Quote of the day—PBinLostAngeles

In the United States a far more frightening pathology – again, that gun control zealots fail to acknowledge or choose to ignore – is the fact that the majority of the most heinously vicious murderers in the history of our great Nation, including Gary Ridgway – who savagely murdered more people by himself than were lost at Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, and San Bernardino combined – never use a firearm during the commission of their brutality! John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Edward Gein, Donald Harvey, Anthony Sowell, Lawrence Bittaker, Roy Norris and on and on. The list of murder-intent monsters – who never used a firearm – is a horrifically long one, and this list silently grows each and every day.

June 4, 2019
Comment to Why Gun Ownership Rates Tell Us Little About Homicide Trends in America
[If someone wants to reduce murder rates then enabling people to defend themselves and quickly and reliably punishing murders is going to be far more effective than placing restrictions upon the access to the most effective defensive tools ever created.

The truth of this can be readily seen by looking at the data for successful defensive uses of firearms compared to the offensive uses of firearms. Defensive uses are far more common than offensive uses. Unless there is someway to accurately predict which people are going to use a particular type of tool to commit a violent crime then any restriction on that tool is going to affect the defensive use rate far more than the offensive use rate. If you can accurately predict which people are going to commit a violent crime then why is that person not locked up where they are far less likely to harm someone?

Obviously, it is impossible to accurately predict which people are going to commit  violent crime. Hence, we are left with the conclusion that weapon control is counter productive if the goal is to reduce violent crime. But since the political left is insistent on weapon control, even when it is repeatedly shown to be, at best, of no benefit, we must conclude their goal is not the reduction of violent crime.—Joe]


3 thoughts on “Quote of the day—PBinLostAngeles

  1. Gun control, of course, is not and never has been about reducing violent crime, saving lives, or protecting the innocent in any way. Only once we have completely internalized that fact can we begin to address the problem.

    Internalizing a simple truth is like picking and eating fruit. First you must be hungry for it, otherwise you could see it and yet walk right by it. Then you must be able to recognize it, and then determine whether it is ripe. Then pick it, which is to take it into your hands for yourself, then wash it to make sure it’s free of corrupting ideas, then put it in your mouth, chew it up, and, tasting the sweetness and realizing that it is good, swallow it, digest it and thus incorporate it into your being.

    Now there are reasons why we might occasionally want to run with the false premises, false rationalizations and fake narratives of the Romish, leftist revolutionaries, as this QOTD does. Some people do actually believe them after all, and those are often the people we’re trying to reach, but let’s never allow room for anyone to suspect that we might believe those lies ourselves.

    “If you can accurately predict which people are going to commit a violent crime then why is that person not locked up where they are far less likely to harm someone?”

    There’s that notion of a “Red Flag Law” or “Department of Pre-Crime” we’ve all been talking about, and yet, just like gun restrictions, the proponents of these laws have never intended to catch the criminals. They intend to catch us.

    The confusion in these discussions always comes from one source, which is our incredulity. Keep in mind that, to the corrupt and the corrupting powers, the honest, principled, truth-seeking, law-abiding citizen is always the primary threat. Thus there has always been a campaign against the honest, the principled, the truth-seeking and the law-abiding.

    It is a relentless, total onslaught, but of course it needs premises, pretense and cover.

    In some of the mass shootings the perpetrators didn’t need anyone with a crystal ball, or some advanced behavior prediction algorithm, to “accurately predict” the event. They actually SAID they were going to do it, and in so doing they’ve committed an actionable offense. No new law was necessary to deal with them prior to the shooting. They could have been stopped, but no one acted. We’ve seen that in multiple cases now.

    But apprehending them for their credible death threats, you see, is unacceptable, because the leftist goal is ALWAYS more laws. They MUST ignore actual death threats. They MUST be as lackluster as possible in law enforcement. They MUST seek to hire less intelligent people to enforce the laws, etc., because they always, and forever, need pretenses for more laws. This is part and parcel to how they build and maintain their power and authority.

    For a legislator to have any power at all, he must be legislating, after all. Therefore you will never, ever, hear a legislature declare to their constituency, “We have determined that there are now quite enough laws, and therefore you no longer have any need for us.”

    In fact the only need we currently have for any legislature is to systematically repeal laws, and do nothing else BUT repeal laws, for the next hundred years or so. The Ten Commandments are sufficient for most any occasion, and then maybe a few administrative laws, fire codes and ordinances. The vast majority of existing law is either redundant or is pointedly counter-indicated.

    • I thought I made it clear the accurate prediction of violent crime was not possible. I added another paragraph to clarify that point and draw the obvious conclusions rather than leaving it as an exercise for the reader.

Comments are closed.