Yearly gun-related deaths amount to about 0.01 percent of the population, or one hundredth of one percent. Roughly half of these are suicides. As Gavin McInnes points out in a piece over at Taki’s Mag, there are other, more lethal things in our society that make up a larger percentage of American deaths.

So when liberals call for stricter “gun control” laws but not stricter laws to “control” America’s deadlier elements (prescription drugs and automobiles, for example, both cause between three times and ten times more deaths per year than people with guns), we know there must be an ulterior motive.

Some Democrats admit their real agenda is ultimately to ban all guns. Other times we must rely on internal memos to reveal to us that Democrats acknowledge gun control doesn’t work and that the only way to achieve their professed goal of there being fewer gun-related deaths is to confiscate guns duplicitously and obliquely through gun buy-back programs.

The point of eliminating guns is ostensibly to eliminate mass shootings by the criminal and psychotic, secondarily to safeguard against accidental deaths by the irresponsible.

But as we saw back in February of this year with Officer Chris Dorner, a member of the Los Angeles Police Department, even cops can succumb to the psychosis that triggers rampage. There are just shy of 10,000 police officers in the LAPD, which means that Dorner made up 0.01 percent of the force, the same percentage of deaths per year in the United States attributed to gun violence. If Dorner’s rogue-cop action was considered an anomaly, then so must all gun deaths in America. So why are we not hearing from outraged liberals that we need tougher restrictions on the LAPD? Why are we not hearing from the few liberals who are more open and transparent that we need to ban the LAPD? Statistically, they are as deadly as the rest of America’s gun-owners.

Then we come to the fascinating fact that police officers on the whole accidentally shoot 11 times more innocent civilians than the rest of America’s gun-owners. So why do we not seek to “control” the police and have them take part in a gun buy-back program? Why do we not ban the police, who are 11 times more deadly to civilians than armed citizens? Is it because protecting lives is not the object of gun confiscation, but that confiscation itself, the widespread disarmament of the American people, is the goal?

Of course I don’t believe in eliminating the police force. But if liberals really wanted to protect innocent civilians from rogue bullets, they would have the intellectual honesty to admit that, by their own logic, they’d do better to outlaw our men in blue than to outlaw the Second Amendment.