I was laughing so hard I thought my stomach was going to split in two. One of my best friends and I were in a “Facebook Fight” over why American citizens should still have the rights to bear arms. We had just given up hope of swaying our opponent to our side, and decided to send him pictures of animals with guns. It was hilarious. At least we thought it was. J.B. Ghetto Crime Fighter (Let’s just call him that no real names please) I truly believe has a heart of gold, but he just won’t agree with us. Why oh why can’t he just admit there we’re right? The funny thing is he’s probably thinking the exact same thing about us. That incident took place a few months ago but now he gun issue has returned.
It is my experience that people who are the Ghetto Crime Fighters of the world. (People who want to civilize the word according to their rules and beliefs) Have the best of intentions, but only the intentions that they want to stipulate. I think they want to do good, but their definition of helping people is telling them what they think should do, instead of asking them what they need, and trying to help them achieve it. If they aren’t open to really listening to people, they are never going to achieve anything that way.
They are just going to come across as condescending, ignorant, arrogant, and ruin any chances of coming to a real consensus on any issue. If you really want to help, really listen to what the people you want to help are trying to say.
I had a friend to hound me about the dangers of guns and patiently read his rant about the Los Angeles Riots. It was kind of humorous to listen to his rant. Myself being a person who actually experienced the Los Angeles Riots instead of watching it on television. I remember having complications of Asthma, watching familiar places that I knew burn to the ground. Being a child, I remember ash falling from the sky, and the sun turning red. Being indoctrinated by the fearful side of Christianity at the time I was expecting one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse to appear any second. I thought this must be the end of the world. Having the National Guard walking around my neighborhood, some heroic, some paranoid and power hungry didn’t help calm my nerves either.My father had a store, and also in his possession a gun. I truly believe the gun was one of the main things that help save his business and his life.
The thing is, I can see that myself and the “Ghetto Crime Fighters” of the world want the same things for humanity, but the thing that breaks my heart is that we both think we are right about our ideas on trying to achieve these things, and neither one of us is willing to concede.
Personally when it comes to issues of gun control, I’m not trying to win an argument, I’m trying not to end up dead in a ditch. Yeah that’s what I said, “Dead in a ditch” To me this debate is about life or death.
I’ve recently been re-awakened as a student of history. When I think of gun banning I think of the millions of people that were slaughtered because they were either disarmed, or they didn’t have the strength to match power with their oppressors in a tyrannical government. Even though there has been a proposal to ban assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, how much of a fighting chance Am I going to have if I have hand pistol against a person with mal intent, who has a semi-automatic weapon?
As George Orwell - author of 1984 - pointed out in the Tribune (October 19, 1945), the effectiveness of arms in preventing tyranny partly depends on whether the average citizen can afford the current weapon of choice possessed by the government:
The connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon--so long as there is no answer to it--gives claws to the weak.
Criminals don’t fill out applications
If you think they do. You are greatly disillusioned. They’re criminals! When a sick twisted person wants to commit a crime they’re going to find away to do it. They’re going to get their guns from crooked policemen, military, or other black market means. Therefore all law abiding citizens who are willing to pay the fee, get a license, get training, teach their children about gun safety, and keep their guns hidden away are going to be left defenseless if they are denied the right to bare arms, and the psychopaths are going to have a field day.
I sent someone a video explaining how gun control through out history has led to abominable circumstances resulting in mass genocide when a government abused their authority over defenseless people. The response I got was an Eddie Izzard comedy clip based on his vision of what a stereotypical gun owner looks like to him. It got me thinking…
I feel the people that are pro gun control have this image of pro gun owners being a crazed gang banger, or a toothless hillbilly. Both in their eyes too savage, uneducated, or feeble minded to make an “educated decision” for themselves. While looking for arguments on pro gun control, I came across a video on Youtube of a guy who stated that he wanted a logical rebuttal to the pro gun argument, but he was only accepting opinions from people who came from a left-brained mentality, and was rejecting any form of feminist argument. It was so insulting. He’s saying he’s open but he is telling you what and how to think before he even hears what you have to say. That’s fake liberal bullshit if you ask me. He’s not interested in any real change. He’s interested in his point of view and being right.
You can’t always win by using logic and statistics.
I can argue my side and you can argue yours but at the end of the day people base their opinion on their belief systems. In the past I have presented my list of facts, statistics ect… from what I would deem to be credible sources only to have someone comeback with their own facts and statistics from what they deem to be their own credible sources and oppose my view.
Most people are quick to ask for references, facts, statistics, and such from an opposing point of view. But never really do their due diligence on their point of view or analyze why they came to the opinion that they have now. Honestly unless they have ample expertise or personal experience about the subject they are talking about, they’re basically trusting the credibility of the people who are giving them information. They most likely aren’t researching their intentions, or their credibility. They just accept it, if it supports their belief and I guess that’s good enough for them. ( I have been guilty of doing that at times myself)
Sometimes we might look at the information that we send to each other, or sometimes the opposing side might respond to me by saying they don’t have time to research useless conspiracy theories. In which in that case if they are choosing to remain ignorant in order to appear intelligent that defies all logic to me, and there is nothing more I can do for that person. I personally will look at both sides. I’ll gain more information that way anyway what do I have to loose right?
Back to the Gun thing.
Do I like guns? No I personally don’t like guns. I don’t even own one but I’m thinking about it. I guess It took for me being in the Los Angeles Riots, having a gun pulled on me, and having been in a lock down as a teacher twice for me to make the connection that people who have guns are going to go after people who don’t have guns, and that guns are only as safe as the people who carry them. If anyone can find a way to make all guns disappear off the face of the earth that would be great. As long as they are in existence, I feel that people are people, and guns are only as safe as the people who use them.
I have these questions to ask.
If our government has the best of intentions for the people, why are they looking to disarm law abiding citizens? And if they seek to do so don’t they know that is most likely going to start a civil war?
If they have our best intentions in mind why don’t they look at the pathology of our romanticized gun crazed culture caused by video games, and violent movies and open up a dialogue about that?
Why aren’t they looking at the pharmaceutical drugs that are known to cause psychosis? (You can read it in the insert)
Why don’t they look at a long term plan for slowly decriminalizing drugs over a period of time since gun violence is connected, due to the fact that people have to go underground to get drugs, they commit violent crimes in order to obtain them.
Why do they treat drug addicts like criminals instead of trying to heal them? To me those are more logical plans for diminishing gun crime.
Why don’t you lead by example President Obama? You can start by getting rid of your body guards with guns… What’s that you say... you are using your guns to protect yourself from psychos? Why so are we, what a coincidence.
Another argument I would like to address is the argument that I’ve heard that says, “You wouldn’t allow everyone to own a nuclear weapon would you?” Well of course not silly, but people who commit gun crimes, are usually trying to get something they want from someone that they can’t get by other means. Meaning money, sex, drugs, or other objects. It would be useless for them to carry nukes around because they are going to kill themselves and everyone else. That would defeat their purpose.
Also why only is America and a few other countries allowed to have nuclear power? It’s because America and their friends basically can bully other countries into getting what they want. They know if America has a nuke then they are not going to mess with America. But if they had a nuke of their own it would level the playing ground and America is less likely to mess with them because they know that they would be putting their own life in danger. To me it’s the same analogy with guns. A person who has a gun is less likely to mess with another person who has a gun. They are going to go after the un-armed person.
Ghandi and the Dali Lama have made statements justifying the use of arms. Not necessarily to kill anyone but to defend yourself if necessary.
Mahatma Gandhi wrote in his book, An Autobiography (page 446):
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest ... if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity.
And as quoted in the Seattle Times, May 15, 2001, the Dalai Lama said:
If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.
As for the Sandy Hook shooting and the mother of Adam Lanza (If you believe the official story. I personally don’t but that’s another essay) If she knew she had a mentally disturbed son, and she allowed him easy access to guns in her house, I’m sorry to say that was a lack of poor judgment on her part, and it devastates me, that so many people had to die as a result. Although, I’m positive that less people would have died if they had armed security or teachers.
And yes of course be responsible by doing a background check, and have people get weapons and safety training. But isn’t that’s what you have to do in order to get a license anyway? I’ve heard people say they need to crack down on those laws. But they’re forgetting one thing. How are you going to crack down on criminals who don’t obey laws? Are you going to write them a ticket? Um… yeah let me know how that works out for you.
