Blaming something else is a tool for social control

This is the asshole from the NRA who tried to use video games as a scapegoat for violence. Just as pathetic as progressive gun control advocates.

Ever heard all those random arguments that try to blame something else and emphasize less importance on the actual culprit or his actions? Religious nuts claim that crime and gun violence happen because of “sin”. Progressive anti-gun advocates try to blame guns themselves, rather than bad gun owners, and try to act as though responsible gun owners do not exist. Social conservatives and the NRA have tried to use video games and violent media as a scapegoat and try to attribute them to all of society’s problems. And still others blame the culprit’s parents, lifestyle, religion, or state of mind, all forgetting that the culprit and his/her actions are more important.

The reason? Everyone wants to blame something else because they delude themselves into thinking that it will solve the problem forever. The same reason that people would blame something else instead of taking responsibility for their own actions and choices. People try to have us believe that something causes you to act the way you act, instead of pinning responsibility on the culprit. The sad thing is it’s easy, especially if the culprit decides to evade justice and retribution by killing him(or her)self.

This rampant blaming also justifies administering social control, in part due to the belief that doing so will resolve the problem, when in actuality will only succeed in punishing the innocent. And that just won’t stand. Whenever politicians participate in this blame game, you just know they’re trying to push an agenda of social control. When religious nuts do it, you know they’re just trying to push their religious views on everyone. When normal people do it, they’re just being stupid.

The sooner we realize that the actions and the individual responsibility of the culprit are more important, the better.

Don’t delude yourself, we still need arms

Now that’s one fine array of guns.

With the recent shooting in Conneticut, which I agree is tragic, everone’s now going up and arms about “tighter gun control” or “taking away our guns”, even though the killer is now dead. Media all over the world is covering this, and some outlets won’t stop ranting about guns in America. By now, opportunists are shamelessly attempting to politicize this event. And this is nothing new. This stuff has happened before in America, and now it’s happening again. And just like the last school shooting, it’s stringing up debates about gun control and testing America’s values. My worry is that America will become a less free place as a result. If you remember Columbine, then you’ll also remember all the fear and paranoia that followed, all the worrying and scurrying about gun control, all the petty opportunists (left and right) seeking to take advantage of and even capitalize on the tragedy, and the internal attacks on American ideas of freedom. After Columbine, there was a time when you couldn’t go to school without being screened through a metal detector, as though you were going through customs. Kids would get busted for freely wearing certain clothes, posing hands like a pretend gun, possibly playing cowboys and indians or other childhood games, or even raising a freaking chicken drumstick in the air.

Anyone who would have heard of this would probably want to see guns gone from the land as a result. But slow down. Let’s not be so knee-jerk about this. Before you delude yourself, let’s remind you why we need something to defend ourselves, and our freedom.

If there’s one thing that helps dictatorships and authoritarian or totalitarian societies survive, it’s the fact the people living in them can’t defend themselves from their oppression. Take away your right and ability to defend yourself, and anyone can walk all over you, including tyrants. Without being able to flex our arms, we can’t fight back. And don’t tell me about the Arab Spring, about how all of it consists of peaceful protests. They probably started peacefully, but when the tyrants started spraying lead on them, you know peaceful protest ain’t gonna cut it if you want to oppose them. Sooner or later, the rebels had to start getting their hands dirty. It happened in Libya and it’s happening in Syria, and in Libya, it got Gaddafi killed. If you want proof that having arms helps you in case of tyranny, refer to Libya, and what happened there.

In America, there’s the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which declares that you have the right to bear arms. Why? Because without it, you wouldn’t be able to resist tyranny. By contrast, in the UK, gun laws are so strict, you have to do a lot of paperwork to own a gun, and look: you can barely defend yourself against criminals or gun-wielding maniacs. Imagine if a tyrant like, say, Bashar al-Assad (or Bashar al-Asshat as I like to call him) came to Britain and began his campaign of oppression. You could barely defend yourself against him. In other words, you’re screwed.

To conclude, I don’t condone what these school shooters do, but I think that without the right to bear arms, what are you gonna do to defend yourself against, well, anything that tries to come kill you, or tyrants. Without guns, tyrants would roam unopposed.