Quote of the day—Luke O’Neil

All women should, in fact, be armed. Where I part ways with the right here, however, is that I think if we’re going to agree to that, then we’ll need to disarm all men. Men, as the DOJ numbers point out, commit 90% of all homicides. As we’ve seen in nearly every sensational mass shooting that’s been in the news in recent years, men are simply far too emotionally unstable to be trusted with such a powerful tool of violence. If we can’t agree to get rid of the guns, then it’s time we put our collective protection in the hands of those who we can likely trust to make more rational decisions about where to point them.

Luke O’Neil
July 15, 2014
Liberal Compromise on Guns: Arm All the Women
[H/T to Brian Anderson with his post More Gun Control Lunacy: Arm All Women, Disarm All Men.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.

I find his mindset very telling. He doesn’t seem to have a concept of “let people do what they want”. It’s “arm the women” and “disarm all men”. It’s always the collective forcing some decision they made upon individuals.

Another point to be made is that he is an advocate of collective guilt. All men should be disarmed. How about laws aimed at all Jews, blacks, or gays? Collective solutions without regard for the individual.

While I think women have as much or more to benefit from firearm ownership than men I think it is far better they make their own decisions. Their bodies their choice sort of thing. But it seems the irony of such words is completely lost on these people.—Joe]

2 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Luke O’Neil

  1. “I find his mindset very telling. He doesn’t seem to have a concept of “let people do what they want”. It’s “arm the women” and “disarm all men”. It’s always the collective forcing some decision they made upon individuals.”

    Very telling indeed. That’s a universal theme in the Progressive narrative. The NRA wants to “Arm the teachers” or “put guns in the hands of kids” and so on, and on, meaning take away choice (there’s only one activity in which Progressivism consistently advocates “choice” and it’s not a noble one).

    Guns are just one example, but it applies across the board– If you advocate X, Progressives take it to mean you advocate forcing X on everyone. That’s projection of course.

    Progressivism is first and foremost about coercion. It’s primary role is finding ways for coercion to be used in more places and more situations.

  2. Statistics are a funny thing. While it’s true that 90% of homicides are committed by men, does it follow that 90% of men commit homicides?

    Well, no: assuming 100 million men, and 10,000 homicides committed by men, we get 0.01% of men committing homicides (rounding madly to make calculations easier, but even so…)

    So, we’re going to disarm 99.99% of all men because the remainder will commit a homicide?

    (Yikes! I sometimes forget how stark these numbers can be! And this, despite having done similar computations before…)

Comments are closed.