Although the title is correct in general terms, what brought it to my mind was the Denver theater shooting. I’ll split it into two parts, plus have another post up at Path to Patriarchy to explore a different, albeit related, topic.
My first point will be what I tend to think of as ‘Bully Progression’. The idea that if a bully finds his tactics have high efficacy he is not only unlikely to stop, but will increase his bullying in both frequency and intensity. To put it simply, if violence is an effective means to some end in middle school, our hypothetical bully won’t magically stop in high school. Now, this is a pivotal point. Not every asshole will become a thug, we would have far too much to consider. Socio-economics, demographics of the city, school and neighborhood, the race of the individual… and so on and so forth. But none of that is the point of this post.
A bully is best served by being shown that his actions have consequences. It could be a talk with a parent or teacher or at the other extreme it might be getting an ass kicking from a potential victim that doesn’t take shit. Either way the child is learning that certain actions have extreme consequences. However, if this particular lesson isn’t learned there is a chance of future thuggery. And at some point it is entirely possible, especially in a country with something like 250 mil privately owned firearms, that this theoretical thug will make the mistake of a accosting an individual willing and capable of resisting with lethal force.
Now then, we have those who suggest making private ownership of firearms illegal to reduce the incidence of violence against the innocent. Laughable, as many items are illegal and yet still attainable with minimal effort. Look at the ‘war on drugs’. Not only are drugs easy to get, money is being sent to drug cartels. Not exactly the sort we want to be making rich.
Why would making guns ownership a crime do any good. The cartels already have weapons, they would just start selling some of them to increase profits on a new front.
Of course, reading the news after the theater shooting has shown that rather large number of the populace seems to be aware of the fact that restricting guns was one of the problems. They couldn’t shoot back. Even someone who had a gun with them (illegally) would have to consider the cost of saving strangers being potential jail time.
I know, this has been something of a rambling post, but I think that it can be seen that I have demonstrated two particular ways that liberal socialism is responsible for treating instigators of violence with a light hand and disarming potential victims. Next comes a much more important topic.