Pediatricians Sound Alarms For Emergencies Of Their Own Making, And Thomas Sowell Addresses "Gun Control"

Hypocrisy in surely its most evil iteration and Dr. Sowell's message from 2016, relevant as ever

It’s been a very tough weekend. Too many shootings, too much killing. And even without guns, too many people at a bus stop run down by a driver of an SUV. Just more death than a person can bear, it seems.

Truly, it’s been spiritually a very tough time.

The social media is just on fire with anger: blame and accusation are everywhere, nearly all of it moving in the direction from Left to Right. That is to say, the Leftists blame law-abiding conservatives and Republicans for the gun violence, because, of course, the guns are the cause of the killing. And we conservatives support the 2nd Amendment, so… we’re very chill with kids getting shot up in their schools, obviously.

I’m so over it.

Never mind that a gun can do nothing on its own. Never mind the Culture of Death that many of us have worried about and sought to change for decades now. Never mind that this writer has seen all this coming and warned about it for several years. And indeed, never mind that all of this will get far, far worse: school shootings and mass killings can and will only increase moving forward. Brace yourselves for it.

All this killing comes from the same Well of Deathly Waters.

---

This sort of thing is all over social media right now.

How can the purveyors of death miss it, though? How can they not see their own evil influence in the condition of our society? How are they unaware that the Culture of Death is of their own making?

---

Serving as an excellent example of the hypocrisy, how can a South Carolina pediatrician named Dr. Michael O’Brien, listing his pronouns as “he/him,” miss it when he writes:

Prioritizing kids means prioritizing:

climate

gun safety

hunger

public education

healthcare access

voting rights

You don’t need me to translate any of Dr. O’Brien’s language; you’re bilingual, you understand “Left” even if you don’t speak it.

Pediatrician Dr. O’Brien is an abortion activist!

How can a pediatrician write the following while also advocating for abortion?

Gun violence is the #1 cause of death in American children, and 4.6 million children in the US live in a household with at least 1 loaded, unlocked gun.

Hey! Pediatrician here… Children aren’t supposed to get shot. Anywhere… any time… at any age.

“Bullet holes in children shouldn’t exist.” If you disagree with this statement I honestly don’t know how to share oxygen with you.

(It was NOT the 682,000 abortions performed last year… no, of course not. It was “gun violence” killing all those kids.)

“Healthcare access” means “Abortion access.” And the evil kid doctor is promoting abortion in many ways, one by spreading on social media today the same New York Times article as abortion attorney and local state representative Mandie Landry is distributing online, along with the abortionist - and Public Service Commissioner - Davante Lewis:

The Unexpected Women Blocking South Carolina’s Near-Total Abortion Ban

They call themselves the “Sister Senators” and three of them are Republicans.

Here’s Davante’s take:

See this as an issue of logic and consistency. Consider the pediatrician, if no one else…

Shooting a child is always and everywhere wrong.

Aborting an unborn child is not only right, it’s to be defended and fought for, and to not defend it means you “hate women” and “seek to control women’s bodies.”

These positions cannot be held simultaneously.

If it’s only a matter of timing, then how can any moral outrage exist about either abortion or school shootings, either one?

You’re not allowed to ask these pesky questions, because “Republicans are killing our kids.”

And who is Dr. Annie Andrews? She’s a pediatrician who ran for office and has started an advocacy organization focused on protecting children called “Their Future, Our Vote.”

Dr. Andrews cares about children’s futures only after their birth, however, which seems damned strange to me, if not downright evil.

Look who posted what familiar story floating around social media today:

Look who speaks regularly on MSNBC:

And who shares Dr. O’Brien’s pro-abortion stances:

And these pediatricians scold us: we are “killing kids.”

There are a few very select four-letter words reserved for hypocrites like these doctors.

---

As promised in the headline of this story, one of America’s great men, Dr. Thomas Sowell, takes on the topic of gun control, writing here for the AP:

Surely murder is a serious subject, which ought to be examined seriously. Instead, it is almost always examined politically in the context of gun control controversies, with stock arguments on both sides that have remained the same for decades. And most of those arguments are irrelevant to the central question: Do tighter gun control laws reduce the murder rate?

That is not an esoteric question, nor one for which no empirical evidence is available. Think about it. We have 50 states, each with its own gun control laws, and many of those laws have gotten either tighter or looser through the years. There must be tons of data that could indicate whether murder rates went up or down when either of these things happened.

But have you ever heard any gun control advocate cite any such data? Tragically, gun control has become one of those fact-free issues that spawn outbursts of emotional rhetoric and mutual recriminations about the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment.

If restrictions on gun ownership do reduce murders, we can repeal the Second Amendment, as other Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Laws exist to protect people. People do not exist to perpetuate laws.

But if tighter restrictions on gun ownership do not reduce murders, what is the point of tighter gun control laws — and what is the point of demonizing the National Rifle Association?

There are data not only from our 50 states but also from other countries around the world. Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm’s empirical study, “Guns and Violence: The English Experience,” should be eye-opening for all those who want their eyes opened, however small that number of people might be.

Professor Malcolm’s book also illustrates the difference between isolated, cherry-picked facts and relevant empirical evidence.

Many gun control advocates have cited the much higher murder rates in the United States than in England because of tighter gun control laws in England. But Professor Malcolm’s study points out that the murder rate in New York has been some multiple of the murder rate in London for two centuries — and, during most of that time, neither city had serious restrictions on gun ownership.

As late as 1954, “there were no controls on shotguns” in England, Professor Malcolm reported, but only 12 cases of armed robbery in London. Of these only 4 had real guns. But in the remainder of the 20th century, gun control laws became ever more severe — and armed robberies in London soared to 1,400 by 1974.

“As the numbers of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen” is her summary of that history in England. Conversely, in the United States the number of handguns in American homes more than doubled between 1973 and 1992, while the murder rate went down.

There are relevant facts available, but you are not likely to hear about them from politicians currently pushing for tighter gun control laws, or from the mainstream media, when those facts go against the claims of gun control advocates.

Despite hundreds of thousands of times per year when Americans use firearms defensively, none of those incidents is likely to be reported in the mainstream media, even when lives are saved as a result. But one accidental firearm death in a home will be broadcast and rebroadcast from coast to coast.

Virtually all empirical studies in the United States show that tightening gun control laws has not reduced crime rates in general or murder rates in particular. Is this because only people opposed to gun control do empirical studies? Or is it because the facts uncovered in empirical studies make the arguments of gun control zealots untenable?

In both England and the United States, those people most zealous for tighter gun control laws tend also to be most lenient toward criminals and most restrictive on police. The net result is that law-abiding citizens become more vulnerable when they are disarmed and criminals disobey gun control laws, as they disobey other laws.

The facts are too plain to be ignored. Moreover, the consequences are too dangerous to law-abiding citizens, whose lives are put in jeopardy on the basis of fact-free assumptions and unexamined dogmas. Such arguments are a farce, but not the least bit funny.

---

As a laignaippe, this past week, this happened during Tim Poole’s interview with a pro-abortionist: