« Life in Florida VI | Main | Happy Birthday, America! »

Hey, Joe, Where You Goin' With That Gun In Your Hand?

Not to London.

Yes, this is the fourth piece on Wizbang featuring Joe Horn, but that's because his story resonates across so many levels.

England is, socially, touted as superior to us in many ways. They have socialized medicine, they've banned handguns, and they have a very hefty immigrant population that they are bending over backwards to accomodate. (Both the head of the state church and now the nation's Chief Justice have endorsed allowing Shariah law to be upheld in Jolly Old England.)

Now, the mayor of the nation's capitol is going on record recommending that his city turn into a population of neighbors of Kitty Genovese.

Here's the fun thing: if everyone is, morally, a neighbor of Kitty Genovese, then it logically follows that everyone is a potential Kitty Genovese.

A city where no one will get involved in helping a neighbor being victimized is a city full of potential victims who can count on getting no help from anyone when they are the victim.

That's the logical conclusion of putting more and more and more faith in the government, more and more dependence on the government to fix everything. You get out of the habit of looking out for yourself and your neighbors.

In my earlier piece, I said we need a nation of Joe Horns. I think England needs them even more than we do.

Maybe they can just clone John Smeaton?

This should be my last posting on Joe Horn for some time, quite possibly forever. Unless another angle or connection comes to mind. But four should be enough.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/30406.

Comments (32)

I'm not sure the Brits will... (Below threshold)

I'm not sure the Brits will ever fully appreciate the Scots-Irish, even after more than a thousand years.

Jim Webb gives many conservatives reason to pause, but this is worth reading as it explains much about what makes Smeaton different:

http://www.amazon.com/Born-Fighting-Scots-Irish-Shaped-America/dp/0767916883

When weapons are outlawed, ... (Below threshold)
Socratease:

When weapons are outlawed, when the law-abiding are stripped of their ability to defend themselves, when the police are more concerned with keeping them that way than in arresting criminals, this is the result. There's no percentage in putting your own life at risk when your government ties your hands when you need to defend it, and won't do it themselves. So why would anyone be stupid enough to intervene in a crime they witness, or come forward afterward to testify? It was no accident that the Genovese incident happened in New York City with its Sullivan laws, the oldest gun control laws in the nation.

Anyone care what the % chan... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Anyone care what the % chance of being killed with a firearm is in London vs., say, Houston? What about Tokyo?

hyperbolist,In Tok... (Below threshold)
Herman:

hyperbolist,

In Tokyo, it's about zero, as guns and bullets are illegal there. In London, I think it's slightly higher, as guns haven't been completely removed from society.

"In my earlier piece, I sai... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"In my earlier piece, I said we need a nation of Joe Horns." -- Jay Tea

Yeah, in Mr. Tea's ideal nation you would get situations like:

Gun Nut: "You stole that peach from the supermarket!!!"
Thief: "Yes, I was hungry!"
POW! POW! POW!
Gun Nut: "Well, that took care of that! Hey, could someone help me clean up all the blood here?"

It'd be more likely the gun... (Below threshold)

It'd be more likely the gun nut would go "Damn, man - that's rough. Tell you what, I'll buy you a Whopper meal at Burger King, you come to my business tomorrow and we'll see what we can find for you to do for a couple of days."

The guy likely won't show - but he'll at least get fed.

Ref #5. Herman, you may hav... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Ref #5. Herman, you may have a problem with legal, approved citizens have a weapons permit. Guess what Mr. IDIOT, the average American citizen is tired of the poor criminals getting by with robbing, killing, raping, etc.

Our Constitution gives us the right to protect ourself's. People like you think it's ok to let people rob, murder, etc. And you are probably also against the punks receiving the death sentence.

Please post your address online so all the punks can invade your house, rape your wife, kids, and kill all of you. This would be a good thing if you did so, as we, the average decent American citizen would be getting rid of another bleeding heart A**hole, and all of the offspring of said person.

"If you outlaw guns, only o... (Below threshold)
ElvenPhoenix:

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Robert A. Heinlein

Look at DC to see the truth of that quote.

Every person in the US has (or should have) the right to protect themselves and their families from criminals. Believe me, if someone "invaded" my home I would be doing my best to take them out (you can read "kill" in that statement). I would be doing my best to protect our children, even though I'm female.

Yes. There are guns in our house. Yes. They are out of reach of the kids, but readily available to me or my husband, should we need them. And I would have no hesitation in using them.


JLawson,You are of... (Below threshold)
Herman:

JLawson,

You are of the opinion that in Mr. Tea's ideal nation, thieves can be rewarded (with free food) for theft rather than receive capital punishment. This is utterly preposterous.

MR. TEA'S OWN WORDS:

"The argument I have heard so many times when the subject of killing of criminals is "no material possession is worth more than a human life."

"I don't disagree with that argument. I REJECT IT." -- Jay Tea

Allen, you just wished rape... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Allen, you just wished rape and murder upon the family of someone you haven't met because you disagree with his positions on a blog. You need some help, you sick fuck.

No, hyperbolist, he didn't ... (Below threshold)
Jamie:

No, hyperbolist, he didn't wish that because he disagreed. He wished it as a response to being accused of being ready to shoot someone over a peach.

And I, for one, am a big fan of the proposal for gun-control advocates being required to have large, high visibility signs in their front yard and on their vehicle declaring to the world that their personal space is a GUN FREE ZONE.

Herman, you are truly a king among imbecils. Few people are genuine dense enough to extrapolate vigilante justice from a man's defense of his neighbor's property. But just for the sh*ts and giggles, let's run with your example.

First, guess what? Stealing is one of those things that a lot of people believe to be wrong. Has something to do with what most of Western culture accepts as a very long standing moral code. In addition, the "wrongness" of stealing isn't dependent upon circumstance. It matters not that a thief is "hungry" when he steals food, theft is still wrong, and food in the criminal's belly is food out of the hands of law-abiding people. Would I shoot someone for stealing a peach? Probably not, unless it was coming out of my refrigerator. Would I blame a store owner for shooting a shoplifter, no matter what their "haul"? Nope.

What needs to end is the rationalization of crime, along with the "entitlement" mentality that's wrecked everyone's perspective on property. Urban culture encourages and glorifies "getting what's mine" by taking from others, and one has only to watch a prime time game show for a few episodes before hearing one of the contestants' supporters claiming that the contestant "deserves" the prize.

The hard truth is that nobody automatically "deserves" food, healthcare, clothing, shelter, or ANYTHING beyond the opportunity to legally acquire those things. If more people paid the ultimate price for lazily taking shortcuts, perhaps the shortcuts wouldn't be so appealing.

A quote attributed to Judge Roy Bean stated that he didn't hang men for stealing horses, he hanged horse thieves such that other horses didn't get stolen.

"If you outlaw guns, only o... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Robert A. Heinlein

"Look at DC to see the truth of that quote." -- ElvenPhoenix

Ridiculous argument. Any person in DC wanting a gun can just take the subway to Virginia, as guns definitely aren't outlawed there. Nope, you want to look at the effect of an absolute gun ban, you look toward places like the island of Japan.

Homicide rate, United States: around 5.5/100,000 people

Homicide rate, Japan: around 0.5/100,000 people
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder )

Yep, the U.S. rates is 11 times greater. WOW.

Of course, with the effective removal of guns and bullets from Japanese society, it's going to be harder not just to murder people, but to rob or rape them too. Hence, a career as a violent criminal is less appealing.

"Allen, you just wished rap... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"Allen, you just wished rape and murder upon the family of someone you haven't met because you disagree with his positions on a blog. You need some help, you sick fuck." -- hyperbolist

Allen's definitely not the only conservative in need of psychiatric help. Strange part of all this is that we can conjecture that Allen would call himself "Pro-life."

"Herman, you are truly a king among imbecils." -- Jamie

Would help, Jamie, before making such a claim, if you could correctly spell "imbeciles."

"Would I shoot someone for stealing a peach? Probably not, unless it was coming out of my refrigerator. Would I blame a store owner for shooting a shoplifter, no matter what their 'haul'? Nope." -- Jamie

Incredible, simply incredible.

One simple request, conservatives. If you favor the murder of shoplifters (or, for that matter, burglars), DON'T EVER CALL YOURSELVES CHRISTIANS, AND DON'T EVER CALL YOURSELVES "PRO-LIFE." Is that okay, conservatives? You see, these past several years the world has had to deal with too much Republican deceit already.

I went through the training... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

I went through the training and I just renewed my permit to carry a concealed weapon. I fully agree that law abiding citizens should have the means and the right under the law to defend themselves and their families. I also agree with Castle laws that give people immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability when they dispatch someone who has invaded their home.

However, I can't support extending such protection to those who shoot people in the back as they flee from them unless you know for a fact that they just did great bodily harm to someone. Back shooting is a cowardly act and should never be confused with self-defense. If pro-gun people don't condom such acts then we are rightfully associated with the chicken-hearted and the foolish people who do such things.

Herman -I'm saying... (Below threshold)

Herman -

I'm saying that capital punishment is far less likely than compassion.

You're saying the opposite. I think you're wrong.

Have a nice day.

From Thomas Sowell:<p... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

From Thomas Sowell:

Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of Bentley College deserves some sort of special prize for taking on the thankless task of talking sense on a subject where nonsense is deeply entrenched and fiercely dogmatic. In her recently published book, "Guns and Violence," Professor Malcolm examines the history of firearms, gun control laws and violent crime in England. What makes this more than an exercise in history is its relevance to current controversies over gun control in America.

Gun control zealots love to make highly selective international comparisons of gun ownership and murder rates. But Joyce Lee Malcolm points out some of the pitfalls in that approach. For example, the murder rate in New York City has been more than five times that of London for two centuries -- and during most of that time neither city had any gun control laws.

In 1911, New York state instituted one of the most severe gun control laws in the United States, while serious gun control laws did not begin in England until nearly a decade later. But New York City still continued to have far higher murder rates than London.

If we are serious about the role of guns and gun control as factors in differing rates of violence between countries, then we need to do what history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm does -- examine the history of guns and violence. In England, as she points out, over the centuries "violent crime continued to decline markedly at the very time that guns were becoming increasingly available."

England's Bill of Rights in 1688 was quite unambiguous that the right of a private individual to be armed was an individual right, independently of any collective right of militias. Guns were as freely available to Englishmen as to Americans, on into the early 20th century.

Nor was gun control in England a response to any firearms murder crisis. Over a period of three years near the end of the 19th century, "there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people," according to Professor Malcolm. "Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and only three were homicides -- an average of one a year."

The rise of the interventionist state in early 20th century England included efforts to restrict ownership of guns. After the First World War, gun control laws began restricting the possession of firearms. Then, after the Second World War, these restrictions grew more severe, eventually disarming the civilian population of England -- or at least the law-abiding part of it.

It was during this period of severe restrictions on owning firearms that crime rates in general, and the murder rate in particular, began to rise in England. "As the number of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen," Professor Malcolm points out.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s, there were more than a hundred times as many. In England, as in the United States, drastic crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens were accompanied by ever greater leniency to criminals. In both countries, this turned out to be a formula for disaster.

While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up more criminals.

In both countries, facts have no effect whatever on the dogmas of gun control zealots. The fact that most guns used to murder people in England were not legally purchased has no effect on their faith in gun control laws there, any more than faith in such laws here is affected by the fact that the gun used by the recent Beltway snipers was not purchased legally either.

In England as in America, sensational gun crimes have been seized upon and used politically to promote crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing about criminals. American zealots for the Brady bill say nothing about the fact that the man who shot James Brady and tried to assassinate President Reagan has been out walking the streets on furlough.

Mac Lorry, you watched too ... (Below threshold)
twolaneflash:

Mac Lorry, you watched too many cowboy movies man. Your whiny "no shooting in the back" sounds like something I heard in volleyball as a kid. On the battlefield, whether it's in my house, in my yard, at my neighbors, or in Iraq, the only "fair" fight is the one you win. In live-or-die, the only rule is kill the other and survive. Shoot the criminal in the buttocks, face, gut, whenever & wherever you can. You one dumb gunfighter, and obviously never been in combat. Your survival quotient is pretty low, like the dumbasses who tangled with All-American Joe Horn. Turning your back and running does not create a bullet-proof shield, you just die tired.

Twolaneflash,I ser... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Twolaneflash,

I served in the military and I can tell you this has nothing to do with combat. Only a fool would confuse the rules of civilian self-defense with the rules of war. The men Horn shot in the back were not armed and at least one of them never came at Horn. Horn's life was never in danger. Horn killed two men in broad daylight for nothing more than a property crime. The plainclothes detective who was parked in front of Horn's house said he feared that Horn would shoot him too and ducked down below the steering wheel. Horn was out of control and he's just dang lucky the detective didn't shoot him dead, which he could have justly done. Holding up Horn as some kind of all-American hero just diminishes us all. Even Horn now realizes that what he did was not heroic.

My idea of an all-American hero is Jeanne Assam. She FACED an ARMED serial killer and put him down with the pistol she has a concealed carry permit for. She knew the law, got the permit, trained with the firearm and exhibited true courage. It's examples like Jeanne Assam that strengthen the case for concealed carry and Castle laws.

If we hold up backshooters like Horn as heroes then some other ignorant person is going to think it's ok to shoot kids in the back as they run away from toilet papering his trees. When that happens even many otherwise pro-gun people will be calling for repeal of laws that seem to protect such cowardly acts.

Homicide rate, Jap... (Below threshold)
Homicide rate, Japan: around 0.5/100,000 people

What an amazing coincidence, Herman. Here is the U.S., the homicide rate among Japanese people is almost exactly the same.

Urban culture encourages... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Urban culture encourages and glorifies "getting what's mine" by taking from others, and one has only to watch a prime time game show for a few episodes before hearing one of the contestants' supporters claiming that the contestant "deserves" the prize.

Like farmers demanding government subsidies rather than learning to do something economically viable in the global marketplace?

Jamie, when someone says they would kill someone for stealing a peach out of their refrigerator, they are seriously fucked in the head and completely un-Christian. (I'm not a Christian, nor am I a gun owner, but isn't a peach about the same price as some bullets? And how much does it cost to remove blood stains from hardwood flooring?)

Mac Lorry: the reason I get nervous with liberalized gun laws (meaning, unrestrictive gun laws) is that many of their advocates lack the measured tone and reasoning that you demonstrate while discussing the topic. When people delight in the murder of criminals guilty only of taking property, it shows a) a too-high regard for material things, and b) a too-low regard for human life.

OregonMuse: that's because Japanese (and Korean) people are taught that guns are bad, even though every Korean male goes through rigorous firearms training while in the military. There used to be an awful lot of violence in their society, based on lofty and insane moral principles that have been blunted (thankfully) by modernity. What ought to be done to encourage such a paradigm shift in mainstream American culture? It's a serious question. Banning certain video games or rap songs or movies or whatever would be wrong at face value; and it's not like gun-averse Japanese and Koreans don't play violent video games or watch violent films. Is it simply the case that one must accept that firearms and the American way of life are inextricably intertwined with one another; and should that not be taken as more than a little unsettling?

Ok, Herman, I'm going to ma... (Below threshold)
Jamie:

Ok, Herman, I'm going to make this as simple for you as I can.

I am Pro-Life. I believe in every individual's right, whether before or after birth, to be free from threats from others to their own life, liberty, and property.

I know the point is beyond your comprehension why the life of a criminal bent upon infringing upon my aforementioned rights isn't quite of the same value as the life of an unborn child, but the concept wasn't alien to Christ. He was familiar with the Jewish law that mandated death to anyone who injured a pregnant woman and caused the death of her unborn child.

You, sir, are a sad waste of skin, and it's a pity there are those who probably consider you the most intellectual person they know.

You, sir, are a sad wast... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

You, sir, are a sad waste of skin, and it's a pity there are those who probably consider you the most intellectual person they know.

What the fuck are you talking about? You're a very stupid person, Jamie. Herman's point is fair: would Christ advocate the killing of someone for stealing a television set? Would he say "Hey, they were on your property, so, you know, don't bother turning the other cheek. Only do that in public places."?

Exercising your right to protect your property through lethal force seems a bit much when we're talking about replaceable material goods, non?

"If you outlaw guns, only o... (Below threshold)
David in San Diego:

"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Robert A. Heinlein

"If you outlaw guns, only the government will have guns." Karl Hess

Two modern reasons why we have the Second Amendment.

Thank you Alex, John and Jimmy.

There used to be a... (Below threshold)
There used to be an awful lot of violence in their society, based on lofty and insane moral principles that have been blunted (thankfully) by modernity.

I hope you're not trying to suggest that this happened all by itself. The Japanese got the crap beat out of them in WWII by (ahem) the U.S. Funny you forgot to mention this. We pounded their cities to rubble, destroyed their army and navy, and and took their guns away. We deposed the military junta that ran the country with the moral principles you condemn as lofty and insane. Then we imposed upon them a Western-style constitution that reduced their military to near zero. So yeah, the Japanese were pacified. At gunpoint.

It took thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars in a world-wide war effort to accomplish the end result you're holding up for admiration.

Is it simply the case that one must accept that firearms and the American way of life are inextricably intertwined with one another; and should that not be taken as more than a little unsettling?

Nope, sorry, doesn't unsettle me in the least. In fact, I consider American firearms culture a source of strength. My country was born in war and conflict; my freedom, and my prosperity (which I celebrate today, July 4th) was bought by the blood of patriots, by honorable men whose shoes I am not worthy to tie. Unlike some other countries, mine does not have the luxury of wallowing in moral and intellectual decadence.

Whether or not WW II ever h... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Whether or not WW II ever happened, OregonMuse, Japan would not be a player in the global marketplace if they still killed their janitors with swords for missing a spot. Those principles, the violent honour-based samurai code, is what I was referring to; and not something that presently (or ever) exists in the U.S.

Do Koreans wallow in moral and intellectual decadence? No, they just eschew very dangerous tools as unimportant to their way of life. I acknowledge the differences between your culture and mine; or your culture and Japan's/Korea's, and don't think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. I don't know what to like about a culture, though, where many (perhaps most) people think it's fine to kill someone because they committed a crime involving their (or someone else's) personal property. When people stole my father's television set while he and my mother were in his room, 28 years ago, twice, he did not take his shotgun (not trigger locked at the time) from his closet and shoot the perpetrators in the back. He called the police; called his insurance company; and can still say, to this day, that he has never killed anybody. That's something I think most people (with exceptions--soldiers fighting just wars, most notably) should want to be able to say to themselves, isn't it?

I am curious about how the ... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

I am curious about how the ACLU will react to Heller. They have always maintained the "collective right" position. My guess is they will just say the ruling was wrong and ignore gun rights cases.

Whether or not WW ... (Below threshold)
Whether or not WW II ever happened, OregonMuse, Japan would not be a player in the global marketplace if they still killed their janitors with swords for missing a spot.

Which blissfully ignores my entire point. Let me try again: the main reason the Japanese are a major player in the global market today is because they got the crap kicked out of them in WWII. It took major bloodshed to get them to figure out that the honor/shame schtick doesn't cut it, especially against modern (i.e. Western) military power.

They were dragged kicking and screaming into modernity by the force of superior arms. That's an historical fact. Were it not for American arms, they might still be killing their janitors for trivial infractions.

It is idle speculation to suppose, if that's what you're doing, that Japan would have abandoned its centuries-old culture on its own.

Do Koreans wallow in moral and intellectual decadence?

I wasn't referring to the Koreans or the Japanese.

No, they just eschew very dangerous tools as unimportant to their way of life.

Fine. But do you know why they can do this? Because they have someone else (i.e. the U.S.) to fight their wars for them. SEATO, anyone?

That's one of the deals we gave (imposed, actually) the Japanese after WWII, to wit: "yeah, we're going to gut your military down to nothing, but that's not going to be a problem because your security will be guaranteed by the United States military."

That deal has held, pretty much, till this day.

And, I'd be curious to see how long this "firearms are superfluous" view would last if divisions of the North Korean army started pouring across the border, and President Obama (or McCain, for that matter) just sat on his hands.

I don't know what to like about a culture, though, where many (perhaps most) people think it's fine to kill someone because they committed a crime involving their (or someone else's) personal property.

Be careful, though, that you're not indulging in a bit of ex post facto analysis. Trying to determine whether the criminals you see breaking into your neighbor's house are only after property or something else is difficult to determine at the time it is happening.

This is why I give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Horn, even though there are legitimate questions that can be raised about this particular shooting. I am not celebrating that some guy got shot in the back.

But the view that Joe Horn is a bad guy who killed a man over a TV set is artfully dismantled by DJ Drummond here.

When people stole my father's television set while he and my mother were in his room, 28 years ago, twice, he did not take his shotgun (not trigger locked at the time) from his closet and shoot the perpetrators in the back. He called the police; called his insurance company...

Yes, and there are times when this course of action is completely appropriate. Given the situation, I would have probably done the same as your father, and thanked God later that I didn't have to kill anyone. However, if we ever get to the point where the only legally permissible remedy to a home invasion is to fill out a form, then the criminals will have won.

hyperbolist, stupid I may b... (Below threshold)
Jamie:

hyperbolist, stupid I may be, but Jesus didn't halt the crucifixion of thieves on either side of him.

Thieves. That means they stole material goods.

He drove the crooked moneychangers from the temple with a whip. Sounds like He wasn't completely opposed to physical violence after all, no?

You and Herman have fun contemplating those items.

I truly can respect your position that you wouldn't threaten physical harm to anyone who attempts to steal your possessions. That's commendable, I suppose. The same criminal, however, will not be met with such pacifism if they attempt to acquire my goods. Do your neighbors know that you won't do anything to protect their goods, though?

Ref #13. First, I am not a ... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Ref #13. First, I am not a conservative, nor am I a bleeding heart liberal. I listen to my own music. If a woman feels that she wants to have an abortion, IMO that is her BUSINESS, not mine, nor should it be yours, or anyone else's.

I have no problem if you hate firearms, that is your right, same as it's my right to carry one. And yes, since some colleges have signs saying it's a gun free zone, then so should every anti-gun person out there.

And if you were my neighbor, with a gun free zone sign in your yard, and some punk decided to break in and rob, rape, kill and plunder your place, well I would just call 911. That way I have done my civic duty.

But if the same punk decides to break into my house, well he has to ask himself if my property is worth his life. It was my, not the punks, blood, sweat, tears, ect. to be able to have the money to purchase said property.

Which one of the ten commandants says "thou shall not steal?" Some people make their living by stealing from honest hard working people.

If you desire to be a victim to that, hey, it's your right to do so. It's also my right not to be a victim, and if a neighbor asks me to watch his property while he is on vacation, I will treat that property like my own.

And about the GOP deceit, you are correct, but the DEMO's are not different. AND I did not wish rape and murder on anyone. I made a simple statement that you anti-gun nuts are inviting that trouble upon yourself's. So the question is: DO YOU HAVE THE BALLS TO PUT A GUN FREE ZONE IN YOUR YARD?

Herman, using your logic, I... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Herman, using your logic, I could just as easily blame the suicide rate in Japan on their lack of guns, since it is so much higher than the rate in the USA. But that is a specious argument.

Anyway, there is also a matter of how different countries report their deaths. In Japan, a murder-suicide is reported as a suicide. So when Hoshi kills his wife and then opens his own belly, Japan puts two points in the suicide column.

Another tidbit, in 1900 when there almost no US restrictions on hand guns, and pistols and rifles could be bought via mail order, the homicide rate was 1.2.

How about Switzerland? Adult males, by law and with few exemptions (clergy, invalids etc) have a firearm in their homes. Low homicide rate. Ditto for Israel. But unlike Israel (6.5), Switzerland has as shockingly high suicide rate (21.4).


the Socialist Paradise of Cuba, no bastion of gun ownership she, exceeds the US in both homicide and suicide. And their numbers only count citizen on citizen crime, not Castro's goon squads.

You know, at the rate they ... (Below threshold)
Linoge Author Profile Page:

You know, at the rate they are going, England may very well prove to be the perfect little petri dish for the entire anti-rights, anti-self-defense, anti-firearms, hoplophobic mentality to play out to its ultimate, messy, and disastrous end. That said, I do feel massively sorry for the law-abiding citizens in the country who are now stripped of their ability and legal standing to defend themselves, their families, and their property... but, at the same time, they allowed the government to walk them down this path, and, in some cases, they demanded it.

And while Heller is a massive victory for those who believe in the most basic human right of self-perpetuation, do not think we are so separated from England in this aspect... As this thread alone has indicated, many, many people would have us trod down the same bloody path leading to the eventual outcome where the criminals own the country, and no citizens are willing to help each other.

Case in point: The two-year-old beaten to death by his father on the side of the road, as they both were surrounded by bystanders. Here in America.

I do agree with the mentality that hoplophobes, gun-grabbers, and anti-firearms folks should put up "GUN FREE ZONE" signs in their own yards, however... I mean, those signs are working so well at schools and colleges around the country, along with malls and other public areas, one can only imagine the amount of good those signs would do for their own homes. Of course, you and I both know no gun-grabber would actually put up that sign, because, somewhere back in the deep recesses of their minds, they understand that such a sign is simply inviting an unlawful, armed person to cause them harm. Sure, they will never admit that out loud (how could they? It would contradict everything they have ever stood for!), but the only other alternative is a severe case of mental illness, and I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

And on a semi-related note,

I am curious about how the ACLU will react to Heller. They have always maintained the "collective right" position. My guess is they will just say the ruling was wrong and ignore gun rights cases.

The ACLU has already come out with their stance on their weblog. They have held, and continue to hold, the Second Amendment right as a "collective" one, and disagree with the Supreme Court ruling. They were, however, unwilling to explain just what that disagreement entails...

Firearms should only be use... (Below threshold)
joe:

Firearms should only be used when there is a direct threat to life.

In Joe Horn's case, there was no threat to life. Moreover, he disobeyed a direct instruction from a police officer. Joe Horn committed a murder.

However I generally take what Jay Tea has to say with a pinch of salt. Moreoften his views verge close to insane, but then as he will tell you himself, he is in his view, a great writer!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy