There aren’t very many times I agree wholeheartedly with our Dear Leader – but on this occassion I believe he spoke for those 99% of New Zealanders for whom common sense is as natural as breathing air.
ACT – with it’s long line of loopy leaders and coterie of strange MPs – has a record for saying and doing things that can best be described as “unwise” (in a Judith Collins sense of the word) – or just down-right Full Moon Barking Mad to be bluntly honest.
Case in point;
Whyte’s comments were further reported;
Dr Whyte said he had no view on what weapons shopkeepers should arm themselves with but believed firearms were appropriate, “if they felt that there was sufficient threat”.
Full. Moon. Barking. Mad.
When Whyte offered his views on incest on the blog, “The Ruminator“, ACT’s opponants (and there are plenty of them); the MSM, and blogosphere reacted with disbelief, derision and exasperation.
Personally, I took it as the musings of an “philosopher-intellectual” who had spent way too much time isolated in dusty University halls and had only recently returned to Planet Earth to mingle with us mere humans. Kind of akin to a left-wing Labour candidate musing out loud about enforced re-nationalisation of all privatised state assets, or their National counterpart musing out loud about banning all trade unions. Definitely stuff not meant for public consumption and best kept to one-self.
Except it appears that the incest gaffe was not an isolated incident, and Jamie Whyte’s insane suggestion to allow store owners to “bear arms” now confirms his reputation as someone whose grip on reality is questionable.
It was left up to the Prime Minister, New Zealand Association of Convenience Stores chairman, Roger Bull, and others, to inject some sanity into this American Gothic nightmare scenario that an ostensibly sober Jamie Whyte was casually promoting as a new way of life.
Key pointed out the obvious;
“The reason I think it’s a bad idea is that firstly you’d be putting weapons in the hands of people that are not trained.
Those weapons could be used [against] the very shopkeepers themselves. It’s a recipe for disaster.”
And Roger Bull said matter-of-factly;
“Our policy has always been if there’s a robbery, you comply with the instructions of the person and you do not try to do anything quick or sudden because you don’t know the mental state [of the offender].
You comply and get them out of the way as quick as possible.”
Let me illustrate the type of wacky-doodle idea that Whyte is flirting with.
Soon after the September 11 attacks, more than one individual – exhibiting a decidedly dubious capacity for logic – suggested on several internet fora, that passengers be allowed to carry guns on flights, to protect against further terrorist attacks.
Yeah. Because gunfights on aircraft flying at high altitudes, is just such an amazingly good idea! Add to the scenario of gun-packing passengers, growing incidences of alcohol-fuelled high-altititude high-jinks, and the threat of hijacking becomes the least of our worries.
Take the same concept of people feeling threatened by random, high-profile crimes from 10,000 metres, and relocate it to West Auckland, and the only difference is the absence of the likelihood of explosive decompression when bullets miss their intended targets.
There is a disturbing bizarre pattern to Whyte’s pattern of “thinking”. Whether it is simplistic notions of removing the Resource Management Act or Three Strikes for burglary, his “solutions” are predicated on a naive, almost black and white world-view, that is reminiscent of an adolescent who has yet to come to terms with the complexities of society. Generally, pre-adolescent teenagers, when faced with pressing social issues and problems, will arrive at simplistic, knee-jerk “solutions” based on little more than their own limited life-experiences.
For a supposedly mature, well-educated, worldly individual to express similar naive beliefs suggests that Whyte’s own intellectual development has been ‘arrested’ at some point in his youth and has not progressed to understanding that the world around him is a vastly complex, messy, inter-twined mass of human threads. Tug on one thread, and there is no telling where that pressure will be exerted.
It does not take a genius to figure out what is wrong with the picture of allowing store owners to keep firearms for “self defence”.
Aside from how such weapons would be stored – under the counter? Easily stolen or picked up by kids. Locked away – then not much use to a store owner facing a robbery situation.
Or a gunfight in a store with other customers present – who else would be injured or killed?
Whyte obviously has not thought the issue through to it’s ultimate, deadly conclusion. And if he has, and if he is simply exploiting the tragedy of murdered shop-keepers for political gain to win votes – what does that make him?
I would be hard-pressed to work out which is worse; a parliamentary aspirant with a stupid idea that would most likely end up killing more innocent people?
Or a parliamentary aspirant with an idea that is exploitative of other people’s grief , just to win votes?
Even the right-wing, lock’em-up-throw-away-the-key, Sensible Sentencing spokesperson, Ruth Money, opposed “a crazy increase of firearms behind every counter“.
When even the so-called “Sensible Sentencing” recognise a patently lunatic proposal, you just know it’s a step too far into Wacky-doodle Land
Perhaps Whyte should have stuck with legalising incest. After all, what’s the worst that can result from incest? Idiot people with idiot ideas?
NZ Herald: Act policy a ‘recipe for disaster’ – Key
The Ruminator: Mr Ryght: An interview with ACT leader: Jamie Whyte
Previous related blogposts
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
= fs =