Leftists are embolden and no longer scared to reveal their true feelings to the public.  While this is a tough time for Conservatives, in hindsight, I think we’ll look back on this period of history as being the time when the general public was educated about what Leftists truly believe.  And it should scare the vast majority of the human race.

I saw another example of Leftist ‘thought’ today when I saw a tweet from Soylent Green regarding this post by Matthew Bailes.

The post is entitled “Will Climate Change Ever Have Its Sandy Hook Moment?” and gist of the post goes something like this – The Neanderthals in the US have been finally shaken to their foundation regarding gun laws after seeing 20 elementary school kids killed by a an evil lunatic.  From his post (emphasis mine):

“So at this time of tragedy, when a mentally unstable, barely adult male goes into a school and kills 20 young children with a home-grown arsenal, it would be too easy to start lecturing the US about the benefits of Australia’s universal health care scheme, strict gun laws, and a conservative Prime Minister who raised taxes to buy back every assault rifle in the country after our own day of infamy, the Port Arthur massacre.”

“They don’t need it.”

“Instead they need our compassion.”

“Because if the loss of 20 innocent children and six adults can’t change America’s attitude and laws relating to guns, nothing we ever say or do will.”

Before I get to what is really telling about this blog post, let me spend some time debunking Mr. Bailes’ arguments on stricter gun laws.

He mentions Chicago, which recently saw its 500^th homicide in 2012, in his post so let’s get that one out of the way first.  It’s illegal to purchase a handgun in Chicago but criminals have no problem getting guns as evidenced by reports here and here.  Strict gun laws only restrict law abiding citizens from obtaining weapons to defend themselves from armed criminals.  This is basic common sense and data backs this up.

Mr. Bailes should review how England’s strict gun laws have not fared too well.  From the WSJ article (emphasis mine):

“The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.”

Since Mr. Bailes bragged about the Australian gun laws, you’d think he’d be familiar with crime data after Australia enacted these tougher gun laws.  Again, from the same WSJ article (emphasis mine):

“According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported “a modest reduction in the severity” of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.”

“In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.”

“What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don’t provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.”

But Mr. Bailes’ lack of understanding regarding gun laws isn’t what I want to focus in this post.  The author goes on to lament that Climate Change will not have a ‘Sandy Hook moment’ where people will rise up and overwhelmingly support Climate Change legislation.  From his post (emphasis mine):

“The Sandy Hook massacre was so dreadful that it is likely to permanently change the US’s attitude to gun control that will ultimately save thousands of lives.”

“Climate change is unlikely to be so lucky.”

“An individual drought, hurricane or heat wave may affect an individual’s attitude to climate change, but I wonder what climatic event it would take to have the same national impact on policy as the massacre of innocents?”

So according to Mr. Bailes, he feels it’s ‘unlucky’ that we won’t have a weather catastrophe that kills thousands of people so that the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) cult could take advantage of peoples’ emotions to push more of their lies.

Just awful people.

Here is another lovely tweet from Mr. Bailes:

Just awful people.