Saturday, 21 July 2012

Aurora - no adequate words of my own.

Something appalling and terrible happened in Colorado yesterday. One of those things that tends to put things in a clearer focus but at the same time manages to bewilder us at a fundamental level. A lot has been said and I'm sure anything I have to say would be one of countless versions of the same sentiment most people are expressing.

But a friend posted something on Facebook that I think is pretty appropriate

Thoughts with all of those affected by yesterday's events.

And thanks to Barry Davie for the idea.


  1. No problem. Already nicked it from my friend Barry.

  2. If you've actually seen the latest Batman film, you might want to note that (SPOILER ALERT!)

    Catwoman blows Bane away with THE CANNON MOUNTED ON THE BATCYCLE - and suggests that Batman may need to rethink his "no guns" philosophy in the face of almost having his head blown off by Bane with a 12 gauge double-barreled sawed-off shotgun.

  3. And that's a point of conflict between Batman and Catwoman earlier in the film. Catwoman commits the act, not Batman. The comics are full of this kind of conflict between Batman and other characters like Azrael, Huntress, etc...

    But I think the point of the picture is clear.

  4. "Anonymous" : Alternatively, he might want to persevere with the no guns philosophy to ensure that Bane doesn't have the 12 gauge double-barreled sawed-off shotgun in the first place.

    Just a thought.

  5. (Full disclosure: different "Anonymous" here)

    Re: The above comment--
    Because somebody like Bane, even after acquiring and using what must have been multiple tons of illegal high explosives, would totally be stopped by gun laws.

    According to some British friends of mine who work at an A&E, any wannabe thug can pick up a serial-number-less Polish P64 pistol, two magazines, and 50 rounds of ammo for two hundred quid in most UK towns and cities. So I'm not sure how well that whole gun control thing is really working out for you guys, considering you have some of the harshest gun laws on the planet.

    Also, a question: do you consider armed military members and police officers "the enemy?" If not, why would you consider an armed citizen such as myself "the enemy?"

  6. Because responsibility to uphold the law does not lie with you - the mandate of law enforcement is clear and enshrined in legality. And so far, the gun laws in the UK have been doing their job pretty much; but no law is perfect and watertight. If we didn't have them, it's likely there would be a lot more incidents like Hungerford or Dunblane. Every time it happens, the laws get tighter. There is NO reason on earth why a member of the public should be able to own or should have any reason to own automatic weapons.

  7. @Brian Robinson: "Because responsibility to uphold the law does not lie with you - the mandate of law enforcement is clear and enshrined in legality."

    So the Nine Principles of Modern Policing set down by Sir Robert Peel, the man who started London's first real police force, are no longer correct? Because #7 states:

    "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

    The "flying squads" of armed police - you know, "members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention" etc. - are quite often armed with fully-automatic weapons.

    And officers on patrol at the current Olympic Games are also so armed.

    1. Another perversion/interpretation used as an excuse for the US gun lobby for people to own guns.

      Flying Squads of armed police are just that; POLICE. Employed by the state and given a responsibility for which they are accountable. Robert Peel laws were of their time, over 150 years ago, just as the US Constitutional statement about "the right to bear arms" was of its time, relating to invasion by British forces and applying ONLY TO MILITIA IN A TIME OF WAR. And of course the police at the Olympics are armed. What kind of imbecile exactly is it you mistake me for?

      I'm disgusted at some of this. I put up a picture to try and pay a little tribute to people who died in an horrific incident and gun afficionados use it as yet another excuse to put their politics forward. That is not why I posted this and YOU KNOW IT.

      Show some fucking respect for the dead and injured. This blog is not a democracy. The US gun lobby is WRONG. The NRA are WRONG. No one outside of the armed forces has any right or reason to own automatic weapons. They are made to kill. Any other reason put forward is spurious and an excuse or lie. And the bullshit statement that "guns don't kill people, people do" forgets that people use guns to kill people. They have NO OTHER FUNCTION.


Stick yer blurb here.