Aurora response shows addictive personality of liberal protestantism

Why does there seem to be so much violence in “gun free” zones and so little common sense in the media’s political correctness but common sense free zone?

This is all great stuff, because you know guns kill people and should be outlawed.  Cars kill people too, and should also be outlawed.  Airplanes, trains, cigarettes, walking, running, football, baseball and skiing all kill people and should also be outlawed.  Or not…

Truth is, the 2nd amendment is about having an armed population vs. tyrannical government.  170,000,000 people have been killed by tyrannical governments after guns were confiscated. 

http://jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf

It is always tragic when someone accidently or deliberately kills or wounds another person.  But given the number of people killed by tyrannical governments it is the lesser of evils, by a wide margin.

Don+, there’s investigative work that needs doin’.  We know that the theatre in Aurora was a GunFreeZone, but did they post the TEC approved decal noted in the article?

And we can’t blame the media, because the article so irrefutably establishes that government can solve all the problems.  The rest of us, in whatever institutions or as individuals, need merely get out of the way and let them rule - despite the clearly racist, sexist and homophobic anti-government assertions made in comment #2.  Governments don’t kill people.  People just happen to die in accidents while being transported.

Tim, this is a sad but true metaphor for these folks. In my mind I see what’s left of the ENS communications staff, gutted from budget cuts, hopped-up on cheap self righteousness cut with low-grade indignation, eyes bugging and shrieking “Faster! Faster!” like the poor wretched fellow from Reefer Madness.

What a divisive and totally mean post.

Who does Tim Fountain—lowly TEC priest in some misbegotten, small, snow-blown diocese—think he is?

I certainly hope that Greg will re-consider allowing Father Fountain to post so frequently on what was once a thoughtful, intelligent, mild-mannered, and unifying blog like StandFirm was in its glory days.

Bitterly,

Sarah

Greg, what’s really sad is that Reefer Madness is a classic because of its propagandistic, unrealistic portrayal of marijuana use,  while ENS and the TEC it represents actually exist!

As for Sarah’s comment, you can’t fire me.  I am leaving for TitusOneNine, the one true blog.  SF, however well intentioned, is full of errors stemming from the 1789 General Convention.  T19 is in a diocese that predates those errors, and I think all blogs should style themselves on the handbills of the revolutionary period. 

But before I do that I will put a “No SF Bloggers Zone” decal on my posts and none of you will dare comment anymore.  Ever.  No matter what.

Self-righteousness and ignorance are an ugly combination.

Over the last 20 years, as both population and gun ownership have steadily climbed, gun deaths have steadily dropped.

If TEC wanted to do the right thing in regard to gun deaths, they’d do exactly the opposite of what they’re doing now - they’d be calling for increased availability, and fewer restrictions on concealed carry.

Our parish men’s group raffled off two shotguns one Sunday as a fundraiser.  They’ll be doing the same with a couple of rifles for deer season. 

More seriously, we have a number of law enforcement types in our congregation, some of whom will come to an event (like a wedding reception) on their break during duty hours.  They are likely armed, and I’m not standing in the doorway confiscating their sidearms.  Or waving a GunFreeZone decal in their face.

Posting a “Gun Free Zone” sign is an invitation to the nut job who is addicted to violence.

What if someone in that theater had been packing? 

Although he was covered in bullet-proof gear, a well-placed shot would have knocked him down, knocked the breath out of him and perhaps even fractured a rib. 

The shootings would have immediately stopped as people would have pounced on him and taken his gun away.

It isn’t about guns and gun ownership, but TEC won’t admit that it no longer believes in EVIL.  (Unless evil is defined by pulling the lever in a voting booth for the GOP candidate).

Once during the Christmas Eve family service, I did see a uniformed officer with his kids and his sidearm.  Didn’t bug me—he’s a knight and a protector, and the blessings of Christmas extend to him and the gratitude of those he serves.  Glad we could offer him the Gospel blessings while he was yet on watch.

“Cars kill people too, and should also be outlawed.”

Strangely enough, though, cars are registered, drivers must be licensed, and nobody goes ballistic because we have laws against blind people or drunks driving them.

Where do they find the scripture for such moral certainty on this political issue – the Book of Armaments?

(Of course, even that source would be likely to undercut the agenda.)

Yes, #13 cars are registered, by the states, and are not considered a dangerous item that needs to be controlled so that bitter people no longer cling to them, so to speak.

This thread is not about registering guns, but about their availability.  Anyone can go and buy a car, yes anyone, as long as they have the ducats.  The dealership, as I understand it, does not have to validate that you can legally possess one, or make you wait three days before taking possession.  When I bought my donorcycle the dealership didn’t even ask me for a driver’s license.  When I bought my truck, they did not quiz me on my mental faculties or medical conditions. What idiots, eh?  I could hurt someone, or myself with it.  Now, the legal operation of a vehicle is a different matter.

If you wish to turn this thread into a discussion on registration, that is a different matter.  Please identity the place in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that give anyone the right to own or operate a motor vehicle, or any sort of conveyance. 

Registration v. Right to Keep and Bear are really apples and oranges.

#14 Don’t you know that David had his sling registered by the IBWHPTST (Israeli Bureau of Wine, Hashish, Pointy Things, and Stone Throwers?

Just remember Slings & Stones don’t kill people, little boys that use them do.

“This thread is not about registering guns, but about their availability.”

Seems to me that licensing and registration have much to do with availability, based, of course, on what criteria you use to license and register.

And I just don’t understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth over asking whether it might be worth the effort to keep psychotics from collecting arms, ammunition, body armor and explosives.  Isn’t the premise of the second amendment, after all,  “a well regulated militia”?

I don’t know why I keep doing this, because facts don’t seem to come into this argument and I always get howled down on this site for saying what I’m about to say. But here is something which looks blindingly obvious to someone outside the USA:

a) In 2010 there were 8,775 homicides by firearms in the the USA (i.e. one person in 35,000 was killed by a firearm)

b) In 2010 there were 40 (that’s forty) homicides by firearms in England and Wales (i.e. one person in 1,400,000 was killed by a firearm).

c) Deaths by firearms are reducing in England and Wales (there were 73 in 2000), figures remain fairly stable in the USA at around 9-10,000 per year.

d) Firearms are either illegal (handguns) or very strictly controlled (shotguns and rifles) for individuals in England and Wales, not in the USA.

Question: which is the safer country to live in as far as the risk of getting shot is concerned? Don’t guess. Don’t quote the Constitution. Don’t say how fond you are of you gun(s).  Don’t speculate about how much safer things would be if there were (even) more guns around the place. Look at the facts and ask: what happens when guns are controlled, and what happens when they aren’t?

PS 1) Just because people in the Episcopal Church support something doesn’t make it automatically wrong (even a stopped clock is right twice a day). 2) Guns and liberty are not necessary companions. People in England and Wales have not lost our civil liberties because we don’t have guns (whatever we’ve lost has been for other reasons) and people in Afghanistan have huge numbers of guns, but not much liberty.

Openly carrying automatic firearms is quite normal in Israel, and yet they don’t seem to have much in the way of a problem with mass murders that the US does.  (they do have rather more of a problem with homicide-bombers, but that’s another issue)  Having guns does not have to mean having a high gun homicide rate.  I am far less afraid in my rather rural neighborhood here, full of responsible gun owners/hunters, when the power goes off than I would be in a more “civilized” town. 

Strict gun control laws did not protect those kids from that Scandanavian maniac who treated their island camp as his own hunting ground.

William S, several decades back, weren’t some of your neighbors in northern Europe deprived of their liberty shortly after they were disarmed?  And didn’t their mad leader bomb the living daylights out of your lovely country?

“In Israel, assault rifles are banned except for special circumstances, such as communal self-defense in areas deemed to be a security risk. And while political violence in Israel is all too common and gun violence is a growing problem, random shootings of strangers - like the Aurora massacre—are virtually unheard-of here.

“Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, Israel’s department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year.

“Not all Israelis, however, may own guns. In order to own a pistol, an Israeli must for two years have been either a captain in the army or a former lieutenant colonel. Israelis with an equivalent rank in other security organizations may also own a pistol.

“In addition, residents of West Bank settlements, and those who work there, may own pistols for self-defense.

“Other groups of Israelis, such as professional hunters and sharpshooters, or people transporting dangerous goods, may also own firearms. And Israelis may keep unloaded guns they inherited or received as a gift.”

From here:  http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/culture.php?Itemid=7599

Can’t vouch for it.  Those who know better, let us know.

I live in a state full of firearms - firearms are a fact of life here, and you can wear an unconcealed sidearm.  We also have a low gun crime rate.

But you’ll notice that I didn’t opine on gun control in my post.  The point was the almost frantic way in which TEC coverage couldn’t help but go there as the bulk of their ENS article.  They started out with those good pastoral comments and insights, and then just exploded into all those crazy resolutions and jargon.

Looking back at their comments, none of their resolutions, even if turned into laws, would have stopped what happened in Aurora.  The guy targeted a declared Gun Free Zone.  He had a handgun, but did most of the harm with a rifle.  He also had a shotgun, which I don’t think any of the resolutions covers.

And, like mass murderer/domestic terrorist Tim McVeigh, he had explosives in his arsenal.  Fortunately, the police thwarted his booby trapped apartment, but he used smoke or gas canisters to confuse and thus more easily shoot the theater patrons.

So, gun control is no panacea, especially in an age of terrorism and ideology. 

But beyond the statistical arguments about “Who has the least gun crime?” is the fact that our Second Amendment is not about efficient public management, but about our presumption of an inherent right over/against the state.  Yes, sounds loony to other parts of the world.  But then having government agencies investigate bloggers (as happened to the Cranmer blog in the UK) while harboring and coddling a foreign cleric who actively preached violence (also UK), and any number of other examples of the uncontested state seem loony to many of us here.

#10 - the evidence is building that the Aurora shooter wasn’t in bulletproof clothing, but just in a tactical vest.

#18 - True, but why are you only concerned about people being shot?  The UK is a cesspit of violent crime, many times that of the USA.  Your chance of being killed is miniscule in either nation, but your chances of being a victim of a violent crime in the UK are such that tens of millions of people more would be victims of thugs here if we had the UK’s rate of violence.

RE: “but your chances of being a victim of a violent crime in the UK are such that tens of millions of people more would be victims of thugs here if we had the UK’s rate of violence.”

Thanks for pointing this out yet again, Jeffersonian.

I believe you’ve been through all of this before with William S on other threads—but he seems to be unconcerned with the facts about violent crime in the UK.

Just a word from the cesspit (thanks, Jeffersonian).

Widening the discussion to violent crime in general is interesting but more difficult, both because different jurisdictions have different definitions and because figures within the same country may vary depending on who is asking (the British Crime Survey produces different figures from the police statistics, probably because it catches incidents which never get to the police).

That said, the pattern of violent crime is very similar in the UK and the USA: steep rise from early 80’s to mid 90’s, steady decline since then to a level comparable to 1980.

elanor seems to imply that if the Jews had had guns they could have resisted Hitler. Unlikely, I would have thought. The whole idea of an armed citizenry resisting oppressive government seems a bit romantic. A few small arms might have made a difference in 1791, but government arsenals have changed since then, as the Jews no doubt would have discovered.

But none of that addresses the question of whether the ready availability of firearms makes violent crime more potentially lethal. Even if we allow that the UK is filled with violent thugs (Jeffersonian again), at least they aren’t thugs with guns, which is some small comfort for us cesspit-dwellers.

Well, #24, I think it’s important to include context.  Yes, in a society where there are guns, more people will be killed or injured with guns, much as those that live in coastal towns risk drowning in the sea more than those that live in the interior.  Your focus solely on gun crime is therefore specious, insofar at those killed with knives, clubs, etc. are excluded.  The numbers are still disparate between the US and UK, but not nearly as much as the ones you cited are.  As was pointed out above, the numbers were disparate even when the US and UK had virtually identical firearms laws, i.e. none.  Whatever is causing the problem, it isn’t the inanimate object.

Also, interestingly, the murder rate in the US has been more than halved (from 1980) while firearm ownership has risen considerably.  According to gun controllers, that shouldn’t happen…but it has.  Again, the object either isn’t a factor or is shows a negative correlation.  I can point you to other nations with far more restrictive firearm regulation that have murder rates that are orders of magnitude greater than ours.  Again, according to gun controllers, that shouldn’t happen, but it does.

As for citizens resisting armed authorities with personal weapons, need I point you to Iraq?  Also, with a basket of firearms, Jews in the Warsaw ghetto held off the mighty German Wehrmacht for over a month and killed thousands of German soldiers.  Just think what they could have done with a room full of hoglegs.

The main difference between regulating cars and licensing their drivers, and regulating guns and licensing their owners, is that there’s no constitutional right to own or drive a car. It’s not about the relative utility, or relative danger, of using one versus another. It’s about the fact that the founding fathers saw fit to enshrine a right to keep and bear arms as the second amendment to the Constitution. You may disagree with their having done that, and you may think that the right to own a mode of transportation should also be enshrined in the Bill of Rights, but it isn’t. The right to keep and bear arms is. You may believe this is in error, but there we are.

As to the mention of a “well-regulated militia,” this phrase is the most oft-abused one in the whole liberal criticism of the second amendment.

First of all, “well-regulated” does not mean “overseen by a government bureaucracy.” The founding fathers’ contemporary use of the term means “properly functioning and ready to be deployed,” much as one would refer to a timepiece as being “well-regulated.”

Second, by definition a militia is a citizen army, not an army of GI soldiers. A militia is composed of private citizens, and is mustered in response to a specific crisis; it is not a standing army. The founding fathers’ idea was that able-bodied men would be able to muster on short notice, bringing along their own small arms if necessary, in order to meet a hostile force.

William S -

You ask two main questions:

1) Which is the safer country to live in, England or America?

and

2) Why value the right to own guns when there is not an airtight correlation between gun ownership and liberty?

To the first question, I would answer:

Exceedingly strict gun control in England didn’t stop the mass shootings in Hungerford or Cumbria. Did it make them more difficult to pull off? Perhaps, perhaps not, but they still stand as proof that hyper-strict gun control cannot prevent them, AND it leaves citizens completely unarmed and defenseless against them.

Fatal stabbings are at a 30-year high in the UK right now, so where does your strict gun control leave the weak and the elderly? It leaves them all at the mercy of yob thugs armed with knives, whereas here in America, the weak and the elderly have the option of bringing their guns to those knife fights.

To the second question, I would answer that it misses the point about the relationship between guns and liberty. It is not that liberty flows from the mere possession of guns. It is that liberty, properly articulated and codified as it is in the US Constitution, necessarily must allow free citizens to arm themselves; and that armed citizens are the best defense against having those liberties taken away. What Afghanistan is missing is that properly articulated and codified notion of individual liberty.

You say you haven’t lost your civil liberties in England because you don’t have guns, but I’d argue that the loss of your guns IS a loss of at least one civil liberty.

Free people have the right to be secure in their person and their property, and that does not mean leaving the weak at the mercy of the strong, or the kind at the mercy of the cruel. Private ownership of guns levels the playing field such that the grandmother need not be at the mercy of the gang of thugs, as she is in England. Anything less is not true freedom; it’s a type of hostage situation.

And what are we to make of this:

An American self-defense instructor was banned from boarding a flight to London because it was thought that his presence in the country was not in the public’s best interest.

Tim Larkin, who runs Target Focus Training, said that his being prevented from entering the country was a “gross overreaction.”

Larkin had been invited to be the keynote speaker at the Martial Arts Show conference in Birmingham on May 12 and 13. He was also scheduled to conduct a self-defense seminar in Tottenham.

As Larkin attempted to board a plane in Las Vegas bound for the U.K., he was given a letter by the U.K. boarder agency that explained why he would not be allowed to enter the country.

“The home secretary will seek to exclude an individual if she considers that his or her presence in the U.K. is not conducive to the public good,” a government spokesperson told the BBC.

Tim Larkin is a martial-arts instructor who focuses almost exclusively on unarmed combatives. He was not going to England to teach people how to use firearms, or knives, or even lead pipes or baseball bats, but their bare hands.

What this tells me is that the UK is not interested solely in keeping the most lethal weapons out of its subjects’ hands, but the least lethal ones as well. It tells me that the UK government position on self-defense is: Ye shall not have any, if it may lead to violence.

Which, I submit, is a deeply sick state of mind, and a clear statement on exactly the range of civil liberties UK citizens really enjoy.

Timothy Fountain:

Our parish men’s group raffled off two shotguns one Sunday as a fundraiser.  They’ll be doing the same with a couple of rifles for deer season.

What will the Altar Guild be raffling off, a Chinese sniper rifle?

And to think, I was just about ready to come up there and try out for the softball team . . .

But I can’t do it without a safe conduct pass for my pet deer on St. Francis Day! 

Something has changed here - even my bunny hugging husband and son have just completed the FID course.  There is a new wind blowing in the US.  The citizenry know that the DOJ and other feds may not protect them.  There is a real fear.  The Smith & Wesson factory stopped taking orders earlier this year due to the backlog.  There are many reasons for this but something has happened, as citizens we know this.  I cannot put my finger on it but something has changed.

#26 - Greg Griffith - Thank you for your excellent post.  Very interesting note about Tim Larkin. 

Well said and well done.  Thank you.

Ouch, there’s someone who doesn’t like guns using my online name. This doesn’t look good. For the record—guns rock (when used in accordance with ecclesiastical laws).

God Bless,
WA Scott

Seriously though, my prayers are with the victims of this massacre.

As for the ECUSA—unsurprisingly, an organization that supports the killing of millions of unborn is completely clueless when it comes to doing what’s right on other issues.

God Bless,
WA Scott

More blindingly obvious facts…
Intentional homicide rates for countries (source UNODC, most recent year stats)
Intentional Homicide per 100,000 population
United States…...4.2
United Kingdom…1.2
Australia…..........1.0
Israel…..............2.1

John Sandeman