A desire to disarm the people is a sign of a government that believes it may one day have to keep its people down by use of violence (well, actually, the U.S. government already does this). Anti-gun laws do not make the world safer for ordinary people, for those who would use guns to rob and intimidate people know that (when gun ownership is prohibited) law-abiding people are normally unarmed — quite helpful to the would-be muggers and thieves, no? As for multiple murders, so conveniently used by governments (at least three recently) as an excuse for enacting yet more stringent anti-gun legislation, just reflect that someone who killed twenty people would probably not (if people were generally free to carry guns) have killed more than a few of them before someone else would have shot him.
- Brian Micklethwait: Why Guns Should Not Be Illegal
- Sean Gabb: An Open letter to the Gunowners of the United Kingdom
- Gun Control Poster Page
- Edgar J. Steele: Who Was that Fat Lady?
- Andrew Syrios: Guns, Drugs, and Booze: The Bipartisan Support for Prohibition (2015-08-29)
We can all mourn tragic events such as several recent mass shootings. But what is obviously problematic about restricting civilian gun use is that only law-abiding citizens will comply, criminals will not. (Like many other such massacres, the Charleston shooting took place in a “gun free” zone.) Indeed, criminals will likely have no harder a time getting guns then they do getting drugs, which means that restricting guns just disarms potential victims.
- Papers Please: The right to travel and the right to bear arms (2015-12-14)
- Fred Reed: Gun Control: Hawglegs and Hawgwash (2016-12-01)
- Founding Fathers: Quotes on Liberty and Freedom from America's Revolutionaries
The Port Arthur Massacre
The Port Arthur Massacre (which occurred in Tasmania, Australia, on April 28, 1996), in which 20 people were shot dead, allegedly by "a crazed, lone gunman" named Martin Bryant, was obviously a false flag operation, used as a pretext to remove guns from the Australian population.
There is a simple argument to prove that Martin Bryant was not the Port Arthur killer. Martin Bryant was known to be left-handed. Several witnesses to the massacre stated that the gunman was right-handed. Therefore Martin Bryant was not the gunman. The massacre was a false flag operation intended to justify the disarming of Australian citizens, which is exactly what happened. A population whose access to guns is removed or heavily restricted is unlikely to offer much resistance to an authoritarian, tyrannical fascist state.
- Joe Vialls: The Port Arthur Massacre Conspiracy (Also here)
- The Port Arthur Massacre Conspiracy
- The Incident at Port Arthur
- Joe Vialls: Massacre in German School a Chilling Port Arthur Lookalike: Shooter scores higher killed-to-injured ratio than counter-terrorist expertsOn Friday [2002-04-26] in a mass murder more reminiscent of Port Arthur than Dunblane or Columbine, a highly trained combat shooter killed 17 and wounded 7 at the Gutenburg Gymnasium high school, at Erfurt in Germany. The shooting coincided with a debate that very same day in the German Parliament on tightening gun control legislation, an initiative forced by SDP [Labor] and Green party politicians in an ongoing attempt to further disarm law abiding German citizens. ... Unsurprisingly perhaps, a mere two hours after the attack came to an end, Germany's Parliament approved a government proposal to tighten weapons laws.
- Keith Allan Noble: MASS MURDER — Official Killing in Tasmania Australia (PDF file, 13,348 Kb)
The Saker's View of Gun Control
- The Saker: “Gun control” should only mean “hitting your target”
(1) Any legislation to to curb the ownership of firearms will only affect those who obey laws to begin with. Criminals and crazies don’t give a damn. If anything, the correlation between the legal ownership of firearms and crime is a negative one.
(2) The actual crime rates amongst those who has a “concealed carry license” in the United States is actually less than amongst teachers, law enforcement officers and even clergymen. Gun carriers (those with a CCL) are the single most law abiding social group.
(3) 9 our of 10 cases when a gun is used to stop/prevent a crime not a single shot is fired — just the display of the firearm is enough in 90% of the cases.
An anonymous comment on The Saker's article:
I am from Australia and spoke with professional shooters soon after the Tasmanian Port Arthur massacre — where 34 people were purportedly killed by one shooter with an auto weapon. 34!! Absolute garbage if you know anything about shooting. These people were running in different directions and the supposed “lone ” gunman was not exactly a sharp-shooter, but even if he was, there was no way — according to pretty informed people — that he could have brought so many down ALONE. Bear in mind — 35 DEAD, not wounded, meaning 35 extremely-well placed shots in vital areas on each victim. This is only in the realms of fantasy for a single gun. There were rumours that had the area been thoroughly investigated and all revealed, then empty casings may have been found in various locations surrounding the scene — speculation, of course. This event occurred within weeks after John Howard’s election victory — it made him a hero overnight, and really pissed off most of the responsible gun owners. ... BTW try and get a weapons licence these days — a financial and administrative nightmare — even for an air rifle.
A copy of the Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM. Details here.
Liberty and Democracy Serendipity Home Page