Don’t Confuse Me With Facts — Part 809

I use WordPress’ built in ‘tag’ explorer to see what other people are writing. I saw this title for a blog post pop up today

One example of why homicides are higher in states with “Stand your ground” laws

Curious I clicked over and read it.

He talks about the recent “Guns Anywhere” Bill — which is a tenuous stretch regarding “Stand Your Ground Laws”. And the incident he linked to?

Police said the bullet came from a small-caliber handgun carried by a 53-year-old man from Jasper, Ga. The gun accidentally discharged, and the bullet traveled across Helen’s tourist-laden Main Street and struck the woman in the side.

Bystanders attempted to administer first aid, police said, but authorities pronounced the woman dead at the scene.

The shooting took place outside the Old Heidelberg restaurant and bar, one of many Bavarian-themed businesses in Helen, a town of about 500 residents in White County, 90 miles northeast of downtown Atlanta.

Completely unrelated to “Stand Your Ground” laws in any way, wouldn’t you agree?

I pointed out, nicely for me, that the incident had nothing to do with either Stand Your Ground or the new laws; restaurants were removed from the list of prohibited places 4 years prior according to my quick research — SB308 signed into law June of 2010.

His response was typical of the anti-rights cultists:

Well, I consider it pretty obvious that a law that allows a mix of guns, liquor, and public places will lead to more shootings, accidental or intentional, than a law that prohibits such a mix. This is evident to me; the fact that it is not evident to you sort of brings the discussion to a close. Aristotle commented on the folly of trying to convince someone of something obvious through the use of things that are not. So if you don’t see it, we can agree to view reality from different angles.

Thanks for commenting.


The only mention of alcohol was a prior conviction 15 years ago by the gun owner. No information if he was legally carrying, no information if he was drinking again. Heck we don’t even know if he had even been in the restaurant…..but that is enough for some people to jump all over and and anything remotely related.

We have enough legitimate issues to be debating; making up stuff and claiming that various laws are responsible when they aren’t isn’t helping.


And since he made it clear that further comments of mine are unwelcome over there; I’ll add this here:

Well, I consider it pretty obvious that a law that allows a mix of guns, liquor, and public places will lead to more shootings, accidental or intentional, than a law that prohibits such a mix.


Yeah….people thought way before; it was called “Prohibition” and it didn’t work out so well

America had experienced a gradual decline in the rate of serious crimes over much of the 19th and early 20thcenturies. That trend was unintentionally reversed by the efforts of the Prohibition movement. The homicide rate in large cities increased from 5.6 per 100,000 population during the first decade of the century to 8.4 during the second decade when the Harrison Narcotics Act, a wave of state alcohol prohibitions, and World War I alcohol restrictions were enacted. The homicide rate increased to 10 per 100,000 population during the 1920s, a 78 percent increase over the pre-Prohibition period.

Shouldn’t we learn from history ?


Please join the discussion.

Scattered Thoughts on Kolbe Decision

Random Thoughts from the  Kolbe Decision.

Assuming that recent sales have increased the number of assault weapons in the
current civilian market to nine million, such weapons would represent about three percent of the civilian gun stock.


Let’s see — 12,000 homicides with all firearms around 475,000 firearm related violent crimes per year according to the Bureau for Justice Statistics. Even if every homicide and firearm related violent crime was accomplished by a separate gun owner (estimated around 46,000,000) that means rounding up for easier math 500,000 divided by 46,000,000 times 100 to express as a percentage — 1.09% of all gun owners were involved in a homicide or firearm related crime ! Half the percentage of gun owners.

Even if we estimate firearm at the low side of 270,000,000 — that would be 0.019% of all firearms being used in a crime each year. Heck even if every gun crime was committed by ‘an assault weapon” (9,000,000 per the decision) that is still only 5.55% of all the assault weapons being used in a crime each year. What does she think that other 94.45 % are being used for?



Further, although the court recognizes the need to build proficiency with a firearm for the purposes of hunting or self-defense, there has been no indication from the Supreme Court that competitive marksmanship in itself is a purpose protected by the Second Amendment.

Oh, Joy….look at that. The court recognizes the need to be proficient but that competitive marksmanship — a sport that predates the founding of our country isn’t protected.



Continue Reading

2 Trouble Spots – Half Way Around the World Apart

First location is ‘near’ most of us:

Ferguson, Missouri (CNN) — Late night protests in Ferguson, Missouri, over the shooting death of Michael Brown, dispersed after bottles flew at officers, who answered with tear gas, police said Wednesday.

Protesters gathered in the St. Louis suburb for a fourth day and shouted at police officers.

“Don’t shoot!” they said, holding up signs protesting Brown’s killing. “No justice, no peace!”

Blocks away from where the protests took place, there were two shootings. But police do not believe the violence was related to the protests.

4 Days of violence and unrest. Minor by comparison to what is happening half way around the world in Iraq.

(CNN) — In an exodus of almost biblical proportions, thousands trudge across a river to escape killers belonging to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

Entire families carry nothing but the clothes on their back. Some are barefoot. And not everyone who set out on the arduous journey survived.

Jamal Jamir, a 23-year-old university student from Sinjar, told CNN his family fled into the barren and windswept Sinjar Mountains more than a week ago after ISIS captured their town. They spent days on the mountain, desperately waiting for air drops of food and water.

The family then escaped the mountain on foot, and made a marathon 15-hour journey to Syria. We met them as they crossed a bridge back into Kurdish-controlled Iraq.

What do they have in common? The fact that the ‘state’ either can not or will not protect the individuals. The police in Ferguson Missouri eventually tried to stop the looting Sunday Night; but to do that they pulled nearly every officer in the city and surrounding cities.

This is where the “individual ”  portion of the right to keep and bear arms is most acutely displayed — self defense. Individuals may be caught up as a victim of the rioting, they may be required to defend their homes, business or self against one or more people. The ability, skills and equipment needed to do so have to be protected so that groups can be formed to react to larger problems.

Think of how easy it would be for a mob to form in front of or around an Amory and keep the militia from accessing armament to respond to the problem. This is why Law Enforcement started carrying rifles and shotguns in their cars.

When ISIS approached their town, Jamir and his family fled to the Sinjar Mountain, where they spent days camping and desperately waiting for aid. The family finally escaped on foot.

A senior Kurdish official estimated that as many as 70,000 people remain trapped on Mount Sinjar, and that at least 100 have died so far from dehydration and the heat.

The situation in Iraq on the other hand is an example of the “Militia” side of the argument. 70,000 people remain trapped. Let’s go with just those numbers and not even consider how many people have already fled as refuges that could have been part of the solution.

70,000 people, let’s assume that half are kids. 35,000 people — let’s assume that half are women — and due to cultural reasons unwilling or not allowed to fight. 17,500 men left. Half too old or too young to fight — still leaves 8,500 men of fighting age. That would be nearly a force equal to an army division.

Even if half of them are willing to fight (4,250); that puts the strength at a short brigade strength wise or an over-sized regiment !

Estimates put the fighting strength of Isis in Syria and Iraq at around 7,000 but its numbers in Iraq appear to have been bolstered by other groups, including local Sunni militants and Ba’ath nationalists particularly in Tikrit. Despite claims that they have captured helicopters in Mosul, it seems unlikely they would be able to deploy them. Lightly armed with Toyota pickup technicals, RPGs and small arms, Isis has captured some armoured Humvees, although there are suggestions that some equipment has been sent back to Syria.

So they would have near parity or half the numbers of ISIS fighters in Iraq. Training and organization would be lacking by comparison but the defensive advantages would help compensate, right?

Even if fewer people were armed and fought – even with what American citizens generally own – semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, bolt action rifles and pump shotguns, think of the change in tactics and rate of advance it would make.

This is why the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the armed people to form a militia. Because the state can not or will not always be there to protect people.

Two different examples, two different situations entirely but both support the idea that the people should be

Quote of the Day “Blinded by the …..”

Have to provide a little background before I get to the QOTD. Byran Strawser let this comment over at  Commongunsense; the blog ran by Joan Peterson Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence board Member, co-president of the Northland Chapter of the Brady Campaign, President of  Minnesota Million Moms March, Spokesperson for Protect Minnesota ; aka Japete.


Again, you want to limit someone’s constitutional rights because of a physical disability – not only will this not fly from a constitutional perspective, what you are proposing is a direct violation of existing state and federal law.

“The rest of us have a right to be protected from people who shouldn’t have guns.”

There is no right to be protected. What part of the constitution did you find this in?

A person with a physical disability should have the same rights as other law-abiding citizens.

Fairly reasonable, straight forward statement and great question “What part of the constitution did you find this in?”

Her answer is typical of the anti-rights cultists and it is important to remember this person isn’t just a blogger but serves on the Brady Campaign national board, serves on several state level gun control groups.

You seem to be blinded by the Constitution. There is absolutely no common sense in a blind person being able to carry a gun. I am betting that 99% of the public would agree on that one. Notice that the NRA took the video off of their website. There was a reason for that. It’s ludicrous and even they knew it when they got pushback.

It appears her belief is that ‘commonsense’ should overrule the Constitution in cases like this!

This is one of the many reasons why I resist “gun” control laws. The people leading the opposition seem to respect no limits on their actions. Because we shouldn’t let following the highest law of the land stand in the way of laws stripping disabled people of their rights.

Please join the discussion.

Tell Me Again, How People Don’t Need….

“High Capacity” magazines, AR-15 type rifles and militias. Carefully note the police response to the riot in Ferguson Missouri.

What began as a peaceful protest of the shooting of an 18-year-old unarmed black man by a police officer in a St. Louis suburb turned into what the town’s mayor called a “huge mess” as several businesses were looted and cars were vandalized.

A candlelight vigil was held Sunday evening in Ferguson, Mo. for Michael Brown, whom witnesses and authorities said was shot several times by an officer who had scuffled with the teen and another person. 

Afterward, some people looted a convenience store. Several other stores along a main road near the shooting scene were broken into and looted, including a check-cashing store, a boutique and a small grocery store.

People were seen carrying bags of food and toilet paper. TV footage showed streams of people walking out of a liquor store carrying bottles of alcohol, and in some cases protesters were standing atop police cars or taunting officers who stood stoic, often in riot gear.

The police stood by as people broke the law and stole property. The police “stood stoic” as the livelihood of others was taken.

Police Department

The Ferguson Police Department provides protection of life and property in Ferguson through the enforcement of laws and ordinances and assistance with emergency medical services.

Except where they could get hurt or further inflame tension……then you are on your own.


St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley said there were no reports of injuries but confirmed widespread property damage. “Right now I’m just worried about people, not property,” he said.

Not worried about property! So it is okay for rioters to loot as long as they aren’t hurting people physically? This is insane folks. The local government and law enforcement simply abandoned their responsibility.




Brian Schellman, with the St. Louis County Police Department, said close to 300 police officers from at least 15 different departments were called to Ferguson when angry mobs began smashing windows, setting fires and looting businesses in the area.

Let that sink in for a moment also. Think carefully about the potential consequences and how it could impact other communities. 15 different departments sent officers to 1 city for one small/medium riot.

Now imagine if there were riots in multiple cities; would the police be able to protect individuals? Would they even been willing? This isn’t a slam on most cops; although it may seem that way. Most cops want to do the right thing and protect people but in some situations, like riots, we’ve seen them abandon people in order to maintain their own safety.

Day 1
The riots happened quickly. Liquor stores, chain stores, fast-food places, and white people were the main targets of looting, fire, and violence. On the first day of the riots, the most infamous event took place. Reginald Denny, a white truck driver, was crossing Florence and Normandie. He was pulled out of his car by Damian Williams, a resident of the area. He was severely beaten while a helicopter recorded the incident. Williams took a piece of concrete and slammed it against Denny’s head and then celebrated. Denny barely survived. The police were withdrawn from South Central, and the 110 Freeway was closed from Century to King. The media concentrated on this attack throughout the riots. They did not report that Fidel Lopez, an immigrant from Guatemala, suffered similar brutality.

Day 2
The riots were more organized and South LA began to burn. Korean store owners came to defend their stores and had gunbattles with rioters. There were not any police or National Guard present at this point as LA burned.

Day 3
Rodney King was put on TV and asked LA, “can we all get along?” People could not at this point. The police and National Guard continued to let the city burn as a huge power outage hit South Central.

Day 4 and 5
The National Guard enters South Central and begins to restore order. There are random areas of violence for days on end.

In the end, 53 people were killed, most all were rioters or innocent victims. Over $1 billion in damages were done. People rioted because of the built up anger and frustration of recent events.


And that isn’t the only time it’s happened. The police in New Orleans mostly abandoned the city — where they didn’t join in the looting.

Negro cops joining other Negroes/blacks/African-Americans in looting and pillaging New Orleans in the aftermath of the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina.

Negro cops joining other Negroes/blacks/African-Americans in looting and pillaging New Orleans in the aftermath of the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina.

Those who say the “militia is outdated, antiquated, no longer in use” should look to see how the people in L.A. and New Orleans responded. They should look to the fact that looting is usually countered by the people working together. On the whole people do respond well in emergencies; working together to rescue people, to clean up an area. And to respond to those who would commit crimes.


Reality keeps showing how flimsy the anti-rights cultists arguments really are; Don’t fall for them. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is just as vital now as it was 200 years ago.


Please Join the Discussion.

Will You Trust Him To Be Merciful?

DALLAS — Police are looking for an armed robbery suspect who robbed a cell phone store and led police on a chase before crashing a car and fleeing on foot Friday night.

A police spokesman said they received a robbery call at 7:49 p.m. from the AT&T store in the 8200 block of Abrams Road. They said a man wearing a ski mask robbed the store at gunpoint.

Dallas police spotted a vehicle matching the description of the one fleeing the robbery scene traveling southbound on U.S. 75 at Hall Street and began following the car. Officers then attempted to stop the car while it was traveling southbound on Interstate 45 at Lamar Street, but the vehicle took off.

…The vehicle crashed at Hampton Road and Red Bird Lane, and two suspects got out. Jamarion James, 21, was arrested at the scene; the other escaped.

The anti-rights cultists believe that people like you and I shouldn’t resist criminals like this. They say “just give him what he wants” — and depend on his mercy to stay alive.

Does it appear he has much regard for other people’s lives to you? I don’t think so. He used lethal force to steal cell phones, he endangered lives in an attempt (successful) to evade the police.
Isn’t that a pretty thin thread to depend on? That the criminal won’t be in a mood to kill or injure someone?


I think I’ll keep another option open by being armed. It’s a slim chance I’ll encounter this criminal or one like him; but the consequences if I do are potentially severe.


Please join the discussion.


Dissertation Level Fisking ?

Breaking out the fisking shears over here just in case my comment never sees the light of day. I may have been a little too snarky in my reply over there. It seems not to have been published.*

So on with the show.

Evening folk of the world wide web

Tonight I will be sharing my opinion on a subject that I grew to learn a lot about around 2 years ago since it was the matter of my dissertation. And that is the state of gun control in the United States of America.

Remember that statement about his knowledge of the subject. I’m not sure if it is reflective of failures in higher learning or this person’s willingness to distort the truth.


I would like to say now that some of this is going to be subjective opinion and some will be objective fact but I am writing from my own personal perspective and nobody else’s here.

To reiterate, I am a huge advocate of human rights and of personal liberty.I believe everyone should be free to live their lives without fear of intrusive reprisal from the government, so long as what they do isn’t in any way detrimental to their fellows or the state. So in this sense one might say every man or woman is free to own a firearm for the purposes of what they call it – self defence.

Anyone else waiting for him to drop the “I believe but…” line ?


Now don’t get me wrong, a gun is a very effective form of personal safety. If I were a burglar (this isn’t a confession, merely conjecture) I might think twice about breaking into someone’s house if I thought the guy who owned it was packing. Therefore merely the thought of a gun is sometimes useful enough with the need for any bullets to be fired.

In this he is correct and the studies back up his view; like this one

Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either “often” or “regularly” worried that they “[m]ight get shot at by the victim”; and 57% agreed with the statement, “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.” (James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994]).

So firearms can be an effective deterrent and that survey was just from the criminals who had been caught and convicted.

But, the tragic real life scenario in the U.S is that bullets are being fired, and in huge quantities. In Britain there are around 60-70 gun related murders every year. In the U.S. this figure is over 10,000. Per year. That’s 10,000 people apparently being killed every circuit of the sun for the paranoia and fear of the American people for their self or property. That’s a lot of people to sacrifice for individual freedom.

Why is it anti-rights cultist follow the same pattern — declaring support for civil rights, limited government, failing to recognize defensive or recreational uses of firearms?

And let’s not forget the claim we are acting out of ‘paranoia and fear’. This is especially poignant coming from someone who has written a dissertation on the subject; surely in writing about ‘gun control’ he would encounter evidence that some of us are acting out of rational evaluation of the crime statistics, that we support the roll back of government intrusion in our lives — and not acting out of fear.

Every notice how anti-rights cultists love to compare the UK and America but fail to mention that for decades ever more restrictive gun control laws have been imposed on the island nation. Like saying

The USA has within its borders around 270 million (registered) guns that it can account for. Most of these are bought legally from firearm retailers, flea markets and private dealers. Bullets can even be found in such places as a K-Mart. Mind-boggling. This equates to 1 gun for every 0.87 person in America. Incredibly America does not have the highest gun ownership percentage in the world – they fall behind Switzerland where it is mandatory to keep a fully functioning gun in the house at all times – a gun:person rate of around 1-0.997.

This was where I asked him if he really went to a college and if he did, I suggested he get his money back. Or take a refresher math class. He reversed the numbers in his math. Given there are approximately 313 Million people and 270 Million firearms that means there is 1 gun for ever 1.16 people. Or 0.87 guns per person. Of course an academic fails to cover the firearm homicide rates aren’t all that far off if you compare per 100K of firearms. Surely someone who is writing on a dissertation level would check his math. Right?

In the UK, there are approximately 1.8 million registered firearms and using his number of 60 firearm related homicides gives us 3.31 homicides per 100K firearms. In America, going with the higher 12,000 homicides  and 270 Million gives us 4.44 homicides per 100K firearms. So instead of being 200 times more homicidal that the UK, it looks to be only 33 percent more.


What a gun does is turn any situation potentially lethal. You go to any town in Britain at a weekend and you see drink-sodden souls throwing each other through windows or playing at fisticuffs but extremely rarely do these brawls result in fatality. However with the presence of a gun the sense of danger is incredibly heightened. A misunderstanding coupled with intoxication prevents a very real scenario where the use of a gun will result tragically.

So violence seems to be acceptable to him as long as it isn’t ‘gun violence’. Of course, that ignores the very real existence of the same type of brawling violence here in America. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports over 5,00,000 violent crimes each year. Only a fraction of those are firearm related; around 8%. So perhaps the ‘presence of a gun’ doesn’t heighten the danger that much.

And there two possible reasons for that; first because of Defensive Gun Uses, where the presence or threat of a firearm, stops a crime. Second, it matters greatly who is carrying the firearm. Texas, like many states, tracks the conviction rates of those with a Concealed Handgun License. The current rate is around 0.18% of all convictions. That is for all crimes, firearm related or not. If they have a CHL and a conviction it is reported. So the majority of the people are law abiding and don’t cause the problems so feared by the anti-rights cultists.


One story from America that always resonated with me was a man who was bothered by some kids playing loud music outside his house, when he went out to ask them to turn it down and they refused, he shot one of them point blank and killed the lad. A perfectly mundane situation that happens thousands of times a day – blackened by the use of a gun.

Another common tactic – Joan Peterson of Commongunsense, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence board Member, co-president of the Northland Chapter of the Brady Campaign, President of  Minnesota Million Moms March, Spokesperson for Protect Minnesota ; aka Japete — seems to be good at this. Actually it seems to be mostly what she does. Report an anecdote and use it to paint all incidents as the same. Of course the FBI.

Of course this ignores the larger problems; gangs and drug cartel activities

  • Highly populated areas accounted for the vast majority of gang homicides: nearly 70 percent occurred in cities with populations over 100,000, and 19 percent occurred in suburban counties in 2011.
  • The number of gang-related homicides increased approximately 10 percent from 2009 to 2010 and then declined slightly (2 percent) from 2010 to 2011 in cities with populations over 100,000.
  • In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for approximately one in five gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2010 to 2011.

80% of crime – and that would probably include firearm related crime — is attributable to gangs or gang related crime. Domestic violence is another large chunk of firearm related homicides. So if anyone can enact a law that will stop gangs or domestic violence; I’ll write up their Nobel Prize submission letter. But let’s not pretend that the anecdote is representative of the whole.


A tactic always employed by the NRA (National Rifle Association) is the domestic violence aspect. Picture a wife being beaten by her husband. Ordinarily she is defenceless but give her a gun and she might just blow him away next time he comes home drunk and tries to beat her senseless. Fair enough, personal defence is something that is incredibly important but why should a gun be the first resort?

Straw Man argument alert — just who is arguing that a firearm should be the first resort? Anti-rights cultist like this guy. Most gun owners always recommend firearms as a last resort; avoid, deescalate and retreat are the options strongly recommended over and over again. But apparently writing a dissertation length paper doesn’t expose a person to that information. And it appears he forgot how to cite his sources of information. Sure if the NRA was recommending that domestic violence victims resort to firearms first, that would be easy to link to, right?

Some police forces experiment with the use of non-lethal weapons such as tasers (although the safety of these is disputed), sprays and bludgeons.

Law Enforcement have different roles that the average person. But even still many pro-rights advocates also support and use non-lethal means of defense. Notice the clever implications; Police forces try to save lives; gun owners don’t.

Guns usually result in the death of one or both parties and inviting one into the home is just waiting for it to be discharged, either by the abusive husband, the victim wife or, even worse, the unsuspecting child rooting through mummy and daddy’s things and just happening across the weapon – a case which has happened more than once I have to say.

See what I mean! It is as if this guy did his thesis via google search and anti-rights cultist websites such as Brady Campaign. The fact that 40% of the estimated 115,226,802 households have firearms should problem give a person pause before typing something so outrageous. Talk about fear and paranoia! Wow, all those guns — an estimate 46 million homes — just waiting to be used. Of course guns are always used to take lives, never save a life, never for recreation, never for hunting.


To summarise, I am not saying for one minute that guns should be scrapped completely, but there needs to be tighter regulations that restrict who can possess one.


No, you don’t want to scrap guns, you want to scrap the right. You want to turn it into a privilege; offered to only those approved and vetted by the government. Gee, haven’t we seen time and time again how this story plays out (New York City, California for two real life, real time examples).

Currently it is too easy for anyone to walk into a store and buy a firearm without the need for a background check.

I’ll admit to being very snarky in my comment on his site. Personally I think anyone who has written a dissertation on the subject of gun control and can still write that sentence is either flat out lying or is completely incapable of distinguishing reality from gun control fantasy. This isn’t just some person spouting off on the internet; this is supposedly a subject he is well versed in “ I grew to learn a lot about around 2 years ago since it was the matter of my dissertation. ” And yet something so basic as the fact it is federal law that licensed dealers, retail shops or not, have to conduct a background check prior to a a sales escapes this guy.

I’m not just talking handguns here either. The shooting in Aurora in 2012 was perpetrated by a man carrying fully automatic assault rifles – guns bred for no other purpose other than to kill in huge numbers.

Again — I’ll admit to asking if he actually learned anything during his study of gun control laws. Because a.) the murderer carried 1 rifle, 1 shotgun and one pistol, and b.) none of them were select fire weapons. This isn’t esoteric knowledge that could accidentally overlooked in the volume of available information.  This is Firearms 101; select fire weapons have been tightly controlled since 1934 (National Firearms Act)  and very expensive to own since 1986 (Hughes Amendment).

It also perpetuates the myth of ‘no other purpose than to kill’. Again ignoring the sporting and recreational purposes of firearms, ignoring the defensive purposes of firearms; the author uses his personal opinion in place of fact.

It’s far too easy for someone to get a hold of these weapons and use it for deadly force. How many more tragic shootings is America going to have to witness until policy change is effected?

Be very lovely to one another (and stay away from guns)


And again we see a complete avoidance of the reality. Even the Center for Disease Control could not find sufficient evidence to show that a change in policy or law would result in fewer deaths.

Center for Disease Control’s

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws


During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.


And given the simple fact that “more guns = more deaths” is easily dis-proven; shouldn’t someone who has written a dissertation know better?


How about instead of focusing on the tool used; we decide to focus on the reasons why there are murders. How about we address the pathetic state of our mental health system. We look at poverty, education, families, employment — things that affect the reason why people do evil acts.


Please join the discussion.


* Got a reply after I was most of the way through this post

I’m sorry, your reply was a bit long for me to read last night so I skipped over it. I must have accidentally trashed it. Appreciate the feedback though, I would like to hear more about what you have to say.