Deconstructing the Gun Control narrative: you have a problem with violent people. You take away their guns, they will stab you instead. Well played, children.

Journalism was never about reality. It was always about presenting narrative and passive and easy causes people can cheer for without feeling offended as some benevolent group known as They clean up the messes. People find all sorts of excuses not to ask hard questions. In the US, we now have a generation of teenagers parading as activists, demanding their rights be taken away so they can have a Nanny State to take over from their Helicopter Parents.

This is the first American generation who are fighting to have fewer freedoms, and there is a big implication that should have the entire nation very worried.

When a society progresses and evolves, it is stronger, smarter, healthier, more moral, rational, and mature than the generation before it; ergo, it can handle more freedoms. 

One generation may need training wheels to get a feel of a problem, but by the time they solve it, the new generation moves everything forward. That is the hallmark of progress.

So, we should have greater freedoms with every new generation, not less.

And here is a generation who self-admit to being so untrustworthy and not in control of themselves, that they have to be supervised. They refuse to take responsibility, but are using a deceptive narrative to do it.

It reminds me of a Benjamin Franklin quote:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

His context was not about fleeing from violence, but it still applies: if you sacrifice freedom for a fleeting moment of safety, you actually lose credibility. You admit that you are too incompetent to survive in freedom. You need to be caged to exist.

That is the problem with the Gun Control narrative: you cannot restrict freedoms of the non-existent Them; you must restrict Us.

And we have evidence to show a restricted Us is not a safe Us.

Take London, for instance, whose murder rate is now higher than New York City's. This was accomplished without guns, but knives. People are getting stabbed to death.

In fact, the UK has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world.

And those who are not getting stabbed are having acid thrown in their face. The UK also has one of the highest rates of acid attacks in the world.

So we can impose even stricter gun control laws, and guess what? You are not actually dealing with the reality.

You have a violence problem, not a gun problem.

And yet, you have a young generation who are shilling a lie, making demands that do not align with reality. There is no defence of this narrative peddling, and I do not care if they were shot at and lost friends as a result.

My own grandmother lost her entire family in concentration camps in the Second World War. She saw violence in war, but she never used it as an excuse to fight for losing her freedoms, or making a career as she mugged and vogued for the camera, either. There are countless terrorists who lost family members to violence; their past sorrows do not justify their horrific solution to their pain. Nor is one extreme superior to another extreme.

What we have is a lack of rationality, and an over abundance of civic laziness. 

Ooo, getting shot at is scary! Let's chain ourselves and let the government solve our problems!

No, they won't. If gun control was an effective method of curbing murder, then London should not have a murder rate higher than New York City, but it eclipses it.

And in a world that has a Dark Web and means to manufacture guns underground as it is not that hard to make weapons -- what gun control can do is merely keep legal guns out of the hands of people who obey the law and aren't likely to misuse their weapons.

So if the problem is not guns, and it is violence, why do journalists insist it is about guns?

Because journalism doesn't deal with reality or facts. It deals with narrative. It is a way of creating an easy and passive solution that offends those who are ideologically opposed to their own political beliefs. It is a form of imposing a will on those whose beliefs differ from the status quo.

Because journalists have no training in psychology, they cannot assess people properly. Guns, on the other hand, are things, and things do not have feelings or can be offended.

The profession is an intellectually immature one, and depressingly so. If you are familiar with Jean Piaget's four levels of cognitive development, you realize that collectively, journalism isn't even out of the first stage, known as the Sensorimotor Stage: they see guns. They think removing the gun makes the problem vanish. 

It is a profession with absolutely no sense of object permanence. None.

Just like a toddler forgets about an object if it is removed from view, and does not have the intellectual ability to form a memory, the curiosity, or the initiative to start hunting in search of something that was there for one second, but now is gone.

The guns may be gone, but the violence is still there.

What is most disturbing is you have a young generation and a dead industry who are both less intellectually developed than killers who do not forget about a weapon just because you take it away from them. They find another weapon and then kill you, anyway. You might forget about violence because there is no gun to see, but murderers won't, giving them an even greater advantage over the activist prey.

Why is this even happening in 2018? Why is Western society regressing at the most basic level?

Because we do not have a journalism that is functional, and we have a generation that is logically illiterate: they throw temper tantrums, and then preen in front of cameras demanding nannying, but completely stuck in the early Sensorimotor Stage. If we had a functional media that reached the Formal Operational Stage, there not only would be no clamouring for a Gun Control that cannot possibly work, there would be no violence control problem because it would have been properly dealt with decades ago.

There is no excuse to have a primitive society that is regressing thanks to journalistic ignorance.

We need an alternative to journalism, and it needs a matriarch to nurture it to make sure it reaches each stage of development from infancy to adulthood. Journalism was always an orphan, and it needed a mentor that worried about it when it strayed too far for too long.

And that's why we still have a violent world filled with frightened people who can no longer think rationally, or come up with a solution that actually works.