Select Page

Do we need more use of guns by police and endangered citizens?

Do we need more use of guns by police and endangered citizens?

In view of the headline, I should pause to allow a moment for the hardcore anti-gun folks to regain their composure … unbunch their undies … and put out the hair fire.  The very idea of possessing and using one more gun results in an emotional meltdown on the left.  But let us – for one moment – calm down and look at some facts about gun deaths in America.

About 48,000 Americans die each year at the business end of a gun.  Fifty-four percent of them are suicides.  Some suicides make sense – especially those associated with nasty terminal illnesses.  Others are obviously the result of mental issues triggered by depression, loss and feelings of inferiority.  Taking away guns is not likely to reduce that number significantly.  People determined to end their own lives have innumerable other means to accomplish their sad mission.  That situation is not correctable by law enforcement or gun control.  It is more of a mental health issue.

That leaves around 22,000 dying in other circumstances.  Approximately 20,000 of those are victims of murder.  Those are the cases we focus on myopically – as we should.  But we should not ignore the other deaths.

Despite all the focus and angst over police shooting, they represent the lowest number of gun deaths.  Surprised?  Deadly shootings by police account for only 2.9 percent of gun related deaths.  That is lower than justifiable homicide by citizens defending themselves, loved ones or even property.  That runs around 7.3 percent – more than double the number killed by police.  Ponder that.   Citizens defending themselves or loved ones kill more criminals than police.  Even accidental gun deaths – around 3.0 percent are slightly higher than the police number.  That leaves a small number of gun deaths as “undetermined” – about 400 per year.

In analyzing gun-related deaths in America, one might conclude that the bad guys are winning. Allow me to explain.

Let us put aside suicides, accidents and unknown causes.  That leaves around 20,000 gun deaths – 43 percent — the result of murders by the bad guys (and gals) and approximately 10 percent by the good guys (and gals) — police and defending citizens.  That means that the bad folks are out gunning the good folks by 4-to-1.

That raises the question as to why the good law-abiding folks – including the police – are not using all those guns we have in America more often?  That is a good question in view of the unprecedented level of crimes we see being perpetrated across America.  To put it bluntly, we are experiencing a surge in violent crime and a reduction in dead criminals.

Initially, we can blame the soft-on-crime philosophy that has overtaken the prosecutorial arm of law enforcement.  Seeing repeat offenders spinning through the revolving door at the prosecutor’s office has demoralized police.  Why risk life or limb to make arrests that have no meaning?

Add to that the radical left movement against policing.  Police risk everything – including prison – any time they shoot a prospective criminal.  Yes, there are bad shootings – and those need to be addressed through the criminal process.  Those on the anti-police left want virtually every police killing to be treated as murder.  They want to defund police … take away their guns in favor social workers with clipboards … even abolish policing, such as Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) … and provide foreign criminals with sanctuary.  Federal agents refuse to cooperate with local sheriffs and police departments.

Police departments have been ordered to stand down as rioters rampage – looting, burning, assaulting and vandalizing.  They must stand down even as rioters and other bad guys attack them with knives, rocks, Molotov cocktails, urine, spit and even brandishing guns.  Police cars have been set on fire with officers in them — and no one gets arrested, much less shot.

The legal justification for using lethal force is a belief that the officer or others are in imminent danger of bodily harm or death.  That also generally applies to a citizen’s use of a gun.

As the theory goes … if the crook is not engaged in a capital (death penalty) crime, they should not be killed in the commission of it.   As a result, we have the victims of crimes being arrested for simply defending themselves or their property.  In some instances, criminals have actually sued the victims for “excessive use of force.”  A rapist who was beaten by the victim’s boyfriend sued and won a settlement.  That is just crazy.

But that legal license to use deadly force has been undermined by laws and court decisions that say one can only use a gun if they are certain a person is going to kill them.  You are not allowed to shoot and kill a person who simply breaks into your house and threatens with a knife or gun.

We are seeing mobs of violent criminals bursting into retail establishments to steal, destroy and injure, and yet clerks and owners are prevented from using guns for protection.  They can only standby … allow the merchandise to be taken … knowing none of the perpetrators will ever be arrested, convicted and sent to prison.

We can do two things at one time.  We can reduce the restraints — official and psychological – on police use of guns and still come down hard on rogue police who, themselves, commit murder with guns.  The same with private citizens. We can separate murder from justifiable homicide.  With regard to the latter, we can consider the use of deadly force justifiable anytime a person breaks into a house … starts grabbing merchandise in a store … attacks on the street … resists arrest.  We need to expand the definition of when deadly force is justified.

Crimes have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but swinging the pendulum back in favor of greater use of the gun to protect and defend by police and law-abiding citizens is not an unreasonable notion.  A better ratio between murders by bad guys and taking down bad guys by good guys would be a positive outcome for everyone.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.

49 Comments

  1. Dan tyree

    The main push for gun control is nothing more than a desire by the left to disarm the people. In Mexico the people’s right to own guns are almost nonexistent. So what do they have? Cartels ruling with violence and a corrupt government that allows them to operate. So called law enforcement and in the pockets of the cartels. Nobody can convince me that the Mexican government couldn’t put a stop to that problem. But money and fear keeps the cartels in control. If we are disarmed we will end up with the same problem here in the USA. Don’t doubt me. Vigorously enforce the laws and punish criminals and the “ gun violence “ count would be greatly reduced. And our government should encourage law abiding citizens to be properly trained and to fight back. It happens more often than gets reported. And training includes knowing when to shoot and when to not shoot. So to be clear. I’m keeping and bearing my arms. And 100% legally. So I’ll make a deal with you gun grabbers. Don’t threaten me or mine and you won’t get shot.

  2. LMB

    As the SCOTUS has ruled, the Police are not obligated to protect you!! 41+% of criminals using a gun to commit a crime are stopped by law-abiding citizens!!! If it takes more than 10+ minutes for the Police to arrive, you will be dead within that 10+ minutes! The Gun Laws that are on the books are ENOUGH that should be preventing the criminal element from committing these abhorrent crimes!! But NO, they want more laws added to their failing laws to disarm the citizens from defending themselves!! Sounds like they favor the criminal over the citizens who pay their salary!! But you have these libtarded-driven DAs that release these criminals back into the street!!

    • Tom

      Can you please cite that SCOTUS ruling? I would like to read it.

        • Tom

          Thanks Dwayne. I researched your link. There are two reasons why this case was decided this way. The first reason, “Duty to Rescue” is actually the weaker reason. There are only a few states that have a Duty to Rescue law. District of Columbia is not a state and in addition does not have such a law.

          But the stronger reason, and I have no clue why it was not mentioned is that unfortunately, victims, families of the victims, and others affected by the commission of a crime have little legal recourse against the police because police officers are typically protected from lawsuits by qualified immunity. Police occasionally face consequences for their actions within their own department but criminal charges against police officers who fail to protect the public are extremely rare.

          In my non-legal opinion, I do not think the court’s ruling was wrong based on current laws and immunity protections. What I also think is that there is a disconnect between most citizenry and the police. This was best displayed in the recent Uvalde school shooting where the police did not go in and neutralize the shooter. The disconnect is that citizenry assume that their police and fire protection taxes include personal protection and rescue – which clearly according to the law it does not. It does include protection for the general population such as at public events and disasters. But not private protection.

          Now that I have read your link as well as links about qualified immunity, I believe this is the best answer to “why the citizenry should own guns”. I googled my own state. What I learned is that my state does not have a mandated duty to warn/protect law; however, there is no law prohibiting a professional from doing so. But it gets dicey when protecting someone other than family and especially dicey if a shooting occurs – which is why many people choose not to get involved. So it appears the best thing to do is own a handgun and be educated with your state’s laws in what you can and can not do with it to protect yourself and family, and what if anything you can do to intervene with a handgun when the victim is not in your family.

          Again, thanks for the link. And thanks to LMB for mentioning this. Had Larry discussed this in his article it would have made his case much stronger, especially in light of the grim statistics he mentioned.

  3. Tom

    I basically agree with you Larry. I just wish we could say the “barrel end of a gun” rather than use the word business, as it links the word business with something negative like a shooting. The other end is usually called the trigger end.

    Ok, so I am under the impression that gun laws are by state. In my state, there is a requirement to match force and feel imminently threatened. So if a person waves a gun at you and threatens you, you can shoot. If a knife, that is a different issue but most would probably be deemed within their legal right if the person is actually attacking you and attempting to cause harm. In the case of a knife, bear spray would work very well. What is interesting is that in my state we have a man running for governor in 2024 who vowes to drop criminals dead and make the streets safe again. It is actually running in a commercial but I must admit that I have not seen that commercial now in about two weeks. Before that it was running frequently. Personally, I feel that if anyone is threatening your life or a family member’s life with any weapon, you should be able to shoot to disable, and if that assailant is using a gun, you should be able to shoot to kill as long as it is a frontal shot and not a shot in the back at a criminal running away. We have people in jail right now because they did not know the law and that the law considers a criminal running away as not posing any threat. So all gun sales should first require a training certificate from a business that knows the law and how to properly handle and use guns.

    As far as store front looters go, again, employees armed with bear spray would work very well. They will drop what they are carrying. If there are to be security guards such as in the case of the common jewelry store or bank, the business should be posted that they use deadly force right on the door and inside the business in obvious places. And there should be “check your gun laws” to cover any businesses (along with detectors) not wanting guns in their establishment so that all persons must check guns before going into the store and the store is held harmless for denying you the right to carry your gun.

    Accidental gun deaths of children or anyone under 16 should be prosecuted at minimum as involuntary manslaughter. There is no excuse for not ensuring gun locks are on, guns are locked up, and no ammunition is near the gun. I do all three of these. I have never had a problem. In the military we had weapons lockers. Anyone not properly stowing their weapon and securing the locker was fined and put in the brig with some hard labor to think about it. In this case, I see no reason why the laws should not be the same for civilian and military personnel.

    Yes, we need to reverse the numbers in a sensible fashion.

    • Dwayne Oxford

      A locked up, empty gun is useless. Sensible folks gun proof the child, as I was.

      • frank Stetson

        Well Dwayne, that explains a lot…… (just kidding, glad you survived)…… (just kidding some more)

        But Dwayne the fact of the matter is that there’s a couple hundred people each year who fail at that causing kid shootings of other people. Now it’s a number in the noise but think how fucked up that family is and how screwed up that kid will be. And all the other un-Dwayne’s down the road.

        I agree with you, but ask: what happens to the asshole who fails and who’s kid shot another? School shooter parents: hardly ever. Other kid shooter parents: it’s hit and miss depending on the state and the “reasoning.” There’s still too much “they’ve suffered enough” out there. That didn’t work for MADD, should not work here.

        The are CAP laws to get the Dwayne’s of this world, but it’s a misdemeanor, traffic ticket level..

        During Covid, more kid’s shooting people. In weak gun law states, more kid shootings. It pretty much follows a similar pattern of talking-Dwayne = more folks shoot by kids.

        It is a good thing to teach your kid Dwayne. It’s a better thing to train yourself on how to use a gun lock of some kind.

        • Robin W Boyd

          You are advocating irresponsibility over rational responsibility to justify a fascist move to take away Constitutional rights. How about we advocate being responsible?

          • frank Stetson

            Robin, I advocated responsibility enforced by the rule of law that says if you create an attractive nuisance, you are responsible for the unintended results. That is, leave a gun for a kid and then take the penalty for what the kid does with it. There is no Constitutional right to being careless, stupid, and wrong-headed. I advocate responsibility and back it up with law.

            IMO, “oh, the poor parents, they have suffered enough now that little billy killed little susan” is bullshit and, instead, it’s “you dumb fucks gave your kid a gun so you can face the music for the result.” And fine them big time on top of jail time. Take it all like they took it all.

            And, while we are on the subject, triple the time for all sentences for menacing, threatening, and if using a gun to commit a crime —- give them life. Make irresponsible gun use three times the serious crime it is today. By law.

          • Tom

            Robin, that is what Frank is doing, as well as me. Lets hold people accountable to be responsible for the intended and unintended results of using their gun. Frank is saying the laws are too lax and needless deaths are occurring because the penalty is not severe enough to come up on some people’s radar. I think Frank and I both want more teeth in the law so that the public is ensured that flagrant violators will be individually prosecuted to the full extent of the law so that a global solution of taking away gun rights for all is not pursued. I am a gun owner, and I agree with Frank.

  4. Tony L Bell

    What we have in government currently is what one would expect from a criminal cartel looking after it’s own.

  5. frank Stetson

    While most gun concepts are debatable mostly due to a lack of research and data, there is one unassailable truth: more guns = more gun death. Period. Does that mean more death in total — not necessarily, but in the US, today, with our numbers —- YES. The State data between tough gun control States and loose gun control States points that out. I am not suggesting taking guns as a cure, but common-sense gun laws make sense and keep people safer. Also, the US data versus rest-of-world either says we have too many guns OR we are more bat shit crazy than other countries. All of them.

    Based on our numbers, based on other countries’ numbers, we have a problem, and we should do something about the problem. In the past, Horist has published some great recommendations.

    Since Horist gets offended by too many words, I will just look at suicides where Horist says: “Fifty-four percent of them are suicides. Some suicides make sense – especially those associated with nasty terminal illnesses. (wow, big news from a guy against abortion bad. Suicide if terminal makes sense? Got it. Abortion if terminal, well, we got to think about that one) Others are obviously the result of mental issues triggered by depression, loss and feelings of inferiority. Taking away guns is not likely to reduce that number significantly. People determined to end their own lives have innumerable other means to accomplish their sad mission. That situation is not correctable by law enforcement or gun control. It is more of a mental health issue.”

    Not true as I have shown Horist a few times before. Or at least, highly questionable, needs more data.

    First, an easy “sniff test” using a combination of the lethality index for killing devices combined with statistics on suicide recidivism. Previously I had reported recidivism as low. More recent studies peg it higher at about 66%; that still means 33% survive. Frankly, since we all know someone who tried multiple times and succeeded, it seems to make common sense to me. Lethality studies always conclude the gun is at the top of the list, there is no more lethal a device for dispatching humans: just point, click, and dead. Not quite that easy, but at 2 inches, pretty close.

    OK, now the sniff test. Lethality — which do you think will better assure your death — a gun, a noose, a fall, or an overdose. Have you ever tasted Clorox? To jump off a bridge, you have to leave the house, walk out there in public, and do the deed. All that while thinking about it. Maybe Clarence will stop you along the way, who knows. Not as easy as point and click. Overdose, how many fail at that one? How about the noose, what can go wrong with that?

    While Horist is right that there are alternatives, in general, every alternative gives you a better chance of survival than a gun. After that, you have a 1 in 3 chance of making it to a normal finish line. More so if you get help. I contend that if guns magically disappeared tonight, suicides would drop.

    And no, I am not suggesting we bans guns any more than banning cars that kill. But I will say for cars we design new safety features in every model. For guns, we have Eddie Eagle to make them safer. And Eddie is voluntary.

    Here’s the traditional lethality index of old, not quite what you want for assessing suicide, but hopefully you will get the idea. Maybe someone else can find a better one: *https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/10/new-research-from-the-uc-davis-symposium-the-theoretical-lethality-index-reconstruction-regulation-and-enforcement/* for, as I said to Horist in the past review of the exact same topic, I looked at this over a decade ago and really don’t like to revisit things that will not change.
    As to recidivism, I will let others research, but 1 out of 3 survival rate is pretty recent, and conservative compared to older studies.

    And now for something completely different.

    The Australian experiment of massive gun buybacks produced this: “Studies examining the effect of removing so many weapons from the community have found that homicides, suicides, and mass shootings were less common after the NFA was implemented, although such incidents were declining prior to 1996. The strongest evidence is consistent with the claim that the NFA caused reductions in firearm suicides, mass shootings, and female homicide victimization. However, there is also evidence that raises questions about whether, for at least firearm suicides, those changes can be attributed to the NFA or to other factors that influenced rates of these outcomes around the time the NFA was implemented.” So, it points to my conclusion, but there is pushback. More data needed. *https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html*/

    My point is that the gun is a most effective and efficient method of killing humans. More so that almost any other weapon until we get to WMD’s. It rarely misses in suicide. Other weapons give you more of a chance, and IF you get that chance, you have a good possibility for a long life and normal death. Around 33%, statistically speaking. Therefore, IMO, if there are less guns, there are less suicides, or at least, successful ones.

    Depressing though, ain’t it?

    • Dan tyree

      Give it to rest Frank. Very few people are accidentally shot. Yes , it happens. So does deaths from drunk driving. Want to ban cars or just certain ones? I’m a prime example of gun safety. And it doesn’t include giving them up. The gun grabbers talk about passing gun safety laws. Bullshit!!!! It’s all about shaming people into disarmament. Not working dude. We are educating people on this subject

      • Jim wampler

        We don’t have a gun problem. We have a nucking figger problem.

        • Frank stetson

          Jim Wampler is a rucking facist

          • Jim wampler

            Prove it

          • Frank stetson

            Jim, prove it? Really? Are you not sure and therefore seeking confirmation? Or do you deny you just blamed an entire race and called them a racist name? ,

            Did you not call them that? Did you think swapping two letters absolves you?

            Course no fucking pbp free speech extremist ever stops racist speech round here either. Pucking fnglish eignuts. 🙂

      • Frank stetson

        That’s exactly what I said Dan. Low deaths, just kids. The shooter will get over it. Maybe. And I have yet to call for a ban. Think the awb ban is useless.

        However we clearly have a gun problem proved by a multitude of other nations.

        Clearly it is worse in red versus blue, weak laws versus strong. And always with anomalies and bad data, ty nra. As in Vermont and the Dakotas, I think.

        And yes, we all compare it to cars. Fact is we make many design changes for car safety. We make few to none for guns. We study the living fuck out of cars. We hide the data on guns. You can trace a car in minutes; guns take weeks on average unless someone is famous. Folks protested the seatbelt as infringement on personal freedoms.

        So I agreed with you. Numbers low, kids, not much to be done. BUT; I say charge the parents everytime and put them away for years.

        • Jim lucas

          I say give the parents more ammo and tell them to be careful

          • Jim wampler

            Put women away for killing their babies in the womb

      • Tom

        Actually Dan, I beg to differ with you. Please check out these stats *https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics/*.

        Annually, more than 27,000 individuals are admitted to the emergency department for unintentional firearm injuries. The vast majority of these individuals, more than 26,000, do not succumb to their injuries and die. In fact, unintentional firearm injuries account for 37% of all nonfatal firearm injuries but less than 2% of all gun deaths.32 The lethality of unintentional firearm injuries is far less than any other type of gun violence. According to Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) and CDC data, two out of every 100 unintentional firearm injuries are fatal.33 However, as previously mentioned, some nonfatal injuries classified as unintentional may actually be the result of an assault. Regardless, the vast majority of unintentional firearms injuries are not fatal. For full article go to *https://efsgv.org/learn/type-of-gun-violence/unintentional-shootings/*

        Seems like 27,000 is more than just “very few”. You would have been more correct if you had said “died from accidental gunshots”. Just sayin…

        • Dan tyree

          More training required. Guns ain’t toys

    • doug

      So many lies. Exactly what should not be surprising from a professed KKKlanster.

      Let’s just jump around a few lily pads.

      It’s an outright lie to say the top category of children’s mortality is guns. Traffic deaths are much more common. He won’t admit the truth, however. For that, try this report: “Suicide was the 3rd leading cause of death among young people 15 to 24 years of age, following unintentional injuries and homicide. The rate was 10.3/100,000, or .01%.” (https://www healthyplace com/depression/articles/suicide-statistics-for-completed-suicides-and-attempted-suicides)

      Just another instance of manufacturing shibboleths from thin air.

      It’s universal knowledge, regardless of what lies ooze from the pores of compulsive liars, that the most prolific producers of gun violence are the places with the most restrictive gun laws. You can’t get more restrictive than Chicago. In fact, that city’s prevalence of gun deaths and injuries made it a more dangerous place to hang out than Iraq and Afghanistan during the Persian Gulf wars.

      You want to be really scary next Halloween? Post decorations that list violent crime rates in St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City and the list goes on.

      The same for Washington, D.C., which is notorious for serving up unconstitutional prohibitions on gun ownership while piling up mountains of homicide victims.

      There has been an astronomical number of examples where criminals have considered the best places to target. Unsurprisingly, their preferences run to places without armed guards or gun-free zones.

      Mass murderer James Holmes — maybe best known for his orange hair — drove a long distance to reach the Aurora, Colo. theater where he shot 82 people, killing a dozen. The one thing all had in common was that they had no rules against gun possession. Holmes chose the one that forbade customers to be armed.

      It’s the same phenomenon as putting up “Beware of dog” signs or signs that warn burglars that a home or business is protected by guns. When even a picture of a gun protects a potential victim, imaging how often injury and death are prevented.

      As the wag said, an armed society is a polite society.

      It’s hardly surprising that a not-see would be hostile to an armed populace. Dictators notoriously leap to disarm citizens. A Russian or Chinese citizen found in possession of firearms in the early days of those tyrannies was doomed to die painfully.

      Just to get a pulse on the problem in Chicago, last year there were 675 homicides and 2,300 shootings through November 2022, according to TV station WTTW. It’s notable that Chicago fudges its figures big-time; for example, excluded from homicide and shootings totals are self-defense shootings and shootings on highways.

      https://news wttw com/2023/12/05/shootings-homicides-chicago-2023-continue-declines-over-last-year-s-totals

      A case is made, or attempted, above that the most fail-safe way to commit suicide if with a gun. People who have actually committed suicide would be more likely to name jumps from bridges or 10-story buildings or making an enemy of One Shoe Shrillary. It’s hard to say, because so many suicide attempts, as we all know, are cries for help, as opposed to good-faith attempts at hari kari. The stats are very murky indeed. But don’t expect a not-see to constrain discuss to fact and truth.

      One face plant for gun grabbers: Your stats, as wobbly as they are, on gun deaths actually signify nothing without context. And one big patch of context involves the numbers of instances when firearms have repulsed injury or death by an aggressor. Notice that the grabbers blow away that essential element to tracking actual gun harm.

      If you shoot or just brandish a weapon in self-defense one time, and if you get shot once another day, your total save-vs-take-lives score should be 0. But gun-haters ordinarily ignore the phenomenon of guns saving lives. That tactic serves as a way to measure whether statistic are solid or whether they’re purposely faulty and dishonest.

      To access links above, insert periods in empty spaces.

  6. Jerry N/A Ernst

    Discussions like this tend to be as useful as gender=fluid dancers in a strip club.

    They leave SO much out of the conversation.

    For starters, the right to bear arms is as close to a Godly proclamation as something can be in this republic. The Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of our way of life. If any of those 10 bulwarks are consigned to the trash, all the others will follow, and then it’s just a guessing game how long it takes for the light of liberty to be extinguished worldwide.

    Secondly — and people are loathe to mention it — but firearm deaths (as well as human trafficking and other ugly crimes) are boosted substantially by illegal and sometimes legal immigrants that swarm across the border by the millions. The same people who posture as enemies of violence devote themselves and their oft-stolen resources to making this a more violent country. And they couldn’t be happier that native-born citizens in inner cities are forced to endure most of the suffering dished out by foreign-based gangs and other criminals.

    Third — If you want to dampen death and dismembership rates in this country — I mean if you REALLY want to reduce the bloodletting — you don’t focus on weapons. You concentrate on agents of inebriation — psychoactive drugs, prescription drugs, recreational drugs and above all, alcohol. Much if not most of crime, violence, suicide, accidental shootings and other bad stuff takes place when the perps are drunk to their gills.

    Now think about fentanyl and other hugely dangerous drugs that illegals are ferrying into the US and see who’s standing up for the drug smugglers. It’s the amnesty and pro-illegal-immigration crowd. And if you wonder what they’re trying to accomplish, it’s this: to raise the number of fentanyl deaths in the U.S. from 100K a year to 1 million/year.

    Fourth — I had a conversation with a high school principal in the wake of the Columbine assault on Colorado schoolkids. He said that when he attended high school in the mid-1960s, “everyone” (his exaggeration) had a gun in his trunk in the school parking lot to be used for hunting after school, but that fact caused no terror, fear, suspicion and human bloodletting. Those firearms, by the way, were relatively primitive in terms of preventing accidental discharge. Something obviously changed, but it wasn’t the guns themselves.

    What’s the take-away? It’s that our problem is rooted in national character and behavior. Our eyes should be on the causes of violence, not the instrument of attack.

    Speaking of causes, consider the impact of psychoactive drugs given to children — especially boys — who annoy parents and teachers because they’re supposedly suffering from attention deficit disorder or ACHD. Massive numbers of people see links between brain-tampering in this fashion and deep psychological damage that generates violence and anti-social behavior when the kids grow up with brains twisted as a result of ingesting what amounts to poison.

    Now consider the government’s destruction of millions of inner city families by shunting people into the welfare plantation. The youngest children, with no adult male in the household, usually suffer the most. And that entire program begets more gang membership, which again elevates violence — especially gun violence. Plus, don’t overlook the passive violence engendered by social “reformers” (at least, that’s what they claim to be) who cram children (especially racial minorities) into failing schools that stifle their minds. Who can argue those children aren’t victimized by the gummint rather than by firearm manufacturers?

    On this subject, don’t overlook the efforts by leftniks — including open not-sees like the Tweedle Twins of FrankNStein and Tommy Boy on this thread — to divide America on identity grounds — man vs. woman vs. mannequin, rich vs. poor, citified vs. suburbanite vs. rural, blue collar vs. white, Jew vs. Gentile vs. atheist — high school vs. college-educated, thin vs. plump, long-haired vs. skinhead, innie vs. outie, dogs vs. cats, And so on. Cheering on such warfare are the leftwerp news media, Hollywood, TV networks, the publishing industry, public education and higher education, state and federal bureaucracies and I’m just revving up. Some percentage of this mutual loathing will trigger gunfire.

    Continued below

    • Doug

      Continued from above

      Moving on: What really IS the outcome of the brain-buffeting violence in video games, rap music, movies, TV and other content fashioned for children? As one-time limits of civility were progressively loosened or flushed away, many people predicted the ending would be more crime, violence and disregard for civility and law. The critics have seen their prophecies come true. The deniers blame guns, which have been nothing if not plentiful through U.S. history but were never so widely abused. The mentality of the gun-grabbers has unsurprisingly prompted a massive conflagration of gun violence.

      If we assume there are too many firearm deaths in the U.S., then, is the proper response some new shackles on gun owners or restoring sense to sociological factors? That’s not a difficult call.

      Beyond that, how bad, really, are the stats for gun violence? According to Larry Horist, there are 25K non-suicide shooting deaths. Compare that to 100K fentanyl deaths a year. Compare that to estimates of 100K to 1 million deaths annually caused by hospital mistakes. Compare it to unprecedented levels of mortality caused by any number of calamities we’ve been lucky enough not to have experienced yet and which we’re abysmally unprepared for.

      Here’s an irony to contemplate: How many people might perish in a civil war triggered by gun grabbers? Our population during the Civil War stood at 31.5 million but fell dropped by an estimated 750,000 war deaths. Today our population is 11 times higher — some 340 million. So if patterns were to hold, a civil war might snuff out more than 800,000 people — to nibble down on the 25K homicides annually. Some will pooh the prospect of a civil war over gun laws. Many poohed the same way 160 years ago.

      If you don’t think the left would willingly inaugurate such a brutal phenomenon, you haven’t been paying attention to reporting on Israel and Hamas and to outbursts of not-see sentiment on colleges and elsewhere throughout our country.

      The resident not-see cell of the Tweedle Twins stood proudly just last week for the Japanese internment camps in WW II, the not-see concentration camps, the Cambodian killing fields, the Chinese and Russian labor camps, native-American reservations and similar manifestations of lefttwit population control.

      Finally, is it even possible to choke U.S. gun ownership drastically? Prohibition didn’t work with alcohol. It hasn’t been successful in clamping down on smut, marijuana and other recreational drugs. Pre-teens can latch onto firearms in the inner cities. Even members of the Groper Joe Bidet family obtain guns when they want. At the very least, we should reject gun confiscation when the Bidets are locked and loaded.

  7. Robin W Boyd

    The saying “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” is a reality. As long as firearms exist, all citizens who are not mentally impaired or have demonstrated they cannot be trusted with firearms should have the right to own and bear arms. When those willing to do harm to others know there could be equal resistance to their assaulting others, less of them will be willing to do such harm. When a criminal act is committed with the use of a firearm or any other weapon, the harshest punishment needs to be imposed in order to deter others from being so wrong minded.

  8. Dan tyree

    I’m simply not going to surrender my freedom. And a very important freedom is the 2A. WHEN the left starts a civil war the government would move in to quash it. But guess whose side they would be on. Definitely not the side of freedom lovers who believe in our constitution. Of course we would kick the left’s ass. But it would get ugly. So stay armed and stay safe and free.

    • doug

      Don’t get too complacent, Dan. about “kick(ing) the left’s asss.”

      Remember how Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau easily crushed the truck convoys after he decided he didn’t care if he got a black eye out of it?

      Canada is still persecuting truckers and their supporters.

      And look how hundreds of patriots who committed no crime are being sent to prison for doing nothing but entering into buildings that police ushered them to. Who’s taken more than symbolic action in their defense?

      Who is paying a penalty for illegally censoring our cyber and other media? Do you think anyone will touch the highest officials in the land who destroyed vital records? What’s your take-away from the gummint filing felony charges against whistleblowers?

      Other than losing the jobs they weren’t fit to do anyway, what kind of penalty will be visited on the governors of Michigan and New York for killing 40K to 50K people in nursing homes by housing them with COVID carriers?

      In what way are gummint operatives suffering for their assault against the entire population in dozens of ways?

      And how do you protect your own in a civil war when the gummint controls so much of your life? They can make your life unbearable without firing a shot: seizing your bank accounts, shutting off your phone and other utilities, canceling your mail and probably your e-mail, seizing your car, canceling your car license and other licenses (professional licenses, for example), neutralizing your credit cards, axing your Social Security and pension(s), denying you gasoline by cancelling your coming gas rationing card, expelling your children from school, seizing your pets, leveling false legal charges against you for alleged crimes you didn’t commit, bribing gangs to strike your home, put your address on a do-not-deliver list for package deliverers, deny you or a family member some drug or medical care you need, threatening your family and neighbors — and if I were willing to sit and think any longer I could probably double or triple this list. Imagine a coming draft to place young people not in the military but in re-education camps if you ran afoul of the state.

      • Dan tyree

        You’re right Doug

  9. frank Stetson

    “Imagine a coming draft to place young people not in the military but in re-education camps if you ran afoul of the state.” Sage words of the overly paranoid. Try:

    “Imagine there’s no countries
    It isn’t hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion, too
    Imagine all the people
    Livin’ life in peace
    You
    You may say I’m a dreamer
    But I’m not the only one
    I hope someday you’ll join us
    And the world will be as one”

    Give peace and understanding a try. Happy Holidays.

    • Dan tyrer

      The reeducation camp idea has been floated. By the left of course. So merry Christmas!!! It’s all about the birth of Christ

      • Tom

        Yes and lets all of us remember that Jesus advocated strongly for turning the other cheek, not grabbing a gun or knife, or spear and settling things yourself. He accomplished his whole mission never having to carry a weapon. And on the one occasion where a weapon was used in an attempt to protect him (Peter, Garden of Olives) Jesus told Peter to put it away because those that live by the sword will die by the sword – seems like your Jesus was advocating against use of weapons (weapon control statement) to me! Merry Christmas!

    • Tom

      God bless John and the Fab Four!!!

  10. frank Stetson

    Dan, what’s your source on leftist re-education camps? Can’t count God talking to you through the tin foil hat…….

    • Dan tyree

      A PBS lawyer has spoken in favor of reeducation camps. And the hidden message in the book by killery Clinton called “it takes a village to raise a child “. And talking (dick) heads on liberal media has brought it up. It takes parents or close relatives if possible to raise children. And yes, the idea of removing kids from conservative parents is being discussed. And if that happens, what training would the kids get? It’s even gotten to the point where parents ain’t allowed to discipline kids anymore. And we wonder why the kids today are transformed into good little communists. I’ve personally seen this The social services are looking for an excuse to snatch kids from their parents. Yes, I know that some people ain’t fit to raise kids. But the main objective is brainwashing kids for commie brown shirts

      • frank Stetson

        Great sourcing Dan, the PBS lawyer resigned the next day after that statement. But I would gather if he brought it up, others have. All asses in my book given that would make things worse, not better IMO.

        Hillary Clinton — no, it doesn’t. It’s suggesting nothing different than a lot of life found in the founders time, something we have lost as we become urbanites and suburbanites. No one wants to take conservative babies away, trust me and since many conservatives think this a flaw, abuse issues can arise. Folks do want to take abused children away and sometimes gender identification is the source of abuse. As to training ownership types, that’s up to you — it’s your government, Federal, Local, and State. The right wing whining that they have no control is bullshit whiney self loathing victimizing.

        “It takes parents or close relatives if possible to raise children” is just not true. Many a non-affiliated couple can handle the job. However, I will agree the State is the lowest rung of acceptability and EVERYTHING should be done to find alternatives.

        “It’s even gotten to the point where parents ain’t allowed to discipline kids anymore.” IF you mean physical abuse, yeah, I agree, that ain’t right, never will be. No mass murdered ever said it was because he was not beat enough.

        I am a liberal. I will never be a communist and, at best, will accept solid socialist programs like Social Security, Medicare, and your schools and public library. You are the brown shits, I mean shirts. Ask Adam Kinszinger, Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney what happens when they mis-goose-step to your hard right extremist rhetoric and actions.

        “I’ve personally seen this The social services are looking for an excuse to snatch kids from their parents.” Did you take them to court? To the press? To their upper management? Or just kvetch?

        Whatever. Good sourcing. What a stupid lawyer who should go to re-education himself. But he’s not the left, he’s not the Democratic party either.

        • Dan tyree

          Being a brainwashed leftist you can’t see the big picture. But the left wants to influence our kids. And it’s working. Is it the parents who teach antisemitism to kids? I don’t think so. So you idiots don’t get to lecture us

          • Frank stetson

            Geez Dan, that’s one step to the right of incoherence.

            I am not exactly a leftist and I am guessing more financially conservative than you. I don’t want to influence anyone, but I don’t ban books while screaming I’m a free speech extremist like JG and LH do. I don’t favor talking ribald in class but do have issues with your don’t say gay bills. And I don’t favor abortion but do have issues with you enslaving women to force delivery of rape and incest babies. Especially when you force both at one time.

            And I have lived, loved, worked, and played with those of the Jewish faith since high school. Roomed with jews, jewish girlfriends, was a kosher caterer all through college, been to seder and every other holy day. More mitzvahs that many rabbis. Seen many a tat of The Survivors. So please, learn the difference tween antisemitism and being against Israeli policies and don’t lecture me.

    • Tom

      When I was 11, I went to Camp Don Boscov in NJ. It was a lot of fun. And one of the activities was shooting. They used .22 rifles. We were taught how to properly use a gun. It was the best class in the camp. Only thing better was the girls camp a mile down the road! :>)

      All kids should have the fun of going to camp at least once!

      • Dan tyree

        About your turn the cheek comment Tom. Yes, Jesus Christ said that. But there’s a huge difference in being smacked on the cheek than someone trying to bask your head in or rape your family. The Bible is to be rightly divided. Self defense and military service involving killing the enemy is ok in God’s will.

      • Frank stetson

        Tom, think it’s camp tosco, outside newton on crystal lake and i post some memories, but think it got zapped. Riflery was legendary top choice. Try googling camp bosco memories nj. Nice piece

        • Frank stetson

          Sorry, bosco, not tosco.

          • Jim lucas

            Sounds like a faggot camp

          • Frank stetson

            Hears about camp, rifles and jim lucus immediately sees faggots everywhere.

            Jim Lucas knows faggot camp apparently. His gaydar is finely tuned to sniffing faggot ass wherever he can get his nose into it.

            Probably where he met his wife, Bob. Changed his name from Suckass to Likesass and then shortened it to lucas.

            Lucas seems fascinated by all things faggot, likes to talk about faggots all the time.

            What is he? Lost in the 50’s? Who even uses the word faggot today? But Lucas gotta get him some faggotry every day, he’s faggot fascinated all day, every day.

  11. Jim lucas

    It’s where I met your daughter

    • Frank stetson

      I think you mean your wife’s daughter.

  12. frank Stetson

    Please bear in mind, I do not want to ban your guns. However, with more guns comes more gun deaths —- unassailable truth. We can argue whether this causes more early deaths than without guns, but it is just black letter that more guns equal more gun deaths. I do not address overall gun death, mass murders, but just the aspect of guns and suicide of which all gunowners are at a higher risk because they own the tool. Just as I am at higher risk of personal injury JUST for owning my two chainsaws. So far, so good, but pretty close a few times.

    This piece was written 7/22 by the Kaiser Foundation and concluded: “Nearly half a million lives (480,622) were lost to suicide from 2010 to 2020. During the same period, the suicide death rate increased by 12%, and as of 2009, the number of suicides outnumbered those caused by motor vehicle accidents. Suicides are most prevalent among people who live in rural areas, males, American Indian or Alaska Natives, and White people, but they are rising fastest in some people of color, younger individuals, and people who live in rural areas.” OK, so a big issue and bigger in the hinterlands.

    “While the overall number of suicide deaths decreased slightly from 47,511 to 45,979 between 2019 to 2020, the suicides involving firearms increased over the same period (from 23,941 to 24,292).” Uh oh, good thing it’s not the tool, but the user, who more often than not, uses a gun. And guess who has all the guns? Bigger in the hinterlands….

    “Suicides involving firearms vary from the lowest rate of 1.8 per 100,000 in New Jersey and Massachusetts to a high of 20.9 per 100,000 in Wyoming, representing an absolute difference of 19.1. In contrast, the rate of suicide by other means is more stable across states, ranging from a low of 4.6 in Mississippi to a high of 11.4 in South Dakota, representing an absolute difference of 6.8.” Nah, tough gun laws don’t help….

    Bad data blah, blah, blah, blame the NRA, let’s move on…..

    “More than twice as many suicides by firearm occur in states with the fewest gun laws, relative to states with the most laws.” Well, ain’t that just a kick in the ass. Whattya blame? Crooked media? Corrupt Democrats?

    “Firearms are the most lethal method of suicide attempts, and about half of suicide attempts take place within 10 minutes of the current suicide thought, so having access to firearms is a suicide risk factor. The availability of firearms has been linked to suicides in a number of peer-reviewed studies.” Damn, the kick that just keeps kicking….

    “Non-firearm suicides rates are relatively stable across states suggesting that other types of suicides are not more likely in areas where guns are harder to access.” Damn Horist, they don’t agree with you either. Go figure. After over a decade, the news has not changed and the gun lobby just can’t see the truth. Hey, you’re the ones with the guns, you’re the ones with higher suicides, must of which is due to higher suicide risk caused TOTALLY by the TOOL the GUN, the availability, the lethality, the efficiency, and the effectiveness. Just point and click to be over and out.

    Enjoy the article: https://www.kff.org/mental-health/issue-brief/do-states-with-easier-access-to-guns-have-more-suicide-deaths-by-firearm/

    FYI: If you or someone you know is considering suicide, contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at the new three-digit dialing code 988 or 1-800-273-8255 (En Español: 1-888-628-9454; Deaf and Hard of Hearing: 1-800-799-4889).

    • Jim wampler

      Boo hoo. Morticians have to work too.