Elmer Fudds: Our Own Worst Enemies

Exhibit A: Jim Zumbo; professional hunter, author, writer for Outdoor Life, TV personality on the Outdoor Channel, and (therefore) a spokesman for the good "gun culture."

With spokesmen like these, who needs enemies?

Old Jimbo has written an op-ed at the Outdoor Channel's "News Wire" site. Let us fisk:

Assault Rifles For Hunters?

As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming with Eddie Stevenson, PR Manager for Remington Arms, Greg Dennison, who is senior research engineer for Remington, and several writers. We're testing Remington's brand new .17 cal Spitfire bullet on coyotes.

I must be living in a vacuum. The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue. Only once in my life have I ever seen anyone using one of these firearms.

It's good to admit you're clueless, but now you're going to lecture us as an "expert" on the topic, aren't you?

I call them "assault" rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I'll go so far as to call them "terrorist" rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are "tackdrivers."

Translation: These rifles aren't pretty, wood-stocked & blued. Therefore they're eeeeeevil! Don't we get enough of this from the Brady-Bunch and their ilk? Funny, I call them "Homeland defense rifles" myself. "Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands") - Lucius Annaeus Seneca.

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern.

What about the millions of AMERICAN owners (like me) who own them? Don't want to be "lumped in" with us, either? Note to Zumbo: We don't care for your opinion.

I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles.

No, you use "long-range sniper rifles." Comfortable with that statement?

We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."

Ah, yes. "Sporting firearms." That would be the 1968 Gun Control Act that proclaimed that only firearms of, well, let the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership explain it (risking invocation Godwin's Law, but read on):

The "Gun Control Act" of 1968 (GCA) permits the importation of firearms that are "of a type ... generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3). The Nazi Weapons Law (18 March 1938) forbade importation of weapons under substantially the same test: "It is forbidden to manufacture ... and to import: Firearms which fold-down, break-down, are collapsible, or are speedily dismantled -- beyond the common limits of hunting and sporting activities -- ..." Id., § 25(1) (translated in full in "Gun Control:" Gateway to Tyranny 60-61, 90 (1992) (emphasis added). The Nazi Weapons Law, and the enforcing regulations, carved the "sporting use" exception also where they permitted licensed persons to carry "firearms, designed for -- and usually used for -- the hunting of fair game." Nazi Weapons Law, § 21; Implementing Regulations (19 March 1938), § 32 (in Gateway to Tyranny, at 88, 102)(emphasis added).

The GCA also purports to vest the power in the Secretary of the Treasury to determine whether a firearm has a "sporting purpose." 18 U.S.C. § 925(d). The Nazi Weapons Law vested the power to decide the fitness of weapons (and their owners) in the unelected bureaucracy and the Nazi courts. Nazi Weapons Law, §§ 15, 25, 26. Germany's constitution did not restrain its government from destroying fundamental rights. See Miller, Nazi Justiz: Law of the Holocaust 44-45 (1996). By contrast, the U.S. Constitution expressly restrains the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. U.S. Const. Amend II. BATF regulations that prevent the importation of firearms violate the Second Amendment by infringing on this right.

BATF regulations, which distinguish between firearms based on whether they are for "sporting purposes," must be arbitrary and capricious. Such regulations far exceed the power which the Founders' Constitution delegated to the federal government. See, e.g., The Federalist Papers, Nos. 41 & 45. What is a "sporting purpose" is wholly a matter of personal opinion, and surely not a matter for an unelected federal agency to decide. Indeed, the Second Amendment expressly forbids the government from making such a decision. To enshrine an agency's mere opinion into law is to make arbitrary law; such arbitrary power is the handmaiden of despotism. See Hayek, The Road to Serfdom 68-69, 71, 73-74 (Chicago Press: 1976 ed.).

(Emphasis mine.) It just so happens that I'm reading Hayek's Road to Serfdom right now. Perhaps Mr. Zumbo ought to pick up a copy, since he's taken it upon himself to define what is and what isn't a "sporting use."

This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.

How about this, Jim? How about we educate the public (and other Elmer Fudds like you) about semi-automatic rifles? And how about you break your damned fingers for ever typing the word "BAN" in relationship to firearms you goddamned gun-bigot? You've just given ammunition (no pun intended) to our opponents, and that has me "really concerned."

There are comments at the bottom of the article. Other commentary at AR15.com (natch), at Shooting the Messenger, The War on Guns (also natch), and The Unforgiving Minute. That's all Technorati has found links for right now, but I'd say the sentiment is running about 90% against Mr. Zumbo.

Perhaps he should consider his audience before shoving his word-processor into his mouth.

Whoops! Tam unloads on Mr. Zumbo as well.

I don't think Jimbo knows how big a can of whoopass he dumped on himself.

ETA: My favorite comment at the piece so far:

Jim is entitled to his opinion, but that is a huge cup of stupid.

Way to fight for someone who like things that you don't.

We are our own worst enemy.

Posted by: GeorgeInNePa | February 17, 2007 at 09:20 PM

Oscar Poppa also comments, and links to several other bloggers who have posts up on the topic.

A Non-Binding Surrender.

I don't have too many words to say about this, other than I see it as just another nail in the coffin of Western Civ. While researching for the post below, I came across two Chip Bok cartoons that said it as well as anyone could:

The Senate gets its chance tomorrow.

And I'm reminded once again of an Alexander Solzhenitzyn quote:

In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal.

(*sigh*)

I'm going to bed.

Once Again, It's Not About Guns. It's About Control.

And the hand-wringers can't see the forest for the trees, just the way governments like it. Insty points to a Telegraph op-ed that persists in repeating the "Do it again, only harder" mantra. At least they got the title right:

Gun laws that constrain the law-abiding

For James Andre Smartt-Ford, 16, Michael Dosunmu, 15, and Billy Cox, 15, the hand-wringing by police and politicians over the escalation of gun crime comes a little late: all three have been shot dead in south London over the past 10 days.

Public revulsion over such criminality is, shamingly, blunted by the fact that they appear to be victims of ethnic gang crime. Society at large sees it as "their" problem, not its own. Such a view is criminally complacent.

Don't feel too bad. We do it here, too, which makes me even more certain that "gun control" isn't about reducing crime. If its adherents were interested in reducing crime, they'd target the crime, not the tools.

We have, post-Dunblane, what are said to be the toughest gun control laws in the world. They have actually proved strikingly ineffectual.

You don't say!

Gun crime has doubled since they were introduced. Young hoodlums are able to acquire handguns - either replica weapons that have been converted, or imports from eastern Europe - with ease. With no dedicated frontier police, our borders remain hopelessly porous. The only people currently incommoded by the firearms laws are legitimate holders of shotgun licences, who are subjected to the most onerous police checks.

All of which was predicted prior to: the ban on full-auto weapons (1937), the ban on semi-auto long guns (1988), and the ban on all handguns (1997) - none of which even slowed the rate of increase in gun crime noticeably. But they did disarm the law-abiding, which is just another reason we don't believe the opposition when they tell us they aren't out to take away our guns. This fact also shoots in the foot every mayor and every governor who blames "lax gun laws" in neighboring states for the high crime in their own inner cities - where gun control laws are nearly as strict as England's. If an island can't keep them out, nobody can.

To the realist, that means it's time to pursue another vector. To the politician it means "Do it again, only harder!"

Even more disturbing is the insouciance with which guns are used. An 18-year-old Angolan refugee was sentenced to life this week for shooting dead a woman holding a baby at a christening party, in what was otherwise a "routine" robbery.

Seems a resonable sentence, no?

The truth is that the laws relating to possession of guns are nowhere near tough enough. Possessing a firearm carries a minimum sentence (ministers insist on calling it "mandatory", but it is not) of five years. That means release, in normal circumstances, after 30 months.

Let me do the math here... (carry the six,...) Um, thirty months isn't five years, it's two and a half. Is this "new math"? No, it's just the UK's version of "criminal justice." Continuing:

For those aged between 17 and 21, the minimum sentence is three years, which means release after just 18 months. Such piffling sanctions hardly amount to an effective deterrent to these young hoodlums. The police want the five-year minimum sentence extended to everyone over 17 and the Government should not hesitate to meet that request.

Don't you mean "thirty-month minimum sentence"? After all, it's not like a "life sentence" really means, you know, life. I wonder how long it will be before that Angolan refugee gets out to try again?

But more is required.

Of course! "Do it again, only HARDER!

In particular, the ludicrous inhibitions placed on the police when it comes to exercising powers of stop and search have to be lifted. So must the post-Macpherson burden of political correctness, which makes any police officer think twice before challenging a young black man on the street. There is a wider failure here.

Right! The police must be allowed to be more intrusive without fear of censure! Actually, it might be OK if they were just allowed to treat criminals like they get away with treating the law-abiding.

This Government came to power with high hopes of ameliorating the social crisis in Britain's sink estates. These were "their people" and they would be rescued.

Isn't that what they always promise? Remember Mencken:

The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.

Or, graphically:

(Chip Bok, Akron Beacon-Journal)

Amen.

But the fractured families, the inadequate schools, the crippling impact of welfarism, the appalling living conditions - all have stubbornly resisted New Labour's lacklustre efforts.

(My emphasis.) Well, a little recognition of reality at last.

Conditions in many inner cities have actually worsened. And what a price we are paying.

But your solution? "Dedicated frontier police?" "Mandatory five-year (30 month) sentences"? Greater police powers? It's just more of the same. Another Menckenism:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Well, not all of them are imaginary. Some are real, and some of those are generated (or worsened) by government, but those that aren't imaginary are too often blown out of proportion for just the reason Mencken mentioned. But government "leading people to safety"? That's the promise - one that government cannot deliver on 24/7/365. Instead, it disarms its citizenry and does its dead-level best to convince them that they're not qualified to defend themselves.

In the mean time, it offers images like this:

Doesn't that make you feel safer? Hey, kids, let's do the same thing here! After all, the (nowhere near) Million Moms chanted "England can do it, Australia can do it, we can too!"

Not on my watch.

September?!? But I Want it NOW!

The Civilian Marksmanship program has given us a little more info on the M1 Carbines it received:

We have started the inspection of the M1 Carbines that were recently transferred to the CMP. Because the carbines were received with the bolts removed and many are in heavy preservative, the process is taking longer than expected. The carbines will not be ready for sale on 1 March. We will begin accepting carbine orders for Inland carbines on 30 April, 2007. Carbine orders received prior to 30 April will be returned to the sender. Other manufacturers will not be available until later in the year. At this time no decisions have been made as to pricing. We are not accepting orders or establishing waiting lists at this time. Next CMP Sales update is planned for 23 March.

We do not expect to find any ‘collector’ or ‘correct’ grades.

We do not expect to have a “field” grade for these carbines.

After all the carbines are inspected and graded, any remaining receivers or barreled receivers will be put up for sale at that time. We do not expect this to happen for another 12-18 months.

We do not have magazines, slings or oilers. Carbines will not be sold with magazines, slings, or oilers. If we are able to acquire any of these items, we will list them for sale separately at a later date.

Now, here's the bad news:

ITEM	MANUFACTURER	PRICE	COMMENTS**
R017IN	INLAND	TBD	Accepting orders beginning 30 April 2007. Carbine orders received before 30 April will be returned to sender.
R017UD	UNDERWOOD	TBD	Not accepting orders before Sept 2007
R017Q	QUALITY HARDWARE	TBD	Not accepting orders before Sept 2007
R017NP	NATIONAL POSTAL METER	TBD	Not accepting orders before Sept 2007
R017IBM	IBM	TBD	Not accepting orders before Sept 2007
R017SA	SAGINAW SG	TBD	Not accepting orders before Sept 2007
R017ST	STANDARD PRODUCTS	TBD	Not accepting orders before Sept 2007
R017WIN	WINCHESTER	TBD	Not accepting orders before Sept 2007
R017RO	ROCKOLA	TBD	Not accepting orders before Sept 2007
R017SG	SAGINAW S'G' (GRAND RAPIDS)	TBD	Not accepting orders before Sept 2007
R017IP	IRWIN PEDERSON	Auction	Auction Only
AUCTION	***	Auction	Auction Only

So, no IBM until after October at the earliest, and jeebus only knows what the price might be. Damn.

No, Violent but Protective

So much to blog about, but there was a very interesting piece over at Say Uncle about ass-whuppin'. (Note to Uncle: Turn in your Southern Boy card. An ass-whippin' is what your momma gave you for misbehavin', followed by another when your daddy got home. An ass-whuppin' is what you get in a fight if you come out the loser.) Read the whole thing and the comments, but the heart of the piece is this:

The man I worked with was a licensed social worker with a graduate degree and before that he was a drill sergeant. No, really. One day, I said to him: What’s wrong with kids these days? They’re too quick to shoot each other or stab each other or club each other from behind. He says, and I am not making this up, that: Kids today are afraid to take an ass-whippin’.
He went on to say that, in his day and mine, if two teenage boys had a conflict, they’d meet on the playground after school and settle it. He’s right, we did. But no one ever got killed. No one ever went to the ER. We had black-eyes and were sore but we got over it pretty quickly. Then, the next day, we were friends again. Now, he says, kids are afraid of that. They don’t want to fight, because they’re scared of a little ass-whippin’. They’d rather attempt to kill someone than get their ass handed to them.

In a conversation with a co-worker several years ago, he related that when he was growing up you fought with your fists - no kicking. (Kicking was girlish.) Then kicking was OK. Then kicking when the other guy was down. Then using sticks or clubs. Then knives. Then guns.

He stopped fighting when they went to knives.

Commenter Ken noted:

I think he's not exactly wrong but not quite right either. I don't think it's being afraid of an ass-whippin' as such (hell, I was afraid of that too) but it's a result of the whole "violence is BAD BAD BAD ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS" mentality forced on kids today, often to the point that self defense is punished (can you say "zero tolerance"?)

In the old days, as noted, boys would often just pair off, fight, and be done. Also, if there was a bully, the victims could team up and take care of it, and be done.

But if no distinction whatsoever is made between degrees of violence, or the ends to which it is put, then there is no reason for an adolescent to draw a distinction between "fighting back" and murder. Both are equally condemned, so why take half measures? (My emphasis.)

I've written on this topic before, in "(I)t's most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can." What Ken is illustrating is the social philosophy that cannot distinguish between "violent and predatory" and "violent but protective," and it's a philosophy most emphatically in evidence on the campuses of our primary schools - where even Dodgeball is banned because it's violent and somebody might get hurt. While I'll agree that there's a growing number of younger kids who are willing to use lethal violence, I think that this is only part of the problem. Another problem for is the number of our yoots who grow up in a protective bubble, essentially never suffering any significant injury - certainly not one at the hands of another. From that Arizona Republic piece:

Kids often get hurt playing tag, said Sharon Roland, the nurse at Jack L. Kuban School in southwest Phoenix and vice president of the School Nurses Organization of Arizona.

They split their chins, scrape their noses and graze their knees, the expected injuries of childhood. But they also knock out teeth and fracture bones.

E'Lisa Harrison's son, Grant, was 8 when he was pushed and fell during a game of tag at Kyrene de la Estrella Elementary School in Phoenix. It was an accident, but Grant spent weeks with a cast on his arm, missing out on a season of baseball.

While growing up, my sister broke her wrist. My brother broke an ankle and a collar bone in separate incidents. I broke a toe. Hovever I cracked my head a number of times (requiring stitches - which may explain my current personality), and even did a serious face-plant on the sidewalk once. Most of the kids I grew up with got injured - from cuts requiring stitches to one that was hospitalized after being hit by a car. We were active - and we learned that stupid hurts, pain is temporary, and chicks dig scars. I don't think a lot of our yoots learn much of that today.

Part of that learning leads to empathy - you know what it feels like to be significantly physically injured. It's a short leap to transferring that to someone else - and staying your hand, or intervening in a violent situation. But if you have no personal experience with pain, inflicting it on others would seem to me to be easier.

I last fought when I was about 10 or 11 years old. Neither one of us was noticeably injured. We were best friends before the fight, and we were best friends again afterward. (Well, within a couple of weeks.) But prior to that, I knew what being hurt was. I didn't try to gouge out his eyes or kick him in the crotch, and he returned the favor. No knives, no clubs, no guns - though both he and I had fathers who owned firearms, and we both knew where they and the ammo were: in bedroom closets, unlocked and accessible.

In Potential Victims I quoted Grim from Grim's Hall:

Very nearly all the violence that plagues, rather than protects, society is the work of young males between the ages of fourteen and thirty. A substantial amount of the violence that protects rather than plagues society is performed by other members of the same group. The reasons for this predisposition are generally rooted in biology, which is to say that they are not going anywhere, in spite of the current fashion that suggests doping half the young with Ritalin.

The question is how to move these young men from the first group (violent and predatory) into the second (violent, but protective). This is to ask: what is the difference between a street gang and the Marine Corps, or a thug and a policeman? In every case, we see that the good youths are guided and disciplined by old men.

Absolutely. Case in point, my father-in-law and my wife's nephew. He's a very small boy for his age, and he gets bullied in school. My FIL advised him to fight back, and if set upon by someone much bigger, gather his friends and take on the bully as a group. My wife, who has worked in the public education sector explained to her father that his advice was no longer acceptable. A fight in school no longer involves the principal and a few days suspension - the police are called and even children are taken away in handcuffs these days.

It's insane. And it's the end product of this kind of thinking:

Barry Says:

I’m a follower of the “violence never solved anything” school of thought as a general rule. I don’t necessarily think two kids squaring off in the schoolyard is a productive way to end an argument, either in the short term of the long term. There must be more civilized ways to resolve conflict that let kids release steam but do it in ways that don’t involve anger and aggression toward each other.

And Ken responded:

But for Barry’s comment: I realize I didn't express it very clearly, but I don't (and I don't think others did either) mean to imply that kids should ever have solved arguments that way. Violence is neither useful nor productive for solving disagreements, though one might make a case for minor fights being an outlet (I don't, but it's not implausible). But bullies are not typically deterred by nice talk alone, and certainly are not deterred by victims that don't fight back.

No, bullies aren't deterred by victims who don't fight back.

Which negates the hypothesis that "violence never solved anything." Violence does solve things, and it solves them pretty thorougly in many cases. Attempting to suppress violence in a population due to a philosophy that "violence never solved anything" and "violence is BAD BAD BAD ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS" has led the UK to be the most violent industrialized nation in Europe - because the bullies are not confronted. Violence in defense of self or others is a corollary of the fundamental human right, and it is RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS. It is "Violent but PROTECTIVE," and as a culture we've lost sight of that to a large extent - and we're brainwashing our children with it more and more with each successive generation, leaving them defenseless against those who would do them violence.

Update: I have an earlier post along these same lines, too, I just discovered. Read the comments.

Apologies.

For the dearth of posts. Lots going on in my personal and professional life which are interfering with the time needed to blog - at least up to my personal standards, anyway. There's lots out there to write about, but I just don't have the time right now. I'm limited at the moment to commenting sporadically. Sorry, sorry, sorry. I'll try to generate something interesting later in the week, but I'm not promising anything.

Quote of the Day.

Via David Hardy, from a Harvard Crimson op-ed you really ought to read the whole of:

Academia is inherently ill-equipped to deal with the realities of conflict, since it is based on the premise that disputes can be resolved through rational exchange of ideas. Yet violence, whether it happens to squirrels or Harvard undergraduates, is a strange animal. It is sudden, profound, and oblivious to logic and theory.

Change "Academia" to "Intellectuals" or "Bureaucrats" or, as David put it, "Elites," (or Thomas Sowell, "The Anointed,") and it goes a long way to explaining the Iraq Study Group's conclusion that we need to engage Syria and Iran in negotiations:

In order to foster such consensus, the United States should embark on a robust diplomatic effort to establish an international support structure intended to stabilize Iraq and ease tensions in other countries in the region. This support structure should include every country that has an interest in averting a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors—Iran and Syria among them. Despite the well-known differences between many of these countries, they all share an interest in avoiding the horrific consequences that would flow from a chaotic Iraq, particularly a humanitarian catastrophe and regional destabilization.

Doesn't that just drip with the belief that "disputes can be resolved through rational exchange of ideas" while completely ignoring the fact that these states are violent, and thus not interested in the stability of Iraq? In fact, that they find the instabilty in Iraq to their advantage?

Doesn't that one quote explain the urge to find out "why they hate us" - so we can exchange ideas rationally and resolve our dispute? Doesn't this explain Neville Chamberlain perfectly? Our media? The Left?

Named Estates.

"Monticello," "Mount Vernon," "Biltmore House," "Pickfair," "Tara."

And now Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards' new little bungalow:

"Other America"

Global Bullshit.

Now that the UN has proclaimed the debate over Global Cooling Warming Climate Change to be ended, I got the urge to write one of my typically long and heavily link-filled pieces on the topic. Somebody beat me to it. Read J. R. Dunn's A Necessary Apocalypse at The American Thinker if you have not already done so. A teaser:

That environmentalism is in fact a pseudo-religion goes without saying. Like all such, it possesses every element of contemporary legitimate belief. It has a deity, in this case the goddess Gaia, the personification of the living Earth, (first envisioned by James Lovelock, whom we can slot in as high priest). It has its holy books, most changing with the seasons, and most, as is true of the Bible with many convinced Christians, utterly unread. It has its saints, its prophets, its commandments, religious rituals (be sure to recycle that bottle), a large gallery of sins, mortal and otherwise, and an even larger horde of devils. (Let me pause here to sharpen a horn.)

Another item that a pseudo-religion must have is an apocalypse - and that's what global warming is all about.

Once you've read that, sit back and enjoy Penn & Teller's Showtime episode of Bullshit! on the topic of environmentalism.

Let me quote from one of the people interviewed for the piece: Patrick Moore, a founding member and former President of Greenpeace:

The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric, or green language, to cloak agendas that actually had more to do with anti-corporatism, anti-globalization, anti-business, and very little to do with science or ecology. And that's when I left. (The Greenpeace organization.)

I realized that the movement I had started was being taken over by politicoes, basically, and that they were using it for fundrasing purposes.

Most of the environmental movement is composed of white, upper-middle class people who are, I think incorrectly, telling people in the rest of the world what to do, where people don't live in nice houses and don't have good drinking water and good health standards. I think the environmental movement is basically elitist.

Nobody's going to listen to you if you say the world is not gonna come to an end, but if you say the world is coming to an end you get headlines. And so sensationalism, especially when it's combined with misinformation, leads to a situation where people send gobs of money to these groups for campaigns that are actually totally misguided.

The campaign against forestry is a classic case of absolutely and totally misleading the general public. It's true that we are losing forests in the tropics of this world, but it's not because of logging companies, it's because of poor people - millions of them, who are trying to make a living and grow some food for their families. The fact is, in North America, there is still as much forest as there was a hundred years ago. And the reason there's so much forest is because we use so much wood. Because we cut trees down to make our houses, But the environmental groups have got people thinking that when you go into a lumberyard and buy wood, you're causing the forest to be destroyed, when in fact what you're doing is ordering new trees to be planted. It is something we have to do in order to feed and house the six billion people on this earth.

And it drives me even further crazy to have them say they're against globalization when their main tools of trade are cell phones and the internet. It just makes no sense at all to be against science and technology, and then to use science and technology, whether its jet planes to get to international environmental meetings, or cell phones or laptop computers. You're part of globalization. So how can you be against it?

I can't add much to that, though in a future post I will attempt to.

Quote of the Day.

Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. - Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom.

And for some reason, large parts of our population seem to want us to return there.

The Journey Down the Path of Compelled Helplessness

The title of this post is from a comment left at On Being Down and Defenseless in Britain over on The Gates of Vienna. The latest outrage from Old Blighty?

Jump up and down and shout to beat street crime

Witnesses to violent street crime should try to 'distract' attackers by honking their car horns or even 'jumping up and down'. That's according to Labour's Police Minister.

The extraordinary remarks by Tony McNulty prompted an immediate, angry response from law and order experts, who described him as 'irresponsible'.

The standard police advice to people who witness violent behaviour is that they should not get involved and immediately call 999.

But in an interview with the BBC's Jeremy Vine, Mr McNulty said concerned citizens should 'try some distractive activities' instead.

Absolutely. Fucking. Amazing. This is the Monty-Pythonesque "You're Not Qualified" mentality brought to its highest lowest form. Citizens shouldn't get involved - even to the point of simply making noise. If this doesn't define "compelled helplessness," I don't know what would. I'm reminded of an old post by Dave Kopel at The Corner where a University student told of her introduction to acceptable victim behavior while staying in England:

(The officer) instructed us on how to properly be a victim. If we were attacked, we were to assume a defensive posture, such as raising our hands to block an attack. The reason was (and she spelled it out in no uncertain terms) that if a witness saw the incident and we were to attempt to defend ourselves by fighting back, the witness would be unable to tell who the agressor was. However, if we rolled up in a ball, it would be quite clear who the victim was.

In other words, assume a fetal position. How appropriate.

The Minister, who is the deputy to Home Secretary John Reid, suggested that 'simply shouting' at would-be muggers or 'blowing your horn' at them could act as a deterrent. And he said that people who witness an attack in the street should 'jump up and down' while waiting for the police to arrive.

His comments come during a deepening crisis in the Home Office and follow new figures showing a sharp rise in violent crime.

Right. Would that be the report indicating that recorded violent crime is down, or the official crime survey report that indicates that violent crime is up? Because, you know, I'm confused. Of course, it's fairly easy to reduce "recorded" violent crime. Just don't record them, you see!

The interview with Mr McNulty is part of a Panorama special being screened tomorrow evening which examines the crisis of anti-social behaviour sweeping Britain's streets.

Law and order campaigners warned that anyone following the Minister's advice to 'distract' robbers could be putting themselves at serious risk.

Which is why "it's most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can." Instead, the UK emotionally and legally neuters its populace via an official but unwritten policy of compelled helplessness.

Street criminals routinely carry knives or even guns and there have been a growing number of incidents in which so-called onlookers who intervene have also themselves been attacked.

Because the criminals know they have little to nothing to fear from an unarmed populace unsure of what they can legally do to defend themselves or others, and the police are too overwhelmed to intervene. Besides, they're too busy running the "Big Brother" video cameras.

The remarks add to the already confusing and sometimes contradictory messages sent out to concerned citizens.

In some cases police publicly praise so-called 'have-a-go heroes'. But in other situations, people taking the law into their own hands have become police suspects while the original perpetrator has walked free.

Even honking a car horn, as Mr McNulty suggests, can backfire. A motorist who sounded his at a pedestrian who stepped out in front of his car was recently fined by police for 'excessive' use of the instrument.

Sweet bleeding jeebus. I rest my case.

Serving police officer Norman Brennan, director of the Victims of Crime Trust, called the Minister's remarks 'irresponsible', adding: "Tony McNulty needs to get into the real world. Only then will he realise how ridiculous these remarks sound. The public are not going to jump up and down - they are going to be scared witless."

Only because you and those like you made them that way. Once upon a time, England was populated by a people with pride and a sense of right and wrong. Apparently between the losses of WWI, WWII, and the increasing control of their everyday lives by a Socialist government, the population has been domesticated. It's sad, really.

For the Tories, Shadow Police Reform Minister Nick Herbert said: "Jumping up and down and waving your hands in the air in a hopeless manner does seem to be the standard Home Office response to problems these days. The public need some consistent guidance about what they should do in these circumstances."

Figures out this month showed a two per cent rise in crime over the past year to a total of 2.44 million incidents, with gun crime soaring by ten per cent. And there was a 46 per cent surge in householders suffering the terror of being robbed at gunpoint in their home.

Isn't England the sterling example that the gun control organizations point to as the pinnacle of achievment? Weren't handguns banned there, oh, about 1996? Banned not as in "you can't have any more," but as in "turn them all in"? Aren't all other guns there supposedly strictly controlled? Licensing? Check. Registration? Check. "Safe Storage?" Check. No "gun show loopholes," no "assault weapons," no "Saturday Night Specials," no "Pocket Rockets"? Check. Isn't England an island - without the excuse that neighboring countries don't share its strict gun control laws? Check.

So, instead they smuggle Uzis in via truck.

Economics 101. Supply will meet demand.

The statistics come against a backdrop of a growing crisis in the Home Office, with Mr Reid admitting he and his ministerial team had failed to make the Home Office 'fit for purpose'. Mr McNulty was reshuffled from immigration to his current brief last May after the scandal over foreign criminals being allowed to walk free without even being considered for deportation.

Sounds like catch-and-release is popular on that side of the pond as well.

But, as the man in charge of law and order, the 48-year-old MP for Harrow East has continued to be dogged by controversy.

He was recently blamed by the Tories for another furore, this time involving Britons who committed sex crimes abroad being allowed to return home and work with children.

Of course. It's not like he's in danger of losing his job or anything. He's from the government, and he's there to help you. Good and hard.

Extract from the full Panorama interview

Jeremy Vine: "You see a young man looking aggressive, shouting at an old woman. What do you do? Do you retreat and ring the police?'

Tony McNulty: "I think you should in the first instance. It may well be simply shouting at them, blowing your horn or whatever else deters them and they go away."

Jeremy Vine: "He's now hitting her and the police haven't come. What do you do then?'

Tony McNulty: "The same, the same, you must always..."

Jeremy Vine: "Still wait?'

Tony McNulty: "Get back to the police, try some distractive activities."

Jeremy Vine: "What? Jump up and down?'

Tony McNulty: "Sometimes that may well work."

At least he wasn't advocating curling up into a fetal position. How about grabbing something heavy and beating the sonofabitch into unconsciousness? Would that be excessive?

Edited to add: If you want your blood pressure to spike even further, read up on some other recent outrages carried out by the UK government as chronicled by Irons in the Fire. Read down to the updates. Stow all breakables out of reach first.

"Gee, I Never Knew 110VAC was a Caliber."

Hat tip to Xavier. I haven't finished watching this yet, but that line had me rolling. A 13 year-old girl explains Canada's gun registration system. Watch "Katey's Firearm Facts"

What Happened to the Concept of a "Speedy Trial"?.

Back in 2003 when I wrote Pressing the "Reset" Button, I mentioned the case of Steven Bixby and his father Arthur of Abbeville, SC. The Bixbys admittedly shot and killed two SC peace officers over a dispute about a 20-foot section of property taken for a road-widening project. Steven Bixby is going to trial shortly. Bixby claims the first officer was shot in self-defense. Judging from the scant evidence provided by the newspapers, the second officer cannot be so justified.

Jury selection begins next week, according to an AP news report.

According to the latest report:

The Bixbys left New Hampshire about a decade ago after participating in a group angry with zoning laws and taxes.

And, of course, anybody who dissents over government exercise of power is painted with the same broad brush:

"When I think of the Bixbys, it's like the arc that anti-government folks take," said Heidi Beirich, spokeswoman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Alabama-based civil rights watchdog group. "You start not paying your taxes, you start hating the government, you get involved reading publications from patriot groups. So many of them end up committing acts of violence."

"Patriot groups." Really. No "scare quotes" either.

As I wrote in "Reset" Button:

Jefferson suggested a small armed rebellion every 20 years or so. We didn't take his advice. Our last one ended in 1865, and it was so devastating, I think it put us off rebellion entirely too long.

Government isn't "us" and hasn't been for a long, long time. It represents the people who run the Democrat and Republican Parties, and those who pay them the most. Government-run education has ensured that the end product coming out of our schools is uniformly ignorant of how the system is supposed to work, and it's done a damned good job of indoctrinating our children in the "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" philosophy, and the "if it feels good, do it" philosophy. Fifty-plus years of this has produced a very large, very ignorant, very apathetic population.

I think that "pressing the reset button" is going to happen, but all it's going to get some of us is a tighter collar and a heavier chain.

--

I don't think you're going to see a widespread armed uprising. What you're going to see is individuals and small groups who've simply had enough arming and striking - and probably dying in the process. If you've read John Ross's Unintended Consequences you'll get the idea, but I don't expect anything like the level of response he writes of. Not enough people are pissed off enough to do that.

Of course the media will spin it as "lone deranged gun-nuts" or "anti-government militias," but if you pay attention you'll note an increase in the numbers over time.

In the earlier piece, Steven Bixby reportedly stated: "If we can't be any freer than that in this country, I'd rather die." Chances are good he'll get his wish.

Despite all the Video Surveillance Cameras There...

...something you will never see from the UK: A store clerk using a handgun to defend himself from armed robbers.

(h/t: Zendo Deb.)

Arrogance, Thy Name is Arkin.

I've been too busy to comment on Washington Post opinion writer William Arkin's recent piece slamming the troops in Iraq for expressing an opinion, but his latest piece has pegged my rage-o-meter. His apology for calling our troops "mercenaries":

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

Mr. Arkin, you didn't just disrespect the U.S. troops in Iraq - you just insulted the majority of Americans in "flyover country."

You know, The American People.

We don't "hide behind the Constitution and the flag," we revere them. It's the liberals, journalists, dissenters and "anti-citizens" who wipe their asses with them, then "hide behind" them when called on it. Mr. Arkin has exposed himself as another Nina Burleigh, someone who despises the military, but that's OK because they choke up when they hear "America the Beautiful." Mr. Arkin exercises "Socially Acceptable Bigotry":

The bigotry of America's Left-leaning intelligentsia is based upon cold logic that unfolds in the following predictable, if venal, fashion: I'm very smart. I'm well educated. So are most of my friends. I give generously to liberal causes. I'm a kind and caring human being. I defer to nobody in my exemplary set of values. I care about equality. I believe in a just society. These values are integrated into the core of who I am. I work diligently to teach these values unto my progeny. And these are just the values that, generally speaking, have been represented by the policies and actions of the Democratic Party.

The corollary logic continues: I don't have much respect for the values of the Republican Party. Oversimplified, Republicans stand for the rich, for the status quo, for selfishness, and for war-mongering. These logical trains of thought are tinged with intellectual arrogance and gross stereotyping. Of course, some liberals who speak ill of Republicans have an ulterior motive. They use the tactic to undermine the credibility of all Republicans, who must be evil, stupid - or both.

Reagan, and his crowd, were a bunch of cowboys. NRA supporters are dumbfucks from Wyoming. The Christian Right is the imbecilic underbelly of the South, led by money-grubbing preachers. George W. may have gone to Yale and the business school, but he's basically a shallow frat boy and - yikes! - a Christian. Locals who line up with such thinking tend to be knee-jerk right-wingers with low IQs.

In short, the justification for bigoted comments directed at those with whom the educated Left disagrees politically is based on two foundations: 1) We're a lot smarter than they are; and 2) We're better people than they are. That logic leads to three inescapable conclusions: We're right. They're wrong. QED: All Republicans are assholes.

And all soldiers are anti-American, apparently.

As far as I can tell, Mr. Arkin suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome, and extends his illness to the troops because they're the ones carrying out Bush's doctrine. Australian journalist Carole Overington expressed her understanding back in 2004:

Any student of history knows that this is true. America saved the Western world from communism. America saved Australia and, for that matter, France from a system that would stop you from reading this newspaper.

Americans support the war in Iraq and, by extension, Bush because they see it as part of a bigger picture. Like everybody, they now know that Saddam was not the threat they thought he was (at least, not to them) but they still think it was a good idea to deal with him, before he became one.

The price of freedom is high. You might think you would not sacrifice your life for it, but maybe you don't have to. After all, 20-year-old Americans are doing it for you, every day.

While the majority of people polled today may not support the war, I'd imagine the numbers are a bit different in "flyover country" still. Much of the opposition, I'm certain, comes from the Jacksonians who are tired of the rules of engagement that have restricted the actions of our soldiers, and doubtlessly resulted in some of their deaths - it isn't that they're anti-war, it's that they're for unrestrained war. I'm sympathetic to that view, myself, but I know it's the wrong one for what we're trying to accomplish in the Middle East.

Mr. Arkin thinks those troops are "anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen." Interesting how he feels comfortable enough to say that to people who carry guns for a living, isn't it?

After all, it's not like he has to risk his life to exercise his freedom of speech.

A Bleg

A commenter asks:

Would some of you folks mind commenting in this thread -

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.co...nseless- in.html

There is a Finnish guy that is mighty proud of his homemade surveillance system.

I'm digging around this site on how the state isn't obligated to protect individuals and Clayton Cramer's gun defence blog for fodder.

But I'm thinking you folks might come up with better arguments than me posting several links to other info.

It's an interesting piece and an interesting comment thread. Have at 'em.

My Letter to Roberta de Boer.

Mentioned a couple of posts down, the Toledo Blade posted an op-ed on the local Pink Pistols group founder. It was a pretty good piece from a self-admited "gun bigot." I sent her an email:

Ms. de Boer:

Thank you for the interesting op-ed. I was reminded of one of my favorite quotes:

"Basically, I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them." - Teresa Neilson Hayden

I'd especially like to thank you for admitting that you are a "gun bigot." While I think a lot of people are precisely as the Pink Pistols described them, I also think very few see themselves that way. Especially very few people in the journalism industry or academia. Your piece also reminded me of PBS and Slate correspondent Emily Yoffe. In 2004 for her "Human Guinea Pig" series Ms. Yoffe learned to shoot. If you're curious, her Slate article on her experience, subtitled "How I learned to love guns" is still available here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2109816/

There's also an NPR audio interview with Ms. Yoffe linked at that story.

Your piece also reminded me of cultural anthropologist Abigail Kohn. Ms. Kohn recently published her book Shooters: Myths and Realities of America's Gun Cultures. Ms. Kohn has also been published in Reason magazine. In her May, 2001 piece "Their Aim is True" she wrote this:

We began by studying the right-wing militia movement of the early 1990s. Our first foray into the subject would have been comical if it hadn't been so naive. Our initial attempt to meet local militia members took us to a shooting range in the Bay Area, where we assumed local militia meetings would be held. We went on a Tuesday night, fully expecting the range to be seething with radical political activity. Why else would people congregate at a shooting range, if not to meet other like-minded, potentially dangerous right-wing gun nuts? It never occurred to us that they might be there for the simple enjoyment of target shooting.

I could not help but wonder if you were thinking similar thoughts when you went with Mr. Spradlin to the range.

I'm sorry the other party at the range was not more interested in Mr. Spradlin's efforts, but different strokes, as they say. In the part of the blogosphere oriented towards gun rights there is quite a bit of support for the Pink Pistols organization from us straights as well as gays. Just as an example, the blog "TFS Magnum" (http://wheelgun.blogspot.com) is run by a gay woman who lives on a sailboat in Florida. It was through a post at her site that I found your op-ed. The blog "Hell in a Handbasket" (http://www.hellinahandbasket.net/) is run by an Ohio gentleman who teaches self-protection classes to violent crime victims and who works with the Pink Pistol organization in, I believe, Columbus. His name is James Rummel. Unfortunately he recently changed Internet Service Providers so his large archive of early posts is gone down the memory hole.

In closing, I'd like to thank you for illustrating, even if in a small way, that there are more and better "gun cultures" out there than the one normally portrayed in the media. The vast majority of gun owners will never shoot anyone - in cold blood, in anger, or by accident. But as you were kind enough to mention, we do not take kindly to those who would "subject innocent people to defenselessness."

And perhaps, with some more exposure, you might join Ms. Kohn and Ms. Yoffe as a fellow enthusiast with a little different perspective on the topic of gun control.

Thank you for your attention.

It will be interesting if she responds.

A Matter of Perspective.

TSM is on a lot of blogrolls for a variety of reasons. Blog for Arizona began its life as Dean for Arizona back when "The Screamer" was running for President, so that gives you some idea as to the content thereof. However, the proprietor and I had some interesting and civil exchanges, and since I'm a fellow Arizonan, he felt it appropriate to link here.

That link draws the occasional hit, and every now and then I go visit his site to see what he's up to. Today I got an interesting lesson in perspective. Everyone knows the expression about "looking at the world through rose-colored glasses." This one was looking at the world through a funhouse mirror.

Take a read of I Pull for Pullen. A teaser:

The GOP is going to continue to getting more and more extreme, even as the public abandons them. Some hypothesized that the GOP will become more centrist in reaction to their recent reverses. But rather than react rationally, I think they will continue to believe that if only they can reach a state of perfect orthodoxy, untrammeled by any touch of reality, they can win elections again.

Doesn't that sound weirdly, twistedly familiar? Some analytical commentary on this would be... I hesitate to say "enlightening." Perhaps "entertaining" would be more appropriate? My thesarus is suffering from a nervous breakdown.

Paging Dr. Sanity! Paging Dr. Sanity!

Gun Bigots.

Zendo Deb points to an interesting op-ed in the Toledo Blade about the Pink Pistols. In Gay Rights, Gun Rights Cross Here, the author notes:

Personally, I'm what the Pink Pistols call a "gun bigot," someone who's not crazy about firearms, knows nothing about them, "may never have even fired one, certainly doesn't have any, [and] would gladly subject innocent people to defenselessness."

At least she admits it. This echoes what Joe Huffman spoke about at some length at the first annual Gun Blogger's Rendezvous in Reno last October. His firing from Pacific Northwest National Laboratories was, as his lawsuit claims, due to gun bigots.

All of which reminds me, once again, of one of my favorite gunnie quotes:

Basically, I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them. - Teresa Neilson Hayden

I Wonder If I've Frightened Him Off...

A commenter to last week's piece OK, I WILL Comment on this "Study" was shocked, shocked by the piece and by the other commenters:

It is unbelievable that there are people like you lot who can defend guns as 'harmless fun' or seriously state that 'guns make you safer'. If you weren't so dangerous the absurdity of it all would be hilarious.

I love how the topic quickly moves from your gun fantasies to your racial genocide fantasies in one swift paragraph.

I particularly like the idiocy of these comments.

"if you're not a young black male living in an inner city, your likelihood of dying by homicide (regardless of weapon) is about equal to that of someone living in Europe."

"if you remove the crimes committed by blacks and latinos, the U.S. violent crime rate is almost identical to that of Canada."

Like duh!! What a surprise eh? So if I remove the most deprived higher crime areas and people from the US figures and then compare it with the average in Europe (that includes all their deprived higher crime areas and population) it is 'roughly similar. Is there no amount of distortion of statistics you lot will go to to justify your idiocy? Let alone your thinly disguised prejudice against black people. Deny black people opportunities so the majority end up in poverty stricken neighbourhoods with little or no prospects and then when they act all dysfunctional, use this to justify your superiority and racial fantasies. I despair for humanity when there are dumb f***s like you walking the planet.

Boy am I glad I don't live next door to you guys.

I left a little response of my own in the comments, but, since he so kindly left a real email address I dropped him a note:

Mr. Harding:

Thank you for the heartfelt comments you left at my blog, The Smallest Minority.

Obviously you and I differ vastly in worldview (since you called me a racist dumbf**k, among other things.) Just as obviously, you read very little of my site. Then again, you are apparently a knee-jerk Leftist, so I suppose I can't expect any better from you.

However, should you care to debate the topic of gun control, I'd be more than happy to have you join me at The Smallest Minority. I find that I learn so much more when discussing the topic with those who disagree with me. Perhaps you'd like to educate me?

Surprisingly, Mr. Harding replied today:

Kevin,

Sorry if my comments were a little forthright and I thank you for responding in a friendly way. I apologise for calling you names, I think I was referring to commenters not yourself, I cannot remember exactly, but I was reacting to some pretty unbelievably frightening comments on your blog.

This stuff about black people and crime. How else could it be described other than racism?

Surely you only have to compare gun death rates between the US and UK to see that limiting guns is the safer option. Guns are so dangerous, they should not be the playthings of people.

I was, of course, moved to answer:

Neil:

Thank you for responding. No apology necessary, though you were referring to me. I have a rather thick skin at this point, and ignorance does not offend me. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge or understanding, not an incapacity for it. Thus, ignorance can be overcome through learning.

No offense intended, but you seem to frighten easily. This is also a indication of ignorance, as humans tend to fear what they do not understand. Let's take, for example, your comment "This stuff about black people and crime. How else could it be described other than racism?" Well, it can be taken as a description of reality, for one thing. Please, before you click 'delete,' allow me to explain.

What you objected to was this comment: "Never mind the fact that if you're not a young black male living in an inner city, your likelihood of dying by homicide (regardless of weapon) is about equal to that of someone living in Europe."

To you that was a racist statement. Your comment: "Like duh!! What a surprise eh? So if I remove the most deprived higher crime areas and people from the US figures and then compare it with the average in Europe (that includes all their deprived higher crime areas and population) it is 'roughly similar. Is there no amount of distortion of statistics you lot will go to to justify your idiocy? Let alone your thinly disguised prejudice against black people."

Here's what I've written about this question at another blog:

Is the incredibly disproportionate level of violent crime in the young urban black male community due to the fact they're black? Don't be ridiculous. Black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean don't exhibit the same behavior. (Which is why I don't use the appellation "African-American.") Throughout history it has been the poor who have been the primary criminal predators and who have provided the primary pool of victims, regardless of skin tone. If you're well off, you don't have to steal, for example. Nor do you feel it necessary to "drown your sorrows" in intoxicants in order to escape the crappy life you live for a few minutes or hours or days.

There's obviously more to it than just general poverty, though, because the level is so high. I would point to the exceedingly high percentage of fatherless children (due, I believe, to some really idiotic welfare policies), a welfare system that punishes attempts to escape it (I'm sorry, but you make $20 a month too much for us to subsidize your day-care! You'll have to bear the entire $400/month burden of that yourself!), and a drug policy that makes trafficking in drugs so tremendously lucrative that - in that environment - it appears to be the best (and often only) way out.

Our national history of oppressing blacks, combined with a well-meaning but incredibly flawed social policy, plus a drug policy well-intentioned but completely disconnected from reality have all combined to create the level of violence that the numbers show.

Who is to blame? My finger points at us, because the people we voted into office chose to do what felt good, rather than taking a hard, objective look at what the policies they voted for would actually result in. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis put it very well: "Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent."

Edited to add: If you want further evidence of this, look what our government policies have done for the American Indian populations.

Is that a racist statement? I'm unfamiliar with the European statistics on this, but do blacks represent thirteen (13) percent of the population there? Do they make up 47% of homicide victims overall? Or is there another minority that does? Is there any significant group that inflicts homicide on itself at a rate six times the national average?

Doesn't this make you wonder if there is something we could do that would directly affect the specific problem of young black men killing each other at epidemic levels? Because "gun control" most definitely does not.

I have compared the death rates between the US and the UK, Neil - something that you, obviously, have not. Ever since we've been keeping records, the UK has had about 1/8th the rate of homicides that the U.S. has had, regardless of the gun laws in place at the time. Guns were rarely used to commit homicide even when their possession was wholly unregulated. The UK began its path towards gun-control nirvana starting in 1920. It had no effect on that ratio. In 1953 Parliament passed the Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry an "offensive weapon" without being able to demonstrate a need for it. Offensive weapons included knives, pointed objects, and tear gas along with firearms. Ownership of a handgun for self-defense was no longer considered a reasonable need. After all, you were prohibited by law from carrying it. Curiously, violent crime in England began to climb beginning in the late 50's, until at the present time you are far more likely to be assaulted in England than in the U.S. - you just don't kill each other as often, as has been the tradition since the turn of the last century.

One bit of interesting news: The ratio of homicide rates between the U.S. and England is now down to about 3.6:1. Throw in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the disparity is even smaller.

Now, as to your last statement: "Guns are so dangerous, they should not be the playthings of people." This is the place where our worldviews are most widely divergent. Yes, guns are dangerous. So dangerous that they cannot be trusted in the hands of only the government and violent criminals - because we've seen what both of those groups do with such power. "Playthings of people"? Well, I do enjoy recreational shooting, as do a small (but growing) contingent of your countrymen, but "playthings"? I think not.

If some of my commenters frightened you, I'm concerned what these effect these quotes will have:

To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem.
To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized,
merely the domesticated. – Trefor Thomas

To believe one is incompetent to bear arms is, therefore, to live in corroding and almost always needless fear of the self - in fact, to affirm oneself a moral coward. A state further from the dignity of a free man would be rather hard to imagine. - Eric S. Raymond, Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun

In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn

"Playthings of people"? No, indeed. Serious tools. But recreation with serious tools is something we do all the time here.

I would be pleased to continue this conversation, if you are so inclined. But if you feel the need to hide under your bed, I certainly understand.

I wonder if I'll get a response?