That sound? The collective hand-wringing of thousands who are up-in-arms demanding Obama introduce serious gun legislation in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy. Michael Moore and Piers Morgan began as unofficial poster boys for the action and now Mayor Bloomberg has weighed in, pushing for tighter gun control claiming, "The president and congress can and should address [gun control] at the same time they're reaching an agreement on avoiding the fiscal cliff."
Today, as a hungry pack of demonstrators circled the NRA's Washington HQ, it's looking likely Obama will attack the Second Amendment as the White House promised a comprehensive series of measures including gun control legislation.
I hate guns. I wish they didn't exist. But they do. In the wake of the Connecticut shootings this mass knee-jerk call to impose strict firearm laws is an understandable reaction. Unfortunately it isn't the right one.
If stricter gun control was the solution then cities with stricter gun legislation would be the safest, right? Wrong. Let's look at some facts shall we? Chicago boasts some of the USA's most draconian gun laws but 10 people were shot in Chicago on Friday alone. It's considered 'the deadliest global city' and the murder rate is 25% higher than last year.
Down Under, gun murders rose by 19% and armed robberies by 69% after a gun ban was introduced in 1997.
And thus the story goes.
Prohibition; in whatever form, does not work. It didn't work for alcohol, it certainly doesn't work for drugs and as evidence shows, will not work for guns either. All outlawing does is willingly gift supply and control to gang cartels and remove things from the hands of law-abiding citizens. Criminals and the mentally ill intent of murder or mass-crime will still be able to get their hands on guns, no matter what the law.
Adam Lanza broke three Connecticut gun control laws; had more been in place would not have made a difference. The shooting will still have happened.
The Newtown tragedy is a perfect example of problem-reaction-solution; an event which causes people to request the end result the powers that be desire. We can very clearly see a police-state grid being unrolled across the USA and beyond - is it easier to do that against an armed population or an unarmed one? Fundamentally gun control is not for the protection of people but for the preservation of tyrannical entities.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." So said that nice little fellow, Adolf. In Nazi Germany, pre-Holocaust, gun laws were introduced which banned Jewish people from the manufacture or ownership of firearms and ammunition.
There is no doubt Obama will exploit this harrowing event to chip away at the Second Amendment.
The Connecticut massacre is undeniably tragic but what it has disturbingly revealed is that people are only outraged because it was not sanctioned by the state. As Obama wiped away his fake tear, I wondered, would he ever shed one were 20 Pakistani children murdered in a school by one of his drone attacks? Statism has a sickening dehumanising effect on how we perceive other humans that aren't close to home or 'like us.'
Sandy Hook is of course worthy of the sympathy it's been in receipt of, however the irrational way we collectively emote and seethe over one type of human loss whilst remain indifferent to others because it's somehow a bi-product of state-sanctioned imperialist war leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.
The unfolding weeks will be interesting. I reiterate: I detest firearms, I wish they did not exist. I'm the antithesis of a trigger-happy, gun-totin' shooter but to support the banning of them - as history shows - will only spell disaster.