Since our president has wasted no time in politicizing the deaths earlier this week in California, calling for more limits on our liberties and demanding that people become more defenseless in the face of these aggressors, I thought I would see if this righteous indignation over “gun violence” was indeed just a consistent caring for life.
So, here’s a statistic from the CDC: There were 33,636 deaths due to firearms in 2013.
This statistic includes deaths not the result of violent crime, and is not adjusted for the number of lives saved each year with firearms (which is higher than the 33k figure). Also note that the FBI says that 61% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.
Is this really the big killer today? How about another CDC statistic:
“Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years. Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years.”
So, the same organization lists alcohol as a cause for over twice as many annual deaths and even more in YPLL. Does anyone think the president will call for bans on alcohol?
It’s not about guns. It’s about control.
NRA members should join Gun Owners of America.
Why? Because the NRA is okay with negotiating away free speech.
I am a member of both organizations, but I will be thinking long and hard before renewing my NRA membership when it is due.
Hopefully, before then, the NRA will realize that it represents its members, not the organization itself. If the NRA is willing to make deals with an anti-First Amendment Congress in order to maintain itself as an institution, who is to say they won’t do the same for the Second Amendment?
Unlike the NRA, GOA is pro-Constitution, not merely pro-gun. So, if you are a member of the NRA, consider joining GOA as well, and perhaps letting your NRA membership lapse if they don’t clean up their act.
John Lott has a good peice about so-called “gun free zones” where he mentions:
“For years I would tell news people about the fact that every single multiple victim public shooting in the US involving more than three people killed took place in one of these gun-free zones.”
Every time I see a “no guns allowed” sign, I think of other really cool ideas for posted slogans, like perhaps “no home alarms allowed” at the entrance to a housing tract or maybe “locked doors prohibited” in a public parking lot. Better yet, how about one of those nice “KICK ME” signs on your back.
It is only common sense that banning the carrying of guns in any given area means that only criminals will carry guns there — and assuming they can read, they can do so with the confidence that there probably won’t be anyone there capable of stopping them.
Here’s an easy mental excersize: put yourself in the shoes of a burgler, driving down the street, trying to decide which house to break in to. One house has a car in the driveway with a bumper sticker that says “Gun Control Means Using Both Hands.” The next house has a car in the driveway that says “There is no room for guns in a civil society.” Which house do you break in to?
If people having guns with them is such a big problem, when was the last time you heard of a “crazed gunman” going on a rampage at a gun show?
Not entirely unexpected: Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban. A couple of short points to consider:
- The former “Assault Weapons” ban did not lower violent crime, and when it expired, violent crime did not increase.
- There is no such thing as an “Assault Weapon.” It is a figment of a politician’s imagination; a term invented to squelch debate on a subject. Most of the guns banned by the former law were not functionally different from “hunting weapons.” Also, ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds are illegal under the ban. Somehow, according to politicians, having 11 bullets in your hand gun to defend yourself is considered “too much,” but 10 is okay. (Arbitrary and illogical.)
But this has all been said before. Left wingers have an irrational fear of firearms, and now they are in a position of power to implement policy that appeals to their base. It doesn’t matter that the policy is emotional and infringes on the Constitutional rights of Americans.
So here’s the “funny” part, if this can ever be considered “funny.”
Holder (the Obama administration mouthpeice for infringment of Constitutional liberties) said:
“I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”
So, get this straight: Our president wants our Second Amendment rights infringed and one of the rationales is that it will help Mexico — a country where gun laws are doing nothing to stem rampant crime and corruption. Got that?
On a related note, I’m reading John Lott’s book Straight Shooting. A nice easy read, it’s a collection of a bunch of articles he’s written over the last few years on gun control topics.
The dishonest, anti-Constitution “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” released their “report cards” for the various states today.
Oklahoma tied for “last place” scoring a whopping 2 out of 100.
This only goes to show that there is always room for improvement.
Hopefully in 2010, OK will get a nice fat goose-egg.