So Ms. Milano tweeted this:
Heart-wrenching, to be sure. However, once again we have a “seen and unseen” situation.
The post where I saw this over on the Book of Faces snarked about her two abortions as the “two children she killed” and suggested she should “let that sink in.”
Well, my views on abortion are complicated and I don’t generally discuss them in public–and I’m not inviting discussion on that topic here by others. Too much heat, too little light for any such to serve any purpose.
So, leaving that aside, let me offer the following:
Hey, Alyssa, between 900 and 9,000 people defended themselves against criminals today–with guns (presuming an “average” day). Let that sink in. Their being armed meant that they weren’t victims.
So, yes, my heart goes out to the family of that baby. What happened to it was tragic. However, my heart also goes out to those who weren’t victimized thanks to their being armed to defend themselves. And it goes out to those who were victimized because people like you stripped them of the ability to effectively defend themselves.
We live in a horribly imperfect world. Terrible things happen in it on a daily basis. But mindless, simplistic “answers” like “ban guns”, and “leave people disarmed” do not help. The “solutions” often make the problem worse. They would do so here–as shown by the simple fact that, by the best available studies on the subject, more people use guns to defend themselves against crime than use guns to commit crimes.
Remove the guns and. you. have. more. victims.
Since those in the political class have access to all the information necessary for them to know this, they either have other reasons for wanting to restrict RKBA or they’re being willfully blind and proceeding “in reckless disregard of the truth.” There is no third option although I will allow the possibility that they combine the two.
Now, Ms. Milano, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. After all, you made your fame playing pretend, mouthing words that other people wrote for you. Nothing in that “talent” requires any great level of brightness, nor any grasp of risk assessment, criminology, probability and statistics, or really anything that makes you any more qualified than a dancing monkey to spout on topics you do not understand. You’re good at hand-wringing on cue. That’s about the extent of it. So, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply ignorant and too stubborn to look beyond your blinders and not actually malicious.
The politicians and pundits from whom you get your marching orders, however? They still fall into one of those two categories (or, as conceded above, possibly both).
Make your bets on which way for any given politician or pundit.