Post-Norway spree-killing, independent.co.uk columnist A C Grayling [above] has a thing or two to say about gun control. As in, may I have some more please? “Guns should be the subject of worldwide outrage. Their manufacture and sale should be a human-rights abuse, on which we pour vilification and horror. They should be illegal for all but properly constituted, trained and controlled agencies of governments, provided of course that the governments in question are themselves properly constituted and controlled by democratic means in a society where the rule of law obtains.” Sounds like a job for the U.N.! No really . . .
Human-rights agencies with representation at the UN in Geneva, such as the one I belong to (the International Humanist and Ethical Union), should begin campaigning for the manufacture and sale of small arms to be universally outlawed, and governments (such as the British government) which have responsible attitudes to gun control should be urged to join the campaign.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union can’t even manage to maintain a fully operational website, never mind taking charge of worldwide gun control. This much we know about A C’s mob: “Founded in in 1952, IHEU is the sole world umbrella organisation for humanist, atheist, rationalist, secularist, skeptic, laique, ethical cultural, freethought and similar organisations world-wide.”
Laique wow! Anyway, don’t go all OMG Stop the U.N. Small Arms Treaty on me. That agreement will in no way impinge on America’s Second Amendment rights. And even if it did, it won’t. Not only did the NRA pre-torpedo it—with declared political opposition before anyone even knows what’s in the final document—but you can find implementation details at itaintgonnahappen.com. To paraphrase big Joe, how many divisions does the U.N. have?
Like all good gun grabbers, the Supernumerary Fellow of St Anne’s College, Oxford wants to pull a Josh Sugarman. Namely, demonize guns through linguistic trickery (e.g. “assault rifle”).
If we can legislate for car-seats for children, we can legislate to keep highly dangerous killing instruments out of public hands.
“Highly dangerous killing instruments”: language matters: let us no longer use the word “gun” but that phrase “highly dangerous killing instrument”, and perhaps perceptions will change. No doubt weapons manufacturers and lobbyists everywhere would regard with equal outrage the idea of severely limiting the number of highly dangerous killing instruments in public circulation, their existence being permitted only under official lock and key. What would these lobbyists argue in opposition? That highly dangerous killing instruments are for sport, for hunting (this last will not wash: killing things for sport? That is itself disgusting), for the fun of loud noises?
Awkward. HDKI? Better. Unfortunately, you could apply the same sobriquet to automobiles, safe in the knowledge that more people die from car accidents than gunfire in the “civilized” world, the Middle East (see what I did there?), Africa and wherever the two devices coexist.
And what of knives? According to wikipedia, Grayling’s sister Jennifer was stabbed to death when the former Rhodesian was nineteen. The UK has knives and plenty of knife crime. Aren’t knives HDKIs? The guardian.co.uk reports
According to Scotland Yard the number of recorded knife-crime injuries in London went up from 941 to 1,070 in the three months between February and April this year compared with the previous three months; victims in the 13-24 age group injured during knife crime increased by more than 30% between 2008-09 and 2010-11.
Let’s get to that real demon, the demon of demons, the residents of the country whose residents DARED enshrine the right to bear arms in their legal framework. No, not the UK; they did away with that “An Englishman’s house is his castle” thing decades ago. Nope, not Mexico; the right to keep and bear arms is now under military control (i.e. dead as a dodo). It’s those dirty stinkin’ apes: the proto-Breiviks called Americans.
Americans with views not too far removed from those of Anders Behring Breivik say that they “need” their guns to “defend their freedoms”, meaning against the tyranny of government and federal taxes. They should be reminded that it is the ballot, not the bullet, that is meant to do that job for them.
In fact, there are no good arguments in favour of the existence of highly dangerous killing instruments, and millions of excellent arguments against them, these being each human being, and indeed each elephant and tiger, shot to death by them. The Norwegian tragedy should be absolutely the last straw for civilised humanity on this subject, no further excuses allowed.
Anyone remember Carl Sagan’s catchphrase “billions and billions of stars”? I’d love to see A C Grayling spend the rest of his academic career writing out a million arguments against the existence of firearms. Million as in one million. That ought to do it.
The fact that Grayling’s rant was given the oxygen of publicity in a national “independent” UK newspaper tells you all you need to know about the Oxbridge elite controlling the island nation’s media, government and judiciary.
The fact that Americans still aren’t buying this type of condescending anti-gun fascism is a blessing from God. Unless you adhere to Grayling’s Secular Bible. In which case, gun rights are one of mankind’s greatest achievements.