This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The Lies That Gun Grabbers Tell
Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market.com,

When a group or organization seeks to establish any social policy, it helps tremendously if that group remains honest in their endeavor. If its members are forced to lie, tell half-truths or use manipulative tactics in order to fool the masses into accepting its initiative, then the initiative at its very core is not worth consideration. Propaganda is not simply political rhetoric or editorial fervor; it is the art of deceiving people into adopting the ideology you want them to espouse. It is not about convincing people of the truth; it is about convincing people that fallacy is truth.
Nothing embodies this disturbing reality of cultural dialogue more than the ill-conceived movement toward gun control in America.
It isn’t that gun control proponents are impossible to talk to in a rational manner; most gun control activists have an almost fanatical cult-like inability to listen to reason. It isn’t that they are so desperate to paint themselves as “intellectually superior” to 2nd Amendment advocates; intellectual idiocy is a plague upon many ideological groups. What really strikes me as astonishing is the vast and embarrassing lengths to which gun grabbers in particular will go to in order to deny facts and obfuscate history.
I have seen jaw-dropping acts of journalistic debauchery and blatant disregard for reality since the gun debate exploded in the wake of Sandy Hook. I have seen past precedents rewritten in order to falsely diminish gun rights arguments. I have seen dishonest and volatile tactics used to misdirect discussion and attack the character, rather than the position, of those who defend the 2nd Amendment. I have seen gun grabbers use unbelievable acts of deception that border on clinically sociopathic in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
A perfect example has been the assertion by gun control proponents that despotic regimes do not disarm their populations before committing genocide. This primarily stems from the rationalization that the Third Reich did not exactly introduce gun control measures, rather it used measures that were already in existence. Gun grabbers are willing to cherry pick historical references in defense of Adolf Hitler in order to get their way. Sadly, they seem to forget that Hitler’s gun control policies of 1938 disarmed the Jewish people as his “Final Solution” was being implemented. Apparently, gun grabbers do not count the Jews as German citizens victimized by disarmament.
The Nazis did deregulate some firearms as gun grabbers argue, but what they don’t mention is that this deregulation was designed to benefit only those citizens who proved to be loyal to the Nazi Party. Hitler was happy to arm those who swore fealty to the Reich.
In one of the latest instances of gun grabber duplicity and disinformation, I came across an opinion piece by Henry Blodget, the CEO and editor-in-chief of Business Insider and a regular on Yahoo’s “Daily Ticker,” entitled “Finally A Gun Is Used To Stop A Crime Instead Of Killing Innocent People.”
Blodget is primarily an economic analyst, as I am, and is not exactly an unintelligent louse. He is well aware of the proper methods of research and how to present a debate point with tangible evidence. He should know better than to publish a piece with so many inconsistencies and broken pretenses. However, it presents an important opportunity to examine the cognitive dissonance of media gun grabbers and their attempts to influence the populace.
Blodget is asserting that private firearms ownership is not a practical means of self-defense, that instances of self-defense are rare and that this view diminishes the “need” for 2nd Amendment protections. He goes on to proclaim:
“In practice, unfortunately, the guns that good guys own to protect themselves from bad guys too often end up killing the good guys’ kids or wives or the good guys themselves (either via suicide, accident, or, in some cases, because they’re grabbed by the bad guys and used against the good guys). Or, as in the case of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the guns kill people who the good guys think are bad guys but who aren’t actually bad guys…”
Blodget never actually qualifies any of the notions contained in this statement. He never provides any statistics on wives and children of good guys being shot. Also, I was not aware that the Trayvon Martin case had already been decided and that Trayvon was found not to be the aggressor. Does Blodget have a crystal ball?
Blodget starts off his anti-gun tirade very poorly with several unqualified statements that he never answers for. This is highly common among gun grabbers; they feel so righteous (overzealous) in their cause that they feel no regret in spouting baseless conclusions with the presumption that their audience will never question their logic.
Blodget then focuses on a single event as an example of the “rarity” of successful gun defense. This instance involved the death of a teen who held a gun on a reserve police officer and high school basketball coach. The coach pulled his own personal weapon and fired in defense. Blodget uses some strategic omissions in his description of the event. For instance, he fails to mention that the coach was 70 years old, and that perhaps owning a gun was indeed his only practical means of protecting himself and his players against two young thugs, one of whom obtained a firearm illegally (as most criminals do. According to the FBI, only 8 percent of guns used in a crime are purchased legally at a gun store).
Blodget also uses the smiling image of one of the attackers at the top of his article, as if we should feel sorry for him. Perhaps I’m just coldhearted, but the death of a violent offender at the hands of his intended victim does not bring a tear to my eye.
The fact that he uses this particular instance of gun defense was, of course, strategic. A teen died, and both the attacker and the defender were armed with guns. He means us to see the event as a tragedy caused by the very existence of civilian firearms ownership. Blodget somehow overlooks the thousands upon thousands of other self defense stories out there in which gun ownership saved lives…
What about the story of student Chris Boise, who used an AR-15 to ward off two armed assailants breaking into his apartment. The criminals ran at the sight of his weapon:
http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Homeowners-Scare-Off-Burglars/7yaLSXAvCUGBkwgAZpGO4g.cspx
What about an Atlanta mother of 9-year-old twins who shot and killed an assailant with a previous record of battery breaking into her home. A police officer on scene after the event noted that “she handled her first shooting better than he did…”
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/
How about the 1997 incident at a High School in Pearl, Mississippi, in which a 16 year old murdered his mother, then went to school with a rifle and opened fire (sound familiar), shooting several and killing two. The student was subdued by the Vice Principle, who had to run to his care to grab his .45 Colt (Note that when a staff member of a school is armed, the body count of these attacks goes way down):
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136736,00.html
And why not mention the man who entered a Golden Food Market in Richmond, Virginia opening fire at employees and customers, only to be shot down by a conceal carrying citizen:
These are just a few of the numerous instances of gun defense across the U.S. that the mainstream media likes to ignore. Blodget had all of these examples at his disposal. He could have written a fair and honest editorial, but he didn’t.
After Blodget presents his carefully picked gun defense story, he then makes these three points:
“First, and most importantly, the gun used for protection in this case would be perfectly legal under the proposed new gun-control laws. The proposed laws ban military-grade assault weapons and massive ammo clips, not handguns. And assuming the coach did not have a criminal record, he would still be a legal gun owner.
The bottom line is that no mainstream politician in the current gun control debate is talking about banning the kind of gun used in this incident...”
To which proposed gun law is Blodget referring? Many gun grabbers are suggesting that the New York SAFE Act model be applied nationwide. The SAFE Act makes any weapon that can hold magazines of more than seven rounds illegal. Some lawmakers, like Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), have openly suggested a total ban of all firearms that includes confiscation. So, depending on which laws are passed, the coach may not have survived the attack unless, like the criminal, he obtained a weapon illegally.
“…Second, the coach was a trained police officer. He knew very well how to carry, handle, and use his handgun. And the fact that he used it effectively under the extreme shock and pressure of being robbed at gunpoint shows how well trained he was.”
The coach was a reserve police officer, but this is irrelevant to the incident. Aspiring police officers qualify in the firearms segment of their training using a mere 50 to 60 rounds during scenarios that are taught in even the most rudimentary civilian courses, which often use hundreds of rounds during qualifications. Police officers do not get magical training. In fact, many officers are forced to attend civilian-run training facilities in order to get more time and more complex experience. Civilian combat weapons enthusiasts are often far better prepared for a violent situation than the average law enforcement official.
The reason Blodget fixates on the police status of the victim is because, like most gun grabbers, he is a statist. In his mind, a designated state official is given credence by the government and is, therefore, somehow a superhero with amazing gun-wielding powers that us poor civilian mortals could never hope to master. This naïve sentiment is displayed by many a gun grabber who has never actually owned or fired a gun in his life.
“Third, this incident could easily have turned out differently–as many similar incidents do. If the coach had been a bit slower or clumsier in pulling his own gun, the attackers could have shot and killed all three of the victims before they had a chance to defend themselves. (In the wild west, when everyone carried guns, it wasn’t always the bad guys that got shot.)”
Yes, and a comet could fall from the sky and roast the Earth. Hypothetically, anything could go wrong at any moment, yet, thousands of Americans defend themselves each year with a firearm without killing innocent bystanders or being too slow or clumsy on the draw. Why should gun owners abandon their rights just because some people cannot control their personal fears?
Finally, how much better are an unarmed victim’s chances of survival? Is Blodget really trying to insinuate being armed does not increase a victim’s ability to defend himself unless he happens to be a cop on a government salary? If faced with a gun- or knife-wielding attacker who threatened him or his family, would Blodget turn down the use of a firearm if available? Would he try to shoot the perpetrator, or would he fall to his knees and beg for mercy?
The only tangible evidence that Blodget uses to buttress his opinion that self-defense is not a viable argument for gun ownership is a single FBI statistic on justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide is a gray area of law, and the number of instances recorded by the FBI in no way reflects the actual frequency in which guns are used in self-defense.
By exploiting this one statistic, Blodget knowingly disregards the fact that many gun defense situations do not end in the death of the attacker. He also disregards the number of criminals who run at the sight of an armed target, as well as the number of crimes that are prevented completely because the criminal is not certain whether his targets are armed.
Most police departments do not keep accurate records of attempted crimes which were thwarted by armed citizens. The only sources of such statistics are surveys held by various organizations and institutions. Blodget quickly dismisses the widely disseminated survey by criminology professor Gary Kleck, which shows that there are far more instances of guns used to thwart crime than guns used to perpetrate crime. Blodget claims that the study is “old and highly flawed because it used a small number of people as a test group”, all common assertions by gun control fanatics. The study was held in 1994 (hardly ages ago), and surveyed 5000 households.
A recent Reuter/Ipsos poll used widely by gun grabbers claimed that 74% of Americans support an assault weapons ban, yet their survey only involved 559 people with far less oversight than Kleck’s study. The hypocritical nature of the anti-gun mindset is revealed again...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gun-poll_n_2498840.html
Vehement gun control advocate and criminologist Marvin Wolfgang made this comment on Kleck’s study:
“What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.”
He went on to say that a conflicting National Crime Victimization Survey (also used widely by gun grabbers) did not contradict the Kleck study, and that the argument of “too few participants” was unfounded:
“I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well. … The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.”
According to survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology entitled ‘Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment’, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. This is a conservative estimate compared to Kleck’s 2.5 million, but it is still a far larger number than the amount of annual homicides by gun. The argument that gun murders outweigh gun defense is a defective one. Blodget knows it, which is why he dances his way around so many viable pieces of evidence. He is not interested in the facts, only promoting his own twisted worldview.
Violent crimes (assault, burglary, rape, etc.) have skyrocketed in countries like the U.K. and Australia where stringent gun control has been enacted, simply because criminals know that because of government controls the odds of running into an armed victim are slim. Gun grabbers like Blodget do not care about this, though. They are not actually interested in saving lives. What they are interested in is imposing their ideologies on the rest of us.
If the only drive of anti-gun advocates was a sincere concern for public safety, they would not feel the need to misrepresent the facts and lie outright in order to convince others. Those who use disinformation to their benefit are acting on much darker emotional impulses and biases, like fear and malevolence. Their goal is not to find the truth, but to “win”. Their goal is not to encourage understanding, but to destroy their political enemies.
The most enticing motive for the average yuppie within the gun control society is not their hatred of guns per say, but their hatred of gun culture. Being worshipers of the establishment, they do not like our defiance of socialization, collectivism, and the corrupt state in general. They do not like our methodologies of decentralization and independence. They do not like that we have the ability to crush their skewed arguments with ease. And, they do not like that we have the physical capability of denying their pursuit of power. Gun control is not just a war on guns; it is a war on traditionally conservative Americans, our heritage, our beliefs, and our principles. It is a war the gun grabbers will lose.
- 29114 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


I think we have been there for a long time. I think you may be confusing cause and effect here. The chaos that has been perpetrated upon us by our leaders has resulted in the insecurity expressed by all sides of this debate. We have seen facts become irrelevant as emotion has taken over. Headlines are printed that are patently false yet stand unrefuted. Agendas are moving ahead at full pace and where logic should hold, laws and established rights in existence for centuries are now extreme. Modernism has been used from the beginning of time as an excuse to subdue the people, as they endanger themselves with their new found power. You need to wake up and take a closer look at what is in motion here.
I would argue that there are a growing number of aware Americans that are becoming more afraid of their government than some fabricated terrorist. Part of the problem is people have to be afraid of their government, when it should be the government that is afraid of it's people.
Your comments show your woeful ignorance of why the founding fathers put the second ammendment in the Constitution.
They knew that someday, a President would want to make himself KING, a learned man, who knew what was best for America........
a man who said the constitution did not matter.......
Are you starting to catch on????????
You end up with a polite society.
So exactly how would you know who is your enemy in an unarmed society?
Yes, Somalia seems so very polite indeed.
LOL
Aim small, miss small.
Molon Labe.
Here is an interesting poll. I was surprised by some of the results because Fairfield county is one of the meccas of the yuppies that Brad mentions at the end of this article.
http://blog.ctnews.com/connecticutpostings/2013/03/08/take-our-gun-survey/
What hasn't Obama lied about?
Anyone?
FTA: thousands of Americans defend themselves each year with a firearm
the statistics will never capture how many people defend themselve each year just from the uncertainty of whether i have a firearm. As soon as you remove that uncertainty then the only certainty is that the bad guys have the only guns. How does US Today keep the stat on how this uncertainty saves lots of lives...
Glad to see this video is still out there as it inspired me to purchase some tannerite and conduct similar experiments. If you scroll through all of the tannerite vids you will notice that the product seems to be most popular in the western half of the USSA, the MidWest and South; pretty much most of the geographical area of the nation.
No doubt, a bunch of NYC schlemiels from the free shit army will find this sort of behavior offensive but I can asssure you that we do not give two pins what you think. This is how we have fun out here in the hinterlands. You can make up all of the legislation you want but it won't matter. 30 rounds clips banned? Yeah right, I will march right down to the cop shop and turn them in. AK47's banned? Oh yeah, I will get in my fastest car and burn rubber to get to the commisar's office to turn it in. It takes a lot of chutzpah to think that any of us will comply or give flying fuck what you think is best for us. What utter nonsense. What the hell is the matter with you and why do I have to repeatedly ask that question?
If you klutzes have a problem with how we like to spend our money and time then maybe it really is time to redefine the national borders because we sure as fuck have problem with how you yentas are spending the money that you extort from us via taxation and inflation. This is not even about the Bill of Rights but rather about you fucking off and minding your own goddamned business. For once, and I already know the answer but will ask again anyway, is there any possibility that you can just mind your own fucking business?
No one is going to listen to you schmucks anymore anyway and any credibility you might have had is long gone by now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqomN9ghOQU
I've argued against both sides in this. Both sides seem to grow more stupid and desperate as the debate continues.
And so far, the proposed 'ban' will be as effective against shootings like Newtown and Virginia Tech as raising auto emmision standards will help reduce drunk driving.
So now I just try to get people to use the proper words so at least they don't sound so freaking stupid.
1) They are not banning assault weapons. Assault weapons have already been banned in most every state. An assault weapon has a three position switch. Single shot, three shot burst and full automatic. What they are trying to ban are weapons that 'look like' assault weapons. But really all they are are just semi automatic rifles. So just how does this help????????
IMHO this is just what drives the paranoia of the pro gun side. The gun control side uses a straw man argument to go after something other than what actually is in existence.
2) We have had semi automatic weapons around since before the 1900s. So magazine size or whatever, this fast fire delivery platform has been around for so long yet these shootings are quite recent. Hmmmmm...maybe something else has changed???
IMHO we can look for fault at a few different levels. First one being we are a country that is almost always at 'war' with someplace in the world. The military has to dehumanize the enemy as to make them 'shootable'. I've heard/read many accounts from those in conflicts that at first at least..."it is not normal to take a human life". So we have had multi generational 'legal war' feeding our culture.
Then on top of that we have TeeeeeVeeeee.The media is complicit as they pump up the fear volume (Iran,N.Korea,etc) and we have T.V. and movies where when someone gets shot it is hardley ever never ever as messy as a real shooting. There seems to be a real disconnect on this one. Sly Stallone came out in favor of more gun control. What is his latest movie? Oh yeah...."Bullet to the Head". LOL.
And then we now have the latest and greatest! First Person Shooter Video Games! Not only do you not have to heard the true lingering screams of the dying, nor smell that metallic smell of blood or rotting flesh, the bodies you've created actually and quite convienently disappear! PERFECT!!! Talk about the ultimate dehumanization tool!
Should we make laws against the above??????
Fuck NO!
I've even enjoyed playing video games. But I can safely say I am past the 'impressionable age'.
But age limits might be appropriate. And how about some true (not partisan skewed) education?
3) The assault weapon ban that was in place before didn't do any good either.
4) The Swiss are probably one of the most heavily armed civilian cultures in the world. Why haven't they all killed each other? Hmmmmm.......maybe because they are trained (and the ones with mental health issues are found out).
5) Registration does not equal training.
IMHO While I am concerned about our individual rights, I am glad there is a certain control on who gets to drive a car.
I also know that there are people out there that do not have a CLUE about their firearms. How many people even know what 'pass through' is let alone how many miles their bullet is able to travel if it misses its target?
So do I want the person standing/living next to me educated about the weapons they own?
Fuck YES!
And if they are not bright enough to be able to learn about their weapons and the capabilities, do I want them to own them?
Fuck NO!
Sorry stupid people but clueless is clueless.
I think that at a certain age (ain't gonna debate that one now) you should be able to roll up to your local gun school. You take a comprehensive course in laws, rights, responsibilities and the physical science. It is a one time schooling. Take it as often as you like until you pass.
After that, for every different caliber weapon you buy, you have to do a quick 'lite' test to make sure you know what the bullet/shot does after it leaves the end of your barrel.
Gun stores and ranges would LOVE this. More revenue, more job creation!!!!
And we'd move on to more intelligent honest issues to debate.
At first, I was ready to plus you one for the thoughtful comment but the more I read, the more I became concerned. Clearly, you are past the age of video games as am I. I had an Atari 2600 once though. I remember it came with two games: Pac-man and Combat.
I am not sure that I really want to get into the video games/dehumanization narrative because I am not best qualified to speak or write about that because I do not play them. Where your post runs afoul of my beliefs on the matter is here:
"I think that at a certain age (ain't gonna debate that one now) you should be able to roll up to your local gun school. You take a comprehensive course in laws, rights, responsibilities and the physical science. It is a one time schooling. Take it as often as you like until you pass.
After that, for every different caliber weapon you buy, you have to do a quick 'lite' test to make sure you know what the bullet/shot does after it leaves the end of your barrel."
I am not sure what you are implying here but I do not like the looks of it because the insinuation is that there would be some .gov agency administering to the "school". Is it not the responsibility of a parent or relative to teach their children how to properly handle a firearm? When my neice and nephew were younger and we were out teaching them hunting, it was a constant task to keep them on the ball about safety. I will have to go through it again with my children but that's OK because that will be nothing compared to when I teach them the art of building custom handloaded ammunition.
Here are the only three rules that need to be known about handling a firearm.
1. Treat every gun as if it were loaded.
2. Never point the muzzle at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3. Know your target and what is beyond it.
School is out. Peace.
Mani,
Well...can someone teach what they don't know themselves?
Yes, I believe it has to be an institutionalized training. Just like getting your driver's license.
Different states have different laws.
And again, I look at the Swiss. All of the people that are equipped with assault rifles (and I mean TRUE assault rifles) have gone through training.
I see this as being a state level thing and not federal. But while I'm not a big advocate of large government, there is some government that is necessary. (We've seen what self regualting financial markets do haven't we? Or industry self policing themselves for exuded pollution)
The schooling would also require a 'range' certification. Shoot the gun, hit the target.
I've seen a lot of first time shooters pull the trigger only to find their hands over their heads from recoil. A qualified range master is a good thing.
I've also seen dumb asses at the range shooting reloads and getting duds. The rule is 'keep the weapon pointed down range and count to 10'. They did NOT know the rules and a buddy of mine and I ate dirt right next to them to get out of the way. An older person (parent) was with them. We had some brief words afterwards.
Alright, +1 for that comment. I agree that there seem to be an excessive amount of imbeciles out there. I am fine with your schools idea as long as they are privately run and not publicly funded. Those schools should be voluntary and subject to profit and loss. Some do exist already of course but that is usually where the state eventually enters the picture. Nothing good will come promoting the notion.
As for "reloads", that is a descriptive term for a shotshell. When you loaded those shotshells, you never intended to be totally accurate to begin with your shotgun, so tolerances might vary a bit. Rifle is more about precision. When I say I custom build ammo to a specific rifle I am not kidding. I am keen on the headspacing and have a gauge to measure it. You want 0.002 clearance to the lands from ogive. Case trimmers, primer pocket reamers, burnishing tools, micrometers... I have them all and MOAR.
I do not need any class, much less the fucking state, to tell me what a Timney trigger is when the "instructors" do not even know themselves. What, is some fucktard TSA type going to give me a permission slip to continue doing what I would do anyway?
I'm not sure what to say about range rules as I own my own short range. i.e. it's MY rules.:-) I have developed some good load recipes over the course of the last two decades through trial and error. I do take some pride in the fact that I can custom build ammo to a specific rifle and can do some trigger work on many rifles.
Zero misfires for 23 years running. Plenty of dead vermin to show for it too.
Intelligence? America? Where stupidity is a virtue?
WOOF!
Nobody wants to take your fucking guns away, gun fetishists. We want you to take responsibility for them. Register them...no gun show loopholes, for example. Carry insurance on them, like you would a car. And for the love of God, stop portraying yourselves as American patriots just because you like things that go bang. Owning a gun doesn't make you virtuous; it just mean you have a very dangerous penis extender.
NRA fires back at Mother Jones in> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/nra-mother-jones-gun-myths-v...
Dearest Helvetico, Let me say this as kindly and eloquently, but to the point as I can,,,go fuck yourself!
double post
"Nobody wants to take your fucking guns away, gun fetishists."
You aren't paying attention then.
Helvetico you are a troll you should hang out with MDB.......owning a gun is my right plain and simple and libtards like you dont understand this basic issue...Do you arrest the pen when someone writes death or other types of threats? No you don't you arrest the person making the threat. so why do you always go straight for the guns? Deal with the criminals not law abiding citizens....keep these aholes in prison when they use a gun simple......
Obama, McCain, Graham, and more claim the America is a battlefield. Therefore if indeed that claim is true then it would stand to reason that all of need assault weapons, and grenades, and tanks and stuff as well. Afterall we've been told that the Al-Queda boogie man is hiding around every corner.
Love ZH's counter-cultural take on the world of money, wealth and incessant criminality by the elite. It's all true, and it's all going to end badly.
I'm afraid though, when it comes to gun control, most of the recently posted articles here are just, to many of us outside the US, what I would characterise as barking ape-shit *nuts*.
The article above for example - calls out a straw man argument by a couple of moderate voices, and then offers about 10 of it's own, to make its own case. It's pureed bollocks of the highest order.
Followed by a zillion posts by mouth-breathers, who's only response to the odd dissenting voice is abuse - "tree-hugger"(?) Well *how* massively skewering.... Someones hates gun violence and hugs trees. Awesomely good.
Do they have an argument they can articulate? Or do they just not like anyone going near their potty?
Do you know why Brits don't carry guns? Because the *other guy doesn't have one either*.
We are quite relaxed about the 0.01% outlying case of "oh, actually he does have a gun, after all" - because we have one mass shooting per *decade* on average and we are spared the moronic media hand-wringing and political bluster of Sandy Hook fogging up our airwaves every few weeks. And looking at the faces of parents of dead schoolchildren on TV.
Then when it happens all over again 10 weeks later.
Then when it happens all over again 16 weeks later.
Then when it happens all over again 7 weeks later.
Then... well you must *like* it at some level. You must!
You'd think that, relatively, all that extra spare time *not* doing that, that this affords Brits, would give us chance to brush our teeth more - but you'd be quite wrong.
Keep up the good work - and loose the "Stetson". If the government wanted you dead you'd be droned from 3-miles up - not caught up in a romantically imagined shoot-out, sparking your last cigarette whilst slumped beneath a shot-out window, looking all tough and resigned like Bruce Willis. You'd be vapourised in a key-press.
Well I don't hate you for your opinion or anything, and I can see plenty of perfectly legit arguments for reducing the number of guns in any given location, and I'm CERTAIN that I'd feel safer stumbling around the streets of London drunk than Atlanta or Chicago or Miami.
But it's worth pointing out that you hail from a TINY FUCKING COUNTRY. On an ISLAND.
There are serious problems with the idea that the best way to handle any given issue maps from one place to another. The USA is gigantic and has very long and very porous borders, and there are about a zillion guns here.
It's not that the UK solution couldn't be attempted, it's that there's a good possibility we don't have the stomach (as a society) to do it RIGHT.
Personally, I don't like the idea, but for sure, there's plenty of stuff I've been wrong about.
Thanks for a sane response, sam - there are nutters on all sides. The definition of a lunatic as "somebody who can't change their mind" is a good one in my book, so I'm open.
Britain's a tiny island - but I could still show you places where you could drive for a hundred miles without seeing another human being. We've got some family who live in some fairly mad bits of Scotland, islands and weird craggy bits of coast where they rarely see people they don't know. They don't have guns.
We don't have a border (like the US/Mexico) one - but you'd have to spell out how that impacts the gun argument to me.
Seriously, I'm not having a go at US gun-culture - I'm just posting thoughts from abroad. Any sarcasm I post is reserved for people who don't discuss, and just flame anyone who disagrees with them. I'm a bit worried to see it (so much) on ZH TBH. My subscription fees are in the balance....
But as for the thrust of this article - I massively *massively* don't understand it. I've read loads about it because I'm interested in the world, almost always like Americans when I meet them, but just can't get the argument to save my life. I'd only need a gun if everybody else had a gun. They don't so I don't. If the US has too many guns to ever take away, for the "UK model" to ever have a hope, well that's actually an argument. Just not one that I see anybody making.
The border point has to do with the relative ability of the government to actually *control* what enters the country. We don't have to smuggle guns into the USA now, but the demonstration of how easy it is to maintain a MASSIVE flow of drugs and people into US territory illuminates the point.
But as for the thrust of this article - I massively *massively* don't understand it.
Brandon's more a demagogue than a debater, that's all. He's a bit too trapped in anger against his enemies to discuss some issues with any equanimity.
I expect (based on my outsider's view of UK politics) that you should be familiar with that type.
*All too* familiar with that type - yes :)
BTW Please don't take me as some Brit poncing over to say I know better. I absolutely don't - and would never post on a US based forum with the intention of telling people in another country what to do.
I just don't understand it, the need for there to be 270m guns in America. I'm not some naive kid anymore, thinking everbody is basically "great" - I've met people - plenty of people in the UK, and some abroad, they are vain, short-sighted, terrible with money - I'm probably just the same. But I don't *fear* them - and I don't think I need a gun to defend myself against them. That attitude (I think) is wide enough here to the extent that people who get in a fight, or have a mental breakdown, or have just been sacked from their job - don't have a cupboard with a gun or two in it to reach for - just when they really shouldn't.
The UK absolutely sucks balls for a variety of reasons - but I like it for this attitude to guns, at least.
I like the US too. Just can't get my head around this glaring difference. Not a leftie or a tree-hugger - it's just a big difference I'm trying to understand.
Jesus H.
"Love ZH's counter-cultural take on the world of money, wealth and incessant criminality by the elite."
"You'd be vapourised in a key-press."
Oh, so now US ZHers are the counter culture? That is rich indeed. Look everyone, we are the "hippies" of the Interweb!
"Do they have an argument they can articulate?"
It might be more of a series of questions than an argument but if you want an argument fom me, I am not hard to find.
Let us establish a few facts to begin with. You are not from the United States am I correct?
Correct - I'm a Brit. Yorkshire, England.
Not sure it's rich unless my dictionary is all wrong. By counter-cultural I mean exactly what I say, it doesn't mean hippy, it's just hippies were against - counter - the culture of their time.
Zoom forwards to 2013 - you are not on the same page as TPTB, the MSM or the average dopey sheep. *That's* the "culture". Do you like it soooo very much? If not, well.......
Don't take it awry.
So - this argument of yours. About *guns*. I asked. You said you had one....?
Why is it that (most) of the gun grabers are Jewish(fienstien, bloomberg, boxer, reporters of the MSM etc etc) just asking. it seems to me they as a group should be the most gun friedly given history....
Because you like getting completely the wrong end of the stick, and then using said end for your own (depraved) needs?
Where is the real ZH...?
Now the "Retail Sell" is getting increasingly desperate in the market - is one of the few voices of sanity on the net going to be drowned by gun nuts and racists? Is that how ZH gets "controlled"?
Helvetico you are a troll you should hang out with MDB.......owning a gun is my right plain and simple and libtards like you dont understand this basic issue...Do you arrest the pen when someone writes death or other types of threats? No you don't you arrest the person making the threat. so why do you always go straight for the guns? Deal with the criminals not law abiding citizens....keep these aholes in prison when they use a gun simple......
The 2nd amendment does not directly pertain to personal defense.
The 2nd amendment says this
" A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
By Constitutional authority every American civilian between ages 17-49 who is able to bear arms is a member of the irregular militia. If you are not in a militia unit, you are a militia of one. Every militia unit has the responsibility to maintain local civil government in time of crisis and to restrain the government should it come under the influence of Enemies. The constitution clearly states that the militias have the irrevocable, unlimited right to equip themselves in this capacity as they see fit. Many court rulings support this definition.
The Constitution defines the law of the land. The Bill of Rights is an integral section of this legal instrument. It is not a separate instrument. It is a set of automatic enforceable restrictions, a hedge in the event that the powers granted to governers should be abused.