Gun control – naturally

Democrats urge wider gun control

Well of course they do. This is what the PTB are aiming for and it has to be the murdering of children by the disturbed which does it.

After Brevik, who/what were the betes noirs? Rightwingers and self-defence. After this, who/what was the bete noir? Self-defence of course. It might be legit coming from Democrat and PTB mouths if they hadn’t been going hell for leather on this issue before these tragedies.

Interesting how children are chosen as the targets, isn’t it? Think back to Beslan and what was said subsequently, that it was the only way to make the world tune in to the Chechyen issue:

Basayev said the guerrillas would have provided water to the Beslan hostages if Putin had publicly ordered an end to the Chechen conflict. Food would have followed if federal troops had started to withdraw from Chechnya. Children under the age of 10 would have been freed if Putin had resigned. Then, the attackers would have left for Chechnya with the rest of the hostages, Basayev said.

All in a good cause, eh? And Obama – what did he say to the nation in July this year?

He went on to say that “a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily,” adding that these measures, “shouldn’t be controversial, they should be common sense.”

Uncanny, eh?

28 comments for “Gun control – naturally

  1. December 16, 2012 at 10:23 pm

    Perhaps this also adds to the discussion – Karl Denninger:

    And let’s not kid ourselves — that’s exactly what happened in Connecticut. The teachers and staff in that school had no lawful means to resist, because they accepted (and probably even supported) the fallacious argument that laws (paper) stop bullets. They learned, too late, that this argument is and always has been false.

    • Greg Tingey
      December 17, 2012 at 8:14 am

      There was a shooting recently, in a theatre (or even a theater) where there were two ARMED US Marines present – did they open firwe on the nutter?
      The “Arm yourself” argument is 150% false – you are much more likely to hit an innocent bystander – see also records of recent shoot-outs.

      • Plebontheweb
        December 17, 2012 at 1:37 pm

        Greg, sorry but, you’re completely talking out of your arse.

        In actual fact it appears that

        “The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

        The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33”

        The guy who arrived at those figures laid out his methodology and dataset here –

        Oh and, that 2.33 figure doesn’t include the civilian hitting innocent bystanders at all.

      • Peter MacFarlane
        December 17, 2012 at 2:24 pm

        Only Greg could state that something is 150% false.

  2. December 16, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    The definition of ‘mentally unbalanced’ can be easily stretched to cover those who are stocking up food and weapons in case civilisation collapses.

    Eventually, and not too far in the future, the mere request to own a gun will, in itself, prove that you are mentally unbalanced.

    Then nobody can have a gun. Unless they work for the Government.

    • December 17, 2012 at 5:37 am

      Or are a criminal.

    • December 17, 2012 at 7:12 am

      Leg-Iron, it now transpires that the mother of the shooter was just such a person. But so what ? Most of these people might have odd beliefs (to our eyes) but it doesn’t make them all potential killers!

    • Greg Tingey
      December 17, 2012 at 8:16 am

      More bollocks.
      The Candians & the Swiss have almost as many guns per head as the US, but what’s their murder rate & massacre-rate?
      Oh, & almost all their guns are rifles, & non-automatic ones, at that.
      Tells you something.

      • Furor Teutonicus
        December 17, 2012 at 2:38 pm

        Fuckin bollox!

        EVERY Swiss, during army service has a FULLY automatic weapon in the broom cupboard!

        Only AFTER their military service are they semi automatic. (IF they request to keep the gun).

        My Brother is a seargeant in the Swiss army! (No accounting for taste!)

  3. john in cheshire
    December 17, 2012 at 12:04 am

    James, wasn’t it Dunblane that did for us, as far as private gun ownership is concerned? Don’t you think that might have been contrived; and if so, isn’t it possible the US is using the same method to disarm their citizens?

    • Plebontheweb
      December 17, 2012 at 4:28 am

      Re Dunblane;

      Where IIRC the Chief Constable for that area had been strongly advised against renewing Hamilton’s licence, due to concerns about Hamilton’s mental state (i.e. he was writing letters complaining about being ‘persecuted’ over his paedophile acts).

      To my mind there seems to be only three explanations as to why the CC should have ignored those concerns (I can’t honestly say which one would be true as I don’t know);

      1) Both Hamilton and the CC were Masons and the CC acted out of loyalty to a fellow Mason;
      2) The CC was involved in paedophilia just as Hamilton was, and acted out of loyalty to a fellow paedophile;
      3) The CC judged the likilihood of Hamilton resorting to violence against children as quite high, and decided to facilitate this by allowing Hamilton access to gun, possibly to allow a pretext for gun bans that happened to be desired by other authority figures.

      I’m trying really hard to think of an innocent and justifiable explanation for the CC’s actions, knowing Hamilton’s mental state, and I just can’t manage it.

      • December 17, 2012 at 7:08 am

        Maybe. but remember: One should never ascribe to conspiracy something that can equally adequately be explained by cock-up…

        • December 17, 2012 at 8:29 am

          You beat me to it; the most likely explanation was incompetence.

  4. December 17, 2012 at 5:15 am

    Sorry, actually fell asleep and only just woke up. Dunblane – yes. We have a real problem with suggesting “contrived” because:

    1. We don’t actually have the proof;

    2. There’s a type of reader who immediately cries “truther” or “birther” or similar.

    On the other hand, the modus operandi is so consistent and the legislation follows swiftly. It did after 911 and after almost all other outrages. Take the two girls killed – CRB checks followed that. Many people point out the Hegelian motif.

    And as for proof, yes it at least needs strong evidence to conclude or convict, no question of that for that is the hallmark of the rule of law and not the vigilante gang. However, there’s also the syndrome of Macavity the Cat. I’m thinking of Blair at a summit at St. Andrews here.

    The best compromise is that it was not contrived but that the PTB certainly were poised ready to make the most of it, as Obama’s legislators have been itching to do in the CT case.

    Chuckles always says: “Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence,” to which I would say: “Never desperately try to explain away by other factors that which is glaringly explained by malice.”

    • December 17, 2012 at 7:09 am

      Ah, should have read further – Chuckles’ comment is the polite version of mine above… 😆

  5. December 17, 2012 at 10:44 am

    Kipling, of course, said it best:

    “They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.”

  6. Mudplugger
    December 17, 2012 at 11:30 am

    A nutter in a car can easily kill as many as a nutter with a gun – think bus-queues, high streets, sporting venue crowds.
    It’s the nutter, not the gun, that does the killing.
    Should we ban all cars, just in case ?

    • December 17, 2012 at 1:28 pm

      Think Cardiff a month or two back. Ban white vans, I say.

  7. Furor Teutonicus
    December 17, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    I am sure I could take out more than 27 six year olds with my Lochaber axe…. should THAT be banned as well?

    I am pretty sure I could seriously injure a whole school class with my mountain walking stick.

    China, 28 Bastards taken down with a butchers knife!

    Should our butchers only use a Swiss army pen knife from now on?

    Mountain walking sticks? Vegetable knives? Ban them?

    GUNS, Knives, Pick axes (ask Trotsky) do not kill.

    The intention behind the weapon kills!

    • December 17, 2012 at 10:23 pm

      Indeed. What I’d like to know is why the Swiss appear to be doing something right (as so often) in that the population knows how to handle a weapon to make their lives very expensive if anybody wants to start something, yet somehow they seem to avoid the outliers getting in to a position to misuse those weapons.

      Anybody know?

      • December 18, 2012 at 1:46 pm

        Because Swiss people have Swiss heads on them, whereas American people have American heads?

        In other words, the culture and the minds…

        • David A. Evans
          December 18, 2012 at 2:00 pm

          Or more likely, there are just many more Americans.


          • December 18, 2012 at 8:15 pm

            Statistics per head of population take all that into account DaveE. Lower than in the US but significantly higher than in many other countries (apparently – I only looked at one source)

  8. December 18, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    There was a “justification” of gun control as a result of this massacre – the typical Hegelian knee-jerking which let’s the legislation in they wanted all along – it was a Huffington Post article [of course]. I replied:

    There are three major fallacies in the leftist argument of the Huffington Post.

    1. The problem is that opposition to reasonable gun control

    The problem is the word “reasonable” because the very people who would define that are the ones who do not care for their Constitution nor logic.

    2. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to legislate on this – it is a state by state matter.

    3. The opposition is not irrational – it is logical, as Karl Denninger pointed out.

    Remember again – the nutter or crim will always get weapons. The issue is not them, the issue is the defenceless population.

    It’s very simple logic. Disarm your population unconstitutionally and you have walked into tyranny, as we have over here.

    Let me say it again – if you disarm people, then you only need one person to have access – that’s all it takes, and you have a massacre. No one has any defence against it.

    Allow your people to be armed [at least for home defence], as the Constitution provides and a crim or nutter:

    1. thinks twice;
    2. doesn’t last long.

    The measures Washington should now take are to free up gun laws they’ve had on the drawing boards and allow people to rearm [for home defence only of course].

    • cuffleyburgers
      December 18, 2012 at 3:14 pm

      [for home defence only of course].

      I seem to recall reading somewhere that violence stats in concealed carry states are lower than states where it is not permitted.

      The death of these kids is a very great tragedy.

      I am also sickened by the playing politics that has resulted. Any kind of kneejerk gun law that can result will not save any lives.

      O/T, Italian TV showed “V for Vendetta” last night at prime time (one of the Burlesquoni channels) – you wouldn’t see that on the BBC.

      My girlfriend commented “so then we’re to go and blow up the montecitorio but only when there’s politicians in it you wouldn’t want to destroy a beautiful monument for nothing”

      And therein lies V’s error – he should have done it when it was full.

      • Simon
        December 18, 2012 at 3:53 pm

        The study saying that gun crime is lower in conceal carry states did not adjust for the fact that they were rural and that the non-conceal carry states were urban.

        There is a wealth of academic evidence out there some reviewed here that conceal carry does not have good results and that having guns available increases the likelihood of gun crime. Interestingly your chances of being a murder victim if your house is burgled rise hugely if you have a gun.

  9. December 19, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    Any discussion on this topic, whatever side one is on, or if unable to choose a side, needs to address the dramatic variation in gun crime deaths per head of population in different nations, and consider these in line with the varying freedom to access guns in the nations.

    And those advocating the right to bear arms on the grounds of liberty and freedom should surely make it clear where on the sliding scale they would draw the legal line – or would they allow everybody freedom to purchase anything, moving up through, air pistols and spud guns, handguns, assault weapons, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenades, SAM missiles, multiple rocket launchers…. nuclear weapons? At what point on the scale (if anywhere?) does legislation on behalf of everyone need to limit the freedom of the individual to buy what they want?


Comments are closed.