Gun Laws - Designed to Fail

As usual, as a result of the recent shootings in Connecticut, everyone is boiling over with raw emotions.

And equally as predictable, most people are reflexively looking at gun laws for the answer.

Unfortunately, gun laws are designed to fail.
Not only are they designed to fail - they are guaranteed to fail.

Simply for the reason that they do not affect the target group whatsoever.
They do not address the underlying cause, they are not a real solution and at best they are just a band-aid quick fix.
They have therefore zero impact.

"You cannot 'cure' humanity with laws"

They are nothing but a knee-jerk reaction for politicians to fall back on and say "See? I did something! Now vote for me pretty please."

But before we reflexively reach to an empty placebo, we should take a sober look at the sick media culture we live in.
I think Roger Ebert expressed it best:

"Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."
In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1.

The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

Question:
Why are we not up in arms about the recent knife attack at a school in China?

Amazingly only a couple of hours separates the two incidences.
Why are the knives not demonized in this case?

Answer:
The media cannot hype up a knife attack on children in China, however a gun attack fits right in perfectly.
There are no emotionally charged scenes in a knife attack in China, there is therefore no "media currency" to trade.
It is simply a bad business case with no added value.
No Hype-factor. Nothing to gain for the drooling buffoonery known as our media.
Now a gun attack at an American school – that's GOLD, that's tradable media currency!

And as usual, the emotional idealists are doing what they do best – letting their emotions get the best of them:
"We gotta do something!"

When faced with logic however, they are perplexed and flabbergasted:
Rationalist – "If someone abuses the right of free speech, do we outlaw the 1st amendment and free speech?"
Liberal – "No of course not –the 1st amendment is holy!"
Rationalist – "If someone abuses their 2nd amendment rights – do we outlaw the 2nd amendment?"
Liberal – "That's different! You're crazy!"

The list goes on and on when trying to explain to liberals their failed logic, 

one other good example is cars.
If someone is caught drunk driving – do you put the car in jail or the driver?
If we want to outlaw prostitutes standing on the corners – do we outlaw hotels?

Amazingly enough, you can get liberals to agree with you on the cars and prostitutes and 1st amendment rights, but when it comes to the same arguments about 2nd amendment rights and Pit bull dogs – they suddenly take a left turn.

It seems that guns and Pit bulls are so emotionally charged that people lose their wits. I have actually heard some people say that Pit bulls should be exterminated, i.e. the entire race!

Even more amazing is that these comments usually come from a "freedom loving liberal"!

One can reach to statistics to support their argument – however for every statistic there is a counter-statistic.
For example the fact that in 1997 when the Brits banned hand guns – gun violence went up!

And the safest 40 years.

These statistics of course are buried by the liberal media.

"But you don't need guns"
"Need" is a highly philosophical word which you will encounter in EVERY argument about guns.
The interesting thing about "need" is that it is directly inversely proportional to freedom.
I.e. you can measure your freedom or your country's freedom directly by the amount of things you have that you don't "need".
For example, in an "unfree" country like the former communist DDR, someone else decided what you need. That's a nice feeling isn't it? And because someone else decided what you needed, you didn't need a car. But if you absolutely had to have one, you could pay up front, IN-FULL and then wait 13 years for delivery for a piece of shit two cylinder 2-stroke Trabant! No shit, just ask my uncle who lived in East Germany all his life.
To make a long story short, a free country is not based on "need", yea it is based on the opposite of "need"!

However, like said before, we are dealing with emotional irrational idealists.

THEY DO NOT RESPOND TO LOGIC AND REASON.

So an argument based on statistics is totally futile.

Yea, an argument with them is futile anyway - you will never change their mind.

They "buy in" to ideology. That's all.

Later on these same dip-sticks will wonder "where the hell did all my rights go?!" , whereas they are the people who voluntarily  gave up their rights! Witness the people who voted for Obama just because he told them a good story, the narrative they wanted to hear.

The second amendment was put there for a reason, without it, the constitution is just a bunch of words.

The American constitution is the only one on earth that actually gives the power to the people to back up their words.

Everything else is just talk if you can't back it up.
This is what truly makes the American constitution a revolutionary document.

The right to self-defense, and the right to own guns and arm yourself - this is the ultimate litmus test.

It is not until a government actually puts its money where its mouth is - that it means anything.

All of those other constitutions e.g. Germany's or the EU's have a bunch of pretty words and high and noble ideas, but NOT ONE of them actually guarantees the people the RIGHT TO REVOLUTION. Not one of them actually puts the power into the people's hands - literally. For these reasons I actually believe the second amendment should be the first. Because without it - everything else is just talk.

It is up to the sane and rational people of America to hold back the tidal wave of knee-jerk idiots now.

Part 2

BENCHMARK ISRAEL

I have heard many people in Europe calling America and Americans "sick" for their gun policies.

Yea, the polarization is complete in most of Europe.
Guns are simply evil and anyone who believes otherwise is sick - proven fact.
This is the arrogance called modern Europe now.
They profess to be so culturally superior to the rest and so much more open minded.

Sadly - they are just following their old world genes and are the absolute opposite of open minded or culturally superior.

However some countries still have their heads on straight, Switzerland, Israel;

here we see an Israeli school teacher with rifle and children. If we say we love our children so much why don't we do anything?

Do you think it is a coincidence that "Drug free zones" and "Gun free zones" only tell the criminals where they should go?

Isn't it strange? We say our children are our most valuable assets - our future - but we do not guard them? If you go to the water supply of your city, you will see an armed guard. If you go to any military base - you will see armed guards, guarding what? We say we love our children but don't guard them. Are the Israelis the only ones who have their heads on straight!?

Oh, and by the way, Switzerland has indeed had an Amoklauf of their own.
Friederich Leibacher - after getting extremely pissed off at his government, went into the local parliament building and shot up some politicians.
But that's not my point here, point here is that Friederich, and the boys from Columbine, AND Timothy McVeigh all had bombs on them too.
You never hear people talking about bombs and bomb control do you?

As a parting shot - the next time someone is on their high horse about Europe, just refer them to this interesting list.

It looks like America ISN'T the top shooting spree country after all!