Leftists can't deal with the fact that guns save lives

Anti-liberty leftists are missing the point entirely complaining that the Greenwood good Samaritan violated their nonsensical gun free massacre zone rules.

Does anyone want to guess why the mass-murdering miscreant chose that place to make a name for himself?  Could it be that like many other murderers, it chose a massacre zone, a place that deprives the innocent of their God-given right of self-defense? 

For some strange reason, anti-liberty leftists think that silly little signs and codes of conduct that say "no weapons" are going to work, even though they've never worked before.

The latest revelation is that the good Samaritan "violated" the sacred massacre zone rules of the mall, entirely missing the point that the mass murderer also violated that rule.  Given that a good guy with a gun stopped this crime in progress, does anyone want to guess how long this story is going to stick around?  You can almost track the coverage in real time on sites like Memeorandum, "an auto-generated summary of the stories that US political commentators are discussing online right now."  Had this been the proper kind of crisis, the coverage would be expanding to no end. 

As it is, the system picked up the article on this story, posted here, along with a few others.

The nation's socialist media precisely calculate their coverage based on how much they can get political gain out of someone else's pain.  You can bet they were thrilled that this occurred — especially with the sudden appearance of a new generic ban on weapons:

Across the Capitol: We broke the news on Friday that the House Judiciary Committee will be voting this week on Rep. David Cicilline's (D-R.I.) assault weapons ban. It's the first time the panel has taken up such a ban in decades. The bill is expected to pass in the committee and then move to the House floor before members leave for the August recess.

We're certainly not going to imply anything, but the liberty-grabber lobby sure lucked out on the timing on all this, what with everyone talking about the absolute failure of the government to protect everyone.  We sure can see them making a case for turning in our guns so the government can protect us, right?  When seconds count, 400 law enforcement officers are only 77 minutes away.

Alas, the same piece took great pains to knock down any assertions that the anti-liberty left's gun confiscation agenda would result in guns being taken away:

Also, before the rhetoric really starts to crank up — and it will — here's the Cicilline legislation. The bill does not take guns away from anyone.

That should certainly raise a red flag with everyone, because the fascist far left never confiscates guns, except when it confiscates guns.

But remember, these are the folks who have elevated lying with language to an art form.  People who cannot stand the vestiges of liberty, yet they (and, sadly, many on our side) praise themselves as "liberal."  Collectivist comrades who want to go back in time to ancient ideas but still claim to be "progressive."

You'll notice that one of their newest tactics is to use one term to make it seem as though there is always a crisis.  Applying what they've learned from the transition from global cooling to global warming to climate change.  Coming up with a term that can cover it all and make it appear to be a crisis all the time.  No matter what happens, the climate always changes, so they can always take advantage of whatever happens.

In this case, they use the undefined term "gun violence."

That way they can apply the term to criminal activity, suicide, mass murder, or whatever.  To the point, they can even have their infamous "Gun Violence Archive," referring to its flawed statistics whenever they want to frighten the public.

The fact remains that despite their lies and complaints, guns save far more lives than they take.  No amount of obfuscation or lies can change that.

Originally published on the American Thinker