Why Gun Laws Won’t Prevent Mass Killings
Blaming guns for mass murders has almost become a ritual in the USA. It seems that every such event, like the Aurora shooting and the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting is used as an example by “gun control advocates” to show people how banning private ownership of guns is a “good” idea. Except that their arguments for “gun control” don’t explain a lot of what happens in reality.
The idea that privately owned guns are an efficient method to kill lost of people does not stand up to basic scrutiny.
Let us remember that the most spectacular attacks by individuals or small groups in recent history used unconventional methods such as passenger planes, improvised explosive devices and homebrewed explosives. Then there is the whole other issue of guns obtained through illegal means, as seen in the large-scale drug wars occurring in Mexico since 2007.
It seems that individuals and groups with the motivation to kill lots of people will find ways to do it.
Now some “gun control” advocates might say.. look at West-European countries and places like Japan- which have strict gun control laws and very low levels of violence. I would argue that the very low levels of violence in those societies are due to a socialistic state which does a pretty good job of keeping people from falling through the cracks. Countries with very low levels of violence and crime also tend to be far more egalitarian, at least as far as incomes are concerned, than countries such as the USA. They are also far more likely to tolerate prostitution, drug use and generally let people have a decent life.
The USA has frequent mass killings and a high rate of murder precisely because it is functionally a third world banana republic dressed up as a first world developed country.
When most people think of a third world banana republics (TWBRs), they visualize a place full of poor brown or black people run by kleptocrats dependent on a few major sources of income. But that image does not tell us much about how such entities operate and function. Let us first clear some misconceptions..
TWBRs are not full of poor people because they lack the resources or human capital to become affluent societies. They are so because kelptocrats in control of that society steal all the wealth produced by its people using state-funded coercion, usually to enrich themselves and their corporate friends. People who are robbed respond by producing the bare-minimum necessary to keep them going. Furthermore, they do not trust the government or any institutions as they were widely seen as corrupt and deceptive. Since the 1980s, USA has progressively become a TWBR. While there were many reasons and interests behind this shift, the end result is not that different from that seen in other TWBRs.
One of the defining features of TWBR-ization is that human life becomes cheap and while the fish does indeed start rotting from the head, eventually all sections of society adopt that attitude.
Therefore, such societies are characterized by high levels of interpersonal violence.While the elite-run institutions can initially control such violence, they gradually become less effective in doing so for a variety of reasons that I will not get into right now. Towards the end the whole society becomes ungovernable and even the well guarded elite-enclaves are no longer safe. There is a reason why most kings, emperors and warlords throughout human history died of “unnatural” causes.
Attempts to control the legal ownership of guns are superficial “do something” acts which so not address the underlying causes of the malady. The reality is that there is really no way a failing society can stop such acts. Do you really think that people who have nothing to lose will follow laws and regulations? Do you think they won’t get firearms through extra-legal channels? Do you think a failing government can control the system? Do you think James Holmes would have done less damage with a couple dozen Molotov cocktails and a few matches in a crowded theater? Are you going to regulate gasoline usage next?
The only way to effectively reduce the incidence of mass killings is through the creation of a socio-economic system which treats people with a basic level of human dignity.
But I don’t think that will happen. The whole modus operandi of the USA as a society has been to abuse, steal and murder others to get rich and impoverish those who survive. For a long time, they mostly did it to outsiders and minorities, but they eventually ran out of them as far as profit is concerned. That is when they turned to (and on) each other. While it looked fairly harmless in the beginning (early 1980s), things have got progressively worse with every passing year. The reality is human beings, especially the so-called clever ones, are too short-sighted to appreciate the effects of their own actions.
What do you think? Comments?