Naive Belief Government Will Care for Us

As usual, liberals use any shooting as an excuse to thump for gun control.  They accuse anyone who believes they have the right to armed self-defense of being corporate shills for the gun lobby, who want this entire country to arm up so you/they can turn dead bodies into profits.  They carry on like this even if the shooting was terrorists in France and California, both with very strict gun control.  It seems obvious to me that liberals have a hammer of a solution in gun control, and the whole world is a nail.

By liberal reasoning, liberals are just shills for a government that wants total power over our lives.  We are supposed to believe that the government will take care of us if we give up our own ability to take care of ourselves.

To believe government will take good care of us, you have to ignore how politics really works.  In Chicago, everyone knows if your neighborhood didn't vote right, Mayor Richard J. Daley wouldn't repair your streets and sidewalks.  This is still the rule in politics today.  The government seizes guns because then it can decide who gets police protection and who doesn't.  The government takes over health care so it can decide who gets treatment and who doesn't.  The government controls carbon dioxide emissions so it can decide who gets electricity and who does not.  The government already decides that left wing nonprofit groups get tax exemptions and right wing Tea Party groups do not. 

Imagine how many fewer people would have been hurt if two or three of the people in the room had been armed.  The Jihadi couple would have been shot dead before they could do much damage.  Gun free zones are target rich environments for terrorists and the insane.  They are a guarantee of no resistance.  Leftist gun control laws make sure all potential targets are totally defenseless.  This guarantees happy hunting for ISIS.

In Israel, terrorists are using knives or cars as weapons.  It's the hate, not the weapons.  

Gun Control: Stand Still and be Fleeced

Gun control laws are really stand still and be fleeced laws. Violent crime is a progressive method of wealth redistribution. Since the end result is a progressive goal, the means are not a big concern. My favorite Chicago gun story was in the news over 30 years ago. A very large man was breaking into an occupied apartment with a crowbar. He heard a little old lady voice say, "Go away. I've got a gun!" He laughed and resumed his break in. The little old lady put 6 rounds of .38 cal through the door. The robber was killed. The gun was illegal, but the little old lady was not prosecuted. It amused me so much, I have remembered it all these years.

Control Guns or the Mentally Ill?

I was taught in high school debate class years ago that to win the debate you had to prove that the solution proposed actually would fix the problem.  Most liberals seem to have skipped that lesson.  At least the comments to Kathleen Parker’s article on gun control seemed to skip that step.  The common element in most of the recent mass shootings was mental illness.  The Columbine shooters were mentally ill according to the FBI.  The Aurora movie theater shooter's psychiatrist reported warned the police that he was homicidal.  The Virginia Tech shooter had a history of mental illness.  Tucson police knew the Gabby Giffords shooter Jared Loughner was delusional.  Newtown shooter Adam Lanza feared his mother was going to commit him.  At least a partial solution to the problem would be to make involuntary commitment easier.  However, easier involuntary commitment would really upset the ACLU, so we must avoid talking about that.  Conservatives have noticed that the gun control solutions liberals propose do not address the problem.  This makes them suspect that the real purpose of these laws is different from what liberals say it is.  I have noticed that whatever the problem under discussion, the liberal solution is more government power.  Liberals have the hammer of big government imposed solutions, so the whole world gets treated like a nail. 

Columbine:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath.html

Aurora:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/james-holmes-mental-health-colorado_n_1820450.html
Virginia Tech:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/seung-hui-chos-mental-health-records-released/story?id=8278195#.UWWK3TfcYYQ

Gabby Giffords:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57576492/jared-lee-loughner-grew-delusional-in-months-before-tucson-rampage-police-reports-show/

Newtown:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/adam-lanza-motive_n_2329508.html

Original Article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-an-impotent-gun-control-solution/2013/04/09/cb6a6770-a153-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html?hpid=z3

Statistics Prove Assault Rifle Ban Bogus

The Washington Post has a story today about how emotions play out in the Senate committee hearing on gun control legislation.  It’s clear from the article the Diane Feinstein is very emotional about the issue and resents any rational argument to the contrary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/14/assault-weapons-ban-passed-after-heated-senate-hearing/

However, calm down and ask yourself some questions:  Are there any statistics collected federally or by states on the change in the use of semi automatic rifles in crimes before and after "assault weapon" bans? Are semi automatic rifles used in most murders? Are they even used in more murders than knives or blunt instruments? Given that Connecticut had and has an "assault weapon" ban, was this effective in stopping the mass shooting at the grade school? Are liberals aware how easy it is to make a spring loaded magazine with more than the legislated 10 round capacity for any mildly handy person with a few tools? Is emotion the only thing that counts for liberals?  Some of the answers can be found in the FBI statistics in the link below:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

    In the chart, it shows 356 murders committed with rifles of all kinds, not just “assault rifles” or even just semi automatic rifles, in 2011.  Does that seem like a lot to you?  I have heard on the news that in Chicago we are over 500 murders per year just in the city alone. Here in Chicago, some of the strictest gun laws in the country do not seem to be stopping the violence. To put the number of rifle murders in perspective, there were 12,664 murders in the US in 2011 according to the FBI. So the number of rifle murders in 2011 is 2.5 percent of the total. There were 1,694 murders committed with edged weapons, like knives. There were 496 committed with blunt weapons like clubs, hammers and baseball bats. Should we require a background check to buy Swiss army knives as long as we are going to be letting them on airplanes?

    Here is a link to the number of murders by weapon for 2000-2004.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html#table2_9

This is relevant because the federal assault weapon ban was in effect from 1994 to 2004.  Taking 2003, the last full year of the ban, the number of murders using rifles was 392.  The total number of murders was 14,465, giving 2.7% of murders that year committed by rifles.  Basically the same rate as 2011.  In other words, this whole stunt is a feel good emotional exercise which will infringe on Constitutional rights without any beneficial effects.

    By the way, since liberals like to bring up Hitler when discussing conservatives, I will mention him.  Hitler was a big gun control supporter.  Once in power, he passed the 1938 German Weapons Act.  Jews were not allowed to own guns under the act.  The act was designed to preclude Jewish armed resistance. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

    But there is some benefit to be had from this fiasco.  Remember that the Democrats in the Senate are going to force multiple votes on gun control.  This should cost about 7 Democratic Senators their jobs whether they vote for it or not.  If they vote for it, they lose to their Republican challenger.  If they don't, they get a primary from their left, eating up all their campaign cash.  In the words from Animal House, "This is gonna be great!"