Quote of the day—Carl Bussjaeger

Recently, we learned that Florida is apparently using its “red flag” law an average of five times a day.

Five times per day. That’s 1,825 people flagged per year.

“Red flag” goes into effect. Homicides go up. Firearm homicides go up. Suicides go up.

They don’t work. The vast majority of firearm homicides are committed by people who aren’t supposed to have guns anyway, and who will get them; generally in an unlawful fashion.

“Red flag” laws may even make suicides worse, by aggravating already disturbed people while leaving them on the loose to die by other means, and by not Baker Acting them so they get help. If I’m correct, 2019 suicide numbers in Florida may well be even worse than the significant increase of 2018.

Carl Bussjaeger
September 28, 2019
Florida Red Flag Law: How is it working out?
[Great research!

If only the facts mattered. As anti-gunner Joe Biden said “We choose truth over facts.”

These things will have be resolved in some other way than public debate and legislative action, perhaps the courts, because facts are mostly irrelevant to the political left.—Joe]

10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Carl Bussjaeger

  1. “They (red flag laws) don’t work.”

    A dangerously erroneous assumption. Just as one can neither agree nor disagree with something without understanding it, neither can one assume that a thing “works” or doesn’t “work” without having determined its purpose.

    All conclusions, even of the best science, are based on assumptions, and in this case the assumption is that red flag laws are intended to reduce crime and improve society.

    Why do we so consistently take the authoritarians at their word, when we know them to be habitual liars? In this pathological relationship, who has the worst contributing problem; the criminal, or the ones who fail to perceive the criminality?

    I submit that these red flag laws are working as designed and will continue to do so, quite successfully, and I believe furthermore that I, in that assertion, have a far more solid body of evidence upon which to rest.

    Why is this concept so terribly difficult to understand?;
    Rather than researching only the effects of these laws in relationship to the leftists’ assertions, maybe we should look first into the large bodies of evidence as to their actual intent.

    Looking at the dead women that Ted Bundy left behind for example; their deaths are not properly attributed to “failed relationships”. He intended to kill them, and so he planned and plotted his strategies and tactics, carefully and purposefully so as to make it happen. Of course he had to lie along the way. How hard is that to understand?

    How idiotic are we to fail to see it in politics? No; I cannot believe that we are so dense, after we’ve seen the patterns repeated so many times over the generations, after seeing the left case massive problems and then keep calling for more of what caused them.

    Is our failure to acknowledge reality, just like the destruction caused by the left, intentional as well? Is it too traumatic a thing to acknowledge? Are we unwilling to see it because it is too terrible to see?

    It has been said that small lies require the utmost secrecy, whereas the biggest, most destructive lies are protected by our own incredulity. That’s a fancy way of saying that we can’t handle the truth. If that’s the case, then God help us; we’re almost as guilty as the leftists.

    The case can even be made that we’re more guilty, for surely those who know better are the more responsible for what happens in their company.

    Here’s a field of study for you all; the concept of willful ignorance. How common is it, and to what extent can a person actually convince himself that what he is seeing is not real? What are the mechanisms of social, political and religious influences on the belief or disbelief of readily observable reality?

    To run with the assumption that the left, as a whole, believes that their policies are constructive and not destructive is one of those assertions that fits the old saying;
    “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”

    What evidence do we have that the left, as a whole, actually believes red flag laws will reduce crime and result in a more peaceful, productive and happy society? Have they ever even said it, much less believed it themselves? More to the point, since some among the rank and file will always be deceived; what evidence is there that the leftist planners and influencers believe their lies?

    Or is there more evidence which shows us that they know their policies will result in violence and destruction, and that this is precisely why they promote them?

    Maybe the answers to these questions are ao horrifying, and so compelling upon us, imposing such massive responsibility upon us, that we’re never going to acknowledge them until there’s absolutely no other option left. Maybe it’s too easy and too satisfying to make fun of the “stupidity” of the left (while they control everything and take our wealth), and to get our little thrills of pride out of mocking them, to ever stop doing it until we’re either forced to quit it, or we’re simply dead. Maybe Ted Bundy is simply too handsome and too charming for us to believe that the knife he’s thrusting into us, after having tied and gagged us, is intentional. Maybe we’re not willing to admit that we’ve been so easily fooled that we are essentially bringing destruction upon ourselves by way of our own disbelief.

    Who is more pathetic; the liars, or we who refuse to believe we’re falling for the lies of those we’ve already identified as liars? Who will have been the more responsible for the predictable outcome?

    • I believe your answer can be found in the animal kingdom. Its called herd mentality.
      If one can’t actually stop the lions. It’s the safest way not to get picked off by them. It matters little that the herd could easily stampede over them. Which is the warning the lions keep ignoring.

  2. Technically, there is an important different between a fact and the truth (although colloquially this distinction has disappeared). A fact can be proven false, and still be a fact. I think Mr. Biden is interested in emotions and opinions (particularly those which motivate votes in his favor), regardless of the truth.

    That last sentence, by the way, was stated as if it were factual…but no one can actually prove what I think, so it’s an opinion.

  3. I was apparently too subtle in noting that the law didn’t work as they claimed it would. Since I’ve been saying for years that gun control laws target the demographic not committing the crimes, therefore the unspoken goal isn’t what they claimed, I didn’t bother to say it explicitly again. It’s people control.

    I hereby apologize for failing to repeat myself again.

    • I think certain people just deliberately misunderstand you so they can exercise their jaws and typing fingers to prove you ‘wrong’.

  4. “…These things will have be resolved in some other way that public debate and legislative action, perhaps the courts, …”

    First, I suspect “…way that public debate…” should read: “…way than public debate…”

    Second, I would welcome ths issue being subjected to thorough judicial review employing the entire range of the American court system, and I expect that such a process, if not already underway, will be pursued soon. I suspect, however, that, eventually, other means may eventually have to be employed to achieve full resolution.

    Unfortunately, until then I’m afraid we’ll witness untold lives being ruined or cut short.

  5. Five times a day….. and THAT was exactly the plan. The commie left is playing the LOOOONNNNGGG Game. So it takes a quarter century or more…so what.
    Eventually EVERY gun owner will be ‘red flagged’, disarmed and eradicated as a threat. And don’t EVER expect a black robed pirate to EVER call these laws the unconstitutional abuse of power they so blatantly are. The American judiciary is AS corrupt if not more so than the commie demonrat party.

  6. Until there is a brutal and direct response to false accusations, expect such accusations to persist.

    • In many of these cases the accused doesn’t even have the right to know the identity of the accuser. Convenient.

Comments are closed.