shining the light on the cockroaches

It has come to my attention that various obsessive anti-rights cultists are maliciously and intentionally misrepresenting something I said in one of my previous posts; this, in and of itself, does not surprise me, but I thought I would take a moment to explain the thought fully to my audience, such that they can grasp the level of my disgust, and the depravity of those taking offense to what I said. 

The quote which is causing so much consternation amongst the ranks of “gun control” extremists is as follows: 

(* – One interesting side-effect from not making this distinction is that by holding their candle-light vigils for “victims of ‘gun violence’”, the Brady Campaign and their sycophants are, by definition, memorializing those murderers, rapists, thieves, muggers, robbers, home-invaders, and other scumbags who were shot down in self-defense by their intended victims, or by the police in the execution of their duties. As always, “gun control” extremists are aiding, abetting, and sympathizing with criminals. Disgusting.)

Earlier in the post, I drew the distinction between “violent but predatory” and “violent but protective”, but, predictably enough, it would appear as though the foaming-at-the-mouth anti-rights cultists could not be bothered to read that section of my post, or the page I linked so. 

So let us start from the top. 

As you can see at the bottom of the image to the right, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Ownership indicates that 31,593 people were killed by people using firearms in 2008.  That is a remarkably specific number, and, conveniently enough, that matches perfectly against the numbers provided by the WISQARS Fatal Injury Data report for 2008 (I would link to it directly, but they do not allow me to, and I trust that my readership is competent enough to operate a simple search engine). 

Unsurprisingly, however, the Brady Campaign does not go into the specifics of those deaths; we will do so here.  Those deaths include people of all ages, both genders, all races, all states, and all ethnicities.  Additionally, they include all deaths due to all intents:  unintentional (accidents or negligence), suicide, undetermined intents, homicide, and, most importantly, legal intervention.  What does “legal intervention” mean to WISQARS?  Well, let us quote them: 

Legal Intervention – injuries inflicted by the police or other law-enforcing agents, including military on duty, in the course of arresting or attempting to arrest lawbreakers, suppressing disturbances, maintaining order, and other legal actions. Excludes injuries caused by civil insurrections.

(Emphasis added.) 

WISQARS indicates that, in 2008, 326 died due to “legal intervention”. 

Interestingly, WISQARS does not count “self-defense” amongst “legal intervention”, nor does it break it out in any other, separate category, and, in fact, it explains: “Justifiable homicide is not identified in WISQARS.”  As such, I assume “justifiable homicides” are lumped into “homicides” in general, which only goes to increase the above number. 

However, the Brady Campaign did not subtract those 326+ from their total “gun violence” victims number.  The Brady Campaign does not recognize, or even admit to, the distinction between “predatory” violence and “protective” violence. 

As such, by the arbitrary definition put forward by the Brady Campaign themselves, when they “host[ed] a nationwide candlelight vigil to honor victims of gun violence”, they were “honoring” those lawbreakers shot and killed by police while exercising their duties and those criminals justifiably shot and killed in self-defense.  They were “honoring” those “murderers, rapists, thieves, muggers, robbers, home-invaders, and other scumbags” I mention above. 

And they knew they were doing it – after all, they established the meaning of the concept of “gun violence” so conveniently on their webpage. 

I wonder if that is why those hysterical (in both meanings of that word) anti-rights cultists are taking such vociferous exception to my pointing out this elementary chain of logic – they know they idiotically painted themselves into the corner, and they just hate that someone noticed. 

In any case, yes, I do find it disgusting that an organization – any organization – is “honoring” criminals justifiably killed in self-defense or other legal actions, and I am damned near astonished that some “gun control” extremists are so shamelessly immoral as to take offense at that simple observation.  I am not the one “honoring” lawless criminals shot down because they were violently preying on innocent, law-abiding citizens; if you need someone to hate over that, look in your own damned mirror.