Many countries still allow their citizens to own firearms, while all others prohibit it. It is well known that the presence of weapons among the population reduces the number of crimes involving their use. This is mainly because there is a great risk of facing resistance during an attack, so criminals are less likely to resort to robbery, armed assault, and murder. However, both Obama and Poroshenko consider weapons to be evil and try to tighten the rules for its acquisition or even ban it altogether. Why? Where is the logic?
The first reason seems to be plain populism. For example, as you may remember, four years ago in Newtown 20 children and seven adults died. Obama then cried openly in the White House and blamed the automatic rifle Bushmaster for everything. There was no one else to blame, as the 20-year-old shooter had killed himself right there at the school after the operation was completed.
The rifle is to blame and those who sell it. We have enough strength to fight against them. Using such an appeal, it is undoubtedly easy to rally many sentimental Americans around oneself. After all, children died. How many of them were saved because their parents had these very Bushmasters at home is irrelevant to us. We see tears in the eyes of the president and understand that something needs to be done, and done immediately. Children’s lives are at stake. Obama and the Democrats undoubtedly scored many points by acting against logic but very popularly.
But this is just populism. Simple speculation on the feelings of the average person. It is forgivable, as all politicians act this way, it is their job.
I think the main reason is deeper.
The main threat to developed fears, and therefore to global corporations, and therefore to the entire global elite, is us - the citizens of these countries. America is not afraid of war with China, NATO is not afraid of Putin at the borders, and Kim Jong Un’s nuclear tests neither. America, as well as Europe, Russia, and of course Ukraine, are afraid of revolutions on their territories.
No matter how devastating the wars between countries may be in the future, the damage from them will be insignificant compared to the damage from future riots and uprisings. We are talking about the damage to governments, corporations, and the ruling elite. In any war, they will be in the rear, in any revolution, they will be on the front lines. They vitally need to protect themselves… from their own people.
The Bushmaster automatic rifle instantly turns a law-abiding slave citizen into the master of his land. Even without firing a single shot from it in his entire life, he is no longer afraid. And it’s not about fear of criminals, although that is also important. Primarily, he is not afraid of his government.
And that means the government is afraid of him. It is difficult to manipulate people when they have weapons in their hands. It is difficult to impose one’s will on them. It is difficult not to take them into account.
By taking away the people’s weapons and tightening control over their storage and carrying, the government solves its main task - its own survival. Undoubtedly, in the short term, this is also beneficial for us, its people - we have stability and absence of disorders. But in the long run, we get an increasingly growing gap between the interests of the ruling classes and the people.
But isn’t it better to govern a people who can take to the streets with rifles at any moment and voice their protest, than a people who have neither rifles, nor courage, nor their own opinion?
Translated by ChatGPT gpt-3.5-turbo/42 on 2024-04-20 at 17:32
