Friday, December 28, 2012

The Folly of Disarming Evil

The liberalist war on guns, presently in high gear in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre, appears to this cheap-seat commenter to be borne of the left's profoundly naive conceptualization of humanity.  To the liberalist, man is perfectable, and can be shaped toward good and away from evil (that is, if liberalists, some of whom consider themselves "beyond good and evil", can even recognize evil in the first place) if given the correct environment and upbringing. This view clashes violently with that of monotheists of an Abrahamic bent, who recognize that man in his natural state is wicked through-and-through.

This helps explain the present left-right divide on gun control.  The liberalist thinks that disarming evil--or, applied to the gun control question, at least making it really really really hard for evil to have access to firearms--will then deny evil the ability to harm. Evil people are still people however, and homo sapiens being (a) inclined to use tools, (b) adaptive and creative, and (c) don't really deal well with being told "no", well, they'll merely use another implement to do their deeds.  Thus I read with not a bit of surprise that doctors in the UK had called for a ban sharp kitchen knives.  This was back in 2005, mind you:
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
 A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.  They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.  The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.  
 They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.  None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.  The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.  In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon". 
 The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.  The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.
The interesting thing about this article is just how similar the "ban the pointy kitchen knife" rhetoric is to the "ban the black/scary looking gun" rhetoric.  Plus ca change. It is also suggestive that when/if the gun-banners get their way, and all civilian firearm ownership is prohibited, the nannies' logic will compel them to move down their hit list to the next most popular class of weapons. After all, merely taking tools away from evil doesn't change the evil hearts of men; with evil left to its own devices, it will merely switch the tools that it uses.

And that brings me to my next point: we don't have a tools problem in America, we have a culture / values / morality problem in America.  We abhor the evil that killed 20 children and 27 adults in Newtown, yet we collectively condone and even defend and advocate a culture of barbaric violence.  As NRA President Mr. LaPierre noted in a post-Sandy Hook press conference, a culture of death is the terrible result: 
Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found it?
 Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."
 But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?
 In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.
 A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.
We promote and defend murderous violence as entertainment. We feast on death and mayhem and misery; we snack on it as if it were Ritz crackers. That in and of itself is monstrous. What's far worse is the systematic rubbing out of life deemed inconvenient.  Yes, I am talking about abortion, a singular evil borne of malice, rationalization, and selfish solipsism, an evil which has killed over 54M children since 1973.  The euphemism for this national and worldwide holocaust is "women's choice", while the slaughter of 20 equally innocent children by a lone tipped-over mentally ill male is rightfully called senseless murder. The latter is decried by all, while the former only by a small band of radical activists...thus providing support to the maxim "kill one, they call you a murderer. Kill millions, they call you a conqueror".

Liberalist mouthpieces attempt to Alinsky the NRA (i.e., freeze it, personalize it, polarize it)  for its protection of private ownership of firearms, itself a named Constitutional right, perhaps conservative types should in turn "Alinsky" Planned Parenthood for its commercial promotion of unlimited in-utero baby killing, itself a right nowadays but one that was discovered 200 years after the Constitution was written, hidden under one of the Founders' penumbras. an emanation of liberalist fever swamp rationalizing logic.  Thus I find myself in near-total agreement with columnist Jeffrey Lord over at the American Spectator, when he wrote:
“The horrifying truth is this: we live now in a culture that not only does not respect life, but discards it like trash — not only at the beginning of life, but also at the end, and every place in between.
“What has happened to us?”
— Catholic Deacon Greg Kandra
October 2, 2011
Discards life like trash.
One does not have to be a Catholic, which I am not, to appreciate the irony today in the words above from over a year ago by a Catholic Deacon named Greg Kandra. (You can find the full text of Deacon Kandra’s remarks here.)  
From 1863 until 1972 — the last year before Roe v. Wade — in all those 109 years there were 36 mass murder rampages, and that’s before one adds in school shootings of the kind that went on in Newton this last week.  Since 1973, and Roe v. Wade was decided in January of that year, there have been a shocking 54 rampages. Which is to say there have been 54 of these things in the mere 39 years since Roe v. Wade.  And as mentioned that doesn’t count the school massacres in the U.S. Counting Newtown there have been 5. Before 1973 there was one in 1927 Michigan (where the killer used not bullets but dynamite) and another at the University of Texas in 1966. Since 1973 there have been three — Newtown, Columbine, and Virginia Tech.  Which is to say in all of the recorded American history of school massacres from the time records were first kept, until 1973 — there were but two instances of this. Since 1973, in a mere 39 years there have been three.
Times columnist Charles Blow — again without the slightest sense of irony — talks about “A Tragedy of Silence” while quoting the leftist Mother Jones magazine about all the mass shootings that magazine has counted (their number is 61) “over the last 30 years.” Meaning columnist Blow makes the point without even realizing he has made it: those mass shooting have occurred in the world created by Roe v. Wade 39 years ago. 
The millions of dead babies are unseen, their dismembered corpses disposed of in refuse bins, far away from the public eye. Abortion profiteers fight tooth and nail to keep these images hidden  Moreover, aborted babies lack names, cute pictures, or memorial services.  Yet those same babies, six years on, suddenly have value.  Perhaps this is the reason why...the deaths occur out of sight, tucked away in sanitary abortion mills, covered by the veneer of medical science.

Liberalists fancy themselves the party of science.  It's a shame no one has bothered to investigate the suspicious correlation between the nationalization of abortion via Roe and the precipitous decay of a culture that not only accepts but is entertained by homicidal mayhem.  Would it be that they would be mortified by death and murder rather than amused by it.


wanderling said...

Tl;dr other than ive yet to see a military grade knife capable of taking out hundreds of people within minutes, but im sure that must be what u are talking about, apples to apples n'all.

wanderling said...

Violent video games and easy access to drugs and military grade weapons or abortion? oh of course, abortion, because that's something only women do. Your county has also had a few wars since the seventies, is that also due to the influence of abortion?

The Observer said...

Savn waited, but Vlad made no answer to this. Savn said, "why do you hate him so much, anyway?"

Vlad's widened nostrils flared. When he spoke, his voice was almost normal. "He's a necromancer. He works with souls. When he needs one, he takes it, and does what he will; he believes it's his inalienable right to do just that with a being he thinks lesser than himself. When he has no need of a soul, he does it anyway just because he can. Do you understand what I'm saying? Does that mean anything to you? Would you like it if your life was snuffed out one day, with no warning, and for no crime, just because someone found it convenient to do so? What sort of person does that, Savn?"

Then he fell back, and he seemed to fall asleep at once.

- Athrya, Steven Brust.

Dexter said...

You are giving liberals credit for good intentions. Don't. Their intentions are not good. This is not about the perfectibility of man.

The liberalist thinks that disarming evil--or, applied to the gun control question, at least making it really really really hard for evil to have access to firearms--will then deny evil the ability to harm.

This is actually true, but not in the way you mean it -- if you mean the liberals are trying to disarm the people we consider evil (vicious felons). The "evil" they are trying to disarm is us -- straight white Christian males. And they get a kick out of tormenting us, and thus even if they had no other nefarious plan beyond disarming us, they would do it just to stick a finger in our collective eye.

empathological said...

Now you've done it....Ritz crackers as an evil snack.

I am coming for you....

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Dexter,

Overall, your critique is a fair one.

While the theoretical problem with liberalism is its focus on man's perfectability (vs Christianity's doctrine of depravity), the issue at hand with liberalism, in its modern Marxist-Gramscian variant and in this context, is that is energized by hatred of the "other".

In the late 19th and early 20th century, liberalism hated the Jew. In the late 20th and early 21st century, liberalism hates the white male.

We haven't "progressed" at all, the target of our societal bigotry has merely shifted.

Moreover, this latest election cycle merely confirmed its deep seething hatred of the pale Christian male, even as the entire welfare-warfare state depended upon extracting the fruits of his labors.

In the end, I think gun control stems from overempowered sentimentality, and a belief in man's perfectability. It is enabled and accelerated by the fact that white Christian males are the most readily identifiable legitimate gun-owning group. No one cares about infringing the rights of the designated oppressor.

Lee said...

As a red pill atheist, I'm a little confused as to why you, and other christians, are against the choice to abort.

I certainly understand your moral campaign against evil, and evil behavior, but my understanding of Christian theology is that choice is rather central to morality. It seems to me that the proper response to Roe v. Wade is not to campaign against the ability to choose to abort, but the individual choice to abort. Should you, and other Christians, make it your business to discourage abortion, rather than discouraging access to abortion?

Dexter said...

"choice is rather central to morality"

The ability to choose evil always exists, but this does not mean that evil choices should be morally or legally sanctioned. Do you think, for example, that there should be no laws against murder, robbery, or crime of any kind simply because everyone can, by their own free choice, commit evil acts? Should Christians campaign against murder laws - which restrict free choice! - and only oppose the individual choice to murder people? Obviously not.

Should you, and other Christians, make it your business to discourage abortion, rather than discouraging access to abortion?

If Christians believe abortion is a mortal sin, then they should do both.

Elusive Wapiti said...

" understanding of Christian theology is that choice is rather central to morality. "

Please clarify. Do you mean that the choice in an of itself is what makes an act moral?