Some politicians and almost all of the mass media think we’re all stupid, and the pollsters often prove the case.  Mass murder is a serious problem that rips at the very sense of reason and humanity.  There are a few truly wonderful people out there and a few truly horrible ones as well.

In some cultures the premise is to fix the problem, a kind of social contract of mutual survival.  The idea goes far in economics and close up governing.  Problems get looked at coolly and calmly with the motivation to solve the matter and get on with life.

Some other cultures instantly set out to fix the blame, a knee jerk reaction that’s emotionally satisfying and highly stimulating.  A problem is up rated to a crisis and the motives can be hidden in emotions for promoting special interests and power.

Mental Disorders Graphic.  Image Courtesy: healthyplace.com  Visit the site for much more information.

Mental Disorders Graphic. Image Courtesy: healthyplace.com Visit the site for much more information.

So let’s beg the proper question.  Do we seek to end mass murder or seek to control guns?  Really, just what is it that the politicians and the mass media want to do?  Factually, it doesn’t look like an effort to reduce mass murder and that is a devaluation to the lives lost, an insult to the survivors and loved ones and a warning of manipulation for the rest of us.

Sample Assault Rifles With Their Catchy Look.  Click image for the largest view.

Sample Assault Rifles With Their Catchy Look. Click image for the largest view.

It may be too much to hope for, but we’re way down the path to more gun control and nothing is being said or done about reducing mass murder events to fix the actual problem.  America has gone blame mad, and many more deaths and horrific events are going to come, anyway.

A cool calm look at America would see a nation gone off the rails.  The leadership, a brave term, isn’t leading at all, its making sure this crises is not going to waste, taking advantage of the horror to promote their agenda.  It’s a sickening display of: raw cynicism – “an attitude or state of mind characterized by a general distrust of others’ apparent motives or ambitions, or a general lack of faith or hope in the human race or in individuals with desires, hopes, opinions, or personal tastes that the [leadership and mass media] perceives as unrealistic or inappropriate.”

Your humble writer suggests we now have TWO PROBLEMS.  We have too many mass murderers running loose and a culture that can’t focus on working on the problem.

Gun control is a “wild goose chase” or child’s “snipe hunt” to be vernacular about it.  Factually, its misdirection, a lie, its an attempt to fool us, again.

The basic facts are quite uncomfortable. Mental health care in America is a disaster.  We’ll pour hundreds of billions of dollars each year worth of our energy, work and treasure into physical health recovery that is off times due to poor choices. And we leave millions of mentally challenged, who cannot make mentally normal choices at all, bereft of our aid and comfort.

It isn’t any wonder there are mass murderers out there that will destroy a few of us before they destroy themselves.

If you think along these lines and agree, please pass this post along.  Its time the political class and mass media discover we’re not all lost in the woods listening for them to lead us out into the gun controlled mass murder zone.  We have better things to do than waste our energy, resources and time on spilling ink, pushng electrons and filling the skies with electromagnetic radiation on missing the target.


Comments

10 Comments so far

  1. Graham on January 10, 2013 4:09 AM

    Did I miss the “New Energy & Fuel” content here? I hope this post doesn’t open up a whole rats nest of flaming diverse opinions that would have been more appropriately voiced elsewhere. I’d be happier for the posts to stay on topic. As you’ve opined many times, science and politics are uncomfortable bed-fellows.

  2. Matt Musson on January 10, 2013 7:24 AM

    The 2nd Amendment does not grant Americans the right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The right is part of the inablienable rights that a person is born with – and not granted in Constitution.

    While this post is off topic, it was not our host who raised the subject. That responsiblity lies squarely on the shoulders of the Media and the Big Brother Politicians.

  3. Al Fin on January 10, 2013 9:43 AM

    The US has kept Canada, Australia, the UK, Europe, and much of the rest of the world free from tyrants for over 100 years. It didn’t happen by accident.

    It is all related, Graham. The US Constitution has protected the rights of US citizens against a willful central government, for almost 250 years. The right to free speech is related to the right to bear arms — just ask Hitler or Stalin, who were much like Obama in their gun-seizing proclivities.

    The ability to speak freely about energy is related to the ability to speak freely about any topic.

  4. Brian Westenhaus on January 10, 2013 10:25 AM

    Thanks Graham!
    The post today is based in resentment – finding something about energy and fuels for a topic to write about was behind the hysteria wall on gun control – which misses the problem. The waste just starts with electrons, radiation and ink, the time and misdirection applied is a spectacular waste. We need to impress on the elected to be at work on the problem rather than making position statements and sound bite blames for the news.
    Once in a while we better let them know some of us are intelligent enough to see past their crap.

    BW

  5. Fibber McGourlick on January 10, 2013 7:12 PM

    Look at gun death statistics in England where there is rational gun control.

  6. Benjamin Cole on January 11, 2013 12:28 AM

    Well, nuclear bombs do not kill people, people kill people.

    Should we try to change North Korean and Iranian behavior, or make sure the hell they never get the nukes?

    Another question: Firearms are getting better and better and more and more powerful. Suppose a laser-gun is perfected.

    Now a guy can go to a Dodger game and slice up a few thousand people. Still no gun control?

    At what point do we say, enough is enough?

    I think there is a legitimate concern about rapidly repeating firearms with large magazines.

    Third observation: Actually, I support the 2nd amendment, but all the away: Our Founding Fathers detested, loathed and reviled standing militaries, and wanted citizen militias to be the backbone of our national security.

    The Constitution even allows for Congress to fund “militias.”

    In the Cold War, the idea of a hyper-mobilized US military, non-citizen volunteer, became the norm. But a perverted norm, and not one envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

    We spend $1 trillion a year on three federal agencies: Defense, VA and Homeland Security.

    It is a perversion of the vision of our Found Fathers.

  7. Al Fin on January 11, 2013 11:33 AM

    One can go to a Dodger game and slice up hundreds with a sword, if he is handy enough. Swords are quiet, unlike firearms, and allow for the stealthy killing of large numbers before the alarm goes out.

    The logic of the US Constitution began to break down as soon as the founders compromised for the slave states. The logic of the founding documents has been eroded steadily ever since.

    All the more reason not to pass laws and declare executive orders which have the effect of further weakening citizens and communities with respect to the central government, and its standing defense monstrosity.

    Nanotechnology will probably facilitate relatively cheap hand-held nuclear weapons of the tactical sort, some designed for blast effects, some designed for EMP effect, some designed as dirty bombs, and some designed as anti-personnel particle weapons.

    Best to look at these things practically, in terms of what government can do and what it can’t. When government attempts to go against its original mandate (or all limits of decency) too far, the people have a tendency to rise up.

  8. Benjamin Cole on January 11, 2013 11:46 PM

    Al Fin-

    A very handy person might be able to inflict quite a bit of mayhem with a sword (especially if ninja movies are any clue) but I am talking about a laser gun that slices people in half. Easily. From a distance.

    So, maybe a few thousand people are killed at Chavez Ravine. A guy with a sword, I imagine, would have a hard time past 20 or 30. He would have to take a break between innings with all that arm action. Call in a help-killer from the bullpen.

    There is a question about how powerful guns get before they no longer resemble the guns of our Founding Fathers.

    Is nerve gas an “arm”? Do I have the right to bear arms, including nerve gas? Would you want your neighbor, who looks a little kooky, to store nerve gas?

    Interesting questions–but at least we agree that the federal government, civil and military, has become a parasitic coprolitic monster.

  9. Al Fin on January 12, 2013 4:37 AM

    The “2nd amendment” intent of the founders appears to have been to allow individuals, groups, and communities to defend against the arbitrary use of force by elected rulers — people who could presumably be voted out of office in the next election.

    With the coming of a professional “standing bureaucracy” — something perhaps even more dangerous than a standing army — governments cannot be so easily voted out of power, but seem to have acquired a form of rotting immortality.

    Nothing — not even personal atomic weapons — can protect individuals or communities from the arbitrary exercise of power by such self-bloating tools of permanent power structures.

    As for the arguments over offensive weapons for killing hundreds of thousands of people at a pop, that would be a variant of the red herring in the context of this discussion.

    If an argument about one shot per trigger pull firearms can be instantly transformed into an argument about kooky neighbors storing nerve gas in their basements, then I suppose everything is allowed in this argument?

    It’s okay to use such devices in internet arguments, for fun, but it is best to avoid depending upon them in one’s own thinking. They provide a false and lazy sense of logical validity.

  10. Benjamin Cole on January 13, 2013 1:25 AM

    Al fin-

    Well, the Constitution protects the “right to bear arms.” The nature of those arms is not specified. There is no “black letter law” pertaining to the nature of those arms.

    Back then (17890 there were no repeating weapons, and no nerve gas, and no RPGs (great weapons btw, can take out our best tanks. Guys on motorcycles scare out tanks).

    So, what is the definition of an “arm” that is protected by the Constitution?

    That said, I agree with you that the federal government has become a paretic, coprolitic monster, civilian and military.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind