Voodoo in the 21st Century: Evil Guns and Other Absurd Notions

Permalink | Print

A recurring theme in western journalism, academia, and collectivist politics is the quaint notion that firearms are intrinsically evil. That is, that they have a will of their own, that somehow inspires their owners to murder and mayhem. I liken this nonsensical belief to voodoo.

The "guns are evil" viewpoint was encapsulated by social psychologist Leonard Berkowitz when he wrote: “Guns not only permit violence, they can stimulate it as well. The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger may also be pulling the finger.” I am astounded that something like that can be earnestly said or written in modern times, and not immediately get shouted down. This statement betrays an outlook that is not much different than that of a practitioner of Voodoo. And to see this espoused by some with a nomen appendage like "Ph.D." makes it even more absurd. (Leonard Berkowitz was awarded a Ph.D. in social psychology from the University of Michigan in 1951. But apparently U. of M.'s doctoral program did not include courses in logic. And his study of what he called "the weapons effect" was conducted quite unscientifically.) Just imagine if he or one of his academic cohort were to proclaim: "Typewriters not only permit libel, they can stimulate it as well. The fingers tap the keys, but the keys may also be pulling the finger toward the keyboard by an unseen force, stimulating libel.” Any psychologist who trots out such nonsense needs to consult a psychiatrist.

I have a few questions for Dr. Berkowitz and his peers:

1.) What is the mechanical difference between a "target pistol" and a "murder weapon"?

2.) What is a "Nazi Luger"? Can a Luger pistol join the National Socialist party, and share their hatred of perceived Untermenschen and wish to exterminate them? By the same token, what is a "Communist AK-47"?

3.) How many people have been killed by guns without someone physically pulling the trigger? And in any very rare exception to the norm, was it a mechanical defect or negligent handling at fault, or did the gun really wish to do harm and "go off by itself."?

4.) Why have gun makers been sued for wrongful death because of murders committed with their products? (If a gun does indeed consistently fire a bullet at high velocity when the safety mechanism is disengaged and the trigger is pulled, then isn't that device working just as designed?)

5.) What, pray tell, is the distinguishing characteristics of an "assault" rifle, and what differentiates it from a "hunting" rifle? Does the attachment of a black plastic buttstock make a gun in any way more wicked, murderous, or bent on assault than attaching a pretty wooden stock?

6.) Is a magazine capacity of 16 rounds inherently more evil, criminal or sinister than a capacity of 15 rounds? (This was threshold that the geniuses in the Colorado legislature recently declared, complete with jail term penalties. OBTW, Canada set the threshold of evil at a mere five rounds, for semiautomatic long guns.)

Let step back and look at these tools logically and dispassionately: A firearm cartridge can be thought of as a simple single-use internal combustion engine, with a piston that does not reciprocate. Instead, it takes a one-way flight. The engine housing is a brass cartridge case, and the "vehicle" is the entire gun. The pistons as are called bullets. The fuel for these engines (gunpowder) creates the expanding gasses that drive the pistons. Cartridge firearms are compact vehicles for change that have shaped modern history. The righteousness of their use is entirely up to their users, since like any other tool they can be used both for good or for ill.  A firearm is just a tool with no volition. A rifle is no different than a claw hammer. To wit: A hammer can be used to build a house, or it can be used to bash in someone’s skull—the choice of uses is entirely up to the owner.  A bulldozer can be used to build roads, or to destroy houses. A rifle can be used to drill holes in paper targets, or to dispatch a marauding bear, or to murder your fellow man. Again, the choice of uses is entirely up to the user. But, alas, even though it is the 21st Century, we are still dealing with voodoo-like superstition. If you get angry or drunk and you then use your Chrysler car to run over a neighbor's child, should your neighbor then launch an organization called "The Coalition to Ban Chryslers," to punish all Chrysler owners?

I am also opposed to all so-called “gun control” laws because they are a form of prior restraint. The gun grabbers presuppose ill-intent on the part of law-abiding citizens and even the guns themselves. I find these laws akin to the concept of “pre-crime”—a term coined by science fiction novelist Phillip K. Dick, in his novel Minority Report. (It was later turned into a movie, starring Tom Cruise.)

If a firearm is used by a criminal or psychopath with evil intentions, then it is a tool for evil. But if it is used for good (to defend life and property), then it is a tool for good. A firearm by itself has no sentience, no volition, no moral force, and no politics. The proper term for this is an adiaphorous object--something that is neither good nor evil. A firearm is simply a cleverly-designed construction of metal, wood, and plastic in the form of a precision tool. Granted, a firearms magnifies the reach of a man's volition. But so does a long bow, and so does a telephone and the Internet. But to deride the tool itself instead of someone who abuses it is profoundly illogical and superstitious.

So why do they disparage the tool and not the one who wrongly wields it? Why isn't gasoline seen as evil, since Julio Gonzalez used it to kill 87 people at the Happy Land Club in his murderous arson, in 1990? And why aren't there calls to ban nitrogen fertilizer, since Timothy McVeigh used it to kill 168 people in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995? And shouldn't Boeing brand jet aircraft be banned, since they were used to take nearly 3,000 innocent lives on September 11, 2001? And aren't pressure cookers now the weapon of choice of Islamic terrorists?

Ever since the invention accurate rifled firearms, the course of human history has been set by the men who wield them. For someone to exclude themselves or seek to disenfranchise others from owning or carrying them is the most absurdly illogical and downright suicidal attitude imaginable. It is obvious that so-called "Gun Control" laws have nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns, since criminals ignore all laws, by definition. Only honest, law-abiding citizens obey these laws. Rather, these laws are just about control--namely people control. Dictators cannot dictate unless they have unarmed subjects.

Here it is, in quintessence: You are either a man with a gun, or you are mere human cattle for the slaughter. The choice is yours. I prefer to be armed and vigilant rather than being at the mercy of some would-be slave master. There is no notch in my ear.

Because they are such useful tools, our founding fathers recognized the great importance of safeguarding our ownership, carry, and free use of arms. Like the printing press, they were specifically protected by the Bill of Rights. These enumerated rights should be taken at face value and not misconstrued. The Second Amendment is about protecting your right to go deer hunting the same way that the First Amendment is about protecting your right to publish poetry.

Conclusion
Please speak up when you see someone preaching voodoo gun hatred. Violence involving firearms is actually down 39% in the U.S. since 1993. But anti-gun rhetoric has recently been increasing. All of the "evil gun" talk is nothing more than an unfounded irrational fear and loathing that has no place in a modern society that recognizes facts and logic. Anyone who engages in this rhetoric should be immediately suspect. Odds are that they are halophantae with a hidden agenda. While they rail against an inanimate tool, I suspect that they are actually plotting against the liberty of a group of people with whom they disagree. They want to disarm you, so that they (or their hired armed thugs) will have a monopoly on force. And if the history of the 20th century taught us anything, it is that a monopoly on force inevitably leads to genocide. - JWR

All Content on This Web Site Copyright 2005-2013 All Rights Reserved - James Wesley, Rawles - SurvivalBlog.com

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jim Rawles published on May 13, 2013 12:17 AM.

On Diabetes, and Thinking Outside the Box, by Dr. Cynthia J. Koelker was the previous entry in this blog.

Notes from JWR: is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Monthly Archives

Visitor Map

Map

Statistics

counter customisable
Unique visits since July 2005. More than 300,000 unique visits per week.