“The Grotesque Lies That Keep America’s Phony “Gun Debate” Going”

BBC Assault Weapon Fire Rate Chart... suspect

LAProgressive is not a bastion of constitutional scholarship, at least on civil rights with which they disagree. As the title suggests, they are antithetical to the 2nd Amendment and firearms rights. They consider the acting of owning a firearm absurdly hazardous. So this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

However, I want to see what a group who has never met a stat they wouldn’t spin into tragically comical hyperbole (so long as it would make it horrific enough to push anti-gun agendas) are claiming about ‘grotesque lies’ about the gun debate. Others have since grabbed this thread and ran with it if you’ve seen more recent headlines.

Please note, I have edited the article subheading a bit for clarity. TEXT: is the original phrasing with my clarifying edit afterwards.

America’s children die by guns far more than kids in other Western carefully selected ‘modern’ countries not because of school shootings or loose guns, but because American grownups of mature age are shooting them people we would and have called children or youth in a different context are shooting them, parents kill their families, and sometimes children are collateral damage in violent urban criminal conflicts, as motives vary wildly.

American ‘children’ do indeed die at a higher rate to firearms, but our age ranges for ‘children’ in these reports tends to vary depending upon how gruesome the data needs to be, not by a social metric that would bracket causality in a meaningful way. Add to that, our absurdly high gun ownership rate comparing any nation to the US but lacking a mention to any correspondingly proportional rate in any of the crimes, accidents, or suicides they are decrying, and top it off with examples of nations that have X, Y, or Z policy in place but are dismissed from consideration as not ‘Western’ enough to be a good example.

We do this domestically too whenever you see a ‘States with the most lax gun laws…’ post.

Please note, dear reader, that I’m not saying we, Americans, own an absurd number of private arms. I’m firmly in the “catch up, scrubs” camp when it comes to getting private firearm ownership normalized. I am saying that comparatively, there is no comparison.

Top 25 countries ranked for firearms owned, per 100 residents.

If guns were truly the problem being claimed, we would know handily. It wouldn’t even be close. Flat earthers would sound more scientifically astute than someone with a pro-gun point of view. Instead, the homicide rates to ownership rates are all over.

US rank by intentional homicide rate, per 100,000

We are the third largest nation in the world, we have the most firearms by an order of magnitude, and yet we are 86th in intentional homicide.

We are 3rd largest and 14th in total actual homicides. Not a single nation with more murders than the US has close to our firearm ownership rate and both of larger nations have more murdered people despite less than 1/20th the private firearms.


Consider the most violent decades of adult life, especially male adults, are 15-35 with 15-25 being worse than 25-35. Consider that ‘child’ or ‘youth’ has been used to describe people as old as 26. We should take ‘child’ with a grain of salt in reports such as this, until given enough grounding context that we know what a ‘child’ is instead of what we think of naturally when hearing ‘child’. What we think of, and what writers use manipulatively, is a pre-teen of age 12 and under. What they use, is 19 and under ‘teens’, 17 and under ‘minors’, and occasionally as old as 26 and under ‘youth’ depending upon the source. If they need to a look a little more intellectually honest they’ll use 15 or 16 and under for ‘child’ because it catches the teen criminal deaths and suicides that are an unfortunate part of human maturation.

When it comes to ‘teen’ and ‘youth’ decision making, they can and are criminally charged as adults for good reason. In inflicting deliberate harm they are capable of adult rationale, they know what they are doing. What a teen lacks isn’t intelligence that their act will cause harm, it is usually the experience and guidance to see that harm as a bad thing, even for selfish reasons of bad as in ‘not advantageous enough or not enough gained vs risked’.

Accidents happen. Murders & suicides happen. What I would be curious to see, and what isn’t in this piece thus far as we’ve read, is how the US familicide rates stack against other nations, even ‘Western’ ones. Do those rates differ from our general homicide rates? Do they scale within standard deviations? If they are in line, as I suspect, within context of the respective overall homicide rates, then this isn’t a uniquely American problem at all, certainly not because of the 2nd Amendment. It is simply one in line with the current amalgamation of cultural stresses and ethos the nation is trying to navigate.

Consider this,

In a nation of 330,000,000 people, and more than that many firearms, what are the number of firearm deaths in a year for ages 0-12, even 0-14? They rarely exceed a few hundred. Because they don’t exceed a few hundred, as the third largest nation on the planet, this “report” and those like it are using several multi-year spans for measurement metrics on its various topics.

These firearm related deaths are tragic, yes, but the leading causes of death among various youth age groups, according to the CDC, go thus.


0 to 1 year:

  • Developmental and genetic conditions that were present at birth
  • Conditions due to premature birth (short gestation)
  • Health problems of the mother during pregnancy

1 to 4 years:

  • Accidents (unintentional injuries)
  • Developmental and genetic conditions that were present at birth
  • Homicide

5 to 14 years:

  • Accidents (unintentional injuries)
  • Cancer
  • Suicide

Accidents (unintentional injuries) are, by far, the leading cause of death among children and teens.

Now, let’s take a look at the 1-4 year age category since homicide did rank and the topic of this discussion, per the “American grownups of mature age are shooting them, is adults murdering children.

Homicide is the 3rd leading cause of death in the 1-4 age range, and there were only 75 in 2020. That’s 75 too many of course, and the highest in the 3 decades displayed, but perspective and context matter and we get nowhere productive with the regurgitation of the “one is one too many” line. That bit of utopian vision nonsense has been used to argue for objectively harmful policies in the name of safety.

In contrast, one is too many deaths yet one life saved by a firearm isn’t enough to justify ownership. Nor 2 lives, nor even the 60,000 (minimum) DGUs which the CDC has removed from their statistics on firearms (with promises of a more accurate figure coming in 2023, we shall see).

Let’s look at all ages now.

We haven’t even gotten beyond the subheading and its all just so much… stuff, so let’s read on and see where its heading.

As depressing as America’s endless parade of shootings alongside its going-nowhere gun debate is, injecting reality into gun politics would make things even more distressing. Begin with the question at the forefront of the dubious debate: Who is shooting thousands of America’s children?

Thousands? If you expand the date range far enough, yes. I dare say if we look at date ranges 1914-1918 or 1935-1945 those look pretty bleak in Europe, North Africa, and in China and the Pacific. Who are killing ‘thousands’ of America’s children? The same people with the same motives who’ve always been killing them. This isn’t a new facet of life in the world.

To further contrast ‘who is shooting thousands of children’, drowning is roughly twice as lethal to children in a given year as homicide. But kids have to be able to swim recreationally, we couldn’t dream of banning pools right? It’s almost like risk is a part of life and quixotically trying to remove risks (far beyond conscientious mitigation at least) in increasingly absurd manners is doomed to failure and harms the credibility and legitimacy of the state’s efforts besides.

There aren’t even 400 murders on those charts for 2020, age 14 and under, with less than 100 accidents, and 224 suicides. Accidental injury is the number one cause of death in children and teens, and yet there are less than 100 fatal firearm accidents. This is likely the result of the one trackable positive firearm initiative, safe storage.

2020 was a really bad year for crime and suicide, largely due to the pandemic and riot stresses. It was also bad for firearm accidents among kids, compared to 2018 and 2019. Keeping kids all home had many unintended consequences.

But where is it that LAP referencing? Where comes this information to stir them up so on child firearm homicides?

“Gun violence,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Weekly Update begins, is “the leading cause of death for children in America.” Bonta touts his Office of Gun Violence Prevention as “innovative… the first of its kind.” What “innovative” ideas, then, does he propose?

Well, there’s a problem. I don’t believe Bonta should be taken seriously regarding anything, least of all, “Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in America.”

The CDC begs to differ, unless we’re shifting older teens under ‘children’ again because of course you are. Convenient that we can’t define what a child is. Such a slippery definition, shifting dramatically depending upon what we need to fear for the sake of the children.

The facts are stark. Over the last decade, an appalling 2,401 American children under age 12 died by guns; two-thirds were murdered. A record 464 were killed in gun homicides in 2020 and 2021 alone, a uniquely American carnage. Gun homicides in general are rare in other Western nations; those victimizing children all but unheard-of.

There is that ‘Western’ again, where we pick rich, predominantly white countries, ignore demographic and socioeconomic inconsistencies that make the comparison ludicrous, and then say, ‘Bad America! How dare you be the third largest nation in the world with diverse socioeconomic groups and the challenges that come with them!’

The nerve. The audacity! The sheer audnervecity!!

Maybe if all of our immigrants and culture came from those whi.. um, civili.. no.. oh, ‘Western’ nations we’d emulate them more. Saying ‘Western Nation’ is the statistical equivalent of promising you aren’t racist or prejudiced because you have an [insert friend of appropriate demographic].

The US is highly diverse with a sufficiently separate and more recent developmental history. We’re also, again, the third largest nation on the planet. Our minority populations outweigh nations. We also have a tendency when ranting upon the vileness of US violence to gloss over the incredibly violent histories of all those ‘Western’ nations to instead look at a tiny slice in time where ‘Western’ nations have not had to resort to civil warfare or other lethal conflict in a few decades and declare ‘look at how well this works’. Ukraine gives us a handy example of how quickly all that can evaporate, just how fragile ‘Western’ civilization is.

Remember kids, our speciecial norm is tribalism.


Lowest Firearms Ownership

Seems like number of firearms has no correlation to homicide rate. Weird. Seems more like how well off and homogenous the population is matters far more.

School shootings of young children invoke tears and outrage among American politicians, interest group spokespersons, and media commentators, many speaking “as parents.” Then, they distort children’s shootings simply as tragedies the young inflict on themselves.

Ironic that we’re talking about distorting shootings, but victim blaming? Are we seriously trying to say that for the statistically rare and tragic incidents of terrorism and mass casualty violence, as compared to common assaults and homicides, that media commentators are blaming the victims? That they, the young, inflict this upon themselves?

I’m curious now. This has taken an odd turn.

Media talkers incessantly berate “young men” for committing “these shootings” such as the Sandy Hook, Conn., and Uvalde, Tex., grade-school massacres. Acclaimed Washington Post writer John Woodrow Cox, voicing the official/media consensus, denounces “teenagers who slaughter children:” the “biggest threat to the safety of children in our country” is “punks with a gun and a grudge” and children finding “guns… unlocked,” he fumes. Experts invoke debunked “non-science” to disparage youthful “developing brains” as recklessly violent. A recent CNN survey of “experts” found all but one simply blaming gun violence on “kids” and “youths” shooting themselves and each other.

We’re oversimplifying other media hot take oversimplifications here, that’s a big problem. Hot takes are already problem enough with their lack of nuance and information, just look at tweet or a VagueBook post of your choice.

Yes, the young are shooting ‘their own’. The problem is that distinction makes little sense as a denominator of a group, the two groups are separate in many ways in most cases. The one exception is high school shootings, which tend to be student or faculty perpetrated at a greater rate.

The age of ‘young men’ doesn’t bracket these people as a social structure, not the way a neighborhood, or classroom, or sports team do. We can’t ask, “Why are 20ish year old’s murdering kindergarteners at an alarming rate?” with any kind of expectation for useable information to act on. It is, quite simply, too rare an event to bracket it that way. We are asking the wrong question, seeking the wrong motivational source. Any rate of that is alarming, especially with the strikingly broad sample period of ‘all events’.

Blaming the deaths in Sandy Hook or Uvalde on ‘those crazy youths’, as if the age range 18-24 is a reason, is asinine. However there can be no denying that the current world of stresses and triggers has tripped that switch in a few young men recently and repeatedly. Especially those feeling disenfranchised, lost, vulnerable, offended, rejected, etc.

That, by the way, isn’t news at all. That is terrorist/insurgent recruiting 101. Find the angry young men and point them at the thing you can blame for their ills, resource them and they’ll do the rest. The CIA and the Special Forces hold this neat trick as part of their core missions. ‘Can you hear the people sing?’

But why here? Why is it happening domestically at such as seemingly high rate?

What we seem to be seeing here in 2022, specifically in the mass shooters, is an increase in the reckless natural, or I suppose spontaneous societal, occurrences of the trigger. A combination of the information age providing the right insulator conditions to ferment the resentments necessary and the continued proofs that this method of acting out will garner them boundless notoriety and attention. Why is ‘The FBI grooms mass shooters’ a popular conspiracy? Because of the terrifying plausibility of it, it is legitimately a tactic we use.

Far more likely is the Helter Skelter ‘made’ the Manson family do it, or Hinckley trying to impress Jodie Foster by killing the President, but magnified within the chaos of the online society. With all the information at our fingertips in record time and the ability to communicate in echo chambers of our choosing, the fringes can find each other and communicate with each other. That feeding off each others ‘injuries’, even if the vast majority of posts remain harmless spleen venting sessions, can push one of the most vulnerable and extreme past their trigger point. No deliberate pressure from [insert evil entity/org] to reach that result need be applied, the currents of online information could push hard enough within the organic interactions there simply because there are so many of them occurring. Add to that, there never has existed a more toxic interconnected environment, full of distrust and the ability to find the answers they want to hear, than we have today. This is one of the greatest risks of the information age and one that cannot be mitigated very well without losing the far greater degree of benefits it provides.

But what is it that they (LAP) are reasoning this out as?

In fact, school shootings and children shooting children, though unspeakably horrific, account for just 2% of younger children’s gun homicides. No one talks about who really is murdering children. The answer and silence are deeply disturbing.

Ah, now we’re shifting back to familicide.

FBI tabulations of age of killer by age of victim show 77% of children younger than 12 murdered by guns were shot by grownups age 25 and older — a consistent pattern for at least 40 years. More children are shot by murderers over age 50 than under age 18.

Most of the few child murders that are occurring annually are by familicide. They always have been. When they aren’t, collateral damage is often the culprit as a child is killed as a consequence of unrelated criminal violence in proximity. We’re again weirdly bracketing age alone as a social circle that it isn’t.

These shootings are hardly hidden, as just a few stories from 2021-22 show (“Father fatally shoots five children”; “Father shoots son, 3, daughter, 5”; “ “Woman kills 2 young children, herself”; “Father fatally shoots 4 people, including his 3 children”; “Father shoots 2 young sons, killing 1”; “Father kills 2 children in murder-suicide”; “Man charged in deadly shooting of 6-year-old”; “Maryland father shoots family”; “Phoenix father shoots, kills family“; “Colorado gun shop owner suspected of killing 2 children”; “Gresham woman kills 2 young children, herself”; “Father fatally shoots 4 people, including his 3 children”; on and on). They’re just not the “gun violence” anyone wants to talk about.

For several reasons.

Domestic violence is ugly but doesn’t carry the social capital that a terroristic incident like Uvalde, the July 4th Parade, Mandalay Bay, Pulse, or Bataclan do. Domestic violence is ugly, but its motives are often too humanizing. Where a mass killer can be more easily called a monster and separated as ‘was not really one of us’, a stressed husband, wife, mother, or father is more easily understood even if vehemently abhorred.

And people, quite frankly, have shit to do. Worrying about the 1-in-a-million asshole who would kill their kids, actually the the subset of them who would dare do it with a gun instead of drowning, smothering, abandoning, blunt force, or any other of the myriad ways you can complete a familicide, is not high on everyone’s daily to-do’s. It isn’t. Outside of the few who are at high risk of domestic violence on the regular, this isn’t going to be a blip through anyone’s consciousness.

2021 and 2022, like 2020, are banner years for social and domestic distress, financial strains, and people believing that their little slice of the world is at its end. Divorce and domestic violence rates went up dramatically during the lockdown. Suicides went up.

Some people in that suicide rationale reach that personal ‘world’s end’ and act out violently, they won’t go alone. Some are caught before doing any real harm, some aren’t. Crushing despair and anger are hellacious and unpredictable motivators.

Facing the harsh reality of thousands of 30-aged and middle-aged Americans shooting children, mainly in homes, would completely upend an already vitriolic gun-policy quarrel. The one consensus angrily battling gun-control and gun-rights factions share is the “right” of nearly all adults to have at least some guns, especially in their homes.

Ohh, now this is clever. Terribly dishonest, but clever. They’ve taken over a decade of stats to point out that domestic violence familicide claims the lives of most murdered children, not mass killers of a more terroristic nature. But then make the spurious claim that this ‘fact’ would upend the gun debate? The fact that is somehow not upending the gun debate despite everyone knowing about it.

The premise LAP is forwarding is that ‘How dare we ever allow guns in homes when sometimes those guns will then be turned upon the family by a family member…’

Nobody has killed their family any other way, right?


Ah, never mind. Now it’s just claiming that death by firearm is somehow a worse death than other kinds of death… because firearm.

Classic anti-gunnery.

“This is not about taking away anyone’s guns,” President Joe Biden declared of modest gun-control proposals proposals that will absolutely take away guns and increase the ponderous nightmare of buying one. An adult can own “a dozen AR-15s” so long as he “prevent(s) his deadly weapons from falling into the hands of a child,” Cox insists.

Fixed again. Cox could not be reached on whether or not pools should be kept away from children with the same vehemence despite them being far deadlier.

The easily-discerned reality on who is shooting children renders this made-up consensus vital to sustaining Americans’ gun discourse both callous and insane. Americans’ megalomanic concept of “adult rights” enabled one 64-year-old legally to obtain weaponry capable of shooting more people in 15 minutes in Las Vegas than have been shot in all 131,000 American schools in four years. No proposed reform would have stopped him.

Correction, that right has enabled that theoretical ability of mass murder for hundreds of millions of people. One crazy person did so and was not stopped. The concept of ‘adult rights’ and privileges also enabled the renting of the vehicles that have killed and wounded thousands of people. Notable among those are Nice, France (86 Dead) and Oklahoma City (168 Dead) with Waukesha Wisconsin (6 dead) added on just for fun.

How dare we let this concept of “adult rights” kill nearly 40,000 people in 2020 alone! No proposed reforms would stop these needless deaths upon the roads.

See, I can do it too.

That simple, stark fact with cataclysmic implications for safety cannot be published in any mainstream media or by any gun-debate lobby (I’ve tried). It is too threatening to the fragile set of myths that dictate how we discuss guns.

What myths? How so? We’re using hyperbole to make a mountain out of a molehill and and the mortar used to this hold this farce together against scrutiny is the blood of children. Maybe your stark fact is lacking something facts need to work, context. A kid dead at the hands of their family member’s gun, or a terrorist’s, does not change the cold calculus of wider reality.

That reality is that this isn’t the problem you are making it out to be. The outrage over the murder of children and the just need to vilify, shame, and prosecute their murders doesn’t contrast against the far more lethal forces of negligence and ill fortune. Accidental injury kills kids the most. This doesn’t make murders less guilty of their actions, it just means the fault is that of the murderer and not societies efforts at large.

In truth, as long as the right of nearly every American adult to have a gun remains unassailable, Americans will continue to suffer hundreds of thousands of gun deaths every decade, including tens of thousands victimizing children.

Now its tens of thousands? Didn’t you say it was 2,401 the past decade?

Over the last decade, an appalling 2,401 American children under age 12 died by guns

Yes, you did.

I would once again like to propose the banning of pools, which we do not have “unassailable” rights to as they are recreational, and would save more children. No? Okay.

Wait! Let me have a stab at it this way.

In truth, as long as the right of nearly every American adult to buy alcohol remains unassailable, Americans will continue to suffer millions of deaths (not exaggerated, here’s the CDC) every decade, including tens of thousands victimizing children.

See, I can do it too. So let’s dust off ye olde prohibition right?

However, let us interpret the seemingly unconscionable silence by gun-control groups (whose researchers surely know the facts presented here) as charitably as possible. They know that challenging the court-upheld right of every American adult to “keep and bear arms” would jeopardize gun-control lobbies’ already difficult politics, rendering the modest reforms they propose (background checks on gun buyers, bans on assault weapons, holding gun makers liable for reckless marketing, and “red flag” laws to seize guns from openly disturbed owners) all but impossible to win against implacable gun-rights forces.

Let us be backhandedly charitable to the organizations trying to ‘reasonably’ crush a human right? As they fail to use our absurd perspective on these statistics? We’re talking about a gun controller’s perspective on absurd about another gun controller. Use this ‘evidence’ to advance an argument they are already losing on multiple fronts to cold facts? Why would this be unconscionable I wonder.

One strongly correlated regulation, safe storage, is already in place and widely popular. It is strongly encouraged by all parties in the debate, and is having the notably positive influences that it can. But unless we are proposing that making a rule imposes a physical reality, you’re not playing in the same ballpark they are and your opinions are not helping their already shaky cases.

At least the honesty about not believing the 2nd Amendment should be a right and that private firearms ownership is the problem you seek to solve isn’t masked behind the usual platitudes. That’s refreshing to read.

Research shows these modest reforms, even if they would barely dent America’s enormous gun toll, would do at least some good. They would marginally reduce domestic gun killings, especially those victimizing women, and gun suicides. Therefore, this thinking goes, it’s better not to raise unpalatable gun-violence realities in order to win some beneficial reforms.

Except those studies are suspect, as we keep pointing out with the RAND analysis on those gun control studies. What we have is the hope of positive outcomes from implementing any or all of these policies, which rely upon the compliance of the notoriously uncompliant. Politicos aren’t looking for marginal wins, they’ll take them if they get luck but they aren’t. They are looking to remain elected and ‘doing something’ about gun violence gives them political and actual capital to do that.

If that’s the rationale, gun-control lobbies should at least observe some basic honesty and stop defeating themselves with lies about schools, youth, and startling, positive trends, to be detailed in Part II.

Oh goodie, there’s a Part II.

Look, these realities aren’t unpalatable. They are grim, but they statistically outly and aren’t fixable by a policy. Short of the violence of outright confiscation we can’t make the unreasonable few start to reason. Even after a door to door confiscation we wouldn’t be out of firearms and we wouldn’t remove motive. We would undoubtedly have increased the body count though. It is of suspect moral high ground to consider the death toll and unconscionable violation of personal sovereignty fine to allegedly prevent other death. Because some death is more badder than other death, that seems to be the nonsense here.

It just goes to show, again, the anti-gunner is perfectly fine with violence, or more accurately ignoring the realities of violence, if it advances a policy they like. They will then quite inconsistently return to being ‘ACAB’ against the violence of the state, even the necessary violence for their policies, when it become politically convenient to do so.

Nobody is ignoring preventable child fatalities, with guns or otherwise, it is consistently in the public discussion. More importantly it is a topic of professional discussions too. What defeats arguments time and again is the false assertion that preventable death type A is somehow much worse than preventable death type B, especially when B is far greater than A. Another false assertion that remains popular is that with a simple ‘common sense’ proposal we can fix death type A, but then we will ignore the infeasibility and negative order effects of the policy outright because of the alleged morality of said policy. We also won’t discuss nearly as drastic of solutions for the far more lethal, but more socially acceptable, death type B. All this combines with the dishonesty of statistical distortion, rather than taking a look at a single year and meaningfully trying to put a number of improved prevented fatalities 1-to-1 with deaths in that year is another of your problems.

When anti-gunners get asked which deaths would be prevented they vaguely wave at the number and say ‘some, maybe, we have to do something you crazy gun nut’ instead of ‘I’m glad you asked, here are the deaths the policy might have prevented, the likelihood of prevention, and projected effects and societal impacts of implementing the policy’. We even read the admission above that their policies are ineffectual, but we should be implementing their policies, or ‘a’ policy vaguely hinted at.

Americans’ megalomanic concept of “adult rights” enabled one 64-year-old legally to obtain weaponry capable of shooting more people in 15 minutes in Las Vegas than have been shot in all 131,000 American schools in four years. No proposed reform would have stopped him.

Then, when challenged on the decidedly negative effects of gun control, like its blatant racism, anti-gunners will go through mental gymnastics as impressive as those shown in this piece to show that ‘aCchUalLy… being for arming the Black community (and empowering them as full members of society) is the real racism, you know they shoot each other way more often.’

Anti-gunners have never met a standard they would not double or inconvenient negative effects of their policies which they’ll ignore. If too much noise is made about the negative effect they will totally promise to amend the law with a biased policy via ‘criminal justice reform’ all in order to have their illogical but moralist position to stand on.


It took me months to get to this piece of Ph.D authored moronicism, but it is just the type of preachy ‘I am right and you are wrong, see my shiny doctorate for proof… no not actual proof, just spun statistical evidence I twisted, selectively left out, scaled absurdly in my favor without a significant reason, and I’ll call you a heartless bigot if you don’t agree with me’ that I expect.

Look, I am open to evidence. I have changed my opinions consistently when given proper evidence and reasoning on many social issues. But one of the consistent facets of swaying my opinions, and many I know, is strong evidence combined with taking my objections seriously.

Not a single policy from gun controllers can survive that scrutiny, those that push them do not want to have the policies dragged into the ugly light to showcase those failings and they do not want to take gun owner objections seriously. These policies were argued up without addressing their weaknesses, so highlighting weaknesses highlights the flawed and dishonest methodology that is crucial to actually advancing the proposal.

Gun control operates entirely on a premise that the societal willingness to be compliant will somehow control the noncompliant. Those noncompliant people, whose true weapon is their personal autonomy, not a gun, or a car, or even water, we are promised will reduce in number. That’s it, its just a promise. No logical scrutinized walkthrough on how that is supposed to occur.

Just trust the folks we will be told to distrust in 2 seconds as the political topic changes.

Gun control remains farcically stupid and a Ph D. doesn’t void that.

Keith Finch
Keith is the former Editor-in-Chief of GAT Marketing Agency, Inc. He got told there was a mountain of other things that needed doing, so he does those now and writes here when he can. editor@gatdaily.com A USMC Infantry Veteran and Small Arms and Artillery Technician, Keith covers the evolving training and technology from across the shooting industry. Teaching since 2009, he covers local concealed carry courses, intermediate and advanced rifle courses, handgun, red dot handgun, bullpups, AKs, and home defense courses for civilians, military client requests, and law enforcement client requests.