Panic is a problem in America today. Panic over people getting sick, panic over inflation, panic over the possibility of violence in our society. And, with some people, yes, panic over guns. Not just guns existing (though, it is that for some people), but panic with the idea that you or I have a firearm.

Now, we can (and should) have a discussion about whether these reasons for people panicking are valid (well, except for the guns one. There’s no rational reason that anyone should feel any stress at all about law-abiding people having guns). That’s a discussion for another time, though.

Today’s question is why people are panicked about private gun ownership when there’s no justification at all for that sense of panic. And there is a clear, easily-identifiable reason that some people feel that irrational emotion. John Seiler writes,

Emotionalism is the worst way to deal with policies. Yet it’s the main force behind the media hysteria pushing gun control. Especially by the Los Angeles Times, the main gun-control force in California. This is shown by two recent opinion articles they ran.

Seiler, then, tells of a story that the LA Times published that talked about a horrible shooting incident. That the incident was horrible is not in question. It’s what follows that that makes that hit piece worse. Seiler continues,

But then she asked, “I also know that I was the predictable victim of a political system that has allowed close to 400 million guns to flood every part of our country.”

That’s a non-sequitur. First, if the man was a felon who obtained a gun even though he couldn’t legally possess one, why does she think any new law could prevent that?

Second, how does she think 400 million guns could be confiscated?

Third, if somehow all those guns—or most of them—could be confiscated, attempted carjackings like this, and successful carjackings, would be more common, not less. That’s because carjackers would be more certain their potential victims would be disarmed.

Think about that. A major newspaper publishes an article with obvious, easily-identified illogical statements arguing for an anti-gun bias that the situation doesn’t justify.

But many people who read the article up to that point, because they’ve gotten emotionally involved in her tragic story will also simply accept her flawed conclusion that private gun ownership is the problem.

WIth this kind of blatant propaganda out there, is it any wonder that many ignorant people are panicked about private gun ownership?