Perspective

Let us put things into it...

If you do not understand the agenda behind all the recent flap over the Confederate flag, please continue to read, for a little perspective. Unless you've been living in the wilderness (and if so, I envy you), you have seen the media and political frenzy proclaiming the inherent racist symbolism of that piece of colored fabric. 

There are a lot of people being duped, once again, by a manufactured crisis. Those provoking the brouhaha were well aware of the impending response - they, in fact, were counting on it - once again driving a wedge between those who need, now more than ever, to stand together. Proof of this tactic can also be recognized in the rainbow lighting of the White House. Any sane person would have known how the opponents of same sex marriage would react. Both sides of each of these non-issues are unwitting accomplices to a shameful political game. How many Confederate flags did you see being flown before the senseless and horrific murders of the nine people in South Carolina? How about since the first mention of the murderer having it displayed on his car?

Can you roughly estimate the number of times you've seen a Facebook post or news piece on the Confederate flag, today? How about over the last week? Now, during the same time periods, how many times have you seen or heard outrage by the media and political elite over the number of black youth victimized each year? I mean real victimization, as in violent, criminal attacks, not the perceived victimization of walking past a flag or monument - which is what the elite propose you should "feel."

According to a 2007 government report, 8,000 black people were the victims of homicide in 2005. That number has since steadily risen. It is noteworthy, although apparently not newsworthy, over 90% of those were intra-racial assaults. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

It is estimated that, over the past 35 years in the U.S., over 300,000 have lost their lives to black-on-black violence. The numbers of intra-racial, non-fatal violence is utterly astounding, at about 805,000 in 2005. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf

Here's the perspective part - During the 350+ years of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, 12.5 million Africans were ripped from their lands and around 20% died tragically enroute to the New World. Do you know how many were actually shipped directly to North America? According to Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (yes, the same Henry Gates at the center of the 2009 Cambridge arrest fuss that culminated in the Beer Summit), only about 388,000. Don't get your feathers ruffled over the use of the word "only"; it was his word and I strongly believe even one was too many. It is simply putting things into perspective. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/how-many-slaves-landed-in-the-us/

Now, when we extrapolate from these numbers, we can see that, in only 35 years, nearly as many U.S. black people have lost their lives to intra-racial violence, as were enslaved on the continent in ten times the number of years. Combined with the victims of non-fatal violence during the same time frame, the number approaches 77% of those who survived the trip to become slaves in North America, South America, and the Caribbean.

If the media and political elite had any concern for the plight of any of us, wouldn't you think that would be a higher priority than a piece of colored fabric or whether or not two people can be married? 

Although Piers Morgan lost his job at CNN, and justifiably so, there are some who will continue to give him a microphone and allow him to satisfy his self-important attempt to be relevant. Unfortunately, most often, those who permit him the opportunity fawn over his every word. This is another of those times and I simply could not let it pass without rebuttal. The first 40 seconds is a caller berating Morgan, with some colorful language that some might wish to skip over.

So, let's, once again, pick apart Piers Morgan's weak approach to criticizing that which he does not understand. 

". . . nuclear scientist who thinks it's a good idea to take a loaded gun into Walmart and let her two-year old son pull it out and use it."

This is simply a plea to emotion, absent any factual basis. The key words here are "good idea," "let," and "use it." It's blatantly obvious NO sane person would ever think it a "good idea."  NO sane person would "let" (as in condone) a 2-year old do that. NO 2-year old is capable "using" a firearm. If one does access a firearm, it results in misuse. Incidents like these are rare, regardless of what Morgan would like you to believe. As a percentage of all U.S. deaths, accidental discharge of a firearm comprises 0.03%, at 851 total. The leading cause of accidental death, automobile accidents, comprises 1.38%, at 34,677. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

"To me, there's no hunter in all of America who needs a magazine of more than 10 bullets to shoot a deer, for example."

The 2nd Amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting and never did. The right to defend one's life and property is natural to man's existence. It preexists any government and any constitution. The 2nd merely reaffirms to government that it must recognize this and keep its hands off. Invoking hunting in any fashion is a straw man.

Morgan recites a list of things which are prohibited in the U.S.; Kinder Surprise chocolate eggs, 6 packets of Sudafed, most of the French cheeses. He's correct. Those things should not be prohibited and neither should magazine capacities. However, if he wants to rely on the Constitution to protect his 1st Amendment rights (also natural rights), then he cannot ignore the words "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd. Doing so is disingenuous, an affliction common to Piers Morgan and other anti-gun progressives. For example, did you notice Bloomberg's recent call for minorities to be denied gun ownership? Gun control has its roots in Jim Crow laws, with many states implementing laws designed to prevent blacks from obtaining guns. Eugenics is also a progressive philosophy and what better way to reduce the numbers of "inferior" black people than to deny them the ability to defend themselves?

Notice that Morgan completely shut down and ignored the caller's argument that a person is more likely to be shot in states with stricter gun laws. Instead, he presented his straw man about where criminals get their guns, that fails to address the facts. To his straw man, all the guns originating in states with less strict gun laws are not leaving the state, to those with stricter laws. So, by his logic, the states with less strict laws should still have an exponentially higher firearm crime rate. They do not. 

The drunk driving fatalities justification:

1. The per se blood/alcohol count is at its lowest point ever (.08), yet since the mid 90's there has been a net increase in alcohol-related traffic fatalities.

2. Morgan's use of DWI fatality statistics erroneously equates correlation with causation. It fails to recognize that the trend in reduced DWI-related fatalities closely correlates to the reduction in all traffic fatalities; a fact most likely attributable to increases in vehicle safety equipment. 

The top chart depicts the numbers of DWI-related fatalities per 100 million miles. The lower chart, all traffic-related fatalities.

Sure, to the ill-informed and gullible, Morgan's "points" appear valid, but just a small amount of logic, topical education, and research invalidates them all.