Gun Control – Again
P. Schultz
March 16, 2013
OK. First,
there is below a video of some guy named Bill Whittle, who does something
called “the virtual presidency,” where he addresses issues of current
importance as if he were president. Then, below that is my “analysis” which was
requested by a friend with whom I shared a street in Metuchen, New Jersey, when
we were both much younger. Enjoy.
My
“analysis”:
My take on Bill Whittle is that (a) he is rather cute and (b) he
makes his case like any lawyer would make it, amassing all the
"evidence" he can to support his position, which was arrived at
independently of his or any evidence. This way of proceeding is all so common
today that almost nobody notices it anymore. People use evidence not to arrive
at conclusions but to support conclusions they have already arrived at.
I really don't care much about "gun control." I think such
legislation is "feel good legislation," which also has the
consequence of disguising from ourselves that we are a violent people, i.e., a
people who buy into violence readily [and are encouraged in this
"way" by those with the power]. Of course, Whittle's remarks have the
same result: to disguise who we are by talking about guns as a "policy
wonk" does. And because these policies are not addressed to the underlying
issues, they are bound to fail, which is perfectly consistent with the wishes
of our political class [by which I mean the establishment democrats and
republicans, both our alleged "liberals" and
"conservatives"] who don't mind and, in fact, are served by
"failure." [Failure makes us, ordinary people, devalue or dismiss
politics and, hence, the possibility of real political change. What we have is
"the best we can do."]
One of my favored books is No Country For Old Men, by Cormac
McCarthy. In it, a sensible sheriff, sheriff Bell, wonders about this country a
lot. At one point he says something like: "Good people don't need to be
governed. And bad people cannot be governed at all. At least, if they can, I
ain't never heard of it."
From where I sit, we live in a world of illusions: E.g., some
believing that guns cannot protect us or others believing that guns can protect
us. Then we argue over these illusions as if they were real. Meanwhile, the
real issues go unaddressed. Another example from No Country for Old Men.
Sheriff Bell is talking with another sheriff about drugs. The other sheriff
says something like: "Things are really bad. They is selling those drugs
to school kids." Sheriff Bell says: "It's worse than that."
Other sheriff: "How's that?" Bell: "School kids are buyin'
'em."
And, of course, the question is "Why?" That is, why are
school kids buying those drugs? We know why the sellers are selling, profit.
It's just business. But why are school kids - or wealthy and successful people
- buying those drugs? This is a harder question to answer and, hence,
"policy wonks" and politicians don't want to address it. [And
perhaps we don't either as it makes us uncomfortable.]
We had guns at 37 Upland Ave. But we did not think of those guns as
any kind of "statement" or that we were protecting ourselves from
"tyranny" or from criminals. We used them to hunt. Today, on both
sides of this alleged "divide," guns have been given a
"status," a social status - either as harbingers of death or of
protection - altogether unheard of then. Guns are guns is all. You have them or
you don't. They might protect you or they might kill or injure you. That's it
for me. This debate is, for me, a distraction, one that serves the reigning
political class - it helps to keep it in power - without changing much at all.
It is just another version of our politics of smoke and mirrors.
Peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment