Gun control legislation and historical facts ignored

My Recent Posts

Do gun laws stop crime?

The liberal narrative is that anyone who has a gun is a potential mass killer has just been upended by the latest data release.

Several states have reversed their stance on gun registration, and now allow permit-less (no permit required) to carry firearms concealed.  Those states are:

New Hampshire
North Dakota
West Virginia

FBI statistics show that murders with handguns decreased once the requirement for a permit was abolished.

Surprised?  Don't be.

Consider the mind of a criminal:  If you have no protection, you are "prey", and they will take from you whatever they want.  Moreover, if the incidence of gun carrying citizens are a very small minority, the chances of a criminal getting stopped by a gun carrying citizen goes way up, and criminals always look for the easy target.  After all, how many criminals have tried to cause trouble at any gun show?

Yep, that's right:  Zero, none, nada.

In just one year, Mississippi (in 2015) had 253 murders the first year that permit-less carry was authorized.  A year later, that dropped to 238.  Not a lot, but then again, criminals take awhile to learn the dangers of their trade.  As time goes on, the numbers should continue to decline.  They will never stop, of course, unless the criminals are killed by their own violence.  And a dead criminal certainly cannot continue to rob and kill innocent victims, now can he?

Consider also the historical low instances of gun incidents in states that have always been open carry, and well known that some citizens also carried concealed:  In comparisons to heavily regulated cities and states, there has been historically low incidents of gun crimes in non-regulated gun ownership and carry.  Mass shooting always seem to happen at where guns are not allowed:  Schools, theaters, restaurants, etc.


Safe spaces and gun-free zones obviously don't work.

Still don't get it?  The fact of the matter is that the majority of citizens are not criminals, but if they are disarmed, the criminals are more inclined to be criminals.  And where mass shootings start, they'd be short lived if the victims were armed.  Throwing an object at a gun wielder is about as effective as bring a knife to a gun fight.  In fact, I'd guarantee that it would be far less effective than having a gun in a gun fight.


Jeffry Gilbert Added Nov 29, 2018 - 8:11pm
You'll never convince them. 
Sunshine Kid Added Nov 29, 2018 - 8:30pm
I know that, but I want them to scream.
FacePalm Added Nov 30, 2018 - 2:18am
'Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.' 
-Sarah Brady, Chairman of Handgun Control to Senator Howard Metzanbaum
'The National Educator', January 1994 Page 3
The foregoing citation succinctly sums up the ulterior motives of leftists.
In confrontations with armed people, unarmed ones die with depressing regularity, whether the ones with arms are street thugs, foreign enemies, bullies with badges, or American standing armies.
"A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.  In a Constitutional Republic, there is a well-armed lamb... contesting the vote."
~Benjamin Franklin
IMO, this is another reason why MSM talking heads continually promote "democracy" as a Good Thing, too.
Lenin certainly seemed to think so:
“Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin[Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov] (1870 - 1924), First Leader of the Soviet Union
He also had a number of things to say about firearms:
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin[Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov] (1870 - 1924), First Leader of the Soviet Union

" of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the arming of the workers (Communist) and the disarming of the bourgeoisie (the middle class)."
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin[Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov] (1870 - 1924), First Leader of the Soviet Union
Sunshine Kid Added Nov 30, 2018 - 3:11am
The fact is that the USA was NOT set up as a democracy; it was set up as a republic, and "democracy" and "democratic" did not make it into the vocabulary until the late 1800s.  Since then, almost everyone refers to the USA as either a "democracy" or a "democratic republic".  Indeed, what we have now is a democratic republic, based on several moves by politicians since the late 1800s:  The Senate was set up to be an appointment by each state of two Senators, and the amendment passed in 1913 changed that to be a popular vote for Senators.  This was one of the major steps to convert the republic to a democratic republic.
If the liberals have their way, the USA will become a straight democracy, and it will not have to last 200 years, because they intend to turn it into socialism immediately, and later into communism, which both forms of government control and delete all freedoms, although the elites will continue to say that they are still a republic.
No, said "republic" will be as much a lie as the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  And anyone with half a brain knows that the USSR was in no way a republic.
Johnny Fever Added Nov 30, 2018 - 8:51am
First, the liberal narrative on guns is NOT what you said.  You can find their narrative here:
Second, in light of the advances in gun technology, a single shooter with one of these weapons can kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.  So as a conservative, I think we need responsible gun legislation.  I think the majority of the country agrees with me and it would do conservatives a lot of good to support something.
Third, there is no data linking the decline in murders with the increase permit-less concealed fire-arms laws.  Keep in mind, in every state, one still must have a permit to own a gun. 
Sunshine Kid Added Nov 30, 2018 - 9:15am
Johnny Fever:
As to your link, look closely at what it says:  "#gun violence".  It is not the gun that causes violence - a gun is an inanimate object.  The Democrats want to take guns away from law abiding citizens, because they have no plan to stop criminals.  Or do you think criminals obey the law?
I hate to burst your bubble, but I bought guns in South Carolina and in Louisiana when there were no background checks, licenses nor registrations.  The closest that I remember any documentation needed back then was in Louisiana, where you had to have a yearly hunting permit.  I paid $25 for a revolver, my first gun, and that was a good chunk of change back then, as my rent at the time was $25 per month.
Sure some states like New York and California had very strict licensing/registering requirements, but no one ever thought to challenge their legislatures on thei violation of the second amendment, which says "shall not be infringed."  And any judge that upheld said law would be in violation of Article six, second paragraph of the Constitution of the United States.  Think about that.
Your claim of "no data" is simply because you refuse to go look at the FBI reports.  How do you think I got the numbers for Mississippi in 2015-2016?  I didn't pull them out of my head.  And that was only a small sample.
Steel Breeze Added Nov 30, 2018 - 9:29am
SK.....fully agree....
FacePalm Added Nov 30, 2018 - 10:32am
i appear to have read the same or similar things that you have, and have come to the same conclusions.
i agree that the gov't of the united States has strayed FAR from it's original intent, which is one reason i'm glad Trump has been putting "originalists" on the SCOTUS - however, Kavanaugh worried me when he said he'd "honor precedent."  If he'd said he'd honor precedent only when said precedent did not violate the Constitution, i'd've been more relieved.
i've read the Constitution many, many times, even with a law dictionary in hand, and i've never seen the "precedent" exception in it, nor the "public policy" exception, nor the completely bogus and heinous doctrine of "implied powers."
Any ruling of SCOTUS reliant upon any of those three grounds should be tossed, or at least, challenged.  Any arrogation of powers not named (and therefore lawfully delegated) constitutes Usurpation, a High Crime worthy of felony conviction and removal from office.,,no matter WHICH sworn gov't employee violates this standard.
Rusty Smith Added Nov 30, 2018 - 11:05am
Johnny Fever most gun violence studies have far too many variables to be reliable but I do like simple facts, here's one:
Overall homicides per year are easy to count and track, it's hard to fudge the numbers, or cherry pick time periods, age ranges, or even redefine what might or might not count.
When guns were taken away from the people in the UK, homicide counts per year did not  go down.  Yup, taking away everyone's guns didn't save lives .  Even though fewer guns were taken away in Australia, the result was the same.    If your goal is to save lives, taking away guns won't accomplish your goal.
Suicide numbers also did the same thing, the number per year did not change when guns were taken away.
For those who are sure there is a connection between the number of guns and homicide and suicide rates, permit me to suggest both are cultural issues, not related to the number of guns.  Let me explain.
We all know suicide is very common in Japan, where no one owns guns, and far less common in the US where half the people own guns.  I could suggest we could lower the suicide rate in Japan by giving them lots of guns so their suicide rate would be lower like it is in the US, but I'm sure you'd point out all the flaws with that argument because the presence of guns really is not connected to the suicide rate.  
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 30, 2018 - 11:34am
Chicago totally band citizen gun ownership and then the Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional.  The list of states that changed their rules is not because they wanted to but because they didn't have a leg to stand on. 
This may be obvious to you but the billboard you have is the size of a postage stamp.  Theirs is the prime spot that is in the background of the ball dropping on news year day. <<Safe spaces and gun-free zones obviously don't work.>>
You do not get it. They do not care about this.  Doesn't give them one second of thought, <<Still don't get it?  The fact of the matter is that the majority of citizens are not criminals, but if they are disarmed, the criminals are more inclined to be criminals. >>  You can not find one government in history that sets up a class society that doesn't if possible take away the weapons of the citizens.  All class societies are tyrannical.  They form a governing class and supportive classes.   You do you think class is part of every comment made by politicians in the west is an accident?
this is an oxymoron statement, <<“Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin[Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov] (1870 - 1924), First Leader of the Soviet Union>>   The tyrannical USSR that killed more people that Hitler.
Harvard study of gun ownership and homicide shows that gun ownership is not related to homicide.   The nature of a society, its belief in the rule of law and morals is far more important.  Thus Russia has 4 times the homicide rate of America.   Since the USSR spent a century taking away the guns of citizens the weapon of choice is a knife. 
England for a short period of time during the period of civil wars  citizens were allowed to have guns because they would protect the present government.  That threat ended and guns were taken away again.  Today with few guns knifes are the weapon of choice in London to murder someone.   The city is trying to regulate butter knifes.   
The are
Dino Manalis Added Nov 30, 2018 - 2:25pm
 Gun control has to be done right, while adequate security is essential in public places with guns, prospective gun buyers should be evaluated to assure public safety before a gun is bought.
FacePalm Added Nov 30, 2018 - 3:32pm
this is an oxymoronic statement,
<<“Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin[Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov] (1870 - 1924), First Leader of the Soviet Union>>   

The tyrannical USSR that killed more people than Hitler.
It's possible that you don't understand.
Lenin and his ilk planned for a world-wide communist takeover.  They knew that a sudden transition to communism would be too much like tossing a frog into boiling water.  Democracy was intended to be the intermediate step.
This is why the USSR promoted "democracy" and democratic revolutions world-wide.  They considered it an essential step to the eventual establishment of the totalitarian nightmare world which is socialism.
Bill Kamps Added Nov 30, 2018 - 4:31pm
We can correlate a lot of things that dont have cause and effect.   The rooster crowing does not make the sun rise.  About all you can say is the permit-less guns, did not cause the rate of gun murder to go up. 
I would agree that gun free zones, are a stupid idea.
I think some number of gun deaths are part of the price we pay for  giving people the right to own guns.  Just like some number of auto deaths (some 33K per year), are the price we pay for so many of us owning an auto. 
Better gun control will not stop mass shootings.  People who are motivated to plan a mass shooting, will also be motivated to find a gun somewhere.  These are not spur of the moment events, the shooter usually has been thinking about it for some time, like weeks or months, which is plenty of time to find a gun.  Most mass shootings are not done by criminals, and therefore the shooter could legally purchase a gun, if they wanted to .
Bill Kamps Added Nov 30, 2018 - 4:35pm
This is why the USSR promoted "democracy" and democratic revolutions world-wide. 
I would not agree.  The German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was not at all a democracy, unless of course democracy means just getting to vote.  All the communist countries allowed people to vote.  That was not the difference between those countries and the US.  The difference is in their Constitution, the people's lack of rights, and the fact that the state owned all the real property.  They CALLED revolutions democracy, but it was all part of the big lie. 
John Minehan Added Nov 30, 2018 - 6:16pm
"In just one year, Mississippi (in 2015) had 253 murders the first year that permit-less carry was authorized.  A year later, that dropped to 238."
253-238 = 15
 15/253 * x/100 = ^^5.5%
Barely Statistically significant.  Also very small sample size.  Note the comparison to NYS in 2013.
Might mean something, might not.  Probably need more data.
John Minehan Added Nov 30, 2018 - 6:24pm
This is interesting . . . .  In 2015, Mississippi had a way to go in reducing deaths from firearms.
Rusty Smith Added Nov 30, 2018 - 7:11pm
Dino Manalis which gun controls do you think criminals will comply with? 
How do you top criminals from using other weapons?
What are you trying to accomplish?  In the UK they took all the guns away and homicides and suicides did not go down.   
If you lower homicide and suicide rates, by eliminating guns, why do it?
Sunshine Kid Added Nov 30, 2018 - 7:21pm
FacePalm, I agree that precedent, public policy and implied powers are often used by the judiciary as the method to overthrow law.  Well put.

Rusty, I like your logic with suicide rates and the reference to Japan, where I was for three years.

Dino, there is no way to do gun control right.  You have to moderate the criminal, not the gun.  If a gun is used and the criminal is put down like a rabid dog, that criminal can only do the crime the one time.  Even if the criminal kills with any other weapon, it is still the criminal doing the deed, not the weapon.  Moreover, there would be a lot fewer criminals because the value of doing crime goes away quite quickly.

Bill Kamps, well said.  And the fact is that criminals don't need guns to kill.  Taking away the weapon does not take away the criminal.

Also, if you care to check, nearly every communist country has either the word "democratic" or "people's" in its name.  The reason is very simple:  If you don't fool the people, you cannot get away with taking away their freedom.

John Minehan, very good observation, but the point is that even in such a small sample, the results did not go up.  Moreover, any time that weapons are controlled, the exact opposite happens because the criminal element is not under control.

And I keep the same point:  Firearms don't cause death; people do that, and they don't need firearms as much as the intent to do the deed.  What are you going to do to a criminal who kills with his bare hands, disarm him?  Then you have to put up with the medical costs, feeding him manually and taking care of his bodily functions for the rest of your life?
Paul Sanders Added Nov 30, 2018 - 8:13pm

Great article.  Gun control is based on a flawed philosophy.  It goes something like this;
It is "too easy" to get guns, therefore if we make it "more difficult" crime will do down.
Now, here is the problem.  Based on that premise, you must make the assumption that simply getting a gun means you will misuse it.  
This basically follows your statement, "You have to moderate the criminal, not the gun."
I love your statement, "Dino, there is no way to do gun control right."  This is true.  If we follow through on the assumption that "getting a gun" means it will be misused, then by extension of that logic, we must make it impossible for everyone to get a gun, so nobody can misuse them.  We can't predict someone's future actions.  To say "it is too easy to get a gun", we must assume that everyone who has one will misuse it.  Anyone with an IQ north of 100 knows that is absurd.
Finally, because we live in a free society, we simply do not and cannot deny rights based on what somebody "might do."
Again, gun control is based on a flawed principle.

Johny Fever:  "Keep in mind, in every state, one still must have a permit to own a gun."
That is simply not true.  Not even close.  There are only a handful of states that require a permit simply to own a gun.  This is easily verified by doing a little research.


FacePalm Added Nov 30, 2018 - 8:48pm
Bill Kamps-
I would not agree....They CALLED revolutions democracy, but it was all part of the big lie.
Exactly.  Glad you came around to seeing my point.
Marty Koval Added Nov 30, 2018 - 8:54pm
Gun control including all other weapons which are too many to mention, will never stop murders. The problem is the harden heart of people, which turns them into evil beings who want to kill, maim and injure others.
Prior to the first gun being invented in 500 AD by the Chinese, there were millions of people being killed annually throughout the world.  The weapons of choice were bow and arrows, spears, knives, swords, axe,  halberd, chains, whips, ropes, fist, feet, rocks, clubs, pushing people off cliffs, poison, burning, crucifixions, chariots, throwing people into lion dens, strangulation, etc.
No matter how desperate mankind wants to stop killings, on his own he is unable to do it. Saying that it is possible is deception and gives people a false hope. People on their own cannot turn a harden heart into a loving heart that does not want to do evil.
Sunshine Kid Added Nov 30, 2018 - 9:43pm
Good observation, Marty!
Ken Added Dec 1, 2018 - 1:08am
It is going to be quite interesting to see the lefties throw their hissy fits about the Sheriff in Washington who is ignoring their gun control laws and won't arrest anyone based on it, as well as pushing his county to pass an ordinance against it, while at the same time those same lefties have created sanctuary areas undermining the constitution and federal law.
Sunshine Kid Added Dec 1, 2018 - 4:03am
Ken, I wish there was a like/dislike on every comment.  I'd give you a like on that one!
edinmountainview Added Dec 1, 2018 - 6:10pm
There will come a time in California when legal gun owners will carry concealed weapons, whether or not permits are issued.  The government here is trying so hard to take our guns.  That old cliche' comes to mind:  "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns."
Semper Fi
Sunshine Kid Added Dec 1, 2018 - 8:13pm
Well, edinmountainview, that old cliche' applies to me.  I own guns, never registered them nor licensed them because I bought them when there was no requirement to register or license them and refuse to be infringed in my ownership of them.  I have never used them to commit a crime, but by edict of the government, I am a criminal, right?
edinmountainview Added Dec 1, 2018 - 8:32pm
Unfortunately, Sunshine Kid, by the laws of your state as you put it, I would have to say right.  I look at it this way, what "they" don't know, "they" don't know.  What you have or do in your own home in no one else's business.  "They" being the powers that be.  I have always said that "they" will have to take my guns from my cold, dead hands.  I am not a criminal either, but these unconstitutional laws pushed by the unhinged make us so.  I'm getting up there in the years and sure would love to see California (and our Country) get cleaned up and returned to sanity in my lifetime.
Semper Fi 
Sunshine Kid Added Dec 1, 2018 - 8:53pm
Sounds like you are living in California.  If so, I feel for you.  I was there in the 1950s, and again in the 1970s, and the change in freedom in the intervening 20 years was something to get your mind around.  I drove my car down Lombard Street before they closed it off to traffic.  I'd lived in Riverside and was stationed at Norton AFB, Travis and March AFB, so know well the beauty of the country.  But that would not let me change my desire not to go back there, considering the government oppression there.  I'm pretty sure it is a lot more now than in the 1970s, when I left there for good.
edinmountainview Added Dec 1, 2018 - 9:05pm
You got it, Sunshine Kid.  I have lived in California most of my life except the five years in the military and a couple of years up in Oregon.  I've seen the changes.  It's pretty bad.  Now we have the former mayor of San Francisco becoming the governor.  What kind of hell is that creep going to bring down on our heads?  All one has to do is look at San Francisco now, a cesspool of despair, homelessness and human excrement in the streets.  S.F. wasn't like that when I was a kid back in the 60s.  I don't go there anymore.
Semper Fi