Unbequeme Fragen

... zum jüngsten Amoklauf in Oregon stellt der amerikanische Psychologe Dr. Michael J. Hurd auf seiner Web-Page:

In the 1960s and 1970s, it was fashionable, at least among intellectuals, to search for the “root causes” of crime.

The term later became something of a joke, and with largely good reason. The “root causes” of crime, it was allegedly discovered, resided in poverty and inequality. As a result, laws against violent crime were relaxed and social welfare spending massively increased during this period. Crime subsequently went up, as never before. Oops.

Since that time, the shift among intellectuals has been towards a fixation on gun control. “Gun causes crime. Get rid of guns, and you will get rid of crime.”

It’s magical thinking in the extreme, and it’s as unintellectual and anti-intellectual as anything could be.

Such naive and simplistic thinking might be expected from the unintelligent, uneducated or genuinely unenlightened. But it’s today’s hard left, intellectual and government establishment who calls for gun control or gun bans.

It seems to me that an honest and objective intellectual would be looking deeper than guns.

(Hier weiterlesen)

Solche Fragen werden selten gestellt — von der Waffenverbots-Fraktion überhört, mund in unseren Medien faktisch totgeschwiegen. Man kann sich denken, warum. Der alte Satz, daß wenn Waffenbesitz dereinst ein Verbrechen sein sollte, nur mehr Verbrecher Waffen haben werden, ist nur zu wahr. Und er trifft auf die staatlich organisierten Verbrecher ganz besonders zu. Jene sogenannten »Gesetzeshüter«, die in Wahrheit nur die Söldner der Machthaber sind. Für den Fall, daß ihnen die Aufrechterhaltung der Demokratie-Simulation einfach zu lästig wird ...