The Massacre in Las Vegas

In the wake of a gun massacre in the United States one thing is absolutely certain: sensible commentary is almost impossible to find, particularly in the mainstream media.

An exception is this excellent thread doing the rounds on Twitter:

It is worth clicking the link and reading the whole thing. Judging by the noise and the scale of the carnage, the lunatic in the hotel in Las Vegas was using a fully-automatic weapon of the sort that has been banned from being sold new since 1986. Yes, you can buy ones that pre-date the ban, but you’ll have to pay a lot of money and be subject to a rather thorough background check by the FBI. As I understand it, this is a federal law and is not affected by differing gun laws across the states.

It would have been nice if at least some of those now shooting their mouths off understood all this, wouldn’t it? The Independent had this to say:As if a man massacring people with what is almost certain to be an illegal weapon has anything to do with gun laws. I’ve written at length about gun control in the US here, and I haven’t got much more to add on the subject. It is going to be extremely interesting to see what weapons this monster used and where he got them, though.

The hatred of the NRA is also an interesting one. The sort of people who complain about them usually have no problem with the thousands of other lobby groups who conspire against the general public in order to benefit a sometimes very small number of people. And the one thing that can be said about the NRA is that it does represent a lot of people, around 5 million or so. Okay, that’s nothing as a percentage but it’s a lot in terms of raw numbers, and far more representative of a lot of special-interest groups that lobby politicians. Also, the amount it spends isn’t that much either:

In federal elections, the NRA typically ranks among heavyweight outside spending groups. For the second cycle in a row, it has earned a place in the top ten. But 2016 was a unique year for the organization, owing to the fact that many super PACs, like Karl Rove’s American Crossroads GPS, which spent roughly $115 million to elect Mitt Romney in 2012, declined to back Trump. The NRA stepped in to fill the void, putting at least $30.3 million on the line to help elect the real estate mogul, more than any other outside group — including the leading Trump super PAC, which spent $20.3 million.

So let’s call it $30m. Sure, that would pay off my Sakhalin bar bill but when we consider that Trump received $408m in campaign funds and Hillary $795m, it’s a bit of a stretch to say the NRA has America by the balls. I think what liberals really hate about the NRA is that it’s seemingly immune to the SJW infiltration that has seen pretty much every other large organisation descend into ever-more ludicrous levels of virtue-signalling and political correctness. The NRA has stubbornly stuck to its guns – literally – and represented its members interests faithfully as it was set up to do, and refused to bend to the latest emotionally-driven campaign orchestrated by people who would never belong to them anyway. No wonder they’re hated so much.

The other thing that annoys me is foreigners weighing in on how they don’t understand why anyone would want or need to own a gun. Well, I have no idea why anyone would want to go and pray in a mosque but quite a large number of people do. I’ve recently reached the conclusion that people who hail from places which differ from Pembroke politically, culturally, socially, geographically, ethnically, and historically might think differently from me and want different things. And so it is with Americans: they are different, and for whatever reason they like carrying and using guns. If Brits or anyone else can’t understand that, who cares? It’s not their cross to bear, frankly.

Share

26 thoughts on “The Massacre in Las Vegas

  1. ’If Brits or anyone else can’t understand that, who cares? It’s not their cross to bear, frankly.’

    Well said.

  2. Yup, we’ll get the usual anti-gun boilerplate spewed out from the MSM plus a side serving of anti Trump stuff; it’s as predictable as Christmas.

    At least in Texas and Florida, legal gun owners commit crimes at a rate of 1/6th of that of cops. Source. America might have a gun problem, but it’s with those who are already breaking the laws.

  3. I like you assume its an illegal conversion or import. He cohld have done more damage in a truck. I am going to be curious if it turns out to have smuggled across the Southern border.

  4. The NRA isn’t really as effective as it’s critics claim. The hatred for it is largely due to it being the most visible sign that Americans, to a significant degree, are comfortable with the 2nd amendment. That reality is too painful for those who oppose it, so they simply turn the NRA into something far bigger than it is to explain their failure.

  5. Benaud
    “He cohld have done more damage in a truck.”

    Maybe, but likely only if it was full of fertilizer.

    I suspect on this one the conclusions have all, already been reached, and everyone would have moved on by the time a full truth comes out.

  6. Guns are banned in France but it didn’t stop the Charlie hebdo shootings (with the perpetrators shooting openly in the street with no fear that someone in an apartment could be armed with a gun instead of a camera) and I seem to recall that AK47s were used at the bataclan.

    But its America, so lets not mention those uncomfortable facts.

  7. monoi, Islamic terror attacks are now accepted like a tragic weather event, just something you can’t do anything about. No one is prepared to look too hard at preventing future ones.

  8. Islamic terror attacks are now accepted like a tragic weather event

    If only. If a Republican is president he is to blame for hurricanes, whereas nobody is responsible for Islamic terror attacks.

  9. FWIW there are reports that the gunman used a “bump stock”

    Yeah, I’ve been reading about that. As I said, it’s going to be interesting to find out what weapons he had and where he got them from.

  10. On radio 4 they were comparing the UK and Australia to the US – it escaped everyone that the US is not an island like the US and Australia.

  11. “Guns are banned in France”: I have a general rule – such statements are false.

    I’ve seen the same thing said of Britain and Australia – completely false – so I assume it’s just as false of France.

    One obvious feature of the gun debate in the US is that both sides frequently deploy arguments that are stupid or untruthful.

  12. One thing for sure is that any debate on US gun control will always guarantee that the statists among us will come to the fore. For those that are against the right to bear arms will also always be against the rights of an individual, they will instead be in favour of disarming them and transferring the power of lethal force to a strong central government and its state apparatus. The Bolshevik history and what occurred after they disarmed the Russians is all that we need to understand about the motivation of those that wish to disarm us.

  13. ” I assume it’s just as false of France.”
    Yup, actually you can own pretty much any non-automatic weapon here including assault rifles. As is the style in France, there is quite a bit of form-filling and bureaucracy involved, and you need to be a member of a gun club, but it’s still better than the UK and probably Australia too.

  14. “And so it is with Americans: they are different, and for whatever reason they like carrying and using guns.”

    The reason for the deep seated American gun culture and their propensity for gun ownership can be traced back to a deep mistrust of the Redcoats and their independence from tyranny.

    “Attempted gun confiscation triggered American Revolution

    I am dismayed by what I have been reading, hearing and seeing on the 2nd Amendment. People calling for curbs on the 2nd Amendment.

    These people seem to forget the 2nd Amendment protects the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. The Founding Fathers realized an armed citizenry is essential to keep a tyrannical government at bay.

    If you want curbs on the 2nd Amendment, then prepare yourselves for curbs on freedoms that you are taking for granted now. Expect curbs on your freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. Do not give up rights and freedoms in the hope of trying to eliminate violence. The bad guys do not play by the rules anyway. Why limit the rights of the good guys to protect themselves?

    What most people fail to realize (because they are not taught it) is the match that ignited America’s War for Independence was not excessive taxes, or the lack of representation, or trade restrictions, or the lack of trial by jury (as important as these issues were). The match that ignited America’s War for Independence was attempted gun confiscation.

    On April 19, 1775, some 800 British troops were dispatched to Concord, Mass., to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock and to seize a cache of weapons known to be stored at Concord. When Dr. Joseph Warren sent Paul Revere to warn Pastor Jonas Clark (in whose home Adams and Hancock were staying) the Crown’s troops were on their way to arrest the two men and seize the guns at Concord, he alerted his male congregants. About 60-70 men from the Church of Lexington stood armed on Lexington Green awaiting the Red Coats.

    Upon spotting the citizen militia, a British officer demanded the men throw down their arms. They refused; and the British troops immediately opened fire. Eight of the Minutemen were instantly killed. The colonists returned fire in self-defense, and the shot was fired that was heard ’round the world. By the time the troops arrived at the Concord Bridge, just a few miles away, hundreds of colonists were waiting for them with muskets in hand, and the rest, as they say, is history.

    Make no mistake about it: attempted gun confiscation ignited America’s War for Independence. If the federal government attempts to confiscate the guns of the American people, “There would be a revolution in this country!”

    To quote George Washington, “If freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

    Wake up from your slumber, people. All our rights and freedoms are in grave danger.

    Geza John Vamos”

    http://www.cleveland.com/sun/all/index.ssf/2013/01/attempted_gun_confiscation_tri.html

  15. There’s not going to be any gun confiscation or significant control in the USA – there are more privately-held guns than people there. Every time there’s talk of any kind of restrictions, or when there’s a mass shooting, gun sales go through the roof.
    Even with control of both houses of Congress when Obama came to power, the Dems didn’t pass any gun control legislation. There’s always going to be noise and rhetoric about gun control, but politics is just that: noise and rhetoric.

  16. “He cohld have done more damage in a truck.”

    Maybe, but likely only if it was full of fertilizer.

    Er…. I tender as evidence: One guy in a truck in Nice, France: 86 killed.
    One guy in Las Vegas cutting loose on a crowd with a machine gun: 56 killed.

  17. @PeteC – “There’s not going to be any gun confiscation or significant control in the USA”

    I hope so but if you look at what it is that those that call for gun control really hate then its white male conservatives, the liberals have identified this group as being the number one target in their long march for more diversity and more equality. Its a cultural change that they are seeking and look at the massive progress they have already achieved in shifting views and laws in regard to diversity, race and now gender so I wouldn’t put it passed them.

  18. I have noticed you don’t monetize your page, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn extra cash every month because you’ve got hi quality content.
    If you want to know how to make extra money, search for: Mrdalekjd methods for $$$

  19. “The reason for the deep seated American gun culture and their propensity for gun ownership can be traced back to a deep mistrust of the Redcoats and their independence from tyranny.” Oh bollocks. I dare say that this tosh was once the standard indoctrination for American schoolchildren, in best Stalinist style.

    I’ll bet that Americans owned lots of guns long before the War of Independence. They wanted to shoot game, bandits, bears, Injuns, and Frenchmen. After that War they had just the same needs and desires, but with Frenchmen largely replaced by Spaniards and Mexicans. I hate the politicisation of narratives. Of course small farmers scattered over that countryside would want to be armed: no more explanation is necessary.

  20. The American citizens were also fully aware of the outright success of the Disarming Act of 1746 when the Jacobite, their weaponry and culture was completely crushed such that it would never return. Cumberland and his post war methods were not only celebrated at home but also in America as the defender of Protestantism and Empire, the British state had been elevated and its control status heightened with many of Cumberland’s officer going on to serve in the colonies including North America on the back of the this new found military method.

    The colonists also realized that their very survival relied totally on the importance of a strong military of the British state. The American militiamen similarly knew that a disarming of the Jacobites by the Redcoats could never be allowed to occur in their land if they were ever to be free of the British state.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *