Professor A.C. Grayling, citizen disarmament advocate and author of "Life, Sex, and Ideas: The Good Life Without God," strikes a heroic pose.
A tip of the boonie hat and deep genuflection to Snaggle-Tooth Jones for forwarding a link to this opinion by Professor A.C. Grayling entitled: "What would Breivik be without a gun? The global arms trade inevitably leads to the sort of atrocity inflicted on Norway. The killing machine has to be stopped."
In discussion of the atrocity in Norway last week, there is one subject which has been notable by the almost total silence about it: guns. In response to recurring massacres in American high schools and British villages, in response to footage from Africa and Afghanistan showing ragged, untrained young men brandishing automatic small arms, in response to a man coolly murdering dozens of youngsters in an hour-and-a-half, funfair-like shooting spree on a Norwegian island, where is the outrage at the fact that the world is awash with small arms, that people are making money legally and without blemish to their reputations out of the manufacture and sale of instruments purposely designed to kill?
It is said that you can get a Kalashnikov in the Horn of Africa in exchange for three small children. But before the sale of children for weapons, and before the mayhem and death that results from the use of those weapons, there is the arms trade in a wide range of handguns and high-powered automatic rifles. Every one of these instruments is designed and created for the express purpose of killing. The irresponsible argument of the American gun lobby – that it is not guns that kill, but the people who handle them – is the first point to contest: if Anders Behring Breivik had carried only a knife or a wooden club, he would have been severely restricted in the harm he could do. The same would have been true at Hungerford and Dunblane, at Columbine High School and Kent State University; the agonies of Darfur and Helmand would be vastly less; in fact the world would be a different and happier place if guns were few and their possession a matter of strict official control.
KENT STATE? Huh? Think what you will about what happened there, the arms at Kent State were certainly under "strict official control."
Kent State: An example of the absence of "strict official control" of firearms?
The befuddled professor continues:
Our world stands on its head in most things, but in nothing more so than the fact that a crazy person can buy a gun, an extremely dangerous device, in an American or Norwegian shop, but "drugs" are prohibited and policed at vast expense to society. Indeed, the ironies are still greater: because drugs (excluding some of the most dangerous and harmful, such as alcohol and nicotine) are criminalised but the gun trade is not, the gangs who smuggle the drugs shoot each other with the guns, and not infrequently shoot the policemen who chase them also. This is a stark example of the irrationality of our arrangements. Ban guns and put heroin under the same licensing regulations as alcohol – fools will continue to abuse both, harming mainly themselves: the abuse of guns harms others, and too often too many others – and at a stroke billions of dollars and thousands of lives (think Mexico) would be saved.
Evidently Grayling has not heard of the U.S. government's Gunwalker plot to fuel the Mexican cartels' wars.
Guns should be the subject of worldwide outrage. Their manufacture and sale should be a human-rights abuse, on which we pour vilification and horror. They should be illegal for all but properly constituted, trained and controlled agencies of governments, provided of course that the governments in question are themselves properly constituted and controlled by democratic means in a society where the rule of law obtains.
Human-rights agencies with representation at the UN in Geneva, such as the one I belong to (the International Humanist and Ethical Union), should begin campaigning for the manufacture and sale of small arms to be universally outlawed, and governments (such as the British government) which have responsible attitudes to gun control should be urged to join the campaign.
Srebrenica Massacre Victim: Bosnian Muslim trussed, blindfolded, and shot by Serbian government forces while UN "peacekeepers" stood by and did nothing. The arms at Srebrenica were certainly under "strict official control."
Uh, huh. Yes, we've seen how well the UN protects human rights in places like Bosnia and Rwanda. And for those functions such as reducing animal populations? Grayling has an answer for that, too.
There are easy ways to deal with the need by farmers to control rabbits, and game-park keepers to cull overpopulated herds: if there are genuinely no alternatives to the use of guns in such cases, a small range of suitable guns could be borrowed, under strict licence and for short periods, from the authorities for the express purpose in hand, but not allowed to remain in the community otherwise. If we can legislate for car-seats for children, we can legislate to keep highly dangerous killing instruments out of public hands.
"Highly dangerous killing instruments": language matters: let us no longer use the word "gun" but that phrase "highly dangerous killing instrument", and perhaps perceptions will change. No doubt weapons manufacturers and lobbyists everywhere would regard with equal outrage the idea of severely limiting the number of highly dangerous killing instruments in public circulation, their existence being permitted only under official lock and key. What would these lobbyists argue in opposition? That highly dangerous killing instruments are for sport, for hunting (this last will not wash: killing things for sport? That is itself disgusting), for the fun of loud noises?
All right-thinking people must cower before the immanent force of such logic.
Now here's an example of the "strict official control" of firearms.
Americans with views not too far removed from those of Anders Behring Breivik say that they "need" their guns to "defend their freedoms", meaning against the tyranny of government and federal taxes. They should be reminded that it is the ballot, not the bullet, that is meant to do that job for them.
In fact, there are no good arguments in favour of the existence of highly dangerous killing instruments, and millions of excellent arguments against them, these being each human being, and indeed each elephant and tiger, shot to death by them. The Norwegian tragedy should be absolutely the last straw for civilised humanity on this subject, no further excuses allowed.
Here's another example of the "strict official control" of firearms.
Yes, well, here's the email I sent to Herr Professor Grayling:
Sent: Sun, Jul 31, 2011 10:15 am
Subject: re: The practical mathematics of your firearm confiscation proposal.
Herr Professor Grayling (addressing you in German seems so much more appropriate):
Regarding your op-ed: What would Breivik be without a gun?
If you wish the privately-held arms of the United States to be confiscated, I invite you to come and take them. Please bring the UN with you. They will no doubt be of as much help as the UN "peacekeepers" were to the Bosnian Muslims when they stood by impotently and watched as the Serbian government forces slaughtered them in the thousands at Srebrenica. Besides, blue helmets make such convenient target markers.
The practical mathematics of your firearm confiscation proposal are, I think, unsustainable to the need and the proposal itself is morally suspect on its face, even if you do not believe that all rights are God-given and natural and thus, inalienable. (I refer you to the Declaration of Independence, a document crafted during the last time British tyrants tried to take our firearms and we killed enough to dissuade them of the proposition.)
Governments, Herr Professor, have killed many more tens of millions throughout the centuries with their firearms under "strict official control" than any in privately held hands. Adolf Hitler would certainly agree to your proposal, as would Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
But as to the mathematics of your proposal, consider this. You are, I think, extrapolating from your own cowardice. If a tyrannical government ordered you to do something at the threat of loss of life, you would do it simply because your cravenly life is more important to you than anything else. Thus, you cannot grasp that there are other people who would die rather than to submit to tyranny such as you propose. And, Herr Professor, that means that they would kill for those reasons as well. You may disagree with that point of view, yet even you cannot deny that it exists in the United States in the numbers of millions.
There are roughly 100 million firearm owners in the United States at this point in time. Let us presume that just three percent of those are of the "cold-dead-hands-yours-or-mine-doesn't-matter" type. There were, during the last great British experiment at American firearm control, three percent of the colonial population who took the field actively against the Regulars and Tory militias of George III. But let us not over promise. Let us just predict that a mere three percent of American gun owners alone would do so again.
So, you have 3 million opponents to your proposal. That's three million bodies you propose to stack up before you get your way. The only thing is, we won't cooperate with your proposal. We will fight you to the death, yours or ours, it makes no difference. And we intend to make that more than a one to one ratio before we go down into your tyrannical good night. Please remember that WE are the ones with the firearms and the ability to use them effectively. In this we outnumber the police and military forces of the United States government by a considerable ratio, leaving aside the fact that most of the tip-of-the-spear troops are own sons and daughters. So, I ask you, does the mathematics of your proposal not daunt you a bit? Is it worth your own death, and those of millions?
What is so moral about government mass murders in the millions of recalcitrant citizens who insist upon their liberties and refuse to be disarmed?
You British have allowed yourselves to be disarmed by a government, for all the good it has done you. Don't make the mistake of thinking that Americans will.
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson AL 35126
LATER: David Codrea's take on the same puke: British philosophy professor shows ultimate goal of gungrabbers
Talk about being in good company.
That is a potential cadre of 3 million, armed for bear, or more correctly tyrants, with the finest hunting license ever devised.
3 Million fast light minute men who know their area of operations like the back of their hands.
Take that 3 Million, 3 Percent, and add to it military and Law Enforcement cadre. Americans who are really no different than the civilian cadre, 3% of the military and Law Enforcement is a serious force multiplier.
Consider the effect of sympathetic Americans who will not take up actual arms, but can provide material, infrastructure, and intelligence support.
Add these up and your talking about a force size most nations can only dream of having.
An powerful aspect of this force to consider involves the Patriotism and down to the bone resolve of cadre of this nature and your talking about an army of men and woman motivated like no other force on Gods green earth.
Mike, you are way over this man's ability of thoughts. He will read what you wrote and only see the words that he wants to see. He will form his personal view based on this ability to read in an intended way of, abridged reading. The simple fact that during the 20th century governments murdered their own citizens after disarming them is somewhere over 175 million unarmed people murdered (175,000,000). Facts of truth are not part of the reasoning process for such men as this prof. I'm sure he sees himself as a man with a multi dimensional thought process. But the truth has been let out of the bag by his own words. He's anything but a person with a multi dimensional thought process by his, abridged reading and thinking abilities.
They should be reminded that it is the ballot, not the bullet, that is meant to do that job for them.
He has no concept of the 4 boxes of freedom. The soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box and the bullet box. Just as our founders planned. To allow only the government to have guns is called a police state. A state I do not want to live in. This fool needs to go to one of those places to live and smoke whatever it is he's smoking. We free Americans can do without his "help".
What fool would count on ANY "Law Enforcement" support, given how MORE THAN HALF of them spit on their oath to the Consitution?
Or do you think it NATURAL for those who CLAIM to honor their oath to be afraid of not getting backup from their Brothers in Blue when they need it, while those BLATANTLY spitting on that oath have NO SUCH CONCERNS?
The stench is overwhelming.
Professors like this one live in their own isolated little worlds, have very little if any contact with the real world, and would not be likely to read your letter.
However, it is excellent reading for the rest of us.
Outstanding!! Loved the reference of how the Brits have been disarmed, and we won't. Nicely done.
Im a pretty easy going guy. I don't even speed. Id much rather spend time with my family. Which by the way for dinner last night my son said a prayer at dinner that he loved me and that he knew I would protect him. Damn right I will. Whether I have to poison, burn, shoot, or knife in the eye whatever bastard that would put my family under a dictators control. These people need to understand we've been students of history and we know what happens when liberty dies.
The pictures with this article say all that should need to be said.
I will not have ANY of their Citizen Disarmament Plan. To The Death Theirs or Mine.
Good Lord in heaven above I sure do love reading Mike when a traitorous, totalitarian writer or bombastic gun banner gets his Irish up! (Or should we term this a Dutch up?) These are letters penned with all sincerity and clear intention so I'm always curious if their recipients have ever seen such a display of brave American patriotism spelled, rapid fire, their way? Would love to see their face contort, feel their heart race, and skin sweat as they read such clear minded, determined words rifled into their minds eye lighting brain synapses up like a Christmas tree in July! Doubtless they have any lasting effect but they may leave their reader with determined pause next time taking our guns crosses their mushy, muddled minds.
H. G. Wells wrote in "The Time Machine" how modern humans over time became diferentiated into "Eloi" and "Morlocks". In a sequel, "The Time Ships", Stephen Baxter fills out how this might occur. To sum up, the decendants of this professor and people like him became Eloi: a docile pampered race who were nothing more than livestock for the Morlocks.
This professor sure sounds like an Eloi to me.
The idea that this professor would personally dare to take anyone's gun is right up there with "Barney Visits Jurassic Park".
On the other hand, people like this professor tend to hire people like our friends at ATF to do things they consider quite distasteful instead of doing it for themselves.
Keep in mind that outside of his army service in WWI, we have no proof that Adolf Hitler ever personally took a human life.
He didn't need to.
Well said and posted.
Mr. Mike has this useful dupe and idiot of an "educator", read re-educator, dead to rights.
It is the height of hypocrisy what this mouthpiece of evil is spewing.
To think he expects me to buy into this bolderdash. The utter fail of this "intellectual" to comprehend in this world today he would not be able to speak freely without pogrom, persecution, or the threat of death upon him if it was not for the men and woman who possessed a rifle that enabled them to fight for and protect the very Liberty that allows him to expound on such idiotic notions as a citizenry who are not allowed the ultimate redress of bearing arms against tyrants and oppression of freedom.
What an utter fool.
This is what passes for academia?
What is the origin of the last photo-rifle aimed at woman holding a child?
We've all seen tens of thousands of images of atrocities over the years, but for some reason that particular photo is one of the most powerful of the bunch.
Let us examine another relevant eample. the USSR, doubtless of find memory to the Greyling, had strict gun control. - Un until the USSR cme apart at the seams. Then all manner of citizens of the new Russia suddenly had guns, even automatic weapons, even more easily avilable than in the USA. During the late 1980s, while most uoung Soviets were dodging conscription, several ethnic minorities, including
Armenians, Moldovans, and other restive minorities, were deliberately complying, so they would get training, and be near the guns when the end came. Other neat guns were sold to the Russian Mafiya at bargain prices.
BTW - Herr Professor needs a buzz cut and maybe something other than those hippie glasses.
All in the ten ring, Mike. I never cease to be amazed at how these people think, and how blatantly stupid they are.Yet even here in Texas, I am surrounded by these and their ilk, and their bleatings would curdle the milk in a mothers' breast. Obongo and his gang are waiting even now for the right moment to make this upcoming UN nightmare a reality. Ah, it's a mans' work we have ahead of us.
Notice the professor states the need of a gun to fight off ferocious rabbits. There is a man living in la-la land if all he has to fear is bunnies.
You my friend are one of the greatest writers I have been honored to read on this subject. I only wish there were more of you.
Thanks again for all you do.
The picture of the nazi soldier about to shoot the woman with the baby ..... how does one brain wash anyone to do something like that?
Just another libturd obviously educated well beyond his intelligence.
"Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
"Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
"Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."
The first part of the above quote was probably TLDR ("Too long, didn't read"), but worth reading.
It comes from:
The Federalist No. 46
Mike, I agree with every word of your missive to the self righteous bastard, however I am firmly convinced that you wasted both time and effort; because the overly educated elitist will not bother to read your communiqué much less lower himself to respond. After all, the “professor” has letters following his name and you and I are members of the Untermenschen who are not capable of cogent thought and whose opinions mean nothing. “Pearls before swine.”
He lost me at "get a Kalashnikov in the Horn of Africa for three children", as you can actually get RPGs there for 50-150 bucks...Dude didn't do his homework, and Africans hack each other to bits with MACHETES in the Horn when they don't have anything better. Failing cutlery, they use clubs...Man's a MORON.
How many in Africa have been killed by machete in the last 20 years?
Norway is another example of people in a Defense Free Zone getting killed by someone who doesn't live by the laws of the land. Think of how one armed person could have stopped the killing. Remember the Shooting at a Church in Colorado Springs where one brave lady took on a killer with a rifle and stopped the killing.
Great post, Mike. Thank you once again.
That fellow looks like the kind of guy Alex and his droogs liked to beat on. Oh, the red, red, krovvy... The Clockwork Orange state was unable to protect its subjects, and forbade them to protect themselves.
If the dear professor is referring to "The Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog" of Monty Python fame, he should be advised that said rabbit can only be killed through use of "The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch."
Hey, Prof! You can probably pick up a case or two of those at your local gun show!
Dakota, To partially answer your question "how does one brain wash anyone to do something like that?", see Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland by Christopher R. Browning.
The author talks about how the various men in the reserve police battalion were drawn into the slaughter of innocents. Some refused, many went along, none (that I remember) actively resisted the orders.
Very disturbing and alarming. Food for thought.
rusty, I think of the Stanford Prison Experiment, I think it was called. There was another one in which participants were very easily coerced into giving what they thought were lethal electric shocks to other people. One should prepare him self in advance against being roped into schemes like that, possibly by role-playing games (aka Training).
This is very important, as the training most of us have had in the schools has trained us to go along with that kind of thing, not to resist it.
Hey guys, please do not tar all us Brits with the same brush. Some of us want our rights back! How about coming and sharing support? If I may include a link...
Post a Comment