Why the USA Needs Even More Guns

If you can’t reform ’em, help ‘em be their own final solution

Image for post
Image for post
Because I could not stop for death, it kindly stopped for me

Before we delve into the issue of why the USA needs to arm its citizens far more heavily, a few empirical facts about the USA will help set the necessary context.

The USA has the world’s most expensive health care system yet delivers among the worst results. The USA has one of the least effective educational systems in the entire OECD: US citizens are far more ignorant than citizens of other OECD nations as well as being far more superstitious and therefore more religious. US citizens are far more sexually repressed than their European counterparts and US entertainment is the most violent in the world.

The USA also suffers from insane levels of gun violence yet its population and political system are both so dysfunctional that daily mass shootings have been entirely normalized and are seen by some sections of the economy as positively helpful in boosting advertising revenues. Everyone else mindlessly chants “thoughts and prayers” before returning to their latest must-watch streaming video series.

In other words, USA 1.0 has been a total failure.

What else do we know about the USA? We know that the Constitution is regarded as Holy Writ rather than being merely a best-effort compromise that was intended to be improved and changed as circumstances required. We also know that in the USA More Is Always Better.

These two facts together lead us to the crux of how we can solve the many problems that make the USA the worst-functioning nation in the entire OECD.

Gun rights folk regard the Second Amendment to the US Constitution in the same way as religionists regard whatever myths they happen to believe. The problem is that the gun rights folks are as dull-witted as everyone else thinks they are, and this means they haven’t yet contributed to the final solution of the USA’s many intractable problems. But we can help.

Where in the Second Amendment does it say that the right to bear arms shall be limited to handguns, rifles, and shotguns? Remember, the wording is entirely in the context of a well-regulated militia. Those who wrote the Second Amendment believed that an armed citizenry was essential as a reserve force in the event of invasion by a foreign power (side note: it was utterly useless and everyone ran away). Back in the eighteenth century muskets and primitive rifles were the ne plus ultra of modern weaponry so it was natural for folk to interpret the Second Amendment as being about such things.

But times have changed and weapons systems have changed dramatically.

What this means, gentle reader, is that today’s US citizen ought to have the right to own grenade launchers, flame-throwers, fully automatic weapons of any caliber, and ideally surface-to-surface missiles as well as essential defensive technologies like claymores and landmines. And don’t get me started on how every red-blooded American ought to be able to buy an Abrams tank or an Apache helicopter! Only morons believe their little hand guns and rifles would be of any use against modern military assets. In fact, in order to defend themselves against government oppression and those terrifying Black Helicopters of the United Nations, every American should have the right to own at least two dozen thermonuclear bombs.

Furthermore, Hollywood really isn’t doing its full part either. Today the US entertainment industry turns out so much violent content that by the time a typical US child has reached the age of four years old it’s already seen more than one million violent incidents on television. Surely we can ask Hollywood to do better than this? Given that the vast majority of US children spend most of their waking moments gawping at a screen, we should be more ambitious. By the age of four it’s only reasonable that our children should have witnessed at least ten million acts of violence! These are formative years and today we’re largely squandering their potential for deforming the minds of our young ones.

The hard work of entertainment doesn’t stop at childhood, of course. Infants of all ages, up to and including the present incumbent of the White House, need to be inspired. Hollywood needs to up its game with show concepts such as Top Score!!, a daily reality show in which contestants across the nation will compete to see who can kill the largest number of unsuspecting civilians in the most creative choice of locations.

Equally the Internet can’t rest on its YouTube laurels; we need thousands of channels dedicated to random violence and mass murder if we’re going to fulfill the potential of this amazing technology.

Today around one hundred US residents die each day from gunshot wounds. That totals around 33,000 deaths per year. Frankly this is pathetic and despite the best efforts of the media to sensationalize mass shootings and encourage copycat killings, we see a clear lack of ambition here.

With the power of modern communications technologies and modern weapons systems we ought to be able to boost these bare-minimum numbers by a factor of ten at the very least. That would yield one thousand gunshot deaths per day, or around a third of a million per year. Sounds impressive, but frankly it is barely the beginning. More is always better in the land of the idle bravado and the home of McSlop and so we should strive to achieve truly meaningful big numbers.

What we want is a daily death count that genuinely moves the needle. Until we reach ten thousand gunshot deaths per day we aren’t even scratching the surface of what’s possible.

Sure, it will take time and a whole lot of work to get there but there’s no intrinsic reason why the USA shouldn’t ultimately succeed in achieving a daily death score of fifty thousand or more. And then, folks, we’re on our way to the final solution!

At one and a half million deaths per month, which is eighteen million deaths per year, we would begin to see real progress. At this magnificent rate of slaughter the entire US population would cease to exist in a mere twenty years. While unfortunately it’s likely that the total daily death rate will fall as the population declines because it will become more and more difficult to find large groups of people to blast away at from the back of a Ford F150 that’s been equipped with twin 22mm anti-aircraft guns, we can nevertheless be optimistic that the end truly is achievable.

And what comes after the final solution has succeeded?

Let’s think about it for a moment: a huge land full of natural wonders, now ready to be populated by more educated and thoughtful and civilized people.

We can call this USA 2.0.

Canadians can migrate south to escape their awful climate. Intelligent Europeans (e.g. those who didn’t vote for Brexit or AfD or Le Pen etc.) can cross the Atlantic in search of a land where having a working frontal cortex doesn’t leave you in the minority. And people from other places where repression is constant can likewise make their way, untroubled by bloated sacs of orange pus blustering and lying about walls and murdering rapists.

USA 2.0 could be a forward-looking reality-based nation of people who take care of each other, educate their children, and make sensible choices about how to govern themselves.

In short, USA 2.0 could be the precise opposite of everything USA 1.0 is today.

We must neither prevaricate nor procrastinate. It’s time that US citizens were able to fulfill their true potential and do everything that comes naturally, so as to ensure a better future for everyone else.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store