It’s about control

From Massachusetts:

If the intent of the Gun Control Act of 1998 was to discourage the sport of hunting and competitive target shooting and to disarm Massachusetts citizens, it must be considered a howling success. In 10 years since its passage, the number of licensed gun owners has decreased from 1,500,000 to 220,000, an 85 percent drop, according to figures provided by the by the House Post Audit and Oversight Committee. Well done!

If the intent was to reduce crime, then that law must be considered a miserable failure. Based on incidents per 100,000, gun-related homicides are up 68 percent, assault related gun injuries up 72 percent, assault related hospital discharges up 160 percent, gun assault Emergency Dept visits up 222 percent and gun assault outpatient observations up 538 percent. Keep in mind that these increases occurred when there were 1,280,000 fewer licensed gun owners in the state.

In addition to not curbing gun crime, the legal gun owners have had to bear the brunt of additional costs and inconvenience, not to mention the constant character assignation that licensed gun owners receive. There appears to be a misconception that has been instilled into the public that everyone who owns a gun is suspect and is one to be feared.

Well, duh! It’s about government control not citizen safety. It always has been. It makes people feel safer. And for most people perception is reality. That and people will enthusiastically accept statements like, Just because something is irrational doesn’t mean you don’t have to believe in it. I’m with James on this.

3 thoughts on “It’s about control

  1. In the context of your son’s speech, that statement isn’t as absurd as it appears in this context, because the original question never defined the criteria for “shown to be irrational”. It’s one thing to believe in something with little or nothing supporting your belief (i.e., religion), and something else entirely to cling to a belief that has actually been proven statistically and/or scientifically to be false (e.g., gun control, flat earthers, genetically inferior races, etc.).

    Since the statement from that teacher was made based on a discussion of a book on atheism, it’s plausible that, among the teacher and the students, some were simply guilty of not being able to extrapolate the question beyond the confines of the immediate topic at hand.

  2. Licensed gun owners does not equate with criminal use of guns, apparently a detail beyond the ken of a Masshole bureaucrat.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: