Come and get them, you jug-eared idiot

And once again, the tinpot would-be dictator shows us his true colours by hinting at going well beyond mere gun control and straight into gun confiscation:
In the mid-1990s Australia and Great Britain both instituted what were virtually complete bans on firearm possession. 
Obama referenced the bans thus:
We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it. 
And Obama is not the only one who suggested taking a gun-free approach to American life. The anti-Second Amendment message was also pushed by Slate, Vox, and Dan Savage. 
For example, on October 1 Slate ran a story reminding readers that Australia enacted their gun ban in response to an attack on April 28, 1996, wherein a gunman “opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania.” Thirty-five were killed and 23 others wounded in the attack. Twelve days later Australia’s government banned guns, period. 
On October 2 Vox explained that Australia “confiscated 650,000 guns” via a “mandatory gun buyback” program which forced gun owners to hand their firearms over for destruction. Vox claims the result was that “murders and suicides plummeted’ and suggested such a path might be an option for America following “the murder of at least 10 people at Umpqua Community College.” 
Vox did not mention that “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” began plummeting in America in the mid-1990s as well. But in America, the decrease in violent crime did not correlate with a gun ban but with a rapid expansion in the number of guns privately owned. The Congressional Research Service reported that the number of privately owned firearms in America went from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million privately owned firearms in 2009. Subsequently, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate fell from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 and finally to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.
My utter disdain for President Jackass notwithstanding, it is quite amazing just how immune to basic logic this man really is.

As the CSR's data shows, firearms-related murders, and violent crimes overall, went down over time even as America's gun ownership rates skyrocketed. And that is not in the least bit surprising. As several of the videos that I linked to in my last post on the subject point out, if you make it easier for potential civilian victims to own firearms, you make it harder for potential criminals to harm them. And criminals fully recognise this.

Now, there is some debate within academic circles as to whether that drop in violent crime, at the same time that firearms ownership rose, is merely a correlation, or an actual causation effect. What I mean by this is that there is a thesis running around in academia- touted most notably by Stephen D Levitt, author of Freakonomics, that violent crime rates in the US dropped rapidly from their 1970s peaks through the late 1980s and 1990s due to cheap, subsidised, and safe abortion.

The "abortion decreases crime" theory is... contentious, to say the least. And it is certainly not accepted by John Lott, whose book on the subject remains one of the definitive studies of the links between violent crime and firearms ownership.

But let's put aside the last, oh, thirty years' worth of evidence here in the USA and take President Odumbass at face value. Let's say he really is on to something. Let's say America follows the paths taken by Australia and Great Britain, and confiscates every gun currently held by the American people.

So what happened in Australia?

Well, this did:
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there was a slight drop in the percent of murders committed with a firearm between 2001 and 2007 (16.0% and 13.4%, respectively). However, the percentage was highest in 2006 (16.3%) and remains higher than the low of 8.9% in 2005. There is no difference in the use of a firearm in robbery: Guns were used in 6.4% of all robberies in both 2001 and 2007. 
In 2002–five years after enacting its gun ban–the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime: “The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued its declining trend since 1969.” 
Even the head of Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, acknowledged that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime: There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on afterwards[...]
There has been a more specific … problem with handguns, which rose up quite rapidly and then declined. The decline appears to have more to do with the arrest of those responsible than the new laws. As soon as the heroin shortage hit, the armed robbery rate came down. I don't think it was anything to do with the tougher firearm laws. 
Weatherburn also acknowledged that the best crime measure consists of “the arrest of those responsible.” 
Moreover, Australia and America both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9% decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7%. 
Now for the rest of the story. 
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2% and robbery 6.2%. Sexual assault–Australia’s equivalent term for rape–increased 29.9%. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2%. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8%: rape dropped 19.2%; robbery decreased 33.2%; aggravated assault dropped 32.2%. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
So basically, banning guns didn't make very much of a difference at all to Australia's violent crime rates. It simply made a difference to the number of people getting shot by guns.

How about Great Britain, then? What happened to their crime statistics after guns were banned?

Well, this did:
The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year. 

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed. 
Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362. 
It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993. 
Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871. 
Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures. 
With new recording procedures taken into account the actual overall rise was just 2%, the Home Office said. 
Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: "These figures are truly terrible. 
"Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offences. 
"The only word for this is failure: the Government's response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either. 
"The figures will continue to be dreadful until the Government produces a coherent long term strategy to attack crime at its roots and get police visibly back on our streets." 
Gun crime would not be cracked until gangs were broken up and the streets "reclaimed for the honest citizen by proper neighbourhood policing", he added. [Didact: No. Gun crime will not be cracked until honest citizens arm themselves.]
Those figures are from 2003, well after the Dunblane massacre that kickstarted the gun-grabbing movement in Britain. A later set of figures, from 2009, shows that the problem of violent crime- and specifically, of gun violence- got far worse.

So the example of the two other Anglophone countries that Obarmy so admires- except, of course, when he plainly doesn't- shows that, at best, confiscating people's guns will simply result in a decrease in gun-related crimes.

That is, I remind you, the best case scenario. The evidence tells us that violent crimes of other types- rapes, muggings, attempted murders with knives and bottles and sticks and so on- will go up, not down, if people's guns are confiscated.

And that rather unpleasant reality leads us to consider some other very unpleasant realities.

For instance, the shooter in Oregon clearly targeted Christians during his rampage. By telling his people that we should follow the example of countries that have unilaterally disarmed their civilian, law-abiding populace, what the "President" is telling them is that they should voluntarily lay themselves open to violent criminals who would target them based on their looks, their attitudes, and their faith.

As has been claimed above, Australia experiences three times the rate of female rapes that the United States does. I readily concede that the data behind that claim is old- the latest reliable data set I could find dates back to 2002. From that data set, Australia and Great Britain both rank way above the USA, even though the US ranks much, much higher than its Anglophone brethren in terms of firearms deaths per million, and is far and away the world's most heavily armed nation.

So what President Obarmy is really arguing, if you think about it, is that he is in favour of policies that put women in greater danger of rape and murder.

I don't know about you, but I, personally, am not in favour of any such thing. As far as I am concerned, if you are a woman, you have every bit as much right to defend yourself from an attacker as I do.

One is forced to wonder why a man who claims to be following an ideology of "compassion" and "tolerance" is so thoroughly in favour of ideas and policies that are anything but compassionate.

And all of this doesn't even address the really big question.

Let's say that President Doofus there does, in fact, get away with proclaiming a blanket gun ban on the people of this country. Let's say that, tomorrow, Congress passes a law stating that every American must turn over his or her firearms for "safe retention and disposal" within a month. Never mind that to do so would require the complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, and the upholding of such a ridiculous law by the Supreme Court, let's just take it as given, for the purpose of an intellectual exercise.

Would Americans comply?

I will be honest: I don't know the answer. I suspect that many- far too many- would.

How many of you people are willing to fight your own government, your own military- which is staffed by your own sons and daughters- to preserve your right to self-defence?

I wager the number to be less than one in four.

But here is the critical difference between America and the rest of the world: that one-in-four will be armed to the teeth.

America has some 310 million firearms in personal possession. That's an ownership rate of 90%. And that is assuming that you just divide total firearms in civilian hands by total population, which doesn't give you any idea of how concentrated that ownership is. In reality, the people with the most guns are not in the big cities, they are in the suburban and rural areas. The true ownership rate is not 90%- I suspect that "only" about 50% of all households are actually armed. But that number is still very high by any global standard.

No other nation on Earth is so heavily armed, in raw terms. And no other nation on Earth has shown such willingness to defend its rights to those arms in the face of ruthless and determined opposition. When- not if, but when- the gun-grabbers come for those weapons, they will find themselves facing some 80 million people with guns, who know how to use them, and are not afraid of doing so.

In other words, the entire American government apparatus would be outnumbered something like ten to one. Maybe more- I'm being extremely optimistic in my estimates of the total number of American government employees that might be called to administer such a ban.

Ten-to-one odds, in the backwoods and country farms and small towns of America, are the kinds of odds that would make even the most dedicated gun-grabber take pause for a moment.

And that, ultimately, is the one slender hope that will save the American people from the yoke of tyranny. No tyrant will be able to so easily impose his will upon a nation where the right to keep and bear arms is taken with utmost seriousness.

I would leave off with one last question to President Douchebag in response to his ridiculous bloviating. And I know what his answer to it will be.

Mr. President, are you, personally, willing to put yourself in harm's way to stand up for what you believe? Are you willing to personally kick down the doors of those people who own guns, round them up, imprison them, and take away their guns? Are you willing to put your own precious person at risk- unprotected by Secret Service agents, not escorted by honourable and courageous American Marines who, from the lowliest private to the Corps Commandant himself, all are better and more decent and more worthy men than you?

There are millions of men and women in the United States of America who are willing to defend their rights and their beliefs with force of arms, with their own lives if necessary. Until you, Mr. President, are willing to do the same, you're merely just another pathetic blowhard with delusions of grandeur and power, and you do not deserve our respect or our time.


  1. In Australia we had a shooting a few days ago by a muslim . there has not been a decrease in gun crime but there has been a decrease in gun deaths. This is due mainly to poor aim and also police being on scene quicker. Had the public been armed at port Arthur the gunman would have been dead before his body count reached 35.

    1. In Australia we had a shooting a few days ago by a muslim

      Bloody hell, another one? Even though I expect such insanity to occur more often in the West, I am sorry to hear that.

      Had the public been armed at port Arthur the gunman would have been dead before his body count reached 35

      Indeed. That is precisely what has happened in cases where would-be gunmen have attempted to attack armed targets.


Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts