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]
|
I find this truly inspiring You are probably all aware of the attack in Denmark earlier today by certain advocates of the religion of peace. But this is inspiring stuff:
Danish broadcaster DR: The freedom of speech meeting continued after shooting to send a strong signal to attackers
They had my respect regardless for simply holding the meeting in the first place, but doubly so now.
|
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.
|
Braver than me. But if all you can do is bleed, you’re still losing however brave you are.
“Returned fire with a hail of bullets and rumours are emerging that the attackers’ ears are being passed around as souvenirs” would be my preference, but under the circumstances this is inspiring stuff.
The answer to their demands is NO.
What separates Man from the mere animals is our capacity for rational thought. This requires unimpeded perception and communication and this also requires the acceptance of the actual facts of reality. And the fact is that Allah is a false god and Mohammed is a false prophet and a fundamentally vile (I won’t say Man) individual. But calling Mohammed a walking piece of excrement is an insult to excrement.
(Seriously, I shortly expect The Big Zero here in the United States with his lapdogs in the media to condemn the victims.)
Remind me again: are Danes allowed to own handguns and carry them in public?
@Leslie Bates, “False God” and “False Prophet” are tautologies.
How is that relevant? There were armed police there who returned fire at the attackers. Much as it might not fit the preferred narrative, having lots of other armed people inside the cafe would not have made any difference against a surprise attack like this.
@ Cynwulf
But having aremed passers-by outside might well have made a difference.
…this time. But armed police cannot be everywhere, all the time.
Lest we forget: this is relevant because:
a) the knowledge of the likelihood of armed civilians seems to be a deterrent against attacks like this, for some reason
b) armed civilians in the target populace means less likelihood of mass slaughter, when armed police are not there (see above)
c) better to be killed while returning fire than be killed grovelling on your knees (and if I have to explain why this is preferable, we have nothing further to discuss)
d) FFS: millions of free people walk around carrying guns without malignant consequences.
“False God” and “False Prophet” are tautologies.
Yes, but some folks need a reminder.
I guess there are still a few Vikings left after all.
But “this time” is what this is about. This particular shooting is unlikely to have gone down all that differently if Lars Vilks had been packing a Kalashnikov. I am all for an armed citizenry, but to make this the issue here and now, when clearly the issue is Islamic terrorism, just strikes me a cheap pandering (and in the broader sense I am on your side).
I blame those damn Islamophobic butter cookies.
Until eloi Brits and Euro can have concealed carry you guys are just targets. Even my daughter carries. Some Muslim jerk starts that here in Montana and he’s full of holes in a heartbeat. No police necessary. Protect yourselves, folks. Oh, and by the way, our murder rate is very low. Take a guess why.
Not sure, because your murder rate in Montana is a bit higher than the UK per 100,000.
In the UK, sadly, they wouldn’t have continued their meeting. Instead they would be in custody under the Public Order Act for having caused a breach of the peace.
Lee more is quite incorrect. Such a meeting in the UK would never have been approved in the first place, and there would be at least three articles in The Guardian smugly confirming that such intolerant views have no place in modern Britain.
Sorry, Lee Moore.
Oh, and by the way, our murder rate is very low. Take a guess why.
High ethnic homogeneity?
Agreed Perry.
Denmark is not Sweden (or Britain come to that).
There is more to freedom than low taxes – something that money obsessed old men (such as ME) need to be reminded of.
The Danes clearly value such things as freedom of speech – at least some Danes and to some extent.
They have shown good character.
In 1912 when Britons had the right to keep and bear arms the murder rate was about half what it is now.
Although spree killings were far from unknown. As indeed was political violence e.g. The siege of Sidney Street.
the murder rate was about half what it is now
And back in them olden days all murders were “murder.” Now half of them are called manslaughter, or even not guilty on grounds of diminished responsibility. Never ever trust a government statistic.
Ha Obama actually said:
“Before the Danes get on their high horse let’s recall the many Viking atrocities.”
Or is one of insty’s commenters getting ahead of things?
No, it is not.
Remind me again: are Danes allowed to own handguns and carry them in public?
On the off-chance that it wasn’t rhetorical. Danes are not allowed to own handguns except in the context of a shooting club and they are not allowed to carry at all. Hell, they’re not even allowed to carry knives with locking blades and/or over 3.5″ long – unless in the context of fishing or some such approved activity. But woe unto you, if you’re caught with any forbidden weapon and not on your way to, participating in, or on your way from the approved acitivity.
Unless you’re of “other than Danish ethnicity” (as it’s termed): these residents don’t seem particularly affected by these rules nor the trivial punishments.
In the US, when a state switches from idiotic gun control to concealed carry, violent crime drops. Why?
Well, criminals are pretty stupid, have low IQ’s and vote 90% for Democrats, but if there is a store run by a Peace Activist, Obama supporting Pajama Boy or one where there is a sign in the window that says “Ex-Marine and we are all armed”, which store gets robbed?
Now it might take you people who are not into self defense and would rather have your pro-Muslim, Multi Culti Bobbies to protect you awhile to cogitate on this, but I’ll be nice and give you 100 guesses and the first 99 don’t count.
But those engaged in that crime were not Britons, it seems, but various Lefty exiles from the Russian Empire, giving a foretaste of the violence to come in that cursed land.
Hmm…
“… certain advocates of the religion of peace.”
I refer to them as “Special” advocates.
During the Viet Nam “police action”, there was a popular *sigh* bumper sticker/poster in the US.
“PEACE, through superior firepower”
It was a bit sketchy to actually stick on to your car as “special advocates” from the anti-war crowd would kick in the fenders and run keys (or other) down the length of the paint job, if not spray paint
“helpful” commentary on it.
Now let’s have a look at the instruction manual for “The Religion of Peace” and see if it is not to be considered “hate crime”, as well as “incitement to violence”.
(Granted, a few of the books in my personal library might raise a few eyebrows as well.)
Indeed. It was in no small part due to the fear of these Russian anarchists that immigration controls were introduced in Britain in 1906, followed by gun control in 1920.
@Alisa
> No, it is not.
Actually Alisa, I don’t agree. I think this is a great example of why private ownership of firearms is a good thing in these circumstances. The guy fired off an automatic weapon in a cafe full of people. Cops returned fire and he quickly left. Had such fire never have been returned no doubt the guy would have hung around and massacred many other people. Shame the cops missed, because if they hadn’t the second attack wouldn’t have happened.
Now the fact it was cops that returned fire is rather irrelevant. The point is that men with guns returned fire, and most times armed cops are too far away to help you out.
Although it was dreadful what did happen, surely it is obvious that a guy with a machine gun, a moral superiority, religious immunity, and a room full of helpless victims would make for a lot more than one dead and a few injured were it not for a couple of guys with guns.
@Tim Newman
> Such a meeting in the UK would never have been approved in the first place
That is a terrifying statement, terrifying irrespective of the subject matter of the meeting.
You don’t agree with what, Fraser? Because I happen to agree with you, and have not written anything to the contrary…
@Alisa
>You don’t agree with what, Fraser? Because I happen to agree with you, and have not written anything to the contrary…
I think there is a theme going on here that “private arms would not have prevented this” and that this is somehow an example of the failure. I think you are denying that this somehow undermines the argument for private arms, my point is that we should go one step further, that it is an argument in favor of them. For sure there are situations when private arms would not have made a difference. But this incident perfectly illustrates the effectiveness of having widely distributed weapons in the hands of good people. Just because there was a bad outcome, as unfortunately there was, does not mean that the outcome could have been much worse. Nothing can prevent some bad outcomes, all we can do is prevent bad outcomes becoming even worse.
I don’t doubt you would agree with me, I just think the counter argument was stopping short of this full and important point.