It Still Amazes Me…

…that a mentally ill person goes into a school/theatre/whatever with a gun which has a magazine capacity that is only intended for warzones, kills a bunch of people, and in the aftermath people demand that computer games be banned or otherwise controlled while saying nothing about the supply of guns to people who obviously shouldn’t have them in the first place.

Is there a mental disconnect here or what?

Please follow and like us:


  1. Ysharros

    There are all sorts of mental disconnects in the States. About guns for one, because of that ‘right to bear arms’ which apparently means Redcoats could still jump out of every bush and yes, a bigger gun is always better and there’s no considering limits to one’s freedom to wield something completely insane (but it’s okay to have our phones tapped with no warrant – apparently that doesn’t abuse our freedom at all). About mental illness for another, where it’s almost better to be a psycho killer than to be a troubled kid with issues nobody wants to see, acknowledge, or do anything about other than to give them ritalin. And about many other things, including the supremacy of ham over bacon (which is a no-brainer to me).

    I should stop, I’m about to rant.

    PS: I almost posted this on FB, but I’m damned if FB will kill people’s blogs. 😉

  2. Stropp (Post author)

    Everytime I hear about the right to bear arms in context of the constitution, it’s all about the people taking up arms against a corrupt government. But frankly if the US gov was corrupt and evil (actually I think they already are) then even a well armed militia would have no chance against them. Just consider how a much smaller but better geared and trained US force completely crushed the trained Iraqi armed forces.

    Back 200 years ago the redcoats didn’t have satellites, tanks, helicopters and assault weapons; the fledgling US militia was much better matched with the other side. If the war of independence was fought today the Redcoats would win.

    So unless someone needs to go hunting for deer that shoot back, there’s no need for half the weapons out there.

    However I can’t see why people cannot own weapons under the 2nd amendment, just not extreme ones. After all is an average citizen allowed to own a stinger missile, or fuel air bomb, or (and I’m uncertain about this) is a private citizen even allowed to possess hand grenades. These are all arms under the constitution and are banned. Why not assault weapons?

    As for FB, yeah. I’d prefer to post on people blogs too, unless they have those Facebook commenting systems, then I don’t.

    But bacon vs ham? This could start a war!

  3. Stropp (Post author)

    I might make another comment.

    Back a number of years ago, you might remember the Port Arthur Massacre. This fellow went of the deep end in a tourist destination in Tasmania and killed 35 people. It was the worst massacre anywhere for a long time, until recently in Norway I think.

    Anyway the Federal government at the time initiated a gun buy back scheme and took a massive number of guns off the streets. Since then death by gun in Australia has dropped by half from over 400 a year I think to about 200 (which is still to high.)

    Here’s the thing, with all these people saying that removing guns aren’t the answer, well, it worked here in Australia. Why wouldn’t it work in the US too?

    I know it would take a long time for the number of DBG to halve in the US as there are so many who wouldn’t give up their guns and so many illegal guns out there. But isn’t it worth considering?

    And in Australia when the guns were destroyed we didn’t have the Redcoats popping up on every street corner trying to take us over. Although the Barmy Army does appear every summer during the England test matches… Hmmmm.

  4. Ysharros

    It would work in the US too (easy correlation: less guns, less deaths by guns) but that would slow down gun sales. Can’t have that sort of liberal insanity slowing down the economy!

Comments are closed.