not logged in
| re: NJC Virginia Tech Shootings | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 06:57 am UTC 04/18/07 |
| In reply to: | re: NJC Virginia Tech Shootings - tealcyfre 01:33 am UTC 04/18/07 |
> This is a complex question, and I don’t pretend to have > any ‘answers’ -- indeed, I doubt there are ‘answers’. > Japanese and Swiss society both have very low > gun-mortality rates, yet Japan has virtually no guns in > private hands, and Switzerland has wide, carefully > controlled, placement of assault weapons in the hands of > the citizenry. The immediate thought is to wonder, what is it that Switzerland is doing in their cultural indoctrinations that we in the United States are not. What are they taught that guns are supposed to represent? What are they taught about values? What are they taught about getting along with others? The fact that the US has a very high death > rate from weapons in private hands is reflective of social > and historical values, particularly a distrust of communal > power placed in government and a reliance, indeed an > enshrined mythos centered on the individual, often in > conflict with or defiance of the community, particularly > as represented by formal authority. There is a concern I feel regarding those who are attracted to the weapons, versus those who need the weapons. There is the excuse base of weapon ownership, which uses rather than justifies the existence of the second amendment. The role of government is that which fosters distrust that only a handful of people react to by obtaining weapons. That handful may use those weapons wisely or not, and there is no control of that. The rebel against authority could be just as easily a sociopath as a savior. In a corruption filled universe, who can tell one from the other? This has contributed > to giving the world some glorious things: rock-and-roll > rebels and pinup-cheerleaders amongst them. It has also, > unfortunately, on the other hand, resulted in a childish, > simple-minded enshrinement of the empowered individual and > his ‘right’ to exact vengeance which may be interesting in > fiction, but is rather less compelling when the floor is > sweet-sticky with blood, death, and despair. It is the derangement that creates a mixture of sweetness with despair, and it is the despair that they extract from others for their own self-misguided or selfish means. Americans > believe not only in their own cultural superiority, but > believe it is obvious, and, essentially, effortless -- > rather like wielding a pistol against unarmed people. Americans have the illusion of superiority because they have the universal language in their favor, high level technological advances, consistent and strong military resources, and good relations with other nations of power. But in the actual cultural evolution, we are amongst the youngest. As raw as American youth is, it is a cultural youth, going through a difficult adolescence. > There is a tendency to believe that rhetoric alone, or the > proper stance, will accomplish an end -- hence, in part, > the naive, destructive, self-destructive American invasion > and occupation of Iraq. The power-politics of campaigns in the public eye give fuel to this rhetorical universe, which has reduced attention spans for information required to make life influencing decisions into child-like proportions to the detriment of the nation as a whole. Campaigns being necessary, and rhetoric not, it is clear what focus should be placed upon the decision process. Like in the Dragnet series and movie, "just the facts". Any action being taken on in or around this nation has become a product of this practise of rhetoric. Rhetoric is like any illusion, though. It fades when it comes headlong against truth. Just don't be sitting in rhetoric too high above the ground when truth comes, or you'll crash. Shock, awe, and wonder-weapons, of > course, are not always the answer -- erhaps never. It > seems to me unrealistic to thing that gun control > legislation in the US would in and of itself accomplish > the desired end or reduced deaths from casual, impulsive, > or mad-random acts of violence. That's very true. There is control, and there is control. On the other hand, if the > US were able to reach the point in its understanding where > it was capable of passing and enforcing such legislation, > that might well prove part of an evolutionary social > dynamic which would, in fact, reduce such casual > catastrophes. Probably the key would be to identify with some measure of accuracy the motivations for gun ownership without the rhetoric, and without the reliance on mention of the second amendment. If there was no second amendment, why would someone own a gun? What's the real reason? One might discover that nobody really gives too much deference to the act of defending the nation in their gun purchase. Most people who needed guns in the military don't seem to need them in civilian life. I think the chances of such a development > are, unfortunately, very low. We may, then, in future, > expect to weep again for the slaughter of the innocent > with comparable frequency. Sadly, yes. Unless people as a culture stop giving false arguments for frivolous acts. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: NJC Virginia Tech Shootings - tealcyfre 01:33 am UTC 04/18/07 |
| Next: | re: NJC Virginia Tech Shootings - rockfenris2005 01:36 pm UTC 04/18/07 |
| Thread: |
|