Karl on Harvard, which goes looking for support for gun control …
Indeed, “data on fire‐arms ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data from the United States, show “a negative correlation,”10 that is, “where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”11 Many different data sets from various kinds of sources are summarized as follows by the leading text:
“[T]here is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates: across (1) time within the United States, (2) U.S. cities, (3) counties within Illinois, (4) country‐sized areas like England, U.S. states, (5) regions of the United States, (6) nations, or (7) population subgroups . . . .12″
Once again, we’re caught between those who say:
We should love one another and guns are bad and look at the Brevik type killings.
… and those who say:
We should love one another, true but guns are a necessary evil plus a fact of life. That is, guns will not fade away, they’ll only stay in the hands of the crims who have them anyway and in the hands of the newly fascist states around the west who are hellbent on taking away people’s rights and defences to kill off direct democracy once and for all and usher in the new serfdom.
The people themselves are left defenceless and made criminal if they try to defend themselves. It would be lovely to have a world where self-defence is unnecessary but we do have a world where such is not the case and it’s getting worse.
While there is much truth in “he who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword”, we’re not talking here of living by the sword – only possessing, at home, for use only in the home, of licenced and listed weapons within the rule of law.
If you look at Beslan and at Brevik’s victims, that had nothing to do with citizens being armed but about citizens being unarmed and defenceless. Along comes a [govt?] nutter and the rest is history. If the teachers had been armed or had access, the result may have been far different.
Under the rule of law, the student taking a gun from home to school would be suspended forthwith, if guns came onto campus, the source would be tracked down by a vigilant police – the official guns would be available to staff who’d done courses with NRA people, for example.
The main message is that a gun is available to a citizen within certain limitations mentioned above and within those limitations, including the right to self=defence at home, the crims would certain then escalate what they had and then it comes down to the true intent of the police – are they genuinely for the citizen or the state? If for the former, those crims would be tracked down relentlessly.
If for the state and crims, then that’s even more reason for citizens to have guns.
There is, admittedly, an argument that the modern parent is an idiot and not a proper parent, in which case, the gun would be in the hands of an infantilized person[s]. Which is why I’ve always been for meritocracy – that to be licenced, the parent needs to demonstrate competence and a lack of idiocy.
Who to? To the current firearms authorities plus a mixture of gun club people and NRA types. It’s not too difficult, it’s not fraught, it can easily be done with a will to do it.
The issue is not primarily, as everyone knows, about cits having guns, the issue is political. The PTB do not wish us to be able to defend ourselves.