spyderco monkey
04-03-2009, 08:01 PM
I sent this in as a response to some of the crazy posts I read on the NYTimes in regards to the NY rampage. Here's a link to those comments;very disturbing call for gun bans, taxes, anti-NRA ect.
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/04/04/nyregion/04hostage.html?s=2
I became incensed, put down my much needed chores for today, and wrote a 3000 word essay in response. Hope it sounds as good to you as it sounded in my head.
This is a tragedy, and I feel very sorry for the victims. Imagining the sheer mechanics of the horror they endured makes me sick to my stomach.
At times like this, it is easy to let our emotions cloud our judgments, and we are all eager to blame some one or something for this tragedy. In this rush to blame, fueled by our rage and despair at another tragic loss of life, it is easy to loose sight of practical realities.
I for one would like to interject some calm, rational perspective into any "causes" or "solutions" to this problem, and I encourage everyone to do the same. We all have our personal biases and beliefs, but we should not let our ideology's prevent us from tackling this issue in a logical and effective manner.
To begin with, I would like to explain my personal bias toward the situation, so that you can understand where I am coming from. I believe that any sensible debate should take into account both the biases and backgrounds of those debating.
Therefore, I would like to preface my argument/ thesis with a bit of my background. I’m a child of the 90’s, currently a college student, and a gun owner. I own pistols, rifles, and shotguns for recreational target shooting, which I find a rewarding hobby, akin to playing darts and setting off fireworks at the same time. I also have them for self-defense, because my various hometowns (Philadelphia, Oakland) are rife with drugs and violence, as is our society as a whole. In general, I take my hobby very seriously, with a strong emphasis on safety and responsibility.
My other hobbies include ballroom dancing, playing airsoft and paintball, working on my tan, reading history, dressing snazzy, and using terrible pun’s whenever possible. I also love the New York Times, and have been reading it every single day since 2000. Politically, I find both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party equally ineffective and petty, but I voted for Obama because I thought he would be more effective internationally. I’m pro 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment, and am a strong supporter of a womans right to choose, all of which I believe are mutually supporting.
I figure that will give a relative sense of insight into my character, so that you will know that I’m neither some armchair liberal professing about societal ills, or some ******* in a bunker letting his love of guns distract him from the magnitude of these tragedies.
With my personal background out of the way, I would like to give my thesis on the tragedy and others like it, and how they can be prevented/ casualties minimized.
I have studied mass shootings for several years now relatively thoroughly, because, as a college student, I would like to know the tactics any adversary might employ so that I could have chance of countering them and surviving such an incident. All of them share a common set of characteristics- a deranged man with a gun attacking unarmed people who offer little resistance, most often occurring in an indoor structure with dozens of people present. (Obviously, this is not every one, but I believe it offers a good sense of the general formula.) In all of these mass casualty shootings, the shooter roams the hallways unopposed, killing with ease, until the police arrive, whereupon the predominant majority of “active shooters” shoot themselves in the head- in essence, suicide attacks on “soft targets,” but with firearms instead of the ubiquitous explosive vest. I believe, due to the fanatical determination of these lunatics, and their willingness to die, it will be virtually impossible to deter such an attack. Likewise, due to the vast number of privately owned firearms, the ease of manufacturing explosives (I won’t post examples for fear of offering insight), and the sheer ingenuity of man when it comes to taking lives, any “upstream” approach at eliminating weapons will prove futile at best, and most likely counterproductive. Therefore, it is likely that, regardless of legislation or other preventative methods, these suicide attacks are likely to go on for quite some time, at least until more of these shooters get regular sex and the occasional blunt sesh. Therefore, I believe that the only effective way of minimizing casualties is through better tactics and options for victims, which will allow them to mitigate and, ideally, neutralize any threat before it escalates into a double-digit homicide.
To begin with, the notion that we can simply legislate away societies ills has long been proven a fallacy. From prohibition in the 1920’s, to our current War on Drugs, to the California Assault Weapons ban, it has been shown time and time again that where there is a Demand, there will be a Supply. In the 1920’s, alcohol was imported from Canada, Mexico, and around the globe, much as our hard drugs are imported today. In terms of the California Assault weapons ban, one need only look to the 1997 North Hollywood Bank robbery or the recent tragedy in Oakland to see how effective such laws are at thwarting the plans of determined lawbreakers. Furthermore, History has shown that such bans are not only ineffective, but also counter-productive. The 1920’s prohibition on alcohol lead many drinkers to switch from workingman’s beer to rotgut hard alcohol. In addition, now that it was made illegal, drinking became much more exciting, ushering in the era of the “flapper” and other hard partying types, who, prior to the law, had little interest in the bottle. Anyone who has taken drugs, and I have smoked my fair share of bleezys, will tell you how effective the multibillion dollar, global campaign against drugs has proven. The continued use of “Assault weapons” (their not, technically, since they cannot operate on fully automatic, but I will continue to use the term,) by California drug dealers and other criminals has shown that, despite some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country, the demand continues to be filled. In short, our modern attempts as “legislating morality” go against the very irrefutable logic of capitalism, that where there is a demand for a good, whether it is some blueberry kush or a bullpup carbine, a supply will come to fill it.
I know some of you remain unconvinced, so I will attempt to demonstrate the futility of any “supply side” ban further. Currently, there are roughly 250 million guns in the United States that we know of. If were to somehow, in some Lucky Charms-esque piece of hocus pocus, eliminate every single one of those guns, gun violence would remain, due to supply and demand. There are hundreds of millions of firearms worldwide, and, considering that America is the richest nation in the world, and the huge demand for guns that would occur under a “war on guns,” only the most naïve would believe that the international criminal syndicates currently trafficking in drugs and eastern European prostitutes would not turn their attention to the lucrative firearms market. And, much as it has been shown that prohibition and the war on drugs brought forth a demand for much more dangerous substances, a gun prohibition would mostly likely result in a similar disaster. These cartels seek to maximize profit by importing the most expensive and dangerous drugs they can, which sell at the highest prices per given amount (cocaine, heroin), or by importing as much as they can of the cheapest product they can (that awful Mexican weed, for example.) In terms of guns, these Cartels would most likely focus on importing fully automatic military arms, such as the extremely common, fully automatic AK-47 rifle(not to be confused with the semi-auto variant sold in the US), or on importing as many cheap *** “Saturday night specials” they can from China and South America. In short, within a decade of enacting an large-scale gun ban, the United States would be replacing a large stockpile of useful but potentially dangerous guns owned my mostly law abiding citizens, with a smaller stockpile of vastly more dangerous weapons owned exclusively by lawbreakers. A total backfire, literally and figuratively.
Going beyond the threat of Guns, there are far more terrifying options that few people take into account. As a child of the 90’s, I was a totall pyro, and loved making my own fireworks. This came to an end shortly after 9/11, when I decided that blowing up fruit and GI-Joes in my backyard was no longer socially acceptable. However, during those years of prowling the Internet for various explosive formulas, I became quite alarmed. If I, an 8th grader with a love of firecrackers, could synthesize primary explosives such acetone peroxide from basic hardware store materials in matter of 2 days, imagine what a grown up, malicious person could accomplish. I shudder at the thought, and won’t provide any further details on how these explosives could be used to far more devastating effect than any firearm. One need only look to Iraq, Israel, and London to know what a suicidal, rage fueled man is capable of. Other, similarly devastating weapons can be manufactured with ease. To quote Bruce Lee, “the most dangerous weapon is the will,” and so long as man maintains the will to slaughter unarmed strangers, he will find a way to do so. And I for one would prefer that he employ a gun instead of a suicide vest.
http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/04/04/nyregion/04hostage.html?s=2
I became incensed, put down my much needed chores for today, and wrote a 3000 word essay in response. Hope it sounds as good to you as it sounded in my head.
This is a tragedy, and I feel very sorry for the victims. Imagining the sheer mechanics of the horror they endured makes me sick to my stomach.
At times like this, it is easy to let our emotions cloud our judgments, and we are all eager to blame some one or something for this tragedy. In this rush to blame, fueled by our rage and despair at another tragic loss of life, it is easy to loose sight of practical realities.
I for one would like to interject some calm, rational perspective into any "causes" or "solutions" to this problem, and I encourage everyone to do the same. We all have our personal biases and beliefs, but we should not let our ideology's prevent us from tackling this issue in a logical and effective manner.
To begin with, I would like to explain my personal bias toward the situation, so that you can understand where I am coming from. I believe that any sensible debate should take into account both the biases and backgrounds of those debating.
Therefore, I would like to preface my argument/ thesis with a bit of my background. I’m a child of the 90’s, currently a college student, and a gun owner. I own pistols, rifles, and shotguns for recreational target shooting, which I find a rewarding hobby, akin to playing darts and setting off fireworks at the same time. I also have them for self-defense, because my various hometowns (Philadelphia, Oakland) are rife with drugs and violence, as is our society as a whole. In general, I take my hobby very seriously, with a strong emphasis on safety and responsibility.
My other hobbies include ballroom dancing, playing airsoft and paintball, working on my tan, reading history, dressing snazzy, and using terrible pun’s whenever possible. I also love the New York Times, and have been reading it every single day since 2000. Politically, I find both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party equally ineffective and petty, but I voted for Obama because I thought he would be more effective internationally. I’m pro 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment, and am a strong supporter of a womans right to choose, all of which I believe are mutually supporting.
I figure that will give a relative sense of insight into my character, so that you will know that I’m neither some armchair liberal professing about societal ills, or some ******* in a bunker letting his love of guns distract him from the magnitude of these tragedies.
With my personal background out of the way, I would like to give my thesis on the tragedy and others like it, and how they can be prevented/ casualties minimized.
I have studied mass shootings for several years now relatively thoroughly, because, as a college student, I would like to know the tactics any adversary might employ so that I could have chance of countering them and surviving such an incident. All of them share a common set of characteristics- a deranged man with a gun attacking unarmed people who offer little resistance, most often occurring in an indoor structure with dozens of people present. (Obviously, this is not every one, but I believe it offers a good sense of the general formula.) In all of these mass casualty shootings, the shooter roams the hallways unopposed, killing with ease, until the police arrive, whereupon the predominant majority of “active shooters” shoot themselves in the head- in essence, suicide attacks on “soft targets,” but with firearms instead of the ubiquitous explosive vest. I believe, due to the fanatical determination of these lunatics, and their willingness to die, it will be virtually impossible to deter such an attack. Likewise, due to the vast number of privately owned firearms, the ease of manufacturing explosives (I won’t post examples for fear of offering insight), and the sheer ingenuity of man when it comes to taking lives, any “upstream” approach at eliminating weapons will prove futile at best, and most likely counterproductive. Therefore, it is likely that, regardless of legislation or other preventative methods, these suicide attacks are likely to go on for quite some time, at least until more of these shooters get regular sex and the occasional blunt sesh. Therefore, I believe that the only effective way of minimizing casualties is through better tactics and options for victims, which will allow them to mitigate and, ideally, neutralize any threat before it escalates into a double-digit homicide.
To begin with, the notion that we can simply legislate away societies ills has long been proven a fallacy. From prohibition in the 1920’s, to our current War on Drugs, to the California Assault Weapons ban, it has been shown time and time again that where there is a Demand, there will be a Supply. In the 1920’s, alcohol was imported from Canada, Mexico, and around the globe, much as our hard drugs are imported today. In terms of the California Assault weapons ban, one need only look to the 1997 North Hollywood Bank robbery or the recent tragedy in Oakland to see how effective such laws are at thwarting the plans of determined lawbreakers. Furthermore, History has shown that such bans are not only ineffective, but also counter-productive. The 1920’s prohibition on alcohol lead many drinkers to switch from workingman’s beer to rotgut hard alcohol. In addition, now that it was made illegal, drinking became much more exciting, ushering in the era of the “flapper” and other hard partying types, who, prior to the law, had little interest in the bottle. Anyone who has taken drugs, and I have smoked my fair share of bleezys, will tell you how effective the multibillion dollar, global campaign against drugs has proven. The continued use of “Assault weapons” (their not, technically, since they cannot operate on fully automatic, but I will continue to use the term,) by California drug dealers and other criminals has shown that, despite some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country, the demand continues to be filled. In short, our modern attempts as “legislating morality” go against the very irrefutable logic of capitalism, that where there is a demand for a good, whether it is some blueberry kush or a bullpup carbine, a supply will come to fill it.
I know some of you remain unconvinced, so I will attempt to demonstrate the futility of any “supply side” ban further. Currently, there are roughly 250 million guns in the United States that we know of. If were to somehow, in some Lucky Charms-esque piece of hocus pocus, eliminate every single one of those guns, gun violence would remain, due to supply and demand. There are hundreds of millions of firearms worldwide, and, considering that America is the richest nation in the world, and the huge demand for guns that would occur under a “war on guns,” only the most naïve would believe that the international criminal syndicates currently trafficking in drugs and eastern European prostitutes would not turn their attention to the lucrative firearms market. And, much as it has been shown that prohibition and the war on drugs brought forth a demand for much more dangerous substances, a gun prohibition would mostly likely result in a similar disaster. These cartels seek to maximize profit by importing the most expensive and dangerous drugs they can, which sell at the highest prices per given amount (cocaine, heroin), or by importing as much as they can of the cheapest product they can (that awful Mexican weed, for example.) In terms of guns, these Cartels would most likely focus on importing fully automatic military arms, such as the extremely common, fully automatic AK-47 rifle(not to be confused with the semi-auto variant sold in the US), or on importing as many cheap *** “Saturday night specials” they can from China and South America. In short, within a decade of enacting an large-scale gun ban, the United States would be replacing a large stockpile of useful but potentially dangerous guns owned my mostly law abiding citizens, with a smaller stockpile of vastly more dangerous weapons owned exclusively by lawbreakers. A total backfire, literally and figuratively.
Going beyond the threat of Guns, there are far more terrifying options that few people take into account. As a child of the 90’s, I was a totall pyro, and loved making my own fireworks. This came to an end shortly after 9/11, when I decided that blowing up fruit and GI-Joes in my backyard was no longer socially acceptable. However, during those years of prowling the Internet for various explosive formulas, I became quite alarmed. If I, an 8th grader with a love of firecrackers, could synthesize primary explosives such acetone peroxide from basic hardware store materials in matter of 2 days, imagine what a grown up, malicious person could accomplish. I shudder at the thought, and won’t provide any further details on how these explosives could be used to far more devastating effect than any firearm. One need only look to Iraq, Israel, and London to know what a suicidal, rage fueled man is capable of. Other, similarly devastating weapons can be manufactured with ease. To quote Bruce Lee, “the most dangerous weapon is the will,” and so long as man maintains the will to slaughter unarmed strangers, he will find a way to do so. And I for one would prefer that he employ a gun instead of a suicide vest.