The Bansturbators are back in town.
Licking their lips and salivating over images of grieving Mothers and frightened children. More than 10,000 people were shot dead in the America last year – but 26, in one place, not just children, but infants even, oh and a suicide thrown in as well, let’s call it 27 – it’s Bansturbator heaven, to say nothing of Sky heaven. As unedifying as it is to watch Sky using these images of human emotion to fill their allotted time, listening to the inevitable ‘gun control’ lobby crawling out of their lairs and declaring ‘that something must be done, can we have a new law please’ is just as mortifying.
What is it about grief and death that makes the media and single issue lobbyists feel so free to exploit it for their own ends? We have had unending coverage of Jacintha Saldanha’s death, the high-profile MPs hugging her children, the Roman Catholic absolutionists out in their best party frocks announcing that she will have a memorial service in Westminster Cathedral, everybody milking the death of one nurse for their own ends. Was she the only nurse to die that week, the only Indian? The only person to be the victim of humiliation, the only person to take their life? Is it not sufficient that we are merely told the facts (and the facts would make a pleasant change from the speculation)?
Jacintha will be all but forgotten on the airwaves this week, for now we have new keywords driving the media agenda – Gun Control, 2nd Amendment, Right to Bear Arms, Newtown. Something like another 175 people will be shot dead in the US this week, but we shall hear nothing of them. Their local garage owner will not be phoned up by desperate researchers and invited to tell the world of his ‘feelings’ on hearing of the death of someone he never knew, never met; political lobbyists will be allowed to lay out their wares on multiple channels; Mothers will be encouraged to weep their grief for the world at large.
Many people have tried to explain to me the logic of ‘good killings’ and ‘bad killings’. I think I’ve got the terminology right now – Saddam Hussein killing tens of thousands of his own people was ‘bad killing’; a terrible thing, something that could only be put right by the Allied forces killing hundreds of thousands of the same people – these were ‘good killings’ – so much for the terminology, but the logic still defeats me; does the death feel any better if it is via ‘good killing’? You will just have to put me down as ‘not in favour’ of killing or the various methods used to achieve it.
I try to apply this terminology and logic to the gun control argument. Guns have been invented. A regrettable event, but one we are stuck with. There wouldn’t be an America if they hadn’t – the Bible alone wouldn’t have been much use against the bows and arrows of the Indians. So in a country which only exists by virtue of the use of the gun against people going about their legitimate business, the abolitionists now wish to denude the law-abiding of their weapons and leave the means of killing people solely in the hands of the criminals and/or law enforcement officers? Is there some guarantee that criminals and law enforcement officers aren’t subject to the same pressures, incitement, mental derangement, desire for fame or revenge, that those who perpetuate these schoolyard killings are afflicted by?
There are many countries in the world where all citizens have the ability to buy firearms; I live in one myself – France. Same sort of guns, same sort of bullets. They don’t take the opportunity to mass kill the contents of their local school. I used to live in another country where not even the police automatically have the right to carry guns – the UK. Yet we had the Dunblane and Hungerford mass killings. So not having the right to bear arms doesn’t rule out mass killings; having the right to bear arms doesn’t necessarily lead to mass killings.
Which leads me to believe that there must be some force at large in America, besides the ‘right to bear arms’, which creates the conditions in which these mass killings arise. Could it be, oh whisper it quietly, could it be the influence of the media? Not just the news media, but the influence of Hollywood, the constant glorification of killing, the video games; the knowledge that you too can ‘go out’ in a blaze of glory if you just manage to shoot more people, or someone even more famous, than the last guy?
Which brings me back to Jacintha. Are there not guidelines on the reporting of suicide by the media? Is there not a danger in the raising of this sad death to celebrity status rivalling the death of Princess Diana, that might tempt some overworked, underpaid and harassed nurse at Christmas time, traditionally a time when depression rears its head for too many, to think that a memorial service at Westminster Cathedral, the great and the good weeping over your death, and the citizens of the UK rushing to donate funds to your family might actually be preferable to making the best of the left over turkey for an ungrateful family and heading off in the cold for yet another night of emptying bedpans?
Oh for the days when we just had quiet, factual accounts of news delivered over the radio by a man in evening dress, instead of the insane ramblings of a half drunk garage owner who had no connection with the news beyond what he had heard on his radio…or Keith Vaz grandstanding.
December 18, 2012 at 09:39
-
Some years ago I had some responsibility for an industrial site in RSA
where we did not permit personal arms to be brought on to site. (company
policy was however that we should have arms in case of unrest) Staff brought
between 30 and 120 firearms to work daily, mostly revolvers and automatic
pistols. We provided gun safes on site.
To see a young woman take a
powerful handgun from her bag on entering work is quite disturbing.
I think
it’ll take a long time to change attitudes.
- December 18, 2012 at 13:43
-
XX To see a young woman take a powerful handgun from her bag on entering
work is quite disturbing.XX
Really?…… Tell more…. Ooooohhhh!
- December 18, 2012 at 18:14
-
Sensible woman, the crime statistics in South Africa are horrendous.
- December 18, 2012 at 19:06
-
I suspect I might also be armed if resident now.
This was in the
’80′s when Black on White violence was uncommon away from the borders. The
point I was making is that the casual acceptance of the day to day
availability and visible carrying of lethal weapons as normal is something
we are just not used to. We shouldn’t underestimate the difficulty of
changing people’s attitudes elsewhere.
During a strike and a bit of
excitement at the factory gate, one of my people tapped me on the shoulder
and said ‘don’t worry Mnr, any trouble I’ve got this’, and produced the
largest and longest barrelled revolver I’ve ever seen.
I’d already been
very careful about giving out the pickhandles and radios.
-
December 18, 2012 at 22:00
-
People seem to have forgotten Peel’s exhortation:
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public
that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the
public and the public are the police; the police being only members of
the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are
incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and
existence.
We are all responsible for our own safety. Your colleagues understood
that even in the 80′s.
- December 19, 2012 at
15:12
-
XX produced the largest and longest barrelled revolver I’ve ever
seen. XX
Toll! But it is, after all, only six shgots.
You have an intent crowd, they will push the sheep foreward and wait
until you have to reload.
Haoiness is a belt fed weapon!
- December 18, 2012 at 01:26
-
In response to Furor Teutonicus on December 17, 2012 at 14:26. I have a
link for you, the US does NOT have the highest murder rate Sir, according to
population numbers…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/10/world-murder-rate-unodc
US United States of America 15,241 5% 2009 National police
BTW Anna Raccoon, I love your blog!!
- December 18, 2012 at 04:14
-
Thank you-it is not even close is it?
- December 18, 2012 at 13:05
-
If anything, I was quoting. But… I can not find the post….has it been
removed?
I am 99,99999% convinced that I did not say that, and NEVER would.
IF you can prove different….
- December 18, 2012 at
13:33
-
I am not trying to wriggle out, I am just interested WHERE the post has
gone to……
-
December 18, 2012 at 15:21
-
It may not have the highest murder rate, but it clearly has a kind of
‘Third World’ profile looking at that map.
People who actually think that
arming teachers would solve school shootings are a little bit crazy and we
shouldn’t be afraid of saying so. Having a libertarian attachment to lack of
gun control is one thing, being willing to sacrifice small children to
assault weapons in order to maintain purity of the faith is quite
another.
-
December 18, 2012 at 18:09
-
“willing to sacrifice small children to assault weapons”………The standard
of English usage at the BBC has certainly deteriorated in recent times, I
did not realise quite how drastic it was. Perhaps you can expand on the
sacrificial rites at Newtown and how frequently the gods require these
sacrifices.
As to the third world profile, perhaps the progressives might wish to
analyze the statistics and determine the section of the population
responsible for the majority of shootings and propose a policy to reduce
the mayhem. Let me make it easy for you, the Wall Street Journal
researched this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577496501048197464.html
I
look forward to hearing a proposed resolution.
- December 18, 2012 at 23:32
-
Nice sidestep there. I am talking specifically about spree shootings,
and particularly about assault weapons. If you have anything sensible to
say about that, and why it is legitimate for civilians not in a war zone
to own them, do please spill.
- December 18, 2012 at 23:35
-
And what on earth is the point of giving a link to articles behind
a paywall?
-
December 19, 2012 at 01:01
-
No sidestep, my dancing skills are notoriously bad, and if you
adjusted your spectacles, you would see I have had plenty to say about
the subject-perhaps too much! Some of it might even align with your
thoughts.
In this instance I was attracted to misuse of the word sacrifice, a
well-worn tactic for progressives.
Also, I see no reference to assault weapons or spree shooting in
your original comment, only murder rates, third world profile, and
arming teachers.
-
December 19, 2012 at 01:03
-
No paywall from where I accessed it, that’s unfortunate because it
was a well-documented article.
- December 17, 2012 at 19:32
-
* something like 50% of households have guns *
“Male gun ownership peaked in 1990, with 52.4 percent of U.S. men reported
personally owning a gun, but this dropped to 33.2 percent in 2010. Female gun
ownership peaked in 1982 at 14.3 percent and dropped to 9.9 percent in
2010.”
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2011/04/26/One-third-of-US-households-own-guns/UPI-46991303850331/#ixzz2FL2CDmSw
One of the things about the “Mental Health” argument that bothers me is
that so far as I am vaguely aware, no professor has ever fully explained a
single one of the various mass shootings that has occurred, so what chance is
there that can be relied upon to predict who might be the next one? I think if
I was American I’d be staistically more worried about the mental health
industry than the firearms industry.
From a practical point of view, the main issue with guns is that you can
kill a lot more people, very qickly, than you can with a knife.
- December 18, 2012 at 04:08
-
The mental health issue is really the crux of the argument, and since the
mental health of us all can vary on an hour-by-hour basis, we have to be
careful to define the problem as serious and persistent mental health
challenges and that once these are diagnosed should prohibit ownership of
guns.
Locked storage of guns have some beneficial effect but I am willing to
bet that the guns in Connecticut would have been securely stored. Gun
ownership is a very serious undertaking, but most of the tragedies we hear
are not of responsible owners indeed most murder weapons are stolen (as in
this instance).
Most gun owners fall back on the argument that their guns are needed for
instantaneous use and should not be locked up, I think it is time to review
that, and accept locked storage as well as trigger locks. That will slow
down some thieves, it is not by any means a solution, a 100% airtight
solution is not available, just like automobile usage (the most lethal thing
we use daily) we are reliant on others to operate them safely and
considerately.
- December 18, 2012 at 12:13
-
@ since the mental health of us all can vary on an hour-by-hour basis,
we have to be careful to define the problem as serious and persistent
mental health challenges and that once these are diagnosed should prohibit
ownership of guns. @
Psychiatric evaluation required you mean? That might mean many people
who want guns will be put off applying…..
@ most of the tragedies we hear are not of responsible owners indeed
most murder weapons are stolen (as in this instance). @
The only answer to that then is that nobody can have guns so that
nobody can steal them.
In the UK now we have regulations on the carrying of knives: http://www.goxplore.net/guides/Knife_law_(UK)
I was
walking to a friend’s house with a pair of garden shears to help them clip
their grass the other day, and it crossed my mind that I might well be
acting suspiciously to a policeman. Fortunately we never see any
policemen, so it wasn’t a problem.
- December 17, 2012 at 12:45
-
With regard to “Media Cool”, I also noticed that the BBC Radio Five
reporters kept using the term: “Shooter”, as opposed to “crazed killer”, or
the more telling “mass murderer”.
I was listening to one commentator last night remarking that the real
problem in America wasn’t gun control, it was “Mental Illness”. I suppose
that’s a lefty version of “Guns don’t kill people. People do.”
-
December 17, 2012 at 16:27
-
It is the COMBINATION of the two that are so deadly. Although mentally
ill people can be hospitalized if they are “a danger to self or others”,
this rarely happens until AFTER they have done something, and almost never
because they have the potential. Assessments of danger to self and others
don’t really take into account potential to commit mass murders, because
most mentally ill people have a hard enough time brushing their own teeth or
remembering to buy toilet paper, never mind organizing a mass murder.
If an affluent family takes a child to a private child psychiatrist, he
is rather unlikely to recommend that they be locked up. In Florida there is
now, for some reason I don’t understand, a law that doctors are not allowed
to ask families if there are guns in the house. Go figure!
-
December 16, 2012 at 21:54
-
fewer armed citizens more aggresive socialism. Nervous politicians are good
politicians.
- December 16, 2012 at 17:21
-
“It would be better to equip everyone with cell phones so they could call
911 at one touch”
No, it would not. Sadly by the time the first cop arrived, everyone who was
to die that day, was already dead.
You imagine you are summoning help, but what you are really saying is “I am
about to be murdered. I am defenceless and cannot fight back as I am denied
the means to do so. Please come and investigate my death, have some political
stooge call me ‘brave’ regardless of whether I died bravely or crying like a
lamb to the slaughter.
Have your cellphone by all means but please don’t deny me ‘concealed carry’
as I wish to fight back effectively rather than make a futile gesture. I also
don’t want the bastard to be sure if I am carrying or not. In that way, he
won’t be sure if you are carrying either.
- December 16, 2012 at 12:35
-
Vaz reminds me of Gerald Kaufman with regards to his teflon tendencies. It
is puzzling to me just now, how Vaz and Margaret Hodge seem to have dominated
some of the key parliamentary committees just recently – especially now Mensch
has resigned. I guess the “best” of the Tories and Liberals are consumed by
the need to govern the country, and have little spare capacity left for these
parliamentary bodies. But then I’m baffled how Bercow remains in post; the
present government is determined not to make any waves within the House
itself, it seems.
- December 15, 2012 at 16:35
-
‘…We have had unending coverage of Jacintha Saldanha’s death, the
high-profile MPs hugging her children’.
Did anyone else have a queasy ‘Jimmy Savile flashback moment’ watching
Keith Vaz getting ‘up close and personal’ with the late Mrs. Saldanha’s
daughter?
What on earth is Vaz getting so personally involved for? This is a personal
tragedy for the family but just why have several high profile persons chosen
to involve themselves to such a very great level? What are their reasons?
It is all deucedly odd. Anna is spot on in this. A private matter has been
made extremely public. Funeral Mass at Westminster Cathedral even for a
clearly caring nurse? It takes ‘muscle’ to organise an event of this nature,
so… why? Where will Mr. Vaz be viz a viz this family this time next year? I,
for one, cannot see what advantage there is to be exploited in this case, but
perhaps I am not party to all the facts.
As regards Gun Control, I am afraid that, whatever the actual statistics,
Obama, a second term President, who cannot be re-elected had already indicated
some of his preferences in this regard and I know for a fact that the gun
owning community in the USA were praying for Romney to win, his other manifest
shortcomings notwithstanding.
Never have I seen Obama so moved. Twice now, in the last two days, he has
stated publicly that this time ‘something must be done’ about firearms in the
USA. I do not think that the Americans can expect a rational review of the
situation, driven as it is at present by raw emotion, but it is also clear
that when the Second Amendment was passed – CURIOUSLY ON 15 DECEMBER 1791 that
none of the legislators at that time could envisage, even in their wildest
imaginings, that one day an ordinary US citizen could now legally possess the
equivalent firepower of an entire platoon, or greater, the incredible advances
in technology creating increasingly more lethal firearms, without consequently
more stringent controls on their possession.
I am no gun control nut, by the way, but it is very difficult to see the
open grief etched on all the faces on our television sets without feeling a
great deal of empathy. I do not think either that it is time in the USA for
the National Rifle Association to produce another Charlton Heston style “from
my cold, dead hands” type speech.
It may not be fair, rational or reasonable for a radical reform but reform
is clearly ‘in the air’.
It is a fact, of course that firearms cannot kill without human
interaction, but it is also true that in the USA and in other countries,
deranged individuals have used firearms to mount a rampage style assault, and
their possession of these items have enabled these persons to increase their
body count. Look at our own history of mass shootings and one can see a ‘knee
jerk’ reaction to gun control, with thousands of completey innocent individual
shooters suddenly deprived of the means to enjoy their lawful pursuits. No
mandate was necessary, the Government merely amended the Firearms Act 1968. I
think that, notwithstanding the large and vociferous shooting lobby in the USA
that Obama will now fight tooth and nail to restrict private citizen’s access
to some types of firearms.
It is no panacea, of course and is in some respects, a risible solution to
subject the masses to stringent controls, in answer to what is clearly a very
disturbed individual’s demonstration of his particular hatred, but I
personally think that this shooting is a ‘tipping point’ and that the die is
now cast.
- December 15, 2012 at
16:50
-
Frankie, Glad you said that, I just watched Vaz with his arm round
Jacintha’s 14 year old daughter, kissing her on the head….and queasy is the
only word to describe my emotion.
- December 16, 2012 at 08:48
-
Ditto
- December 16, 2012 at 11:07
-
I don’t watch TV and only allow myself small doses of Radio 4, so I was
spared the yuk experience at first hand.
However, I think this was more a case of brown-on-brown (rather than
old sleaze-ball-on-young-woman) love designed to let us all know that it
takes someone from South Asia to “represent the pain” of a South Asian
family.
So I wouldn’t place Vaz in the over-populated paedo pigeon-hole, I’d
slot him in with his smug and rotund colleague Diane Abbott among the
divisive racists.
- December 16, 2012 at
11:09
- December 15, 2012 at 17:14
-
XX A private matter has been made extremely public. Funeral Mass at
Westminster Cathedral even for a clearly caring nurse? It takes ‘muscle’ to
organise an event of this nature, so… why? Where will Mr. Vaz be viz a viz
this family this time next year? I, for one, cannot see what advantage there
is to be exploited in this case, but perhaps I am not party to all the
facts.xX
To take “our” eyes “off the 8 ball.
How much reporting has there been about the fact that in response to
“patriot” (U.S, & German.) deployment in Turkey, the Russians have
given, within hours, the Syrians their latest “patriot defying” missile
systems?
Or is some nurse, no matter HOW good she was, more important?
For the MSM, the answer is obviously “Yes”.
WHY?
- December 16, 2012 at 09:02
-
“I, for one, cannot see what advantage there is to be exploited in this
case, but perhaps I am not party to all the facts.”
Perhaps the oleaginous Vaz thinks that the ever gullible British public
will remember this and forget: His support for that convicted policeman
Disae, his close friendship with the fake lawyer who he took with him on
official missions, and his fiddling of expenses. Or perhaps the comments
above about the way he comforted the nurse’s daughter have substance, who
knows?
- December 16, 2012 at 10:51
-
A man kissing a 14 year-old girl on the forehead now leaves people
queasy? Given that the actual evidence for Savile’s alleged behaviour is
not exactly conclusive (except in the eyes of the Paedo Police) I think
it’s a bit rich to suggest the same sort nonsense about someone like
Vaz. He’s evidentially guilty of wanting to be seen as a political
leader within his skin-deep ethnic group but that is all. If he was
French he’d likely kiss people on both cheeks.
- December 16, 2012 at
12:09
-
Perhaps I did not express my feelings as well as I could have. Had
Savile replaced Vaz in the news item of Vaz with the nurse’s daughter,
and this have been archive material, the MSM would have been
presenting this as further evidence of Savile’s misdeeds would they
not? That said, I still find that Vaz has an uncanny ability to make
my skin crawl
-
December 15, 2012 at 15:26
-
Oh, and worth to note, HE HAD THOSE WEAPONS ILLEGALY!
His MOTHER, as it is reported here, was the legal owner.
As soon as he took those weapons out of the house, they were IMMEDIATELY
ILLEGAL!
Once again, ILLEGAL weapons are the problem.
-
December 15, 2012 at 16:34
-
But the bleeding hearts would argue that if guns were banned, his mother
wouldn’t have had them in the first place…
- December 15, 2012 at
17:09
-
The SECURITY is the problem. NOT the ownership.
As I say, a person who is intent on doing such a thing, will find MANY,
and ANY means to do so.
- December 15, 2012 at 21:45
-
His mother would have had a handy set of knives in the kitchen
though…
- December 16, 2012 at 16:29
-
Yes, but there is a terrible irony here that (according to recent press
reports) the mother, Nancy Lanza, was stocking up on guns and food,
because she believed that the end of civilization would be upon us any day
and that she would need to use these guns to defend her family’s food
supply against the predations of her hungry neighbours (armed with tin
openers, I assume) but this plan literally backfired when she was killed
with one of the guns by a member of her own family, who apparently was not
the only fruitcake in the house.
-
December 16, 2012 at 17:37
-
“not the only fruitcake”………that is a very unkind depiction of the
mother (and by implication the son) based on very flimsy evidence. Very
much unlike your usual serious comments.
There is a political agenda at play after this tragedy, and I fear
you may have been succumbed to it.
- December 16, 2012 at
19:09
-
I don’t really know what the political agenda is supposed to be.
This is not reported just in the Daily Mail.
Apparently the information about her being a “survivalist” came
from an interview with an aunt. I am not sure who did the original
interview, but it is widely requoted in reputable media. For
example:
At least as a theory it has the merit of offering an explanation as
to why a very affluent woman (reportedly receiving over $300,000
annually in alimony) living in a town that has been called “the safest
place in America” owned a collection of guns and rifles of this type.
Of course they might have been used for hunting, or just for target
shooting, which is an Olympic sport, but then again, maybe not.
-
December 16, 2012 at 22:00
-
Reply to Jonathon Mason 19:09 comment (the reply”button” seems to
disappear after three or so comments)
The political agenda is the major subject of the landlady’s
commentary-gun control. Your comment described ownership of guns and
stocking of food supplies by a sane person as the actions of a
“fruitcake”. Given recent and ongoing failures of government
departments to provide assistance and maintain lawful control after
Hurricane Sandy (less than 100 miles from her residence) I would
suggest that her actions were considered and sensible. The “end of
civilization” comment juxtaposed with “fruitcake” does not fit what
are sensible preparations in the face of government ineptitude.
That she was a single mother in a rather secluded sub-division no
doubt entered into her decision to own personal protection handguns,
her ownership of rifles may or may not have been for protection, the
single over-riding fact is that they were all legally owned in a
jurisdiction that has strict ownership laws.
As somebody who professes to have worked in the mental health
field, I found your comments unkind, but that no doubt occurs when you
use the dailykos as a source of reliable news.
- December 17, 2012 at
00:45
-
@Cascadian
“Your comment described ownership of guns and stocking of food
supplies by a sane person as the actions of a “fruitcake”. Given
recent and ongoing failures of government departments to provide
assistance and maintain lawful control after Hurricane Sandy (less
than 100 miles from her residence) I would suggest that her actions
were considered and sensible.”
Oh come on, Cascadian. These are the actions of a person who is
paranoid.
-
December 17, 2012 at 04:18
-
Then we disagree, at one time the received wisdom was to be
prepared to survive disaster for 72 hours, by which time it was
reckoned government agencies could “get their act together”, judging
by the response to Sandy it does not seem reasonable to plan for
survival supplies of less than 10 days and an absence of policing for
similar lengths of time.
I note, with disappointment you fail to address the usage of
“fruitcake”, which was the crux of my comment.
- December 17, 2012 at
11:08
-
@Cascadian
Yes, it makes sense to have a few days supply of food, water,
candles, matches flashlight batteries, or even possibly a weapon when
you are expecting bad weather. I do the same myself as I live in the
Dominican Republic where the power and water supply is never assured
and hurricanes a threat in season. But that doesn’t seem to be what
was reported here based on some remarks by the woman’s sister in law
in a number of media sources about her being a “prepper”.. Daily Kos
was just a random link that seemed to have a decent summary, but
plenty of other links to the same underlying story are available.
Fruitcake is an old-fashioned English term that means someone who is a
nutcase (can also mean a homosexual, but that is not the intention
here). The phrase is “nutty as a fruitcake”. but “a fruitcake” alone
is widely understood.
Fruitcakes, which usually contain dried fruits such as currants and
raisins, plus nuts, are popular in England along with a cup of
tea,
-
December 17, 2012 at 13:14
-
I live close to an earthquake zone and a volcano, and also have
emergency supplies. Are we both now subject to tittle-tattle and
gossip that we are “preppers” so that people can call us paranoid and
fruitcakes?
Do you not see that once that gets going it would be easy for
governments to seize guns because we are potentially unstable?
- December 17, 2012 at
13:59
-
@Cascadian
“Do you not see that once that gets going it would be easy for
governments to seize guns because we are potentially unstable?”
Well probably there are certain types of guns that ought not to be
in private hands, because of the danger of them getting into the hands
of the unhinged. Here in the Dominican Republic there are armed
security guards everywhere with long guns, but I don’t think they have
magazines that allow them to fire off a whole load of bullets without
reloading.
The United States has one of the highest rates of gun death in the
world and something like 50% of households have guns, so the argument
that an armed population leads to a lower rate of gun violence seems
to be false. The problem with nearly all these massacres is that
people who are not sane get hold of deadly weapons and run amok with
them. The solutions probably lie both in reform of the mental health
system and in restricting certain types of weapons from general
distribution.
- December 17, 2012 at
14:26
-
XX The United States has one of the highest rates of gun death in
the world and something like 50% of households have guns, so the
argument that an armed population leads to a lower rate of gun
violence seems to be false. XX
No. The only surprise is, that it is not HIGHER.
-
December 18, 2012 at 02:05
-
@Jonathon
I tend to agree that there should be no need for automatic weapons
in the hands of the citizens and hunters, however since the US
government has been complicit in distributing them to Mexico how do
they make the argument for a ban? The major problem is that recent
history of rioting in the US (and UK) has shown that the police vacate
the area and leave the citizens to deal with the rioters as best they
can, if you are caught up in that scenario and do not wish to be a
victim it does not seem improbable that you might want all the killing
power you can muster. Single shot weapons will not perform that
function well.
In a perfect world I would agree with your two recommendations, but
with very much emphasis on the mental health component, problem is the
world is not perfect and why should law-abiding citizens potentially
be at a handicap to well-equipped criminals?
Having lived in Florida, you will be well aware of the problem with
crime (especially shooting death) statistics, these tend to be
exacerbated by drug feuds and highly concentrated amongst
black-on-black crime. Strip those factors away and it is common to
find that communities with few restrictions on legal firearms have
very much fewer serious crimes, cities (particularly) with
restrictions or bans on firearms have very high serious crime
statistics. This is counter-intuitive but easily
verifiable-Chicago,Washington DC and Newark amongst others being
particularly bad.
If the USA wanted a real conversation on solutions to reduce
shooting deaths, they would need to contemplate banning ownership of
guns by a majority of the black community, I don’t think they are
ready for that kind of honest conversation, particularly in Obama’s
administration.
Mindlessly pointing to people who have the good sense to prepare
for major disasters is not likely to produce the results you
desire.
-
December 15, 2012 at 15:23
-
Gun here gun there. He could have had as much succes with an ice pick. (Ask
Trotsky for details.)
I have a Lochaber axe, a Wiking broad axe (similar), and a collection of
various large bladed weapons, here.
I reckon, IF I was in that frame of mind, I could take out half a shopping
center with any one of them, before anyone even THOUGHT to call the
police.
(And just THINK of the “street cred!” …… “Man takes out shopping center
with Lochaber axe!”)
I could injure a damn good few with a walking stick.
Guns, or any other weapon, are not the problem. It is what makes the perp
TICK, is the problem.
And THAT we will never cure.
- December 15, 2012 at 13:32
-
“Guns have been invented. A regrettable event, but one we are stuck
with”
Oh I don’t know. Personally I believe firearms were, and are, the single
greatest protectors of individual liberty. Remove them and we’d go back to the
days of ‘the biggest, strongest and most aggressive gets/does what they want’,
serfdom, feudalism (or a more up-to-date example – any Friday night on any
high-street in Britain). Only a firearm allows the small, the weak or the old
some means of defending against a larger, stronger or younger attacker.
To examine the US shooting rate is fraught with danger. How many of those
shootings are ‘bad guy on bad guy’? (can’t use the colour form of that saying
as it may be seen to offend someone). How many are suicides (who, of course,
would never use another method if firearms weren’t available)? How many were
people defending themselves from attack (whereas here in PRUK we would just
become another statistic of the multi-culti paradise we live in)? Then of
course if you look closely the figures tend to show a correlation with just
which ‘culture’ is prevalent in the area – small town, predominantly western
(see no colour again), areas show a lower crime rate than British cities.
As to the nurse, as one I have a number of observations. Why was a
qualified registered nurse operating the switchboard (if she even was and
didn’t simply answer a clinical area phone)? What exactly was the ‘response’
of management since (possibly having made a few mistakes in my time, having
some experience of this) as worrying and embarrassing as this sounds, how much
pressure (sacking, struck off, deported) was ‘mentioned’? Until that is known
this ‘silly prank’ will remain nothing more than speculation and rumour and
the press will act as they do – because apparently this is exactly what the
majority of the public want (lurid tabloid headlines trump facts in the
‘minds’ of most today as sad a statement as any I’ve contemplated).
-
December 15, 2012 at 14:17
-
“How many were people defending themselves from attack?”
This is the problem. Although millions of people in the USA have guns,
incidence of them using them successfully in self defense are remarkably
uncommon.
This is the reason why petrol station owners and convenience stores and
banks do NOT equip their staff with firearms to prevent robberies.
I lived in the USA for 20 years and I never owned a gun, nor was I ever
in a situation where one might have been useful. During the course of my
work I met many convicted killers, robbers, and sex offenders, albeit in a
custodial situation, and spent many long hours in top security prisons so
you can’t really say I led a particularly sheltered existence or that I am
naive about crime, but I think many people grossly overvalue guns as a
defensive measure. It would be better to equip everyone with cell phones so
they could call 911 at one touch.
- December 15, 2012 at 15:00
-
Well, the statistics are looking quite good, actually:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/self_defense_killings_in_us_nearly_aQicVMrF1TAP3Sv3BgqfCO
But yes. Better to dial 911. After all, when seconds count, the police
are only minutes away.
- December 15, 2012 at 16:55
-
326 so-called justifiable homicides in 2010, out of about 16,000
killings. That is about 2%.
Doesn’t seem like many to me taking into account that many will have
been police shootings.
- December 15, 2012 at
17:19
-
And how many of that 16000 were carrying themselves?
- December 15, 2012 at 15:11
-
Jonathan
“incidence of them using them successfully in self defense are
remarkably uncommon.”
I’d beg to differ! The ‘reporting’ of incidence of them being used
successfully in self defence is remarkably uncommon in the MSM (but
politically expedient). The other fact being that in many (if not most)
instances of this type the person simply showing the weapon is sufficient
to deter an attack. Less PC organisations, publications and research all
show millions of safe sel-defence uses per year (and therefore millions
less robberies, assaults, murders, etc.),
Meeting “many convicted killers, robbers, and sex offenders… in a
custodial setting” is not exactly a realistic situation is it? Would you,
I wonder, “grossly overvalue guns as a defensive measure” if you met them
in a darkened alley, parking lot or in ‘their crib’ (without the benefit
of a captive criminal and a number of custody officers ready to defend
you)? Consider on meting such amoral ‘customers’ what exactly would allow
you to walk away unharmed if they decided your pay-packet that week (or
possessions, clothes or your life) was just what they wanted? Unless your
name is Bruce Lee or Jason Bourne the only answer is a firearm, no (NB
movie scenes aren’t even close to real life)?
“petrol station owners and convenience stores and banks do NOT equip
their staff with firearms to prevent robberies” because they would then
find themselves legally liable for all those spurious ‘damages’ claims by
injured criminals and their families, and in the majority of self-owned
businesses they not only arm themselves but allow staff to do so as well,
fact!
911? Seriously? The oft quoted saying ‘when you have only seconds, the
police are minutes away’ has an amount of truth (and will always be so as
long as we don’t each have a personal copper). So you recommend that when
a woman is attacked and faces rape she says ‘hold on a moment whilst I
dial 911, then would you be good enough to wait until the officers
arrive’?
The point of the original article is that in a society where guns and
violence exist, these incidents happen exclusively in areas where the
perpetrator KNOWS that no one else will be armed. Does that not show that
even the criminals (and allegedly insane) can see how effective a
deterrent an armed populace is? Grossly over-valued, no, grossly
misrepresented.
How effective is it? have a look at how the crime stats have been
affected by the carry laws in Washington recently (every state, city and
town to allow concealed carry has seen a massive reduction in all types of
crime – who’d have thunk it!)
- December 15, 2012 at 16:40
-
‘…Although millions of people in the USA have guns, incidence of them
using them successfully in self defense are remarkably uncommon.’
Not true… Please check your facts. Statistically, you are rather more
likely to survive an attack if you are armed yourself, than if you are
not. What is not as common, and certainly, was not as common 20 years ago
was the factor of a gun owner CARRYING (not merely owning in a drawer at
home somewhere) a lawfully held firearm for self-defence. They may have
and do have many guns at home, but, statistically, amongst the section of
the population who are lawfully carrying their firearms when trouble
arrives, those persons have a far higher chance of survival.
-
December 15, 2012 at 12:46
-
The problem in the US may not be gun laws so much as mental health laws.
The dangerous people who are mentally ill tend to exploit loopholes formed out
of a well-meaning intention to give the majority of mentally ill people who
are not dangerous as much freedom as possible and also the desire to spend as
little taxpayer money as possible on the care of the mentally ill. In too many
cases the person has been known to be behaving “oddly” for a long time, but
has not been assessed by an experienced mental health professional who would
have known at once that the person was severely psychotic and a “danger to
self or others”.
- December 15, 2012 at 19:37
-
Absolutely correct. Anna makes the point that Hollywood is partly to
blame for “glorifying” multiple murder, the point she missed is Hollywood’s
depiction of mental health eg One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, we avert our
eyes from mental health thinking removal of the severely disturbed from
society is a cruel barbarous response, but if we wish to decrease these
types of incidents then a serious review of treatment in the community needs
to be done. Treatment in the community for this 20-year-old could have (pure
speculation follows) involved him sitting at home, often unattended perhaps
playing some shoot-em-up computer game endlessly, to a (reportedly)
disturbed or immature mind could this then become his reality? Incarceration
and treatment in smaller facilities need not be inhumane, it does however
require expenditure and a willingness to be honest about what is best for
society-at-large.
Similarly in nurse Jacintha’s case, would anybody now deny she was
susceptible to severe mental stress? And that resources in one of the best
hospitals in your nations capital were insufficient. Mental health is NOT
the Hollywood depiction, wild-eyed, mouth frothing unkempt patients, they
could be you or me under stress, hopefully we have family to help us. Access
to diagnosticians needs to be very quick, or disasters may happen.
Whatever the truth is in these sad tales, we will never know. Multiple
“experts” who were in such short supply previously to help this unfortunate
young man will now expound endlessly on what “may” have been likely cause
for his actions, law enforcement and politicians will choose their “experts”
depending on what outcome they prefer to draft reports demanding action. A
Dunblane response is in the offing, or in the case of Jacintha a cover-up is
being prepared.
-
December 15, 2012 at 12:41
-
What does the sad death of the nurse tell us? That pranks can have
unintended consequences and that some people may have unexpected
sensitivities? What does the shooting spree in Connecticut tell us? It tells
us that if you have a society in which guns are widely held, sooner or later
an indaquate and mentally deranged person will get hold of one, and more, and
do terrible damage. I did ponder whether I might opinion, in the light of the
shooting, on what I might call The Nature of Evil. But in the end, I reached
the conclusion that it was more an aspect of the banal. Just one more
disturbed young man, a loser, unable to cope, and lashing out. That is what I
suppose makes it even more awful. The sheer pointlessness of it. Will America
change its culture and gun laws in response? Not in any meaningful way. The
culture of theright to bear arms is inculcated in the very fibre of the
constitution and the DNA of the nature, stemming from America’s revolutionary
and anti tyranny perspective. That will not change, and the place is awash
with guns anyway.
As for the media, they have a diffiult line to tread, but
bad news makes for good ratings, and they do revel in it. This is news, and
tragedy, as entertainment. Such is life.
- December 15, 2012 at 15:28
-
I very rarely take issue with Gildas, but “…if you have a society in
which guns are widely held, sooner or later an indaquate and mentally
deranged person will get hold of one,..” is an incomplete picture.
Look at the UK, when the post-Dunblane hysteria led to the state (&
ACPO) realising one of their longest-held desires, the total eradication of
any sort of armed populace.
Nowadays, The Monk’s comment for the the UK should read “…if you have a
society in which guns are widely held BY CRIMINALS, sooner or later an
indaquate and mentally deranged CRIMINAL will get hold of one,…” and of
course, the law-abiding are helpless and defenceless.
-
December 15, 2012 at 15:30
-
Perhaps I should expand: “Armed populace” (2nd para) = A population
equipped with the means to resist a government and its acolytes who are
determined to dictate and control.
- December 15, 2012 at 16:26
-
Something like Afghanistan?
- December
15, 2012 at 11:58
-
“What is it about grief and death that makes the media and single issue
lobbyists feel so free to exploit it for their own ends?”
Because an appeal to emotion is likely to prove successful. Simply that.
Nothing more.
We still haven’t learned that hard cases make bad law. And I’m really
starting to doubt that we ever will. Maybe we’re as ‘evolved’ as we’re ever
going to get?
- December 15, 2012 at 14:06
-
Maybe we’re as ‘evolved’ as we’re ever going to get?
Some might argue that we’ve been on a downward slope for some time
already.
- December 15, 2012 at 19:44
-
I’m one that thinks that we started to go downwards about a century ago
at the start of the Great War of 1914 – 1918.
-
December 15, 2012 at 20:20
-
Agreed, the decline is very obvious, though in technological terms
you might extend the date closer to 1950′s, but that’s a minor quibble
when we are talking millennia of evolution.
- December 15, 2012 at 11:28
-
The BBC’s Radio5 coverage last night was heavily slanted to the notion that
American Gun laws needed to be changed. At the same time the news-DJ kept
saying that we must regard these incoming reports he was broadcasting with
caution, as there had been no *official statements* made yet, but the
moment-by-moment news-cycle demanded he had to keep collecting “reports”. It’s
just formalised twitter really.
So far as the gun laws are concerned the State apparently has some of the
strictest rules in the USA, but it is the Federal Laws that the pressure is on
to be changed. Given that Obama is a second-term President – if he believes
that the laws need to be changed, well he has nothing to lose by changing
them. Less talk and more action Mr. President – your Time has now and will not
come again unless you fancy yourself as a Roosevelt.
The Coroners Court on the suicided nurse was opened and adjourned until
next March. Seems we’ve got a long wait for the *official statement* and more
than enough time for the Ickeolytes to get their story twisted and spiralled,
and so be ready to rebut the *Cover-Up*, when the time comes. The News Cycle
will always be peddled.
- December 15, 2012 at 11:57
-
It would be very difficult for Barry to try to put any form of control on
fire arms. Wouldn’t look good from the man who endorsed Fast and
Furious.
- December 15, 2012 at 12:01
-
“What’s Fast and Furious? Some film?’ says, well, most of the UK
population. And, sadly, probably a lot of the US one too!
- December 15, 2012 at 12:05
-
-
December 15, 2012 at 12:06
-
Sorry, realised you were probably sarcastic.
- December 15, 2012 at 12:07
-
Sorry, realised you were probably sarcastic.
- December 15, 2012 at 12:25
-
Best to assume I’m always sarcastic…
- December 16, 2012 at 13:13
-
To: JuliaM
Were you being sarcastic when you said that?
-
December 15, 2012 at 11:11
-
Keith Vaz grandstanding is the most loathsome aspect of this sad affair.
The Vaz is a curious, oily creature. He adopts the fake modulated tones of the
Establishment which I suspect he abhorrs and despises yet exploits so
relentlessly. Watching and listening to his “grandstanding” on the Commons
Home
Affairs committee during the Murdoch and News International phone
hacking affair made me quietly fume. I would give vent to a mighty rant at
this point, but I suspect Leveson would be knocking on the door with a gang of
state sponsored thugs and haul me down to the station for a good kicking. Pah!
This country!
-
December 15, 2012 at 13:15
-
Gildas,
I totally agree. Just 1 thought, as Vaz cannot refrain from leaping on
the nearest passing bandwagopn, would it be possible that when he rushes out
to offer his invaluable support to the bereaved of Connecticut, the Border
Agency could be persuaded not to let him back in the UK?
- December 15, 2012 at
13:18
-
December 15, 2012 at 13:41
-
He won’t go, sadly. No votes in it. Unless he gets a free ticket. And
then he will.
- December 15, 2012 at 14:14
-
Gildas, may I tap your working knowledge of the Catholic Church? Is
it usual for a Mass to be sung in Westminster Cathedral for someone whom
is widely believed to have taken her own life, given that suicide is
considered a sin by the Church?
- December 15, 2012 at
14:47
- December 15, 2012 at 15:29
-
I dont know is the answer Brian. I will reserach that. Good
point
- December 15, 2012 at 17:39
-
I was a bit bemused when Vaz popped up, but on reflection he perhaps did
act as a politician of a democratic country should, insofar as he expressed
some degree of interest in the people who his Parliament represents. It
crossed my mind that if David Lammy had taken a fraction of the interest in
the dilemma of the Duggan family, a couple of summers ago, the UK might have
been spared the eventual consequences of the entire Establishment utterly
ignoring the perplexed bewilderment of a family whose son had just been shot
by the coppers under somewhat puzzling circumstances – and Lammy was
actually the MP for Tottenham, so even had a duty to take an interest, but
he didn’t, and we all know what happened in the end.
- December 15, 2012 at 21:42
-
Given Duggan’s family aren’t exactly unknown to the criminal justice
system themselves, it’s puzzling why it would puzzle them so…
- December 16, 2012 at 11:47
-
@ Given Duggan’s family aren’t exactly unknown to the criminal
justice system themselves, it’s puzzling why it would puzzle them so…
@
Like the rest of the country, I had no idea who they were (and still
know little). However it did become apparent that the son had been shot
several days earlier and there had been little or no attempt by the
forces of Law or Civics to communicate with them as to why, or what
might happen next. I have no idea what the ettiquette is in such cases
but even if my son was a bit of a tearaway I would guess I would like to
think the police, having shot him, would make some effort to reassure me
about the circumstances in which it had happened. Given the relatively
recent history of Tottenham I would have also thought at the very least,
the local MP, who was also of my ethnic grouping, might have thought it
of significance enough to want to let me know that “no stone would be
left unturned”. I have no idea whether the family of the nurse lived in
Dawn Primarolo’s constituency or not, but I certainly agree that their
local Bristol MP would have been more apt a parlimentarian than Vaz, MP
for Leicester..
- December 16, 2012 at 15:23
-
“I had no idea who they were (and still know little)”
Pillars of the local multi culti community…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8687403/London-riots-Dead-man-Mark-Duggan-was-a-known-gangster-who-lived-by-the-gun.html
- December 16, 2012 at 17:27
-
@ “The Daily Telegraph can disclose the police saw him as a “major
player” who was “well known” to them.” @
There are suggestions that Duggan didn’t even have a criminal
record, but tellingly, Scarface was his favourite movie.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/elizabeth-pears/mark-duggan-saint-or-sinn_b_956901.html
- December 15, 2012 at 11:10
-
SKY carried a time line of the events in the USA. It took the SWAT team
about fifteen minutes to deploy apparently. That’s an eternity when you are
facing an armed man. The cops might come and shoot the killer later on or
arrest them, but if they are keen on a mass killing, you have to look to
yourself for defence. As the old saying goes “When seconds count, the cops are
only minutes away”
If only one of the teachers was allowed ‘concealed carry’ it could have
been ended much sooner.
- December 15, 2012 at 10:28
-
On Radio 5 the morning the death of the nurse was reported, the breakfast
presenters were talking about it, “stressing” that it would be totally wrong
to draw any inferences (this was before it was confirmed as a suicide), then
immediately went on to speak to someone from the Samaritans.
- December 15, 2012 at 10:14
-
Our success assures the gun its ‘rightful’ place among us. It is a
consequence of aggression and violence; such primal characteristics arising as
early as the pre-DNA World.
{ 89 comments }