As usual, after someone goes on the rampage with a firearm in the USA, the liberal progressive reactionaries call en masse for more gun controls as if this was the answer. Clearly, from the UK example, it isn't and never will be.
The belief that imposing tighter and more restrictive gun control will prevent mass murder has been demonstrated to be false on many occasions. People hell bent on killing other people will find a way as we have seen all over the world - in Beslan, Madrid, London, Canada, Thailand, Indonesia and Iraq.
To suggest that just because one gun owner has abused the privilege to go and kill on a mass scale is a just reason to ban gun ownership is specious. There are millions of gun owning Americans who have no intention of ever using their firearm to kill fellow human beings, but because one does is a reason to prevent them from having a gun?
The young man who went into Virgina Tech to slaughter his fellow students was an immigrant. If anyone uses the argument that gun ownership should be banned as a result of this then, by the same reasoning, you could reasonably argue that even though there are millions of immigrants in America with no intention of following this example, banning immigration will solve the problem. Of course it will not and it is ridiculous to think so.
Even so, the idiotarian brigade have reacted in their usual knee jerk way. They know it won't make any difference, but it fits in with their amoral world view. Guns are bad. What they forget is that it is not guns that are bad, people are. People who have lost touch with the boundaries between right and wrong, moral and immoral. They've lost touch because the boundaries have been blurred over the years by liberal progressive moral equivalence - where anything goes as long as you're cool about it.
The fact is, this sort of thing happens not because people own guns, but because we've created a society which enables this sort of thing to happen. And this society is a product of progressive liberalism. This is what they wanted - nations without a moral baseline, people with no shared beliefs. When everyones morality is equivalent then no morality is wrong - even immorality.
This is what they wanted and they got it.
5 comments:
That argument makes no sense Stan.
It is perfectly true that criminals would still obtain guns even if the law was much stricter but it is extremely unlikely that antisocial misfits like this Korean man would have either the contacts or the money to obtain one. There is every probability that with stricter gun laws this and several similar massacres would not have happened.
Funny how far more people are shot in the US than in similarly advanced societies with stricter laws. Why is that do you think? Coincidence?
And it has nothing to do with having "created a society which enables this sort of thing to happen". Deranged murderers have existed in society for always, the main factor is that we never had automatic weapons back then.
It is not immateral that he was a migrant either. Migrants are significantly more subject to serious mental disorder than the general populace, it is all down to the stress migration involves.
Xoggoth
Stan's argument makes perfect sense to me. How many would he have succeeded in killing if his victims - even if only the teachers - had been armed and able to fight back?
You might also have noticed that these mass murderers almost always pick targets where the victims will be unarmed and helpless.
Same on the streets here.
How far would Michael Ryan have got if every other household in Hungerford had had firearms?
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/homemadeammo.shtml
Xoggoth
It's a lot of reading, but read this:
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/pdf/polin133.pdf
I don't see much difference between killing with a gun and killing with a bomb. Either way it is killing. I don't think those who perpetrated the 7/7 attacks could be considered as perfect examples of society - they were, indeed, anti-social misfits. They managed to commit mass murder on a grand scale too.
Britain used to have far less strict laws than the US - but nothing like the level of gun crime. But that was in the days before progressive liberalism destroyed the concept of conservative Christian morality in Britain.
Switzerland has an even higher level of gun ownership - but considerably lower gun crime rates. Isn't it funny how far more people are shot in countries with far tighter gun laws than in Switzerland?
Post a Comment