Philosophy – “Criminal Control, not Gun Control” – 5/28/2022

“If a gun can be controlled, who can say if it won’t also be controlled from being outside hands of those responsible enough to utilize one?”

– Modern Romanticism

A criminal speaks a singular language. One of fear. No criminal will remain a lion with bared fangs and claws, if this language can be understood by others. If a language, like fear, can be understood from two sides, it depends on those who can utilize it in a more responsible manner. Even if a language refers to a literal language, such as Chinese or French, you’ll notice those who know to speak when it becomes most appropriate. Others will speak to interrupt. Others will speak to insult or in an attempt to harass to degrade.

It cannot be subjective, for something as speech or language, to be outside moral appropriateness if we can consider manner or etiquette. To that more extreme route of knowing a language, this one called “fear” from a criminal’s way of communicating with their audience, controlling such will require a superior usage of it. A superior usage of fear will, in a simple sense, subdue an inferior usage of that language. If one controls a gun, not a criminal with a possession of one, there might as well be rhetoric that argues that a microphone conveys a literal language told into it, rather than a person who speaks from their thoughts.

A language, as fear, can be subdued. One criminal, as any other, will be trained not as a person, though as a dog. If fear remains all that they understand, it stays as fear to be what proves a human’s dominance over even a literal literal dog. If a dog becomes trained through a usage of fear, which it does when it knows its master instructs it, so can a criminal be given this same treatment.

Speaking a language of fear requires a greater dosage of another’s language, same with fear, to subdue a giant into an ant. To that, one must know that when a tool becomes restricted, being a gun or a mere enhancement to a certain language, what hides itself will be a potential speaker of that language. Whether that concealment relates to that of those who can enact this language of fear for good or for bad, must be depended on this availability of that tool. Although, when you subdue that tool, negatives to those who can express a certain language will become a prominence, due to those deemed as necessary to be silenced to operate in more effective ways. An attempt to silence a speaker to this language of fear, through restricting their tools, will result in themselves operating their crime in areas never given attention. If to make unavailable a tool of an AR-15 assault rifle, an expressor to this language of fear will embrace those hidden crimes that are never seen among this light of greater incidents.

Since to silence language will not be its case, when you restrict their tools, there will become a thinning of their acts to more isolated events. If a mass shooting reaches mainstream media’s attention, it had been because of itself being a popular subject. If another subject happens to be to restrict high-magazine guns, what occurs out of mainstream medias not considering isolated events will be their hiddenness from gaining popular attention. This has been an objective case, and what will remain as this when a popular story can no longer be covered.

Again, to subdue a language will require a greater precision and more ability to that language. If a large incident as a mass shooting indicates that high-magazine assault rifles must be restricted, a language as fear will not be silenced within those more occurring incidents of gun violence by handguns. A language as fear will be silenced, at an almost national or global basis, when a certain world introduces greater speakers of fear with responsibility and appropriateness of it.

Leave a Reply