Again, They Are Coming for Your Guns

Another progressive, who totally aren’t coming after your guns, BTW, pens an article praising coming after your guns as a good and wholesome thing. You know what would convince me, as a gun owner, the lefties weren’t after my guns? Not constantly saying they are after my guns, and hoping I somehow don’t notice. Note that today they aren’t really arguing crime anymore. They are arguing suicides. They are going to take them away for your own good, you see. Because “the person most likely to kill you with a gun is yourself.”

This shows the folly of statistics, because the likelihood I will die by suicide is precisely or very near to 0%, and if by some very odd and dire circumstance I ended up going that way, it’s none of anyone else’s f***ing business but my own. I realize that in this is an age where everyone is out and public with their personal problems to any poor schmuck who will listen, but I don’t believe my personal problems are anyone’s albatross to carry but my own, and certainly aren’t any reason for someone to insert themselves into my personal business uninvited.

The gun control movement probably realizes that in this age, speaking out on suicide prevention by taking dangerous things away from people, whether they are suicidal or not, fits the cultural zeitgeist a lot better than the idea that we’d do better as a society if we minded our own business as much as we seem to enjoy minding everyone else’s.

15 Responses to “Again, They Are Coming for Your Guns”

  1. Sivad says:

    NOSWG about what they do in Australia.

  2. The Jack says:

    Yeah the whole. “Silly paranoid no one is coming for your guns; but wouldn’t it be great once we do take your guns.”

    And they just don’t care how that sounds.

    Another bonus for them with the suicide angle is they can ban any gun, regardless of action or capacity. One could even off oneself with a flintock rifle.

  3. And Australia’s gun laws are about to get worse. Google MORFW’s (Manually-Operated Rapid Fire Weapons) for a laugh. Yep, they’re talking about banning lever actions and old straight-pull Swiss K31 rifles. For the children.

    Truth: they will take what they can now, come back later, take some more, and take and take and take until the population is so totally disarmed they can’t buy a butter knife or a screwdriver without a “proper license”.

    • Brad says:

      Holy crap! You are right. Thanks for the tip.

      Is it a good thing or bad, that the anti-gunners are so ignorant of firearms that they don’t realize pump action rifles are the only purely civilian type of rifle, and that bolt-action rifles origins were as cutting edge technology ‘weapons of war’?

  4. Dale E says:

    A quick search shows their suicide rate by hanging increased, offsetting reductions in firearms suicides. What was gained? Another source suggested banning home storage of guns in urban areas and banning kitchen knives with sharp points. I suppose a ridiculous recommendation would be requiring police permission to possess rope, bed sheets, etc., since they can be used to hang yourself.

    • tincankilla says:

      that’s always the trick with the term “gun violence” – that it has confiscation built into its internal logic.

  5. Lance Lot Link says:

    All the antis want to do is ban handguns. But all other guns are ok, since handguns are the deadliest.

    Except for full auto. Those need to be banned as the most deadly gun. But the rest are ok.

    Except for assault weapons. Those are semi automatics with cosmetic features that make them more dangerous than full auto. These are the most dangerous guns and need to be banned but the rest are ok.

    Except for semi automatic weapons. These are the same as semi automatics except for a few cosmetic differences. These are the most dangerous weapons and the rest are ok.

    Except for lever actions. Those are rapid fire and are as dangerous as any banned weapon. These need to be banned as the most dangerous weapons but the rest are ok.

    Except for bolt actions. These are as dangerous as any other gun. Since both world wars were fought with bolt actions, they too are obviously the most dangerous gun.

    Except for single shot. A single bullet from any gun is no more or less dangerous. Once these are banned, any other gun is ok.

    Except for muskets. These too are very dangerous. They are so dangerous that every military force in the world stopped using them. If they are too dangerous for war, they are too dangerous for civilians.

    And while we’re at it, ban lead ammo for the environment, ban non lead ammo as armor piercing. Band FMJ as armor piercing too, and hollow point as cop killers.

    But nobody wants to ban your guns. That’s just being paranoid. And paranoid people need to be prohibited from owning guns.

  6. Rob K says:

    I imagine most people who want to ban guns to reduce suicide by gun also support euthanasia and “death with dignity”. They don’t care if you die as long as a gun isn’t used.

    • Sebastian says:

      Usually, that is done with the help of medical professionals. Experts! Credential carrying smart people will help you with the decision and with getting the deed done. They just don’t like people making decisions on their own, and cutting the state out of it.

      • AuricTech says:

        Usually, that is done with the help of medical professionals. Experts!

        Top. Men.

        Naturally, the credentialed experts will charge you for the privilege of ending your life. There’s no money to be made in DIY suicide….

  7. Thirdpower says:

    Intermediate Sniper Rifle. Enough said.

  8. Brad says:

    The suicide rate in Canada is usually higher than in the U.S. But only 1/4 of Canadian suicides use a gun, while in the U.S. it’s closer to half.

    See? Less ‘gun violence’! It’s another gun control success story!

  9. Arizona Rifleman says:

    The phrase “You want me to give up my guns. I won’t give up my guns. Your move.” springs to mind.

  10. TS says:

    I’ve looked at that Leigh study before. What he did was take a snapshot of Australian states in 1996 based on how many guns they confiscated compared to other states and concluded the gun confiscations saved lives. The problem is if we look at the history of gun ownership in Australia over time, we would see a big drop in 1996 when they confiscated and destroyed 700,000 firearms, and then a steady replenishing of firearms till today where the count and ownership percentages have exceeded pre- port Arthur levels. So this period of decreasing homicides and suicides actually corresponded with a growth in firearm ownership (much like stateside), but they concluded “fewer guns equals fewer deaths”. Also, their only definitive causation statement was for suicides. How in the hell can they conclude that replacing semi-autos and pump actions with bolt actions and single shots plays a role in suicide reduction. There aren’t too many suicide attempts that require quick follow-up shots.


  1. SayUncle » Progressive! - […] You know, if they want me to believe they’re not coming to take my guns they should probably stop…