Ask Londoners How That’s Working Out For Them These Days: Quote of the Day

“(I)n countries with gun control, emotional turmoil does not result in regular mass shootings. This notion that if the would-be shooters were denied easy access to guns they would simply use something else, such as a knife?

“Fine. Let them try to use knives. A Dutch man with a knife showed up to a school intending to harm kids recently, and the children fended him off by throwing their backpacks at him. That is not an effective tactic when you’re up against an AR-15. Or, as the Dutch Review declared, ‘School attack in the Netherlands—no one gets hurt because it isn’t the U.S.’” – Jennifer Wright in When the Shooter is Female [via harpersbazaar.com]

 

comments

  1. avatar Shire-man says:

    There have been plenty of would-be shootings that ended up with no one hurt as well.
    And plenty of stabbings that have ended up with double digits killed.
    It isn’t the tool. It’s the ability/willingness of the attacker to attack and the defender to defend.
    Those Dutch kids showed more defensive will and ability than most American kids when under attack.

    1. avatar that one guy says:

      “Those Dutch kids showed more defensive will and ability than some American sheriff deputies when under attack.”

      ftfy

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        “Those Dutch kids showed more defensive will and ability than some American sheriff deputies when the children they were supposed to be protecting were under attack.”

        ftffy

        1. avatar Flinch says:

          That trash can showed more defensive will than a particular American sheriff deputy that was hiding behind it.

          But seriously, let’s cut the crap. Knives and guns are wildly different weapons. Acting like even a fraction of our gun crime would just switch over to blades is absurd and makes anyone spouting such nonsense look like an idiot. Plus there are enough ridiculous knife laws already. No need to put further unnecessary fear into that cesspool of lost rights.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          @Flinch: “. . . Acting like even a fraction of our gun crime would just switch over to blades is absurd.” Actually, THIS is an argument that WOULD make some sense.

          We have a variety of “gun problems”. The greatest one is suicide; 20,000/yr. Next, homicides – most of which are 1-on-1; most of 10,000. Then, accidents; and, mass killings, of very small magnitude.

          The mass-killings suck-up all the oxigen in the discussion; why? Don’t know; but these are the facts. We have to figure out how to deal with them.

          At some point in the discussion we have the opportunity to steer the conversation to gun-crime: robbery, assault, homicide (1-on-1). These ARE a problem; and one of such magnitude that they deserve discussion. (Remember, we are trying to steer the conversation).

          For the criminal’s purpose, a knife is approximately as well-suited for purpose as is a gun. (Think about it, you will see the plusses and minuses). For the self-defender’s purposes, a knife is vastly inferior to a gun. The thug will train for a knife-fight; no little-old-lady will stand a chance against a young man in a knife fight. Conversely, when the name of the game is Glock/Paper/Scissors, the Glock is the trump suite. In Glock vs. Glock, the playing field is level.

          (It should be obvious that there is going to be no switch from guns to knives for suicide. Nor is a possible switch from guns to knives for a mass killing likely enough to be worth arguing.)

        3. avatar anonymoose says:

          Right, Flinch. The criminals will keep their guns and keep shooting each other up at the same rate, and the crazies will just buy guns from criminals or find better ways, like bombs. It may be “hard” for a high-schooler to build a bomb, but someone who was in med school (James Holmes) or middle-aged and educated (Stephen Paddock) would have little trouble becoming the next Unabomber. Furthermore, no other First World nation has a gang problem like the US, and most of that has to do with our ethnic diversity, rampant poverty, and failed drug war. The real solution to the gang and (gun) violence problems is getting people educated in useful, practical fields so they can get jobs and move up the social ladder. Meanwhile, the police will continue tooling up with military hardware even if all the good civilians turned in their guns.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      I think it is a mistake for us to discount the capacity of the tool. Two reasons: The practical facts; and, the politics.

      There is a sense – in the context of a 1-on-1 homicide – in which most tools are about equal. Same might be said for suicide which is the 1-on-1 case where each 1 represents the same individual.

      But where the context is 1-on-many, then tools are different. David’s stone and sling wouldn’t stand-up to an army. In the 1-on-many context guns, bombs, poison gas, cars and probably others all have a decided advantage over cutlery or clubs. Now, what SHOULD we make of these facts?

      First, solving the “gun” problem wouldn’t solve any of the other problems with bombs or cars, etc. Solving the “gun” problem would – at best – solve the one problem that can be most easily countered by other guns, or other means. How can we deal with bombs or cars? If we solved the gun problem would the perpetrators merely switch to bombs, cars, etc. where we would have an even worse problem countering their new choice of means?

      Second, we need to deal with the divide-&-conquer issue. The Antis want to distinguish, e.g., semi-automatics from all other action types. The former are dangerous; the latter are for sport. Once they accomplish this, they will undertake to distinguish pump/lever/bolt repeaters from single-shot. Finally, they will observe that a single-shot is adequate to the task of suicide or murder; so, these have to go too. Failing to recognize this tactic, we will conquered. We need to maintain solidarity by countering that all guns are dangerous; enough so as to suffice for a mass killing. The objectives must be to prevent or stop a mass killing; not to “budget” for an limited number of casualties.

      Third, we have to emphasize that the world is full of guns and they aren’t going away. The US has 40% of the worlds guns. This isn’t going to go away. Whatever solution we might think to pursue it needs to be one that could be implemented within a century or so. Even if we entertain magical thinking that 95% of guns in America could be made to disappear, new guns would suddenly appear from smuggling and clandestine factories. The easiest guns to make are simple machine guns (e.g., the Sten gun). Now, we have a market saturated by revolvers and 7 – 14 round semi-auto pistols. With a ban, black-market guns would be made up of sub-machine guns far more suitable for mass-killings than the guns now most readily available.

      There is the political facet to consider. Perceptions are the political reality; not facts. Let’s suppose that rocks, clubs, cutlery, and guns were all equally effective for mass killings; just for the sake of argument. OK, this is FACT, according to our assumption. Now, try to sell this to a public that knows a thing or two about rocks, clubs and cutlery but not-so-much about guns. Do they believe us? Could we convince them of our FACT? Will they pay careful attention to our explanation about how you can kill two-dozen unarmed victims as easily with a knife as you could with a Glock? Or, would they just tune-us-out and pay no attention at all?

      OK, so, it’s not true that guns and rocks are PERFECT substitute for a mass killing; and we know this. We have to explain how it is that guns are only marginally better than rocks. A still more complicated argument; takes more listener time and attention. Harder to convince her. So, even though we have a point here, it’s a relatively weak point. Why lead with a weak point when we have a list of alternatives, some stronger arguments, others weaker?

      We need to strive to identify the strongest arguments, and those that will quickly resonate with the uninformed audience. Hone our tactics.

      1. avatar Moltar says:

        Or simply ask how many killed in a mass killing is acceptable. They will, of course, say 0. Now ask how exactly they intend to get to that magic number. They’ll spout of the gun control laws they’re told would be effective, to which you’ll show how those laws are either superfluous or would fail to have prevented the tragedy or, in the case of Las Vegas, perhaps even made the slaughter worse. Problem is they still think you’re crazy and they still think they’re right. This is exactly where we lost the battle long long ago. When you say gun owner to us, we picture normal people with a Glock, 1911, or whatever perched on their hip. When you say gun owner to a leftist, they picture that weird guy way out in BFE with half a million rifles and a tinfoil hat on foaming at the mouth swearing up and down that the government is stealing his thought waves with a satellite. We cannot change that perception because quite frankly, they’ve been brainwashed to think we’re all secretly like that. Yeah we may look, sound, and act normal out in the world but once we get home we throw on the foil and get down to the real meat and taters of being a right wing nut job.

        1. avatar Flinch says:

          Hate to play math games but a mass shooting requires five victims. So you just need to drop the acceptable number to four or fewer.

          Perhaps the question is how to get the number of mass killings to zero or better yet, how to get the number of people shot to zero.

          It is within subtitle semantical differences that disagreements are fought.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          The number is four or more exclusive of the killer.

      2. avatar 2aguy says:

        We need to vote republican in the 2018 as if our country depends on it…and it does. If the democrats take the Senate, they will not confirm any more Trump appointees. that includes 2-3 Supreme Court Justice who may be our last line of defense for semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. That also includes nominees to the courts of appeals as well. Also, if they take the house, they will impeach Trump, that is a fact. They do not care about the fall out, they are going to impeach him. Then, the democrats in the Senate, along with Never Trump republicans and establishment Republicans will simply refuse, again, to approve any of his nominees since he will be under impeachment. I don’t like republicans, I had hoped to vote to punish them in the next few years, but I can’t do that any more…any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd And 1st Amendment, and any non vote for a republican will mean a democrat can win that seat, and that will be the end of the country. Vote republican because the country needs to keep democrats out of office.

      3. avatar Keith says:

        I hope that intellectual engagement can and will prevail in upholding the second amendment. This the tack you’re taking here, and I applaud it.

        That said, my faith in this, at least as the sole approach, is fading. I wonder when we should start to bring into the discussion the philosophy that the second amendment represents–violence is the final “argument”.

        Not to put too fine a point on it, the bloodshed that would arise from the effort to confiscate AR-15s from all Americans who are unwilling to give them up without using them in defense of their position that keeping them is their right would make our current notion of “mass shootings” look grotesquely silly.

        This is what comes to mind when I read a former Supreme Court Justice advocate for removing the second amendment. At some level this is reckless in the extreme. Especially so given that his op-ed completely ignores the likely violence that his proposition would incite. Perhaps he’s well aware of his gambit, but I’ll wager that the bulk of his readers are not.

        The tricky part is to get the intellectual opponent to accept the warning of ensuing violence as earnest and realistic. He’s likely to dismiss it as intellectually out-of-bounds. Be that as it may, it might be time to start bringing this up.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Keith,

          I think you might be right on all accounts.

          I am becoming more convinced of advancing the following parallel to gun-grabbers:

          Suppose there is a huge push to legalize rape and it actually happens: local, state, and federal laws endorse rape and declare that it is a felony to resist and defend yourself in cases of rape — and all courts uphold those laws. Even if 70% of the population agreed and supported the new legal landscape (endorsing rape and promising harsh prison sentences for resisting rape), does that mean those of us who will bitterly cling to our right to resist rape are a cancer to society and we deserve to be imprisoned/killed?

          I am also thinking of advancing federal Judge Kozinski’s dissenting opinion in Silveira v. Lockyer:

          The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          The quote from Judge Kozinski is why I’d be just fine with the Democrats supporting the 2A instead of imploding as a party. Not that I wouldn’t prefer the implosion.

        3. avatar Keith says:

          @uncommon

          I’ll be curious to see how you find your legalized-rape (my paraphrase) argument plays out in practice. My instinct is that getting an opponent to accept rape as an argumentative analog to gun control will be a bridge too far.

          Another analog might be Christians striking the first phrase of the first amendment and prevailing to make Christianity the religion of the U.S. (As I write that, I see that it is perhaps more preposterous than legalized-rape, but such is the challenge of making metaphors and such.)

    3. avatar Scoutino says:

      School backpacks are not hard or sharp or very heavy. When thrown by kids, most will miss and rest will not hurt much. Grown man dead set on killing would not be slowed down by such “defense”. I think that Dutch guy didn’t hurt anyone because he didn’t really want to.

  2. avatar Native Texan says:

    Progressives conflate gun owners with the bad guys, like saying All car drivers are responsible for drunk driving deaths and taking cars away from people and constantly passing law after law to make it difficult to drive.
    The french love gun control so much they don’t even arm the police, during the terrorist attack they could only stand by and wait while they and civilians were murdered one terrorist walked up to a officer laying on the ground, shooting him in the head.
    “You can keep throwing fodder at gunmen waiting for police not to save you , I’ll throw hot lead and save myself.” ~Native Texan~

    1. avatar Freebird says:

      We are getting there ! —- Trumps pick for 9TH Circuit Court is ANTI – GUN !
      ******* Democrats just Love the guy !

      Dumbass Don needs to hear from all of us ….. since he has his head up his ass.

      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/11/democrats-praise-trumps-judicial-nominee-9th-circu/

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        He doesn’t need gun owners now and many of us have insulted him. He is a vindictive fellow with very thin skin.

        1. avatar Moltar says:

          it’s the 9th circuit!!! That’s where gun rights go to die anyway and I doubt you could find a pro gun judge in that entire circuit. If we’re going to eviscerate our president over this let’s do it correctly and NAME a pro gun judge in that circuit that has a shot at getting confirmed. If we’re gonna bitch about an appointment or any problem really let’s start putting forward a solution that has a chance of actually being implemented or appointed.

          Wanna know why we are where we are? Because we bitch and moan about gun control but we fail to put forth a pro gun package that has a chance at being passed. We really should know better by now that arming all teachers that want to was never going to make the cut and since Gun Free Zones have been law longer than some of us have been alive we have very little chance of changing that with shootings occurring in those zones. What we should be doing is working on the root causes (MENTAL HEALTH) and finding ways to mitigate those causes. Instead we’re fighting laws that are already in the books and being written as we speak. If we are going to bitch then let’s put up something that actually does something rather than just spouting shall not be infringed and insulting the sitting President. Let’s put forward our own alternative solutions. Like that kids in Florida, we could’ve prevented that by simply repealing that program that rewarded the school for posting low crime numbers. Maybe then, the kid would’ve caught DV charges and been put on the do not sell to list.

        2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          Moltar, of course a lot of what you are saying makes sense, but school shootings will be terrifically expensive in rights and wealth to stop and will cost money that could save at least dozens of times more people from more solvable problems. They (we) are going to infringe on the rights of hundreds of millions of non-threats and spend at least tens of millions, and probably hundreds of millions of dollars for each of the fraction of the 80 or so students that die a year in mass school shootings that they will save (if any). One does have to put a price on human life and I would say that school students killed in mass shootings are not 100 or 1000 times more valuable that other people that could be saved through much less expensive means and much less tyrannical measures. This is not even figuring in the lives that may be lost for those who die from a lack of an adequate fighting weapon.

        3. avatar Moltar says:

          You’re right on that point as well, especially when dealing with mental health. Look at the mess we had when one could get paid for turning people over to an asylum. Now, regrettably, I focused on two examples; one being that program (the actual name eludes me) that rewards a school for posting low arrest numbers for their student body. That program is rife for abuse and corruption. I hypothesized that had that program not been implemented, the parkland shooter would have caught a domestic violence charge and been banned from purchasing a gun. Once arrested (THEORETICALLY) someone may notice his odd behavior and referred him to behavioral health. Thus his little hissy fit would’ve been pre empted… Reality however says he would’ve been handled with kit gloves, hid his crazy, and still done it because God forbid we commit crazies to asylums anymore.

          The second example was the bumpstock ban. Now, I agree there really was no way to stop that loony, he showed damn few signs. Had this ban been in place prior to Vegas that shooter would’ve had to use plain semi auto fire increasing accuracy and possibly increasing death toll.

          My point is none of these events could realistically have been prevented, but they can be mitigated. Armed security that actually does something would’ve stopped Parkland pretty quick. Better communication between guards would have stopped Vegas sooner. Sheriff’s departments that actually arrest students may have prevented Parkland. Improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders may prevent future massacres. Just don’t tie treatment for low grade stuff (PTSD, ADD, ADHD, depression) to a background check. Problem is those disorders diagnoses are passed out like candy on Halloween. Oh you’re sad because you lost your job? Oh you’re bummed cause life sucks? Oh your wife left and you feel lost? Here, take this pill that fucks with your brain’s chemistry everyday for the rest of your life. Don’t worry about side effects most folks don’t get those.
          Instead, how bout we find a new job, improve our life, or go bang some drunk college chick and start dating again?

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        ” Trumps pick for 9TH Circuit Court is ANTI – GUN !”

        Chill out –

        Trump has 4 immediate vacancies on the 9th Circuit to fill, and can probably expect additional retirements during his term.

        Trump has been filling existing Federal court vacancies with warp speed, faster than any other president in recent memory. Let him toss a bone to the Leftists on this one, he has *many* more vacancies to fill…

        1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          It is not that he shouldn’t make occasional compromises for tactical/political reasons but rather that his actions are looking less and less 2A friendly like he promised us the would be and he is indeed taking criticism for it which I don’t think he handles well.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is authorized 29 judgeships. There are 7 vacancies with 1 future vacancy announced. The president has made 2 nominations. The duration of the current vacancies ranges from 852 days to 39 days.” https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view_db.php?pk_id=0000000899

          There are plenty of people that Trump can nominate who are “very much in the mold of Justice Scalia.” The only thing holding back swift conformation for any qualified nominations is Senate traditions of the blue slip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip Only Idaho, Alaska, and Arizona have two Republican senators. Montana and Nevada have one of each. The rest of the states have two Democrat Senators. I’m not sure how Guam works. There is a federal judge out there who had a very pro gun opinion about Guam’s decision to impose a massive tax on guns.

  3. avatar Cliff H says:

    :…one terrorist walked up to a officer laying on the ground, shooting him in the head.”

    Unless I am mistaken this was the Charlie Hebdoe attack and the murdered/assassinated police officer was a woman.

  4. avatar Joe R. says:

    ” ‘School attack in the Netherlands—no one gets hurt because it isn’t the U.S.’””

    Maybe the U.S. should just go permanently fuck up the Netherlands?

    I mean, as long as we’re attacking unrelated third parties over some-other-dick’s move in the Netherlands?

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      Hee hee, my ex dwells there:-)

  5. avatar mandrake the magician says:

    pretty much all so-called “mass shootings” are based on totally bogus incidents that are almost never properly investigated and for which little or no evidence is presented and fully tested in a court of law;
    the UK gun laws, like the AUstralian gun laws, are, indeed, based on just such bogus and questionable incident(s);
    unfortunately for the Brits and the AUssies, the afore-said questionable incidents occurred long ago…. the mid-1990s….b’fr there was any real inter-webs as we now know them……
    luckily for the US, many of the most recent “mass shootings” have been questioned on various social media platforms and, so, ‘the official narrative’ of such have, pretty much, more or less ‘imploded’ thereby providing the gun-grabbers with (much) reduced traction and greatly lessening their ability to dis-arm the US population……

    1. avatar Oh noes says:

      In most cases of mass shooting the police/FBI knew but failed to act, unless your conservative then they shoot you kids in the back, shoot your wife in the face, and kill your dog over a sawed off shot gun that was 1 inch too short. or they shoot your house up then burn it down killing women and children.

      1. avatar mandrake the magician says:

        it pretty much depends how you actually define “a mass shooting”;
        how-ever, most of the big name recent ones have very serious questions hanging over them;
        Sandy Hook, Vegas, the Parkland school shooting, for example;
        so much so that, in the latter two, there are many who think that the FBI were directly involved in some, significant way;
        since there were and are unlikely to be proper court trials in those incidents where all the evidence can be properly tested, people can, pretty much, make up what-ever ‘alternative theories’ they like and the (dot)gov/’media’ can do very little to ‘counter’ it;
        obviously, this does not help the gun control agenda;
        when you have, @ the very least, a very large minority of people who have serious doubts and reservations about these incidents, there is, quite simply, insufficient public impetus to keep the gun control agenda going;
        this has just occurred with the (very) recent “gun March for our lives” situation;
        it has already died…..

  6. avatar John J. McCarthy, Jr. says:

    What a bunch of Dutch kids do with their backpacks has nothing to do with my gun.

  7. avatar pwrserge says:

    Why are we humoring the cat piss covered feminazi?

  8. avatar MIO says:

    You can ask but they aren’t allowed to say without jail time

  9. avatar MarkPA says:

    The UK and European experience is well-worth TURNING-AROUND the argument. A century ago the UK had no gun-control whatsoever. The monarchy’s subjects often carried guns while the bobbies didn’t. Homicide rates were remarkably low. (Had they been zero there probably would have been no incentive to carry.)

    What happened?

    Did the genetic stock of Englishmen/Welshmen/Scots/Northern-Irishmen change? In a century? Did the noblemen suddenly resume dueling? Did the working-class resume its ancient practices of brawling and robbery?

    Alternatively, did immigration from non-European origins change the size of the (heretofore small) criminal class? Did UK subjects gradually lose their instinct for self-presurvation? Something along these lines? Did obedience to the authority of the crown and Government preclude the possibility of the population adapting to a new reality?

    Whatever independent variables we identify that coincide with the dependent variable of crime, what are the corollaries for us in the US? Do we have an immigration phenomena originating from cultures other than European-derivatives? Do we have large population segments willing to subscribe to the opinions of our elites? Have too many of us become convinced that we can pass laws banning public scourges which will – necessarily – be effective? When they fail do we automatically believe that ratcheting up governmental control is all that is necessary to achieve success?

    We – Americans – are NOT IMMUNE to the phenomena observable in other countries. We ought to learn from the experiences of our neighbors, near and far. What happens in Mexico or Canada can very well happen here. What happens in the UK, Scandinavia, France, Germany is very likely to happen here. Most of our blood and culture comes from these countries. Why should we believe that “It can’t happen here!”?

    We Americans have the opportunity to peer into the future and be guided by the Ghost of Christmas Yet-to-Come. Let’s all pay attention; read the news from abroad. Beware of government statistics that are vulnerable to manipulation.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      I have said, repeatedly, that the concept of liberty, such as we know it, is an invention of white, northern European Protestants. No other racial/religious cohort of humans has produced anything like it – and most don’t even understand what we’ve created.

      Brazil tried to emulate our system of individual liberties, and within 20 years, it was all gone, sucked down the rathole of third world marxism.

      This is why our Constitutional liberties have been under attack since the huge wave of immigration over 100 years ago. Southern European cultures don’t grok the Constitution any better than South Americans do.

      Politics is downstream of culture – and the culture of areas where there isn’t any snow on the ground for at least several months out of the year is one of entitlement and failure to plan. It is that way all over the world, regardless of the other particulars. Once you start to import enough people who are used to not having to think and plan ahead for winter, a country is pretty much done for. Witness Sweden’s situation, or the UK’s. Witness how Finland is now pushing back on taking more “refugees” as they tire of the entitled attitude of those coming into their countries.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Finland is getting tired of them, and even ‘The Hills Are Alive, With The Sound Of Migrants’ Austria is building a fence on the border with Hungary to keep the vermin out :

        “AUSTRIA has unveiled plans to build a massive 100km fence along its border to stop migrants and refugees crossing into the country.”

        https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/691905/Austria-plan-build-huge-border-fence-stop-migrants-Schengen-EU-Brussels

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Our economic and political system was “invented” by Englishmen and Scotsmen.

      3. avatar MarkPA says:

        @ Dyspeptic. I find your thesis interesting. Perhaps there really IS something to it that the need to lay-up a store of acorns for the winter that leads to a better-designed civilization. Alternatively, perhaps there really IS something to do with North-Western European history that led to what we think of as “Western” civilization. But, then, if either – even both – of these were true, then why is it that this “culture” has fallen without a whimper in the past 10 – 20 years in its birthplace?

        Iceland has a Scandinavian-based culture; but it does not suffer immigration.

        All of North-Western Europe and the UK welcomes immigration – and maintains an open and liberal democracy. Is this openness – and liberal extension of citizenship and the voting franchise – the soft underbelly of our culture? If so, we in America are NOT immune.

        The American economy and population is large and strong. As such, it’s capable of taking-on an enormous “White-Man’s Burden”; so easily, in fact, that we hardly notice the effect of the impact. Relatively speaking, the UK and Europe strain under the comparable impact. And so, they evidence the strain sooner. The tiger may eat America last; but it means to be fed.

        You have a thesis that explains what might have made us strong; but, it doesn’t explain why Europe/UK and America have become weak.

        I wonder if the problem might lie in a failure on our respective parts to respect, admire and protect our own culture. At the time of the American Revolution an Englishman had a sense of what it meant to be AN Englishman; likewise, a Virginian a sense of what it meant to be a Virginian. But today, a “citizen” of the UK no longer identifies so much as an Englishman/Welshman/Scot – rather, he thinks moreso of his identity as a member of the European community. A Virginian thinks of himself as an American. And so, there is a loss of consciousness of the specific history and struggle for the “Rights of Englishmen” or “Rights of Virginians”.

        We Americans have lost touch with the texts of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers. We have no sense of constitutionalist; only that “majority rules” (and rides roughshod over any minority opinion).

    2. avatar FedUp says:

      Did the genetic stock of Englishmen/Welshmen/Scots/Northern-Irishmen change? In a century?

      Actually, yes.
      The decent and the brave got themselves killed in WWI and WWII, leaving the UK with breeding stock that might sire, well, Piers Morgan for example.

    3. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Did UK subjects gradually lose their instinct for self-presurvation? Something along these lines?”

      The UK suffered two severe blows to their culture, World War 1 and 2.

      Their good men died, and the men who survived were worthless for combat.

      England never recovered after that…

  10. avatar Texan Trapped in FL says:

    “That is not an effective tactic when you’re up against an AR-15”

    Really? Because it seems like it would be pretty difficult to fire accurately while getting smoked in the face with backpacks full of textbooks. Or you know, while you’re getting shot. *gasp* It’s almost like fighting back increases your chances of survival! But heaven forbid we allow people tools for effective self defense

  11. avatar Helms Deep says:

    Pennsylvania — New Bucks County DA wants BAN on Semi – Autos !

    Republicans are so far spineless during gun law hearings in Harrisburg.

    http://levittownnow.com/2018/04/11/district-attorney-network-of-victim-assistance-executive-director-call-for-public-to-help-end-gun-violence/

  12. avatar strych9 says:

    A single data point. Wooooooo!

  13. avatar Richard Revoir says:

    We have a responsibility to spend some of our taxpayers billions on institutions for the mentally ill. Return to the day’s when such individuals were locked away safely. Treated if possible ,and try to figure out what makes an individual want to commit atrocious crimes. Be it by gun . car , knife , bomb, etc. It is a fact that sane , stable individuals are not the ones shooting up schools. It is not the sun’s fault. It is the mentally ill person holding it. If the demtards want to solve this problem , take the known people needing help some place safe , where they can’t harm others and keep them where they aren’t a threat. Don’t take our guns because they do not shoot themselves. They are a tool.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      You have to contend with the intellectual-yet-idiots in the ACLU, who have legally hobbled the state’s ability to commit someone for being a threat to at least themselves.

      Most of the homeless out on the streets in California/NYC/etc have serious substance abuse and mental health issues. You could give them $50K each, in cash, and in six months, they’ll be out on the street again. No less a liberal than Oprah learned this the hard way when someone gave a homeless person $100K as a project to see “OK, they need a financial step up, let’s give them a real step up that could resolve their issues” – and they tracked what happened to him.

      In a few months, he was back on the street again, homeless. Most coherent people could make $100K be quite a boost in their circumstances – but for those with mental health issues, they have no impulse control, therefore no spending control, no vision of how to manage their lives, etc. The subject in this experiment bought pickup trucks for friends, blew the rest on all manner of stupid decisions. People tried to give the test subject advice and counsel, but he would have none of it. So at the end of the experiment, he was back on the streets again, begging for change and dumpster diving. The look on Oprah’s face was priceless – it shook her beliefs to the core.

      The choice for society is to either commit these people, or to tolerate them on the streets – because NO AMOUNT of assistance, aid, training, etc is going to turn them into functional citizens.

      I’ve seen a couple of these cases up-close and in person, and EVERY DAY with them is a new set of dramas, panics and “what will I do?” running-in-circles-screaming-and-shouting. They’re often on a half-dozen medications, prescribed by MD’s who find it difficult to follow up with these patients, and the patients, when they’re told something by a MD that they don’t like to hear, quit seeing the MD, and don’t go back. Next month, you see them shuffling along the sidewalk with a stolen cart, lugging all their crap back and forth across town.

      Lots of these people do need to be institutionalized for their own benefit, given highly structured environments with daily monitoring and support. But we can’t do that any longer – thanks to clowns at the ACLU.

    2. avatar GunGal says:

      This

  14. avatar 2aguy says:

    We need to vote republican in the 2018 as if our country depends on it…and it does. If the democrats take the Senate, they will not confirm any more Trump appointees. that includes 2-3 Supreme Court Justice who may be our last line of defense for semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. That also includes nominees to the courts of appeals as well. Also, if they take the house, they will impeach Trump, that is a fact. They do not care about the fall out, they are going to impeach him. Then, the democrats in the Senate, along with Never Trump republicans and establishment Republicans will simply refuse, again, to approve any of his nominees since he will be under impeachment. I don’t like republicans, I had hoped to vote to punish them in the next few years, but I can’t do that any more…any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd And 1st Amendment, and any non vote for a republican will mean a democrat can win that seat, and that will be the end of the country. Vote republican because the country needs to keep democrats out of office.

    1. avatar Ulf says:

      Another serving of copypasta eh?

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    I wonder what the left-wing dolts are going to do when the young murderers decide that bombs are more effective than guns for causing mass casualties.

    The Bath School Bombing killed 44, which is more than any US school shooting. Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people in an instant. That’s more than were killed in all school shootings since and including Columbine, combined.

    It’s coming. And it still won’t get the left to focus on the problem, which is the lunatics walking among us.

  16. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

    like to see them throw their backpacks at the next 15 ton boxtruck that comes around during christmas

  17. avatar FlamencoD says:

    I agree criminals will figure out another way to kill (bombs, trucks, etc.). But to claim knives are as effective as guns in killing many people in a short period of time is basically saying guns are not necessary since knives supposedly are just as effective. Knives are not as effective as guns. That goes for self defense, mass killings, and war.

  18. avatar former water walker says:

    Sorry I got here late…wife had a flat tire and I had to rescue her. I saw LOTS of trucks that could fill in for a gat. NIce wasn’t nice😩😖😟

  19. avatar James M. says:

    In their rush to disarm everyone, the hoplophobes ignore that the worst school massacre in US history was committed with explosives, not with a gun. There’s a reason that mass murder events in Europe typically have a higher body count than those in the US: Guns aren’t the only way to kill.

    Also, anti-gun commenters often refer to the idea that many killers “just snapped”, and were not otherwise murderous. They think that some individuals only turn into killers because a weapon was handy. Study of the circumstances surrounding most homicides finds little support for such a claim. Dr. Stanton Samenow, one of America’s leading experts on criminal psychology, has written extensively about the ways murderers think and act. His study has found that such “out of character” crimes are largely a myth.

  20. avatar mike h says:

    “Always carry a knife with you. Just in case there’s cheesecake, or you need to stab someone in the throat.

    – Saint James Mad Dog Mattis of Quantico, Secretary of Defense

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Assuming it’s legal to carry a knife.

  21. avatar CZJay says:

    Look at France… How many people died when a few people got guns and attacked a “gun free” zone?

    Have they ever seen how there is knife/sword/machete fights in the streets in Asia or how they make their own guns?

    It’s not like the violence goes away when you ban the people from having guns and we don’t live in a time where only a few people know how to turn a piece of metal into a gun.

    I saw on local news that someone was stabbed while traveling on public transportation and almost died from a single stab wound (not sure about the current condition of the patient). No one could stop the criminal as he was the only one armed; so he was able to walk away and hasn’t been caught. It was quick, very quiet and just as deadly as being shot. Since I can’t legally carry a gun in public, I don’t take public transportation due to how many bad people like to use it.

    When you can’t be armed risk management takes over your life and dictates how you can live it. It’s the tyranny that criminals have over your life because an oppressive government doesn’t want the people to have any fire(power). In such an unjust society you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. That’s not a good place to (be forced to) live in. When people decide to carry a weapon anyway, in order to save their life from a criminal, the government institutes “stop and frisk” to put good people in a cage.

  22. avatar Hannibal says:

    There’s a reason that police and the military carry guns. There’s a reason many people on this website carry a gun. Guns are vastly more usable and, yes, lethal at a distance than knives, bats, etc. Sure, you can kill someone with a knife. But you’re never going to kill as many people with knife as you could with a semi-automatic rifle. Trying to argue stuff like “well, she could have used a knife” is stupid or intellectually dishonest.

    It’s a losing argument and a poor choice for one, logically. For those of you that think that a knife is as lethal\capable as a gun, feel free to surrender all your guns. Whatever reasons you have to say no to that are better arguments than the silly one made above.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “But you’re never going to kill as many people with knife as you could with a semi-automatic rifle.” That’s not a true statement. “But you’re [not very likely] to kill as many people with knife as you could with a semi-automatic rifle.”

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      I have seen people die from one stab wound and people not die from multiple gun shots. Knives are deadly and guns are deadly. The difference is that the blade has to be a certain length and you have to get close to the person.

      https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=aenbh_1523437097

      Getting in a blade fight isn’t going to turn out well for you. You don’t want to be on equal “ground” with your attacker and you are not always going to be attacked by one person. You want an advantage so you can win and not be harmed. This is why guns are a requirement. A female, an elderly, a disabled person can effectively defend themselves with a gun when they can’t with a knife. Fighting with a blade requires physical athleticism and high level of skill — something that an entire class of people, many years pasted, dedicated their entire life to be successful at.

      https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=CNm0O_1523408878

      If a knife wasn’t a deadly tool, you wouldn’t be justified in shooting someone that came after you with a knife. People would view it like they do when a 250 pound man hits a 116 pound woman even though the woman attacked the man.

      I don’t argue that a knife is just as good of a tool as a gun when attacking multiple people stuck in a “gun free” zone. If an attacker wants to be most effective against a large group of people they would use a bomb or a heavy vehicle. Hence the many vehicle attacks in Europe these days. It’s much easier to jump in a truck and drive it into a group of people than it is to shoot them as they scatter. In environments where people can’t run away from a gun or a knife, there needs to be guns to provide protection.

      People who carry a gun still carry a knife. Cops carry even more tools. Each tool has its advantages and disadvantages. You pick the correct tool for the task at hand. If a person feels like an AK-47 is the tool they should have in their home or their car, they shall have one. If a person wants to carry around a sword instead of a gun, they shall have one.

      A solution for things like school attacks is a gun in the hands of the adults responsible for the care of underage people whom are forced into that environment against their will. Staff must provide effective counter measures to defend those kids against violence since they have taken “guardianship” over another person’s kids for many hours of the day. By taking a position at a school they have accepted a duty of care. If a person feels it’s not their duty to protect the children they are watching over, at a school kids are forced to be at, they should no longer be teacher… If you feel like you are not getting a justice compensation and you are refusing to fulfill your duties and responsibilities, it’s time for you to quit (or be fired) and find a better fitting occupation.

  23. avatar BierceAmbrose says:

    I was in High School, once. (Really.)

    If every High School kid with “emotional turmoil” and access to one of those scary black mass-killing machines went on a spree, there wouldn’t be any of them left. Something else is going on here.

  24. avatar tdiinva says:

    The gun grabbers are always comparing the US to Europe but almost all of them are intent on turning the US into Mexico/Central America. Do any of them see the contradiction there? Criminal activity in the US had more in common with latin America than Europe before mass immigration from the region. Why would anybody believe that mass immigration from these places make us like Europe?

  25. avatar Mike says:

    Most of the people killed in London this year were “known to the Police”. So similar to here, known gang members.

  26. avatar davida says:

    to pa. reps
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected]p.com,[email protected],[email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

    Dear Representative

    It has come to my attention that you seek to support legislation that applies onerous firearm and ammunition restrictions onto law abiding Pennsylvania citizens.

    Please be aware that I strongly object to changes in current Pennsylvania firearms laws that are proposed by SB 17, SB 18, SB 383, SB 501, HB 175, HB 671, HB 832, HB 870, HB 1233, HB 1400, HB 1872, HB 2060, HB 2097, HB 2109, HB 2149, HB 2150, and HB 2216.

    Most egregiously, many of these proposed laws are in clear contradiction to, and in violation of, Article 1, Section 20 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

    Although some Representatives and Senators may not like or appreciate certain sections of our state constitution, they took an oath when assuming office to defend the whole constitution. And, I have every reasonable expectation that all State Representatives and Senators who take the oath of office, will honor it faithfully.

    Respectfully,

  27. avatar Ben says:

    Good guy with a gun, stops a bad guy with a gun. Outlawing guns will mean only outlaws will have guns. No further discussion needed

  28. avatar kap says:

    If memory serves me, One of the Triads was called the Hatchet gang, guess what their enforcement tool was?
    Knife fighting for old people is not an option, un less a master of Silat, or stick fighting!
    All this Hoopla is about screwing the Veterans with PTSD, denying the very right s which was the reason of their service time, protecting your rights.
    Democrats hate the military and ex military and are the reason we lost Vietnam as they politicized the war with nonsensical rules plus their illustrious Prez LBJ, lied about the Tonkin gulf incident so his Helicopter factory could make money,

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email