Bad Arguments Used To Push Gun Confiscation

Bad Arguments Used To Push Gun Confiscation

There are many lousy arguments used to push for gun confiscation, many of which are well known. Here are four which are either newer or less well known, but which are increasingly relied upon by would-be confiscators.

Bad Argument #1

The first bad argument, ubiquitous among the Blue Cheka, is a sort of syllogism:

A. Bad men are committing atrocious acts with the most commonly owned gun;
B. Ban the most commonly owned gun;
C. Therefore, bad men will no longer commit atrocious acts.

Note that the conclusion C is not that bad men will no longer commit atrocious acts with the banned formerly most commonly owned gun, which does follow. If you melt into shackles all AR-15s, it is profoundly true no bad acts will be committed with them. No good acts, either.

The conclusion is instead that bad men will lose the ability to be bad. Which is asinine.

If you eliminate the most commonly owned gun, you create the most commonly owned gun. That second most commonly owned gun won’t be the same gun as the former most commonly owned gun. But as long as people own guns, there will always be a most commonly owned one.

And that is still true if you swap weapon for gun everywhere. Recall that the enriching diversity which is blessing England has turned to knives, guns being scarce. This has led leaders there to suggest banning knives, or at least banning sharp knives.

No one has thought to ban, or at least control, the bad men.

Bad Argument #2

The second argument adds a premise to Bad Argument # 1, namely that all “assault” weapons should be banned. Then bad men will no longer be able to commit atrocious acts.

This is doubly asinine, because (1) bad men will always find a way to be bad, and (2) any weapon used in an assault is by definition an assault weapon. This includes steak knives. It is only unjustified optimism on the reader’s part to reason that leaders would not some day call for a ban on “assault knives”. See England.

Bad Argument #3

The cry is for “red flag” laws, which would allow the government to confiscate “assault” (“hate”?) weapons from individuals who set off “red flags.” The claim is that these red flags are correlated, even perfectly correlated, with the red flag sender eventually becoming a bad man who commits an atrocious act with a weapon. Therefore, if the weapons are confiscated from from the red flag sender, he cannot commit atrocious acts. That is only true, of course, if all possible weapons are removed from the red-flag sender’s path. Which is impossible.

Perfect correlation between a red flag and future crime, or pre-crime, is impossible. Thus the majority, the vast majority, of red flag senders who will never commit an atrocious act will be unfairly punished, though the potential of a true lunatic to do harm is somewhat lessened. The argument then devolves into costs and losses of both outcomes.

All that pales next to red flags themselves. Consider these words: xenophobia, transphobia, homophobia, and so on almost endlessly. A phobia is an irrational fear, as is constantly pointed out (in vain). An irrational fear is a form of mental insanity, and any form of insanity is a red flag. Defining their opponents mentally ill is a well used tool of “the left”. See e.g. USSR.

Thus in order to send up a red flag, a person only has to espouse Reality and Tradition. No, strike that. History shows that a person in a leftist regime who remains quiet and does not voice the official ideology also sends up a red flag. It is often said a right wing tyrant only demands obedience, but a left wing tyranny eats the souls of its victims.

Bad Argument #4

The absolute worst, most asinine, most idiotic, most deluded, most screamingly obvious moronicity (you heard me: moronicity) is bad argument #4. It is so flatulent that every time I see it used, I weep.

The argument is that guns should be confiscated from citizens. What follows from that (for that is not the bad argument itself) is that only government employees would have guns.

It is then assumed that guns in the hands of government employees are perfectly safe, and always put to good use. A man with a gun in his hand who yesterday would have been seen as a menace and a terror today becomes an angel of light, for today that man has become a government employee.

We’ll end with this much cited quotation, which is the best rebuttal there is.

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?…The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more—we had no awareness of the real situation…We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

— Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

The last line, dear reader, was this: We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here


  1. trigger warning

    Re: Red Flag laws
    I’m amused by the notion that when “mass murderering potential” is emanating from a person who owns gun(s), the police should arrest the gun(s).
    OTOH, we do live in a world where some believe that outlawing Big Gulps will prevent fat people.
    Fun to watch.

  2. Sheri

    Yes, we do indeed deserve the hell we are demanding for ourselves now. How little one must care about one’s children and grandchildren to have such an attitude, but one sees that all the time now. Selfishness is the natural outcome of a godless, stupid society and we certainly have one of those. (The massive stupidity is mind-boggling, to be honest. We have not progressed since caveman days as far as human development.)

    For a truly scary reading, It’s a window to the future of the USA, but this time there is no “world” to stop it. Europe, Canada, etc are all going to murder Christians and anyone who doesn’t tow the line of the oppressive leftist regime. We are in for dark times, but it’s not as if we didn’t beg for it.

  3. DAV

    Red flag laws are Minority Report in real life – – precrime punishment.

    The argument is that guns should be confiscated from citizens [then] only government employees would have guns. It is then assumed that guns in the hands of government employees are perfectly safe, and always put to good use.

    Which is what the second amendment exists tho prevent. The impetus of it was the confiscation of guns by the British in revolutionary times to quell rebellion. It’s purpose is to prevent that from occurring again.

    Recently, a rookie police officer shot at a nonthreatening dog and ended up killing the person whose welfare he had been sent to secure. The courts have ruled in similar instances that the police have immunity thus can’t be sued for even blatant wonton actions.

    Recently, the police stormed a couple’s home on the suspicion of drug possession. In the process they killed the couple. An hour afterward, they used a loudspeaker to tell the couple to surrender peacefully and no one will harm them.

    The government having all the firearms is a good thing yes? Er, no. The threat of revolt is the last resort safeguard of freedoms provided by the Constitution through the 2nd Amendment. Hard to revolt when all the firepower is in the hand of the government.

    Once upon a time, the Democrats at least pretended to believe in the Constitution and its guaranteed freedoms. Now they are openly trying to tear it down. And even Republicans are climbing aboard. Scary times.

  4. Sheri

    From PJ Media:
    Anti-Gun Agitators Harass Sen. McConnell at His Home: ‘Just Stab the Motherf*cker in the Heart!’

    New York Post:
    “Murder Turtle!” the demonstrators can be heard shouting on video, in reference to McConnell’s infamous nickname.


  5. “We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    Hmmm…have we Americans ever seen anything like this in recent history?

    Oh, yeah. Establishment demonizing of a group, PC-Prog/establishment media joining in, President and government agencies–FBI, DOD, ATF, etc.–piling in for a joy-ride chance to live out their fantasies…it happened under the Clinton/Reno regime.

    Then it was “Branch Davidians” whose lives were worth no more than dust. Now it’s “white nationalists.”

    The Waco-ization of Normal Americans continues apace:

    “Armageddon in Waco
    Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict
    Edited by Stuart A. Wright
    The University of Chicago Press, 1995
    On February 28, 1993, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) launched the largest assault in its history against a small religious community in central Texas. Approximately eighty armed agents invaded the compound, purportedly to execute a single search and arrest warrant. The raid went badly; six Branch Davidians and four agents were killed, and after a fifty-one-day standoff, the United States Justice Department approved a plan to use CS gas against those barricaded inside. Tanks carrying the CS gas entered the compound. Later that day, fire broke out, and all seventy-four men, women and children inside perished.
    Could tragedy have been prevented? Was it necessary for the BATF agents to do what they did? What could have been done differently?”

    “Chapters show how the the Davidians came to trouble authorities, why the group was labeled a “cult,” and how authorities used unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse to strengthen their case against the sect.

    “The media’s role is examined next … the orchestration of public relations by government officials, the restricted access to the site or to countervailing evidence, and the ideologies of the journalists themselves.”

    “Here is the Summary at the end of the chapter “Self-Fulfilling Prophecies” by James R. Lewis:
    The implications of these studies and supporting arguments for the Waco situation should be clear. The Branch Davidians’ chances for a fair hearing were severely damaged as soon as the label “cult” was applied. After that, the mass media selectively sought out and presented information about Koresh and his community that conveniently fit the stereotype. It was only a matter of time before law enforcement and the media had completely demonized Koresh and his followers. Anticult organizations provided ample fodder for the ritual and symbolic castigation of this little-known religious sect, simplistically reducing the beliefs and practices of the community to vapid, inane categories of brainwashing rhetoric. After this demonization had been successfuly accomplished, the entire community — men, women, and children — could be consigned to their tragic fate with little more than a peep of protest from the American public, a public which overwhelmingly approved of the FBI’s tragic final assault on Mt. Carmel.”

  6. swordfishtrombone

    UK Population 65 million
    US Population 330 million (5x)

    UK Gun homicides (2017) 31
    US Gun homicides (2017) 14,542 (469x)

  7. Jim Fedako

    NYPD publishes an annual firearms discharge report. Based on these reports, more New York cops die from their own guns (suicides and friendly fire) than from those held by criminals.

  8. Jim Fedako

    Swordfishtrombone —

    Comparisons across cross countries and cultures are always suspect. Based on incarceration rates, the US is many times more violent than the UK. That is true, legal guns or no legal guns. Are you including suicides in your numbers?

    Also, you need to compare my county versus the UK. Zero gun murders in decades. So, effectively zero here. Yet gun ownership is really high.

  9. Shecky R

    Preach that Nazi Rifle Association paranoia Briggs, preach it!!… while the blood of children drips from your gun-clutching hands. (Jesus would be, and is, ashamed of you)

  10. Jim Fedako

    Swordfishtrombone —

    Oops. You did exclude suicides.

  11. Jim Fedako

    Yet, most folks are callous when it’s a wedding party in Yemen, the result of US drones and missiles. We ask, “Who could commit such a crime?” Yet, when the same death total is the result of drone operator in a cave in Colorado, we shrug.

  12. Briggs

    “The Office for National Statistics said that in the year to December 2018, 732 lives were lost to homicide, compared with 690 the previous year. The figure is the highest number recorded since 2008. Homicide includes murder, manslaughter, corporate manslaughter and infanticide.

    The total covers both England and Wales, although in Wales homicides fell from 35 in 2017 to 27 in 2018.

    Offences involving knives rose 6%, with police recording 40,829, the highest number the ONS has on record since 2011.”

  13. Sword,

    Your comparing apples and oranges has already been refuted well above. However, there is much more data that destroys your attempt to blame “guns” for killings.

    “UK — Homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers “exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self-defence or otherwise” (Report to Parliament). The problem isn’t just that it reduces the recorded homicide rate in England and Wales, but what would a similar reduction mean for the US.”

  14. DAV

    UK Gun homicides (2017) 31
    US Gun homicides (2017) 14,542 (469x)

    Which only proves that guns are the weapons of choice.

    It is a truism that removing the number one choice just means number two will move into first place.

    If the root problems aren’t addressed then weapons bans will solve nothing. You can’t ban all weapons. People are ingenious and will use whatever is available from pencils to bear hands.

    What’s the goal: stopping gun violence or preventing murders?

  15. DAV

    Er, “bear hands” or “bear paws”? Or should it have been “bare hands”?

  16. henry higgins

    Your use of math would likely increase GREATLY gun deaths !! Until the huge disparity in deaths is recognized, a decrease only prolongs deaths in those places where obviously other factors predominate

    “According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, over 50 percent of murders occur in 2 percent of the nation’s 3,142 counties. Moreover, gun-related homicides are heavily concentrated in certain neighborhoods within those counties: 54 percent of U.S. counties had zero murders in 2014.”

    Sooooo, if you care about murder ask yourself: are the guns in those 2% neighborhoods the real problem at all….I used to live near Camden New Jersey so I know that guns are not the problem at all.

  17. Chad Jessup

    One problem with the red flag laws could be this: I express disapproval of homosexuality and transgenderism, then the thought police confiscate my weapons.

  18. Robert Mounger

    Professor Richard Dawkins was asked if, since he hated Christianity so much, should we replace our ethics with a basis in Darwinism? He said that it would result in something very much like Hitler. The true believers on 8chan & 4chan /pol/ who never stop talking about DNA & seem to applaud both of the NZ & TX shooters would seem to bear this out.

    Does this mean that evolution is a dangerous ideology, or even hate speech?

    Both the evil men who shot up the mosque in NZ & the walmart in Texas write in their manifestos that part of their motivation is worries about the effect of overpopulation on the ecology. The British royal consort, Prince Phillip, wrote in a book that he wished to be reincarnated as a lethal virus to decrease human population.

    Does this mean that environmentalism is a dangerous ideology, or even hate speech?

  19. Ray

    There have been numerous studies on guns, violence and criminality. Here are some of the major studies that you should read to become knowledgeable on the subject.
    Drs. James Wright and Peter Rossi, “Under the Gun, Crime and Violence in America” (1983) National Institute of Justice
    Professor Gary Kleck, “Point Blank, Guns and Violence in America” (1991).
    Dr. Charles Wellford; et al, “Firearms and Violence: a Critical review” (2004) National Academy of Sciences.
    If you read these studies, you will find there isn’t any evidence that demonstrates the availability of guns has any measurable effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape or burglary.

  20. Richard

    Mr. Briggs’ points are all well taken. His piece is worth reading at least twice, there is so much to grasp.

    I had not seen the Solzhenitsyn quote before now, but it is right on point. For more gripping information and an expansion upon the basis for Solzhenitsyn’s point, see the book entitled Death by Gun Control, or view the video entitled Innocents Betrayed. (The latter may yet be available on YouTube.)

  21. c matt

    We have not progressed since caveman days as far as human development

    We did progress, but then we regressed.

    blatant wonton actions.

    Prefer egg drop myself.

    As for crime stats, why not compare “gun free” Chicago to “concealed carry” Houston?

    Chicago 2015 Gun Homicide rate: 15.4%
    Houston 2015 Gun Homicide rate: 10.3%

    Conclusion: Stricter gun laws cause higher gun homicide rates – in fact 50% higher.

  22. C-Marie

    The push for a police state is very clear.
    God bless, C-Marie

  23. Ken

    Individuals who chose to become highly effective spies and traitors to their country invariably passed an in-depth security background check. The very most effective/damaging spies held the highest clearance. Proving the point that a prerequisite to being a spy is to have the trust of the country one is betraying.

    Illustrating that no amount of such checking can eliminate, or predict, the targeted risk.

    I’m surprised that nobody has compared the murder or suicide rate using handguns in countries that have banned/confiscated them vs those that have not — with the parameters being the instances of violence vs per weapons available (e.g., murder or suicide per handgun). And similar comparisons. There are some interesting non-linear patterns hiding in data in plain sight. Or on bumper stickers — “if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns” (and, having the gun is not the factor distinguishing the outlaw from upright citizen there).

  24. DAV

    @c matt
    Prefer egg drop myself.
    🙂 I was wondering if anyone would catch that.

  25. swordfishtrombone

    @ Jim Fedako,

    I’m comparing countries, not counties, but the gun homicide rate where I live is also effectively zero.

    @ Briggs,

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove with your somewhat random stats?

    @ Clizbe,

    Using the figures you cite, there were 11,577 homicides versus 8,786 murders, which still gives the US a 56 times higher gun murder rate than the UK. Homicide includes killings in self defence, but the main factor leading to such killings is the assailant carrying a gun, so less guns would most likely reduce those killings as well.

    @ DAV,

    You seem to be claiming that the US is inherently far more violent than the UK. If that’s true it would seem to be all the more reason for gun control laws.

    @ Robert Mounger,

    Evolution isn’t an ideology.

  26. DAV


    You seem to be claiming that the US is inherently far more violent than the UK.

    Not at all and I’m surprised you reached this conclusion.

    I’m saying that you focused on the means instead of the underlying problem. Removing guns won’t stop murders anymore than eliminating the number one fatal disease will prevent deaths. The UK tried a gun ban and it didn’t work. Now they want to ban knives presumably because they’ve risen to become the number one preferred means of murder.

    Most of the murders in the US appear to be gang related in inner cities (Chicago and Baltimore for example). On top of that, there has been a rise in murders by machete by MS-13 gangs. The town I live in though hasn’t seen a murder in 30+ years.

  27. DAV

    I should also point out that California has the strictest gun laws in the US but that didn’t stop a recent shooting there. The shooter violated a host of these laws but wasn’t deterred.

    Chicago has the strictest gun laws outside of CA and just this weekend passed the 300 mark for the number of gun deaths this year. Gun laws don’t even stop gun deaths.

    All or nearly all mass shootings have been in gun-free zones. They are the most attractive to mass shooters because they know there won’t be any resistance.

  28. Jim Fedako

    swordfishtrombone —

    Why are you comparing just countries?

  29. DG

    Excellent article Briggs! I particularly like the last quote at the end! Yeah so much for trying to take away fire arms from civilians when governments can do more widespread abuse with guns than any one individual or small group criminals.

  30. Dave

    The best argument for gun confiscation is that I want to do a mass shooting but I’m afraid people will shoot back, leaving me with a laughably low kill/death ratio that’s briefly mentioned on the local news and quickly forgotten. If guns are banned, other people will leave theirs at home for fear of confiscation, and I’ll have several minutes to rack up a legendary body count before the cops arrive, like that guy in Aurora who drove past six other movie theaters to shoot up one with a “no guns allowed” sign.

    We know liberals are really smart because they say they are. Please listen to liberals and ban guns!

  31. swordfishtrombone

    @ DAV,

    “Removing guns won’t stop murders anymore than eliminating the number one fatal disease will prevent deaths.”

    This is a false analogy – because everyone eventually dies, but not everyone who is murdered by a gun would have been murdered by another method if guns weren’t available, and a strawman – because the argument for banning guns is that it would reduce the number of murders, not eliminate them altogether.

    “The UK tried a gun ban and it didn’t work.”

    The UK enacted a gun ban which is still in place. Bearing in mind that we have 56-85 times less gun murders than you do, it did work.

    “All or nearly all mass shootings have been in gun-free zones. They are the most attractive to mass shooters because they know there won’t be any resistance.”

    By this logic, there should be more mass shootings in the UK than the US, which isn’t the case.

    @ Jim Fedako,

    “Why are you comparing just countries?”

    Because those were the first numbers I found, and the simplest to understand. If you want to compare different US counties with each other, be my guest.

  32. Swordfish – The British gun ban resulted in rising crime rates. It especially resulted in a dramatic increase in gun crimes and murder. You see, a result is the change in conditions after you do something. It’s not an irrelevant set of unrelated circumstances.

  33. DAV

    The UK enacted a gun ban which is still in place. Bearing in mind that we have 56-85 times less gun murders than you do, it did work.

    So, why then is there a push to ban knives? Was it suddenly realized that being stabbed isn’t any better than being shot?

    Yes, banning guns will reduce the number of gun deaths just as banning SUVs will reduce the number of fatal accidents in an SUV but you need too show that the ban actally had an effect in reducing the overall murder rate — IOW, actually worked — unless the plan was to merely reduce gun deaths. Comparing the number of gun deaths in different countries and social mixtures is disingenuous.

    Gun free zones:

  34. So, because “gun deaths” were reduced after the UK’s hand gun ban, call it victory, huh?

    If the goal is to take guns away from law-abiding people, yes, it was a victory.

    If the goal was to reduce homicides, it’s an abject failure.

    When guns are not available, people intent on causing harm (to themselves or others) use other means.

    The UK’s homicide rate shot up after it banned hand guns in 1997.

    Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png

  35. If gun confiscation prevented suicide, then S. Korea would have one of the lowest suicide rates in the world, rather than 50% higher than the US.

  36. Michael Ozanne

    “This includes steak knives. It is only unjustified optimism on the reader’s part to reason that leaders would not some day call for a ban on “assault knives”. See England.”

    Indeed we have a list of scary knives that are banned, and it is also an offence to advertise a non-scary knife in a scary fashion…..

    All with no actual effect on the crime stats…

  37. Michael Ozanne

    ““UK — Homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers “exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self-defence or otherwise” (Report to Parliament). ”

    This is bullshit….. read

    It’s perfectly clear Homicides are those recorded as such by the Police irrespective of viable suspects, or conviction status..

  38. Michael Ozanne

    “The UK enacted a gun ban which is still in place. Bearing in mind that we have 56-85 times less gun murders than you do, it did work.”

    Homicide rates here were still much lower than the USA when we were armed to the teeth.. In those good old days before the 1968 firearms act when some rural public houses(Saloons to you Shermans) had shooting ranges… Beer and gunsmoke what could possibly go wrong…

  39. Sylvain Allard

    ” This includes steak knives. It is only unjustified optimism on the reader’s part to reason that leaders would not some day call for a ban on “assault knives”. See England.”

    Your argument are kind of week and asinine themselves.

    If knives are such good weapons, then they should be the weapon of choice. For sure the US military budget would decrease by a lot.

    England has more knives attacks because people are unable to find better weapons. How many of mass murder are there in England?

  40. swordfishtrombone

    @ McChuck,

    “The British gun ban resulted in rising crime rates.”

    According to the figures I’ve looked at murder rates spiked a few years after the gun ban but that was as much as anything else due to serial killer Harold Shipman’s 172 victims inflating the figures in 2003. Also, only 0.1% (Greenwood) of people in the UK had guns _before_ the ban, so you wouldn’t expect it to have much effect anyway.

    @ DAV,

    “So, why then is there a push to ban knives?”

    Because every kitchen in the country is equipped with them?

    @ Kent Clizbe,

    “The UK’s homicide rate shot up after it banned hand guns in 1997.”

    I refer you to my reply to @ McChuck.

    @ Arkanabar T’verrick Ilarsadin,

    “If gun confiscation prevented suicide, then S. Korea would have one of the lowest suicide rates in the world, rather than 50% higher than the US.”

    Strawman. No one is claiming that it would _prevent_ suicide, only that it would likely reduce it. Your South Korea example is cherry-picked. The UK has a gun ban and has a suicide rate approximately 50% less than the US.

    @ Kent Clizbe (again),

    “4 dead, 2 wounded in Southern California stabbings”

    Yes, 4. Not 32 (Virginia Tech), 49 (Orlando nightclub), or 58 (las Vegas). You’re making my point for me.

  41. DAV

    Mass murders withou guns

    Quoting some of the above about knives (obviously not a comprehensive list):
    Canada … five people with a kitchen knife at a Calgary party.

    Japan … In 2016, a former employee … stabbed to death 19. …

    Eight students were stabbed to death at an Osaka school in 2001.

    A combination vehicle/stabbing incident killed seven in Tokyo in 2008.

    China, another society with very strict gun laws …
    A 2014 terrorist knife attack in Kunming left 33 dead and 143 injured.

    A series of school attacks in the early 2010s killed at least 25 in total

    Australia … :eight siblings killed in a mass stabbing in Queensland

    Knives of course aren’t the only choice. Gasoline is another weapon. A determined killer will use whatever is available.

  42. Sword (again),
    None so blind as those who refuse to see…

    Guns do not kill people. Evil, sick, deranged people kill people.

    “@ Kent Clizbe (again),
    “4 dead, 2 wounded in Southern California stabbings”
    “Yes, 4. Not 32 (Virginia Tech), 49 (Orlando nightclub), or 58 (las Vegas). You’re making my point for me.”

    And just what do you think your point is, buddy?

    Could you possibly be so blind to reality to believe that non-gun mass murderers are somehow limited in their ability to massacre their victims? ? What number of victims of a mass murderer makes their choice of weapon acceptable? 3? 10? 15? 40? 70?

    That’s a pretty sick reckoning game you’re playing.

    I shared the “4 dead in knife mass murder” headline because it happened simultaneously–literally was happening as you were typing your ignorant babbling about guns.

    Wanna totally destroy your destructive gun-phobia? Let’s look at a tiny slice of the history of mass murders (nearly all in gun-free zones, or countries that do not allow private citizens to carry or own guns):

    1. “33 Dead, 130 Injured in China Knife-Wielding Spree”
    2. “On the same day as the Sandy Hook shootings here, 22 children were injured in a mass stabbing at a school in central China, and China’s second-wealthiest man was attacked by a disgruntled job-seeker in September of 2013.”
    3. “…a man in Fujian province went on a slashing spree outside a primary school, killing 8 and injuring 5. The attacker was a jobless doctor who reportedly was venting frustration after a failed romantic relationship.”
    4. “…Over the next two months, four similar incidents took place in southern and inland China, leaving more than eight primary and kindergarten students dead and 57 injured. The timing of the four incidents suggested the possibility of a “copycat” phenomena, in which criminals mimic sensational incidents after learning of them from media. The stabbing spree alarmed government authorities, who enhanced security at schools; a Chinese regulation now also requires people to register with their national identity cards when purchasing large knives.”
    5. “Three students were killed and 13 injured when a man with a machete rampaged through a private daycare center in Guangxi.”
    6. “BEIJING (AP) — A teenager killed eight people with a knife and wounded five more in northeast China after falling out with his girlfriend, state media said Thursday. The teen killed two of her family members and six more people before fleeing, the state-run Legal Daily newspaper said. It reported he was caught but did not describe the circumstances. ”
    6. “On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping,Fujian province in China.”
    7. “Leizhou, Guangdong knife-wielding Chen Kangbing, at Hongfu Primary School wounded 16 students and a teacher.”
    8. “On April 29, 2010 in Taixing,Jiangsu, unemployed Xu Yuyuan went to Zhongxin Kindergarten and stabbed 28 students and two teachers after stabbing the security guard…”
    9. “On April 30, 2010 Wang Yonglai used a hammer to cause head injury to preschool children in Weifang, Shandong, then used gasoline to commit suicide by self-immolation.”
    10. “Wu Huanming killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten in Hanzhong, Shaanxi on May 12, 2010.”
    11. “May 18, 2010 at Hainan Institute of Science and Technology, in Haikou, Hainan, more than 10 men charged into a dormitory wielding knives around 2:30 am; after attacking the security guard and disabling security cameras, 9 students were injured, 1 seriously.”
    12. “4 August 2010, Fang Jiantang slashed more than 20 children and staff with a 60 cm knife, killing 3 children and 1 teacher, at a kindergarten in Zibo, Shandong province.”
    13. “October 2015 in Xinjiang China, 50 people were murdered (with as many as an additional 50 people injured) by knife-wielding men at a coal mine.”
    14. “On July 28, 2014 in the same region in China, a mass knife attack killed almost 100 people (according to the Chinese government) as well.”
    15. “The Bath School disaster was a series of violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927, in Bath Township, Michigan, that killed 38 elementary schoolchildren and six adults and injured at least 58 other people. Kehoe beat his wife to death in cold-blooded murder, firebombed his farm, then detonated a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder to take place at a school in United States history. Not a single firearm was used.”
    16. “The Oklahoma city bombing killed 168 people and injured 680 others — not a single firearm was used.”
    17. Arson “The Myojo 56 building fire (??56???? My?j? Goj?-Roku Biru Kasai) began at about 01:00 local time on September 1, 2001 in the Myojo 56 building, located in the Kabukicho section of Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan. The fire, the fifth-deadliest in post-war Japanese history,[1] burned for five hours before being extinguished and resulted in the deaths of 44 people.”
    18. “The Sagamihara stabbings were committed on 26 July 2016 in Midori Ward, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan. Nineteen people were killed and twenty-six others were injured, thirteen severely, at a care home for disabled people.[1][3] The suspect was a 26-year-old man, identified as Satoshi Uematsu (?? ? Uematsu Satoshi), a former employee of the care facility.[4] Uematsu surrendered at a nearby police station with a bag of knives and was subsequently arrested.”
    19. “TOKYO: Five children and a woman died in Japan on Friday (Oct 6) in a fire that was apparently started deliberately by the father of the family.”
    20. “The Kyoto Animation arson attack (Japanese: ????????????? Hepburn: Ky?to Anim?shon h?ka jiken) occurred at Kyoto Animation’s Studio 1 building in the Fushimi ward of Kyoto, Japan, on the morning of 18 July 2019. The arson killed at least 35 people, injured an additional 33…”

    These are just a few examples from a quick search.

    Gun-phobic banning of our Constitutional right to self-protection would not stop any of these.

    Evil people will find ways and means to massacre others. We deserve our God-given right to self-protection.

  43. DAV

    “So, why then is there a push to ban knives?”
    Because every kitchen in the country is equipped with them?

    ??? Kitchens also equipped with pots and pans — potentially lethal weapons themselves. Why only knives?

  44. Joy

    There are over two million guns owned in the UK.
    Where Enbgland has it right, the right people own the guns. Easy to check the rules on a plice website.
    As for knives. They have always been banned just as they most likely would be in the US if a copper stopped you then you have to justify what you’re doing with a potentially deadly weapon. Baseball bat are popular with certain groups and we don’t play that game much over here!
    So, Hand guns? they were banned except if kept in certain condictions which includes gun cabinet and use at a venue which is a sports guns club or something similar.
    All sorts of guns are licenced.
    Bears should never be allowed to carry guns except when they have completed a questionaire.
    Horses? never.

    The point is that the US is a different proposition entirely. Not for historic reasons because unfortunately, even for the US history evolves. For geographical and demographic reasons guns make sense in the US. Paricularly in rural and reote areas. There’s always the bare bears to worry about.
    If you could “magic” the US to have the same set up as England, which you could not, ALL the commenters on here would be smug. They’d all still own a gun, too.

    Everntually the US will get the balance right and they can still call it a second amendment and blame the Brittish. If it makes them happy 🙂

    Wait till the gairy angels get hold of guns, then yo’l be in truble.

  45. Joy

    I meant hairy angels.
    On the knives?
    When I worked in Twickenham I was often waved from walking thought he knife check queue because the coppers know who they’re looking for. It’s no coincidence that the evil bastard who killed innocent men in the desert came from the same part of town.
    Where a black flag flew above the mosque at isleworth. Where our soldiers were forced to wlak for their appointments past the damned place only weeks after having the self same flag as a marker for the enemy.
    THAT is the truth.
    The governement is trying to police a multi cultural disaster. Just as with simply driving iffences, parking fines and so on. Teh onnocent must suffer so that the few are not being singled out.
    Barbarians prefer knives.

  46. Joy

    My previous comment was blocked. I wonder which moderator didn’t like it?

  47. Joy

    Whatj’s really interezting is that the omment appeared, hence my noticing one of the typos, and then “disappeared.”
    Was it because I corrected some of the factoids and terminologi al inexactitudes about the UK’s gun laws?

  48. Joy

    Briggs are you messing about with comments again? Like with the “I”‘s?

  49. DAV


    Yours wasn’t the only one. I’ve had two. The first was addressed to He Who Should Not Be Named. The second undoubtedly had trigger words (pun intended) involving projectile devices.

  50. Joy

    Dav, I didn’t know projectile devices weren’t allowed.
    Thought it was because I made jokes about bears and their rights to bare arms.

    So won’t try to repeat it.
    Just consider yourselves all wrong, as usual and I’m right.

  51. swordfishtrombone

    @ DAV

    “A determined killer will use whatever is available.”

    Strawman. No one is saying that banning guns would prevent all killings, only that it would likely reduce them by making it more difficult than just ordering an assault rifle online.

    @ Kent Clizbe,

    “These are just a few examples from a quick search.”

    Strawman. I refer you to my answer to @ DAV, above. Also, I hope you don’t own a gun, if the level of aggression in your responses is anything to go by.

    @ DAV,

    “Kitchens also equipped with pots and pans — potentially lethal weapons themselves. Why only knives?”

    The implication of your original question was that it would be a good idea to ban knives if it saved lives. I was just pointing out that you can’t ban something which is an essential tool in every kitchen.

  52. DAV

    making it more difficult than just ordering an assault rifle online.

    You clearly have been misinformed. It’s actually easier to buy one in person. Buying online requries TWO dealers both with Federal Firearms Licenses and you have to receive it in person. Much easier into walk into a store and deal with all the paperwork and waiting times.

    it would be a good idea to ban knives if it saved lives. I was just pointing out that you can’t ban something which is an essential tool in every kitchen.

    Yet the UK is contemplating it. China now has restrictions on purchasing knives.

    In case you aren’t aware, banning guns in the US is not possible. The District of Columbia tried it and lost in court. Owning a gun is in our Constitution. To get a ban requires amending it. Not an easy task.

  53. Joy

    It’s the plastic knives that are a real problem because they’re very tough, deadly and not detectable.
    Those are the ones they were seriously talking about banning as far as I know . I have to tell you that despite what some of the US people think, it is for one reason and one demographic only. The rest is media spinning and hoping everyone gets the wrong idea.

    Just as they tell us all sorts of things about the US, so it works the other way, playing nations off against each other when actually there’s no argument.

    The US and Brittish media are working together against the side of right. Not just fake news but slant and spin, changing of wording at every opportunity
    One day, people will rise up against the media’s lying.

    Politicians will then follow suit.
    The real leaders will continue to speak the truth.
    Those who just want power for its own sake will depart when it gets too hot to handle. Namely the women, mostly, and those who have relied upon media to prop them up. You know you’re in trouble when Joy looks at the US politicians and our own and thinks she could do better from a standing start. Really, Big trouble. Maybe my keyboard’s started switching o’s and i’s. z’s and s’s. wah’evuh’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *