It’s Not About Saving Lives. It’s Never About Saving Lives. It’ll Never Be About Saving Lives

Holler if you’ve had this argument:

YOU:   So that’s what I think.

THEM:  Well, some people think that’s wrong.

YOU:  You’re using “some” nameless people as your credibility?  Name them!

THEM:  (Chasing shiny object)

Senator Diane Feinstein – who was for gun control back when it was cool, and still is – gave an “inadvertent” slip this past week during a debate on “bump stocks” that pretty well spells out what gun control (AKA “Gun Safety”, “Gun Violence Prevention”) is actually about.

Preventing crime?  Preventing murders?  Curbing spectacular spree crimes?

“No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions,” Feinstein told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”…“Regulations aren’t going to do it,” Feinstein said on the need for a law over an ATF rule. “We need a law. It can’t be changed by another president.”

So – banning guns, accessories and types doesn’t affect crime, or save a single life.

So why have it?

“America is a gun-happy country. And I think there are many of us in growing numbers that don’t want a gun-happy country,” said DiFi.

So it’s about controlling all those other people.

Of course, this isn’t a mystery to anyone who’s followed this issue; the real enemy, to Senator Feinswine, isn’t the criminal (whose activities foster the dependence, bureaucracy and authoritarianism that keeps her in power).

It’s you – the law-abiding gun owner.  You are the enemy.

9 thoughts on “It’s Not About Saving Lives. It’s Never About Saving Lives. It’ll Never Be About Saving Lives

  1. Of course liberal politicians don’t want their victims to be armed. Duh. One might even infer that DC’s gun bans lasted a long time as well for this reason. No sense letting the peasants approach the Capitol with their pitchforks and torches, after all.

  2. In the US, about 100 people each day die on the highway due to traffic accidents. Most of these accidents could be prevented. Let’s keep tings in perspective, shall we?
    Except highway deaths are not given a moral dimension. No group is singled out as being responsible for highway deaths.

  3. I agree, people should have to provide proof, not just anecdote, and certainly not “unnamed sources” unless we’re talking about allowing the press to protect identities (not the case here). I think the term is used (sometimes) to reflect opinions of people who don’t want to be named, but in any sort of substantive argument, I think the source is required because evidence is required.

    SOoOOOOO… how about that whole voter fraud thingie? Don’t you believe that simply because someone makes an unsubstantiated claim (often later disproven) but for which they have zero evidence other than some sort of eyewitness claim to something they didn’t understand, that the requirement is to PROVE fraud occurred, rather than ask people to prove it didn’t? The burden of proof in court and in logic (as you note here) is on the person making the accusation.

    As far as gun violence goes, I think any claim that gun control, by itself, reduces violence is a flawed argument, which is what you are pointing out.

    However, it is also true that states with more lax gun laws have higher levels of gun violence (as I provided documentation behind last week). I think the issue you’re arguing, that the laws don’t prevent anything, is missing the mark. The issue rests around attitudes about guns. Where they are not seen as a curative, which is not coincidentally also where gun laws are more restrictive, the rate of gun violence tends to be lower. Where they are seen as a remedy (to whatever issue), the attitude about their use is more open, and so the pressure exists to have more lax regulation. In short, I think you’re missing the essential element of the argument.

  4. No group is singled out as being responsible for highway deaths.

    Wrong! Car owners. Hence the need to herd everyone into urban utopian paradise where everyone rides light rail and autodrive electric cars. Hmm… Sleeper comes to mind. Once they confiscate your guns, don’t you worry, they’ll be coming for your car.

  5. From what I can tell the best thing for positive change is for the government to ***unleash hell on straw purchasers***. The government is highly unmotivated to do this for a bunch of bad reasons.

  6. Penigma: “…attitudes…”

    IMO, this is the first cogent admission of how Michael Bloomberg et. al. approach this matter. THAT is what the gun grabbers should put in the white paper they will never, ever produce.

  7. Why can’t we have European / MEXICAN level election security? There must be a good reason.

  8. Pen goes from mass murder and gun control to voter fraud? OK, arguably the election of Al Franken with 341 felon votes has kept Planned Infanticide in funds, but seriously?

    But to his monovariant analysis of a complex system, when you add greater gun freedom to a state, the tendency is to less crime and death. So when you clean up a messy experiment and run a good one, the results are right.

    And I would submit that in the same way, when we actually start taking a look at voter rolls, auditing them periodically and cleaning them out each year, we’re going to find what degree of voter fraud we find. Given that trillions pass through government each year, it’s hard to believe nobody’s figured out how to game the system.

Leave a Reply