Sandy Hook horror stops us all thinking rationally

One area of policy about which both conservatives and liberals often agree is gun control. Liberals (lefties in Oz) are all for it all the time, even more so when a horrific mass shooting occurs. And, particularly in the wake of these terrible events, many conservatives also demand sweeping legislative changes.

The best known local example was John Howard's reaction to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Now, after this Sandy Hook massacre, conservatives such as Miranda Devine are sounding very leftish.

I certainly sympathize. When you learn of the mass murder of children it's hard to stand up for the rights of gun owners. That's because your emotions are engaged. "God, this is too horrible," you think. "Politicians have to do something, anything, to at least try to stop such a thing ever happening again."

But if you look at the situation rationally it's hard not to conclude that lives could have been saved if there had been another armed citizen there at the scene. Hell, most people right across the political spectrum -- except for maybe some uber-leftie mega-saps -- would have been all for a security guard, cop, or army sniper taking out Adam Lanza immediately after he started firing (or even before he managed to kill anyone at all). He'd be feted as a hero if he did so. So why are they so appalled at the thought of a civilian doing exactly the same thing?

I think there are two kinds of irrationality at work here. There's the general belief that guns are evil in and of themselves which is what lefties in particular are most prone to. Then there's this idea that guns are okay, but only in the officially approved hands of cops, soldiers and the like. Conservatives, being respectful of institutional authority, often succumb to this fallacy.

But we know for a fact that many millions of people do own guns in western countries. The vast majority of them never use them for evil purposes. And surely killing a mass murderer early on in his shooting spree would not only not be an evil purpose, but an extremely good and admirable one -- regardless of whether the person firing the gun is wearing a uniform or not.

James Holmes vs Anders Behring Breivik

Interesting how different groups react when some arsehole kills a whole bunch of people. Firstly, there's the issue of gun control. Those for and against confidently reel off their well rehearsed arguments.

Then there's the question of what caused the attack. Some on the Right are blaming movie violence for the Aurora shooting. Predictably, many lefties are saying: don't be stupid! You can't hold artists responsible for the actions of a madman!

The irony is that many of those same people were the ones pointing the finger at John Howard, Keith Windschuttle and other conservative figure because they were cited in Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto.

Well, whatever caused the terrible actions of these two men, I think there's a big difference between them. James Holmes seems to be barking mad; completely out of touch with reality. But Breivik was cold and calculating and committed his atrocities for political reasons. In other words he was sane but evil.

Olympic shooter Russell Mark condemns D'Arcy and Monk

When this silly gun photo scandal involving Olympic swimmers Nick D'arcy and Kenrick Monk started, several commentators pointed out that shooting was an Olympic sport. They observed that the outrage was all pretty absurd considering that not only were our local sharp shooters not being condemned, they were lauded for their skill in using firearms.

Interestingly, one of them -- Russell Mark -- has weighed in on the kerfuffle. He says that D'arcy and Monk do deserve to be condemned for their actions:

But Mark said the swimmers were holding the weapons in an "aggressive nature".

"One of them did a Chopper Read pose, and I think Nick's got a pistol and is pointing virtually at Kenrick's rib cage, which was an unsafe position. It was an aggressive pose with a firearm ... if I had've done that, I would have been dragged over the coals as well," Mark said.

Maybe he would have been ... And if that were the case it would have been just as silly -- perhaps even sillier -- than the present scandal.

Either way he's certainly identified an aspect of the photos that the AOC finds so offensive. It's the inherent aggression of the pose, and the invocation of the character of a vile Melbourne criminal (who subsequently became a best-selling author, by the way!), that is deemed so appalling.

So the officials' reaction pertains to symbolism more than anything else. The fact that the two swimmers have seemed to celebrate a macho, criminal and coarse side of Australian culture rather than a cuddly, sensitive, caring and sharing one is what the delicate petals at the AOC find so terribly upsetting. 

When such aspects of public behaviour are deemed most important, you know that politically correct lefties are well and truly in charge. Just as well the two swimmers weren't caught on video saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman, or that the carbon tax was a bloody great con.

If that were the case they'd be in even greater strife than they are now!