"Doctor, I’ve Had a Schadenboner Since October 1st.
Should I Be Concerned?”
Monday, December 31, 2012
Celebrities Who Demand Gun Bans Sure Seem To Celebrate Gun Violence In Their Movies A Whole Heck of a Lot
FROM ACE OF SPADES:
Hypocrisy?I saw this video last week but wasn't sure what to make of it. The short film here, ridiculing celebrities for pronouncing on gun control while romanticizing gun violence in movies, seemed to be making the same mistake the celebrities were.
That problem is precrime.
I think our society -- any society -- goes off the rails badly when it stops criminalizing criminal acts and instead dabbles in a precrime regime, seeking to criminalize non-blameworthy behavior on the theory that such behavior, while not harmful to others directly, is indirectlyharmful, or is a "root cause" of the ultimately blameworthy behavior.
Making murder by gun a crime is perfectly reasonable. So is making it an extra felony to carry a gun during the commission of a crime.
But actually just owning a gun?
The theory these Big Thinkers work under is that "the crime couldn't happen but for the gun," so they want to eliminate the gun, and not just remove it from the criminal's hand, but to remove it generally, from existence.
But this is a horrible response for two reasons: First, criminals are defined as ignoring the law generally so they really don't care if you make a gun illegal. In the case of the Newtown shooter, the criminal was not deterred by the law that you are forbidden to murder your mother and steal her guns, for example.
Second: And in your attempt to make it slightly more difficult for a small pool of persons to get a gun, you're taking away guns -- and basic rights -- from millions and millions of law-abiding Americans.
People often criticize Hollywood, too, for celebrating gun violence -- and thus, the theory goes, making it more likely that some lonely, unloved loser will see The Gun (capital letters intended) as a totem, as a Symbol, as a vehicle for giving him power over others which he doesn't otherwise have.
That's actually... true. And yet I still flinch from the idea of taking away another Amendment right (the first, of course) simply because of the indirect and tenuous link that violent, gun-crazy movies might have on a violent, gun-crazy viewer.
Some things may in fact be indirect contributing factors to an ultimate harm, but we do not generally criminalize indirect contributing factors for a simple reason: Virtually everything we do that is not useful work, sex for reproductive purposes, childraising, and church-going is an indirect contributing factor to some social or criminal evil.
Alcohol causes a great deal of violence and death that probably wouldn't happen in its absence -- drunk driving deaths, the hand that balls into a fist and strikes the head in a flare of vodka-fueled anger, the gun that sneaks out from a pocket in an inebriated fury.
All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
"“I think terror is up worldwide, the statistics indicate that, the fatalities are way up. The numbers are way up. There are new bombs, very big bombs, trucks being reinforced for those bombs. There are bombs that go through magnatometers. The bomb maker is still alive. There are more groups that ever and there’s huge malevolence out there.”"
--- Dianne Feinstein, on CNN
"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field," explained Ayatollah Khomeini. "There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."
"I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't." ~~~~~Bono~~~~~