Slate, Communists And Other Ne’er Do Wells On Guns
BY Herschel Smith11 years, 6 months ago
Handguns are the problem. Despite being outnumbered by long guns, “Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes,” the report notes. In 2011, “handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents.” Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they’re “easily concealable.”
Mass shootings aren’t the problem. “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths,” says the report. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.
The author, William Saletan, stops short of calling for confiscation, but does want the CDC empowered to collect and analyze more information about gun owners, as well as heavier court involvement in the process of owning guns. But on the whole, the author does better than many articles concerning at least feigning neutrality.
Communist China does not.
During the dispute, Fan grabbed a tool and bludgeoned his colleague to death. Fan then returned to the factory’s staff dormitory where he had stashed a hunting gun, retrieved the weapon and fled to Shanghai’s Pudong area in an illegal taxi. Fan then killed the vehicle’s driver and used the vehicle to drive back to Baoshan, where the factory is located, killing a soldier in front of a military unit’s barracks and thus obtaining an additional gun. With both weapons, Fan made his way back to the factory and killed another three employees, including the factory’s supervisor, before being subdued by a police officer who was patrolling the area. Four other people were shot and sustained injuries.
Gun control laws in China are some of the strictest in the world, making it difficult for most civilians to legally own firearms. According to the South China Morning Post, an emergency meeting was held on Sunday by the Ministry of Public Security, which said it was planning to launch a more comprehensive campaign on gun management across the country.
Gun control is what communists do. They do it reflexively, and it isn’t so much a response to violent incidents as it is refusing to let a crisis go to waste. It’s all about ensuring a government monopoly on violence.
It’s the same for the very strange Richard Nixon, who, according to reports, was very anti-gun.
“I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house,” Nixon said in a taped conversation with aides. “The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth.” He asked why “can’t we go after handguns, period?”
Nixon went on: “I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.” He laced his comments with obscenities, as was typical.
Of course, Nixon didn’t seek to disarm his security staff, just the common folk. As we’ve discussed before, it’s what the progressives (like the folks at Daily Kos) really want.
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it. The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.
Back to the Slate article, the author advocates a continuation of the national conversation on guns. So be it. But I think this has been a valuable installment. Slate admitted that mass killings, while a media event, aren’t the “real problem” with guns. The “real problem” is ownership of handguns at all.
Or in other words, gun control – making laws that only upstanding citizens obey – is the solution of all good social planners to ameliorate the sinfulness of mankind. It’s what the communists do.
And the horrible Richard Nixon, a statist by nature, advocated exactly the same thing. Concerning the recent gun control efforts, Senators Manchin and Toomey have seen the “bottom fall out of their approval ratings.” We ate them for lunch. It’s always a good palate cleanser to see progressives confess to the truth that in spite of the posturing, it was really all about government control.
I think that the court jester is lying when he says that there are five Senators who want to change their vote on guns. But if he can round them up, we’ll eat them for dinner. As for the continued national conversation, bring it. But I know your real intentions, and I’ll keep my guns.
On June 26, 2013 at 3:35 pm, Uncle Dan said:
The one thing that must absolutely be understood about the Left is that they will NEVER stop until they have complete control over every aspect of everyone’s lives. You must never give an inch. Not in the smallest detail. Fight the Left – especially this administration – in every conceivable way. When they demand more regulation you retaliate and demand MORE of LESS regulation. That means not only denying them their latest demand for X regulation, but hitting them back by removing another regulation in response.
On June 26, 2013 at 6:27 pm, Archer said:
I’d add to Uncle Dan’s comment:
They’ll never stop because they honestly believe they have the moral high ground. They believe they are “fighting the good fight”, and that WE are the bad guys. As long as they believe that, they’ll keep coming at us, and they’ll never admit they might be wrong.
We also do need to start hitting back. When they move for more restrictions, we need to shut them down and move for less restrictions. The Good Lord knows we’ve been making gains, but I believe we’ve almost exclusively been playing defense, and I think a large part of our “success” lately has been due to vast over-reach on their part – they demanded enough rope to hang themselves, and we let them. Bad moves on their part, but we countered with … nothing.
That needs to change.
On June 26, 2013 at 7:22 pm, Josh said:
I wholeheartedly agree with you guys, but what is the practical application of “hitting back”? While I beleive I should have access to select-fire rifle platforms, the US remains the most liberal bastion of firearms rights in the world. Everyone, and I mean everyone, else is more regulated than we are in the US.
So what do we counter with? No background checks? Selective-fire rifles? Full-auto seers without stamps? My point is there is no low hanging fruit for conservatives. This is an idealogical problem with conservatism; progressives move to change while we mean to preserve.
I think this issue has far-reaching implications for the conservative idealogy as a whole, be it immigration, healthcare or guns. The generations of tomorrow are on a moving path towards change. Hell, we were raised on it via technology.
The status quo of conservatism as an idealogy has major problems. What do we do to fix that?
On June 27, 2013 at 9:57 am, MamaLiberty said:
Let’s don’t get lost in this left/right, conservative/liberal, republican/democrat nonsense. All political parties and pursuasions, including all too many “libertarians,” have little or no problem seeing everyone else as needing some level of control. They may disagree on the forms or the objects/ideas to be controlled, but the last thing most of them want is a self owning, self responsible population.
The best place to strike back at the controllers of all kinds, and anti-gun slavers in particular, is to remove as many children as possible from the government indoctrination camps and educate them privately, somehow, to be self owners. There is little or nothing that can be done to counter this communist/socialist insanity as long as the “schools” and cesspool universities turn out statists of all kinds.
On June 27, 2013 at 10:38 am, Herschel Smith said:
MamaLiberty is right on boys! Follow her counsel. Homeschool. Get the children out of the communist indoctrination camps America sends them to every day.
On June 27, 2013 at 7:31 pm, Josh said:
But positing that state-run schools be eliminated is a silver bullet, to be focused on rather than the issue of conservative idealogy vs progressive, is just silly. I don’t disagree with your point, but it doesn’t help the discussion. It will never, ever happen. Ever. Ever.
So returning to the more salient issue of conservatism uptake and popularity vs modern liberalism, what do you propose?
We’re not headed down a path of fighting a righteous battle over education, and frankly, out current economy must and will maintain public education as a prerequisite to sustainability. We’re going to have Hillary Clinton for 8 years come 2016, with all the illegal immigrants at her back. The road isn’t getting easier, and you cannot just cast aside current political trappings because it fits your commentary more neatly.