The right to defend ours and ourselves

Man’s quite right:

‘The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun,’ LaPierre said as he addressed a room of press.

Plus:

According to the BBC, Britain’s violent crime has spiked 40% in the 2 years proceeding your gun ban, DESPITE the fact that Britain authorities routinely under report crime statistics. Very similar circumstances occurred in Australia when the Aussies enacted a gun ban.

Absolutely.  If you look at the Make-People-Defenceless lot, it’s all placards, lots of noise and emotion and no hard stats or serious thought.   Stats consistently say it is better if a population is home-armed.  Aside from that, what is being suggested here is arming guards, not arming everyone in a shopping centre or school.

And the argument that Britain is safer without guns is so spurious and so unbacked up by stats that it’s not worth even answering.

28 Responses to “The right to defend ours and ourselves”

  1. banned December 21, 2012 at 21:57 Permalink

    Following the mass shooting in Cumbria (2010, 12 dead 11 injured) littile is said in the msm about the part played in its ending by the happy circumstance of the authorities being able to (illegally?) call upon the assistance of the ARMED Civil Nuclear Constabulary at nearby Winscale.

  2. Stephen Brown December 21, 2012 at 23:38 Permalink

    Here’s a paper, somewhat turgid in parts, which supports the concept of civilians being armed:-
    http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf
    The real statistics cannot be ignored; an armed population is safer than an unarmed population.

  3. Amfortas December 22, 2012 at 00:33 Permalink

    Even Jesus’s disciples carried side-arms.

  4. james wilson December 22, 2012 at 02:54 Permalink

    The Chi-coms just added their opinion to the mix and advised Obomber to disarm the public. Their motives are of course purely humanitarian.

    The purpose of the 2nd amemdment is unclear even to many conservatives. It is first and foremost to keep a little fear in the mind of government.

  5. James Strong December 22, 2012 at 06:15 Permalink

    Having armed guards at schools is not enough. It allows the bad guy with the gun to identify his first target.

    As well as having armed guards, staff members should be able to carry concealed firearms.

    All law-abiding citizens should be able to carry concealed firearms.

  6. James Higham December 22, 2012 at 06:28 Permalink

    So many people in this land have been conned into believing not only false stats from official sources but the narrative about gun control leading to a lowering of violence.

    Is it any wonder there is a strong feeling among many ordinary Brits that guns are “not the way we do things”. No – knives and glassing are and guns for the crims and police now who themselves are recruiting more and more of the thuggish type and putting them under Cressida Dick types.

    You’re not going to sell “guns for all” in Britain – not for a long while but shotguns in locked cabinets at home [current law for the registered] and for key people, e.g. trained staff in hospitals, schools, supermarkets, banks etc. is a way which might be initially accepted. And as JS says – it has to be many staff, not the immediately targetable.

    The notion of “crazed gunman kills the defenceless – quick, let’s make them even more defenceless” is sheer lunacy. The way the media is vilifying this NRA man says all you need to know about the media.

  7. Mark December 22, 2012 at 07:30 Permalink

    I’ve seen a few stats bandied about these recent days, every set that I have seen points out the far greater number of people killed, per head of population, in the usa than elsewhere. I am inclined to believe them, but I have not researched their sources.

    I would be interested to see the baseline stats for your claim, and your precise definition of ”better” in this context. For that matter, your definition of a ”good guy”, too.

    Merry Christmas!

  8. Amfortas December 22, 2012 at 07:58 Permalink

    A major problem with arming everyone is that every other one is (statistically) below average IQ. And I worry about some of those with higher than average too.

  9. Amfortas December 22, 2012 at 08:05 Permalink

    #Mark, stats apart, it is noticeable that whenever a shooting occurs, police with guns arrive. 100% of the time.

  10. JD December 22, 2012 at 09:20 Permalink

    proud man,
    Dress’d in a little brief authority,
    Most ignorant of what he’s most assur’d—
    His glassy essence—like an angry ape
    Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
    As makes the angels weep

  11. dearieme December 22, 2012 at 12:56 Permalink

    “in the 2 years proceeding your gun ban”: eh?

  12. Twilight December 22, 2012 at 16:58 Permalink

    I’m copying something from a blog I read (Cannonfire) – it’s an “open letter to the NRA…..” written by a friend of a friend of the blogger. Makes a lot of sense to me probably won’t over there – but worth a try:

    Open letter to the NRA and gun enthusiasts everywhere:

    Hi folks,

    Many of you think the world would be more peaceful and polite if everyone carried a sidearm and practiced vigilante justice, so here’s a few scenarios for you.

    1.) You’re walking down the street and you see someone in the distance being held up at gunpoint. Being a good citizen with your own pistol at hand, you draw it and prepare to issue a challenge to the attacker. Unfortunately, someone you hadn’t noticed has just come out of a nearby doorway, has not noticed the holdup down the street, and sees you draw your gun – clearly up to no good – and pulls his out (everyone is a good citizen and well armed, remember?) and blows you away. Criminal finishes the business at hand in the ensuing commotion and gets away.

    2.) All of the above happens except that no one stops you in your heroic duty. You announce your intentions to the criminal and he engages you in a firefight. Since very few humans are crack shots with a pistol, no matter how much they practice, the first few bullets fly past both of you. Maybe you get him. Maybe he gets you. But oops, one or two people who weren’t able to get out of the line of fire in time get mortally wounded or killed outright. Shit happens.

    3.) Same scenario as #2 but you don’t want this scumbag to get away so you move in as close as possible without saying anything (there are of course no law enforcement standards or practices for citizens doing their civic duty) and blow a large hole in the back of the guy’s head. He’s down and you feel great. The citizen you just assisted picks up the firearm he was forced to discard, shoots you through the chest and says, “Thanks, I was going to hold that guy up and take his wallet, but he drew on me first!” Oops, I guess not being clairvoyant will be a drawback in such a “society.”

    Yours is a gallant and sober society, right? Hell no! People drink, take drugs and argue and drive however they want, because they’re FREE, dammit! And since they love their guns, they have them in every situation: when they’re in a hurry and have to cut through a bunch of others to get where they’re going on time (POW, POW); when they’re drunk and get in someone’s face (POW, POW); when they get dumped by their girlfriend, or fired, or cheated on (POW, POW, POW, POW, POW).

    You can argue home and public protection all you want. My response is, “NO, FUCK YOU AND YOUR SUPPOSED RIGHTS. I DON’T TRUST YOU OR ANYONE ELSE WITH A GUN.”

    If you are worried about criminals, then do your part to prevent them from coming into being. Don’t raise them. Don’t ignore your kids or only teach them fear and paranoia. Volunteer for or donate to a youth group. Don’t bully, denigrate, or piss people off because it makes you feel superior. Don’t engage in the kind of behavior that causes other people to feel wronged.

    AMEN!

  13. James Higham December 22, 2012 at 18:24 Permalink

    If you are worried about criminals, then do your part to prevent them from coming into being.

    What a remarkably naive and silly statement [that man, not you, Twilight] and this is the problem with the left – no understanding of cause and effect – just ideals which cannot be.

    When some maniac is coming at your kids, you’ll want to know there is enough coercive force there to neutralize him. And that is the bottom line. None of this emotive language, none of this rhetoric – just taking sensible measures to prevent this happening again and keeping the children alive.

    This cannon whatever might want to have another massacre but sane people do not and there need to be armed guards in critical places. wishful thinking and saying F*** you to the sane just ain’t gonna do it, my friend.

  14. James Higham December 22, 2012 at 18:47 Permalink

    Thanks, m’lud. I hope Twilight and this Cannon person read it but I would lay odds they won’t.

  15. BobG December 22, 2012 at 20:35 Permalink

    Mark, you may want to look at this post:

    http://extranosalley.com/?p=36760

    The US only looks violent to those who only count crimes with firearms; our overall record isn’t that bad.
    The majority of the firearms crimes are committed by gangs and drug dealers shooting each other, not average citizens.

  16. Twilight December 22, 2012 at 20:41 Permalink

    Youre correct, James – Twilight will not read through that piece simply because I’ve read so much of right-wing point of view that I now become nauseous after the first few paragraphs.

    I got as far as “the same old tired stuff, trotted out every single time there is a tragedy on the news that can be milked….. and knew where it was going. I could say exactly the same thing about the writer’s point of view.

    This is yet another issue where “ne’er the twain shall meet”. But I do think it’s a good thing to have the other side’s point at least represented , even if shouted down.

  17. Wolfie December 22, 2012 at 21:06 Permalink

    Crime isn’t increasing because we don’t have weapons, it’s increasing because :

    1) Criminals serve shorter sentences and are not executed.
    2) The mentally ill are cared for in the community with drugs that don’t work.
    3) Children are given drugs to “cure” their alienation from the cult of average.
    4) We import criminals with an open door immigration policy.
    5) The underclass are being paid to breed at the expense of the middle-class.

  18. James Higham December 22, 2012 at 21:57 Permalink

    Twilight, it is not “rightwing” or “leftwing”. It is common sense. It is written sincerely [the piece Lord Somber links to]. It is trying to get people to think logically. I and readers read the piece you put up and this other. You won’t even look at the other. How is that rational?

    Wolfie, that’s right and something JD wrote tonight was also to the point but that will have to wait – I’m off to bed.

  19. CherryPie December 22, 2012 at 23:16 Permalink

    It is a sad indictment to man that weapons are needed and or used.

    Man is supposed to be civilized and intelligent!

    And in response to Wolfie it is the most ‘educated’ upper class that has allowed that to happen!! They are detached from reality.

  20. Wolfie December 23, 2012 at 19:44 Permalink

    CherryPie,

    I was under the impression that the upper classes lost control shortly after the end of the second world war. If they really had any meaningful control left do you suppose we would still have a fox hunting ban in place?

    Its a neoliberal world now.

  21. CherryPie December 23, 2012 at 22:29 Permalink

    Wolfie,

    I think perhaps our thoughts are not quite in tune because I probably didn’t explain what I meant properly.

    By saying that the upper class have allowed this to happen, I was meaning our politicians (from any party). Born into money, went to university and then into politics. No experience of the real world and how it works…

    In relation to this and other threads and posts here in the past couple of days I would add that in my opinion there are four classes; upper class, middle class, working class and scroungers (those that have no intention of working and live off what the claim they are entitled to).

    The fox hunting ban is quite a different issue to discuss.

  22. Don QuiScottie December 23, 2012 at 22:50 Permalink

    “Man is supposed to be civilized and intelligent!”

    Supposed to be?

    Supposed by whom? Or intended by whom? We are what we are. I am not sure what you mean by “is supposed to be”.

    There are some civilised things, some intelligent things, much that is uncivilised and stupid.

    As I say, we are what we are, and much of it is not at all civilised or intelligent.

    And anyway, even on a blog such as this (or pretty much any other one) people can’t agree on what is intelligent and what is stupid, frequently calling out others and their thoughts as stupid while claiming themselves and their thoughts to be intelligent. We use the words but cannot agree on their meaning.

    As for civilised, just ask a group of supposedly intelligent people their views on the issues of abortion (or guns, to return to topic) and you’ll find diametrically opposing views on what is civilised behaviour.

  23. CherryPie December 23, 2012 at 23:02 Permalink

    Supposed to be?

    Man (non PC term) claims he is intelligent…

  24. JD December 23, 2012 at 23:45 Permalink

    and scroungers (those that have no intention of working and live off what they claim they are entitled to).

    I hope you are including all those who get money for wind turbines; the PM’s father in law for example :)

  25. CherryPie December 23, 2012 at 23:50 Permalink

    The term scroungers speaks for itself ;-)

  26. Don QuiScottie December 24, 2012 at 01:50 Permalink

    “and scroungers (those that have no intention of working and live off what they claim they are entitled to).”

    Ah yes, the minor Royals, the inheritors of grand estates, and the spoilt children of the very rich

  27. James Higham December 24, 2012 at 05:46 Permalink

    And in response to Wolfie it is the most ‘educated’ upper class that has allowed that to happen!! They are detached from reality.

    What we have here is a micro-version of the nationwide, nay global dispute at this time. Essentially it is the argument of the Old Right versus the Old Left – in this case, one versus many, which adds weight to Wolfie’s contention about a neo-liberal world.

    This turned into an unintended post so I’ll stop here and continue in the 06:00 post.

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string 9WsmRo to the field below: