Delusional Guardian Op-Ed Writer Plots Fantasy Invasion of U.S.A., Under Guise of ‘Humanitarian Emergency’, Begs U.N. Support

I am very upset that individuals legally own firearms, the state doesn't have a total monopoly on force, and recommend intervention to disarm America

I am very upset that American individuals own firearms. The state should have a monopoly on force. I recommend an intervention to disarm Americans

American gun use is out of control. Shouldn’t the world intervene?

Perhaps still upset by the anti-Monarchial outcome of the Revolutionary War, in a breathlessly-sincere royal snit fit, The Guardian Observer’s Henry Porter reveals how deeply alarmed he is about America’s out-of-control “gun” problem, and calls upon civilized world powers to mount an intervention!  ‘America, come to your senses, and impose much stricter gun-control measures! ‘ appears to be his prescription. Even though the evidence proves stricter gun control laws don’t work, they don’t reduce murder rates, and in fact may increase violent crime rates–or as Cam Edwards said:  “If gun control laws worked, Chicago would be Mayberry“–alas, the former colonists are just a little too wild for Porter’s delicate sensibliites. Using the same misleading statistics all pro-control activists like to repeat, Porter whips up a righteous fury.

Revealingly, Porter’s original article mistakenly said that Edward Kennedy was shot in 1968. This has since been corrected. If this is any indication of the author’s grasp of basic historical facts, the reader will know what to expect. We hope some of his other errors are corrected soon, too.

Example: reference to this studyhigh gun ownership makes countries less safe, study finds” — but when you get to the conclusion, it weasels out with “Although correlation is not the same as causation, it seems conceivable that abundant gun availability facilitates firearm-related deaths…” (note: studies such as this intentionally make no distinction between homicides and suicides, masking them beneath the singular term “gun deaths’, to enable the less observant reader to more easily conclude that each death represents a violent murder) Perhaps Porter should take note of the more recent Harvard Gun Study, which, like all credible studies on the subject, concludes that Gun Bans Don’t Reduce the Murder Rate

Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates. (yes, we’re talking about murder rates, not “gun deaths”) The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world.  ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”

Further, the report cited, “the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism.”  (Meaning, it’s not guns that kill people. People kill people.) Legal gun ownership suppresses violent crime. Where legal gun ownership by individuals is not permitted, violent crime is higher.  Example: In gun-controlled England, violent crime is three times what it is in the U.S.

 violent crime rises as gun ownership falls.

Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high.  In fact, the murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the “gun-ridden” United States, cites the study. ”Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” In other words, the elimination of guns does not eliminate murder, and in the case of gun-controlled Russia, murder rates are quite high.

The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates. Contrast that with Luxembourg, “where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.

 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.  You can read it here

5 Comments on “Delusional Guardian Op-Ed Writer Plots Fantasy Invasion of U.S.A., Under Guise of ‘Humanitarian Emergency’, Begs U.N. Support”

  1. Brittius says:

    Reblogged this on and commented:
    All of the nice work of the Guardian, just blown to hell and down the crapper by the Opinion Editor of the Guardian, Henry Porter. Sad. Very sad, indeed. Bad Luck, old man.

  2. Brittius says:

    I take it, that Porter never received the Memo. In America, the 3% say something to the effect that, Blue Helmets will be shot on sight. At least, that is what I have heard repeatedly since late December of 2012, until now. I believe that it is true.

    • The Butcher says:

      Elaborate on “blue helmets”?

      • Brittius says:

        United Nations troops. During the previous gun control attempts by the US Congress and the president, it had been raised as an issue that if there ever was to be a Second Revolution or something of that nature, UN troops would garrison the United States and serve as an occupying force invited by the current occupant of the Oval Office. Many online sites indicated that any UN or foreign troops garrisoned within the United States would be shot on sight. I believe that it was truthfully said by many.
        You followed the previous attack on the Second Amendment?

  3. […] Guardian Op-Ed Writer Plots Fantasy Invasion of U.S.A., Under Guise of ‘Humanitarian Emergency… ( […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.