Home | About | Donate

Guns-Déjà Vu


Guns-Déjà Vu

Christopher Brauchli

Such as do build their faith upon the holy text of pike

and gun.

—Samuel Butler, Hudibras

That loud sighing sound you heard after the San Bernardino shooting was a collective sigh of relief from guns of all sorts from all over the United States. And for good reason. Each time the mass slaughter of U.S. citizens occurs, the guns worry that someone will remember Australia and Scotland and suggest that the United States should do what those countries did after mass shootings.


It's not just the NRA, it's also the huge number of ammosexuals in this country who worship at the altar of guns and bullets. The politicians pander and cater to these gun nuts who value their guns more than they value human life. It's sick.


"They might feel safer if Congress did something about guns. It never will."

If Congress will never do something about guns, how do we defend ourselves from maniacs with guns?


And the killing would never have happened if senior cops had heeded the repeated pleas of the beat cop to have the social sent round to vet Mr. Hamilton for care. He was losing his mind because he was sexually attracted to children and couldn't bear it. But the senior cops did nothing, so Mr Hamilton finally snapped, killed the 16 kids and the teacher, and after realising what he'd done, killed himself too.

The tragedy would never have taken place had those senior cops done their jobs. Mr Hamilton would have been taken into care to decompress, and the kids and teacher would still be alive today.

Did those senior cops get so much as a bollocking? No, they didn't. Strange, that. Or maybe not.

That's the part of the story that Mr Brauchli didn't see fit to tell because it doesn't fit his agenda.


I think it's useful to think of the places where mass shootings have recently occurred because they are places normally associated WITH safety:

  1. Movie theater
  2. Church
  3. School
  4. Shopping mall
  5. Post office

Since the NRA is the domestic arm of the MIC and both gain their raison d'etre from selling dangerous things that they brand as necessary tools of security and safety, the FACT that weapons produce the opposite can never be honestly discussed.

Instead, notions of freedom that make about as much sense as free trade, are applied to The Gun.

I believe that the same interests that make careers in the military or at weapons-producing firms WANT Americans to feel unsafe. By spreading a climate of "it could happen anywhere," they can of course sell more weapons; but more than that, such an atmosphere erodes trust and it also induces a form of paranoia.

It's no longer the sign of a Paranoid to think they may be spied on, their phone conversations listened in on, or their movements tracked.

Nor is it anything but rendered necessary for people to feel suspicious now wherever they go.

Just as Naomi Klein pointed out in The Shock Doctrine's brilliant thesis, when there is chaos, special interests can move in to exploit---or capitalize upon the problem; in parallel, the nation pumped up with fear over the possibility that violent gunfire can break out anywhere essentially sets up a population more willing to seek security from those who ARE armed (and yes, dangerous).

The problem is created in order to justify yet greater policing powers along with the pervasive presence of yet more armed guards.

It's Mars' rules recipe for insanity... creating a state of lock-down described as freedom.

"David Gergen, a former advisor to four presidents, commented on the San Bernardino massacre. He told the New York Times that a fear exists among the public that has not been seen since 9/11. He said: “I talk to people who worry that they will be shot on the streets of New York.”



By the way, I do believe that it is a foregone conclusion that the powers-that-be will inevitably make firearms possession illegal. Accordingly, such weapons will necessarily have to be confiscated on a mass scale. I am substantially certain that there already exists a plethora of think-tank simulations, analyses and methodologies concerning how to accomplish such a goal.

I wonder what sort of catalyst(s) will effect such drastic measures.

If history is any example, and certain patterns do repeat themselves, then, I suspect it will probably be a classic example of the Hegelian Dialectic: problem->reaction->solution (thesis->anti-thesis->synthesis). .After all, It is a great way to persuade the citizenry to accept something that actually may not be in their best interest.


Good luck with that. Apparently gun ownership in the US is about 35%. That's about 100 million. Let's say 90% of those will give them up willingly. 10 million left. Total US armed forces personnel is about 1.5 million. That includes cooks and clerks. Plus i still have to meet a US army soldier or marine that is gonna open fire on another US citizen because he doesn't wanna give give up his guns as the government ordered. Never gonna happen.


List of 16 mass shootings stopped by Armed Citizens


Look up LtCdr Ernest Cunningham and the "Combat Arms Survey" he did at 29Palms Marine Base. There's an interview here (I've not yet watched it) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-APgs165w0

The last question on his survey was

About 1 Marine in 4 said that he would fire on US citizens who refused to turn over their guns.


One can look outside of the USA and find ready examples of how the cult of the gun and by extension the embrace of violence as a social value, leads inevitably to the loss of human rights and freedoms , and an increase in bigotry and racism and sexism.

Those pictures I linked to showing Afghan women in the 1960's , attending schools and dressed in modern dress, were all the gradual result of a Country that had known years of relative peace.

All of those gains were lost when the so called "freedom fighters" showed up with their guns.

The USA sees a regression in rights and liberties as well and the religious right grows yet bolder in wanting to assert State control over the female body, this as the Government spends yet more money on Guns and violence to "defend freedom and liberty".

Any person with a lick of sense should be able to see that this infatuation with guns and violence does the exact opposite of what the NRA claims those guns needed for.


See bonus army and existing US military members given orders to attack ex military members and doing so.

See the police many of whom are ex military.

A draftee may be a bit reluctant to fire on fellow citizens. A professional military member where it seen as a "career" will have fewer inhibitions.

Those "professional" military are always more prone to believing that people they ire upon deserve what they are getting.


Unfortunately, the global warming denial and the chemtrail conspiracy injects a bit of doubt in this otherwise good video.


Until the other 3 figure out what's going on.

My point actually was, there's gonna be civil war of some kind. My guess is, it's not gonna end up in gavor of whoever passed that law.


There was an average of two mass shootings a day in the USA last year.

Your list is one of 16 mass shootings claimed to have been stopped by an armed citizenry over a period of twelve years or a little over one a year.

1 out of 700 prevented is not something that suggests having an armed citizenry makes one safer from such.

Other countries have better records of preventing mass shootings as evidenced by the fact they might see one or two in an entire year rather than two a day and those countries do not have to have an armed citizenry to prevent such.


The 112 killed was not total homicides. Those were homicides in mass shootings. There have been no mass shootings I know of since.

The Homicides per year in Australia is closer to 300 in total , 30 of those by firearms. Prior to the gun ban more of those 300 were killed by guns. The trend in total number of Homicides in Australia has been downwars but this is true in many other countries.

They are not saying that there less homicides because of the Gun restrictions. They are saying there less mass killings. very different.


You aren't alone.


Yes I stated Homicide rates go down in many countries which is why people in the States that claim "look more Americans have guns, there less homicides this proves more guns makes you safer" are as wrong as those in Canada that use the lower homicides rates to show gun control works.

People still use fists knives and such to kill others.

I will say this. There are structural differences in the cultures when comparing the USA to other Countries that contribute to that higher homicide rate. One is obviosuly greater wealth inequality. The other is how guns are VIEWED by the public as a whole. People in the USA more then many other countries embrace violence as a positive VALUE that they claim defends thier "rights and liberties". They cite that 2nd amendment and are spoonfed the nonsense about the second amendment when they do so. It is a contributing factor and not a minor one.