Guns

1200491238_guns-german-ww2-01Predictably, the politicians have seized the opportunity [entirely coincidentally?] to argue for even more stringent gun laws, when the solution is the diametric opposite.

There is not and never has been statistical evidence that violent crime went down when guns were restricted – quite the opposite in fact, as Joe Huffman could point out and has done, ad tedium.

For a start, you don’t eliminate guns that way – you drive them underground and the criminals have the best choice first.  You then leave the population at the mercy of the crims, especially with this ludicrous “you are the crim if you defend your home and family” abomination.

You also place yourselves at the mercy of the police who were once your friend but are now a control mechanism for the totalitarian push currently going on in society.

So the answer is to free up gun control, in order to cut back on violent crime.

39 comments for “Guns

  1. MadPiper
    June 3, 2010 at 17:50

    The heart of the matter is whether or not an individual has a right to his life and is allowed to protect himself, his family, his property, his neighbors. A gun/knife/bat/rock is merely a force multiplier to deter or stop the wicked.

    As the old saying goes: “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!”. Assuming you can spare the time to call and they can be bothered to respond.

  2. ubermouth
    June 3, 2010 at 18:27

    Canada has more guns per capita [although hunting rifles] than America,yet they have a far lower gun crime rate. Guns are not the issue, but what is usually at the heart of most crime- poverty,which in the western world is a crime in itself.

    Th root cause of crime needs to be addressed not the weapons of the disenfranchised.

    Go on ..call me a socialist now. 🙂

  3. james wilson
    June 3, 2010 at 18:37

    Like a school of fish, a socialist citizenry would rather take their turn at the perimeter of danger than take responsibility for their own lives and safety. In this way, no one can judge or measure them against another. That is what they really fear.

  4. June 3, 2010 at 19:10

    “what is usually at the heart of most crime- poverty,which in the western world is a crime in itself.”

    At the heart of most crime is a small group of criminals, who the so-called justice system refuses to punish effectively punish, and an intellectual elite which has spent the last century deriding the Rule of Law and the concept of individual responsibility.

  5. June 3, 2010 at 19:11

    pardon my typo.

  6. WitteringsfromWitney
    June 3, 2010 at 19:34

    Perhaps the obvious solution to the problem is shoot the politicians and let the people rule!

  7. ubermouth
    June 3, 2010 at 19:47

    Are you kidding me Trooper? What a narrow minded and short sighted,oversimplification of a multi-factedcomplex social problem.
    Under the right circumstances everyone could be driven to crime.And they are not ‘criminals’ until after the act. I was looking at what motivated the act.

  8. MTG
    June 3, 2010 at 20:27

    Guns are instruments of evil and no gun served real justice or honourable purpose; not even for food.

    I abhor guns. I detest the ghouls who derive pleasure from them and despair at generations of Mothers who have did nothing to banish these bloody tools from the Earth.

    • October 5, 2015 at 15:30

      You start off by making an amazing statement that is beautiful in simplicity and truth.. In 5 words: “guns are instruments are evil”, all the answers to the gun debate can be summed up and answered. The answer has been completely missed by yourself, and ironically makes everything you wrote after those first five words, completely wrong. Guns are INSTRUMENTS. It is EVIL itself that is the enemy of humanity, not GUNS that are simply a vessel that evil uses, among countless other more powerful vessels like.. WORDS. Free speech and the spreading of ideas have been at the root of almost all evil committed throughout history. Yet it is never demonized for the countless bloodshed caused as a result. Why? Because we all understand it’s not the spreading of ideas that is evil, its evil ideas that are evil! And just like the only instrument that can defeat evil ideas are opposing good ideas; the only instrument that can defeat an evil person with a gun is a good person with a gun!

  9. QM
    June 3, 2010 at 20:48

    Ah the usual bleating of the “Righteous” from MTG.

    Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, if they didn’t have guns, they’d find some other way. Those denied guns are prey to those who have them, in the UK that means the police and criminals.

  10. MadPiper
    June 3, 2010 at 20:54

    MTG – very strong feelings indeed. All of man and Gods creations can be used for evil or for goodness, justice, and honourable purpose. Were the bow, sword, sling, and knife always used for evil and never for defense or food?

    Detestedly yours,

    MadPiper the Ghoul

  11. MTG
    June 3, 2010 at 21:30

    Bah, I should have known this subject would be a magnet for the intelligentsia.

  12. June 3, 2010 at 21:39

    “Guns are not the issue, but what is usually at the heart of most crime- poverty,which in the western world is a crime in itself.”

    I don’t know enough to speak for the UK, but here in the US poverty is not really the cause of crime. Poor people don’t usually commit crimes, they’re too busy working two jobs to get by. If you look at most of the criminals, they fall into categories:

    1. Junkies
    2. Sociopaths
    3. Psychopaths
    4. Greedy people

    Junkies cannot hold down a job, so they turn to crime to feed their habit.
    Sociopaths turn violent easily, even when the occasion does not call for violence.
    Psychopaths can commit crimes just because they want to; look at some of the killing sprees by crazies.
    Most thieves steal things that they don’t need, just because they don’t want to work for them. You don’t hear about people shoplifting food, or burglarizing household items; they steal things like jewelry, stereos, and other luxury items.
    Just my opinion.

  13. June 3, 2010 at 21:50

    I agree with you Bob.

  14. June 3, 2010 at 21:58

    Wow – I go away for an hour or two and come back to this. I think it sums up the arguments.

  15. WitteringsfromWitney
    June 3, 2010 at 22:00

    “Wow – I go away etc” – that will teach you to ‘shoot your mouth off’!

    Seriously, good post James and fully deserves the number of comments!

  16. james wilson
    June 3, 2010 at 22:14

    “Under the right circumstances everyone could be driven to crime.” Either this is the thought of someone who is projecting, or of intuitive powers beyong my ambitions.

    I have known numerous people who were in desperate circumstances and yet the idea of crime seemed to never occur to them, much less did they ever commit one; and perhaps an equal number who would commit petty crime because the opportunity presented itself. I’ve known a couple who just plain loved ripping off and getting one over, and there’s a lot more where they came from.

  17. JD
    June 3, 2010 at 22:29

    “poverty causes crime”
    well that would explain Bernie Madoff then would it?

    “guns don’t kill people etc. etc…”
    but that is what they are for – not much else you can do with them is there…

  18. June 3, 2010 at 22:39

    Hard to refute. I think my position is closest to:

    The heart of the matter is whether or not an individual has a right to his life and is allowed to protect himself, his family, his property, his neighbors.

  19. June 3, 2010 at 23:13

    ““guns don’t kill people etc. etc…”
    but that is what they are for – not much else you can do with them is there…”

    That’s only one use. I own several each of shotguns, rifles, and handguns; probably a total of about two dozen firearms.
    I’ve never killed anyone with any of them, but I have taken a fair share of game for the table with them, and I have spent countless hours shooting at targets, much like some other people would spend the time playing golf. Some are strictly for hunting, some for defense others are for defense and hunting.

  20. June 3, 2010 at 23:21

    We had a helicopter near us today. Obviously he was using technological wizardry to spy on us so it was a great temptation to give him a burst of ak-ak fire amidships.

    Sadly, I had no ak-ak gun at hand.

  21. ubermouth
    June 3, 2010 at 23:21

    No. Poverty breeds crime in ALL societies. Some people are never pushed to their personal limit or are never poor enough to consider crime.

    For all the people who disagree with me,yet will state that people should have the rights to bear arms to protect them and theirs….think this…..even if they do killed a burglar they commited an unlawful act,a crime. It’s simply that self defense laws will overlook that crime,but it is still a crime, there is still a dead body and it only proves my point that people can be pushed to act in a criminal manner and poverty breeds crime.

    The burglar woud not steal goods if he could afford them. The homeowner would no have needeed o act in self defense. TWO victims of poverty induced crime.

    Rich junkies go to rehab, poor junkies go to the streets.Psychopaths usually come from abusive, fractured, one parent,poverty stricken homes.

    Yes there are some people who are just greedy and not everybody falls into the category, but largely poverty breeds crime. Morals are a luxury not all can afford.

  22. June 3, 2010 at 23:43

    @Uber

    No. Poverty breeds crime in ALL societies.

    I am still not convinced by that statement.

    Through the campaigns I get involved with I have met many people who in the 70’s and 80’s were extremely poor. They didn’t take to the streets, they worked all hours of the day and night to try and make ends meet. They had no time for anything else.

    Rather than steal off someone else they would rather strike and lose pay in order to improve their lot.

    It is only people without morals that would take to crime as a matter of course.

    Just some observations from my experiences.

  23. james wilson
    June 3, 2010 at 23:50

    The socialist mind, incapable of visualizing personal responsibility, breeds vastly greater pools of irresponsibility. The poor of our century are far longer lived and wealthy than the middle class of one century ago. In an era of ever greater wealth, we continue to buy ever greater poverty.It’s a very old story.
    Montaigne–
    The wont of goods are easily repaired, but the poverty of the soul is not. It is not wont, but abundance, which creates avarice.
    There is sublime thieving in giving. The poor have no defenses against that.

  24. ubermouth
    June 4, 2010 at 02:03

    I am not suggesting Cherie that all poor people become criminals. Nor am I saying James W that there is no personal accountability.
    The poverty I am talking about also breeds he oher elements discussed here because thy are the poor who are usually least educated, have the least opportunities to get out of poverty[which is no even amongst men] and frustrated overburdened parents who are oftentimes lacking in parenting skills to adequately parent. When the child of the ghetto looks around and sees pretty much everyone he knows in this situation[as we ghettoize people which in itslf is a huge mistake] hope for a better way of life or a fair shake even escapes him so he reverts to what is base human nature under the right[wrong] conditions;getting it the only way he knows how…crime, prostitution etc.

    Instead of funding their prison stays when they have already further lessened thir chances of geting ahead, we need to reach them before they slide down the slippery slope of what poverty and all it’s ramificaions breeds.

    No happy, well adjusted person with opportunity decides to toss their life away on drugs, or prostitute or risk life and liberty for a ‘glamourous’ life of crime.

    That’s not a ‘socialist’ stance but a realisic view of poverty and crime. Anyone who could even refute this and simply label such people as degenirates needs to open their eyes to how the world works.

    And there but for the grace of God go I…

  25. June 4, 2010 at 02:23

    If intruders knew they stood the risk of being shot when they enter someone’s home unlawfully, there would be fewer intruders and, as for the thieves who are already armed, they are already more likely to shoot you whether you are armed or not. As far as I’m concerned, they leave their “human rights” outside my home.

  26. james wilson
    June 4, 2010 at 02:26

    “No happy, well adjusted person with opportunity decides to toss their life away on drugs, or prostitute or risk life and liberty for a ‘glamourous’ life of crime.”
    It is impossible to address a question which is mutilated with each retelling. The people you have created, under your rules, for four generations, would be unrecognizable to all classes of people eighty years ago. And it is clear you are by no means done.
    So long as we need to control other people, however benign we believe our motives, we are captive to that need. As Deogowulf has so well said, to help people until they can no longer help themselves is not a kind of redemption, but a kind of enthrallment.

  27. June 4, 2010 at 05:42

    There are two issues being conflated here – guns and roses – no, guns and poverty. The two do not necessarily go together but can at times, with some people, under provocation.

    I’m going to take the poverty issue and start a new thread this morning.

    As for guns themselves, the freeing of the gun laws to incorporate home defence does not start killing sprees. The facts do not support that, where there has been an established culture of normality, i.e. where the state has not interfered in people’s relations. It is ridiculous to say that gun control lessens crime – no, it simply lets the crims act with impunity.

    However, having said that, we do not have a normal society now – we have a very sick society with an underculture of youth violence not in the least predicated on poverty – in the UK, no one has no food to put in the mouth unless he has not availed himself of benefits and/or has a drink/drugs problem or has lost his marbles or is foreign and doesn’t meet the extremely liberal criteria.

    There is a safety net but the problem is that it is costing billions and is being ripped off. The money has run out now and many people are about to be dropped off benefits, just as the second financial crash comes. It will be 30s soup kitchens again.

    A second factor is that the state has quite nakedly shown it is our enemy,with increasingly draconian personal laws, emanating, not only from the EU but from the global push, via the scum of Europe Churchill referred to plus their global counterparts – they are the ones pushing hard for the new destitution, from where they can control society.

    In this very abnormal societal model, guns will actually be used and the government knows who will be some of the targets. So it is never going to be a case of the government giving back the right to bear arms.

    Now, in the US, it is constitutionally guaranteed but the governments have trodden over that right. They fear the people more than in the UK, where the people have a history of buckling under to pressure and being kept in line.

    The issue is going to explode, methinks, when the first politician is lynched or otherwise executed and that’s the point when the state’s grandiose plans for control will unravel.

  28. MTG
    June 4, 2010 at 07:48

    I certainly rattled Quiet Man on Raedwald during his loud support for murderous gun use by the Israelis.

    The mask, (avatar at his insistence) will countenance no criticism of crimes by his people.

  29. June 4, 2010 at 10:50

    Wow. You have a few hot topics going here James. Only one missing today is on homosexuals.

    Get to it….

    In the meantime whingy whiney socialists, maxists, pond scum, forget that their way has led us to where we are now. In the past our society had guns, queers were queers, women were women and poverty existed.

    We developed and progressed due to capitalism. As we became wealthier people with good intentwe started to share more until someone came along and said, these people are not sharing, we should make everyone share via taxation and makeit fair for all. LOL. Thus people who were just keeping their heads above water were suddenly being made to pay for others some better off than them. Of course it doesn’t work as intended so more needs to be done and it keeps on till we are in the situation we are in now and we are bankrupt. (or would be if we were a business or a person)

    The whingy whiney people have had their chance and, as usual, screwed it up, we need to fix it as only we can. This means putting people in jail and if the use the word poverty as an excuse we add another 5 years.

    In the meantime give us our guns to defend ourselves from this fat, lazy ‘poverty’ ridden rabble. Oh, and the UK government.

  30. JD
    June 4, 2010 at 11:47

    @BobG

    do not misunderstand me, I agree with your views on hunting and the shooting of game for the table.
    The point is that if you or I were to come face to face with a gunman our innate humanity would cause us to hesitate before pulling the trigger which makes possession of a handgun pointless.

    Neil Innes tells a story of when the Bonzo Dog Band were touring the USA by car and the Police asked how they would defend themselves without having any guns. Viv Stanshall replied “With good manners!”
    I suppose that relates to the saying that ‘an armed society is a polite society’

  31. June 4, 2010 at 12:18

    @JD

    You are correct about one thing
    ‘our innate humanity would cause us to hesitate before pulling the trigger’

    I would imagine any normal human would hesitate. But I can assure you that the trigger would be pulled if the circumstances warranted it. Even the one in your own hand,

    In the meantime can you guys get your act together. I can’t have guns because I would turn into a crazed killer by touching one and now i can’t have them because I wouldn’t use them anyway.

  32. June 4, 2010 at 18:35

    “The point is that if you or I were to come face to face with a gunman our innate humanity would cause us to hesitate before pulling the trigger which makes possession of a handgun pointless.”

    Speak for yourself; have you ever faced someone who was armed with a deadly weapon? I have, though it was a knife rather than a firearm. I was unarmed and only 17, but did not hesitate to react, and would have had no compunctions about killing the person if it had been necessary. As it was, I left him with a concussion and a dislocated knee (he probably still walks with a limp). If faced with death, you do what you have to do, otherwise you are injured or killed.

  33. June 4, 2010 at 18:44

    Good for you, Bob.

  34. June 4, 2010 at 19:53

    I turn my back and a big row blows up! Is it too late to respond to:

    “Are you kidding me Trooper? What a narrow minded and short sighted,oversimplification of a multi-factedcomplex social problem.”

    Of course it’s complex, I didn’t expect my comment to be the last word on the issue of crime and punishment. Nevertheless I stand by what I said.

    “Under the right circumstances everyone could be driven to crime.”

    You can’t prove or disprove that. In any case, it makes no difference.

    “And they are not ‘criminals’ until after the act. I was looking at what motivated the act.”

    You can look at what motivates the act if you like, I’d rather punish the bastards, teach them a lesson and give an example to others not to do the same thing. We’re not short of psychologists writing papers on the subject. We’re short of justice.

    In any case, you talk about poverty and get all misty-eyed about the unfortunate criminals, when it is poor people who suffer most at the hands of criminals. If you really cared about poverty, you’d want to protect poor people from the evil bastards who prey upon them.

  35. MTG
    June 4, 2010 at 20:26

    @ Trooper Thompson
    “I didn’t expect my comment to be the last word on the issue of crime and punishment.”

    Oh, yet another disappointment for us. What a popular disaster this thread has been!

  36. June 4, 2010 at 23:28

    @Trooper Thompson

    If you really cared about poverty, you’d want to protect poor people from the evil bastards who prey upon them.

    I agree, that is part of where I was going with my comments.

  37. james wilson
    June 5, 2010 at 00:40

    “Are you kidding me Trooper? What a narrow minded and short sighted,oversimplification of a multi-faceted complex social problem.”

    Multi-faceted complex social problems are grown by people with too much time on their hands and the governments they elect. These solutions lead to even greater dysfunction which require ever expanding solutions, when the only solution is a simple one indeed.
    Problems are never solved at the same level of awareness that caused them. We should not be surprised to find the Left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive. Their victims would have more reason for hope were they in chains. Then they would understand who the enemy was.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *