View Single Post
  #65  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:22 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Online)
Profusive Denizen
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 282
Thanks: 3
Thanks 34
Default

It seems to me that there is an implicit dismissal of the western value of the sanctity of life in this continuing spate of massacres and I think its demonstrable by analyzing the last two massacres, Las Vegas and Sutherland. In each case there has been an obviously simple solution to placate proponents of gun control and to give even the illusion of trying to prevent these massacres.

In the case of Las Vegas a bump-stock was employed that de fact converted a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon. Now as much of a gun lover as I am even I confess there is no need to have a fully automatic weapon for civilian use. Its cool at the range yes, but totally outside the scope of anything you would use in life. Automatic weapons for any of you all who dont know are used for suppression. No idiot would ever use the three round burst on an M16, and with those variants of the M4 capable of automatic fire those are used for room clearing. Ammunition conservation is part of what keeps you alive. Even with machine guns say the M249 or the M240 there are equations for how you manage your downrange output and you use those. Theres a method called talking where to maximize suppression two M240s will let off bursts one after the other so as to maintain a constant rate of fire without depleting supplies.

Now all of that can be accomplished with semi-automatic weapons. The idea of fully automatic weapons is not to suppress multiple armed targets, though thats part of it, but to achieve fire superiority. Something that a civilian would neither know nor need to do. Even cops are amateurs when it comes to this so the idea that a civilian without a background in infantry would know anything is beyond belief.

The easy thing to do in a situation like this would be to make the argument above and ban bump-stocks. But while this was given lip service it was ultimately and unsurprisingly dropped. They are at this moment still available. https://www.npr.org/2017/11/07/56250...o-resume-sales

Turning to the Sutherland massacre its stated that mental health is the problem not guns but the department of MHAA is about to suffer a severe budget cut:

https://ctmirror.org/2017/08/01/huma...hout-a-budget/

Now when you couple the refusal to legislate guns or to enforce existing gun laws and you refuse to fund the departments that could help prevent these massacres (which is the common blame) then when spoken to of the sanctity of life my response has much in common to Raskolnikov's outburst towards his sister's suitor. Nonsense! More than the logical conclusion it is in fact the only possible outcome. And since we all accept the outcome what is the implication? What is the implicit admission? Why that we do not value life. All proclamations contrariwise are irrelevant. We believe that the second amendment should be so liberally interpreted, so unfettered that any and all aught be allowed to amass whatever arsenal they so desire to whatever means they desire.

Of course none dare say this. But who truly laments a child drowining in her own blood? Who could even dare claim that it is a tragedy? Their sorrow and loss are meaningless because their lives are meaningless. Less than meaningless even. Contemptuous. From here the slip into solipsism is apparent. Why shouldnt I kill those who impede me? Why shouldnt I kill for the simple joy of the slaughter?

It is no secret that life is sacrificable at the altar of various values but these values must not be contrary to life. The desire for good must not unleash demons yet more horrible in man than those forces which man seeks to secure himself from. The pathway to communism through the perversion of empathy is a perfect example but so to this desire of the individual to protect himself against threats.
Dostoevsky wrote in the Brothers Karamazov that we are all guilty before another and I believe one meaning of this has to do with collective acquiescence. Gun reform could happen overnight if only there were the will to do it. But even those who wish reform, who would sign a petition, march, are as guilty because they do not rail against it with every fiber of their being. But of course how could they? How unrealistic is it to combat each cause with the totality of the self only to move from one to the next. But nevertheless it could be done in a night. In the same way that death is only a heartbeat away.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote