New Zealand reacts by calling for more gun bans
I really don’t see how this reaction will have any real effect on curbing violence:
The estimated quarter of a million gun owners across this largely quiet, peaceful South Pacific country, many of them dedicated hunters, are bracing for what are likely to be significant reforms to New Zealand’s firearm laws. Leaders have hinted the changes will impact the proliferation and availability of semiautomatic weapons in particular.
The changes, agreed to in principle by the country’s coalition government Monday – just 72 hours after the deadliest act of gun violence in New Zealand history – put the country in line with others that have taken swift action following tragedy within their borders. Details of the changes will be announced within the week, and must be passed by parliament…
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern labeled the massacre “the worst act of terrorism on our shores” and immediately promised swift action, calling for gun laws to be changed. Her declarations have been celebrated by many in New Zealand, some of whom had no idea that military-style semiautomatic weapons were so prolific in a country famously known for its extremely low murder rate.
Let’s pause for a moment to scratch our heads in collective wonderment. I believe that even before my political change, even back when I was what I then considered to be a typical liberal, I would have found that last sentence rather odd. It seems to me that logic would dictate that if “military style semiautomatic weapons” (whatever “style” might mean) are so prolific in a country famous for its low murder rate, then the presence of military style semiautomatic weapons is unlikely to be the cause of a high murder rate. Plenty of other factors come into play.
Now, if New Zealand banned only that sort of weapon—however such weapons might ultimately be defined—it probably wouldn’t stop people from arming themselves, and so whatever deterrent value an armed populace presents would still be operating. But gun control enthusiasts rarely stop at one sort of weapon. Their goals are much bigger.
It goes almost without saying that criminals and terrorists will continue to get weapons, if not legally then illegally. But that doesn’t seem to be an argument that convinces gun control enthusiasts of much of anything, either. New Zealand may be just beginning to go down a well-worn road:
The Port Arthur massacre in Australia in 1996 shook the continent, changed gun legislation the Pacific nation, strictly restricting self-loading rifles and other weapons.
A buyback program destroyed thousands of guns and high-capacity magazines. A shooting at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland, that same year also prompted a campaign for tighter restrictions on firearms, which led to a virtual ban on civilian ownership of handguns.
Great, just great. Disarm law-abiding citizens entirely, so that now the whole country is vulnerable. It’s not my impression that Scotland was especially riven by terrorism or violence to begin with, so this may not come back to haunt them. But it sounds mighty dangerous to me to disarm law-abiding people in general.
And then there’s the extreme of registering all firearms:
New Zealand, like the United States, also has no requirement for gun owners to register their weapons, unlike many countries in the world.
Again, there are ways to get weapons outside any system that requires registration. What’s more, registration is sometimes used by tyrannical regimes to perform a sweeping confiscation of a citizenry’s guns, in particular of the guns of these they deem enemies [see NOTE II below]. The Founders understood the importance of an armed populace; many modern people have failed to heed the warnings of history.
The New Zealand article ends this way:
The government’s decision, he said, has been in part motivated by the frequency of mass shootings in the United States, which has among the most lax gun laws in the world.
“There is a baseline determination not to go down the American road,” he said.
That presupposes, of course, that the US has a terrible record of gun shootings, and that the number here per capita is extraordinarily high compared to that of other countries, at least other first world countries not undergoing civil war. Ah, but with so many things, it depends how you choose to crunch those numbers:
Even when we use coding choices that are most charitable to Lankford, such as excluding any cases of insurgencies or battles over territory, his estimate of the US share of shooters falls from 31 percent to 1.43 percent. It also accounts for 2.1 percent of murders, and 2.88 percent of their attacks. All these are much less than the United States’ 4.6 percent share of the population.
Of the 86 countries where we have identified mass public shootings, the US ranks 56th per capita in its rate of attacks and 61st in mass public shooting murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia all have at least 45 percent higher rates of murder from mass public shootings than the United States.
[NOTE I: We have reason to believe that more gun bans, and then a reaction to those gun bans, are what the shooter wished. More specifically, I’m talking about some quotes I read from his manifesto, which I’m finding difficult to find right now because Googling for anything connected with gun rights and this shooter seems to only yield a slew of articles about how New Zealand is stepping up its gun control efforts in the wake of the killings. If I had more time I could find the quote, but it was about his desire to inflame and further polarize the debates about gun control, and to ultimately spark an actual war between right and left over this issue and other issues such as immigration (a hot war rather than a cold one).]
[NOTE II: The question of how (and how effectively) the Nazis used the Weimar republic’s gun registration laws—laws meant to protect the Jews, actually—to disarm the Jews of Germany, as well as to disarm any group the Nazis thought would be a threat, has caused an enormous amount of debate. I’m not going to be covering the issue in any depth in this particular post, but I find the side that says the Nazis used the law quite effectively to be far more convincing. It’s a long, involved, complex debate, but I refer you to this shorter and this longer article, and to this for a summary of the critiques. It’s pretty fascinating stuff, by the way.]
[NOTE III: See this for a discussion of the current state of gun laws in New Zealand.]
Neo,
In the earlier discussion I mentioned that I wouldn’t leave the URL here unless you asked me to.
I’m going to consider your remark about the Internet’s unwillingness to cough it up as an invitation to do so. If you’d prefer not to have it here, please feel free to delete. And so far, searching with Startpage.com on the string
“The Great Replacement” manifesto
still works.
https://katana17.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/the-great-replacement-manifesto-of-new-zealand-mosque-shooter-mar-2019/
.
PS. Please don’t bring common sense or logic into the issue. It’s entirely too confusing to the usual suspects.
As if the only way to do a mass killing is with guns. He could have gotten some of his ChiCom friends to give him some fentanyl.
My second most favorite quote is:
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
– Robert Heinlein
My all time favorite quote of Heinlein is:
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
Example: NYC is now having a string of “bad luck”.
It’s an excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway.
The people in this country who moan about firearms are the same people who are perfectly indifferent to law enforcement in every other circumstance. We’ve been quite successful in the last 30 years (here and there) in reducing the prevalence of violent crime. The response of liberals has been (1) ignore it, (2) attribute it to serendipity, or (3) pretend police officers are brutes.
Even the NZ prime minister’s coalition partner, the New Zealand First Party, is falling into line on this:
There was also a report today (or yesterday) that the US murder rate has gone down sharply since 2015. Nobody can figure out what might have happened in that period.
It surged in 2015, another mystery.
Can you say “Black Lives Matter ?”
Another Western society, busily fashioning the chains of its future enslavement.
The Second Amendment also contributed because it specified “Militia” which did not include blacks. Fortunately, that was in the “whereas clause” which does not act as the operative part of the law.
Military Style Semi-Automatic or MSSA is generally about picking out cosmetic features that don’t really impact the function of a gun. In Sen. DiFi’s assault weapons ban, things like pistol grips on a rifle or flash suppressors make it an assault weapon.
The Christchurch shooter used an AR-15 type rifle that did not have a pistol grip, per se. So is it not a MSSA if it lacks a pistol grip? Well, if the definition is too inconvenient, just change it on the fly. Which is ultimately the big problem. Here in the U.S. some of our politicians start with rants on assault weapons, and then transition to bans on all semi-auto weapons, e.g. the vast majority of hand guns.
Check out this article, from 2016, on “gun-city” Melbourne AU. It’s rather bizarre in that shooting injuries are very common, though shooting homicides are much less common.
The Victoria hospital GSW stats indicate a 10% likelihood of getting shot in the head, a zero chance on getting shot in or near the heart, and a 90% chance of getting shot in the extremities or waist or below. Apparently the drug gangs like to “send a message” by shooting people in the extremities.
As Neo notes, on a per capita basis America is nowhere near the murder capital of the world. For totalitarian set that is not the issue, the issue is they must first disarm us in order to crush us. They don’t give a damn about the victims of violence, they want more victims, the more the better.
I had read that the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, who had a modest firearm ownership record, actually killed a sizeable number of Nazi soldiers when they were being rounded up, unlike the German Jews.
I suggest reading James Howard Kunstler’s 3-18-19 post “Deadly Serious” on Kunstler.com
He makes some salient points about the NZ attack and its relation to gun rights.
Condoleeza Rice, in her book about her parents – Extraordinary Ordinary People – explains how her father and other black men in their neighborhood protected themselves with guns back in the day when the city was known as bombingham, AL.
Sitting outside on his front porch, like all the other men did, all night long with his shotgun kept the Klan and others hoods away from their neighborhood and protected their families.
She further explained that if there had been some sort of registration in place, Bull Conner would have found some sort of bogus justification to take away black owners gun so the Klan could run wild through black neighborhoods later at night.
So, yea, take away the guns of law-abiding citizens and leave them at the mercy of thugs – liberals just don’t get it.
Apparently the drug gangs like to “send a message” by shooting people in the extremities.
Kneecapping,
Mike K,
In what way did the 2nd Amendment use of the term “militia”, exclude free blacks?
I just did a bit of research and “at least 10-15 blacks fought at Lexington and Bunker Hill”. And while initially the Continental Congress excluded blacks from the army, by wars end it was estimated that between 5000 and 8000 blacks had served in some capacity, either on the battlefield, in supportive roles or on the seas. Given that participation, I don’t see how the 2nd Amendment’s use of the term “militia” can be interpreted as implying an exclusively white condition.
I don’t see how the 2nd Amendment’s use of the term “militia” can be interpreted as implying an exclusively white condition.
I don’t think that applies now but there is an argument that, when “The Militia” elected Andrew Jackson, blacks were not included.
Huffington Post is all political about it.
Here’s a law professor who says it didn’t.
A lot of retroactive politics about this
Remember there were a lot of free blacks before 1860 and not all were in the north. There were slave holding blacks in Missouri before 1860. There were also some in New Orleans.
1) This was not so-called “Terrorism”. It was simple mass murder. The shootees were specifically chosen….The were Muslims. Who is being “terrorized”? The sheeple, via the mass media. Terrorism is an act of random mayhem; that is key to its effectiveness, with the implication that no one, no where, is safe.
2) The shooter was NOT a racist, as so many, even Fox News, have termed him.
What race is Islam? What race are Christians? Are Catholics a different race than Methodists?
We are getting dumber and dumber.
charles, Condoleeza Rice’s father wasn’t the only one who considered guns as essential for self defense in the Jim Crow South. In his book, Negroes and the Gun: The Black Tradition of Arms, Nicholas Johnson gives a number of similar examples, such as Fannie Lou Hamer.
Civil rights activists drew a line between their non-violent activism and defending their homes.
I wrote a longer piece about guns and their use and the deleted it. This kind of says what I think needs to be said. Yesterday at our local church I was an usher , I have a CHL here in Texas and I have a gun on me at times but with my suit, white shirt and tie it really does not work. I was talking to one of my friends who is a retired police detective and he does carry a gun, stands close to the door of our church and they bring communion out to him just like those who are too old are unable to go up front to the alter.
I told him I was glad he was in place because then I felt better about not carry my little Colt .45 Defender concealed. He kind of cleaned my clock because he asked me why I was not ready to defend our church is the worst happened and said it might be good to have back up. I know a lot of the other men in our congregation do carry firearms concealed and I kind of felt like I had been called out. I best remedy the situation.
God bless those people who went to worship, I don’t care who or what they worshiped when they got shot up by that mentally disturbed nut job.
You’re not right Neo about preventing the spread of guns from outside sources. New Zealand has extremely hard borders, facilitated by very few crossing points.
If they ban semi-automatic weapons, and institute a buy back program to remove the ones in circulation, then the means of importing them after that are limited. You can’t exactly bring them back with you on a plane. Mailing them in is ludicrous in an era of x-ray machines. Individuals cannot merely drive across a border and buy one to bring back.
That leaves people prepared to smuggle them in commercially — but anyone who would do that could also smuggle drugs in, and that’s far more lucrative. It would be a risk to smuggle semi-automatic weapons in for far too little reward. No-one would do it for commercial gain — you’d make more money smuggling cigarettes in fact.
And one other group — which are criminal concerns that want to arm themselves and who are prepared to spend a lot of time and effort to smuggle them in. Such groups in NZ are well known to the Police, and the situation there wouldn’t get any worse. And to be honest, almost all gang killings are gang related — their threat to the innocent is low (albeit not zero).
It is an extremely unusual situation, because NZ’s borders are extremely easy to police. But a gun ban would be very effective, and the number of guns getting past would be quite small. Just because other countries can’t do it, doesn’t mean no-one can.
(People find the cost of most drugs in NZ astonishingly high compared to the rest of the world. It is because, again, smuggling is difficult across such a limited border. The exception is dope, because that grows well internally.)
It won’t stop mass killings of course. The last one in NZ was at Aramoana, where a guy who was an extremely good shot killed lots with single action. But it would reduce the numbers killed when shooters did go on a rampage.
Chester Draws:
What I wrote is certainly true for the US and most countries, but it does make sense that it would be easier for New Zealand to block weapons, because of it being an island country. However, the article had said this particular type of firearm they want to ban is already “prolific” (numerous) in New Zealand. So, there are already a great many there, and as I understand a buyback program (and I am not an expert on how they work), it is voluntary. Therefore, my guess is that it’s the law-abiding citizens who cooperate, and the shadier ones do not. That means there will be a residual number of such weapons that will be retained by the least scrupulous people. So, the weapons judged most dangerous by gun control advocates will be held by those least likely to use them properly and most likely to sell them on the black market.
The New Zealand shooter was one man (initial reports were that he had confederates, but later reports don’t seem to indicate that). It doesn’t take but one person to do a lot of damage, and the fewer arms the “good guys” have, the more damage a person bent on evil can do. I cannot imagine that every single person now living in New Zealand is a good guy. I cannot imagine not one would ever sell such weapons on the black market. I cannot imagine that criminals or terrorists or mass murderers are all so poor they can’t obtain them. The New Zealand shooter apparently was fairly prosperous.
Now, it may be that making guns hard to buy in a place like New Zealand (which was, after all, somewhat arbitrarily chosen as a target by this particular shooter) will drive would-be terrorists and/or other criminals to an easier place, and to leave New Zealand alone. Perhaps that’s the rationale. But that remains to be seen, and what’s more, it’s a strategy that can’t be used by many countries in the world.
Geoffrey Britain — the Second Militia Act of 1792 conscripted every “free, white, male citizen” between 18 and 45 into the militia. Blacks were not so enlisted until 1862. Interestingly enough, with all this talk about banning “military-style weapons,” the 1792 Act required all members of the militia to possess a military weapon and a supply of ammunition.
Chester,
Let’s say you’re right about the effectiveness of a ban in N.Z. due to its hard borders. A blanket denial of guns, in hopes of restricting their access to wack jobs has an unintended consequence; it guarantees the eventual rise of tyranny.
Self defense, as important as it is for the individual is not however the primary societal purpose of a well armed public. A disarmed public has no final defense against tyranny. A disarmed public is, “as slaughter to the sheep”.
Only the ignorant of both history and human nature deny that every generation produces a percentage of those who would rule over their fellows with whatever degree of ruthlessness is required to do so.
Deny access to the public and you ensure that only the government’s agents and the ruthless will have guns. History demonstrates that to be a formula for eventual tyranny. Or do you believe that ‘this time’ it will be different?
Richard S,
That Act occured when slavery was legal and therefore for practical reasons excluded blacks. I’m simply arguing that the word “militia” is not inherently exclusionary and, that nothing in the wording of the 2nd Amendment is explicitly exclusionary of non-whites.
Gun bans in the wake of a mass shooting are obviously emotionalism combined with status seeking on the part of the banners.
As a result of the college admissions prosecutions, I am beginning to reflect more on how many of the tropes in the media are really stories about competition for status among the middle class in America and Europe. You can get a fine education at Northern Illinois, Fresno State, East Stroudsburg State, or Truman College, but where is the status in that? Should you become a teacher or a trader? A public employee or a sales rep? Do Black Lives Matter or All Lives Matter? Should you work for Habitat for Humanity or Clayton Manufactured Housing?
Are you for guns in the home (are you ignorant) or against guns in the home (are you enlightened)?
Like so many things, gun control is about how you are viewed by your social peers or superiors.
Whose side are you on?
https://www.steynonline.com/9249/calling-out-around-the-world
Note II (from the piece above)
SEE: Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds In Paradise.
It explains how these things are done, at a “child’s level”.
Like (eg)Aesop did.
It’s for fairness. It’s for your safety. It’s for “our” children. It’s for the protection of (fill in the blank). It’s just a few, minor, common sense, compromises! Here’s what the (clean fingernail) experts say!
Weapons of war are BANNED! Unexpectedly, grain threshing flails, hay rakes, fire tending tools, carpentry tools, and farming tools, become deft and deadly.
And of course, there’s always chemical warfare (poison). Some slow, like PoliSci,
consuming vast peripheral resources, and some faster, leaving mounds of further emotional and biological pestilence.
Just IMHO, of course.
The Rwandan genocide was carried out mostly, but not exclusively, by machete.
Guns aren’t inherently dangerous. Human beings are.
Tuvea:
The London stabby effect illustrates your point, people willing to murder and maim will use whatever is available. Enlightened English leaders are talking of knife control laws and technical means for tracking such ‘weapons.’
Blaming inanimate objects for the failures of people is intellectually and morally bankrupt!
I was once trusted with an F-14. Sure, I wasn’t in a paid flight status.
I was an intel officer in a TARPS squadron. Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance Pod System. I could work the mighty, mighty AWG-9. Think I can’t be trusted with a rifle or handgun?
Weapons of war are BANNED! Unexpectedly, grain threshing flails, hay rakes, fire tending tools, carpentry tools, and farming tools, become deft and deadly.
And of course, there’s always chemical warfare (poison)
om beat me to it. The hysteria about knives is an example. No mention of the acid attacks in London and who perpetrate them. “South Asians” I suppose.
In Chicago it’s “Youths.”
I have a long list of weapons that I qualified with during my naval service. I never killed anyone. Maybe it was because my gunny prepared me to kill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=415HQ1t2ZNI
I expect some people to believe I am bragging. Far from it.
Mike K, weapons of war are not exactly banned. They are heavily restricted. The odds of you getting a machine gun are limited. And, they are almost never used in crimes. I believe only one time was a machine gun used in a murder. No cannon was ever used in a murder. But you can own them.
https://www.guntrustdepot.com/NFA-Trust/NfaWeapons
If you have twelve grand to spare and a clean record you can own a machine gun. It’s really the expense that removes machine guns from the crime gun category.
You can buy a black powder cannon on e-bay.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=black+powder+cannon
It’s not legal to own an automatic weapon built after 1986. The good news is that you can rebuild them. The bad news is that you will go broke spending on ammo. Because it’s addictive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8K6vSWHuEY
Mike K, weapons of war are not exactly banned.
That was a quote and it was irony.
A friend of mine had a mortar that would throw bowling balls. He fired it one time with a bit too much powder and the bowling ball went over a hill and out of sight. He was pretty nervous as he went around the hill to see if it hit anything.
Sorry Mike, I didn’t get it.
I’m usually good with humor. You have to have a sense of humor to spend 20 years in the Navy.
There have been several major studies on firearms over the decades. Here are three of the major studies on guns, violence and criminality that you should read to become knowledgeable on the subject.
Drs. James Wright and Peter Rossi, “Under the Gun, Crime and Violence in America” (1983) National Institute of Justice
Professor Gary Kleck, “Point Blank, Guns and Violence in America” (1991).
Dr. Charles Wellford; et al, “Firearms and Violence: a Critical review” (2004) National Academy of Sciences.
If you read these studies, you will find there is no evidence that demonstrates the availability of guns has any measurable effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape or burglary.
The last time I commented on the situation in New Zealand was several years ago, and so the situation legally speaking may have changed for the better.
But the fact was, and probably still is, that New Zealanders do not conceptually, from a legal point of view, legally have any rights which may not be either specified or denied at will by the Parliament. Parliament, or a majority of it, is presumed to be sovereign and may do as it wishes to whatever extreme it wishes.
New Zealanders, some of them, will make the argument that they have what in effect amounts to a bill of rights which functions in their hodgepodge of “constitutional” documents and practices in such a way as to restrain the acts of Parliament. But on my last check, these so-called constitutional conventions (not in the sense of a convening, but of understandings) are not a higher law in the sense that they legally define what laws Parliament may make.
When it comes down to it, the citizen of New Zealand has by right, only the rights which a Parliamentary majority may chose to at this time or that time, to allow.
Every Naval Intel officer has a “My Three Days With The SEALs” Story. Usually it involves bad @@@sery. My one night with the SEALs story involve us getting kicked out of the Kadena AFB O’Club, and later Gino gave me a black eye when we decided to cook rice and he slammed a plate into my face.
The ride from White Beach to Kadena was funny as the SEALs held a contest to gross out the intel guy. It didn’t work.
That wasn’t my only interaction with the SEALs. I also handed them crayons and construction paper so they could do their mission planning on the USS Dubueque.
It should also be noted that neither Australia, nor, to my recollection New Zealand, have anything like the freedom of speech taken for granted, and as a God given unalienable right, by Americans.
If the Australian Eco-fascist, or whatever he claimed to be, had been interested in freedom, he could have easily become a courtroom martyr by going back to Australia, and saying that the Koran was a pile of crap; or reporting on the sport rapes committed against Australian girls by gangs of “immigrants”.
My guess is that no polity in the world respects free speech to the extent that Americans practice it.
you will find there is no evidence that demonstrates the availability of guns has any measurable effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape or burglary.
There is a little bit of evidence that guns reduce crime but it is a very unpopular topic for research. It’s a bit like trying to study the outcomes of children raised by gay parents. Or long term results of sex changes.
I had a good liberty in Perth. I had a good hunting trip to New Zealand. I’m looking at my Red Stag and Fallow Deer mounts right now. I wish nothing but the best for my ANZAC buds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx1zYCYQu6w
Royal Australian Navy frigate ANZAC Breakaway song”
I suppose it can now be told. I snuck an digger into a briefing in a foreign country by convincing them that he had a Boston accent. That’s why he spoke funny American.
He returned the favor by excluding me from a briefing, “Sorry, mate, no Yanks.”
Well, at least I made mateship.
In case you’re interested, when ships meet up and turn away it’s tradition to play a break away song. Naturally, not when you’re part of a battle group. But this was an Aussie frigate that we were victualling.
New Zealanders, some of them, will make the argument that they have what in effect amounts to a bill of rights which functions in their hodgepodge of “constitutional” documents and practices in such a way as to restrain the acts of Parliament. But on my last check, these so-called constitutional conventions (not in the sense of a convening, but of understandings) are not a higher law in the sense that they legally define what laws Parliament may make.
We live in an era when systematic intellectual dishonesty is the order of the day for the appellate judiciary, the law professoriate, and the disgusting ‘public interest bar’. When judges are capable of looking you in the eye and intoning pompously that homosexual pseudogamy and abortion are ‘constitutional rights’, you have to realize nothing in black letters is binding on those ba*tards. BTW, Canada has a ‘Charter of Rights and Freedoms’. Fat lot of good it does. You might have a modest advantage over Israel or New Zealand or Britain or some other place which has a body of constitutional law but no discrete charter. Then again you might not.
If you read these studies, you will find there is no evidence that demonstrates the availability of guns has any measurable effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape or burglary.
It was common among criminologists a generation ago to declaim that there was ‘no evidence’ that policing and punishment had any marginal effect on crime rates. Some of them were pretty butt-hurt when Rudolph Giuliani and Wm. Bratton demonstrated quite graphically that that wasn’t true. Here’s a suggestion: a lot of those people are what Richard Feynman called ‘cargo-cult scientists’. E.D. Hirsch has discussed the problem in education research: mis-specified models and studies ill adapted to testing the thesis they’re examining. It’s reasonable to be somewhat reserved when someone trots out the ‘no evidence’ trope in defense of a thesis that is counter-intuitive.
Neo, being an island nation does not make it easier to ban guns. Not as long as you have a fishing fleet. I lived in Japan for seven years. Years before I lived there, I visited. It was once that Yakuza would pay American sailors $100 for a single round of ammo that they could smuggle in. But when the Soviet Union fell apart and more importantly China became a source the Japanese stopped buying from us. Guns and ammo became cheap.
I don’t know if I can convince you to trust me on this matter. I was however recalled to active duty in November 2001 to provide intelligence support to force protection. I was a Pacific Fleet Sailor. That means we forward deploy. The Atlantic Fleet guys, I hear, think force protection means making it hard for Sailors to buy beer in Norfolk.
But I digress. Point being, I can buy a Tokarev in Tokyo. H3ll, I can buy a Tokarev in Singapore or Hong Kong. It’s not hard. And if you’re found with a gun in Singapore you could be executed.
In the Philippines just about every farmer has a rifle. It’s illegal. But they are every where. One reason why is China. I used to own a Polytech M-14. Caution; the bold is soft. Replace it with a GI bolt. It was made in China, and for one reason. They shipped them to the island nation Philippines to arm the communist New People’s Army. The reason why they supplied the NPA with M-14s is that was what the Filipino armed forces is equipped with M-14s. Their armed forces are also equipped with M-16s as you can carry more 5.56 than 7.62 but the 7.62 is better at shooting through cover.
Most Pinoys prefer the AK, though. Why? The Armalite, as it is known in the PI, is superbly accurate. But because American rifles require too much care. If you are ordering CLP from Brownells you might as well walk your miserable butt to the police station and turn yourself in. But with a Russian rifle you cam run it just by wiping it down with used transmission oil once a year.
The Japanese cops I worked with lamented that Japan doesn’t have a gun culture. Their problem was that amateur criminals couldn’t resist pulling the trigger. Professionals, the Yakuza, could resist shooting. But the amateurs couldn’t. They had a gun, and it had to be used.
Thank God we have a gun culture in this country. My guns will rust away before they are used for murder.
You probably don’t, although I have not sought out any study which systematically analyzed the effect of the Charter on rights which are assumed as unimpeachable liberties here in the United States.
I can think of two points which tend to indicate otherwise.
1, Justice Willard Estey of the Canadian Supreme Court warned in a televised CBC discussion of the then impending Charter, that its passage would effectively demote the principle of stare decisis in Canadian jurisprudence. This might be bad enough in our system. But I think that he was probably insinuating that the effects in a more Common Law based Parliamentary system would be even worse. Stare decisis is of course seen by numerous commentators as the sine qua non [or an element nearly as important] of any rational concept of the rule of law.
2, The Charter of Rights had been repeatedly used by persons interested in engaging in legal warfare against those who they asserted were offending against their protected interests by speaking too freely. We can refresh our memories following …
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/free-speech-eh-why-is-canada-prosecuting-mark-steyn-1.720445
https://www.nationalreview.com/2008/06/idiots-guide-completely-idiotic-canadian-human-rights-tribunals-mark-hemingway/
https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/five-years-two-tribunals-a-raft-of-secret-hearings-a-supreme-court-challenge-how-the-battle-for-free-speech-was-won/
Well, sort of won. Just ask Jordan Peterson.
When I was stationed in Japan a Russian captain was arrested for attempting to sell his frigate. Me and my Japanese counterparts got a good laugh out of that. I mean, seriously, how was that supposed to work out? Concealing a pistol is one thing. How do you conceal a ship?
“Oh, that’s just my trawler. My yacht. Whatever.”
Really, a six year old could have done my job. But then we used to say that if you have enough bananas you can teach a monkey to fly.
Neo, being an island nation does not make it easier to ban guns.
That just doesn’t make any sense. If you wanted to say insular countries aren’t hermetically sealed, that might make sense.
Art Deco, how does it not make sense?
Do you realize how hard it is to police a coast line? I can smuggle anything into Japan, the Philippines, what have you. Back during “The Troubles” that was Britain’s major problem in Northern Ireland.
Well, that and the rest of Ireland.
How do you think all those cheap and available Kalashnikovs got to the PI?
Back during the ’90s I provided intel support to law enforcement. Specifically, combatting the Colombian drug trade. It’s why if you give me the word EPIC I don’t think of a long or heroic poem. I think of the El Paso Intel Center.
I know a few things about smuggling. I had to.
Risk management, perhaps. A call to aid and abet the criminal, certainly.
Is smuggling the second oldest profession?
No. Prostitution is the second oldest.
Intel is the oldest. Someone had to know where the girls are.
In God we trust. All others we monitor.
Actually, maybe brewing is the second oldest. That’s also a good thing to know about.
Geoffrey Britain
As I told you before, the Deep State will not move until the Americans are disarmed. But this may never happen if they deem it unnecessary.
That is because the Federal Reserve already controls the people far better than a tyranny would.
Art Deco,
You might find Dr. Wrights later article on gun control interesting.
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/second-thoughts-about-gun-control
Decent article on Switzerland — lots of guns AND lots of regulation. And getting worse on regs, with fewer guns.
https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2
We need “better people”.
More illegals are not that.
That is because the Federal Reserve already controls the people far better than a tyranny would.
The Federal Reserve controls the rates they charge banks, the rates they pay on reserves on deposit, and the dimensions of the monetary base. As long as they don’t do anything bizarre, they’re no threat to anyone but a small number of securities traders.
Deco at 5:15 above,
The Federal Reserve, by controlling interest rates and the money supply, controls inflation* — that is, the general devaluation or purchasing power of a given amount of money.
This is indeed a threat to all of us.
For an explanation of the effects of inflation, see “9 Common Effects of Inflation”
at
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/122016/9-common-effects-inflation.asp
*The article, which isn’t terribly long, starts by noting what “inflation” is not: It is not the result of a change in the balance of supply and demand — although I will note that it can easily be a cause of that change, because if a person’s or a business’s money loses purchasing power he or it will tend to cut back on less necessary expenditures.
In God we trust. All others we monitor.
Some, many people trust in Stork, and criticize God for harshing their mellow.
“But because American rifles require too much care. If you are ordering CLP from Brownells you might as well walk your miserable butt to the police station and turn yourself in. But with a Russian rifle you cam run it just by wiping it down with used transmission oil once a year.” – Steve57
Some of my reading on WW2 indicated a similar problem for the Germans: their guns were too finely engineered to work in the Russian winter.
Wretchard called it.
Chicagoboyz commenter noted this, although the post topic was the Dem’s anti-Semitism, not the NZ massacre:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/59399.html#comment-1016664
Brian Says:
March 16th, 2019 at 1:00 pm
Richard Fernandez had a great tweet a few days ago :
“Though it may sound counterintuitive the absolute worse thing politicians can do is react by collecting guns, imposing hate speech restrictions and announcing open borders. If they don’t understand why that is bad they don’t understand the problem at all.”
Expanded here:
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/playing-for-time/
“One option is to deliver even higher doses of political correctness and demographic replacement. But perhaps the absolute worst thing politicians can do is respond by collecting guns, imposing hate speech restrictions, and announcing open borders. In the current atmosphere of distrust toward authority, such actions can destroy the only asset a state faced with ethnic conflict has: the public belief that it is above the fray and won’t sell anyone out. That quantity can itself run out and therein lies the danger.”
As long as they don’t do anything bizarre, they’re no threat to anyone but a small number of securities traders.
That is what you have been led to believe by the government, media, and Deep State, yes. Repeating inaccurate data isn’t going to make it more accurate.
The Federal Reserve is a private entity, neither federal nor a reserve. Their actions cannot be overruled by anyone in the US government, including Trum. Trum can’t even fire the head.
Do you also believe inflation in Republic of Germany was also not a threat to anyone but a small number of securities traders?
The currency system of the United States is its logistical and strategic lynchpin and you Americans aren’t even worried that Wilson Woodrow (another hero like FDR to you all apparently) entirely abdicated us federal control of its own currency to a private entity that cannot be controlled.
Your knowledge of banking and financial power is severely in need of additional study and reading, Art. You can start with how the Federal Reserve came into being, legally and privately.
The same goes for GB over there, since he reacted with the same nonchalance months ago on the same topic. Giving control of the national currency and financial markets to a private entity that may or may not be domestic or foreign controlled, is as good an idea as giving the nuclear football triggers and codes and commands to some private entity that pays you a kickback in US dollars.
The Federal Reserve is a private entity, neither federal nor a reserve. Their actions cannot be overruled by anyone in the US government, including Trum. Trum can’t even fire the head.
No, the Federal Reserve Board is a public agency. The member banks are notionally private parastatal bodies. The distinction is a matter of no significance.
Fascinating discussion on the Federal Reserve, even if completely off topic. I actually learned a bit looking at the links below.
The Fed’s actions are extremely important to markets and by extension, to everyone that uses money. Markets literally hang on every word in official statements, and can move dramatically because a single word was removed.
The Fed was created by an act of Congress and could be similarly ended with another act. This would likely cause another great depression, like when Pres. Jackson de-funded it’s predecessor, The Second Bank of the U.S.
______
“The Federal Reserve controls the rates they charge banks, the rates they pay on reserves on deposit, and the dimensions of the monetary base.” — Art Deco
Depending on what you mean by “controls the rates they charge banks,” I don’t think that’s quite correct. The Fed controls very short term interest rates, “the Fed. funds rate” normally via POMO or Permanent Open Market Operations. Typically, they buy and sell short term Treasury bills on the open market.
The Fed. can put cash directly into a bank for short time periods, on an emergency and secret basis, by trading securities for cash. This not rare, but not an interest rate mechanism. It’s a banking panic assistance mechanism.
Art is correct that the Fed. pays interest on reserves held at the Fed., which I knew. I suspected that this was a new feature of the Fed. but didn’t know the details here.
The legislation predates the credit crisis of 2008, but the effective date was a response to the crisis. Very surprising to me was the following,
The IOER is the “Interest rates On Excess Reserves” paid by the Fed. to banks. <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IOER/>Here is a chart on this interest rate. Click on Max time range to see the whole thing starting in 2008. The staircase of rising rates in recent years is the Fed’s effort to suck liquid cash out of the economy and raise short term interest rates. I think there are many market pros that don’t appreciate this, and the Fed. certainly isn’t trumpeting it.
What used to be exclusively the province of POMO, is now being controlled by both POMO and IOER.
Julie’s comment is good too.
Some decades after the Fed was created there was add-on legislation that among other things ensured that the Fed actions would give strong consideration to the unemployment rate. Now known as the dual mandate, the Fed is required to “keep prices stable” and “keep unemployment relatively low.”
Somehow, and I’d love to see the detailed history, this now means that the Fed has a target inflation rate of 2%. So the Fed. actually gets upset now, if inflation is persistently at 1.5%. Oh no, it’s too low! Note, there is no legislation prescribing any such number or numbers.
Even 2% inflation is not conducive to holding purely cash as a wealth repository, over a lifetime.
Worse, people like Rep. Maxine Waters, in the midst of the banking crisis, was trying to tell the Fed. that maybe they should adjust that target rate to 3 or 4%. You know, just inflate the debt problem away.