Instead of the truth - that possession of gun is negatively correlated with murder.
For those whose understanding of math is a little shaky, a negative correlation is one in which, as one factor declines, the other goes up.
Like this one.
Not the GOOD kind of guns, of course.
- Those that nestle in the hips of high-priced security guards protecting the celebrities or politicians.
- Those that keep nutcases from pursuing the Elite into their homes, offices, or vacation grounds.
- Those that protect the celebrities from having physical contact with the Proles - or even asking for an autograph.
- Those that allow the Elite to wear expensive clothes and jewelry in public places.
- Those that keep them - and their families - from being kidnapped.
No, these would be guns owned by:
- Off-duty cops, who are never truly off-duty.
- Domestic violence victims, after the last beating occurred during the time between the first punch and the time the cops showed up.
- Small business owners or their employees, depositing the day's cash in the bank after hours.
- Night-shift workers - often women - nurses, bartenders, waitresses, gas station attendants.
- People living in rural areas, more than 1/2 hour away from armed protection.
You know, the kind of people who don't need high-powered guns. Who would be able to hold off an attacker with a little 'lady' gun that could be tucked in a purse. With a gun lock on it. And biometric ID that keeps the gun from being used by anyone else. Inside a gun safe with a combination lock.
Unloaded.
Yessir, a totally SAFE situation.
Except for the victim.
I found this via an Ace of Spades mention. It's the 1st person account of how a reporter tried to buy a gun - QUICK - as a way of making it clear to the rubes just why we need gun control.
He wasn't able to actually buy one - for reasons that would appear obvious. But, not to him - he immediately comes up with alternative scenarios that PROVE that gun shops are Big Meanies Who Hate Journalists - for NO reason whatsoever.
You decide.
WARNING: The Stupid is so strong in this piece, that it might just get past your doorstop, invade your living spaces, and enstupify you, turning you into a Progressive Zombie.
You have been warned.
I found this via an Ace of Spades mention. It's the 1st person account of how a reporter tried to buy a gun - QUICK - as a way of making it clear to the rubes just why we need gun control.
He wasn't able to actually buy one - for reasons that would appear obvious. But, not to him - he immediately comes up with alternative scenarios that PROVE that gun shops are Big Meanies Who Hate Journalists - for NO reason whatsoever.
You decide.
WARNING: The Stupid is so strong in this piece, that it might just get past your doorstop, invade your living spaces, and enstupify you, turning you into a Progressive Zombie.
You have been warned.
5 comments:
Very little of that gun buying story by Neil Goldberg sounds even remotely true. Except perhaps if he cherry picked his facts and rearranged the order in which they occurred. He's a very creative writer and seemingly little more than a leftist liar. but that's redundant.
Also notice how Goldberg's article doesn't allow comments.
And the piece is full of lies. It does make the gun store look good though - following the law by not allowing a drunken family abuser to buy a firearm. Nor do they sell to Illinois residents.
The author of the piece does rearrange things throughout to mess up the narrative - he goes to a gun shop, fills out the paperwork, asks the store owner contemptuous questions, gets denied access to purchase said gun because of criminal history.
There’s a trap here, and we must be very careful not to fall into it. The trap is simple: We could be lured into defending the private ownership of firearms as a utilitarian matter, rather than as a matter of rights.
Imagine if the statistics disfavored us – i.e., that there was a strong positive correlation between the number of persons who own firearms and the murder rate. Imagine further that there are no escape hatches – i.e., that there’s no imbalance in the distribution of murders away from (previously) law-abiding citizens and toward career criminals and gangs. If our support for the right to keep and bear arms were founded on guns in private hands being “good for society,” the statistics would refute us.
The defense of firearms rights must proceed from the same basis as the defense of any other right: i.e., that it is innate in human nature. For example: a man has a right to his life and property, meaning that for anyone to take his life or property would be wronging him. If a man has a right to his life and property, he also has the right to defend his life and property against aggressors. If in his judgment that should require particular tools, he has a right to acquire them. As we mathematical types like to say, Quod erat demonstrandum.
The value of the favorable statistics cited here is to demonstrate the mendacity and duplicity of the anti-gunners. We must not fall into the utilitarian trap, as that would imply that we have no rights, only State-recognized permissions that “benefit society” – and you know what the Left would do with that notion!
You do know Ben is for outlawing the bumpstock?
"The defense of firearms rights must proceed from the same basis as the defense of any other right: i.e., that it is innate in human nature. For example: a man has a right to his life and property, meaning that for anyone to take his life or property would be wronging him. If a man has a right to his life and property, he also has the right to defend his life and property against aggressors. If in his judgment that should require particular tools, he has a right to acquire them. As we mathematical types like to say, Quod erat demonstrandum."
I agree completely.
Goldberg's philosophy is much more dangerous (evil) than the mere utility of gun laws and his claims in the article.
He is aghast that mere slaves should be able to buy guns and real humans like him are not. That's the underlying argument that Goldberg, or all Leftists make - people who are not of the Left are subhuman. You're correct in that Goldberg and his ilk do not believe in rights at all, but a series of privileges bestowed on to those who are attached to the correct philosophy/party.
Post a Comment