Factual weaponry for the stalwart foot soldiers fighting on behalf of the 2nd Amendment in the cause of Common Sense

I thought it would be useful to assemble in one place factual data refuting the Left’s instinctive demand for gun control in response to the Newtown tragedy.  In no particular order, I’m setting out their arguments and the factual counter arguments:

England is the most violent country in the Western world

1.  America’s out-of-control guns make it the most violent place in the world.  False.  First of all, there are two different types of violence.  The first is violence by a government against its people.  The second is violence by a people against each other.

Thankfully, America is still way, way, way low on the list of violence by a government against its people.  I’m sure that the beleaguered citizens in North Korea, or China, or Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, or Gaza and the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or in any other dictatorship around the world would love to have a chance to live in America.  They would laugh at what we call “violence,” because they understand that the worst violence is always that visited by an armed government against an unarmed citizenry.

As for the people against people violence, putting aside fairly anarchic places such as Brazil or Peru or Mexico, America still doesn’t even rank near the top of the list.  The most violent place to live if you’re afraid of your fellow citizens is . . . drumroll please . . . England, a country with ferociously stiff gun control laws.  (See the chart, above.)  Incidentally, the violent crime rate in England increased dramatically from the moment the Labour government put extremely harsh gun-control laws in place.  Not only was there more gun crime, there was more of every kind of crime.  If you read the British papers, you learn that the Brits got very creative about violence, resorting with ferocity to knives, broken bottles, head stomps, drowning, choking, poisoning, etc.  People who want to kill will kill.


Bring out your dead in Acapulco

2.  Countries with strict gun control laws don’t have mass murders along the lines of Columbine or Newtown.  False.  There are three types of mass murderers:  (1) ideological killers, who are usually Muslims with the random Timothy McVeigh thrown in for good measure; (2) insane people; and (3) professional killers, along the lines of the drug gangs Mexico.  These people are driven to kill and will do so regardless of any limitations placed upon them.

Your crazed or professional killers will always get guns and bombs, as Anders Breivik did when he killed 77 people, mostly children, in strict-gun-control Norway.  They will use fertilizer and box cutters to turn trucks and airplanes into bombs, as Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma and Al Qaeda did on 9/11.  They will turn cities into charnel houses, as the Mexico drug gangs have done in Mexico, despite Mexico having some of the strictest gun control laws in the world.  (Of course, the interesting twist to the Mexico murders is that Attorney General Eric Holder ignored Mexican law and ran hundreds of illegal weapons into Mexico, courtesy of Operation Fast and Furious.)  They will blow up buses and subways, as Muslim extremists did in London; and trains, as Muslim extremists did in Spain.  They will slaughter school children, as one madman did in Scotland.  Islamic extremists in Mumbai were not slowed down even a little bit by India’s strict gun control laws.  Germany, another country in love with strict gun control, also couldn’t stop a mass murder at a school.  Gun control does not stop mass murder.


Widowed teen mother shoots home intruder

3.  Gun control in America will lower the number of gun related murdersFalse.  Even if one concedes that ideological killers, insane people, and professional killers are in a class by themselves, and operate outside of gun control laws, won’t gun control laws stop garden-variety criminals, suicides, and impulse killers?  No.  Emphatically no.  Guns are a very useful deterrent, especially for women.  Men have a physical advantage over women, but they don’t have any advantage over a trained and armed woman.  (The picture above is of Sarah McKinley, an 18-year-old widow and mother of a small child, who killed home intruders seeking drugs.) Homeowners are sitting ducks if robbers know that they are unable to defend themselves.  If you doubt these assertions, just look at the statistics.

Howard Nemorov kindly assembled some statistics and they show definitively what the NRA has always claimed:  when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns:

Collating gun ownership rates with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) homicide data underscores the above conclusions:

* States with the lowest firearms ownership average the highest firearm and non-firearm homicide rates.
* As firearms ownership rates increase, homicide rates generally decrease.
* States with the highest gun ownership have the lowest firearms homicide rates.

[UPDATE: I’ve also been reminded that Switzerland and Israel, both of which arm their citizens, have amongst the lowest violent crime rates in the world.]


Fort Hood shooter

4.  At the very least, gun free zones are safe placesFalse.  Gun free zones are barrels and those in the zone are the fish.  Gun free zones are the one place in the world the mass murderer knows that he cannot be stopped.  This is true whether the gun free zone is an army base, a school in Columbine, or a university in Virginia.  In each of these locations, mass murderers took advantage of everyone else’s unarmed status to go on gleeful killing sprees.  (Glenn Reynolds has more here.)


Second Amendment

5.  Congress should outlaw gunsFalse.  Even if you think Congress should, it can’t.  Like it or not, the Second Amendment stands in the way, stating as a matter of contract between government and people that the American people the right to bear arms.  There is only one mechanism to bypass the Second Amendment — more amendment.  Or, as Article 5 of the Constitution says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Funnily enough, gun control advocates seem disinclined to attempt either of the options the Constitution provides for its amendment.

[UPDATE: In the comments, Wolf Howling noted that, while Congress can’t do anything, an activist Supreme Court can. This raises an interesting question. Since the beginning of the 19th century the Supreme Court has granted itself the power to interpret a law’s constitutionality. Does that same power give it the right to interpret the Second Amendment out of existence? In other words, can the Supreme Court effectively nullify a Constitutional Amendment?]


Pulp Fiction

6.  America’s culture is violentSort of true, but let’s figure out where to place the blame.  I say “sort of true” because, while America certainly isn’t up there with Britain or certain other European countries when it comes to violence, we’re certainly a more violent country than Iceland or Japan.  (Although Japan has an insanely high suicide rate, so lack of both violence and guns doesn’t mean lack of suffering.)  Because we are a ginormous, heterogeneous country with a huge influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, we are never going to have the social unanimity that other countries use as a counter to violence.  We cannot mimic Iceland or Japan because our population is too differently constituted.  In this regard, it’s worth noting that Nordic countries such as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark that have opened their Leftist hearts to a vast influx of Muslim immigrants who don’t subscribe to Nordic social norms have seen a huge increase in one very specific type of violence:  rape.

There’s another reason America has a violent culture:  our entertainment industry celebrates it.  Movies, TV shows, video games, and music are all blood-soaked.  They are also all the product of a dominant Progressive industry.  Yup — the people who are selling American disarmament are also the same people glorifying an extraordinarily violent culture.  My suggestion is that, before the Progressives take away my Constitutional right to bear arms, they give some thought to changing the message they sell to America and the rest of the world.

[UPDATE:  USMaleSF had the courage in the comments to speak the unspeakable:  America’s violent culture tends to cluster around blacks and, more than that, it clusters around ghettos, with the greatest number of gun crimes being black on black crime.  Stating this fact honestly should be seen as the opposite of racism.  I, safe in my little suburban enclave, am far removed from this scourge.  The ones at risk are blacks themselves, especially women, children, and adolescent males.  The political correctness that silences our tongues makes us morally complicit in a violent subculture that preys upon itself.]

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Marsdominion

    The people that are focusing only on the gun are the same people that have tried to take God out of our daily lives, constantly push the boundaries of morality, and absolve everybody of responsibility over their own life.  Now they are shocked at the outcome that they very likely contributed to.

  • Oldflyer

    Book, I agree wholeheartedly with your point #6.  I heard a mental health professional making the same reasonable point this evening.   The apologists say that people separate fake violence from real life; but this fellow said that when the culture is moving overwhelmingly in a certain direction, i.e. the glorification  of violence in entertainment,  the fringe will naturally move even farther.  On another level, this fellow also spoke of the increasing isolation of individuals and the loss of community sense.
    Even a lay person can grasp that there is an element that has difficulty separating fantasy from reality.  So, when fantasy presents a steady diet of killing, without consequence, then …
    A former federal Investigator supported the same notion.  He interrogated a couple of mass killers–I don’t know who.  He said there was no emotion, no remorse, no reaction.  He said they spoke of their marksmanship as if they were shooting at paper targets.  Or I would say at humanoid figures in a video game.

  • Wolf Howling

    I do not know, off hand, of a left wing government or an autocratic government that has not sought to disarm their populations.  The motivations seem two-fold.  On one hand are those governments that don’t want the populace to be able to resist.  On the other are lefties who want to control the populace and don’t trust people to be able to act responsibly – a version of the nanny state.  We see that latter in so many high-crime U.S. cities and, of course, in England itself.  That last is ironic since England’s Bill of Civil Rights of 1649 is what served as the basis for our Second Amendment.
    At any rate, just wanted to congratulate you on a superb post.  I would add only one caveat to your fifth point.  If the Supreme Court changes its make-up to the left over the next four years, we could well see the Second Amendment strangled in its crib, no amendments necessary – only activist judges.

  • weathtd

    I repeatly come to the conclusion that the Roe decision plays a significant part in the recent events.  No one under 35 years old has ever lived in a world where the killing of innocent life is wrong, in fact it is celebrated by the Left.  If killing a baby before it is born is OK then the obvious progression is that life has no value.  Why are we surprised that some nut-job commits mass murder, since our own government and culture condone mass murder.  The gun is just one of the tools used to that end.  Murder has been with humanity since Cain and Able.   The firearm is a recent addition to the arsenal.  As a firearms instructor one of the first things I would say to recruits was “there has never been a firearm made that can load, aim, cock, and fire itself.  It takes physical action”.  It comes down to the human mind 

  • USMaleSF

    Good points, all. But as for “America” being a violent society, etc. if you take a certain 13% of the population out of the equation, our rates of violence plummet. In fact so do many of our supposedly “American” pathologies.

    But while we are supposed to be amused by Jamie Foxx’s jokes about killing all the White people, we are not allowed to talk about all the killing that Black people do on a regular ongoing basis.
    These “binge” killlings, if I can call them that, do seem to be a specialty of Whites and Asians, but the regular, daily low-level but constant violence that Blacks perpetrate on each other and on the rest of us, is what really makes “America” appear so violent.
    Liberals refuse to talk about this. Conservatives are afraid to.

  • Charles Martel

    USMaleSF, it would be interesting to see how much the legacy of the Great Society contributed to the breakdown of morality in the black ghetto. What was the rate of violent crime in black enclaves in the 1950s and early 60s versus the decades after the federal government conjured a way to destroy—rather than deliver—the black community with a noxious “progressive” brew of welfare, abortion, and the emasculation of black men?
    The amount of cognitive dissonance surrounding the high rate of crime among blacks, both inside and outside the black community, is breathtaking. On one hand, you have white progressives and house blacks like Jamie Foxx, Al Sharpton, and the teachers’ unions constantly hissing into the ears of the field blacks that the mean ol’ Republicans who live down the road are the reason why their slave shanties don’t have heat or running water. On the other hand, the field blacks see Massa and his minions, which includes gangbangers, openly carting off livestock, tools, food, and other necessities of life, shouting, “Trust us, we’re the only ones who can protect you from the thieving racist robbers down the road!”

  • Danny Lemieux

    Excellent, Book. Absolutely first-rate! 

  • http://www.amimental.blogspot.com ami

    I have to add that the Clackamas Town Center is a gun free zone.
    Didn’t seem to stop those guns from coming in.

    Excellent post, and one I will share.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    You forgot Switzerland, Book. They, for a Euro country, have maintained a strict culture of militanism and militia based defense and training ever since Caesar marched into Gaul and past those guys up on the mountains. Leftist wannabe mass murderer enablers often times go out of their way to mention Europe, but not the… other Europe. The mass murders in Germany with gun control laws, Europe. The Switzerland mass militia without gun crimes Europe.
    Also, it’s not enough to try to compare facts. People don’t really care about facts at the end of it all. They want someone to blame. They want an evil to fight. They want to see justice prevail and that means being called the good ones against the bad. They need someone to take the blame. In this case, if you do nothing but quote facts, they will blame guns because that’s where the propaganda steers them. However, if you give them a new target to hate, such as the Left and black crime enablers, they can be mass inducted into the right side.
    You will never convince the people at the bottom that there is no injustice thus we should leave guns alone. But you can tell them the truth of who is truly enabling mass murder. But few can tolerate the light of truth, for it burns harsher than any hate or bullet.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    “If you read the British papers, you learn that the Brits got very creative about violence, resorting with ferocity to knives, broken bottles, head stomps, drowning, choking, poisoning, etc”
    None of them are particularly well trained at it either. I surmise that few in public have seen the results of trained efficient methods used.
    The Left is out to revert humanity back to the greatest time of suffering and decay (evil) in existence. One cannot imagine the result in this Golden Age of ours. But let it be said that they are intentionally increasing the mass murder rate. While profiting. And if one cannot imagine it, if one cannot admit it, what hope is there for defeating the Left’s evil?

  • Mike Devx

    I’ll accept that America has a violent culture.  But there are all kinds of violence.  Arguments that escalate into fights.  Drunken brawls.  Murderous “domestic disturbances.”  Gang-style territorial and drug-sale territorial enforcement.  Murder for profit.  Serial killers.
    And then you have this phenomenon of the mass murdering killer, usually accompanied by the killer’s suicide.  The killer appears to see his life as meaningless and empty.  Psychopathic tendencies, including both extreme narcissism and seeing other people merely as objects, allow the killer to decide to murder as many others as possible as a way of making some kind of statement.  The killer seeks notoriety at the end, seeking to replace a meaningless life with his picture and name splashed in all the papers and the TV media for weeks.
    Twenty to twenty-five years ago, I had an acquaintance, a party buddy, who basically saw his life as meaningless.  (You can discuss how a lack of faith and a lack of belief in God can lead people to view their lives as meaningless.)  The subject of suicide came up.  He wasn’t seriously mulling it over; it was just a topic.  His words, nearly verbatim, were: “If I ever do decide to kill myself, I’m going with a gun to the mall and I’m taking out as many other people as I can, before I kill myself.”
    I looked at him and said something along the lines of, “Why?  Why the need to kill other innocent people, who’ve never done a thing to you in your life?  Why not just shoot yourself?”
    His response was a shrug.  He simply didn’t give a damn.  How pathetic.  Occasionally (rarely) I wonder whatever happened to him; I wonder what kind of a life he went on to live.
    My viewpoint is that advocates of gun control and of gun-free zones have blood on their hands.  I’ve noticed that more and more often, these mass murderers head for gun-free zones to perform their killing sprees.  They’re not dumb and they’re not suffering psychotic breaks from reality.  They plan and they execute.  If to any extent they are playing out some kind of fantasy in their heads, it doesn’t stop them from being coldly and clearly rational as they carry out the mass murders.  Some prefer to think of this as “mental illness”.  I don’t.  I think that’s unfair to the hundreds of thousands or millions of people out there who do suffer mental illness but have no impulse to harm or murder other people.
    I by far prefer the specific label of “psychopath” for these mass murderers.  I have no pity or sympathy for them at all.

  • texasvet65

    Mass murder is just that, so is infanticide. The indoctrination of our culture, especially our younger members via tv, games, music, movies, social page bullying and any other technique leads to a reduction in our population by violence, no matter the weapon of choice.
    The same folks that are calling for any means necessary to control guns in this country to reduce societal violence are the same people that laud, support and in some cases, fund some or all of the above.
    The outrage from them is hipocrisy. A false flag. A distraction.
    Their real attack on our children is trended by number, rate, race, characteristics and state. by none other than census.gov http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0101.pdf 
    And the National Right to Life org http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf 
    MURDER OF THE UNBORN totals greater than 54 MILLION since 1973

  • jj

    There are a couple of things that strike me as interesting.  One of them is the old “America is a violent country” half-truth.  The correct response (in recent years) has increasingly been shown to be: compared to whom?  But, America has always been, as Bookworm said, heterogeneous.  What is, as a matter of convenience, generally forgotten is that America was for a long time the heterogeneous country.  When I lived in England, and traveled fairly extensively throughout Europe – which now seems an absurdly long time ago – I noticed a simple thing that, as an American, kind of surprised me at first.  To wit: 98% of the people in England were English.  99% of the people in France and Germany were, respectively, French and German.  Ditto Italy, Spain, and Switzerland.  Everybody in Finland was a Finn, and I never saw a non-Dane in Denmark.   (Possibly because who except a native could handle either language.)  But, joking aside, what that meant was that these places featured a whole lot of commonality.  Everybody shared the same background, schooling, viewpoint, prejudices, experience, etc.  Any Frenchman, Englishman, Dane, Finn etc. knew, to a very high degree of certainty how everyone they encountered would react to a given – any – stimulus.  Not a whole lot of random volatility there.  I had a very good friend who rented a house while attending college in England.  I was never really sure, I think nine of them lived there – a zoo – and they were all very much the same in the way they spoke, dressed, thought, cooked (godawful, mostly), and behaved.  All English: they knew each other before they ever met.  Compared to me, who did the same thing with six other guys in Boston.  One Irish/English (me); two Italians, (NY and Boston); one whose grandparents arrived from Poland;  one black guy from Philadelphia; a NY  Jew of eastern European descent; and a native Portuguese speaker from Brazil.  (With a suspiciously Germanic last name.  Never asked how his family ended up in Brazil.  Probably didn’t want to know.)  Another zoo.  All American, of course – except the Brazilian – but in the ultimate sense: not.  Like most Americans.  And plenty of random volatility.
    Anyway, at that time you’d never have encountered that in a dorm, or rental place in a college town anywhere in Europe, I’d venture to say.  The parent countries looked at us, probably beginning in the eighteen-something-or-others when immigration really started, and they thought: “All those guys who hate each other when they’re back home in their own damn countries, how are they going to do falling over each other every day over there?”  And the answer was: Billy the kid, Jessie James, Custer and the Indians, John Dillinger, Al Capone; Irish mobs, the Mafia – a far bigger pain in the ass here than they ever were in Italy – race riots, Russian mobs, armed cops: this is the most violent place on earth!  And compared to them a century ago, yeah.  We were.  Combine heterogeneity to a degree they’d never seen with guarantees of individual freedom they’d also never seen, and that’s a bomb waiting to go off.  It became a cliche: America’s a violent country.  Well okay, compared to them we were, to a degree.  They go to war, we kill each other.
    But in the last thirty years a funny thing has happened to the mother countries.  For a variety of reasons they’ve opened themselves to various population-shift waves, and they’ve made the sad discovery that when everybody in, say, England was English, that was a whole different deal than when they ain’t.  Ditto France, Italy, and Spain.   I blame no one, I point no fingers, I simply note the fact and, like Bookworm, I find myself saying, “so who’s the violent country here on the third rock from the sun, Europe?” and that answer to that may have changed from what it was fifty years ago.
    Another thing that’s of interest is the statistics, as compiled by the CDC and the FBI, and as misquoted, or outright lied about, by outfits like the Violence Policy Center, the Brady Bunch (or whatever they’re called), and various others.  The CDC collects data from what they call the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System – who’d have thought? – which covers all the states plus D,C.  The FBI is, of course, the FBI.  The CDC has a chart that covers from 2000 to 2009 – latest info a couple of years old, standard government.  It breaks the states into two categories: RTC (right to carry) and non-RTC, and compares overall homicide rates to homicides with guns, as a total number and as confined to the black community.  In the period 2000 – 2009, in RTC states the total homicide rate was 5.39; for homicides with guns the rate was 3.49; for the black community the overall rate was 16.93, the rate with guns was 12,64.  For non-RTC states the overall rate was 6.53, with firearms 4.50, and in the black community in non-RTC states the overall rate was 22.24, the rate with firearms was 17.24.  Note that in states with no right to carry, the rates were higher.  Total homicides in RTC states were in fact 17.4% lower than in non-RTC states, and firearm homicides in RTC states were 22.4% lower than in non-RTC states.  In the black community, there were 23.9% fewer homicides overall in RTC states, and 26.7% fewer homicides with guns in RTC states than in non-RTC states.
    So it turns out that in all categories – CDC homicide rates and FBI violent crime and murder rates – there were strong negative correlation rates: as gun ownership increased, violent crime decreased.  The states with the lowest percentage of gun ownership had the highest firearm and non-firearm murder rates, and the most violent crime.  This holds, to an even greater degree, in the black community with, as noted, blacks being 26.7% safer from firearm homicide than in states with restrictive carry (and ownership) laws.
    Send money to – and join – the NRA.  They’re the only ones who’ve actually read the Constitution.

  • Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove()

  • mdgarnett

    For those who doubt that our culture of violence contributes to the propensity to kill I recommend the book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman, an expert on the subject. 
    While the book primarily focuses on the subject of preparing civilians to be soldiers and making them willing to kill, he closes the book with comments on society and what research has clearly shown with respect to conditioning.  He claims in essence that movies, TV and games have pretty much pre-conditioned today’s youths to be killers.
    And in a completely different vein:  I think there are more vehicle deaths per year than gun-related; is anyone calling out for the banning of automobiles?

  • Pingback: One cause of the tragedy in Connecticut … Obama administration cut funding for school security « Cry and Howl()

  • Pingback: The Case for Gun Control: Eww. | Junior Ganymede()

  • Pingback: Mourning Monday « Witch's Will()

  • Jose

    To piggy back on USmaleSF, if you want to see a graphical representation of the demographics he mentions, see this Alan Korwin’s information at this link:

  • debiesam

    I brought up the issue of our entertainment industry and its contribution to our violent culture, with my ultra-liberal Facebook friends. With only one exception, they all pooh-poohed me. They were dismissive and irritated. They thought I was advocating censorship. But even when I said I only wished the industry would do more soul-searching and cut back on the violence, a typical response was “nah.” 

  • vperl

    Oregon has CCW restrictions on Federal,State, COUNTY BUILDINGS  and schools, Not MALLS .   
         For some reason this is not being reported, look at link.         http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html 

  • Owen Glendower

    Well-done, Bookworm
    This scholarly article from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy does a great job of demolishing most of the “statistics” cited by gun-control proponents.  The information on European countries is especially valuable.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Wretchard makes an interesting distinction between Liberals and conservatives in this sense: conservatives tend to see solutions are more people-centered, whereas Liberals tend to see things are more material-centered. 

    Thus, the conservative reaction to the Newtown shootings tend to focus on the perpetrator’s responsibility, whereas Liberals tend to make excuses for the personal responsibility, moral and spiritual issues by diverting responsibility to material issues (the guns). 


    I, too, have noticed the intense materialism that underwrites Liberal thinking: their solution to everything seems to be “more money” and “more stuff”. I have actually had Liberal friends tell me that the solution to world terrorism is to send the terrorists money and material aid, for example. Ditto for the so-called “social justice” movement – they see ever ill in society as based upon the quantity and distribution of “things”. It’s a very shallow world view.

    I suspect that this goes to the heart of what you observed, debiesam: blaming violent video games and media puts responsibility on the shooter’s moral and spiritual decisions, which is an area that I notice Liberals like to avoid at all costs because it does not fit in their world view. Much better to blame guns and brain chemistry.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Personally, they only blame those things in order to terrorize the market into paying the Left more bribes. They then use these bribes to control more of the market, make more laws, and get more money into their own pockets.
    It’s not like they ever hated smoking or tobacco. They just hate how other people make money and don’t give it to them. They would treat marijuana and cocaine the same way. In fact, they do treat it the same way if you look at Hollywood. Why is one good but not the other one? Why do they seek and support the bans on smoking and promote pot use and recreational drug use? 1. Because it destroys their enemy’s markets and social stability and 2. it nets them more profit when they can just own and invest in the recreational drug market.
    Why do they fund green energy but not coal or nuclear power? Same reason.
    Why do they blame video games? Because a lot of video games are made by companies overseas, as well as local American studios that are not particularly concerned about social issues. Thus it is hard for the Left to infiltrate, especially since it actually requires engineering and computer knowledge.

  • Pingback: Larwyn’s Linx: Let’s Have That Conversation About Guns | Preppers Universe()

  • Pingback: Gun Control. « Ani Explains()

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    debiesam: They’re making too much money on it to tell them to stop.
    It’s the same reason why the Leftists were all talking about women’s rights in Afghanistan. Up until Bush actually invaded and started getting women’s rights imposed in Afghanistan law. Then it was all about anti-Bush hate.
    They were never for women’s rights in the first place. Just as they were never for anti-violence in the first place. The Left, anti-violent? What world do people think they live in. The Left has more skulls they buried as a result of their own hands than anybody else around, including the Aztecs and the Bhaal worshippers in Africa.

  • Pingback: American gun control isn’t international gun control « Sake White()

  • Pingback: biden appointed()

  • Pingback: Real mass-shooting statistics | Junior Ganymede()

  • Pingback: My Blog » Gun Control.()

  • Pingback: Anissa Taylor dot Com » Gun Control.()