Thursday, July 8, 2010

Moat makes us thank our lucky stars again that we have gun control

It never ceases to...well, bemuse me how American gun rights activists seem to honestly believe that any time an atrocity is committed with a gun in the UK, it somehow strengthens their case. You'd think even they might recognise that a moment like now would be a very good time to keep their heads well down, but not a bit of it. Witness Exhibit A - an utterly brazen post on the Raoul Moat case written by a former poster on this blog, 'Weer'd Beard'...

"Remember the the Police can protect you, you don’t need to defend yourself! Also Gun Control stops this nonsense from happening!

I wonder what James Kelly will have to say about this."


Well, you need wonder no longer, Mr Beard, because this is what James Kelly has to say about it : thank heavens we have gun control, and that it does indeed prevent 'this nonsense' from happening on the majority of occasions. Do I really have to point out yet again the mind-boggling disparity between gun deaths in the UK and the US? But, that said, what a tragedy our controls weren't quite stringent enough to prevent Derrick Bird carrying out a mass killing with a legally-owned weapon just a few weeks ago - not least because, as a criminal psychologist pointed out on Newsnight tonight, such high-profile incidents always produce a copycat effect, and Moat's actions are highly likely to be an example of that phenomenon.

Mr Beard then goes on to trot out the hoary old argument about how the tool used for killing is an irrelevance, ie. the killing would have happened anyway, so it might as well have happened with a gun as anything else -

"Because James sees cases like this as some how superior to cases like the one above, because Moat shot people with a gun, while the monsters in the linked case, beat, raped, robbed, and burned their victims.

Much better, right?"


I'm reluctant to use the 'L' word here, but the absolute minimum that needs to be said is that Mr Beard is consciously, cynically and comprehensively misrepresenting my views. Every murder is an equal tragedy. It's simply a tragedy that's significantly less likely to happen in the first place if the assailant isn't armed with a gun.

Mr Beard concludes with another question -

"May I propose a better solution?"

Oh, well, now, dear me, let me guess. Would your solution by any chance be - "Quick, more guns"?

Sheer genius.

4 comments:

  1. pathetic effort so farJuly 8, 2010 at 2:35 AM

    I think all policemen should be armed but no members of the public should be allowed to have weapons. It would avoid the crazy situation we have today. A policeman is in hospital. Shot in the face while sitting in his car. No chance to return fire and kill Moat. All the unarmed police in Northumbria and beyond have to lock themselves in their police stations until Moat is caught thus denying the public the usual police coverage. No armed police are available for Northern England as they are too busy reinforcing Northumbria. We have to call in the SAS and 10 armoured vehicles for one suspect because we haven't provided the regular police with the means to protect themsleves due to pointless politically correct nonsense.
    Oh and the policewoman on tv has been dire. She looks ridiculous with her bad hair day and talks total nonsense. I think we deserve better for her £140K salary plus pension.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For me, the principle that the police should not be routinely armed remains a very good one, although it's certainly a concern that they've been so overstretched.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Every murder is an equal tragedy. It's simply a tragedy that's significantly less likely to happen in the first place if the assailant isn't armed with a gun.

    Except that gun control does not disarm the criminals nor stop violence. I'd rather spend time around 100 CCW holders who were carrying than 100 disarmed violent felons. I would be far more likely to be harmed by the second group despite the lack of firearms.

    Gun control has never disarmed violent criminals or kept them from preying upon others. Never, in the history of the world have we made the average person safer by disarming them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Seems you just couldn't keep away, Mike.

    The idea that gun ownership in your country is only for the trustworthy 'good guys' is risible. The USA - with its wondrous constitutional right for the citizen to "defend himself" by arming himself to the teeth with deadly weapons - has a murder rate two-and-a-half times greater than this country's, and a gun crime rate that is far, far higher.

    Get back to us when you've dreamt up a plausible get-out clause for that inconvenient truth.

    ReplyDelete