Anti-rights cultists have a long-standing history of focusing their efforts exclusively on firearm-related crimes, often to the detriment of the societies they are working in – one need only consider the history of once-Great Britain, and its current status as “most violent nation in Europe” to see how that particular train of thought ends. However, I have had the suspicion, especially of late, that those same “gun control” advocates would consider a decrease in firearm-related crime, but an overall increase in total violent crime, to be a “success”, even if the increase in violent crime was sufficiently large to overwhelm any corresponding decrease.
Well, the Gift That Just Keeps on Giving, Joan Peterson, went and confirmed that belief for me:
I give you the argument of the guys with the “man pants” on ladies and gentlemen-” We’re saying that we’d rather have more gun deaths and lower overall violent crime, than zero gun deaths and higher rates of violent crime if given the choice” And there you have it. Nothing more to say here except “Wow” and “unbelievable”.
In 2007, America had a violent crime rate of 472 incidents per 100,000 people, and a firearm-related murder rate of 4.19 per 100,000. Comparatively speaking, in 2009, once-Great Britain had a violent crime rate of 2,034 incidents per 100,000 people, but a firearm-related murder rate of 0.102 per 100,000. What Joan is saying is that she would be willing to trade 4 murders for 1500 violent crime incidents, and she would consider that kind of trade to be a Very Good Thing (TM).
I guess it would be, so long as she planned on not being one of those 1500.
This is the value anti-rights cultists place on your life – if yours is not another “gun death” that they can use as a statistical feather in their cap, you simply do not matter. Talk about “unbelievable”…
And lest you have forgotten, Joan Peterson is the face of modern “gun control”, and a duly-appointed representative of the Brady Campaign itself, and she is publicly admitting that she would prefer a higher violent crime rate if the firearm-related crime rate decreased. Remind me again why anyone should listen to impassioned pleas for “gun control”, especially when she has the nerve to couch them in terms of “public safety”? In addition to “common sense”, it would appear as though Joan Peterson’s aphasia and other mental afflictions appear to have destroyed her ability to judge cost-benefit analyses accurately, in addition to making her come off sounding like the blood dancer we already knew her to be.
I have said it more times than I care to count, but Joan Peterson may be the single greatest gift to the pro-rights weblogging community in recent history, and we should all be thankful for her seemingly incessant stream of positively ludicrous soundbytes.