May 2, 2023·edited May 2, 2023Liked by Open Source Defense
I would add to this that the same line of reasoning applies to the "other side of the coin". IOW, some (most?) criminals begin with the state of mind that crime is "culturally unthinkable". However, they see certain kinds of violence/criminality in society being allowed (riots [as long as you are protesting against the "right people" or for the "right political views"], petty theft, etc.) and are induced to engage in those activities as well. Once they've engaged in the first crime, the cultural/societal barriers to engaging in further criminality are lessened. The removal of cultural prohibitions on certain activities in our current society is behind BOTH the increase in gun ownership AND increase in criminality. Those tending to be law-abiding see the criminality combined with lax enforcement of laws and decide they need to take personal responsibility for their own protection (and that of their family/loved ones) and go out and buy a firearm and associated training. Those tending to not be law-abiding see the criminality combined with lax enforcement of laws and decide that the punishment for criminality is now low enough for them to intentionally break the law. In both cases, once the threshold is crossed, further progress in that direction is almost inevitable...
Well written, as always. Unfortunately, undoing the technical aspect of the 2nd amendment has become a political tool of sorts used to rally a political base to action using emotional argument without care for the practicality of doing so.
The argument has played out a million times where person A points out "there's no point adding another gun law; people who want to do Bad Things with guns won't obey them anyway," and the invariable comeback from person B is "if that were true, why have laws at all?"
And y'all have put your finger on it: effective laws don't work by trying to make the technically possible impossible (because that's a fool's errand); they work by signaling that the technically possible is (as far as society in general is concerned) culturally unthinkable.
I would add to this that the same line of reasoning applies to the "other side of the coin". IOW, some (most?) criminals begin with the state of mind that crime is "culturally unthinkable". However, they see certain kinds of violence/criminality in society being allowed (riots [as long as you are protesting against the "right people" or for the "right political views"], petty theft, etc.) and are induced to engage in those activities as well. Once they've engaged in the first crime, the cultural/societal barriers to engaging in further criminality are lessened. The removal of cultural prohibitions on certain activities in our current society is behind BOTH the increase in gun ownership AND increase in criminality. Those tending to be law-abiding see the criminality combined with lax enforcement of laws and decide they need to take personal responsibility for their own protection (and that of their family/loved ones) and go out and buy a firearm and associated training. Those tending to not be law-abiding see the criminality combined with lax enforcement of laws and decide that the punishment for criminality is now low enough for them to intentionally break the law. In both cases, once the threshold is crossed, further progress in that direction is almost inevitable...
Well written, as always. Unfortunately, undoing the technical aspect of the 2nd amendment has become a political tool of sorts used to rally a political base to action using emotional argument without care for the practicality of doing so.
The argument has played out a million times where person A points out "there's no point adding another gun law; people who want to do Bad Things with guns won't obey them anyway," and the invariable comeback from person B is "if that were true, why have laws at all?"
And y'all have put your finger on it: effective laws don't work by trying to make the technically possible impossible (because that's a fool's errand); they work by signaling that the technically possible is (as far as society in general is concerned) culturally unthinkable.