Quote of the Day
In 1920, England was the safest industrialized society on Earth. In fact, it was by far the safest society of any sort on Earth. Through a series of gun control laws, England has become by far the most violent society on Earth.
Australia’s politicians were so eager to follow England’s lead that they let a certifiably insane man loose – and gave him his guns back. When the shots stopped, 35 people were dead and 21 were wounded. Today, Oz is clearly the second most violent industrialized society on Earth.
Now, New Zealand wants to get in on the fun. Their politicians are changing the rules for firearms possession, making it harder to keep and bear arms. That will make criminals feel safer, with the inevitable increase in violent crime. Which will result in a demand for more “gun controls.” And finally New Zealand will most likely be in the same situation England and Australia were in before it.
— Extranos Alley – Defining Insanity
It’s not just the gun control laws. In the case of the Anglosphere, gun control is just one of the symptoms of a flawed philosophy that forces its people to spiral down an ever-more-dangerous path of compelled helplessness.
This philosophy was perhaps best expressed recently by James Bowman (author, I believe, of Honor: A History) in a Weekly Standard piece from April, Harm’s Way: The roads in Britain are paved with good intention, itself a review of Theodore Dalrymple’s (pen name of Anthony Daniels) latest book Not with a Bang but a Whimper: The Politics and Culture of Decline. In it, Bowman excerpts a bit from the book, and then expands:
The many hypocrisies and deceptions on which the New Labour coalition was built are typified by the system of criminal justice with which, in his prison job, Daniels had an intimate acquaintance. Citing the work of a whistle-blowing policeman named David Fraser, he compares the British police to
a nearly defeated occupying colonial force that, while mayhem reigns everywhere else, has retreated to safe enclaves, there to shuffle paper and produce bogus information to propitiate its political masters. Their first line of defense is to refuse to record half the crime that comes to their attention, which itself is less than half the crime committed. Then they refuse to investigate recorded crime, or to arrest the culprits even when it is easy to do so and the evidence against them is overwhelming, because the prosecuting authorities will either decline to prosecute, or else the resultant sentence will be so trivial as to make the whole procedure (at least nineteen forms to fill in after a single arrest) pointless.
The real question is, why isn’t this clearly appalling state of affairs a scandal in Britain? I think the answer is that the media consensus there–and to a large extent here–includes certain core principles, such as that crime is caused by something other than criminals and that imprisonment is society’s shame, rather than that of the incarcerated, which can only be protected by maintaining these hypocrisies and deceptions, and with them, the illusion that nothing can be done about most crime. Therefore, the media are complicit in pretending that these problems don’t exist–because they shouldn’t exist.
(My emphasis.) And along with that comes the inability to differentiate between “violent and predatory” and “violent but protective.”
And that’s insanity.