Acid attacks are common in the Middle East and Central Asia. Usually targeted at women who reject a man’s advancements or proposal, or shame the family, the are on the rise in even more economically developed countries in the that region of the world, such as Iran and India.
Due to some European policy decisions, London is the acid attack capital of Europe and is at epidemic levels.
Having already banned guns, and nearly outlawed knives, London has to severely limit the sales of acid and other household chemicals to stop these attacks.
Evil, savage people will always figure out how to hurt someone if that is their desire. No amount of bans and restrictions will stop that.
When London has outlawed every weapon, chemical, and sharp or heavy object, these people will turn to eye gouging with their fingers, I guarantee it.
Ever since H. Sapiens appeared on the scene we have invented numerous and diverse ways to kill each other. From big sticks to sharp, pointy blades to H-Bombs, in one sense the advance of technology can be viewed as finding ever more effective way to off ourselves. When firearms were developed, the big change was that physical strength and level of training became less important in determining who wins a violent confrontation.
Ever since governments came in being, these same governments have tried to restrict arms possession by ordinary citizens. Firearms added insult to injury as serfs, peasants, and slaves now had tools that could defeat the elite’s armies without mortgaging their souls to the king, duke or pope. Banning firearms, or a specific class of firearms, will be as effective as such measures have been in the past. In addition to blackmarket firearms, people will turn to the older weapons. Just because a sharp, pointy stone is less efficient than a modern rifle, doesn’t mean it is any less deadly. When one is dead, the method really doesn’t matter.
A free society needs an armed citizenry to occasionally tell the leaders it’s time to f*ck off. The price of this freedom, is that sometimes, crooks, kooks, and evildoers will decide to use those same tools to inflict harm on their fellows. As a responsibly armed citizen, when confronted by an aforementioned bad guy, you at least have a chance of defending yourself.
“…slaves now had tools…” It’s worth remembering that in centuries past, the ceremony of manumission included giving the former slave a sword and a shield, since weapons are the mark of the free man.
Weapons bans are an attempt to go in the reverse direction — to turn free men back into slaves.
I apologize in advance for writing a comment that is COMPLETELY not on the subject of the blurb I’m commenting on. This is actually a comment for Miguel, that should be on his “I quit” post, but cannot be due to the comments being closed.
I know this is going to come off harsh, but I believe it has to be said.
Miguel: YOU built this blog. It was great. It was great for the readers, it was great for you.
J. Kb then was brought in. I noticed from the beginning that he wrote stuff that polarized your audience (and on top of that, that I didn’t think was super high quality either).
I also can’t help but notice that in these late times where you’ve received so much flak that the articles that created these incidences were written by J. Kb as well…bits about trading rights for rights, about calling all catholics anti-semites, etc.
I know your frustration…but I’d appreciate it if you’d consider the opposite of what you’re doing. Instead of handing the blog fully over to J. Kb, get rid of J. Kb and go back to just doing the blog yourself.
It’ll be better for the readers, and better for you.
P.S. Sorry J. Kb. I don’t hate you, I just don’t think you were very good for this blog. Miguel was the one with the talent to build this kind of audience, and I think you played a big part in tearing it down. I just have to call it like I see it. If Miguel disagrees…well, then I guess at least I said my piece.
So you saying I fucked up because I was the one that invited & blessed J. Kb. to write here.
Then I must also catch the flak.Right?
Yes, I do believe it was a mistake. They happen.
About catching the flak and whether you deserve it…I don’t know and I don’t care. I’m not talking about who deserves what. I’m just talking about recognizing a problem and fixing it.
I’m a Marine and a business owner. This sort of stuff is not a personal thing to me. It’s just a matter of recognizing what’s fucked up and fixing it. I don’t necessarily expect you to take my opinion to heart, but it’s at least worth offering it.
Yes, I do believe it was a mistake. They happen.
Well, I don’t believe it was a mistake… scratch that, I know I did not make a mistake. I did not bring J. Kb. because he writes like me (I already do that) but because I like what he used to post in the comments and I thought I’d be honored to have him as writer in my blog. My initial assessment has been confirmed over and over.
Since he cam over, J. Kb. has posted 637 times and only once we have coincided on the same subject under the same view. That right there is confirmation that I did the right thing.
I was not looking for a Mini-Me.
The subject is closed.
Within his first few posts I complained about his polarizing statements to you. You pretty much told me back then the same thing then as you’re telling me now.
I respected your wishes then, leaving it alone, only bringing it up again when I felt truly compelled to by the situation. And I’ll do the same again now.
It’s your blog, and I respect that. I gave you my opinion, and you listened and even responded. That is all I hoped for, and I thank you for doing so. Your opinion differs, and that’s your right and your business. I don’t agree with it, but it’s not your job to agree with me.
You won’t hear about it again.
Exactly what part of subject closed was not clear?
For what it’s worth, I think you guys have both brought a lot to this blog. Miguel, you’ll be missed. Remember that most of the NRA haters posting on the internet probably aren’t NRA members anyway. It’s easier to complain online than it is to get involved and support pro-gun organizations. Plus who knows, some of the complainers could be paid trolls. Wouldn’t be the first time the anti’s have attempted such thing.
Proud NRA Endowment Life Member here. All the best to you.
Ouch….
Trying to restrain myself, but I just can’t. Yes, Miguel built this blog; therefore, he can decide if or when to quit, or even to end the blog altogether. He doesn’t work for us and we shouldn’t ask him to continue running this blog if he no longer enjoys it.
As for J., I actually enjoy his posts, he brings a unique perspective to the blog and I think GFZ is in good hands. I don’t always agree with every thing said or done by fellow POTG (Hell, sometimes I don’t even agree with myself) but I do enjoy reading everyone else opinions. So let Miguel do what he wants to do, and if you can no longer stomach J., then you don’t have to follow him. (Asbestos undies in place).
I told Miguel I wouldn’t harp on him on the subject once he made his decision, and I won’t.
But I will defend myself from poorly read misinterpretations of my statements on the subject.
1) I specifically told Miguel that if he disagrees than that’s his prerogative. I never at any point told him what he had to do, only that it was my opinion and that I was saying my piece on it. I ASKED him if he’d consider an alternative. Do not paint it like me treating him like he “works for us”. Never friggin’ happened.
2) I never said I don’t like varying viewpoints. My accusation was one of being purposefully polarizing. These are different concepts. Miguel disagrees, and I respect that. It’s over. He heard me out, and made his decision on what I said. But that doesn’t mean it’s okay to mischaracterize what I originally said.
3) I did not ask him to run a blog without enjoying it. I pointed out what I believe was a large factor IN him no longer enjoying it. Regardles of whether I’m right or wrong, the intent of the action is to help, not make demands. Again, he disagrees with my assessment and that’s all there is to be said. In fact, I hope he’s right and I’m wrong. But do not mischaracterize what was said nor its intent. I never at any point told him he should run a blog without enjoying it.
The matter is closed and the judgement went against my opinion. There’s no need to mischaracterize my intent on it though.