Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Guns, honesty, fairness, fear...oh my.

I am a person of reflection. When I discover or realize things about myself that I’m not sure I fully understand, as with most things in the world, I tend to investigate. In this case, I wished to find out why I have such a strong emotional reaction to the very notion of “gun control”.

I don’t own any guns. I don’t have any particular desire to own any. I am not a religious nut, I am atheist. I am not a conservatard, but more a libtard....though I try to avoid all herds. I am not a Republican or Libertarian...I am independent with a small ‘i’ and anarchist. I am not a hunter or sport shooter or collector or ‘gun enthusiast’, whatever that means. I think using the Second Amendment as a legal reason to own guns is just stupid. First, no legal reason to own guns for self defense is needed...it is an innate fundamental human right, not susceptible to any laws against it. Second, an honest reading of that Amendment and understanding the time and context in which it was written, tell me that the only reason for the existence of the Amendment was so that citizens (at least wealthy white men) could suppress or overthrow their government by force of arms. That ship sailed as soon as the government had canon and the citizens did not.

I think one reason is that I don’t see it as “gun control” at all but people control. Just as extremists on the right think they have, or should have, sayso in what other consenting adults do to and with each other, who they can marry, whether they can have an abortion, etc., most of the left seems to think they should have sayso about who and whether anyone can can have any guns, what kinds, etc., etc. People being able to buy and own guns harms absolutely no one, ever; any more so than people owning any other kinds of weapons or potential weapons or pressure cookers. Only if a person uses a gun to kill or wound other people without just cause is there a problem. Doing that is illegal in all places in the US, and anyone who does that, whether they had a “legal” gun or not, no matter what kind it may be, will almost certainly be arrested and tried. Unless...

It is pretty close to impossible to punish a dead man for crimes he has committed (as with Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook killer). In that case, it was not even possible to find some way to punish his mother, who had acquired the guns used in a completely legal manner. Lanza had seen to that by already killing his mother as well. I think a great many people come completely unhinged in frustration in such a state of affairs and, seeking “justice” they decide that ALL people who own guns or ever want to have guns should be punished...vicarious atonement.

It astounds me no end that otherwise intelligent people fall into a herdthink with this, and say “gun violence” a lot, as though that were something special. It isn’t. It hardly matters, unless you are very strange indeed, whether your loved one was killed by someone using a gun or by someone using a knife, or hammer, or rock, or pressure cooker. Some people who see the folly of “the banners”, might post tongue-in- cheek things about banning knives; Yes there have been real calls to ban knives or, as I have mentioned, pressure cookers.

I understand the urge to DO SOMETHING when something bad happens. People are simply going to have to learn that shit happens in life and often it is flatly impossible to DO SOMETHING in the way that they mean...to prevent any future thing of that sort from happening again. Life comes with an absolute guarantee that things much like that WILL happen again...you might think people may start to realize this after Columbine and several other school shootings, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc, etc., but the notion never seems to stick somehow. Consider Virginia Tech; One guy comes onto a college campus, shoots and kills 32 people and wounds 17 others in not one but TWO separate attacks two hours apart. That was illegal. Bringing the guns on campus was illegal. Obviously that saved a lot of lives, right?

Even most of the people who would rail about changing gun laws, making it harder for law-abiding people to get guns, would have thought it great had there been an armed police officer in the building at the time this began. They would probably think that the cop would have taken this guy down soon and fewer people would have been killed. This is almost certainly true. But why does it have to be a police officer; if it were legal for those students and faculty WHO WISHED TO DO SO, and who were legally qualified, surely one of them would likewise have taken the shooter down, saving many lives. But so many people seem to think, for some inexplicable reason, that anyone who is not “official” who has a gun would be as bumbling, inept and stupid with the gun as they themselves would probably be.

It seems a huge number of people have a completely irrational fear of guns and of all people who own or carry guns. I remember a story about how in one Starbucks there were two men sitting at a table, both with guns visible on their hips. Some customers claimed they were terrified and left and vowed they would not return unless Starbucks said guns were not allowed in their stores. Did the fearful people know anything at all about the men? For all they knew the men may have been cops...not all cops wear uniforms. The men were doing nothing at all illegal or remotely threatening...to reasonable people. Suppose the men had gone with “concealed carry” instead...they would still have had the guns, they just would not have been readily visible to everyone. As far as I know Starbucks has not changed its policy allowing all persons who wish and are legally allowed to do so to carry guns in their stores. I have never been in a Starbucks and probably never will be (I’m not that rich) but I appreciate the company stance on this.

I find a huge irony in people belittling gun owners as cowardly terrified fools who cling to their guns, while they themselves so often exhibit extremely irrational fear of guns - inanimate objects - and the people who have them. It's bad in schools...little kids are being suspended from school for drawing a sketch of a gun, for having a water pistol, for forming their finger and thumb into the shape of a gun and...really people? Arresting an eighth grader for wearing a t-shirt with NRA and a picture of a gun on it? Should we review that thing about which side of this issue is irrationally paranoid and fearful?

Talk of “gun control” hurts me; my response vacillates between anger and tears. It is placing completely superfluous and unnecessary burdens on me (and every one else) who might want to legally buy a gun sometimes. It feels like a very personal assault on my personal liberty for no sensible reason whatever. It has a Minority Report feel about it, attempting to punish people for possible crimes that have not yet been committed. I vividly remember once in second grade Mrs. Johnson said we were not allowed to chew gum in class. She thought someone had because she found gum on her desk. She didn’t know who, but everyone in class had to sit still in our desks all through recess. I cried because it was not fair to be punished for something someone else did. I still feel that.

Many of my liberal friends tend toward a kind of paganistic outlook and some even quote some version of “An ye harm none, do as ye will”. Why does it seem so hard to apply this notion to people with guns who have never harmed anyone?

I do hope, though am pessimistic, that people can get a grip on reality in this issue and just stay out of the lives and personal affairs of people who own guns - if they have committed no crime - just as you would wish the political right to stay out of the lives and personal affairs of others regarding their sexual orientation, who they want to marry, etc. The urge to control others can become very strong in people sometimes and it is never a good thing and can become an extremely dangerous thing. Just try to chill, ok?

TRB

Saturday, April 20, 2013

NOTHING!

I have not read Lawrence Krauss’ book A Universe From Nothing , but I have seen several videos in which he speaks about it and explains the idea. I think virtually all lay readers will not like the notion, nor understand it, and even many fellow professional scientists shake their heads about it. In my opinion, most of this confusion is because Lawrence did not lay out that the “nothing” he means is not truly Nothing at all.

I find it useful to separate Nothing from nothing. We know that Nothing never existed at all because if it did then it still would, and therefore the existence of Something would be utterly impossible. Since Something exists, obviously Nothing never did. But Nothing is not the nothing Lawrence means. Nothing would be absolute..it would contain, not only no matter or energy, but also no quantum fluctuations, no virtual particles popping into and out of existence, no potential of any sort whatever, no time, no boundaries or limitations of any sort.

In the following two hour debate, we see how other scientists, including Neil deGrasse Tyson, have a lot of trouble with Lawrence insisting that “nothing” nonetheless contains potentials, laws of nature, etc.

TRB