Some liberals appear to believe that America’s issues with violence would be solved if the government took away guns from the general public, following the example set by Australia in the wake of a 1996 mass shooting in Tasmania.
Liberals typically base their arguments on feelings and emotions, not statistics or historical facts. Emotional pleas for drastic measures have become the mantra of Hollywood liberal elitists and late night talk show hosts — that Congress or President Trump should do “something” about gun violence in the U.S. as the montage below (compiled by The Washington Post) demonstrates. However, advocates for repeal of the 2nd Amendment need more than gut feelings to convince the American public to give up their guns. They need facts and statistical evidence to support their arguments, not emotional appeals that shamelessly attempt to capitalize politically on a senseless tragedy.
The Economist magazine, which caters to liberal readers, allegedly exists (according to their website) in order to participate in “a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance, which impedes our progress.” That claim inspires this question…on which side are the reporters for The Economist supposed to fall?
Intelligence, or unworthy, timid ignorance? If the online article by the Lexington columnist titled “Superstition helps explain how people think about gun laws” (the print version was titled “The power of magical thinking”) serves as any indication, the latter is true — liberals are unworthy, timid, ignorant, and elitist snobs as well.
The article has so many obvious flaws that it’s almost difficult to decide where to begin. Virtually every liberal (and wrong) stereotype of Christians and conservatives is casually tossed into the article like an angry fruit salad, along with every talking point used by liberals to argue in support of a proactive measure that might take away legally purchased guns from law-abiding citizens.
The article presents a litany of examples to justify the argument for the confiscation of American guns “after six people were murdered in California in 2014; after nine were murdered in South Carolina, nine in Oregon and 14 in California in 2015; and after the killing of 58 and maiming of 489 people by a lone gunman in Las Vegas on October 1st.”
The problem with citing those examples requires closer scrutiny to understand. The “six people murdered in California in 2014” refers to the Isla Vista case, in which a sexually frustrated, mentally disturbed 22-year-old man named Elliott Roger stabbed three men to death, and shot three other victims. He used knives, guns, and his car as a weapon, but apparently only the guns are to be blamed for his crime.
The nine black people in South Carolina were murdered at church by a white racist named Dylan Roof, in a racially motivated hate crime. Yes, guns were the method, but they were not the motive. The nine victims in Oregon were college students and professors at Umpqua Community College were questioned about their religious beliefs by the killer before they were shot. Is the means really more important than the motive for murder? Were guns really the problem, or the fact this lunatic was inspired to kill people? Should we assume the victims might still be alive, if a knife or a bomb had been used?
The fourteen murder victims in California in 2015 refers to the San Bernardino terrorist attack on a Christmas party — does anyone seriously believe that these attacks would not have occurred if guns were illegal? Remember that California has some of the toughest gun laws in America, but those laws didn’t prevent the attacks. Chicago has one of the worst gun-related murder rates in the country, and it’s virtually impossible for a private citizen to own a gun.
Most of the attacks mentioned in The Economist piece were apparently inspired by religious motives. How long will it be before liberals start recommending that the 1st Amendment protections for religious freedoms be repealed in addition to the 2nd Amendment?
It also seems notable that the same people who believe guns make America safer are also likely to hold a number of other irrational views.
Apparently echoing the “bitter Americans who cling to guns or religion” sentiments of former President Barack Obama, the article by Lexington portrays the average American opposed to confiscating guns from the general public in America as fitting one general stereotype: a Christian who denies the theory of evolution and that climate change is destroying the environment, and as someone who believes that guns make America a safer place to live.
While I can’t speak for any other Americans who don’t believe the theory of evolution adequately explains the origin of new body plans in nature or that human consumption of fossil fuels are destroying the environment, I can say that I don’t believe America would be safer if more Americans owned guns.
But I’m quite sure it would be less safe if law abiding citizens had their guns confiscated by the government, because we have historical precedents and even contemporary evidence that proves these liberal cries for drastic measures are ill-conceived. According to National Review, contrary to popular belief, gun confiscation didn’t really work in Australia, and won’t work in America. Yet another National Review article explains how “gun control” proved instrumental to the rise to power of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany.
Advocates for confiscating firearms like to remind gun owners of the number of people killed in Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, or Orlando, presumably to make them feel guilty and even partially responsible for the loss of life.
Our Founding Fathers were brilliant, extraordinary men who understood that when the people are not allowed to own weapons for the purposes of self defense, they are potentially at the mercy of tyrants. Yes, it’s true — 58 innocent Americans were murdered by a crazy man who owned multiple guns that were legally purchased and owned.
Please remember that it was Josef Stalin who famously said the death of one man was a tragedy, but the death of a million was a statistic. We should also remember that Josef Stalin slowly murdered up to 12 million Ukrainians by forced starvation, a historical event known as the Holomodor.
We should also never forget that after it became illegal for Jews to own a gun in Germany, 6 million people were rounded up like cattle and exterminated in concentration camps during the Holocaust. The violent murders of 58 innocent victims were most certainly a tragedy, and the cold, calculated deaths of 18 million innocent people a very grim statistic.
Freedom comes at a price. It has been bought with precious human blood.