Deceit is central to the "gun control" movement
Ammo for the Gun Rights Debate

Most of the platforms of 'gun control' proponents are based on deceit, specious arguments, logical fallacies, and emotional hype. This must be exposed. Judgements should be based on on facts, not on emotional and especially not on intentionally deceptive rhetoric. Those employing such should be viewed with extra suspicion: If the facts decisively favored a given side, that side should not need to resort to lies to make its case. The "gun control" talking points are mostly lies or deceptions. Those who are gun-phobic or who are prejudiced about gun owners have a right to their bigotry ... but this does not justify the use of deception to accomplish their mission of destroying other's right to self-defense.

The first thing to do when trying to talk to an anti is to ask them, what, if anything, will cause them to abandon their support for gun control? What evidence would they accept that it is misguided? Naturally, convincing someone of something that won't change their mind anyway is a wasted effort.

"He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot, is a fool; and he who dares not, is a slave." -- Byron

This research is free to copy, free to forward. Comments arewelcome. Permission is hereby granted to use any part of it or all of it for any pro-rights purposes, and especially for pro-gun webpages or letters to the editor. The page is long - sorry about that. Download it and read it at your leisure later! Here are my PGP keys.

"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers, Director, Handgun Control, Inc. [Evidently, she thinks freedom of speech does not apply to asking questions.]

"We didn't spend enough money, and we didn't tell enough lies." [WRT the reasons Washington Safety First and Handgun Control Incorporated lost the WA State I-676 handgun control initiative] --Charles W. `The Needle' Pluckhahn; aka: "CWP" < >

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

Here is a typical "gun control" 'FACT':

The New England Journal of Medicine reported that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to cause the death of a family member or a friend than a criminal. The study concluded:

"The home can be a dangerous place. We noted 43 suicides, criminal homicides, or accidental gunshot deaths involving a gun kept in the home for every case of homicide for self-protection. In light of these findings, it may be reasonably asked whether keeping firearms in the home increases a family's protection or places it in greater danger."

"Torture data long enough, and it will confess to anything." -anon

"But since Kellermann and Reay considered only cases resulting indeath, which Gary Kleck's research indicates are a tiny percentage of defensive gun uses, this conclusion does not follow. As the researchers themselves conceded, "Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified." By leaving out such cases, Kellermann and Reay excluded almost all of the lives saved, injuries avoided, and property protected by keeping a gun in the home. Yet advocates of 'gun control' continue to use this study as the basis for claims such as, "A gun in the home is 43 times as likely to kill a family member as to be used in self-defense."

This "fact" is typical of the misleading propaganda produced by the "gun control" lobby. The methodology is flawed, and the results misleading and deceptive despite the technicality that the numbers themselves are "correct." (They are as correct as "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.")

Suicides are included. Accounting for some 55% of guns deaths nationwide, they account for fully 37 of the 43 deaths from "guns in the home," or 87% of the total! Blaming the guns for these deaths is dubious, because people can, will, and do kill themselves without guns. Curiously, when it comes to suicide, we don't see many comparisons with all those countries that so wisely keep guns out of people's hands -- maybe because old gun-crazy America wouldn't look so bad by comparison. In 1996, the suicide rate per 100,000 people was 11.8 in the U.S., 13.4 in Canada, 17.9 in Japan, 20.9 in France and 25 in Finland. Japan is essentially gun-free.

Furthermore, self-defense doesn't require killing. It makes no more sense to measure the effectiveness of guns in private hands by counting the number of dead bodies they produce as it does to measure the effectiveness of a police force solely by their annual body count.

Given this, do you still accept the 43-to-1 "fact?" Even the study's authors have backed off their claim. (It became 22 times more likely: Kellermannn A.L. Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home Journal of Trauma, vol. 45, no. 2, 1998, pp. 263-267. It then became "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost three times more likely to occur than in homes without guns.) Nevertheless, some "gun control" groups still report it as fact. For example, SLAM!theNRA does so on it's "firearms facts" page, by stating: "Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill someone you know than to kill in self-defense." (From: They make a call to action based in part on this fraud!

Besides those who simply repeat the frauds "without ill intent," which SLAM!theNRA could barely claim, there are other groups such as the Violence Policy Center, which continue to perpetrate new frauds in the same vein despite being called on them. They cannot claim "ignorance" or that "they got the information from other sources." Anyone who sort of vaguely supports the notion that guns are bad and should be controlled, should be educated on the deliberate deceptions perpetrated by the VPC and other such groups, and pressed to explain why they do it, and why anything those groups support should be accepted given their deceit.

Incidentally, by use of the same methodology, one can come up with other equally misleading, but pro-rights stats. The question is, how come we only hear about "43 times more likely" and never these?

Explanations of these numbers, and a further discussion of the 43-to-1 statistic, are from: More on 43-to-1:

Summary of Bad-Faith Arguments, Deceptions, and Distortions

The Stentorian: Attacking the lies of "gun control" proponents.

The "43-times more likely" abuse of statistics is typical of the lies put forth by the gun prohibition lobby. Well, maybe they're not lies. Maybe, as Clinton would say, they are "legally accurate ... but do not volunteer information." Remember that? "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." ... "That depends on what 'is' is."

But this abuse is not nearly the only offense against honesty coming from the gun prohibition lobby; Other arguments they make are equally deceptive or fraudulent. Some are made in bad faith: In answer to a certain problem, a certain solution is seriously proposed that cannot possibly fix the problem. Another kind of fraud is the deliberately deceptive (mis)use of words, and a third type is the use of fraudulent methodology employed in order to exaggerate the harm, or minimize the benefit, of guns. (43-to-1 fits in this section.) A fourth is the simple use of bogus arguments, illogical or rhetorical. A fifth section is governmental misinterpretations. Since the State acts with the force of law, their bad-faith arguments deserve a special section.

1. Bad Faith Arguments and Blatant Hypocrisy Solutions advanced to "solve" a problem that can't possibly be solved in the proposed way.

Licensing and registration

In response to the workplace shooting at a Xerox building in Hawaii, Clinton and others called for national gun registration and owner licensing. But in Hawaii, this is already law, and the licensed shooter used his registered gun to commit the massacre. Similarly, the Melrose Park, IL shooter at Navistar, Inc, was a convicted child molestor and yet had a firearms permit which, nevertheless, did not prompt authorities to confiscate his guns (let alone put him immediately in prison). Criminals are exempt from having to undergo licensing and registration! - since gun ownership is prohibited to criminals, and since registering constitutes admission of ownership, the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination "provides a full defense" to prosecution! In other words, Licensing and registration only applies to law-abiding citizens! Here is a list of arguments against, and rebuttals to arguments for, licensing and registration:

"Closing" the "gun show loophole"

The Brady Law: Background Checks and Waiting Periods

The Brady Bill was named in honor of Reagan's press secretary, James Brady, who was shot in the head, by mentally unstable attempted presidential assassin John W. Hinckley, Jr. The stated purpose of the "Brady" check and its mandatory waiting period was to keep people like Hinckley from being able to get guns, but under the provisions of the Brady bill, Hinckley would not have been denied, and he bought the gun he used more than the waiting period length prior to his assassination attempt. Thus, neither provision would have stopped the shooting.

Trigger locks

"Stricter" penalties

Because LA Police-Chief Bernard Parks's granddaughter Lori Gonzalez was killed in a gang-related shooting, the police chief has called for tighter restrictions on guns, and harsher penalties to be made available to people who commit crimes with guns. But the shooter is already eligible for the death penalty - and prosecutors haven't even decided whether they will seek it. How much stricter than the death penalty can we imagine going? Being Rosie O'Donut's live-in slave?

"Tighter" Handgun Regulations

In response to the spree shooting at the DC Zoo in which a handgun was used, the Violence Policy Center called for a ban on handguns. But handguns are already effectively banned in Washington DC - which even the Violence Policy Center already admits! ("Although the District of Columbia has had a ban on handgun sale and possession since 1976, Washington residents are held hostage by the lax gun laws of surrounding jurisdictions." - Josh Sugarmann. In that case, how come the gun death rates in these adjoining places, where the gun laws are lax, aren't even higher?)

Concealed carry

Gore, some PTAs and others are calling for a ban of carrying concealed weapons in schools and churches. This argument is even a rallying cry to defeat G.W. Bush, who signed legislation allowing it. But it is not the carry-permit holders who are committing the mass shootings in these locations.

Arrest rate of Washington, DC police officers:                        19    per 1000
Arrest rate of St. Louis police officers:                                    13    per 1000
Arrest rate of New York City police officers:                             3    per 1000
Arrest rate of Florida concealed handgun permit holders:   0.9 per 1000
(Source: "D.C. Police Paying for Hiring Binge" Washington Post 8/28/94; Memorandum by James T. Moore, Commissioner of Florida's Department of Law Enforcement, to office of the Governor, dated 3/15/95.)
Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers: Law-abiding Public Benefactors

When Florida passed shall-issue concealed carry, opponents said it would turn the Sunshine State into the "Gunshine State." It didn't happen. When Virginia passed shall-issue concealed carry, opponents said it would turn Virginia into "Virginia City." It didn't happen. When Texas passed shall-issue concealed carry, opponents said it would return Texas to the days of the Wild West. Didn't happen.

Quotes of Concealed carry converts:

Other relevant quotes:


  • "From a law enforcement perspective, the licensing process has not resulted in problems in the community from people arming themselves with concealed weapons." -- Commissioner James T. Moore, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Memo to the Governor, 3/15/95.
  • "To set the record straight... The process is working... The statistics show a majority of concealed firearms or firearm licensees are honest, law-abiding citizens exercising their right to be armed for the purpose of lawful self defense." -- Sandra B. Mortham, Florida Secretary of State.


  • "As we have seen in other states and had predicted would occur in Texas, all the fears of the naysayers have not come to fruition. A lot of critics argued that the law-abiding citizens couldn't be trusted... But the facts do speak for themselves. None of these horror stories have materialized." -- Sheriff David Williams, Tarrant County, TX, Fort Worth Telegram, 7/17/96.


  • "Virginia has not turned into Dodge City. We have not seen a problem." -- Virginia Public Safety Secretary Jerry Kilgore, The Fredricksburg Freelance Star, 2/2/96.


  • "Allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right to carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly." -- Professor John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, University of Chicago.
  • "The facts are in and the record is clear: Right to Carry gives law enforcement, their families and our communities real protection from violent criminals." -- James J. Fotis, Executive Director, Law Enforcement Alliance of America.


    (But in one sense, maybe they're right: only three (3) people died at the famous shootout at the OK Corral - and the reason it's famous is because, for the Wild West, that was a big number. ) Yet, they continue to fight against the introduction of CCW everywhere else. Where is the difference between a difference of opinion, and a record of being 100% wrong, every time - and still expecting to be taken serioulsy? Even astrologers and psychics sometimes have a prediction come true! But opponents of shall-issue conceal carry continue to say letting guns on the streets will result in mass death and destruction.

    "By getting rid of the guns, we will reduce crime!"

    Many gun prohibitionists claim to seek reduced crime rates (specifically, 'gun-violence' rates).

    "We need to hold gun makers responsible for negligent marketing of guns to criminals, who then use them in crimes."

    Lately it has been popular to sue gun makers for "the cost of gun violence" and "selling guns to criminals" by suing them for damages when one of their products is used in a crime. For example, an article Gun Maker Glock Sued, Sellers, Sued Over Pizza Hut Shooting "Civil suits like this are a very important supplement to our laws because they give gun sellers a very important financial incentive to act responsibly," said Dennis Henigan, who directs the Center [To Prevent Handgun Violence]'s legal action project. But the gun used in this crime was first sold to a police department as admitted in the same article. Thus, selling guns to police departments is evidently the sort of negligent, irresponsible behavior on Glock's part that these lawsuits are supposed to put a stop to.

    By the way, such lawsuits violate the separation of powers. In America, policy is to be written by legislators, and interpreted by the courts, but the tobacco litigation already completed and the gun litigation currently is an attempt to create public policy in the courts not in the legislature where it belongs.

    "Clinton is only trying to make our country safer by getting violent criminals off the streets!"

    Blatant Hypocrisy: Examples

  • "We must do more to reach out to our children and teach them to resolve conflicts with words, not weapons. ... Violence is wrong." - President Clinton, speaking of the Columbine massacre, while the US military was bombing Yugoslavia on his orders.

  • Million Moms For Vigilante Shootings, in Washington DC where handguns are banned.

    One Million Mom March member, Barbara Graham (Lipscomb, Martin), joined the MMM because her son was killed "by a gun." But the MMM fell short and she took the law into her own hands by shooting (with a handgun of course) the man, Kikko Smith, she thought killed her son. Police seized four guns, including a TEC-9 sub-machine gun, from her house. [Horrors! An arsenal!! And did she pay her $200 tax on the machine gun? And were they all registered as required by law in Washington DC?]

    By the way, the man she shot is paralyzed for life - and didn't kill her son. And other Million Moms are backing her at the trial(!) [For possessing illegal and even banned guns in Washington, DC? For shooting someone who she thought killed her son? For helping to reduce gun violence? Just what do the Million Moms support? Censorship and vandalism? Illegal lobbying by a tax-exempt organization?]

    She's been convicted (but this story conveniently neglects to remind the reader of her Million Mom affiliation):

  • Don't point any fingers ... except at guns!

    In response to a school shooting (at Carter G. Woodson Middle School in Central City, in New Orleans, 26 Sept 2000) in which two youths shot each other with the same gun, the Mayor advises that no fingers be pointed. Then he does so:

    I hope the community doesn't fall into the blame cycle that we love to engage in when we have a problem -- to blame the school system, or point a finger at all the parents, or ask what the police did or did not do," [Mayor Marc] Morial said. "We have a very serious underlying problem: Children have too easy access to weapons.

    Without a gun, this would have been a fight between a 13- and 15-year-old, a little pushing and shoving on the playground," he said.

  • Let's ignore drunk drivers and focus on guns... says a drunk driver.
    This week, figures supplied by Mothers Against Drunk Driving said drunken drivers killed 15,935 in 1998. Handgun Control, a Washington group that pushes gun control, said there were 12,102 homicides by firearms in 1998.

    Neither figure is heartening, but the drunks are outdoing the gunslingers when it comes to deadly violence.

    And that brings us back to ["First Monday" march organizer Helen] Ruch and a final surprise.

    Noting her view that it's not fair for children to feel unsafe because of guns, I asked her Thursday if she thinks it's also unfair that they feel unsafe because of the far more serious dangers from drunken drivers.

    "What does that have to do with anything?" she replied.

    I told her it has to do with her drunken driving charge.

    "I have no comment," she said.

    That's OK, because Lehigh County Court records commented plenty.

    They say Ruch was charged with public drunkenness (later dropped), driving under the influence, and improper "emerging onto roadway" in 1996. "Driver was given sobriety tests of balance and walking and failed all tests. Effects of alcohol were extreme," said an Allentown police report. The report said her breath test registered 0.162.

    The records say that in 1997, Ruch agreed to enter the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program. Typically, when ARD is successfully completed, DUI records can be expunged. Mirrors:

  • Rosie O'Donnel

    "I honestly think - and I am not an expert on the amendments - I think the only people in this nation who should be allowed to own guns are police officers. I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'sorry'. It is 1999, we have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun and if you do own a gun, I think you should go to prison." - Rosie O'Donnel, 21 Apr 1999.

    "There have been times, yes, when there has been -- only since April 21, when I became a vocal gun control advocate - there have been times when I have had armed people at my house, not inside my house, outside my house, to make sure that no one who's not supposed to get in the house, get in the house." - Rosie O'Donnel\Culture\archive\CUL20000601b.html

    (Image courtesy of Ironwill )

    Governmental Hypocrisy:

    All gun control laws are passed by our elected representatives, and signed by the the President. These laws disarm us, say, in national parks, in certain cities, or if we own certain types of firearms. However, these laws are crafted by people protected by armed guards (at the Capitol buildings), guards who have short-barrelled ("sawed-off"), silenced and fully-automatic rifles - each characteristic of which is a felony for us to own without special permission. Some who even hire or have assigned, personal bodyguards. Clinton always had a cadre of such bodyguards, armed with machine guns, and under the watchful eye of snipers posted atop buildings everywhere, all the time when he travels. In fact, after retirement presidents continue to enjoy 24 hour, 365 days/year Secret Service protection for years, no matter how many gun control laws disarming us he has signed. His daughter Chelsea has been assigned Secret Service protection for the duration of her Stanford education, another executive order by her dad. This is, of course, despite the "gun-free" schools act that ensure the rest of us can't use self-defense.

    "We've got to do more to stop gun violence."

    (These arguments address only the failure of gun prohibitions to reduce violent crime rates. This does not imply that even if such prohibitions did reduce crime, I would support them, since there is a value to having freedom even in the face of increased danger. These arguments are only to refute or rebut the argument that "we should 'do more' to reduce gun violence" - since even on its face what has been done so far isn't working.)

    In Schools:

    In Cities and States:

    Washington DC, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago, and until recently, New York City, have among the strictest "gun control" laws anywhere and the highest rates of violent crime anywhere. In Washington DC, the "murder capital of the US," the gun laws came first and then the murder rate started to climb.

    What will it take to admit the failure of "gun control?"

    What, if anything, does it take to finally prove that "gun control" is a failure? If there is nothing that will suffice, then the "gun control" position is essentially a dogma, being out of the rational sphere. In which case, our First Amendment right to be free from government-imposed religion should make it go away.

    2. Deceptive Use of Words

    "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803), letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776

    "That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Then-President Bill Clinton, under oath, at his deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit.

    "Assault Weapons"

    This term was coined in Nazi Germany to describe their new compact full-auto carbines, but then this term was borrowed by a gun-hater to intentionally mislead and deceive the public, namely, Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, who applies it to firearms which are not full-auto:

    "['Assault weapons'] menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." --Josh Sugarmann, executive director of New Right Watch, and spokesman for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America," policy report of New Right Watch and the Education Fund to End Handgun Violence, September 1988
    You can't get more decpetive than that - deliberate and admitted use of the public's confusion in order to advance an agenda. (N.B.: The Violence Policy Center is an "educational" tax-exempt organization. Do you think intentional deception should be grounds to revoke their tax-free status?)

    Note: The BATF calls semi-auto firearms "assault rifles" not "assault weapons" - they can't even bother to mislead as HCI does. They simply contradict the DOD.

    "The Centers for Disease Control reports that American children under 15 are 12 times more likely to die from gun violence than their peers in 25 other industrialized nations combined."

    Source: Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Childrenã26 Industrialized Countries, MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report), Vol. 46, No. 5, February 7, 1997, pp. 101-105. Key Statistics: The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 industrialized countries combined. The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other industrialized countries combined. [Emphasis added]

    The word "combined" suggests aggregate, as if, even if you add up the rates of all those other countries, the US still has such a higher rate. But this is misleading, which is made clear by example. If two cups of coffee each have a temperature of 150 degrees, the temperature of the two "combined" is still 150, not 300. If the murder rate in country A is 3 per 100,000 per year and in country B is also 3 in the same units, the rate in the countries, "combined" is also 3, not 6 - you don't add these either. The stat could be fairly represented as, the rate is 12 times higher than the average of the other 25 countries. But that doesn't have as much sway, and it isn't what they say. When anti-rights types use this statistic, listen for the pause before, and emphasis they place on, the word "combined." It is quite possible that they themselves don't realize that they don't understand what they're talking about. Ask them to clarify what it would mean for rates from various countries to be "combined." (Ask them what the combined temperatures of two cups of coffee would be!)

    "Common Sense" controls

    Gun control advocates claim they merely seek "common sense" or "reasonable" restrictions. "Responsible" gun "safety." If the gun control arguments are convincing, what about other, similar ones?

    For example, would you support laws requiring people to chew their food before they swallow it? After all, it's just common sense - and many people each year die from choking on their food. With such a law, survivors of food-chokings could be prosecuted!! Think of all the lives that would save!! On a similar note, how about these other causes?
    M.I.L.T.: Mothers Insisting on Licensed Tools.
    Sensible Fire Safety Now! - my speech to the Boulder City Council Firearms Hearing, in response to their proposed firearms ordinances.
    98% of felons use this!
    The killer among us.
    The Pen is Mightier than the Sword.
    Waiting periods for publishing - while the Government checks your facts.
    Easy Access to Unregulated Weapon is Killing our Children
    If these aren't convincing, why is "gun control" convincing?

    Maddening examples of "gun safety" at work:

    Futhermore, are these good examples of common sense?

    "OLDSMAR -- A fifth-grader was taken from Oldsmar Elementary School in handcuffs Wednesday after a teacher found drawings he had made of weapons, school officials said.

    "The 11-year-old, who is not being named because of his age, was not charged with a crime. ... "The children were in no danger at all. It involved no real weapons."

    "... The boy was handcuffed by campus police for his safety and not because the student was violent or out of control, said school district spokesman Ron Stone.

    "The typical procedure involves immediately notifying a campus police officer or a school resource officer, counselors and the student's parents to "assess the threat and work with the child," she said. [But the threat was already assessed above: The children were in no danger al all.]

    "... The classmates who turned in the student after seeing his drawings should be commended because that was the right thing to do, Schmitt said.

    "We just need to get it through kids' heads that there are certain things you don't say and there are certain things you don't draw," he said. [... because these things are thought crimes and the thought police will not tolerate them.]

    "The NRA is unwilling to compromise"

    Compromise means each side gives a little up to gain something else. But that's not what the gun prohibition lobbyists mean when they use it: If a robber broke into your house and wanted to steal your cash, jewelry, TV, and computer, it isn't a "compromise" if you negotiated with him to take only the cash and computer - that's still theft. It is surrender. It is capitulation. Yet, this is the misleading and deceptive sense with which the "gun control" forces use the word. They want to violate all gun rights, a bit at a time - and they complain to a willing mass media that the NRA fights them tooth and nail and is unwilling to "compromise" and settle for "only" half the rights violated. Anyone who uses this word in this context, or quotes such a use in a news story without criticism, is perpetrating a fraud.

    (Even so, the NRA has been too willing to surrender: The NRA brought us the Brady Registration checks, the "cop-killer" ammunition ban, and other such prohibitionist legislation.)

    Examples of real compromise would be, you can ban cheap "junk guns" if you also provide subsidies so that poor people can afford high-quality, but expensive, handguns that they wouldn't have otherwise been able to afford, or if you mandate magazine capacity limits in exchange for Vermont carry everywhere. That's compromise (even though both examples infringe rights). N.B. To learn about Vermont carry, here's a gun prohibition lobby site's map of CCW rights, courtesy of the CSGV.

    "We are not going to break new ground by being cautious," said [Nick] Pacheco, a former [Los Angeles] deputy district attorney. "If we have to tailor it down, that's fine. But we need to start out aggressively. If we don't then we aren't going to have any middle ground to fall back on." LA Daily News, 6 Mar 2001.

    "You've got to draw the line somewhere!" For example: "Nobody needs a 50 caliber rifle." (See immediately below.)

    Once upon a time, a congressman learned about .50 caliber target rifles. "Those guns are too big!" the congressman said, and so he introduced a bill in the Congress to outlaw them. But soon he found out that some people owned tiny little guns. "Those guns are too small!" the lawmaker warned, and he introduced another bill to outlaw them, too.

    This wouldn't be a case of drawing the line, that was already done in 1934. This would be a case of moving the line. In 1934, so-called "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, guns greater than 50 caliber with rifled barrels (with certain exceptions), silencers, and machine guns were banned from ordinary civilian possession. (National Firearms Act of 1934 - and never mind that silencers aren't firearms.) Current bills to ban the so-called 50 cal. "sniper" rifles, which can be lethal at 2,000 yards, are proposed on the basis of "you've got to draw the line somewhere." But this is a case of moving the line, not drawing it in the first place as they deceptively assert.

    If this bill passes, what's next? Once the precedent is set for moving the line, where will it stop? 338-378 Weatherby magnum, which are lethal at 1500 yards? Who needs that kind of firepower? 300 Winchester magnum, which are lethal at 1000 yards? Why would you ever want to kill someone that far away? 308 Winchester, which are lethal at 600 yards? 22 long rifle, which are lethal 200 yards? Who needs to kill anybody at that kind of distance? Pellet guns, which are lethal at 50 yards? Who needs that kind of firepower? A cast-iron skillet, which is lethal at 1 yard? I mean, you've got to draw the line somewhere!

    The line is already drawn - and noone who wants to move it mentions where they will finally stop.


    Gunfire is widely charged with killing 13 kids a day, though the latest statistics have revised that number down to 10. But this number includes people age 0-19, including legal adults 18-19. Most of the number is made up of 17-19 year old gang members killing each other - and sometimes being killed by police or even armed citizens.

    Here are some examples of the children, the kids killed by gunfire, and whose deaths add to the death toll which is then used as an emotional argument for why the right to armed self-defense should be even more restricted. Yes, these below number among the "13 kids killed every single day."

    Paradoxically, when 16-year-old "child" gang members commit murder, they are often charged as adults! Hence, they're "kids" only for the purpose of jerking your heartstrings, so many "children" killed each day.

    "Do it for the kids" is a website supporting "gun safety" (see below) - which includes this factoid for "kids" 10-24 killed by guns:


    But wait! By far the overwhelming majority of the "kids" killed each day by guns are inner city mid- and late-teenage drug dealers and gang bangers, killing each other over turf or to avenge previous killings - not what the photo would have you think:

    "These groups have been in conflict for a good part of the afternoon, going at one another. But it wasn't until they were put out of the zoo and they were standing on Connecticut Avenue, one group on the west side of the street, one on the east side, that they started throwing bottles back and forth, and then someone pulled a gun and then began firing at the crowd," said Ramsey.


    In this photo:

    Here is a bill that explicitly cites "10 kids a day are killed by handguns" - legislation based on deception - in order to use tax money for gun "buy backs" (another deception):

    We also hear how important it is to get guns out of the hands of children. Never mind that kids used to take 22 cal. rifles on the subway to school each day in New York City for use in rifle practice after school - and they never went berserk and shot crowds of people. But also:

    Most rape victims are under 21 -- US Justice Dept,
    - But - Women under 21 years old should not be allowed to own guns. -- Bill Bradley, Al Gore, and (duh!) Bill Clinton

    Care to rethink that one? Or are you pro-rape?

    More on "13 kids a day":

    If 13 kids a day were killed by guns, why does the media get so much mileage out of a single death, such as that of 6-year old Kayla Rolland who was shot in an elementary school in Mt. Morris Township, near Flint MI? What about the other 12 that day, and the 13 the previous day and the following?

    Using a more reasonable age for children of 0-14 years of age, 1.4 children, not including adolescents and young adults, are killed each by gunfire. Still a tragedy, but nowhere near the misleading 13-kids-a-day number cited by the rights-control lobby.
    What about this grave threat?

    See for yourself how many "kids" a day are killed by guns, and by other means. This is at the official Center for Disease Control website. Type in your own age ranges and causes of death: Another such calculator is brought to you by the gun prohibition group "Americans for Gun Safety" at this link: Notice that this calculator does not show the death rates for causes other than guns - guns are merely listed as "the fourth leading cause of death," for example, but it does not show by how much the other causes exceed guns.

    "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty." -- Benjamin Franklin

    Gun ownership and delinquency

    The nominal reason for background checks is "to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children." Is arming children a bad thing, empirically? Maybe not: Want to reduce teen delinquency? Give your kid a gun! Think this is crazy? Read the following which was developed based on U.S. Government collected and published data:

    Adolescent ownership and use of firearms is a growing concern, and results from the Rochester study suggest the concern is well founded. By the ninth and tenth grades, more boys own illegal guns (7 percent) than own legal guns (3 percent). Of the boys who own illegal guns, about half of the whites and African-Americans and nearly 90 percent of the Hispanics carry them on a regular basis. Figure 13 shows a very strong relationship between owning illegal guns and delinquency and drug use. Seventy-four percent of the illegal gun owners commit street crimes, 24 percent commit gun crimes, and 41 percent use drugs.

    Boys who own legal firearms, however, have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns. The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal gun owners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gun owners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gun owners, it appears to take place on the street.

    "For The Children"

    This classical bit of demagoguery is quite popular with the gun prohibitionists, because it implies that anyone who would disagree is "against the children." In fact, the bigoted Million Moms explicitly state as much when quoting their canned line, "We love our children more than they love their guns" as if gun owners do not also love their children.

    There are many ways in which this line falls short:

    "It's beyond time that Congress finally passed meaningful "gun control" legislation."

    This phrase is used in a manner to suggest that present controls - some 20,000 gun laws already on the books - aren't meaningful. If that were truly the case, then there should be no opposition to repealing all of it until some meaningful legislation is finally proposed. However, the fact that current "gun control" laws are tenaciously guarded indicates the gun prohibitionists hold them to be vitally important - exposing their use of "finally...meaningful" to be deceitful.

    Here is a typical example: You can see that the word "meaningful" has some special importance at Join Together, at least - look at all the stories they have which include it. In contrast, only two stories have the word "meaningless" in them; one quotes a pro-gun speaker, the other, regards the opinion of the Firearms Owner Protection Act, which is nominally pro-rights.

    "Gun-free" "safe" zones

    Wouldn't it be nice if your kid could go to a school where guns couldn't exist. A "gun-free" zone. Then there would be zero risk of a school shooting of any kind. Right? Federal law prohibits possession of guns on school grounds, with certain exceptions for police and for carry-permit holders. But wait!! That law was in place when Harris and Klebold shot up Columbine High School!! They were willing to break a gun control law in order to commit mass murder! (Imagine the nerve!) That particular "gun-free" "safe" zone only assured that the victims would be disarmed and defenseless. Even the SWAT team, equipped with automatic weapons and wearing body armor, was afraid to go in while the killers were still shooting and didn't enter until every i was dotted and every t crossed. If guns made a zone "unsafe" then how come NRA conventions and gun shows don't have rampant killings? After all, those places are just full of guns!! Answer: Because criminals aren't stupid. They don't follow laws, and they don't want to be stopped from doing what they have decided to do - even if it involves suicide. They want to go on their terms and don't want anybody else to shoot back. Presto! "Gun-free" zones are just perfect for their needs! A captive audience where noone can shoot back. It is not necessary to arm all teachers or even any teachers for this to be effectively halted: simply stating that teachers may be carrying firearms will give pause to psychotic killers expecting no resistance. They will then have an incentive to go elsewhere - a different school or church that is still a "gun-free" "safe" zone.

    Gun "safety"

    "Americans for Gun Safety" is a group which uses "safety" in this deceptive way, but also employs deceptive use of words throughout their glossary of gun terms.

    Hint: Where is the gun pointing? (Images from here and here.)

    Examples of how gun "safety" kills innocent people

    It is fraudulent and Orwellian to use examples of killings that happen in gun-controlled places as a reason to further restrict gun ownership elsewhere, or to use examples of criminals shooting people as a reason to futher restrict gun ownership amongst non-criminals. It is like citing the death statistics of drunk driving as the reason to deny cars to non-drinkers, or to deny drinks to non-drivers, or like banning toothbrushes since, after all, prisoners sharpen them and use them as weapons.

    "Gun control"

    The very term is deceptive: "gun control" laws don't control guns at all, they control gun owners; this is why I use the term "gun control" in quotes throughout this site - it's deceptive on its face. Gun control, without quotes, means hitting your target. Having to be fingerprinted, or have your picture taken, or only being allowed to own a certain type of firearm upon passing a certain test, or being forced to pay a fee, or being denied certain rights within city limits, or being denied the ability to buy another one within a month, or being forced to lock it up at home so it is useless to defend you, is a control of people, not of guns. Additionally, "control" sounds peaceful, the opposite of "out of control" but some gun banners equate "control" with a complete ban, extermination, sort of like "pest control" - another deception on their part.

    "Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." -- Sammy "The Bull" Gravano

    The gun show "loophole"

    There is no such loophole. The laws are the same at gun shows as everywhere else, namely, licensed dealers must conduct background registration checks, but private sellers do not. The media, and Clinton like to say that gun shows are places where criminals are allowed to buy guns, bypassing the background checks needed at gun stores. But this is a lie: criminals aren't presently allowed to buy guns at gun shows because they aren't allowed to buy guns anywhere, ever. They aren't allowed to buy them in the black market, either - just like nobody is allowed to buy heroin: it's completely illegal. Furthermore, "closing the loophole" is sold to the public as, if it were done, criminals wouldn't be able to buy guns except on the black market. But even this is a lie: private sales advertised through the newspapers would still be permitted erven if the "gun show loophole" bill were to be signed into law - meaning, there would still be a source of guns for criminals anyway. In other words, the proposed laws can't do what they promise. After the so-called "gun show loophole" bill passes into law, if it does, there will then be calls to close the "newspaper ad loophole" or "private sale loophole." Then, all firearms transactions will be registered with the government - but the black market will still exist. Finally, there will be the "private ownership loophole" - all transactions will already be registered with the government, but individual ownership will not be registered. When this remaining "loophole" is closed it there will be full gun registration in America. Next stop: Confiscation. (See: England, Australia, Nazi Germany, Canada, California, New York City...) Here is a summary of registrations turning to confiscations. (At the end.)

    "Handgun" Control Inc., Stop "Handgun" Violence.

    If this rights-killing organization could stay true to its name, it would restrict itself to worrying about handguns. But it doesn't: it seeks to ban rifles and shotguns as well. However, the organization doesn't have the decency to change its name to a more honest one. "Gun Prohibition Inc." just wouldn't sell, I suppose. (To be fair, the National Rifle Association cares about more than rifles, too. But it hasn't changed its name since it was founded - but Handgun Control Inc. has recently changed its name: it used to be "The National Coalition to Ban Handguns." But that name was a bit too honest, even if it was also wrong.)


    "In the aftermath of the Wakefield, Massachusetts shooting in which seven people were killed by a gunman with an AK47 assault rifle and assorted other weapons, we are calling for an immediate renewed effort on the part of Governor Cellucci and the legislature to finally close this deadly assault weapons loophole." stated John Rosenthal, founder and Chairman of Stop Handgun Violence.
    ... except that AK-47s are not handguns. (And what is the deadly loophole? That people may possess AK-47s? As in, keep and bear arms?)

    The "gun violence" epidemic

    Doctors are trying to elbow their way into the gun control debate. Do they belong?
    Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? ... A long scholarly article with hundreds of references.
    Guns don't kill people, doctors do British doctor Harold Shipman "probably killed 236 of his patients" by giving overdoses of heroin (diamorphine) to elderly patients in his care. Can you imagine the news coverage if someone went into a retirement home and killed 236 people with a gun? Instead, this story is hardly news.

    Gun "buy-backs"

    This phrase is employed when the police purchase guns from anyone would would prefer $50 to a functional gun. So, the police act a fence for stolen guns, and never return them to their rightful owner but rather destroy them. But the phrase itself subtly implies that the State is the owner of all weapons: they are not bought by the police, they are bought back - as if they came from the police in the first place. Which is a lie.

    Here is a bill that cites a number of these deceptions, like "10 kids a day are killed by handguns," in order to use tax money for gun "buy backs" (another deception):

    "Cop-killer" bullets

    "Cop-killer" bullets? More like Cop-Killer Propaganda - brought to you by HCI who find it more important to violate your rights than to save the lives of officers - but not yours nor mine.

    Handgun Control Inc. came up with term to describe some types of so-called armor-piercing ammunition out of the "concern" that police officers, who always wear ballistic armor, could be killed by criminals using this type of ammo.
    Never mind that

    Colorado is the Ground Zero of the 'Gun Control' Debate

    The Million Moms have decided to define Colorado as the ground zero for the 'gun control' debate as a result of the Columbine massacre. However, leaflets advise attendees of their functions not to debate the opposition who may be there in protest, and their officers have a policy not to accept invitations from the pro-rights side to publicly debate the issues. It's hypocritical how much mileage the Left gets from Bush's unwillingness to debate, while the Million Moms go them one further and the media goes along.

    "The Million Mom March"

    All three words are lies!

    "The Million Moms, a groundswell of grassroots activism."

    They were founded by Donna Dees-Thomases, billed as "just an ordinary" or "regular" mom who is actually Dan Rather's publicist and also the sister of Hillary Clinton lawyer and confidante Susan Thomases. Unlike the MADD founders, she didn't lose any children to gun deaths. This is a regular mom?

    Furthermore, the attendance claims of the Mother's day demonstration are grossly exaggerated; the media said 750,000 attendees. The Washington Post said it was the largest gathering ever in recent memory on the mall. Judge for yourself:

    Trigger "locks" make guns "safer" - so they should be mandated

    Gun "DNA" and ballistic "fingerprinting"

    Fingerprints and DNA are useful to forensic scientists since they are more-or-less unique signatures connecting a certain person to a crime. It would be nice to do this with guns, except fingerprints hardly change (and when polished off, they grow back), and DNA essentially never does. But it's easy to change the markings a gun imparts to cases or to bullets... even when the latter are recovered from a crime scene. Changing or abrading the barrel, firing pin, chamber, or extractor, which takes only a few minutes, permanently alters the markings the gun will impart. The old markings do not grow back. Programs to catalog every bullet and case imprint, from every gun, is an expensive boondoggle that is very much easier to defeat than fingerprints or DNA is in ordinary crimes, which won't have much effect in solving crimes - but which does amount to backdoor gun registration because the government will need lists of all the guns out there to match up with the "fingerprints."

    Background Checks

    As currently done, so-called background checks also record the make, model and serial number of the gun(s) sold to the successful checkee, and these records must be retained for 20 years, can be inspected by officers at any time for any reason, and must be surrendered to the BATF if the FFL holder dies or goes out of business. (Louis "Sandy" Javelle was one of the victims at the Wakefield massacre - and an FFL holder.) What gun is bought has nothing to do with whether chekee has a clean background. Thus, the checks are also firearms registration.

    3. Twisted Numbers and Deceptive Methods and Studies

    "A Gun in the Home is 43 Times More Likely to Kill Friend Or Family than an Intruder"

    This one is so blatant it's the intro to this webpage. If you get nothing else from this page, please understand from this statistic alone how creatively the gun prohibition side is willing to frame a question in order to arrive at a desired but deceptive result.

    13 12 11 10 "Kids" a Day

    As already mentioned, gunfire is charged with killing 10 "kids" a day - a number which includes people age 0-19, including legal adults 18-19. Most of the number is made up of 17-19 year old gang members killing each other. Here is an example of a child killed by handgun violence, according the them: If one considers "kids" to be "children" - before adolescence, say, 0-14, then gunfire of all types kills 1.7 kids a day. (The number keeps dropping, since crime rates have been falling for some time, but that doesn't keep the media from making it seem like there's an epidemic raging.)
    This topic is considered in greater depth below.

    The "cost" of gun violence to society

    Articles have appeared that speak about "the cost of firearm violence to society." It's a simple propostition: add up all the medical bills incurred treating gunshot victims, and there you go. You can even add funeral bills, unemployment and disability compensation (or "lost wages"), and so on. But this is a bogus argument for a variety of reasons:

    More on The Cost Of Gun Violence

    Studies like to point out how much guns "cost society." But this number is meaningless in the absence of context. Here is a typical example:

    Shooting in the dark: estimating the cost of firearm injuries. Health Aff (Millwood) 1993 Winter;12(4):171-85
    Costs of gunshot and cut/stab wounds in the United States, with some Canadian comparisons. Accid Anal Prev 1997 May;29(3):329-41

    These studies tend to add up all the lost income, the hospital bills, etc and portray the sum as the "cost of gun violence." But this analysis is disingenuous for a number of reasons. First, some of the gunshots are criminals being shot by police - to blame this on "gun violence" is outrageous. Similarly, lawful self-defensive shootings and gun suicides and attempted suicides also do not represent a "cost:" in the absence of self-defense shootings, armed victims would become dead victims, and suicides which choose guns would not simply stop trying if guns were unavailable. (What is the cost of belt and rope violence to society?) Finally, lives are saved, injuries are averted, and property is saved because a lawful citizen used a gun to defend his life or property. But this "benefit of guns to society" is never deducted from the "cost."

    For example, one proposal to reflect the "cost of gun violence" back to gun owners is a mandatory socialization of that cost in the way of firearms insurance. Basically, the idea being that you can own whatever guns you wnat, but you must buy insurance which covers that gun's fraction of the "total cost of gun violence," thus, there would be a free-market incentive to have fewer, or less dangerous, guns. But here the fallacy is again that benefits are not counted; gun owners would collectively, pay for all the "costs" of firearms violence, but they would not also be credited for the value of property protected, crimes stopped, or criminals killed (besides the obvious objection against socialism, common to mandatory car insurance, that people are forced to pay for a cost which they do not incur).

    The net value of private firearm ownership - the dollar savings from defensive gun use, minus the costs of "gun-violence" - has been estimated at up to $38.9 billion, annually. (National Center for Policy Analysis, March 1999) Source: How many defensive gun uses have occurred so far this year? This many. Here's the story of serial rapist Anthony Peralez stopped - but not killed - by a civilian firear being wielded by Jean Zamarripa, a 72-year-old grandmother:

    The police kill and wound people ... but there is no comparison to the "cost of police protection to society" counting medical expenses incurred by victims of police. Nobody studies the "cost of car violence" including all the drunk driving casualties. There is no "cost of kitchen violence" collecting kitchen accidents, stabbings, scaldings, burnings, let alone heart disease caused by fatty foods prepared in these killer kitchens, nor "cost of rope violence" studies adding up the hospital bills of attempted suicides, and the lost income of successful suicides. The "cost of gun violence" is presented in a vacuum, and it sure looks like a high number. Want a laugh? Calculate the "cost of Department of Justice Violence" by seeing how much wealth Janet Reno erased from the US stock market by suing Microsoft for antitrust violations. Compare that number to even the worst "cost of gun violence" number you can find.

    "In 1997, gunshots caused 31,636 fatal injuries and approximately 100,000 nonfatal injuries in the United States. In addition to the enormous human toll of gun violence, the cost of treating these injuries imposes a financial burden on society. While measuring medical costs is not as straightforward as counting the number of victims, valid cost estimates are important for at least 2 reasons. First, such estimates are relevant to evaluating gun violence-reduction programs. Second, reliable estimates for the financial burden that gun violence imposes on the medical care system may help guide reimbursement policies. ..."
    But wait! Later, they admit:
    "Our study's most important potential limitation concerns the lifetime medical costs for treating gunshot injuries resulting in permanent disability, which account for a large share of total medical costs."
    Let's see now: If the purpose of this study is to evaluate gun-violence cost reduction programs, is one to infer it becomes a goal to ensure that people die as opposed to survive gunshot injuries as the latter are responsible for a large share of the medical costs? I guess it's just common sense!

    Needless to say, it's highly ironic that the medical profession, as represented by the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Center for Disease Control all spout the need for more "gun control" - while doctors, medical misadventures, and the American health care system as a whole cause more deaths and cost the society more money than guns do by a wide margin. Pot calling the kettle black?

    "A gun at home nearly triples the risk of murder."

    This results from another fraudulent "study" by Kellerman. He looked at houses in which homicides occurred, matched them with "control" households having the same age, race, and income levels, and then looked at how often the deceased households had guns compared to the control households. The ratio was 2.7:1. But the methodology is flawed: to see whether gun ownership increased risk of murder, he should have looked at gun owners vs. non-gun owners, and then looked at the murder rates for the two groups. Instead, he looked at murders, and saw how often the deceased people owned guns. The study confuses correlation for causation, a logical fallacy. In response to objections, Kellerman states: "If a gun in the home affords substantial protection from homicide ... we should have found that homes in which a homicide occurred were less likely to contain a gun than similar households in which a homicide did not occur. The opposite was true." (!!) He is wrong: "If chemotherapy affords substantial protection from cancer we should have found that homes in which a concer death occurred were less likely to have had chemotherapy than similar households in which cancer deaths did not occur." There is some more explanation of this point in this talk.

    Still, here is a bill that explicitly cites "a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide" - legislation based on deception - in order to use tax money for gun "buy backs" (another deception):

    "A gun in the home increases risk of suicide by a factor of 57."

    The suicide rates of people who had recently purchased a gun were compared to those with long-standing gun ownership and with non-gun owners. The "study" found a 57-fold risk suicide risk increase for recent-purchase group, a risk that lingers for several years. But the "study" neglected to admit that some suicides may have bought the gun for that purpose, and it also fails to account for correlations such as, a personal event or condition possibly being the same thing that both caused someone to buy a gun and also to commit suicide. For example, it noted that the suicides were more likely to be in possession of drugs than the control groups - but it does not also conclude that drug use increases the chance for suicide. This "study" is a fraud.

    "In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 101 women were murdered with a handgun." ... "In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense, 83 woman were murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun." ... "In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense, 302 woman were murdered with a handgun."

    These stats are churned out by The Violence Policy Center (VPC) and share the same logical fallacy as the "gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill friend or family than an unknown intruder" stat, namely, that it compares body counts only with body counts only, ignoring the protective benefit of handguns in >98% of the cases in which a criminal flees without being shot dead. These cases amount to the real protection of the women in question, but they are not counted in fraudulent studies such as this one. A physicians group has come out and slammed this particular VPC report: (In light of the VPC's insistence on using such fraudulent rhetoric, their motives must flatly be called in question: What could possibly be compelling these people to continue to perpetrate such deceptions? Futhermore, anyone who supports gun control should be questioned about support from groups like the VPC and HCI, and relentlessly so if they quote any of the "statistics" from such groups: Why do they rely on the "research" of groups that are easily provable to be fraudulent? And, would they be willing to consider the possibility that they themselves have been misled by the likes of the VPC and HCI, and reconsider their support for gun control in light of this fact?)

    "The reason for all the school shootings is because of increased access to guns."

    There are more gun laws today than ever before, yet mass school shootings are a recent phenomenon. For example, until the late '60s many kids took .22 rifles to school in order to have them for practice after school let out. They would check them in in the morning and get them back when the left. Somehow, these kids did not shoot the schools up.

    What goes unmentioned is the medication of school children and other perpetrators of outburst killings.

    A host of psychiatric drugs -- Paxil, Ritalin, Prozac and Zoloft -- provided the easy solution to teen suicide. In the absence of parents and teachers who care, today's suburban teens can pharmaceutically control their feelings. But, at what price? Teen suicides may have declined, but, it seems that these medications have helped some teens externalize their depression, erupting in rage.

    A few years ago, an Escondido teen-ager on Paxil stabbed his step-grandmother over 50 times. A year later, a medicated young man in Vista brutally stabbed his parents, his grandparents and his little sister. He set fire to the house and drove away in the family's Mercedes. Columbine shooter Eric Harris had been on similar medication. "

    Other bogus studies:

    Duggins study: higher gun ownership, as proxied by magazine subscriptions, leads to higher crime rates. Discussion and refutation:

    Arming America: The Origins of the National Gun Culture, by Michael Bellesiles, claims that guns were quite rare in the Founder's time and that the notion of widespread gun ownership is a myth. But it appears that Bellesiles misrepresented his sources:

    4. Bogus Rhetoric and Outright Lies

    Arguments relating to "benign" 'gun control' vs. gun owner "paranoia," confiscation, etc.

    "Noone is trying to take your guns away - we just want reasonable 'gun control'."

    Clintonian Parsing Alert: They are not trying to take guns away, they are trying to pass laws which would empower the police to come take them away.

    Never mind the parsing, they are simply lying; let's just quote them:

    A Million "Mom" at the capitol building in Denver, Mother's day 2001.

    Government Officials:

    Public Figures:

    Other quotes that confirm bans and confiscations are actually the goal.

    Cases of gun confiscations - It's already here!

    Here's a challenge to anyone who makes this argument: If confiscations "will never happen," ask what they are willing to pledge as insurance in case it does. Meteorites hardly ever kill people, which means insurance companies can provide "meteorite coverage" for a very small premium, even if the payout is huge, because from an actuarial standpoint claims will be rare. If confiscations "will never happen" as some people promise, they should be willing to pledge a million dollars, say, per gun, accessory, or round of ammunition at risk to being confisacted, or even pledge their lives (since you will be losing your means of self-defense) or even their children's lives (since your own children will also be being denied inheiriting their means of self-defense) in the event a confiscation happens after all. If they are unwilling to pledge anything against confiscation, it implies they don't really believe confiscations will never happen. If confiscations will never happen, then they have nothing to worry about! (Sound familiar?)

    "Gun owners are paranoid for thinking that each modest measure is one step closer to confiscation."

    As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." - Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

    The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 100,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.

    Again rather than arguing, I will simply quote them:

    Again, ask them what they personally are willing to pledge should confiscations later come. The can be very, very high since they are arguing gun owners are "just being paranoid" for fearing confiscation. If they were right, they would never have to pay.

    I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison (1751-1836)

    Other quotes that confirm that incrementalism is an intentional strategy, just as gun owners fear.

    Other quotes that confirm use of incrementalism needs to be concealed from the general public - just as gun owners fear.

    The Wild and Free Pigs of the Okefenokee Swamp - an allegory of liberty and incrementalism.

    "There are 200,000,000 million guns and 70,000,000 gun owners. It just isn't possible to take them all away, so what are you worried about?"

    "The confiscation of a country's arms starts with a single cartridge." - Chinese proverb (adapted).

    There are already examples of confiscations, and methods to get more.

    "But, we just want to treat guns like cars - licensing, registration, etc."

    They are lying.

    Suppose that those suggesting treating guns like cars were actually being honest. What would it mean?
    Since this is clearly not what they mean, they are lying.

    "But, licensing, registration, and background checks will still preserve the rights of the law-abiding to arm themselves."

    False. A right is what you can do without asking anyone permission to do it. You have the right to breathe - you don't have to ask anybody if it's ok, and you don't need a license. This is what a right is. If you, personally, had the right to remain alive - the right of self-defense then you would also need no permission, no license, to fend off a life-threatening attack. If you had the right to keep and bear arms then again you need no permission to do so, not in the form of licenses, and not in the form of background checks. ("Am I ok, officer?") When you need to ask permission, they can say no, and if there's a fee and you can't afford it, it's an automatic no. Since these things deny rights, the argument "noone is trying to take away your right" a bogus, bad-faith deception. (N.B. Do not think from this that I think criminals should be armed: known violent people belong in jail, and shouldn't be released until they have paid their debt to society. And when they have, free them.)

    Quote confirming that preservation of the rights of "ordinary Americans" is not the goal of victim disarmament advocates. (Also, quotes claiming that you have rights which you do not.)

    More on Background Checks:

    But, what could be wrong with background checks?

    Background checks operate from the presumption of guilt. Contrary to a fundamental underpinning of US law, "innocent until proven guilty," background checks presume you are guilty until you can prove your innocence (by "passing" a check). All gun purchasers must be presumed to be "prohibited persons" until demonstrating otherwise. This is offensive and illegal.

    Furthermore, the background check violates the Fourth Amendment protection against search without a warrant. In order to check your criminal record, say, at a trial where you are accused of other crimes (to see what your history is) the prosecution needs to get a warrant, signed by a judge, to look into your criminal record. But the background check requires at least looking at a summary of it (go/no go) without any warrant.

    Background checks also turn a right into a privilege: If you have to ask the government for its permission to do something, it isn't a right. And if the government's computers are down, the privilege is denied. Sorry about that. Isn't it a strange coincidence that the NICS (National Insta-Check System) went down a couple days before Mother's Day - when the MMM was having their march - and it stayed down for nearly three days? If all firearms transactions have to go through the check, all legal firearms transactions can be shut down by the flick of a switch by the government.

    Furthermore, background checks are backdoor registration: doing the check is prima faci evidence that the person intends to buy a gun, and it can be assumed that those who have passed it have bought a gun. Though the government doesn't necessarily immediately learn what each person bought, when the gun dealer goes out of business, or when he is raided, the federal government seizes the firearms transfer records... which do contain the make, model, and serial number of the gun(s) bought by the person in question. What could be wrong with registration? Here are my objcetions to registration.

    There are ways to conduct background checks which do not amount to registration, and cannot be used for registration. For example, why do FFLs have to write down the make, model, and serial number of the gun a successful checkee has just purchased (for later surrender of this information to the government)? Or, FFLs could download the entire database of prohibited possessors, and conduct the check at the store, without informing the government of the identity of people who pass. It would even be possible to use encryption to protect privacy, or to inform the government when a prohibited person (but not a lawful person) attempts a purchase, allowing law-enforcement interception of the prohibited purchaser (if that should ever happen to become a priority). Or, all people and not just gun buyers could be subjected to the offensive, privacy invading process of a background check when they, say, apply for a driver's license. Those who are "approved" could then merely show their approved-license at a gun store and buy guns without any additional check - and without informing the government of what they are buying. But no green stamp on the license, no admission to gun stores or gun shows.

    The fact that these alternative, non-registering proposals are never acceptable to the government is powerful evidence that firearms registration is actually a goal of the "background check" despite assurances that it is merely to keep guns out of the hands of criminals which they can't do anyway given criminal sources of firearms from theft, the black market, and homemade 'zip' guns. Breaking: There is now a serious proposal to disconnect registration from the background check, the Blind Identificaion Database System (BIDS). Needless to say the feds and states both prefer the Nationl Insta-Check System (NICS), which is current and which does register firearms transfers. More on BIDS:

    When will this start to happen?

    "It's illegal for any one who is mentally disturbed to own a gun.
    Anyone who wants to own a gun is mentally disturbed.
    Therefore, it's illegal for anyone to own a gun."

    Put it another way: What mechanisms are presently in place to ensure that the above scenario can never happen?
    Answer: None. In fact, elements of this strategy may already be in place:

    Here's an analogy:

    Law abiding citizens don't like being treated as criminals by the government, or anyone else.

    Of course I'm going to pass a criminal background check. It's offensive that my government is going to assume, with no reason given, that I'm a criminal for exercising a constitutionally protected right.

    Pretend there was a department store in town, and every time you wanted to leave the premises, you had to first be patted down by a security guard. It's a bit of an inconvenience, but it stops shoplifters and as long as you're not stealing anything, you have nothing to worry about.

    Would you resent being treated like this?

    Would you continue to shop there?

    Now pretend that the government set up a urinalysis machine in your bathroom. Every time you took a leak, if it detected any illegal substances in your urine, it would lock the bathroom door and automatically call the police. But as long as you're drug free, the machine will let you piss in peace.

    Would you object to one of these being installed in your house?

    Now, let's fine tune the first example to more closely resemble the gun situation.

    Back to the department store example. Pretend in addition to the exit with a security guard to pat everyone down, there was also another door in the back. It had a big sign "DO NOT EXIT WITH THIS DOOR, ALARM WILL SOUND, VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED."

    But 364 days a year, the alarm was disabled. Shoplifters used this door to avoid being searched by the security guard at the legit exit. A few of them were caught every year on the one day the alarm was activated, but 99.7% of them got away clean. The security guard patting shoppers down at the legit exit only caught the shoplifters who were too stupid to know about the back door. But of those shoplifters he caught, he only called the police on about one in a thousand. The other 999 had to go put the merchandise they were trying to steal back on the shelf. 995 of these would instead leave via the back door.

    Now how do you feel about being patted down by the security guard to see if you're shoplifting?

    Now how do you feel about background checks on guns?

    "Well, background registration checks are still a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of criminals."

    Quotes that admit the goal of gun control is not about reducing crime, but about disarming private citizens.

    Registration, Licensing, and Confiscation

    Registration lists will never be used for confiscation? It's already happened in the States in New York City and in California.

    Criminals are already exempt from registration; thus law-abiding people are the only ones to fall under any gun registration law. Now, how does a law that affects law-abiding people, but exempts criminals, supposed toreduce crime?

    The licensing/registration criminal gun use trap:

    These are my objections to licensing and registration, including examples of registration turning to confiscation.

    Gun owners are soundly rebuked in the mass media for thinking that each little step proposed in the name of "safety" will - or even, could possibly - be used for the eventual confiscation of all weapons. Let's take the gun controllers at their word: Hear them speak.

    "We don't want to/will not be taking away any rights of law-abiding citizens, we just want reasonable gun-safety measures."

    This is a blatant lie. "A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others." - Fulton Huxtable. The stated goals of the Million Mom March and other organizations is to prohibit: carry permits (bearing arms), private sales (which turns a right into a privilege by requiring governmental permission to transact firearms), gun shows ("tupperware parties for criminals,") firearm gifts ("straw sales"), inexpensive handguns ("Niggertown Saturday night specials"), AP ammo ("cop-killer bullets"), full("high")-capacity magazines, 50 cal. rifles ("military sniper rifles"), military-style "assault weapons," 18-20 year-old gun owners ("kids with guns,") licensed gun dealers who lack a storefront ("kitchen table dealers"), ready access to defensive firearms at home ("safe storage requirements"), and immediate purchases ("cooling-off waiting periods") - among others. And, if you possess any of these items, you will become a criminal, usually a felon (thereby forfeiting all your Second Amendment rights) if these groups get their wish.

    This is akin to saying "we do not want to ban cars, we just want reasonable car controls like, no automatic transmissions (semi-auto firearms), no mufflers (silencers), no lead-free gas (steel core "cop-killer" ammo), max of three gears and gas tanks limited to 5 gallons (mag capacity less than 11, proposed to make it less than 6) horsepower limited to 50 (no 50 cal rifles), no Ferraris or Porches of any kind (assault weapons), no cars owned by minors for any reason, no private sales - cars must be bought and sold only to car dealerships, no car shows, no Yugos or other inexpensive cars (Niggertown Saturday night specials) ..."

    Be honest: would the above limits infringe on your right to keep and drive cars even if that were a Constitutionally protected right, which it isn't? If so, then the above limitations on guns violate gun rights. Despite their claims to the contrary. Can you even say with a straight face that these groups do not wish to violate the rights of law-abiding citizens? They can, and they do.

    Is a reasonable law one which the lawyers for the legislature contradict those from the department of justice on what it means? That is the case with California's SB15:

    Other quotes that confirm bans and confiscations are the true goals of gun control proponents.

    In other words, they are lying.

    You did know the full name of "Saturday Night Specials," right? You do know that the term was first introduced by white racists who didn't like the types of inexpensive weapons formerly oppressed Blacks could finally own and wield against them, right? If you didn't, see below.

    "...the "reasonable" "modest" "common sense" laws that we propose will not prevent any law-abiding citizens from being able to arm themselves and exercise their Second Amendment rights... So what are you all worried about?"

    The Nazis did not take away any rights of law-abiding Jews, either. All the Jews had to do was comply with "reasonable" "modest" "common-sense" Jew-control laws, and all would be well - at least at first. (At least, that's what they said.)


    These laws weren't passed all at once. Question: At what point in the progression of these laws does civil disobedience become not only thinkable, but morally correct and necessary?

    What if gun owners:

    These are already essentially here. (Whoops. Sorry you asked?) How close do you want the analogy? How close can you afford? And at what point in the progression of these laws does civil disobedience become not only thinkable, but morally correct and necessary? And what form might such civil disobedience take? By the way, Ameican gun control has a Nazi connection; do we really want to follow their lead?

    Remember Kristallnacht?

    "All these comparisons with Nazi Germany are just ridiculous. That was a dictatorship. America is a democracy."

    "But still, this is America,after all. Those sorts of comparisons just weaken your case. America is different. It just can't happen here."

    Many gun prohibitionists think that Bush stole the 2000 presidential election, LOL! It just can't happen here!

    A liberal republic enacts gun control:

    In any case, America has a shameful past. Never forget this, let alone deny it!

    Gun registrations turning to confiscations: It has already happened here in America!

    Government-sanctioned persecutions of, or attacks on, unwanted underclasses: It has already happened here in America!

    Concentration Camps: It has already happened here in America!

    Arguments relating to the Second Amendment

    "Most court decisions say the Second Amendment does not grant an individual right."

    "Well, if you think the Second Amendment means any arms, and all gun control laws are unconstitutional, then do you think people should be allowed to have tanks, or nuclear weapons?"

    "The Second Amendment protects a state's right to arm their militia - the National Guard. It says it right there in the Amendment, 'a well-regulated militia'."


    Read the Framers in their own words, from the Federalist Papers:

    "Only the government should have guns."

    Only the government should have guns. Guns are tools of power, the power to defend, or the power to attack.

    However, the real question is, who is the government? In a free democratic society [or in a Constitutional Republic], all of us are the government. In a totalitarian society only a few are the government.

    So when people argue against public ownership of guns, they argue against public ownership of the government. -spacko444 Source.

    "The reason why the right to bear arms was put in the constitution in the first place was for Americans to protect themselves from European colonists in the 1770's. Have any redcoats knocked on your door lately?"

    Source: Answer: And Denmark has not had a major incursion from the ocean in a long time. Maybe it is time to get rid of the dikes now. I'm sure the ocean knows its limits now. The Framers knew how dangerous governments could become. King George was not the first tyrant, and he was not the last, either. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot give cause to be wary of governments with unchecked power. To make an anology, the neighbor next door doesn't buy a huge rottweiler guard dog because he wants the dog to eat people, he buys the dog to keep people out of his house on fear of being eaten. Patriotic gun owners do not own guns in order to shoot tyrants, rather, they own guns to discourage tyrants from entertaining their ambitions for fear of being shot. Should a burglar break in to the neighbor's house anyway despite the dog ... dang, I can't think of the analogy.

    "The Second Amendment isn't absolute: For example, the First Amendment doesn't protect yelling Fire! in a crowded theater."

    This particular bogus argument just won't die.

    Furthermore, the idea that only "responsible" people should have Second Amendment rights sets a dangerous precedent. What about only responsible people being allowed to speak freely, or to worship?

    If we're going to use the term "responsible" as an adjective preceding the term "gun owner," then we have to be prepared to implement it as a guideline for "free speech user," "religious practitioner" and "privacy advocate." If we're not going to let "criminals" own guns -- which includes anyone from a murderer to somebody who kited a check -- then why do we allow these same people to speak freely, assemble freely, redress the government freely, or believe in God?

    "Dougherty, that's absurd," you say. "It's because guns can hurt people!" Well, so can words, folks. So can ideas. So can religions. So can privacy rights. So can property ownership.

    The wrong words can lead people to suicide. Bad ideas can lead people like Timothy McVeigh to kill hundreds. Religion has led people to kill abortion doctors. Privacy rights allow people to break the law without anyone knowing it. Property can be used to train killers.

    No constitutional right should be qualified before use. No government has the right to arbitrarily place restrictions and qualifiers on any constitutional guarantee, Second Amendment or otherwise.

    "The Second Amendment means you can keep muskets - not modern semi-automatic "assault weapons." The Framers couldn't have imagined, and never intended, citizens to own the kind of firepower available today that enables anyone to mow down dozens of people at the pull of a trigger."

    More on the Second Amendment:

    A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The gun control side often argues that the preceeding only permits the states to arm their armies. That in itself is stupid; it implies the Framers were thinking: "The people have a right to free speech and religion, are free from unreasonable search and seizure, have the right to a trial by jury, and also, we can arm our armies." Red China has no Bill of Rights and people there lack the above rights or freedoms, and it certainly has no Second Amendment - but yet the Red Army is armed! How about that! People hung up on the "well-regulated militia" clause usually omit discussion of what is meant by a free state. Is a free state what you get when only the government (police, military) can be armed, but you can't be? Like in Red China, at Tianamen Square? Is that the sort of free state the Framers sought to protect by adding the Second Amendment?

    Its grammar is worth inspecting. Have a look at some parallel sentences:

    "A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed."

    The "states can arm their militias" position would say that the preceeding sentence means that only pizza chefs are allowed possession of tomatoes, and then only when they are actually preparing pepperoni pizzas and not for other purposes. Could you defend this interpretation with a straight face?

    Here's an equivalent analysis, made by an scholar of the English language, Roy Copperud: What does the Second Amendment really say?

    It is exactly analogous to:

    A well-read electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

    Clearly, this means that the people must be free to keep and read books, so that by the time they need to vote, they will BE well-read enough to be a responsible electorate.

    Using HCI's twisted readings of the Second Amendment, however, one would likewise have to interpret the above passage as:

    1. Only people who are already well-read *and* registered to vote shall be allowed to keep and read books. Everyone else is out of luck.

    2. Furthermore "well-read" *actually* means someone who has been widely published, and has had his works read by a large audience, and *not* someone who has simply educated himself by reading a lot, like those "book nuts" at the NRA (National Reading Association) would like you to believe with their lies.

    3. Besides, it's still okay to outlaw "assault books" like encyclopedias and dictionaries, and "Saturday Night Specials" like those cheap paperbacks, and "fully automatic books" like those online or CD-ROM versions, and anything else we feel like banning. After all, as long as people can only own a few models of "sporting books" (like novels about baseball), then the right to keep and read books is still alive, well, and uninfringed.
    (The above argument courtesy of Dan Day.)

    It gets better:

    (Courtesy of Randy Sweeny of talk.politics.guns)

    By the way, many documents contemporary to the Second Amendment cited examples or reasons not restrictions for doing something -

    If that's too complicated to understand, try this:

    The moon, being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    How about it? Does that sentence affirm the right of only the moon to keep and bear arms? If not, if it is about "the people" then does it only affirm the right if and only if the moon is actually made of green cheese? Or what?

    Still think "the moon" is the only thing protected? Well, then you would still think "the militia" is the only thing whose rights are protected. In that case,

    Who is the militia?

    US Code Title 10 Sec. 311.
    Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are -
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    In this day and age, probably age- and gender-discrimination would be prohibited. Uhoh, that means it's ALL ADULTS. (But sorry, you 17-year olds.)

    The Second Amendment is no more about protecting only duck hunting, than the First Amendment is about only protecting Scrabble and crossword puzzles. There is no "sporting test" for any of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights. In fact, the "sporting test" was invented in Nazi Germany. Why do gun prohibitionists choose to use Nazi Germany as a model? "Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order." --Ed Howdershelt Source:

    Do you know what a RIGHT is? It is that which you don't have to ask permission to do. You don't need to ask permission from the government to breathe. You don't need to ask permission from the government to practice your religion. Why should you require permission from your government to have a tool needed to defend your life? Do you have a right to remain alive? Is self-defense a human right?

    The government did not and does not "give" us our rights.
    The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, does not "give" us our rights.
    The Constitution merely states that some rights are inalienable, part of being alive
    . One of those rights "shall not be infringed," period.

    Other people weigh in on the Second Amendment:

    Quotes on the Second Amendment: (Caution: has the bogus Hitler quote: "This year will go down in history...")

    Quotes on the Right to Bear Arms.

    When they took the Fourth Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
    When they took the Sixth Amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
    When they took the Second Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
    Now they've taken the FirsCensored by the Ministry of Truth. Have a nice day.

    Arguments relating to crime and criminal gun uses

    "You say, Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But guns do kill people."

    "Guns have no other purpose than to kill"

    "Guns make it easy to kill (large numbers of people, rapidly)"

    "Gun manufacturers should be held accountable just like the tobacco companies were!"

    Arguments relating to the Million Moms and other such organizations

    "The Million Moms, and other such groups, are just like MADD"


    "The Million Mom March must be doing something right: The NRA sure is scrambling now!"

    Just because the NRA is scrambling doesn't make the MMM right. If it did, then:

    "The Million Moms need to get their message out; their best weapon is education."

    Lie. Education is not the same as deceit and propaganda. Repeating lies such as the "13 kids a day" and "43 times more likely to kill family than intruder," long after they have been discredited does not count as education. (For example, the website gives the 43-to-1 stat on its "junk gun" "fact" sheet: Fact: Of all the academics who have switched sides in the gun control debate after having studied the issue, every single one has switched to the pro-rights position, even some who were die-hard "gun control" supporters who wanted to prove their case scientifically, by conducting a study themselves: Gary Kleck, John Lott ... some of the most ardent "gun control" opponents, began as supporters but then switched sides.

    Let's take a look at the "education" that comes from the Million Moms, from the Violence Policy Center, from Handgun Control Inc, from the Bell Campaign, from JoinTogether, from the Silent March, and see if the terms they choose ring true as
    Education? or Propaganda?

    Here and here are "educational" "fact" sheets issued by the Violence Policy Center - edited for truthfulness. Here's another: Here is the take by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons on the VPC's report "A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns and Self-Defense."

    Quotes that demonstrate intentional use of deceit in order to advance the civilian disarmament agenda.

    Politically corrected glossary of terms:

    Project Ask - "Asking Saves Kids"

    This is a raise-the-public-awareness campaign to cause people if they have guns, and if they are locked and unloaded, before their kids go play with the other kids in that house. It is put forth by PAX - a branch of HCI (now the Brady Center to Reduce Gun Violence). It is stated as not about being anti-gun, which is a lie. (Would you ask someone if they were Jewish before you let your kids play with their kids? Or would you stop allowing your kids to play with some else's kids, once you found out that they were Jewish? Think about it. Can you articulate the difference between asking someone if they are Jewish and asking someone if they own guns?)

    Furthermore, it contains the presumption that, if you did have guns but they were not secured somehow, that this would be unacceptable. In other words, that you can presume the children of the asker will be rooting around your private and personal belongings, looking inside of closets or drawers, ...

    and that if they do manage to locate a gun they will play with it and thereby be placed at risk, because they haven't been trained about correct gun handling.

    So, if someone asks you if you have a gun before their kids come over to play - would you honestly want those kids coming over, whether or not you owned a gun, and irrespective of the bigotry contained in the question? (Here is a reply to the ASK campaign, the T.E.L.L. campaign, "Tell Every Lying Liberal"

    Arguments relating to the NRA and similar organizations

    "The NRA is the criminals lobby, the criminal's best friend."

    The NRA started Project Exile, which sought mandatory prosecution of violent felons who had or used guns in crimes. With $5 million of its own money, the NRA instituted this program in Richmond, VA. Violent crime there went down rapidly, and deeply. (However, Project Exile puts teeth into all gun laws, good and bad. People with no other criminal record have been sent to prison for defending their lives with a gun - in locations where guns were banned and such defense is thus illegal - thanks to Project Exile. A shotgun 1 millimeter too short is a "sawed off shotgun" and possession of this is a felony - 10 years in federal prison, even though it's a nonviolent, and indeed victimiless, crime. Project Exile would prosecute these possessors too.)

    Clinton and others like to say how some 500,000 felons have been denied sale of firearms thanks to the Brady registration checks. But lying on the form 4473 is a federal felony. How many of these 500,000 criminals have been sent to jail? 7 as of mid-2000. The NRA has challenged the Clinton-Gore-Reno justice department about why the prosecution rate is so low because the NRA wants these people in jail. The answer from the Clinton Administration came from Reno: "We don't want to clog the courts." No, they want the criminals back on the streets to commit more crimes, to make a case for why we need more gun control, right?

    "The NRA subverts democracy by buying off Congress with its gun-lobby dollars."

    Arguments relating to specific types of firearms

    "Of all the types of guns legally available, guns of type X are most often used by criminals, and therefore should be banned."

    Besides the fact that banning the tools that criminals use denies their use to non-criminals (indeed, especially to non-criminals since criminals themselves don't obey laws like bans), banning the most-often-used tool for criminals is also open-ended - it logically leads to a ban on everything. If you ban the currently legal type of gun #1 used in crimes, then the gun that was formerly #2 moves to become the #1 type that is still legal - and which will be banned next by the precdent. After that, the formerly #3 type will move into position #1 for the next ban...

    The fact that there are calls to do this exposes the nature of the gun-prohibitionist movement. Cars are used for bank robberies and drive-by shootings, yet we do not hear of which type of car is the #1 used for either of these purposes, and we do not hear calls to ban this type of car for this reason; evidently there is no car prohibitionist movement as there is for guns.

    For example: at the moment, "junk guns" (aka Niggertown Saturday Night Specials) are the cheapest guns and favored by criminals - and the "loophole" which allows them to be sold needs to be closed according to "Americans For Gun Safety" here:

    "Nobody needs a gun/that type of gun/that many guns."

    "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need." - Karl Marx

    This particular argument arises directly from Marxist ideology, that the things one should be allowed to have in some way must depend on a demonstration of need. This has no place whatsoever in the free country of America: people can aquire whatever they want, and need has nothing to do with it. Nobody needs sports cars, art, entertainment or pets, or even indoor plumbing, formal clothing, paint, or spices, either, since none is essential for survival. Anyone who argues about "needs" with respect to firearms ownership should be reminded of the Marxist origin of the concept, and faced with whether he has anything he could do without - and why he has it when he doesn't need it. Does he have a rug, let alone wall-to-wall carpeting? Does he need it? Does he have any musical instrument, or even a tape or CD player? Does he need it? People have gotten along for millenia without these things, so the answer is no, probably not. Ban them? No doubt, when this answer is raised, this argument will rapidly turn into "but, guns kill people" - which is covered elsewhere on this page at greater length. But anyway, bthtubs and sports cars also kill people.

    For example:

    "Who really needs an "assault weapon" - a shotgun can protect your home. We should ban 'assault weapons.'"

    "Assault Weapons"

    "['Assault weapons'] menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." --Josh Sugarmann, executive director of New Right Watch, and spokesman for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America," policy report of New Right Watch and the Education Fund to End Handgun Violence, September 1988

    "You can't get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is damaging to the [gun control] movement." --Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a "gun control" lobbying group in Washington, D.C., in _The Washington Post,_ May 18, 1993 (Sugarmann is referring to the Korean shopkeepers who guarded their property with "assault weapons" during the L.A. riots.)

    Have you heard about the civil disobedience near Boston? Militia extremists seemed to have gotten in a scuffle with the government about the confiscation of their recently banned military-style "assault weapons."

    "Assault rifle" is a term coined in Nazi Germany. Three characteristics define the rifle: (1) They are capable of select-fire, namely, full-auto and/or burst mode, in addition to semi-auto. Civilian versions of military-style assault rifles, for example, the AR-15 which is patterned after the full-auto military M-16, are only semi-auto and therefore not true assault rifles. The media refuses to understand this distinction. (2) They fire a cartridge of only intermediate power - stronger than handguns, but weaker than, say hunting rifle cartridges. The Nazis found that a killed enemy soldier took one enemy out of the war, but a wounded soldier took out three - because two others were needed to save the injured one's life. Consequently, Nazi Germany created the lower-powered cartridge in order to incur more woundings and fewer deaths. In other words, and despite the media's incessant description of these "high-power" weapons, true assault rifles were the first firearms ever in history designed not to kill (although they are not nonlethal by any means). (3) Assault rifles are compact carbines, easy to carry, say, while parachuting. Needless to say, this 3-point definition is far from the media's use of the term. The term "assault weapon" was invented by Handgun Control Inc. intentionally to cloud this issue.

    Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition:
    About so-called "assault weapons:"

    The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of most handguns and assault weapons from the United States. CSGV seeks to ban handguns and assault weapons from importation, manufacture, sale, transfer, ownership, posession and use by the general, American public. ... Hunting weapons, such as shotguns and rifles would unaffected by these bans, as those weapons do not pose a large threat to the American public in comparison to handguns and assault weapons" --Recruiting flyer currently distributed by "The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence", formerly called "The National Coalition to Ban Handguns"

    "Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to encounter an escaped tiger from the zoo than to confront an assault weapon in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets...." -- Joseph Constance, Dep. Police Chief, Trenton, NJ

    How many people die from these "killer" weapons?

    Firearm statistics. How often are so-called "assault rifles" used in crimes? What is the breakdown of weapons used in violent crimes?

    In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." -- Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

    Ok, so maybe they aren't used in crime that often. But who really needs an assault rifle, anyway? After all, you can hunt with a bolt-action, and a revolver or shotgun can protect you at home. Right?

    "You want protection? Get a dog."

    Incredibly, this asinine statement was actually made by columnist Molly Ivans. Well, it isn't incredible that Molly Ivans made it, it's only incredible that anyone could think it.

    Rhetorical tricks and debate tactics

    Questions of the form "Why not do X?" For example, "Why not treat guns like cars? After all, we license drivers and register cars, why not license gun owners and register guns?"

    Why not? questions are a trap because they transfer the burden of proof to the questionee. If a person wants to do X, especially if doing so results in a change of criminal law, or a denial of rights or liberties, the burden is upon them to make a case for why X is good and should be done. But by asking "Why not do X?" it places the burden on the other person to establish good reasons not to do X, and if that person doesn't have a good answer right there, the questioner rhetorically wins by default.

    Thus, an anti talking to a neutral might ask the above example question, "why not treat guns like cars" and the neutral, not knowing any arguments against licensing and registration, might have no answer and will be left thinking, "Yeah, I guess I can't think of any reason to oppose it, therefore, I support it." And an anti debating a pro in a public forum scores points with the audience if the pro can't provide a solid rebuttal in the time allowed. If the anti asks, why shouldn't we do X, Y, and Z?, but the pro can only show why we shouldn't do X and Y, the audience will be left thinking maybe Z isn't such a bad idea.

    (The specific question in this example, "why not treat guns like cars?" is covered elsewhere on this webpage.)

    "Who could possibly be against registration? What kind of person would oppose background checks? Who could argue against that?"

    This apparently innocuous type of question seems harmless and worth answering - it seems to arise from honest curiousity. But it is actually insidious and simply subverts an argument. It arises from the logical fallacy that who makes an argument affects the validity of the argument, and wastes time discussing the type of people who have a certain opinion, rather than the merits of that opinion.

    The unspoken answer to these types of questions - why they are asked in the first place - is that the "kind of person" could only be uneducated rednecks, KKK members, inner city criminals, and other such - as if it were simply out of the question that an educated, articulate, rational, or reasonable person could possibly hold these positions, and, therefore, that the position is necessarily wrong.

    Answering "Well, there are some well-respected people who think ... blah, blah, blah" is just taking the bait. It is beside the point. It does not matter what kind of person makes any given argument; in an honest debate a given argument stands or falls on its own merits. The fact that a mass murderer thinks the sun will rise tomorrow doesn't make that belief wrong, and the fact that a well-meaning Million Mom (such as the one who is asking you the above question) thinks that "gun safety" is a good idea doesn'tnecessarily make it right. Any time spent answering this question is not only worthless at converting an anti (because it arises from a fallacy, it can still leave an empty feeling in the asker even if it were answered: "But maybe those intelligent, wise, and kindhearted people who do think gun control is a bad idea are simply wrong", they can still think) it detracts from the sometimes limited time that could be better spent on non-fallacious arguments.

    In fact, since this type of question arises from a logical fallacy, the motives of any person who asks this type of question could reasonably be called in question, regardless of the topic. "Why are you asking what type of person...? Does it make any difference to you who I could cite who opposes gun control? Would it change your mind about gun control?" If it would (then the person is not engaged in rational debate since addressing a fallacy will explicitly convert them) you might point out that all of the academic types who have switched side flipped away from gun control.

    "If it saves only one life..."

    Arguments relating to the police, the army,

    "You don't need a gun for protection anyway - the police are here to protect you."

    "For target shooting, that's okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that's why we have police departments." -- James Brady, PARADE Magazine (June 26, 1994)
    "People who are willing to rely on the government to keep them safe are pretty much standing on Darwin's mat, pounding on the door, screaming, 'Take me, take me!'" -- Cael

    Do you want to stake not only your life but everyone's life on the belief that the police are here to protect you, or even could in all cases even if they were supposed to? In England, people gave up the right to self defense in exchange for a promise of police protection: 2 April 2000: Police shortages leave 999 calls unanswered You can make this gamble yourself - but is it reasonable to make this decision for everybody? Even if it did work as promised? (N.B. Dialing 999 in England equates to dialing 911 in America.)

    "In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the FBI's annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in an auto accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime."
    From A Nation of Cowards by Jeffrey Snyder

    It is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

    "What good is one man/a handgun against the entire army?" ... "But, an armed citizenry can never defeat a whole army."

    In any case, examples exist in which armed civilians were able to defeat soldiers in battle:

    An article about this:

    Arguments relating to other countries

    "American Children have a 12 times higher gun death rate than the children of the 25 other western industrialized democracies combined."

    "Britain had fewer guns and fewer gun deaths than America. This proves how evil guns are - and how good it would be to get rid of them."

    The example of Britain is so frequently raised by gun prohibitionists that it earns a special section:

  • The statistics were collected under different standards and even misrepresented by Britian.

  • Even if the statistics were generated in the same way, comparing different cultures in the absence of other context is fraudulent.

  • Gun prohibition was promised to reduce crime. But crime went up! (The medicine isn't working.)
    Source: Original image here.

  • British subjects have surrendered their right to self-defense.
  • The prohibition leads to an arms race between police and criminals.
  • Other things than guns are now being blamed and prohibited. (This medicine didn't cure the disease it was promised to, it made it worse. So let's prescribe it for lesser ailments as well!)
  • The last straw: Other liberties (besides self-defense) are now being stripped in the name of fighting crime.

    "In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell

    Other Countries, and Specific States

    The USA, being awash in guns, has the highest crime rate, right?

    Life in "gun-free" Britain:

    In London, robberies, including muggings, are said to have shot up by 38 per cent. The overall increase in recorded offences of all types will be about 3.8 per cent, according to the Sunday Times, which collated statistics from 21 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. There was also a sharp increase in violent crime in rural areas. In Suffolk, it rose by 36 per cent and in Dorset by 24 per cent. From:
    Crime figures show violence soaring But, wasn't gun control supposed to lower crime rates?
    16 June 2000: London police numbers drop to 20-year low Bad pay, rising crime and better jobs elsewhere.
    19 January 2000: Robbery up 19pc in first crime rise for six years

    I MOVED to London's West End thinking I was starting an idyllic existence at the crossroads of Theatreland, Covent Garden, Chinatown and Soho. But in the two years since I arrived I have seen more crime than in all my previous 34 years, far more than I ever saw as a student living in the West End 15 years ago.

    And more than when I lived in Milwaukee, a city famed for its serial murders, crack houses and drive-by shootings. I have fond memories of Milwaukee. My memories of the West End will be more bittersweet. I won't live in a climate of fear

    Is the difference cultural? What is the comparison of crime rates between Japanese-Americans in America, and Japanese in Japan? And European-Americans vs. Europeans? The following indicates Europeans have a lower murder rate than European-Americans:


    Did the NRA lie about the gun violence rates in Australia?

    Australia has recently confiscated many firearms, yet violent crime there is up: Blair plans more jails as England tops crime league "An international survey said they were at greater risk than anywhere else of having a car stolen. Apart from Australia, they were also at greater risk of being assaulted, robbed, sexually attacked and having their homes burgled than people in any other major industrialised country." Here is the study itself:


    Japan is nearly gun-free, and has a lower gun-murder rate, but

    Firearm Registration and the Slippery Slope in Canada. How well is their reigstration program working? Not well. It's overbudget, takes police away from fighting real crimes, and drives a wedge between citizens and police because of the widespread non-compliance, which everyone admits exists. The result of this wedge is further militarization of police.

    Specific States in America:

    Maryland Earns a special place ... praised by Clinton as a leader in the gun control movement! And #1 in robbery, and near the top in other violent crimes.

    Maryland has already "closed" the gun show "loophole" inasmuch as background checks (and even waiting periods) are required from any seller, not just FFLs. Despite this, the movement there to ban gun shows proves that the gun show "loophole" is a smokescreen

    Here is a pro-rights org in MD, with many stories and links. (Another "They've got their work cut out for them" organization!)

    Connecticut Proposal to ban .50 cal semi-auto rifles, AP and incidiary .50 cal ammo, and all magazines with >10 capacity.

    Detroit has the highest rate of the police shooting citizens/suspects.

    Gun laws state by state: (Note that CNN connects the topic of gun laws to "schools" in the URL.)

    5. Governmental (Mis)Interpretations:

    These are in a special section because the government's impression about the way things are tends to have a bit more weight than what we pobbles think. Also, they make a nice case for distrusting them. If they can engage in selective re-interpretations of these things, why should their benevolent and well-intentioned future proposals be trusted?

    For a short history of government suppression of a wide variety of research which undermined its various agendas, including gun control, look here:

    Background checks as backdoor registration:

    The Brady Bill specified that "no records" were to be kept pertaining to successful background checks, that these records were to be destroyed. Ostensibly, to mollify concerned gun owners that background checks could be stored for use in compiling firearms registration information. But: now they're stored for 6 months for "auditing purposes." To audit what? Because there were "errors in the BATF records." But, they aren't supposed to have any records!! In Maryland, the BATF has ordered copies of all forms 4473 Furthermore, according to Janet Reno, "the Brady Bill does not specify how the records destruction is to take place" - and incredibly "we are not able to comply with the order to destroy records."

    Furthermore, whenever a federally firearms-licensed (FFL) dealer goes out of business all of the background check forms are to be surrendered to the BATF. These forms have both the names, addresses, birthdates (and possibly SSNs), etc., of the gun purchasers, and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm that was purchased as a result of the background check! This is firearms registration, pure and simple! Even if the FFL remains in business, the records can still be "inspected" by BATF agents under federal law - resulting in the compilation of what person, who lives where, bought which type and what serial number of gun(s). For this reason I am absolutely opposed to the current background check system, and against its use for private sellers, re: the "gun show loophole" (which see). But, what's wrong with registration? Here are my objections to registration, including examples of registration turning to confiscation.

    On the significance of "grassroots support."

    In response to the Million Mom March (see below), Clinton and others have called on the "do nothing" Congress to listen to the will of the American People. Even if the most optimistic estimates of 750,000 people supporting this agenda are accurate (but, see below) that's still less than a million people. Compare that with the federal government's attitude about decriminalizing marijuana: despite the fact that the majority of voters in six states have voted for either medical use exemptions, or for general decriminalization, the federal government's official position is to ignore this particular, and vastly larger, groundswell of public support, and has stated that it will vigorously prosecute federal drug crimes, including marijuana possession and use, in federal court - where medical use is not a defense since medical use is not federally recognized. (For other aspects of my opposition to the War on (Some) Drugs, look here.) So, how come the grassroots support for the Million Mom March should sound a clarion call for congressional action - when multiple states passing multiple ballot initiatives deserve to be pointedly ignored?

    The meaning of the Second Amendment:

    The Bill of Rights, which would seem to be about individual, civil rights, appears to include the provision for the right to self defense, including against a tyrannical government, namely, that A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. However, it is presently the opinion of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, that the Second Amendment is only regarding a "State's Right" to arm their armies. Notwithstanding the fact that the British don't have a Second Amendment, and the Red Chinese don't, and Pol Pot didn't, and the Soviet Union didn't Yet all of their armies were armed!! It's curious that some people say the Second Amendment is about the State's right, and others say it is an individual right - and should be repealed. Reality check: if the Second Amendment were repealed, would the State's Right people (which includes lawyers for the government) then call for the disarmament of the National Guard? Honestly?


    Here's the relevant exchange of some judges with a lawyer for the government:

    Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"

    Meteja (for the government): "Yes"

    Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

    Meteja: Exactly.

    Garwood: Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed?

    Meteja: The weapon in question must be used in the National Guard.

    There's more to say below about the Second Amendment. If you believe it protects an individual right, by the way, and you wish to repeal it because you don't like guns or civilian ownership of guns - what do you think will stop the removal of other articles in the Bill of Rights, such as Freedom of Speech? After all, you would then already be in favor of the general reinterpretation of that document.

    Solicitor General Seth Waxman's anti-Second Amendment interpretation: "The Second Amendment does not extend an individual right to keep and bear arms."

    The "sporting test" for firearms

    Some gun prohibitionists, including in government, like to say that "sporting" use firearms will not be threatened by such-and-such gun control bill (which they support). "You can keep your hunting rifles and still shoot skeet" they say. But wait: There is no "sporting test" to the articles in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment isn't about duck hunting any more than the First Amendment is about Scrabble or crossword puzzles. In fact, the "sporting purpose" test for firearms was invented in Nazi Germany. Why do gun prohibitionists want to borrow from them?

    If you allow guns to be kept only for "sporting purposes," or even if you have a "right" to own guns for those purposes, then your guns can be banned by outlawing those sports. COMMONS VOTES TO BAN FOX HUNTS (Admittedly fox hunts don't use firearms in Britian - but this just makes the case stronger, not weaker: They can ban sports even when firearms aren't "necessary" for that sport.) Actually, all hunting is threatened in Britian:,,2-66829,00.html

    The meaning of the terms "firearm" and "machine gun."

    The so-called "National Firearms Act of 1934 controls suppressors - "silencers" - which are not firearms.

    "The NFA regulates certain classes of firearms, such as machineguns, short-barrel rifles, short-barrel shotguns, silencers, and destructive devices. "

    Silencers are not able to fire a projectile and do not pose any kind of threat to life, limb, or even eardrum by themselves. However, possession of an unregistered one is a felony, and even possession of things which could be used to make them has resulted in felony charges being filed. To make an analogy to cars, it is tantamount to calling a muffler a "car" and requiring its registration, whether or not it was installed - but the registration costs $200 even if the muffler cost $5, and requires a background check, fingerprints, and permission from the local sheriff, etc, unlike for your car.

    Similarly, possession of even a single so-called "full-auto" part as well as the semi-auto version of the corresponding firearm is interpreted as a "possession of a machine gun" (a felony) even though (1) the part is not installed and (2) even if it were installed the gun would still not fire automatically. An analogy to cars here would be if the mere possession of a drag-racing part in your house made your car a non-street-legal race car, subject to seizure and filing of criminal charges against you. The analogy isn't perfect since non-street-legal cars are legal to own, just not legal to drive on public roads. When it comes to guns, no such private-use exemption is available.

    Similarly, things like pistol grips, bayonet lugs, and flash hiders are regulated by "firearms regulations" even though, like suppressors, they too are not firearms and can't fire projectiles.

    "We would never use registration lists for confiscation!"

    Too late ... it's already happened. In New York City, the 1967 gun registration law explicitly forbid use of registration lists for confiscation. (How else would it have passed?) But in 1991 when the ban of certain firearms was enacted, the police showed up at the door of those who were registered to own, but had not turned in, now banned firearms.

    In California, certain kinds of so-called "assault rifles" were required to be registered. ("We don't want to take any away, we just want to know who has them.") After the deadline went by, the CA authorities decided as a gesture of good faith to create an amnesty period allowing additional rifles to be registered. But wait! It was decided that there was no authority (no controlling legal authority? Oops, sorry. [-ed]) to extend this amnesty period, and that all rifles registered under the amnesty were subject to confiscation or the owners (and thanks for registering them, guys - now we know who you are, where you live, and what the make, model, and serial numbers of your firearms are) will be subject to felony firearms charges. Why I will not obey California's gun registration edict, by Brian Puckett.

    Needless to say, only the most law-abiding people would register their firearms in the first place, and these are the only people disarmed by registration-guided confiscation. The criminals won't be subject to confiscation, of course, since they never registered them in the first place and so the authorities wouldn't know they had them.

    Therein lies another bad-faith governmental misinterpretation:

    "Registration and licensing are needed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals."

    Trusting the Government's Word: Firearm Licenses

    Massachussetts instituted the requirement for a handgun license - which initially was good for the life of the applicant. No big deal, right? I mean, who could be against that? Well, now they exist - now that you explicitly need premission there to own a handgun - now the bar is raised - they now have to be renewed every four years and if you don't renew, you presumably own an unlicensed handgun - a felony - and you lose all rights to own any firearm subsequently. In other words, once the mechanism exists to regulate a right, the mechanism exists to revoke the right.

    Needless to say, Handgun Control Inc is thrilled with the law.

    Crime rates in MA and an analysis of their laws (1977):

    "We need stronger gun laws."

    Clinton and others call for stronger gun laws to "cut down on crime" (by making more things illegal).


    Clinton also called on the Republican-controlled Congress to fund fully his National Gun Enforcement Initiative. It would provide $280 million to pay for more than 1,000 federal, state and local gun prosecutors, hire 500 new ATF firearms agents and inspectors, expand gun-crime tracing and ballistics testing, among other steps.

    The president also called on Congress to pass gun-control legislation that he supports.

    "So I ask this Congress: Don't just talk about strong enforcement, give us the tools to do the job," Clinton said. (Will expire.)

    Translation: Federal law enforcement is already stretched to the limit, with the "need" for more funding - yet Clinton wants to increase their burden by passing more laws.

    The Navistar shooter William Baker, 4 Feb 2001, was a twice-convicted felon, for theft and child molestation. Yet, he had a FOID card issued by the state of Illinois. But no agency claimed they had the jurisdiction to deprive him of firearms, and they claimed there was no way to enforce the laws they already had. Since they cannot enforce the laws already present, naturally, this means that still more laws are needed. They are now looking at searching the homes of felons (violating the Fourth Amendment) for guns.

    Judges, prosecutors and law-enforcement officials interviewed Tuesday all praised the need for the state law that has been on the books for years, but each insisted responsibility for its enforcement didn't fall on their shoulders. [...]

    Baker was issued a firearm owner's identification card on Feb. 19, 1993, said Illinois State Police spokesman David Sanders. That December, he bought the Remington shotgun and the .30-caliber hunting rifle from Pepper Sports, a licensed gun dealer in Glen Ellyn.

    Baker's FOID card was renewed May 8, 1998. Fourteen days later, Baker was convicted of a felony for having sex with an underage girl. No effort was made to see if Baker owned any guns, said DuPage County State's Atty. Joseph Birkett, adding his office bore no responsibility to ferret out the information. [...

    The problem of enforcing the felon firearms law may be a matter of manpower, or lack of it, said Tim Menard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

    "If an individual is convicted of a felony and owns firearms, and that person is not willingly going to give up those firearms, it's not the fault of law enforcement," Menard said. "They don't have the resources to search a person's house and confiscate those weapons.",2669,SAV-0102070122,FF.html

    Will there be any calls to repeal laws that cannot be enforced? Doubtful.

    Legislation Based on Fraud

    Here is a bill that proposes to fund one fraud, gun buy backs," based on citing a number of other frauds already dissected here. Here's text directly from the bill, edited for truthfulness in red:


    Does it bother you to see legislation based on so many lies and deceptions?

    6. Other Topics:
    Can't fit 'em anywhere else, but these things have gotta be somewhere!

    Examples of the Institutionalized Lies of the Gun Prohibitionist Movement.

    Here are pages taken from the gun-prohibitionists, edited in color by myself to point out the lies, misrepresentations, and deceptive arguments that each one makes. What is significant about these pages is that there aren't just a few such problems with any given page - essentially every single argument they advance is based on deception, fraud, or fallacy and contains debatable or simply false claims. My question to the prohibitionists as well as to the neutrals is, why does the prohibitionist side find it necessary to stoop to such a level of deceit in order to press for support for their cause? What is really their motivation?

    Here is the Violence Policy Center's Handgun Ban Fact Sheet, edited in red.

    Here is the VPC's Women and Firearms Violence Fact Sheet, edited in red.

    Here is the SLAM!theNRA's page of lies, edited in yellow and red:

    The story of Joe: Crime, Morality, and 'Gun Control'

    Suppose there is a man named Joe, who has a special ability: He can tell when and where a murder is about to happen, and therefore can arrange to be there just before it happens. If Joe were to kill the murderer, right in the act, but just interrupting it, it would be viewed as justifiable prevention of a crime by nearly any witness present. For example, under Colorado law, deadly force may be employed by someone to stop the murder of another by a third person. Consequently, Joe would not be guilty of a crime, at least in Colorado, and above that, most people might even want Joe around, killing murderers just before they do their deeds, if he makes regular use of his foreknowledge.

    But suppose Joe decides, for thrills, that for every 99 murderers he kills, he will also intentionally kill 1 innocent murder-victim-to-be. In fact, that he will kill the next person who (he knows) was going to be killed anyway, it's just that Joe will beat the murderer to the punch. Now, for every 100 people Joe kills, 99 are murderers and 1 is innocent but was going to die anyway. Would Joe now be guilty of a crime? Would you prosecute him and jail him? Even though his net effect to society is that only 1 innocent person is murdered for every 99 killers stopped in the act?

    Now, suppose that he doesn't kill anyone at all. Suppose he just hobbles someone, rendering them unable to act, say by suddenly binding their hands and feet. But he still knows when and where murders are going to happen, and still seeks his thrills by tying the hands of the victim, instead of the attacker, once each hundred murders-that-were-going-to-happen. Now would you prosecute him? Now he is no longer killing anyone, he's just preventing a murder, or preventing the defense from one. Would you want him around? Is he an asset or a detriment?

    Now, suppose that instead of 1 innocent bound per hundred murders, instead he bound 50 or even 90 innocents out of every 100. Now would you prosecute Joe and jail him? Would you want him around?

    The last Joe, and his magic bindings, of course, are government gun control. Criminals such as murderers don't tend to obey gun laws, so they aren't very often hobbled during their crimes. But honest, innocent citizens are hobbled by gun laws, therefore rendered unable to resist, say, being murdered, when their lives depend on being able to resist the most. If you don't want that last Joe around - don't support gun control. (This story courtesy of Valeria Damiao.)

    Fabricating Federal Purposes

    "Washington will have failed in its obligation to protect the American people from the heartbreak of sudden and unexpected violence. "

    What obligation? And what about slow, or expected violence? (Like that which occurs in inner cities, or in places with strong victim disarmament laws?)

    Religion Kills - Time For Sensible Regulation on the Freedom of Religion?

    "DENVER, Feb. 20 ã The deaths over the last two years of three Colorado children whose parents denied them medical treatment on religious grounds has fueled support for state legislation that would prevent parents from using their religion as a defense against prosecution."

    Abortion Rights vs. Gun Rights

    (Please note that I neither disclose my position on abortion, nor advocate any position; I merely make the comparison between the way abortion and guns are treated in the public discourse.)

    Gun Control Extremism

    Boy in Maryland is charged with violating a concealed weapon law by hiding a gun under his mattress, in his parent's home.

    I guess the people who brought this case want you to keep your guns locked up or hidden out of the reach of children inside your own house so they can prosecute you for having a concealed weapon. (Fortunately, an appeals court overturned.)

    The Caste System In America: Peasants and Law Enforcement Officers

    Police officers are held to a lower standard of conduct with regard to committing crimes on duty (say, such as killing people) yey they have expanding powers and increasing authority, in the name of "getting tough on crime" as well.

    "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? [...] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

    The Gulag Archipelago, A. Solzhenitsyn. Chapter 1 "Arrest", fn. 5.

    Examples of Orwellian Thinking

    The complete text of George Orwell's Animal Farm: When you read this particular book, try not to think about how federal agents can carry guns onto aircraft, but we can't, how they can lie to us, but it's a crime to lie to them, how if they are murdered it's an automatic death-penalty enhancement for the perpertrator, but if they kill us (such as Lon Horiuchi shooting Vicki Weaver in the head) then it's not even a crime if he was doing his job. No, don't think about those things at all.

    Orwell also wrote 1984, which you might think was a work of fiction, but if so, it's becoming more and more of a documentary every day. Doublethink and Newspeak are becoming standard operating procedure, as the following examples demonstrate.

    Concealed carry and public safety: Concealed carry doesn't guarantee the safety or life of the carrier - even cops get shot from time to time. But:

    "Making concealed carry permits available is a good idea even if defending yourself against an armed attacker decreases your chance of survival. The fact that some people are armed will lower everybody's risk of being mugged at gunpoint in the first place. You can't be safer than that. That's way the president has all those guys with guns around him, that's why mutually assured destruction prevents nuclear wars, and that's why a strong military is necessary even in peacetime." - dieBartdie

    Other hysterias: Triple trailer ban in OR.

    Fallacies and illogical arguments:
    Techniques for truth suppression:

    Incrementalism: and Selective Demonization

    Propaganda terms are being employed intentionally by gun-banners to increase support for their restriction. 50 cal rifles, explicitly legal under the National Firearms Act of 1934, are now considered "too dangerous." They are now also "50 cal sniper rifles." Shotguns are "street sweepers." The deliberately deceptive term "assault rifle" and the recent invention "assault weapon" has already been discussed, bears emphasis. (See the media propaganda section below.) "Cop-killer" bullets is another such term, as is "Saturday Night Specials" - an incredibly racist term, deriving from "Niggertown Saturday Night Special," which was coined by white racists who wanted to disarm blacks - the first target of gun control laws. The theory appears to be that nobody would want "sniper rifles" to be in general possession - but then again, any scoped, centerfire rifle can be a "sniper rifle." (Also, nearly any centerfire rifle fires "cop-killer" bullets, so a "cop-killer" bullet ban would ban essentially all centerfire rifle ammunition. Gotcha!)

    "Nobody wants to ban your hunting rifles" - no, they will call it a "sniper rifle" first - and then ban it. Unless pro-rights people put up a fight, even the 22 long rifle could some day be called a "sniper rifle" or "assault rifle" - and then banned. So much for the right to keep and bear arms!

    Speaking of "cop-killer" bullets: The term was originally applied to specially-jacketed handgun ammunition, because it would pierce some ballistic vests. Some so-called "armor piercing" ammo is now banned for sale in the US. (Never mind that not a single officer has ever been killed as a result of such ammo piercing a ballistic vest. However, once it became widely known that officers typically wear such vests at all times, more head shots were taken - making these officer's deaths directly the result of the gun-control lobby.)

    Notice of Law:

    Title 18 US Code chapter 13 Civil Rights;

    Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. (N.B.: The police act under color of authority, and holstered guns are considered threatened use of a dangerous weapon, at least when us peasants have them with us when we commit crimes.)

    Remember Waco? Ruby Ridge?

    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
    Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

    "When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
    Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

    "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
    Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

    "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

    "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
    16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

    Colorado Constitution Article 2 Section 13: Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. (N.B. Determining whether someone is over 18, or over 21, is calling something into question. For that matter, determining whether someone has a criminal record is also calling something into question.)

    "No State shall make a Liberty into a privilege or license it or attach a fee." - Murdock Vs Pennsylvania 39 US 105

    "If a State converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the fight with impunity." - Shuttlesworth Vs Birmingham (Alabama) 373 US 262

    "The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities...One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech...and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia Board of Eduction v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943)

    Fact Sheets, Statistics and Other Resources

    Gun Owners of America: Firearms Fact Sheet, 1999:
    Just looked at 'gun control.' Here is what they found: Facts You Can Use: Many articles answering questions about the Second Amendment, etc.
    Guns in America, The Facts:

    Well-organized, sourced information, quotes, and statistics:


    10 myths about gun control:

    The Cold, Hard Facts About Guns: 5 Myths:

    It's Amazing What One Has To Believe ... To Believe In Gun Control!

    One would have to believe:

    Copyright 1999, 2000 by Michael Z. Williamson. Permission is granted to copy in part or in total for non-profit purposes, provided due credit is given.

    Many more:

    The Racist Roots, and Historical "Benefits" of Gun Control:

    The racist roots of gun control:
    More articles (and some mirrors):

    Gun control was introduced to disarm American Indians, and later, blacks.

    When America was founded, blacks were not considered to be "citizens" and couldn't vote, own property, or be armed. Gun control is thus based on a racist foundation: arms for us, but not for them. Astonishingly, the liberal mass media propagates this racism. For example, the "junk" guns, called "Saturday night specials" - are the current target of gun prohibitionists. Doing so denies the poor from being able to defend themselves. What goes unsaid is how incredibly offensive and racist the term "Saturday night special" really is. The term is a conjunction of two expressions, the "Niggertown Saturday night" - a term coined by white racists to describe a riotous gathering of blacks - and the "suicide special" - a small, cheap gun frequently employed in committing suicides. Anyone who calls for the control of "Saturday night specials" is harkening back to the racist calls to disarm blacks, whether they know it or not, and it would be reasonable to question their beliefs about racism - and why they're using such terms.

    A non-racist way to ask about so-called "junk" guns is "The Affordability Issue" - should, or do poor people have the right to defend their lives? Is it reasonable that cheap, lower-quality guns should be available to poor people who can't afford $1000 handguns? There is simply no need to drag racism into this question.

    Blacks haven't been the only group to face organized disarmament by their government: Here are some of the historical "benefits" of gun control:


    But America is different. That sort of thing could never, ever happen here. Could it?

    The legacy of gun control: (Primary link:)
    Mirrors: .
    Related videos: 90 million: End of Tyranny:

    Media Bias: Overt Propaganda

    You're informed about your world, right? You get your news from The News, right? And they paint a fair picture of what's really happening, right?

    The media is always 100% exactly correct in every case, ... except in the rare story about which you happen to have personal knowledge. N.Y. Times admits their paper is riddles with errors:

    Wrong! The media has taken sides in the "gun control" debate! When pro-rights people raise this point, the first question asked is often "But why would they take sides? What do they have to gain by supporting gun control" It is not the purpose of this site to invent an explanation for this, though I have one, - but the question can be reflected back to the asker by presenting evidence that the claim is true, and then asking the asker, OK, now that you've see the case for media bias, you tell me why they are doing it! When a scientist suspects that a new phenomenon exists, say, the onset of superconductivity in a ceramic, the first question is "is it really true?" and only after that is established, is the question "why does it do that?" asked. One can argue that people are sentient (even those in the media!) and that intentions are a larger part of the picture than for physical phenomena. But even psychologists try to determine, first, what is the actual behavior and they do things like controlled experiments to ascertain this before trying to explain it.

    Examples of Clear Media Bias and Propaganda

    A good overview article:

    Lists of articles:

    Pro-gun vs. anti-gun number of stories: The media research center found a nearly 10:1 ratio of anti-gun to pro-gun stories on TV news stations, 8:1 on the evening news, and 13:1 on morning news stations. News stations are twice as likely to use anti-gun soundbites are pro-gun soundbites, and twice as likely to feature anti-gun guests as pro-gun guests. Pro-gun themes were barely covered.
    Intro, with links:
    Full report:

    Slant in covering the NRA: Michigan Ph.D student Brian Patrick studied the coverage of the NRA compared to other organizations in the news. "These data support a conclusion of systematic marginalization of the NRA." From

    Choice of Leading Stories: For example, around the same time that 6-year old Kayla Rollins was shot and killed by the 6 year old son of a crack dealer, using a firearm at a school, a 7-year-old killed 6 year-old by shooting with an air rifle. Both represent elementary-aged kids shooting and killing one another, and both resulted in one death, but the latter story only made local news and garnered no national attention. One is led to believe that school shootings are more newsworthy than other shootings - a clear bias since shootings are shootings. Since guns are now essentially banned from schools, practically the only time people have guns there is because they are criminal; thus, people hear a disproportionate number of stories about "bad" guns being wielded by criminals to kill innocent people, leading them to form the opinion that guns are only used for evil. Even MSNBC admits, about the 5 Feb 2001 Navistar shooting (emphasis added):

    Despite such high-profile cases, the number of workplace homicides is declining steadily, reaching the lowest level since the federal government started counting them. Workplace homicides are now the third-leading cause of deaths on the job. More people die from job related car wrecks and accidental falls.
    ... yet for some reason deaths by car wrecks, or even work-related car wrecks, and accidental falls, receive no national prominence compared to workplace shootings. Why is that?

    Deceptive, Or Even Fraudulent Implications That Guns Are Involved When They Aren't (Not That It Makes Any Difference To The Deceased)

    How the Network News is Spinning the Gun Control Debate:

    A sarcastic article advising the media to report - well, to keep doing just what they are doing, but spelling it out with clear instructions. The Journalist's Guide to Gun Violence Coverage:
    Media orders by HCI:

    Omission of defensive gun uses: How come these stories aren't national, top-story news?! After all, they've got guns, violence, and often deaths. (Even gun deaths!!)

  • 28 Apr 01 Tacoma woman shoots intruder (WA) A Tacoma woman fatally shot a former boyfriend who broke into her home Thursday night, Tacoma police said Friday. The woman, in her late 40s, had two restraining orders against the 48-year-old man, said Tacoma police detective Ed Baker said. ... She ran to her bedroom, with the man threatening to kill her, Baker said. When the man got to the bedroom, the woman fired one shot at him from a handgun. ... He had two convictions for domestic violence against the woman within the past year, Baker said. He served time in both King and Pierce county jails for the assaults. Reach staff writer Sarah Duran at 253-597-8550 or
  • 29 Mar 01 Pit bull shot in attack on woman (ME) HARPSWELL ã A local woman was defending herself when she fired a single shot from her 9 mm Smith and Wesson semiautomatic, killing a pit-bull terrier that was attacking her, authorities say.
  • Would-be carjacker shot dead (TN) A carjacker was shot and killed Wednesday afternoon in the parking lot of Southland Mall by a man he tried to rob, police said. The would-be robber was identified by police as Kenneth J. Brigance, 21. He was shot several times and died underneath the vehicle he attempted to steal, police said. ...(Dawn Hamilton, acting manager of the mall, said the shooting was an isolated incident. "We have security patrolling the mall at all times," Hamilton said.)
  • Gastonia man shoots, kills alleged intruder (NC) A Gastonia man shot and killed a man he said broke into his house and refused to leave Wednesday morning, police said. Jermaine Antonio Pratt, 29, of 308 Circle View Drive, told Gastonia police he was returning home with his wife from his third-shift job at a mill about 8:30 a.m. when he discovered an intruder [Malkin] inside, said Sgt. Danny Parlier. ... Malker has an extensive criminal history, including recent convictions for habitual assault, burning personal property and disorderly conduct, N.C. court records show. (LA) Raymond Cockran's family was trying to find him help for his crack cocaine addiction, but he died before they could get it. A 26-year-old man shot Cockran, 36, to death Wednesday morning after Cockran kicked open the door of the other man's home off Thomas Road, city police said. The man who shot Cockran, Andre Rachels, will not be arrested, police spokesman Cpl. Don Kelly said.
  • Police say homicide is justifiable (TN) A suspected robber is dead, and police said one of his intended victims is responsible.
  • Potential workplace massacre stopped by man with gun Botti stops a woman with a gun She strolled into Aldo Botti's law office around 4 p.m. wearing a parka and carrying a canvas handbag, seemingly calm. For a moment, Sara P. Bucksar-Taja sat peacefully on a soft maroon couch in the lobby. But police say stuffed in her bag was a .357 revolver and a Molotov-style cocktail. If not for Botti's snap judgment, things might have gone differently Tuesday, his partners said. "He actually saved the lives of everyone in this building. The entire office is extremely grateful for him," said Peter M. DeLongis, one of Botti's partners. "He did a tremendous job."
  • Suspect in robbery shot, killed by clerk "Lisa Liev, still nursing a head wound from a robbery last month, refused to give in to the demands of a man trying to rob her Old East Dallas liquor store Friday afternoon. As the suspect attempted to jump over the counter, Ms. Liev crouched in a corner and fatally shot her attacker, police said."
  • St. Paul (MN) robbery victim wrestles rifle away, kills intruder "A home robbery in St. Paul was foiled after one of the victims wrestled away a rifle and killed one of his assailants, police said today."
  • Homeowner (PA) shoots intruder. "The crazed burglar, his face hidden by a bandanna, placed the cold, steel gun barrel in Teddy Brown's mouth and cocked the hammer. Brown was ready to die. He'd already been pistol whipped, pummeled with a pool cue and sliced with a cake knife after two men burst into his Southwest Philadelphia home Sunday night and demanded money. But now, three days later, Brown is nursing his wounds, and the body of one suspected burglar lay in the morgue, his identity still a mystery."

    Misleading Emphasis, and False Connections: Thanks to the media, we are now much more aware of school shootings than ever before. Many even have the perception that the problem is bad, and getting worse - but this is wrong. The perception is created by the media via sensationalism, and is not real. Every measure of teen violence is decreasing and has been for several years.

    "Less that 1% of all homicides among school-aged children (5-19 years of age) occur in or around school grounds or on the way to and from school."
    CDC, Facts About Violence Among Youth and Violence in Schools. May 21, 1998

    Of 20 million middle-school and high-school students, fewer than a dozen have killed at school this year. Of 20,000 secondary schools nationwide, only about 10 have reported a murder on campus...
    Los Angeles Times Opinion column May 31, 1998

    In 1997, 25 killings occurred in schools. That same year, 88 people were killed by lightning.
    Los Angeles Daily News (June 5, 1998)

    School shootings in context:

    Conclusions: Declines in fighting and weapon carrying among US adolescents between 1991 and 1997 are encouraging and consistent with declines in homicide, nonfatal victimization, and school crime rates. Further research should explore why behaviors related to interpersonal violence are decreasing and what types of interventions are most effective.

    From JAMA: Recent Trends in Violence-Related Behaviors Among High School Students in the United States

    (N.B.: Though Columbine happened after the dates covered by this study, the downward trend is still continuing even including it.)

    Shootings in general, and school shootings in particular have a special fascination for the media. The story of a 6-year-old killed a by a gun in school making national news, but a 6-year-old killed by an air rifle not in school not, has already been mentioned. It can't just be because the former death occurred in school, because football kills as many students each year as school shootings, but don't get any media attention at all, to say nothing of the non-attention football deaths get from the Million Moms, etc. But there's even more to it than that. The Yahoo! full coverage of the Navistar shooting includes School Violence as one of the "related categories" (Yahoo! Navistar capture) even though the shooting did not occur at a school - but the contemporary stabbing murder of two college professors (Half and Susanne Zantop) in their home did not merit a school violence "related category" or "full coverage" (Yahoo! Dartmouth capture) despite the obvious relation to a university! We are thus led to believe that two murdered college professors is not "school violence" but that a workplace shooting with no connection to a school is. Or, or we to infer that we should associate all shootings with each other, and especially with school shootings? Or what? Similarly, CNN has a site describing all the gun laws on a state-by-state basis, But for some reason this isn't in a legislative category, it's in the "schools" category - look at the URL.

    Similary, Reuters and other newswires like to say "This is just the latest in a series of workplace (or school) shootings that have rocked the country and re-energized the national gun control debate." In a series? These shootings are unrelated to each other, except that they resemble one another, and the later ones may be copycats of earlier ones. For comparison, when a car wreck happens, does Reuters tell us, "This is just the latest in a national series of multi-car pileups?" The connection between them does not exist - but Reuters is telling you that they are related, that they are all part of a series. What is the purpose of this message? On the other hand, note that in the thwarted carjacking of 28 Mar 01 in Tennessee, the mall manager said that this shooting, a successful defensive gun use, was "an isolated incident."

    Q: What does the media call a criminal, previously convicted of murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and arson, who goes in to rob a bank armed with 3 hand grenades, a longbow, 2 Molotov cocktails, a baseball bat, 7 sticks of dynamite, 3 hunting knives, a sword, brass knuckles and a 22 caliber revolver?

    A: A gunman. (Or, in the case of Reuters, an "armed gunman.")

    Examples of Dan Rather's two-faced bias. When Republicans do something, it's terrible and it's top-story news, but when Democrats do it, "Next. Let's move on."

    Propaganda: Slipping in ideas under your radar, so they do not alarm you or cause you to think about them later. A figure shows police searching a man exiting from the Target robbery, 6 Nov 2000. The caption reads, "Police search a man who came out of the Target store Monday in Culver City, California. They searched everyone who exited the store to establish their identities." How does a search establish one's identity?

    Similarly, at the Navistar shooting the gun used by the shooter was widely and repeatedly identified as an AK-47. The Washington Post even ran a false unsigned editorial two days after the crime, asking whether these guns should remain available "given their use in the Chicago shooting" even as another article in the same day's paper admitted that the firearm used was an SKS and was mistakenly identified as an AK-47 - actually, repeatedly identified as an AK-47 assault rifle. The frequency of mentions of the make and model of this gun in particular, (without also mentioning the make and model of the other guns, a .38 revolver, a 30-30 rifle, and a shotgun) - coupled with the fact that the only gun that was misidentified was the one given the most specific description gives one reason to think that, even if there weren't a mass conspiracy to trick the public into thinking that the main weapon was an AK-47, that the mass media failed miserably about the one detail that they took the most care to report repeatedly. In other words, utter incompetance if not actually a sinister conspiracy.

    Here is another story that admits the SKS:,2669,SAV-0102070122,FF.html

    The Washington Post goes beyond even this. The unsigned editorial Choose Your Weapons claims that the AK-47 was used, and rails upon the availability of this weapon. "The weapons of choice in Chicago, as in Massachusetts, included an AK-47 assault-style rifle -- designed for deadly efficiency." But the "deadly efficiency" that the purported Navistar AK-47 exhibited, you know, the high-capacity, rapid fire ability that was unleashed there was ... 25-30 rounds in 8-12 minutes,2669,SAV-0102070122,FF.html - at least 15 seconds per shot! Not only is this slow for a bolt-action rifle, it is the rate at which colonial militiamen were supposed to be able to reload muskets. Yet, the Washington Post sells this shooting as an example of the "deadly efficiency" that AK-47s are capable of - suggesting that we should ban this type of firearm. Should people decide to vote away their right to this kind of firearm, based on the lie of its use, and the lie of the rapid fire in this case, well, as Reuters likes to say on every one of their stories, Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Oh, you voted away your freedoms based on our erroneous propaganda? Well, that's too bad, but we're not liable. Have a nice day.

    Sign a petition to end the bias against defensive gun uses in the mass media:

    Prior Restraint

    Some say "But the First Amendment protection of free speech does not prohibit the government from banning the yelling of Fire! in a crowded theatre - and it should, as if such were to be yelled, death or mayhem could result.

    That's true. But people aren't muzzled before being admitted to theatres. People don't have to check their tongues at the door, or pass background checks in order to be admitted to the theatre, despite the fact that they might yell Fire! They are only charged with a crime if they break the law. Not so with gun control: one is expected to check wepaons at the door, or even be prohibited from ever getting them (e.g. Washington DC) before you have committed any crime. It's because you might do so. This is called "prior restraint" and has been found to be unconstitutional. Indeed, the entire concept of restricting guns lies in the belief that all people are basically criminals or even potential mass murderers, who would stick people up, or shoot up schools, except that they are prohibited to buy or to carry, or to own guns without special permission, after having given their fingerprints and their photographs to the police, and after waiting 5 or 15 days.

    "We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. ...If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime." - Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

    Um, Senator Carlson, if you haven't committed a crime yet, what would you be arrested for?

    In light of prior restraint, let's look at the evil 50-cal military "sniper rifles:"
    "It's only a matter of time before someone fires a round on a range that travels so far it hits a bus full of children." Translation: it hasn't happened yet, but we'll use the most emotionally charged rhetoric possible to drive up support for our fascist policies.

    "It is only a matter of time before a domestic terrorist uses one."
    Translation: To date, not one, ever, has been used in this manner.

    "If we seriously intend to prevent this kind of violent trauma, better ways must be found to keep such an arsenal from landing in the hands of those might kill. " (Note: "arsenal" here is three (3) firearms.) But every single person alive might kill - so does this mean support for an absolute ban is the only thing we can do?

    Pro-Self Defense Organizations and Sites

    The National Rifle Association. I list this first merely because it is the most hated and reviled organization today, or so it would seem. Pretty harsh criticism for a crystal-clear example of member-driven grassroots democracy civil-rights advocacy group in action! In fact, it is the oldest civil rights organization in the country. Their research and lobby group is the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA-ILA and contains fact sheets and media reports. Membership has recently topped 4 million - how's that for an outpouring of grassroots support! However, the NRA backs many gun prohibitions, such as Brady and GCA 68 - and thus is more properly a sportsman's club than a civil rights organization.

    Gun Owners of America. The original no-compromise gun lobby. Unlike the NRA, for example. Check out their fully referenced compilation of firearms facts:

    Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Speaking from the unassailable moral high ground of Never Again! (with regard to the Holocaust) this group engages in research and lobbying to retain firearms rights. They have published a number of original and ground-breaking studies such as Dial 911 And Die which cites court cases that prove the police do not have a duty to protect you, personally from crime, Lethal Laws which demonstrates how genocides have historically always been preceeded by gun confiscations - which have always been preceeded by "reasonable gun control," and Gun Control's Nazi Connection which establishes that the Gun Control Act of 1968 has its roots in the Nazi gun control laws of 1938. Even if gun control were a good idea, is it defensible to pattern them after such a shameful example?

    Second Amendment Sisters. Formed in answer, nay, rebuttal, to the Million Mom March, these Moms also march for the safety of their children: by being able to defend themselves and their children from deadly threats - with lethal force, if necessary. This group makes it crystal clear that the Million Moms do not speak for all women, or even all mothers. Among many others, there is a Northern Colorado Chapter:

    Mothers Arms - Protecting What's Ours. "Mothers Arms (MA) is a National Non-Profit organization dedicated to helping keep women and children safe by mobilizing women through education and training. Mothers must learn to protect themselves and their children through the use of safety rescue tools, knowing their rights about self defense, and self protection preparation and disaster planning. Mothers Arms has been and continues to be resource for research, personal safety education, and training conducted in both public and private settings."

    The Tyranny Response Team - Founded here in Colorado, this group of activists has spawned many offshoots in several states, and is credited with causing participation in the Million Mom March to plummet in 2001. This group does not only care about preserving the right to self-defense, but to retaining or regaining all rights.

    Independent Women's Forum "The Independent Women's Forum provides a voice for American women who believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility. We have made that voice heard in the U.S. Supreme Court, among decision makers in Washington, and across America's airwaves. It is the voice of reasonable women with important ideas who embrace common sense over divisive ideology. We don't pretend to speak for all women - but perhaps we speak for you." "At IWF, we care about facts and believe that women need to know the truth about gun control, and why they should oppose it. For women, by far the safest course of action when confronted by a criminal is to have a gun. The number of rapes in states with non-discretionary concealed handgun laws is 25% lower than in states that restrict or forbid women to carry concealed handguns. Guns are the great equalizer between the sexes." More hits from a search of "gun control" at their site: < a href=>

    The Libertarian Party - in favor of 100% no compromise on any rights to self-defense. "Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties. ... Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others." The LP's stance on other issues:

    Pink Pistols - Because gays with guns don't get bashed. Pro-rights resource. A great resource with many articles collected from a variety of sources.

    Gun Owner's Action League: A Massachussetts-based pro-rights group. (Boy, do they have their work cut out for them!!)

    "Our eyes and hands and feet will give us the same assistance in doing mischief as in doing good; but it would not therefore be better for the world, that all mankind were blind and lame. Arms are not to be laid aside by honest men, because carried by assassins and ruffians; they are to be used the rather for this very reason." -George Campbell

    The case against gun control.

    The Stentorian: Attacking the lies of gun control proponents

    Here is a New Age spiritualist(!) who sees the need for self-defense:

    There actually exist some pro-rights doctors(!) who are against the CDC calling guns a disease, and against the boundary violations of having your family doctor ask you or your children about whether there are guns in the house. (As an example, here are some doctors who think it is their duty to advance gun control: even though American doctors as a group have a much higher kill rate and social cost than American gun owners do, criminal + noncriminal combined.)
    What if a doctor advised you to disarm (and this was official "medical advice") and you were then victimized and unable to defend yourself. Would this then count as legally actionable medical negligence?
    Children are sometimes forcibly taken away from parents who disregard medical advice. What if a doctor "prescribes" a gun-free home for a certain child, but the parents refuse to disarm. Would this then be cause enough for the government to then come take the children away (if not the guns)? (Argument courtesy of Free Republic poster aomagrat.)

    Other doctors:
    An excellent, scholarly artice that touches on nearly all the bogus "medical" aspects of guns: "assault weapons were meant to kill," "the cost of gun violence," "friends and family."

    Guns save lives. Here are groups that agree: plain text gun laws in all 50 states, and pro-rights position papers:
    State-by-state gun laws, from CNN:

    Scholarly articles:
    Dozens of articles about the Second Amendment, "gun control" and the anti-gun movement, many written by members of Doctors for Responsible Gun Onwership.

    Talk.politics.guns pro-gun FAQs:
    Gun Control: A Realistic Assessment

    Collections of arguments, like this page:
    The Citizen Disarmament Agenda
    Taking on gun control:

    Many links:

    "The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
    - from, The Art of the Rifle by Col. Jeff Cooper

    Some people claim the quotes "turning swords into ploughshares" and "turning the other cheek" indicates the Bible is anti-self defense. These quotes disprove this: "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace." (Luke 11:21)
    "He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." (Luke 22:36)
    More arguments that defense of self and family are consistent with Christianity:

    Victim Disarmament Organizations

    The Biggest One: The US Government

    "We're from the government and we're here to help you."

    Government has a long history of trying to advance its own agenda, scientific research which contradicts the government notwithstanding: The story concludes "Facts, to the Feds, are like kryptonite to Superman."

    The ATF:

    Originally formed to collect taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, the Bureau of A,T, and F now also "enforces" gun laws with wild abandon. After badgering Randy Weaver for three years to produce a sawed-off shotgun, he finally did (and yes, removing 1/2 inch of metal and/or wood from a shotgun can be a felony) they then pressured him to become an informant in Aryan Nations or a similar group. He told them to walk, so they put his house under siege, and shot his dogs, his son in the back, and his wife (who was nursing a baby at the time) in the head. Over what should have been a $200 tax for the sawed-off shotgun.

    Remember the good old days when the detective walked up to the murderer in the climatic scene of old whodunit movies and calmly said "Mr. Burkes I am placing you under arrest for the murder of Mr. Donald Scott!" ? Well, thanks to the War on Guns, if you are suspected of having a piece of steel (!) that weighs about an ounce, an "auto-sear" that could be used to convert an AR-15 to a full-auto M-16 but you haven't paid a $200 tax to own the M-16, you too could now face a million dollar siege of your property, having your family monitored and bugged, possibly shot dead or worse, burned to death, on this suspicion - or maybe just a no-knock raid at 3 AM when 15 or 20 jack-booted thugs break down your door and wave machine guns at every member of your household, killing anybody for the slightest provacation, such as reaching for an ash tray (which, I swear, your honor, looked like a gun and I was in fear of my life)...

    The folks in Waco, TX were suspected of having illegal machine guns ... in other words, ones in which a $200 tax wasn't paid. Does burning 80 men, women, and children seem a bit steep a price to charge for suspected non-payment of a $200 tax? To put this into context, have you ever in your life owed more than $200 in taxes? If so, you are in the same position as were the Branch Davidians.

    The ATF has also trained its agents to perjure themselves in court about the accuracy of its NFA records.

    Let me say that when we testify in court, we testify that the data base is 100 percent accurate. That's what we testify to, and we will always testify to that. As you probably well know, that may not be 100 percent true.
    If you registered an NFA weapon and the ATF lost its copy of that registration, you could be charged with a felony and earn the same treatment as Randy Weaver or the Davidians (both were "suspected" of NFA violations, a sawed-off shotgun in the case of Weaver, and machine guns for the Davidians). Given the stakes, it is quite remarkable that agents are taught to lie in court that their records are always 100% accurate. More:

    Here are ATF-abuse pages:

    Bob Stewart, the owner of Maadi-Griffin, makers of .50 caliber rifles, was arrested by the ATF at his home on Friday June 16. He is in jail, and his records, computer, and all his guns that were at his home have been confiscated. Significantly, the ATF has indicated that they have now seized his customer list - as if they were criminals, or possibly will become criminals after these weapons are banned.

    In direct violation of a court order, his mail - including business mail - is being intercepted.

    John Ross wrote a novel " Unintended Consequences" which, though fictional, accurately described abuses perpetrated by the BATF upon American gun owners. For his effort, he's being harassed by the ATF itself. Here is the letter from his attorney to the Department of the Treasury (which oversees the BATF) asking for an investigation to see whether his First Amendment rights are being violated. (It's written in English, not legalese, and is quite readable.) More:

    A recently completed survey of felons in local jails and state and federal prisons disclosed that this group is 100% in favor of all existing and proposed gun control laws. In addition, this survey disclosed that all felons firmly believe that no gun control law, regardless of how well written, will be completely effective until the gun control statutes include provisions which preclude every law enforcement agent from carrying guns.

    The pro-control side clearly believes that U.S. laws are based on the "everything is prohibited unless specifically allowed" model, rather than the "everything is allowed unless specifically prohibited" model that U.S. law actually uses. - Steve Hix in talk.politics.guns

    The United Nations

    Proposed: "A ban on the possession of handguns by anyone except police and target shooters. Target shooters would be forced to store their guns at shooting ranges. In terms of self-defense, the Japanese representative in Cairo said that 'In democratic countries people's lives and safety should be assured by the government . . .[so that] citizens should not need to possess handguns for self-protection.'"

    The UN will convene a meeting starting on 9 Jul 2001 with the topic of controlling "small arms" including ordinary firearms in civilian possession - It claims that there are some 500 million of them "in circulation" but neglects to mention that some 250 million of them are in private possession in America. The United Nations has denied that legally owned guns within member countries are at issue, although this implies that if a member country were to, say, ban "assault weapons" within its borders, that the disarmament of citizens who still owned these now-banned guns would receive UN support. Furthermore, the Million Mom March, which openly calls for bans of certain types of guns within US borders, as well as a host of other onerous gun laws, has aligned itself with the UN and receives UN endorsement (and has renamed itself the "Billion Mom March" which directly exposes the UN's denial as a lie. Furthermore, the UN received and turned over irate letters from American gun owners to law enforcement agencies to assess the "security threat" that these letter writers represent. This has demanded an apology from The Second Amendment Foundation.

    The Brady Center - name change of Handgun Control Inc: who's very name was deceptive: They also seek to ban so-called "assault rifles" - which aren't handguns, and by the way "control" doesn't mean "ban" - except to them. Now, it's a different name, same purpose.

    "We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest... So we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time... The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal." -- Nelson T. "Pet" Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc. (interview appearing in The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, page 53f)

    An analysis of Handgun Control Inc.

    The "Confidential 5-Year Plan of Handgun Control Inc."
    Here it is, all spelled out.

    The Brady Center has joined with Common Cause in filing an ethics complaint against Attorney General John Ashcroft for claiming that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership.

    The American Bar Association

    America's laywer's guild is explicitly biased against guns. On their "gun violence" page, notice that they have a section: "Read selected court opinions that support the principle that the Second Amendment does not prevent the regulation of firearms" But they do not have the opposing section of court cases that hold the Second Amendment does prevent regulation of firearms.

    They also cite the 43-to-1 stat, and the presence of a firearm in the home nearly triples the risk of murder, at and that American kids are 12 times more likely to be killed than kids in 25 other industrialized countries combined, here:

    The Million Mom March

    Bringing the wisdom of mothers to gun prohibition: (Moms were also behind the alcohol prohibition too.)
    "Because I said so, That's why!"
    "Don't play with that, you could hurt someone!"
    "You just sit there and be quiet -- I don't want to hear another peep out of you." (no protests)
    "If you don't do what I say RIGHT NOW, young man, you'll be in big trouble."
    "As long as you're living in MY house (country), you live by MY rules."
    "You're just not responsible enough to use the things we grownups (police, military) have." (Courtesy of Dan Day, talk.politics.guns)

    Federal tax laws prohibit tax-exempt "non-profit" organizations from lobbying or endorsing candidates. The Million Moms marched for "sensible gun-control" laws, and gave the "apple pie award" to Clinton and the "time-out chair" to a GOP member of Congress. The Million Mom March was also a tax-exempt, non-profit organization. Houston, we have a problem.

    Never, ever underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. -- unk.

    Was it a million? The media said over 750,000.

    One Million Mom March member, Barbara Graham (Lipscomb, Martin), joined the MMM because her son was killed "by a gun." But the MMM fell short and she took the law into her own hands by shooting (with a gun of course) the man, Kikko Smith, she thought killed her son. Police seized four guns, including a TEC-9 sub-machine gun, from her house. By the way, the man she shot is paralyzed for life - and didn't kill her son. She's been convicted: Of course, the Washington Post does not see fit to mention her affiliation with the MMM at her conviction. (It is one of the worst left-wing biased newspapers in America.) Perhpas the reason the MMM fell short was because her son was killed in Washington D.C. - where guns are already banned and the MMM dream is already reality.


    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) :

    Despite the fact that the ACLU, by name, fights for civil liberties, they do not admit that the Second Amendment protects a civil right! In fact, they "affirmatively support" gun prohibitions.

    (See Don P. Kates, Jr., Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 207 (1983).) The ACLU's summary of its national board's action at the June 14-15, 1980, meeting sets out the following policy considerations:

    The setting in which the Second Amendment was proposed and adopted demonstrates that the right to bear arms is a collective one existing only in the collective population of each state for the purpose of maintaining an effective state militia.

    The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.

    Nor does the ACLU believe that there is a significant civil liberties value, apart from the Second Amendment, in an individual right to own or use firearms. Interests of privacy and self expression may be involved in any individual's choice of activities or possessions, but these interests are attenuated when the activity, or the object sought [sic] to be possessed is inherently dangerous to others. With respect to firearms, the ACLU believes that this quality of dangerousness justifies legal regulation which substantially restricts the individual's interest in freedom of choice.

    Id. at 207 n.15. At the same meeting, the board approved the following clarification: "It is the sense of this body that the word 'justifies' in the policy means we will affirmatively support gun control legislation." Id. (Cited in

    Violence Policy Center:

    The Violence Policy Center is a national non-profit organization working to fight firearms violence through research, education, and advocacy. As a gun prohibitionist "think tank," the VPC analyzes a wide range of current firearm issues and provides information to policymakers, journalists, public health professionals, grassroots activists, and members of the general public. Click here to learn more about the VPC.

    Education? Research? Provides "information" to policymakers? Don't non-profits have a responsibility to be honest?

    This is where Josh Sugarmann works. Let him and others there speak:

    "You can't get around the image of people shooting at people to protect their stores and it working. This is damaging to the [gun prohibition] movement." --Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a "gun control" lobbying group in Washington, D.C., in _The Washington Post,_ May 18, 1993 [Sugarmann is referring to the Korean shopkeepers who guarded their property and defended their lives with so-called "assault weapons" during the L.A. riots.]

    He likes to mislead, intentionally:

    "[So-called 'Assault weapons'] menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic [so-called] assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." --Josh Sugarmann, executive director of New Right Watch and spokesman for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America," policy report of New Right Watch and the Education Fund to End Handgun Violence, September 1988

    They seek to ban weapons:

    "Sir, we're not hiding behind anything. We ... we endorse a handgun ban. I will tell you that right now. We absolutely endorse that ban..." --Susan Glick, of the Violence Policy Center in Washington D.C.; in response to a caller's comments during the radio talk show "Front Page", hosted by Sue Wiley, on WVLK Radio 590 am, in Lexington, Kentucky on December 3, 1997 Caller Mark: "Now you're saying that's what your ultimate goal is..." Glick: "That's right, and we are absolutely vocal about it..."

    "A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns." Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. [emphasis added]
    America's gun problem is a handgun problem. Handguns exact an inordinate toll on American lives. The vast majority of gun death and injury in homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings is carried out with easily concealable pistols and revolvers. The public health model as well as the traditional approaches employed in protecting consumer health and safety lead to one inevitable conclusion: handguns should be banned. Source.

    But then they admit it would do nothing for crime:

    "The NRA is right...handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns." -- Josh Sugarmann

    So, what exactly is their motivation? Lie, mislead, and disarm the peaceable, while admitting it does nothing to deter criminal gun use? And under the guise of "education?"

    Here is their Handgun Ban Fact Sheet, edited. Though this page is copyright, their stated purpose is to make information available to members of the general public of which I am a member. This is what they have made available.

    Here is their Women and Firearms Violence Fact Sheet, edited.

    Here is another take on the VPC's use of propaganda, logical fallacy, lies, and half-truths:

    Common Cause has joined with The Brady Center (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.) in filing an ethics complaint against Attorney General John Ashcroft for claiming that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership.

    American Academy of Pediatrics These pediatricians consider handgun ownership a health risk: "The issue of gun ownership is a particularly frustrating and difficult one. Pediatricians should be prepared for resistance. Maintaining a focus specifically on the risks of handgun ownership can help keep the message clear and reduce controversy." [Risks like, presumably, "a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill friend or family member than an intruder."]

    "Pediatricians should advocate for ... reduced availability or elimination of handguns in all communities through handgun regulation and public education."

    Doctors Against Handgun Injury

    Just when you thought talking to your doctor or psychiatrist was one of the most private and confidential things you could do ... think again. In what it describes as an effort to curb handgun violence, a group called Doctors Against Handgun Injury is calling for sweeping changes in doctor-patient confidentiality that would allow doctors, including psychiatrists, to pry about their patients' gun ownership. In the past, the medical community fought strenuously against any invasion by government or others into the confidentiality of patient records and n001/3/25/152621.shtml>

    Other articles about medical privacy (or the increasing erosion of it)
    Other articles about "gun control"

    Americans For Gun Safety

    This is a typical gun prohibition group. Although its mission statement states "Americans for Gun Safety is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization that supports the rights of individuals to own guns ..." they are lying. They officially do not take a position on whether "assault weapons" should be banned or not, but consider this: "The manufacture of new assault weapons was banned in 1994, but weapons made before the ban continue to be easily and legally available, except in states that have legislated to prohibit such sales. One of the guns used in the Columbine massacre was a pre-ban TEC-DC9 assault pistol, purchased by the killers at a gun show." By the way, it contains the lie that the killers bought the TEC-9 at a gun show, when in fact straw purchaser Robyn Anderson bought it there, and she sold it to them afterwards, which would not be a gun show under the Colorado definition. They also seek bans on affordable guns, namely, Niggertown Saturday Night Specials, as they define here: "A low-quality semi-automatic pistol, short-barreled (usually less than three inches) and easily concealed. Because they are small and inexpensive, Saturday Night Specials are especially popular with juvenile criminals. Federal law bans their importation into the US, but allows domestic production and sales of these same weapons. To close this loophole, seven states have passed their own laws banning commercial sale of junk guns."

    Thus, they support bans of certain types of guns, they lie about facts including how Columbine killers Harris and Klebold got their weapons, and they use racist terms like Saturday Night Specials to advance their bigotry against gun owners.

    The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence

    This offshoot of HCI is a brainchild of internet billionaire Andrew McKevely, founder of The group supports legislation by lawsuit which is illegal as it violates the separation of powers: legislatures not the courts, are what are authorized to legislate, but this is no stumbling block for them. "Litigation against the gun industry can provide monetary damages to shooting victims and can force firearm manufacturers and dealers to change their negligent manufacturing and distribution practices"


    They previously held concerts for anti-tobacco causes: Their new target is the NRA. They, along with Working Assets and Handgun Control Inc. are hosting a concert to "benefit" gun prohibition.

    Most of their invective is based upon lies, apparently copied directly from HCI. It includes the "12 kids a day" lie, as well as other misrepresentations.

    Here is their home page: Why SLAM the NRA? is the page of lies:
    And here is my commentary on it:

    "Integrity is a lot like virginity: once you lose it, it's pretty hard to get it back." -Bill Levinson. Here's his take on SLAM!:

    Working Assets Long Distance
    This is a progressive phone company which puts some of its profits, and solicits donations from its members, to fund progressive programs. Gun prohibition is one such program. On their home page is the "gun show loophole" lie:

    Gun dealers are exploiting a dangerous loophole that allows them to sell weapons to buyers at gun shows. This loophole permits buyers with questionable backgrounds to acquire weapons that might otherwise be denied them.

    As mentioned above, there is no such loophole. Prohibited persons aren't "permitted" to buy guns at gun shows: it is illegal. That they are able to do so by breaking the law is no more of a loophole than that someone is "permitted" to buy crack cocaine on a street corner. Both are criminal acts under federal law. Nevertheless, Working Assets has bought into this lie, and even spreads it and seeks to support more gun control because of it. Ironically in an extremely Orwellian NewSpeak way, the gun-control organizations that they seek to support are in the civil rights section - as if denying the Second Amendment were somehow associated with "protecting civil rights." Go figure.

    As mentioned above, they are working with SLAM! and HCI to put on concert(s) which would raise money for the cause of victim disarmament.

    Other companies, people, organizations and sponsors working against the Second Amendment:
    Long lists:
    Sponsors of the Million Mom March:

    Gun-Free Utopias

    If you still support gun control, then consider why mass shootings tend to happen where gun control is strictest:

    Chicago: de facto handgun ban. Handguns must be registered, but they stopped accepting registrations 20 years ago.
    9 wounded in park shootings, 25 Jun 2000
    Washington DC National Zoo: DC also has a defacto handgun ban. 7 shot in the DC zoo.

    Columbine was a federal "gun-free" "safe-zone."

    Take a survey and share your wisdom:


    Still not convinced? Then what you want is a Gun Free Camp.
    Gun-free camps mirror

    How about this as a utopic vision for America?

    Sundown at Coffin Rock


    Organized boycott of biased news media channels and advertisers:

    Petition to end media bias against defensive gun uses:

    Letters To The Editor

    Here are some editorials and letters, and my published replies:

    Pamela White: Guns and Teens don't mix. (Editorial.) Who would argue that teens possibly need to stock up on high-capacity semi-automatic assault pistols?...

    My reply. White spews typical anti-gun propaganda. .

    Mike Saunders: Only an ignorant and uninformed person favors gun ownership. The British people overwhelmingly support gun control, and their country has a lower gun murder rate than does America.

    My reply. Mr. Saunders is the uninformed and ignorant one. Which is his right. But could he please leave my rights alone?

    Pamela White wrote a lengthy article describing the abuses that police committed on the protestors in Seattle during the 1999 WTO talks. Especially, she criticized the denial of First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly. Though not mentioning gun control, she appears to hold some rights more equal than others. Here was my reply: Ms. White speaks of the First Amendment as sacred and inviolable, yet urges even more restrictions on the Second. I ask her to support the entire Bill of Rights; if the Second falls, the rest is worthless. This letter prompted some replies:

    Matt Easley: The Second Amendment is only about well-regulated militias, but Colorado has one! We're the Colorado National Guard.

    Roger Olson: Tiemann truncates the Second Amendment, changing its meaning. Even the NRA gave up on this ploy. The NRA also admits the Second Amendment has not prevented firearms laws, and some of its lawyers are jerks and liars. Let's see if the Supreme Court finally decides that the Second Amendment finally grants an individual right, after all.

    My reply: Easley and Olson are mistaken. The wording of the Second Amendment does protect an individual right, and scholar Copperud agrees. Besides, the "militia" is all adult males, and anyway reading Federalist papers and other contemporary works make clear individual rights were intended. Olson tips his hand (as an HCI member) by suggesting that the Bill of Rights "grants" rights, which it doesn't, and for maligning NRA people, which contributes nothing to the discussion.

    Angela case: By its huge corporate spending, the evil gun lobby subverts democracy. Gun lobby people aren't rational and can't coherently debate the Second Amendment. Check up on your reps, vote, and support the Million Mom March; help re-establish a democracy.

    My reply: The NRA is strong because it has votes, not corporate money; it's a prime example of grassroots democracy. It wasn't even in the top 100 lobbying spenders in 1998, though many democracy-threatening corporations were, and the gun-control Bell Campaign is funded by George Soros, speaking of threats to democracy. I offer to debate Ms. Case on any gun topic, Second Amendment or any aspect of gun control.

    Here's a letter to the editor I sent to The Nation on 22 May 2000. Doubt they'll print it.

    Roger Olson (Again!): I disavow gun "control" but support gun "safety" which is why I support the Million Mom's platforms. I have a scientific background and find the Moms use statistics honestly but the gun lobby twists and distorts. The gun lobby only seeks to increase profits, making them just like Big Tobacco.

    My reply. Mr. Olson continues his dishonest campaign. The Mom's platform is much more about controlling gun owners than increasing safety, exposing his deceptive use of the latter term. Olson provides no examples or citations in support of his contention that the gun lobby twists statistics. He denies that most people (e.g. hunters) in the "gun lobby" spend more than they make on guns, neglecting they are afraid of losing rights, and neglecting Project Exile, which intends to jail criminals and not make money. Olson can't even go so far as to afford the common decency of making honest arguments, let alone have facts or logic on his side. .

    M.R. Swenson:Ultra-right-wing Kopel wants to make guns more accessible to crazies, and even wore a bulletproof vest when testifying at the Denver capitol. But guns do not form the basis of a civil society.

    My reply: Swenson attacks the messenger instead of the message by offering no arguments why Kopel is wrong, but instead "helpfully" pointing out Kopel's affiliation. Kopel wore the vest to indicate that only criminals, and not he, could be armed in Denver: the gun ban there can only be as good as the current drug ban - a complete failure. Finally, Swenson fails to identify how disarming the peaceable, in the face of crime, brings civility.

    Reasonable Fire Safety Now!! This is the text of my prepared remarks before Boulder City Council Advisory meeting, held on 21 Jun 2000. My satire sure sounds stupid - and that's the point. But you can't just dimiss it:

    Angela Case (again!) I attended the Boulder firearms hearing, and was appalled by the anti-control people there. Most shocking was "the first Million Mom March" leaflet. Who can take these people seriously? Armed Jews couldn't have stopped the Holocaust, and more people are killed by guns in a week in America than in western Europe in a year.

    My reply: Angela dismisses even the pro-rights argument of a rape survivor(!). She also misunderstood the First MMM leaflet. 100 armed Jews kept the Nazis at bay for 4 weeks, so 6 million probably could have stopped the Holocaust after all. She neglects the fact that, in "peaceful" western Europe, 13 million defenseless subjects were slaughtered by their own governments - a death toll it would take America 390 years to reach even with its high gun-death rate. My offer to debate her stands unanswered.

    The Colorado Daily ran as a top-story news item the event that a 13 year old kid stood atop a cafeteria table and fired a gun once into the ceiling, killing noone and injuring noone. My reply: The Daily demonstrates it is anti-gun by running a scare story of a non-injury school shooting. Considering SAFE Colorado claims "12 students a day are killed by gunfire" - why wasn't one of those fatalities run, instead? Or how about a fatal multiple stabbing? Nope, they've taken sides. What will it take to change this policy?

    Two letters to the Daily Camera assert Amendment 25, the "Woman's Right to Know Act" is deceptive, requires government intrusion into what should be private and personal, is not what it seems, and is "suspiciously funded" by out-of-state anti-abortion groups. Also, a letter by James Balog dismisses concerns such as my own, about incrementalism and infringement, delcaring the proposed "closing the gun show loophole" ballot initiative Amendment 22 "reasonable and necessary" - after all,his background check took only nine minutes. In my reply I compare the arguments against 25 with the realities of 22, making the case that those who are swayed by those arguments are obliged to also reject the proposed firearms initiative.

    A letter in The Boulder Daily Camera supports the right of individuals to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense, and argues that gun control was originally racist and classist. In a short reply, Peter Chisholm bets that the Navistar shooter, which was reported on the same day as the above letter, was a law abiding citizen until the moment he started pulling the trigger. My reply: First, he was a twice convicted felon, and second, his victims were disarmed and couldn't shoot back - and how dare Chisholm cite mass murders of disarmed victims as a reason to ridicule opponents of additional gun control.

    Public talks:
    21 Mar 01 - Invited talk to the CU Campus Libertarians.

    Posts on public boards:
    ABC News slanders the NRA.

    Hate Mail Yes, if you write me a personal attack, I will put it on the web.

    Here are some letters and rebuttals, from others:

    The Anti-Defamation League gets bent out of shape that Bob Glass of the Tyranny Response Team is "using" the Holocaust to advance its "political agenda."

    Bob Glass, a Jew who has lost many relatives in the Holocaust itself, replies.

    This Second Amendment SistersInc. RingSurf site owned by Bruce Tiemann.

    [ Next| Skip Next| Next 5 Sites| List Sites| Join!]

    Hits since 23 Jan 2001


    Before joining the civil rights cause, I used to tie and set world juggling records. (Juggling Video) Homepage
    Other concerns