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.
Here’s a good article on why California (where I called home for 19 years) is such a basket case:
- THE PERFECT STORM
- CALIFORNIA BEGETS A NATIONAL LOSS OF INNOCENCE
- ONE-PARTY RULE IN CALIFORNIA
- THE DISHONESTY OF SOCIALIST ONE PARTY-RULE
- MUCH OF OBAMA’S AGENDA IS ALREADY IN PLACE IN CALIFORNIA
- THERE’S HOPE FOR A SECOND GREAT CALIFORNIA TAX REVOLT
Although I am not so sure about there being “hope” for a tax revolt.
The senator said she didn’t think all responsibility for solving these problems should be vested in the Treasury Department, suggesting that “once we get through this immediate crisis,” the country should look at some Great Depression-era type of governmental entity to deal with it. –Article
Liberal politicians love these problems, because when things get rough, people turn to “security” in the government. Rather than take the risk that they might have a rough patch, they will listen to the promise of “government entities” set up to protect and provide for them.
It doesn’t matter that the policies of the 90s are directly responsible for financial woes of today (the media will ignore that), and it doesn’t matter that the country still isn’t in a recession (the media will report that people are “worried about possible recession” to give the same emotional effect). What matters is that people will turn to government and vest even more control over their lives in politicians promising to make things easier.
The Great Depression is the perfect example. A downturn in the economy was turned into a disastrous depression by FDR’s policies (extending the depression far beyond it’s natural length) and the scope and power of the federal government was expanded into the private sector like never before.
I don’t worry about recession or depression so much as I worry about the loss of liberty and freedom they will bring as people turn more and more of their lives over to the government for safe keeping.
A brain researcher is advising Democrats that they need to focus on voters’ emotions in order to win debates.
There’s nothing surprising about this. I’ve always thought that the liberal line is based entirely on appeal to emotion, rather than a rational view of factual evidence.
What’s more cushy to say: “everyone deserves health coverage” or “the free market economy is the best system for ensuring advanced health care and coverage in the long term.” That one’s easy. If you don’t know anything about economics, research and development, and the private sector, then the guy who denies that there should be “universal health insurance” is just an evil conservative.
Or how about this: “We must raise the minimum wage so everyone can have a living wage!” or “minimum wage requirements do nothing to improve the buying power of low wage earners, since the market must adjust to compensate for the increased pay with higher costs across the board.” Again, easy: The guy arguing for higher minimum wages “cares” about the “poor,” and the guy who understands economics, inflation, and the fact that there are jobs that simply do not warrant a “living wage” is “cruel” and “detests” people who “earn” their income.
The fact is, it’s usually easier for Democrats to win the “hearts” of voters because their arguments appeal to emotional responses rather than realities. In my view, a capitalistic policy is in fact more compassionate on the whole because it rewards hard work and innovation, whereas a more socialistic approach punishes achievement and encourages mediocrity. And since people are not taught basic economics or about market forces in public school, they tend not to care about the realities of socialism verses capitalism.
And it’s easy to say “tax the rich” to pay for whatever you want to “give” voters, like “free” health care or other forms of welfare, because most people aren’t “rich.” The guy trying to argue for personal freedom and responsibility — the freedom to fail or succeed — always has the tougher fight because, well, people just don’t care. They’re not that interested in freedom, if it means they have to be personally responsible for their own welfare.
Apartheid in Hawaii:
“The Senate is poised to sanction the creation of a racially exclusive government by and for Native Hawaiians who satisfy a blood test. The new race-based sovereign that would be summoned into being by the so-called Akaka Bill would operate outside the U.S. Constitution and the nation’s most cherished civil rights statutes. Indeed, the champions of the proposed legislation boast that the new Native Hawaiian entity could secede from the Union like the Confederacy, but without the necessity of shelling Fort Sumter.”
I am no expert on Hawaii, but I did live there for ten years.
This “new government” stuff is just stupid. For one thing, the vast majority of the Hawaiian people voted for Hawaii to become a state! It’s true that there were some abuses by large corporations in the past, but that doesn’t change the fact that there was an overwhelming consensus among Hawaiians that becoming a state of the Union would be a good thing. Further, there are hardly any “pure” Hawaiians left! Most people who qualify as Hawaiian for race-based government handouts couldn’t beat an Elvis impersonater in a “how Hawaiian are you” contest.
There is a common myth amongst Hawaiian victimists and race-pimps that missionaries “gave Hawaiians the Bible and stole the land.” If this were true, it would still have been a good deal for the Hawaiians. But the reality is that while the missionaries gave Hawaiians an alphabet, they couldn’t teach them how to make decent candy (yuck). and instead of “stealing land”, they brought Hawaiians a new way of life — maybe what Akaka wants is a return to a more pure Hawaiian culture, like ritual human sacrifices under a military dictatorship, instead of the current system of one vote for every person. (Actually, in Hawaii, they can’t even get that right.)
Don’t get me wrong, Hawaii is a beautiful place. Kauai is the most beautiful environment I have ever lived in. But the current climate of racist, entitlement-driven politics makes me glad I don’t live there right now.