http://randomreality.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/6/17/2038047.html

I don't think much of his post, here are my comments in the style of the MSM.

Genocide Avoided By UK Gun Laws

During the early hours of Sunday 18th of June, the “entire Ghanaian nation” peacefully celebrated the victory of their football team over the Czech Republic somewhere in London. Little did they know or appreciate the danger they were in when blogger and paramedic Tom Reynolds returned home from work after “a bugger of a last job”.

He wrote: “A lot of people outside my bedroom window need to be very thankful right now that the UK doesn't let us own guns...”

From reading the article, I have no doubt that but for the strict gun laws a genocidal massacre of the “entire Ghanaian nation” would have ensued. It is clear from the above voluntary admission that if we had less strict gun laws Tom Reynolds would own at least one firearm, along with (obviously) a considerable stockpile of ammunition. Furthermore given the slightest provocation he would have gratuitously used them against innocent men, women and children some of whom were at most merely chatting outside his window. I would stress that at no point in his article is there any threat to Mr Reynolds person and the property right being interfered with is that of quiet enjoyment not his right to possession.

Of course this worrying article raises many questions including:

• Why didn't Mr Reynolds phone the police or get the local authority to deal with the matter like he’s supposed to?
• How can the state employ such an unbalanced individual as a paramedic?
• What would have happened if the “entire Ghanaian nation” instead of choosing London and the UK for their celebration had chosen a country with liberal gun laws such as the USA or Switzerland?
• If having “a bugger of a last job” puts paramedics into this frame of mind, surely they should stay on shift until they get a “good last job”?

I have no idea as to what moral code Mr Reynolds uses in the conduct of his life, he clearly isn’t burdened by Judeo-Christian morality such as “thou shalt not kill”, nor does the prospect of the state handing out a punishment for murder deter him (although with the UK that’s not surprising). If he had no moral code then I could condemn that, but at least he’d be acting in accordance with it; instead he basically tells us that if it were not for the laws banning the legal ownership of firearms then the shooting would have started. The only law that is restraining him (and perhaps others like him) is the law banning him from owning a firearm. I’ve always thought that if you were going to kill someone the last thing you’d be concerned with was whether or not the weapon being used was legally owned; I realise now that doesn’t apply to everyone.

Unsurprisingly Mr Reynolds makes a basic assumption that all his potential targets would remain unarmed once the law changed and he’d be the only armed person there; I can only speculate that if law abiding citizens in the UK could own guns, and shots started to be fired from a bedroom window at a crowd of people some of whom would probably be armed then there might be some return fire involved and the instigator might not long survive.

To return to the matter in hand, it has often been said by gun control advocates “if it saves the life of just one child it will be worth it”. Here at last is positive proof of both the efficacy and value of gun control, as at least thousands of Ghanaian lives and possibly the “entire Ghanaian nation” were saved in London on June 18th 2006 by the UK gun laws.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

# posted by Vote Franco (fdm) @ Friday, June 23, 2006