My fist your face doesn’t make for a particularly libertarian act. But, neither does shooting dead a bunch of people in a church. Or killing them from a hotel in Las Vegas. Or kicking and punching someone dead. What is that?
Fists and feet is a category of assault?
Yep. According to FBI records for 2012, 678 people were beaten to death with hands, fists and feet, 518 with hammers or bats or blunt objects. In that same year 322 were killed with rifles and 303 were killed with shotguns. For you playing at home, fists and feet and hammers killed more than rifles. Not what the MSM would have you believe.
I am not making the case that being beaten to death is somehow morally superior to being shot dead. Getting killed is not good. Death comes and we are all guaranteed death. So, speaking of ways to die, California’s wildfires killed 31 people. By contrast, on November 5 and 6 in California, 4 people were shot dead. Protesting fire seems a waste of time since the fire doesn’t care and as many people who can are fighting the fire. No one blames the fire: no calls to ban matches or protest smokers or smoking or Bic lighters ever happen. Fire is an act of God. What can we do? As it happens, being burned to death is not the only way to die that is bullet free.
In 2015, 31% of all death on the planet was from Cardiovascular Disease. That’s 17.7 million people. I’ll repeat that, because it seems important. 31% of world wide death is from heart disease. No crime. No assailant. No stalker, just dead. I see no signs, banners, or protests about people eating poorly, companies making foods which are harmful or anything else related to this incredible number. Now, it is worth pointing out that some of those people may have had spectacular diets and suffered from the disease anyway.
In some parts of the world, food is scarce and highly processed foods like those in American stores are simply not available. Of those who chose a diet poor in heart healthy foods, none were tied down or kidnapped and made to eat that food. Oh, sure, we may complain that there are all manner of incentives for companies to make cheap and unwholesome food, but the consumer gets to pick. Customers voluntarily engage in the transaction which is exchanging money for food. A reasonable retort from the gun grabbing left would be that we, meaning the government, ought to ban those unhealthy foods. Of course, bakers would be the next level of criminal for making cookies and cupcakes. Granny becomes wanted for little Sally’s birthday cake. Of course we recognize that idea as so silly to be impossible and the obvious cottage industry in every kitchen makes everyone a criminal immediately. So, that can’t be a solution.
That unhealthy food exists is one issue. That people chose it, another. Surely nearly everyone who can purchase food knows that broccoli is better for health than cookies. However, diet isn’t the only factor contributing to cardiovascular disease (CVD). Other behavioral issues contribute to CVD, such as tobacco use, physical inactivity and alcohol. Routine doctor visits can help determine those risk factors not behavioral such as hypertension, diabetes, and high blood pressure. So, see your doctor. We have already seen how badly banning alcohol went. I’m not a smoker so I can’t really speak to the price as a preventative. That they stink is preventative enough for me.
If we are to petition the local grocery stores for the removal of cookies and cakes and basically close down the entire center of the store, the bakery and the butcher, we have left the organic section and the produce. Staging a rally isn’t too much of a stretch today, but it seems pretty silly to think we would reduce the local grocery store chain to produce and organics and reduce the employment by scores of people. Not only would the employees of the stores be terminated, so too the many truck drivers, warehouse workers, production factories for Kraft. The impact alone is so preposterous as to be impossible. A few curious observations. The level of unemployment, and lack of taxation (Taxation is theft!) revenue losses would be staggering and all the programs the left is so fond of would be unfunded. Add to that twist that tensions would rise, hypertension would rise, deaths from CVS would rise all as a result of trying to prevent that. It is either unintended consequences or Bastiat again with the seen and unseen. The cure is worse than the problem. Everyone who knows broccoli is better than cookies also surely knows that making better choices makes better health. Even with that, some people are going to die from disease and there are simply no marches or protests about that.
Shoot someone and, well, that’s another story.
The Texas killer was a former USAF airman. He has a history of violence, which we know too late. Gun control advocates are mostly uniform in their wants of gun control being the confiscation of guns and only the trusted authorities to have them. This is an odd position for it was the same leftists who were protesting police abuse of power and killing civilians with reckless disregard but somehow these, and the military, are above reproach when it comes to managing guns?
The state, in the case the United States Air Force, surely as big as a government agency as there can be, failed because, after all, government is just people. People make mistakes and one person at the USAF did. Had the fact that Devin Patrick Kelley’s criminal history of domestic violence been entered into the federal database, it might not alone have been enough for him to be stopped. He bought his gun legally because a person failed to do as required. The Lautenberg Amendment was created to prevent people convicted of domestic violence from purchasing or owning firearms. Kelley owned 4. The sainted government who can’t find people competent enough to enter data are more than capable of managing firearms? Seems baselessly hopeful.
To restate that, there are currently laws in place designed to prevent exactly that kind of person, a person with a violent past, from owning a gun. The law was not followed. Huh. Isn’t that a bit like posting a sign half a mile from schools stating that the school is a drug and gun free zone? Maybe they forgot that sign in Colorado. Or, maybe those who plan to do harm care not what a sign reads. People who seek to do harm will find a way to do harm. With hammers or bats or fists and feet. No sign, no law, no virtue signaling will change the hearts of those who feel evil.
But, but, the 2nd Amendment…
The earliest revolver appears to have been made in the late 1500s or early 1600s, and one was owned by George von Reichwein, General in the Norwegian army in the 30 year war.
Gun control advocates might suggest the Founders were not bright enough to comprehend that technology would change firearms. Those detractors are wrong. Not only did they know it, they saw it.
In America, the Belton Flintlock was invented in Philadelphia by Belton prior to 1777 and was said to fire up to twenty shots in quick succession. Pepperbox revolvers held more that 6 rounds and were developed well before the Constitution.
The Puckle Gun was invented in 1718 in London, England, and was a clear forefather to modern machine guns. The Gattling gun, invented by Richard Gattling, was a rapid fire hand crank machine gun used in the War Between the States. As if guns were the only consideration. James Madison, as president, signed a Letter of Marque for the private armed Brig christened The Prince, to, with use of force of cannons if need be, capture any and all vessels within the jurisdictional limits of the United States. Don’t be fooled when the gun control advocates suggest the 2nd Amendment referred only to muskets. It did not.
Everyone can agree that shooting people in cold blood is bad. Self defense is not murder in cold blood. Where people start to move to different camps is the means by which shootings should be minimized. It seems unlikely to have 0 shootings.
Literally, Hitler
The Weimar Republic made an attempt to confiscate guns for the public safety. Lists were made of gun owners which included Jews. Hitler found the list and took the guns. People who refused to surrender the guns were shot. Ironic, huh? Give us your gun or we’ll kill you. And, we’ll kill you anyway. Allowing for the broad strokes of generalizations, no socialist nation allowed its people to have guns when the communists decided to be the government.
What, exactly, then do the leftists and gun control advocates seek? Relief from death? Well, that would be welcome. Mayhap their efforts are misplaced.
Statistics are boring. So, I’ll only use a few. In the Democrat-lead cities of Baltimore and Chicago, this year, 2017, Baltimore has had 94 murders by guns. 1 every 3.3 days. Chicago has had 544 gun murders, one every 12+ hours; that’s almost two every day.
In the United States 522,527 people have died from CVD. 503,263 people have died from cancer. 76, 560 Alzheimer’s, 28, 755 drunk driving and 14, 288 from murder. I know at least 5 people who have died from cancer, one who has it and one who is cured: that makes 7. My grandmother died from Alzheimer’s. I know no one who has been shot. Death is everywhere yet the focus seems to be on the smallest percentage of those listed. I did cherry pick these: I omitted the over 900,000 abortions since we cannot seem to agree that a fetus is a person or a grapefruit.
We all agree murder is wrong and its bad and should be stopped. We have laws that already state that is so. How, then, will more words fix the problem? The Texas problem, which was made at least more probable was botched by the government. It was fixed by a citizen who was armed. The retort seems to be if everyone is armed it will be chaos. Penn of Penn and 
Teller made a great observation: “I do rape all I want. And that amount is zero. And I do murder all I want. And the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine.” Overlords cannot and will not and do not see all. Who would want that even if they could. The value and burden of living in a free society is people make poor choices. Murder certainly is a terrible choice. Choosing to deny people the self-protection they are due is not a step toward freedom. There is no registry for moral superiority giving credit for making people do what you think it right. That vast majority of people live day to day making good, sound safe choices. Why does that seem so insufficient for the gun control advocates?
