Sunday, September 27, 2015

Retro 6 - How About More Hate Control Before More Gun Control, Part 3 - The Facts, Statistics, Fallacies, and Realities Of Gun Control

Given family engagements in town this week, we will be rerunning some of our most popular posts, posts that have garnered the most attention and which showed that we are currently enduring the worst set of politicians America has ever had.


How About More Hate Control Before More Gun Control, Part 3 - The Facts, Statistics, Fallacies, and Realities Of Gun Control

This is our third post in the series where we propose that the country, and especially our politicians, practice more “hate control” than gun control. In the previous posts we reviewed how venomous and hateful speech were pervading our society, degrading the sanctity of life and possibly being a major reason why some people go nuts and end up killing innocent people. We also reviewed actual cases of Americans legally using their Second Amendment rights to protect their lives, their families, and their assets from violent criminal elements, an option that many politicians would like to eliminate with draconian gun control/gun elimination.

Today, we will be reviewing a wide number of statistics, sources, and realities when it comes to violence and gun control, all of which indicate that rational gun laws that allow Americans to keep and use guns in the protection of their lives is a logical, Constitutional, and viable option for the citizens of the country.

Now some people may question the following “facts” and realities since the sources are not what they consider mainstream media. But I think there is a growing awareness among informed, rational people that the mainstream media is no longer the unbiased, purveyors of truth that many think they are today. The various components of mainstream media now take sides, and the publication or non-publication of facts and stories is based on whether or not it helps their “side.”

So, when reading the following, if you do not like the source, I encourage you to prove it wrong. If proven wrong, I have no problem issuing a retraction. But do not blindly rule out the following conclusions and theories just because it does not line up with your position on the issue or it is not from your favorite media/news source. Going forth blindly allows the political class to lead you to where their best interests lie and we all know that is seldom the best interest for citizens and the country.

1) Lets start with an article from a January 7, 2013 article from the website,, entitled “Society Is Crumbling And Banning Guns Will Make It Worse.” Consider some of the facts and conclusions laid out in the article:

- The writer points out that Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws. But 10 people were shot in the city of Chicago on the Friday before this article was posted. Ten people shot on one day in one city, a city with very strict gun laws. The author claims Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city,” and the murder rate in Chicago is about 25% higher than it was last year. So, implementing strict gun laws has resulted in rising violence.

Now, I guess one could make the case that gun violence would have been up 50% without the strict gun laws and that would be a valid counter argument. But I would not believe it, based on the actual individual cases we reviewed yesterday where gun owning Americans protected themselves from violent criminals.

I suggest you check out the following link to the gun violence in Chicago from the Associated Press. It contains a myriad of statistics and reasons why 500 people, more than one a day, are murdered annually in Chicago, a murder rate that has doubled in the past decade. A lot of the murders are a result of gang activity, the participants of which are highly unlikely to register their guns with authorities:

- The following paragraph from the article describes the situation in a Georgia town where a law was passed that required all of its citizens to actually own a firearm. The article reviews what happened after that requirement was passed: “In March 1982, , the small town of Kennesaw (Georgia) – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender. The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law. Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189."

So let’s review. A town has a crime rate substantially above the national level. The town passes a law requiring every responsible adult to have a licensed gun. Over time, the crime rate drops to a level substantially below the national level.

Again, an argument could be made that this was a spurious correlation and that the crime rate would have dropped in the absence of the gun law. A valid point, but given that the program did not result in wild shooting incidents and no one accidentally shot themselves, I would contend that it did not hurt.

- The article goes on to put forth a very valid hypothesis: maybe guns are not the problem but medication and legally prescribed drugs are the problem. The Washington Post has reported that the Newtown shooter was “on medication.” The article quotes some authorities on this issue/root cause: “The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has raised concerns about severe acts of violence as side effects of anti-psychotic and antidepressant drugs not only on individuals but on society as well. Just a month ago PRWeb described drug induced violence as ”medicine’s best kept secret. And the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHRI) is calling for a federal investigation on its web page which links no less than 14 mass killings to the use of psychiatric drugs such as Prozac and Paxil."

Certainly a potential root cause worth exploring.

- What happened in Newtown was tragic. I do not want to belittle the sorrow and tragedy in any way. But while the political class is fretting and grandstanding about gun control, how about the following issues that never get their attention, according to the article:
  • There are more than 3 million reports of child abuse in the United States every single year.
  • An average of five children die as a result of child abuse in the United States every single day.
  • The United States has the highest child abuse death rate on the entire globe.
  • It is estimated that 500,000 Americans that will be born this year will be sexually abused before they turn 18.
  • In the United States today, it is estimated that one out of every four girls is sexually abused before they become adults.
Would banning guns keep these atrocities from happening? No, banning guns would not prevent these atrocities from going on everyday. Maybe we need a national discussion about protecting our kids, with preventing school shootings only a component, but a very important component, of the overall discussion. That would be a noble cause for the political class as opposed to using the Newtown shootings as means to another, selfish, political end, gun prohibition, rather than a means to truly protecting and cherishing our kids on a daily basis.

The Pentagon has the Defense Department. The businesses in this country have the Commerce Department. The unions in this country have the Labor Department. Energy companies have the Energy Department. Maybe we need a Kids Department, an organized effort to protect our kids, not only from school shootings, but also from bad public schools, sexual predators, bad economic futures, etc.

2) The following letter, and the accompanying TV news reports this Marine has been on, has become wildly popular across the country. He has done the best and most succinct job of pointing out the massive hypocrisy of our politicians as they try to reign in our ability to defend ourselves with severe gun ownership laws but make sure that they are protected with gun toting employees and exceptions to the laws they want to pass for the rest of us.

The letter is addressed to California Senator Diane Feinstein who is proposing very severe and freedom eroding gun control legislation despite the fact that she has admitted to carrying a concealed weapon in the past for her own protection. The initial letter that started it all and which pointed out the hypocrisy is below:

From: U.S. Marines Cpl. Joshua Boston
To: Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps

As an aside, consider two recent sets of news reports:
  • President Obama just signed legislation that will guarantee that he and his family, along with other former Presidents, will be protected by armed Secret Service guards for the rest of their lives.
  • The school where the President sends his kids currently has 11 armed guards on site for protection, not counting the Secret Service personnel assigned to protect Presidential families.
Given that politicians want to protect themselves with armed guards, responsible, ordinary Americans should have the same right, a right not made overly restrictive or arduous by the Federal government.

3) According to the latest available FBI crime statistics, in 2009, 1,825 Americans were murdered by knives, 611 were murdered by blunt objects likes hammers and bats, and 801 were murdered by an assailants feet or hands. In context, only 766 murders were committed by rifles or shotguns. Should we ban knives, hammers, bats, feet, and hands since they account for more than four times as many murders every year than rifles and shotguns?

Or should we focus on crime prevention of all types so that the act of murder is done less regardless of the means? By the way, the national number of murders by handguns has decreased by 15% from 2005 to 2009 and murder by any type of gun has decreased by 10% from 2005 to 2009. But has increased in places like Chicago which has very strict gun laws. Thus, statistically, one could make the correlation that violence goes up (as in Chicago) where there are stricter than normal gun control laws but goes down overall where the gun laws, on average, are not as strict.

4) An Associated Press article from January 8, 2013 showed that all not politicians are as ignorant as the Washington political class when it comes to sane gun laws for stable law abiding citizens. Politicians in a Utah town, Spring City, want to make sure every head of household has a firearm and knows how to use it, and they want to give school teachers training with guns too.

Councilman Neil Sorensen first proposed the legislation requiring a gun in every household in the town of 1,000. The rest of the council was not in agreement of making at making it a requirement, but they unanimously agreed to move forward with an ordinance "recommending" the idea. The council also approved funding to offer concealed firearms training to the 20 teachers and administrators at the local elementary school.

The proposal, which will go before the full council in February for further review and comment, appears to have the support of the council's five members and many residents in the community about 90 miles south of Salt Lake City. Councilman Noel Bertelson believes making guns in every house mandatory was too much. 

However, he agrees the town would be safer if everyone was armed. With only a part-time police force, he said, response time is not like it is in a big city: "If a person is able to take care of themselves for a while, it would probably be a good thing." 

Sounds like the situation that reported on yesterday, when a mother alone with her infant child waited well over 20 minutes for police help, needing to shoot the knife wielding intruder on her own to save her and her baby’s life.

The community is still smarting from the double-murder of an elderly couple in nearby Mount Pleasant couple of years ago. One councilman said what used to be a peaceful, quiet town has seen increasing criminal activity. Thefts of metal for scrap and other property also have become a problem” "We are kind of tired of people breaking in and taking stuff," said Councilman Mickel, explaining why he voted to urge every house to have a gun.

Angela Johnson, owner of a local town gas station, said she doesn't like guns but backs the council's proposal, showing more insight to human beings than all Washington politicians combined: "If criminals knew they would be fired against, I think it would cause pause."

Why is that concept so difficult for people like Senator Feinstein to understand?

5) Consider the reporting from the Sacramento Bee on December 27, 2013:
  • Gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California, even as the number of guns sold in the state has risen, according to new California state government data.
  • Gun dealers sold 600,000 guns in California last year, up from 350,000 in 2002, according to records from the California Attorney General's office, a 71% increase.
  • During that time period, the number of hospitalizations from gun injuries dropped from about 4,000 annually to 2,900, a roughly 25% drop, according to hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health.
  • California firearm-related deaths fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800, an 11% drop, state health figures show.
  • The number of California injuries and deaths attributed to accidental discharge of firearms also has fallen.
  • The number of suicide deaths involving firearms has remained roughly constant, i.e. having a lot more guns present in California homes and businesses has not increased the number of self inflicted deaths by gunfire.
So in summary, gun sales go way up, gun deaths, wounding, and suicides either go down or remain the same. See Angela Johnson’s comment above for a potential reason.

6) Consider an article written by AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen which appeared on the Western Journalism website on December 26, 2013, and whose excerpts are listed below:
  • The city of Chicago currently has the most restrictive gun control laws on the books, has been declared a “gun free zone” where handguns are banned, yet it is the most bloody city in the world in terms of gun-related deaths. The city averages 40 deaths per month from guns, and is nearing 500 for the year. Chicago’s murder rate is 19.4 per 100,000, which is by far the highest rate in the nation, at nearly 3 times New York which is at 6, and nearly 2 ½ times Los Angeles’ 7.5. In fact, Chicago ranks as the number one deadliest Alpha city (significant urban center in the global economic system) on the planet. Since it is no longer possible to legally own guns within city limits, the only ones who still have them are criminals. It doesn’t appear gun control works for Chicago. In fact, the city illustrates how correct the aphorism is that if guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns. The law-abiding citizens do not.
  • The Center for Disease Control (CDC), in 2003 thoroughly analyzed fifty-one in-depth studies dealing with gun control. Those studies included everything from the effectiveness of gun bans to laws requiring gun locks. From their objective analysis, they “found no discernible effect on public safety by any of the measures we commonly think of as ‘gun control.’”
  • In 2005, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine conducted a similar analysis of extant gun laws across the country. They arrived at a similar conclusion, as the abstract for their research concludes, “that evidence for the effectiveness of a given firearms law on an outcome is insufficient.” After reviewing over fifty different gun control laws, and coming to the conclusion that their effectiveness on an outcome is “insufficient” is euphemism for “they had no discernible effect.”
Not only are these findings of interest and vital in debunking the need to severely restrict or prohibit gun ownership of rational American citizens, he closes the article with a great description of why we are going through this useless exercise of draconian gun control laws and why it will fail: “Gun control has proven impotent in curbing the problem, and “gun free zones” are absurd, since they practically advertise themselves to be potential venues of mayhem and violence. More gun control is not a solution, but only serves as a Band-Aid to our emotions so we feel like we’re doing something. The problems are much deeper in our society than Band-Aids can cure.”

Band Aids will not prevent future Newtown shooting sprees. Putting a trained police officer in each of our 132,000 schools will do a lot more than Band Aids.

Band Aids will not prevent people from being raped or killed in their homes or businesses. Only well trained, rational citizens with legal firearms will do that.

Band Aids will not halt the venomous and hateful speech that spills out of certain people’s mouths, vileness that has become a trademark of current day politicians.

Band Aids will not prevent criminal elements from getting their hands on guns.

Band Aids will not force criminal elements to register or turn in their firearms.

Band Aids will not stop thousands and thousands of our kids from being abused, physically or sexually, or unnecessarily dying every year.

Band Aids will not allow us to understand how our legal drug infested culture leads an individual to snap and kill innocent people and children.

Band Aids will not prevent the current and dire economic and social conditions from creating the gangs that lead to the thousands of firearm murders every year.

Band Aids will not work but as usual, that is all the Washington political class is capable of. They always fail to understand the root causes of our major issues and fail to address those root causes with real medicine and real solutions, settling only for political grandstanding and surface solutions that never work. 

Nowhere is this simplicity of this Band Aid approach and idiocy more on display by the current administration. Vice President Joe Biden is having a series of meetings and thinks that his recommendation after two weeks of meetings will result in a viable solution. The problem is way too deep and way too complicated for a single politician to come up with a solution in less than a month’s time, especially a politician like Joe Biden.

Senator Feinstein’s simplistic approach, ban or severely restrict gun ownership, will only result in the killing of so many more people that it will dwarf the carnage at Newtown.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now:

No comments: