Author: Jos

Born and brought up in England; moved to Canada at 21 and lived there for 25 years before moving to Oklahoma, USA.

“Soldier F” and HIS “Troubles”

From the late 1960’s to 1998, Britain was at war. It wasn’t officially “at war”, but nonetheless, it was. Known as “The Troubles”, an estimated 3,532 people died. Of those, 1,049 were members of the British Military or Police Forces, and 1,840 were civilians. In addition, it is estimated that around 47,500 were injured. The conflict took place largely in Ireland and the British mainland.

Take a look at those figures again: 1,049 British Military or Police, who had mostly been drafted in to fight the war; and 1,049 innocents who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The opposition protagonists killed numbers about 368 – a little over 10% of the total. These were largely members of the Paramilitary organizations such as the “Provisional Irish Republican Army”, the “Official IRA” or the “Irish National Liberation Army” – factions known then and now as “terrorists”.

I grew up in the UK in an era where we automatically kept our eyes open for unusual objects which might be bombs; where news on the radio or TV of another bombing or shooting was routine; where there was a reluctance to be in large crowds; where the nearest IRA bombing to my home took place fewer than 14 miles away.

In 1998 there was a de-escalation of the war with the signing of the “Good Friday Agreement”, however related terrorist attacks and bombings still occur, the latest having been just last month (March) this year.

Part of the Good Friday Agreement provided “letters of comfort” to some 300 members of the terrorist faction, essentially a “get out of jail free” card, which prevented their prosecutions – including those responsible for the 1982 Hyde Park and Regents Park Bombings, which killed 7 horses in addition to 11 people.

Now, 47 years after an event which became known as “Bloody Sunday”, the British Government has suddenly decided it needs to make an example of someone who was there. One person. One 77 year old man. One ex-paratrooper who was there at the command of the British Army that day.

I am not posting here to comment on whether it seems likely that there is just cause for prosecution or not, I am here to discuss “equality”. Today that word carries much strength – “equality of the sexes” is a constant (and correct) phrase we see in the media – but what of “equality of rights” for ex-servicemen who were in “The Troubles” conflict alongside those who were shooting at them and who were responsible for the deaths of so many? “Equality” should without doubt apply! If it is right to charge one ex-serviceman, then it is also right to rescind those “letters of comfort” and start trying some of those 300 terrorists! This would prove a little awkward, as there are some very prominent ex-IRA people involved in today’s politics – including members of Parliament at the upper levels – so it seems very unlikely that “Equality” is probable.

This week has seen protests in London and parts of the UK by tens of thousands of ex-soldiers and others in support of “Soldier F”. This was a protest in support of democracy – either stop the prosecution of that individual, or start the prosecution of the hundreds of terrorists who were responsible for a far greater number of deaths and injuries. Equality. All or nothing. Kudos to those who were protesting this week. I offer my respect to the ex-servicemen who served during The Troubles – among whom I count not a few friends – and my regrets that having had to look over their shoulder all the time when on active duty to be sure there was no bullet coming from a terrorist’s gun, they now around 50 years later in their retirement have to again look over their shoulder to be sure there is not another bullet coming, but this time from the British Government.

Paras turning their backs on Parliament honour to march with them today!!

Posted by Ady Mackay on Friday, April 19, 2019

An article with pictures about the recent protests can also be viewed at:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6940369/British-Army-veterans-march-London-cities-UK-protest-prosecution-Soldier-F.html

Further thoughts on gun control (2019)

This was written in response to an ongoing discussion about gun control.

Background checks are currently required when purchasing a gun through a registered gun dealer. There is however a “hole” in that system, in that if the dealer has not heard a result back in 5 days, they are legally permitted to release the gun without a result. This is in the process of being extended to 10 days (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/429939-house-panel-advances-bill-to-expand-background-checks-for-gun-sales).

Another Bill also seeks to close another important loophole, which relates to “private sales” at “gun shows”. These sales require no background checks. The Bill intends that such sales would have to pass through a gun dealer, therefore requiring a background check.

Having said that, the chances that the latter Bill in particular will pass the Senate are low.

As a valid Concealed Carry Permit holder, I personally believe that it is not unreasonable that there be a nationwide reciprocity of that permit, but that the requirements to obtain such a permit be those of the highest common denominator. As has been noted, in VA, it is an online process, while in for example Oklahoma, it involves a background check, 16 hours (2 days) of lectures, with testing and range time to prove competency. Ironically, those who have obtained a CCP have a rate of firearms offense lower than law enforcement. If such a requirement (as Oklahoma) were in place for all persons who wished to obtain a handgun, the overall effect would be to reduce inappropriate gun ownership. Before one gets too excited about Oklahoma’s standards however, it has just enacted “Constitutional Carry” laws, which will allow open or concealed carry within the state as of November 1st, without any permit requirement (with some excepted places and persons eligible).

The matter of passing restrictive laws is a difficult one. While they clearly make sense, the fact does remain that they will only apply to those who abide by the law. Depending upon the law being passed, it may even make criminals of otherwise law-abiding persons. A good example of this was the passage of the “The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act” which was enacted as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This law prohibited the manufacture, transfer, or possession of “semiautomatic assault weapons,” as defined by the Act”, as well as restricting the possession of magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds (the prohibitions expired on September 13, 2004 owing to a written-in sunset clause). There is little doubt however that while this had a positive impact at the manufacturing level, it caused a significant number of otherwise law-abiding citizens to become criminals owing to their ongoing possession of the standard 13- or 15-round handgun magazine.

One surprising supporter of the 10-round limitation was William B. Ruger, a founder of Sturm, Ruger & Co. (a large firearm manufacturer). In 1992 Ruger told Tom Brokaw of NBC News “No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun“. He also circulated a letter to every member of Congress observing: “The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining ‘assault rifle’ and ‘semi-automatic rifles’ is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives.“

The fact does still apply that even if restrictions are put into place, there are so many guns in the US that restrictions will make a very small impact in the big scheme of things. It is estimated – estimated! – by the FBI that there are in excess of 300 million guns of all types in the US. The fact is that nobody really knows how many there are. With that number around, the really bad people will always have access, and laws will often only affect the good people. What they may do however is limit the easy access to guns by the mentally unstable or “amateur” (for lack of a better word) murderer. Although it should be noted that the majority of recent mass murders were performed by people with access one way or another to legally-held guns.

It is a very complicated issue, but one which does require attention. With 39,773 gun deaths in 2017 (the highest rate per 100,000 population since 1996) – although that did decline slightly in 2018 – it clearly is a “National Emergency”. Another perspective however can be placed upon that statistic, when one realises that 23,854 of those deaths – just under 60% – were suicides. The National Emergency therefore is not only one related to guns, but also to available and adequate mental health care. Another difficult subject to address.

‘Tis the Season

I wrote this in response to someone’s comment about Christmas, and how it’s become such a long season and so commercialised, which is a fair observation but there’s more to it I believe. Having pondered a little more about this, I think part of the frustration I experience is perhaps because the “buffers” and anticipations which I knew as a child no longer exist, and that there was so much more to Christmas than the commercialism which exists today.

Growing up in the UK, we did not have “Hallow’een” in the same was as it is today celebrated. Our big fun celebration at that time of the year was November 5th – “Guy Fawkes Night” – something for which we planned for weeks in advance, building a bonfire, creating an effigy to place upon it, buying fireworks, and just generally talking about it and looking forward to it. Pocket money would be hoarded for weeks in advance to buy that “special” rocket that would be better than any other ever seen! The night would come around, and we’d have the fireworks, often of varying qualities, eliciting “Ahhhs” or “Ohs” as appropriate. Baked potatoes would pulled out of the embers of the bonfire, and fingers and lips burned as the blackened skins were consumed (no thoughts of wrapping them in foil in those days!).

A few days after the excitement of Bonfire Night had died down, we universally developed a more sombre mood in preparation for Remembrance Day – the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month – when we paid our respects to those who had fallen for us, giving us the freedoms we so cherished. As smaller children we were taught this and grew up respecting the history, and as slightly older children, we participated in the marches to to the War Memorials as uniformed Boy Scouts. I remember the honour one year of being the standard-bearer, and the care and reverence with which I dipped the Standard as the “Last Post” was being played.

These then, were the buffers which prevented too early an onset of Christmas. They were always present and time-honoured. Christmas lights did not go up in towns until the beginning of the first week in December – something in itself an excitement. As a part of Christmas, we had an “Advent Calendar” which emphasised that there were 24 windows to be opened – one a day starting on the first day of December – until Christmas Day itself. Not several months, but 24 days. Decorating the house typically occurred in the week or so prior to Christmas Day. My father and I would head to the local wood to retrieve holly and yew boughs, which were hung over the fireplace and the many paintings which were in our house. Some years there would be more red berries than others – we were at the whims of nature, not a store which was selling plastic or cultivated holly months in advance.

Our “12 days of Christmas” extended from the 25th until midnight on the 5th of January – and on that last day, all decorations were taken down and stored for another year if reusable, or discarded outside if of natural origin. Woe betide any person who left holly berries inside after that date, as it was well known that the berries changed into little red goblins which would wreak havoc within the house for the following year!

So we had a “season”, starting in the last weeks of October, but that season involved not only Christmas, but several other activities which were a standard – and respected – part of our “year”. These other activities also took up the commercialism – selling fireworks for bonfire night; and although not done by stores, the sale of the poppy by the British Legion was a respected part of the year (and still is to some extent). These were the “buffers” for Christmas.

Sadly, even in the UK, the buffers are reduced. “Health and Safety” have demanded a reduction in the manner and number of bonfires held – the family bonfire is a thing not so often seen today, but has been replaced by the “community bonfire”, which lacks the same drive for the children; and although Remembrance Day is still very much in evidence, there is an increasing – and scary – number of young people who fail to respect the cause, or who have a desire to twist it for their own political gain (this recently evidenced by the President of the Southampton Students Union, but I digress…). The reduction or removal of buffers allows the commercialism to increase, and this is seen now world-wide.

So perhaps as I write this, I realise that not only is it the rise of commercialism which I resent, but also the loss of some of the other aspects of that time of the year – now eclipsed by the commercialism of Christmas. That Christmas itself is now stretched out over a 3 month period has also reduced the magic. It’s a little like strawberry season – that time of year was about 3 weeks long in July as a child. The time of year when the strawberries were so sweet, ripe and freshly picked, and we excitedly awaited the first to appear in the greengrocer’s (remember that shop?). Oh, the anticipation!! We had strawberries and cream several times over the three-week strawberry period, and then they were gone again for another year! Missed when not there, and eagerly looked for at the end of June the following year. Now we have strawberries year-round. Always available in their plastic boxes. Never quite as sweet or ripe. No longer special or anticipated with excitement. Just always there. So to look at it another way perhaps, Christmas has become just another strawberry. Pleasant in some ways, but lacking the magic or anticipation of days of yore.

Brexit – The morning after the night before

The decision has been made. There will be inevitable rhetoric today and for a few days to come, with recriminations and blame being thrown around, but that really is irrelevant and wasted energy – the important thing now is to move forward and rebuild for the future.

Was it the right decision? Time will tell. Was the EU “bad” or “good” for the UK? “Both” is probably the correct answer. It is undoubtedly true that the UK joined an economic union rather than the political creature which grew out of it. There were many good aspects which benefited many and which may now be rescinded, such as the ability for UK citizens to live and work in any EU country. We will have to see how that will be dealt with, as a significant number of those individuals are holders of property and investment abroad and have become integral parts of mainland European businesses and activities. For them, the decision may be bad. On the other hand, there is no doubt that UK citizens had become very tired of the degree of EU control being exercised over domestic items such as over-ruling UK laws and requiring practices which might work on the mainland, but may not have been applicable in the UK (an example is the significantly increased cost for farmers to dispose of dead livestock, as they were “legally” prohibited from burying them as they had previously). In those aspects, the separation is good.

The markets and Pound have dropped today, which is to be expected – there is a degree of destabilization and uncertainty being felt – but to shout that “the sky is falling” is perhaps a little premature… 🙂

What is needed now is political unity with a will to move forward and develop programs and packages designed to restabilize and promote the UK as a trading partner for other corners of the world. Europe will remain a market – there will not be a sudden cessation of purchasing everything from the UK – but it behoves domestic industry to investigate the now open doors elsewhere as well. What to me is a greater concern at this point is the potential for the petty bickering, backbiting, blame and the wringing of hands to overpower the nation’s ability to rebound. This on a political level, but also an individual level. Come on UK! Where’s that traditional “stiff upper lip”? Get on with it! This isn’t play time in the school playground! 🙂

Perhaps too, the end result is going to be good for the rest of Europe as well. Perhaps it will cause the EU to consider why the UK voted to withdraw, and to ponder on whether there are issues within their own structure and practices which led to that decision and which would be better changed.

For the moment however, the UK’s focus needs to be on development and stabilization. Let’s hope that the right minds can prevail and that the Nation can indeed be steered forward with a view to maintaining – not “becoming again”, but maintaining – its “Greatness” (with the addition of Northern Ireland and other parts not included in the usual definition of “Great Britain” being similarly served).

Response to a question about the possible re-opening of a horse slaughter plant in the USA

In a perfect world there would be no horse slaughter.

We don’t live in a perfect world.

In a perfect world, if there were too many horses for the supply/demand equation, there would be an immediate cessation of production to bring the supply level back into line with demand.

We don’t live in perfect world.

In a perfect world only perfect horses would be produced.

We don’t live in a perfect world.

So obviously there is a problem with an excess number of unsuitable horses relative to the demand. Ironically, when this occurs and some producers stop or reduce production, it is usually the more responsible producers that cease that production – those that are producing better quality horses – so the actual overall quality of horses typically declines – leading to a greater “excess” with increased slaughter.

Various “humane” groups like the HSUS cry out against horse slaughter – but to me, unless they have a practical viable alternative already operational, they have no grounds to try to ban the slaughter. There are fates worse than death.

“Shelters” for abused and abandoned horses are becoming not havens of security for those horses, but neglect and rescue cases themselves as funding runs out. Another “shelter” in Ohio this week had over 100 animals, 23 of them equines, seized. If funds from major “humane” organizations such as the HSUS were filtered down to help this situation rather than being spent on political lobbying and excessive management wages, the animals would benefit more.

If a horse is shot correctly, it is more humane than euthanizing by injection – I have seen some horrific disasters with euthanizing injections responses – so the physical issue of slaughter death is really a non-issue even though it is an unsavoury one to consider. Gunshot death is more rapid than injection. The issues lie in the management of the horses at the slaughter plant – something that has been worked on to good effect by Temple Grandin – and more significantly the transport to the slaughter plant. While bad handling at the slaughter plant is never to be condoned – and if overseen with items such as CCTV video monitoring, will be significantly reduced or eliminated – even if it occurs, it is only for a very brief period, and we are back to the “there are fates worse than death” situation. Requiring horses to travel long distances to be slaughtered is however a stress factor that should be, but often cannot be, avoided. Why can’t it be avoided? Because we currently have no slaughter plants in the USA, so horses to be slaughtered end up being transported vast distances to Canada and Mexico… Good job HSUS!! Again, an example of “don’t put the cart before the horse” – don’t work to ban something unless you have a solution already in place!!

Realistically, any honest and practical horse owner is going to acknowledge that there is no way that over-production is going to be cut effectively enough to prevent a significant number of “surplus” horses; they are going to admit that there is no practical way to arrange a “happy” end for all these horses – there are the financial issues of many owners to consider, as well as local regulations relating to carcass disposal; and if you talk to the majority of realistic horse owners, they are going to say the same as I do – that although nobody wants horse slaughter, there is no alternative solution currently available or projected for the approximately 120,000 horses that go to slaughter from the USA each year. The important thing then is to make the travel to slaughter and slaughter itself as humane as possible. In the respect of the travel, besides the actual control of the travel process itself, another solution would be to have more slaughterhouses rather than fewer, thereby reducing the distances needed to travel.

The “smokescreen” currently being blown by some groups to agitate the general public about there being an increased risk of horsemeat finding its way into the domestic foodchain if slaughter is reintroduced is simply being used to be inflammatory. The major issue in Europe with the discovery that horsemeat has been marketed as beef is really the labelling issue and lack of control over the supply chain. Many cultures eat horsemeat, but it is their choice to do so – and therein lies the rub. Most people in England and Ireland (and the USA) choose not to eat horsemeat, so the mislabelling of the product was really the issue, not the presence of the horsemeat itself. Effective controls on the food chain will take care of that, not the prevention of slaughter in the first place. And a question that I have as yet not seen answered anywhere, is “just how much Phenylbutazone (“‘Bute”) does one truly consume if there is a horse in the food chain that was slaughtered with systemic levels, and how much poses a threat?”. I don’t have an answer to that, but my suspicion is that the level consumed is very low, and the required level for it to become an issue, significantly higher.*

So my thoughts on re-opening US slaughterhouses to horses and allowing USDA inspection for the meat to go for human consumption? Unless you have a viable alternative in place, then make sure that the transport and slaughter is performed in a humane manner, and save your funds and political screaming on the issue to work on developing a viable and practical alternative – and once that’s in place, feel free to ban slaughter.

* Since writing this, it has been brought to my attention that the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, Sally Davies on 14th February, 2013 observed: “At the levels of ‘bute that have been found, a person would have to eat 500 to 600 burgers a day that are 100% horse meat to get close to consuming a human’s daily dose. And it passes through the system fairly quickly, so it is unlikely to build up in our bodies”. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bute-in-horsemeat-statement-from-chief-medical-officer

Additionally, the European Food Safety Authority and EMA on 15th April, 2013 issued the following statement: “On a given day, the probability of a consumer being both susceptible to developing aplastic anaemia and being exposed to phenylbutazone was estimated to range approximately from 2 in a trillion to 1 in 100 million. The risk of carcinogenicity to humans from exposure was considered very low based on the available experimental data on organ toxicity and carcinogenicity, as well as on the low exposure levels and the infrequent exposure to phenylbutazone from horse meat or adulterated beef-based products”. Source: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3190

Sandy Hook and some issues that stem from it

Following the horrible shooting episode at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut (USA) a little over a week ago, I ended up in discussions with friends “across the pond” in England about gun control. I personally am reasonably neutral about the gun control issue for several reasons – I grew up in England and lived in Canada for 25 years, with both countries having a fairly good degree of gun control (the UK greater of course), so I recognise that gun control can work to reduce crime. For the same reasons, I do not throw my hands up in horror when the issue is discussed – I’ve held gun licenses and did not resent having to do so. The difference in crime rates per capita between Canada/UK and the USA involving guns is dramatic, and indeed, the murder rate differences per capita are significant. As I’ve always maintained, if no gun is involved and you plan on murdering someone, you are going to have to get up close and personal to do it – and that can be messy, and can discourage some people. It’s very impersonal to be able to stand 10 feet away and do the same thing by pulling a trigger. This may start to sound as though I’m about to expound in favour of gun control, but that’s not where I’m going – I’m just stating some basic facts the way I see them. As the contrary position to the foregoing, I own guns – quite a few of them – and have for years, having been given my first air-rifle at the age of 13, and I use guns regularly.

Several of my European friends upon hearing of the CT killings immediately jumped on the gun control bandwagon, which resulted in me responding with some arguments against the practicality of implementing a control based solely on the number of guns that are present in the USA. When I started researching the numbers, it was quite amazing to me, even though I was already aware of the fact that there were huge numbers of guns present in the USA. My first response to the discussion ran like this:

The gun issue in the USA is not a simple black and white issue. Logic in the the wake of a disaster like this certainly dictates “gun control”, but – quite beside the fact that gun ownership is enshrined in the 2nd amendment to the Constitution (not the 8th), which presents a host of issues in itself – there is the simple fact that there are so many guns floating around in the USA that to suddenly say “OK, from tomorrow all guns must be licensed” would result in a significant number simply never being registered. So then what? OK, so one says “if an unlicensed gun is used in a crime, prosecute the owner”, but that won’t prevent the crime, which is the real desire of any licensing/registration.

About 12 years ago, Canada – which does have some restriction on firearms, although not as stringent as the UK (for example, I wanted to get a pistol for use as a humane killer, but was advised that although I could get a license to get the pistol, I would only be able to legally use it on a range!!) – decided it was going to require registration of all “long arms” (shotguns/rifles etc.) which hitherto had not been registered. At a huge cost a licensing program was set up and people were required to register. The problem was that it quickly became apparent that significant percentage of people were not registering. To actually enforce the Act would have required far more police than were available! Some people were charged when unlicensed guns were found in premises as an adjunct to other police activity, but the reality of the situation was that the requirement to register was not only controversial (most of those not registering were not doing so as an act of civil disobedience), but it simply wasn’t working. Several years ago the requirement to register long arms in Canada was dropped and earlier this year, the long arm registry was disbanded and the records destroyed. It ended up being a multi-billion dollar waste of money. And Canada has far fewer guns and people than the USA!

So based upon the Canadian experience, the avid resistance of many of the US gun-owning fraternity, and the practicality aspect involving the sheer number of guns, trying to require licensing and registration in the USA would almost certainly end in the same way as it did in Canada.

It can be difficult for a European to get an idea of just how many guns there are here in the USA. Depending upon who is visiting us, one of “sights” I might take people to see is a visit to one of the local gun shops. The vast majority of pawn shops are also gun dealers and our local pawn shop here carries thousands of different guns. Of course, the vast majority of reasonable-sized towns have a pawn shop – and note that this is pawn shops, not gun shops – so simple math starts to bring the numbers involved into focus. And gun shops exist as well as pawn shops!! The number of guns present is mind-boggling.

With regard to the Constitutional 2nd amendment issue – “the right to bear arms” – one is dealing with something that is on a par with (in many American people’s minds) something like the Monarchy in Britain. It is so deeply enshrined that although there are some who dislike it, it is unlikely to change. It is of course easy to poke holes in its logic – it was originally in place to prevent suppression of the population by an overly-controlling Government (such as they had just experienced in 1776 with the Brits.), so one was looking at flintlocks etc. Firearms were also of course essential for survival in the early days of American civilisation to obtain food and for protection against “marauding Indians” and predatory animals. But today, that same amendment has been taken to mean that one has an enshrined right to carry assault weapons. Furthermore, one has to wonder what would happen if one were to mount insurrection against what one perceives as a suppressive Government in the USA today – I think it would not go well (perhaps an introduction of gun control will show that!! Remember Waco?). So the 2nd amendment is truly redundant in form and function, but it is one of the parts of the Constitution, and if one starts fiddling around with that, there is a very strong question about where it would end! Incidentally, the 2nd amendment is not the only Constitutional issue that could be raised in connection with regulation of guns, as the 4th and 5th amendments – the 4th prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause; the 5th sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy – for example how does one charge someone with not registering a firearm if one cannot truly know that they have it (“just cause” is required for a warrant for search of a property)? Maybe not totally insurmountable, but it certainly makes it more difficult…

Finally, one has to look at what existing laws are actually in place and what difference they have made. In the case of Connecticut, it is a legal requirement that one be 21 years of age before owning a gun. The shooter at Sandy Hook was 20, so obviously that didn’t make any difference. What it boils down to is that we’re back to there being so many guns around that it is easy for someone who is really determined to get hold of one. Why did the family involved have guns? Well, of course there are many potential reasons, but in this particular case, it has been reported that the Mother was of the mindset that there was a potential apocalypse coming following a financial crash and that it was therefore necessary to have firearms for protection against insurrection when it happened. There are a variety of similarly-minded people in the USA (and probably elsewhere in the world) – and do you really believe that if the demand to license and register firearms is issued that they and their ilk are going to do so????

So – no easy solution to US gun control. It’s easy to think of what appears to be a perfectly logical solution, but when one really looks at it, it’s not that simple.

So my argument was such that because of the numbers involved, there was no way to control the guns present in the USA. Not unreasonably, my British friend – and one must remember that the Brits are quite used to gun control and in fact within the last 10-20 years, following a similar mass-murder situation at a school in Scotland saw a complete ban on handguns in the UK enacted to the point where not even the Olympic shooting team are permitted to practice in the UK – retorted that “surely a severe limitation on any form of multiple fire weapon would be a start”. Well, yes, I replied, but… and I followed up with some statistics that actually included numbers from reasonably reliable sources (it’s very difficult to accurately determine how many guns are present in the USA simply because there have been no records kept):

One would think that a “severe limitation” would be a start, until one actually starts looking at estimated numbers. Obviously a reduction is a reduction, but we’re quite literally talking pissing in the ocean. When I said it’s hard to comprehend the number of guns in the USA, it’s not only hard to comprehend, but hard to even accurately estimate. A quick search of the Internet for a review of statistics immediately reveals a variation in estimates. The ABC (BBC equivalent) has an interesting article which gives some stats. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/08/guns-in-america-a-statistical-look/):

“There are more than 129,817 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States, according to the latest Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives numbers (as of Aug. 1) . Of those, 51,438 are retail gun stores, 7,356 are pawn shops and 61,562 are collectors, with the balance of the licenses belonging mostly to manufacturers and importers of firearms and destructive devices.

For comparison, here are some numbers of other ubiquitous elements of American life:

  • Gas Stations in the U.S. (2011): 143,839 (source TD LINX/Nielsen via National Associations of Convenience Stores, Association for Convenience for Convenience and Fuel Retailing)
  • Grocery Stores in the U.S. (2011) 36,569 (source: Food Marketing Institute)
  • McDonald’s restaurants in the U.S. (2011): 14,098 (Source: McDonald’s Corporation Annual Report 2011)”

The FBI estimates there are over 200 million firearms in the country! That equates to almost one gun to each adult resident. Another set of statistics presented in the “Small Arms Survey 2007) suggests 88.8 guns for every 100 people, so again, a reasonably close number to the FBI estimate.

Even considering that not all of those weapons will be “multiple fire”, a significant proportion would be (I would guess probably in the region of 75%), so lets say that there are 150,000,000 (one-hundred and fifty million!!!) affected weapons. So a reduction of 50% (which would never happen) would still leave 75 million multiple-fire weapons at liberty in the USA!!

As I said, it’s hard for a European to get an accurate impression of the issue and the number of guns over here…!

For another piece of incredible US gun-related trivia, take a look at the Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state Here’s a mind-boggling statistic from that article:

“… the murder figures themselves are astounding for Brits used to around 550 murders per year. In 2011 – the latest year for which detailed statistics are available – there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.”

So once again I have to say, there really is no easy answer related to gun control, and although there is no doubt that if there were controls put back in place to remove assault weapons it would have a potential to reduce the threat, one has to question by how much, simply because there are so many out there that would not be turned in. There is a certain amount of poignant truth in the gun-lobby argument that only a good person with a gun will stop a bad person with a gun…

Another portion of the discussion which deserves merit is the part that the media plays in sensationalising the murderers in these situations – turning them into anti-heroes. To someone with a warped mind, this has to have a potential effect of their believing that they can “go down in a hail of anti-fame and bullets”. I commented on that to my friend in the following manner:

An interesting piece of prose that has been circulating the Internet and has been attributed to Morgan Freeman (although he is not the author and that aspect is a hoax) is truly worthy of thought no matter who wrote it. It asks “Why did this [the Connecticut shooting] happen”:

” You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here’s why. It’s because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine?

Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he’ll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN’s article says that if the body count “holds up”, this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer’s face on all their reports for hours.

Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer’s identity? None that I’ve seen yet. Because they don’t sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you’ve just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man’s name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.”

I do think that there is more than a grain of truth in that. The sensationalism created by the media certainly does have the potential to encourage a warped mind to seek the spotlight in some cases.

I have thoughts on other causes that are present in daily life in modern society, and I will expound on those in future blog posts, but I think the above is enough for the moment…!