We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Brad Pitt on Guns They are all coming out of the woodwork. First we have Bono talking sense about economics, now Brad Pitt talks sense about owning guns.
The Radio Times reports that Pitt doesn’t feel that he and his family are safe unless there is a gun in the house.
“The positive is that my father instilled in me a profound and deep respect for the weapon,” he said.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
There has always been a marked disconnect between what Hollywood actors say on gun control (guns=bad, guns don’t solve anything etc.) and how they earn their living (i.e. portraying characters who are good and carry/use guns, solve problems and settle scores using guns).
Hmmmm…?
You might almost think they were hypocrites, or something.
His wife said something similar a while ago.
http://www.samizdata.net/2008/06/a-famous-hollyw/
Many don’t see the hypocrisy of opposing gun ownership while employing other people to carry guns to protect them.
Uhm. “Talking sense” might not quite be the right choice of words here.
Don’t statistics point in the direction of families actually being less safe with a gun in the house, especially in the kind of neighbourhood Brad Pitt is likely to inhabit?
Those particular statistics have been pretty well exploded. But even if they were true, the function of government (in America) is to protect liberty, not safety.
Children are five times more likely to die in a swimming pool. And there are far more guns than swimming pools.
I still miss Kim du Toit’s blog! Please start it up again Kim.
The voice of reason and knowledge on so many things and a wonderful resource for gun nuts.
Patrick – 2nd the motions !!!
I suspect that even the “gun control” collectivists of California would make an exception for Hollywood royalty such as Mr Pitt.
It is ordinary people they (the Progressives) wish to leave defenceless against armed criminals – such as the well organised gangs (M19 and others) that are coming in with the tide from Latin America.
The goal of the Progressives is to turn the United States into a Third World nation – like Mexico and much of Latin America. Where only the elite, the government (and armed criminal gangs) have firearms – ordinary honest people do not (and thus can be plundered and oppressed with impunity – both by the police and by the gangs).
Paul raises a valid point: the fact that this or that celebrity figure express the desire to own weapons for self protection or actually own them, absolutely does not mean that they support the right of ordinary folk to do the same. I know too many people in my neck of the woods (or rather the sands) who own weapons under a legal permit, but actively resist extending such rights to others. See, only the mature, the responsible and the well-trained (for which, read: ‘folks like us‘) should have permits.
In the case of showbiz figures, they may also justify such special privileges on the basis of their celebrity status, which makes them more vulnerable to various stalkers, intruders and other predators – which may or may not be true. I am not saying that this is where Pitt or others are coming from, but I cannot be sure they are not, either.
If you go by statistics, in America, you’re more likely to (intentionally) kill yourself with a gun than someone else.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/
Runcie, like life and self defense, death is every man’s right.
Runcie: I have no wish to kill anyone else with my guns so that wouldn’t appear to be a problem.
I am not surprised that Pitt said this… he and Angelina Jolie have always been a bit different from the Hollywood image. There are others who are the same, like Clint Eastwood.
It’s rather well known that unless you are a mega-star, you don’t dare let others in Hollywood know you are ‘differently politicized’ than them.
You are probably thinking of the Kellerman studies. For a controversial subject, the Wikipedia article (as seen just now) is actually a pretty good summary of his papers on the issue and the criticisms of his methodology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann
That could make a good Hollywood movie, Dale! Hordes of gun-control zombies homing in on the smell of gun-powder, whilst ignoring stranglers, knifers, knives and slingshots! A wanna-be star moves to Hollywood, only to find that the forces of darkness (P.C. people) are everywhere. Hiding out, he learns to only call on the (Police) Force when trouble occurs, and to hide his true inclinations towards self-defence. He works to free the Western lands from the inside, but eventually becomes just like them..
Gotta work on a better ending….
@Douglas2: Thank you for the link. I was actually not thinking of any specific studies at all, but this was rather interesting.
Do you know of any data that would support Pitt’s position?
(@PersonFromPorlock: Yeah, sure, but that’s not what Pitt’s quote is talking about. He says he feels safer with a gun, and I’m doubting the sensibility of that stance. I’m not talking about government intervention at all.)
Runcie Balspune wrote:
What always intereste me about this statistic is that the suicide rates of the U.S. and the UK are about the same, sitting solidly in the middle of the table. To me, this appears to disprove the idea that availability of firearms has a strong effect on the suicide rate.
Well, Mr. Pitt has always been a “bit” different.
In what way, Ken?
Muriel,
The Pew research unit website is here:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
which is a detailed analysis based on Government figures (detailed near the bottom of the first page).
Scroll to the bottom of the page where you will find links to 10 more pages – there is a summary of what each page covers near the bottom of the first page.
You could “compare and contrast” the situation in the USA between the explosion in gun sales after O’Bummer was elected, the total number of guns in circulation and the reduction in crime (could it be that criminals are actually afraid to ply their trade? Perish the thought!) and the UK where the number of Firearms in private hands is as close to zero as you can get without an outright ban and the tranquil state of the cities and streets.
In short, more firearms = LESS crime. (which is almost the title of John Lott book More Guns, Less Crime).
But as Goebels said “The bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed” and the persistent refrain of “if only guns were banned …” is in stark contrast to reality.
But who are you going to believe? A biased reporter or stinkin’ reality?
@Phil B: This is not quite what I was talking about, and your comparison is, of course, itself so biased it seems to stink a little, but I will happily admit that I need to do more research on this before having an in-depth discussion.
However, I wnder how the article you linked is supposed to bear out your conclusion when it says, for example
as well as
which is in direct contradiction to the relationship you’re claiming. Where do you get this correlation?
Muriel’s BULL. Guns are not responsible for the deaths. Those are irresponsible individuals that kill other people.
Individual responsibility that is a FUNDAMENT of a REAL HUMAN is being systematically destroyed by the DEGENERATE LEFTISTS (and their allies) in their drive to impose TOTALITARIAN COLLECTIVISM on the FREE people.
If you dream about fighting gun-related crimes, FIGHT THE DEGENERATE LEFT.
Bogdan from Australia
Sorry, folks: the blog will never return.
Muriel, the “guns in the home” canard is backed by statistics so profoundly incorrect that I dare not mention them in polite company. But let me just point out one of the flaws: the authors of the study included in their numbers “all family members and acquaintances” of the gun owner, regardless of whether said people lived in the house where the gun was being stored. The reason they did this is that there were so few actual family members harmed by a gun in their own home that it was a statistically insignificant result. (Depending on the area, kitchen knives or baseball bats were more likely than guns to cause injury, and by an exponential factor withal.) Hence the fudging of the numbers.
Oh, and the study also included suicide victims in the numbers, which is not only nonsensical but dishonest.
Please don’t ask me to supply sources to support my argument. Rather find the original report, study it for yourself and see the truth of it, like I did.
But it’s total crap.