Liberals Always Push It Too Far

The Mighty Ann Coulter reports on last Friday's shootings in a New York hospital and you'll be shocked to hear just why the MSM told us more about the gun used than the actual killer.

Of course, when I say 'shocked' I mean for certain values of 'shocked', obviously. Clue Number Two was the absence of pretentious MSM think pieces about what these shootings say about Trump's America. Or, indeed, any reporting at all after the first six hours.

You need to read Ann to find out what's really going on:

There are mental illness shootings, gangland shootings, still-angry-about-the-divorce shootings and so on. Some immigrant murderers are mentally ill or criminals -- thanks to our excellent and extremely rigorous vetting system! But there are enough like Mr. Obotetukudo to qualify as their own category: the Disappointed Immigrant mass shootings.

The usual elements are: 1) immigrants from wildly different cultures, who have 2) unrealistic expectations about what their lives should be like in the U.S., combined with 3) an inability to achieve success in the U.S., and 4) a failure to grasp our customs -- often, even our language, typically marked by 5) a particular rage at women.

The same way girls from the Midwest come to New York City expecting to live like Carrie Bradshaw in "Sex and the City" (she was paying $700 a month for a $2,700 per month apartment, plus $40,000 on shoes), some immigrants seem to expect their lives in the U.S. to be like something out of "Dynasty."

And if all that is starting to sound a little familiar, here's the next line:

Bello, for example, declared bankruptcy in 2000 -- from one of the priciest towns in the world, Santa Barbara, California.

Zut alors! An entitled immigrant who believes it's his right to live in some of the world's priciest property, despite being completely incapable of paying for it himself? Who'd believe such a thing?

Expect the BBC to run a sob sister documentary on this guy in the next few months. 

Meanwhile, closer to home, the left has been so convinced that the Grenfell residents are the baby seals to end all baby seals, that they've lost all contact with reality. The left has managed to throw away any political capital they might have gained by filling the airwaves 24/7 with illegal immigrants raging in broken English about how angry they are that they might have to move to Camden or Hackney. 

Sauce For The Goose...

Don't be shocked, but the people who are freaked out by the idea that a country GP might want to own a target pistol think maniacs with guns are just loveable jack-the-lads.

Personally, I loved the bit where he claimed the family had no experience of the legal process.

Yeah, I'll bet.

 Not that it isn't always fun to see a member of the predator class whine about how they've lost their faith in the legal system, but I'm noticing a certain double standard here. The Scumbag In Question talks a lot about the truth, but never gets around to dealing with any actual 'facts'. You have to look elsewhere to see what they're really pushing:

In the months after his death Mr Duggan's family, along with the police and MPs, received an anonymous letter claiming Mr Duggan had been set up. Mr Underwood said: "That letter alleged that a Trident officer had hatched a plan with an informant to arrange for Mark Duggan to pick up the gun from Kevin Hutchinson-Foster. "The allegation was that the informant said he could persuade Mark Duggan to pick up the gun and then the police could catch him. "What the letter goes on to suggest was that that would lead to Mr Duggan being shot dead as anything less than doing that would reveal the identity of the informant."

He was set up by being forced to carry a illegal fire arm round with him. Hey, it could happen to anyone. Who hasn't been visiting a friend and had them say 'if you're going down town, can you drop this uzi off for me'?

 Still, since the Guardian is apparently taking seriously anonymous letters alleging huge conspiracies (which may or may not have copied in Messers Sue, Grabbit & Runne), I guess that means they can't really dispute intelligence reports so specific they even named the firearms supplier?

I mean, that is kind of the issue here: the utterly demented nature of the modern left, which wants us to believe any old nonsense put out there by violent thugs but disregard anything from anyone who might conceivably vote conservative.

Meanwhile, in related news, no one from this family has yet been offered a column in the Guardian.

When You've Lost Pompous. Whiny, Hysterics, You've Lost....

Not very much really.

There may be universes where this would be a problem...but this isn't one of them.

Confirmed: Hoplophobia *Is* A Form Of Insanity

Police take on the menace of fifty-something World War II re-enactors....

Hey, why does that sound familiar?

Mayor: Drebin, I don't want any more trouble like you had last year on the southside. Understand? That's my policy.
Frank: Yes. Well, when I see 5 weirdos dressed in togas stabbing a guy in the middle of the park in full view of 100 people, I shoot the bastards. That's my policy.
Mayor: That was a Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar, you moron! You killed 5 actors! Good ones!

Still, it strikes me that it's a lot of messing around about supposed weapons that are as expensive as hell, but also completely useless and can't even be fired.... kind of like the average cop.

One key difference between World War II re-enactors and cops: the re-enactors are only pretending to be jackbooted thugs.

Re-enactors Vs Cops, sort of like National Socialists Vs Nationalised Socialists.

The jokes write themselves, but the key points are this: a car as a public place? Does that mean the council will someone round to clean it for you then?

Plus, what's with the police's position? The gun that's no longer actually a gun was so dangerous it had to be destroyed, but only after this guy refused to be bullied into accepting a caution on a bogus charge. In other words, the gun TNLAAG was never a threat in the first place, the filth wanted to destroy historical artifacts purely as an act of petty spite and vengance. Like Julie says, at this point what exactly is the difference between these guys and private-sector gangs?

Cutting their budget isn't enough: they deserve an ASBO.

Phat Phraud Phails Physics

Obese fabulist Martin Samuels took time out from his busy schedule of making stuff up about attractive women to prove once and for all what we always suspected about hoplophobes:

Clearly, [Ashley Cole] attracts all manner of trouble on too many occasions to be blameless, but to allow any fool to own a firearm that can blind, maim or, if the most unfortunate circumstances combine, even kill is an accident waiting to happen.

Curiously enough though, even plenty of fools understand the difference between a firearm and an air rifle. And no, the law doesn't recognise the concept of 'close enough for government work'.

Yep, I know what you're thinking: he isn't really that clueless, he's just hoping his readers are so he can rile them up with the idea of ethic gentlemen rampaging round the Home Counties with AK47s, but no - he really is that stupid:

There should have to be justification for possession, even for air rifles, because there are a lot of idiots out there and the less access they are given to explosive devices the better for us all.

Anyone who says something that stupid deserves to shot repeatedly with a pellet gun until they can name what exactly the explosive is in an air rifle. Either that or they can explain why a country GP shouldn't be allowed to own an air rifle but the right of a fat fraud to publish bigoted rubbish is a vital bulwark against tyranny.

The Raoul Moat of Chelsea

Old and Busted: Barrister Mark Saunders was murdered by a police death squad for no reason at all.

The New Hotness: OK, maybe he was a violent drunk with a loaded weapon, but cops still suck

See, it's true - the rich are different. If this case had happened on a sink estate in Liverpool or Glasgow, he'd be 'Mark, who'? If only Raoul Moat had some blue blood, the press would be covering his musical choices too. 

Admittedly, there is a certain entertainment to be had in listening to the full range of chav scum clichés being trotted out by a bunch of pampered Metropolitan snobs, but screechy entitlement isn't attractive in any accent More to the point, after months of industrial-scale sliming by Saunder's charming family, we now find out that the Five-oh tried all but witch craft to avoid one of DI Drake's 'fatal outcomes'.

Then again, the rich might be different, but cop haters are all the same. They've got a new line of attack: they might not be able to actually prove the cops did anything wrong, but they should be allowed to slime individual officers anyway.

Actually, it's even better than that:

It's a cliche, but it is true: justice needs to be done and it needs to be seen to be done

Hello? We're having a whole inquest right here. We know exactly what everyone of the cops was doing during the siege.

It's precisely because the cop-hating freaks have come up empty that they now need to resort to trying to find out if Officer Brown is into the gay BDSM scene, Officer Smith has a cousin in jail or Officer Anderson's ex-wife thinks he's an absolute scumbag.

So for those of you keeping score at home: revealing the identities of convicted paedophiles in a given area leads to mob rule, but revealing the identities of police officers is a vital pillar of democracy.

Meanwhile, does this work both ways? In the spirit of openness, shouldn't activist weenies like Graef be forced to account for themselves? I don't have any solid 'evidence' that this guy has sex with farmyard animals, but I think his failure to account for his every waking minute over the last twenty years speaks for itself, right?

As it happens, it's a vital feature of not just British law, but all civilised jurisdictions, that you can only be charged with a specific crime, at a specific time. You can't be charged with being the type of dubious character who probably commits some kind of crime or other. To the point, Roger 'chicken shagger' Graef's sleazy suggestion that justice requires the personal lives of private citizens to be torn apart isn't just absurd, it's entirely lawless. The police officers concerned were either acting lawfully in this particular incident, or they were not, and no amount of shady sex games in their past will change that.

Still, I'm getting the hen humper's not really a guy for those tricky 'guilty/innocent' distinctions. In fact, I'm kind of seeing a theme running through his whole article:

These officers need to be held accountable - by name

Hey, isn't it strange how it's always the right-on libs who are ready to throw the whole 'due process' thing overboard when they want to victimise someone?

No, not really. Liberals are scum. What was I thinking?

Anyway, back to Rogering the livestock Graef:

The Government proposes to expand the use of restorative justice, in which offenders and victims meet to discuss the impact of the crime far beyond the rules of court....

In the case of this inquest, they should meet the friends and family of Mark Saunders and explain to them what they did and why they behaved as they did - and, most of all, hear first- hand the impact their actions have had.

Do you see what he did there? Not only have the officers concerned not been so much as charged with any offences, the repulsive Saunders clan are only victims in so far as one of their number suffered from the delusion that their power and privilege extended so far as to allow him to aim a loaded weapon at a police officer without consequences.

All of which means this is bunk:

Lawyers have always worried about such meetings, arguing that the police might feel obliged to apologise - and thereby open themselves up to litigation.

But I believe there should be qualified apologies, in which legal liability is set aside.

Apologise for what exactly? Exercising their common law right as citizens to use reasonable force to protect themselves? That's all they did - no magic police powers required. If a maniac points a loaded shotgun at you, you're quite within your rights to shoot them with your pistol - or, at least you could if you had a pistol, but somehow I don't see the left using this case to push 'concealed carry'.

Still and all, our friend from the hen house does a fine job of summing up the fraudulent nature of all the left's talk of justice. Their definition of justice is simply a vision of the courts as another venue to pursue class enemies. If the courts can't perform, then mob rule and smears will do just  fine.

More on the Ground Zero Victory Mosque

This is exactly right:

It would never even occur to me, or any decent person, to erect a Museum of American Achievements in Aviation in Hiroshima.

This is not a joke -- I am not saying a museum celebrating the bomb. I am saying a museum that does exactly as I said -- notes American achievements in aviation. Not the Enola Gay, but the Wright Brothers, etc.

The museum I am talking about, hypothetically, would not be baiting, nor celebratory of the bomb, in the least. It would just be a museum of American advancements in aviation.

But of course no sentient being could possibly fail to see how Japanese would take it as a direct provocation, and a nasty reminder of the bomb that fell on Hiroshima 6 August 1945.

And if I were so stupid, tasteless, and Asperger's-afflicted to have suggested such a museum in the first place, if Japanese then told me "That brings up horrifying memories," I wouldn't then arrogantly double-down and begin explaining to them how intolerant they're being, how irrational they're being, how unfair to my enthusiasm for American airpower they're being.

All of which set me think about respected documentary maker and marathon runner Michael Moore.

Hey, wasn't fatty hailed as a hero after slamming Charlton Heston for holding a supposedly triumphalist NRA rally in Colorado soon after Columbine? Why, yes, and never mind that state law required the NRA to hold an annual meeting and that the whole 'rally' thing was kind of.... Mooresque.

Today's 'Only Highly-Trained Employees Of The State Can Be Trusted With Firearms' Stories

Reason Number 256 why only certified state employees can handle guns: us proles can't be trusted to keep them safe & secure.

On the plus side, at least in that case no one got shot. Like JulieM says, even folks who've never so much as handled a .22 know that a) all weapons are always loaded, b) never point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot and c) only touch the trigger to fire. Highly-trained firearms officer? The average Army cadet knows better than that.

Guns Don't Kill People, MSM Witch Hunts Kill People

Thinking further about the possible role of Indian hoplophobia in the Mumbai massacre,it occurs to me that this battle not only debunks the supposed dangers of lax gun laws, it also exposes another favourite myth of the hoplophobes.

These people assure us that the public doesn't need to be able to defend themselves because, just as soon as the first shot is fired, professional law enforcers will descend upon the felon and bring him to justice. That would be questionable merely from first principles, but there's something deeper going on there. Allegedly supa-smart police managers to the contrary, you can't produce skilled firearms officers in a basically hoplophobic culture.

There's the obvious problem that in such a culture, firearms teams are going to suffer from shortages of both resources and talented personnel, simply through being treated as the mad woman in the attic of policing. More than that though, there's the fact the culture, both inside and outside the police, does not support the kind of aggressive action that's required to successfully deal with heavily-armed felons. To put it another way, consider the apparently bizarre news that many Indian police officers ended the day carrying as much ammo as they started with. Just why did they not even fire a shot?

Well, here's one answer. Turns out the police were already being raked over the coals for a shooting which the hipsterinders had deemed to be unnecessary, and so....

Wait, that seems familiar somehow. Say, anyone know if they're making a film about Rahul Raj?

No, wait: he doesn't qualify for the full hagiography - he had a right to be in India and wasn't a professional fraudster.

I guess we're back where we came in. Just as the MSM and the rest of the moral dyslexics carefully tot up crimes involving legally-held guns, but never those where available weapons would have helped save lives, so we will never, ever, see anyone in the MSM ask whether or not the deranged cop hatred and knee jerk hoplophobia amongst their colleagues contributed to the body count in Mumbai.

Question D'Jour

In so far as the MSM insists that just about every act of violence in the US is down to lax gun laws, can we now put the slaughter of hundreds of people by less than a footy teams worth of Islamonuts down to India's lack of a Second Amendment?

Outrage D'Jour

I could almost take liberals' deranged hoplophobia, if only it was matched with a desire to punish the folks who actually use guns. But no: every handgun in the country gets melted down, but this guy will be out in time for the next Olympics.

Today's Inspiring Afirmative Action Post

Remember, they're trusted with guns while you're not because they're highly-trained professionals.

Hoplophobes In Hell

OK, now can we say these people are crazy?

The Fish Rots From The Head

You really can't spend too long slamming chavs, but let's not confuse symptoms with causes. Our cultural death spiral started on the nice side of town, as this piece of garbage clearly demonstrates. Key quote:

He was a distressed young man who loved his wife and was having a crisis. This was a cry for help that was ignored.

See, the rich are different! If it had been an painter and decorator shot while blazing away at passers-by, we wouldn't have had any of this.

For the record: a cry for help is where you shout 'Help!' and the various statutes dealing with shooting up the town do not include any references as to whether or not the sniper in question loves his wife.

It gets better:

She describes the police negotiator, believed to be operating from a flat roof nearby, as ‘bland’.

She adds: ‘The negotiation, in my opinion, was very controlled, very slow, very boring. Maybe they have a way of negotiating, but I felt there was no ability to see what had gone wrong that day.’

Yep, the negotiations were kind of dull.

You know what they needed? A comedian. Some one to warm the crowd up with a few jokes, then maybe a singer.

Who knew flogging over-priced footwear gave you so much insight into the psychology of gunmen ?

Oh - there's this too:

Mrs Winkworth, who owns the freehold to the Saunders’ property, was dismayed that her suggestions to rectify the situation were disregarded.

Here's a little thought experiment: what do you think would happen if you dialled up her office and claimed that orange wellingtons were next season's must have? Do you think she might ignore your suggestions?

Hey, I know the police are 'public servants' and all, but that doesn't mean they'll fetch you a drink, do your laundry or break sieges to order.

The old aristocracy get a lot of stick but at least they had a sense of obligation to the country that had given them so much. All you need to know about the collapse of British civilisation is contained in the long journey from young aristocrats setting off for the Somme to our new elite demanding that people like them not be held to the same laws as the little people.

Been There, Done That

Laban wonders whether the Tory policy of compulsory sentences for 'knife crime' - whatever that actually means - would lead to police and CPS hassling easy targets while the real maniacs slide (see 'gun crime' for further details).

Actually, I think Laban is dead wrong. These people don't need any encouragement to do that, Operation Harass The Law-Abiding is already in progress, check out this and this for example.

Steyn D'Jour

A great obit for a genuine movie star, plus this:

One notes that, for all the apocalyptic nightmares over ever deadlier technology, the great slaughters of our age – Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo, Darfur – have all been low-tech affairs. Yet no one ever proposes “machete control”.

We're All Evil

Yep, this was pretty much my response to this story too.

Actually, it did give me pause for thought - isn't it normally the degenerates on the left that go in for blood dancing ? Shouldn't some things be above politics ?

Well, yes, they should, but it's people like Regan who decided personal tragedy is fair game for politics in the first place. To paraphrase Ann Coulter, if the case for gun control is so strong, how come it's never made by someone we can answer back to ?

Regan ruthlessly exploited her victim status to advance some truly vile positions, for example casting country doctors who like to blow off steam by shooting a few clays as slathering, homicidal maniacs. That would have been objectionable enough at the best of times, but consider just who her son actually was....

Or rather don't - the BBC omits his background from its report. You have to know to click on the supporting links to find out the real story:

When Danny Regan was shot dead a few days before Christmas in 2002, he was not mourned by many beyond his close family and friends.

After all he was a drug dealer who carried a gun and wore a bullet-proof vest because of the treacherous circles he moved in.

He wasn't a victim of gun crime, he was gun crime!

Hey, if having guns on the street mean people like this get shot, let's give glocks away free in cornflake packets. Cruel ? No - just making a point. It was already illegal for the 'victim' to have a firearm - and no one is seriously suggesting that it should ever be legal for a piece of slime like him to own a gun - but that didn't stop a known drug dealer from obtaining an illegal firearm. The only thing the death of Danny Regan says about gun control is that it doesn't work.

Equally, for all that Regan and her fellow hags were trying to convince us that suburban school kids on the way to the library were at risk of being gunned down by deranged accountants, just how many of the alleged victims of gun crime turn out to be 'playas' themselves ? Meanwhile, you could harass every GP in the country and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the scumbag classes.

Like JuliaM points out, looking at the Regan family history, guns are not their biggest problem. You couldn't have a better metaphor for everything that wrong with modern Britain than the matriarch of a clan of dysfunctional lunatics being hailed as a courageous truth teller for defaming tens of thousands of law-abiding professionals who just like to shoot at the weekend.

Anti-Military Smears 'Common' At The BBC

Speaking personally, nothing says 'reliable' like the unsupported testimony of a pair of convicted felons.

I guess those multiple layers of fact-checking aren't so important after all ? Oops - my mistake: the BBC did check with both the MoD and the Association of Chief Police Officers - both of which rejected these claims.

So, for those of you keeping score, on the one hand we have two convicted criminals claiming 'everyone does it', and on the other flat-out denials from the relevant bodies. And this is what the BBC considers a verified story ?

But don't say they don't support the troops...


UPDATE;

OK, I've been asked in the comments why I'd believe anything from ACPO ? Answer: 99.9% of the time I wouldn't, but as well as being lefty hacks, they're also the most hoplophobic organisation in the known universe. These are people who think GUUUUUUNS frequently break out of their cabinets and roam the street killing people - I can't believe they'd pass up the chance for more hysteria. On the other hand, the BBC never actually comes out with any evidence for widespread smuggling of guns, except the testimony of the felons in question.

Sure, opportunity probably means that soldiers probably smuggle more guns than, say, the staff at McDonalds, but how common is it ? We don't know - the BBC doesn't say, all it does is put up the convicts' claims up against the rebuttal from the MoD/ACPO as though the level of smuggling was a purely subjective matter: some say 'high', some say 'low', who's to know ? For an organisation that can't seem to use the word 'Muslims' without preceding it with 'vast majority of peace-loving', this lack of context is shameful.

Steyn D'Jour

I think a healthy society needs both God and guns: it benefits from a belief in some kind of higher purpose to life on earth, and it requires a self-reliant citizenry. If you lack either of those twin props, you wind up with today’s Europe — a present-tense Eutopia mired in fatalism.

Exactly - EUtopias greater sofistikaytion is an article of faith even amongst some on the American right, but where's it parked ? What kind of cultural supremacy is it that manifests itself as social collapse ?

Guns Don't Kill People... Novelty Tops Kill People

Does hoplophobia correlate with insanity ? Consider this from the Times (and no, Mr MSM, you don't get off the hook just by blaming someone else):

The £300 Defender hoodie makes the wearer’s upper body invincible to every bullet up to a high velocity rifle, its makers claim.

But if you think the rifle round deflecting clothes are stupid, wait until you see what the professional hoplophobes come up with:

But gun control groups said today that the company was practising “exploitation at its most grotesque”. They predicted a rise in gang violence, saying children would buy the hoodie as a status symbol.

Raymond Stevenson, a spokesman for Don’t Trigger, an international anti-gun campaign based in Brixton, London, said: “It’s not helping kids to provide them with bullet-proof armoury. These companies are just encouraging the escalation of the urban warfare.

Yep, so now we've not only got guns jumping out of the locker and running down the road shooting people, we've now got aggressive clothing making people shoot each other too. Who says the left have issues with personal responsibility ?