TTAG reader Adfbfda Dfabfdab sent us a link to petition-parliament.uk. The screen cap above indicates less than robust support for reinstating an Englishman’s right to armed-self defense. That said, I’m sure the number of signatories will have increased by a dozen or so since my Wednesday morning screen scrape. While the longest journey starts with a single over-used metaphor, I caution readers hoping to see gun rights return to The Land of Hope and Glory to dial back their expectations (even from this low point). Having spent 12 years living in the UK, I can safely say the island nation’s populace have more or less abandoned their belief in – and desire for – sovereign citizenship. Which makes perfect sense when you have an actual sovereign. Just sayin’ . . .
Writing for The Harvard Crimson, Ryan O’Meara slams presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proclamation that an armed populace could have positively affected the outcome in Paris last week. “While preventing any tragedy is obviously important” O’Meara concedes, “gun control is about stopping criminals and the mentally ill from getting a gun in the first place . . . The attacks in Paris are what happens when trained soldiers from a terror state sets their sights on death and destruction.” Hang on. Gun control can stop criminals and crazies from tooling-up but not terrorists? Equally, if someone’s trying to kill you . . .
New Jersey has had a law on the books that Democrat Loretta Weinberg (who introduced it) claims promotes the development of “smart gun” technology. The law mandates that once a smart gun is sold anywhere in the U.S., all guns in New Jersey must be smart guns. But as we’ve seen since it’s been on the books, when a smart gun was finally marketed, that very law was the biggest reason why not a single one was ever sold. Weinberg seems to have finally come to terms with the fact that her feel-good legislation actually did more harm than good and has finally introduced a new bill to repeal the existing law and replace it with a new and slightly improved version. In other news Hell has frozen over, and porcine aircraft are buzzing the capitol in Trenton . . .
When the Paris terrorist attacks occurred on Friday, the article that got the most traffic on TTAG was this this one about French gun laws. Tens of thousands read it and they learned that France has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Just about all the guns the jihadis used and everything they did was illegal. Semi-auto rifles require a special license which, you’ll be surprised to learn, the terrorists didn’t have. You can only transport a gun to and from approved ranges, which the terrorists most definitely did not. And the list goes on. So now given the success of French gun laws at preventing the carnage, the European Union is apparently preparing to enact more gun control measures, specifically an “assault weapons ban” based solely on cosmetic features . . .
The chart shows the combined suicide and intentional homicide rates for 26 developed nations. It is always hard to come up with a list of countries to choose, so I let the Washington Post choose this list. They conveniently came up with the list in an article on suicide. As with most international comparisons, one of the major questions is: What countries do you choose to compare? It makes an enormous difference, and can cause exactly opposite conclusions . . .
The argument against “allowing” civilians to be armed against terrorists: they would be completely ineffective. Worse, they might shoot the wrong person. Or be shot by responding police. And there is a “danger” that “untrained” civilians would accidentally shoot someone in the normal course of carrying a firearm. The possibility that an armed civilian would shoot the wrong person or the cops would shoot an innocent armed civilian during an active shooter event is what it is. But the rest of the objections are just plain wrong. Fatal negligent discharges in public are as rare as hen’s teeth. As for the effectiveness of armed defense against terrorists, I’ll let TTAG commentator JR in NC explain . . .
We’ve heard time and again how disappointed President Obama is with the fact that he hasn’t passed any new gun control legislation. The root issue there is that Obama sees any and all new restrictions on firearms ownership as “good” and “progress” no matter if they would have any impact or not — the “we have to do something” approach. A logical human would understand that the reason he has failed to pass his proposed gun control legislation isn’t that Americans don’t care, but instead because Americans are smart enough to figure out when a proposal will do irreparable harm to a Constitutionally protected right without reducing the “gun violence” being used to push that agenda. Having failed miserably in the seven years he’s had in office, Obama announced in an interview that he’s planning on using his last year in office to ram something — anything — through.
The TSA and their blue-gloved gropers have become a running joke. I say that not only as a somewhat intelligent American, but because I’ve seen it from the inside. I used to work as a risk analyst on a Department of Homeland Security contract analyzing the risks to American citizens from all sorts of threats including terrorism. I had access to classified information detailing exactly how inept the TSA was at performing their assigned duties. Hint: I make my peace with God before boarding any commercial airliner. A man in Atlanta proved my point yesterday when he boarded an airplane with a loaded handgun . . .
“AMC’s new, post-apocalyptic drama, Into the Badlands, premiered last night, and gave anti-gun liberals the world they’ve been clamoring for: one where all firearms have been outlawed,” newsbusters.org reports. “Only, far from the peaceful utopia gun control advocates always promise, the world has instead devolved back into the barbaric, feudal society that dominated much of human history. In the Badlands, you’re either a baron or a slave; there is very little in between.” Quite how a society can develop internal combustion engines without making the “leap” to firearms is a mystery almost as deep as the plot. Which is to say, plenty damn shallow. Still, worth watching? [h/t JA]
The Michael Bloomberg-funded gun control propaganda organization The Trace seems to have once again proven that their raison d’etre is not (as their writers have claimed) to provide fair and accurate reporting on guns and the issues surrounding them. Instead they exist to regurgitate the same illogical emotional arguments the civilian disarmament crowd have been using for decades in an attempt to convince Americans that they’re better off without guns, except this time wrapped in a false promise of impartial reporting. The focus of their recent article was on bumpfire stocks, and while the tone is pretty much what you’d expect the difference is that they seem to be trying to use our words (TTAG’s, specifically) to argue for outlawing them . . .
When gun rights advocates point out that the firearms-related murders are “epidemic” in a city with some of America’s strictest gun control laws (Chicago), advocates of civilian disarmament maintain that gun control isn’t the problem. It’s the answer! Well it would be if it weren’t for those
meddling kids lax gun laws in surrounding states. But the same token, how do Islamic terrorists in Paris kill dozens of innocents with AKs in an entire country with “common sense gun laws”? “The answer,” dailybeast.com scribe David Axe writes . . .
The psychological effects of the militant Islamist terrorist attack in Paris continues to reverberate around the world. Here at home, proponents of civilian disarmament have been strangely silent on French gun laws failure to prevent the carnage. Judging from the pro-gun control, anti-NRA comments at the most recent Democratic debate, their silence doesn’t indicate even the slightest shift in their stance . . .