In case you missed the Democratic debate, it could be summarized pretty quickly. First, the issues. Then, the “human side” of the debate (which is what really matters).
In the wake of a terrorist attack at Umpqua Community College the President of the United States wasted no time in blaming guns for the acts committed. The President challenged the media to compare the number of firearm deaths to the number of murders committed by terrorists in the last decade--the media has eagerly obliged.
This is a completely idiotic metric for measuring anything. It's like comparing grains of sand against the number of insects...you can do it, but why? What point does it make? The President and the media are either wholly lacking in reason or they are using a terrorist attack as a vehicle to strip away Americans clearly enumerated right to bear arms.
Let's examine for a moment the idiocy of the comparison between firearm deaths (many of which are murders, but not all of them) and terrorist murders (all of which are murders):
(1) Americans have a Constitutional right to bear arms, but no American has a right to commit an act of terrorism (or murder).
(2) The firearm deaths statistic includes justifiable homicides (individuals protecting themselves against an imminent threat--police and private citizens alike) and all of the murders committed by people that did not legally purchase or legally own their firearm. Suicides might also be included in the list.
What are we supposed to take away from this statistical comparison? That firearms are a greater danger to America and the American way of life than radical Islamic terrorism? There's an easy way to avoid being shot in America, don't deal drugs, don't buy drugs, don't be in a gang, don't gamble, don't hang out in dive bars, don't go to strip clubs, don't commit suicide, don't "reach for something" or otherwise get into an altercation with a cop, and avoid metropolitan areas that are run by democrats where extremely strict gun laws are prevalent. If you avoid those places and activities then the chances of being shot in America are basically zero.
Now, consider how and where terrorists murder--schools, freeways, military bases...places where essentially no one carries a gun or where guns are not allowed. Normal citizens can take basic precautions to avoid being killed by a run-of-the-mill criminal with an illegal firearm, but to avoid being killed by a terrorist one would have to avoid outdoor and indoor activities.
With this administrations reasoning, imagine what comparisons to terrorist deaths will come next. How about vehicle deaths in the US? If we were to outlaw cars, then that would save 373,377 lives over a similar stretch as the firearm gun deaths vs. terrorist deaths. Why not outlaw cars? Wouldn't that also be great for the environment? How about just outlawing alcohol, which would (under the magical thinking of the President) eliminate 31% of driving deaths every year? After all, if something is made illegal, then the criminals simply stop engaging in that behavior, right? Obviously...because drinking and driving is completely legal right now. You know what else is illegal? Murder. Felons owning weapons. Terrorism.
Let's take another comparison that is also completely absurd, but in line with this administration's challenge--hospital deaths vs. terrorist deaths from 2004-2013. 200,000 to 400,000 preventable deaths occur each year in US hospitals. Let's take the lower number...two million. Two million people could be saved by outlawing medical mistakes in the country, as opposed to 313 terrorist deaths. Let's divert our resources and efforts to outlawing these death factories and ignore those pesky terrorist. Those arguing against shutting down hospitals would say, "but hospitals save people all the time." So do guns, and if you outlaw them then only the law-abiding will be defenseless.
Let's take another comparison. If we were to outlaw abortion, then we could save about 800,000 lives every year, 800,000 lives. Even if you wanted to say that "only" 80% of pregnancies are successful, then you've still got 640,000 lives saved.
But that is all inconvenient, isn't it? After all, it is guns the administration is after, not radical Islamist, not butchers that buy and sell baby body parts, not gangs, not illegal drugs, not illegally owned firearms...just all the guns. "All the guns" meaning the ones that are owned by law-abiding Americans. Such a confiscation would result in more crime and a government that no longer had to fear its citizens, which is what the 2nd Amendment was all about--defending yourself against enemies foreign and domestic.
Make no mistake, the President is attempting to use the actions of a terrorist in Oregon to strip away a clearly enumerated right guaranteed in the US Constitution. That, or the entirety of this administration and the US press have somehow escaped the influence of the Enlightenment.
To the victims of the terrorists at UCC, requiescat in pace. To those brave Christians that stated their faith firmly and boldly, knowing that it would result in certain death--I know that you are in a better place. A place that does not ignore the suffering of the weak and helpless. A place where good triumphs over evil. A place where you may rest, good and faithful servant. If my time comes, I pray that I can demonstrate your bravery and conviction.
Unless otherwise stated, these are the opinions of RT Vaden.