In the UK it is almost sacrilege to suggest that the 1997 Hand-Gun ban was anything less than a triumphant step towards a utopian peace. Over here comedians, pundits, papers and television routinely mock the USA for it’s gun culture; we are more enlightened, more “progressive” is the underlying sentiment.
But as anybody with any common sense could easily have concluded long in advance, prohibiting guns does not get rid of them, it only drives them underground. As the cliche goes: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
On the 2nd of June Derrick Bird embarked on a killing spree that left 12 people dead in his wake. This is comparable to the 17 who died in the tragic Dunblane massacre which was the pretext for the hand-gun ban in the first place. Derrick Bird was not deterred from carrying a gun because Derrick Bird was batshit fucking insane. His victims, and the bystanders who saw what happened (fearing lengthy jail terms if caught with a weapon), were unarmed and unable to stop this madman.
In fact since the ban there has been absolutely no reduction in the number of homicides from firearms.
Now let’s forget the facts that the ban has not reduced murders, and let’s forget the obvious truth that you simply cannot legislate guns out of the hands of criminals and let’s talk about what really matters: the individual.
The government makes it impossible for individuals to protect their homes, and their families!
This might sound like hyperbole but that’s probably because you’ve never been targeted by a criminal.
If you are an average sized Male, living on your own, you cannot protect yourself against determined criminals.
Criminals are typically hard bastards, they’re used to fighting, they’re used to carrying weapons and using them, they’re often big and what’s more they’ll kick down your door and steal everything you have if they think they can get away with it. Here’s the crux: what are you going to do to stop them?
Phone the police? All the police can do is arrive after the scene of the robbery. Sure they can take a few details, but the vast majority of crimes are never solved. Maybe they’ll take a fingerprint or two, but if you’ve ever dealt with the boys in blue you’ll know that the chances of anything coming from that are about as remote as Mel Gibson teaching anger management classes.
When the individual property owner (a property owner is somebody who has agreed to live amongst society. He is playing the long game. Working. Producing. Accumulating wealth and becoming known in his community. He is the opposite of the criminal) cannot defend himself against the thug who wants to take by force what he has not earned through toil you have a recipe for a decaying civilisation.
It’s no coincidence that the worst places to live are the inner city ghettos, where the criminals are most likely to carry, and the victims are least able to invest in any kind of decent home security.
It’s also no coincidence that it is always the government who seeks to disarm the law-abiding and productive in favour of the psychopaths; the violent criminals…
They are the same people.
Where the criminal plays the short game, using violence to take what he wants in the moment, the government plays the long game; taking the fruits of your labour pay-cheque to pay-cheque, under the threat of its own guns, which it always finds a way to justify it needs.
Because remember citizen: ethics are not universal; there is one rule for us and another for them.
BECAUSE WE HAVE THE GUNS, THAT’S WHY!