« "Reply to killers by Richard Sale | Main | Athenaeum- Christmas Poetry »

16 December 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Farmer Don

Well said.
Agree completely.


No, it was the well educated and engaged citizenry who ensured their constitutionally elected representatives didn't vote away their constituents God given right to make sure 'never again' would terrorists attack us the same way.


I have long held the view that those who focus on gun rights will one day face a public that has had enough with a lot of people gunned down at once. Whether what just happened will be the tipping point, only time will tell.

But when it happens, they will not like the results and they will only have themselves to blame by not being in the drivers seat and enacting reasonable rules that could limit access to firearms by those who should not have it.

This may not be a popular view but Prohibition should be a cautionary exercise.

Bababk Makkinejad

Isn't this academic?

A tyrannical government can cut the elecricity to rebellious cities.

Such a government, for example, could easily starve New York City into submission by preventing food to reach it.

Blockade runners could be attacked by aircraft.

Or are you suggesting that the "Right to Bear Arms" includes such things as fighter jets and helicopter gunships?

I just do not think "Street Sweeps" can do much against Howitzers.



Babak - Is your opinion that submission to tyranny is the only path? pl

Bababk Makkinejad

No, I am just wondering to extent to which the right to bear arms is going to protect against tyranny.

Rifles and Machine Guns cannot do much against heavy weapons at the disposal of states.

Furthermore, the large concentrations of human beings in large cities all over the world makes those cities vulnerable to starvation as a weapon.

Cities such as New York City cannot function without electricity - just try to haul your grocery to the 32-nd floor.

I do not know the answer.


First, I'd like to say that I'm sure that if Anders Brevik didn't have to knife all those people to death, he would have killed a lot more people. Good thing Norway bans guns.

Many of the numbers toted in regards to gun violence refuse to make a distinction between suicides, legitimate use of firearms by law enforcement, and when they're used by law abiding citizens. Instead we get scary sounding facts with little basis in reality.

There is also a blanket refusal to acknowledge that in the grand scheme of things, shooting sprees are rather rare compared to the general gun violence that plagues places like California, Chicago, Detroit, DC, Philly, Baltimore, and all those other urban centers which share strict gun laws plus the residence of a minority. This is generally referred to as a hate fact and you will rarely if ever see it reported.

I know the age range of this blog skews towards the higher end, so many of you don't know that there are entire communities dedicated to justifying their mental illnesses as simply being 'different' and not something that should be treated or diagnosed. If you bring up that their schizophrenia or psychopathy should be treated, they will retort that you are "othering" them with your "white privilege". Y'all are free to look those terms up if you want to see where the younger generations are going towards. Your eyebrows will come down eventually, I promise you.

There is also the trend on the fringes of diagnosing anyone who is "racist" or "homophobic" as mentally ill, which is disturbing since the Soviets had a habit of diagnosing anyone who disagreed with the dictats of the State as mentally ill.

Reading the comments on many sites about the shootings, I see many parents saying that their special snowflake has many of the same issues Adam Lanza had, but they expect the world to bend to the needs of their child, as opposed to the other way around.

There is a large percentage of the US who would gladly give up their rights in exchange for security so that their existance of being in a bubble wrapped haze while swimming in a sea of consumerism is not disturbed. Life has an inherent degree of risk, and the idea that Uncle Sugar can't solve all your problems is apparently terrifying.

A final note: This article from Taki's Mag points out how many many MANY of the spree shooters were on some sort of psychotropic pill. Perhaps we should think about what we're pumping into the citizenry instead of having a very American knee jerk reaction.


As an aside, the Oregon mall shooter killed himself after he was confronted by an armed citizen with a handgun. I've yet to see that repeated in any mainstream news outlet.


Gun-ownership, Suppression and Revolution

Number of guns per capita per country:

First place U.S. 88.8/100
Last place Tunisia 0.1/100


U.S. Can Kill American Citizens Without Trial: Eric Holder

Obama Signs into Law Indefinite Detention of Americans without Trial

Americans have guns. But where is the revolution against the above obviously unconstitutional matters?

Tunisians do not have guns. But they revolted successfully.

The Tunisian revolution was an intensive campaign of civil resistance, including a series of street demonstrations that took place in Tunisia. The events began when Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year old Tunisian street vendor, set himself afire on 17 December 2010, in protest of the confiscation of his wares and the humiliation that was inflicted on him by a municipal official. This act became the catalyst for mass demonstrations and riots throughout Tunisia in protest of social and political issues in the country. Anger and violence intensified following Bouazizi's death on 4 January 2011, ultimately leading longtime President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to step down on 14 January 2011, after 23 years in power.


E Amame

The studies you point to include accidental shootings. That's fine but since you originally said, " I would instead trace it to the fact that more guns mean more murders, to the fact that that deaths by firearms are lower in states with stricter gun regulation."

If you look at gun murders you'll see D.C., with very strict gun laws, still leads the States statistically. Where there are more guns there are more accidental and suicide gun deaths but if you look at the following map it shows that gun murders are fairly even between states with either tight or loose firearm restrictions. CA, with strict controls, has less overall gun deaths than AZ, with open carry, but the two are only one-point-per-thousand apart when measuring murders. OR is lower than both though carry permits are easy to get and we have open carry without a permit--though not widely known by the populace.

Still, I believe in sensible restrictions like I mentioned above.


Medicine Man

Very good point. A not-insignificant percentage of police in the US have truly embraced the notion that the public is the enemy. Their arrogance is astonishing in some places, from seizure of goods on shallow pretext to armed home invasions to serve warrants for non-violent crimes. A war on the public.

Medicine Man

It is not academic. The people who serve in uniform are from the populace--volunteers. Their officers are sworn to defend the Constitution. While what you describe is within the power of the US government, their ability to employ those means on the citizenry with impunity is not limitless.

Medicine Man

No, I don't think so. Some degree of injustice, corruption, and oppression are inevitable, but not total domination.

Much further up this page Yohan said, "Civic education and vigilance are far more powerful in defending freedom than physical weapons." I would say that civic education and vigilance backed by physical weapons is a more powerful guarantor of personal freedom. Perhaps one of those things is what is missing?



"I am just wondering to extent to which the right to bear arms is going to protect against tyranny. Rifles and Machine Guns cannot do much against heavy weapons at the disposal of states" You need to read up on the history of revolutionary warfare in the 20th and 21st Centuries. pl

John Minnerath

Those against gun ownership can always put together studies showing fewer guns equals less crime, and will stand by then even if closer looks show their data is flawed.

The common sheeple expect "someone else" will take care of them; absolve them of all individual responsibility.
And there are plenty of others who desire to step into the position of telling them what they need.

We gun owners, hunters and sport shooters are becoming a minority in society. For years now the school system has preached that guns are evil,as these kids grow up what can we expect but more anti gun activity.

We here in the US have Constitutional rights of gun ownership, but I fear the "control" faction at the Federal level will work hard at more "feel good" law to weaken those rights.
Even if the answer to the problem of heinous mass murder is not directly linked to citizens possessing guns.


Your comment should be placed in a time capsule, a the perfect, and vivid, example of a particular--and widespread--view on the issue. Historians would thank us......


Colonel Lang,

Somewhat on topic......

Two of my favorite scenes from not so recent
movies [as best as I can remember them ]:

1)The scene in The Matrix at the TSA like
checkpoint wherein the jack booted Govn
heavy asks the hero "You got anything under that
coat?" Turns out he does [e.g automatic weapon,
several semi auto pistols, a grenade or two also
as I recall].He proceeds to wipe out checkpoint.

2)The scene from one of the Terminator movies
wherein the heroine is stuffing something into
a large backpack.She is on her way to take out
"surveillance central". Someone asks her what
do you have there? She replies 'Let's just
say that if the don't have a number 10,000
sun block, they are going to have a very bad
day".Later,no more surveillance central.[think

USMC 65-72
FBI 72-96



Apparently the Afghanis did not get the memo that they could not successfully resist a modern army of drones, stealth bombers, and tanks with rifles and homemade explosives.

Nancy K

Since 1982 61 mass murders involving firearms have occured, 1 by a woman, 60 by males, 41 of them white. Maybe you are right maybe the problem is not directly linked to citizens possessing guns, but by male citizens using them.

John Minnerath

What does that mean? Men can't be trusted?
More men than women hunt and fish. More men than women are in some trades and professions. I don't see much meaning in such a fact.

Nancy K

Who exactly is this group of people armed to the teeth going to defend us against? I'm am more afraid of a group who decides they don't like the government, our government and decide they want to take over our country. Of couse they can't but they can make our lives very miserable.


' Insurrection is not the intention.'

Are you certain about that? Maybe you are right. But, even though the amendment came afterwards, it was surely on their minds that the revolution could never have even begun without a good supply of men with rifles who knew how to use them. And the constant theme of the times was to prevent the reproduction of an indifferent and arbitrary State here in America. I had always thought that one of the points of the amendment was to intimidate the state with the possibility of revolution if it ever were to become "...destructive of these ends" and "...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...". To quote from a document of the times.

The other interpretation is the one you make, that citizens in possession of guns helps to prevent the local police from becoming abusive of their power. I agree with you that this abuse is a huge problem. Partly caused I think by the simple fact that there are just too many policeman with too much time on their hands.

But you pick a poor example. I don't think you would be arguing that it is a good idea to arm all teenagers who are having parties. And anyway, God is in the details. In any given instance, by the time it is certain that the police are behaving unreasonably and destructively, it is too late. They already have the drop on you.

Guns don't help much at all against the police; you've got a gun, they've got a swat team. But of course they are great for poking holes in tin cans, killing deer, schoolkids, and of course the odd black person walking around the neighborhood.

And just for the record, I have guns and really enjoy the poking holes in tin cans part. I also spend a lot of time working alone in remote mountains at night and do feel much better about mountain lions with a gun along. But each we have to weigh and balance things. How useful is this right? How bad is that consequence?

Bababk Makkinejad

I do not agree; they can resist but cannot win.

All I am saying is that if New York City revolts, government can cut its electricity and wait for it to gradually starve.

And the roads to and from can be controlled by light tanks and machine guns.

Bababk Makkinejad

Vicksburg - citizens had arms but did not help against Grant's army.

Bababk Makkinejad

That is what I am saying; that also very likely they were habitual drug-users as well.


Maybe the problem is disposession of male citizens by liberalism, creating a disassociation from a society that tells them they are responsible for everything wrong.

Also, white spree shooters have nothing on the urban youth responsible for so much gun violence today. You know that, but you're being disingenous by trying to pretend its whites responsible for all this gun violence.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad