Sebastian has a very interesting British Public Service advertisement on his blog. His reaction:
You'd almost think the laws were ineffective, and only resulted in criminals having guns. Nah! Can't be. That's crazy talk!Or, as Uncle puts it, "That's unpossible!"
Here are two screenshots from near the end of the piece that say it all, now eleven years after the UK banned all handguns:
They admit that banning legally-owned firearms has failed. But the philosophy cannot be wrong!
The answer? DISARM BRITAIN!
Wait... I thought the handgun ban was supposed to do that...?
I left this comment at this blog post there. I doubt seriously it will make it through moderation:
UPDATE: Needless to say, my comment wasn't approved. So I sent the blog authors, Natalie Harrison and Kyle MacRae an email directing them to this post and asking them "why not?"
OF COURSE “these laws don’t seem to matter.”
Are any of you familiar with the concept of “cognitive dissonance”? Here’s an excellent definition:
“When someone tries to use a strategy which is dictated by their ideology, and that strategy doesn’t seem to work, then they are caught in something of a cognitive bind. If they acknowledge the failure of the strategy, then they would be forced to question their ideology. If questioning the ideology is unthinkable, then the only possible conclusion is that the strategy failed because it wasn’t executed sufficiently well. They respond by turning up the power, rather than by considering alternatives. (This is sometimes referred to as ‘escalation of failure’.)”
You’ve TRIED “disarming Britain,” and you’ve FAILED. Al you’ve done is disarm your victims and made them fearful of the consequences of defending themselves. Your ideology says “Violence is bad. Weapons are at fault. Remove the weapons and the violence will go away.” The ideology is FLAWED. But you’ve tried to follow the logic of the ideology, and it has failed. Since the ideology cannot be wrong, you keep turning up the power, and escalating the failure.
What you’ve lost is the understanding that there is a difference between “violent and predatory” and “violent but defensive.” Instead, you see only “violent.”
Human predators exist. A brick, a pipe, a chisel, a bottle - broken or not - can be a weapon in the hands of someone willing to use it. Knowing that their prey will be defenseless merely encourages them. How many of you avoid even looking at a hoodie-wearing chav on a bus or riding the tube, afraid that they might find an interest in YOU?
If any of you still have an open mind on the subject, read this. All three parts.
No wonder Brits are emigrating en mass.
Nat, Kyle:Further updates as events warrant.
I visited your website, "Disarming Britain" yesterday and read several of the posts after one of your adverts was posted to a web site I frequent. I left a comment on the post in question, "Knives and the Law" which was held for moderation.
It appears it didn't pass muster.
I posted my entire comment, with a link to your site, at my own blog. I was wondering if you could tell me just what was it about my comment that got it rejected?
Thank you for your attention.