“Hasnin Anwar Warekar drugged his wife, children and parents and then slit their throats at a party on Saturday evening before hanging himself, according to reports.” Fourteen of them in Thane, India. A mass murder by any definition. Only it didn’t happen. It simply couldn’t have. Because President Obama himself — the leader of the free world — has taken precious time away from the links to tell us just how unique we are in this. That mass killings don’t happen in other countries as they do here. Since other, more enlightened nations . . .

such as India, China, France, the UKAustralia and even Canada have enacted much more strict, common sense regulatory limits (or outright prohibitions) on civilian gun ownership than we have here in the fifty-seven states, they don’t have to worry about this kind of widespread carnage. Something obviously must be done.

We need stricter gun control laws, of course, but rearranging the legislative and administrative deck chairs won’t be enough to achieve the kind of reduction in gun violence and civilian firearms ownership this country so sorely needs. No, America’s problems can only really be fixed through a fundamental transformation of our society. No, it won’t be easy, but with the best strategies and right people to implement them, there’s no quest that, together, it’s something we can do.

Recommended For You

29 Responses to Indian Knife Massacre: Only the US Has the Kind of Mass Murders That Embarrass President Obama

  1. I am starting to wish they would go full bore on this. Maybe it will finally break the US up into a more loose coalition of states. Like the founding fathers intended. Maybe this time we can do it in the courts and not resort to massive blood shed.

    • While there are examples of Statists giving up power without mass violence (East Germany comes to mind) they are such a miniscule sample size to the alternative to be virtually a statistical anonomally. I would not hold out much hope of it happening here.

    • Just a few problems with your solution… The courts and the “legal system” are controlled by the statists. How do you plan to use THEIR system and courts to defeat them? Oh, they throw us a bone now and then, but they’re not going to stand for it if we try to take off the collars.

      How about, instead, we continue to question their authority, refuse to comply, quit asking for or receiving the stolen goods as much as possible, take control of our own lives and property, and accept personal responsibility for that life and property…

      That might just bring about a less bloody solution in the long run. Do you want a “revolution?” That almost always merely brings in a new set of rulers and would be masters.

    • Where did you learn US history? The country started as “loose confederation of states” under the Articles of Confederation” and was on the road to collapse and return to British control. That is the reason the Conritution happened. The intention was to created a central government with limit authority but strong powers in the areas where federal supremcy was required.

    • That depends on the Founders. For example, Alexander Hamilton was no such person. He openly said that he favored a much stronger federal government than the one created by the Constitution. He also favored the creation of a corps of select militia to supplement the militia (general population of freemen capable of bearing arms). Select militia were highly distrusted at the time, seen as a tool for dictators to maintain a standing army on the cheap and basically not much different from a standing army, and Hamilton acknowledged that many would disagree with his suggestion.

    • Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner!

      Not that it is possible, but even if someone could eliminate firearms, all that would do is result in spree killers changing their tactics. Looking to kill a bunch of people and cannot acquire firearms? No problem. Just buy, borrow, or steal a large pickup truck and crash it into a crowd of people exiting a large sports stadium. Or use a Garrote wire and silently pick-off your victims one-at-a-time in isolated settings until you achieve your fatality goal. Or purchase a piece of steel flat stock and a file at your local hardware store for $20 to make your own wicked short sword and silently pick-off your victims one-at-a-time in isolated settings until you achieve your fatality goal. Or poison the big pot of chili at a buffet. Or chain/lock the doors of a crowded building and set it on fire. Shall I continue?

  2. Who said we need strickter gun control laws? Zimmerman or Oblahma?….. Gun control is hitting your target. …”They can have my clovis point, when they pry it from my cold dead hands.” ..thus sayest the caveman

  3. A continued narrative trumpeted dispite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Same repeatable pattern of selective enforcement of laws by the Exectutive.

  4. Obama knows that mass-MURDER doesn’t count — only mass-SHOOTINGS are a danger. The only way to kill a lot of people quickly is to use a gun. Arson, bombs, just don’t count. Guns kill people deader than any knife could possibly accomplish.

    “A corpse is a corpse is a corpse”.

    • “The only way to kill a lot of people quickly is to use a gun.”

      The Nazis attempted “The Final Solution” using firearms at the beginning and quickly determined that if you really, truly, want to murder 6 million plus people in a short amount of time other means would be necessary. And keep in mind that the 6 million number was only the Jews they killed, not the Gypsies, homosexuals, political opponents, Russian prisoners, etc. In Leningrad they managed to kill 1 million civilians without shooting them.

      So, correction – “The only way to kill a lot of people quickly is to use a fascist, statist government and give their representatives carte blanche to accomplish the task any way they see fit.”

      • Yeah I read about that. They just couldn’t do it fast enough with a gun. First they did one person at a time. Then they tried lining them up front to back so one shot would go through many. But it still wasn’t enough. Arms and fingers would get tired and sore from pulling the trigger. Guns would overheat and malfunction.

  5. The fundamental transformation that Obama promised is well under way. He is transforming the US into a Third World sh!thole because that’s what makes him most comfortable. I guess that pigs gotta wallow.

    • I don’t blame Obama for the shit hole this country is. The blame lies clearly with the people. We the people have the government we put there. Justice Roberts was right. We have bad laws because we allowed them. This country already on the downward spiral after FDR, went into turbo drive after Teddy (look at my broken neck) Kennedy pimped out the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965. At this point, we will never get the Republic back through elections. America is gone and there is no where else to go start a new Republic. Too many people here have a perverted value system that is contradictory to those that made America the great Nation is has been. Obama is not the cause of this transformation. He is the result. Hillary is the result and Trump is the result. We may very well need Trump to be the anti-candidate to the failed system. Constitutionalists can’t get elected by a majority of anti-American voters coddled to by social programs, brought here from third world societies, and brainwashed by the media.

    • But gun control WILL work, since its intended goal is to facilitate the “fundamental transformation” of the United States into a Progressive (fascist) Utopia.

  6. It’s only sensational if guns are involved, or it only supports the narrative if guns are involved. The real common thread in mass shootings and mass slashings is mental illness. This is obviously no less a tragedy because guns were not involved.

  7. As I have mentioned before the biggest mass killing here in Australia was the 35 people by firearms in 1996.

    When I ask people what was the second biggest no one knows. The next three all in my lifetime are 15, 15 and 11 by petrol started fire. No calls to ban cars (about 2000 deaths a year) or petrol
    Antis seem to be the same everywhere

  8. Guns, or no-guns is a means, not an end. Adminocrats want more control and less autonomy. Individual want to live their own lives, the less molested the better.

    Guns in citizens’ hands is just one field where this conflict plays out.

    It’s pretty clear that “more federal gun laws restricting lawful people / little or no impact on crime and violence over all.” (<- trying to mirror "More Guns / Less Crime" there.)

    There's more argument about more extreme, precise, or nuanced assertions. BUT, the general, statistical, measured ineffectiveness of restrictions, surveillance and increased hoop-jumping required of lawful folk is a pretty easy argument to demonstrate even to folks who start out with a different preconception. Because, to start, it works so well in Chicago, NYC, Baltimore, the drug corridors here and there in the US, or internationally in the police-states of the middle east which never have a revolution or insurrection (Oh, wait.), and Paris.

    Laws against citizens owning guns make criminals out of otherwise lawful folks, while impacting criminals access to arms not at all. It ain't about that.

    So, on the one hand, reducing citizens' risk from violence can't be the thing, because these rituals of regulation, restriction and outrage don't work for that. On the other hand, there's gotta be another payoff, or they wouldn't keep doing it.

    There's the pivot toward reality; the actual payoffs for either side in the debate on disarming citizens. The two sides are interested in different ends, for which guns in citizens' hands are simply a means. They're talking past each other, knowingly or more often by accident.

    On the one hand, the adminocrats want as little agency among the people as they can manage with as big a gap between governing and governed as they can create. Guns, in citizens' hands as a profound kind of persona agency, erode the former. When the folks in charge *permit*, *license*, and *monitor* arms in citizens hands, while their agents tool up and turn out with impunity, the gap is expanded, and ever more obvious. They are getting what they want.

    On the other hand, citizens of a republic see themselves as agents of their own lives, with the government a means to do some stuff together(**), delegated as little "authority" over individuals as can work. The government is the implementation arm of a mutual aid society, which is mostly there to preserve the space for we citizens to do our own thing. The more leaving people along, the better. In this view every time the government has to impose something, it counts as a cost. And in this view, they are us, or most of the time, our servants.

    You could not get more diametrically opposed goals, played out on the chessboard of gun regulation. So, of course, these unspoken motives never tie out.

    HOWEVER, politically, and in the culture call them on it. "I think people ought to mostly do what they like. I think you need to make a pretty strong case any time you want to stomp on that, including how your solution won't go sideways, plus how we'll know if it does, and how we'll shut it down."

    Anticipating the most likely non sequitor from our energetic troll, I will respond. Indeed, someone dead because shot is no longer free to do as they like. HOWEVER, when someone not interested in guns as a hobby or sport tools up, they are *already* suffering a burden. The bang-sticks are expensive. Folks who tool up are *already* suffering a burden, say from thugs, crazies and terrorists, that is greater than the burden of arming themselves.

    You wanna disarm people by law, first stop them from getting killed, robbed and threatened by people who don't conform to the law. Then talk about "preserving life." Until then, disarming people who can't get through the regulations, restrictions and hoops is just another us vs. them class abuse, and signaling who is master vs. the other thing.

    (**) Congresscritter Frank's famous aphorism is incomplete: "Govt is the word for things we do together." Plus variations on the quote and attribution.

    Whoever said it, more accurate is: "Government is the name for what we have determined you should do together, our way."

  9. It’s not 57 states.
    The exact quote is “we’ve been to 57 states and we have two more. We’re not going to Alaska and Hawaii”
    That makes 60 states according to the soon to be former president.

    • I still like Sen “Chuckie” Schumer’s list of “The three branches of government; the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Presidency”.

  10. Statism is the worlds problem. It stems from the Catholic Church and carried out by the Jesuits. They are actually whats behind the joke word “illuminati”. History proves this over and over from Constantinople to Rome to present day. Statists are religious to the core and have been completely indoctrinated by the Jesuits of Rome. They have literally no ability to critically think or question whats happening. They merely wrap themselves up in a corporations flag and yell racism until they get what they want. Malignant narcissistic sociopaths control the world, but are you really surprised in a sin fallen world with the greatest deceiver as their leader?

Leave a Reply

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