Friday, August 24, 2007

It Really Works

Great Britain is often held up as an example of how gun control (and England has some of the most stringent on the planet) genuinely works.

The English courts have consistently held that the citizenry have no practical right to self defense. What sort of government wants a citizenry that is universally disarmed and helpless? What sort of citizenry would such laws produce?

And what sort of person desires such a society?

2 comments:

Andrew said...

What sort of person hates his fellow man so much that he would see him helpless in the face of violence?

'Gun Control' is an impossible quest, similar to the communist ideal. It depends upon all people being simple-minded, willing to obey authority, and having their curiosity and inventiveness repressed.

Anyone with simple machine use skills can make a reliable submachine gun for about $40 in materials from Home Depot. Most firearms parts don't look any different than other machine parts. They are easily smuggled. When the available supply of handguns cannot be acquired by criminals, much more potent weapons will appear in their hands. THAT is one of the lessons from the British experiment in self-destruction.

Matthew said...

Andy,

How dare you introduce facts into a political debate!

Yes, that is exactly what happens. The British 'youths' have in fact been making their own firearms and ammunition.

Not to frighten anyone, but I think I still have a copy of the Chemical Rubber Handbook 'Nitrocellulose Industry' lying around. I used to use it as a sofa leg, but I think it's buried in our are bedroom.

For those not in the know, Chemical Rubber is a company that publishes excellent handbooks for a variety of engineering and chemical specialties. Most modern explosives involve the use of nitrocellulose in one form or another.

If a philosophy major/law school graduate can wind up with a copy of an explosives cookbook (with safety measures included), think about what a dedicated troublemaker/terrorist/hoodlum could wind up with.

On a final not, given that Britain in the teens, twenties and thirties was remarkably non-violent, why is no one interested in 1) determining why and 2) seeing if those causes are applicable today?