Jim Schultze Is a fucking moron, as he demonstrates here.
There are two flaws. The first and most obvious is that of being Morally Primitive, as pointed out by a contributor further down the page. There’s something more insidious than that lurking here, but lets deal with the Moral Primitive concept, first.
Being a Moral Primitive is usually an act of willful ignorance. Deliberately pretending not to know a thing in an effort to maintain a position that is proven wrong by that thing. Gun control is almost always based on the concept of being Morally Primitive. I will demonstrate.
Adam Lanza was King of the Dicks. He killed children single-digits in age. Did any of the adults that he killed even try to stop him? No, no they did not, and we know this because every adult he encountered made the choice to be just as helpless as the children they were charged with protecting. They chose to give him the high ground.
Moral Primitivizm says that killing is wrong. Period. It fails to think any further. It thinks only as far as is convenient for the agenda. Shooting Adam Lanza in the face with a 12ga would have been a morally excellent thing. Failing to do so enabled him to kill babies, which is a very bad thing. Assuring that there would never be a way to shoot him in the face takes it to a whole ‘nother level because it guarantees that only the bad option is available.
Jim-bob, as I’ll call him, is a fucking moron because he takes this moral primitive point off the deep end. Carrying a gun is not ceding evel. FAILING to carry a gun is ceding evil, as I just presented in a logical proof in the previous paragraph. Killing, with a gun, is not always a bad thing. But, when the blood is on your hands because you’re the one who made the good option impossible, and the bad option inevitable; pretending there is no such distinction the the way to save face and make denial seem OK.
How many children have to die before assholes like this will own up to their mistakes? Seriously!? A room full of dead kids and they still look for a way to escape responsibility above all else? Is there such a thing as being more fucked up than that?
We see the same motif in the “More guns? You think more guns is the answer?” steamer. Well, if the bad guys have guns, and we want the good option to exist, then yes, good guys will have to have guns too, and that is a simple additive effect of being more guns. Yes. Are you suggesting we continue to have only the bad option on the table, guaranteeing it as “when,” not and “if?” An inevitable eventuality instead of a preventable?
He’s right about one thing. Guns don’t make anyone bullet proof. Having a gun doesn’t guarantee stopping evil. It doesn’t guarantee you’ll win. But not having one guarantees that you’ll lose, along with whoever is next in the wacko’s sights… You don’t just fail to preserve yourself, you give him carte blanche to keep on going! No, gun’s don’t guarantee a win. They give you a fighting chance. A maybe. A maybe is always better than a certain failure.
You thought I was already talking about that “more insidious” part I alluded to in the first paragraph, didn’t you? Well, I haven’t. It comes next.
Jim-bob’s tragically flawed definition of evil. When dealing with people who have related themselves to an amoral political party, it’s easy to see that having nothing to do with morality might lead to having scant understanding of morality. I have little to do with nuclear physicists, thus, I know very little about nuclear physics. So, his failure to grasp simple moral concepts such as “Shooting people isn’t always bad. It can be good if you stop a mass murderer. It can be bad if you are a mass murderer.” But, we know he’s not that stupid. He’s protecting his own ego at the price of preserving and even promoting the very thing that caused the tragedy all because he is too fucking arrogant to admit he’s wrong! That’s still not the definition of evil.
I lied. I didn’t get to the really bad part yet!
The definition of evil. I’m going to use a scientific analogy for this one, because I’m trying to explain the concept to someone who lacks moral studies and needs a relative comparison to get the idea.
There is no such thing as cold. There is only absence of heat. We gave that absence a name because we can feel it. But it is not a thing itself, it is the absence of a thing.
There is no such thing as darkness. There is only absence of light. We gave that absence a name because we can see it. But it is not a thing itself, it is the absence of a thing.
Evil, in it’s seed, is nothing more than the absence of good. When it grows into active harm unto others is when we notice it. At that point, it has become an extreme absence of good that seeks to remove more good from things nearby. It sucks the good out of others. Before that point, evil goes unnoticed. It is treated as benign. Read the Satanic Bible or The Screwtape Letters to get a good understanding of how Evil in that form can spread unnoticed. It can sprout at any time, and if you lack the ability to shoot it in it’s fucking face with a 12ga, then you’re enabling it. It seems like nothing until it becomes way too much all at once.
Even if you don’t believe in God or The Devil, you can take them as metaphors. Would The Devil wear red, point horns, and tail, and carry around a pitchfork? No. That’d be obvious. The tactic of evil is to blend in and look like nothing. The greatest trick The Devil ever played, is convincing you that he doesn’t exist. There’s nothing about which to be on the lookout. He can spread anywhere and pop up without warning.
This is reality. Evil is everywhere. It can turn from benign to shitfuck-horrible in a blink. If you choose to be unprepared for it, you’re enabling it. All that is needed for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Knowing this to be true, when good men still do nothing, they cease to be good men. Then they cease to be good men, and can’t admit it, but make excuses and convoluted half-truths to save their huge ego; they’re evil.