The issue that America and now Canada is facing with violent crimes with a firearm is reaching new highs or should I say lows. Our real failure is being illustrated post occurrence with the argument of firearm safety and access.
I have to ask which is required for a violent crime to exist, the weapon or the perpetrator? Can a crime of any sense be committed if there is no actor? Is a perpetrator not needed? Many right now are yelling at their scream automated digital crimes. I retort with it need a human to put the wheels in motion.
I have to ask has anyone ever blamed the drill for an uneven shelf, or a hammer for unstable table leg. Is the spackle knife responsible for a weak wall. If these tools are not responsible and hold no accountability for the failings of the task they are associated with.
Than why is a gun as it does not differentiate from the tools mentioned above. They all serve a function relative to task. The issue is the hands in which they are placed in. If we place accountability on the tool that creates an opportunity for the hands that do the work to go unnoticed.
Ask yourself, why would the perpetrator or any 3rd party interventionist involved in such actions not want for attention to be place of the actor? Could it be that if the actor is characterized in full detail the public may come to an understanding that sets opposition to the narrative?
I find it interesting that our perceptions are being framed by blaming the tool. Our notions are cause and effect, necessary and sufficient conditions being redefined, and our responses being guided through institutional conceptualization.
I encourage. No, I challenge you all to ask why. What one can do to and with the ignorant. Sad reality is that our institutions are establishing such lines or irrational reasoning. How does the irrational become seen as plausible?
This piece was inspired by this article