Proclamation

I have to start sometime, and it might as well be now. I am often right, but I keep my mouth shut and let others run the show. I don't speak up or tell people what I know and think because I'm afraid. I see the answers all the time, and can't keep silent anymore.

I have to start somewhere, and it might as well be here. There may not be many who agree with me, but the number who do seems to be growing. I don't reach out to them and say what I feel because I'm afraid. I see the need everywhere I turn, and can't stay silent anymore.

People are in pain. It needs to end. There are things we can do. It is time to start.

Free Wheeling Market Theory

In the United States, I have often heard the proposal that most national issues (not just budgetary) could be alleviated if the government simply stopped its "interference" in business. The biggest problem with this argument is it ignores a ready example. There has been a model in place for many years, but it isn't demonstrating the outcomes claimed by those pro-free market, "laissez-faire" individuals. This may be why those same individuals won't even acknowledge it. The un-regulated, un-incentivised, and un-taxed market I'm referring to is one where goods are available despite the government. So what is this market that is not "interfered with" by the government? Why has it not been incorporated into the main flow of commerce? Because all the goods on the Black Market are illegal.

Of course the example we have is one outside the law, since all other goods and services have been regulated. Their wares include illicit drugs and guns, people (in the form of slaves/prostitutes and other trafficked individuals), and counterfeit or other prohibited items.

I will briefly address the list of grievances from the pro-free marketers: regulations and oversight, incentives or subsidies, taxes, and public (or common) ownership.

The only form of regulation is law enforcement, once past that it's wide open: there is no paperwork, oversight, inspections,  or stockholders to answer to. There isn't any OSHA, safety inspections, quality control, or equal opportunity employment; no right to sue an employer or organize a union, no arbitration or unemployment insurance. Without regulation, workers in the fields involved are egregiously unsafe. Consumers are at risk for more than just lost investments, and have no recourse when injured.

There are no government loans or insurance to get a business started or keep the doors open. This means that any entrepreneurs looking to enter the field must seek investments from private individuals. Also, there is no training program or college degrees to prepare for any of these fields, which makes for excellent opportunities for scams and swindlers.

Another problem is that demand does not drive price-it certainly creates impetus of supply, but it cannot impact how much suppliers charge. There are a limited number of competing suppliers (and often this competition involves literally making a killing).

Finally, these businesses pay no taxes, and that means tremendous amounts of lost revenues for helpful governmental programs. The only taxes or fees for operating one of these businesses are bribes, and that means money going to certain individuals who already have power and not distributed fairly amoungst all citizens. Since they don't offer stock or open to investment, there is no opportunity for citizens-at-large to benefit from the business.

There are risks for these businesses: loss of product, competing providers, and potential for actual governmental interference. Which may be why these areas are illegal, but ineffectually dealt with.

I'd like to pretend that cops are good, laws are just, and that crime doesn't pay. I'm old enough to recognise these notions are myths. If crime didn't pay, we wouldn't still have cocaine, hookers, and, well...politics-as-usual.

An Armed Society is A Violent Society

I have often heard the maxim that, "an armed society is a polite society." Most often I have heard this stated within a conversation about "solving the problem of crime" or lamenting the loss of "good, old-fashioned values". The reasoning goes something like this: more people having firearms means that those with ill intent would not feel they could get away with crimes. To me, this is reminiscent of the "Wild West" era in the United States; a time when firearms were readily available, poorly regulated (if at all), and, most importantly, worn openly. The image of the rough-and-ready "cowboy"/gunslinger, leather holster on hip, willing to draw on another man at any provocation is well known through movies and TV shows. Dramatised, certainly, but grounded in a reality of insecurity and competition. At that time people were actually defending their homes and lives from the threats of outlaw bandits, claim jumpers, and the Native peoples (who were still defending their own rights to the land, which is a tale for another time). These were real threats that no one else could defend these homesteaders and settlers from, they had to do it themselves. The conditions of the "Wild West" no longer obtain, however, and even then they were artificially heightened. Further, we now have trained and armed public servants policing our nation, investigating and preventing crimes. Just turn on your television and you're bound to come across a show involving one or more of these agencies. Their job is not as easy or glamorous as it's shown, but it still gets done. Most property battles are waged in courts now and death most often comes from greasy burgers and automobiles. This discussion is aside from the notion of "Justice". There is no claim by this author that the court system in the United States (or elsewhere) actually administers just and objective outcomes to citizens. This argument is oxymoronic (mostly moronic) in that what is being said is that the constant and pervasive threat of citizens carrying firearms and being responsible to use them to good ends is preferable. This is not an either/or, in that "either we have more guns for people or we will have more crime". This is because there is no correlation between prevalence of guns and crime deterrence.

This does, however, speak to the underlying belief as to the cause and motivation of crimes and those who perpetrate. It is a childish fantasy that their are "good people" and "bad people", and further that the "bad" ones can be deterred by something as silly as threat of violent retaliation. Thanks to researchers like Philip Zimbardo, we can understand better what actually instigates asocial behaviours and drives any individual to "criminal" intent. You really want to give every violently jealous lover, every self-righteous religious believer, and every minimally-competent, "freedom-loving" militia-wannabe-member access to firearms? Because I don't hear the N.R.A. placing any restrictions or competencies for ownership and those are the sorts that are most likely to want a gun in a hurry or "just in case". In my opinion, except for handguns being used by women against their abusive partners (the gun owners, most times) to end their cycle of violence, they have no business being in the hands of private citizens. Even then, there should be better solutions; certainly ones where victims need not go to jail.

In closing, if we take this argument to extremes it could go something like this: we decide on what is a punishable offence, and when that happens, all the nukes go off. Instead of having a gun, everyone can get "The Button", allowing them to stop any crime at any time with a simple press of the finger. The threat is so extreme that no one would dare hurt another individual, right? At least, it's true according to the theory expounded by "gun rights activists" that external control over people can alter their behaviour in all circumstances. In reality, more nuclear warheads have not a safer planet made. The threat of destruction by thermonuclear war is not healthy and has not lead to peace, just an ever-increasing level of posturing. Neither could the threat of bystanders holding "The Button" (or a gun) be a real deterrent. No threat of retaliation can bring reason back into an unreasonable situation.

An Expanded Letter To Gun Sellers

My father, uncles, brothers, and myself have all served in the armed forces. Outside of combat, there is no need or use for most guns. Even then only highly-trained and supervised individuals should be using these dangerous tools. Having assault weapons and high-capacity ammo clips available to anyone else is irresponsible profiteering at best and could be considered aiding terrorists in many ways. The moral thing is to stop all sales of anything other than single-shot, manual-action-bolt rifles used for hunting and legal sports. Simply hiding behind excuses of "there's no law against it" is cowardice and doesn't make a bit of difference to those shot and killed. What would be meaningful is to lead the way by demonstrating that human lives mean more than profits.

That is a message sent to legislative representatives, gun stores, and other retailers. Since I have a bit more space and leeway here, I thought I would expand on it. First, I trust that you know "assault weapon" here refers to automatic and semiautomatic firearms. These fire multiple rounds per second and, in order to maximise their potential damage, call for large "clips" of ammunition. The specification made above for a "manual-action-bolt" would force users to eject the shell and reload the chamber themselves for each shot. I recognise this goes beyond the calls for gun licensing and mandatory background checks, which seem to be the most strenuous and abundant of late. However, I acknowledge that all of these are just precautions to slow things down which offer the illusion of protection. I'm far more interested in solutions that address actual problems than messing about with superficial glossing-over or with appearing to do something. I'd much rather just do what needs done. I am going farther because I feel the only real protection is not having a threat at all.

Guns are a danger that we manufacture. Literally.

If we stop making them and destroy the ones that exist, that actually eliminates the threat. Yes, that is "extreme" and I'm comfortable with the notion. My point really is that all firearms are obsolete, the notion that we would need to shoot each other is a barbaric relic of our past. Of course, facing this requires that we address many other facets of our society such as socioeconomic inequality, ecologically-sustainable and equitable resource management, and the prison-industrial complex. Not popular this, as it's far too comfortable not to even acknowledge them. However, there is no single answer that will eliminate our societal ills. If we are going to make a difference, we need to get serious about how we take on these subjects and accept the hard work that making improvements entails. It's high time we did so.

A Discussion About Debate

I feel it's important to keep this subject in mind, especially during such emotional and challenging times as these. I am letting go of needing to be "right" or "bright": of finding the answer everyone should abide by or saying the witty, pithy thing everyone admires. I am stating my feelings here without expectation; I am stating here my desires without attachment. You choose to listen and/or hear just as you choose how to interpret my message. There is no goal I have in mind or ultimate "me" I need to become, only the pursuit of becoming more clear. In that pursuit, I want for us to talk about important subjects with the intensity in our hearts, with truth and reason in mind, and with compassion.

I am consciously not commenting on the many tragedies occurring right now, those that have been reported in the past couple weeks, or any potentially looming. I am focussed instead directly on the meta-conversation and meta-debate. I am drawn to the value-indeed, necessity-of holding and reminding ourselves to hold discussion of how and why we have discussion.

I, like you, have opinions. I feel things much as you do. I have wishes and dreams and believe you do also. I am imperfect, and think we are similar in this also. Most of all, I have questions. We are similar enough that I think you have questions as well. I even have a favorite question: "What Is It?" This is the shortened form, compressed and distilled into a purified reminder. It means to ask about reality, about what is true, and what is behind what we see. What moved behind, what motivated, what "caused" that which I see? It's my favorite both because I ask it all the time and because it covers so much of what I'm interested in.

Why am I sharing this and why should you bother reading it? Because I think it's the same question you are asking.

Why are we talking to others if not to understand? Why are we being open and vulnerable to one another if not to be understood? Recognise that we are all very similar and want similar things. By this I mean shelter, food, clothing, friends, a sense of fulfillment, a legacy, and fun. We are not so different that we cannot understand and be understood. We are not enemies that cannot coexist. We are not so alien we cannot communicate.

Therefore, in the interest of understanding and being understood, to realise the goal of knowing what is real, valuable, and true I ask you to commit to debate. We may be rivals, even opponents at times, but only to the extent we choose to be. Let us choose to value differences and allow for them. Let us acknowledge common needs and work together to meet them. Let us discuss with the intention of reaching the end together rather than separate.