Five reasons that the benefits that flow from guns far outweigh the risks inherent in guns

American revolutionariesWith the shooting at Umpqua Community College having reanimated the Progressives’ demands that we withdraw guns from citizens’ hands and leave them solely in the hands of government operatives (a strange demand from the BLM-supporting crowd if you think about it), it’s time for me to rehash my five-point argument explaining why, the risks of guns notwithstanding, we are much safer with guns than without them.  I originally published this post in June 2014 and have made only a few changes to enhance clarity:


God forgive me, but I used to be so anti-gun that I donated to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. I know. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Since that time, I’ve done a complete 180 and become a fervent gun supporter and a proud member of the NRA.

This change did not come about because I suddenly became a psychopathic killer, with guns as my weapon of choice. I do kill (spiders, fleas, and ticks) and I do eat dead bodies (cows, pigs, chicken, and fish), but I’m scarcely Hannibal Lecter.

Instead, my reversal on guns came about because I realized that gun’s are a predicate requirement for individual freedom and security.  I’ve created five principles that justify this conclusion.  These principles are:  (1) Armed citizens are the best defense against the world’s most dangerous killer: government; (2) I am a Jew; (3) I am not a racist; (4) a self-defended society is a safe society; and (5) the only way gun-control activists can support their position is to lie.

I develop each of these principles below.


A. Armed Citizens Are The Best Defense Against The World’s Most Dangerous Killer: Government.

1.  Progressives fear individuals, who kill only in small numbers; Second Amendment supporters fear government, which kills in the tens of millions.

a. Mad or predatory individuals, ideologically motivated groups, and mean or careless corporations have never succeeded in using guns to achieve more than a few thousand deaths in any individual act.

Progressives and conservatives alike share the same concerns: they don’t want killers to have guns. It’s just that Progressives haven’t quite figured out who the real killers are. Their obsessive focus is on individuals and corporations. Let’s humor their fears and look at the number of deaths those particular killers have achieved, both with and without guns, from the beginning of the 20th century through to the present day.

Individual Killers Who Did Not Use Guns:

The worst psychopathic individual mass murderer who did not use a gun: Gameel al-Batouti. On October 31, 1999, he cried out “Allahu Akbar” as he piloted a plane full of passengers into the Atlantic Ocean, killing 217 people.

The worst ideologically driven collective of mass murderers who did not use guns: The 19 al Qaeda members who, on September 11, 2001, used box cutters to hijack four planes, crashed those planes into three buildings and one into a field, and killed 2,996 people in a matter of hours.

The worst corporate mass murderer that did not use guns: In December 1984, the Union Carbide India Limited pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, accidentally released toxic gas from its facility, killing 3,787 people.

CONCLUSION: When dedicated mass murderers use something other than guns, they’re able to achieve deaths that range from a few hundreds dead to a few thousand dead.

Individual Killers Who Used Guns:

The worst psychopathic individual mass murderer who did use a gun: Anders Behring Breivik who, on July 22, 2011, shot and killed 69 people in Norway – mostly teenagers. This rampage came after he’d already set off a bomb, killing 8 people. Norway has strict gun control.

The worst ideologically driven collective mass murderers who did use guns: Given Islamists’ tendency to use all weapons available to shoot as many people as possible in as many countries as they can, this is a tough one to call. I believe, though, that the Mumbai terror attack in 2008 is the largest ideologically driven mass murder that relied solely on guns. Throughout the city of Mumbai, Islamic terrorists engaged in a coordinated attack that killed 154 people. Even the unbelievably bloody and shocking mall shooting that al Shabaab staged in Kenya killed only 63 people.

The worst corporate mass murder that did use guns: I can’t find any. To the extent that numerous workers died in any given 19th century labor dispute, those deaths occurred because state government, siding with management, sent out the state’s militia to disperse the strikers. For example, in November 1887, in Thibodaux, Louisiana, the state militia killed between 35 and 300 black sugar plantation strikers. The 20th and 21st century did not offer such examples.

CONCLUSION: To the extent Progressives fear individual killers or small groups of killers with guns, their fears are misplaced.  Guns simply aren’t that effective in these contexts, especially when compared to those who use planes or bombs. Moreover, when it comes to corporations and guns, outside of crazed Hollywood movies, the corporations vanish from the scene entirely.

[Read more…]

The last stuff from my email backlog

Whew!  I’m finally current on my email, a pleasant state of things that should last at least two days, or maybe four.  I’m sufficiently self-aware to know that my chronic procrastination damages my life, not to mention my relationships.  Despite that knowledge, though, I still procrastinate.  It’s very frustrating to me that I can’t seem to sum up the will to abandon a habit that’s very, very bad for me.  Although I don’t have any substance abuse problems, my procrastination abuse problem gives me a certain empathy for those who struggle against drug, tobacco, or alcohol addictions.

Ooops!  I’m digressing, a bad habit that accounts for a lot of the time I spend procrastinating.  Back to topic….

The material in this post sweeps up the last of the January email still lingering in my inbox.  Not all are links.  Some are just great ideas from readers.


Soldier4110 agrees with me that we cannot win the political and culture war if we’re already convinced that we’ve lost.  To that end, Soldier4110 points to some cheering signs:

I recently left a comment on an article at any other website about Scott Walker’s win at the ballot box last November and the importance of that win. I agreed with the author and added that both Indiana and Wisconsin had wins in court last week for their right-to-work legislation. I also mentioned that the Republicans did well at the ballot box in gubernatorial races and in maintaining or winning statehouses.

Surprise, surprise, a bunch of people ‘liked’ the comment. This leads me to believe that currently Republican posters and readers are looking for good news, like you say they are.

Am thinking of a couple ‘good news’ topics:

The overwhelming win of the two seals at Benghazi who were able to kill 60 of the enemy before they died. These men began fighting after Stevens was already injured and the IT guy was killed. So they saved the lives of all the others in that situation. Almost like Bowie at the Alamo, they surely knew they would die. What Heroes!

Also, the Republicans have great ‘minor league’ prospects what with the numerous statehouses and governorships. The right-to-work laws in IN and WI (and MI) are a start, but let’s hear what’s going on in other state legislatures……the reason being that these successes, when multiplied, make a difference at the ballot box, too. Now Pennsylvania is able to use their voter ID law in the next election…..that’s a good example. Also, new Indiana Governor Mike Pence is pushing two initiatives: vocational training and cutting income taxes.

So let’s give our ‘farm teams’ some notoriety and keep the good news coming. Keeping the readership aware of successes in various states will perhaps lead readers to look for and report successes in their own states, which keeps them focused on looking for the positive.


Zhombre forwards an idea that should become sticky. Just because Congress has no interest in amending the Constitution doesn’t mean that the states don’t have the power to do so when a good idea comes along:

Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.

This is an idea that we should address.

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that passed … in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever . The self-serving must stop.

If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States …”


Obama’s Pentagon got rid of Marine General James Mattis, Chief of U.S. Central Command.  Rumor had it that he was let go because he kept trying to force civilians to do silly things like look at the reality on the battlefield without wearing their usual ideological blinders, or to try to imagine what the military should do if the Obama administration’s ideological hopes and dreams didn’t pan out.  Mattis is a warrior, not a politician, and the politicians who tasked him with being a warrior on their behalf couldn’t stand the heat, so they fired him from the kitchen.  Okay.  I get that.  One of the glories of America is that our military is under civilian control, rather than vice versa.  Good civilians make for a good military; bad civilians . . . well, the American people get what they asked for.  In any event, if you’d like to know a bit more about the endearingly plain-spoken General Mattis, this will do it.


I’m too lazy to dig through my own posts to find it, but I did post somewhere that a British choirmaster says that boys’ voices are changing earlier, not because of climate change and pollution (the reason given for girls’ early menses), but because of our excellent Western diet, which is filled with vitamins, minerals, and proteins.  One of you was kind enough to send me an email noting that, in a pre-climate change hysteria era (1999, which seems so long ago), scientists had a decidedly non-PC explanation for some early menses:  A daddy in the household.  Better yet, a loving daddy in the household.  In other words, the proliferation of unwed mothers might affect girls’ biology.  Fancy that!


The female draft is coming.  I can feel it gathering steam right . . . about . . . now.


Two days after I wrote my post about a Sunset Amendment that would require all laws to expire in twenty years unless Congress affirmative renewed them, I found this story about raisin farmers who are being forced to turn over 50% of their full production to the government.  Why?  Because of an obscure Depression-era law.  If there was a Sunset Amendment, this specific type of government overreach (harassing people with obscure, outdated laws) wouldn’t happen.


The problem isn’t guns.  The problem isn’t mental illness.  The problem isn’t violent movies.  The problem is liberalism.  Really: