Yeah, the title is long. The post will be mercifully short.
So here’s a sampling of Progressive stupidity in no particular order. First, in Canada, a female MP from Alberta takes issue with the loss of jobs in her province, and delivers a speech that contains the word “fart” in it. Another MP, with the sort of pompous, perpetually-offended scowl reminiscent of every Gender Studies professor you’ve ever seen then declares how offended she is. The SJW cannot even bring herself to say the word “fart” and must, instead, spell it out to protect her delicate sensibilities. Take a look for yourself:
All I can say is, thank God I am not a Canadian MP. My language would trigger Miss Cat Lady into conniption fits.
For our second display of Progressive idiocy on this Monday, November 28th, I present the following: Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, a blog that, many moons ago, once made a lot more sense than it does today. Ole CJ used to be something of a center-right kind of guy, until he had an epic meltdown that resulted in the banning of something like 75% of his readership (including yours truly).
Today, he takes offense with people saying mean things about Castro. I, naturally, had feelings about this which resulted in my immediate blocking:
Feel free to go to his Twitter to see the originals – blocked from my feed. He was taking offense that Trump said “assholish” things about Castro. He was also hurt that Hillary lost.
But today’s winner in the contest of who can be the biggest Progressive idiot goes to whoever was responsible for this headline:
The problem? Machete-wielding guy had no gun. He tried to run people over, and resorted to the machete after crashing his Honda 4-banger. The gun graboids were practically drooling… and were resoundingly disappointed by the result. Also, said terrorist turned out to be a Muslim Somali immigrant, instead of the militant Amish gun owner the media was praying for.
Dystopic: KodeTen is back, folks. And his piece below is very important – the Second Amendment is the cornerstone of this country.
It’s not often I weigh in on the gun debate. Trying to engage in thoughtful conversation with someone vomiting “common sense gun control” is an exercise in… well;
But after California, and now a strike too close to home for Dystopic in Orlando, I’ve been able to put my entire gun control argument into four simple words:
“I will die trying.”
There’s a mentality we developed in Afghanistan, fighting the Al Quaeda and the Taliban. You see, we watched the news, we combed through YouTube, and LiveLeak, we watched al-Jazeera. We had our Intelligence officers brief us on what was going on. We planned for the worst.
We knew beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if we ever found ourselves overran, cut off, and alone, we had two options. Allow ourselves to be captured, where we’d be put in front of a camera and butchered, or die trying.
We made up our minds, each of us individually, that if we were met with that situation, we would do everything in our power to take out as many of those bastards as possible. We would force them to kill us in battle, because if we didn’t, the alternative was torture and our families potentially subjected to the horror of watching our murder broadcast around the world.
And so, we come to the simple conclusion of my gun control argument.
I will never stop battling against it. No worthless semantics like an “assault weapons” ban. No “hi-cap” magazine restrictions, absolutely no ban on concealed carry. Nothing. The laws we have in place are effective enough. I have a gun. If that makes you uncomfortable, fuck off!
Maybe I will be killed. Maybe, God forbid that moment comes and I’m face to face with a psychopath, maybe he’ll get the upper hand and slay me.
Maybe that will happen. I have to be realistic, I have a gun, not invincibility, but if that should happen, I will not die in a ball on the floor, begging for my life.
I will die trying.
Weep for those we lost in San Bernadino, in Orlando, in Paris. Weep for the children we lost in Sandy Hook. But do not presume to use their deaths as leverage to deny me the ability to try and put a stop to violence like this if I am ever met with it. You cannot legislate crazy, and I will not allow you to legislate my ability to level the playing field against crazy.
Because in the end, it’s not about having a military grade weapon as a civilian. It’s about having the chance to stand up and raise my weapons against evil, and actually have a fighting chance.
We have more important things to be focusing on than laws that ban ownership of inanimate objects, if only we threw so much effort at tackling the out-of-control medical costs in this country, maybe we’d start getting to the root of this problem, rather than slapping a band-aid over it.
You want to die curled up in a corner and begging for the police to show up, that’s fine, but do not presume to tell me I have to do the same. I’d rather stand up and die trying.
Perusing Twitter last night, I came across an interesting observation made by Mr. X, a gentleman whom I have followed for some time:
The fascinating part about this argument is that it is true, and the founders themselves would be absolutely horrified by the level of restriction we have placed on arms. A common Progressive argument is that the right to bear arms only applied to an “organized militia.” This is made without the understanding that every able-bodied man of military age was considered, de facto, a part of the militia. Another common argument is that the right only applied to “muskets” or other period firearms. Semi-automatics, revolvers, repeaters, etc… were not envisioned, they say.
Except that repeating firearms were well known during the period. Multiple barrels were the solution of choice in that time period, although there were other techniques. One particularly interesting idea used compressed air with lead pellets, fired at high velocity. Another was to revolve the entire barrel, a predecessor to the revolvers of the 1800s. Point is, the concept was well known to the founders, and they saw no reason to write them out of the Second Amendment.
One solution to the problem.
But what about, as Mr. X’s opponent postulates, surface-to-air missiles? Tanks? Naval vessels? Note that the Second Amendment doesn’t restrict their use either. And, as Mr. X points out, merchant vessels of the day were often loaded with cannons that could have easily been used in a shore bombardment capacity. In those days, piracy was still a major problem, and an unarmed, unescorted merchant ship was a tempting target.
Some “merchant ships” were barely-disguised frigates or fourth-rate line ships. East Indiamen were often commandeered for military use during time of war, and participated in many smaller naval battles. This was a type of vessel within the means of many wealthy merchant houses.
See those open doors? Gunports.
The tea trading industry being somewhat well known to the founders (the understatement of the day), you know they were well aware of armed merchant freighters, carrying cannons often as large and powerful as those found on naval frigates. Yet, again, they did not write anything about them in the Second Amendment either.
In simple terms, you could own any weapon you wanted to. A musket, a proto-revolver, a cannon, and even a frigate loaded with cannons. It would be the modern equivalent of owning, say, a somewhat cut down version of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Given the recent rise in Somali piracy, it might not be bad idea to begin rearming merchant ships accordingly.
But, the point is, the founders didn’t seem worried that some lunatic with an American East Indiaman vessel loaded for bear was going to randomly, and for no particular reason, bombard the crap out of New York, even though they were theoretically capable of this action. For one, the government was not helpless against them. Early American frigates were noted as some of the most powerful vessels of their class, and secondly, important harbors were usually fortified.
Perhaps most importantly, the kind of man who would spend the modern equivalent of millions, perhaps billions, on a vessel capable of such an attack would hardly risk it in some half-baked domestic terror attack. This is borne out by the fact that in American history, this never happened. Not even once.
So let’s circle back. If you can own something like an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, at least according to the original intent of the Second Amendment, why not a surface-to-air missile? Or a tank? Like the frigates of old, these are expensive toys. Allowing their purchase will not result in a sudden flood down to Wal Mart to buy them. Few could afford them. Those who could afford them may have a need for them, as geopolitical tensions rise. Installing a missile launcher on your supertanker could wind up saving the crew and cargo from pirates.
But even if they don’t have a need, the Second Amendment is not qualified by any specific limitations. If you really want to buy a missile launcher, and you have the cash for it, the Constitution isn’t standing in your way. The Federal Government is, of course, but as we know, it is hardly Constitutional.
Now, here’s where a typical Progressive will say “well you want anybody to just be able to buy nuclear bombs or something!” Well, no. Most weapons we have today are developments of much older technologies. Repeating firearms were known, for instance. So were cannons, grenades, even armored vehicles. Airplanes are relatively new as a delivery vehicle but what they deliver would be well understood by most 18th century military men. When reading the book Victoria, I was reminded of the fact that aircraft are, essentially, the ultimate long-range artillery. Napoleon would have loved them.
To the point, though, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons are different. Now, the Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about them, but perhaps it should. This is what Constitutional Amendments are for, incidentally. Own whatever you like so long as it isn’t a weapon of mass destruction, which has a very specific definition. That sounds like a reasonable amendment to me.
Progressives are afraid of weapons, which is really quite stupid, because the weapon itself is an inanimate object. It is the wielder that you have to worry about. Since Progressive logic is precisely backwards, they desire to restrict the inanimate object, but allow in people who are demonstrably a threat. The fighter will find himself a weapon, or fashion one himself, which is something that Leftists can’t wrap their minds around.
Either way, however, the Second Amendment prohibits the government from regulating any of this. If we take the original amendment, as understood by the people writing it, it would mean that any adult male capable of fighting has a right to own any weapon they want, and can afford.
Indeed, it was expected that they would do so. It was, after all, the duty of the people to keep a close eye on their government. Today, the reverse is far more common, with the government keeping a close eye on the people.
Mass shootings have become something of a regular occurrence in America. A few times every year, some lunatic goes crazy, comes in guns blazing, and slaughters as many people as possible before going down or getting captured.
Other outlets have already covered the incident better than I can, making note of the shooter’s particular animus toward Christians. This, incidentally, is similar to the Charleston church shooting in that respect. There has been a tendency of late for Christians to feel as if the establishment is targeting them. The UCC Shooting seems to be circumstantial evidence that they may be correct, a hatred of Christianity may be turning deadly in America. Certainly it already has in the Middle East.
But again, I digress. My point here is to discuss a phenomenon which has bothered me since 9/11: Americans seem to be losing their martial spirit, their tendency to run toward the danger, guns in hand, rather than submit, bow their heads, and wait for the inevitable to consume them.
We know that the passengers of Flight 93 fought back and overwhelmed their attackers. They died in the process, but saved countless lives by preventing their craft from being used as a weapon like the others. These people were heroes who went down fighting. I can only hope that if I am caught in such a situation, I can honor them by doing half as much. Yet, it must be said: why didn’t the passengers of the other planes do the same?
Naturally, they probably thought that they would be ransomed. Or, perhaps, it was fear that held them back. But when you have nothing to lose, why not fight back?
Fast forward to our present circumstances. One man refused to be a passive victim. Veteran Chris Mintz charged the shooter and was shot seven times in the process. Yet he was the only one.
The esteemed Brad Torgersen, author of Chaplain’s War, explains it for us:
“Once again it strikes me how we have become a society of trained helplessness. We duck and cover and hope the evil will not notice us. And of course evil roams freely, shooting people in the head.”
Only the Army veteran could summon the courage to fight the shooter. The rest passively allowed themselves to be shot. This is anathema to me. I could not imagine surrendering in such circumstances. I intend to live, and if life is no longer possible, I would at least make the cost of my death as high as possible, so as to even the scales. It fascinates me just how helpless people are today.
We are a species that once fought grizzly bears and sabertooth tigers in the wilderness. We hunted buffalo with spears, arrows, and rocks. And yet, today, people cannot summon the courage to fight for their own life even when they have nothing to lose by doing so!
This sort of stupidity and cowardice is ingrained in our children from an early age, through this super-self-esteem-building, anti-bullying claptrap espoused by modern psychologists and educators. Take a look at this little gem:
Roleplay with your child how he can stand up to a bully. Point out to your child that the bully wants to provoke a response that makes him feel powerful, so showing emotion and fighting back are exactly what the bully feeds off. Explain that while he can’t control the bully, he can always control his own response. So in every interaction, how he responds will either inflame the situation or defuse it. Your child needs to avoid getting “hooked” no matter how mad the bully makes him.
The best strategy is always to maintain one’s own dignity, and to let the “bully” maintain his dignity, in other words, not to attack or demean the other person. To do this, simply say something calm like:
“You know, I’m just going to ignore that comment.”
“I think I have something else to do right now.”
“No thank you.”
Wrong. Dead wrong, in this case. When a bully attacks you, you fight back. Even if the bully wins, the cost of his victory will weigh heavily in his mind. If you do enough damage on your way out, he’ll probably ignore you in the future. He’ll also reconsider attacking others, because if people keep standing up to him, he’ll learn quickly that bullying won’t make him feel powerful. Rather, it will result in black eyes, bloody noses, and taunts from his compatriots.
Can you imagine attempting to reason with a mass shooter this way? “Oh, please, Mr. Shooter, I recognize that you are having self esteem problems, and I’m just going to ignore this bullet to the brain so that you can maintain your dignity.”
People are trained to avoid conflict because the Progressive Left has propagated the idea that all violence is evil. Fighting back is, in their estimation, as great a sin as the aggressive offender’s own acts. Even greater, in fact, because they will excuse the aggressor’s actions by saying that he was the victim of the Patriarchy, or microaggressions, police profiling, or mental illness. By standing up to the bully you are, in effect, oppressing him. That’s how ass-backwards Leftist “logic” is.
We encourage mass shootings today through propagating the culture of helplessness. Gun rights activists are fond of explaining that gun control is unlikely to stop mass shootings. But the problem goes a lot deeper than that. Certainly, more good people with firearms (and less gun free zones) would have an effect. But, it’s not simply whether or not people are armed that is the issue. A shooter in a college or a mall, a man armed with a box cutter on an airplane… these people are far outnumbered even by the unarmed citizenry. A simple mob attack could easily stop the shooter regardless of how many of them were packing heat.
In Britain a couple years ago, a Muslim beheaded a British veteran in broad daylight, in front of a crowd of people. The only person to come to the aid of the victim was a woman who the Muslim did not perceive as a threat. Even then, all she could do was stay with the body and call the authorities. Yet a crowd surrounded this man and did nothing.
Where were the British people who conquered one quarter of the entire Earth? They could not even summon the courage to defend one of their own, in broad daylight, against a knife-wielding Muslim, when they outnumbered the attacker 20 to 1.
Now, let’s see how the Progressive Left views the shooting:
The #FullMcIntosh explains that masculinity is responsible for the deaths. I would argue that masculinity might have saved people.
So, our friendly Progressive informs us that men are responsible and masculinity is to blame. Yet, the only one who tried to save the victims was Chris Mintz, a veteran and a man willing to do violence on behalf of the innocent. Mass shootings do not comprise a problem of too much masculinity. They are the result of an insufficient amount of masculinity and an abundance of cowardice, enabled and supported by a culture of helplessness.
But, as the TV salesmen are fond of saying, wait, there’s more!
The shooter is half black. Mixed race. Don’t let that stop you, though, Leftists.
So, whiteness is to blame, I suppose. Like the mixed-race shooter that killed the reporter and cameraman during a live broadcast, the Progressives have been tripped up by the fact that the shooter doesn’t fit their preferred demographic narrative. Was it his white half, I wonder, that forced him into violence? Indeed, the shooter’s anti-Christian rhetoric, and apparent targeting of Christian victims, seems to be anecdotal evidence that that wasn’t some kind of Right wing radical. But, just like the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, the Left rushed to judgment, hoping against hope that the perp was a white guy.
I would argue that the real issue isn’t the race of the perp, or his sex. Rather, it is a culture of helplessness that, like the schoolyard bully, enables the shooter. Someone considering whether or not to engage in such violence has to ask himself the question: am I likely to succeed, to kill a lot of victims. Mass shooters want as much attention as possible, they want the greatest number of victims possible. They want to go out in a proverbial blaze of infamy.
Getting off one or two shots before the mob of angry Americans tears you limb-from-limb doesn’t work in that model. Even the psychopathic lunatic would have to weigh that risk before engaging in his violent attack. The terrorist hijackers would have to account for the possibility that, not only would they die (often a given), but they would fail in their mission.
Leftist feel-good, non-violent pacifism has created the mass shooting epidemic, not a lack of gun control. This isn’t caused by some kind of White supremacist Right-wing conspiracy, nor is it caused by “toxic masculinity” as McIntosh would have you believe.
It’s caused by pansies refusing to do as Chris Mintz did: charge the enemy, even when all hope is lost. It is caused by a culture of helplessness, which enables the cowardly and punishes the strong. It starts in elementary school, where the bully gets off, and the victim is punished for fighting back.
To Hell with all of that. If a shooter comes for me, I will fight until I can fight no more. You should do the same, dear readers.
KodeTen pointed out the utter lunacy of this solipsistic woman and her steely determination. Why, Margaret Thatcher will have to rise from the grave and admit that she is no longer worthy of the lofty title Iron Lady. Certainly, Miss Yewman, whom I presume is not married (if I’m in error, I advise the husband to flee in the face of overwhelming cuntwagonry), has demonstrated her ability to face the deepest phobias present in the human psyche.
Yes, she deigned to exercise her Second Amendment rights to own a firearm. The pure, unmitigated horror.
Solipsism manifests itself in a variety of ways, but none so egregious as the autobiography of a woman making the ultimate sacrifice: doing something vaguely unpleasant. The article begins with the usual excuses and emotional diatribes. Miss Yewman wants you to know she lost a former basketball coach at Columbine, thus rendering her views on ownership of guns as sacrosanct. After all, she was a victim, and in the Church of Leftism, nothing is as sacred as one’s ironclad status as a member of the oppressed masses.
There are some vague citations of the Brady campaign and a variety of other typical Leftist agitprop cloaked as “common sense”, and then Miss Yewman began her grand experiment. She begins with this little gem:
I was appalled at how easy it was for me to get a gun without a single second of training, and I wrote four articles about it. Over 30 days, I followed four rules:carry it with me at all times; follow the laws of my state; only do what is minimally required for permits, licensing, purchasing, and carrying; and finally be prepared to use it for protecting myself at home or in public.
Leftism has hatched a near-infinite number of delusions since it began to plague Western Civilization, but none so utterly ridiculous as the concept of mandatory training as a catch-all for curing terminal stupidity. This is the same general category as diversification training and those pointless driving tests one has to suffer through after a receiving speeding ticket. Are they at all useful? Certainly, if you are going to buy a gun, you would be well-advised to learn how to use it. Yet, Americans have gotten along well enough throughout their history without a firearm training requirement. Generally speaking, the sensible individuals will seek out training on their own, and those without that sort of sensibility will not be helped by it in the first place.
Ms. Magazine ran my initial post on the experience on June 12. More than 2,000 commenters responded to that article—most of them angry gun-rights advocates saying how stupid I was; one even suggested that I put the gun in my mouth. Most of them missed the point entirely: the experiment was designed to show how easy it is to obtain a gun without being required to know how to use it.
Considering that gun-rights advocates are likely to have firearms themselves, I am quite sure they already have some idea of the difficulty (or lack thereof) in obtaining a weapon. For all the hype and irrational fear, the gun is a very simple device which even the most primitive sort of intellect can wrap their mind around. Certainly child soldiers in third-world toilets have no need of extensive mental preparation to understand the operation of a firearm. Still, I will grant Miss Yewman that developing good habits with firearms is essential.
When I was younger, my father demonstrated the proper method of unloading a semi-automatic handgun. Eject the magazine, pull back the slide twice. Once for you, he would tell me, and once for the gun. We did this together a few times, so that I would develop good habits. There were other habitual actions that, truly, were simply common sense executed frequently enough to become automatic behavior. Never point the weapon at anything you don’t want a neat little hole in. Secure the weapon properly when in the company of others. None of this is rocket science, and a government test will not instill this sort of behavior because it is learned by repetition not by conscious thought. Nobody who has an accident with a gun thought the thing was loaded. Or, rather, if they did then our gene pool is probably better off without their contribution.
For those without a gun-owning military parent, the local gun range is a great place to go to develop good habits. Generally speaking, the range operators will help you if they see you doing anything wrong. Simply by going to a range frequently and talking with other gun owners, one will develop those automatic behaviors in due time. Miss Yewman, of course, did not avail herself of this opportunity. Why would she associate with those neanderthal troglodyte firearm enthusiasts?
I put my purse on the counter and then spent the next hour out on the back deck. Walking into the kitchen to refresh our drinks, I noticed my purse with the 9mm Glock still inside it. I’d forgotten to lock it up! Panic set in as I realized my teen son was playing videogames just 10 feet away. What if he’d decided to get the socks I’d bought him from my purse while I was out on the deck? Thoughts raced through my mind and I pondered how I’d just straddled the fine line between being a responsible gun owner and an irresponsible idiot whose 15-year-old just accidentally shot himself or someone else with my gun.
Miss Yewman probably leaves her car outside and her keys in the purse too. Could the teenager go on a joyride and get himself killed? In my own family, guns were no big deal. My father showed me where he kept them. Of course, if I touched one without permission, unpleasant things were destined to happen to me, but that went for the lemon cookies he kept in the corner of the cabinet too. In fact, the penalty probably would have been greater for the cookies. I could be trusted with the firearm whereas anything containing high amounts of sugar was entirely unsafe in my presence. There was no culture of fear. I knew where he kept the chainsaw and the tractor, too, but I didn’t care. You see, the gun wasn’t anything special in my own family. It was a tool, not some mysterious, tantalizing device to be fearful of and attract the attention of rebellious teens. I had more interesting things to do than mess with the firearms.
A gun in a home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than kill someone in self-defense. With over 200 million guns in our country, most in our homes, it’s no wonder that over 19,000 people in America die from suicide and accidental death by a gun every year. So I decided to keep the gun in a locked safe when I was home. But that didn’t seem to soften my worry and overall anxiousness.
Leftism loves these sorts of statistics, because they sound scary to those of middling intelligence. Yet, let’s dissect this “43 times more likely” statistic. This omits the defensive uses that did not result in death. Larry Elder in his book Ten Things You Can’t Say In America cites over 2 million annual uses of guns in self-defense, where the defender only brandished the weapon. Most of the time the simple display of a firearm is enough to convince the miscreant to look elsewhere for trouble. I have never killed anyone in self-defense, but twice I have brandished a firearm in a defensive manner. So it is reasonable to assume that most deaths would be from insanity, accident or suicide, rather than assaults. Those sorts of incidents generally affect the family. That in no way diminishes the importance of the gun as a defensive tool.
The second statistic combines suicide and accidental deaths. When I clicked her citation, I got this data:
18,783 people kill themselves.
584 people are killed accidentally
That puts a different spin on things, doesn’t it? Japan has a similar suicide rate per capita as America does. Yet in Japan it is nearly impossible to obtain a firearm. There are other easy methods of suicide, such as sleeping pills, jumping off buildings, etc… The gun may be a first choice for many, but we cannot assume that eliminating the gun would deter them from other methods. Now, 584 deaths by accidental discharge would mean one out of every 171, 232 gun owners dies by accidental discharge. One. Out of over one-hundred thousand. Honestly, I expected the data to be worse. Anyone who knows me well understands that I do not tend to think highly of the intelligence of your average citizen. Yet the data comes from her own citation.
Sometimes the thoughts intensify and I can’t sleep at all. Mostly, the gun in my house causes me an anxiousness and fear that’s draining. And it leads to some questions that have no easy answers.
Beyond the solipsistic expectation that we should pity her, this strikes me as the worst sort of trite rhetoric. My Mossberg 500 12 gauge is laid out under the bed for quick and easy access should I require it. Personally, I sleep better knowing any goblin idiotic enough to break into my home, escape my dog’s teeth and clamber into my bedroom will likely leave it in a body bag.
Since having the gun I’ve had two repairmen, a carpet cleaner, and a salesmen in my home. If the gun’s for self-protection, it’s not going to do any good in the safe, but it’s not really practical to have the gun pointing at them as they work. How else would I eliminate the element of surprise if I were attacked? Suspiciousness and fear of people is new to me, and I don’t like it.
Considering Miss Yewman likely lives in a lily-white gated community in the suburbs, the likelihood of a spontaneous assault from the local carpet cleaner is rather low. Still, there’s no reason she couldn’t simply carry the weapon concealed if it really bothered her that much. I wonder if the poor mother living in the ghetto, who has a real reason to fear most people in her neighborhood, would appreciate being denied her Second Amendment rights because a delusional feminist from the suburbs has an irrational fear of home service professionals.
Nobody knew I had it on me, but it made me suspicious of everyone. Like a Secret Service agent working a rope line, I instinctively looked at everyone’s waistline to see who else was packing heat.
Has she watched too many James Bond movies? Miss Yewman reveals her utter lunacy here. To a man carrying his weapon consistently, the gun does not suddenly reveal fantasies of being a Secret Service agent while he is perusing the grocery store in search of breakfast cereals.
I thought the gun would make me feel more powerful, more confident, and less fearful. I was wrong. All I felt was fear. Physically taking the gun out of the safe and putting it in a holster on my hip literally reminded me that I was going out into a big bad scary unsafe world.
And this is why women in front-line positions in the military bothers me. While it is possible some Amazonian wonder woman might possess some truly remarkable combat abilities, this would be a statistical outlier. Biology tells us that females are wired differently, and no where is it so apparent as it is in this quote. When I carry my weapon around, I don’t feel like some Secret Service agent, nor am I fearful about the big bad scary world. Instead, it’s comforting simply knowing that I have a good chance of coming out on top should a confrontation arise. I may be wrong. Death could be looming around the corner, but tomorrow I could have a heart attack or be crushed by a bus. At some point, a man has to make peace with the nature of a world which does not revolve around him and his irrational fears.
Miss Yewman, on the other hand, never will. Stay in your lily-white gated community and keep your hands out of my holster. Both of them.
Statistics are a problem for the Individualist trying to combat the creeping march of Collectivism. They have an air of authority about them in that they were conducted by professors, grad students and staffers at prestigious institutions. That the results are almost unilaterally in favor of Collectivist policy is just a side effect of understanding the Truth. Data will be gathered from a number of sources, most of which start with the government; which, of course, has no vested interest in the outcome whatsoever. Often times the architects of the study will claim to be surprised by the Truth. The Left will tell you that statistics prove the Truth, and denying it is only further proof of Individualist insanity.
Worship of Statistics is actually a giveaway of Left-wing outlook. Take a look at this piece.
The conclusion of the study (coincidentally released not long after the Zimmerman/Trayvon incident) was that Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine Laws increase crime in aggregate. It further postulates that more cases of lethal force in self-defense occur, which should just be common sense. There are many flaws with the methodology of the study, however.
1. Violent crime in America has been declining since the 90s.
2. The decline actually accelerated shortly after Castle and Stand Your Ground laws were passed in many states, during the 2005-2006 period.
The study claims to account for these facts, and they at least have the intellectual honesty to admit they exist. So in a period of accelerating decline of violent crimes, they claim to have the ability to separate what crimes are related to Stand Your Ground cases, and argue for an increase in crime (or, rather, a decrease in the decrease). That’s absolute lunacy. But the news media outlets take them seriously and cite the study for a variety of anti-gun and self-defense hit pieces.
There’s a deeper issue here, though. And that is the worship of statistics in the first place. Even if the study were perfectly correct, would an individual person be more likely to survive a violent attack if not paralyzed by thoughts of legal entanglements? Stand Your Ground is not a license to murder, it’s merely a legal device designed to remove the Duty to Retreat and put the burden of proof on the State, not the defendant. So the individual is liable to be better off AS an individual, even if society as a whole were to suffer more justifiable homocides, which would increase the overall homicide rate.
There is a further assertion that non-justified homicides were “increasing” (decreasing less than author thinks they ought to be). However, they omitted who was being murdered more. Was it the defenders? Or was it the criminals themselves? The study doesn’t tell us.
But, clearly, we should all be using Chrome or Firefox now, because:
The worship of statistics is part of the Collectivist mindset. Despite heartwarming rhetorical tales about struggling mothers and sob stories about people who take too much Oxycodone and are shamed by it, it’s always about the aggregate, never what is best for the individual. The Altar of Studies is just another way they are telling you “you don’t really matter, all that matters is our graph, and if you die, take comfort knowing that we’re taking credit for lowering homocide rates.”
I'm a DJ, developer, amateur historian, would-be pundit, and general pain in the ass. I still cannot decide on the wisdom of the Oxford Comma. These are my observations on a civilization in decline, a political system on the verge of collapse, and a people asleep at the wheel as the car turns toward the jersey barrier.