What Is Really Causing Anti-2A People To PANIC About Guns?

11
1114

Panic is a problem in America today. Panic over people getting sick, panic over inflation, panic over the possibility of violence in our society. And, with some people, yes, panic over guns. Not just guns existing (though, it is that for some people), but panic with the idea that you or I have a firearm.

Now, we can (and should) have a discussion about whether these reasons for people panicking are valid (well, except for the guns one. There’s no rational reason that anyone should feel any stress at all about law-abiding people having guns). That’s a discussion for another time, though.

Today’s question is why people are panicked about private gun ownership when there’s no justification at all for that sense of panic. And there is a clear, easily-identifiable reason that some people feel that irrational emotion. John Seiler writes,

Advertisement

Emotionalism is the worst way to deal with policies. Yet it’s the main force behind the media hysteria pushing gun control. Especially by the Los Angeles Times, the main gun-control force in California. This is shown by two recent opinion articles they ran.

Seiler, then, tells of a story that the LA Times published that talked about a horrible shooting incident. That the incident was horrible is not in question. It’s what follows that that makes that hit piece worse. Seiler continues,

But then she asked, “I also know that I was the predictable victim of a political system that has allowed close to 400 million guns to flood every part of our country.”

That’s a non-sequitur. First, if the man was a felon who obtained a gun even though he couldn’t legally possess one, why does she think any new law could prevent that?

Second, how does she think 400 million guns could be confiscated?

Third, if somehow all those guns—or most of them—could be confiscated, attempted carjackings like this, and successful carjackings, would be more common, not less. That’s because carjackers would be more certain their potential victims would be disarmed.

Think about that. A major newspaper publishes an article with obvious, easily-identified illogical statements arguing for an anti-gun bias that the situation doesn’t justify.

But many people who read the article up to that point, because they’ve gotten emotionally involved in her tragic story will also simply accept her flawed conclusion that private gun ownership is the problem.

WIth this kind of blatant propaganda out there, is it any wonder that many ignorant people are panicked about private gun ownership?

Advertisement

11 COMMENTS

  1. Really I thing there are three factors that have contributed to the mass hysteria we’re seeing in certain population groups with a political alliance and reliance upon a certain party.
    It starts with Indoctrination, and that begins in our public school systems. Democrats have so thoroughly infiltrated the education system at every level, that their ideology is the only one children hear. It starts in kindergarten and keeps going all the way through college.
    Second, the Media is no longer unbiased, and hasn’t been for a very long time. The media owns the vast majority of the hysteria that’s been purposefully caused. It was intentional on their part
    Lastly, Politicians, most of whom know absolutely nothing about guns. “The 9mm blows the lung out of the body” lies.
    One party wants complete hegemonic control over the country and the people.
    That party is as sick and twisted as Mao, Stalin and Hitler rolled into one.

  2. It’s easy to pander to brainwashed and indoctrinated folks who are afraid of the wind blowing and adhere to an ideology which overrides logic, reason, and facts. Combine that mentality with a system of condoning and encouraging crime (bail reform, decriminalizing/destigmatizing hard drug use, etc.), elites and corporations who’d like us disarmed for sure control of the masses, and a media who lies constantly, real safety for law abiding good citizens is being attacked. When the CDC takes down inconvenient facts from their own website showing firearms are used more to prevent crime/deaths WAY more than they cause harm something is surely amiss. The only real question at this point is will We The People continue to allow these clowns steal away our rights and by that our country’s safety and future?

  3. Hmmm not to bad of a news paper article.the first paragraph just states that there are many guns here in the u.s.in the second one go on to say that to confastgate the guns from American people would be such a huge job that it wouldn’t work out to well for the gun takers.in the third one states even if that could happen the lawless would have the guns and we would be at their mercy all the time.

    • Not mentioned is the consequence of citizens surrendering their weapons and becoming subject to the whims of a “benevolent” state. Democide (death by government) is the cause of more than a hundred million murders in the 20th century.

  4. She ends pointing out that Confiscating guns wouldn’t keep criminals from getting them. And that it it would likely increase crime.

  5. Liberals panic about law abiding citizens having guns because they anticipate everybody acting as they would in any number of confrontations or stressful situations.
    Too many liberals would start blasting if/when just about any circumstance could easily be resolved without violence.

  6. I am often bemused and amazed by the rhetoric, conversations and comments concerning the issue of guns. I am an advocate for the 2nd Amendment and see no justification to restrict access to them by law-abiding citizens. There exists no other right whereby we are compelled to prove why we should be accorded access to the 2nd Amendment in owning/purchasing a gun.
    Let’s look at the issue from an objective perspective. Often we hear the argument from anti-gun people who claim its unfair for people to exercise their second Amendment right. First, fair is a perception and what one person views as unfair is actually irrelevant to the discussion. Equitable is the appropriate and correct word. This word allows equal exercise of the right; possess or not possess a gun.
    Next I provide an example that proves that the “gun” is not the problem/culprit in shootings. An ounce of common sense demonstrates that without “human” intervention upon the gun, no act of violence will occur. From a personal perspective, I placed my pistol on our dining table for an entire week and guess what; my pistol never shot a single person? A second relevant point relates to how some want to single firearms out as the enemy when its actually the criminal/perpetrator exercising control of a firearm.
    We have many crimes which happen but, in this one situation we find those who hate guns foisting their hate upon an inanimate object. Let us examine another couple of crimes in this flawed lens. We do not fault property to be the problem when a thief steals something from a person. We do not condemn automobiles for injuring or killing people while the driver is drunk. What happens is that society in those two situations punishes those who commit such criminal actions. We need to in turn ask those who demand that our rights be limited and quite possibly be removed entirely to explain why in those other cases we prosecute the criminal while with firearms their concluding argument to prosecute the object. Certainly does not make sense from an object position.

  7. Just by all the comments alone is enough to show how this country is pussy footing around with millions of people who have guns, but they aren’t trying to kill people, only if push comes to shove scenario:) It’s weak sissified people running this country. Which is a major fall for this country. It has long begun. Now you and I must go through it like it or not? They must go! I’m independent!! Any n’ every anti 2A must go if we are to survive! This country was conceived on guns n’ blood. I wouldn’t have it any other way! They started it, Now, we must finish it. Remember push come to shove scenario:)

  8. Liberals fervently believe just ONE more law will surely this time work. Until it doesn’t. Their solution? ANOTHER LAW! Doesn’t matter this is against the Constitution, Bill of RIghts, we need another law NOW, dammit!

    If they could GUARANTEE criminals could NOT use a firearm in commission of a felony, assault, murder, I wouldn’t quibble! Trouble is, ….. they CAN’T!

    Prosecuting of ALL felonies, assaults, murders with a gun could help! This means NO DAs waiving the ‘gun usage’ part of their charges for a ‘plea deal’, expunging that for a guilty plea of lesser charges, then allowing NO COST BAIL? Are you INSANE?

    So libs want to remove ALL guns! Of course, this won’t happen. Guns aren’t that hard to machine with todays CNC systems, crude ones even easier! Remember ‘zip guns’ from back in the 50a?

    No you don’t, WAY before your time. Trust me, a local hardware store has enough items to make one! So stop trying to call all semi-auto guns “assault weapons”! ANYTHING can be an “assault weapon”! A third-grader’s sharpened pencil can be an “assault weapon”!

    Better go confiscate all pencils in grade schools! You never know when a child may go berserk!

  9. Well well Why are you in such a tizzy right now. Have you forgotten about your FATHER ! How he told you about guns, and being safe, protecting your ass when shtf. He showed me how to, respect everything around the house and the world. But I will always remember what he told me, to say when we carried our guns around. Never pull your gun son, unless you drop a body to protect your family or your life. And do not point your gun at me, no no point it DOWN NOW!!!. But remember Amendment number 2 says that no one can change it, or rearrange it, but never try to get rid of it or add to it, just leave it alone. It is the law and it’s a RIGHT for the people by the people and that is allot, so learn it or leave it, or die by it!!!

  10. If the goal is to protect criminals from on-the-job injury risk, then denying ownership of guns by law abiding citizens makes sense. It is reasonable to assume that if a program has a predictable result, that was the intent of the program. If I were a criminal, if I broke into houses, I would certainly support making guns illegal.

Comments are closed.