“Maybe the US Isn’t As Violent As We Think…”
[…] the last 500+ years, [the US / colonies] have accepted and assimilated the malcontents of the other six continents: the mixing of cultures is expected to be often violent and with a good deal of rancor and resentment – the same reason that the UK’s four (or more) nations have been so violent as well. But it seems that I was wrong, at least according to the Daily Telegraph (admittedly a conservative paper but somewhat reliable when it comes to data). The UK is FOUR times more violent than the US? Okay, that I can see some reason for, especially in recent years when guns have been “banned” and so the criminal element has less reason to restrain themselves. But Austria: dear, monocultural, civilized, landlocked, peaceful AUSTRIA is still THREE times more violent than the US?
Well, there IS always Canada. There is ALWAYS Canada: the kinder, gentler, weaker, younger kid sister of the US: the one who didn’t go prodigal son, and who has since had a sex change operation. And low and behold, the folks at Townhall had ANOTHER story, from an excellent blog: Political Calculations Canada, it seems, is MORE violent than the US: they don’t kill as many folks, but not for lack of trying: violent crimes: 770 per 100,000 population in Canada versus 535 per 100,000 in the US. Canadian intentional homicides are 1.6 per 100,000 against the US 4.2 per 100,000. (Mexico is 22.7, and Nordic Greenland is 19.2 – even that wonderful peaceful land of Costa Rico is 10.) Apparently, Canadians just aren’t very good at killing each other, but they try a lot more than we do.
Indeed, when we look at overall homicides, the US is WAY down the list. In fact, its 4.2 is way below the world average of 6.9. So much for that garbage spewed by the hoploclasts about the US being so murderous – at least at home.
Same thing when we look at crime in general: at a website, World’s Highest Crime Rates, it seems that the US is the worst, but it turns out they have the title wrong: the numbers are total crimes reported, not “crime rates” (usually, as above, done as X per 100,000) – in other words, they are using the statistics to LIE to show the US as bad. Yes, we had nearly 12 million crimes reported, but we have a population of over 300 million (World’s Most Populous Nations) , but the UK and Germany each had about 6.5 million crimes, with only 63 and 81 million people respectively: in other words, the US has a crime rate about half that of Germany and only 40% that of the UK. (And yes, Canada’s crime rate is about 75% higher than that of the US. I don’t know how many of those crimes are printing Bible verses that condemn homosexuality or making sexist jokes, of course.)
Gee, you don’t suppose – if our society is not as crime-ridden and violent and murderous as people want us to believe – what is the cause of that?
And why do you suppose the hoplophobes and hoploclasts and politicians (of both old political parties) are lying about it?
That last is of course meant to be a rhetorical question, but let me spell it out just in case: where concealed carry is legal and encouraged, the US sees very little arbitrary violent crime. Gun crime that includes suicide or gang-related shooting is used by the anti-gun contingent to massage statistics about gun violence — just as adding in accidental shooting to statistics about gun violence, which is rhetorically presented as the equivalent of gun crime, is another way the statistics are finessed.
In Australia, gun crime is down since their gun ban. But violent crime — home invasions and beatings, assault, rape — these are all up significantly. And it follows that the reason for such a spike is that criminals can either obtain guns and use them to coerce, or else they don’t fear breaking in on weaker vulnerable targets and having their way with them — knowing that law-abiding citizens have already surrendered their best means of self-defense.
The reason the politicians want guns out of the hands of law-abiding US citizens is that such a calculus would necessitate that law-abiding US citizens, like law-abiding UK citizens and law-abiding Australian citizens, would have to rely on the government for immediate protection from criminal predators — while at the same time, any threat to a tyrannical government acting as benevolent despot is slowly removed.
And a certain percentage of the population actually agitates for their own potential enslavement and the surrendering of a natural right. All because they believe guns are icky and have a kind of self-will beyond that of the person using it.
We’re down the rabbit hole, people. Our country has surrendered truth for manufactured consensus — that is, the post-modern turn has become more and more institutionalized, and its linguistic assumptions inform our contemporary epistemology in a way that prevents us from defeating it as the incoherent model for thought it is — and the result is a deconstruction of our protective documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, by way of disingenuous and politically motivated politicians and judicial philosopher kings/queens. Far from “fetishizing” the founding documents, as the left wants us all to believe is some grotesque and even perverse act to be ashamed of, we who cherish our liberty and autonomy and equality to those who are elected to serve us, and who recognize from history the inexorable move by governments to empower themselves and take away or delegitimate individual rights under the guise of the Greater Good, act as a bulwark against a populism driven by institutionalized propaganda — be it from the leftism infused in school and university curricula, the progressive activist slant to mainstream journalism, or the “benign” shaming culture that begins with Hollywood and extends into other arenas of “art” and even “science.”
We are seeing an organized left hostile to our founding principles cynically dipping their legislative quills in the blood of slaughtered children in order to take advantage of a nation shocked by a grotesque act. But even if before people didn’t realize that this is precisely what Feinstein, et al., were up to, the summary of her new “assault weapon ban” legislation — which includes semi-auto handguns, certain shotguns, and the size of containers for carrying cartridges — gives the game away.
There was never to be a real “conversation on gun violence” — as I knew from day one (and was awarded the honor “stupidest man on the interwebs” by a site remembered largely for exposing Jessica Cutler’s hungry asshole to wide public scrutiny) –because the conversation doesn’t include any measure to prevent such violence: all it does is hope to turn law-abiding gun owners into felons, give the government more power and control, creates a criminal class that is significantly empowered by way of the removal of deterrents, and creates a populace that will be ever more dependent on the government for its safety.
No matter how many times it’s pointed out that all these mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, any effort to pushback against the failure of gun-free zone federal regulation is met with hostility and scorn by the left. And that’s because they don’t care about any of that — this never being about preventing gun violence so much as taking away individual natural rights and creating yet more dependency while solidifying yet more centralized power.
In fact, the studied ability to ignore all the evidence — and to merely keep repeating the lies — is part and parcel of the leftist political strategy. Repetition creates “truths,” because “truths” themselves are merely a function of how many people one can get to believe them.
Being a leftist anti-foundationalist literally means never having to say you’re sorry. Because by definition, you can’t be: your commitment to contingency is the absolute that perversely commits you to nothing. And as such, you are unencumbered by Enlightenment rules for logic, rationality, and consistency — and are able to skirt the “tyranny of facts.”
Unless and until we address what some on the right have referred to as the “fundamentally unserious” question of how we’ve allowed an incoherent idea of language essentially deconstruct and re-imagine our founding documents and principles, we will find ourselves living out our time as a dwindling set of existentialists, content to win the battles knowing that the war is already lost.
Me? I find no solace in being Sisyphus. Nor Cassandra, for that matter — though I hold out hope for a better ending in the latter case.
(thanks to John R)