidence of violent mass shootings "could" be significantly at least reduced, if individuals who are saddled with physical and mental imperfections, were at least treated with kindness. A "no bullying on this campus" crusade is NOT effective, HOW we view and treat others MUST begin in the home, before school age, and be taught by example. We could (and did) "ban" alcohol, we definitely did NOT succeed in stopping alcoholism, abuse, etc. No, it's not "guns", our fore fathers were correct !
I just turned 66 years old. When I was a kid, my grandfather gave me a couple 22 cal guns and told me "don't ever tell the government you have these." I still haven't. My grandfather was no redneck nut - he was a Stanford grad and took over a good business from his father and made it a lot more successful. I was a high school science teacher and now am doing real estate successfully. I live in S California. I'm not a dumb redneck either.
We Americans don't want to give up our guns because we don't want to be slaves. Look at Australia. My cousin's wife is British and has the same attitude you express here about guns. I really have to admit I don't get it.
The current world actions of the covid planscamdemic and the move towards digital (not)currency and the Great Reset are a move by the world level tyrants to turn us back into serfs.
The bad guys, including the government bad guys, will always have guns.
I'd rather be able to protect myself.
“Yes the UK still has gun crime but it’s low. Firearm death rate per 100k in the UK is 0.23, in the US its 12.21.”
If you factor out suicide and gang violence, firearms death rate in the US is very low as well.
We can’t prevent people from simply sauntering over the southern border. They ignore immigration laws, so it’s illogical to think they would obey gun laws.
Concealed carry permit holders commit almost zero crime of any sort, yet stop a lot of it.
If you take the guns away from the good people, then only the bad people will have the guns that the Mexican cartels will have no problem bringing over the borders in massive quantities, just as they do drugs and sex slaves.
I will be convinced that “banning guns” will work when banning drugs and sex slaves works.
Not knowing the problem always makes the solution seem obvious.
And, by the way, as a religious principle, I’m strictly committed to a life of non-violence. But those are *my* principles, and I’m grateful to have been granted the wisdom to not try to project them on others.
I’m in Australia but closely follow US and UK politics. I used to be very big on gun control but the last couple of years of Covid insanity, censorship, and massive government overreach has made me wary of disarming the populace. I even thought about buying a gun! I don’t know what to think now about US school shootings. I’ve found other articles which link the school shooters to heavy drug use and social isolation very compelling.
A prerequisite to enacting effective gun control is that you need people to trust their government. Given we are now at a time when trust in government is at its lowest and continuing to decline I don’t think much can be done.
The people in power benefit from the tribes screaming at each other. We’re trained to yell about it. Proof is in the choice of language and framing among the talking heads. Hope that answers the question.
Why measure deaths per 100k in population? If guns are the problem, as you suggest, we should look at gun deaths per 100,000 guns. According to Google, there are 390 million guns in the US, with a population of 330M, and 600k guns in the UK with a population of 55M. Using your .23 number means there were 126 firearm deaths in the UK, or 1 death for every 4743 firearms. Here in the USA, (and again using your numbers) there were 40k firearm deaths. Dividing the 390 million guns in the USA by the 40k deaths yields 1 death for every 9750 guns. In other words, the more accessible guns are, the lower the death rate.
This matches what you see just here in the US. In cities where gun ownership is severely restricted... like Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, LA, Wash DC and New York - Crime is a much bigger problem than in places where guns are easier to get like Dallas, Denver, OK city, or Phoenix. Guns are not the problem and do not deserve the blame, the people pulling the trigger are the problem, they deserve the blame.
Love the comment.. I live in Phoenix/Scottsdale where it seems every house has a minimum of 3 guns. Random home invasions do not happen much here even though Phoenix (comparatively) is a poorer/rougher town than say, San Francisco where break-ins are far more common. Everyone in AZ knows every house is likely armed and breaking into that house carries greater risk than breaking into one in SF. Therefore it doesn’t happen. The gangs/drug crowd are responsible for the gun deaths here. The rest of us just go to ranges and get/stay comfortable using one.
Excellent, M. Bagholder. I had thought of this aspect in general, but was too lazy to dig out any numbers (call it a personality flaw), so it would have sounded like a theory.
Thank you for the "ammunition." (I hope my pun does not offend.)
I have a PS followup to my previous post: If the USA could send $40 billion in aid to a foreign country in the blink of an eye, why couldn’t the government spend 40 billion to secure our schools and increase access to mental health services? As opposed to taking away the rights of its law abiding citizens?
It's called buying influence. You didn't think it was a gift, did you? Foreign "aid" always comes with lots of deals and caveats, anything from influencing which people get support for a bid for leadership to outright concessions on natural resources. Far cheaper than a trade deal or a war for oil.
It's basically the same as "work for welfare"-programs: the receiver hasn't got a real choice, so can be offered a raw deal which from the outside looks charitable and liberal and progressive.
There's no 'payback' to the government officials if they actually did their jobs. Why create one cure, when you can offer 100 palliatives?
Because this is a settled argument in the USA. The left side has lost. So they have to resort to screetching as they are powerless. Change the second amendment if you want change, and good luck with that. The law is on the side of gun owners. There is nothing that left can do.
Thanks for the invitation for open discourse. It's very much needed, in many areas that are polarised.
I don't have much to add from personal experience. I never owned or wanted a gun. Thought about it during a recent terror attack near my home (I live in Israel). But it's hard to get a license here if you don't work for security forces, so I'll continue to take my chances without one.
Looking at the world though, I don't think it would do much to reduce tragedy. Yes, it would probably reduce the number of dead in school shootings and maybe other mass shootings. That is one clear advantage. But I think it wouldn't much change other types of violence where most people get murdered. People who live a criminal life mostly use illegal guns anyway. And they can murder with other weapons, as you are seeing very well in the UK.
There is one big problem with banning guns and other weapons of self defence (in the UK you'll probably start banning sticks and stones soon!). It sounds silly to state it, but here it is:
People who want to commit crimes don't care that it's illegal, they will get it and use it anyway, BECAUSE THEY CHOSE TO BE CRIMINALS. They haven't stopped robbing, raping and murdering because those things are illegal, right?
Meanwhile, people who are law abiding are left with no legal right to carry a weapon to defend themselves against armed criminals, which basically means the law is giving criminals an extra advantage.
Beyond the crime issue, it's hard not to notice governments and NGO's don't want private citizens to own guns. They claim that's because they want less people murdered, but com'on man... They don't really care about that. It's clear to my mind they just want a monopoly on power. With no legal guns for citizens, the only people who will have guns are security forces loyal to the state, private security paid by the rich, and gangs. That's a good enough reason to support the right to carry in my mind.
So I’m an anomaly.. Always voted left. Family on Obamas campaign etc.. Had a gun as a kid but haven’t in 30yrs.. As of 2020 I’ll never vote blue again, bought 6 guns including 3 AR’s, 2 handguns and a shotgun including 5000 rounds.. I keep all in a big safe only I (locally) know the combo for..
The left has increased crime through the roof and gone off the deep end. If you’re black you get away with anything now. Rob houses etc and it’s the white home owner who goes to jail when the black guy broke into your house trying to rob you. BLM and the Dems money and racist tactics have gone so far including pushing new world order, vaccine pushes seem never ending.
Not gonna be caught unarmed when there’s a food shortage(diaper shortage) and 10 people crash my house for my materials. My son and I will take at least 5 before we go down..
My excuse is the environment today. Simple..
School shootings don’t make sense to me. They’re crazies. Way more bad people who could use a bullet than a kid.. Those are nut jobs. I’m shocked there’s not more honestly becaus there are far more crazies out there than schools.. Bad guys will always have guns so the good guys have to as well.
As my grandfathers bumper sticker said.. :”When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.” Truth..
Something else to add: "assault weapons". Is everyone who has commented here, and mentioned "assault weapons", aware that the ONLY difference between an AR-15 and your basic hunting rifle is COSMETIC??? They both work the same!!! In other words, "assault weapons" are "semiautomatic".... which means ONE shot per trigger pull. Semiautomatic is NOT a machine gun. The AR platforms *look* scary, all black and polymer with lots of accessories and doo-dads... but it's the same thing as putting bumper stickers and curb feelers on the family sedan. It's all cosmetic, nothing to do with how it works/fires.
Please, for the love of G-d, try researching something before vilification. Look up what a Class 3 Special Occupational Tax is, and then look up how a semi-auto action actually functions.
The much-discussed Assault weapons ban of 1994 banned COSMETIC features. Literally a set of grips or a pistol grip would determine if a given gun was "ok" or banned. Utter stupidity. Like banning a car based upon its colour, or how much chrome gee-gaws it had. Or how big the fuel tank was (by which I mean banning larger capacity magazines).
I was surprised to see such vehemence in response to your comments (on other articles) today, but I'm a relative newcomer to the concept that the right to bear arms is a fundamental one.
All the things that you research and write about - at heart none of it matters unless some entities (governments, or governments working on behalf of corporate interests) can coerce us because they have the guns/military complex to make people submit. Most of the pandemic coercion has been much more subtle - social pressure, co-option of "science". etc - but I think that we're all well aware that when push comes to shove, those who control the weapons can make us do anything.
Here's something interesting - I live in a major US city on the northeast corridor. When my friend went to a gun safety and shooting class in town, he was surprised to see that it was overwhelmingly Black women who were taking classes. It's possible that they - like people in rural America - are aware that they cannot count on police to come to their aid (in time, or at all) and feel that the safest thing is to take matters into their own hands.
Thank you for this open letter today! we should be able to talk about this, and though I'm a recent 2nd Amendment convert, I do think that all options should at least be on the table for calm discussion when we're faced with yet another school shooting.
I wish I could understand why we need to sell an AR 15 to an 18 year old who has a history of emotional problems. Is there not a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who clearly should NOT have them? Believe me I don’t want the government taking guns away from law abiding citizens who pay their taxes and work hard and deserve the right to bear arms. Why cant we at least discuss how to make sure a kid who is disturbed can’t just walk in a place and buy one. Maybe it’s not possible to set up safe guards like that. I don’t know. Don’t know if it will even work cause like many have already said on here. If a person wants to kill he will find a way.
When somebody made up their mind to kill innocents, the availability of the gun won’t change their path, may just replace the gun with a truck (which this kid already had) or a can of gasoline and matches…
There was a recent discussion on the “What Bitcoin Did” podcast with Peter McCormack (a Brit) and Cody Wilson (American). They discussed US vs. English views/culture on the matter. One of the conclusions is that each country is where it needs to be, culturally.
https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/free-speech-printed-guns
I'm not American but have spent a lot of time in the US and have many American friends, so I feel I understand the thinking better than most non-Americans.
The Second Amendment was put in place deliberately for very good reasons - that citizens should be able to defend themselves against both criminals and tyrannical Government. In the US this was, of course, a response to the British tyrannical rule and firmly establsihed that the principle that American citizens would never agin become slaves to Government. Britons more than anyone should understand this as encapsulated in "Britons never will be slaves - Rule Brittania" but the issue is, if push came to shove, what would Britons actually be able to do about it other than sing!!
Should guns be banned for law abiding citizens, both these groups would then have a monolopy on violence and tyranny would be free to flourish unchecked. The US founding fathers were not stupid and crafted one (two if you include The Bill of Rights) of the greatest documents ever created by humanity. These people deeply considered every aspect of these documents before commiting them to writing and the Second Amendment is also deeply considered as part of the overall doctrine of "checks and balances"
The Constitution, in totality, resulted in far less tyrannical overrech in the US response to C-19 compared to most othet western "Liberal democracies" (Australia, New Zealand and Austria particularly come to mind) and the Constitution must be understood in its totality.
Given this recent demonstration of totalitarianism by "Liberal" Governments, I would have thought that this point was more than amply demonstrated and I'm very surprised that the author would adopt such a position having been deeply opposed to the totalitarian Government responses globally. Next time, these responses might go even further and entirely destroy ALL civil liberties and human rights.
You can be opposed to totalitarian Government and have reservations against mass gun ownership (although this discussion has made me see if from other view points which is good).
Also, as I've said above, Canada has gun ownership and look what's happened there.
You've said this a few times and I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean. Are you referring to the crackdown on truckers?
"Gun ownership" is simply not the same as recognition of an unalienable right in the foundational document of a free country. I'm no expert on Canada so this is an honest question - are Canadians subjects, via the Commonwealth? Either way, it's a totally different mindset to have one's polity grounded in a baseline of being ruled (however many or few privileges the population may have gained) versus having a polity grounded in individual rights that cannot be infringed no matter who happens to be sitting in the office running things at any given moment.
When Americans say things like "Come and take it" in this debate, it is not an angry or emotional response. It's the bottom line. It is a statement of fact-based empirical reality. As Mao observed, Political power grows from the barrel of a gun. We don't intend to forfeit that.
Many comments are saying the US had less harsh lockdowns because they have guns, whilst Australia had worse lockdowns because they have strict gun controls. But this doesn't add up when you look at Canada who have guns but the unvaccinated still can't leave the country.
Thanks for clarifying. I think 'less-harsh than elsewhere because guns' could have some plausibility *if* it's a shortcut summary for 'less harsh (in some ways in some places) because of the same factors generally driving the American culture or regional personalit[y|ies] more willing to accept reasonable levels of risk in exchange for desired levels of liberty and autonomy'. If the argument is that there's a direct connection, I don't find it makes sense even for the US, much less as a comparison across countries.
In nearly all lockdown comparisons, however, the dependent variable is horribly underspecified and perhaps immeasurable, so I personally don't find them very interesting.
Not really dear Emperor. Because totalitarian governments can only be overthrown with weapons.
I suspect the vehemence is for the same reason as the polarising debate on lockdowns and mandatory vaccination... The encroachment on freedom. My bugbear is always being treated like a child because others behave irresponsibly with their freedom. Address them and punish them; don't punish me (everyone) because you are to afraid to call out their folly.
I think a common sense discussion of potentially further regulations on long rifles like AR 15’s. AK 47’s (not hunting rifles) might be a good place to start. However, the founding fathers of the Constitution of the United States had a great debate (documented in the Federalist Papers) regarding the right to bear arms under the second amendment of the Constitution. The right to own a firearm was for the purpose of hunting and self protection. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was also to ensure that we the people could stand up against an enemy foreign or domestic which included standing up against an oppressive and tyrannical government to ensure our freedom. During the Plandemic, I have seen what has taken place in Australia (I’m sure many Australians regret giving up their firearms in 1996) Canada, and many other countries that quite frankly are not much different than China. Just saying….
I don't think that it's discussing the issue that provokes anger. It's the unwillingness of some on the opposites sides of this issue to listen to the other side that is often misrepresented. For many years of my life, I did not feel the need to own a gun.
For one, I did not need to hunt to provide food for my family and to me that was the only reason to hunt. To me it was never a sport or a challenge to kill an innocent animal. I have always had money to buy my food.
That being said, there are many who do rely on hunting, even in today's world to put food on the table. Should that be denied? And as time has gone on and in this world I now see that one should have that option. If need be, I would still want to provide for my family and hunting is one source to do so. To hunt you need a rifle or perhaps a shotgun, a handgun is useless for that purpose, And in reality an AR, which contrary to what some believe does not stand for "automatic rife". It is just a normal rifle with the capacity to hold more ammo. The "AR" in AR-15 stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", not "assault rifle".
Also, through the years with the rise in crime in many of the large cities in the US, where many gang members have "illegally aquired weapons, many citizens feel that they need some form of protection and can you blame them? There is simply not enough police to cover every area in a given city or town. 911 may not save your life. The last thing I would want is to hear someone in my house and not be able to have the means to protect my family. Why should that right be denied, and yes, in the US, it is still a right. So there again, I think this is justifiable to own a weapon.
I realize this is a no-win situation for anyone., It tears my heart when some nut-case preys on innocent people and unfortunately, many of these idiots target schools because they realize they are a no-gun zones, so these children are unprotected. Would stricter gun laws help? That's debatable, a killer always find a way to kill whether it be a gun, knife, or whatever. No-gun zones are a form of stricter laws. Does it help?
Finally, and I know it's an over used cliche, but it is true. Is that when guns are taken away from the people, those in charge can do what ever they want, and one only has to ask themselves: compare the police of today with those of of 50 years ago. We have gone from the friendly officer on the street to the tactical swat teams today armed with their "assault weapons" if that's the term you like to use. Why is that you just might want to ask yourself!!!
To be fair, others have made my points already. But I wish to add my voice, if for no other reason than to have a chorus rather than a solo. You ask, NE, why is this "debate" not civil???? Well, my first point would be that it is difficult for we Americans to be civil when someone starts talking about taking one of our G-d given NATURAL rights away. When a liberal who in one breath is talking about requiring ID to vote being racist and voter suppression, in the next breath wants all kinds of laws and limits slapped on my natural right to own whatever weaponry I choose and not ask mother-may-i to a soul... yeah, that can be why we get a little irritated. Try this thought game first: when wanting limits on my Right to Keep and Bear Arms, strike out "guns" and insert "speech", or "voting", or any of the other Rights enshrined in that lovely Constitution of ours. If a Right can be limited by Government fiat, it's not a Right but a privilege. I call Bullshit at that point.
Next, since I'm sure it will come up: "why do you need a semiautomatic weapon"? For the 10 gazillion-th time, a "semiautomatic weapon" fires ONE round per trigger pull. It works EXACTLY the same in practical terms as a Double-action revolver. (A single-action revolver requires an additional step, that of a hammer cocking before firing.) Literally 95% of ALL available guns today, whether rifles or handguns, work this way. Some shotguns do as well. The problem here is that people who have gotten their ENTIRE knowledge of how guns work from Hollywood or the media have confused or conflated "semiautomatic" with "FULL automatic (i.e. machine guns).
In Most states, machine guns actually are still legal. They are collector's items and hideously expensive and terribly regulated. If memory serves since 1934 when the National Firearms Act was enacted, there has only been one crime committed by a legally possessed machine gun and that was committed by a cop with his personally-owned machine gun. And as far as the question why does someone need a machine gun? Why does Jeff Bezos need a multimillion-dollar yacht? Why does my neighbor need a nice boat? Why do I need more than one motorcycle? The answer is because each of us want that and are able to pay for it. None of anybody's business what I own or you own.
This whole thing about save the children and get rid of guns just pisses me off. Nobody was screaming to get rid of SUVs when the moron drove through the parade in Waukesha. A lot more people are killed every year by driving accidents and drunk drivers then are killed by guns.... yet no one seems to be proposing to have a background check on SUV owners. Or, prophylactically, to have an alco-sensor in every car because some people chose to drive drunk. We don't punish ALL just because of the actions of a very few... even the horrific actions.
I'm not sure why people get angry when talking about the right, or privilege, to have a gun. I didn't agree with or understand this right until about 7 years ago, when I recognized my government does not represent the population any longer. I switched to supporting private gun ownership. It's the last bastion of individual rights in any country. Yes if the military came out full force, the people would not be able to withstand that with guns. But private ownership of guns keeps it from getting to that point. Overtaking a population physically is less of a choice, there is less chance that governments think it's even a possibility. The price we pay for this level of freedom, collective freedom of our population to be physically overrun, is the mass shooting of innocent people. It's a steep price, and a heartbreaking, heart-wrenching one.
Lot harder for a government to go completely despotic with an armed citizenry. The issue is people not guns...
Great discussion! Thanks for writing the piece. I could tell it was a sincere desire to have an open conversation.
I think the threat of helplessness is overwhelming to us at the thought of being gun less.
Not to mention real. I have never even shot a gun, let alone owned one, and the fear of not being able to, perhaps in face of a terrible crime wave, or other direct threat to me or my family and friends is not hypothetical.
The typical American psyche is right out of Orwell's "double-think" concept where you can hold two completely contradicting beliefs or thoughts at the same time. We American's "think of ourselves" as peaceful and law abiding even while our government (the one we fund with our taxes) is in the act of murdering, slaughtering and starving the poor around the globe each day, every day, decade after decade as they have been doing throughout my 70 year lifetime. Our societal "norm" is that our government is completely lawless and uses violence to "get its way." The government's justification for this lawlessness is the pathologically self-absorbed belief that "we are the exceptional nation." Perhaps it is that nationally embraced narcissistic conceit that some deranged individual Americans end up mirroring when they decide that "they are the exceptional person" who has the right to kill others because their "feelings" or "beliefs" render them so very "exceptional" and above human life and the law. Just like our government. As a well traveled retired therapist I will say that if there is a people on planet earth that as a group are "less reflective" and more "self-absorbed" than we Americans - I have yet to meet them.
Lastly, there is a war in Europe which could have easily been avoided, where the us government is sending billions worth of weapons which will kill 1000s, with a substantial proportion that will end up in the wrong hands, and where the same us government is not even interested in talking peace thereby prolonging the deaths and destruction on a country level. Seems to me that however incredibly sad the event in that school is, the sense of outrage is a tad unbalanced.
Man, this is sad and hilarious. It's sad that you haven't learned what's actually happening in the world even as its been thrown in your face for years. You are not trying to prevent kids from getting shot, you're supporting the disarming of a nation by an illegitimate communist government while repeating the slogan that you're trying to save kids. Do you ever think about how the authorities always know about these shooters? You think that's a random, unsolvable problem?
You know there are concentration camps in China right now, right? "Quarantine camps" in Australia? Plans for quarantine camps going through legislatures in America? That's the government you want to see disarming the people?
Of course, you think all of this is a conspiracy theory and rather than addressing the reality, you'll pretend it doesn't exist. Remember vaccines? It's just like that. Since you deny the observable reality in front of you, you disregard why the second amendment was written. We have an illegitimate president implementing a global agenda he can't even rationally consider, much less explain, and you think disarming the citizenry is a proper response to a school shooting? Where is that motivation every weekend in Chicago? In fact, why is the most restricted Democrat Communist enclave in the country a battlefield in the first place?
You are repeating what you heard on television but trying to sound like you're the nice, rational guy. There's no discussion to be had. The people will not disarm, particularly not after watching the government assume power in a 5-year long coup culminating in a stolen election, while they censor us and call us domestic terrorists.
Your post is a result of being in the censored leftist bubble on Twitter. The ignorance is shameful at this point.
I'm more interested in why we can't have a rational debate. I don't claim to have the answer to the problems nor think my view has to be the correct one.
We can’t have a rational debate because the side that blames the guns is already irrationally misdiagnosing the problem and then focusing the discussion around that misdiagnosis.
Once again, people who think and reason within the Central Narrative misunderstand the point of contention altogether. The left (communists) and the “center” (people who prop up global communism but pretend otherwise) are having a conversation completely detached from observable, empirical reality.
Just like how they think abortion is about women’s right to choose what to do with their body (it’s not), but vaccine mandates are about protecting everyone else even if it just saves one life. There is no actual principle anywhere. There is no reason. There is no understanding of what the other side actually believes.
America is done with taking these people seriously, and it’s spreading through the rest of the world as well.
And isn’t it amazing that the same people are always leading the narratives and always wrong in exactly the same direction - the one that comports with the global agenda? Always. Everything they push for is rationalized by “helping others” as they further the agenda of the global communists plotting our future in Switzerland.