Questions of the Day

On By Swarn GillIn Musings

Would love to have some good answers to these questions:

If making laws is pointless because criminals always break laws, then why do we have laws?

Since there is evil in the world, is the only way to combat evil to carry a firearm?  Is there nothing else that we can’t advocate for that will reduce the amount of evil we face such that having a firearm is no longer a necessity?

If the point of owning firearms is to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, why do many other first world democracies, who have much less firearms per capita than we do, not dissolved their democracies and run over their people?

 

26 thoughts on “Questions of the Day”

      1. “If the point of owning firearms is to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, why do many other first world democracies, who have much less firearms per capita than we do, not dissolved their democracies and run over their people.”

        It is difficult to correct because there is so much inequality and much distrust in the government. For example, I read an article not long ago from an American who moved to Denmark, and the vast difference she saw between Americans and Scandinavians. She writes:

        “As an American, I know Denmark’s system is not applicable to the USA. Democratic socialism could only happen in Denmark because the population was homogenous with a high concentration of trust. America was founded by immigrants…from all over… folks who’ve had trust issues with ”government” from the beginning. (There are still members of the GOP who like to sing: ”there’s no government like no government!”)

        Danes do not see “the government” as an adversary but as a mirror. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are follow citizens working on their behalf.

        This is what makes Denmark (and Scandinavia) different. People trust one another. The challenge is to retain this trust in a society that is no longer homogenous.

        Unfortunately, there is reason to not trust the government considering the huge inequality gap we now have, the militarization of police, high surveillance of its own citizens, the war on drugs, prisons for profit, war for profit, not prosecuting criminal bankers on Wall Street, seduced by the NRA, not to mention the continued dismantling of the social safety net. The GOP plays “you can’t trust the government” card, but are representative of a kakistrocracy.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. But Canada is made up of just as much immigrants as the U.S. Perhaps because we didn’t have a bloody revolution, I don’t know. but we have more trust in our government. I think the Canadian government is relatively multicultural and more even in terms of the gender equality as well. Even under Harper. While there is reason not to trust our government, to me it brings about a chicken and egg question. I see this government as a reflection of ourselves. Perhaps the reason our government isn’t very trustworthy is because we as a people aren’t very trusting. Maybe we have the government we deserve. A highly scientifically illiterate population with a high degree of science illiteracy in government. A high volume of Christian fundamentalists, and thus a high proportion of fundamentalists in government. That mixed with a high volume of political apathy. I mean certainly these things feed into each other and the problem gets worse, but I don’t see any reason why we can become Canada in terms of all getting along a lot better and making our pluralism the main part of our identity as opposed to denying it. That’s the difference between the melting pot philosophy and Canada which sees itself as a mosaic. A melting pot is actually a bad thing because it aims to homogenize our differences as opposed celebrating the diversity which is more the Canadian philosophy.

          Like

          Reply

        2. Also I was going to add that when I look at the government, I see much more flat out incompetency than malice. I mean all this NSA data collection doesn’t seem to be doing a god damn thing to prevent any terrorist/mass shooting plots that I can see!

          Like

          Reply

  2. I assume your first question is sarcastic, but if making laws is pointless, then there’s no reason to have them.

    I guess it depends if you want to get rid of evil people, in which case shooting them is quite effective. Attacking the causes of evil is more complicated and probably requires providing equality, opportunity, hope, justice, etc. It’s probably easier to carry a gun.

    It’s well established that the minimum number of guns per capita required to keep a potentially tyrannical government in check is proportional to the number of Texans in said government and therefore it’s quite reasonable that the United States needs more than other countries.

    In light of recent events, it may be inappropriate to make jokes about the topic, but in the face of reality, it’s one of my main coping methods.

    Like

    Reply

    1. The first question isn’t really sarcastic but rather a common argument used by the pro gun side. I’ve asked this question many times. Nobody has answered. So just hoping somebody would provide one. Your other answers are quite good and the humour is appropriate since I’m not sure what else to do on the face of such madness.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  3. ryan59479

    You point out something that’s always bugged me about the “criminals will always break laws” attitude of pro-gun nutjobs, and that is this: our fatalistic attitude when it comes to firearms.

    Nowhere else in our society do we see much fatalism in that sense that something is unchangeable. Drug problem among the population? War on drugs! Our kids are wrapped in helmets, knee pads, elbow pads, etc. to avoid the rather inevitable scraped knee or goose egg. Cars are equipped with backup cameras, impact crumple zones, air bags everywhere, sensors that alert you to obstacles on the road. We spend countless dollars and hours combating the effects of aging–the most inevitable thing of all!–with pills, creams, fad diets, surgeries.

    But when it comes to guns? Sorry! There’s absolutely nothing we can do! That’s just the way it is, wackos are always going to shoot people.

    It’s absolutely mind boggling to me that we go to astronomically inane lengths to prevent harm in every other area of life, but for some reason guns are something that can never be changed, a harm which can never be mitigated.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Those are all great points. I think it was a quote from the Daily Show or Colbert report that says, because of one guy hiding a bomb in his show we have to take our shoes off at airports, and while shooting after shooting happens and nothing is done. It’s really amazing.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  4. What I hear is that anti-drug laws don’t stop traffickers, laws against theft and murder don’t prevent those acts, either. They perhaps act as a deterrent for someone who is law abiding. But what they mainly do is outline punishment for those who commit such acts.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Good answer. In that I feel that this may be how many pro-gun people feel. Many of them tend to be all about the punishment aspect. Had an argument with a guy the other day who said quite clearly that he would easily put a bullet from his gun into anybody’s skull who broke into his home. He didn’t say “threaten his family”, or “rape his wife”, or “point a gun at him”, but break into his home. So for him burglary is an offense punishable by death. I get the sense that many of the staunchest pro-gun people would love an excuse to deal out the punishment themselves. So while they may spout the answer you provided, it’s not certain in practice that’s really what they care about the most.

      And of course in reality the construction of our laws have much more to do with punishment. They are a reflection of our desire for equality, civility, security, and morality. I mean even the 10 commandments don’t talk about the actual punishment part, they are rules to live by. Laws against segregation, laws that allow women to vote are examples of these things. And there are punishments if you suppress a women’s right to vote, but these are the after thoughts. The laws always start with values that we as a society deem important. Preventing murders does not seem to be one of them anymore.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Of course, that isn’t my thinking. But I live in a God, Guns, and Country area.

        “Ain’t nobody gone take this here gun from me unless they’re prying it from my cold, dead, hands.”

        It is definitely a mentality. One that I’m afraid is very hard to overcome. When I’ve asked people who oppose gun control laws why they need AR-15’s or semi-automatics they always trot out the “tyranny of the government” argument. To which I always ask the same questions: Are you also going to invest in tanks, fighter-jets, and a missile defense system? I usually am met with stares as though I have three heads. I’m just wondering, if the government really wanted to impose marshal law, what a few AR-15’s are going to accomplish. Small minds are not equipped to look at big pictures.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. I knew that wasn’t your point of view, just sort of adding where such an answer to my question then leads. Yes one really wonders how they think they ate going to take out drones, tanks, and aircraft with their assault rifles.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

      2. And, of course, this being gun country I hear the bravado of those who proclaim, “If somebody breaks into my house they’ll be drawing a chalk circle around them.” Yeah, theft is not even punishable by death in the OT. Sheesh!

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  5. Would love to have some good answers to these questions:

    “Good answers” Swarn, in my case, will be highly debateable. 😉

    Fortunately though for me, and perhaps unfortunate for you, I will hold-off for the time being on answering your fine thought-provoking questions. I want to instead approach America’s uptrending mass shooting sprees of late excluding San Bernandino, CA. Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik now appear to be inspirationally linked to ISIS propaganda (Saudi Arabia?). That will and should take the initial responses down the path of combating organized terrorism by large numbers — i.e. beyond one bacterial cell-infection to a bigger viral epedimic. That preliminary report will also take the investigation, motives, etc, down a very familiar path on “The War Against Terrorism” and screams for retributions from American radicals and further debates on gun-control. Unfortunately, gun-control, though integral to further solutions, is only ONE PART of the bigger problem.

    Firearms will not go away. Period. Just like pencils, pens, keyboards won’t go away when horrible authors write/type bad grammer and mispelled words. Vehicles will not go away due to a perpetual population of unsafe reckless drivers. Criminals will not go away due to strict (or the lack of) appropriate laws and law-enforcement. Air-crash fatalities will not go away due to improved (or faulty) designs or construction of aircraft. Alcoholics and drug addicts will not go away simply because alcohol and drugs are easily or not easily accessible.

    I have yet to hear/read any lengthy relevant qualified discussion on the psychological, neurological, biological, pathological dysfunctions of the individuals and the wide-spread education and acceptance of severe psychosis for the public… and the best known ways to better prevent it or identify it, manage it, and treat it. And this gross oversight for the last several centuries, to put it mildly, is baffling to me. It seems to me as much energy and resources, if not more, should be equally invested toward the “other part” of overt violence stemming from the individual’s brain and neurology and familial-social dynamics. If a civil public is widely educated (trained?) in these areas, it can only compliment law-enforcement, improved gun-laws or bans, and offer more LIFE-GIVING alternatives, typically alternatives that catch potential (probable) escalation BEFORE it turns into massacres and mass shootings. Or at least it offers a better chance of preemptive identification and prevention.

    Now, I can probably guess what doubts & challenges people will have toward or against this type approach. LOL

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I agree with you Professor. I in no way think that any particular issue is the function of only one variable. But to say doing nothing is the only answer is not valid either. Just like with abortion, if you want to reduce it, there a number of things that we can do to reduce abortions, knowing that making it illegal also does not make the problem go away. I don’t want to take guns away from people, I want to make sure the wrong people don’t get them. Will the wrong people still sometimes get them? Of course, but if we can shave off the number of murders by even 10% just by enforcing stricter policies to obtaining firearms isn’t that valuable? Even for all those who think mental illness is the biggest issue here, why are they not fighting to reduce societal stigmas for mental illness and for better comprehensive health care for the citizens?

      Like

      Reply

      1. Even for all those who think mental illness is the biggest issue here, why are they not fighting to reduce societal stigmas for mental illness and for better comprehensive health care for the citizens?

        Mmm, Swarn you NAILED IT! Bravo Sir, BRAVO! 🙂

        It’s SO way past time to talk about the 500 lbs. gorillas in the room and take wise humane action! Talk meaningfully and thoroughly about Taboo subjects and kick the fucking zoo animals out of the equation and take our osterich heads out of the sand!!!

        Pardon my peppered rant there. 😈 😉

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

      2. And more to your point Swarn, many multi-decade veterans and retirees of law-enforcement all ask WHY is a driver’s license harder to obtain than purchasing, owning, and getting “trained” with firearms in the U.S. when vehicles are just as much lethal weapons as firearms?

        The public needs to know EXACTLY what constitutes borderline psychosis, its root causes (both internally and externally), and how to identify it, approach it wisely and humanely-compassionately IN ITS EARLY STAGES, and then humanely wisely manage it and treat it.

        As John appropriately mentioned below… “the I got mine, screw you attitude” must change and stop or this marry-go-round will only continue for several more decades or centuries. Duh.

        Like

        Reply

    1. Indeed John! Unfortunately, that’s the exact culture our society, economy, and prevalent political ideology nurtures and promotes: elitism, individualism, monism or binary-ism(?), capitalism, free-enterprise under various disguises.

      Think its time for SEVERAL new paradigms to begin here and trash all antiquated ones that are 4,000 to 50-years old? LOL 😉

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  7. BeesMakeHoney

    Killing is acceptable in this day, except when it isn’t. This is where your arguments fall flat.
    It is not only the evil that kill. It is NOT only the criminals that kill. It is not Only the mentally ill that kill. Our soldiers go into conflict and kill – often with our blessings.
    As do our police officers, and judges who impose the death penalty.
    Whether you are pro-gun or anti-gun is really not relevant.
    We are all complicit whether we pull the trigger or not – depending on the circumstances.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you for your comment. I don’t think I was marking the argument that only evil kills. I was simply posting some questions to common comments I have seen in regards to the issue of gun control. Certainly there are many causes for injustices in our society, and for how we get people who are willing to kill. However many of the people I know who are for stricter gun control are also anti-war, want higher standards for police officers, a fairer justice system that focuses less on punishment but more on rehabilitation to reduce rates of recidivism, not to mention an overall reduction in the numbers of people incarcerated. I disagree that what side we take in regards to the issue of gun control is irrelevant. While it isn’t the only cause we should fight for certainly, such things do make a difference. I do agree that there needs to be a great cultural shift towards compassion before we can lay down our weapons.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment