“Stop blaming mental health for gun violence,” former Everytown director Mark Glaze parroted in a Sunday tweet. “The problem is guns.”
Glaze must miss the influence he used to have back when he was stumping for edicts he knew damn well would be useless at stopping bad people from acting out on their natures. It must have been even more intoxicating to threaten America with his then-boss Bloomberg’s whole foot, and a positively heady experience to slap Brady Campaign rival Dan Gross around over who had dibs on useful celebrity idiots.
Regardless, he took to Twitter to refer his devotees to an editorial in The Washington Post by Kimberly Yonkers, MD, a professor at the Yale School of Medicine. The funny thing is, there are some gun owners, including me, who would agree with her initial premise, to stop blaming mental health. The not-so-funny thing is, they’re nowhere to be found when that’s followed up with the expectation that those in danger of legally-imposed gun disabilities for alleged mental health reasons must not lose fundamental rights without the benefit of full due process protections. Likewise, none of them are insisting those protections must include an accessible pathway to restoration of rights when evidence shows a disabling condition no longer applies.
No, instead, Yonkers builds up to the conclusion she alluded to in her title, a demand for “meaningful changes in legislation that reduce access to guns.”
For all of us (presumably except for enforcers/confiscators, who must be immune to the madness that seizes we lesser beings). Meaning she wants to ban guns. She wants to stop people from getting them. She wants the government to take them away from people who already have them. Regardless of mental health. Regardless of the overwhelmingly peaceable and law-abiding nature of most gun owners. None of that matters because in her mind, and I quote, “the problem is guns.”
That’s easily testable. We can do it right now. If the problem really is guns, we ought to be able to look at one of the most heavily-armed citizen populations on the planet, the five million or so members of the National Rifle Association, and observe a statistically significant penchant for “gun violence” above and beyond that of the general population, and certainly dwarfing both numbers and rates we see in nation’s that do just what Yonkers prescribes. No?
Curious, because she does talk about comparisons with other countries, and even refers to factors like “GDP” in order to assert “Gun violence is 20 times more prevalent in the United States than in other highly developed countries.”
To paraphrase her fellow citizen disarmament aficionado Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of the word “developed” is. In this case, it’s a buzz word for committing a familiar old prohibitionist scam, as the chart Yonkers links to unintentionally demonstrates.
It doesn’t look that way at first glance, does it? It looks very official and authoritative, not to mention damning to the U.S., which was the intent. It’s put out under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, essentially a coalition of control-grasping global collectivists comprised of 34 member nations, with oblivious U.S. tax cows footing 22 percent of their tab. You’d think for that kind of dough, we’d get better charts, or at least ones that don’t intentionally deceive with calculated omissions intended to skin us even deeper.
The most glaring omission is alluded to in the title of the chart, “Gun-related murder rates in the developed world.” That’s because it comes with an asterisk, which in turn references a footnote that tells us the numbers are “excluding Mexico.”
Why? Are they telling us that Mexico, the home of world’s (second?) richest man Carlos Slim, is not developed?
By what metric? Whether one consults the UN, the IMF, the World Bank or the CIA Factbook, Mexico has a larger GDP than many of the nations that qualified as “developed” on the OECD chart, and that must be significant because Yonkers brought it up. Also rated above some of those countries in term of “economic complexity,” Mexico includes cars, computers, video displays and delivery trucks among its top exports. It boasts a literacy rate of 93.4 percent.
Perhaps they’re just telling us they don’t want to count Mexico because draconian “gun control” has not diminished a “gun death” rate that doesn’t support a desired narrative, even discounting those caused by ATF trying to “pad statistics” with… uh… I guess “walked” guns also qualify as “exports” from a “highly developed country.”
There’s another example of a country not considered “developed” by OECD, one that is conspicuously absent from the chart, and that can’t be allowed to pass without notice: Somebody had better tell Vladimir Putin that Third World jerkwater he rules over has no business exporting rocket engines to the U.S., or that he should at least accept payment in the form of trinkets, beads, metal cooking pots and axes.
Say, you don’t think the omission of Russia, with its “restrictive” firearms regulations accompanied by “far more homicides” than the U.S. could have anything to do with the same realities we’ve noted about Mexico, do you? Because the most highly developed thing about Yonkers’ agenda piece masked as sound medical opinion seems to be its aversion to that inconvenient truth.
Not that Glaze, based on his previous admissions, ever expected “reduced access to guns” would produce a commensurate reduction in “gun violence.” With that established, it’s fair to speculate what other reasons the desperate control zealots behind the mouthpieces might have for wanting Americans disarmed.