I keep hearing this argument about U.S citizens and lawmakers arguing about the legitimacy of carrying guns and the crimes being committed. Coming from a country where gun control is stricter ( the legal ownership i.e), this is a very strange discussion for me (or other Indians as well I think). I am sure there will be strong opinions and merits/demerits justifying and vilifying the respective positions, but I fail to understand if the proponents and opponents ever delve into the feel factor behind this act called 'violence' itself ? and whether they understand the massive change that a gun brings into the equation ?
Violence is an act of creating pain, emotional for yourself and physical for the other party. I am assuming that we are talking about the physical context of things here. A physical , hand-to-hand fight or even a armed fight which does not depend of automation of some kind, always relies on an instinct of survival or the emotion of rage. It also gives an actual physical, touch based feedback to the attacker of what he's giving to the other person. If you land a punch, your knuckles bear witness and your wrist, arm, shoulder all take a bit of the brunt. It gives you an idea of what pain you created for the other person. Thinking retrospectively, it should give the attacker a kind of empathy to the other person and also a sense of introspection of his/her deed.
Put a gun in the equation, and you take out that part completely ! It devalues the concept of empathy and nullifies the pain you receive when you give it to someone. What impact will this present to the attacker. The 'automation' in the pain-dispensation makes it easy to repeat and the whole act of violence becomes a small part of the equation of domination. The oft repeated 'self-defence' theory that shows guns as a deterrent fails to realize this basic notion. The dehumanization of pain by automating it is making us more 'in-human' and bringing the best of our vile self. I hope people who talk about guns or any other weapon in general realize that this 'empowerment' that the guns brings to the owner is actually a cold-bloodedness that can only take us humans down on the spiritual level.
Violence is an act of creating pain, emotional for yourself and physical for the other party. I am assuming that we are talking about the physical context of things here. A physical , hand-to-hand fight or even a armed fight which does not depend of automation of some kind, always relies on an instinct of survival or the emotion of rage. It also gives an actual physical, touch based feedback to the attacker of what he's giving to the other person. If you land a punch, your knuckles bear witness and your wrist, arm, shoulder all take a bit of the brunt. It gives you an idea of what pain you created for the other person. Thinking retrospectively, it should give the attacker a kind of empathy to the other person and also a sense of introspection of his/her deed.
Put a gun in the equation, and you take out that part completely ! It devalues the concept of empathy and nullifies the pain you receive when you give it to someone. What impact will this present to the attacker. The 'automation' in the pain-dispensation makes it easy to repeat and the whole act of violence becomes a small part of the equation of domination. The oft repeated 'self-defence' theory that shows guns as a deterrent fails to realize this basic notion. The dehumanization of pain by automating it is making us more 'in-human' and bringing the best of our vile self. I hope people who talk about guns or any other weapon in general realize that this 'empowerment' that the guns brings to the owner is actually a cold-bloodedness that can only take us humans down on the spiritual level.
No comments:
Post a Comment