In the aftermath of the latest shooting tragedy, British lawmakers are right on point in taking a reactionary stance to in continuing to hamper the basic self-defense rights of law-abiding citizens. Over the last three decades, the implementation of strict measures have resulted in the disturbing trend of the country facing a knife crises, as murders have increased exponentially, especially in the greater London area, where an epidemic of violent stabbings has led to veritable chaos.
Stunningly, in 2018 the murder rate in London surpassed New York city for the first time in history and officials pushed the radical bureaucratic borders of inefficiency by launching a ban on specific varieties of knives. The trickle down sociological thought experiment is astounding as residents are at the whim of the criminal element, the myth of the noble savage and inherent empathy combining to leave the streets dangerous and flooded with organized gangs. The moral superiority is equally as insufferable. While the plan to address public safety has largely failed, British politicians are exploring another half-baked idea in the wake of the Plymouth shooting, where five people were killed, by reevaluating national firearms applications procedures, which will now include examining an individual’s social media accounts for any content that can be construed as raising any red flags. Providing authorities with the latitude to determine a propensity towards violence through subjective protocols sets a truly unsettling precedence for the near future of a once free society built on the tenets of liberty, facing the suppressive modern political nightmare of a burgeoning nanny state.
While the UK already maintains some of the most stringent gun laws of any Democratic nation, the adoption of discovery methods in scouring personal F***book, Twitter and platforms for questionable phrases in determining the status of a firearm’s application goes above and beyond a reasonable approach to potentially improving public safety, as the fundamental right of free speech is brought question, and ugly legal ramifications are brought to the forefront pending procedural disaster.
Allegedly, 22-year-old Jake Davison, who took the life of five residents had a checkered past, which included allegations of an assault, which resulted in his gun license temporarily revoked. However, gun control activists, reformists, and the mainstream press wishes to focus on his posts supporting Donald Trump, and “right-wing” politics, in continuing to push the decrepit narrative that those who subscribe to similar viewpoints are volatile gun-toting racist individuals, who would rather shoot first and ask questions later. The audacity of commentators and politicians to forward this sordid agenda in attempting to discredit a large group of people, has far passed its shelf-life, but unfortunately the prevalence of a no-consequence digital realm absent from accountability is a sounding board for leftists bent on warping the Constitution beyond recognition, are at the very least clogging the court system with ridiculous legal claims that are complete waste of time and tax-payer dollars.
Only in these unique times could a brilliant mind like Stephen Pinker attempted to be ungraciously canceled by stating facts when pertaining to crime, but in a world where evidence takes a backseat to ideology the hand holding circle of trust defining the infamously bizarre and violent Seattle CHAZ/CHOP was all about jolting the status quo in an environment protesting law enforcement, and demonizing gun owners. Never mind the four shootings and numerous sexual assaults, as the circular and flawed logic states that “bad things happen to good people”. In the end, it will all come down to who has the biggest board and sharpest nail.
This editorial powered by Duckduckgo.com