TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Our betrayal
Pages (6): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »

Our betrayal

Something has always tugged at me whenever I hear the adage �Guns don�t kill people; people kill people�. No doubt, this is the cat-cry of NRA members, people fearful to relinquish control of their weapons under circumstance of their grasp going cold and dead. What bothers me the most is the bit of logic I see behind it. I, myself, do not own a gun, though through my upbringing I know how to use and maintain them just fine. Also through my upbringing, I know enough to shoot only when you intend to kill something and to only intend to kill when it�s absolutely necessary � a concept that seems to escape a rather stupid bulk of the nation in which I reside. But is culture truly to blame? Or is it only natural to use a tool as you see fit?

As I have grown older and traveled, it has, to say the least, dawned upon me that man is at best an animal and at worst� an animal. It seems to me that, to speak of nature, one must understand the very nature behind consumption; absorption. The most natural cycle of things is an inescapable proclivity to preserving one�s life through processing the life of another. Bacteria at their most basic level will merge to create a larger mass, capable and willing to process lesser bacteria � gang violence at its best. A pride of lions will sleep about the warmth and tactile comfort of one another, purring as the great and noble beasts we suppose them to be, but were it not for the limb-from-limb rending of an antelope, they would not exist to be so revered. That very same antelope gnaws and rends the leaves of a nearby bush [before it is processed by lions, of course], �killing� whatever cells comprised its victim in something we so callously dismiss as mere herbivorous-ness. 200 million red blood cells live and die in your body each day only to be reborn again � do we mourn their passing? What separates one life from another? I�m simply not convinced that self-imagined rights of �morality� amongst human beings result in anything different: death, processing, reproductive refinery � this is what is true, this is what is evident.

We, as apes, scavenged for whatever protein-meal we could find, later figuring through might we could outsmart prey through group tactics and that with proper oral developments could better rend flesh, no longer having to gather berries or guano, or whatever the fuck we used to eat to survive. Nature gave us the tools and nature told us to use them � those who refused or simply could not correlate this died, their genes ended, their contribution forfeit. The absorption of other creatures gave rise to developments in cognitive abilities � groupings became clans, clans became societies, cities sprang up and then came American Idol. Did we go wrong somewhere? How did peace and tranquility become the new standard for civilized lifestyles when the very nature behind consumer culture is that of consumption? Our tools are our minds � our ability to recognize an efficient course of action and hone the very instincts we find both pleasure and dominance in; Sex for numbers; entertainment and fertility training as leisurely exercises in our propensity for sentience � among this, weaponry to control the wilderness outside of our territory.

Weapons � tools as means to an end � an extension of willpower, or something more? The same apes we suppose we once were use sticks to gather ants from the inside of a log; an otter bashes an urchin with a rock in order to reach that gooey, digestible inside � you get the point. Rules of conventional warfare indicate that your gun or your sword or your stick are merely extensions of your will: you wish to kill something, the tool is only of use so far as its ability to achieve the bidding of this will. In this sense, the will to murder is the only corrupt thing in this dynamic, the gun being an aid in an act that the individual could supposedly reach by other tools. But wait � is that really true? Entire orders of the ancient world were founded upon the mastery of weapons and the control of their use as a tool for organization and societal imposition � the might of this order lending itself to control and assimilation of mentalities counter to its tenets, in short: consumption all over again. Might, as nature would have it, made right, whether the weapon was a sword or sex or secrets or philosophy � the willpower is the same throughout all walks of life, the weapon lending itself as a tool for change.

But has anything really changed?

Guns are a breach in the physical dominion of nature�s right. They are more than extension of will as they represent even a threat counter to individual will � they are as flinching a device as the twitchy, childlike finger which grasps a trigger and points the barrel at somebody located hundreds of yards away. They require only minimal coordination and almost no expertise to end the life of another. Nature grants little might in their utility, nor does empathy lend itself to the control of such a machine, at least not at the moment it matters. They are a betrayal, if there ever was one, as they represent change without consumption, without derivation. In essence, guns are evolution because they represent a new dawn in the cognitive nature of mankind�s progressive will to cull himself on a massive and accelerated scale remiss of the physical capabilities that genetics hinge upon. And in the end, nothing is truly gained - merely tribal squabbling elevated to destructive proportions, an imperative only necessary as the invention, as it would be.

Am I saying that guns are evil in the traditional sense? No. Should they be taken away from everyone in an effort to regress humans back to some peaceful state? Hah. All I am saying is they are far more than tools to an end � they are irresponsibility incarnate. They are chaos at its most influential state, and their accelerated destructive capabilities in the hands of anyone who has a will to use them against another human being is fear enough to arm oneself the same, the cycle of bloodshed continued, our individuality giving rise merely to the boundaries by which our relative mortality and contribution can stand up to a hollow point.

This is the C0r...That is waaaaay toooo much to read.

quote:

Originally posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY This is the C0r...That is waaaaay toooo much to read.

It's probably more than you've read in your entire life. I doubt we would miss your input.

Interesting thoughts.

More or less, I'd be inclined to agree with you. One of the concepts about this I have trouble grasping, however, is the discussion of the development of modern weaponry as "evolution". Essentially, everything mankind has developed over the past - oh - 5,000 or so years, has been a grossly rapid expedition of the prior millennia of evolution. Or, I guess now that I'm thinking about more about it, maybe evolution as it were.

When all said and done, though, you're right. Guns, swords, etc ... in much the same vain as the development of fire and language, are simply a means to mankind's end of controlling resources and territory to allow for the perpetuity of the species.


Then again, organisms are just the vessels by which nucleic acids have perpetuated themselves, but that's a whole different can of worms.

quote:

Originally posted by UWM

He really needed more lines in that movie. Or like, biting through golf clubs with metal teeth. Yeah, that'd do it.

I couldn't agree more.

quote:

Originally posted by UWM Interesting thoughts. More or less, I'd be inclined to agree with you. One of the concepts about this I have trouble grasping, however, is the discussion of the development of modern weaponry as "evolution". Essentially, everything mankind has developed over the past - oh - 5,000 or so years, has been a grossly rapid expedition of the prior millennia of evolution. Or, I guess now that I'm thinking about more about it, maybe evolution as it were. When all said and done, though, you're right. Guns, swords, etc ... in much the same vain as the development of fire and language, are simply a means to mankind's end of controlling resources and territory to allow for the perpetuity of the species. Then again, organisms are just the vessels by which nucleic acids have perpetuated themselves, but that's a whole different can of worms.

Yeah, my evolution concept is pretty lofty and I do not actually mean it in a strict, biological sense save for the genetic transmission of behavioural traits, but even that is pretty damned nebulous.

My thoughts sort of stem from a snapshot of Africa though - and I feel like quite a dwarf even discussing Africa around here with Lebez no doubt lurking around somewhere - but I find the idea of child warriors to be quite striking. An unarmed child is basically a harmless animal - give that child a simple tool and he or she could inflict harm upon something else equally harmless, put a sword in that child's hands and he or she is as destructive as nature's bestowment of physical prowess allows; put a gun in that child's hands and it is something else entirely. Guns do not rely on genetic transmission as other weapons, other tools, do. Assuming basic sensory capabilities, that is. They are an invention made with the sole purpose of destruction and serve as intimidation, at their most unused state. My point in their being a form of evolution was merely to illustrate that they represent a great leap in the development of man's understanding of his own mortality yet simultaneously represent man's inability to learn from his own fear and to merely react in violence. They are genetic refinery so far as their destructive properties represent a massive and rapid threat to the genetic transmission of those unwilling to use them with even the most rudimentary of training. Point-shoot-dead. We've formed an entire culture out of the fear of their use, yet perpetuate their existence at ever-increasing rates.

I dunno, seems like there is far more there than simply just tools to achieve a will, especially since we are controlled by them - both physically and psychologically - far more than we exercise control.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On It's probably more than you've read in your entire life. I doubt we would miss your input.

I've done more reading than u ever will 5 years ago since getting my advanced degree. I don't have to waste my time anymore =)

I'd just like to add at this point that, while much of what is considered human evolved from apes, there are some humans who simply did not evolve much at all or, in fact, reverted to an earlier, far more basic form of life.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I'd just like to add at this point that, while much of what is considered human evolved from apes, there are some humans who simply did not evolve much at all or, in fact, reverted to an earlier, far more basic form of life.

Thank u Einstein, I can now sleep peacefully at night.

quote:

Originally posted by UWM Then again, organisms are just the vessels by which nucleic acids have perpetuated themselves, but that's a whole different can of worms.

there you go, bringing biopolymers into a discussion about guns.

quote:

Originally posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY I've done more reading than u ever will 5 years ago since getting my advanced degree. I don't have to waste my time anymore =)

Judging by your horrendous sentence structure, grammatical errors and free usage of 'u' in place of 'you', I'm having trouble taking you seriously.

so, what youre saying is that firearms are qualitatively different from other forms of weapon technology- in the sense that there's an unheralded combination of destructive power with relative ease of use?

Isn't that concept more important when confined within the context of civilian society? Obviously in the military, the gun is one of the least destructive arms on the battlefield. Is it guns in general that are the problem, or their dissemination to the masses who lack the discipline and judgement necessary to gauge an appropriate time to use them (or not)?

Anyway, that was WAY too much for me at 9.30am :/

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so, what youre saying is that firearms are qualitatively different from other forms of weapon technology- in the sense that there's an unheralded combination of destructive power with relative ease of use? Isn't that concept more important when confined within the context of civilian society? Obviously in the military, the gun is one of the least destructive arms on the battlefield. Is it guns in general that are the problem, or their dissemination to the masses who lack the discipline and judgement necessary to gauge an appropriate time to use them (or not)?

this, folks, is how you're supposed to resume a point.

...





-tries to read it all-












-dies-

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On He really needed more lines in that movie. Or like, biting through golf clubs with metal teeth. Yeah, that'd do it.

It's all in the hips! It's all in the hips!

Re: Our betrayal

Well, there are too many ideas in one post, but... I'd say that guns are just tools, and it is natural to use a tool simply as you see fit.

However, I cannot disagree with you regarding our inherent animality. Because we're prone to error, the more powerful the tool, the more responsibility it requires. The way I see most gun owners, they see themselves as being somehow smarter than everyone else, even though we're all equally irrational when we're faced with a dangerous situation, and there's nothing we can count on other than our reflexes.

As for guns being extensions of our will/body, that's a popular line of thought nowadays, as computers are seen as extensions of our mind. A gun would, in that case, be an extension of our hand - I can't see how it could be more than a simple extension. If you're referring to the difference in might, a computer can do qualitatively lots of stuff we can't. That's why a gun is a tool: it helps us do things we can't do on our own.

Finally, because the range of points to comment on is just too wide, all I can say is that in spite of my different point of view, I agree with you regarding the fact that with guns, nothing really is gained.

Quite on the contrary.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so, what youre saying is that firearms are qualitatively different from other forms of weapon technology- in the sense that there's an unheralded combination of destructive power with relative ease of use?

Yes. But it isn't just their efficiency, it is the fact that there is a culture behind their virility, a readiness to lash out and to utterly annihilate without regard. A gun is not just a tool to achieve a means, but a destructive master who empowers the weak to commit utterly irreversible acts of carnage. A rock... is just a rock. You can throw them at people and see their faces as they die, that last little twitch of pain as you bash them in the skull, the glazed look of both horror and disgust before complete neural failure. But a gun... people are only numbers when you are decimating them from afar.

quote:

Obviously in the military, the gun is one of the least destructive arms on the battlefield.

An excellent point and perhaps I should clarify that I in fact mean almost any ballistic weapon or equivalent when I say 'gun', but yes, civilian use is what I had in mind, although there is something to else to that...

quote:

Is it guns in general that are the problem, or their dissemination to the masses who lack the discipline and judgement necessary to gauge an appropriate time to use them (or not)?

And once more we're back to the will to utilize argument. Discipline and judgment are learned behaviours, sure, which is exactly why people would tend to argue that guns don't kill people; people kill people - they are saying it is the will to use a tool that must be held responsible, not the tool, itself. And logically, I would not disagree with this. A gun is a hunk of metal, useless unless somebody who knows how to use it picks it up and points it at something. In the hands of a skilled marksman, it is a device achieving its full purpose, but is it possible to make somebody more dead by expertise with the tool? Not really - point, fire, end a life. Is it that easy? I wouldn't presume as much, as I've never taken a shot at somebody before. But I think you get what I am saying here - it is a breach of genes in that your heredity, your sex, your humour and your ability to communicate with others is utterly irrelevant because you are suddenly a number, a casualty; you are no longer even an animal, you are a victim to invention, to somebody else's device and readiness to pull a trigger. This is a far, far leap from chucking a rock at somebody's head.

And I don't think that discipline or judgment are truly positive factors when applied to the military, especially not if you look at casualties and reports from American soldiers in Iraq. I'm not saying they're all bloodthirsty troops, killing everything that moves - but using your best judgment doesn't seem to matter when everybody but your side is dressed the same, looks the same, acts the same. American kids thrust into a conflict they did not choose are hardly a good example of any differentiation between civilian and military judgment, yet this seems to be the major pretense of almost every armed conflict I can think of. Need I even bring up Blackwater? I'm sort of tired of those guys. But likewise, terrorist factions will use their access to guns just as readily in an attempt to bring about change - and this is the ideological point I am trying to establish:

The same will that uses a weapon as a means towards some end seeks to consume it's ideaological opponent, it's enemy. Guns empower the otherwise weak ideologies by threat of destruction far more effectively than any other tool ever has before by placing the sole responsibility of physical annihilation in the hands of the individual, thereby consuming the identity of all who oppose this.

They are brute force neatly packed into a barrel. This is different, it has not always been this way. They are a device that not only empowers as any weapon would in regard to the helpless, but they are equally as dehumanizing. That is what sets them apart.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Yes. But it isn't just their efficiency, it is the fact that there is a culture behind their virility, a readiness to lash out and to utterly annihilate without regard.

but isnt that culture socially-dependent? ie, the US might have said culture but its not evident here in the land of oz.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On although there is something to else to that...

i thought there would be

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On And once more we're back to the will to utilize argument. Discipline and judgment are learned behaviours, sure, which is exactly why people would tend to argue that guns don't kill people; people kill people - they are saying it is the will to use a tool that must be held responsible, not the tool, itself. And logically, I would not disagree with this. A gun is a hunk of metal, useless unless somebody who knows how to use it picks it up and points it at something. In the hands of a skilled marksman, it is a device achieving its full purpose, but is it possible to make somebody more dead by expertise with the tool? Not really - point, fire, end a life. Is it that easy? I wouldn't presume as much, as I've never taken a shot at somebody before. But I think you get what I am saying here - it is a breach of genes in that your heredity, your sex, your humour and your ability to communicate with others is utterly irrelevant because you are suddenly a number, a casualty; you are no longer even an animal, you are a victim to invention, to somebody else's device and readiness to pull a trigger. This is a far, far leap from chucking a rock at somebody's head.

im not quite sure what youre saying here?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On And I don't think that discipline or judgment are truly positive factors when applied to the military, especially not if you look at casualties and reports from American soldiers in Iraq. I'm not saying they're all bloodthirsty troops, killing everything that moves - but using your best judgment doesn't seem to matter when everybody but your side is dressed the same, looks the same, acts the same.

but how does this tie-in with your general argument concerning advanced weapons? i would suggest that such issues have been a staple of armed conflict since the beginning of time, how does a gun in this instance, change the nature of warfare as to be notable? (asides from where you identified that now it is possible for children to go to war.)

do these new arms make armies behave any differently? i wouldn't have thought so.

the other point to note is that soldiers dont tend to kill people during peace time. ie how many civilians in the US have been shot and killed by your army? clearly a civilian's capacity to use weapons in their neighbourhood is qualitatively different from a soldier in occupied territory.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On The same will that uses a weapon as a means towards some end seeks to consume it's ideaological opponent, it's enemy. Guns empower the otherwise weak ideologies by threat of destruction far more effectively than any other tool ever has before by placing the sole responsibility of physical annihilation in the hands of the individual, thereby consuming the identity of all who oppose this.

im not sure i follow. its early, and im dumb.

i used to have this funny shirt with a picture of 2 guns crossing on it and it said, "guns don't kill people. people with moustaches kill people"

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I'd just like to add at this point that, while much of what is considered human evolved from apes, there are some humans who simply did not evolve much at all or, in fact, reverted to an earlier, far more basic form of life.

yea no shit dude...how else would we have rednecks and thugs walking around? lol


oh and i have a question. do you feel that people with mental illnesses are less or more evolved?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Point-shoot-dead. We've formed an entire culture out of the fear of their use, yet perpetuate their existence at ever-increasing rates.

I disagree... I don't think we have a culture that fears the use of guns at all - in some odd twist guns have become synonymous with machismo and bravery. Clint Eastwood and Jack Bauer are heroes on tv because of their courage in using firearms. Gangs inculcate honor and pride in drive-by shootings. If anything, we live in a culture that doesn't fear guns enough. Parents keep loaded weapons in the closet with the safeties off in fear of a burglar... the way we use, celebrate, and proliferate guns throughout our society is anathema to any sort of fear (which, I might add, would be based on an accurate appraisal of what guns really represent - as you said, an unnatural and easy extension of human power).

Your point about Africa is interesting - child soldiers represent a concrete example of how drastic the danger of guns really are. A nine year old boy can lift a five pound AK-47 and kill without burning more than a few calories. In terms of physical exertion, killing a man with a gun is not all that different from simply wishing him dead - all you have to do is raise your arm and move your finger two centimeters.

That kind of power over fellow man is completely new in human society. Before the entree of guns into mainstream society, death required some premeditation and a little elbow grease. The proliferation of guns throughout society without fear shows the importance of trust - at any given moment a dozen permit-carrying citizens could put an end to your existence without breaking a sweat.

I don't trust the state to have a monopoly on power. That's what this country was founded on. Power is shared by the people and the state. So the state cannot use abuse its power because the people are armed and therefore, have power themselves to counter tyranny.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.