Posted by Chris on August 20, 2015, 9:18 am, in reply to "Re: Death to Life"
154.20.66.180
Dear USA Chris,
I understand that you are passionate about your country and I do apologize if the anti American tone of my last e mail upset you.
My intention was to support the artist and Pablo's comment and add my two bits to the argument against violence and war.
I had no intention of being anti American. I'm a Brit so I know that America doesn't have the monopoly on aggressive foreign policy!( or domestic violence for that matter! )
However I am always surprised when anyone uses this simplistic "guns can't kill" slogan as a rational for personal gun ownership in the USA.
What does this often quoted statement actually mean?
I think the statement makes two points, both of which are obviously true:
Point #1: Guns don't do the killing
Point #2: People do the killing.
The conclusion is therefore - that it's ok to own a gun.
Here are my counter arguments:
Point#1: Anyone who actually thinks that it is guns and not people, who do the killing is probably three years old and still in pre school where this kind of anthropomorphic thinking is part of the literature.
(I'm thinking of a loveable character called "Thomas the Tank Engine"who has eyes instead of head lights, and has all sorts of interesting adventures.)
The undeniable truth is that guns really can't walk about shooting people. But the equally undeniable truth is that this information is totally irrelevant because no one in their right mind would seriously claim that they can.
Point #2: So if it's people who do the killing why not get rid of the guns? That way those people, wherever or whoever they are, might not be so good at doing it!
Conclusion: Surely If it is people who do the killing why would we think it's ok to put a gun in their hands?
On these points alone, I suggest that this popular slogan fails to be a convincing rational for personal gun ownership, or indeed for the amassing of lethal weapons.. by any country.
We all know who does the killing and our species has been doing it, (with or without guns) for many thousands of years. How much wealth and privilege is required before we find a way to bring about a change?
As for "trust" and "freedom": When Gandhi visited London for the first time he was asked what he thought of Western Civilization. He modestly replied : "I think it would be a very good idea".
So once again I agree with Pablo, let's applaud the artist for finding a way (no matter how modest) to help bring about a much needed shift in consciousness.
129
Message Thread
« Back to index | View thread »