Features

What I learned from arguing about gun control with my Texan uncle

We’ll never agree. But I do understand him better now

9 January 2016

9:00 AM

9 January 2016

9:00 AM

Whenever there’s another mass shooting in America, like the massacre in San Bernardino last month, I think immediately of my Uncle Bill in Texas, a retired military man, practising Catholic, Republican, NRA member, community volunteer and civil libertarian who lives in a gated community with my Aunt Bev (a retired nurse) on the outskirts of Houston. Uncle Bill likes to email me redneck jokes in the hope of getting my progressive Canadian dander up. Here’s a recent one:

The premier of Ontario is jogging with her dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out and attacks the premier’s dog, then bites the premier. She calls animal control. Animal control captures the coyote and bills the province $200 testing it for diseases and $500 for relocating it. She calls a veterinarian. The vet collects the dead dog and bills the province $200 testing it for diseases. The Liberal party spends $2 million to study how to better treat rabies… etc., etc.

Meanwhile, the governor of Texas is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out and attacks his dog. The governor shoots it with his state-issued pistol and keeps jogging. The governor has spent 50 cents on a .45 ACP hollow-point cartridge. The buzzards eat the dead coyote.

And that, my friends, is why Ontario is broke and Texas is not.

Or it could be oil, I think.

But what about this scenario, I recently wrote back to Uncle Bill: a young mentally ill teenager is having fantasies about killing himself and his entire class. In Canada (or the UK, or anywhere in western Europe) he’d receive state-funded healthcare and get better. In America he could simply go to Walmart and buy a semi-automatic weapon and enact his fantasy. And that is why the school-children of Canada (or the UK, etc.) are safe and those of Texas are not.

Uncle Bill and I have a respectful discourse. We agree to disagree, as polite people say. And although we have corresponded thoughtfully and extensively over the past few months, the chance of either of us altering position on gun control is small. According to the latest science, progressives and conservatives have different levels of personality, psychology, and even traits like physiology and genetics that affect our cognitive biases, i.e., the way we interpret events like terrorist attacks and mass shootings. For someone like me, a mass shooting like Sandy Hook, in which 20 tiny schoolchildren were slaughtered by the madman Adam Lanza, is a clear reason for sensible gun legislation. I’m with Obama, who teared up on Thursday just thinking about Sandy Hook, and vowed to tighten gun laws. But for a conservative like Uncle Bill, it’s an obvious argument for the importance of American civil liberties and gun ownership.

American writer David Robertson wrote recently in Vox magazine: ‘To the gun owner, another mass shooting is not an argument for getting rid of guns. It’s a confirmation of his every instinct, another sign of moral and societal decay, another reason to arm himself and defend what he’s got left.’


This has been the revelation of my correspondence with Uncle Bill: we believe in the same things (life, liberty, equality and all that other nice French stuff) but we see very different routes for our respective societies to safely arrive at it.

A couple of years ago Uncle Bill’s children, my cousins Patty and Billy Jnr, gave their dad the money for his first ‘conceal and carry’ licence for his birthday. They did this not because they were hoping he might put a cap in someone’s ass for fun, but because they were worried about their ageing parents’ safety and felt the best way to safeguard it was to ensure their father carries a gun with him 24/7 when he is not at home being guarded by armed security. To his credit Uncle Bill and my Aunt Bev did a gun-safety course but decided not to buy a weapon (they don’t keep a gun in the house either), but they would defend anyone’s right to do so.

The prevailing wisdom is that conservatives are more realistic than liberals, their vision more pragmatic, their eyes unpeeled to the awful truth. And in some ways that’s true. But when it comes to American gun owners, there is instead a deranged sort of innocence — the sort of thinking that occurs when you take a perfectly good ideal (freedom, say, or safety), mix in a large helping of irrational fear, then spin it to its logical conclusion. Uncle Bill’s belief in the Second Amendment, like many Americans’, is like a religious faith in the notion of independence — the belief that when it comes right down to it, if the world goes to hell, a man should at least have the right to defend his own family and property. Like all ideals it is kind of beautiful, but it’s also quite mad.

The comedian Bill Maher once likened the experience of arguing with American conservatives as akin to getting your dog to take a pill. ‘You have to feed them the truth wrapped in a piece of baloney, hold their snout shut, and stroke their throats. Even then, just when you think they’ve swallowed it, they spit it out on the linoleum.’

Especially when it comes to the emotional issue of gun control, Republicans like Uncle Bill are as startlingly fact-resistant and reason-impervious as a mutt who will always follow his instinct over rational sense.

The left-wing film-maker Michael Moore predicted on his blog this year that when and if the crime-scene photos of Sandy Hook are ever leaked to the public, Republicans would be forced to let Obama pass the gun legislation he so desperately desires. ‘When the American public sees what bullets from an assault rifle fired at the body of a child can do the jig will be up for the NRA.’

This is utter nonsense, of course. Most NRA members would be far more likely to support Republican hopeful Ben Carson’s position that the best prevention for school shootings is to arm kindergarten teachers.

I began my dialogue on gun control with Uncle Bill in the hope that I could bring him round to my point of view through rational, fact-based argument, but I’ve now realised that this is simply not the way proponents of the Second Amendment think. Their thought processes are a closed loop best described by a brilliant headline in the Onion: ‘no way to prevent this,’ says only nation on earth where this ever happens.

I adore my Uncle Bill and while I know I will never change his mind, at least I have gained an understanding into why. You can wrap the truth in as much baloney as you want but if the dog is truly stubborn you’ll never make him swallow it. At least in Texas you could put the poor beast out his misery. I’ll give him that.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

We’ll never agree. But I do understand him better now

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Dave m

    you will never counter the stupidity about gun ownership, but why not ration/limit/tax bullets?

    • Mr B J Mann

      And your argument is?

      Oh, sorry, you”re a liberal:

      You don’t need one:

      Especially for taking away people’s liberties!

      • colchar

        Those ‘liberties’ only exist due to a distorted reading of the Second Amendment and a lack of understanding of the historical context in which it was written.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Balderdaesh.

          The historical context, the writings of the authors, and longer versions by them in State Constitutions make it plain for any fool to see that:

          “Militias” of ordinary citizens existed, among other things, to protect the public from governments trying to control them with an army (cf the British Government).

          The people, for among other reasons, required arms to be able to defend the people against the government (forces).

          They also needed arms for personal defence and for hunting.

          And for the avoidance of doubt, in Common Law, you don’t read a law according to your, or anyone else’s interpretation, you don’t put in words you think the lawmakers accidentally forgot, you don’t second guess their aims.

          You just read the law as it stands:

          “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.”

          It doesn’t say “Only because….”, nor “……for that and no other reason…..”, neither does it say “………while serving in a militia”, or any other “Ammendment” the “liberals” try to UNdemoncratically and UNconstitutionally impose.

          It simply says:

          “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.”

          (You can ignore the comma, or leave it where it is, in Common Law, but you CAN’T move it either!)

          • mohdanga

            It’s funny that lefties are always reading in ‘rights’ to the Constitution that were never intended (gay marriage, mass immigration) yet they disagree with a right specifically guaranteed in it.

    • spencer60

      That’s like saying that the way to stop people from voting is by eliminating pencils.

      First of all, ammo for ‘arms’ is as protected as the arms themselves.

      Secondly, you realize that it’s not hard to load your own ammo, don’t you? Probably not…

      If you made ammo impossible for law abiding people to own, a huge black market would inevitably spring up like it does in countries that try to limit ammo.

  • “I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”
    Barack Hussein Obama II (Sen), 2008.

    Defend that brazen hypocrisy, liberals!

    • Fairly Educated Scot

      That would be why Obama has the lowest number of executive orders for a two term president for over 100 years.
      For reference, Bush issued 291, Reagan 381 whereas Obama has had 226 so far.

      • That’s not the point. The point is that he shouldn’t be doing what he apparently rejected: Presidents circumventing Congress via executive order (decree).

      • Bobo

        I think his exec orders per day not on the golf course are higher.

      • Child_of_Thatcher

        His orders are not the usual mundane stuff of the past though, instead they are designed to circumvent congress and rule as an emporer. Something Obama said over 20 times he would not do. His argument that I have to do this because congress won’t do as I tell them says it all.

  • spencer60

    What utter dreck.

    The author is under the delusion that a psychotic teen can simply walk into a store and buy a gun?

    Sorry, but that’s why we have background checks. That’s why the Sandy Hook killer had to kill his own mother to get the firearms used.

    As for arming teachers (and administrators, and other staff)… That’s kept schools in states that voted down ‘gun free zones’ safe for 20+ years.

    How many school attacks have we had in Idaho, or Utah, or AZ, or Vermont?

    The answer is ZERO.

    All those school systems allow lab abiding staff to carry a firearm.

    Why don’t the people who commit these type of attacks shoot up police stations of gun stores? Easy… those are places where there are ‘good guys with guns’.

    We have guards in banks and malls and other commercial settings. Why is it ‘crazy’ to have the same for schools?

    • Disgruntledgoat

      “How many school attacks have we had in Idaho, or Utah, or AZ, or Vermont?”
      You did have a senator shot in the head going about her lawful duty in AZ, however.

      • spencer60

        That was an assassination attempt, not a school shooting.

        I’m not saying there isn’t crime in these states (although they are all way below the national average).

        The deterrent is the fact that one of these psychos knows they could be confronted by an armed teacher, principal or even janitor just a few second into their rampage.

        This lesson is already being learned.

        We have not has a single ‘school shooting’ after the Arapahoe CO High School attack in 2013 ended in just 90 second with only one fatality (excluding the killer, who suicided as usual).

        How did it end so quickly?

        An armed security guard and a local deputy (on school grounds for other reasons) both confronted the killer immediately.

        The killer ran into the library and took his own life, never using the hundreds of shotgun rounds or the 6 Molotov cocktails he brought with him.

        Having ‘good guys with guns’ able to react immediately is the best strategy for stopping mass-attacks in any ‘gun free zone’.

        .

        • Mr B J Mann

          And how many would have died if he’d just gone into the school with the Molotov Cocktails and threw them at the bottom of all the escape routes?!

      • Mr B J Mann

        If she’d carried a gun?!?!?!!!

    • Mr Grumpy

      “That’s why the Sandy Hook killer had to kill his own mother to get the firearms used.”

      Nothing to see there, then.

      • spencer60

        Nope, there really isn’t. Politics as usual.

        The gun control industry likes to point out how ineffective background checks are in preventing crime (well duh), but then insists that we need more of them to… wait for it… prevent crime.

        If you look at Mother Jones detailed information on mass-attacks, you will see that in the vast majority of cases a background check had (or would have had) no effect.

        In a few cases it might have forced the criminal to the black market, or they might have found a shill to buy for them as the terrorists in San Bernardino did.

        The idea of stopping ‘gun crime’ is ridiculous. The FBI tells us that over 90% of the crimes committed in the US don’t even involve a gun

        We probably can’t even ‘stop crime’… a certain (small percentage) of people will always commit violent crimes.

        All we can do is protect ourselves and society from these people. For society we use courts and laws. For individuals we use ‘arms’,

        Both are needed to keep criminals from preying on innocents.

    • colchar

      Just because there have been no school attacks in those states, does not mean it is because they are allowed to carry guns – it simply means nobody has done it yet. Police stations have been attacked and there are plenty of guns in those. Army bases (Fort Hood anyone? have been attacked and there are plenty of guns in those. You are making assumptions without any factual basis for them.

      • spencer60

        In one way you are right, the scientific method doesn’t allow you to ‘prove’ anything 100%.

        However the fact that almost every mass-attack in the last 20 years has taken place in a ‘gun free zone’ (and that most definitely includes military bases like Ft. Hood and the Naval Yard) is sure a heck of a strong correlation.

        That’s also backed up by anecdotal evidence. Several studies have documented that criminals fear an armed victim far more than they do the police.

        The Aurora theater killer specifically bypassed closer and bigger cinemas because they did not have a ‘no guns’ sign posted at the ticket window.

        Police stations have been attacked, but not by people looking to kill innocent bystanders… Those are people looking to commit ‘suicide by cop’

        Take a look at the Mother Jones website and you will find all the facts you want. It’s obvious from your statement about Ft. Hood that you are very unsure about the facts being discussed here.

      • Mr B J Mann

        So you’re arguing that you have proof to support your position, it just hasn’t come into existence yet, though you hope it soon will?!?!?!?

  • Pioneer

    “in the hope that I could bring him round to my point of view through rational, fact-based argument,”

    What facts would they be?

    “Progressives ” never say.

  • Mr B J Mann

    And what does Leah immediately think of whenever there’s a mass-acre at a school?

    Probably of shooting.

    Like on 9/11 when fortunately the kindergarten was evacuated, but 3,000 adults died.

    A hundred times more than if guns had been involved!!

    Or perhaps Oklahoma, where the kindergarten kids died too.

    But only ten times more People died than when guns are involved!!

    Or perhaps she thinks of the biggest big school massacre.

    when “only” five times more died than if guns had been involved!!

    Or perhaps a more traditional school shooting?

    Like Columbine?

    When the killers had set pipe bombs at the bottom of the stairwells.

    how many times more would have died if they had gone off than if only guns had been involved!?!

    And they wouldn’t have needed any guns to go off: just fire alarms!

    Perhaps we should ban fire alarms?!

    How many people have died in panics triggered by fire alarms going off?!

    Or even by people just sounding off, perhaps in a crowded theatre:

    Perhaps we need a blanket ban on freedoms and liberties:

    After all, if it saves just one life!

    Won’t someone think of the children?!

    Cue dramatic hysterical hand wringing, tear jerking, guilt tripping, shroudwaving theatrics

    Perhaps O’Barmy could play a part in it?!

    • Mr B J Mann

      Incidentally, considering that “liberals” are usually so keen on suicide, and even
      assisted suicide, it’s strange that they keep complaining that the US is
      quite high up the international league table for gun “deaths” and
      counter arguments about gun “free” zones and with the “fact” the the US
      states with the most guns have the most gun “deaths”, when this merely
      reflects the fact that people have more access to quick, clean efficient
      firearms rather than having to use messy knives and razors?!

      When
      you look at the gun MURDER rankings the US is below midway, and
      comparably heavily armed Israel and Switzerland are around 164th and
      210th out of 218 countries in the UN ranking!

  • Mr B J Mann

    We’ve just had our Channel 4 resident drama queen “interviewing” a gun control opponent.

    He opened the “debate” by asking if he wasn’t ashamed of his country killing so many kids since the start of the year.

    Then developed his +argument” by continually interrupting to demand to know why he wasn’t ashamed by how many more US kiddies had probably been killed or wounded since the interview began.

    If these gun control supporters actually had an argument for removing liberties you would have thought they would have shared their secret!

    • Mr B J Mann

      Typically they led in with shots of a Heavy Machine Gun.

      Untypically they forgot to overay them with a soundtrack of the rat-a-tat-tat of Heavy Machine Gun fire!

    • mandelson

      The John Snow Show where he gets to scream hysterically pushing his agenda. Nothing to do with journalism whatsoever. Pompous fool.

  • Yorkieeye

    I think we must look beyond the availability of guns in the USA to explain deranged mass killings. There are numerous countries around the world where gun ownership is rife and similar outrages could happen – but often don’t. We could begin by asking ‘why are America’s young people so ###### up.’

    • SunnyD

      In the first instance, I think you’re right. For example, in 2011, the United States Department of Justice compiled homicide statistics in the United States between 1980 and 2008.That study showed that males were convicted of the vast majority of homicides in the United States, representing 90.5% of the total number of offenders. These figures are roughly similar worldwide. So perhaps the question should really be, why does having both an X and a Y chromosome give males the propensity for murder/violence?

      Addressing the good ol’ U.S. directly, perhaps the answer lies in the (outwardly apparent) amount of freedom the average American citizen seems to enjoy? This is one area where the Muslim world likes to highlight the apparent ill-health of Western society. (I know it’s a tangent, but it irks me that we actually fought wars to allow these people the freedom and right to express their distastes about the very society in whose bosom they seek refuge) Or perhaps Americans are simply more prone to mental health issues – in which case, including access to firearms in the recipe is a sure-fire route to disaster.

      As far as your last question, perhaps the best place to look (and ask the pertinent question) would be the parents? I know it sounds simplistic, so I should also add that (conversely) parents should also be given credit when appropriate.

      My final thought is this: when I was a young man, my mum made me aware that we lived in a world where at the age of 16, we’re old enough to have s*x – but not old enough to watch it (either on video or at the cinema). Although I consider myself a pretty well-rounded individual, I’m equally aware there are perv3rts amongst us – so how much does legislation really help, in the long run?

      • mohdanga

        The gun murder rate for blacks is 10x that of whites….that might be a starting point.

    • spencer60

      Lets not forget that Norway holds the title of ‘most deadly mass shooting in ‘first-world’ history’.

      There are still plenty of mass attacks (including shootings) in Australia and the UK, even after passing their draconian gun control laws.

      The worst school attack in the US to date was in Bath Township OH back in the ’20s, and not a single gun was used. The killer was a 50 year old man, not a teen.

      Schools have always been targets.

      The Ma’alot attack back in the 1970s is what convinced Israel to arm and train its teachers, staff and even bus drivers.

      Incidentally they haven’t suffered a ‘successful’ school attack since, and the Palestinians have stopped even trying to shoot up schools.

      This is not unique to any one time or country or people. Massacres of innocents happen all the time, and have throughout history.

      The only thing that stops them is when the victims stop becoming victims and start taking responsibility for their own self-defense.

      I agree that we should be looking at what factors are making some of these kids lash out, no matter what weapon they use.

      But in the end the only real debate should be how to stop them once they do.

      • Yorkieeye

        I don’t know about ‘plenty of mass shootings’ in the UK. I don’t recall any since Hungerford and Dunblane when the gun laws were tightened considerably.

        • Mr B J Mann

          But how many were there before ANY gun controls were introduced in the UK and gun ownership was widespread and commonplace?!

  • The Laughing Cavalier

    It is odd that Obama should be weep publicly on account of the children shot dead at Sandy Hook yet opposed medical intervention for children born alive after a failed late term abortion and does not cry for the 52 million potential Americans killed in the womb since 1970. Could it have something to do with gun-owners tendency to vote Republican and abortion proponents to vote Democrat?

  • mnwickens

    It doesn’t seem like the author understands her Uncle much at all, but instead she’s taken some cheap shots at a family member in public who doesn’t have the opportunity to speak for himself in the same venue. Nice.

    • Atlas

      One is left with the impression that Leah McLaren is a rather unpleasant individual, but that does generally come with being a leftist.

      • Quest for Liberty

        Pardon me for being so upfront, but I keep wondering whether you’re a male or female Ayn Rand fan. Sorry to be so crude.

  • Teacher

    In principle I’m with Uncle Bill. However, in countries where ordinary people can get hold of guns the death rate is very much higher than in countries where they can’t. Given that the wrong people get shot, for example, children, it’s probably a good idea to ban the guns.

    • Richard Atkins

      If you really are a teacher, then you owe it to yourself and your profession to check your facts before making statements: “However, in countries where ordinary people can get hold of guns the
      death rate is very much higher than in countries where they can’t.” ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!! Please check actual figures from official government statistics from countries around the globe. What you have written is the ‘Oft told lies’ put about by those that would ban guns, especially those in high places like Obama, so the lie is believed. The FACTS show the precise OPPOSITE , despite the incorrect viewpoint the lies create in those who wish to use false but easily believed claims to support their anti-gun stance. These people love it when good people like “Teacher” spread the misinformation for them!
      PS: Research too how many incidents are PREVENTED or contained thanks to a lawful gun owner being in a position to intervene LONG before law enforcement has any chance of helping those threatened; the number will shock you.

      • Teacher

        Er, I just checked them again and on the whole where people are allowed to carry firearms they use them.

        • Richard Atkins

          Use them for what..to prevent a crime or defend themselves? That happens far more often than to commit one but details not made easy to find, because it doesn’t suit the agenda.
          Where did you check? Switzerland, Scandinavia; Australia; New Zealand… never mind places like Honduras!. Gun crime, in particular with handguns, went up significantly in UK when handguns were banned. Gun crime much higher in Australia since the ban there too.
          Banning lawful owners not only cannot affect criminals it encourages them. The actual facts (not the distorted ones made very easily available on the internet purposely to mislead) prove it, close at home and afar, if you do look at actual statistics over relevant periods of time.
          Even in the States, where this discussion began, gun ownership is FAR higher now than it was than ten and more years ago but homicides with firearms is now LOWER. So more guns does not equal more gun crimes and certainly not by the law abiding.

      • colchar

        You couldn’t be more wrong. Canada’s gun crime rate is significantly lower than that of the US and we have strong gun control laws here. And I saw a news story yesterday about a an incident in whicever state just allowed open carry (was it Texas? somewhere else? I can’t remember at the moment). On the very first day of open carry someone carrying a gun was robbed of that gun at gunpoint. His gun didn’t help him much did it?

        • Malcolm Stevas

          Jut like the UK, Canada has a society very different from that of the USA. It is not just about guns. The US in general is a more violent society: crime there is worse regarding knives, other weapons, and just plain thuggery, than in the UK or Canada. And yes, I’ve visited Canada several times – mostly hunting…

          • uberwest

            That’s incorrect, the UK has a higher rate of violent crimes than the US.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            I think I’ve seen that suggested elsewhere but I’d like to see this qualified, and to have authoritative references. I mean, which parts of the US? It has to be borne in mind that violent crime generally, gun crime, and firearms legislation, vary hugely across the USA – a key factor almost never considered by those here who scream about “American gun crime”; and of course violent crime similarly varies a great deal within the UK, so that London and other urban areas are very much more violence-prone than rural areas.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I don’t know about now, but certainly up to the 70s, the Japanese in the US had exactly the same access to firearms as anyone else in the US.

            And exactly the same very low gun homicide rate as Japan.

            And if any “liberals” want to argue that the expat stats are abberant, and it’s down to the level of state control they or their parents are used to:

            I’d chech out their police powers and procedures in general:

            And their drug controls in particulsr.

            It’s funny how “liberals” always overlook Japan when discussing drug controls:

            Preferring the joke “prohibition” and near non existent current “controls” zs counter “arguments”!

            So how ccme prohibition works for drugs, but not guns?!

        • Richard Atkins

          Canada is indeed an interesting case. Do you remember the Long Gun Registry farago? A lot of Canadians do. They paid hundreds of millions of dollars for it, then scrapped it. Why, because as police and government officials came to realise, it was costing vast amounts of money, diverted police time, money and resources from tackling crime and SOLVED NO CRIMES. Go read up about what it cost and achieved. It showed that restricting Canada’s law abiding people was a costly mistake. One which they must be applauded for eventually having the good sense to put right. But at vast cost. At least it did provide a great opportunity to prove the point that more guns do not cause more crime; crime didn’t go down when the rules were tightened, nor go up when repealed. Thank you for bringing that topic up.
          PS: Check also the statements made to the UN when they were discussing tighter controls on small-arms [small excerpt from introduction in quotes below]. Canada was referenced as an example of what laws can and cannot achieve. …”It had been demonstrated that the Canadian licensing and registration system was NOT cost-effective and HAD NOT reduced crime…”
          Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law.

        • Mr B J Mann

          And if you look the other way Mexico’s gun crime rate is significantly HIGHer than that of the US and they have strong gun control laws there. 

          Switzerland’s gun crime rate is significantly lower than that of the US or anywhere else and they have WEAK gun control laws there and guns are as common as in the US. 

          In fact the Swiss government even isssues men of military age with military weap0ns and encourages them to retain them on being demobilised.

          Yet g un cr!me, never mind g un v!olence, is almost unheard of!

    • Marvin

      Then only the thugs and scum will have them and you won’t have a bean to defend yourself with. I suppose most people are just born to be victims and plankton for the criminals.

      • colchar

        Oh give it a rest. We have criminals here in Canada and they have guns. Not one person I know has ever been a victim. Not one. If guns made people safer America would be the safest country int he world. They don’t and it isn’t.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Try moving to Rwanda:

          There they managed to k!ll 800,000 people in just 100 days (that’s a more efficient k!ll rate than the H0LOCAUST!!!!!!!).

          Using nothing more than an assortment or blunt kitchen utensils and rusty garden implements.

          Plus a few sharpened sticks.

          Oh, and according to the Guardian, Rwanda is just about the bottom of the g un ownership league table!!!!!!

        • mohdanga

          Blacks commit gun murders at 10x the rate of whites….that’s the issue and this is what drives up the gun murder rate in the US. But nary a peep about this.

      • Teacher

        I suppose we are.

        • Marvin

          It is not mandatory to be a coward you know, one has a choice to want the choice of attempting to save one’s life and end one that is a sub human mutant.

    • Malcolm Stevas

      This simply does not follow. When my grandparents were young, pre-WW1, there were virtually no “gun control” laws and gun ownership was very, very much more widespread. Gun crime was proportionately less frequent then than it is now. Gun ownership in e.g. Switzerland is considerably higher than it is her – their gun crime and murder stats are very close to ours.

  • WFB56

    The article was great up to the line “And that, my friends, is why Ontario is broke and Texas is not.” After that it rapidly descended into a string of largely cheap shots about conservatives that dont’ withstand much, if any, scrutiny.

    Is the Spectator so desperate for copy that they can’t get a serious piece on gun control from someone who isn’t so naive that they actually think that Obama’s tear wasn’t fake. Or, perhaps, that she would take the time to read what was proposed, in which case she would see that it was, basically, nothing new. Typical of Obama, all show and no substance.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-glittery-gun-control-distraction-1452039678

    • Marvin

      Bloody cry baby. The most powerful feminine man in the world.

    • mohdanga

      Ontario is broke due to the rule of the Liberals under Wynne and McGuinty…they’ve managed to rack up $250 billion in debt in 12 years while ruling over the decimation of our economy.

  • Uusikaupunki

    ‘You have to feed them the truth wrapped in a piece of baloney, hold
    their snout shut, and stroke their throats. Even then, just when you
    think they’ve swallowed it, they spit it out on the linoleum.’

    • al_frick

      Thanks for saving me the time – I was going to do the same correction.

  • Tommo

    Good article. The US is a wonderful place but there are aspects of it society such as health care and gun control that can only be described as sick.

    • Mr B J Mann

      Ooops, you seem to have forgotten to post your argument.

      You are Leah McLaren and I claim my £5!

    • mohdanga

      Blacks have a murder rate 10x that of whites….that’s the problem.
      As for health care, they sure do have a screwed up system that has a law that says anyone who shows up at an emergency dept has to be cared for. That’s why there are 400,000 plus ‘anchor babies’ born in these hospitals every year (illegal immigrants who cross the border and show up at a hospital and can’t be turned away). Plus the tens of billions spent on healthcare for illegals. Yes, those ‘sick’ Americans.

  • Marvin

    AAAHHH! Guns, firearms and something to defend oneself with, unlike this limp wristed country where the liberal ladyboys faint at the sight of a picture of a gun. The possession of machine guns, automatic rifles and UZI’s should have no place in the hands of the public, but just imagine the horrific slaughter of the Charlie Hebdo victims. The two sub human mutants stood there and called out their names and shot them in cold blood. Would it maybe not made a bit of a difference if some of the victims had been trained and had a gun each in their desks. I don’t expect the lady boys to see it my way.

    • Malcolm Stevas

      “machine guns, automatic rifles and UZI’s should have no place in the hands of the public”
      Why not? Don’t you trust yourself? Ownership of automatic weapons was banned only in (from memory) 1936, on the nod as it were, since to the best of my knowledge there is no case on record of an automatic weapon having been used in crime in this country prior to that date. Automatics have of course been used since then by criminals, since laws only affect the law-abiding. If the government and its agents have automatic weapons, then I demand access to them myself. It’s only reasonable, in a free society.

      • hobspawn

        Do you also demand access to Trident missiles?

        • Mr B J Mann

          Do you insist that not only would the UK or US governments turn Trident on their own citizens, but that government forces would “just follow orders” if so commanded.

          All the more reason for an armed militia to intervene before we got that far, then, isn’t it!!!

        • Malcolm Stevas

          No. My garden is too small for a missile silo. An M-16 would do me.

      • Marvin

        I love the look of hand guns, there is a lot of beauty and power in one if used for the right reason. What I am getting
        at is, I would not need an UZI or an automatic weapon to defend myself/family/property against burglars, all I would need is a powerful enough hand gun to finish the job, and I dot mean just to stop them. But in Britain the system, cops and limp wristed politicians will not cannot and do not want to protect us AND will not allow us to protect ourselves. They are even financing the persecution and prosecution of our own soldiers against the scum of the earth.

        • Malcolm Stevas

          Yes, a sub-gun might be over the top, but for me it’s not about utility so much as liberty: if I considered that my particular circumstances – an isolated home not too far from a major conurbation, say, or somewhere in the E.Midlands plagued with gyppoes – required me to have an Uzi, in a free society I should be at liberty to get one. But I agree that in general a handgun is best for home defence or personal carry – I’d have a 1911 in .45ACP such as I owned prior to 1997…
          The government – perhaps The Establishment is a more apt – does not like the peasantry to be able to defend itself. There’s supposedly a compact between citizens and government whereby we abandon our right to be armed, and they undertake to protect us via the police. This is of course a scam, grossly dishonest, mendacious, wicked, hypocritical – you name it. If attacked in the street, or in your home, you are on your own. Neither the police nor anyone else can protect you. Unless you are armed properly, you cannot even protect yourself: how many of us are young, fit, tough, trained in martial arts? The Establishment and the police prefer us to run away, give up and plead for mercy, or lock ourselves in and treat our homes like a fortress. It is contemptible and so despicable it makes me spitting mad.

          • Marvin

            I agree with everything. “We have the greatest police service in the world” they cry, you know the one’s who faint when they see a picture of a firearm. A truncheon/taser against an UZI. They are more likely to arrest an old age pensioner then confront a trouble maker. The biggest excuse is that if they carry firearms, the criminals will use BIGGER firearms. Kindergarten Cops or Keystone Cops.

  • Tamerlane

    I wonder how many punters in Paris on the night of November 13th wished they’d been carrying a gun. There would have been far fewer deaths I can tell you that.

    • colchar

      No there wouldn’t have. The last time some nutter did something in Times Square nine people were shot before the suspect was killed. And they were all shot by the police! If guns made people safer America would be the safest country in the world. They don’t and it isn’t.

      • Tamerlane

        In your opinion.

        • colchar

          Not opinion, fact. Just look at the availability of guns in the US and then look at its violent crime rate. Then look at other western countries, the availability of guns in those countries, and their much much lower rates of violent crime.

          • Tamerlane

            Like Switzerland you mean? Great.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Your gross misinterpretation of cause and effect, and your ignoring the huge variety of societal differences and cultural factors, are laughably simplistic.

          • NickG

            The non PeeCee fact is that gun crime in America has more to do with demographics than guns.

            New Hampshire – which has amongst the highest firearm ownership rates and requires no permit for concealed handgun carry – has European levels of homicide 0.9 per 100,000 per year in 2014, the UK’s is slightly higher.

            US Homicide rate sorted by State

      • Malcolm Stevas

        You are very mistaken. I advise you to check the Department of Justice (I think, from memory) and NRA statistics concerning the very great number of occasions annually when armed citizens defend themselves or others against assault/robbery – usually without firing a shot. If you carry a gun you can defend yourself, even against someone much stronger & younger. If you are not carrying a gun, you almost certainly cannot defend yourself.

      • Mr B J Mann

        And New York, as with all the US “gun capitals”, not only has strict gun controls, but has had them for a century.

        So your point is?!

      • AA_Bill

        I doubt if you’ve ever been to Times Square in your life.

    • hobspawn

       “I wonder how many punters in Paris on the night of November 13th wished they’d been carrying a gun. There would have been far fewer deaths I can tell you that.”

      Yes, none, probably.

      • Mr B J Mann

        Yeah, right, they were all probably lying there bleeding to death, or cowering under cover watching their friends and family being shot and thinking it was so fortunate they were unarmed and helpless?!

        Are you INSANE?!?!?!!!!

        • hobspawn

          Sorry for not being clear. I meant that there would not just have been fewer deaths, there would have been none, as those obedient muslim (murderers) would be unlikely to pick a fight with armed civilians. They prefer to slaughter the unarmed. I have edited the quote to make my meaning clearer.

  • Mr B J Mann

    NOW WHAT?!?!?!?

    But what about this scenario, I recently wrote back to Uncle Bill: a young menta11y !ll teenager is having fantasies about k!lling himself and his entire class. In Canada (or the UK, or anywhere in western Europe) he’d receive state-funded healthcare and get better. In America he could simply go to Walmart and buy a sem!-aut0matic weap0n and enact his fantasy. And that is why the school-children of Canada (or the UK, etc.) are safe and those of Texas are not.

    Except that in the UK, before they turned menta11y !ll people into the streets, it was easier to get g uns, including handg uns, but you are now more likely to be sh0t, including with handg uns.

    And even earlier still, when there were no controls on g un ownership in the UK and, yes, hard to believe, but the ownership of g uns was quite common, g un cr!me, never mind g un k!llings, were extremely rare!

    And in Switzerland, where g uns are as common as in the US, and the government even isssues men of military age with military weap0ns and encourages them to retain them on being demobilised, g un cr!me, never mind g un v!olence, is almost unheard of.

    And in the US in general g un cr!me was worse when when g uns were scarcer, and better when they were more common (in the 1aw abiding public’s hands), and g un cr!me is worse where g uns are scarer, and vice versa.

    The “g un capitals” have had draconian g un controls for a century, mass sh00tings occur in g un “free” zones, but it’s rare where g uns are plentiful in the hands of the 1aw abiding, and when was the last time you heard of a mass acre in a g un shop?!

    So, if “liberals” had the capacity for rat!onal thought and reasoned logic they would be able to deduce it’s not the g uns, it’s not even the menta1 health care, it’s clearly something else.

    But as they are only capable of “If it saves just one tiny schoolchild from being s1aughtered by a ma dman” emoting and hysterical guilt-inducing emotional b1ackmailing shroudwaving:

    there is instead a de ranged sort of innocence — the sort of thinking that occurs when you take a perfectly good ideal (freedom, say, or safety), mix in a large helping of !rrational fear, then spin it to its ILlogical conclusion. Leah McLaren’s belief in g un control, like many Americans’, is like a rel!gious faith in the notion of state control — the belief that when it comes right down to it, if the world goes to he ll, a man should at least have the right to control his neighbours family and property and liberty and freedom for their own safety, for their own and society’s supposed greater good. Like all ideals it is kind of beautiful, but it’s also quite m ad.

  • Mr B J Mann

    “I’m with Obama, who teared up on Thursday just thinking about Sandy Hook, and vowed to tighten g un laws.”

    If he (or you) had a rational logical reasonable argument why didn’t he use it instead of hysterical, knee-jerk, tear-jerk, emoting and guilt-inducing emotional b1ackmailing shroudwaving?!

  • Mr B J Mann

    The comedian Bill Maher once likened the experience of arguing with American conservatives as akin to getting your dog to take a pill. ‘You have to feed them the truth wrapped in a piece of baloney, hold their snout shut, and stroke their throats. Even then, just when you think they’ve swallowed it, they spit it out on the linoleum.’

    I think that’s what they call “projecting”!

    Especially when it comes to the emotional issue of gun control, “democrats” and “liberals” like Uncle Bill Mahler and the author of this article are as startlingly fact-resistant and reason-impervious as a mutt who will always follow his instinct over rational sense.

  • Mr B J Mann

    “I began my dialogue on g un control with Uncle Bill in the hope that I
    could bring him round to my point of view through rational, fact-based
    argument”

    Is the author saving her “rational, fact-based
    argument” for a follow up article?!

  • Mr B J Mann

    If the author thinks things are bad in the US she should look at other countries.

    Like Mexico with, is it, six times the g un k!lling rate and much stricter controls.

    Or how about Rwanda:

    There they managed to k!ll 800,000 people in just 100 days (that’s a more efficient k!ll rate than the H0LOCAUST!!!!!!!).

    Using nothing more than an assortment or blunt kitchen utensils and rusty garden implements.

    Plus a few sharpened sticks.

    Oh, and according to the Guardian, Rwanda is just about the bottom of the g un ownership league table!!!!!!

    But, then again, when it comes to the emotional issue of g un control, “democrats” and
    “liberals” like the author of this article “are as startlingly fact-resistant and reason-impervious as a mutt who will always follow his instinct over rational sense”.

  • evad666

    I suspect the President’s tears were either down to an Onion or snuff.

  • Malcolm Stevas

    Ah that “rational, fact-based argument” – I only wish I could be half as rational, half as fact-based, as the author. I mean, when she writes,
    “For someone like me, a mass shooting like Sandy Hook, in which 20 tiny schoolchildren were slaughtered by the madman Adam Lanza, is a clear reason for sensible gun legislation….”
    and
    “the experience of arguing with American conservatives as akin to getting your dog to take a pill..”
    or even
    “Republicans like Uncle Bill are … startlingly fact-resistant and reason-impervious”
    Wow! Eat your heart out, Socrates. This chick is so rational and fact based it hurts. Actually, there are so many examples of sloppy disconnected non-argument and factual inaccuracy it’s hard to refute them without writing an essay. Let’s just take one of the closing bits, that deeply smug snippet described as a “brilliant headline” in something called the Onion: “‘no way to prevent this,’ says only nation on earth where this ever happens…”
    Maybe the author knows nothing of Michael Ryan’s grim killing spree in Hungerford, in 1987; maybe she forgot Dunblane in 1996. These ghastly events took place in a country with some of the most restrictive firearms controls in the world, administered by the police, who claim only they are competent to oversee citizens who wish to own firearms. In those two cases, Thames Valley Police argued strongly against a public enquiry, which might have revealed their deficiencies; and Central Scotland Police’s deficiencies were aired (in part) in open court, with further deficiencies and unknowns being suppressed beneath a 100-year secrecy ruling….
    People who believe “gun control” works, or can work, are either simpletons or authoritarian control freaks. Our country has had significant “gun control” measures for less than 100 years, prior to which just about anyone could acquire whatever guns he or she wanted. Gun crime then was very much less than it is today, after successive “gun control” measures have been rammed through for a variety of reasons, most of them dishonest, idle kneejerk, or overtly oppressive. Go figure.

    • Mr B J Mann

      Check out “Firearms Control” from a thesis by Colin Greenwood, a pro-control head of police firearms training who took a sabbatical at Oxbridge expecting to confirm his prejudices and completely reversed his views when he unearthed the truth.

      What caught my eye was the fact that after decades of controls it was the first UK study, and only the second in the world!?!?!

      • Malcolm Stevas

        Yes. I have Greenwood’s book, which is as you suggest a very valuable resource – and which many of his police colleagues at the time resented. I’ve met Colin, at a shooting weekend in Monmouthshire; and in the past I contributed a couple of times to the magazine he edited, Guns Review. He’s a great guy, very good company, as well as being knowledgeable and tough minded.

  • mortsnerd

    The author is uninformed about the relationship between strict gun-control jurisdictions and gun deaths, but only as far as the actual numbers are concerned. Her progressive moral superiority and utter certainty is impeccably ship-shape, however.

    Also, the situation as to who actually possesses guns has altered in the last 20 years in places like Canada and France, for example. Many guns outside of the USA are obtained illegally and within an hour of fancying one, even if you don’t live within a criminal sub-section of society.

    And also, let’s not forget that the Paris and San Bernardino Islamic Lebensraum murders have created a new impetus for people wishing to protect their loved ones during the 30-minute wait time before the police/army arrives.

  • Bobo

    I am an Englishman with Texan relatives.
    Those relatives live on ranches and have guns and shoot.
    They grew up with guns, they are comfortable with them and expect their kids to one day learn how to use them responsibly (one of them made a 21 yr old friend walk home from his ranch when he found him with an assault rifle while hunting – the walk is about a 30 minute drive…).
    That said they don’t believe that the government is capable of controlling anything responsibly and efficiently so they are against any influx of rules.
    They point to the same people/groups who campaign for gun control not allowing stop and frisk policies to be carried out in cities (where the gun crime is rampant), and ask if this is actually effective policy or just the desire to be seen to be doing something, anything without questioning whether its the right thing to do (its not clear gun control of this nature would have prevented san bernadino – DHS not checking the wife’s facebook over privacy concerns, or sandy hook – the mother’s guns).
    Given that Switzerland has an assault rifle in every home, its really not clear that the tightening of legal weapons ownership (as opposed to illegal) is the most effective policy here (in contrast to the author’s certainty that it is).

    They are just confused and scared of the government being there to help them to borrow a phrase.

    • TiredOfMorons

      You lost me at the friend “with an assault rifle”. You mean it was illegally modified to operate on full automatic? Or he was sent on the long walk (no cell phone?) because the rifle had a bayonet lug or pistol grip?

      • polidorisghost

        Your moniker is ironic I think

        • TiredOfMorons

          Not at all. And given your content-free reply, I’m already tired of you.

  • fredimeyer

    indeed there is a clash of cultures. socialists, canadians and europeans–aside from the swiss–simply cannot understand what it means to be free, and how free men willingly accept this high cost of freedom

    the swiss have been free for 700 years, and there are few swiss households without firearms. yet there is virtually no gun crime. there is a lot of gun crime in america, exactly the percentage which matches the demographics of diversity.

    canadians have never fought for their freedom. to the extent they have any it was handed to them by some person pretending to divine rights. canadians live, as do europeans, under the protection of gun-toting americans. so feel free to talk. you can always count on uncle bill in texas to ride to your rescue

    • Reluctant Mlungu

      Quite right, if the gun crimes (and violent crimes in general) committed by a certain ‘vibrant’ demographic are removed from the US figures, then the US gun crime rate (and violent crime rate) drops to about the European average. Sorry SJWs, but it’s fact.

      • Alan Yates

        As usual, the mlungu is right!

      • hobspawn

        I was too scared to ask this question. Thank you for saying what few will dare to say.

    • Malcolm Stevas

      “..europeans–aside from the swiss–simply cannot understand what it means to be free..”
      A sweeping statement that cannot be allowed to pass. Don’t get carried away. Most Americans don’t understand what it means to be free, since 80% of them have never even left the continental USA so have no basis for comparison…. We’re fairly well informed this side of the Atlantic. Some of us – well, rather a lot actually – have even visited the USA more than once. Canada, too.

      • TiredOfMorons

        Putting aside the idiocy that tourism is somehow the equivalent of an education in the requirements of freedom, is “rather a lot actually” more or less than 20%? Cite, please.

        • Malcolm Stevas

          You’re very literal-minded, aren’t you… With such a crass monicker, maybe you’re not inclined to subtlety or nuance.
          In brief, “gun control” discussion is bedevilled by widespread ignorance about guns & shooting, and about the wider political environment. Here, the control fans tend to make stupid assertions about America & guns which display their huge ignorance of, for example, the wide disparity in gun crime and gun laws between various US jurisdictions. In America, too many gun owners who know little or nothing of the wider world tend to spout off about “Europeans” this or that, displaying their ignorance of the big differences in firearms culture & legislation from Helsinki to Palermo, and the historical/political reasons for our various laws. For example, in England we’ve had significant gun laws only since 1920, when the government – inspired by absurd paranoia about anarchists and Bolsheviks, not by gun crime, which was insignificant – was able to ram through a highly restrictive Firearms Act in the wake of the enormous loss of life in WW1. And when US gun owners castigated us as cowards for allowing the government to take
          away our handguns in 1997 following a massacre of schoolchildren, they
          displayed their complete ignorance of the fact that out of 60 million or so,
          fewer than 57,000 of us were licenced owners of handguns; and those were
          registered, so declining to hand them in was not an option…
          My point about the minority of Americans who travel was to underline the unwisdom of Americans getting their ideas about Europe & guns from supermarket checkout tabloids, Fox, Donald Trump, and people they meet at gun shows. My point about travel in the other direction was to suggest that some of us do know a bit about the world, including America, and don’t need lectures on what constitutes freedom.
          OK? This is a longer reply than you deserve.

          • TiredOfMorons

            By “literal-minded” it appears you mean to denigrate paying some attention to whether what you say is factual or not. You asserted that Americans (as contrasted with Europeans, or at least “rather a lot” of you) were mostly ignorant of “what it means to be free” because of inadequate tourism. Again, putting aside the idiocy involved in this statement that I’ve already identified, I’ve asked you to back up the basics of that assertion with numbers: Comparing apples to apples (obviously the trans-border travel of Luxembourgians will approach 100%) does, say, travel to America by Europeans really exceed travel to Europe by Americans? If not, the idiocy of your statement is squared.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            No, I just meant literal minded – and you’re still being literal minded. Your prose is garbled. You’re too fond of the word “idiocy”. You seem not to have understood the explanation I provided. And it’s “Luxembourgers”.

          • TiredOfMorons

            You haven’t explained anything, merely compounded the idiocy and ignored the rebuttal.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            What “rebuttal”? You are hard of comprehension.

          • TiredOfMorons

            “Comparing apples to apples… does, say, travel to America by Europeans really exceed travel to Europe by Americans?”

            I can’t help it if you don’t recognize rebuttal when you see it. I’ve never suggested you had any smarts.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            You don’t exactly come across like Voltaire yourself. You’re really fixated on this travel thing, aren’t you: perhaps you’re in the tourism industry.

          • TiredOfMorons

            Nope. It was your idea. You’re just not backing it up.

            Voltaire is your idea of optimum smarts? Jeez.

      • fredimeyer

        you may be right that most americans lack a profound intellectual appreciation of the nature of freedom, that could be argued. but utter stupidity is what you exhibit by assuming that TRAVEL is how one decides that. by your argument, no astronomer or scientist can know anything about the stars and planets, because they have not visite them. please, go back to the daily mail

        • Malcolm Stevas

          You’re as literal minded as that other fellow: travel is simply an example, an illustration, often cited in relation to the cultural provincialism exhibited by many Americans. Your approach to syntax is amusing, especially alongside your use of “intellectual appreciation”. Your argument about space travel is juvenile. I do not read the Mail, a newspaper which targets readers like you.

    • WFB56

      I think that Donald Trump and Rand Paul are a sign of things to come and that free-riders in Canada and Europe should count on Americans riding to our rescue anymore.

  • carlos webber

    Citing Bill Maher and Michael Moore was equivalent to pulling off a Kobe-silk Yves St Laurent evening gown to reveal a polyester Burger King uniform.

  • Dave m

    Amendment II
    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.

    so if someone has a gun they should be part of a militia.

    • TiredOfMorons

      Your reading comprehension problems are compounded by ignorance. The fact that a reason (one among several) is offered for the right to bear arms is not logically a limitation on that right. That’s “comprehension”. The “ignorance” part is that you don’t know what the “militia” was: Every adult male citizen.

      • diqi

        Misrepresentation, not ignorance

        • TiredOfMorons

          I wouldn’t assume he knows anything.

    • carlos webber

      IQ test. What was the state of gun ownership after ratification ? That tells you what the founders meant.

      • Lawrence James.

        Indeed. In the 1770s a gun was a musket with which the militiamen were equipped with their officers carrying flintlock pistols. There were no automatics and sub-machine guns in those days: had there been, I wonder whether the Founding Fathers would have been happy for anyone to own one, even militiamen.

        • crazydude

          Actually, yes, I believe the founders would have allowed people to have semi automatics. This whole notion that the 2nd amendment was there so they could have muskets, and that it was for hunting is completely false. If you research why they wrote in the first place, you may understand that, even though it sounds crazy, they may have been okay with “the people” owning “assault weapons”

          • Lawrence James.

            Interesting point. I wonder what what these gentlemen would have thought about American citizens owning artillery and stocks of cannon balls and grape shot, or, to jump a generation, a Congreve rocket battery.
            Incidentally, small arms were readily available in the UK throughout the 19th and 20th centuries: TE Lawence’s papa brought him a Mauser automatic prior to his visit to Syria in 1909 ! Plus ca change ! Nonetheless, gun crime was unusual then and earlier, except when poachers and gamekeepers fought each other

        • carlos webber

          All you need to know is the state of the art was permitted. Question answered.

          • Lawrence James.

            Thank you: I do recollect that the Pinkerton agency possessed Gatling Guns in the 1880 and used them once during a strike.

          • carlos webber

            you are forgetting all the bangers down in the ‘hood. but they enjoy baseball bats and knives, too.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Precisely!

          They had exactly the same personal weapons as any possible government force that might try to usurp the people.

          YOUR argument is that today the public NEEDS to have not just automatics and sub-machine guns, but even more sophisticated personal arms.

          Bit like the Swiss army have at home, and are encouraged to keep in retirement!

          Happy now?!?!?!!!!

    • Ivan Ewan

      Do you really want the people in the USA who have guns to form militias?

    • crazydude

      A bit of trivia: That sentence is not saying that only those people in a well regulated militia can keep and bear arms :)))

  • Marvell

    The only nation on earth where this ever happens. Really? In a word, Dunblane. Two words, since you are Canadian: Montreal massacre.
    And it’s being kind to Michael Moore to describe him as a “left-wing filmmaker”. He’s a nutter, a 9/11 truther, and aggressive with his nuttiness at that.
    Please try to inform yourself before you pass on your rich stock of Canadian left-wing canards and embarrass yourself.

  • Marvell

    One needn’t take the authoress very seriously on this topic; pity her for she suffers the Canadian disease: a controlling left-liberal smugness, inflamed by proximity to American conservatism.

    • WFB56

      As a Canadian myself, I would suggest that it is a deeply held Canadian unearned sense of moral superiority to Americans and its the product of economic and political penis envy.

  • Marvell

    I’ll let you go after this last comment: Canada has a higher rate of home burglaries (called “break and enters” there) than the US. Any guesses why?

    • Malcolm Stevas

      I haven’t the stats to hand but I learned some years ago (perhaps from an international comparison in a respectable journal, and/or US Dep’t of Justice) that the same applies in UK: our rates of burglary against homes that are occupied is several times that of the US average. Brit burglars know they will almost certainly not be confronted by an armed homeowner.

      • jim_joystique

        Great. Is that worth the annual 11,000 murders though? I mean since you’re bean-counting I just thought I’d throw it in there.

        • mindpower

          TVs are more important than lives. Didn’t you know?

        • Malcolm Stevas

          Your notion of cause and effect is as curious as your definition of “bean-counting”: you appear to imply that murder in the USA might have a connection with homeowners’ right to defend themselves and their property against criminal invasion. Or something, it’s difficult to tell.

          • jim_joystique

            By definition a murder isn’t an act of self-defence. The figure of 11,000 murders therefore doesn’t include home invasion self-defence.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            So why are you concerned at the thought of homeowners using armed force to defend themselves if need be? Or why, perhaps, do you think exposing homeowners to a potential threat (no matter how slight) from assailants/invaders is some sort of price worth paying to prevent all sorts of other people from killing one another? This is of course to disregard the huge complexity of the way some people use some weapons in some jurisdictions. You haven’t really presented any sort of argument. My argument centres on what I and many others regard as an inherent, natural, irrevocable right to defend oneself, one’s family and one’s property with deadly force if necessary.

          • Thorbotnic

            You don’t have such a right in the UK, so it’s demonstrably not irrevocable. Your property is not more valuable than anyone’s life.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Because something is against the law, it does not mean it cannot be inherent, accepted across the ages as right & proper, or irrevocable. It is indeed not allowable under current UK law to shoot someone who enters your home illicitly and with intent to steal or worse: it’s why Tony Martin was jailed, despite widespread sympathy for his position when confronted by two young career criminals. I would argue strongly that the right to defend oneself with deadly force if required is indeed irrevocable, no matter what laws might temporarily impede this. And it’s important to point out that until the mid-1950s it was possible to request a Firearm Certificate for the purpose of self-defence: jewellers, for example, often took advantage of this. The law was not changed – the Home Office simply instructed chief officers of police not to issue FACs on this basis any more. It was a piece of law-change by administrative fiat. So much for the law…

      • hobspawn

        And the homeowner who does brandish a weapon defending himself will be sent to prison, even if he has a gun license. Remember the Blairite motto: “soft on crime, tough on the victims of crime”.

    • mindpower

      And the US has a higher rate of mass shootings and armed robberies than anywhere else. Which is worse?

      • Mr B J Mann

        No it doesn’t:

        Just look at the rate just over the border in Mexico, where gun controls are stricter!

        And look at the mass killings in Rwanda whivh is just about the bottom of the gun ownersip league table according to the Guardian!!!

        • mindpower

          Rwanda is practically a war zone, why are you including it in a discussion about gun control in developed countries?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrmmmmmm, Rwanda was effectively a war zone without the need for guns and with vastly higher kill rates than the US in a practically gun free country:

            And it ISN’T a discussion about gun control in developed countries:

            It’s “liberal” propaganda claiming, that the ÙS has the highest gun murder rate (which it doesn’t) becsuse it has the most liberal gun controls (which it doesn’t – Switzerland GIVES guns to its citizens) and has unique levels of gun murders becsuse it has uniquely high levels of citizen legal gun ownerdhip (it doesn’t – see Switzerland, Israel, pre gun controls UK for example) and that the high death rate is down to the unique lethality of guns (it isn’t – see the death rates from people running “amok” with knives and machetes, from bombings such as the really big and gun free US school massacre and Oklahoma, from a few box cutters on 9/11, and from sharp and pointy things, errrrrrmmmm, in Rwanda!!!!!!).

            But you knew that, and was just tfying to distract from the facts!!!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Or, to sumarise, you could take away developed country killing tools be they guns or jetliners, and still get vastly more massacres!

      • Marvell

        Agreed. But control for demographic dissimilarity and the US rate of these things would be lower. We know who’s committing these crimes and who’s not. Right?

      • Marvell

        You’re wrong. The US is 18th on the world armed robbery rate list. Even Spain, Belgium and Portugal are higher. Italy a little below. For mass shootings since 2009, the US was 8th when compared only against European countries, at least as to deaths rather than frequency, where it does rate higher than most.
        See how easy it is to be fooled by the propaganda?

  • Mr B J Mann

    Those “liberals” who seek corellations with gun homicides (at best there is none with gun ownership, at worst it’s negative) should look at the corellation with the black and “Hispanic” (as opposed to pure European Iberian) populations:

    And weep!

  • Franky

    What an awful essay this is. It is a retreat into the idea that if people don’t agree with us then it is because they are made stubborn or somehow predetermined not to see things the “correct way”.

    • mindpower

      Well, that depends on whether you think facts are “correct” or not. Do you?

      • Franky

        Facts are correct by definition. If they are not, then they are not facts.

  • WFB56

    The Telegraph manages to get someone with a more credible article on Obama’s theatrics and the issue in general:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/12084613/Forget-Barack-Obamas-tears-his-gun-clampdown-is-pure-politics.html

    Why can’t the Spectator do the same?

    • Thorbotnic

      Because the Spectator actually retains a respect for facts and reasoned discourse?

      • Mr B J Mann

        Well, it might like to seek them out:

        So it’s bound to have lots of fun trying to find examples of either in this article.

        If you’ve struck lucky perhaps you’d like to publicise it for the benefit of the Spectator and its readers.

        I’m still struggling to find either anywhere in it!!!!!

      • WFB56

        A quip is neither a challenge nor a substitute for a substantive argument and this article falls far short in the facts and reasoned discourse department.

  • diqi

    “I began my dialogue on gun control with Uncle Bill in the hope that I
    could bring him round to my point of view through rational, fact-based
    argument, but I’ve now realised that this is simply not the way
    proponents of the Second Amendment think.”

    What objective truth makes you believe you are so utterly right in your persepctive and it’s application to everyone in every country? For a start you rely on everyone else obeying the same laws but if events in London, Paris, Cologne and, most recently, Helsinki prove it is that relying on the authorities to protect us is an unfounded trust. All they do is mop up and invent excuses afterwards while telling off the law abiding victims to behave themselves but do nothing to the criminals.

    At least Americans have the option to defend themselves, over here we have no options at all.

    • ohforheavensake

      It’s hard to disaggregate the figures: but in 2010 the US had 11, 078 gun-related murders, and the UK had 52.

      • polidorisghost

        How did we murder the others?

      • Mr B J Mann

        And how many gun-related murders in Switzerland where there are as many guns as in the US?

        And in Mexico where the gun controls are far stricter than in the US?

        And how many in the US when the gun controls were more strict?

        And less strict?

        And in the UK when gun controls were non existent?

        And how many non gun murders are there in the US?

        And how many would there be if guns were banned (for law abiding citizens)?

        And how many gun-related murders are there in areas that haven’t enjoyed cultural enrichment and experienced the benefits of efnik diversity?!

        From your incisive analysis of the comparative criminological problem I deduct that you are a “liberal”, and a gun control supporter at that.

        But if you can answer those questions you might become less “liberal”?

        More likely your world will come crashing down:

        And you’ll shòot yourself in despair!

        • Pacificweather

          Despair! By Jove you’ve got it. Despair at the loss of the American dream. Kill your neighbours and class mates is the only solution to despair. Well, possibly, Obamacare may help too.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Unless I’ve misunderstood your post you haven’t actually bothered to read mine.

            It would be despair at the loss of the LIBERAL dream, or, rather, the realisation that it was a counterproductive fantasy.

            The US, which, acordind to “liberal” dogma, has the highest gun murder rate in the world, due to having the highest gun ownership in the world, “FACT!”, “QED!!!”, actually comes something like 110th out of 218 countries in the UN ranking.

            To which the “liberal” response is that’s not comparing like with like (as they do in their highly academically “analysed” studies),

            Fine, Israel and Switzerland, with similar levels of gun ownership, come something like 164th and 210th!

            Aaaaaahhh, but, they’ll argue, the US is a big, rich, advanced country while a lot of those in the top half are small, poor, backward, lawless places with different, errrmmm, demographics.

            So that would be just like the gun capitals of the US then, which push the US up from the level of the relativel, errrrrm, demographic-free Switzerland’s level, past the level of the much more, errrrmmmm, demographic, Israel, to its shockingly gun-killing level of, errrrmmmm, below avarage for gun murders!

            Oh, and ignore the graphics the gun control fanatics use to “prove” that gun “deaths” are directly related to gun ownership levels, especially across differrent states in the US: they mean suicides!

          • Pacificweather

            So. if not despair, why do Americans like to kill each other and themselves?

            I do like the idea of Switzerland being a “small, poor, backward, lawless place”; got them to a tee.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Isn’t English your first language?

            I sggest you read my post again!

          • Pacificweather

            You just have opinions, you don’t answer questions, I get it.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You have problems even understanding what “opinions”, “questions” and “answer” mean.

            I get it.

            Try a course in English comprehension, read my posts, and we can start again.

          • Pacificweather

            I read your posts which is why I asked the question. Let’s try again.

            Why do so many Americans kill each other and themselves with guns? In your opinion that is. You do have an opinion on that don’t you?

          • Mr B J Mann

            OK, in answer to your question, as you’ve clearly repeatedly missed the self-evident answers, the number you query is so low because most law abiding Americans are safe with guns, so many criminals are deterred from criminal killings by law abiding gun ownership and legal gun carrying in areas where they have truly liberal gun controls, and even though there is such a relatively high level of illegal gun killings by certain demographics in areas where they have discouraged legal gun ownership with draconian controls, that still isn’t enough to push the overall number of gun murders to a level that would tip the US, just, into the top half of the international gun murder league table.

            However, though it pains me, as a true liberal, to be forced to admit it, it would appear that, although the number of American gun murders is below average in global terms, it is nowhere near as low as in similarly armed Israel and Switzerland.

            Given the demographics of the the typical gun murderer in the US, and the difference in demographics between these equally heavily armed states, I am forced to accept the fact that it is the duskier demographic that is the danger here, and not the weapon.

            And just in case even the bleedin obvious has escaped you too, yes, if law abiding citizens have more access to legal firearms then there will be more law abiding citizens taking advantage of their right to end their life as and when they choose by taking advantage of the availability of firearms and their capacity to provide a quick and painless death than if they did not have access to legal firearms and had to risk a slow and painful death by strangulation, poisoning, a long walk off a short pier, or a long drop off a tall building.

            Next!

          • touchstones

            Hey there B J. Are you ok?

          • Mr B J Mann

            For the third time, I do love it when brainwashed people who can’t or won’t read make
            moronic “replies” to things they haven’t even bothered to read. But
            that’s “liberals” for you!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Clearly you don’t even get what “opinions”, “answer” and “questions” mean!

          • touchstones

            I see, you want MORE GUNS, is that it?

          • Mr B J Mann

            As I’ve just said, I do love it when brainwashed people who can’t or won’t read make
            moronic “replies” to things they haven’t even bothered to read. But
            that’s “liberals” for you!

        • touchstones

          Great, let every Mum have a gun in her bag, every Dad, one in his bedside cabinet. Let the kids go to the shooting range and blast away with AK47’s. Yippeeee, what can possibly go wrong?

          • Mr B J Mann

            I do love it when brainwashed people who can’t or won’t read make moronic “replies” to things they haven’t even bothered to read. But that’s “liberals” for you!

          • Mo Gravy

            Let’s trust the State to have a monopoly on guns. What could possibly go wrong? Hmmm, perhaps Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot ring a bell?

      • NickG

        This is dishonestly simplistic.

    • jim_joystique

      The logic is brutal: The more people who own guns, the more people there are out there you potentially have to defend yourself against.

      • Ivan Ewan

        Wrong. Because the number of people with murder in their eyes will remain fairly constant. The fact that legally available guns make killing easier is somewhat counterbalanced by the fact that you don’t know who else around you is armed and won’t run like a coward when you fire up.

        • Thorbotnic

          Except the figures don’t counterbalance – not even vaguely. You have a much, much higher chance of being shot dead in the USA than you do in the UK.

          • Ivan Ewan

            Over here we have knives instead of guns. People still get killed. In France they manage to get hold of guns, legal or not.

          • Thorbotnic

            Aye. And the amount of people killed by guns is still a tiny fraction of that in the USA, despite those getting hold of illegal firearms. In fact, the amount of people meeting a violent death in the UK and France is a tiny fraction of that in the US. Possibly because it’s harder to massacre with a knife.

          • Ivan Ewan

            That’s only true in cities in the USA where gun control is taken very seriously, where criminals have a very low chance of encountering armed resistance. Places like Austin, TX, where gun culture is omnipresent and where police presence is quite limited, has a lower violent crime rate than London does.

          • Thorbotnic

            Yes, I’m sure that violent crime outside US cities may well be lower than in London, but that’s not comparing like with like, is it. UK cities are less violent than US cities, and UK countryside is less violent than US countryside. Or rather, they may be as violent as each other, but with the lack of guns there are far, far fewer deaths.

          • nigelroberts

            Nope. USA ranks 109th in
            the world for homicide. Fourteen states in the USA have homicide rates
            lower than the UK’s and they are all states with lax gun laws.

          • Ivan Ewan

            Outside US cities? Austin is the biggest city in the most gun-happy state in the USA. Sneering at that just highlights your own ignorance.

          • Mr B J Mann

            “Possibly because it’s harder to massacre with a knife.”

            Balderdaesh!!!!!!

            In  Rwanda they managed to k!ll 800,000 people in just 100 days (that’s a more efficient k!ll rate than the H0LOCAUST!!!!!!!).

            Using nothing more than an assortment or blunt kitchen utensils and rusty garden implements.

            Plus a few sharpened sticks.

            Oh, and according to the Guardian, Rwanda is just about the bottom of the g un ownership league table!!!!!!

            You really need to open your eyes and mind and get a reality check!

          • Mr B J Mann

            And when will the highly educated, probably post grad, much more intelligent “liberals” grasp the fact that you can’t compare apples with pears, never mind tomatoes, bananas, plantains, or even more exotic fruit (or herbs if you insist)!

            The US is not the UK.

            Try comparing different parts of the US now and under stricter and less strict controls.

            And the UK now and under less strict controls and no controls!.

          • Mr B J Mann

            And try researching knife massacres in China, never mind the rest of SE Asia.

            In fact, try researching what “running amok” is all about!

            And do any of the gun massacres the “liberals” keep going on about even begin to approach what was achieved with a few box cutters on 9/11?!?!?!!!!!

          • nigelroberts

            Why are you so fixated on gun murders rather than overall murders? Does it make your willie hard?

          • NickG

            No, you need to look the date more dispassionate and look for exceptions that suggest your thesis is less than complete.

          • Mr B J Mann

            As they manage to do in the UK too.

            Unless the people are in the GB Olympic Target Pistol Team!!!!!

          • diqi

            What about Switzerland?

          • Thorbotnic

            Again, a considerably greater chance than in the UK. 3.08 deaths per 100k, compared to to 0.28 per 100k in the UK.

          • diqi

            So how many of those victims where commiting a crime and shot by someone defending themselves? The “chance” you cite is not a true reflection of the risk as there is no context.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Yes, for example, if you go to school or college, or the cinema, or shopping, or, amazingly, to work at a military facility, in a gun free zone, especially if it’s in a city or state with “liberal” gun controls!

            And even more especially if it’s enjoyed liberal doses of diversity and cultural enrichment!!!!

            So your point is?!?!????

        • Mr B J Mann

          As in Switzerland, where nearly every household has at least a military issue weapon ready for instant defense, if not a gun rack of hunting and target shooting guns.

          And in those parts of the US where not only are the gun laws “lax”:

          The local laws REQUIRE housholders to be armed!!!

        • nigelroberts

          Number of legally available guns in USA has tripled in last 20 years as homicides have halved.

      • Malcolm Stevas

        Tosh! You have no idea. Prior to our 1920 Firearms Act, and excluding special restrictions during WW1, we had no “gun control” worth mentioning, and my grandparents and everyone else could buy and keep whatever guns they wanted (including automatic weapons) with no registration and no checks. Gun ownership was very much more widespread. Gun crime was lower – proportionate to the population – than the present day.

        • jim_joystique

          Misdirection. Clearly the level of gun crime is proportional to the level of gun ownership. For example, there are far more gun crimes in the USA per head of population than in the UK.

          Firearm related deaths in the USA (per 100,000 people per year) is 10.64. In the UK it’s 0.23.

          The only countries with higher death rates from guns than the USA are the libertarian paradises Honduras, Venezuela, Swaziland, Jamaica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, Brazil, Panama, Mexico and Uruguay.

          • hobspawn

             “The only countries with higher death rates from guns than the USA are the libertarian paradises Honduras, Venezuela, Swaziland, Jamaica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, Brazil, Panama, Mexico and Uruguay.”

            Interesting. I wonder if the geographical proximity to the USA of those central and South American contenders affects their high stats.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Balderdaesh!

            The paradise seeking “liberals” insist that the US has the most guns in the world and that there are *NO*:

            “countries with higher death rates from guns than the USA” 

            Because of that!

            Yet now we are told that the US only comes 12th in the death rate from guns league table.

            Also, while I’ve not checked the rest, though I have my doubts about some of them, I know for a fact that Mexico has much, much, stricter gun controls than the US, as well as having a far, far, higher gun murder rate (is it something like just six times the rate, or actually six times the total?!?!?!!!!)!

            Not so much a case of the “liberals” shooting themselves in the foot.

            Again!

            But blowing themselves clean out of the water.

            Again!!!!!!

          • jim_joystique

            Why do people use Switzerland as an example? In the UK it’s 0.23 per 100,000. In Switzerland it’s 3.08. 13 times as many! Only 1/3rd of the US gun crime rate but still one of the highest in Europe.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Ah, so you ARE being deliberately obtuse!

            Or perhaps you were just born so incredibly obtuse you are totally unable to grasp the not so subtle difference between “gun deaths” and “gun killings” or “gun crimes”?!?!?!!!!

            See, for example Rwanda, where there are very few people who own guns, it’s just about bottom of the Guardian’s gun ownership league table, yet look at how many more people there were out there that you actually had to defend yourself against, in a country with a population a fraction the size of Switzerland, never mind the US.

            That’s far, far, more illegal killings than the illegal gun killings in the US, never mind legal self killings in Switzerland (and note that “Suicides” are, and are often recorded under, “Homicides”!).

            In fact, 800,000 killings in 100 days Is far more killings per day than in the H0locaust!

            And with nothing more lethal than an assortment of blunt kitchen utensils and rusty garden implements plus a few sharpened sticks

            And Switzerland has almost no instances of “people there are out there you potentially have to defend yourself against”.

            It has almost no gun crime, never mind gun murders.

            The gun deaths are almost all suicides, plus some accidental deaths.

            You might as well argue for the banning of rope and bootlaces in the UK!

          • NickG

            One should be careful conflating gun crime, gun deaths and homicide rates. They are not the same thing.

            Switzerland has a slightly lower homicide rate than the UK, yet every male of military age has an assault rifle with ammunition at home. Switzerland has a very strong gun culture.

            The higher gun deaths are because of suicide. Switzerland has a higher suicide rate than the UK, comparable to Canada and Germany.

          • nigelroberts

            Absolutely. The most murderous states in the USA are close to Mexico. The least murderous are close to Canada.

          • hobspawn

             “The most murderous states in the USA are close to Mexico. The least murderous are close to Canada.”

            I knew it. It’s either weather or race.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Wrong again. Check out the firearms crime pre-WW1 in the UK – it’s tricky, since there was so little that very little formal research was conducted except for (from memory) an investigation by the Metropolitan Police around about 1913. Gun ownership then was very much more common than now; gun crime then was considerably lower proprtional to the population figures. Your reference to the USA completely bypasses the manifold differences in geography, demography, culture, history, legislation and so on, compared to countries such as the UK.

      • diqi

        Your logic is incomplete – if the majority of people are law abiding and are willing to defend themselves then the less likely someone is to take a chance on attacking them.

        Your logic doesn’t seem to apply universally, Switzerland for example

        The really brutal logic is that the authorities will not and cannot protect you, they run away when there are riots or at most try to “contain” the situation, yet we are not allowed even to carry non lethgal defences such as pepper spray.

        We have no legal options to effectively defend ourselves in these situations at all.

        Your “logic” isn’t “logic merely opinion.

        • jim_joystique

          So how does that work out in the USA? And Switzerland has 13 times as many gun related deaths as the UK per head of population.

          • diqi

            You are cherry picking yet again. According to wikipedia the bulk of such deaths in Switzerland are Suicide. If you look at homicides then Switzerland has 4 times the number per head compared to the UK.

            However, there is no breakdown of defence versus assault in the homicide figures. In any case the Swiss numbers are significantly different to what you are peddling.

        • touchstones

          Your answer to this problem then is to arm the masses. Any trouble and out we go. So in the absence of the police, the populace take to the streets with their AK 47’s. Sounds great.

          • diqi

            Seriously, if you are serious about the topic I suggest you follow my
            earlier advice and read through the many considered comments made over
            the last 12 days.

            If you are not serious then nothing I say will make a difference to you.

            BTW, the Swiss masses are armed yet their populace haven’t taken to the streets.

      • Mr B J Mann

        If you struggle with the longer, more in depth, answers, try this one:

        “Swiss!”

        Your argument has more holes in it than their cheese!

        Sorry if the logic is brutal!

        • jim_joystique

          Switzerland gun deaths per 100,000 is 3.08. The UK is 0.23. So I’m not really sure what your point is.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You are clearly being obtuse.

            The only question is whether you were born that way.

            Or are deliberately being so in the hope that I and others were born obtuse.

            Just in case you were born that way, my point was that the number of (legally held) guns does not relate to:

            “The logic is brutal: The more people who own guns, the more people there are out there you potentially have to defend yourself against.”

            See, for example Rwanda, where there are very few people who own guns, it’s just about bottom of the Guardian’s gun ownership league table, yet look at hoe many more people there were out there that you actually had to defend yourself against, in a country with a population a fraction the size of Switzerland, never mind the US.

            And Switzerland has almost no instances of “people there are out there you potentially have to defend yourself against”.

            It has almost no gun crime, never mind gun murders.

            The gun deaths are almost all suicides, plus some accidental deaths.

            You might as well argue for the banning of rope and bootlaces in the UK!

      • nigelroberts

        You are assuming that those legal gun owners are not civil law abiding citizens.

        • jim_joystique

          No I’m not. I’m assuming some percentage of them will change from civil law abiding citizen to murderer and/or their guns will be stolen and/or sold eventually end up in the hands of criminals.

      • sfin

        Yep! And in Le Bataclan in Paris, last month, a 1000 people had to lie on the ground, for four hours, and pray that their breathing didn’t betray the fact that they were still alive – some of them with shriekingly painful injuries. Sadly, for 89 of them, their lot was death.

        Four gunmen did that over four hours. They even had time to calmly stop and reload…

        …and there wasn’t a damn thing any of the victims could do about it.

        • jim_joystique

          Just so I understand, you don’t really care about the thousands of people are killed by legally held guns every year (in the US). I suppose your cognitive bias would change if their bodies were all laid out somewhere together.

    • touchstones

      If you want to have 3000 times more deaths and injuries in Europe than are currently caused by terrorism, follow America’s example. Give them to everyone and let the mayhem begin.

      • diqi

        In the 12 days since I made this comment there have been many more interesting , detailed and thorough comments on the subject by people who have clearly spent considerable time exploring the issues There are even some who live in jurisdictions where gun ownership is legal and have offered sound perspectives based on fact and experience

        I just spent some time reading through them, I suggest you do too as they are quite educational.

        We already have mayhem and our governments have taken steps which will result in increasing violence and strife for us all. I would prefer to be able to effectively defend myself, my family and community than simply wait for what seems inevitable.

  • sidor

    The suggested gun control will not reduce the outrageously high homicide rate in the US. It is not a technical problem: it is a social problem. There is a simple and effective way to change the current homicide social atmosphere in the US: the death penalty. It is currently nonexistent. there were less than 40 executions last year for about 13 thousands cases of homicide, and 1400 cases of extrajudicial police killings. The absurdity of the situation is apparent.

    If the probability for a murderer to be executed, quickly and surely, exceeds 50%, the homicide rate will be reduced by orders of magnitude. Few people would consider to commit murder if that, with high probability, would be their own suicide.

    A spectacular example: Singapore. It kept two world records: the lowest crime rate and the highest rate of executions per capita, by hanging.

    • ohforheavensake

      We’ve got a declining crime rate in the UK, with a murder rate per capita far lower than the USA. And we don’t have capital punishment.

      So your point is?

      • sidor

        My point is that you should try to look at the facts before commenting. The homicide rate in the UK has tripled within 30 years after the death penalty was abolished in 1967. It was obviously a great mistake. Also, it was very undemocratic since the majority favoured the death penalty for murder.

        • jim_joystique

          Homicide rate tripled? What are you on about? The homicide rate tracks population increase almost perfectly up to 1990, rises substantially through 2003 and has been falling ever since. It’s now around the same level it was in 1982, despite a much larger population.

          Abolishing the death penalty made no difference whatsoever.

          • sidor

            Homicide rate in the UK:

            1965: 100
            1982: 200
            2002: 306

            You see no difference?

          • Thorbotnic

            Homicide rates declined from a high of almost 1,000 in 2001 to just 537 in the year to March 2014. The population grew during this time. So… your point is falsified.

          • sidor

            My point was that the homicide rate tripled within three decades after the hanging was abolished. Which of the figures I presented above do you question?

            A linguistic remark: you probably wanted to say “your point is disproved”.

          • Thorbotnic

            Your point is disproved. And the homicide rate didn’t triple – the number of homicides tripled. You probably wanted to say that.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Only becsuse they seem to have abolished murder as well as hanging.

            Once upon a time if you got drunk and killed someone getting murderously drunk made you guilty.

            Now it seems to be a get out of jail free card for any crime except for date r a p e !

            Once if it was unclear who dealt the fatal blow the whole gang swung.

            Now the whole gang walks?!?!?!!!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            But they also abolished murder, most manslaughter, and much crime!

            You have to be really unlucky, or entirely innocent, to get sent down for murder these days!!!

        • Malcolm Stevas

          For someone so ready to urge others to read carefully – you’re pretty patronising – you have a cavalier approach to cause & effect. And while there are many things wrong with our version of democracy, it must be pointed out that we don’t run things on a strict show-of-hands basis. Just as well: the tyranny of the majority is just as scary as any other sort.

          • sidor

            You are right: democracy has its drawbacks.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            I prefer liberty.

          • sidor

            Try to get it at the expense of democracy and the rule of law.

          • sidor

            I think I need to clarify your misconception in more detail.

            The form of government, and the quality of the society you live in are two distinctly different and unrelated things. Your quality of life, including your degree of liberty, depends on the latter. No form of government will help if the society is $hitty. It is like rearranging chairs of the orchestra of composed of bad musicians.

            That is, democracy in a good society is good. Democracy in a bad society is bad. And you can do nothing about it.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Ah, my “misconception” Is this a roundabout, whimsical way of saying “democracy” is highly variable in its interpretation? I think we knew that already. I begin to see where you’re coming from. Your little icon looks as if it might be de Chirico or someone similar, appropriately.

          • sidor

            The definition of democracy is quite clear. The results of it as a form of government can be drastically different depending on what the society is. It cannot be a remedy for correcting a bad society. A society of cannibals will persists in its habits under a perfectly democratic rule.

            Sorry for writing this triviality. Unfortunately, it isn’t widely understood.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Well, yes. Again, I think we knew this. But I suppose it needs to be reiterated regularly.

      • nigelroberts

        Fourteen states in the USA have homicide rates
        lower than the UK’s and they are all states with lax gun laws.

    • mindpower

      Hogwash. You think someone going out to do a mass shooting doesn’t consider the possibility that they’ll be gunned down by the cops? US cops killed nearly 1000 people last year. If you get caught shooting someone you’re most likely going to get shot and killed yourself. The death penalty is no deterrent.

      • sidor

        The bulk of those killed by the cops didn’t commit murder. And over 13000 murderers last year perfectly survived their action. There aren’t so many crazy suicide shooters: the great majority of murderers are quite normal and understand what they are doing. They wouldn’t accept 50% risk. If 7000 were hanged for murder last year, it would have been a different country now. People would have been afraid too touch a gun.

        • Thorbotnic

          How many innocent people being executed (as innocent people would be) is an acceptable price to pay for this ‘deterrent’ (which, as your own stats have shown, is nothing of the sort)?

          • sidor

            This is an idiotic argument. Collateral damage is a technical problem. Thousands of innocent people die every year in traffic accidents: shall we stop using cars?

          • Thorbotnic

            So… it’s OK that innocent people die at the hands of the state, as long as the murder rate declines, am I correct? Not that there’s any evidence to support such a hypothesis, as outlined below (in the statistics that you yourself provided), but I think I understand the outline of your argument now.

            To take this argument further: when there was a large range of capital crimes in the UK (in the 18th century, say) – do you think that the murder rate (per 100,000) was lower than today?

          • sidor

            A funny question. Are you talking about the murder rate in the civil wars, uprisings and wide-spread piracy?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Again apples and pears.

            The large range of capital crimes existed at a time when there was no effective police or justice (or detention) system, and no effective means of protecting your property other than staying home with several brace of flintlocks.

            It was meant to be an extreme form of deterrence!

          • Mr B J Mann

            But that cuts both ways?

            How many innocent people are the “liberals” prepared to see killed because they want to ban their deterrent?!

        • mindpower

          You must live in a strange world if you think someone who is prepared to go and KILL another human being bases their decision on what punishment they might get.

          The death penalty doesn’t discourage anything. You can be put to death for smuggling drugs in Asia, yet every day thousands of people do just that.

          • sidor

            This argument is ridiculous, if sincere. Criminals are not religious martyrs: they commit crimes for money, and expect to stay alive to use the money. Only a mentally disturbed one would agree to die for money. Therefore, if the probability of being caught and hanged is high enough, no one will do it.

      • nigelroberts

        In almost all mass shootings the killer takes his own life as soon as the armed good guys appear on the scene.

        • mindpower

          In other words, they are fully prepared to die after committing the act, and therefore would not be deterred by the death penalty.

    • Malcolm Stevas

      I have mixed feelings about capital punishment but one of the key arguments against is that historically, not only death by hanging failed to deter murder, but much more gruesome punishments. Cultural norms seem to be the key: Japan has in history been extremely violent but it is generally reckoned a very safe country, even in cities at night; the USA is a more violent country in general than the UK, even if one disregards gun deaths. And so on.

    • samf1953

      That’s right, without the stick there can be no carrots.

    • nigelroberts

      “Outrageously high homicide rate in the USA”????? USA ranks 109th in
      the world for homicide. Fourteen states in the USA have homicide rates
      lower than the UK’s and they are all states with lax gun laws.

  • Icebow

    You are right to adore your uncle, but should be ashamed of yourself; as Canada should be ashamed of electing that creepy lounge-lizard.

  • Mikk Salu

    The author oversells his arguments and his rational sense. Both sides are using emotion and are fact-resistant and reason-impervious. Liberals for instance, if talking about gun violence, like to point at rifles and shotguns, because rifles and shotguns are big scary-looking guns. But if you check FBI homicide statistics, youll see that rifles and shotguns amount only tiny fraction of homicides, less than bare hands and feet, many time less than knifes. Vast majority of homicides are conducted by ordinary looking handguns.

    Or another example: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america
    Vox here makes a neat and popular trick. They start talking about San Bernardino, they talk about violence, they talk about homicide, they show some statistics about homicide and at last they present a graph showing correlation between gun deaths and number of guns. But did you notice that they changed goalposts? They started with homicide, but suddenly it changed to “gun deaths”. Why? Because there is strong correlation between suicides and number of guns, but much weaker correlation between homicide and number of guns. Lumping suicides and homicides together into “gun deaths” gives them much stronger and emotionally appealing graph. All talk is about homicide, but ehn it comes to numbers it changes to”gun deaths”. It is not just Vox, it is very common trick used by liberal sites.

    • Lawrence James.

      ‘A vast majority of homicides are conducted by ordinary looking handguns’. What on earth does this mean ? That Americans drive around with Maxim guns in their cars or keep trench mortar in the cellar, Although reading some of the comments here, I suspect that many would love to if given the chance.

    • samf1953

      You might be interested in the little show https://www.youtube.com/embed/pELwCqz2JfE?rel=0&autoplay=true

  • sidor

    The most schizophrenic point of the American mentality is that most of those who want guns in their possession are quite satisfied that there is no death penalty for murder. The main concern is to avoid to be shot by police extrajudicially. And this is the nation proud of its legal traditions.

    • ohforheavensake

      Any evidence for this?

      • sidor

        Frankly, I have no evidence to confirm that this is the most schizophrenic point of American mentality. Possibly, there are other points where the degree of schizophrenia exceeds the indicated one. Do you know any?

    • Ivan Ewan

      Wrong! Those most opposed to gun possession are most in favour of abolishing the death penalty, and also most likely to have sympathised with the #BlackLivesMatter “we want more dead cops” sentiment.

      • sidor

        Try to read again what I wrote and what you wrote. Slowly. If you see any point of disagreement between the two texts, don’t hesitate to indicate it. If you don’t see any, let us know.

        • Ivan Ewan

          Slowly. Pfft. I don’t even need to go and look up what you wrote because I remember it clearly. You said that people who want guns are the people who are against the death penalty for murder. That’s not actually true! The people who are against the death penalty are the people who are against gun ownership as well.

          • sidor

            Opinion polls:

            52% of Americans are against the death penalty for murder.
            73% of Americans support the right to possess a handgun.

            It appears that they mistrust the courts and would prefer private executions (or preventive shooting of potential murderers). Unless they are going to use the handguns for shooting birds.

          • Ivan Ewan

            Oh, wow, a couple of worthless poll statistics you’re going to draw bogus conclusions from. Remind me to school you in statistical research some day.

          • sidor

            I appreciate that you don’t disagree with the figures.

          • Ivan Ewan

            Which part of “worthless” were you having difficulty with?

          • sidor

            With your worthless comment which has no relevance to the facts that I presented.

          • Ivan Ewan

            You didn’t present facts, did you? No, you presented your opinion about an opinion about people’s opinions.

          • sidor

            Published opinion polls are my opinion?

    • Malcolm Stevas

      As sweeping statements go, yours are quite striking. But I’ve learned over several decades of interest in this subject that it tends to attract very confident assertions from all sorts of people who seem quite satisfied that ignorance is no bar.

      • sidor

        Could you specify your point: is it strikingly right, or strikingly wrong? In the latter case, I would appreciate your elaborating on the subject based on your several decades of interest.

        • Malcolm Stevas

          No, you wouldn’t appreciate it. I have indeed been interested in the politics of “gun control”, as an adjunct to my sporting shooting, for a long time. If I thought you might use it, I could assemble a reading list for your own research, rather than write a multi-page essay here…? But as a very solid grounding I recommend you look into the findings of the Committee headed by Sir Ernley Blackwell, 1918, which led directly to our original Firearms Act 1920; and see if you can find a copy of Colin Greenwood’s valuable and ground-breaking book “Firearms Control”, pub. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972. I might even lend you my copy…

          • sidor

            I don’t think I would find that bureaucratic abracadabra of any interest.

            I am not sure you got my point: there is no casual link between private gun possession and homicide rate, besides the statistics of accidents. This statement is quite obvious and empirically confirmed. If you have difficulty with comprehending that point, don’t hesitate to ask a question.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Still patronising folks, I see. Pity you dismiss so casually the fundamental primary sources I offered you as “bureaucratic abracadabra”. It’s called “research” and these two items are very high value. Consulting my recommended sources would probably help you to persuade others that there is indeed “no causal link” of the sort you describe, though I for one need no persuading.

          • sidor

            Thanks for your recommendations, but I don’t think they are needed. It is enough to present compelling rational arguments based on well-known facts. Persuading public is a job for politicians.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            I remain flummoxed by your notion that “well known facts” – whatever they are – can somehow exist, stand on their own, be supportable and so on, without an understanding of how we got here in the first place. Most people are supremely ignorant about the background to our form of “gun control” and probably imagine it was introduced to deter criminals. It has failed patently to deter criminals from using guns, since gun crime is proportionately worse than it was prior to the introduction of significant “gun control”. The two powerful, real-world, rational sources I recommended would on their own educate even the most sceptical.

          • LG

            I find it difficult to accept that there’s no causal link between widespread gun deaths and widespread gun ownership.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Many people do. I can only suggest that you look at a few things, for instance the history of gun ownership in this country, and rates of gun crime. As I seem to have written many times already in this thread (and very many times over the years) it is simply a matter of record that pre-WW1 we had virtually no meaningful “gun control” measures – and very low levels of armed crime, lower proportionately than we have today under some of the world’s strictest gun legislation. Check it out for yourself – you will find I’m right. Clearly, while there might be exceptions, it is not the frequency of gun ownership that correlates positively with gun crime, necessarily.
            Something else to consider is that while people harp on about America and guns, it’s a fact that gun ownership and firearms legislation vary greatly within the USA. As a rude generalisation, pretty accurate nonetheless, those parts of the US with the most liberal attitude to private ownership of firearms, and often with straightforward laws on concealed carry, too – one thinks of e.g. New Hampshire, Vermont – have lower rates of gun crime, not too far away from UK rates, than places in the US with far more restrictive laws on guns. As they say, go figure.

          • sidor

            A well-known example of heavily armed society with very low homicide rate: Switzerland where a machine gun is available in any household.

            There are other examples of armed societies with low crime rate. Traditional societies with clan structure, like those in the mountains of Northern Caucasus, traditionally heavily armed, had much lower homicide rate than the normal urban societies in USSR. The reason is quite simple: vendetta. Anyone is protected by one’s clan: any murder will be retaliated, which can trigger a war for generations. Therefore, there are very strict rules of behaviour and weapon handling, to avoid any occasional killing. A human life in that kind of society costs a lot. A policeman who shot a child wouldn’t live long.

            I summarise. The problem of the US society isn’t the weapon availability but the apparent social anarchy. A human life seems to be cheap there.

          • LG

            Believe me, there’s a causal link between someone being shot and someone being shot.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            I trust this gnomic remark isn’t the best you can offer.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Is this supposed to be an edited improvement of your initial baffling comment? Must try harder. And you want to legislate away the possibility of people owning guns? It’s been tried. It doesn’t work. Or at least, it only works with the law-abiding, who on the whole are not the problem.

          • LG

            Try comparing US and UK gun deaths. Yes, gun control has been tried. Like in the UK – and it works.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            An assertion you would find extremely difficult to argue in a court of law or anywhere else, given the almost total absence of any evidence that our UK “gun control” laws have had any beneficial effect on gun crime. If you have any such evidence – not just opinion or assertion, please – I’d be fascinated to see it.

          • LG

            You might try comparing the statistics of gun related deaths in the UK (where the ownership of guns is heavily regulated) with gun related deaths in the US (where there is less regulation).
            In 2014, the UK had 0.1 gun murders per 100,000 population. The US had 3.2 gun murders per 100,000. That’s a 3,200% difference.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            You might try searching for evidence of the efficacy of “gun control” laws in the UK, as I suggested. You appear to ignore the plain historical fact, readily researchable by anyone, that when we had virtually no gun laws, and gun ownership was far more widespread, gun crime was less than it is at present. This alone undermines facile assertions that the number of guns in circulation correlates positively with the frequency of gun crime. Your reference to the USA is evidentially useless for a variety of reasons: you assume that the number of guns in circulation automatically means more murders with firearms (I’ve already offered you reasons why this would be erroneous); you neglect the wide variation in gun ownership and firearms legislation within the USA; you seem to think that the wide cultural, historical and political variations between the UK and the USA mean nothing in this context.
            I’ve been looking into this subject for years. You appear to have an uncertain grasp of statistics and what constitutes evidence – and you ignore hard evidence offered to you, perhaps because it does not support your personal opinions or prejudices.

          • LG

            I think the evidence is fairly plain. There is a correlation between guns in circulation and gun murders. But don’t believe me, believe the Harvard statisticians:

            “We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.”

            Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

            http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

            Now, if you don’t mind, you’re boring me.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Fact-based argument will always be boring to those unwilling or unable to accept it. I’m aware of a considerable number of US-based research papers, and if I thought you were likely to be interested, I’d cite a few. But since you consistently ignore some very solid primary sources of information I’ve offered you about the UK (of more immediate concern to us, I’d have thought) because no doubt the message is not what you want to hear, it would probably be wasted effort.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Clearly you bored yourself before you fully understood what you were posting:

            “We analyzed the relationship between homicide”

            Not murder, but homicide, a subset of which could be suicide.

            “and gun availability”

            Not ownership, how many are available to gang members, hit men, bank robbers…..

            “using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s.”

            Looks like scope for two bites of the cherry-picking of “statistics”!

            “We found that across developed countries”

            No, selected ones – see above.

            “where guns are more available”

            See above again.

            “there are more homicides”

            Again see above!

            “These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.”

            So often they don’t!

            And this is from a School of “Public Health”, Harvard “Injury” Control Research Center

            Yet it seems to major on (support for) firearms control, with even a bulletin entitled…………

            “Bullet-ins”!

            No Agenda there then!

            Reminds me of the Professor who “proved” that very low gun ownership led to very low gun crime……..

            Using as the example and proof………..

            SWITZERLAND!?!?!?!!!!!

            (He did a “survey” to establish gun ownership by phoning people and recording the percentage of people who admitted to a stranger whether they had a gun in the home – apparently he even recorded the number of unanswered dials in with the no gun householders – thus managing to turn a country with the same gun ownership levels as the US into a supposedly gun-fee zone!!!!)

            Perhaps some of the “data” you refer to?!

          • Lawrence James.

            The legislation was a response to an influx of revolvers &c brought home from the war. Some were government-issue personal weapons and others were trophies. A friend of mine, then aged nine, was given a Luger by his uncle, a yeomanry man who had taken it from a Turkish officer somewhere near Damascus.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            That was a small part of it, indeed – though handguns were already very common and quite unremarkable. The government’s motives can be summed up as fear of my grandfathers and their colleagues, recently returned from the trenches, emulating the Bolsheviks; fear of their dusky colonial subjects; and fear of anarchists. All paranoid nonsense of course, coupled with the age-old desire of authority to deter the peasantry from arming themselves. There was no armed crime problem, no widespread danger from civilians owning guns.

    • samton909

      You are just plain wrong. Overwhelmingly, those who support the ownership of guns are in favor of the death penalty. So your cheap attempt at cuteness was marred by your inability to get basic facts straight.

    • Mr B J Mann

      Yea it’s the “liberal” “Democrats” who support the Death Penalty, isn’t it?!

      • sidor

        According to my observations, neither “liberal Democrats” nor the “conservative republicans”, in their majority, support the death penalty. But both of them don’t mind 1400 extrajudicial killings performed by the police every year. This is what I call schizophrenia.

  • hobspawn

    “French stuff”, huh?

    The important question is whether the US would be a democracy at all if the people weren’t armed. Shooting presidents isn’t just for fun. It is a vital part of the political process, and reminds US government that it is grudgingly loaned power by the people. The gun-loving Texans are the real guardians of American freedom.

    I have lived for short periods in parts of the US where I was probably 100 miles from a policeman. In the UK, we can’t understand that kind of remoteness and vulnerability.

    I remember seeing a couple of businessmen in LA remove their coats in a diner so that their sidearms were not concealed. These days that would make me feel safer, not more vulnerable.

    • ohforheavensake

      Shooting presidents isn’t just for fun. It is a vital part of the political process…

      Really?

    • sidor

      Do you mean the conspiracy that succeeded in assassinating both JFK and his brother is an indispensable part of the American democracy? Do you suggest that the democracy in America wouldn’t have survived if either of the brothers avoided the assassin’s bullets?

      • hobspawn

        Too subtle for you, I suppose 😉

        • sidor

          Funny enough for me. Thanks for the amusement. Do you mind if I quote your thoughts about democracy for the purpose of (non-commercial) public entertainment?

          • hobspawn

            I don’t think it will help.

          • sidor

            It will. People feel better after a good laugh: it is a medical fact. Thanks again.

          • hobspawn

            I would stick to your own material if I were you. I’m sure you will make friends and ‘medical’ progress with utterances like “people in Europe couldn’t count until Fibonacci brought arithmetics from the Arabs” and “population growth in the Northern Europe was due to potato”.

          • sidor

            It is never too late to learn history which you missed in school. Where is your thanks for the free lecture?

          • hobspawn

            Tell Eratosthenes. I’m tired of your patronising drivel. Goodbye.

          • sidor

            I am still waiting for your algorithm for division using the Roman numerals. If you have none, don’t hesitate to tell us.

          • hobspawn

            The algorithm is repeated subtraction of the denominator or its multiples, analogous to the long division we do today. Do you seriously think the Romans couldn’t divide? It could be said that it was their greatest skill. I really have had enough now. Pester someone else with your faux-historical revelations.

          • sidor

            And multiplication is done by repetitive addition. Brilliant.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So you’ve not heard of their advanced, multi base, pocket calculator, that the Chinese and Japanese copied in part for their abacuses?

          • sidor

            A calculator is a physical realisation of an algorithm. Do you have anything to add about the algorithm for division using the Roman numerals besides repetitive subtraction?

          • Mr B J Mann

            And a numeral is likewise just a physical realisation.

            I’m struggling to understand your problem.

            Perhaps you could enlighten us by giving us your algorithm for division using, say, Arabic numerals (excluding anything borrowed from India), as an example?

          • sidor

            1. A numeral system is not a physical realisation. A system is an algorithm.

            2. I was answering to the gentleman who disagreed with my statement that people in Europe couldn’t do arithmetics before Fibonacci brought it from the Arabs.

            3. You can find an easily accessible description of the division algorithm using the Arabic numerals in a school textbook.

          • Mr B J Mann

            But that’s that’s what I asked:

            Is it!

          • sidor

            Please try to formulate your question in an intelligible form. It will be kindly answered.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Not so smart phone itis!

          • sidor

            A smartphone isn’t so smart for calculation.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Please try to formulate your reply in an intelligible form. It will be kindly answered.

          • Mr B J Mann

            They didn’t use Roman Numerals for Division:

            They used their pocket calculators that the Chinese and Japanese copied in their Abacuses.

            The Roman Numerals were only used for recording the answer.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You mean Greek ones, don’t you?

            Like the Greeks, the Romans used their numerals for recording the results of calculations.

            But not for doing them.

            By the way, if you are trying to talk about “Arabic” numerals:

            They didn’t come FROM Arabia:

            They came THROUGH Arabia!

            From India!!!

          • sidor

            Yes!!!

            In the same way, the Roman numerals are Etruscan numerals!!!!

            Keep educating yourself from Wikipedia.

          • Mr B J Mann

            What’s Wikipedia?!

          • sidor
  • sidor

    Shang Yang wrote about crime and punishment 2400 years ago:

    “It is the nature of the people to be orderly, but it is circumstances that cause disorder. Therefore, in the application of punishments, light offences should be regarded as serious; if light offences do not occur, serious ones have no chance of coming. This is said to be “ruling the people while in a state of law and order”. If in the application of punishments, serious offences are regarded as serious, and light offences as light, light offences will not cease and in consequence, there will be no means of stopping the serious ones. This is said to be “ruling the people while in a state of lawlessness”. So, if light offences are regarded as serious, punishments will be abolished, affairs will succeed and the country will be strong; but if serious offences are regarded as serious and light ones as light, then punishments will appear; moreover, trouble will arise and the country will be dismembered.”

  • Mack

    I do not address the worthy arguments. I plea instead for all writers to stop prefacing articles on any subject with “What I learned from…”

  • Frank

    Fair bit of virtue signalling in this article. Perhaps you should stick to writing for Canadian magazines!

    • AA_Bill

      Preferably not Albertan magazines.

      • Frank

        Why should they be protected?

        • AA_Bill

          Because I now live in Alberta and the last thing I need is a whiny far left polemicist lecturing me.

          • Frank

            I do understand, but then we Brits just end up with all these loonies.

          • AA_Bill

            I Know. We, as a family, left Britain eight years ago to escape the lunacies of the last Labour government and the grotesque Brown, only to finish up with the idiotic lounge lizard Trudeau child in Ottawa and a barking far left cabal in the Alberta Provincial Government who’s sole intent is to destruct the Alberta economy.

  • doninla

    Typical American Liberal – I’m write and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. All crimes with guns are DOWN over the last 20 years. From 1.5 million to under half a million. Mean while under Obama the number if guns in the US has risen from 200 million to over 300 million in the last 7 years. So may I ask – MAYBE your Uncle doesn’t agree with you is the simple fact that your wrong.

    • Dr Strangelove

      If there were no guns there would be no gun crime

      • doninla

        After Australia did their gun confiscation RAPE increased by over 29%. In the US that would equate to 200,000+ RAPES. Home break-ins and robbers are also higher. Of the 8,500 gun murders every year more than 1/2 are done by black men under 30. 4% of the population is responsible for more than 1/2 of all gun murders. If you remove ALL drug and gang related murders the count drops to about 1,500.

        • Dr Strangelove

          If you ignore occurrences of any particular given event then you can pretend that the occurrence of that pretend is lower than what it actually is. Marvellous thing is statistics.

          • doninla

            I know and you should stop it. Less guns more rapes. More crime.

          • Dr Strangelove

            Yeah, and since Australia gave up guns the incidence of bush fires has increased too. Conclusion fewer guns cause global warming and rapes too, apparently!

          • doninla

            RAPES and home break-ins’ both rose almost 30%. Unintended consequences of the gun ban.

          • Mr B J Mann

            There’s an obvious causal link between increased vulnerability and increased victimisation.

            Clearly you are not really a Doctor!

          • Dr Strangelove

            He who lives by the sword…………

          • samton909

            No, the point is that liberals always use fake statistics. The British believe that someone is shot in the US all the time. I for example, have never, ever heard a shot that was not on a gun range or other controlled circumstance. Yet British TV told me yesterday that there is a mass shooting every day in the US – that is a laugh. They also told me that when you are out on the street in Washington DC, you hear gun shots all the time. Been there meany times, have never heard a gun shot. The point is, almost all gun violence in the US is suicides, or gang related. If you are not in those two categories, your chances of ever hearing a gun go off are amazingly small.

            And the simple fact is, the rate of gun homicides has been going down for some time.

          • Dr Strangelove

            The British believe that someone is shot in the US all the time.

          • Dr Strangelove

            “The British believe that someone is shot in the US all the time. ”

            Probably because it’s true. Every day sees several fatal shootings in US. On Christmas Day more people were killed by guns in the US than in the whole of 2015 in UK. You have an armed stand off in Oregan.

          • Mr B J Mann

            And in Mexico?

            And how about Switzerland?!

          • Dr Strangelove

            Mexico and Switzerland gun laws are more relaxed than in UK, and also the prevalence of guns is much more widespread. Also in UK the supply of ammunition is restricted.

            Recently there has been reported shootings between members of criminal gangs in Manchester. The guns involved are historic guns no longer manufactured and the ammunition home made. This shows in UK that the control of gun ownership and supply of ammo is under effective control that even criminal gangs struggle to obtain modern weapons. We are fortunate in UK as there has never been widespread gun ownership and being an island it is easier to have effective import controls.

            The situation in Europe is not quite as controlled. With many land borders import of weapons is easier as shown by the Paris shootings.

            In America the genie is already out of the bottle in that the number of guns in circulation is greater than the number of citizens. In such a situation it is difficult to see a solution. Naturally people claim they need guns for protection (which is understandable). However that just leads to more guns in circulation meaning that even more guns are required for protection, increasing the supply for criminals to illegally gain ownership, and increasing the risk of misuse in mass shootings, murders and suicides. How you break that vicious circle is indeed a huge huge problem.

          • Mr B J Mann

            What?

            Mexico and Switzerland gun laws might be more relaxed than in UK, and also the prevalence of guns is much more widespread in Switzerland, but Switzerland has half the gun murder rate of the UK.

            Mexico has much more restrictive gun controls than the US and SIX times even their gun murder rate if memory serves.

            As for “in UK the supply of ammunition is restricted”, so what?

            You can make your own, refill your own, or illegally import it.

            Like you can with drugs, alcohol, tobacco, s-x and ordinary slaves and, erm, guns.

            And how old are these historic guns?

            The modern mass produced revolver dates back to the second quarter of the 1800’s, mass produced (semi-)automatic pistols and self-loading rifles to the last quarter of the 1800s, as do modern machine guns (older styles such as the Gatling gun date from the third quarter). The sub-machine gun dates back to the early 20th century.

            Are you talking flintlocks?

            Or just saying that the Uzis and Kalashnikovs aren’t the latest model?!

            As for:

            “We are fortunate in UK as there has never been widespread gun ownership”

            Please, please STOP!!!

            My sides need suturing!!!!!!

            The US Second Ammendment is based on the British Bill of Rights right to bear arms.

            Until a century ago the ownership of firearms was unrestricted and widespread.

            Which just goes to show what the “liberals” can achieve with their salami slicing away at rights, demonisation and propaganda!

            “Also though Americans may view Mexican and Swiss gun laws as restrictive, they are compared to UK laws liberal.”

            Get me to A&E, my sides have finally gone!

            Yes, Mexican gun controls are much more restrictive than in the US, though I’m not sure they are less restrictive than the UK, of the top of my head they probably still allow handguns, but you can’t just get a license from the local police, you have to go to the capital, for a start.

            But how can anyone say “though Americans may view…. Swiss gun laws as restrictive, they are compared to UK laws liberal.” and keep a straight face I don’t know.

            The last time I checked the Swiss were still ISSUING men of military age with MILITARY weapons to keep ready for action at home, ENCOURAGING then to KEEP them on retirement, PROVIDING free issue ammo for personal practice and ENCOURAGING the use of their military issue weapons for shooting practice, and PROMOTING hunting and shooting as national sports!!!!!

            As for your final paragraph, typically, as in the UK increased legal gun ownership leads to fewer gun murders, decreased legal gun ownership leads to more gun murders.

            And don’t be fooled by “statistics” which purport to show otherwise.

            If they do show a positive correlation it is because if there are more guns available, more are used for suicides, which are counted as gun deaths, and even “homicides” (“suicide” is a form of “homicide”, and if suicide is illegal it even counts as “illegal homicide”!).

            By the way, how do the US get guns to the Middle East with a whole OCEAN in the way?!

          • Dr Strangelove

            Carry on killing one another if it makes you happy.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrrmmmmm

            I’m not killing anyone, mate.

            I’m just demonstrating how hysterical, badly thought out, knee-jerk, guil-tripping, won’t somebody think of the children “liberal” legislation is, like most infantile emotion driven “liberal” laws, at best irrational, at worst counter-productive!

            But if championing counter-productive lawmaking, including on life and death issues, especially where ickle children are involved, makes you happy…….

          • Dr Strangelove
          • Mr B J Mann

            Right, so your “reasoned”, “logical”, “grown-up”, “non”-hysterical (look it up), “non”-knee-jerk, “non”-guilt-tripping, “non”-“won’t somebody think of the children”, “very” liberal, “non”-infantile, “non”-emotion-driven, “rational”, “non”-counter-productive “argument” that “doesn’t” involve ickle children:

            Is to accuse me of killing a sweet ickle girl that was shot by an officer of the law?!?!?!?

            Of course!

          • Dr Strangelove

            I haven’t accused you of anything. My earlier post “carry on killing one another if you want” wasn’t directed at you personally, it was a comment on the American gun lobby argument that more guns are required for personal protection. Acceptance of that argument results in an arms race whereby ever more powerful and deadly weapons are needed for personal defense as the general proliferation of guns leads to an increase risk of random attacks from the deranged and criminal.

            I notice in your replies your tendency to leap to conclusions. Why you think I’m accusing you of killing the girl in the linked story is totally baffling. The story states that it was a policeman. The point of the link was an example of how the everyday use of guns does not offer protection but poses a threat to life.

            Before replying further, please think before doing so. A reasoned argument instead of a rant please.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errmmmmmmm:

            I haven’t accused you of anything. My earlier post “carry on killing one another if you want” wasn’t directed at you personally, it was a comment on the American gun lobby argument……..

            You didn’t mention argument, nor did you say anything about a gun lobby, never mind an American one. I’m not even American!

            You said:

            Dr Strangelove -> Mr B J Mann • a day ago

            Carry on killing one another if it makes you happy.

            No more, no less, your post in it’s entirety!

            I notice in your replies your tendency to leap to conclusions.

            Says the man who jumps to the conclusion that it not only makes me happy to kill, but to kill “other” Americans……..

            When I’m a Yorkshireman?!?!?

            Why you think I’m accusing you of killing the girl in the linked story is totally baffling.

            Errrmmmmmmmm:

            Your response to my reply:

            I’m not killing anyone, mate.

            Was:

            Of course not

            And a link to the killing of the girl!

            Clearly you believe that anyone who dares to publish the evidence that gun controls are counter-productive and “liberal” arguments balderdaesh are evil Merican gun-nuts responsible for the deaths of ickle baybees.

            And now you are trying to backtrack on the ad hominems as the evidence mounts that you were wrong to make them, but still you cling to your “Strange” anti-gun beliefs.

            As far as I am aware, there is no “argument that more guns are required for personal protection”.

            Only that access to guns by the law abiding should not be reduced and restricted.

            And even if that was the argument, acceptance of it does not “result in an arms race whereby ever more powerful and deadly weapons are needed for personal defense as the general proliferation of guns leads to an increase risk of random attacks from the deranged and criminal”.

            As for:

            “The point of the link was an example of how the everyday use of guns does not offer protection but poses a threat to life.”

            What EVERYDAY use of guns?!?!?!?!

            Pulling guns on cops?!?!?!

            Or cops shooting people who pull guns on them?!?!?!?!?!

            Before replying further, please think before doing so. A reasoned argument instead of a rant please!

            And preferably not until you have actually done me the courtesy of reading my previous posts!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Says the guy who ignored the occurence of guns in the first place!!!!!

            And he’s ignoring nothing:

            He’s accepting something that “liberals” prefer to ignore:

            The white American gun crime statistics aren’t that different from the European ones.

            And then there’s the related statistic the “liberals” couldn’t bear to look at never mind dare acknowledge!

          • Dr Strangelove

            Non sequitur.

            I stated that if there were no guns there would be no gun crime. An irrefutable truism. Why you think that means I ignore the existence of guns defies logical comprehension.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Oh, so you were just typing a random meaningless phrase for no sensible reason!

      • polidorisghost

        Gee, I never thought of that.

        • Dr Strangelove

          Gee, it’s obvious you did not!

      • King Kibbutz

        You can’t keep guns from criminals, anywhere. And how about knives? Are you going to make a world with no knives?
        If someone comes for me with a knife or a gun, I would have a chance if I had a gun.

        Ten years ago, this wouldn’t have even struck me as worth talking about, but I’m now living in a very different place without even having travelled anywhere.

        Thank you Cameron, Angular Merkel and the EU death-wishers.

      • Marvin

        Rather be knifed instead then?

        • Dr Strangelove

          You decide, shot or knifed?

          • spencer60

            The mortality rate for knife wounds and handgun wounds is 17-20% for either one.

          • Mr B J Mann

            In tiny Rwanda, a country just about at the bottom of the Guardian’s gun ownership league table, so as near as you are going to get to a country where there were no guns so there would be no gun crime, they managed to butcher 800,000 people in a mere hundred days, a far higher kill rate than in the H0locaust, using nothing more lethal than an assortment of blunt kitchen utensils and rusty garden implements, plus a few sharpened sticks.

            How’s that compare with the gun killings over a hundred days in the US?

          • Dr Strangelove

            Ok so you want to compare American crime statistics with the Rwaandan holocaust. Surely you want to be best in the World, not the worst.

          • Mr B J Mann

            No, I was pointing out that the supposedly unacceptable US shooting statistics pale into insignificance, (as do those of far worse countries such as Mexico), as do the figures for the WW2 H0locaust, compared to what can be achieved with commonly available sharp and pointy things!

      • Mr B J Mann

        And how do you propose to magic guns away?!

        • Dr Strangelove

          I don’t

  • doninla

    After Australia was “degunned” rapes increased dramatically. In the US that would amount to 200,000 additional rapes a year.

    • Dominic Stockford

      That’s an interesting stat. Thanks.

  • UnionPacificRX

    Those who oppose the ownership of guns often point to Europe but only during peace times. Those voices go silent when Paris was attacked by armed men. Paris has some of the world’s strictest gun laws. When San Bernadino was attacked by armed gunmen it was done in California which like France has some of the strictest gun laws in the USA.

    Those who oppose the private ownership of guns in the US openly support arming civilians in other nations (be it the Mujaheddin of Afghanistan or the Syrian people to take on Damascus). When the Nationalist Socialist party of Germany took control of that nation in the 1940′ s one of the first acts they did was to ban guns.

    Then it became that much easier to herd entire populations to concentration camps. The singular exception being the Warsaw Ghetto uprising when a handful of Jews smuggled in guns and held back the Gestapo for months.

    Those who oppose the private ownership of guns in the US have a squadron of well armed security to protect them. but they want to deny that to the average American

    America was one of the first modern nation states to give the citizen the right to the private ownership of guns. That was done in the late 1800’s. Since then only a few nations in the world have that privilege, among them is Israel. We would fully support that Israel allow the private ownership of guns but many of our leaders do not want us to have that right..

  • “a young mentally ill teenager is having fantasies about killing himself and his entire class. In Canada (or the UK, or anywhere in western Europe) he’d receive state-funded healthcare and get better. In America he could simply go to Walmart and buy a semi-automatic weapon and enact his fantasy.”

    you’re having a laugh surely?

    a) he would not get better
    b) he would have medical records that would blight his life
    c) I’m getting sick of liberal bigots using mental hygiene to mask their hate speech

    we have been down the eugenics path before, with lamentable results – and there is far to much money involved in ‘helpful’ drugs for doctors to be trusted when it comes to matters of mental hygiene

    instead of trying to trip up your uncle in stoopid debate – just accept he lives in another country, with idiotic laws (the second amendment is there to provide defence from a standing army – in a country when the standing army is all pervasive to the extent that ‘thank you for your service’ has become a common place for people angling to take the ‘vets’ civil rights from them if they come back with PTSD) and let him get on with it

    meh – what does it matter it the stepford prosac wives suddenly find themselves without a gun – or the adderal generation – or indeed your uncle who had that bought of insomnia and unbeknownst to him was registered depressed by his doctor – they’re all crazy – go the whole hog and sterilize them like they did in the old days – what matters is that women are scared by the messaging, and that they pick up on the message that republicans are evil, and vote for Elizabeth Warren to be their next president

    • samton909

      Oh, in Canada everyone gets perfect mental health care and nobody ever shoots anybody.

      École Polytechnique massacre December 6, 1989 Montreal, Quebec 15 14 injured

      Sydney River McDonald’s Murders May 7, 1992 Sydney, Nova Scotia 3 1 disabled

      Concordia University massacre August 24, 1992 Montreal, Quebec 4 1 injured

      Mark Chahal massacre April 6, 1996 Vernon, B.C. 9 Estranged husband murders wedding party.

      Mayerthorpe tragedy March 3, 2005 Mayerthorpe, Alberta 5 Perpetrator shot and killed four RCMP officers and himself.

      Shedden massacre April 8, 2006 Shedden, Ontario 8 Gang related killing of own gang members.

      Claresholm highway massacre December 15, 2011 Claresholm, Alberta 4 Man shoots and kills ex-girlfriend and two others, wounding a fourth, before taking own life.

      2014 Calgary stabbing April 15, 2014 Calgary, Alberta 5 Five students stabbed to death at house party.

      2014 Moncton shootings June 4, 2014 Moncton, New Brunswick 3 24-year-old from Moncton, shot five officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), killing three and severely injuring two.[4]

      2014 Edmonton killings December 29, 2014 Edmonton, Alberta 9 52-year-old Phu Lam shot and killed his wife at a house in south Edmonton and then killed eight other relatives, including two children, and drove to a restaurant in Fort Saskatchewan that he owned, and committed suicide inside it.

  • englishwhisky

    Even if you are armed, the likelihood is that somebody with ill intent and a gun will get you before you get him. The problem is when the guy with ill intent and a gun knows how to fire it. As I point out to my gun-toting American cousins, having been raised in a gun-free culture, and never handled a gun, I would probably be incapable of firing a gun let alone aiming it at anybody accurately enough to kill them, and the madder I got the worse my aim is likely to be. A gun in my hands would be more useful as a club.

    The right to bear arms issue is also misused. It is often forgotten that the right to bear arms was given to English citizens in 1689 by the Bill of Rights, from which it was taken and incorporated into the US Constitution by the Second Amendment in 1791 – 102 years later. Americans were not the pioneers on this issue that they often claim to be.

    British citizens still have the right to bear arms, but what is restricted by later gun control laws in the UK is what arms that we can bear, and the circumstances in which we can bear them. This is why in Agatha Christie novels somebody usually has a service revolver in a desk drawer – it was ‘normal’ in those days, and the law was only tightened up after a group of Welsh miners tried to accumulate guns for a Red Revolution in the 1930’s, and the Finians tried armed insurrection in Ireland. US States have varying restrictions, some almost as tight as the UK.

    Federal law needs to supersede State law, with perhaps a bounty to be paid for every gun scrapped to reduce the number in circulation.

    • Marvin

      That is why this country is being taken over by primitive medieval mutants with an attitude like yours. You would rather be in a position of hiding in a corner of a shopping centre with a mutant with an UZI walking in your direction and knowing this is the last moments of your cowardly life with nothing to defend your self with but wait for the bullets to strike.

      • englishwhisky

        In the situation that you describe I would do what the British police advise, run like mad. Most would get away, hopefully me included. Remember this is the strategy used by most prey species in the world, and they survive, while the weak and the sick and idiotic are the ones that get taken, and a moving target is harder to hit. Not pretty, but survival of the strongest.

        Mutants like you would stand and get shot while still pulling out your gun, thus qualifying yourself for the Darwin prize by removing yourself from the gene pool. Ah, but if you are an American Republican, you don’t believe in evolution, do you?

        PS, you qualify as the mutant because your strategy is not one for survival, and therefore would not have been inherited. I always say that thank God the ‘medieval’ mutants you describe do not have the strategy of the IRA: blowing yourself up with a bomb or attacking a French police station with a knife are two more qualifiers for Darwin awards.

        • Frank Natoli

          In the situation that you describe I would do what the British police advise, run like mad.
          Right. Like the fellows on the Thalys from Brussels to Paris should have done? When the guy came out with the Kalashnikov and pistol and knife?
          BTW, it’s spelled WHISKEY.

          • LG

            Whiskey? Only the undrinkable American stuff is spelt with an ‘e’.

          • mumble

            And the Irish stuff.

        • spencer60

          Interesting that you have voluntarily decided you are ‘prey’. Given your statement above I’d say you are correct.

          Lt. Col Grossman divided the human race into three types… Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves.

          People confuse what category they are in all the time. It must be comforting to know where you fit in the scheme of things.

          It is interesting that what you call a survival skill is really only applicable to herd animals though.

          The good news is that there are people that will stand up and confront the wolf. They may kill the wolf, or the wolf may kill them.

          Either way, they have done their job and protected the sheep from harm as best they could.

        • samton909

          So, given your brilliant advice to “run” why does anyone ever get shot? Certainly they can all just run away from the mass shooter.

        • Mr B J Mann

          I think you’ll find that the IRA invented the suicide car bomb.

          Albeit it was “assisted” suicide!

          Perhaps that’s why g hating RoP loving “liberal” pacifists like you supported them?!?!?!!!!

    • Headstrong

      I just don’t get it – do the gun-lovers honestly believe they should be toting guns about everywhere they go and that would prevent a San Bernardino type shooting?

      • Generic Engineer

        No, they are not about saving the world. They are about saving themselves.

        • Headstrong

          Right. So you attend New Year parties carrying a gun, just on the off chance that a crazy couple plans an attack. If there’s a false alarm (or ten), and you (or any of the other 50 odd guests also packing similar fire arms) starts a blood bath by mistakenly firing on another group (also carrying similar fire arms), who then proceeds to return the favour – well, it’s just one of those things, right?

          • Generic Engineer

            Not everyone who has a CCP or is armed is some hillbilly biker.

            I hear this question often, it comes from those who are not competent with the use of firearms, do not know firearm safety, and do not know the gun laws (at least where they live).
            What you just described would be illegal in multiple ways before a shot was fired.
            Also these psycho’s are not going to a room where it is probable someone is armed. They’ll go where they are sure everybody will not have a gun.
            It’s your choice where you want to be, do what you want.

          • Headstrong

            “Not everyone who has a CCP or is armed is some hillbilly biker”
            Not everyone has to be, just a few

            “it comes from those who are not competent with the use of firearms, do not know firearm safety, and do not know the gun laws”
            Maybe. However, those with intent to kill could also fall in this category. Said people would hardly WANT to know the laws

            “these psycho’s are not going to a room where it is probable someone is armed. They’ll go where they are sure everybody will not have a gun”
            So the solution is that everybody carries guns wherever they go?

            Genius!

          • Mr B J Mann

            “Said people would hardly WANT to know the laws”

            But yet you want them imposed on law abiding citizens BECAUSE the criminals will ignore them?!?!!!!

          • Reluctant Mlungu

            Of course, the fact that something like this has never happened in no way detracts from the brilliance of your scenario!

          • Headstrong

            You’re right, it doesn’t. It’s funny, but the homily “Prevention is better than cure” is something I tend to go with

          • Reluctant Mlungu

            Do you also ‘tend to’ walk everywhere, just in case a car accident befalls you?

            Your personal ‘prevention’ choices are your own business – no-one is insisting that you should have a gun. Kindly allow others the same courtesy, to make their own self-preservation choices. And think about it… the more ‘prevention’ is legislated, the less you are a free citizen.

          • Headstrong

            Canvassing against loose control of guns is entirely a self-preservation choice. And I fully support Obama’s efforts to bring in some sort of control on the sale of fire arms. The present system is absolutely shocking, where you can walk in to a store and pick up arms, no questions asked. If this is what being a ‘free citizen’ means, I wouldn’t mind some sort of control over my actions (and others) which could have a bearing on the freedom of everyone else.
            Look, I get where you’re coming from. I do not agree. I shall continue to speak out against what I perceive as a threat to society, even more so now that crazed lunatics have begun popping up in small communities. You and others who think otherwise would of course put forward your own arguments. Eventually, there’ll be some kind of decision which everyone has to follow. The end.

          • Reluctant Mlungu

            “The present system is absolutely shocking, where you can walk in to a store and pick up arms, no questions asked.”

            No such system exists, at least not in the US – your ignorance is comical, as were Obummer’s staged tears. Oh, and did someone tell you that adding “The end” to your sweeping statements somehow makes them cleverer or more telling? If so, you were fooled – again.

          • Mr B J Mann

            “I shall continue to speak out against what I perceive as a threat to society………. others who think otherwise would of course put forward your own arguments.”

            The “liberal” standpoint in a nutshell!

            Your PERCEPTIONS have the same standing as the ARUMENTS of those that (dare) disagree with you!

            Have you ANY argument, never mind evidence that:

            “Canvassing against loose control of guns is entirely a self-preservation choice.” ?

            NO!

            THE END!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Funny but prevention is better than cure is the whole point of everything from the Second Amendment to Concealed Carry!

          • samton909

            Listen to yourself. You have never heard of such a thing happening, yet we have had that right in America for years and years.

      • Reluctant Mlungu

        Why don’t you “get it”?
        Have you already forgotten about the RoP adherents who stormed the Canadian Parliament with AKs, about 14 months ago? Stopped by one brave man who happened to have a pistol.

        • WTF

          With the suicidal immigration policies of Trudeau it will be game over soon and Canadians will have to convert of pay protection money to Islam.

      • spencer60

        Terrorists can be different, but in general the people who perform these mass-killings (they don’t always involve guns) want to make sure that no one else in the area is armed.

        They know they will eventually face armed response, and that is when they almost always kill themselves.

        But an armed victim when they first start their attack could completely derail their plans… which is why these types of attacks always take place inside a legally mandated ‘gun free zone’.

        Even in the case of the terrorist-style attack in San Bernardino, if the attackers had known that some of their victims (co-workers in this case) had concealed carry permits and might have their firearms with them, it’s quite likely they might have changed their impromptu plan.

        A better example is one just a few weeks before Sandy Hook, when a teen entered Clackamas Town Center Mall in Oregon with a rifle and started shooting into the crowd.

        An armed citizen saw him, pulled his pistol but could not fire because of people running in front of him trying to escape.

        The attacker did see him and ran down an escalator. At the bottom he turned his gun on himself and ended the attack.

        The best data we have is a peer-reviewed study done for the US Dept of Justice in the 1990s. It estimated that 800,000 – 1.2 million people a year used a firearm to ‘stop a criminal attack’ in the US.

        The gun control lobby likes to shout that there has never been a case where ‘regular people’ have stopped a crime with a gun, even with thousands of news stories every year proving them wrong.

        The police can’t stop every crime, or even a small portion of them. Nor can armed ‘civilians’ stop every attack.

        The police primarily act as a deterrent, just as armed citizens do. That’s a fact and it’s one that needs to be recognized in any debate on ‘gun toting’ as you put it.

        • Headstrong

          Thank you for a well-reasoned argument. I still don’t buy it, though. I honestly cannot see a sizeable number of citizens carrying guns everywhere they go. Such a scenario is asking for trouble.
          Further, as you say, nutcases out to cause trouble, will do so anyway and arguing that if the Second Amendment is upheld, such attacks can somehow be repelled, is tantamount to delusion.

          • samton909

            When my state passed a concealed carry law 20 years ago, people said Oh no, we can’t have people carrying guns, there will be people shooting others all the time – since then the number of illegal shootings by a concealed carry permit holder is zero. Numerous crimes have been stopped, however.

            When you take your concealed carry course, the first thing the instructor tells you is that if you use your gun, the chances are you WILL be sued, and you will have to go through a court proceeding, and the police are likely to charge you with something – whether you were in the right or in the wrong. So before you pull that gun, you better be damn certain that you need to use it, because the results of using it are going to be incredibly painful to you.

          • WTF

            If you’ve ever been to Texas you’d see an inordinate amount of guns around however the deaths from guns there is a minute fraction compared to liberal states like Illinois and their left wing cities like Chicago.

            Its ironic that the liberals even air brush out historical events like the St Valentines day massacre in the Sears Tower history exhibition unlike the UK and our violent historical past.

          • Indiana Mike

            There are many cases of shootings and attempted shootings that have been stopped by armed citizens…You delude yourself by refusing to recognize and acknowledge that undeniable fact…What makes you demand that free people abrogate their Right of self defense? Just because you will allow yourself to be attacked or killed, you can’t demand I follow you in your madness. I refuse to do so just because you demand it.

          • Mr B J Mann

            But it works in Switzerland.

            I worked in the UK before gun controls.

            AND IT WORKS IN THE US!!!!

            The gun crimes happen in the gun free zones in the “liberal” states with strict controls!!!!

      • samton909

        The San Bernadino shooters specifically chose the county government building to do the shooting in, because it was designated as a no gun zone. They knew that no one would have a gun there, and they knew they could kill at will.

        And the media specifically refuses to report instances in which a gun was used to stop a crime. Go view the NRA’s armed citizen website.

      • WTF

        Concealed carry IMO is the best option as the criminals and terrorists won’t know if someone is armed or not and its a case of “do they feel lucky”. Every Muslim terrorist attack has been against soft targets, if they weren’t so soft they might think twice but if they didn’t, at least its better to go down fighting than be slaughtered on your knees.

        • Jackthesmilingblack

          Also, potentially provide a few much needed bodies as evidence.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Yep.

    • Generic Engineer

      Americans took their guns and fought for their freedom and independence from an oppressive (English) king. That is the single best reason why we shall keep them.

      • amicus

        Oppressive? For wanting people to pay their taxes?

        • Generic Engineer

          Yep, in specific, taxes to that guy, who did not represent or treat the people of the colonies fairly. Fortunately, the nation back then was not filled with political correctness and cowardice. A minority prevailed and the freedom and liberty that changed the world was the result.

          • amicus

            That’s a point of view.

          • mumble

            Maybe this explains why Starbucks and Google don’t pay tax in Britain?

        • Jackthesmilingblack

          Funding a terrorist organization is an offense under the prevention of terrorism act.
          And HMG more than qualifies as a terrorist organization.

      • LG

        What an imbecilic reason to keep unregulated gun ownership. So because William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, the English should all go about with swords and crossbows?

        • spencer60

          It might help next time a psycho tries to cut a soldiers head off in plain sight.

          Study after study has shown criminals are far more afraid of (and deterred by) a potentially armed victim than they are of the police.

          • LG

            Right, so its an arms race with the criminals? Maybe we should all wear suicide vests? Mutually assured destruction. That’ll put off all those pesky muggers, buggers and rapists.

          • samton909

            No, much better to just let everyone rape children, like they did in Rotherham.

        • samton909

          What an imbecile to call US gun ownership unregulated.

        • Indiana Mike

          No. They should go about armed with AR-15’s because that is the current technology… You justify your cowardice in refusing to defend your freedom and Civilization by pleading helplessness. That is why moslems freely behead British subjects, without fear of defense or retribution from armed men. Muslims tried that in the US and were killed on the spot by armed Citizens. That is why a Brit is termed a “subject” and I am termed an ” American Citizen”.

          • LG

            No, you are termed an american idiot.

          • Indiana Mike

            And you of course are a Dhimmi. Embrace your Dhimmitude. Apologize for muslim beheadings and organized rape of children..Because that’s what Dhimmi’s do.

    • Frank Natoli

      As I point out to my gun-toting American cousins, having been raised in a gun-free culture, and never handled a gun, I would probably be incapable of firing a gun let alone aiming it at anybody accurately enough to kill them, and the madder I got the worse my aim is likely to be.
      Ah. So because you’re too [expletive deleted] lazy to get the necessary training and range time, not just you but everyone else should be rendered totally defenseless?

    • Reluctant Mlungu

      “The right to bear arms issue is also misused” – how does the exact timing of, or historical precursor to, the 2nd Amendment prove that the “issue” is being “misused”?

      “Federal law needs to supersede State law…” – the Constitution and its Amendments are already the ultimate law of the land. What are you actually arguing for – that the Feds simply over-ride the existing law by Executive Order (as the current President is rather fond of doing) and start confiscating guns? Naturally, this wouldn’t start in ‘da hood’, but in the suburbs, right?

    • samton909

      For some reason you believe that gun owners don’t ever handle, or shoot their guns. In fact, they do, quite regularly. Most spend lots of time at the shooting range, and fire thousands of rounds, and are quite good shots. Most know how to break that gun down and put it back together. So your weird assumption is just wrong. They probably have far more training with that gun than the drunken moron who just broke into their house.

      I just started listening to the British news, and I often laugh out loud at the things that are reported by the British media about US gun ownership. The British media appear to have not the slightest idea what they are talking about, so I forgive you for being so thoroughly ignorant.

      • Richard Baranov

        Over here samton, British media is a propaganda arm of the state, that is why the false representation of the gun issue in the USA. It is never mentioned that the Swiss are even more heavily armed than the Americans. But then, anti-American propaganda is one of the main reasons for the British media to bang on about the U.S. and guns. You don’t get much mileage from anti-Swiss propaganda because they are not top dog. We are infested with P.C. liberal rats who take any opportunity to snap at Americas heels trying to bring the US down. They don’t like freedom here, they prefer the nanny state.

        • Richard Lutz

          Well said. We need to promote a culture of liberty as in Switzerland whose national hero is William Tell, whom most liberals likely consider a terrorist for assassinating a fascist Austrian bureaucrat.

      • Mr B J Mann

        It’s not a question of the British Media not knowing:

        They are deliberately propagating pro gun control propaganda.

        Every news report o3 documentary is accompanied by the sounds of machine gun fire and shots of machine guns and the “reporting” slanted to give the impression that any twelve year old can walk into a gun fair and, without any checks, walk, or rather fly, out with an Apache gunship!!!!!!

    • Richard Baranov

      “It is often forgotten that the right to bear arms was given to English citizens in 1689 by the Bill of Rights, from which it was taken and incorporated into the US Constitution by the Second Amendment in 1791 – 102 years later.”
      Actually Americans are more aware of the English Bill of Rights than the English themselves. It is dishonest to suggest that the Americans appropriated the right to bear arms and then claimed credit. They saw themselves as true Englishmen betrayed and therefore the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are, in fact, a distillation of what they believed to be a true Englishman’s rights stolen from them by a tyrannical English Parliament. Throughout, the founding fathers saw themselves as Englishmen betrayed by their own government in London.

      • Indiana Mike

        Throw off your Quisling Politicians. They will force Brits to submit to medieval moslem savages to allow those Politicians to Signal Virtue. They demand you countenance the rape and murder of your women and children. They demand you surrender your Right and Duty to act as Free Men.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        The English version stated that “Protistans have the right to bear arms”.

        • Richard Baranov

          Quite right. So what?

    • WTF

      For all practical purposes UK citizens are not allowed to own or carry at home or in public anything that the state deems offensive in their eyes. The wording is so loose that the CPS can essentially claim anything is offensive as they use their ‘intent’ argument. That includes stuff like pepper spray which could have helped those poor girls in Cologne although in America, at least concealed carry would have allowed those male attackers in Germany to have been taken down on the spot.

      Whilst the authorities in Europe have a biased agenda against the majority, they are at mercy of both these Muslim males and the authorities. At least in most American cities you can protect yourself without fear of vindictive prosecutions like we’ve seen in the UK and some EU countries.

    • Indiana Mike

      Stop trying to justify your cowardice in protecting your Nation by some half-arsed protestation on how helpless you are. And you know nothing of the US Constitution. Particularly the 10th Amendment. Now go forth and perform your Dhimmi duties and submit to i-slam and it’s 8th Century, primitive, murderous ,savages….Because to resist might get you hurt..

    • Richard Lutz

      I respect your choice not to own a gun. Too bad you don’t respect the right of competent adults of good character to own a gun. That said, good point about somebody with ill intent getting to you before you get to them. Thus it would seem we must disarm the security guards who protect people like Barack Obama, David Cameron and Rupert Murdoch, and the guards who protect payroll vans and military bases which store nuclear weapons. I dare say the scores of young adults shot dead in Paris in 2015 and Norway in 2011 would agree with you if they could.

      • mumble

        The Second Amendment, give or take a comma, is admirably concise and does not mention competent adults of good character.

        That would, in fact, appear to be the problem.

        • Richard Lutz

          It seems that we are on the same page in allowing competent adults of good character own a gun like those used by the bodyguards who protect rich criminals and politicians like Donald Trump if they so choose.

          No felon can legally own a gun in the US. Too bad criminals who illegally possess them are not uniformly sent to prison for at least 10 years. We could make space for them in prison by releasing all the non-violent drug offenders.

    • Mr B J Mann

      “Even if you are armed, the likelihood is that somebody with ill intent and a gun will get you before you get him.”

      Care to justify that?!

    • Mr B J Mann

      “British citizens still have the right to bear arms,”

      Balderdaesh!

      Even the British Olympic Target Pistol Team don’t have the right to bear their arms in the UK.

      Even one of the SAS’s top marksmen, firearms trainers and counter terrorism operatives was jailed because the army packed a pistol in with his personal kit and sent it home from Iraq while he was in a coma and it ended up in off-base army accommodation!!

      And whilst the original guidelines were that needing a weapon for self defence was to be taken as a valid reason for issuing a firearms permit the authorities have taken it upon themselves to take it as a valid reason for REFUSING a permit for almost a century!

    • Mr B J Mann

      “This is why in Agatha Christie novels somebody usually has a service revolver in a desk drawer – it was ‘normal’ in those days,”

      And that is why in real life in those days gun murders were almost unheard of.

      Because gun ownership was unrestricted an commonplace.

      And that is why the opposite is tru now!

    • Mr B J Mann

      “US States have varying restrictions, some almost as tight as the UK.”

      Yes.

      For a century.

      You can tell which:

      The are now the gun crime capitals of the US.

      Whereas I believe that there are also places where it is still obligatory for householders to bear arms.

      And where not just gun killing, but all crime, are very low.

      Just like Switzerland where the public, not just those in the military, but most of them, are armed to the teeth!

    • Mr B J Mann

      This must be the longest sub-thread on record where the OP hasn’t dared to return to defend his “argument”.

      The one return visit to call those that disagreed with him “mutants” doesn’t count!

      • englishwhisky

        Good snow in Alps. Too busy dodging on the ski slopes dodging all those Swiss gun toters where the murder rate is 1:1000 v 5:1000 in US and 0.5:1000 in peaceful non gun toting UK. That is the statistic you need to judge your gun laws by.

        • Mr B J Mann

          You are insane!

          There were a total of 41 murders in Switzerland in 2014!

          That’s less than 0.5 per 100,000!

          From the UN the TOTAL in Switzerland in 2011 was 46 pushing it up to 0.6 per 100,000!

          From the same source in disarmed “peaceful non gun toting UK” there were 653 murders in 2011 – DOUBLE THE RATE!!!!!!!

          As is the rate in Oz and NZ!!!!!!!!!!!

          That is the statistic you need to judge your gun laws by!

          Oh, and Canada’s is 1.6, TRIPLE the Swiss rate’ despite being a much more “liberal” European culture with illiberal UK type gun laws!!

          And in Mexico, America’s other neighbour, with a much more similar culture and demographic to the US, but much, much stricter guncontrols the rate is 18.9, not only nearly 40 times the Swiss rate, but FOUR times the US rate!!!!!!!!

          And note that Israel, despite the citizenry being as heavily armed as the US and Switzeland, and being a prime terrorist target, still only has a murder rate comparable to “peaceful non gun toting” Canada!!!!!

          Keep on over-enjoying the gluhwein and apres-ski!

  • Joe Potosky

    Step one.

    If charged with using a firearm unlawfully….

    Held without bail for 90 days, No reduced bail, Subject to an automatic dangerousness hearing, No plea bargains, No reduced sentences, No early release from prison, and minimum state sentencing laws for crimes committed with a firearm.

    No need for step two.

    • sidor

      Anyone sentenced for murder should be hanged within several months. No life sentences. No appeals which continue for decades and cost millions.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Barry George, Sally Clark, Tony Martin …

        • sidor

          And your point is? Try to formulate a logically consistent statement.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            A short list of people, subsequently exonerated, who would have been executed under your proposal.
            Obviously surely, even to the meanest intelligence.

          • sidor

            Obviously, you experience a problem when attempting to construct a logically consistent statement. Nobody was executed under my proposal: it wasn’t implemented yet.

            Try to mobilise all your available cognitive capacity and make a meaningful statement.

    • Indiana Mike

      Orwell filtered through Kafka.

    • mumble

      Um… How about deportation to country of origin?

  • Gareth

    Every German girl should carry a gun.

    • Quest for Liberty

      … and, importantly, know how to handle it

      • mumble

        …and know how to keep it handy enough to be useful without having it within reach of young children. Tough one.

        • Gerry Flower

          Well, going on the American experience – impossible, not tough!

    • mumble

      Yeah – how could that possibly go wrong?

      How many guns could the Cologne assailants have stolen along with everything else they stole?

  • Back To 1689

    What utter nonsense. Make the bold claim that pro-gun individuals are impervious to factual argument without backing it up with a shred of evidence and use it as the basis for your own article. Ridiculous,

  • RavenRandom

    A poor article. Starts well enough, but eventually essentially says those who want to continue with their current rights are unthinking blinkered idiots.

  • Frank Natoli

    Yes, it’s true, some Americans who legally obtain firearms commit mass murder. Does that mean that the other 100,000,000 who legally possess firearms and are not defenseless, as everyone in Britain is, who do not have to worry about being prosecuted for stopping a forcible felony, as anyone in Britain would be, who realize that when seconds count the police are minutes away [in Britain in most cases hours if ever away], should be compelled to play the role of lambs before the wolves?

    The opening shots of the Revolution in 1776 were fired over efforts of the Crown to render the colonists defenseless. The Constitution enacted in 1787 explicitly acknowledged the right to keep and bear arms so that no Crown or no Chief Executive could achieve what it failed to achieve at Lexington and Concord.

    Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

    • LG

      They didn’t have Uzi’s and AK47’s in 1787

      • Reluctant Mlungu

        And?? They didn’t have cars, drugs, welfare, or ‘reality’ TV, either – so what?

      • Tom G.

        In 1787, they didn’t have rotary presses, railroads, trucks, microphones, radio, TV, internet, or any other kind of electronic communication. Therefore “freedom of press & speech” only applies to papers laboriously printed one by one; no printed materials should be disseminated faster that the speed of horse carts. Only speeches delivered person-to-people within hearing range of the unamplified human voice should be legal.

      • Indiana Mike

        Fascist.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        However, they did know how to use the apostrophe.

  • Giuseppe Cappa

    It is typical of dictatorship to ban firearms — see Marcos’ martial law in 1972 in the Philippines. The result of the same policy in the EU is that, for instance, in Paris a few armed guys can enter a theatre and kill several dozen people because none of the over 400 people present is armed. The majority of people are sensible and honest, and when sensible and honest people are armed everyone is safer. Socialists however hate mankind and think that everyone else is as stupid as they are; therefore they believe that the state should control every aspect of our life and that no one should be allowed to defend himself before the state police arrives.

  • Richard Lutz

    “put the poor beast out his misery”

    Leah appeared to liken private gun owners resistant to restrictions on their freedom to buy guns to dogs, while her closing comment about putting down a stubborn dog implied that we should eliminate such people. Should we also put down “dogs” who are resistant to background checks for rocks, knives, bats, cars and abortions?

    Whereas Leah’s uncle (a gun owner and NRA member) is supposedly a redneck who tries to educate her about politics and fiscal responsibility with his story about the dog, she uses it as a vehicle to express her murderous desire to eliminate private gun owners who oppose gun law reform, including her own uncle.

    She is silent about her uncle’s views on background checks for all gun buyers. Is that because he supports such checks as do most NRA members according to surveys? He likely supports this measure and she likely knows he does, but mentioning this would undermine her mean spirited narrative and authoritarian agenda.

    People like Leah conflate law-abiding gun owners with criminals, and are complicit in murder because they oppose laws that would allow ordinary adults of good character to obtain a non-occupational security guard license so they can carry the same weapons bodyguards use to protect rich criminals and politicians.

    Readers might like to know that the US murder rate is half what it was 20 years ago when far fewer Americans could obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon like a pistol, as armed citizens deter violent crime. A fact that the closet fascists who control most media organizations and political parties dearly want to suppress.

    Adults have a legal right to defend themselves and a legal duty to protect dependants under their care like children or a disabled spouse, while legislation that unreasonably infringes on our rights and duties are rightly repealed. You can find out more about gun defence from the SVIS website (www.stalkvictims.info).

  • ninfan

    “I began my dialogue on gun control with Uncle Bill in the hope that I could bring him round to my point of view through rational, fact-based argument”

    Maybe you ought to have begun by listening?

    • freddiethegreat

      “Rational” “fact based”. Make up your mind – are you liberal or do you stick to rational argument and facts?

  • Richard Baranov

    “I began my dialogue on gun control with Uncle Bill in the hope that I could bring him round to my point of view through rational, fact-based argument, but I’ve now realised that this is simply not the way proponents of the Second Amendment think.”
    Considering that you, apparently, think you know better than the Founding Fathers who considered the issue of self defence of such importance that they put it right below the first amendment on free speech. Indicates to me that perhaps you should look at yourself for faults in “rationality” or “fact based” argument.

    • samton909

      I have yet to meet a liberal who possessed any of the facts about gun control.

      • Richard Baranov

        Nor do they understand the history or reasons for it. As with most things, liberals simply talk out of their own ideological bigotry and lack of knowledge and pretend it is the truth. Even when experience contradicts their liberalism, as in Cologne.

        • Mr B J Mann

          But they FEEEEEEEEEEL they are right!

          And if they FEEEEEEEEEEEEEL it saves JUST ONE child:

          Surely that’s the only thing that matters?!?!?!!!!!!!

      • freddiethegreat

        Or any facts about anything at all.

  • samton909

    First of all, you moron, the attack in San Bernadino was not a “mass shooting”. I suppose you are utterly incapable of noticing, it was a terrorist attack.

    And you accuse conservatives of being unable to face facts. The fact is, from the moment that terrorist attack took place, liberals knew they were going to get blamed for letting a terrorist enter the country on a marriage visa. We let that terrorist in, even though she had been making terrorist comments on social media for months.

    So, of course the only thing left to do is confuse the issue, pretend that the terrorist attack was all about guns rather than terrorists.

    • Richard Lutz

      All mass shootings are by their very nature acts of terrorism as they are intended to cause terror. It matters not if the offenders have a political agenda or not. If the terrorists have a political agenda they are ‘political terrorists’.

  • Tom G.

    Recent mass shootings — including the terrorist attack in San Bernardino and the jihadist massacre by a shrink on a Texas army base — took place in “gun-free” zones. (AKA “sitting duck areas.”) Logic dictates the best way to protect the public is by creating more gun-free zones. Eventually maniacs will run out of bullets and/or sitting ducks, and the country will achieve peace.

  • kayerob

    More People Died In France This Year In Mass Shooting Than Have Died During The Whole Tenure Of Obama. Does That Tell You Something?

    • Reluctant Mlungu

      It tells me that your keyboard has a rare technical fault…?

      • kayerob

        532 France 396 US. I Think One Is Also More Populous Than The Other. Facts Are Tough Huh.

        • Reluctant Mlungu

          Your figures may or may not be correct, but your keyboard still has a glitch. Lighten up and look at what you’ve typed…

          • Indiana Mike

            Pathetic deflection….France’s population is around 40 million. US population is around 330 million.. And yes, more people were killed in France in mass shootings than in the US…. Sorry it doesn’t fit your narrative…Perhaps you can comment that kayerob’s belt and shoes do not match.. THAT should defuse and deflect kayerob’s argument, don’tcha think?

          • Reluctant Mlungu

            Great, another hair-trigger hero who can’t think before leaping in…
            I DIDN’T AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH kayerob, but merely pointed out – or tried to – that his keyboard seems to have a semi-“caps lock” issue. Got It Now, Indiana??

          • Indiana Mike

            The only thing you’ve shown me is that you use Kafka Traps to try to deflect criticism. When you use the term “Facts are tough, huh”, you are on the attack. People now understand the technique you use to discredit and deflect. Got it now, moron?…..And don’t think people don’t notice your complete failure to address kayerob’s numbers. You simply ignore and attack on a disconnected, straw point…

          • Reluctant Mlungu

            You STILL need help with your reading and comprehension, so I will provide it:
            1. Each comment has the poster’s name.
            2. Each comment also indicates who that person was responding to, and how long ago. Note that, chronologically, I responded to ‘kayerob’ before anyone else did.
            3. You have confused me with someone else – probably ‘WTF’ but possibly also ‘kayerob’ and perhaps even with yourself, since you seem to be quite confused in general.
            Goodbye, idiot.

          • Indiana Mike

            Hair trigger hero… Interesting choice of terms to define your false assertion that anyone that disagrees with you is not only wrong, but a possible threat.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            Population of France as of 2014 census, 67.6 million. Not sure whether that includes illegals.
            You may be thinking of population density, but that would involve converting square kilometers to square miles.

        • mumble

          Let’s put it this way: 532 France with illegal firearms; 396 US with legal firearms.

    • WTF

      I believe 16 died in the Charlie Hepdo attack and 14 during the more recent attack in Paris making 30 at the hands of Muslim terrorists. During Obama’s two terms in office the death toll attributed to Islam has been similar. Fort Hood, Chattanooga, San Bernandino plus several smaller incidents makes it equal to France if not more. What does that tell us ?

      http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/28/7-other-lone-wolf-islamic-attacks/

  • freddiethegreat

    St James massacre in Cape Town. 5 PAC terrorists with AK-47s and RGD5 grendades killed about 17 people in a church service (brave, huh?) but turned tail and fled after the first 3 shots from a handgun. Case closed.

    • Richard Lutz

      According to Wikipedia 11 members of the congregation were killed and 58 wounded. Readers might like to know that the terrorists (members of the Azanian People’s Liberation Army) were granted amnesty for their participation by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), bar one who died in a car accident while out on bail before his appearance at the TRC.

      One member of the congregation, Charl van Wyk, who wrote a book about the incident (‘Shooting Back’), returned fire with a .38 Special revolver, wounding one of the attackers. At this point they fled the church for fear of being maimed or killed. Countless other massacres have been stopped or prevented by civilians who had the foresight to carry a handgun.

      You can find out more about gun defence by visiting the Stalk Victims Information Service website (www.stalkvictims.info).

      • freddiethegreat

        Thanks. I stand corrected. I was working from memory on the numbers. I think others of these innocents were involved in a bank robbery after being let off, and if I remember right again, one was killed. Open to correction.

    • mumble

      Not quite closed: Patricia de Lille was a member of the PAC National Planning Committee before and during both the St. James’s Church massacre and the bombing of the Heidelberg Tavern, and yet she is now Mayor of Cape Town.

      Mention of some of this used to be in her Wikipedia page, but I just took another look at it and see that it has since been sanitised.

      It is worth mentioning that there are two branches of the CoE in South Africa, and St. James’s Kenilworth adheres to the more conservative branch. Had the attack been made on a church of the more liberal branch — Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s branch — the outcome might have been different.

      • freddiethegreat

        Correct on all points – I forgot de Lille with her car-crash voice. Quite true, the results would have been different!
        “Case closed” – I meant the debate over whether guns can stop massacres.

        • mumble

          Quite; please forgive my hair-trigger: my sister, her husband and their two small children were in the congregation (when they got up off the floor, there were bullet-holes in the seats where they had been sitting).

          My brother-in-law often went armed, which I found disquieting, but not to church, because it seemed incommensurate with Christian worship. He went through an attitude-adjustment afterwards, I suspect.

  • Indiana Mike

    Uhh, NO. An 18 year old in Texas, or ANYWHERE in the US can’t walk into a Walmart and buy a handgun. Federal Form 4473 prevents that. A photo ID is required to prove your age which must be 21 or older. Many other questions are on Form 4473. You, like the Typical Liberal, are a dirty, stinking, liar. You are lying to fool people that don’t know the truth. You lying bassturd.

    • JabbaTheCat

      Article by a clueless Canuck libtard who doesn’t know anything about US gun laws, nuf said…

    • mumble

      Surely the issue is not purchase but how hard it is for youngsters to get hold of firearms?

      11-Year Old Alabama Boy Kills 1051 lb 9 ft Monster Wild Pig

      Toddlers regularly find firearms in their parents’ nightstands and play with them.

      • Mr B J Mann

        So are you saying it’s a good thing or a bad thing?

        By the way, how many toddlers could pick up a 2lb to 4lb handgun, aim it at anything other than the floor, and then exert 6lb to 12lb trigger pressure?!

        One of the reasons most real kiddy shootings (as opposed to shootouts between 15 year old gang members, or them resisting arrest) can’t have been accidental by toddlers.

        While we’re on the subject, very few toddlers are accidentally shot by their doting dads with a legal firearm (“while cleaning it”).

        Much more likely to be a drunk and drugged up deranged or psychotic junkie using the kid for target practice with an illegal gun or thinking it’s a monster attacking him.

        But the “liberal” solution is to ban the law abiding from owning guns.

        And leave the junkies to beat, kick, stomp, strangle, knife, or shoot with an illegal gun, their kids to death.

        While the “liberals” are busy campaigning for recreational drugs to be legalised.

        And demanding more sleeping pills and tranquillizers for themselves and their kids?!?!!!!!

        • mumble

          I’m saying it’s a bad thing for toddlers to play with guns.

          I just googled

          toddler killed by gun

          and this is the first of the 15 300 000 results:

          People are getting shot by toddlers on a weekly basis this year

          • Mr B J Mann

            I’ve already responded to a post about that.

            So I hope you won’t mind if a don’t bother typing a whole new one:

            “And please let us all know how carrying any sort of weapon, (concealed or not) would help with America’s problem with its toddlers shooting people almost every week?”

            Where do I start?

            Firstly, these “statistics” are almost certainly wrong!

            As I’ve said elsewhere, how many toddlers can pick up a 2lb to 4lb pistol and aim it anywhere other than the floor, never mind exert a 6lb to 12lb trigger pressure?

            Many of these are probably actually victims of paranoid and or drugged up junkies (you know, the kinda people “liberals” want MORE of!):

            Trying to blame the toddler for their actions!

            Not of toddlers who are too young to be sensibly questioned by the authorities!!!

            Secondly, this is hysterical, emotive, tear-jerking, guilt-tripping, shroud waving, emotional blackmail.

            It’s meant to give the impression that a toddler a week is killed, whereas it’s a toddler a week involved (supposedly) in a gun killing, but only one a month actually killed.

            Yes, even one is a tragedy, etc, etc, if we can save just ONE life……

            But the gun control lobby obviously feel their case is so weak they need to not just double, but QUADRUPLE the actual toddler death rate!

            And most, if not all, of the victims are probably actually the victims of abuseive adults who would have killed them in some other way if guns hadn’t been available.

            Remember that even in the UK, with a fifth the population, two children are killed by abusive adults a WEEK, which puts the one a month in the entire US into perpective.

            Should we ban parents because two a month kill their kids?

            Interestingly, in between the interweb becoming a widely used tool for public information dissemination and the “Speed Kills” lobby hijacking road “safety”, the West Midlands Police published it’s road accident data online for a few years.

            One fascinating fact that revealed was that there were as many deaths caused by reversing (mainly children) as by speeding in excess of the limit.

            Should we ban reverse gear?!

            Just think of the children!

            If it saves JUST ONE life!!!!

            By the way, your impeccable cited reliable source insists that:

            “Boys are disproportionately likely to do this: I could find only three cases where a girl under the age of 4 wounded someone with a gun.”

            But every single impeccable reliable source cited by “liberals” insists that there is no difference between girls and boys.

            And surely these toddlers are too young for any possible conditioning into social gender constructs.

            You’ve got me confused now:

            Are “liberals” not to be trusted?!

            Or are “liberals” l!ars?!?!

          • Gerry Flower

            “Trying to blame the toddler for their actions!”

            Lame straw-man argument. Nobody besides you has done this.

            And the ridiculous analogy of cars reversing – of course you’re forgetting that while the purpose of cars is to transport people, the purpose of guns is to shoot people. No guns = no gun deaths. Pretty simple, even for you I would have thought. No cars – mass inconvenience to society. Get it yet?

          • Mr B J Mann

            “the purpose of guns is to shoot people. No guns = no gun deaths. Pretty simple, even for you I would have thought.”

            Oooohhhhhh you aren’t as thick as I thought!

            The usual “liberal” mantra is “guns are designed to kill – they have no purpose!”

            So there’s no point in pointing out to you that if, say, a couple of dozen soldiers a storming an enemy position and half a dozen of them are shot dead the rest will redouble their efforts to take the position and avenge their mates deaths.

            Whereas if half a dozen were wounded the assault would fail as their mates got them under cover and applied first aid.

            Called in evacuation teams, tied up medical resources, put a burden on logistics, food supplies……

            That’s apart from the fact under international conventions on war it is ILLEGAL for guns to be “designed to Kill!”!

            But you didn’t say that, did you, you said:

            “the purpose of guns is to shoot people”

            Yup, when a member of the British Olympic Pistol Target Shooting Team goes over to France for practice (because it’s illegal for him to practice in the UK) and decides to look for a new pistol, and the man in the gun store asks him what he’s looking for, his reply would be:

            Well Jean-Claude (because we’re in France, remember, because it would be illegal for a member of the British Olympic Pistol Target Shooting Team to buy an Olympic Target Shooting Pistol in the UK, remember!) I’m looking for “a gun the purpose of which is to shoot people”!

            Of course, if he were a member of the British Olympic Clay Pigeon Shooting Team he would be answering I’m looking for “a shotgun the purpose of which is to shoot people”!

            And if he were a member of the British Olympic Rifle Shooting Team he would be answering I’m looking for “a rifle the purpose of which is to shoot people”!

            Mind you, if he were instead, say, a member of the British Olympic Biathlon Team he might be going into a general or specialist sports equipment outfitters and saying:

            I’m looking for a pair of skis to go with my Olympic Biathlon target shooting rifle “the purpose of which is to shoot people”!

            Mind you, I suppose specialist big game hunting rifles ARE designed to kill.

            But unfortunately for you, not to shoot people.

            Neither are guns suitable for pest control, or killing game (though neither are probably “designed to kill”!).

            As for:

            “No guns = no gun deaths. Pretty simple, even for you I would have thought.”

            Clearly I’ve forgotten to mention tiny Rwanda, a country almost at the bottom of the Guardian’s gun ownership league table, where they managed to slaughter a staggering 800,000 people in a mere one hundred days, that’s a faster rate than the H0locaust! with nothing more dangerous than an assortment of blunt kitchen utensils and rusty garden implements, plus a few sharpened sticks!

            Pretty simple, even for you I would have thought.

            Get it yet?

          • Mr B J Mann

            By the way, talking of straw men:

            >> “Trying to blame the toddler for their actions!”

            > Lame straw-man argument. Nobody besides you has done this.

            Where?!?!!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            And here’s the follow up to that previous post I prepared earlier:

            Incidentally, have you ever come across the concept of “perspective?!

            Did you read the comments on that article:

            “In 2012 79 toddlers (4 and under) drown in bath tubs vs 29 by gunfire…of all kinds (include adults shooting at one another)
            Clearly we need bathtub control.”

            “Where are the statistics on how many toddlers are killed by American cluster bombs each week? Or how many Iraqi toddlers are still being killed as a result of the US bombing of that country’s infrastructure over the last 20 years?”

            “Yes, there is the random story that makes National headlines about the officer cleaning his weapon, etc., but they are less of a percentage of gun owners than parents leaving their children locked in cars in the summer.”

            “43 incidents in a year is actually a very good safety record considering there are an estimated 300,000,000 firearms in private hands in the U.S.
            Nevertheless, firearm safety awareness is something that should never be neglected. The deaths are certainly not the price we pay for our freedom since they could have been avoided by simply not putting a loaded weapon where a toddler can to get it.
            To put things into perspective, about 100 people die from bee stings every year; Ten people drown every day; About 100 people in the U.S. die every day from drug overdoses. Is this the price we pay for the freedom to have water, and prescription drugs?
            Though there is a danger in having a toddler and a loaded firearm in the house, so is having a swimming pool or a bottle of pills and a toddler with unsupervised access. Where is the column questioning government swimming pool and prescription drug policies?”

            “If we struck [out] the 4th and 5th amendments, think how much safer our society would be!
            Criminals would not have any expectation of privacy or right not to
            incriminate themselves, and we could efficiently eliminate crime.
            Don’t worry that it would give the state too much power. We can trust the government in all things.”

            “In a nation of 330 million people, 43 of just about anything is going to happen every year no matter what you do.”

            “Lots of little children drown each year in swimming pools as well (far more than are shot each year). It isn’t as if guns are some magical thing that lead to toddler deaths while nothing else in society does. And like anything, they require responsibility on the part of the parent. Don’t leave a loaded gun lying around, don’t leave household chemicals lying around, don’t leave matches lying around, et…where children could get them. ”

            “In 2011, approximately 1.06 million abortions took place in the U.S.”
            “For those who really care about “saving INNOCENT lives,” banning abortion would be an excellent place to start.”

            “Assuming a toddler is around 3 years old, what responsible parent leaves their 3 yr old unsupervised long enough for the toddler to find a gun and play with it?”

            “Meanwhile the American Association of Poison Control Centers states.
            “Half of the 2 million calls to poison control centers in 2011
            were for exposures and ingestions among children ages 5 and under.” 9 of 10 cases are in the home. That’s 38,500 per week compared to the 1 per week shooting…or a rate 3.8 million percent higher than shootings. What are the cause of both? Lack of care in storage. With guns in close to half of all US housholds, it is apparent that people are much more careful in their storage compared to products that could poison a child. Based on the statistics, people are 99.9994% more likely to store a gun safely than potential poisons when kids are around.”

            “A new CPSC data report issued today shows that 349 consumers (84 percent of them were children younger than age 9) were killed between 2000 and 2011, when TVs, furniture or appliances toppled over onto them. Last year (2011) had the highest one-year number of fatalities reported. The 41 recorded fatalities is an increase from 31 in 2010 and 27 in 2009.” http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/News-Releases/2013… ”

            “On Monday, a 6-year-old girl from Georgia was hospitalized after drinking hand sanitizer, a incident that reflects an increase in similar incidents.
            According to analysis by the Georgia Poison Center, calls coming in to centers nationwide have increased from 3,266 in 2010 to 16,117 in 2014— a nearly 400 percent increase.”

            “This year 30 to 40 toddlers will die from gunshot wounds
            This year 30 to 40 toddlers will die by being left in a hot car
            This year about the same number will die in a plastic 5 gallon bucket of water.
            30 to 40 in a population 0f 24,000,000
            The sky is falling.”

            “OTH, 4,000 children, including 52 kids under age 11 were rushed to the ER for alcohol poisoning… in the United Kingdom.
            http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nearly-4000-c
            LikeShare”

            “Divided by the population size we see we are dealing with less than 1 in a million chance, a lower likelihood than being struck by lightning! Which means there’s about a thousand other threats (including lightning) we should be more concerned about regarding toddlers. For starters, we’ve got 13 million obese kids, 10M of which have markers for cardiovascular disease before they even hit their 18th birthday. This is a grouping larger than the population of some states! But fat doesn’t go bang I guess.”

            “The danger of drowning for young children is ever present in and around the home.
            Drowning is the leading cause of unintentional death among children ages 1 to 4 years-old and it takes only a few inches of water for a young child to drown. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is urging parents and caregivers to look for and protect against drowning risks inside and around their homes.”

            “Normally if you want to reduce say childhood deaths you woul parato the cause and then go after the maximum first as the way to sop the most common form

            But in the anti gun ranting o.g..sm facts and common sense are not required……………”

            “A new CPSC report on in home drownings and non-fatal submersions (pdf) in products such as bathtubs, buckets, bath seats, toilets, and landscaping features indicates that from 2006 to 2010, there were 684 incidents involving children younger than five-years-old. This figure includes 434 fatalities (an average of 87 per year), 233 injuries, and 17 incidents with no known injuries.”

            “The most conservative statistical studies of defensive gun use have come up with estimates in the range of 200,000 to 400,000 self defensive uses per year.
            Unsupervised children and negligently unsecured guns are tragedies but making the leap from that to owning a gun being more likely to do harm than benefit is not borne out statistically. There aren’t hundreds of thousands of accidental shootings every year.”

            And that’s your lot, I’m getting bored now!

            Oh, but before I go, and then there’s a link to this:

            http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-16/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

          • mumble

            TL;DR

          • Mr B J Mann

            What? You didn’t read your google link because it was too long?!

            Or any of the counter arguments put to you earlier?!?!

            Yes, you stick to mumbling soundbites on twitter.

        • Gerry Flower

          Of course, the reality is – the fewer guns in society means there will be a reduction in kids killing or injuring either themselves or others.

          Anyone who would try and argue that point needs psychiatric help in my opinion.

          • FT_Ward

            Since the number of guns in private hands is going up and the number of accidental deaths and homicides are going down your entire argument is without validity…but you know this don’t you.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Is that one of them there “ad hominems” you well educated people use when you haven’t got a leg to stand on?

            Perhaps you’ve shot yourself in both feet, boy?!

          • Gerry Flower

            “Boy”?!?!

            You really are embarrassing yourselves badly now. But in an oblivious kind of way I’m guessing. Perhaps time for your nap?

          • Mr B J Mann

            No need to repeatedly remind us you don’t have a counter argument.

            You’ve already made that obvious!

          • Mr B J Mann

            But I see that you still haven’t checked the gun murder rates I asked about elsewhere.

            Here’s my follow up as you couldn’t be bothered:

            Mexico, with far stricter controls than the US has FOUR times the gun murder rate of the US, 18.9 vs 4.7 while Switzerland, with as many guns as the US is only 0.6.

            In Israel, with the same kind of gun ownership levels as the US and Switzerland it’s 1.8.

            Oh, and according to the UN gun murder league table I’m looking at the US, with the highest gun ownership in the world, doesn’t come top, it doesn’t even come near the top, it comes 110th out of 218 countries!

            So below average!

            And Israel is at 165 and Switzerland at 210!!!

            Oh, and Rwanda, which comes nearly at the bottom of the Guardian’s gun ownership league table comes in at 19th with a gun murder rate 23.1

            So much for your opinion!

  • Richard Lutz

    We need an international movement to allow competent adults of good character to carry a practical defensive weapon like the stun guns and handguns carried by the bodyguards who protect rich criminals and politicians like Barack Obama and David Cameron who prefer dead victims to armed victims. Ideally in the form of a non-occupational security guard licence. We also need a religion or religious sect that mandates the ownership of a practical defensive weapon as an article of faith.

  • rbw152

    We always look at guns in the US in the context of the UK. But the two situations could not be more different.

    When the government in the US try and restrict ownership of guns, gun owners say ‘actually, that’s why we have guns in the first place’. Which of course is correct. They have guns not especially for self-defence but to get rid of a rogue government, should they ever need to. So it’s hardly surprising that they balk at the government interfering with the ownership of weapons.

    There have been plenty of examples of governments around the world disarming their own citizens – just prior to taking away their freedoms – so there are real precedents that US gun owners can cite.

    This situation contrasts with our own society very markedly of course. So any comparison between the US and the UK is simply not comparing like with like.

    • Mr B J Mann

      Actually, they fear that it would be an exact parallel of what happened here!

      See:

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228261953_All_the_Way_Down_the_Slippery_Slope_Gun_Prohibition_in_England_and_Some_Lessons_for_Civil_Liberties_in_America

      03/1999;
      ABSTRACT
      Whenever civil liberties issues are contested, proponents of greater restrictions often chide civil liberties defenders for being unwilling to offer moderate concessions. Frequently, persons advocating restrictions on civil liberties claim that the “moderate” restriction will not infringe the core civil liberty. When rights advocates raise the “slippery slope” argument, they are criticized for being excessively fearful. The goal of the article is to refine our understanding of “slippery slopes” by examining a case in which a civil liberty really did slide all the way down the slippery slope. The right to arms in Great Britain was entirely unrestricted at the beginning of the twentieth century; as the century ends, the right is dead, and only a feeble, severely constricted privilege to possess certain “sporting” guns remains. The article examines, step-by step, how Britain moved from a strong, unfettered right to near-total prohibition of that right. While each of Britain’s incremental steps towards gun control was, in itself, reasonable, the cumulative effect was to destroy the right gradually. Although the right to arms is the focus of the article, the article also discusses many other civil liberties, and their fate in twentieth century Britain and America. The article concludes that, in light of historical experience, organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association of America, which vigorously resist even the smallest perceived infringements on constitutional rights, may be acting prudently in the long term, even though their “no concessions” stance may appear unreasonable in the short term.

      Also available as a web page here:

      http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/histn/histn043.htm

      A more recent example would be the total ban on the use of still legal tobacco in public buildings even between consenting adults, cars even with 17 year old smokers, that are owned by employers, or might be used to carry work colleagues, or in many public open air spaces, all as a result of several moderate salami slices.

      Then there’s the way that h0mos-xuality has gone from being illegal to something it’s illegal not to welcome, celebrate and promote!

      First they came for the British Olympic Target Pistol Team………..

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Clearly compromising a few Olympic gold medals was a price Authority was more than willing to pay in order to take firearms out of private ownership.

    • Andy JS

      The problem with that argument is this: the government has nuclear weapons and daisy cutters. What use would a gun be against those weapons if there was a battle between the government and ordinary people?

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        The fight back would be at an urban level. Two armies fighting a set piece battle is so last century.
        There is also the issue of using the army to murder civilians of its own country.

        • Andy JS

          Also the reason Europeans aren’t interested in owning guns is because most people have faith in the democratic system that exists. It seems that Americans don’t have the same level of faith in their democratic system if they think the government might one day turn against them.

          • Mr B J Mann

            The Swiss, with the most democratic government in the world, issues all its men of fighting age with military grade weapons, and encourages them to keep them on retirement from the military (as well as encouraging target shooting and hunting).

            Meanwhile Adolf strippped the public of their weapons.

            As do all governments with designs on democracy.

            If a government has no intention of removing citizens rights, it’s got nothing to fear from an armed citizenry.

            So your point is?!

      • Mr B J Mann

        The problem with that argument is that governments and armies and countries have people.

        You have to get the people in your military to daisy cut or nuke the people in your country.

        And how well did nuclear superpowers do against Afghan tribesmen?!

        • Andy JS

          Yes, but in that case, the government would also have to get people to fire guns on their people. Why would they do that if they wouldn’t do the same with the other weapons? We seem to be going round in circles with this argument.

          • Mr B J Mann

            No, it’s only you going round in cirlcles trying to avoid most of my reply.

            There’s a world of difference between a government getting it’s troops out to control order, maybe shoot the odd armed protester, and getting them to fight a pitched battle with their fellow citizens, never mind nuke em!

            How many of Assad’s troops have turned and joined rebels, for instance?

            And how quickly and easily has he quelled the rebels?

            And, as I’ve pointed out, and you have pointedly ignored:

            How well did TWO nuclear superpowers fare in Afghanistan against tribesmen?!

            Now, feel free to go round all over again, ignoring those points!

            And even if a government was happy t nuke its people, even that doesn’t mean it would be happy to turn its own country into a nuclear wasteland.

            Or even a cluster bomb and minelet infested wasteland.

            So you’re back to basic weaponry as in Afghanistan or Syria.

          • Andy JS

            Just because I didn’t reply to those points doesn’t mean I ignored them. I noted them without replying. Anyway, this is just one of those issues where Europeans and Americans are always going to disagree on. In the UK I’m a right-wing Conservative but I’m not in favour of ordinary people owning guns because I think it’s dangerous and I don’t think the government is going to cause any trouble because they’re democratically elected.

          • Mr B J Mann

            This would be the democratically elected governments that banned consenting adults smoking together in a smoking pub owned and staffed by consenting smokers despite promises to allow pubs to choose whether to be non smoking or not while criminalising people who refused to celebrate g-y weddings in a part of the UK where they were still illegal?!

            The democratically elected governments that banned the death penalty despite it always having majority support.

            But also got rid of habeas corpus and is well on the way to eliminating trial by jury.

            And has been giving away sovereignty while allowing the country to be invaded and it’s children ravished and enslaved?!?!?!!!!

            While banning the British Olympic Target Pistol Team from using their “weapons” because “they are designed to kill”.

            Because in the UK even “right-wing Conservative” are supposedly “not in favour of ordinary people owning guns because I think it’s dangerous”.

            Which they worked out all by themselves from the fact that when we had no gun controls gun killings were almost unheard of just like in Switzerland where almost every home has a gun and the government issues military weapons to its citizens whereas when they imposed strict controls we had many, just like the parts of the US with strict controls and Mexico which has strict controls and SIX times the US gun killing rate.

            But why do you assume I’m American? Because I’m not a “liberal” sheep and can think for myself?!

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      Never give up your guns America pals. They’re your last defence against tyranny. Too late for you guys in Europe though.

  • MickC

    This is a matter entirely for “we, the people” of the USA. Comment by others is arrogance.

    • rbw152

      I agree. I’m a brit but I wish people from outside the US would stop thinking they know what’s best for you.

      With gun ownership, our two countries could not be more different. We’re not talking about shooting a few pheasants on a Saturday morning, or a farmer keeping pigeons off his crops.

      This is about retaining the means to get rid of a government intent on harming its citizens, which America knows all about since it fought a war with us about just that.

      Shotguns wouldn’t be any good.

      • MickC

        I’m British, the “we, the people” is the pre-amble to the US Constitution, which, of course, was written by British subjects.

        Regrettably, it wasn’t exported back to Britain.

  • freddiethegreat

    The funny thing is, in Israel – where teachers are armed – there are very few school attacks, and any attacks tend to result in the death of the (muslim terrorist) shooter

  • mumble

    The gun-control lobby is definitely on the losing side right now.

    And it’s only a matter of time before the intended victims in a mass shooting draw guns and fire back.

    Depending on who ends up dead when this happens, that may further reinforce the pro-gun brigade’s dominance and also might just prove to be what, in America, is needed to reduce mass shootings: not all perpetrators are planning to end up dead themselves.

    • FT_Ward

      It doesn’t get to be a “mass shooting” if someone is there is intervene. BTW the media definition for “mass shooting” has been moved from four dead to four injured (gang members & drug dealers count) just to keep the numbers up.

  • mumble

    Can one of the gun-totin’ Americans here please explain the deal with “concealed carry”, which keeps on coming up and is clearly a big deal.

    Why conceal? Surely unconcealed carry would be a greater deterrent to assailants?

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      Concealed carry means footpads can’t be sure who’s carrying and who isn’t.

      • mumble

        Okay, but wouldn’t it be a better deterrent if they could be sure that at least some were carrying?

        • FT_Ward

          No because they would shoot the person carrying. An invisible threat is always better.

          • Gerry Flower

            That really does make no sense whatsoever. Trump level of nonsense.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Don’t you use a mirror to do your comb-over?

            Are you arguing that, by law, every group of people should contain at least one legally visibly armed person?!

            Even in an area with a large proportion of gun owners any particular crowd might not contain any of them, or only one.

            If weapons are displayed then potential attackers can see which crowds are completely unarmed.

            Or if there is only one armed person they could shoot him first.

            If guns are carried concealed they have no idea if the group is unarmed, or 100% armed.

            I’m surprised you even managed to spell “sense”.

            Then again you are obviously very familiar with “nonsense”!

          • Gerry Flower

            Yes, because someone who is prepared to use a gun on people is going to stop and think about that argument before proceeding…

            As you said – utter nonsense!

            And please let us all know how carrying any sort of weapon, (concealed or not) would help with America’s problem with its toddlers shooting people almost every week? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/

          • Mr B J Mann

            “Yes, because someone who is prepared to use a gun on people is going to stop and think about that argument before proceeding…”

            Eh?

            Someone who is prepared to use a gun on people is not going to stop and think about that argument before proceeding…?!?!?!

            In almost EVERY mass shooting the “someone who is prepared to use a gun on people” HAS STOPPED and THOUGHT about that argument before proceeding…

            To choose a gun free zone!!!!!!!!!!!!

            If you have compulsory open carry then that creates mobile gun free zones.

            The “someone who is prepared to use a gun on people” WILL look to see if s/he is in a gun free zone before drawing their weapon in its (for him) safety.

            As the almost, if not completely, exclusive targetting of gun free zones demonstrates (note the “military” facilities were ALSO gun FREE zones!) proves!

            If you have concealed carry then EVERY non nominal gun free zone is a concealed carry zone!

            As I said – your “argument” is utter nonsense!

          • Gerry Flower

            “In almost EVERY mass shooting the “someone who is prepared to use a gun on people” HAS STOPPED and THOUGHT about that argument before proceeding…”

            Um, no. In fact, quite the opposite. You really should stop posting – you’re embarrassing yourself.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You accidentally seem to have missed a bit of my post:

            “In almost EVERY mass shooting the “someone who is prepared to use a gun on people” HAS STOPPED and THOUGHT about that argument before proceeding…”

            To choose a gun free zone!!!!!!!!!!!!

            But you’re right actually.

            And I’m wrong for once!!!

            What I should have said was:

            “In almost EVERY successfull mass shooting the “someone who is prepared to use a gun on people” HAS STOPPED and THOUGHT about that argument before proceeding…”

            To choose a gun free zone!!!!!!!!!!!!

            “Though In almost EVERY UNsuccessfull mass shooting the “someone who is prepared to use a gun on people” either HAS STOPPED and THOUGHT about that argument before proceeding…”

            “To choose a NON gun free zone by mistake and got SHOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Or didn’t bother choosing and ended up shot in a NON gun free zone.

            Is that better?!

            Or perhaps you think that they chose every gun-free school, college, mall, cinema, office, government facility by accident?!?!?

          • Gerry Flower

            Please provide some evidence as to your statement that this has happened. You’ve used so many exclamation points I’m sure you’ll have a long list of actual occurrences, yes?

            That is, evidence that some has “stopped and thought” before committing their crimes.

            Waiting….

          • Mr B J Mann

            You’re not only a Troll, you’re clearly insane.

            Or perhaps just incredibly thick.

            Think back over all the gun massacres the Beeb keep trying to terrify us about US levels of gun ownership with:

            In how many of them did the victims shoot back?

            In how many of them did the Beeb gleefully report that, see, most of the victims were armed, but didn’t have time to, or were too scared to, shoot back, or, even more joyfully, that they tried, but shot each other instead, yay, we told you so?!?!!!

            Errrrrmmmmmm:

            NONE!!!!!!!!!

            Are you trying to argue that that was entirely by random chance?!?!?!!!!

            A fluke?!?!?!!!!!

            You are out of your tiny mind!!!!!!

            The number of exclamation marks reflect how hard I’m trying to get through your thick skull into your closed mind!bbbbbby

          • Gerry Flower

            So, not answering the question then. What a surprise…

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrrrrrrrrrrrmmm

            I’ve answered it repeatedly.

            You should have gone to ~0^0….:::::::::Savers!

          • Mr B J Mann

            “And please let us all know how carrying any sort of weapon, (concealed
            or not) would help with America’s problem with its toddlers shooting
            people almost every week?”

            Where do I start?

            Firstly, these “statistics” are almost certainly wrong!

            As I’ve said elsewhere, how many toddlers can pick up a 2lb to 4lb pistol and aim it anywhere other than the floor, never mind exert a 6lb to 12lb trigger pressure?

            Many of these are probably actually victims of paranoid and or drugged up junkies (you know, the kinda people “liberals” want MORE of!):

            Trying to blame the toddler for their actions!

            Not of toddlers who are too young to be sensibly questioned by the authorities!!!

            Secondly, this is hysterical, emotive, tear-jerking, guilt-tripping, shroud waving, emotional blackmail.

            It’s meant to give the impression that a toddler a week is killed, whereas it’s a toddler a week involved (supposedly) in a gun killing, but only one a month actually killed.

            Yes, even one is a tragedy, etc, etc, if we can save just ONE life……

            But the gun control lobby obviously feel their case is so weak they need to not just double, but QUADRUPLE the actual toddler death rate!

            And most, if not all, of the victims are probably actually the victims of abuseive adults who would have killed them in some other way if guns hadn’t been available.

            Remember that even in the UK, with a fifth the population, two children are killed by abusive adults a WEEK, which puts the one a month in the entire US into perpective.

            Should we ban parents because two a month kill their kids?

            Interestingly, in between the interweb being widely used and the “Speed Kills” lobby hijacking road safety, the West Midlands Police published it’s road accident data online.

            One fascinating fact is that there were as many deaths caused by reversing (mainly children) as by speeding in excess of the limit.

            Should we ban reverse gear?!

            Just think of the children!

            If it saves JUST ONE life!!!!

            By the way, your impeccable cited reliable source insists that:

            “Boys are disproportionately likely to do this: I could find only three cases where a girl under the age of 4 wounded someone with a gun.”

            But every single impeccable reliable source cited by “liberals” insists that there is no difference between girls and boys.

            And surely these toddlers are too young for any possible conditioning into social gender constructs.

            You’ve got me confused now:

            Are “liberals” not to be trusted?!

            Or are “liberals” l!ars?!?!

          • Gerry Flower

            “You’ve got me confused now”

            Not sure why – it’s all pretty simple. Maybe do some work on your comprehension skills? They do say right-wingers are generally less educated, so maybe that explains your difficulty in understanding basic concepts.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Yeah.

            That’s because we are out in the real world, not gazing dreamily from our ivory towers.

          • Gerry Flower

            Ah. Backtracking now…careful – you’ll trip over yourself soon!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Ah. Trolling now…

            Goodbye!

          • Gerry Flower

            whever someone doesn’t have any argument they always start squealing about trolling. Nothing more than deflection from their own inadequacies of course.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Errrrrrrrrr

            I’ve posted two very long replies, just here, to you,

            And this is your third ad hominem response.

            Just here.

            Did someone mention “whever someone doesn’t have any argument they always start…….. deflection from their own inadequacies of course”?!

          • Gerry Flower

            Replies, yes. But replies that were poorly constructed gibberish, not well reasoned arguments. And appalling spelling and grammar.

            You said ‘goodbye’, and yet you continue. Can’t even take your own advice…sigh.

          • Mr B J Mann

            It was meant as advice for you.

            As you seem incapable of anything other than ad hominem.

          • Gerry Flower

            I’ll think about taking you seriously when you can use correct spelling, grammar and logic. Until then I’ll dismiss you as the crank you so obviously are. Now run along, there’s a good chap.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Unlike you I don’t spent my time spell and grammar checking people’s posts (but, ever willing to learn, I’d be interested to see your detailed critique of, say, half a dozen of my posts).

            However you don’t need to be a genius, nor even moderately intelligent, to see that you are barely on nodding terms with practical logic.

            Which would explain why after your first few attempts at emotive propaganda you’ve switched to personal attacks.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Incidentally, have you ever come across the concept of “perspective?!

            Did you read the comments on that article:

            “In 2012 79 toddlers (4 and under) drown in bath tubs vs 29 by gunfire…of all kinds (include adults shooting at one another)
            Clearly we need bathtub control.”

            “Where are the
            ststistics on how many toddlers are killed by American cluster bombs
            each week? Or how many Iraqi toddlers are still being killed as a
            result of the US bombing of that country’s infrastructure over the last
            20 years?”

            “Yes, there is
            the random story that makes National headlines about the officer
            cleaning his weapon, etc., but they are less of a percentage of gun
            owners than parents leaving their children locked in cars in the summer.”

            “43 incidents
            in a year is actually a very good safety record considering there are an
            estimated 300,000,000 firearms in private hands in the U.S.
            Nevertheless, firearm safety awareness is something that should never be
            neglected. The deaths are certainly not the price we pay for our
            freedom since they could have been avoided by simply not putting a
            loaded weapon where a toddler can to get it.
            To put things into
            perspective, about 100 people die from bee stings every year; Ten people
            drown every day; About 100 people in the U.S. die every day from drug
            overdoses. Is this the price we pay for the freedom to have water, and
            prescription drugs?
            Though there is a danger in having a toddler
            and a loaded firearm in the house, so is having a swimming pool or a
            bottle of pills and a toddler with unsupervised access. Where is the
            column questioning government swimming pool and prescription drug
            policies?”

            “If we struck
            [out] the 4th and 5th amendments, think how much safer our society would be!
            Criminals would not have any expectation of privacy or right not to
            incriminate themselves, and we could efficiently eliminate crime.
            Don’t worry that it would give the state too much power. We can trust the government in all things.”

            “In a nation of 330 million people, 43 of just about anything is going to happen every year no matter what you do.”

            “Lots of little
            children drown each year in swimming pools as well (far more than are
            shot each year). It isn’t as if guns are some magical thing that lead to
            toddler deaths while nothing else in society does. And like anything,
            they require responsibility on the part of the parent. Don’t leave a
            loaded gun lying around, don’t leave household chemicals lying around,
            don’t leave matches lying around, et…where children could get them. ”

            “In 2011, approximately 1.06 million abortions took place in the U.S.”
            “For those who really care about “saving INNOCENT lives,” banning abortion would be an excellent place to start.”

            “Assuming a
            toddler is around 3 years old, what responsible parent leaves their 3 yr
            old unsupervised long enough for the toddler to find a gun and play
            with it?”

            “Meanwhile the
            American Association of Poison Control Centers states.
            “Half of the 2 million calls to poison control centers in 2011
            were for exposures and ingestions among children ages 5 and
            under.” 9 of 10 cases are in the home. That’s 38,500 per week compared
            to the 1 per week shooting…or a rate 3.8 million percent higher than
            shootings. What are the cause of both? Lack of care in storage. With
            guns in close to half of all US housholds, it is apparent that people
            are much more careful in their storage compared to products that could
            poison a child. Based on the statistics, people are 99.9994% more
            likely to store a gun safely than potential poisons when kids are
            around.”

            “A new
            CPSC data report issued today shows that 349 consumers (84 percent of
            them were children younger than age 9) were killed between 2000 and
            2011, when TVs, furniture or appliances toppled over onto them. Last
            year (2011) had the highest one-year number of fatalities reported. The
            41 recorded fatalities is an increase from 31 in 2010 and 27 in 2009.” http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/News-Releases/2013… ”

            “On Monday, a
            6-year-old girl from Georgia was hospitalized after drinking hand
            sanitizer, a incident that reflects an increase in similar incidents.
            According
            to analysis by the Georgia Poison Center, calls coming in to centers
            nationwide have increased from 3,266 in 2010 to 16,117 in 2014— a nearly
            400 percent increase.”

            “This year 30 to 40 toddlers will die from gunshot wounds
            This year 30 to 40 toddlers will die by being left in a hot car
            This year about the same number will die in a plastic 5 gallon bucket of water.
            30 to 40 in a population 0f 24,000,000
            The sky is falling.”

            “OTH, 4,000 children, including 52 kids under age 11 were rushed to the ER for alcohol poisoning… in the United Kingdom.
            http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nearly-4000-c
            LikeShare”

            “Divided by the
            population size we see we are dealing with less than 1 in a million
            chance, a lower likelihood than being struck by lightning! Which means
            there’s about a thousand other threats (including lightning) we should
            be more concerned about regarding toddlers. For starters, we’ve got 13
            million obese kids, 10M of which have markers for cardiovascular disease
            before they even hit their 18th birthday. This is a grouping larger
            than the population of some states! But fat doesn’t go bang I guess.”

            “The danger of
            drowning for young children is ever present in and around the home.
            Drowning is the leading cause of unintentional death among children ages
            1 to 4 years-old and it takes only a few inches of water for a young
            child to drown. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is
            urging parents and caregivers to look for and protect against drowning
            risks inside and around their homes.”

            “Normally if
            you want to reduce say childhood deaths you woul parato the cause and
            then go after the maximum first as the way to sop the most common form

            But in the anti gun ranting o.g..sm facts and common sense are not required……………”

            And that’s your lot, I’m getting bored now!

            Oh, but before I go, and then there’s a link to this:

            http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-16/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

          • FT_Ward

            Admitting you can’t understand how deterrence works is a good start.

          • Gerry Flower

            Knowing the facts about the lack of effectiveness of deterrence is an excellent start too. Now run along and do some research please.

          • FT_Ward

            Deterrence doesn’t stop crime. Amazing. Perhaps you should inform the police, courts and prisons that the chance of being caught and punished never occurs to criminals. What research did you do to come up with this?

          • Gerry Flower

            Astonishing someone could actually have answered their own question, yet not understand it. Truly remarkable lack of self-awareness. Congratulations.

  • mumble
  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Every time there’s a mass shooting in the US, it furthers the cause of taking firearms out of private ownerships. Because a disarmed population is a lot easier to control than an armed one. Recent events in Germany make this obvious. So Obama’s tears following a school shooting are mainly for the cameras.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    You might want to revisit the Port Arthur shooting, Australia. Used as the justification for disarming Australia. False flag written all over it.

    • bb101

      False flag? With scores of people witnessing Bryant firing his automatic weapon? Conspiracy theories can be fun but calling Port Arthur a false flag is just stupid.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Look at the shots fired to kill ratio; almost 100%. From a retarded kid whose only experience was with an air gun.

  • Clive

    There are two problems I have with gun ownership.

    First, why is it limited ? What is the rationale for that ? Given that it’s ‘The man that kills, not the gun’, why should people not be allowed to buy explosives; fully automatic weapons; missiles; artillery etc. If the reason for arming yourself is to protect yourself against the state , surely these heavier weapons are essential ?

    Second, this is not an American tradition, it’s English. The Second Amendment derives – like most of the American Bill Of Rights – from the English Bill Of Rights of 1689 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp which says in the preamble, which lists the offences of the King to be redressed by the bill:

    …Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom…

    …By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law…

    The king was seen as trying to assert Catholic rights over Protestants and making it so that Protestants could not defend themselves against a Catholic monarch. The remedy, outlined later, is:

    …That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law…

    In fact the king was disarming Protestant militias, hence the wording of the American 2nd Amendment. The English Bill Of Rights does not mention militias because its framers did not want them.

    Carrying weapons is in fact an English tradition in Common Law, this from an American website:
    http://www.constitution.org/mil/maltrad.htm
    J.L. De Lolme, an eighteenth century author much read at the time of the American Revolution [3] pointed out:

    But all those privileges of the People, considered in themselves, are but feeble defences against the real strength of those who govern. All those provisions, all those reciprocal Rights, necessarily suppose that things remain in their legal and settled course: what would then be the recourse of the People, if ever the Prince, suddenly freeing himself from all restraint, and throwing himself as it were out of the Constitution, should no longer respect either the person, or the property of the subject, and either should make no account of his conversation with the Parliament, or attempt to force it implicitly to submit to his will?–It would be resistance . . . the question has been decided in favour of this doctrine by the Laws of England, and that resistance is looked upon by them as the ultimate and lawful resource against the violences of Power. [4]

    This belief in the virtues of an armed citizenry had a profound influence upon the development of the English, and in consequence the American, system of government. However, the many years in which both the British and American governments have remained “in their legal and settled course[s],” have helped bring us to the point where the history of the individual’s right to keep and bear arms is now obscure. British historians, no longer interested in the issue, have tended to ignore it, while American legal and constitutional scholars, ill-equipped to investigate the English origins of this troublesome liberty, have made a few cursory and imperfect attempts to research the subject. [5] As a result, Englishmen are uncertain of the circumstances surrounding the establishment of a right to bear arms and the Second Amendment to the Constitution remains this country’s most hotly debated but least understood liberty….

    • Mr B J Mann

      So because it’s actually a tradition of both it should be scrapped?

      And both are seeing more and more examples of unconstitutional executive decisions – illegal wars, illegal infringements on the right to bear arms, illegal removal of the protection of habeas corpus, illegal surrender of sovereignty – to the EU and under the new trade agreements…….

      As for your first point, point, as you quote, it’s arms according to your station, which isn’t nuclear superpower.

      And as seen in Afghanistan, even external superpowers can struggle against nothing more than a few armed tribesmen.

      And as seen in Libya, Egypt and Syria, it’s one thing getting a country’s army to put down a few armed rebels, it’s quite another to get the whole army to attack half the country.

      Never mind nuke their own friends and families!

  • Gerry Flower

    Gun nutters really are bizarre. Using their logic, the way to defeat the obesity crisis is to give more donuts to Americans.

    • Mr B J Mann

      No, their logic is to not require responsible eaters to starve to death while turning a blind eye to those who indulge in gluttony.

      While the “liberal” gun control nutters logic is to cure obesity by banning forks.

      Talking of which, in tiny Rwanda, a country almost at the bottom of the Guardian’s gun ownership league table, they managed to slaughter 800,000 people in one hundred days, that’s faster than the H0locaust! with nothing more dangerous than an assortment of blunt kitchen utensils and rusty garden implements, plus a few sharpened sticks.

      Would you like to work out how that compares with th gun murder rate in the US?

      While you are at it, would you like to compare it with Mexico’s, where they have far fewer guns per capita, and much stricter gun controls?

      And Switzerland’s, where they have just as many guns, and the government gives them away?!?!!!

      I’m surprised you can even spell “logic”!

      • Gerry Flower

        Banning forks?

        You know you don’t have to provide MORE evidence of nutter behaviour?

        • Mr B J Mann

          You know you don’t have to provide MORE evidence of unreasonable, irrational, hysterical, fact free behaviour to explain your inability to produce a logical counter argument.

          We already know you are clutching at straws, indulging in guilt inducing emotional blackmail, shroudwaving, and resorting to adhominem bluster.

          • Gerry Flower

            “Shroudwaving” – hilarious!

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        A massacre that Catholic priests encouraged from the church’s radio stations. In fact priests and nuns are facing trial.

    • Pioneer

      Are you American?

    • Mr B J Mann

      Not got round to checking the gun murder rates yet?

      Mexico, with far stricter controls than the US has FOUR times the gun murder rate of the US, 18.9 vs 4.7 while Switzerland, with as many guns as the US is only 0.6.

      In Israel, with the same kind of gun ownership levels as the US and Switzerland it’s 1.8.

      Oh, and according to the UN gun murder league table I’m looking at the US, with the highest gun ownership in the world, doesn’t come top, it doesn’t even come near the top, it comes 110th out of 218 countries!

      So below average!

      And Israel is at 165 and Switzerland at 210!!!

      Oh, and Rwanda, which comes nearly at the bottom of thre Guardian’s gun ownership league table comes in at 19th with a gun murder rate 23.1

    • Grace Ironwood

      There you are citizens:

      Owning guns makes you both psychotic AND fat – there is therefore no need to debate any policy issue with such an abomination. Conversation closed.

  • mohdanga

    I wish the coyote had attacked the Premier of Ontario (first class dunce) rather than her dog.

  • MikePage

    I’m not sure I learned anything either 😉

    Then again, I don’t expect to. The gun “debate” is a classic case of East is East and West is West. It is foolish to think we can lecture one other, no matter how many children die.

    • Pacificweather

      It is the American equivalent of the EU leave/remain argument but with dead bodies.

      • MikePage

        Actually I think guns are the US equivalent of the NHS.

        I.E. If you wanted to change things, you wouldn’t start from here. Too many people are highly invested.

        • Pacificweather

          A good point; I wonder which causes the most deaths. Probably, better not to ask.

  • flydlbee

    I cannot think of any situation I have ever been in where drawing a gun wouldn’t have made it ten times worse.

    • Pioneer

      You have been lucky… so far.

      • flydlbee

        No, I have been careful and polite.

    • FT_Ward

      Have you ever needed a parachute? If you haven’t does that mean no one has? No one will?

      • flydlbee

        I fly regularly and wear a parachute. However, pulling the ripcord won’t result in a murder charge.

        • Mr B J Mann

          I can think of at least one incident where a parachutist cause several deaths, including th pilot’s!

          By the way, perhaps you could help us see the light by describing ooooh, say a dozen situations you “have been in where drawing a gun wouldn’t have made it ten times worse”?

          • flydlbee

            I am not a parachutist. I see no point in baling out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft.

            If you read my post I said “I cannot think of any situation…”

          • Mr B J Mann

            Sorry, I was trying to keep it short and snappy.

            Let’s try it the pedantically precise way:

            You said:

            “I cannot think of any situation I have ever been in where drawing a gun wouldn’t have made it ten times worse.”

            Which means:

            “You have been thinking of all the situations you have ever been in where you might have drawn a gun”

            “You cannot think of any one of those situations that you have ever been in where drawing a gun wouldn’t have made it ten times worse.”

            To which I respond:

            “By the way, perhaps you could help us see the light by describing ooooh,
            say a dozen of the situations you have been thinking of that you have ever been in where you might have drawn a gun where you think that drawing a gun would have made it ten times worse”?

            Is that better for you?!

          • flydlbee

            I stand by my original comment. You plainly cannot understand it.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Clearly.

            Perhaps you need to explain for those who failed to see your point?

          • flydlbee

            I don’t think any explanation would get through to those who are determined not to understand.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You are clearly determined not to open up on your claim that drawing a gun makes things ten times worse.

            It’s plain why.

            So I can understand your choosing to bale out!

          • flydlbee

            I don’t need to “open up” on my claim that I have never been in a situation where drawaing a gun would have made things ten times worse. It is my experience, and is a fact.. I am not going to bale out of a serviceable aircraft.

          • Mr B J Mann

            That’s your choice.

            But you are insisting that the rest of society throws away its parachute and the US bale out of a servicable aircraft!

          • flydlbee

            No, I’m not saying anything of the sort; I am saying exactly what I am saying. You are reading things into my post. Your paranoia has got on top of you.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You are reading things into my post.

            Your paranoia has got on top of you.

          • Mr B J Mann

            PS If you see no point in baling out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft.

            Why do you see any point in pulling the ripcord inside it?!

          • flydlbee

            I don’t. I never said I did. That is one of the silliest posts I have ever read, you should be ashamed of yourself. The normal situation, which has occurred to several aquaintances, is that of a collision. The you bale out, wait until you are clear of the aircraft, and pull the ripcord. Happy now?

          • Mr B J Mann

            So did you answer my non silly point?

            Or did you bale out?!

          • flydlbee

            I never said anything about pulling the ripcord inside thew aircraft, so your silly poit was both silly and pointless.

          • Mr B J Mann

            That doesn’t answer the question you are purporting to reply to.

            So clearly you are baling out!

          • flydlbee

            I am not baling out. I cannot think of any situation I have ever been in where drawing a gun wouldn’t have made it ten times worse.

          • Mr B J Mann

            And we’ll just have to take that on trust, throw away our parachutes, and bale out of a servicable aircraft on your say so!

          • flydlbee

            Of you go, then.

          • Mr B J Mann

            8< – – – –

          • Mr B J Mann

            8< – – – –

          • Grace Ironwood

            I can’t think of any flight I’ve been on where baling out wouldn’t have made it ten times worse 🙂

        • Pacificweather

          I fly regularly and don’t wear a parachute. Have you ever considered a higher level of aircraft maintenance.

          • flydlbee

            No amount of maintenance will prevent a collision. You may indeed fly regularly – down the back.

          • Pacificweather

            You fly into other planes! Isn’t that a rather expensive hobby. Risky too. If you do it on the ground, of courses, you won’t need a parachute. Not as much fun I guess. I hope you do it over the sea. I wouldn’t want your plane landing on my house.

          • flydlbee

            Sailplanes. Slender, white, difficult to see. circling together in thermals. There is a collision risk, so pilots wear parachutes.

          • Pacificweather

            I always wondered why they weren’t painted day-glow red. So you are alright Jack but the sailplane is going to land on someone’s head. Tough luck. I have only been in a sailplane twice but neither time were parachutes worn. Are these battery power CAS no good to you.

            http://www.air-avionics.com/air/index.php/en/products/collision-avoidance/trx-2000-57mm-collision-avoidance-system

  • CharleyX

    Let’s make this argument simple: If you want my gun, you will have to take it. And I hope you will pardon my attitude when you try.

    • Pacificweather

      If I take your wife and children whilst you are at will you had over the gun?

      • CharleyX

        I can’t understand your language. But my wife packs heat too. Little 380 in the Galco. 9mm on the night stand. If you are suggesting something disgusting, I am sure she will be able to take care of herself if I am not able to.

        • Pacificweather

          Glad to find your children carry guns to school. I shall keep an eye on the news headlines.

          • CharleyX

            Can you read? I have said anything about children? I can recommend several remedial reading courses for you if you would like. I do not have children but they would learn gun safety at the earliest age if I did. And would probably be excellent shots before leaving elementary school. The guns would stay in the gun safe. If you don’t like that, tough dookey.

          • Pacificweather

            I am so pleased to hear you don’t have children.

  • pobinr

    Gun deaths here per capita = 40th of the USA
    Gun ownership here = 40th that of the USA
    What a coincidence

    • Mr B J Mann

      Highest gun ownerships per capita: USA, Israel, Switzerland.

      Gun MURDER rates pe capita: around 110th, 164th and 210th in the world out of 218,

      What a coincidence!

      But a “liberal” uses the “deaths” figure – gangsters, suicides, etc — instead!!

      What a coincidence

  • Badger

    Seems to me that gun ownership may make the individual safer but the society less safe.
    Currently Americans have the right to keep themselves safe and they are hardly likely to give it up.
    Not sure why some people need enough weaponry to arm a small army though.

    • Grace Ironwood

      Enthusiasts?

      To address your point: how confident would you be about planning your spectacular massacre, knowing the likelihood that multiple citizens (including enthusiasts) may be armed?

    • Mr B J Mann

      Why does a golfer need a whole bag of clubs?

      And why can’t the British Olympic Target Pistol Shooting Team own even a single pistol in the UK?!

      And contrary to the “statistics” bandied about by the gun banners, which are mainly suicides (you would have thought the suicide and assisted murder advocates on the “progressive” left would have been all for that) the nations with the widest legal gun ownership are in the bottom half, yes, even the US, of the gun MURDER league table, with Israel half way down the bottom half, and Switzerland almost at the bottom of it!

      Meanwhile in tiny Rwanda, near the bottom of the per capita gun ownership league table, they managed to kill 800,000 people in a mere 100 days (that’s a faster kill rate than in the Holocaust!), with nothing more dangerous than an assortment of blunt kitchen utensils and rusty garden implements, plus lumps of wood and a few sharpened sticks!

      And it seems to you that gun ownership may make the individual safer but the society less safe?!?!?!

      Tell that to the Tutsis!

      • Badger

        You can’t compare Rwanda with a civilised nation. That’s a special kind of savagery, killing someone with a rusty shovel while you look them in the eye.

        • Mr B J Mann

          I didn’t. I compared it to the Third Re!ch!

          And the Rwandans managed to kill at a faster rate than them.

          In which case civilised Yanks or Brits should be able to kill vastly more with rusty shovels while looking away than they could with guns!

          So your point is?!

          • Badger

            I guess the Brits would rather die up close and personal. Must be a cultural thing. And you did compare Rwanda with the USA, which is the context of this debate you seem to be having with everyone.
            I really don’t care one way or the other.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I demonstrated that high levels of gun ownership in the US, Israel and Switzerland made individuals and society much safe than the majority, if not most, low level gun ownership nations.

            I also demonstrated in a separate paragraph that lack of gun ownership made the Rwandans much, much less safe than anywhere, including J-ws in Europe in the H0locaust..

            If you want to extrapolate (interpolate?) from those that non gun weapons can achieve kill rates faster than in the US too, and so removing guns in the US will make society much, much less safe, I won’t argue with that.

  • Pacificweather

    Unfortunately, the Texas coyote had rabies and the next ten dog walkers were infected leading to the deaths of 350 people and 875 dogs. The buzzards spread the disease to the adjacent states and it cost $12 million dollars to eradicate the infected animals. All the coyotes in the area died and the deer population trebled damaging $8 million worth of forests.

    • stevetierney

      Not really. Vultures don’t spread disease in this way. In fact, the opposite is true… vultures actually prevent viruses, bacteria and other pathogens from spreading in the environment. A vulture’s stomach acid is a unique compound that not only allows the bird to ingest disease processes, but also removes said disease from the environment. Once a virus, bacterium or other type of disease goes into the vulture, it never comes back out! Vultures help stop the spread of rabies, anthrax, cholera, brucellosis and many other pathogens that could otherwise harm other wildlife and even humans!

      • Pacificweather

        It must have been the wolves. You are right of course, its the loss of vultures that is leading to the increase in the spread of rabies and other diseases. It was a poor choice for the story.

  • Davedeparis

    The long term stats overwhelmingly prove that the more legal guns exist in a given area the less crime there is. Its as simple as that. Gun massacres are restricted to gun free zones. Allowing people their natural right to effective self defense whilst adapting genuinely pragmatic NZ style restrictions on military style weapons, although a political hard sell anywhere, would be pragmatic and right.

    • Mr B J Mann

      But why “NZ style restrictions on military style weapons” and what is “genuinely pragmatic”, never mind “right”, about them?!

      Do you think that after 9/11 it would be “genuinely pragmatic” for civilian air passengers to be restricted to open cockpit propeller biplanes?

      After all, who needs “military style” enclosed monoplane jets?!

      Surely the devastation caused on 9/11 by “military style” aircraft proves the need for “genuinely pragmatic” restrictions on their use by civilians?!

      When you drive, do you start your engine with a hand-crank? Do you manually wind down your window? If your passenger wing mirror needs adjusting do you get out of the car and walk round to do it?

      If you did, would it make the roads safer?!

      If the government forced you to would you agree it was a “genuinely pragmatic” restriction?!?!?

      Or perhaps you, like most people, don’t actually realise what “NZ style restrictions on military style weapons”, AKA Assault “Weapons”, actually means?!

      Once upon a time shooting involved heavy, muzzle loading firearms and dirty, low powered propellants. You used to load the propellant and projectile into the end of the muzzle, rest it at eye level on a forked stick or metal rod, braced it against your shoulder on a wooden butt than dropped down from the barrel which was at eye level, held it steady by gripping the weapon at the point where the stock dropped down from the barrel, sighted along the barrel, and then activated a primitive firing mechanism.

      As time went on, the weapon developed.

      Cleaner and more powerful propellants were introduced, which introduced more of a kick, upwards as the raised barrel rotated around the lowered butt.

      Raised sights were introduced, which meant that the barrel was below the line of sight, and the crank in the, wooden, stock became less pronounced, and so the rotation.

      Eventually optical sights, which sat even higher, became more robust and cheaper, bringing them into widespread use.

      However, when the military first started using automatic weapons, rifles would rotate wildly upwards. Also, even self loading rifles would be kicked sideways by the semi-automatic mechanism.

      These problems were overcome by having the barrel in line with the shoulder, a straight, gripless stock, a seperate pistol grip below the stock, and a much raised sight above the barrel.

      Plus the end of the muzzle would have a gas deflector which counteracted any remaining kick to enable the weapon to be kept sighted on the target after firing.

      However, if the weapon were fired at night, or at dusk, the flash produced on firing would both alert the enemy to the firers position, and temporarily blind the firer.

      So flash suppressors were built into the end of the muzzle.

      Oh, and since the end of the days when bayonets were stuck into the end of the barrel, military weapons have come complete with bayonet lugs.

      And this being the 21st century, military firearms are produced in modern materials including plastics and composites.

      Just like your car is no longer made with a wooden frame, wicker body, and canvass top.

      With seperate headlights, wings and “trunk” (boot), plus running boards.

      And just like your car now comes with all the latest mod cons.

      However, strangely, the civilian firearm is still expected to have a musket styled body made out of musket style materials.

      Even more strangely, given the “liberal” lobby’s love of animal rights and uman rites, not to mention elf n safty, they insist that only the rich should be alloed to own firearms, and that if a firearms owner goes hunting and doesn’t kill his prey cleanly with the first shot, the hunter should leave the poor, wounded ickle bambi to crawl away into the undergrowth to die in agony, and should leave the area covered in unused rounds for ickle kiddies to find, or perhaps build a camp fire over!

      Don’t believe me?

      That’s what your “genuinely pragmatic NZ style restrictions on military style weapons” legislation demands!

      That’s what the calls for bans on “assault” weapons means.

      An Assault RIFLE, is a selectable self loading/automatic firing weapon that is ALREADY banned or heavily restricted in most places.

      You CANNOT just go into a gun shop and buy one without a very special licence, and a heck of a lot of money, if at all.

      However, what the gun control lobby wants to do, and had temporarily managed to do in the States, and has succeded in doing in NZ, is to label modern STYLED NON* automatic rifles as “Assault” Weapons, and then by using the demonising scare descriptors of “Assault” and “Weapon”, and the deliberately confusing similarity to the fully automatic “Assault RIFLE” get the majority of modern civilian weapons banned!

      So, if you want to be able to see if you cleanly killed the deer, and if not, get off a quick, clean, accurate, second shot, before it crawls off into the undergrowth, especially if you’re shooting in poor light, you wont be able to.

      Because if you want a rifle with a gas deflector, you can’t have one, they’re banned.

      Because if you want a rifle with a flash suppressor, you can’t have one, they’re banned.

      Because if you want a rifle with that quickly, cleany, efficiently reloads itself, you can’t have one, they’re banned.

      Because if you want a rifle that is less likely to jam because it has a curved magazine, you can’t have one, they’re banned.

      Because if you want a rifle that you can grip comfortably despite having a straight stock, you can’t have one, because that would need a pistol grip, and they’re banned.

      And if you want to be able to load up your rifle for a days shooting, especially out doors on a cold day, without having to continually fumble around reloading it by (gloved) hand, and risk dropping live cartridges, you can’t, because “high” (over five rounds) capacity magazines are banned too.

      Oh, and if you can’t afford a ten grand custom built, ebony stocked, “traditional” rifle, in fact, if you can’t afford anything much, but you still want to hunt or shoot, and, given that rifles with all, or ANY, of the above, are banned, so you decide to settle for an old, second hand, ex army surplus, bolt action rifle:

      You can’t:

      Because they had bayonet lugs:

      And THEY are banned too!

      And this is why organisations like the NRA onject so strongly to ANY “reasonable” supposedly “pragmatic” controls.

      Because they NEVER are!

      They are just one salami slice after another with the aim of completely eradicating the right.

      Look at how small, reasonable, “pragmatic” controls on smoking in public, despite tobacco and smoking still supposedly being legal, have led to an effective ban not just in all public places, regardless of the wishes of the consenting adult occupants, but to public out door spaces, and not just to company vehicles, but to private vehicles that might be used for company business and now private vehicles with under 18s in them even if the smoker is the one who is under 18?!?!?! (Yes, it is illegal to provide under 18s with tobacco, but they can still legally smoke any they manage to get hold of if they are 16 or over!).

      And look at how the completely uncontrolled, and perfectly safe widespread gun ownership of a century ago has, one small “pragmatic” step at a time, got to the stage where the British Olympic Target Pistol Shooting Team have to go abroad to practise?!?!?

  • NiteClerk

    The U.S. Constitiution provides for the right to keep and bear arms. It mentions a well armed militia. What constitutes a militia? From “The Militia Act of 1792”, Passed May 8, 1792.

    That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen … who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years….. That every citizen … provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges … shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

    Notice that the Militia Act exempted the firearms from any lawsuits or taxes. So neither the government nor courts could take away your rifle for back taxes or financial debts. This is the culture that formed the American tradition of passing firearms down through the generations.

  • Mo Gravy

    Most gun deaths in the U.S. are suicide – a more humane method than many other options. As to the rest criminals and mentally ill people account for almost all unlawful shootings in the U.S. Gun laws promoted by clueless Leftists will have little or no effect on these people. The mentally ill have access to guns because 40 years ago the Left destroyed America’s mental health hospital system and commitment laws on the bizarre theory that mental illness is just another (and perhaps superior) state of consciousness. (This theme was popularized by the book and movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.) They greatest victims of this particular ideological delusion are the mentally ill themselves who outside of institutions (and often bereft of family support networks) will not take their medications and constitute most of the U.S. homeless population. Academic studies have shown that in America private gun ownership is a net positive factor in saving innocent lives. Ms. McLaren seems firmly ensconced in her own fact-free Cuckoo’s nest of anti-gun bigotry which perhaps explains her supercilious attitude toward her uncle of whom she appears to be undeserving.
    P.S. Socialized medicine in the UK kills many more people each year than die from lawfully owned guns in the U.S.

    • Pioneer

      “Ms. McLaren seems firmly ensconced in her own fact-free Cuckoo’s nest
      of anti-gun bigotry which perhaps explains her supercilious attitude”

      They are called liberals, a fine example of doublespeak. Liberals are not capable of reason.

  • Grace Ironwood

    Leah,
    Consider that – possibly – just maybe – it’s not good ol’, avuncular uncle Bill who is the duffer here.

    Why do mass shootings always happen in gun-free zones?
    Why are there less & less severe spree killings (far fewer victims) in “concealed carry” states ?

    The best research on the matter offers some surprising answers to these relevant questions.
    I used to be with you on this, but I now accept the facts and respect the Constitutional rights.

    It feels so good to be right-on & you could hardly be anything else as a gentle progressive reared to be afeared of “guns”.
    Carson is correct on this one.

  • Mr B J Mann

    Considering that “liberals” are usually so keen on suicide, and even assisted suicide, it’s strange that they keep complaining that the US is quite high up the international league table for gun “deaths” and counter arguments about gun “free” zones and with the “fact” the the US states with the most guns have the most gun “deaths”, when this merely reflects the fact that people have more access to quick, clean efficient firearms rather than having to use messy knives and razors?!

    When you look at the gun MURDER rankings the US is below midway, and comparably heavily armed Israel and Switzerland are around 164th and 210th out of 218 countries in the UN ranking!

  • Davedeparis

    In reply to Mr B J Mann. I’m sorry I have to place my reply here but Disqus is very clunky that way. You raise many excellent points and I would encourage anti-gun nutters to read them with an open mind. In a better world I of course would like to see lawful citizens everywhere be allowed access to full auto military style weapons. However due to the prevalence of legal and illegal mind altering chemicals, and the attraction full auto military weapons have for idiots, through gritted teeth, I sadly accept the need for some regulation. However this is on the strict provisio that such regulations are not simply a euphemism or pathway for effectively banning firearms which is what illiberals really mean when they speak of “gun control”. Certainly I deeply regretted not having a handy and effective firearm from Nov 13-15th.

    • Mr B J Mann

      The worst thing, and evidence that they actually want to ban, and not control, firearms, is the way they try to classify (by calling then assault “weapons” and trying to have full bans on them) ordinary self-loading rifles with full auto assault rifles, and complaining that anyone can buy a “machine-gun” or assault RIFLE in the US, when they can’t.

      The concentration on “gun control” after every US shooting massacre, despite their worst massacres not involving guns, also distracts from the ” legal and illegal mind altering chemicals” you refer to, and problems with mental health care, or rather lack of it.

      It’s also ironic that there are so many dangerously mentally unstable people on the streets partly, or perhaps in the States largely, because of the demands of the “liberal” left for liberty for them.

      Even more ironic is the fact that some of them are getting guns because of “liberal” objections to their mental health problems being recorded and circulated!

      • Davedeparis

        Very true on both points. Definition is always ultimately subjective but to their credit in NZ they restricted themselves to full auto weapons that were actually used by a military. This however is a fine line to tread so defenders of gun ownership in the US are probably tactically wise to stick to their guns and be hung for lamb as well as for mutton.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Not strictly true, unfortunately, and typical of the control lobby to give that impression.

          According to Wikipedia:

          Firearms in New Zealand fall into one of four categories:

          – Pistols are firearms shorter than 762 mm (30 in).

          – Restricted Weapons include machine guns, selective-fire assault rifles, grenades and rocket launchers. This category also includes some non-firearm weapons such as pepper spray. Cabinet can declare things to be restricted weapons by regulation.

          – Military-Style Semi-Automatics (MSSAs) include semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have one or more of the following components:

          A folding or telescopic butt

          A bayonet lug

          A military pattern free-standing pistol grip

          A flash suppressor

          A magazine that holds more than 7 rounds (magazines holding a maximum of 10 rounds may be modified internally to hold only 7 as per legislation) excepting .22 caliber rimfire, where the limit is 15 rounds per magazine.

          A detachable magazine that appears to hold more than 10 rounds (excepting .22 caliber rimfire; 15 rounds).

          – A Category firearms are those that do not fall into any other
          category, and are the vast majority of legally-owned firearms in New Zealand.

          Registration is not required under the law but the police carry out a regime similar to registration for all but “A Category” firearms.
          Firearms in any other category require a “permit to procure” before they are transferred.

          So self loading rifles with any “military” styling features are treated the same as restricted fully automatic weapons rather than traditionally styled hand-loaded and cocked ones (if Wikipedia can be relied on)!

          And Cabinet can decree extensions to the restricted category anyway!!!

          Also, if you look at the endorsement system, only target pistols are allowed to be used, and only on approved firing ranges, and can only be bought by established and active gun club members (after the application and vetting process):

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand

          • Davedeparis

            That’s the problem with Wikipedia I’m afraid. Firearms are put into categories ABCD of which (admittedly from memory) full auto military weapons are in their own category D and are the most restricted. But yes NZ, although not as bad as the UK or Australia, is dangerously restrictive on hand guns.
            ——————————————–

  • Titus O’Brien

    When my father started telling me (shortly after I received the first of the annual birthday and Christmas firearms I’d receive until I went to art school and became a Pinko Buddhist sometime vegetarian) “they are coming for our guns, son”, Nixon was still president; I somehow just instinctively knew it was stupid. I learned not to ask questions, because the answers never made sense, and came with a dose of paranoiac resentment I preferred to avoid. My opinion is unchanged. If there is a conspiracy to “take our guns”, its the most hopeless plot ever, and seems to involve giving guns to everyone first.

    • Mr B J Mann

      Ahhhhhhh, “liberal” instinct!

      Instead of relying on “instinct” and prejudice, see:

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228261953_All_the_Way_Down_the_Slippery_Slope_Gun_Prohibition_in_England_and_Some_Lessons_for_Civil_Liberties_in_America

      03/1999;
      ABSTRACT
      Whenever civil liberties issues are contested, proponents of greater restrictions often chide civil liberties defenders for being unwilling to offer moderate concessions. Frequently, persons advocating restrictions on civil liberties claim that the “moderate” restriction will not infringe the core civil liberty. When rights advocates raise the “slippery slope” argument, they are criticized for being excessively fearful. The goal of the article is to refine our understanding of “slippery slopes” by examining a case in which a civil liberty really did slide all the way down the slippery slope. The right to arms in Great Britain was entirely unrestricted at the beginning of the twentieth century; as the century ends, the right is dead, and only a feeble, severely constricted privilege to possess certain “sporting” guns remains. The article examines, step-by step, how Britain moved from a strong, unfettered right to near-total prohibition of that right. While each of Britain’s incremental steps towards gun control was, in itself, reasonable, the cumulative effect was to destroy the right gradually. Although the right to arms is the focus of the article, the article also discusses many other civil liberties, and their fate in twentieth century Britain and America. The article concludes that, in light of historical experience, organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association of America, which vigorously resist even the smallest perceived infringements on constitutional rights, may be acting prudently in the long term, even though their “no concessions” stance may appear unreasonable in the short term.

      Also available as a web page here:

      http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/histn/histn043.htm

      Or look at the way smoking “controls” in the UK led, small step at a time, but with a final giant stride at the end, to a complete ban in public buildings, even among consenting adults with consenting owners and staff, and an effective one in public spaces.

      Perhaps something similar has happened in the US.

      A typical “liberal” instinctive reaction to a perceived social problem!

      As for stupid answers that don’t make sense, paranoia, and conspiracies to “take our
      guns”:

      But they want to take all assault “weapons”, which constitute most modern ones, by conspiring to confuse the public into believing that they are fully automatic “machine guns” that “anyone” can buy over the counter in the US, which they aren’t, and almost no one can!

      But why let a good lie get in the way of the truth?!

      Oh, and check out my links to the “Slippery Slope” paper!

  • stevetierney

    There is something beautiful about this article. The way it so perfectly demonstrates the exact points it is railing against. The way it presumes its own logical basis versus the emotional basis of its opposing argument. The way it gently derides a certain type of debate behaviour while utterly oblivious to it being an exact mirror of that debate behaviour. The way it talks about a closed loop from within its own closed loop. Even the premise that one side of the argument is led by fear and the other by reason can be perfectly shown in the exact reverse. You could take this article and write a direct and exact parody from the opposing position. As a logical argument the article is vacuous and poor. But as a cautionary tale or demonstration piece, its fascinating. I enjoyed it a lot.

    • Mr B J Mann

      I’m in the middle of a similar but more extreme version of such a “debate” under the Chakrabati and “Liberty” article.

      I pointed out that relatively speaking there are almost no pedestrian deaths on the roads and an enormous number on the rail roads and yet the rail industry funded (check out who set up and paid for “Transport” 2000) road “safety” lobby argues for lower speeds on the roads, even where there are no pedestrians, but one MIGHT appear, and higher speeds on the rail roads, even where trains are travelling in close proximity to pedestrians.

      And yet every point I make is taken as an argument to further that ideology:

      Rail road pedestrian deaths aren’t all, or even mainly suicides, whereas 85% of ordinary road pedestrian deaths are down to the pedestrians suicidal actions – oh, no, almost all rail road pedestrian deaths are suicide so they don’t count but it’s 88% of road pedestrian deaths down to the pedestrian so cars should be forced to travel even slower to save them, but in most places trains aren’t near pedestrians so it’s OK for trains to do the ton through level crossings and past platforms, but a lot of road vehicles are fast and heavy so they should be slowed even more than they are?!?!?

      I paraphrase, of course.

  • stevetierney

    When a nutter with a gun kills a load of people, the immediate cry of the perpetually fearful is to ban ban ban and ban. This is utterly illogical. In order to determine if gun ownership is, on balance, harmful to society or not you’d need to do a proper cost/benefit analysis. In short, you would need to list all the harm gun ownership had done *and* all the good it had done. If your tactic, like that dribbling idiot Moore enjoys, is to show horrible pictures of dead kids, then the response to that is to show horrible pictures or murdered, raped, and injured people who would not have been murdered, raped and injured if they had had a gun with them when attacked and knew how to use it. Of course, there’s really no need for this sort of emotive bull. Just do the math. Do a large scale study to see how many crimes and accidents have taken place using legally issued guns. Then do another showing how many crimes have been prevented the same way. Only then will you know the economic truth. After which, you have to have the civil liberties argument separately.

    • touchstones

      I think the statistics speak for themselves.

      Most European countries = Gun Control. Result: deaths and injuries from gunshot – very low.
      The USA = Guns widely available. Result: more deaths and injuries than a major war.

      Conclusion: freely accessible guns cause deaths and injuries.

      • Mr B J Mann

        Except that, if you could read, you would have spotted that the US is below half way down the league table for gun murders (the “homicides” tables include justified self-defence and police enforcement shootings and the “deaths” ones also include accidents, but are mainly people who are determined to kill themselves choosing an efficient and painless way out, but like “liberals” insist on for assisted mur, sorry, suicides!).

        Israel and Switzerland, which are awash with government issued guns, as well as as privately owned ones come three quarters of the way down and nearly at the bottom.

        Rwanda, on the other hand, which is nearly at the bottom of the gun ownership league table is nearly at the top of the gun murder one.

        And, anyway, in a tiny country, they managed to kill 800,000 people in only one hundred days, a kill rate that not only dwarfs the gun and total murder rates in the US, but far outstrips that of the H0locaust, using nothing more dangerous than an assortment of blunt kitchen utensils, rusty garden implements, some heavy lumps of wood and a few sharpened sticks!!!!

      • Pioneer

        Your conclusion is false.

  • Mr B J Mann

    Just trying to find some old info on gun controls and found this Guardian table which even they introduced with:

    • The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world – an average of
    88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership –
    and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer – 54.8
    per 100 people
    • But the US does not have
    the worst firearm murder rate – that prize belongs to Honduras, El
    Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97
    per 100,000 people

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

    But I also found this from the Washington Post based on the Guardian table:

    The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and
    the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed
    countries.

    Incidentally, for them to give that accolade to the US they had to rank ALL these as undeveloped countries:

    Country/
    territory
    Rank by rate of ownership
    Guns per 100 people*
    Total civilian guns*
    Total homicides by guns
    Homicides by guns per 100,000 people
    % of homicides by guns

    Honduras886.2500,0005,20168.4383.4El Salvador925.8400,0002,44639.976.9Jamaica748.1215,0001,08039.475.6Venezuela5910.72,850,00011,11538.9779.5Guatemala4913.11,650,0005,00934.8184Saint Kitts and Nevis

    1732.4485Trinidad and Tobago1291.621,00036527.3172.1Colombia915.92,700,00012,53927.0981.1Belize621029,0006821.8252.3Puerto Rico

    69218.394.8Brazil75814,840,00034,67818.170.8South Africa5012.75,950,0008,31917.0345Dominican Republic995.1450,0001,61816.365.5Panama2621.7700,00056916.1875Bahamas985.317,0005215.3761.2Ecuador1421.3370,0001,79012.7368.7Guyana4514.6110,0008511.4661.3Mexico421515,500,00011,3099.9754.9Philippines1054.73,900,0007,3498.9349.9Paraguay37171,000,0004667.3556.1Anguilla

    17.1424Nicaragua777.7395,0003385.9242.1Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

    65.4930Zimbabwe1064.4400,0005984.7865.6Costa Rica649.9430,0002014.5957.3United States188.8270,000,0009,9603.267.5
    How un PC! Are they saying that black and hispanic countries can’t be developed?

    Mind you, now they come to mention it, most of the gun murders in the US are in…………

Close