Looks as if drawing attention to the “sacred Constitution” hypocrisy of the gun-hungry fraternity has brought the usual suspects out of the woodwork. Never takes long. The usual avalanche of non-sequiturs, iffy anecdotes, speculative guesses, calls for a muzzled press and another round of scholarly investigation of new alibis, embedded in the usual US-style freakspeak: “hand-wringing bleeding hearts”, “liberal ‘Progressive’ (in quotes)” “left ideology”.

Let’s beg Graham’s forbearance in using up some space to deal with it, hopefully demonstrating that this reaction to challenges to the right of every Tom, Dick and Harry in the USA to bear arms - a right exercised by a small minority of Americans - ducks the cogent, factual reasoning necessary to make a case.

The non-sequiturs come thick and fast in the website cited as showing that a woman foiled a criminal by (justly) shooting him dead. The web site is a Tea Party freak show full of rubbish about the elected President being a non-American Moslem, and the criminal shot by the woman was not using a gun which means her gun was NOT shown to be an effective defence against guns. If the criminal had had a gun he could have blasted the door open and blown the woman away while she was still fumbling about.

It’s called “getting the drop” which is why gun-armed attackers can usually kill gun-armed as well as unarmed defenders. It’s why more than 50 armed, trained US soldiers have been killed by Afghan “colleagues” and why it is a lie to claim that flooding the country with even more guns will protect people against - you’ve guessed it - guns. That piece of vermin in Newport CT would have had no trouble disposing of armed primary school teachers. [continued. . .]

[continued]

The case against flooding a country with guns is simply that:

*what causes gun death is not drugs, not violent videos, not press reports, not “hand-wringing bleeding hearts” but bullets fired from guns,
*the more ready to hand guns are to malicious people the more people will be killed by their gunfire,
*the more guns in private hands the more will be available, one way or another, to killers,
*the country in which the most guns are in private hands is the one that leads overwhelmingly in the number of people shot dead (latest: USA nearly 10,000 p.a., Britain 41),
*nobody is deprived of anything more than self-indulgence by removing guns from private control,
*the right not to be shot dead outweighs any right to self-indulgence,

T H E R E F O R E

*guns should be kept out of private hands.

But wait! Americans had to be privately armed to protect them from the tyranny of uppity slaves, pesky redskins, sassy wives, elected governments. The entire US constitution is sacrosanct. Gunnies will defend it till their guns are taken from their cold, dead hands. Well here’s their chance. The US Senate has just adopted by 81 votes to 14 laws to allow for US citizens on US soil to be interned INDEFINITELY without trial by the armed forces. That chews up what’s left of the US constitution. Can anyone hear the bugles calling the gunnies to arms?

PS: My sympathy for the bloke who fought off the vermin invading his bedroom, and contempt for the police force who took their side. Lucky it wasn’t America - the returning trash would have had guns and had the drop on the defender. The law is weak, weak, weak on criminal bullies.

Emperor Julian,
I'm one of those who firmly believe that those who genuinely need a firearm should be allowed to have one. I'm totally against high-powered guns which have nothing to do with vermin control or personal safety. No-one needs an assault rifle. Many though do need a .22 or .357 etc non-automatic.
There's absolutely no justification for high powered automatic guns just for target shooting.
Those who frequent the Bush & other dangerous wildlife country should be able to carry a gun, preferably a simple revolver for unhindered defence.

Individual: A single shot .22 or .357 (or .303) is fine for the purposes you mention, but it won't give the gun freaks what they are clamoring so noisily for and brushing aside little matters like avoiding 9-10 thousand gun homicides a year in the gunnies' paradise. It won't give them that buzz which excites sick minds. Beware, sickos like that call the shots (literally!) in America, but they'd grab at the same power in any other country stupid enough to give in to them, as we were before Howard faced them down and said No.

Emperor Julian,
If decent people were allowed to defend themselves & their belongings than the majority of shooting deaths would be crims not decent people. So it would be a good thing for good people to own guns. Again it's not the guns that kill people. It's criminals & Magistrates who cause many avoidable deaths.
If Magistrates were to hit the crims a lot harder instead of persecuting the victims the whole show would be better. Change Laws & you'll change behaviour, simple.

Individual: The answer is for magistrates and Judges and legislation and police to hit crims a lot harder, not spread more guns about for crims and wannabe crims (esp. juvies) to get hold of. Parole boards have a role too. Members of parole boards should be held jointly and severally liable if a crim they sool on to the public reoffends while on parole, for example.