The anti-Semitic mass murder atrocity in Australia reminds us of the futility of gun control. As my friend Attorney Andrew Branca has noted, that would have been over a lot sooner in Florida, with the gunmen felled by return fire from armed citizens. True, not many people carry guns to go swimming, but the murderous father-son team staged on the street, where a courageous couple who managed to disarm the older monster were cut down when he grabbed another gun, and another brave citizen managed to disarm the older killer only to be shot down by his equally evil son. That brave citizen, fortunately, survived his wounds unlike the elderly couple who managed the first disarm.
On a Florida street, a quick assessment of passing vehicles would likely have revealed several firearms which could and probably would have been deployed in time to at least lessen the carnage and perhaps stop the twin threats before any innocents were harmed.
Not in anti-gun Australia.
One of the murder victims was a retired policeman. In the US, under the Federal Law Enforcement Safety Act of 2004, retired cops are allowed to carry guns nationwide so long as they pass a qualification course once a year. Aussie cops have told me they’re not even allowed to carry off duty while they are still employed.
Another lesson: don’t listen to idiots who say the only self-defense accuracy you’ll ever need is a six-inch group at six feet. The courageous constable who dropped these two evil bastards did so reportedly from a distance of as much as 40 meters, with a department issue .40 caliber Glock 22 service pistol. Australian news services have implied that this officer was unusually highly skilled with guns…a firearms instructor, perhaps, or simply an Australian gun enthusiast?
The heartbreaking death toll on Bondi Beach reminds us that when mad dog killers strike, the good people there on the ground when it happens. I look at that martyred elderly couple and think, if that had been in the USA and those two rescuers had been armed, the only people who would have died there would have been the two who came to murder the helpless.
An obvious target in a country rife with anti-seminism was patrolled by 4 officers that were described by their boss as something like “wonderful young people who are used to giving out parking tickets and breaking up pub brawls and may fire their service pistols once a year at 15 yards.”
Australia has never been known for antisemitism. It has been introduced through radical Islam. The government has been warned over the past several years and did nothing to keep the Islamists in check, and in fact allowed their religious Jew hatred to fester. This is the result. 4 police might have been enough if they had the guts to actually confront the shooters. But, as Massad points out, in that gun control culture, they simply weren’t expecting a situation like this and lacked proper training. They were hiding behind the cars and doing nothing for 10 minutes.
The anti-Semitism has been introduced by the Australian government. While they may be pandering to the Muslims, the motivation, like the gun control has been transferred from the Old Country.
The infamous “10 minute video” shot from a building across the street from the shooters’ primary location — with a clear line of sight — is reportedly approximately 60-80 meters away. Not a terribly difficult shot for a rifle, scoped or not. If Aussies were allowed to have rifles without jumping through a lot of legal hoops, that is.
I’ve also seen it reported that all six (!) of the shooters’ firearms were legally owned, licensed, and registered. That has led to some thus-far-unsubstantiated speculation: Native-born Aussies with clean backgrounds often can’t get approvals for more than one or two guns, so how an Islamic-State-affiliated immigrant and his “known to officials” son somehow manage to get approved for six?
(And then the obvious: universal background checks, licensing, registration, restrictions on the types of firearms allowed, ammunition purchasing limits, no recognized carry, etc., somehow failed to prevent this, but surely prevented victims and bystanders from effectively stopping it. So what will the Aussie government propose next?)
Imagine if all the Violent Criminal Actors caught on video were instead caught in the gunsight of an Armed Citizen willing to step in ~~ but considering the court system of today, I wonder how many would be willing to risk it. So instead, we continue with the carnage and get blamed, too.
Imagine if all the Violent Criminal Actors caught on video were instead caught in the gunsight of an Armed Citizen willing to step in….
Why not both? Show them on video being unceremoniously stopped in their tracks before achieving their goals. It might do better as a deterrent than all the “gun-free zones” combined.
But I hear you. In this overly-litigious society, it’s personally, financially, and sometimes criminally dangerous to get involved in an incident targeting “someone else”. Even if your State’s self-defense law specifies that coming to the defense of another person is allowed, one must ask him/her-self if it’s worth opening themselves to all that liability.
What a sad state of affairs….
Archer,
You are so right. Look at what happened to Daniel Penny, and he didn’t even use a gun!
I saw an on line article about some Australian police who were present “freezing up” and not using their side arms to stop the killers. Any truth to that?
Correct – one mother ran behind a car and confronted a hiding police officer, demanding he go out and save her exposed 3 year old. He refused. She tried to take his gun and do it himself, he wrestled it back and continued to hide.
DR, what a nightmare! Anyone know how the 3-year-old came out? Hot zones like this are 2-way ranges that demand necessary risk-taking from well-trained and well-armed-for-combat law enforcement who are willing and capable to shoot well. Reminds me of the mindset that officially prevails in Minnesota now, where citizens’ preparing competent self-defense with firearms tends to be considered criminal, and non-present or under-empowered police, or other dubious security authority, are considered sufficient public protection against advantaged evil.
Aussie gun laws is what our dems want to achieve in the USA.
Ref ‘off-duty’ carry. In Australia in the 1950’s, all police forces were state wide, no “Shire” (County) or “City” agencies. Queensland police didn’t ‘carry’ on-duty. If a situation looked like a firearm might be needed, the constable was to return to the station, draw a weapon, loaded – no extra ammunition, and if the weapon was fired, account for the final location of each fired bullet. I don’t recall a single instance ever being reported.
A civilian reporting? A bank in West End, Brisbane, was robbed at gunpoint. An employee took the banks revolver and chased after the fleeing robber. He couldn’t catch up. (The reason for this memory? That employee and I were in primary school together.)
In the same time frame, New South Wales police officers changed from on-duty carrying a S&W revolver to a Beretta semi-auto.
Don’t carry a gun to go swimming? Actually I do. Creeks around my house are full of all kinds of nasties. Two legged, four legged, and no legged.
I know aa guy that showers with a gun. It is Glock, naturally.
My occasional trek to the beach I carry. Always.
Me too. Although I don’t swim anymore due to a blown shoulder and the fear of being harpooned.
The left live in a delusional state of mind where they truly believe that if a person has no access to a gun they cease to be violent. We know from watching children that there are some who are predisposed to violent behavior. These kids grow up to be violent and evil people. Illinois will start requiring all public school kids in the state to undergo phycological testing to root out those with violent natures and medicate them as soon as possible. More nefarious, they want to find all of the little kids who display opposite-sex tendencies so they can groom them into transgenders as early as possible. Illinois is truly the most evil state in our union.
My chickens are protected by a strong fence. That doesn’t stop a determined predator from getting in and killing them. Game farms (anti-gun zones), signs, hopes, dreams, and unicorn farts do nothing to stop a predator from enacting evil. Even id 100% of the firearms magically no longer existed violence will still happen. It prevents nothing. Logic therefore dictates that more guns in the hands of trained and responsible people is the only and best defense against violence and evil.
Preaching to the choir…….
Merry Christmas!
Even id [sic] 100% of the firearms magically no longer existed violence will still happen. It prevents nothing.
Unless that “magic wand” also removes the basic mechanical knowledge of how firearms work and are made, the “magically remove all firearms” solution would last a mere couple of hours, at most. Even permanently closing down gun manufacturers wouldn’t keep new ones from being built, not when hobbyists can craft them in their garages with commercially-available tools and equipment.
“Gun control” is a fool’s errand.
The world is seeing, over and over again, the truth that unarmed, untrained sheeple can be easily slaughtered by criminals. I believe the jihadists had a hit rate of about 50%. I don’t know if the shotguns were firing buckshot or slugs. The jihadist father owned six guns. The Australian Prime Minister remarked that no one had a need for that many guns. We need to ignore idiots because they have demonstrated that they are incapable of accepting facts.
Ditto. Hell, if I’m en route to a match, I might have more than six guns just in the car.
Mas, I left Canada over two decades ago for this country and have lived four states since then. But at the time I defected (and I mean that word) anyone wanting to carry a “Restricted Weapon”, usually handguns to the range had to get an annual permit to transport it to and from the range with a limit of six such guns. You could also carry non restricted long guns without any numerical limits at the same time and many did so. I wonder how many lives were actually saved by this legislative drivel…
@Paul,
The number of lives saved by such “legislative drivel” (great phrase!) pales in importance to the number of bureaucrats’ careers created or saved.
The real question is how many lives the drivel must cost before the government is willing to sacrifice its own employees’ jobs and get rid of it. That number is depressingly high … assuming any such number is enough.
Roger,
I just returned from a road trip to visit family and friends. When I packed my SUV for this trip, I loaded the following items:
1) My luggage and personal items.
2) Christmas gifts for my friends and relatives.
3) Guns and ammo to shoot while there plus some other arms.
Briefly, my travel armament (for this trip) consisted of:
A) Three (3) semi-automatic handguns ranging from .22 LR to 9mm Luger in caliber.
B) A revolver in .357 Magnum caliber.
C) A derringer in .357 Magnum caliber.
D) A semi-automatic carbine (with red-dot sight) in 5.7x28FN caliber.
E) A suppressor for the .22 LR handgun. (Note: I did not cross any State lines so this was a legal NFA item and move.)
F) Two(2) six-inch fixed-bladed sheath knives plus one (locking) folding knife with four-inch blade.
G) One leather flat sap plus my hardwood ‘Tire-thumper’ and my solid hickory walking cane.
H) Pepper spray and tactical flashlight.
Compared to some of my trips, this was a moderate level of armament.
I had no problems during this trip.
So, no one needs six (6) guns? Hell, that just gets me started! 🙂
You’ve got me beat! Yesterday the Mrs (aka EP 2) and I had to do a business trip across the county, and what did I take? A Charter Arms Undercover .38 loaded with 135 gr Gold Dots, one HKS speed loader with the same, a S&W folder, pepper spray, and tactical light. All but the latter carried in an Uncle Mike’s fanny pack. But we did do some last minute 🎅 stuff too.
Absolutely clear to us who are the People of the Gun.
It’s equally clear to the gun-control advocates that the only effective solution is to erect more “Gun-Free Zone” signs.
Every day, it becomes clear to me that the human mind is capable of harboring any idea/belief whatsoever. We need only look at the divergent religious beliefs prevalent throughout the nations of the world. Why should we be the slightest bit surprised that there is disagreement as to gun policy?
In any case, what is perfectly clear is that the US has a 2nd Amendment while most other nations have no constitutional provision that is remotely comparable. The Aussis and Brits can’t alter their situation relative to the right of self-defense any more than Americans can alter our situation relative to the right of self-defense.
The right of self-defense is so deeply embedded in our national character that it is hardly ever the subject of political discourse. The only time it comes up is when someone defends herself with a gun. And then, the real focus of the discourse is the right to keep or bear arms.
Our 2nd Amendment can’t be repealed, nor can it be diluted. It must be fought for; defended. Doing so is a perpetual struggle. Yet it’s clear that guns are baked into our society by both parchment barriers and tradition. Not so with any other nation (with few exceptions worth debating.)
True.
“the only effective solution is to erect more “Gun-Free Zone” signs.”
If a particular highway had 90 percent of all accidents, people would demand fixing that highway. But even though more than 90 percent of random mass killings occur in “gun-free” zones, many people want to make self-defense zones where they don’t happen “gun-free.”
I sure wish schools still taught logic.
The courageous constable who eventually dropped…
FIFY.
Unarmed at the beach? Not likely. I don’t swim, but I do watch over MY little flock very intently.
Well said!
call me a bigot if ya like, but if it was a christmas gathering would it be deemed an “anti-christian” or if it was a kwanza gathering would it have been a RACIST or anti-black, or if it was a sunni gathering shot by two shia’s would it have been islamaphobes. ENOUGH with the labels, anti-Semitism is no worse than anti christian however there are hate speech laws protecting the jews–nuff sed.
the sheep are the sheep and on THAT island, most folks prefer to be the sheep (i know a few). we should all be happy the bolt rifle guy didn’t have a “straight pull”…
Said “hate speech laws protecting the jews [sic] don’t seem to be worth $hit, eh?
There should be no laws against the vague label “hate speech” anyway. Mostly, “hate speech” is speech that the current rulers don’t like.
In the realm outside Lame Stream media, attacks on Christians are condemned, inside or outside the US.
FYI, anti-Semitism has a centuries-old history, long before there were Christians.
Larry McClain,
“we should all be happy the bolt rifle guy didn’t have a “straight pull”…” I’m confused, because the bolt rifle guy DID have a straight-pull.” Wikipedia lists the following guns being used in that attack;
One Beretta BRX1 straight-pull rifle
Two 12-gauge Stoeger M3000 M3K shotguns
(Isn’t M3000 and M3K the same thing?)
The heroes Mas mentioned were Boris and Sophia Gurman, a Russian-Jewish couple, and Ahmed al-Ahmed, a Muslim.
Yes, Larry, it would be called anti-Christian. This shooting was directed against Jews specifically because they are Jews. All people have a right to feel safe, and if one group or another feels targeted, then their society needs to take action to protect them.
Personally so many modern day pussies are allowing their freedoms to be stolen away. They think they are too civilized to own guns. Meanwhile what do we think will happen once we are all disarmed? Even if the bad guys can’t get guns, they will exploit other means. Nice France for example lost about 100 people to a truck. Imagine the Vegas shooter without guns. He was a pilot who owned a plan and in sight of the airport. He could have killed more by crashing his plane into the crowd. What about suicide bombs in places like Israel. The list goes on. Every single state that went constitutional carry has shown no growth in violence as a result. Many show significant decrease. Sadly I live in VA the 10th safest state in the union and we’ve had relatively low gun control measures but that’s ending soon. Democrats just swept the state and we will soon look like MD and NJ.
Meir Kahane, the founder of the Jewish Defense League used to say (in the “70’s”) “for every Jew, a .22”. Now, I would say “Every Jew will be fine when they carry a 9”. Jewish people have learned through history -ancient and present – that we cannot rely on others to protect us. We need to stand up for ourselves and do what must be done. During this time of Chanukah, it is good to remember that the Jewish People were able to successfully defend themselves against the Syrian Greeks – one of the most powerful armies of the time. Of course, we also fought the Romans and others. Jews know how to fight and win. Anyone who considers attacking a Jew needs to know it will turn out to be a bad day for them if they do so. That’s how you fight anti-Jewish violence. My opinion.
DR,
“For every Jew, a 7.62.” “Jews who want to stay alive, carry a .45.”
Sadly, most of the Jews caught on October 7th, 2023 were unarmed. They were trusting their government, and its high-tech wall, to keep them safe. The Jews who were armed fought back, and did well. No one was armed on Bondi Beach, except the criminals, and the police. Leftists are not learning from their mistakes.
Don’t assume the hardcore Left sees them as mistakes. Every incident of “gun violence” is another stat point they use to demand more “gun control”.
Blood dancers are nothing without blood to dance in.
Extraordinary act of heroism by an Israeli who was critically wounded in the Sydney terror attack. Next to Ahmed Al Ahmed, one of the heroes of the Bondi Beach massacre, there was a guy in a red shirt who ran into the line of fire to stop the Islamist terrorists.
Turns out his name is Geffen Bitton, an Israeli 🇮🇱 living in Australia the last 3 years. This hero is in critical condition: say a prayer.
People close to 30-year-old Gefen Biton, who was shot three times and critically wounded in the terrorist attack in Australia, say he charged at one of the attackers with his bare hands in an attempt to stop him. Before collapsing, he managed to call his sister and tell her he had been shot.
Footage from the scene shows Biton running toward one of the attackers alongside Ahmad al-Ahmad, before being struck by gunfire.
Biton remains hospitalized in serious condition after undergoing five surgeries.
@ Paul – “I left Canada over two decades ago for this country …. I wonder how many lives were actually saved by this legislative drivel…”
Answer: No lives have been saved. The purpose of Firearms-Prohibition is not to save lives or reduce crime. Those reasons are always used to justify Prohibition, but they are mere smokescreens intended to deceive the weak-minded fools who want to believe in the Utopia-on-Earth Dreams sold by the totalitarian Left.
No, the purpose of Firearms-Prohibition is to enslave the population. Anyone who understands World History will realize that there are only two (2) groups of people in the World. These groups are (A) Armed, free people, and (B) unarmed slaves and serfs. This has always been a UNIVERSAL TRUTH throughout recorded history. One is either ARMED or one is ENSLAVED. This is a HARD TRUTH for many people to understand but TRUTH is still TRUTH. It really is that simple!
Any population that disarms WILL FALL to some form of enslavement or victimhood. Do you wish for some examples?
Example No. 1: Obama talked Ukraine into giving up its nuclear weapons. He gave them promises of security to do so. Once they did, Russia went to work carving up their lands. The promises of Obama were utterly worthless. How many Ukrainians have suffered and died because they listened to Obama’s lies and disarmed?
Example No. 2: 125 years ago, the British Empire ruled the waves. The sun never set upon the British Empire. The People of the UK felt so secure that they listened to the lies of the Utopians who promised them that they could disarm and surrender their way to the Utopia-on-Earth Left-wing Dream.
Starting with the Pistol Act of 1903, a series of laws systematically disarmed the population of the UK over the last century and a quarter. At this point, the population is effectively disarmed. Even to the point where kitchen knives and air guns are restricted. The result? The UK has been invaded and conquered by foreigners. The native population lives in fear while the foreign invaders strut in the streets.
Many people wonder at the news that rape, and grooming gangs, operate at will in the UK today. I am not surprised at all. Throughout World History, a conquered nation could expect that the victors would sexually exploit the subjugated population. Traditionally, such exploitation has been a “Spoil of Victory”. So, with the UK conquered and subjugated by foreign invaders, are you really surprised that the victors have moved to claim their “booty”? The rape gangs are a natural result of the disarmament and surrender of the people of the UK. In a little over a century, they went from being a global empire to being a conquered nation. Why? It is because they listened to the “Siren Song” of the Left which told them that they could disarm and surrender their way to the promised “Utopia-on-Earth” of Peace and Plenty. Instead, they now suffer under the iron boot of their new Masters.
It will soon get worse in Europe and in the UK. They surrendered their Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Now, their Freedom of Speech is gone too. Indeed, if I was a serf living in the UK (I thank God that I am not!), it is likely that I would be arrested and imprisoned for the words of this blog post. They would declare the TRUTH, which I have written above, to be “Hate Speech” and jail me for speaking the TRUTH.
The iron boot of the Left will only get heavier. I am a senior citizen. As such, my remaining years are limited. Nevertheless, I expect to see Concentration Camps make a re-appearance in Europe, and possibly in the UK, before death closes my eyes.
So, there are two (2) examples of what happens to people who disarm. They quickly become victims, serfs, or slaves. They set themselves up for invasion and to be conquered.
Make no mistake, the same Horribly EVIL people who pushed Firearms-Prohibition upon Europe, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. are currently working to push it upon the American People. Just as the above nations had fools who swallowed the lie of Utopia by way of disarmament, we have huge numbers of fools and useful idiots, here in America, who also swallow the lie of the disarmament Utopian Dream sold by the Left to enslave us.
America can profit, vicariously, from the mistakes made by Europe and the rest of the English-Speaking World. Do you want to be enslaved? Do you want foreign invaders (more than we already have) lording over the American People? Do you want to be systematically robbed and plundered (even more than our own Government does to us)? Do you want to stand by helplessly as your wives and daughters become spoil for the victors? Do you want to cower in fear and be afraid to speak out or protest as you are systematically insulted and exploited?
If so, then listen to the lies of the Gun-Grabbers. They are eager to lead you down that path!
TN_MAN,
Great post, but Example No. 1 needs a clarification. It wasn’t Obama who convinced Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons, it was Bill Clinton. The agreement was part of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in December 1994.
What a horrible example of the dangers of disarmament that was. The whole world can see that if Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, Russia would have been deterred from invading them. The cost would just be too high. That means all the Ukrainian soldiers and non-combatants, AND all the Russian soldiers, who have died in this war could have been spared.
The other lesson to learn is don’t rely on the United States to protect you. Although, South Vietnam, the Kurds, and anyone who worked with us in Iraq and Afghanistan already knew that.
@ Roger – Thanks for the correction. I was thinking that it happened under the Obama Administration. I should have double-checked on the exact time of the event.
Still, even if Clinton actually made the agreement, it was Obama and Biden who stood by and let Ukraine get carved up. Of course, my friend Nicholas may well point to the billions and billions of dollars, of wealth and equipment sent to Ukraine, as evidence that these leftists were not just “standing by”.
I discount that logic myself. No one can account for those billions. I expect that a big chunk (10% for the Big Guy?) got funneled back into the pockets of the Uni-Party and the Deep State. How much actually made it into the hands of those fighting against Russia is anybody’s guess.
In any event, I has not been enough to stop the slaughter and bloodshed.
‘The UK has been invaded and conquered by foreigners. The native population lives in fear while the foreign invaders strut in the streets.’
That’s simply untrue. I live in the UK and we do not live in fear of anyone. The grooming gangs have to operate in secret. As soon as they are discovered they are investigated then tried and jailed.
You’ve passed from your usual nonsense about non-existent lefist plots to outright racist lies.
The foreigners have to work in the hardest, lowest paid, jobs.
@ nicholas kane – I will grant that most invasions are so direct and quick that the people, living in the fallen Nation, cannot deny that they have been conquered.
In this case, however, the invasion was by immigration, not direct conflict, and it took place slowly over decades. In other words, the “frog” was boiled very slowly instead of being directly thrown into the fire.
This is what makes your “head-in-the-sand” denial of the fact possible. However, the event has happened whether you choose to acknowledge it or to deny it.
Your minimization extends to the rape and grooming problems too. You make it sound like it is all under control. Ah yes, the Left’s repeated assurance: “There is nothing to see here, move on!”
Once again, you are living in denial. This problem is huge. See this link:
https://theweek.com/crime/the-grooming-gangs-scandal-explained
It is not under control as you imply. I trust that I do not also need to provide links to the many stories of people being jailed for acts of prayer or free speech in the UK?
I maintain that, if there was no invasion, then there would not be this massive problem of rape and grooming gangs at all. Only a conquered Nation would suffer to have its own people abused in this fashion.
As for your “racist” label, it is meaningless. The Left has played the “Race Card” so often, in America and elsewhere, that it has lost all credibility. Leftists routinely label anyone who disagrees with them as “racist” and they, also, (routinely) label opposing views as “hate speech”. Do you really think that I care about your labels? That I can be influenced by name-calling?
Sorry to disappoint you. I am not one of those weak-minded fools who can be manipulated by language or utopian dreams. I have lived long enough to see how the World REALLY works and I KNOW (without doubt) that it does not work like the left-wing fantasy World says it should work!
Just want to add something about racism that we rarely hear. All races practiced slavery historically. Muslims enslaved white Europeans. In the 1800s, there were free, black, male Americans who owned black slaves.
WHITE PEOPLE ENDED SLAVERY.
In the United States, it took a civil war to end it. Great Britain did even better. They ended slavery through political means. It took a long time, but by 1833, the problem was largely solved. A member of Parliament who deserves a lot of credit for the peaceful ending of slavery in the British Empire was William Wilburforce.
Wait! There’s more! From 1808 till 1870 the British Navy was used to board slave ships and free the slaves. So, Great Britain ended both slavery and the slave trade.
Did Africans end slavery? Did Muslims end slavery? Did Asians end slavery? Slavery is still practiced today. What percentage of the human population is white today? 8%–10%.
TN_MAN: My thought has always been, you don’t have to come up with an exhaustive list of nations that disarmed and subsequently became enslaved. Instead, challenge your nay-sayers to come up with one — just one! — nation whose population was disarmed by their government and subsequently became more free.
Many are in denial, because they’re in the transitory phase — they’ve disarmed and are on their way to effective enslavement, but are neither fully there nor far enough along to recognize it. Most Brits (like Mr. Kane above), for example, still believe they have free speech (while spouting government-approved lines) and safety (living without fear). They don’t realize that:
a. Government-approved speech is always allowed, but speech is not free unless one can also share unapproved and unpopular ideas without legal consequence, which many/most Brits cannot. And
b. “Living without fear” does not equate to “living in safety”; denial of dangers removes the fear but does not make one safe. Every victim in shock because they thought, “It can’t/won’t happen here/to me,” experiences the sudden and uncomfortable (and often traumatic) realization that there’s a world of difference between “feeling safe” and “being safe.”
I, for one, truly hope that most people never have to learn those lessons the hard way.
This is Chaya Dadon, a Jewish 14-year-old who was celebrating Hanukkah at Bondi Beach. She hid under a bench as shots rang out. A woman pleaded for someone to help her kids, Chaya crawled out from under the bench and used her body to shield & protect two children. She was shot doing so & is recovering in the hospital. Chaya Dadon is a helper, but she should not have had to be ❤️🩹
Thank you, Chaya. Sending you healing 💚
TN_MAN wrote:
‘I maintain that, if there was no invasion, then there would not be this massive problem of rape and grooming gangs at all. Only a conquered Nation would suffer to have its own people abused in this fashion.’
As I have already posted
‘The grooming gangs have to operate in secret. As soon as they are discovered they are investigated then tried and jailed.’
Posting obvious lies doesn’t work when you are dealing with someone who lives in the UK.
njk
nicholas kane wrote: ‘The grooming gangs have to operate in secret. As soon as they are discovered they are investigated then tried and jailed.’
Is that right? Well, that is not what was said in the first link that I posted. Let me quote from that article:
“How many children were abused?
Very large numbers. In Rotherham, at least 1,400 girls were estimated to have been abused by grooming gangs between 1997 and 2013; in Telford, it is estimated that over 1,000 children were abused over three decades. In Rochdale, an inquiry identified 74 probable victims and evidence of a much wider problem. But the statistics are incomplete and highly contested.
How did the authorities respond?
A series of local inquiries have exposed an official response that was unforgivably inadequate. In her 2014 Rotherham report, Jay said that South Yorkshire Police had treated child victims with ‘contempt’, and that social workers had ‘underplayed’ the problem.”
Want more? Here is a story from the ‘Mirror’ published just five (5) days ago:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/over-37000-rape-victims-wait-36404802
Shall I quote the headline? Here it is:
“Over 37,000 rape victims wait years for justice due to shocking police delay scandal”
Tell me, are these media outlets also posting “obvious lies”?
Or, is it “obvious” that you exist in a state of denial concerning the extent of the problem? Why? Because to admit to this problem would be to admit that your Worldview is totally wrong. And that is an admission that you (and most people on the Left) will never, never, never, ever make in a thousand years.
One of the things that caught my attention, was the (brave) individual who grabbed the shooter, and once grabbing and wrestling the gun from him, was hesitant to shoot him. Not for vengeance, not in anger, but that he may have had some back-up firearm readily available to him, or a suicide/homicide vest with which to inflict more damage and injuries. Got me to thinking, why?
I’ve wondered that myself, and I have a few hypotheses:
– If acting in self-defense in Australia is anything like in Formerly-Great Britain, pulling the trigger would have been treated as murder, as the perpetrator had already been “disarmed” but hadn’t presented a back-up threat.
– It’s also possible that the man has effectively zero familiarity with firearms. The gun may have been empty — with extra shells on the perpetrator’s person — or otherwise out-of-battery, and he may not have known how to operate it.
But most likely, in my opinion:
– The man was not mentally or emotionally prepared to pull the trigger and end the perpetrator’s life; his actions were instinctual (and good on him for having strong instincts!), not pre-thought-out.
American CCWs rarely hesitate to pull the trigger if it’s necessary (while overwhelmingly maintaining awareness to determine whether it is necessary at any given moment), but Australia doesn’t have CCWs, so there’s little reason to have done that kind of soul-searching ahead of time. I think he initially acted without thinking, and once he had the gun in his hands, the gravity of the situation — the realization of the destructive power he suddenly held — was too much, and caused him to hesitate.
That’s not a complete list; just the first few things that occurred to me as to why the man didn’t shoot the perpetrator he disarmed and end the threat immediately.
TN_MAN
How is the nation being outraged at the police and social workers failures to prosecute the grooming gangs us handing control over to the gangs?
Not sure how we got onto slavery; but one detail that is always glossed over. The slaves from Africa that were sent to the states, were enslaved by other africans. Hardly any were caught by europeans. The europeans bought them.
To go inland was suicide in ‘the white mans graveyard’. Diseases soon killed you.
Since people are campaigning for the descendants of slaves to be compensated. Shouldn’t that be those whose ancestors benefitted from slavery, compensating the descendants of slaves. That would be Africa compensating american blacks.
Though quite why anyone has to pay for the sins of their ancestors I’ve never understood anyway.
nicholas kane wrote “Though quite why anyone has to pay for the sins of their ancestors I’ve never understood anyway.”
I agree 100%. People should be held to account for their own crimes only. To expand punishment based upon racial groups and/or incidents that occurred before the living memory of the World is not justice. It is vengeance.
So, on this point, you and I are in complete agreement. In my book, once the people involved in past crimes are dead, then it is no longer a matter for human justice or human compensation. One must look to a higher power at that point.
Quote of the Day:
Romans 12:19 – “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”
Strange how the UK has ‘surrendered to grooming gangs’. But it’s the US that has a ruling party which won’t release the Epstein files.
Obviously it’s because they prove the republicans aren’t paedophiles.
njk
@ nicholas kane – The so-called “Epstein files” are a distraction which the Democrat Party (and you!) are trying to use to smear President Trump and to switch topics. The problem that they (and you!) have is that there is “no there there”.
If there was any kind of a “smoking-gun” inside these files then the Biden Administration would have seized upon it and used it to attack Donald Trump years ago. It would have been used during the 2024 Presidential Election when the Democrats were desperately trying to frame Donald Trump with lawfare and send him to prison. Their lawfare strategy (back then) was “election interference” so as to keep Donald Trump from running an effective campaign against them.
It failed in 2024 and it will fail now.
Tens of thousands of pages have been released and what do we find? We find that Democrats/leftists were much, much, much more involved with Epstein than Donald Trump ever was.
See this article:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epstein-files-released-2025-so-far/
Let me quote from it:
“Oct. 30, 2025: Buckingham Palace announced that it was stripping the king’s younger brother of his titles, relegating Prince Andrew to his civilian name, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. The announcement came weeks after news outlets in the United Kingdom revealed a 2011 email in which Andrew told Epstein, ‘we are in this together.’ The former prince has been accused of sexually assaulting a young Virginia Giuffre, who said she was trafficked by Epstein; Andrew settled Giuffre’s lawsuit but denied wrongdoing.”
Tell me, have you also smeared the former Prince Andrew with the charge of being a “pedophile”? Or do you just reserve such smears for Donald Trump and Republicans?
The Left is very skilled at using language to cloak their insidious intentions. Consider some of the terms that the Left has invented and pushed into Law:
Assault Weapon – This is a scary term invented by the Left. What does it mean exactly? Well, it means anything that the Left wants it to mean. Cam Edwards has said that the true definition of “Assault Weapon” is “Any weapon that the prohibitionists want to ban.” In my opinion. Mr. Edwards is totally correct. The term is meaningless beyond being a vehicle to push for firearm bans.
Hate Speech – Another scary term that is very similar to “Assault Weapon” (above). The true definition of “Hate Speech” is “Any speech that the Left wants to ban.” It is also meaningless beyond being a vehicle to ban any speech that the Left, and the Elites-in-power, don’t like and don’t want to hear.
If the SCOTUS was “on-the-ball”, they would have already struck down all so-called “Assault Weapon” laws as being violations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. They would have (also) already struck down all so-called “Hate Speech” laws as being violations of the 1st Amendment. It is a stain on the Court that they have neglected to do their duty in these matters.
Of course, Pro-gun groups also try to use language to counter the propaganda of the Left. We have invented multiple terms to describe the anti-gun fanatics. However, in my view, we have done a rather poor job in this area. For example:
Gun-Grabber – This is a term often used to label anti-gun folks. It is a poor term. It is too light-hearted and humorous. The fanatics are not just trying to grab our guns; they are trying to totally disarm us and put us in the bonds of chains and slavery. “Gun-Grabber” utterly fails to capture the full horror, the insensate EVIL, of what these fanatics are trying to do to us.
Hoplophobe – This is a term invented by Col. Jeff Cooper to describe the irrational fear and irrational nature of the anti-gun mindset. From a technical point of view, it is an accurate term. However, it is too technical to be easily understood by the general public. It fails to have the emotional impact that is needed to counter the propaganda of the Left.
Firearms-Prohibitionist – This is a better term than Hoplophobe. However, to truly understand it, one needs knowledge of Prohibition Laws (alcohol, drugs, etc.) in the USA. Sadly, history is very poorly taught to the young nowadays. Thus, this term is also too technical and too lacking in emotional impact to be truly effective against the propaganda of the Left.
Can we come up with a better term for the anti-gun groups? Is there a term that hits hard, with emotional impact, and which will be easily understood by the public?
I propose that we label the anti-gun groups as “SLAVERS”. Not as gun-grabbers, hoplophobes, or prohibitionists. Instead, call them what they are: Slavers.
These groups push to disarm the population of all weapons and of all effective means of self-defense. That is their goal, their target, their reason for existence. As noted in my comment above, the end result of any disarmament program is to put the population in chains and slavery. Therefore, it is totally accurate to label people that work to enslave other people as “Slavers”.
Consider all the advantages of using this term to counter leftist propaganda:
1. Thanks to the Left and their program of racial division, the terms “Slavery” and “Slavers” is easily understood. Thus, by using this term, we will be turning the Left’s own propaganda against them. When we are asked to justify the term, we will have an opportunity to deliver a history lesson on the dangers of disarmament. Thus, instead of fighting the Left on their ground of deaths and mass-murderers, we will be fighting on our ground of FREEDOM versus SLAVERY.
2. It puts the Left on defense while giving us an opportunity to attack.
3. Groups that have (wrongly) supported the Left (African Americans, minorities, etc.) will be forced to face the issue in terms of FREEDOM versus SLAVERY instead of the emotional ground of crime and violence in the minority community.
4. It will truly drive the anti-gun groups NUTS. They will be so enraged at being labeled “SLAVERS” that they will lapse into rants about racism and hate-speech. The one thing that the Left cannot stand is to be labeled as Racists themselves (despite the long history of anti-gun laws originating as racist Jim Crow Laws).
So, in short, let me make this suggestion. Instead of labeling the anti-gun fanatics as “gun-grabbers” or “hoplophobes” or “firearm-prohibitionists”, let’s “cut-to-the-chase” and label them for what they are, and for what they are trying to do to us. They are trying to disarm us so as to enslave us and, so, let’s call them: SLAVERS. This word has the emotional impact that we need to counter the propaganda and the lies of the Left!
TN_MAN: “Slavers” is a good term.
I have long phrased anti-gun folks as “anti-freedom,” instead, after pointing out — often repeatedly — that the people who would ban and seize our firearms, are nearly always the same people who get offended at certain words we use (i.e. “Hate Speech”); have a serious ideological problem with Due Process; find “Stop and Frisk” laws and warrant-less searches appealing; think churches preaching the Gospel are part of the problem; and would sentence everyone with opinions they don’t like to forced labor, endless imprisonment, social ostracization, and death.
IOW, it’s not just the 2nd Amendment they don’t like. They regard all 10 approximately equally, whether they admit it or not.
Hence, “anti-rights” and “anti-freedom,” not just “anti-gun.” And since a state of existence with no rights, no freedoms, and no choices is fundamentally no different than slavery, “Slavers” is accurate.
So Trump wouldn’t release the files and then when they finally appeared they were blacked out everywhere to protect democrats?
And including lots of photos of Bill Clinton at events that never had anything to do with Epstein with peoples faces blacked out for no reason, was obviously not to make it appear Clinton was guilty of something?
@ nicholas kane – “….make it appear Clinton was guilty of something?”
If the shoe fits…Please see this news story:
https://news.meaww.com/doj-releases-latest-epstein-files-featuring-bill-clinton-in-blue-dress-painting
And a quote from the above article:
Quote of the Day:
“The newly released files included an image of a painting depicting Clinton in a blue dress. Titled Parsing Bill, the 2012 painting by Australian-American artist Petrina Ryan-Kleid was displayed in Epstein’s New York residence.”
Doesn’t “Slick” Willie look so, so, so “cute” in his pretty blue dress? 🙂
P.S. – Did Epstein have any portraits of Prince Andrew hanging around, I wonder? Curious minds want to know! 🙂
A PAINTING of Bill Clinton in a dress? Not a photo you notice; since it never happened.
I’m dropping out of this thread. You are just making a fool of yourself. The republicans release massively redacted files, they have removed all refererences to themselves from, but left any references to the Democrats and you think it proves the Democrats are the ones with something to hide?
The Trump administration has had the Epstein files for 10 months. Where are the prosections of the Democrats?
But this is a good time of the year to concentrate on what we agree on:
Gun and knife bans don’t work.
We’ll soon look back at the ‘war on drugs’ like we do prohibition. Well meaning, but simply can’t work.
Even if every gun in the world dissapeared. No one who thinks about it for a moment believes one couldn’t inflict worse casualties with a car, or a few jerry cans of petrol.
Hopefully we’ll soon regard gun bans like prohibition too.
njk
nicholas kane wrote – “Even if every gun in the world disappeared. No one who thinks about it for a moment believes one couldn’t inflict worse casualties with a car, or a few jerry cans of petrol.
Hopefully we’ll soon regard gun bans like prohibition too.”
Once again, we are in agreement. The entire concept of “Prohibition”, whether it be for alcohol, narcotics, firearms, or anything else, is flawed. Human behavior cannot be regulated by banning access to items in the environment. It must be done by other means.
As you note, even if every gun in the World magically disappeared, it would not stop violence. It is a fact, which people resist acknowledging, that the World was much more violent PRIOR to the invention of firearms. The World has grown LESS VIOLENT since firearms were invented and they came into widespread use.
Indeed, Author Steven Pinker has written a book that documents this reduction in violence. See this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature
Of course, there are many factors, beyond the invention of firearms, that have contributed to this gradual reduction in violence over the last few millennia. Steven Pinker does a good job cataloging many of these factors in his book.
However, my point (in some of my comments above) was that firearms-prohibition, and disarmament, actually increases crime, instability, civil discord, and contributes to a general loss of Rights and Freedom in human populations.
In any event, let us end our discussion on a positive note and with agreement that Prohibition is a flawed concept.
Merry Christmas! 🙂
Quote of the Day:
Luke 2:14 – “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”