Un chercheur s'alarme de la radicalisation des prisonniers musulmans, fruit d'une politique gouvernementale contre-productive.
AVEC les campus, les prisons britanniques sont devenues des centres de propagation de l'extrémisme islamique. Plus alarmant encore, les mesures strictes instaurées pour empêcher toute radicalisation des détenus musulmans se révèlent contre-productives. « En se focalisant sur la sécurité, le gouvernement a fait fausse route », assène Gabriele Marranci. Pendant quatre ans, ce maître-assistant de l'université d'Aberdeen, a mené 170 entretiens avec d'anciens ou d'actuels prisonniers, a vécu avec des familles de condamnés et s'est immergé des heures dans des centres pénitenciers. Et sa conclusion est sans appel : « Les règles sécuritaires - comme les restrictions touchant les prières en commun ou la lecture du Coran durant les pauses de travail - exacerbent plutôt qu'elles n'atténuent le processus de radicalisation. » Les prisons anglaises, vivier de l'islam radical (encore)
Mark Alexander
37 comments:
Mark:
This is a long read, but is relevant to some of our earlier comments about an armed/disarmed society.
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/pdf/polin133.pdf
A very interesting talk.
Banning legal weapons did nothing to reduce crime.
" ... did nothing to reduce crime. "
And everything to make the rest of us helpless to resist an armed Muslim insurgency and/or tyrannous government. And, indeed, the aforementioned crime.
Glad you found it interesting avantepelotin.
Yes a very interesting read Sir Henry. I especially liked this quote from the article....
Aaron Zelman, a
former German citizen, who was imprisoned in the National Socialist
concentration camp at Dachau. Mr Zelman recalls that
"Before Adolf Hitler came to power, there was a black market
for firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned
to be law abiding that they would never consider buying
an unregistered gun. The German people really believed
that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools we
were. It truly frightens me to see how the government,
media and some police groups in America are pushing for
the same mindset. In my opinion, the people of America
had better start asking and demanding answers to some hard
questions about firearms ownership, especially, if the government
does not trust me to own firearms, why or how can
the people be expected to trust the government?"
"Anti-gun-ownership politicians are very dangerous to a free
society. Liberty and freedom can only be preserved by an
armed citizenry. I see creeping fascism in America, just as
in Germany, a drip at a time; a law here, a law there, all
supposedly passed to protect the public. Soon you have
total enslavement. Too many Americans have forgotten that
tyranny often masquerades as doing good." ...
So many people, so totally oblivious...the future looks bleak. That last line says it all.
The rest of the article raises some very interesting points especially that quote from Gustave Le Bon about the psychology of crowds and their manipulation by opportunistic politicians.
These being only two examples of great insight from this excellent analysis.
I'm confused! How do we get to discussing gun laws on a blog about Islamic extremism in British prisons? Could someone please explain?
I think it's because the Islamic extremism is what's going to bring this issue to the fore. At least, that's what I had in mind when I posted the original link.
Sorry if I misjudged.
No worries, my friend! You can talk about whatever you like, but I was unable to see the link. I couldn't understand what was going on. Now that you have explained, it's clear to me. Thank you.
Continue the discussion, by all means. I wasn't trying to be a killjoy. I shall read your comments, and everyone else's, with a lot of interest, Sir Henry. I may, or may not, contribute. I am no expert on guns; and I have very little interest in them. But I see that points you are all driving at.
Mark, a large part of the fear of guns is the unfamiliarity of them amongst a population unused to seeing them, let alone using them. Then of course there is the popular misconception, spread by a media with no actual knowledge of the subject matter in hand, but an irresistible urge to grandly pontificate as a world class expert. Take just about any subject the media bandwagon jumps on, a little objective research on the readers part will expose the shallow depth of objectivity to be found pertaining to those crusades by the media.
It has been said a thousand times, a gun is just an instrument, it is the hand behind it that is the dangerous part; and in a world were moral relativism is in the ascendancy, where honesty and integrity are outmoded concepts of morality to be scorned by those who claim a higher, better compassion, who claim an understanding of the motivation of Palestinian suicide bombers, but a supreme contempt for the right of law abiding citizens to defend themselves; who see nothing wrong in the unholy slaughter on our roads each day, as it is an inevitable consequence of our necessary mode of transport, but will vilify anyone daring to abhor the decline of safety and security within the societies of Western cities. The same voices who smear all gun owners as rednecked hicks, who, finances willing, see no contradiction in hiring armed guards for their own protection from the very predators who their superior compassion seeks so desperately to understand, excuse and embrace on their personal path to righteousness.
The victims of crime have become a footnote in the annals of the grand quest of modern man seeking his salvation; meanwhile the sewer continues to overflow due to the blockage in the drain called moral relativism.
*Spit* --- dang! I'm off to the range to practice, as my son and I enjoy the sport. It's great fun, it's time well spent being with family, it teaches responsibility and respect for an instrument which is potentially very dangerous, but in the end is just an instrument. A little time spent training, gains a lifetime of sound procedure in safe practice and a familiarity with a means of self-defense in times of need. And it would appear that those times of need are rapidly approaching, for if trends continue, I not only see war in our future, but the total breakdown of law and order, as the inexorable march of Postmodernist Deconstruction ism continues to destroy civil societies in its quest for power and dominance.
JAR:
Mark, a large part of the fear of guns is the unfamiliarity of them amongst a population unused to seeing them, let alone using them.
I don't have a fear of guns per se. What I fear, if I fear anything about them, is those guns getting into the wrong hands. All it takes is one nutcase with a gun, and many people can lose their lives! In a society like the States where everyone is allowed to own a gun, how can the authorities stop the wrong, irresponsible people owning them?
It has been said a thousand times, a gun is just an instrument, it is the hand behind it that is the dangerous part…
Exactly!
"I don't have a fear of guns per se. What I fear, if I fear anything about them, is those guns getting into the wrong hands." - Mark
Yes Mark, but the problem is that when the law abiding are disarmed, only the lawless will have arms, for they do not adhere to any laws, only to means that give them advantage. The single most damning fact is that in the US, thieves usually only break into peoples homes when the occupants are away, whereas in the UK, they as often as not enter while the home is occupied, for they realize that the homeowner is an easy mark and can offer no resistance, whereas in the States, the robber has the potential to be shot by the homeowner. Many states of the union now have concealed carry laws; the number of armed robberies of individuals within those states is consistently lower as a percentage of the population than those states which do not allow citizens to carry.
Mark, in a civil society, where every member was virtuous and upstanding there would be no need for weapons as a means of self defense, but we do not live in such societies, in fact we are far, far from such a utopia. If the cultural Marxists continue to undermine our values we will soon be living in a million Mogadishus, academia's wet dream, though I'm sure they would cry us a river the day that reality dawns.
I think it is an agreed consensus among many here that the future holds little but conflict, and conflict of a particularly vicious kind, a religious civil war; the very worst kind.
Mark, what happens when that prat from the Muslin Council of Britain's threat of 2 million terrorists on the streets of Britain is realized, that was no idle threat, for given the expressed sentiments of many many Muslims in Britain, it is apparent that that is exactly what they will do. How do you propose to defend yourselves in the event of civil unrest...the police, the army, well I think that they will be very busy looking after the "great and the good", the banks and the institutions of the state to have time to help you. These parasites who have seized the reigns of state have abrogated the social contract. When the balloon goes up, your only security will be within your local associations, for the state will be too busy looking after itself. What do you propose to fight with, for from all the news media's photographic evidence, the Muslims are well armed, just look at all the photos you put up on your blog. Contrast those photographs with ones of your fellow countrymen, see any guns anywhere(?)
I'm not saying that you will need to go on a Muslim hunt, what I am saying is that if you are disarmed then your only option is likely to be surrender, and as events in the Balkans of late have shown, it is not a very rewarding option were your adversary is fortified by religious conviction, to slay the unbeliever, to strike off his head. It's going to get nasty, I don't see any other way.
Mark, I'm not telling you something that you don't already know; the whole premise of your book is about the aspirations and methodology of Islam. Thanks to our foolish elites, this is our future.
Mark, it is not that I am admonishing you to become a warrior, it is that without the means of defense you become an easy mark for those fortified by the conviction of their designs; there simply is nothing to give them pause in the furtherance of their actions. They end up viewing the situation as one having no adverse consequence and great material advantage...so why not?
JAR:
I realize that you are not admonishing me. It is just that I have always thought that this is the responsibility of the police. I have no desire to live in a UK fully armed. What a frightening, nay terrifying, thought!
Mark, you're right: it is a terrifying thought. But the thought of an armed Islam kicking off within our borders against our unarmed population is even more terrifying.
It may be the task of the police and the armed forces to defend us, but as Richard said, they will be too busy defending the political elites and institutions of state to have any spare capacity for us. They can't even defend us now.
Ok - I'm an ex-serviceman so have weapons training, and I can understand the reluctance of those without it, but we could at least have parish militias in every parish, with the armed forces providing weapons training. Something along the lines of the Swiss system, with militia members keeping their weapons at home, with regular checks to see to it that the ammunition is undisturbed. There must be tens of thousands of - now obsolete, apparently, but still my weapon of choice if it comes to it - FALs in the system. Use them.
Anyway, it wont happen. The politicians will just continue leading on this course of self-destruction until it kicks off. Then ordinary folk will be on their own. We'll lose tens of thousands we wouldn't have lost if we'd been armed.
The FAL, in it's British version is what most people call the SLR.
Sir Henry:
Mark, you're right: it is a terrifying thought. But the thought of an armed Islam kicking off within our borders against our unarmed population is even more terrifying.
How right you are!
By the way, Sir Henry, you always have such an interesting 'take' on things, as does JAR!
This, dear visitors, is why I am AGAINST everyone owning guns:
Deadly shooting at US university
WATCH BBC VIDEO: US shooting leaves 21 dead
22 Tote bei Amoklauf in den USA: Schiesserei auf Uni-Campus in Virginia
Enough said!
And can we imagine the headlines when the Western intifada kicks off?
This will be small fry in comparison.
The truth of the matter is that there are many millions of of illegal weapons in UK.
UK is a part of the trading hub for guns, much of it coming from the Balkan region. The trade is known to be intertwined with people smuggling and major drug importing.
The money involved is phenomenal. The authorities cannot hardly scratch the surface, now crime gangs are like multi-national corporations.
Other bloggers have highlighted the comprehensive nature of the planning for the UK intifada. It is just a question of timing.
As others have said before, it is unlikely that a major armed insurrection would be successful just yet, but following a major incident or event that gives apparent "justification" to the hordes of would be martyrs, then organized street violence and random "Iraq-like" attacks can be expected.
It will also be a media war, for as the authorities get tough and begin to use serious force, the world of biased satellite TV reporting will show exactly the same pictures as we see al BBC showing of the situation in the West Bank.
The world will see the staged confrontations and the deaths of young kids paraded before them, drawing together the "moderates" to fulfill the wishes of the agitators.
It won't be just yet, for the leaven has not finished rising.
The buns are still in the oven, and like the progeny of "the Alien" are growing within the host until they can burst forth.
It can't happen here, right?
Not in little ol England. Well as soon as conditions are not favorable for the unchecked making of untaxed fortunes, then idle hands will soon turn to other pursuits.
9/11 was the litmus paper, and the West by and large, failed to take actions that drew a line in the sand, mainly due to certain politicians fear of upsetting the oil-barons of the world.
Though dropping bombs from B52's onto mountain caves was quite spectacular and did indeed provide a temporary fix of the Afghan training camps issue, we are left with a dithering uncertainty in our mellow-jello governments.
Take a look today at the ridiculous announcement made by Hilary Benn, the incompetent UK Minister who has dismally failed to halt the Darfur crisis, despite his continued passing of verbal wind on the matter.
He is doing a star-turn in the USA today where he will announce that the UK will no longer use the term "war on terror" because, "it gives strength to small terror groups who then think they are part of a larger terror organization"
What a load of old cobblers.
By refusing to recognize something for what it is and by changing it's name, they hope to drop the whole matter from public gaze and we enter the bizarre situation where we are told by the Security Services to expect a serious major terror event at any time, but the politicians seek to wave the illusionist's magic handkerchief and produce a fluffy-bunny from where there was a stinking pile of
doo-doo.
I'm sure your commentator Richard will have more elegant words to sum it up!
This twat Hilary Benn (is he a relative of Tony Benn?)is going for the job of deputy PM, in the Gordon Brown cabinet.
These major events that are planned by these "larger terror groups" that supposedly don't exist, are feared by some to involve the advanced planning of the detonation of "suit-case" nukes in several USA cities, and said by some to be already in place.
Along with this, some spectacular dirty-bombs in UK cities, and we will find the dear old Uk in severe shock.
This is nothing new, it is discussed in many forums and recent events like the Chechyan supporter Litvinenko and the "Polonium Caper," suggest a situation where even the trigger components of nuclear devices are being shipped around the world on British Airways.
Wake up my friends, for to expect the unexpected will be that which separates the survivors from the victims.
Of course it is easier to say, "it is in God's hands," or that it is all so speculative as to be the product of disordered minds, but I remember the boys scout motto of being prepared.
We have all seen the disruption caused by just the loss of a few delivery tankers on strike, what will it be like should the USA suffer a crippling blow from it's enemies?
They will not destroy America as they like, though they may achieve terrible things, and there is no better people that can drag themselves back from the brink by sheer hard work and ingenuity, but Europe and the rest will be left exposed beyond imagination.
I will not go on, for I cannot claim special powers and I don't believe in comic-book heroes.
The time of our testing could be closer than we think.
Variablegears:
Thank you for this insightful comment. There is much in it for all of us to ponder.
By the way, I had also been wondering whether Hilary Benn was a relative of Sir Anthony Wedgewood Benn. Remember the the nonsense he used to come out with?
Mark, I think Hilary Benn is Tony Benn's son.
In light of the day's tragedy at Virginia Tech, like everybody else, I am appalled. As yet we do not know the motive, or even if there is one. No doubt this scumbag will be accorded endless reams of talking head dialogue on the box, every expert will be trotted out to pontificate, but in the end it will all be speculation; but the perpetrator will have achieved his aim...15 minutes of fame in a lifetime of nothingness and failure, to be somebody famous where everyone else is forgotten. The poor innocent victims are just props in this sick man's final act, they are meaningless, faceless nonentities for the perpetrator, and just as equally so for the media, one sick beast feasting upon another sick beast.
Mark, I understand your horror, as indeed this is a truly horrific act, a senseless waste, a cruel perversity, it is a tragedy performed by a sick mind, but in the final analysis it is an aberration, a rare occurrence, though not rare enough, of a society lost in a desert of moral wasteland. What rational mind could envision such monstrous desolation, what twisted soul could inflict such cold vicious pain, but more 's the question , by what sick perversion will endless experts and uncounted media heads now see fit to assail us all with our collective failure, our singular guilt, all the while omitting the one singular facet of culpable action that is the architect of these copycat tragedies. In a cult of celebrity, 15 minutes of infamy is better than oblivion, especially to an angry mind.
The atomization of man, can indeed be soul destroying, but when there is no one or nothing to believe in, then the barrenness of the human spirit, adrift in a meaningless world can become a burden of intolerable weight, and an open door to unquenchable rage.
Tonight, many families will be in shock, as the pain of loss sinks in, my heart goes out to them, each and everyone, as they search for answers where there are none, at least none which will answer the depth of their pain. May we remember their loss before we elevate their tormentor to undeserved fame and accord his memory the laurels of posterity, for therein is the truth of our indulgence in this tragedy.
This twat Hilary Benn - variablegears
Simplicity is elegance in motion, you are wrong, I couldn't improve upon the elegance of the above.
Yo! JaR.
Crime in the sandlands,
Here are some items from a mideast blog about crime and sex, for your light hearted reading.
"ABU DHABI — The Markets Control Section at the City Landscape Department of Abu Dhabi Municipality has confiscated lingerie and women’s undergarments at a store in a shopping mall as these were put on display in an indecent way, sources said."
----------------------------------
"There used to be such a wide range, but now there is so little choice and the quality is much reduced," the ***** complained as he took a long drag of his shisha at a recent meeting.
His international clients, particularly the Saudis, are also upset by the increasingly limited range of merchandise that Dubai has offer. "Before you could get whatever you wanted," the ***** explained. "From any nation, very beautiful, so many different ones to choose from all over Dubai. But not any more."
And with Dubai police's ongoing crackdown, the market will be even more depleted:
Dubai - More than 4,000 prostitutes were deported from the UAE last year, according to the Director of Human Rights Department at Dubai police. Colonel Mohammad Al-Mir said that 4,300 women were arrested and subsequently charged with prostitution and deported.
The ***** does not buy the merchandise for himself, he provides it as a necessary part of the Arabian hospitality that must be offered to visiting business associates.
-------------------------------
Meet Dr Amr Jad. He's a consultant urologist at the Riyadh Armed Forces Hospital in the Evil Kingdom, which makes him quite literally a dick doctor. So who better to trust young people's sexual health with than Dr Jad?
"Doctors should only address preventive methods if there is already [an infection]. If there is none, then there is no need," he told Gulf News after presenting his lecture on how to conduct sex education in the Middle East at the Pan Arab Society for Sexual Medicine (PASSM) conference.
No wonder AIDS rates in Saudi are soaring.
--------------------------------
Justice in Sharjah
1. The 24-year-old Morrocan wife
Crime: "private time with a man", alcohol consumption
Punishment: 3 months in jail, 80 lashes, deportation
2. The 43-year-old Emirati lawyer lover
Crime: "private time with a woman", alcohol consumption
Punishment: 3 months in jail, 70 lashes
3. The 33-year-old Jordanian man
Crime: stabbing the lawyer at least thirty times with a kitchen knife
Punishment: 3 months in jail
------------------------------
Stoning and lashing
Here reported by Gulf News we have one of the world's most screwed up families outside rural Utah. A fifty-something Pakistani patriarch married to an Indian widow who used her four half-Emirati daughters as his effective concubines, fathering ten children by them.
He's been sentenced to stoning, which has gone to appeal. (One rather hopes Amnesty will abandon its usual zeal on this one).
Whereas the four daughters got 80 lashes each. They claim their stepfather "used to threaten them with a knife, forcing them to surrender." The court however decided that they "allowed" their stepfather to sleep with them, hence the punishment.
Let's take a look at the facts, at least as reported by Gulf News. The daughters are currently aged between 21 and 26. The sexual relations date back to 1996. Even if Stepdaddy only started with the eldest back then, she was still no more than 15. Adult man with a knife versus young teen "allowing" him=80 lashes? That seems like an interesting verdict.
But of course it's not for us to comment on other people's culture and legal systems. We can always shut up, pack up and return to our corrupt Western countries if we don't like it here. Back to our vile lands of sin and debauchery, where child sex abuse victims receive counselling and support rather than a damn good whipping.
With thanks and apologies to the authors.
What has all this got to do with a French report about British prisons?
Probably nothing, and everything.
Richard:
Mark, I understand your horror, as indeed this is a truly horrific act, a senseless waste, a cruel perversity, it is a tragedy performed by a sick mind, but in the final analysis it is an aberration, a rare occurrence, though not rare enough, of a society lost in a desert of moral wasteland.
I am indeed horrified. How can you say that it is a rare occurrence when it happens with such alarming regularity in the US? It is not that such things never happen anywhere else, but America certainly takes the lead, despite all the emphasis on Christian teaching there.
Look at what happened to those poor, harmless young Amish girls not so long ago in Pennsylvania? And earlier this year an 18-year old run amok in a shopping centre in Salt Lake City. And there more incidents, too.
What, for heaven's sake, is going on in the minds of these sick people? You can't mean to tell me that such people should have the right to bear arms? What do they want guns for anyway? Nobody going about a healthy life should need one, except perhaps for sport.
How can you say that it is a rare occurrence when it happens with such alarming regularity in the US?
Mark, statistically speaking, it is rare. I am not excusing the phenomenon, nor minimizing it, just pointing out that it is not a normality. One thing that should be borne in mind, is that this type of mindless slaughter is a recent phenomenon; for while history does tell us of multiple murderers, it is recent twist to the perversity of human actions, to murder in this manner. Though I should point out that during times of warfare, especially after the successful siege of a city, that the senseless slaughter of life was a frequent occurrence; it is in man's psychological makeup to be a brutal destroyer of life, just as it is to be a wrecker of property, preferably other peoples property, as it is a greater expression of the internal rage that inflames the lost soul. No, the lone mass slayer, in this type of seemingly random incident is a new addition to the human story; it is an act playing to an audience, do you really not see that if we did not give a stage to these brutal monsters, then their efforts would be meaningless, there would cease to be a play to perform, for a play without an audience, soon closes its doors. And just who is the guiltiest off all in this tragic drama, the tellers of fairy tales, the spinners of stories, the weavers of popular perception; but we too must also accept our portion of blame, for we are passive participants in the unfolding drama, we are the willing, submissive audience, without who the producers would have nothing to sell, and it is in our passivity that we fail, not only ourselves but also our fellow citizens, for we grant them the stage to peddle their lies.
In a world where the boob tube sells the good life one second, and the dysfunctional the next, where it drips with contempt for the losers in this world as it unctuously adores the beautiful, the gifted, the lucky. Where the writers of tall tales, spin endless stories to an audience hungry for escape from boredom and even the wretched existence of their own lives. And all of this mess is stirred in the pot of a culture of nothingness, made devoid of meaning by designing sophists, granted too much credence by an uncritical public, unable to discriminate due to the lie that to do so is the most heinous of mortal sin. Is it any wonder that we live in a sea of despair and dysfunctionality
No Mark, the gun is not the problem, it is as it has always been...just an instrument; look to the mind behind the action, not to the visual noise in the face of it for that is just a distraction, it is the sickness that pervades the mind of modern man that is the guilty criminal in this tragedy.
You and I grew up in a world where this senseless random slaughter was unheard of, where people were by and large, civil and respectful to one and other, not a perfect world, but one of infinitely greater human compassion than today's sewer pit: but that world has been sneered out of existence, by the self-righteous, the minds of greater compassion, by those who claim a higher moral virtue than the rest of us because they care, they care so very much, meanwhile the world they create descends the stairway to hell.
I guess what I am trying to say in my rambling discourse is that you are looking at the wrong cause of an ongoing tragedy, and until we start to address the real cause, our corrupted morality, we will continue on down this same deadly path, for you can write all the platitudinous laws you wish, but only the law abiding will live by them, the criminal, the insane, the sicko, the bent actor will continue to act out their self-serving designs in the manner that serves them best, and an easy access to guns is a given where law has the unintended consequence of creating a black market. Weapons have always been prevalent throughout history, a wishful thinking upon our part now will not change that fact. Sadly, we have not yet reached the stage of development as a civil society where we can beat our swords into plow shears. If you doubt that assertion, look around you at the news daily of man's inhumanity to man, of his self-serving deceits and his disingenuous narratives. If you want to change the world, it is the human mind which must be awoken to the harsh reality of existence, to the self-serving nature of current political thought, to the vacuous existence that modern consumerism has bestowed upon our lives. There is a hunger in the human soul, we must address it, not deny it; nor for that matter be distracted by shiny objects.
JAR said:
"No Mark, the gun is not the problem, it is as it has always been...just an instrument; …"
Richard, we rarely disagree, but on this matter I must disagree with you.
A car is a lethal object in the wrong hands. We minimize that risk by not allowing children (and some other groups, like the very infirm) to drive them.
A gun is a potentially far more lethal weapon, and in the wrong hands, as we saw yesterday, can lead to massacre, mayhem, and untold misery.
It was absurd of President Bush to re-affirm his commitment to the rights of every American to bear arms. It showed poor judgement and a lack of sensistivity to the poor families who have lost their loved ones unnecessarily. He should have kept such utterances for a more appropriate time.
Personally, as I have already stated, I believe it is quite unnecessary for ordinary people to bear arms, except for purposes of sport.
If America wants to keep its liberal gun laws, then so be it. Still more innocent children, youths and young adults will have to die for that right. But if this senseless law is to be maintained - a law which must surely stem from the days of the cowboy and Red Indian - then maybe it's time that America started to screen, psychiatrically, the people who wish to bear those arms in order to ensure that only the sanest and most well-balanced of people can purchase them.
It was absurd of President Bush to re-affirm his commitment to the rights of every American to bear arms. It showed poor judgement and a lack of sensistivity to the poor families who have lost their loved ones unnecessarily. He should have kept such utterances for a more appropriate time.
Yes well, old Georgie boy is not exactly the most tactful of politicians, I think we can all agree that is fairly common knowledge at this stage.
As to agreeing upon everything, well of course not. I only seek to express a different way of looking at things. Nor would I wish us to be so inclined, we are after all, two totally different individuals, and if we are to respect each other, then there must be room for a divergence of opinion.
The reason most Americans, or at least many of them are against gun control, is that they know from past experience, that it is in the nature of political discourse that these rulings are in their very nature, incremental, and eventually the control becomes total. If the sanctity of life is to be made paramount over our daily existence, then much of our way of life must of necessity be made obsolete, be outlawed, for we must place ourselves in a cocoon of fear, lest we injure our neighbors or ourselves in our interaction.
Mark, don't the health Nazis, the safety Nazis, the feminazis, and all sorts of other control freaks scare the life out of you, they do me. I am an independent being, and to remain so I must accept responsibility for my own actions, that same rule holds true for all of us, all society needs to be held accountable for their own actions, and not seek absolution in the deceit of feel good actions by legislative fiat.
JAR:
Mark, don't the health Nazis, the safety Nazis, the feminazis, and all sorts of other control freaks scare the life out of you, they do me. I am an independent being, and to remain so I must accept responsibility for my own actions, that same rule holds true for all of us, all society needs to be held accountable for their own actions, and not seek absolution in the deceit of feel good actions by legislative fiat.
Yes, the "nazis" for health, feminism, and all manner of control freaks do scare me. And yes, I believe in people being able to control their own lives to the max. But it has to be said that I am in favour of gun control for the very reasons I have already cited.
I am not against people owning guns for reasons of sport, no more than I am against someone owning a fishing rod to go angling. But outside of sport, I see no reason, in a well-ordered society, for every Tom, Dick, or Harry to own a gun, especially a pistol which can be carried around so easily, and without detection.
I understand where the American is coming from in wanting the right to bear arms, but surely it smacks of having little trust in the police force to keep order, and a desire, perhaps, to have the right to take the law into his/her own hands in certain circumstances.
It seems to me that many Americans fear being put into a vulnerable position were they not allowed to own weapons.
I say this: If everyone did own weapons, and if everyone were willing to use those weapons, then society would revert to the law of the jungle. It would be survival of the fittest, and a return to the days of the 'Wild West'. This is not a scenario to which I would wish to return.
I say this: If everyone did own weapons, and if everyone were willing to use those weapons, then society would revert to the law of the jungle. It would be survival of the fittest, and a return to the days of the 'Wild West'.
Mark, there are over 80 million gun owners in the US, by your argument, shouldn't American society already be reverting to the law of the jungle. No, Americans do not trust their law enforcement or government to be totally above board and always with the best interest of the individual citizens at heart, and history has proved them right, look around the world. Hell Mark, if you want to see a government riding roughshod over its own people, look no further than NuLabour, their contempt for the common man is in plain view, and other than vote them out at the next election, what can anyone in the country do about it...nothing. What happens, if heaven forfend, the BNP make massive gains at the next election, and old Gordo declares the election null and void, and he and his cronies make a mad run to hide behind the civil contingencies bill; then what are you going to do Mark...scowl at him, sneer and scorn at his usurpation of power, I don't see Gordon as the type of person given to be intimidated by such mild measures. Do you think the courts will do anything other than issue sternly worded letters...the media, will they rail against the injustice of it, well for all of 10 seconds maybe, a little bit of strong arm tactics and they'll fall into line right quick enough,we've all seen the caliber of their integrity, no the only solution will be either a military coup, or outright rebellion. No I'm not saying Gordon is the next dictator in waiting, but given the right set of circumstances, who knows which way this illiberal bunch of clueless clowns will jump.
Mark, given the subversion of the police forces of Britain in the last 10 - 15 years, to do the biddings of the state, as opposed to what they were originally constituted for, the protection of the populace and the maintenance of law and order; do you honestly see their priority being your welfare; this is not to say all coppers are bent, indeed their are many fine individuals in the force, but the fact remains that their leadership structure has been turned to the service of a corrupt autocracy. Only the military is so far, somewhat outside the whip of government control, and NuLabour is in the process of destroying that as we speak.
The one thing any American administration knows for sure, should they try and turn the American military against the people, they would be signing their own death warrant. The people would rebel, and the military would revolt. There is also the little problem of the Posse Committatus (sp?)clause, where it is against the law of the land for any administration to use the US forces for internal crowd control: even the use of the National Guard is not granted free reign in civil affairs. Now obviously, no civilian insurrection could take on any disciplined military force, however, given the restraints set within the US Constitution and its laws, no government could hope to maintain power if it was the architect of such an insurrection.
Mark, in Britain since Dunblane and its aftermath, the amount of crime committed where the criminal is in possesion of a gun has been on the increase, in spite of all the promises to the contrary, that the restriction of guns would make for a safer society. Well the truth is that when guns become illegal, only people who operate outside the law will have them. You may not like them Mark, but disarming the law abiding has not made any society safer, it has only removed a fear of consequence from those who harbor a contempt for their fellow man. Gun crime is on the increase in Britain, why, if the advocates of control were right, it should be the reverse, a rapid decline in the use of a gun in the commission of a criminal activity.
Yes yes, I know that I am not going to convince you Mark, but that doesn't mean that I will quietly still my voice lest I inadvertently offend you. I am a bulldog after all.
Here is a link to an article by Pamela at Atlas Shrugs which highlights some uncomfortable statistics for the advocates of gun control.
That's where you Americans go wrong. It happens over and over and over again. You link pro-gun control with being left-wing, as you do gay rights with the same left-wing cause. All things that don't fit in with you're extreme right-wing, laissez-faire agenda are considered left-wing.
Well, have I got news for you: It is perfectly possible to be right-wing AND pro gun control AND pro gay-rights, AND pro-abortion (in the correct circumstances).
I find this 'them and us' mentaility simplistic in the extreme and, quite frankly, offputting, to say the least. These people suffer from Bloviatoritis!
Those statistics will never convince me. The episodes and tragedies that occur in the States "with alarming regularity" will. They speak for themselves. QED!
No Richard, you will never convince me on this one. The case you make for everyone being allowed to own guns is weak indeed, as is everyone else's. If there are people owning guns out there illicitly, that's a case for clamping down still further to control them. It is not a reason for allowing everyone else to get their hands on guns as well. More guns are hardly likely to make for a safer country. The more guns in people's possession, the greater chance of mistakes, to start with.
The US, in parts, can be a pretty violent society. Alas, Britain is now going down a similar path, it seems.
Having fewer guns in people's possession won't guarantee that incidents won't occur, but it will surely minimize the risks of such incidents happening. What you are arguing is the opposite. Your argument doesn't hold water, and you know it.
Look, there is a mentality gulf between Europe and the US on this issue. And I think it's unbridgeable. It stems from a completely different history on both sides of the Atlantic.
In the US's history, you had the era of the 'wild west' when lawlessness was the order of the day. I can understand why people needed a gun in their possession in those days. But you have a sound police force today; so why should people carry guns?
JAR:
Here is a link from today's TELEGRAP for you:
'Most people own a weapon, families will keep around 27. Granny had 13'
And here's another interesting link from THE TIMES for you:
Tragedy will not decide gun control debate
Well, have I got news for you: It is perfectly possible to be right-wing AND pro gun control AND pro gay-rights, AND pro-abortion (in the correct circumstances).
Not too sure where I implied that you were left-wing Mark. The corollary of your statement of course is that every one who is pro gun is a right-wing nut case, and given the standard demonization techniques of the British media, for all things which offend their delicate sensibilities, it is little wonder that the perception of gun ownership by the majority of British subjects is predominantly anti gun, you are immersed in the narrative of the evilness of guns.
Mark, I can see your point regarding the lack of need for guns, when viewed in the light of the times when you and I grew up, in a peaceful, largely tranquil age. Britain in the 50s was indeed an oasis of rational civil people, yes, then there was absolutely no need for anyone to carry a weapon. Any differences of view could be addressed by a police force which had the respect of the vast majority of the populace, indeed those voices which railed against the police were rightly viewed as irrational loons. But times have changed, the police's primary function has been subverted, they no longer serve the interests of the people, but only those of the state. Even when police officers try and protect the innocent, their efforts are largely undermined by the offices of the law.
No Mark, I don't see Britons suddenly rushing out to arm themselves, for it is indeed a different culture, a different frame of mind. But Mark, I'm sure you have noticed, it is a violent world out there, where few seek true rational reason to resolve their differences, where the first line of argument is clouded by the best line of mere convenience in order to head off any further discussion, where the total demonization of someone holding a divergent opinion is the order of business, which is hardly conducive to the rational resolution of disputes, but most likely to see those same disputes devolve into conflict.
In a sane world where people had respect for one and other, you are right, there would be no need for people to have guns for anything other than sport, quite agree with you there, but this isn't a sane world, it is one riven with conflict and self interest. It is one where the morality has been so distorted, that any means to an end becomes the order of the day, and that dynamic is headed in only one direction. The days of yore, when civil society was indeed civil, are gone, destroyed by a self-serving elite and their foghorns in the media, all done in the furtherance of an agenda, that even they realize must be kept secret from the general populace, lest they discern the true nature of just what is in store for them, and so rebel against the future chosen by and for that same elite. All sold upon the promise of easy money, and so history once again repeats itself as another society disappears into the pages of history. We live in a violent age, and as current events unfold, it would appear that it is about to get a lot more violent, and as I've said above, the police and the army are not going to be able to protect you, they will be too busy elsewhere.
I guess our differences come down to this - while we both agree that NuLabour is incompetent, you trust the good offices of the state to be looking out for your best interest, where I do not.
The case you make for everyone being allowed to own guns is weak indeed, as is everyone else's. If there are people owning guns out there illicitly, that's a case for clamping down still further to control them.
Then why haven't the police forces and the courts of the UK done so, why is gun crime in Britain on the rise? Mark, I would hardly concede that my argument is weak because you wish to ascribe to your cause a certain virtue of unassailability , That you may believe that you are right is of course your right, but that in no way de-legitimizes my stance. You may wish to live in a peaceful, tolerant society, and there is nothing wrong in that, indeed it is the mark of a noble soul, but that society does not exist, and wishing for it will not bring it forth, whole and complete, or even in partial measure. The damage the self-serving nihilists, Marxists and other assorted opportunists have done to society over the past 50 odd years has warped our morality beyond all recognition, and in many respects makes the concept of moral thought redundant within the political and social arena. What use is morality when it can be trumped by Political Correctness at every turn. The post modernist view will continue to prevail so long as we can find no firm foundation to anchor our feet and so return to a rational discourse. The argument over guns hides the deeper malaise which afflicts society, in a moral universe, your argument holds the high ground, my argument is that we don't live in that moral universe, and until we can get back to a sound morality your argument ties the hand of the moral man, leaving the immoral one free range to seek his ends. This applies as equally to individual interactions as it does for those within the political arena.
Incidentally, your implied condemnation of the link I posted as the usual right-wing nonsense, was not exactly countered all that well by your link to a Daily Telegraph article, rich with the generalities of the condescending mindset so prevalent within the circles of the "chattering classes" of European drawing rooms, even if it does agree with your general sentiment.
Incidentally Mark, I find it as rich and rewarding to disagree with a friend as it is to be largely in agreement with him, so I promise not to shoot no matter where our disagreement leads, just don't try to take my gun away!*
*(That's dry sarcasm, in case you missed it)
Richard:
Being in disagreement on some matters with a friend is no cause for alarm; or at least it shouldn't be. It would be a dull old world if everyone had to think the same thoughts, think the same way, and come to the same conclusions. Such a sameness would be stultifying indeed.
And no, I didn't think you were going to shoot me just because I disagree with you. I know you to be far more civilized than that. In short, gentlemen are entitled to disagree; and gentlemen don't take umbrage that easily just because there has been a difference of opinion, especially on a matter of politics.
Not too sure where I implied that you were left-wing Mark.
It seemed to be implied, perhaps because of the link you sent put up.
The corollary of your statement of course is that every one who is pro gun is a right-wing nut case,…
If I implied that, then it was in error. No, I do not think that everyone who owns a gun is a right-wing nutcase. Far from it. And let's make one other thing clear at this point: I am not against Americans owning guns if they wish to do so. That's their prerogative. What I am questioning is the NEED to own such lethal weapons in a civilized society; and America is just that: a civilized society.
…and given the standard demonization techniques of the British media, for all things which offend their delicate sensibilities, it is little wonder that the perception of gun ownership by the majority of British subjects is predominantly anti gun, you are immersed in the narrative of the evilness of guns.
My viewpoint does not stem from the media's brainwashing techniques; though I must admit, they can, at times, be clever in brainwashing people.
Mark, I can see your point regarding the lack of need for guns, when viewed in the light of the times when you and I grew up, in a peaceful, largely tranquil age. Britain in the 50s was indeed an oasis of rational civil people, yes, then there was absolutely no need for anyone to carry a weapon. Any differences of view could be addressed by a police force which had the respect of the vast majority of the populace, indeed those voices which railed against the police were rightly viewed as irrational loons. But times have changed, the police's primary function has been subverted, they no longer serve the interests of the people, but only those of the state. Even when police officers try and protect the innocent, their efforts are largely undermined by the offices of the law.
There is so much in those 'dem da' sentences that I would need half a day to answer all the points raised. Just let me say that from what I see, things are still pretty civilized here in Europe. Maybe I am cocooned or something, I do not know. But the sort of things to which you refer do not affect all the population. Thankfully.
No Mark, I don't see Britons suddenly rushing out to arm themselves, for it is indeed a different culture, a different frame of mind.
No, I don't either. There really is a mentality gap between Europe and the USA on such matters. Each to his own, I suppose. But I will say this: I wouldn't like Europe to go down the same road regarding gun ownership. It is sad that Americans feel that there is such a need for them in their possession.
In a sane world where people had respect for one and other, you are right, there would be no need for people to have guns for anything other than sport, quite agree with you there, but this isn't a sane world, it is one riven with conflict and self interest.
Yes, but is that a reason for people arming themselves and possibly making matters worse? Two wrongs do not make a right.
The days of yore, when civil society was indeed civil, are gone, destroyed…
Yes, but we are not going to bring those days back by everyone arming themselves to the hilt, are we?
I guess our differences come down to this - while we both agree that NuLabour is incompetent, you trust the good offices of the state to be looking out for your best interest, where I do not.
Yes, I suppose I do; and even if I have my doubts, that is not a reason for arming oneself.
… why haven't the police forces and the courts of the UK done so, why is gun crime in Britain on the rise?
I don't know the answer to that one, I'm afraid.
Mark, I would hardly concede that my argument is weak because you wish to ascribe to your cause a certain virtue of unassailability.
I do not think I am unassailable at all. It's just that I do not understand why so many people in the USA feel they need to own a gun. It must make them feel safe, or something. Till now anyway, I am happy to say that British people generally feel safe without them.
That you may believe that you are right is of course your right, but that in no way de-legitimizes my stance.
I am not trying to de-legitimize your stance; but by the same token, do not try and de-legitimize mine, either.
You may wish to live in a peaceful, tolerant society, and there is nothing wrong in that, indeed it is the mark of a noble soul, but that society does not exist, …
Oh, come come, now! It hasn't got that bad yet, at least not this side of the Atlantic.
Incidentally, your implied condemnation of the link I posted as the usual right-wing nonsense, was not exactly countered all that well by your link to a Daily Telegraph article, rich with the generalities of the condescending mindset so prevalent within the circles of the "chattering classes" of European drawing rooms, even if it does agree with your general sentiment.
You are entitled to your opinions.
… just don't try to take my gun away!*
*(That's dry sarcasm, in case you missed it)
I wouldn't dream of trying to do so; and yes, I did recognise the sarcasm in your statement.
Yes, but we are not going to bring those days back by everyone arming themselves to the hilt, are we?
No, the only way those days will return is if we resolve to place morality on a solid foundation, where it cannot be distorted for advantage, and that will take some sort of religious revival, which at the moment I don't see happening, indeed the "chattering Classes" would have a fit of the vapors at the mere thought of such. Then, and only then, everything else will fall into place, and a return to sanity will be possible. Our problem is...who sets the agenda, and just how do we do this by consensus?
Post a Comment