Irish Savant — Nov 7, 2017
The latest shooting outrage – this time in Texas, getting hard to keep track – has elicited the usual hysterical squeals for gun control from the usual suspects. They cite such outrages as definitively supporting their position whereas in fact they do nothing of the sort.
Some inconvenient truths:
The ownership/murder ratio does not hold up. The ratio of gun ownership does not correlate at all with the number of murders. For instance Norway, Canada and Switzerland lag only slightly behind the USA in the gun ownership ratio but the gun death ratio (especially in Norway and Switzerland) is but a fraction of America’s.
Bad guys can always get hold a gun. Would-be murderers or terrorists can always get hold a gun or if not a weapon equally lethal. This applies especially in the USA where existing circumstances (hundreds of millions of guns in existence and Latin America lying across a porous border) render it impossible to disarm gang-bangers or terrorists.
Gun deaths are actually declining: Despite the opportunistic hysteria that accompanies every mass killing in the USA the number of gun deaths there has actually declined since the nineties. (Last year 12 per 100,000, 15 for most of the nineties…a 20% decline). That being so why the clamour now? Read on.
The 80/20 rule: Analysis of race-delineated gun deaths shows that approximately 80% of White killers kill themselves while the ratio is reversed for black killers. We can reasonably infer that an absence of a gun would prevent a would-be suicide attempt.
Legally-owned gun-holders can deter attackers. We’ve seen this time and again, not least in the latest case where the assassin would have killed many more had he not been shot by a local man carrying a legally-held firearm.
The nigger in the woodpile: An appropriate metaphor here because the mystery ingredient underpinning all of the anomalies above is race. As FBI statistics show, year after year, blacks murder at about six times the rate of Whites, Hispanics three to four times the White rate. If you normalise the figures, i.e. isolate the ratio of gun murders committed by Whites, you’ll see that America is little different from most European countries. In fact it’s better than some.
It should be clear therefore – even to a sociology professor – that the whole gun control project is based on false assumptions, contradictory data and thus totally misdirected. The measures proposed will be heavily skewed to disarm law-abiding Whites while making little or no impact in the overall gun murder rate. So it’s totally misdirected and count-productive.
Or is it?
In this post I showed that the gun control project in America is absolutely dominated by Jewish interest groups, almost as much as with the open borders project. I go on to ask why Jews would be so hostile to private gun ownership. After all, they portray themselves – ad nauseam – as hapless hard-working victims of state-sponsored pogroms throughout history. But like so much of the Approved Version of History this trope doesn’t stand up. In actual fact Jews have always managed to inveigle themselves into the role of eminence grise, at the side of or behind the actual rulers, as ‘advisors’, enablers, financiers etc. This role, so obvious in every Western country today, seems to have applied for centuries, even in Muslim regions. My own research into pogroms suggests that for the most part – there most certainly have been exceptions – but for the most part they’ve been spontaneous outbursts by the hoi polloi rather than organised Government action.
As an explanation for this apparent paradox I offer the experience of colonialism. Understand that every colonial power assigned top priority to disarming the colonised population. The British Empire expended enormous amounts of blood, treasure and a variety of tactics (carrots, sticks, deception) in separating the natives from their arms. Am I uncharitable in suggesting that Jews regard America as colonised territory, a territory in which their position relative to the general population is analogous to that of – for example – Whites in Kenya under colonialism? The nightmare scenario for the settler there was the prospect of being surrounded by well-armed Kikuyu or Masai tribesmen. Which explains why West Bank settlers are armed to the teeth day and night. (A practice with which Feinstein et al seem, strangely, to have no difficulty.) So maybe in the fevered imagination of Jewish gun control advocates White Christians represent the natives outside the compound poised to slit their throats at the first opportunity.
In that case if you are the Government doesn’t it make sense for guns to be controlled by the Government?