Posted on 12/16/2012 7:32:04 AM PST by marktwain
SCREAMING mums at schools, dads cradling children... it’s all too familiar to those of us who live in the United States.
Hours after the latest outrage the internet was awash with the unapologetic views of those who live and die by the gun.
Take this: “No crime would be permitted on my property because I am f****** armed. I can’t wait to kill someone legally.”
Or this from Alan Gottlieb, head of the pro-gun 2nd Amendment Foundation: “There was nobody in that school allowed a firearm. I find that deplorable. I’m sure Lanza felt he could go in because no one had a gun.”
It’s insane. Insane to think teachers should be armed and insanity itself to try to explain the killer’s motives.
(Excerpt) Read more at mirror.co.uk ...
“It’s insane. Insane to think teachers should be armed and insanity itself to try to explain the killer’s motives.”
So according to this ding-dong, we shouldn’t look for a motive ? Isn’t finding the motive the only way to prevent future incidents ?
Oh yeah. I forgot. People just want to ban guns and allow our current leadership to enslave us all, permanently.
They also dont consider themselves to be English.
I’ve been thinking about your post and believe you may have hit on something here.
Our society in past decades has been glorifying fame more and more. People are now famous and admired for being famous, most notably perhaps the Kardashian family.
Many movies now end not with riding off into the sunset, but with the hero(es) being applauded by a crowd.
People are willing to do the most insane and degrading things to become famous and get on TV.
In a society that values celebrity over almost everything else, is it particularly surprising that some will take this particular route to instant fame?
You need to look at the total homicide rates from before and after gun control was put in place. It does not matter to the person murdered if their murderer uses a gun or a petrol bomb. If you look at comparable populations in countries where guns are common, the murder rates are about the same. Murder is a cultural phenomena, which has little to do with the weapons used.
As an example, people of Japanese descent (when we kept such figures) in the United States, where guns are plentiful and easily available, had murder rates slightly lower than Japanese in Japan.
My SIL is an elementary school teacher. Yesterday her fellow teachers were wanting my brother to help pick out a gun and teach them to use the new piece to protect the kids.
These are all Obama voters. Has anyone else heard similar stories?
You are here separating out homicide as unrelated to any other type of crime, whereas it seems to me to be on a continuum with other types of violent crime, since it seems unlikely to me that violent criminals balk at murder when they are perfectly willing to commit other violent crimes.
IOW, those societies which have more violence in general will also have higher homicide rates, all other things being equal. Yet most European countries have a violent crime rate that is a multiple of that in the USA, but a much lower murder rate. The most logical (partial) explanation of this odd fact, to me, is that violent crimes in these countries are committed using less-efficient weapons, thus fewer result in deaths. As somebody has pointed out, it’s really difficult to do a drive-by with a knife.
As far as comparing homicide rates before and after gun control is put in place, I don’t know of any country with a high homicide rate and widely available guns that later put in place effective strict gun control. So I don’t know of any case where this experiment was done. If you know of one, I’d love to see it.
Have you seen the brief “Island at War” British TV series about the WWII experiences there?
I don’t think I have but as I watch anything to do with the war I am bound to watch it sooner or later. Did it have much about the Channel Islands. My mother returned a ffew years ago for the 60th anniversary of Liberation Day for the Islands - as you would be aware Churchill knew he would have destroyed the Islans to get the Nazi’s out rather he went around them. My Grandpa used to laugh at how much more tolerant the German’s were of misbehaviour after the Allies had taken France. Grandpa was hauled into the head German’s office twice - once for smuggling - unproven and the next time because my mother (as a child) had repelled the friendliness of a German soldier when you said to him “I’m not allowed to talk to you, you are my enemy” - that would have got him shot earlier in the war but this was near the end - the head German was almost grovelling to him so that if asked he would give a good report to the English when the war was over.
Man I didn’t intend to write all that when I started - sorry for the rant!
Mel
I would certainly agree that guns are a force-multiplyer that allows crazy people like this man to kill a lot more than he could have done with his bare hands, and I do think people need to be honest about this and accept it as the price that has to be paid for having a Second Amendment.
But whilst headline-grabbing ‘spectaculars’ like this incident are the inevitable consequence of a modern America with little gun control, I would be interested to see the statistics showing how many lives are saved by gun owners using them to defend themselves, even if they only had to brandish them. These incidents are less well publicized and lets face it, not as interesting to the media consumer, and so will not loom as large in the public consciousness in the debate for gun control...
I would question your assertion that other western nations have much lower gun ownership than the US per capita. Canada, Japan, Switzerland to name a few.
Also you print the myth that the British dont have guns. True, most British dont own guns, and contrary to NRA type myth, never have. But we in the UK can legally own a rifle or shotgun, most handguns are banned except in NI where they are legal. And many thousands do own weapons. I myself own a rifle and shotgun.
SCREAMING mums at schools, dads cradling children... it’s all too familiar to those of us who live in the United States.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
You don’t have to live here Anton, you can get the Fug out anytime you like.
Don’t let the door hit you in the butt when you leave a-hole.
In Britian, if you are the victim of a violent criminal, you just have to die because if you defend yourself and hurt the predator, you could end up in prison. If your child is being raped by a sex ring of Muslims, you just have to report it to your local police who will accuse you of being a racist and do nothing to protect your child.
The British limo-left media have no business telling Americans what to do. Their sense of justice has gone brutally p.c. insane. Maybe they have some more elderly people to starve to death “in hospital.”
That is a great commentary picture, Travis. So true.
Pacifism: The Ultimate Immorality by Raymond Kraft
Last week, Jack and Jill Pacifisto were walking home through the park after dinner with friends, during which they had spent a few hours discussing the immorality of violence and war and their commitments to send more money to progressive activists over the next year. Suddenly, Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows and pointed a pistol at Jack and said, “Give me your wallet,” and, pointing the gun at Jill, “Your purse.”
“What?” asked Jack, incredulous, “Hey, we don’t want any trouble. We’re pacifists. We aren’t going to hurt you.”
“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your money.”
So Jack and Jill did, and then Tony said, “And now gimme your watches, rings, jewelry, everything worth anything.”
“Hey,” said Jill, “This is my wedding ring!”
And Tony said, “Not my problem.”
Jack and Jill handed over their wallet, and purse, and all their jewelry and Rolex watches, and then Tony shot them both twice in the chest and picked up the loot and stepped back into the shadows.
As Jill lay dying she whispered, “Jack? Why didn’t you fight back? Why didn’t you have a gun?” Those were her last words.
“I couldn’t,” whispered Jack. “I’m a pacifist.” Those were his last words.
A few days later, Bill Thaxton and his wife were walking home through the park after dinner, when Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows.
“Give me your wallet, your purse,” said Tony, pointing his gun first at Bill, and then at his wife. He did not know that Bill was an old lawman, and had been a Marine sniper when he was young, and was active in the Single Action Shooters Society and had a concealed-carry-permit. Tony assumed that the old man was just an old man with some money and a few credit cards in his wallet walking home from dinner.
“Sorry, friend, I don’t like guns, and I don’t want any trouble,” said Bill.
“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your wallet, your purse,” he said, waving the gun at Bill’s wife, “Rings, watches, everything.”
“And what if I don’t?” asked Bill.
“I’ll shoot you both. Her first,” said Tony, pointing his gun at Bill’s wife again.
“Well,” said Bill, “Okay, honey, do what he says.”
She tossed down her purse. Bill reached slowly for his left lapel with his right hand and then, like lightning, did a cross-draw with his left and came out blazing with his trusty little 9, nailing Tony three times.
As he lay on the sidewalk dying, Tony Thug was heard to mutter, “Damn, I shoulda stuck with the pacifists . . .”
An acquaintance wrote me last week to tell me proudly how he had been a pacifist since the ‘60s. His letter set me thinking about pacifism, which is the ultimate and vilest form of immorality.
If you are Hitler, or Saddam, or Osama, or Ahmadinejad, your desire to kill those you dislike is at least honest and open. You wear you hate on your sleeve and we know who and what you are. But the Pacifist wears his refusal to resist evil as if it were a badge of honor, and claims it as a sign of his or her absolute moral superiority. The Hitlers and Osamas are at least honest about who they are, the Pacifist is not. Not even to himself.
The German Pastor Martin Niemoller wrote a poem circa 1946 about the quiescence of German intellectuals in the face of the Nazi rise to power that has become famous. Translated, it reads:
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent,
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out,
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out,
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me
there was no one left to speak out.
The Pacifist says something like this, but, unlike Niemoller, without apology. He says:
When you come for my allies
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my countrymen
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my neighbor,
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my mother,
my father, my brother,
my sister, I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my wife,
my husband, my son,
my daughter, I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for me,
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
The Pacifist claims that he (or she) is too good to fight against evil, and this is the catastrophic intellectual and moral failure of Pacifism. In the guise of being too good to oppose evil, the Pacifist invokes the ultimate immorality by aiding and abetting and encouraging evil, on the pretext of being too pure, too wise, too sophisticated to fight evil, thereby turning the pretense of goodness and purity into an invocation and license for evil to act without opposition.
The moral stance of the Pacifist is, unwittingly perhaps, homicidal, genocidal, fratricidal, suicidal. The Pacifist says, in effect: “There is nothing good worth fighting for. And there is nothing so evil worth fighting against.”
The Pacifist is willing to give evil free reign, because he or she thinks or feels that fighting against evil is even worse than evil itself . . . an intellectual and moral equivocation of monumentally staggering proportions. In order to be a Pacifist, one must hold that Nazism or Islamism or Communism or any other puritanical totalitarian ideology that seeks to slaughter or oppress all the Jews or all of any other race or tribe is no worse, is not morally inferior, to the existence of Jews and Judaism, or whatever other race or tribe is the whipping boy of the day.
To be a Pacifist, one must hold that acquiescence to a Jihad that seeks to destroy Western Civilization is no worse than Western Civilization, even though the Jihad seeks to extinguish intellectual freedom, religious freedom, political freedom, and ultimately even the freedom to be a Pacifist.
As the English philosopher Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The Pacifist replies, “I am so good that I will do nothing, I will hurt no one, even if that means that good will be destroyed and evil will win. I am so peaceful that I will not discriminate between the goodness of good and the badness of evil, certainly not with enough conviction to take up arms, literally or figuratively, against the triumph of evil over good, of totalitarianism over freedom, of barbarianism over civilization.”
And so the Pacifist, perhaps unthinkingly, unwittingly, mistakenly, is deeply mired in his intellectual confusion, but surely and unequivocally, the epitome of evil itself, For the Pacifist devoutly believes that by refusing to fight against evil he is affirming that he is good, too good and pure to oppose evil, too good and pure to fight evil, to good and pure to kill evil. But in the end, he is the enabler without whom the triumph of evil would not be possible.
If I were a teacher, no way would I be in charge of a bunch of children, disarmed. While in liberalism’s racist, pervert, hate and envy animal culture, that is insane.
The DOJ is arming drug cartels, because liberals can never get enough innocent blood to feed their zeal for ultimate dehumanization of mankind. The systematic operation of remaking American women into porn objects and the massive sexual abuse of innocent Americans at the airports gives the little Mao in every liberal a thrill.
The left has murdered millions upon millions for their cause of total control, oppression, poverty and enslavement. I’ll keep my ability to protect my family while residing in the leftist zoo of “change.” Obama’s change means ultimately liberals have a bigger authoritarian killing field.
Amen.
As far as the comments from the lobotomized and castrated ‘people of the commonwealth’, notably the Aussie’s and the Brit’s; If it weren’t for our traditions and rights, especially the 2nd Amendment, you would have been exterminated by the Japanese and Germans.
Shut up and think a little.
Or we may not be motivated to save your collective ass when the next wave of ‘social reformers’ come to visit, i.e. the Indonesians, your ‘guest workers’, good ‘ol Vlad the impaler - Putin, et al.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_at_War
It's a bit fictionalized, but there's quite a bit that your grandfather would recognize.
I think I saw it on Netflix, but it's available elsewhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.