Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Paul Thoresen's avatar

Julius, thank you for writing. I really enjoy your posts and have found previous substacks by you insightful. Looks like i agree with you the overwhelming majority of the time.

Of course we will find differences and we ahv e found one.

The phrase "gun violence" is used by people with an agenda. This is a way for gun control advocates to control the narrative. In reality... Guns are not violent. Guns are tools. And yes guns can be used as weapons. But we don't talk about car violence, swimming pool violence, hammer violence, fist violence, screwdriver violence, tire iron violence etc. the goal is to make people think guns are violent by using the gun violence framing.  It's to make people think "guns are bad". This story telling makes it hard to think of all the responsible gun owners out there who are not violent. It's a technique of the gun control crowd. 

How about we focus on criminal behavior instead of inanimate objects.  When was the last time you saw a firearm with Agency?

People can be violent, guns are not. People have volition, guns do not. 

<Rant over>

Now if you want to talk about Republicans blocking measures that might help with root cause mitigation of violence with guns then you are maybe on to something. Mental health treatment, affordable housing, dealing with poverty, education disparity, job skills training, being a witness to violence, dealing with trauma, etc etc. then that is another story.

I am not trying to minimize the negative outcomes of violent people who use guns. Firearms can be used in social violence, predatory violence, domestic violence, political violence etc.

Just because people do not believe in regulations for firearms does not mean they "Do nothing". The only solution is not another law that violates the second amendment.

So if you want o pass judgments on the right for not dealing with root cause mitigation i am in alignment with you.

I do not however fault them for protecting our second amendment rights.

Expand full comment
Wayne Shaw's avatar

Taking just one example from their list of "I'm against it": socialism.

How many Americans can even give a coherent definition of what socialism is - and is not? Too few, even among those who are not hard-core proponents of capitalism (or conservatism, "MAGA", or whatever).

We've got to get to where we can have open discussions in this country about these things, whether socialism, or education, or what are Republicans' alternative to the minimum wage they oppose, or other. We'll no doubt need to start with one at a time, since in so many ways we're more backward as a people than we'll ever admit.

Now, if someone is *opposed* to something we are in favor of, such as any or all of the above - that's fine. Let's talk it out. But in the socialism example, what is it that is being objected to? Why are you against it? Not, "well, I've heard..." or "they have socialized medicine in Europe and I saw the place for a week once".

It's a long haul, no doubt. But yes I agree totally, we need to start pinning down the deception and those who perpetuate it, and engaging the ones who are deceived and/or reachable.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts