It has to be said

Most of the information you obtain from the mainstream media on guns has to do with the adverse effects of the ownership and use. What follows is a glimmer of light in a very dark landscape–Any Study Of ‘Gun Violence’ Should Include How Guns Save Lives:

But regardless of whether “gun violence” research is being conducted by the federal government, states, universities, or private organizations, there are three key principles all public health researchers and firearms policy analysts should remember.

The first principle is:

* Firearms save lives as well take lives.

A second key principle in judging gun violence research:

* The value of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens should be measured in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented, not criminals killed.

Finally, a third principle to remember in analyzing public health gun violence research:

* The right to self-defense does not depend on statistics and numbers.

The first principle should be obvious but it is extremely rare this is brought up in the media.

The second principle is obvious to most people when you point out. And you have to point it out to most people. And in the case of the anti-gun people you have to really “rub their noses in it” before they will even acknowledge your mention of it.

The third principle is will probably take some convincing to a most people and it is an extremely rare anti-gun people who acknowledges you even bringing this point up.

Regardless of the difficult it getting acceptance, and even acknowledgement, these things have to be said whenever someone wants to talk about gun policies.


6 thoughts on “It has to be said

  1. “Firearms save lives as well take lives.”

    Actually they do neither. People using firearms however, can do either.

    For those who would accuse me of nit-picking; it is important to know what you’re saying, and say it as you mean it, rather than to think you know what you want to say, say something else, and hope that others understand it, in spite of your error, the way you intended. It comes down to the concept of sloppy thinking and sloppy writing verses clear thinking and clear writing. Those who tend to think clearly also tend to write clearly, is the point.

    “…information you obtain from the mainstream media on guys has to do with the adverse effects from the ownership and use.”

    There’s a case in which I could easily figure out what you meant to say, but it’s not always so easy. It often involves some second-guessing and inference.

    ” The right to self-defense does not depend on statistics and numbers.”

    Excellent! That’s refreshing.

    What’s still not being said is; Wait a minute; we have “public” health researchers and “firearms policy analysts”? Prey tell, why? This stuff is none of government’s business. Their job is to uphold our rights as individual citizens, and to administer a system of justice for that end.

    The very fact that there are “firearms policy analysts” means that our rights are under attack. It means that our rights, which we were told were “unalienable” are now assumed, by those charged with protecting them, to be subject to revision. For what other reason is there to “analyze” them and make “policy”?

    How would you feel if I decided that I needed to set up a “property use analysis” lab outside your property so as to see how efficiently you were using your property? And I had a thousand SWAT teams to back up my “findings”? You would assume, correctly, that my intent was to deprive you of the use of your property, one way or another.

    If rights are “endowed by the Creator” and are thus “unalienable”, then what possible reason exists for “analyzing” them and making “policy”? Answer; none, at all, whatsoever.

    So it is that we are dealing with such presumptuousness, such towering arrogance, such evil intent, that everything is on the table for consideration (given certain “findings”), including the wholesale violation of rights. This presumptuousness, in and of itself, is a murderous, destructive force. It must be routed out and expelled from our midst or we’re doomed as a society. And yet it is everywhere, right down to the district and city levels. Kids are taught it in schools.

    One thing we can do, now and always, is expose it. Expose it, point it out specifically, name it for all to see plainly. Contrast with it, so there is a clear distinction. So far we’ve mostly just tried to argue with it, using its premises, seldom addressing, much less undermining, its actual foundation and identity. When someone supposedly on “our side” exhibits it, we’ll even support it.

    “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.”

    • I can find valid reasons to have discussions on the regulations and polices regarding guns. Examples:

    • Should manufacturers be required to notify customers of recently discovered flaws which present safety hazards?
    • Should manufacturers be required to be truthful regarding the capabilities of firearms?
    • Should ammunition manufacturers be held liable for selling out of spec cartridges which result in the injury or death of consumers when they fail in self defense incidents?
    • What amount of firearm training, if any, should be required for graduation from high school?
    • If training is required should there be exemptions for “conscientious objectors”?
    • Can an employer ban guns from extremely hazardous locations (such as an explosives manufacturing or storage facility)?
    • The list could go on for pages.

  2. Rational statements…..and TOTALLY wasted. It’s just another case of
    “preachin to the choir”. Logic, fact and reason are simply BEYOND the
    ability of most of those that make up the political left. They simply cannot
    think and merely emote their way through life feeling and believing what
    they are TOLD to feel and believe by the media whore accomplices of the
    commie demonrat party…..the ones who DO understand logic and reason.
    The problem is that group simply doesn’t care…..all they care about is the
    only thing they care about. POWER! And the path to acquiring and keeping
    power requires they DISARM US. So they will do so by any and all means
    possible regardless of fact, logic, reason or evidence. They are like the
    Terminator. They WILL NOT QUIT and they WILL NOT GO AWAY. The can’t
    be reasoned with. They can’t be bargained with. They intend to kill or enslave us. And the ONLY THING that will prevent them from doing so is their own

    • So… if you are so certain of this, have you started preventing them from enslaving us? If not, then what are you doing?

      • The ancient philisophers and rhetoricians of old knew the difference between dialectic and rhetoric.
        dialectic (dīˌə-lĕkˈtĭk) n.The art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments.
        rhetoric (rĕtˈər-ĭk) n.The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.

        Aristotle knew and made clear that some people cannot be persuaded by facts, logic, and reason. They respond only to emotional button-pushing. Your facts, logic, reason, Supreme Court decisions mean less than nothing; your using them means you don’t feel, therefore you are inferior to them (in their minds). You can only convince them by using illogical rhetoric, persuasive appeals to emotion.

        That’s why terms like “SJW” are so effective – you are mocking them using their own terms. Using facts bounce off them. When they say “think of the children” a dialectic response of the reasonable use of lethal force in self defense is less than useless. Replying with “coming from the the pro-infanticide party that’s pretty rich,” or some more pithy version that pushes their buttons and gets them defensive and off-topic. Your actual position on the topic of late-term abortion is irrelevant; that fact that it deals with life and is complicated will amp up their emotional distress and they’ll want to change the topic or melt down.

        You cannot fight with dialectical tools those who are immune to logic and more than you can fix a broken heart with a large slab of surplus nuclear reactor shielding.

  3. Neil Schulman (in his excellent book “Stopping Power”) points out that failing to apply the second point is not just scientifically invalid, it is morally wrong. The reason is that counting “criminals killed” as a “benefit” is an assertion that killing the criminal is the purpose of self defense. And that is at best a moronic misstatement, or an infamous slander. While the death of the attacker is an acceptable outcome, it is not the purpose of self defense.
    That point deserves to be attacked very hard, not just because it has a massive impact on the numbers (several orders of magnitude, since only a percent or two of defensive gun use instances result in the death of the attacker) but especially because it takes back the moral high ground for self defense.

Comments are closed.