I've been disappointed in how we as a country have reacted to the Pulse nightclub shooting. A violent sociopath murdered 49 of our fellow Americans, 49 of our fellow human beings, and it seems like our first response is to blame each other. I have some things I need to get off my chest about this.
The Left blames "gun nuts," "toxic masculinity," and "homophobia."
The Right blames "gun-free zones," "radical Islam," and the President's refusal to utter the words "radical Islam."
I see article after article on my news feed every day demanding new restrictions on guns, just like I saw after Newtown and San Bernardino. What I don't see is any credible evidence that increased gun control would have prevented these specific incidents, which leads to only two possible conclusions: Either people are using tragedy to advance a preconceived agenda (as I strongly suspect is the case with the President, who took to the podium to lecture us about guns as quickly as possible); or people are reacting emotionally rather than logically (celebrities such as Whoopi Goldberg and Seth MacFarlane boldly stating that automatic weapons should be banned, not realizing that automatic weapons are already illegal; people talking about "assault rifles" when they have not the faintest clue what that actually means, which is: very little.) The latter is understandable, if ignorant and misguided; the former is inexcusably cynical.
People talk about the "culture of gun violence." Now, I agree that the culture of gun ownership in America is unique among the other industrialized nations that we usually compare ourselves to. But the thing about Culture is that it doesn't just spontaneously arise over night; it is built organically over many years, decades, and centuries, and changes almost as slowly. Countries like the U.K. were not built by gun-carrying pioneers carving homesteads out of wilderness like America was. The governments of Canada and Australia were not founded by armed rebellion against a foreign army like ours was. Our culture is not theirs, theirs is not ours, and never will be. I know that "progressives" have an idealized view of active government, and like to think it capable of curing any ill and causing any social change they wish to see, but the fact is that culture is something that is ingrained and changes little. When it changes, it changes slowly. (Now, I freely admit that I don't agree with gun control. I believe that EVERY aspect of the Bill of Rights should be construed to grant as much freedom as possible. When in doubt, err on the side of freedom. The Second Amendment was not instituted to protect the right to hunt; the very idea that the Founders would feel the need to enshrine the right to a recreational hobby in only the SECOND of ten enumerated rights is utterly ridiculous. The Second Amendment exists so that the people can have a means to defend themselves against the usurpation of their freedoms, be it by an invading foreign government or their own.)
BUT, even if you favor gun control, you have to understand that painting gun owners as "nuts" and threatening to use the coercive power of government to FORCE the cultural change on them that you wish to see is only damaging your own agenda! You cannot force gun owners to lay down their guns. Any argument to the contrary is out of touch with reality. You have to change the culture slowly. Doing so is far less satisfying than just thinking that the government can just wave a magic wand and make all the bad people go away, and requires more patience and resolve than most in the Internet Generation are willing to commit to...
I read an article on Salon entitled "Overcompensation Nation," about how "toxic masculinity drives gun violence." In it, the author singled out, among others, the guys from Duck Dynasty, because they have "ludicrously long and shaggy beards...meant to stave off any association with the dreaded feminine." Apparently the radical left have such an aversion to unkempt beards that having one automatically makes one somehow culpable for mass murder, since no other rationale was given for including them in the discussion. The author of the article describes such "toxic masculinity" as a form of "overcompensation," a term which, in our sex-obsessed pop culture, almost always carries the not-so-subtle implication of sexual inadequacy. My own suspicion is that the author consciously intended for this usage to carry such implications; leaving that aside, the author
says that the aggressive assertion of dominance and control is a psychological tool to cope ("compensate") for one's feelings of inferiority, feelings of inadequacy, and/or fear of emasculation. It is noteworthy that in this particular article, and in all the articles I've ever seen on the subject, there is very little consideration given to WHY so many men would supposedly feel these feelings of inferiority and emasculation (which is especially ironic given the dog-whistle nature of the article's
title). WHY do so many men have feelings of inferiority? Nobody knows, and nobody seems to care. One has to wonder if such callousness would be extended to any other group of people, or, indeed, if any other group would ever come under such scrutiny and criticism to begin with...
says that the aggressive assertion of dominance and control is a psychological tool to cope ("compensate") for one's feelings of inferiority, feelings of inadequacy, and/or fear of emasculation. It is noteworthy that in this particular article, and in all the articles I've ever seen on the subject, there is very little consideration given to WHY so many men would supposedly feel these feelings of inferiority and emasculation (which is especially ironic given the dog-whistle nature of the article's
title). WHY do so many men have feelings of inferiority? Nobody knows, and nobody seems to care. One has to wonder if such callousness would be extended to any other group of people, or, indeed, if any other group would ever come under such scrutiny and criticism to begin with...
The other bugaboo of the left is "homophobia." Does homophobia exist? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes. I believe that all people deserve the same rights, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or any other thing. But it is absolutely LUDICROUS to equate not wanting cross-dressers to use the women's room to the craven mass-murder of innocent club-goers! I mean, it requires some really Orwellian mental gymnastics. And lest you think that there's no way anyone is doing that, let me return to the previous article: "...There is a long and ignoble history of Christian-identified men, caught up in the cult of toxic masculinity, sowing discord and causing violence in our country..." Then there was a CNN contributor who said, among other things, "Hey right wing Christians desperately trying to point out that right wing Muslims are more anti-gay than you are: Your guilt is showing!" It seems to be that, in this person's mind, the fact that Christians are pointing out that they DON'T hate gay people is proof of how much Christians secretly hate gay people. In other words, there is no room for respectful disagreement. It is a frighteningly Manichean, zero-sum kind of mindset which would equate refusal to bake a cake with cold-blooded murder. And never mind the fact that homosexuality is actually punishable by death throughout much of the Muslim world...
In regards to "gun-free zones"...
I am staunchly pro-Second Amendment. There is no such thing as bad guns, only bad people. And yet, I am also pro-property rights. If the owner of a business wants to disallow the carrying of firearms on their property, they are completely within their right to do so. In the specific instance of a nightclub, it doesn't take much imagination to envision plenty of scenarios where mass consumption of alcohol, dancing, and firearms would make for a terrible combination. In that light, it's easy to argue that not only are the owners of said nightclub well within their rights to ban firearms, but it is probably also the most prudent course of action. So I fail to see what this particular issue has to do with what happened in Orlando.
I am staunchly pro-Second Amendment. There is no such thing as bad guns, only bad people. And yet, I am also pro-property rights. If the owner of a business wants to disallow the carrying of firearms on their property, they are completely within their right to do so. In the specific instance of a nightclub, it doesn't take much imagination to envision plenty of scenarios where mass consumption of alcohol, dancing, and firearms would make for a terrible combination. In that light, it's easy to argue that not only are the owners of said nightclub well within their rights to ban firearms, but it is probably also the most prudent course of action. So I fail to see what this particular issue has to do with what happened in Orlando.
Now, one can make the argument that such "gun-free zones" serve as "soft targets" for shooters; i.e., they choose these locations specifically because they know they won't face armed resistance. I think this is a valid argument in some instances, but this line of thinking stands in contradiction to the "radical Islam" issue. People who ascribe to jihadist ideologies have no fear of dying for their cause; in fact, they welcome it. They actively seek martyrdom in the name of Islam. How would the prospect of facing armed resistance in any way deter someone who is determined to die for Allah? If someone in the club had been armed, would a shootout in the middle of a crowded dance floor have led to a less tragic outcome? I haven't heard any answers to those questions.
I think that President Obama's foreign policy has been an abject disaster. The world is in more chaos than it was when he took office, and his decisions to unilaterally withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and to support rebels in Syria is what led to the conditions that created the Islamic State to begin with. His much-remarked-upon refusal to say the words "Radical Islam" really doesn't rate on my scale of things to be concerned with.
The fact is that the NUMBER ONE exporter of radical Islamic ideology is Saudi Arabia, our supposed ally. (Look up Salafism and Wahhabism for more info. Wahhabism is actually sponsored by the House of Saud and is the inspiration for both Al-Qaeda and ISIS.) Yes, this is the same Saudi Arabia and same House of Saud which have been best friends with the political elite of this country for decades, the same House of Saud that were such good friends with George W. Bush that he made sure they had their own private airplane to get them safely home on 9/11 when all other aircraft were grounded and millions of Americans were fearing for their lives and the lives of their loved ones.
I say all that to say: Can we just stop pointing fingers at each other? None of us is responsible. All of us are responsible. Everything we do sends ripples through time and space. We must hold to that which is good, and change that which we can change (ourselves). Jesus said, "If a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand." I hate seeing this country so divided. In this time of grief, our thoughts need to be on doing whatever we can to help the families of the victims and all those affected by this senseless act of violence. We can't change human nature; we can only change ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment