The Many Contexts of Gun Control

How Leaving America Changes What People Think About Guns

When you live abroad, you start to see your home country differently. I speak from experience: After moving to Switzerland in 2006, I began to see American policies for what they were—one country's way of doing things, but not necessarily the best way of doing things.

There are few examples that ring truer than America's obsession with guns. While the US leads the world in mass shootings, with 372 in 2015 alone, there has only been one mass shooting in Switzerland in the last 15 years. The Swiss rank fourth in the world in guns per capita—behind the US, Yemen, and Syria—but the ownership is rooted in a sense of safety and responsibility.

The recent shooting in Orlando, Florida, is a reminder that the United States has some of the loosest gun control laws in the developed world and the highest rate of gun-related homicide—about 15 times higher than 23 other high-income nations combined. And while news of mass shootings has sadly become normal in the United States, moving abroad can show how differently Americans view guns. We asked several American expats about how moving to another country changed their perspective on gun control. [...]

This is an interesting, thought provoking article. It has many embedded links to back up what it says. The comparisons with various other countries were interesting, especially with Switzerland, Israel and Mexico.

I support the 2nd amendment, but I don't believe it has to pre-clude responsible gun ownership. We strictly regulate the ownership and use of automobiles, because they are dangerous if not used properly. Should we not do the same with guns? I for one don't want to see assault weapons in the hands of mentally ill and unstable people.

Yes, it's a slippery slope. So aren't many things in life, yet they still need to be pondered and dealt with. On a slippery slope you tread carefully and take precautions when you have to. It can be done.

In the US, gun control tends to be a push-me pull-me of two extremes, an all or nothing argument, allowing no compromise. Yet, this article shows how some other countries have approached this issue; as a right, that comes with a responsibility. We don't have to do exactly what other nations do, but we can learn from their experiences, and perhaps adapt some of their better ideas to our own unique circumstances. Can we not find a better way for US?

     

Gun violence has declined since the '90's

WTF? How can that be, when the news headlines seem to be screaming the opposite? Take a look at the facts:

We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.

Premeditated mass shootings in public places are happening more often, some researchers say, plunging towns and cities into grief and riveting the attention of a horrified nation. In general, though, fewer Americans are dying as a result of gun violence — a shift that began about two decades ago.

In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 — a total of 11,208 firearm homicides. The number of victims of crimes involving guns that did not result in death (such as robberies) declined even more precipitously, from 725 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 175 in 2013.

Older data suggests that gun violence might have been even more widespread previously. The rate of murder and manslaughter excluding negligence reached an apex in 1980, according to the FBI. That year, there were 10.8 willful killings per 100,000 people. Although not a perfect measure of the overall rate of gun violence, the decline in the rate of murder and manslaughter is suggestive: Two in three homicides these days are committed with guns.

This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime. According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place.

Much of the decline in violence is still unexplained, but researchers have identified several reasons for the shift. Here are five. [...]

Read the whole thing for embedded links, graphs and more.

Gosh. So, if we have become a less violent society with fewer gun deaths, why does the media make the opposite seem to be true?

Ask yourself, what else has happened since the 1990's? The internet. And with it, instantaneous 24/7 news reporting. So now, if somebody somewhere shoots somebody, it can be reported all over the world within the hour.

Unfortunately, that is unbelievably attractive to the malignant narcissists who want to become instantly famous and recognized, even if it means killing themselves in the process. So we have malignant narcissists seeking fame and recognition at any cost, and a news media looking to instantly report anything and everything tragic and terrible. The two feed off each other, creating a lethal combination. It also makes less (gun deaths) seem like more, because nearly ALL of them get reported widely now.

Some people think taking guns away from everyone is the answer, punishing everyone for the actions of a few. Gun control is a bigger issue than can be tackled in a single blog post, and I'm not going to try here. But I had done a prior post, about Gun Studies and Politics, that has some relevance.

The topic is so polarized, that it can be difficult to get accurate or complete data, as one side or another wants to cut funding, when they start to see answers they don't like. Yet a lot could be learned from what has been tried and failed, as well as what has been tried and worked. I believe that if objectivity could be maintained, some answers could be found that don't include trampling on the 2nd amendment, or denying law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves. Cooler heads and less retoric are needed. Can it be done?
     

Guns Studies and Politics

The two seem to be inseparable:

What Researchers Learned About Gun Violence Before Congress Killed Funding

I found the article... irritating, in many ways. Too much speculation and "What Ifs". Yet, I would be just about ready to give up reading it, when it would say something very reasonable or thoughtful.

Any such future study would be incomplete without also looking at countries that have strict gun control laws, and the impact of such laws on crime. The worst assertion in the article was that homes with guns were not safer than homes without. Gun protected homes that don't experience crime because they are protected, don't show up in statistics. Anyway, there is plenty of food for thought. As some of the comments following the article show. It will always be a contentious topic.
     

How about "Mental Illness Control"?

A Proper Response to the Connecticut Murders

[...] But no one can discount one over-riding issue that links every like event involving these types of mass murders, mental health. The Aurora, WV Tech and the Newton slayings all involve a significantly mentally ill individual.

We, as a nation, decided three or four decades ago, that we didn’t have the will or resources to create safe, reliable and appropriate facilities for those who suffer with mental illness. One reason we started to lose our appetite to deal with the mentally ill appropriately was the ever expanding definition that was being associated with the diagnoses. Eventually, every drunk and drug user was labeled mentally ill, and resources allocated to the mentally ill were quickly filled and demand for more and more and more resources taxed the mental health support system.

A history of tragic abuse in mental health facilities also came to light as mental institutions became the playground for every kook doctor who espoused a cure for mental health. With little or no oversight mental health institutions became a real life horror stories. One has to look no further than the lobotomy of Rose Marie Kennedy to demonstrate these abuses.

Thus, by the time the 1980′s rolled around mental health institutions were burdened with more demands for an every expanding diagnose and marked by the mark of abuse. Lost respect led to lost funding which eventually led to the closing of many public mental health institutions.

And, now, mental health, marred by expanded definitions, history of abuse and quackery, lost funding and lost public support, ranks low in the priorities of the American public.

We should realize that there are individuals, through no fault of their own, who suffer from mental illness, which needs to be recognized and dealt with. Additionally, families of these individuals need support, both in resource and emotional support. In return for this support the mental health community needs to stop the ever expanding definition of mental illness and separate those who choose to abuse drugs and alcohol from those who suffer from a non self-inflicted malady. [...]

Our country has had a long history of gun ownership, without these mass slayings. So what has changed? We used to lock up people who had serious mental problems. And now we don't.

*

     

Is crime easy and risk-free in Great Britain?

So it might seem. This explains a lot:


Crime Is Easy

Maybe there is a simple explanation for the riots. In Great-Britain crime is easy and almost risk-free.

In his startling book ‘A Land fit for Criminals’ insider David Fraser demonstrates it with figures and facts.

Detection rate of crimes is 5 per cent. Of these cases only 2 per cent are processed in court. Only a mere 0.3 per cent of all crimes result in prison sentence. Offenders deem themselves untouchable. Fines are seldom paid. In 2002 it was reported that tens of millions of pounds in unpaid fines were written off.

Even persistent offenders with a long record of previous convictions and a complete lack of motivation to reform are granted probation and put back in the community.

The evidence shows that for them this means business as usual. The reconviction rate for all male offenders in 61 per cent; for offenders given community service 67 per cent.

‘Offenders are not corrupted by prison but by the unchallenged success of their criminality’, concludes Fraser, who served in the National Probation Service for twenty-six years, and was an analyst with the National Criminal Intelligence Service.

He blames the criminal justice system for putting consideration for the criminal first and the safety of the public second: ‘The bizarre fact is that all governments since the sixties have gone out of their way to introduce policies that have encouraged criminals to become more criminal. Numerous obstacles have been placed in the way of finding, arresting and convincing them.’ [...]

If you have read this far, then you've already read more than half the article. But read the rest, it's just as shocking.


Also see:  Can political correctness destroy a nation?
     

Related Links:

Political Correctness — The Revenge of Marxism

Did Tony Blair advance a "Culture of Lies"?

What is the Nature of Multiculturalism?

Our Culture, What’s Left Of It


About British gun laws:

England and Gun Control --- Moral Decline of an Empire

RESULTS ARE IN ON BRITISH GUN LAWS

Britain’s Gun-Control Folly
         

Is Tucson Sheriff Clarence Dupnik culpable in the Giffords shooting? By failing to do his job?

There are reports that he knew of many death threats by Loughner, but failed to take action:

Jared Loughner is a product of Sheriff Dupnik’s office

Did the Sheriff fail to act, because Loughner's mother was a county employee? Is it true that if the Sheriff had done his job, Jared Loughner would have been flagged as dangerous, and not been eligable to purchase a gun?

Where is the MSM on this story? Isn't this the sort of thing journalists are supposed to investigate? No, apparently not. Instead, they are too busy helping Democrat Demagogues to declare war on talk-radio.

As the Dems on the far Left like to say, "Never waste a crisis tragedy".
     

One woman's decision to buy a handgun

A reluctant gun owner

I had never wanted a gun. Now I own a Smith & Wesson revolver. Why?

[...]

Home invasion robberies no longer seemed quite so abstract after a friend down the street was burglarized one day at noon, while she was in the shower.

[...]

Having accepted the reality of a gun in the house, I began to envision dark scenarios. A potential intruder, once an abstraction, became a real force to be vanquished. My husband and I began discussing strategies, defensive positions, reaction times, risks we would have to take. To every new defense, I realized, there is a corresponding new risk.

As we talked, one thing became obvious: I would never be able to defend myself if my husband wasn't home. I'm too small and the shotgun he purchased is too large, too heavy, too awkward.

"We should have a pistol," I finally declared. "Something I can use."

Still, I wrestled with the idea of whether I could become someone else, someone capable of violence. Was I really prepared to kill someone who threatened my property or my life?

Reluctantly, sorrowfully, I found my answer.

And that is how I came to be standing at the counter last week in the gun shop, talking to the salesman, Walt. "I want a revolver," I explained. I had tested several handguns at the range a few days earlier and had realized that semiautomatic pistols are activated by slides that are impossible for me to pull back. The spring is too strong. The only alternative was a revolver, which needs to be cocked and aimed — after loading, of course. The revolver holds six bullets while the semiautomatic pistol uses a clip with nine or 10 bullets. "Six should be enough to stop anyone," I was told.

I had already proved, at the range, that I could pull back the trigger and hit a target. I knew how to assume the proper stance. So when Walt handed me a Ruger, I pointed it at the wall to see how it felt.

Walt, a patient man with gray hair and bifocals, watched as I tried various revolvers before finally settling on a Smith & Wesson, which has a smaller grip than the Ruger and is more in sync with the size of my hand.

It was only when I'd made my decision that I looked around at my fellow customers. I had imagined they would be skinheads or slick-haired, oily types who would poke at each other in amusement at my questions, my stance, my purchase.

Instead, there was a clean-cut fellow wearing shorts and a Polo T-shirt. Several older guys were talking about deer and moose and elk. Everyone spoke softly. They were intent on business. Yes, one man did have a tattoo. But there was also a very nice-looking girl in her 20s, wearing one of those long black summer dresses with the little straps, looking quite glamorous. I saw her examining a Beretta. Obviously, her hands are stronger than mine, I thought, watching her pull back the slide. I resolved to exercise my hands — 20 minutes at the piano playing scales and Bach fugues every morning.

HT to Barry at BAR for the excerpts. But read the whole thing, at the link below:

Sonia Wolff (a novelist who lives in LA)

It's reminded me that I've been wanting to buy a revolver. I think I'll do it sooner rather than later.


Also see:

The Second Amendment vs Leviathan

     

U.N. Global Small Arms Treaty threatens your right to self defense

EDITORIAL: The U.N. gun grabber

American gun owners might not feel besieged, but they should. This week, the Obama administration announced its support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. This international agreement poses real risks for freedom both in the United States and around the world by making it more difficult - if not outright illegal - for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

The U.N. claims that guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year, an inordinate number of which are the result of internal civil strife within individual nations. The solution proposed by transnationalists to keep rebels from getting guns is to make the global pool of weapons smaller through government action. According to recent deliberations regarding the treaty, signatory countries would be required to "prevent, combat and eradicate" various classes of guns to undermine "the illicit trade in small arms." Such a plan would necessarily lead to confiscation of personal firearms.

This may seem like a reasonable solution to governments that don't trust their citizens, but it represents a dangerous disregard for the safety and freedom of everybody. First of all, not all insurgencies are bad. As U.S. history shows, one way to get rid of a despotic regime is to rise up against it. That threat is why authoritarian regimes such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone endorse gun control.

Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that the 15 worst regimes during the 20th century killed 151 million of their own citizens, which works out to 1.5 million victims per year. Even if all 300,000 annual deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small-arms trade (which they cannot), governments are a bigger threat to most people than their neighbors. [...]

Which is why we have the 2nd Amendment. And why we have to fight to keep it.

     

The Swiss, and their Guns

I got a link to this in my email recently. The email was titled "Why nobody invades Switzerland":



In school, I had learned that nobody invaded Switzerland, because it was surrounded by mountains. But I'm sure that being heavily armed and well-trained in the use of their guns also had something to do with it.
     

More British Gun Paranoia Extremism

It's hard to believe this is real:

Beyond Parody

A former soldier in England has been arrested and convicted (and may even go to jail for five years) because he found a gun in his yard and he turned it over to the police. I presume this is in part a reflection of the anti-gun ideology embedded in UK law, but don’t prosecutors and judges have even a shred of discretion to avoid foolish prosecutions and/or protect innocent people from absurd charges? Here is the news report:

Read the whole thing. The British police sound like Nazis. And what is the Jury's excuse?


About British gun laws:

England and Gun Control --- Moral Decline of an Empire

RESULTS ARE IN ON BRITISH GUN LAWS

Britain’s Gun-Control Folly
     

The "un-sexy" Truth About the Ammo Shortage

Forget the conspiracy theories, the facts are much more mundane:

Supply Chain Management 101: on the ammunition shortage.

The author points out that the same Supply Chain Management is used in food production, which is a scarier scenario. Yikes.


Related Links:

More Americans oppose gun control than ever

Where has all the ammo gone? Not even .22?
     

Where has all the ammo gone? Not even .22?

We can't even buy .22 ammo anywhere in town, everywhere is out-of-stock. And it seems it's like that all across the country:

OUT of AMMO: Nationwide ammo shortage present here

[...] Much of the demand comes from continued high law enforcement demand, the same demand that led to shortages two years ago. Police agencies around the nation have become more militarized in recent years and two trends within this militarization have led to greater police ammunition demand.

[...]

Law enforcement agencies have been rapidly increasing their ammunition consumption because of how they are rearming, causing a permanent increase in demand. Just as ammunition manufacturers began to cope with that increase, a second run, based upon a downward-turning economy and rising fears of laws targeting gun and ammunition, dramatically expanded demand yet again.

Shortages of ammunition and firearms can be expected to continue for as long as it appears our overreaching federal government is a threat to our individual liberties, our economy continues to falter, and our police agencies keep militarizing. [...]

The article does give details to support both of these explanations. It also says manufacturers are struggling to meet the demand. What I want to know is, when will I see ammo on the shelves again?


Nationwide Ammunition Shortage Hits U.S.
Skyrocketing demand has been emptying the shelves of America's gun stores. Here's why.

[...] At Farm & Fleet, notices are posted on the ammunition shelves apologizing for the shortage and saying it is because of high customer demand and the inability of manufacturers to meet orders. A portion of the shelf space usually holding cartridge boxes is now holding other items. Even usually plentiful .22-caliber ammunition is scarce.

Skartveit said he has supplies of shotgun shells and .22-caliber cartridges, but is having problems stocking handgun and assault rifle-type ammunition. Further, he also is finding it difficult to get supplies, such as primers and lead bullets, for those who reload their own cartridges instead of buying factory-made cartridges.

"Last week I called the largest distributor in the country and they laughed at me," Skartveit said. "They said they don't know when they'll get more in. They have 450 salesman in the country who don't have anything to sell. I have people wanting ammo for handguns and I can't get it for them." [...]

I'll bet there are some Democrats who want exploit the situation, by making ammo and ammo materials hard to obtain. If they can't take people's guns away, they will try to stop and/or control the ammo, with creepy things like "Encoded Ammunition" (Bullet and Cartridge Case Serialization).

There are many reasons to strenuously oppose this legislation:

[...] People would be required to forfeit all personally-owned non-encoded ammunition. After a certain date, it would be illegal to possess non-encoded ammunition. Gun owners possess hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition for target shooting, hunting and personal protection. Consider that American manufacturers produce 8 billion rounds each year.

Reloading (re-using cartridge cases multiple times) would be abolished. There would be no way to correspond serial numbers on cartridge cases, and different sets and quantities of bullets.

People would be required to separately register every box of "encoded ammunition." This information would be supplied to the police. Most states do not even require registration of guns. Each box of ammunition would have a unique serial number, thus a separate registration.

Private citizens would have to maintain records, if they sold ammunition to anyone, including family members or friends.

The cost of ammunition would soar, for police and private citizens alike. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturing Institute estimates it would take three weeks to produce ammunition currently produced in a single day. For reason of cost, manufacturers would produce only ultra-expensive encoded ammunition, which police would have to buy, just like everyone else.

A tax of five cents a round would be imposed on private citizens, not only upon initial sale, but every time the ammunition changes hands thereafter.

Shotgun ammunition cannot be engraved. Shotgun pellets are too small to be individually engraved. Shotgun cartridge cases are made of plastic, which would be difficult to engrave.

Criminals could beat the system. A large percentage of criminals' ammunition (and guns) is stolen. Criminals could also collect ammunition cases from shooting ranges, and reload them with molten lead bullets made without serial numbers. [...]

In so many ways, these new ammo laws are just another way of disarming private citizens:



No Bullets, No Shooting!.

In the last year, so-called “encoded” or “serialized” ammunition bills have been introduced in 13 states—Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Washington. Their goal: Destroy our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

All of these bills would prohibit the manufacture and sale of ammunition, unless the bullets and cartridge cases are marked with a code and registered to the owners in a computerized database. Most would also require gun owners to forfeit any non-coded ammunition they possess. For example, Arizonas bill says, “Beginning January 1, 2011, a private citizen or a retail vendor shall dispose of all noncoded ammunition that is owned or held by the citizen or vendor.” Tennessee’s says, “All non-coded ammunition . . . shall be disposed.” And in Pennsylvania, “An owner of ammunition . . . not encoded by the manufacturer . . . shall dispose of the ammunition.”

These bills include no compensation for the loss of millions of rounds of privately owned ammunition. But that’s not the point. Nor is the fact that ammunition encoding hasn’t been tested, let alone proven. Nor is the fact that criminals would easily figure out the numerous, obvious ways to beat ammunition registration.

The point of these bills is to prevent gun owners from having ammunition for defense, practice, sport and hunting. The fact that these bills are not gun bans is a mere technicality because, in practical terms, ammo bans are gun bans.

That isn’t the end of the anti-gunners’ attacks on ammunition in the current Congress and state legislative sessions. Ammunition bans are taking almost as many legislative and regulatory forms as there are types of ammunition to outlaw. [...]

The article goes on with a lot more details, about current legislation, and the people and history behind it all. This is a real fight, folks.


UPDATE 05/06/09:

The "un-sexy" Truth About the Ammo Shortage

The war over coded ammo is still on, for sure, but the actual causes of this current ammo shortage are actually rather mundane and easily explained.

Much thanks to the reader who sent me the link to the article I used in my update.
     

Oregon gun owners with concealed carry permits to be treated like sex offenders?

Uh oh. What happened to the understanding of "privacy"?

Targeting law-abiding gun owners again

Look at what they’re doing in Oregon to licensed concealed weapons owners (hat tip - Orbusmax)

[...] We live in a country where convicted illegal alien felons have more privacy rights than law-abiding gun owners. [...]

I intend to get a concealed carry permit, and I don't see why my address and personal information need to be made public to just anyone and everyone. Law abiding citizens who go through the training class and pay the permit fees should not be treated like criminals because of it.

I had an NRA membership years ago, but I let it lapse. Last week I signed up again. None too soon, apparently. I have a link to the NRA in the right sidebar if you want to check it out.
     

Crime, Knives & Muticulturalism in Great Britain

I always suspected that banning guns would lead to an increase in knife crimes. Well here's the proof. From A. Millar at the Brussels Journal:

Knife Crime; Britain’s Shame

Violent crime has doubled since Labour came to power a decade ago. Stabbings and assault in Britain are now common, if not daily occurrences; at night city centers are generally regarded as no-go areas; “feral” youths and gangs loitering the streets – often drunk on cheap alcohol – make many people too afraid to go for a walk on a summer evening.

Every week yields up plenty of reasons why people have good reason to be scared in modern Britain. On Saturday evening 60-year old Stan Dixon, a former soldier, was attacked by youths, for asking them not to swear in front of a woman. He died yesterday in hospital. 17 teenagers have been murdered in London alone this year. The latest victim, 16 year-old Ben Kinsella, was killed on Sunday night. On Tuesday Dee Willis, a 28 year-old woman, was stabbed to death by a female attacker in south-east London. Today, the country woke up to reports of the extremely brutal and apparently motiveless murder of two French exchange students, Laurent Bonomo and Gabriel Ferez (both 23). The two men had been playing computer games at Mr. Bonomo’s apartment in New Cross, south-east London, on Sunday night, when they were attacked, gagged, tortured (suffering nearly 250 stab wounds between them), and their bodies set on fire. [...]

The rest of the article talks about how the police are ineffective and no longer respected by the public, and the public's growing protest over these crimes. The full article also has many embedded links.

Another article at the Brussels Journal, by John Laughland, makes reference to a protest march in response to one of the recent stabbings, in the context that multiculturalism in Britain isn't working:

What Is a Nation?

[...] Immigrants are told that they must choose to conform or choose to leave, while Britons generally are told that their nation is constituted essentially by values. But has recent experience shown that, in fact, the inculcation of a single set of values cannot create cohesion in multiracial soceities?

My thoughts on these matters have been stimulated by recent photographs of a large crowd of youngsters demonstrating against the murder of their friend, Ben Kinsella, stabbed to death in the streets of London ten days ago. There has been an explosion of knife crime in London, which is itself partly the consequence of a rise in knife culture among principally black gangs, and partly of the catastrophic collapse in policing and in social cohesion generally. As in many Western societies, ordinary people in Britain no longer respect the police and the police themselves hardly invite it. In my street in London, everyone knew the local shopkeepers but no one knew the local policeman because they were never anywhere to be seen. When they tried to investigate petty crime (such as the theft of my bike, which they did only under intense pressure from me, exerted over a period of many months) they typically found that people they questioned refused even to give their name.

The photographs of the demonstration are remarkable for the fact that almost every youngster in it is white. This is a rare sight in London, especially in the East End where immigration is particularly high. It strongly suggests that decades of preaching about inter-racial tolerance have failed to make people in Britain unite across the racial divide. Now, it is obvious that a street demonstration by group of youngsters outraged and saddened by a senseless murder is not a nation. But since I absolutely rule out the possibility that this group of white people actively chose to exclude blacks from their public meeting, their unspoken choice – their instinct – to rally together reveals a good deal about the nature of human action. It reveals, in particular, that choice and forms of behaviour are, in fact, partly determined by ethnicity – very often without people being aware of it. [...]

I excerpted this portion as it relates to one of the recent knife crimes. Read the whole article if you wish to learn more about Britain's struggle with multiculturalism and immigrant assimilation.
     

Can political correctness destroy a nation?

Great Britain is a good contemporary example. For years, creeping political correctness has been making inroads there, much as it has here in the USA. But over the last several years it's gotten really ugly and scary.

From A. Millar at the Brussels Journal:

Forty Years On: Sleepwalking Toward the Tiber’s Edge

[...] History repeats itself, yes; but history does not repeat itself as we might expect. Today, we are obsessively fighting the last war. Everyone’s enemy is a “racist” and a “fascist.” These terms are invoked by the far-Left, Jack Straw, David Cameron, and even the B.N.P., to describe their opponents. Yet at the same time we see an extreme ideology spilling out from politics and becoming increasing absorbed by the judiciary, police, schools, local councils, etc., all against the common sense of the public. And we also see a rapidly expanding Islamic militancy, occasionally becoming linked to public figures such as Ken Livingstone, and, consequently, accepted by the public.

Free speech – which has been so horribly eroded in Britain – was meant to guard against extremism and the persecution of both individuals and larger groups because of the establishment of some dubious ideology. Today, it would appear, that prosecutions for hate speech are based not on what is said but who is speaking. Protests in support of al-Qaeda are deemed free speech, as is downloading terrorist material and discussing the validity and possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks. Similarly, as think tanks such as the Centre for Social Cohesion and CIVITAS have said, Britain’s governmental and judicial establishments have failed to tackle honor crime, with police, councils, and teachers afraid of being branded racist if they make any attempt.

[...]

Today we are faced with a “multiculturalism” that has eroded British culture and the constant drumbeat of racial “equality” that treats people not as human beings but mere racial blocks. As Rageh Omaar has said in an op-ed piece on Powell’s so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech for The Daily Mail, “Instead of multi-culturalism, we are getting tribalisation,”

[...}

We have reached a point, then, at which racially or culturally distinct ghettos – the unfortunate results of long-term multiculturalism – are mirrored at both lower and higher levels of government and party politics. Moreover, if some young Muslims are surfing the net, and finding inspiration in al-Qaeda and websites peddling Islamic radicalism, so too do we see a similar phenomenon at government level, with, for example, Livingstone now having gained the support of suicide bombing apologist Dr Azzam Tamimi – which he has not rejected. It is remarkable to think that not only Muslims, but Muslim extremists, are now playing an important, if not decisive, role in British politics. Yet, it is not difficult to imagine that Britain fifty years from now will have a political reality not entirely unlike that of Lebanon’s today. We must hope that it does not take the same sort of upheaval – such as Powell predicted for a multicultural Britain – to get there, but such a hope seems to be fading. Two thirds of the residents of Britain now believe immigration will lead to violence. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The article gives many examples of how even the mere accusation of "racism" is used with the force of law to stifle free speech and debate on a multitude of issues, at every level of society.

As "identity politics" grows stronger, so does political correctness and it's concomitant restrictions on free speech. When it dominates as a political force, assimilation stops, and "multiculturalism" becomes more like "tribalism", dividing people and destroying a unifying national identity. This weakens the people as a whole, and is the first step in conquering and controlling them.

Am I mistaken, or did this really start to get very bad in Britain in 1997, when they passed a law making private ownership of handguns illegal for citizens? Crime went up by two thirds, and everything else seemed to start going to shit real fast. If that ever happens in the USA, I believe it will be the beginning of the end.

An unarmed population is completely dependent on government for protection, and must live to serve the government, instead of the government existing to serve them. Read the whole article for the horrific details; there is a lesson in it for us all.


Related Links:

Political Correctness — The Revenge of Marxism

Did Tony Blair advance a "Culture of Lies"?

What is the Nature of Multiculturalism?

Our Culture, What’s Left Of It


About British gun laws:

England and Gun Control --- Moral Decline of an Empire

RESULTS ARE IN ON BRITISH GUN LAWS

Britain’s Gun-Control Folly
     

Guns, drugs and psychos

All-or-nothing solutions like banning guns or drugs don't work

The all or nothing crowd keeps insisting that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed and all guns banned.

As for the use of antidepressant drugs by so many mass-shooters, I see some people are saying it's wrong to criticize antidepressant drugs, because such drugs help so many people.

Both arguments are too extreme, by taking an all or nothing approach. A more thoughtful approach is needed, and the following two blog posts seem to understand this. Here are the links, with some excerpts:

Anti-depressant drugs and mass killers

[...] There's nothing wrong with most of these drugs. Anti-depressant drugs such as Prozac and Zoloft have helped millions of people cope with depression. They are useful tools when used for adults who do not have severe mental disorders but they are no good for kids with serious problems.

[...]

The only solution is to identify sociopaths at an early age when it becomes obvious that they are anti-social, write hideous blood-thirsty plays and poems and kill cats. At that point they need to be put on anti-psychotic drugs not anti-depressants and, if the anti-psychotics don't curb their sociopathic behavior, then they need to locked up in loony bins. [...]

I've seen the use of antidepressant drugs in every mass shooting case I've read about. To acknowledge that is not to criticize the use of antidepressants, but to acknowledge that perhaps they are being misused when prescribed to people with serious mental illness problems.

Quote of the Day: Cesare Beccaria

[...] Consider the shootings in Germany in 2002, or the shootings in Scotland in 1996. (I apologize for not mentioning the Osaka school massacre of 2001 that left eight dead, but that was performed with a knife.) Our international critics should inquire as to why schools are always attacked by predatory psychos, regardless of how strict the firearm regulations are, as opposed to, let us say, police departments. Do this nonsense in a shopping mall and you will find citizens firing back, which is why shopping mall slaughters are unheard of. Universities like Virginia Tech, ironically, are gun free zones. A lot of good that does.

Indeed. "Gun Free Zones" are hunting grounds for psychopathic predators. In our past history, such large mass shootings have not occurred. We didn't have "gun fee-zones" back then, and we let citizens arm themselves as the 2nd amendment allows for.

We also didn't dispense anti-depressant drugs like candy to disturbed young people. Young people are still learning about self control; many have anger issues. Teens have raging hormones and are often too immature to handle their feelings constructively. Add to that deep mental problems, and then give them antidepressant drugs that lift their inhibitions... it's a recipe for disaster.

But rather than banning antidepressants (or refusing to look at their roll in these shootings), we could focus more on identifying people with serious mental problems, and getting them the appropriate help.

Instead of taking guns away from law abiding citizens, couldn't more be done to keeps guns out of the hands of psychopaths? Yet precisely because no system would be able to eliminate every possibility of danger, citizens must retain the right to arm themselves.

Whether it's guns or antidepressants, it's not the objects themselves that cause the problems, but the context they are used in. The answers lie in deeper examination of causes and effects in those contexts, not giving in to the all or nothing demands of the short-sighted.


Update 04-22-07: Now there have been copy-cat shootings and inspired incidents. I know the media has a responsibility to report the news, but endless coverage and over-publicity of the killers who do these crimes can be a problem in of itself.



Various groups want to use shooting tragedies to advance numerous causes, but isn't it ultimately about identifying truly mentally disturbed people, and intervening BEFORE they go on a murderous rampage?




The guy was nuts; call it mental illness or call it evil, that is the bottom line. How we can recognize and contain such dangerous killers before they act, in an open and free society like ours? That is the real problem we have to solve.
     

Gun Control & antidepressant drugs = Massacres

Of course the V-Tech shootings are the main news topic today. And with this tragic story are more calls for gun control.

Neal Boortz has a post on Virginia Tech and Gun Control today that fills in some important gaps left out by the MSM:

This is undoubtedly the worst school shooting, high school, college or otherwise, in the history of our country. There are some facts, however, about some of these school shootings of which you probably are not aware. Do you know, for instance, that at least three shootings in high schools were stopped by civilians with guns? Civilians, not law enforcement. In one case a civilian was traveling past a school when he saw children running from the building. One told him that there was a student inside shooting people. The civilian pulled his gun, ran in side, and confronted the student. The student put down the gun and surrendered. In another case a high school vice-principal heard that there was a student in the hallways with a gun. He sprinted a half-mile to his car. He had a gun in his car so he had to park off campus. He then sprinted back with the gun to confront the student. Lives saved.

There have been many other cases where civilians with guns have prevented further carnage at the hands of killers. The media isn't fond of reporting these episodes because they don't contribute to the cause of gun control.

The point here is that you are never ever going to get the guns out of the hands of those who want to use them for carnage. Never. In all the years of press releases and statements from the Brady anti-gun organization there has never been one single gun control plan presented that would take the guns out of the hands of criminals. This is the oddity of gun control. Only law abiding people are going to abide by gun control laws. Criminals are not. The anti-gun lobby, and that includes much of the media, will never give any fair coverage at all to the people who use guns to save their own lives, or the lives of others.

(bold emphasis mine) When the MSM reports stories about citizens stopping criminals with guns, they often report that the gunman was "overpowered" or "restrained" by citizens - without mentioning those citizens had used guns.

People want more gun control laws thinking it's going to make them safe. But such laws can't and don't keep guns out of the hands of CRIMINALS.



Tammy Bruce, in chapter 5 of her book "The New American Revolution", examines gun control arguments in depth. Many of the arguments for gun control claim to be based on increasing the law-abiding publics survival odds against a maniac. Tammy said about that:

[...] This in and of itself acknowledges that not only do gun laws not keep the innocent safe, they do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Let's get real here - the only thing that would increase the survival odds for the law-abiding public is if they were able to shoot back at any maniac shooting at them. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) We saw a demonstration of that principle in action yesterday. If even only one of those citizens had been armed, dozens of people might still be alive today.

Murdering maniacs aren't exactly interested in being law-abiding, any more than criminals are. Removing OUR ability to protect ourselves does not make US safer.

Pat and I were talking about this at breakfast this morning, you can read more about his thoughts on the matter, which are much like my own, here: The massacre

Was shooter Cho Seung Hui pushed over
the edge by powerful antidepressant drugs?

Also not being mentioned enough by the media, is that in all the school shootings we hear about, the shooters had been on anti-depressant drugs, including the shooter yesterday. Our citizens have had guns for the past 200 years. It's only in more modern times that school shootings have become increasingly common. And a common factor in those shootings and other other mass shootings is antidepressant drugs. Does anyone think that is a mere coincidence? Instead of banning guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, shouldn't we be looking at the rampant prescribing of dangerous psychiatric drugs?


Related Links:

Breaking News updates at Hot Air

Why You Should Own a Gun

Prescription drugs are connected to school shootings and other violence, yet more drugs are touted as the solution
     

The Battle Continues for 2nd Amendment

Maynard at the Tammy Bruce Blog posted this a while back:

How the Left Plans to Take Your Guns

While dining out, he overhears a foghorn leftist justifying to her friend the confiscation of all guns from citizens. Among other things this woman claimed that collective rights usurp our individual rights. It has a kind of logic, yet Maynard points out how it's not even consistently applied:

[...] It's also worth noting the irony of how Leftists will interpret the Constitution very loosely when they want to invent a new "right", but they turn into super-strict constructionists when trying to control people they dislike. For example, where exactly do you find your Constitutional right to unrestricted access to abortions? Even those who favor a woman's right to choose (as I do) must acknowledge that the Constitutional argument is marginal. It's said to derive from the right to privacy, which also isn't enumerated, but is a generous interpretation of protection from unreasonable search and seizure (the Fourth Amendment). I heard Gloria Allred expalin that abortion rights were a product of the "Constitutional penumbra". I won't necessarily argue with that, but can't we have a little consistency here? Someone who finds meaning in the Constitution's penumbra ought to also respect the actual words. [...]

This is a popular tactic with the left, and the views Maynard overheard are worth noting since they are actively being used against all gun owning citizens to dilute the meaning and authority of the 2nd Amendment. It's worth reading the whole thing.


More recently, Maynard posted this:

The Second Amendment: Saved?

[...] In a 2-1 decision, a U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia has overturned the DC gun ban. The court ruled that the right to bear arms is "not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

In other words, in the opinion of this Court, the Second Amendment acknowledges YOUR right to be armed. You may think this is obvious and that any other opinion would have been a gross offence against common sense and decency. But, legally speaking, the question had been undecided.

This ruling does NOT end the issue. This is a regional court ruling. Only a Supreme Court ruling would settle the legal argument for the nation. [...]

Saved? No. It's a step in the right direction, but a future Supreme Court decision against gun owners could still be disastrous.





Related Links:

www.saveourguns.com

Second Amendment victory in D.C.

Crime Emergency in "Gun Free" Washington, DC