A point to make on America and its guns

Actually, two points. I won’t cover the common points, or those spoken by me before here.

People tell me that Americans are hypocrites when they say that their guns are intended for defense, given the number of offenses committed with them. I disagree.

The War to End All Wars, a name given to World War I, is a curious turn of phrase. I suspect what is imagined is a Final War, a decisive war that sorts everything out for all time. What is imagined is a utopia (dystopia?) of warlessness following.

Using a gun ends the situation that led up to the gun use. Again we receive the imagery of the moral old west, where honor was upheld (seemingly as often as possible) with gunfire, ending otherwise harmful situations.

Guns are seen as moral agents. That is to say, human death is preferable to the withstanding of immorality, or evil. Call it a choice… a prioritizing.

Charlton Heston is perfect in bearing witness to this point, and moving into the other point. He’s self-righteous (nauseatingly so to those sensitive to it). He’s strident, zealous.

He encapsulates the issue. He feels that through gun use he is achieving morality. He puts an end to evil. Guns are not only necessary, their use is often a glorious achievement, at least when in the right hands and circumstances.

Or, to put it into gaming terms, its about saving the world one corpse at a time.

Corpses, thus, become not a crime, not even a problem, but the good outcome to evil. Corpsification is what happens to bad people as a result of good people with guns.

This whole process must be actively engaged. See evil, kill evil. The classic example of the “intruder breaking into the home being shot to death”. This is GLORIFIED in America, even if its hidden and repressed in the mind. Nowhere else does this glorification occur.

The problem, or at least one big problem, is the lack of any real reason to believe that the people who THINK they are the good ones, the ones who are bearing arms against the evil onslaught that could occur at any moment, are actually the good ones. Given the constant errors that humans make they are supposed to be entrusted with THIS kind of insight? Sorry if I don’t see vast morality at the heart of Charlton Heston.

Another probably bigger problem is with the dual system of good and evil that underlies it. Shades of Gray calling America, come in America. Sorry to confuse your simple worldview, you fucking moron.

The issue gets even more difficult, however. Its not a matter of calling conservatives dumbasses and moving on, as Rucker or McCullough or Anaxagoras or Euri or countless others would have you think.

The project is, after all, noble. Its an attempt to make morality a living creation, an emergent property out of murder and the threat of murder. Lets take a look at this for the moment…

The KKK was a group whose goal was the establishment and perpetuation of emotional and social slavery to replace the destruction of legal slavery. They disagreed with the abolishment of the slavery laws, and sought to recreate that environment as closely as possible, or expel blacks as a sort of Plan B.

The Mafia is a group whose goal is the establishment of a secret or alternate government with intent to support/exploit the space between the law of the majority government and the will of its citizens.

It might be strange to think of the KKK and the Mafia as moral, but from their own perspectives they’re moral (negative media manipulation on both groups notwithstanding), which is no different logically from Charlton Heston itching to exert his own moral imperative as a result of a fortunate intruder soon to be corpseified.

If you notice, Liberals kind of like the Mafia. The Youth REALLY like the Mafia… these youth are the children of the Baby Boomers who are anti-establishment (or were and enjoy reliving their glory days through their children) and the Mafia are in any case an alternative to the primary establishment.

What this all really boils down to is the creative effect of murder. Whether making the world a better place by gunning down a burglar or making the world a better place by subjugating niggers or making the world a better place by filling the holes in people’s lives with an alternate government, murder is one of the means of making this happen, (guns are often the most convenient and dramatic method of murder), and according to the people engaged in it, its usually a small price to pay.

I’ve heard all the common liberal and conservative theories (mostly liberal ones of course) about why there are so many gun murders and guns in America, yet I’ve never heard what I just proposed. The answer to Why? is not found in the horrible stupidity, strange newness, or incredible insight of my proposition, for none of those exist, but rather in the simple fact that Liberals are afraid of discussing murder in any light other than complete negativity and Conservatives are afraid of themselves, to the point of self-righteous blindness illustrated by Heston. Thus neither is available for comment, leaving me the entire floor to myself.

the KKK and the Mafia as moral, but from their own perspectives they’re moral (negative media manipulation on both groups notwithstanding)

Yeah, stinking media manipulation. Fucking Adolph Hitler was a great guy, but he was fucked just because he didn’t give interviews. Fickle fucking press.

there are so many gun murders and guns in America, yet I’ve never heard what I just proposed. The answer to Why?

Because luckily, in the real world, 100% of the people are smarter than you.

And isn’t there someone who left this forum because I called them a fucking idiot for saying Brian wasn’t an idiot? Care to step up and make that statement again?

Why don’t you go back to your Tabloid crap and leave truth to the rest of us. That is, unless you would like to actually contribute. We’ll be waiting.

Thanks for the demonstration of Liberal blindness, though. I’m confused… is this worse or better than Charlton Heston’s self-righteous blindness?

Here’s a headline for your next piece: “Mention of the KKK or Nazis or Hitler throws Liberals into an irrational tizzy, every time”.

Fear, whether it be Charlton Heston’s or liberals’, must be destroyed before truth can be fulfilled. Its not fulfilled by empty demonization of a man who wants to destroy it.

You forgot to capitalize Truth.

Wasn’t me, but I’ll step up. Brian isn’t an idiot, he’s just sort of uninterested in reality, preferring his own set of Koontzian Ideals. When he posts on a topic about which he has any experience he even makes sense sometimes.

All right, I’ll bite. However, I don’t have time to fuck with various tags and whatnot, so I’m just going to put your crap in quotes, and my crap without.

"People tell me that Americans are hypocrites when they say that their guns are intended for defense, given the number of offenses committed with them. I disagree. "

Congrats on disagreeing, they’re wrong. (Unfortunately, you’re not disagreeing with the basic factual flaw, but with some faggy semantic issue of hypocrisy.) 1.5-2 million defensive uses per year, based on multiple partisan and non-partisan polls. Considering that every gun-related crime gets reported, and not every gun-related defense (estimates are about 2-to-1 during the anonymous polls, about 10-1 for police records) we can safely say that guns are used much more for defense than offense. Other than offense against initial offense in the name of defense. Or whatever.

"Using a gun ends the situation that led up to the gun use. Again we receive the imagery of the moral old west, where honor was upheld (seemingly as often as possible) with gunfire, ending otherwise harmful situations. "

Wrong, as any historian will tell you, the wild west was a remarkable example of self-regulation, with crime rates well below what we enjoy today. Of course, there were a few exceptions, which made it into the history books. Opposingly, gun-control proponents try to hide the exceptions today, such as Washington D.C., where total gun control has led to being the murder capital of the US for 7 of the last 8 years or so.

“Guns are seen as moral agents. That is to say, . . . blah blah blah, same point for five paragraphs.”

Could be, although it would be more accurate to say that resistance is seen as morally justified, not just resistance with guns. We hardly shame the guy who beats up a burgler, do we? In fact, you’re once again exactly wrong, in all examples of resistance, only gun use is vilified with no other circumstance considered.

After this point, you went off into the land that only exists between your ears, where everything is gratingly obvious to no one but you, and the eighth-grade analyses come quick and cheap. Not gonna comment, wouldn’t accomplish a thing.

H.

p.s. Your head looks like a booby!

I can put a hole in the middle of a quarter at 1000 yards.

With what, a laser?

H.

With what, a laser?

H.[/quote]

A shuriken. Or didn’t you know that MS is a NINJA PIRATE!!!

… and I’m the worst shot in the family. It’s embarrassing, really…

Have any links to history sites about this? I do believe you, I remember watching some documentary about specific crimes in the wild west and they did mention the number of murders for one southwest city for a year. I don’t remember the details but I remember they said it like it was alot (maybe it was for that time) but I laughed because here in Baltimore in the present we had that number beat by a big margin.
I wish I could remember the number they gave and the city for that matter.

I guess its been protrayed in movies/books/tv as lots of gunbattles that people just believe it.

That’s an irrelevant strawman, since I am talking about imagery received, not about historical reality.

“Guns are seen as moral agents. That is to say, . . . blah blah blah, same point for five paragraphs.”

I’ll guess I’ll have to be slightly confused at this point. So while it would have been morally justified for the “Native Americans” to resist European invasion, its ok that they were exterminated?

So its ok if I kill you but its welcome that you try to stop me? Whew… NO WONDER Americans are so fucked up. Or as GW Bush would say… Bring it on!

We hardly shame the guy who beats up a burgler, do we? In fact, you’re once again exactly wrong, in all examples of resistance, only gun use is vilified with no other circumstance considered.[/quote]

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Its ok to strangle a burglar to death but its bad to shoot him?

Next time you comment don’t use strawmans… they just waste time.

Koontz

I honestly can’t comprehend your first and last post in this thread. What point are you making?

That’s funny. I could have sworn the Mafia is a group whose goal is making money. That said: feel free to count me in with the people who have no idea what point you’re trying to make.

No shit. I read it earlier, and wanted to reply, but I had no idea if he was agreeing with me, or reversing his earlier position, or what. Congrats Brian, you’ve fagged up your own language to the point that you can no longer actually speak English!

H.

According to America, Guns are a moral force to eliminate evil and immorality and create a better social reality. They serve both as a threat and the application of morality.

Interesting thought but I can’t agree. Americans love their guns not in and of themselves but because it’s an extension of our fondness for violence and for asserting our will through naked force.

[quote=“Nick_Walter”]

Interesting thought but I can’t agree. Americans love their guns not in and of themselves but because it’s an extension of our fondness for violence and for asserting our will through naked force.[/quote]

Exactly. Brian is misunderstanding “force” as “just guns.” We love kicking the shit out of people, regardless of which tool we use to do it. Also, it’s not a matter of morality, it’s a matter of aggression and power-projection. We retrofit morality to justify the harm caused by the aggression, but it rarely is the initiating factor. (Especially since if you stop to consider morality, violence rarely comes out as the correct next step.)

H.

That’s incorrect. Morality and violence are not mutually exclusive. Violence is often the only appropriate moral choice.

That said, you’re still missing Brian’s point (which, admittedly, is not difficult). He’s claiming that the violence rate in the US is high because most people who use guns (and force) believe they are following a moral imperative.

Certainly a lot of crime is based on this idea, a drug dealer who shoots another dealer for selling on the wrong corner is punishing the immorality of the turf invasion.

Koontz’ point is basically that killing people ends conflict more defintely than any other method. It’s a typically liberal claim to state that obviously a high violence rate (compared to what, by the way? Certainly not 80% of the world) can only be the product of an American love of violence and bloodshed (The US is not significantly more bloodthirsty than anywhere else). The real dichotomy comes with the conflict between personal rights (guns don’t actually cause violence) and public safety. Some places, like the UK, have decided to go for total control, with questionable results. Other places, such as Somalia, have no controls. The US has opted toward more personal freedom, which is legitimate given our history.

It’s a typical conservative defense of gun rights to say that we need them to stop bad people from doing things. We technically don’t. However, it is far more cost effective than the alternative of a safety state.

So why is America so violent? I think the question is misleading… it’s not significantly more violent. But Koontz is correct in that the application of force is seen by Americans as an extremely effective way to end conflicts.

In other words, Americans believe an armed society is a polite/lawful society. The idea that justice/retribution is certain is believed to be an effective deterrent.

Ok, I’ll go with that.

Brian,

Next time, can you shorten it down to, say, a link?