Guest Post: How To Spot A Hypocrite In The Gun Debate And Other Reflections On Newtown

Tyler Durden's picture

Via Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

For those of you that follow me on twitter, some of the statements and themes you will read in this article will sound familiar.  What happened on December 14, 2012 was obviously a horrific tragedy that my simple mind can’t possibly wrap itself around, but what I can do is send my deepest thoughts, prayers and sympathies to all of those affected.  I can’t imagine the level of pain and suffering you are all experiencing.  This article; however, isn’t directed at you.  There is nothing I can do to ease your pain.  This article is for the rest of us who weren’t directly affected by the incident, but may be indirectly affected by certain parties’ emotional response to it and by those that will exploit it to justify agendas.

One of the key lessons from all of human history is that the easy way to deal with any tragedy is to scapegoat.  In some cases, like in Nazi Germany, the scapegoat proved to be unpopular minorities, especially Jews.  These days, many Americans have fallen into the trap of scapegoasting Muslims and the Islamic religion for all the bad things that happen on the planet.  The key similarity I see in these sorts of situations is that the population affected by some trauma (hyperinflation and economic collapse in Germany and 9/11 in the United States) tends to resort to the knee-jerk reaction of scapegoating an easy target rather than diving into the complexities of the issue and engaging in societal self-reflection.  This is extraordinarily dangerous.

From what I can tell, some of the most ridiculous policies are the direct result of a trauma, people getting emotional, and then begging for a response.    In my own lifetime, 9/11 is the perfect example.  Our national response to a gruesome attack that killed thousands of innocent civilians was to tear up the Constitution, specifically the cherished Bill of Rights, with insane Big Brother type legislation like the “Patriot” Act.  We basically launched the war on terror by waving a white flag.  Truly defeating terrorists wouldn’t have consisted of running to the mall and shopping, as George W. Bush insisted, or giving up the freedoms that made America the most attractive country to move to for the last two hundred years.  The way to judge victory or defeat in the ”war on terror” eleven years later is not to check the statistics on terrorist attacks.  The way to judge victory or defeat is to look at the nation economically, socially and politically and ask yourself are we better off or worse off?  I think the verdict is clear on that front, and I do in large part blame our childish and emotionally reaction to the national tragedy of 9/11.

Well here we stand in mid-December 2012, just days from the Mayan end of the world and another national tragedy has been unleashed on the land.  Most of the victims were innocent, helpless six and seven year old children that never even had the chance to fulfill their potential on this planet.  Unfortunately, just as Ron Paul told us, key parts of the Patriot Act were written and desired by certain factions well before 9/11, there is a powerful faction in the highest echelons of the elite that have wanted and continue to want to remove guns from the hands of innocent American citizens.  These people are not interested in easing violence; these folks want to disarm the public before the mathematically inevitable economic collapse occurs (see my article “Slaves are Always Disarmed”).  While many of these folks claims publicly that there is an “economic recovery” and happy days are just over the horizon, they know better and privately want to get all their ducks in a row before the final and horrific collapse occurs.  This is why the surveillance state is making such aggressive strides at the moment.  It is also why there is a panic to remove firearms from the public.

The person who bothers me the most on this entire topic is Mayor Michael Bloomberg, of my hometown NYC.  You can tell when someone is disingenuous if they freak out over gun violence like it is the biggest issue in America today and at the same time protect the banksters and their “too big to fail” culture, which has and continues to systemically steal trillions of dollars from the poor.  This is Michael Bloomberg to a tee, so this man should have no credibility on any moral subject when he protects and coddles the most dangerous criminal organizations on this planet.  I guess there is something “liberal” about white collar crime.


The other way to spot a hypocrite is to see whether they ever speak out about other acts of violence, or if they only open their mouths when it comes to gun incidents.  I see this attitude all over the “fake left” landscape. If someone you know, or someone in the media never decries American drones strikes that kill children regularly in the forgotten parts of the globe, yet jumps at every gun incident like it is the end of the world, that person has an agenda. That person hates guns, not necessarily violence.  They do not have a clear head in this argument.

Zerohedge put together an excellent article yesterday called Newtown Shooter Had Asperger Syndrome, And Some US Gun Facts, which I suggest everyone read.  They go into the fact that mental illness seems to be the determining factor in most of these shooting incidents and also points out that the deadliest school massacre in U.S. history was The Bath School Disaster, which was carried out with dynamite, not firearms.  Care of we learn that:

In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.


These emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents resulted in 5,045 hospitalizations, constituting 0.4% of 1.4 million non-fatal accident hospitalizations that year.


During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.


The homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.


Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.


Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.

The interesting thing about all of this is because of differentiated gun laws in these United States we can see how effective gun bans really are in the places where they are in effect.  The answer seems to be not very effective.  This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, as what ends up happening with gun bans is that only criminals end up with guns.  A criminal will not obey the law, and even in the Newtown shooting case, these weren’t Adam Lanza’s guns.  He stole them from his own mother.

For the record, I’d love a world without guns, but as long as criminal governments have them and start wars, the people have the right as well.  The actions of one or several mentally ill people should not lead to the restriction of a Constitutionally enshrined right for the hundreds of millions of law abiding, honest citizens that use firearms responsibly.  In fact, with an estimated 300 million firearms within these United States, I’d say it’s somewhat impressive how little gun violence there is.

Unfortunately, going forward, I expect gun violence to escalate.  I don’t think this is a result of the number of guns as much the result of increased poverty and societal marginalization as a result of the economic catastrophe we are witnessing.  A direct result of criminal theft by the TBTF financial institutions that gun haters like Michael Bloomberg protect and serve.  It is also the result of the increasingly sick culture that has developed in America.   One that is in many ways a reflection of the sickness and depravity at the very top of U.S. society emanating from the political and economic oligarchs.  It reminds me of the anti-drug commercial from the 1980?s where the son says to the father “from you dad, I learned it by watching you.”  It’s the same with violence in America. Our own government leads by example.

Recall the words of Justice Brandeis before jumping to emotional conclusions on the gun debate.  We already made that tragic mistake once this millennium.

Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

Peace and wisdom,

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
viahj's picture

you and I know the cost of confiscation, liberty.



Michaelwiseguy's picture

The mainstream media reporter NWO enemies of the people are on a gun grabbing rampage and they are not addressing the real causes for the culture of violence, for their own agenda. Here's how we stop them.

The common thread in all the recent mass shootings is, men in their early 20's were brought up 24/7/365 for a decade or more on violent 1st person shooter training video games, and violent movies.

Gun Owners must demand a ban on video games like Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, and all other 1st person shooter video games.

Gun Owners must demand an end to Violent Movies like Bat Man, Zombieland, and all other mass murder movies.

Demand the Psychiatric Drug industry take their share of the blame.

Make these demands 1st before a single new gun ban is put in place.

Mothers Against Gun Violence in Entertainment (MAGVE) groups should speak out against Hollywood, TV, and other entertainment gun violence genres.

There is no expectation of a ban on suggested items, but to raise awareness of the actual problem and encourage voluntary compliance. I know this goes against The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but we can use this episode to squash their program.

Coupled with the heavy use of Psychiatric Drugs and enhanced with first person shooter video games, we have a recipe for manufactured disaster.


The Entertainment and Pharmaceutical industries must be included with punishment, for their role in increased gun violence.

viahj's picture

the removal of personal responsibility was the first crack in the dam. 

Moral Hazard, Bitchez!

Michaelwiseguy's picture

Gun violence training video games, psychotropic drugs, and real guns don't mix.

The alleged Afghan massacre shooter Sgt. Robert Bales, who was charged with 17 counts of murder and six counts of attempted murder, may have been under the influence of a drug which is known to cause severe psychiatric side effects.

An American soldier opened fire on villagers near his base in southern Afghanistan Sunday and killed 16 civilians, according to President Hamid Karzai who called it an "assassination" and furiously demanded an explanation from Washington. Nine children and three women were among the dead.

'Death to America!' Afghan protesters burn Obama effigies as anger over U.S. soldier who killed 16 civilians rises

viahj's picture

i'm with you about psychotropic drugs and our societal need to be numb to the realities of life [and death].  tools and entertainment don't enter into my calculation for a resolution.

Michaelwiseguy's picture

I just turned on the Alex Jone Show tonight and he's saying basically the same thing I wrote.

I use the harsh "Ban" word for violence in entertainment knowing full well that won't happen, but if the issue is raised by gun groups, the culture of violence will finally be addressed in the mainstream.

Knowing full well we don't really want video games banned due to 1st amendment, but raising the suggestion will make people mad enough that the causes of violence will be discussed in the MSM and divert attention from banning guns.

boogerbently's picture

We'll know the whiny Hollywood liberals are serious when they do something about the violence in film.

Until then, just remember, the FIRST thing desperate people caught in those desperate situations do is CALL SOMEONE WITH GUNS.

SheepHerder's picture


The easiest way to quickly end a gun debate with someone who's for gun control is give them the following scenario:  

You are sitting at your kitchen table having dinner with your family/closest friends and an armed group of thugs comes barging into your home and shouts they are going to kill everyone. They state they will kill each person one by one, leaving each person to watch the people prior to them beg for their life before being shot.  They choose you to be last to die, which means you will watch everyone beg for their life before they are eventually killed. Now this is a magical situation because at that moment we pause stop time.  Everyone is frozen in time except you.  I walk into this sitatuon and in my hand is a fully loaded assault rifle.  I offer you the rifle and tell you that you now have the opportunity to defend not only yourself but also possibly save the lives of your family/friends.  So my question to you, is do you take me up on my offer and take the rifle? 

If the person says no, they're a sick or a liar at which point they're called such.  If they say yes, well then they've just proved why gun ownership is so important.  What usually happens is they try to dodge the question all together, at which point say something like, "By choosing not to answer my question, you and I both know that in your deepest hearts of hearts, you'd take the gun if offered to you in the scenario.  And by choosing to do so, you and I also both know you see why gun ownership is so important."  From there no matter what they say keep saying said sentence over and over again.  Even if they don't concede on the spot, they'll leave the conversation trying to figure out how to logically solve the internal cognitive dissonance, because internally they know they'd take the gun in the scenario you described.  In the end it will either dramatically soften their stance on gun control or they'll have to accept that they are holding a position they don't 100% believe in.

trav777's picture

that you think this logical fallacy is somehow persuasive means you are just dumb.

SheepHerder's picture

Because ad hominem attacks are so intelligent right?  But please amuse me by telling me about the experiences where you've used it and it failed.  After that I'll tell you about the three conversations I've had since Friday where it's worked twice and the other time the person started backpedalling.  

Muppet of the Universe's picture

buy guns practice safe use and storage.  simple, simple, simple.

Why?  B/c you should never come unprepared.

How do you say... if you want peace, prepare for war.

Harlequin001's picture

I've got another one you might like to try. it goes

'cos we're sick and tired of our children getting shot by wankers with guns.'

Wankers shouldn't have guns. So America should ban them, and do itself a favour...

Cypher_73's picture

If they did that nbody in America would have a gun. Can't have that now. I find it all rather Darwinian myself... watching the herd thin itself out and all that.

kwality's picture

So because some theoretical armed thugs have guns, I need to get a gun.  According to you, the solution is more guns (or the same amount of guns, but in non-thug hands, good luck determining who arent the thugs).

There's too much crazy on the internet tonight.

ejmoosa's picture

If you cannot determine if you are a good guy or a thug, then I suggest you stay away from any weapons.

The good guys know why they have them and understand what it means to have the responsibility to carry them.

We do not need a committee or approval for us to know if we are good guys either.  That's a government action because THEY cannot tell the good guys from the thugs.  Because in their eyes, we are all threats.'s picture



So because some theoretical armed thugs have guns, I need to get a gun.


Oh, so this spate of shootings is merely hypothetical. Thank goodness!

StychoKiller's picture

I can safely state that I'm not a thug(ee)!

Cypher_73's picture

The nuts are definitely out in full force...

myptofvu's picture

You could do this much easier by just asking them if they would post a "This is a gun free house" yard sign on their front lawn.

StychoKiller's picture

Along with another sign:  "Please feel free to rob me at any inconvenient time!"

Harlequin001's picture

because no one with a gun ever got robbed.


Cypher_73's picture

I love how they all think they're cowboys and would actually manage to hit the broad side of a barn even if they had a situation to shoot someone...

viahj's picture

that road will only serve to transfer parental/personal responsibility to the state and that is not the road to liberty.  to distract the conversation to video games over guns, only serves to use "tools and entertainment" as the focal point of avoiding personal responsibilty and liberty leading to further empowering the state.

seeing how successful "they" have been in destroying the family, I sense that this battle is almost lost.

Michaelwiseguy's picture

It's called "Politics" for a reason. Gun rights advocates should play the game nasty because the liberal progressers will whether we do or not.'s picture

So you've joined Tipper Gore in a fight against liberalism?

EscapingProgress's picture

Everyone who supports anti-gun legislation is a hypocrite, and this is very simple to understand. The anti-gun crowd advocates for the use of gun violence against anyone who owns guns in order to prevent gun violence. If guns are banned then gun violence, or the threat thereof, will be used to take guns away from anyone who possesses them. This is obvious hypocrisy and complete lunacy, but you can't expect much from people who have been whacked over the head repeatedly with the shovel of government schooling.

We live in a world full of senseless fucking idiots. All you can do now is watch them burn down modern civilization and try your best to stay away from the heat. Goodluck out there ZHers.

trav777's picture

why is the author perpetuating the myth that jooz were scapegoats for the economic collapse in germany?   Their fingerprints were ALL OVER IT and they came out the other side owning the entire country.

Thisson's picture

You're a fucking retard, as are the people upvoting your comment.  Millions were massacred and you're saying they came out "owning the entire country" - go fuck yourself.

TPTB_r_TBTF's picture



You seem convinced.  You need not attend the Reeducation Camps with the rest of us.

Cypher_73's picture

Guns have been killing people way longer than video games have been around. Try again.

TruthInSunshine's picture

Here's what we've been told, in the wake of an objective (and subjective) tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School:


1)  The culprit was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, which falls under the category of an autism spectrum disorder via the DSM-IV.

2)  The culprit was anti-social and was inclined towards non-empathy, according to former classmates and others who knew him and/or grew up with him.

3)  It has been reported by several "anonymous" law enforcement sources that the culprit had a history of legal troubles, but this is unconfirmed as any record pre the age of 18 or 17 would have been sealed per juvenile status.

4)  The culprit used firearms that he stole from his mother, in furtherance of his sick crimes. The culprit never purchased any firearms in his name, or at all, and therefore never underwent federal or state background checks, nor was he screened or approved for a permit to own or carry any firearms.

5) There are an estimated 300 million firearms of all types, from shotguns to pistols to so-called "black" or "assault" rifles, in the lawful ownership and custody of an approximate 50 million American Civilians, 99.99% of whom never violate the law, let alone harm anyone (with without use of a firearm). Think about that; An incredibly small fraction of a fraction of a percent of owners of fireamrs ever threaten, let alone harm any other person during their lifetime.

Yet, here are anti-RTKBA politicians and an incredibly biased Main Stream Media, in the immediate aftermath of a genuine tragedy, exploiting it by using illogical & specious arguments, irrelevant information and dis-information, and empty rhetoric that is purely calculated to foment public support for their true agenda, which is to chip away at the foundation of a critical element of the 2nd Amendment, and in ways that would not have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy, I might add.

Senators Feinstein & Schumer, along with Mayor Bloomberg & President Obama have absolutely no intellectual honesty on this subject, and the Main Stream Media yet again shows why it's an institutional failure of the highest order (it does not educate its readers/viewers/listeners, as a cornerstone institution of a true democracy dependent of an electoral process would do, but it spreads misinformation, half-truths and propaganda).

Bicycle Repairman's picture

Put bluntly, they care about their agenda, not the dead kids.  They have no problem exploiting the dead kids.

TruthInSunshine's picture

While the anti-RTKBA agenda crowd will renew their dogmatic, irrational push to try and legislate away the right to purchase magazines holding more than 10 cartridges of ammunition, they will never want an honest debate on the efficacy of such a piece of legislation, since:

"...of 12,664 murder victims last year, [just] 323 were killed with rifles, according to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Report."

That's correct. 97.5 out of 100 homicide victims last year were killed with handguns, knives, glass bottles, hammers, baseball bats, fists, etc., and not rifles of any kind, let alone "evil, black, assault-y" semiautomatic ones.

I'm quite confident that nearly all the homicides that were perpetrated this weekend in Chicago, land of some of the most restrictive firearm ownership laws -- yet land of an abnormally high homicide rate-- were done so using "low capacity" handguns and revolvers.

StychoKiller's picture

It's just so damn difficult sticking a rifle (assault or no) into yer pants pocket (waist band...)

MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

"Feinstein & Schumer, along with Mayor Bloomberg"

Other than being lying, manipulating, scumbag politicos, what characteristic do these three also have in common?

Just saying...

UGrev's picture

With the exception of the drugs, proper grounding in reality completely negates the remainder of your assertion. We all know how that reality is obtained...

Arthur Borges's picture

Agreed, Michaelwiseguy, yet it is so easy for any teenager to access all three -- and even easier for their misguided elders -- and we have laws and lobbies that made it so and keep it so.

The poetry of the Connecticut shootings is that the youthful Lanza's first victim was his gun nut mother who schooled him up in the skills of load, point and shoot.

I wonder if she breastfed the ungrateful little lad too?


Antifaschistische's picture

Something must be done!

a. stop pumping our children full of psychostimulant drugs for "disorders"

b. how about...don't sell any guns to women (sarc)

c. all school principles should carry a sidearm

Cypher_73's picture

Pff. Arm all the teachers and janitors while you're at it. 

Muppet of the Universe's picture

I don't often write very much anymore.  So it is rare when I write something I am truly proud of...


Violence is generally a learned, observable behavior and it's cause is nearly always a result of anger.  A deep seeded anger most often takes root in children, as their schema's are still developing and they wholly lack complex cognitive functions.

Violence as an observable social behavior:

Generally speaking, it is most commonly displayed in a household between the 'parental' figures.

However, it can also be created in other regularly visited environments, such as a school, a ghetto, or a wartorn region.

The behavior of violence is learned most often through repetition, but in certain instances can be instilled in a single traumatic experience.  However, a traumatic experience of violence can also result in the inability to use violence, but that is very rare.


Violence instilled in a child in the home, is most pervasive, and quite permanent.  The reason being that the child lacks any sense of emotional stability or control, leading to the child to resort to frustration and anger in and around a time period when he/she is most vulnerable- sleep.

Violence instilled in a child outside the home, results from inefficient or lackluster parenting.  This is less permanent, with exception to traumatic events (ie growing up in Darfur).  This kind of violence affects a child only when the parent lacks a deep emotional bond with the child.  A deep emotional bond is often associated with the ability for critical thinking, and the ability to pass on the fruits of critical thinking- wisdom, social skills, and general life guidence.


However, there was an egg that laid the chicken, which is currently fucking up the next egg.  So what made this original egg spoil?

When it comes to the cause of the parent's violence, I will not try to distinguish between the two forms.  I will simply say that the leading cause of violence is a lack of critical thinking.

When one experiences violence or injustice, the immediate reaction is fear or flight.  These are situations that, for all intensive purposes, we would do nearly anyhting to avoid.  Therefore, when said event happens, there is a cognitive rip in what we want, emotionally, and what is currently happening.  As a result we experience great anger.  The anger portion results from a cognitive interpretation of the event.  If we run, we may feel anger at the attacker, ourselves for ending up in the situation, or ourselves for running from the situation.  If we stay and fight, we will be forced to use anger to display dominance or defend ourselves.  In this latter example, anger may be seen as swinging a club across someone's head, or creating a devious or cunning plan to ensnare an enemy.  As we venture further from said event, the cognitive process introduces further complexity.  This is why a person who struggles with anger for a long time, will find it harder and harder to escape this fate.

Those who are unable to quickly and efficiently use critical thinking to unravel and end the growing complexity of their anger, will find that it doesn't just intensify, it spreads into all aspects of their thinking.  The oddest of all phenomenon, is the hosts' inability to realize the building complexity; they are wholly unable to recognize the cognitive falicies this complexity is creating.

In a society with as many cognitive falicies as ours, one can only assume there is an extreme amount of pent up anger (which will lead to violence), and a massive deficit in critical thinking.


It took me, about 2 hours to write this.  I was thinking 10...  But the cool thing is that I didn't even know the answer to this question 2 hours ago, and with the assitance of critical thinking, I was able to come to the correct answer.  Thank you brain.'s picture

Well thought out and presented but perhaps only an answer not the answer. Critical thinking allows that other individuals have other experiences, observations, ruminations and courses of action. This is not to say that A does not equal A but that the world is a big place and no one can grasp even a single issue in its entirety or extract that single issue from the totality of human experience. In other words, you've provided a good piece of the puzzle but it's only a piece. Keep sorting through the pile.

Steve in Greensboro's picture

Institutionalize crazy people, the non-violent ones so they don't end up living on the street, the violent ones so they don't kill the unarmed.

Muppet of the Universe's picture

actually, most people who are crazy are, or are capable of being, sane.  Sanity is a question of diversity of mind.  Critical thinking, to me, seems to be the linch pin in whether someone can reverse the effects of a prolonged anger.


& I realize now, that I wrote fear or flight, instead of fight or flight...

acetinker's picture

Anyone know how many of these "young assassins" come from single-parent (i.e: Mommy only) households?

Lil' boys can do no wrong in their Mommy's eyes.  To be fair, same goes for Daddies and their little girls.

Thus, maybe this is just another symptom of a society gone awry.  I look around me and find little to be cheerful about.  Then, I ask myself; "What if 'things' are exactly as they're supposed to be, it's my inability to comprehend that's the problem?"'s picture

Institutionalize everyone for their own protection. Smokers, drinkers, over eaters, home schoolers, organic farmers, airline passengers and so on.

Optimusprime's picture

When will your "critical thinking" activities penetrate to the perpetrators of the "Darfur" meme, I wonder?  Sort of weakens your case.  How about Gaza? Hmmm.

Muppet of the Universe's picture

I don't know shit about Darfur.  Only that a lot of killing happened there.  I'm assuming that I'm right in that sense.  But I could have said bosnia, or generally any other region of africa...  As for your drift, I'm not sure I follow.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Yoda was a little more succinct.   Fear leads to this, so and so leads to that, blah blah then the Darrrk Siiide.

Siniverisyys's picture

I think the biggest crack in the dam must be a consumerist society that values the self, money, and things above community, altruism, and social cohesion.

A Nanny Moose's picture

This begins with the creation of the Corportion of the Government.