Are shootings an effect of weapons availability or cultural issues?

Every time a crazy gunman appears in the US, progressives talk about regulating guns. The right there has taken out a report from the RAND Corporation to show that prohibitive laws do not diminish the attacks. Here in the southern hemisphere, the debate on arms liberalization tends to point out the impotence of restrictive laws in the face of the illegal arms trade – this being, by far, the biggest problem regarding arms in Brazil.

Well, legal issues aside, no one can deny that it’s easy to get a gun in Brazil. If your intention is to shoot as many children as possible and then kill yourself, as the crazy Americans do, then there’s no need to worry about legality. Since the illegal trade in rifles in Rio de Janeiro must far outnumber the legal trade in rifles in any residential area of ​​the US, we must assume that it is easier for a crazy person to get a rifle in Brazil than it is in the US. Still, the fact is that the attack by a crazy person at school is not a common problem around here. Guns even enter our schools – but by the mercantilist hand of drug trafficking, interested in earning the most and not shooting at students at random.

Thus, we can only conclude that the US problem needs to be addressed. an explanation of an immaterial order; of an explanation that makes use of culture, values, customs. Progressives who point to the availability of weapons as the cause of the problem are under the illusion that the human world is sufficiently explained by matter. They are the same ones who explain violent crime due to material shortages (poverty) and think they are capable of solving the world’s problems by distributing income.

An explanation in front of their nose

Tucker Carlson addressed the problem in his program. According to the data he brought, there is a general increase in all types of violence in the US, so the attacks should be seen within this general framework. It was not the legal possession of guns that caused this increase, as it has only been decreasing in the US since the years 80. “The problem,” says Tucker, is that “people have changed; young men have changed. They are more violent. Because? This is the bipartisan conversation we need to have right now.”

With great caution, Carlson says there must be multiple causes for this. In any case, a more promising correlation object than legal gun ownership (which has declined) is the use of antidepressants, which has increased along with violence. Between 1991 and 2018, according to him, the use of antidepressants increased by more than 3. 50 % In the USA. Clearly there was already something very wrong with that country’s sanity. And the problem got even worse with the confinement policy. According to data brought by Carlson, depression, anxiety and suicide exploded among young people, impacted by the closed schools. It would be surprising if a general increase in mental illness among young people was not accompanied by an increase in crazies carrying out school bombings.

Carlson also thinks that the pharmaceutical industry deserved to be charged, as this mountain of antidepressants don’t seem to be working. In this he is right. In this regard, see Eli Vieira’s article on the dubious efficacy of antidepressants, which are not unaccompanied by disastrous side effects on the mental health of young people, such as loss of libido (imagine an adolescence without libido. young people were confused about their own sexuality and became more susceptible to the social contagion of gender ideology).

In addition, Carlson points out that the habit of being locked up at home using the internet has risen a lot, and that one of the recent shooters certainly lived like this. I only mention this because the Brazilian attack most in line with the US style, that of Realengo, was carried out by a guy with this profile. Rejected by girls in school days, he spent his day on the internet enjoying a widespread hatred of women. Despite all the legal restrictions on guns, he invaded the old school with a gun, aiming at the girls (this is a rare case in which one actually dies “for being a woman”. “).

How’s Europe doing?

It wouldn’t be too bold to say that the US is increasingly full of violent madmen. Not all madmen are violent, however. Reading a news report from the Telegraph, it is inevitable to conclude that the British are out of the house. “Tamagotchi children who don’t exist can solve the population problem,” says the British newspaper, adding that “virtual offspring could become fully accepted in society, would be cheap to raise and wouldn’t even have to grow up.” Why don’t people like that get a dog or a cat?! The idea is by one Catriona Campbell, an authority on artificial intelligence in Britain. In a survey, it is discovered that she is a figurehead of – amazingly – psychology, an area that is a crazy decoy.

Babies will exist in the Metaverse and will be similar to their parents, insists the newspaper. We also learn which creature came up with this idea after a survey revealed that % of childless couples choose not to have children because of concerns about the world’s overpopulation and the costs of having a child. Catriona “argues that overpopulation concerns will lead societies to embrace digital children. It’s a demographic transformation that she dubbed the ‘Tamagotchi generation’.” If a couple decides not to have children because of costs, what to do? Offer him a tamagotchi. Sounds like the Michael Jackson method of treating vitiligo. For some reason, the assumption is that people who fail to have children because of costs should be ignored, while neo-Malthusian freaks should be taken care of, because they will multiply within the existing population. Oh, of course such a genius was in Davos last month, speaking at Klaus Schwab’s WEF.

Let’s continue with this lady’s views: “Virtual children may seem like a giant leap now, but within 50 years they will have advanced so far that the babies that exist in the Metaverse will be indistinguishable from those in the real world. As the Metaverse evolves, I can see virtual children becoming an accepted and fully embraced part of much of the developed world.”

As I don’t have a degree in psychology, I know kids are hard work, and I know that people like to mask their laziness with noble intentions. I don’t know how many of these couples aren’t simply people who want to be quiet, without worrying about children, but think it’s more beautiful to say they’re making a sacrifice in the name of the elitist pseudoscience of the time. Anyway, as fanaticism really exists and some couples really must fear the end of the world, I wonder what the mental sanity of these people planned by the scientist will be, who create a virtual doll to assuage the frustration of not having a child. How can this work?

In Italy, less bad

The topic of the cost of children, in Europe, also calls my attention. Where there is a Welfare State, parents do not have to spend on school or health insurance. The child’s costs would be food, but those who are poor get state aid. So, at least before the food inflation caused by the war in Ukraine, I can only assume that the problem for Europeans is the high standard of consumption – and I can’t help but think that they share the WEF mentality, because instead of lowering the standard, choose not to have children. The WEF plans a world full of technological junk and understaffed, in theory because of environmentalism. Wouldn’t it make more sense to cut out the technological knick-knacks? Do you need to give your child an iPhone, even though it’s associated with an increase in mental illness? And need to release an iPhone every year? None of these tech-enlightened WEF treats planned obsolescence as an evil to be fought. I spent 8 years with a computer for not using the trinkets of globalist hero Bill Gates, who quickly turns any machine into a jalopy.

Given the general picture of Europe and the agenda that the WEF pushes us, It is encouraging to hear that Italy has decided to carry out pro-natal propaganda, in an open campaign against green anti-natalism. However, the expedient is a bad déjà vu: they will stimulate the birth rate by paying. The Aceprensa article that I translated in this newspaper said that the details were yet to come; researching, I found the information that the pension would be given to women. Could paying women to be mothers be a good idea? I believe that the case of the Rhuan boy should be taken into account in any policy that involves purely financial incentives for motherhood; after all, only this kind of stimulation could lead a misandrical lesbian to become pregnant. In this case, Rhuan’s mother and his girlfriend, each with a child, added up the pensions deducted from the salaries of the children’s parents. When Rhuan’s father managed to suspend the pension because she had disappeared with the boy, the psychopath saw in the child only an extra mouth, tortured and killed him. Most mothers are not psychopaths, but most women become mothers for reasons outside the economy, and sometimes against the economy. By creating a payment, you create a stimulus for psychopaths to bring children into the world. The profile of the woman who becomes a mother changes, and that cannot be good.

The article by Massimo Calvi cited by Aceprensa expresses a perspective similar to mine and adds information. He also considers that it is not the birth rate, but the unlimited consumption that should weigh in on concerns about the environment. He also mentioned that one fear of women is that they can’t do their best for their children – something that answers my doubts about the question of standard among Europeans; in fact, they’d rather not have kids than set a lower standard (I already think kids without an iPhone are worth more than kids with an iPhone). The reasons for the fears of the Italian women mentioned by him that seem reasonable to me would be the relocation in the labor market and the scarcity caused by the war. The first of these problems would be a matter for labor legislation, it seems to me. But cash injections are likely to cause food inflation, which is even more worrisome in times of war. And lack of food would, in the end, be the only absolutely unavoidable material reason for Europeans to stop having children.

The US ended up with black communities giving money to single mothers: it became financially It is more feasible to send the husband out than to have a stable home. The result is still seen today, with crime at the heights. If Italy is going to make a program for any woman who becomes a mother, it is possible that it will run into a similar problem, since it can be profitable to bring a child into the world without the slightest desire to raise it properly.

Massimo Calvi mentions the consumerist Italians who even put a child into the world, but are not parents to those children. I’m surprised he supports this payment, as money is everything to consumers and it doesn’t make anyone a decent parent.

Back to top button