We need to showcase the man most responsible for the misinformation being spread about gun control

John LottWhen it comes to the gun debate in America, there is one name that has inexplicably flown under the radar, and that name is John Lott. Even though this pundit for the gun lobbies makes regular television appearances, his embattled background has managed to stay obfuscated. That’s because John Lott doesn’t want to be written about, he wants to do the writing.

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. There is a very good chance you have never heard of John Lott, his questionable history of bad data, or how important he is to the NRA and other gun lobbies. This piece will bring him to light, where he certainly doesn’t want to be, and show how integral this man is to the overall issue of gun violence in the USA.

Lott is most known for his book “More Guns, Less Crime” which exhorts the value of, you guessed it, more guns to decrease crime. This is a message the gun lobbies like of course, and so Lott gets paid to spread that message. He is a frequent “expert” called upon whenever the topic of guns comes up, and he writes a column for Fox News where he continues to forward a pro-gun agenda. And, whenever there is a mass shooting in America, there’s John Lott appearing on television to downplay the gun violence issue.

The problem is that the research he used to base his book upon is in dispute. Accusations have been leveled at Lott of fraudulence, (proven here) to which he has responded with claims that he lost his data in a computer crash. In the meantime, Lott’s books, based upon questionable data as they are, have become the cornerstone of gun lobby arguments and their base, which can prove rabid in their uncompromising stances. As this writer has experienced, when one speaks out against the gun lobbies, expect extreme resistance from gun advocates.

For the most part, gun lobby supporters don’t have much more to say than “You’re wrong!” They simply say it insistently. But those who do quote statistics in their arguments are using numbers taken from the works of John Lott. If those numbers are false, then arguments based upon them must be rendered moot.

Critics of Lott’s research are plentiful, although he dismisses them as “Liberal.” So it’s important to note this blistering rebuke by conservative pundit Michelle Malkin:

“Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash. He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records. He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can’t identify or produce.

Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper proving the survey’s existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument.”

It is also important to note that John Lott has a history of vetting his own work under another pseudonym, “Mary Rosh.” This is not in question, Lott himself has admitted his use of the Rosh persona. Here’s Malkin again:

“By itself, there is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym. But Lott’s invention of Mary Rosh to praise his own research and blast other scholars is beyond creepy. And it shows his extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his work.”

John Lott, twitterJohn Lott is quick to respond to his critics, this writer included. But he remains unable to definitively address the specific problem of his questioned data. On twitter, he produced these links to absolve himself of these issues.

Two of the links provided were diversionary pivots that had nothing to do with the subject of his disputed data. Another was a collection of his responses to allegations of falsified research. All of Lott’s responses basically boiled down to his data is correct because he says so. Hardly substantial.

The third link, lists articles criticizing Lott’s data , each responded to by Lott. And the source John Lott continually uses to defend his own disputed data is… drum roll… his own website. He has done so with this writer, twice, and he has used it to respond to Malkin, as well as other critics. In fact, the only thing all three links had in common was that they originated from Lott’s sites.

In various responses, when he doesn’t try to pivot, Lott more or less says the same thing; he lost the data in a computer crash; he conducted a second smaller survey, and results were near enough to the original, non-existent survey to validate it; and that he has now provided the means for the survey to be replicated for whomever wants to prove him wrong.

Let’s break that down. John R. Lott lost all of his work in an extensive survey which was performed over the phone. He was unable to produce even one shred of that work. Not even one. But that’s okay because he did a second survey, and it got kinda the same results. And if we don’t like it, then we should go ahead and do that survey ourselves. Even though the very methodology of how he conducted the survey in the first place is one of the issues in question.

It needs to be said that, with his history of academia, Lott has to know what unacceptable answers these are. No boss would ever accept these excuses for work not done. No professor would ever pass you from a class with research this flubbed. And if the source of the information is itself flawed, then further information from that source cannot be admissible, let alone credible.

John LottLott has dismissed this writer and others for being far too beholden to similar critiques on Media Matters, which isn’t true. This piece, as well as previous ones about him, have used various sources. But, to answer his charges, this particular essay will continue to focus upon the conservative critique of Lott. As Michelle Malkin sums up charges against Lott succinctly and certainly holds no “Liberal bias,” then her account serves the purpose of exposing Lott’s research flaws:

“The most disturbing charge, first raised by retired University of California, Santa Barbara professor Otis Dudley Duncan and pursued by Australian computer programmer Tim Lambert, is that Lott fabricated a study claiming that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere brandishing, as opposed to shooting. When Lott cited the statistic peripherally on page three of his book, he attributed it to “national surveys.” In the second edition, he changed the citation to “a national survey that I conducted.” “

John Lott, Twitter 2Lott’s defenders, few that there are, also quote Lott’s own website. Here is “Luke” with a George Costanza profile picture, challenging me with the same link that Lott provides, which was previously dismissed in a prior article about Lott:

John R. Lott is quick to defend himself with himself. But as it is his work in question, the originator of said data cannot be taken as a reliable source of it’s defense. Hence Lott’s use of the “Mary Rosh” persona in the first place. Therefore, every defender of Lott’s data hiding behind a blatantly fake profile must be dismissed. Whether they are named “Mary Rosh” or “Luke” they are only illustrating the convoluted history of Lott’s work and his purposeful obfuscation of truth.

Consider; has John R. Lott Jr. intentionally falsified his data? This is what he denies. But if his only defense is incompetence, that’s not comforting or reassuring for people on either side of the gun debate. In the meantime, Lott’s discredited “More Guns, Less Crime” continues to forward gun lobby arguments. Think about that. The major arguments of gun lobbies rely upon the work of a man who cannot exonerate himself from charges of fraudulent data. As this is the case then many major arguments of the gun lobbies can be dismissed for good.

Gun lobby arguments are fallacies if based upon the work of John Lott. “More Guns, Less Crime” is a sales pitch, not a truth. Lott has managed to evade large scale public scrutiny while at the same time remaining a mouthpiece for the NRA and others. This needs to stop. Were it to be fully publicized how erroneous Lott’s research is, whether it’s because of purposeful deception or pure ignorance, the gun lobbies would be left scrambling.

Would this remove gun lobbies from the equation entirely? Of course not. Check the comments below. Gun advocates are sure to be raging against this article. Let them. It is pointless to engage them. They will only try to divert focus from Lott while tossing baseless accusations back at you.

John R. Lott Jr. is the key to defeating the gun lobbies. His data is either deliberately misleading or subject to ignorant methodology. It has been repeatedly defended only with his own responses. If Lott is held accountable for his mistakes and mis-truths, gun lobby talking points would get their volume turned down. It will be fully revealed how baseless many gun lobby arguments are. They are motivated by what they want, not how things are, and certainly aren’t interested in the greater good of the country.

Americans should be able to decide for themselves how to handle the issues of gun violence without vested interests shouting in their ears so loudly. John Lott’s story should be far bigger than it is. Perhaps you can help with that.

“Things come apart so easily when they have been held together with lies.” ~ Dorothy Allison

Chad R. MacDonald has a degree in English literature from Cape Breton University and subsequently received a full scholarship to AMDA in New York City. He is a former security professional, veteran of the hospitality industry, and experienced in both the arts as well as administration.He has been writing all his life, likes baseball, hockey, literature, science, the arts, and marine photography.Chad lives in Brooklyn with his wife and son and their gigantic cat.


  1. According to my own studies, simply brandishing a banana is 98% effective in preventing crime.

    I make as much sense as Lott does with his “brandishing a weapon” line of silly nonsense.

  2. Your argument is irrelevant, because we have the right to keep and bear arms regardless of you or John Lott. We have the right to keep and bear arms, and we have the right to privacy in the exercise of our rights, and we have the right to be secure from interrogations under penalty of perjury as a precondition to receiving (or being denied) “permission” to exercise our rights, and we have the right to be secure from violations of due process as a precondition to exercising our rights, and we have a right to be secure from a rogue occupation government claiming authority it does not have to issue or deny permission to exercise a right, and we have a right to be secure from being compelled to waive any right as a precondition to being allowed to exercise a right.
    I know this annoys you greatly, but our rights are not subject to government color of law or popular initiative. We will not comply with your attempt to subvert the first nation in fifty centuries to be founded upon the principle that citizen liberty trumps arbitrary government whim or rapacious need for more and more power. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you can go pound sand.

    • If you REALLY believe that guff you’ve just spouted then you haven’t been paying attention to the expose that the country received from Edward Snowden about teh everyday trampling of “our rights” by the NSA.

      • The fact that our rights are being trampled right and left does not change the fact that our rights are ours and not within government’s sphere of authority. What Edward Snowden’s revelations reveal instead is the illegal machinations of a rogue occupation government not deriving every scintilla of its authority from the Constitution of the United States. If you want to help correct that situation you could start by demanding the federal government obey the Constitution every time, no exceptions, no excuses, instead of advocating its transition to a full-on totalitarian satrapy as your posts so far have argued. Indeed, you could focus specifically on the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of our liberty from tyranny and criminality (and yes, with those two words I repeat myself).

    • First, thank you for acknowledging that the Constitution contains a right to privacy. Many of your brethren will fight you on this. Second, you might want to note that the Supreme Court has noted in many different instances that rights are not without limit, no matter what the NRA might want us to believe. And finally, please consider that rights come with responsibilities. The only ones who ignore the ‘responsibilities’ part are the gun lobby and the porn industry.

      • Actually, most of “my brethren” are recognizing that the background check scam is nothing but a ruse to destroy our right to be secure from warrantless search and seizure, destroy our right to due process, destroy our right to a federal government that does only what the Consent of the Governed (the U.S. Constitution) delegates the authority to do, and our right to State governments to do, under their Police Power, only that which the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit them from doing. It is true the Supreme Court has shown itself to have feet of clay from time to time, most especially during the time FDR packed the Supreme Court with leftists who seemed incapable of reading the plain English of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and the principles set forth in both the Declaration of Independence and the collected Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States. You will note, I am sure, that is exactly why anyone who believes in our Constitutional form of limited government despairs of our future if another freaking Marxist opportunist like Sotomayor, et al, ever gets appointed to the Court. This is why it is so important to have a Republican majority in the Senate, to ensure that subversive enemy agents are not ratified to the Supreme Court. And you are most correct that rights come with responsibilities, which makes me wonder why you appear to want to destroy the rights instead of recognizing their inherent responsibilities? (By the way, you might be interested to know that what folks on your side of the fence like to call “the gun culture” has done extremely well fostering responsible use of firearms since before our nation became our nation. It is those, today, who fail to recognize the value of the gun culture and the concomitant responsibilities inherent thereto, who fail to meet those responsibilities. In fact, I would have to observe that most of the irresponsibility in our society today is on the liberal side, refusing to take responsibility for their life style decisions and expecting the taxpayer to constantly bail them out of their consequences — over and over again.

        • What you know about rights vs. duties and what the 2nd amendment meant to those who wrote it is mostly worthless bunk. You will not find much debate — if fact, you will find NO debate amongst the delegates at any of the state’s ‘ constitutional conventions regarding armed citizens vs. the government. What you WILL find being debated between the federalists and the antifederalists when it comes to guns is whether or not a standing army would or would not become a means of oppression and or social and economic division. (Might the wealthy be able to opt-out, for example.) It was a forgone conclusion that those with guns would be called upon to serve among its ranks, just as they had as county militias in times of community crisis. Ergo, their use of guns was expected to serve a civil function. What was ever at issue was how said army would operate and serve and whether it was genuinely necessary to have one. Even the antifederalists conceded that a standing army was likely necessary. What they didn’t want was for it to become abusive. if you’d bother to actually read and study the Federalists papers as well as the debates — all of which are preserved and transcribed and available online, you’d know that. But apparently, rather than bothering with actual documented American history, you’ve decided to let the NRA do your thinking for you with their revisionist garbage sprinkled with a few cherry picked quotes and some other ones entirely fabricated. Good luck with that. If you think the founders liked the idea of insurrection by armed civilians, you may want to look at their response to Shay’s Rebellion. Not one of them thought stopping it by the militia was tyrannical.

          • Well, Alex, it is clear that what you even know about the existing discussion is worthless bunk. First you quote something I said that is of the highest importance and then offer a totally irrelevant paragraph that doesn’t address it and goes off into la-la land about something that wasn’t said in my remarks you quoted. For your information I have a hard copy of the Federalist Papers in my bookcase and a searchable copy on my computer. I don’t listen much to the NRA because the NRA is still advocating we give up our 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment rights by asking government for revocable permission to purchase a firearm and giving up the other rights to get it. But your opinion is worthless in any event because you oppose the only right we have that enables us to protect the rest of our rights, and like most apparatchiks on the left you use ad hominem insulting attacks to argue your case because you have no legitimate arguments to offer. Suffice to say you are wasting your time because we are not giving up our arms of our right to keep and bear them and we will prosecute those who engage in insurrection against our Constitution by attempting to force the issue. Have a nice day.

      • Second, brief response, Miguel; I forgot to mention a fact relating to your comment that rights are not without limit. Yes, they are, to the extent they are a right. Example: The Police Power of the State governments authorizes the State government (not the feds) to regulate the USE of firearms. The States can legislate where you may shoot, what safety procedures need to be in place, what parameters constitute self-defense and what will destroy a claim of self-defense, etc. But neither the States nor the feds have the lawful power to tell any otherwise law-abiding citizen they cannot keep and bear arms. Keeping and bearing individual arms (as opposed to crew-served weapons, which is the right of a community) is a right without limit. Using arms other than in a defensive capacity, is not a right, and may be regulated.

          • Unfortunately, Miguel, thinking about your message to which I responded, it dawned on me that you may be one of those folks suckered in by the communist apparatchiks that appear at all the immigration protests and the like. They like to proclaim the founders and settlers of our nation were slavers and oppressors, rather than the founders of a nation founded on individual liberty. As regards the Second Amendment and their ludicrous claim that it was written to provide arms for enslaving the minorities, have you ever heard of the French and Indian Wars before our nation was founded? Are you aware that firearms were typically as much of the normal daily attire as shirts and pants and shoes? Are you aware that to the colonists, and the founders of our nation, firearms were considered the palladium of liberty, an absolute requirement for personal, community and colony defense? And that every male citizen capable of bearing arms was a member of the militia and responsible for community defense? Are you aware that the American Revolution was specifically triggered by General Thomas Gage sending Lt. Col. Francis Smith to Lexington to confiscate the weapons of the colonists? Are you also aware that LTC Smith’s 1700 men got their ass kicked all the way back to Boston by roughly 500 colonial militiamen? THAT’S why we have the Second Amendment, Miguel: Government will never again confiscate our firearms without a knock-down drag-out fight. You may regard that as etched in stone.

            Yeah, if you are supporting the subversive elements trying to destroy our right to keep and bear arms, and our nation of liberty the right protects, then, yeah, I guess you could say you are wasting your time.

            • Your suggestion that anyone who might want to place reasonable limits on the right to bear arms is a Communist tells me all anyone needs to know about you. You’re not interested in a reasonable discussion of the issue. So, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. BUT — there’s two things you should know: first, just because I and others like me think there should be reasonable limits placed on gun ownership, that doesn’t mean that we’re shy about arming ourselves against your lunatic fringe. And second, you surely understand that militias ultimately answer to the Commander in Chief. Are you prepared to take orders from your President?

              • The problem is, Miguel, your definition of “a reasonable discussion of the issue” includes the possibility of concluding that the people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, and that is a non-starter. We have the right to keep and bear arms and we will continue to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, because it is the right that prohibits government and people like you from becoming tyrants and turning the first nation in the history of the planet to be founded upon the principal that “governments govern by the Consent of the Governed” back into a nation suffering under the principle that “governments govern by the Divine Right of Kings to Govern.” We don’t intend to allow a bunch of totalitarian thugs tell us we have nothing to say about who governs us or how they govern.

                I said “communist” because that is the slimy, totalitarian ideology the political con-men are currently trying to sell us because it is the ideology low-information “useful idiots” are willing to buy. They will sell you anything you are dumb enough to buy, and right now the useful idiots are buying Marxism in its various disguises. The claim I made works equally well if you exchange the word “communist” for the word “fascist” or the word “totalitarian,” though those words would be less appropriate to the current discussion.

                I was happy to see you admit your hypocrisy in suggesting that “reasonable restrictions on gun ownership” should be applied to everyone else, but not to you and your ilk. That was a rare admission of the mindset of the elitist thug who thinks he has a right to govern whether others agree or not. You don’t. And we, the people, have the right to ensure that you don’t, and the right to the means of facilitating enforcement of that right against you.

                And your last two sentences reveal your ignorance of the term “militia” and to whom they are responsible: The State National Guard is not the Constitutional militia; it is a standing army and it can be activated by the State governor or the president (and the governor can say no). The Constitutional militia answers to the Governor of the State, and ultimately determines for itself whether orders emanating from the Governor, or activation by the federal government, is pursuant to the lawful authorities delegated to the federal government and/or not prohibited by the Constitution to the State. Indeed, an armed group of men and women protecting their own neighborhood from lawless predators are “militia,” and they don’t have to answer to anyone but the neighborhood they are protecting.

                Fundamental rule of liberty, Miguel: When the government ceases to protect the rights of the people (including the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves) the people cease to have any obligation to recognize that government. And the people have the right to defend themselves from a rogue occupation government not deriving every scintilla of its authority from the Constitution of the United States and/or the State Constitution. We are not your vassals or peasants, Miguel: We are sovereign over government and we Consent to be Governed only under specific terms delegated to government by our Consent, which is the Constitution of the United States. If that limits your ambitions, Miguel, get used to disappointment.

                You really don’t understand the first thing about the structure of our nation of liberty, do you, Miguel? Too bad. I would suggest your education in such matters can be the easy way, if you conduct some studies outside the influence of your appratchik handlers, or very, very expensive if you continue your current perspective to its logical conclusion.

                • You get that Communist is a form of government, and not a description of people, right?
                  Why do I get the feeling that you don’t?

  3. You folks talk about silencing the opposition, you talk about how “gun nuts don’t rely on facts”
    Well, here are a few facts for you: -the 2nd amendment was written in order to protect citizens from both criminals and as a last resort against tyranny.
    -SHALL NOT is the strongest language used in jurisprudence. It means hands off! No way, no how can you touch it.
    – Lott isnt the only one out there with relevant data. KLECK had a very good book as well, and there are many more out there that illustrate firearms are a good thing when carried by common citizens.
    -Those of us in the gun culture have been backing up and giving the anti gun lobby concessions since 1968. Those concessions haven’t worked.
    -Assault weapon bans or banning firearms because they are “scary looking” is simply a step towards outright confiscation. Don’t tell me it’s not, we’ve seen it elsewhere. Even dianne Feinstein said so.
    Rifles account for less than 400 deaths a year, out of almost 350 million citizens.
    Pools kill more children than rifles do (around 900 per year), why ban them? Because it’s the first step to a total gun ban and confiscation.
    -my right to self defense isn’t negotiable. You don’t get to sell, barter or loan another person’s rights. That’s why they’re individual and inalienable.
    You cant dictate or control how a criminal will assault a citizen so how can you morally dictate how a citizen will defend him or herself?

    -the police have no duty to protect you, per the Supreme Court. This is your responsibility. Look it up: this is settled law.

    Finally, if you want my arms, you’re welcome to attempt to take them. Allow me to illuminate you on something though-in 2013 when democrats controlled congress and the whitehouse, they attempted to pass a bill that would have outlawed any firearm that held
    More than 5 rounds. Any firearm that used a magazine no matter the caliber or look.
    Gun stores nationwide as well as retail chains that sold rifles sold out in 2 weeks time, of every modern firearm and in only days, of every AR type rifle.
    About the only thing that wasn’t purchased was black powder rifles.
    Folks, they weren’t buying these guns to resell, or to grandfather in if the bill passed.
    They were tooling up for a fight. Think about that before while you poke the bear with that short stick of yours.

    • “why ban them? Because it’s the first step to a total gun ban and confiscation”
      “the 2nd amendment was written ……and as a last resort against tyranny”
      “they weren’t buying these guns to resell, or to grandfather in if the bill passed.
      They were tooling up for a fight”

      There we have it, paranoia, unsupported interpretation of the Constitution and and implicit threat.

      Clearly “Average Joe” simply cuts and pastes from NRA newsletters uncritically.
      Since paranoia needs psychiatric help I can’t address it.

      That keystone of the NRA’s defense, the 2nd Amendment? This idea of “defense against tyranny” appears nowhere within The Constitution (I know, I’ve read it cover to cover). There is mention of it in The Federalist Papers but they are NOT part of our Constitution and have no standing in law.
      The NRA try to dismiss “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State..” preamble to the Amendment as unimportant and to “divorce” it from “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” – sorry, that won’t fly. Keep and bear arms IN ORDER TO BE AVAILABLE for a well regulated militia. The fledgling United States had no standing army and faced both a renewed efforts by the British to regain control of the colony and a potential attack from Loyalists gathered over the Northern border in British controlled Canada.

      And finally, the implicit threat that gun owners will react violently and MURDER anyone who even considers any kind of control or limitations on gun ownership which looks mighty close to both sedition and domestic terrorism. People spouting this nonsense need to realize they are actually giving arguments to the gun control movement to use against them.

      • You have to realize “gun rights” are about life and liberty. Everyone has a responsibility for self-defense and safeguarding liberty. We cannot exercise these responsibilities without the appropriate means, and that’s why we have the right to keep and bear arms. But at bottom it’s about life and liberty, not the gun.

        I don’t say this to persuade anyone, but rather to explain where “pro-gun” folks are coming from, and why our rights are considered so vital.

        Although there’s a lot of chatter about it these days, I don’t expect we’ll have a revolution in our lifetimes. But it remains a long term possibility for the indefinite future. Any rights we lose now will handicap revolutionaries in the future, that is, should a revolution be necessary, and can also handicap citizens in a gunfight – who wants to accept a handicap in a gunfight?. This accounts for resistance to infringements – firearm bans, magazine restrictions, etc.

        The basic principles of private gun ownership – having to do with life and liberty – are easy to explain, and much of the resistance to “gun control” measures follow logically.

        I think we need to recognize the vast majority of gun owners as good citizens, fellow countrymen and -women. In addition, whether we like it or not, they are the keepers of the means to defend and resist, a vital power of the people that will not be surrendered.

        • ““gun rights” are about life and liberty”

          See, that’s what the NRA and Libertarians have been feeding you. You mention “infringements” firearm bans (where? Do you mean you can’t have a rocket launcher?) and magazine restrictions (seriously? a 10 round mag is not enough, you HAVE to have a 30 ?)

          ” Any rights we lose now will handicap revolutionaries in the future, that is, should a revolution be necessary”

          This is more from the NRA/Fox/Talk Radio propaganda memes. Revolution? Are you serious? You think we should “be ready”, for what? This whole passel of nonsense took off when Obama took office. He was gonna “take our guns away” He’s a Commie, a Fascist, a Muslim, you name it and he has deep dark plans to become Supreme Leader for life. Well, if he is, he’s taking his own sweet time about it. You guys need to relax, stop believing every piece of BS you see and hear and research for yourselves.

          If the Second Amendment was JUST to give citizens the “means to defend and resist” it would simply have read:


          But it doesn’t, it specifically starts with the words A WELL REGULATED MILITIA..”

          Gun owners are being played by politicians and big business for their own purposes, get you riled up about gun control and you don’t notice they have plans to screw you over with Social Security, Welfare and Unemployment Benefits while handing out even more tax breaks to the 1% that own 40% of the country.

          • I dismiss your strawmen references out of hand. What I presented is simply the rationale for private gun ownership. It is a voice of reason, a voice of the people.

            This is where antis stumble. You are in denial of the rationale itself, and the logical consequences which follow from it. People of arms understand their responsibilities and rights. Dealing with strawmen and emotional ranting will not work if you want to connect intellectually.

            Sadly, your condescending and insulting behavior is quite typical of antis who want what they want and think they can purge people from ideas they don’t like. There’s a lot of ways to exhibit this, and in your case, heavily bigoted towards people of arms.

            • Your first error is assuming that I (and others) are anti-gun. I’m not, I appreciate the mechanical precision of firearms but also realize their prime function is to kill, not just wild animals for food (or “sport”) but other human beings.
              Statistics show that the mere presence of a firearm in a household makes a violent death, either suicide or murder at least four times more likely. A domestic argument that can involve a firearm will be a deadly one.
              If every owner was that mythical “responsible gun owner” so beloved of the NRA propaganda life would be just peachy. Instead we have many thousands of homes were firearms are owned by people with NO gun handling training, who leave loaded firearms in easily accessible locations and who choose to use a firearm to settle some minor dispute, whether it’s a neighbor’s dog pissing on your lawn or a minor fender bender at a stop light.
              I don’t want NO guns, I want guns owned ONLY by people that are psychologically capable of NOT using them as the first stop in an argument.

              • Once again Zipper666, you express your ignorance of both facts and philosophy: Firearms are for many purposes besides “killing.” The invention of the firearm immediately caused a shift in battle tactics; for the first time in history the advantage in an assault or a siege shifted from the attacker to the defender. The purpose of a handgun, for example, is to stop a fight, whether a homicide occurs or not. The purpose of arms in wartime is to wound the enemy, for a wounded man consumes many more of the enemy’s resources than a dead man. The purpose of firearms in a civilized nation is to protect the civilization from predators and tyranny. The purpose of a law-abiding individual being armed is to give him or her the means of self-defense in the last resort, which in turn gives that individual the confidence and time to find an alternative solution to a problem other than the firearm. The purpose of a school administration or teachers being armed is to deter the maniac who wants to vent his lethal rage on innocent and helpless children before he ever enters the school: You will note, for example, that every massacre the people of this nation have endured to date, save one, has occurred under a sign that said “No Guns Allowed” — and that one exception occurred in the parking lot of a shopping mall where guns were not allowed. (Even the mentally ill aren’t THAT dumb.) So now that you have revealed yourself as a person totally ignorant of the issues you are spouting off about, would you like to redeem yourself with an apology to those your philosophy, if endured, would harm? And perhaps learn something about the requirements of preserving liberty for the people?

                • You know, you don’t actually get extra points by being a dick.
                  “Firearms are for many purposes besides “killing.”
                  ” The purpose of a handgun, for example, is to stop a fight”
                  “The purpose of firearms in a civilized nation is to protect the civilization from predators and tyranny”

                  Clearly you live in the town where Andy Griffiths is Sheriff. Out here in the real world any fight that introduces a handgun WILL end in shots being fired, do you seriously claim that the mere presence of a handgun “calms things down” ? Take a look in your local paper for any one week and count up the number of shootings….

                  • Not looking for points, and not being a dick. Just stating documented facts for those who live in a cowardly mindset, fearful of anyone who exercises his or her right and duty to be armed in defense of self, family, community, State and nation. People who think a woman raped and strangled to death with her own panty-hose is somehow morally superior to a woman who prefers the dignity of being armed and being responsible for her own safety. People who would rather let 32 people be murdered and maimed at Virginia Tech (for example) rather than recognizing the right of every citizen to stop that S.O.B. immediately upon the first round being fired. People like you, who want your owners and managers and pseudo-parents in government to wrap you in cotton batting and protect you from your responsibility to protect yourself and your community. And in answer to your question, yes, there is no doubt that when evil is afoot, the presence of a firearm in the hands of the law-abiding citizen HAS “calmed things down” every time some Adam Henry has decided to shoot up a school or shopping mall or whatever and was stopped by a citizen with a gun. And there is a better case: Whenever the criminal/maniac/thug/bully/whatever knows his intended target audience is likely to be armed, he doesn’t go there in the first place, does he?

              • “Statistics show that the mere presence of a firearm in a household makes a violent death, either suicide or murder at least four times more likely.”

                This is FALSE. See article if you’re interested:

                “I want guns owned ONLY by people that are psychologically capable of NOT using them as the first stop in an argument.”

                That’s not the way things work, really.

        • Sorry, Odysseus, I have to disagree on one point only: We are having a revolution today, right now, but it is not OUR revolution; it is THEIR revolution: Those to whom personal individual liberty from government or criminal tyranny sticks in their craw. That’s what Zipper666 and all the rest of these anti-gun bozos are trying to accomplish: A restoration of their “Divine Right of Kings To Govern,” for a disarmed citizenry has nothing to say about their governance. That’s why I say their arguments are irrelevant; we will exercise our right to keep and bear arms and they can take their aspirations of supremacy and go pound sand. We are the counter-revolutionaries their nightmares scare them about.

          • “anti-gun” – see? Because we don’t want every moron walking around with a loaded pistol and a mental condition we are “anti-gun”
            Why are YOU more “free” than somebody who chooses not to own a firearm? You clearly have a greater chance of dying violently either by your own hand, or of a spouse or intruder. I guess that’s the “freedom” you seek, to die or kill at will.
            Perhaps if you paid attention to the outside world more you’d see those “freedoms” were effectively robbed from us ALL by the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security. The NSA can snoop on every communication we make, we can be arrested and imprisoned without warrant, trial or representation in the guise of “National Security” and your pitiful arsenal will count for nothing. You are already being controlled by an oligarchy that buys our politicians (all parties) and will decide what you will and won’t do.
            Ever wonder why every podunk town is suddenly being equipped with military arms, body armor and armored vehicle? It’s not to track down illegal parking…..

            • I don’t care whether you “don’t want every moron walking around with a loaded pistol and a mental condition” or not; you have a right to want or not want whatever you choose, but you don’t have the right to interfere with the rights of anyone else — which includes their right to walk around with a loaded pistol.

              Besides, I know WHY you “don’t want every moron walking around with a loaded pistol and a mental condition”: The prospect of someday, maybe, being forced into a situation in which you have to fulfill your DUTY to protect the innocent from some mentally-defective moron just absolutely terrifies you, doesn’t it? You think you can avoid both that terrifying situation and the appellation of irresponsible COWARD by whining and sniveling about how everyone else — people who accept with honor their duty to protect the innocent in their environment — should be prevented from being able to do so. You think if you ever have to face a situation like that you can pull a Colin Goddard and hide in hopes that you won’t be shot, and when you get four bullets in you like he did, you can make a lot of money prancing around the country advocating for the Brady Campaign that everyone else should be willing to give up their guns and take however many bullets a maniac wants to fire into them. That is mental illness, Zip.

              Gun Control is cowardice, pure and simple, Zip. What are ya?

              • LOL ! Am I supposed to be all hurty with that ?
                Sorry, young man, I’m too long in the tooth to be bothered by idle chatter.
                If carrying a firearm makes YOU feel brave enough to face down danger, that suggests to me that it is YOU who are the cowardly one….
                The more mature and sensible amongst us don’t feel the need to go out like Rambo every time we leave our front door.
                The fact that you NEED to “know WHY you “don’t want every moron walking around with a loaded pistol and a mental condition” makes it clear to me that YOU would rather ANYONE with a mental condition should have the “right” to be armed and dangerous so that you can leap into action, guns blazing and rescue hostages…..what a sad fantasy.

                • Boy, speaking of “idle chatter.” But that’s normal; anti-rights folks always go to extreme speculation to avoid facing their own denial of facts. No, I didn’t suppose you were going to “go all hurty” at my analysis, but I thought it might draw a modicum of honesty out of you and cause you to re-evaluate your premises.
                  No, Zip, carrying a firearm does not make anyone brave enough to face down danger; all it does it provide the means of surviving the face-down if everything goes south. If you are brave enough to face down danger without it, go for it; But that’s pretty empty and useless bravery: Ask Sandy Hook Principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach how effective their bravery was when they tried to stop Adam Lanza. Had they been armed, they might have saved their own lives and almost certainly saved 20 children and four other staff members. Ya think being armed to stop evil might be a better choice than getting dead and failing to stop evil?
                  And you can think being helpless against random acts of evil is “more mature and sensible,” if you want to, but that’s why the more mature and sensible among us laugh at your foolishness.
                  Anyone with a mental condition making them dangerous shouldn’t be running around loose, Zip. If they are safe enough to be running around loose and haven’t harmed anyone, then yes, they have a right to be armed in their own defense, and they have a responsibility to society to protect others from harm, both from their own acts and the acts of others. Or don’t you believe you have any duty to your fellow citizens to protect them from harm?
                  The Rambo meme is an old and discredited fantasy on the part of those who refuse to take responsibility for what goes on in their vicinity, Zip. You don’t have to be a Rambo to take responsibility for the safety of innocent people in your vicinity, but you can’t be a coward and expect everyone else to vindicate your cowardice by being as helpless as you are. Mature and sensible people don’t volunteer to get dead so you can feel like your cowardice is justified.
                  And if you are “long(er) of tooth” than I am, I would sure expect you to know that by now.

                  • “Anyone with a mental condition making them dangerous shouldn’t be running around loose, Zip. If they are safe enough to be running around loose and haven’t harmed anyone, then yes, they have a right to be armed in their own defense, and they have a responsibility to society to protect others from harm, both from their own acts and the acts of others”

                    and there is the problem. You are happy for a mentally ill person to be armed.

                    • If he hasn’t harmed anyone or been adjudicated mentally ill, then I’m happy for him to be armed. And you should be too, else you are a tyrant seeking to control people who don’t measure up to YOUR definition of “helpless.” On the other hand, if he has harmed someone or been adjudicated mentally ill, he shouldn’t be running around loose. If he is out and about he should be under the control of a caretaker who is responsible for him in loco parentis, who keeps him out of trouble. What you are seeking, Zip, is the kind of control Hitler had over the non-Aryan population on the theory that anyone can be mentally ill, and of course anyone opposing the Third Reich must be. Your “mentally-ill” excuse is just a straw man for the purpose of putting everyone under control.

            • Zip. You are spot on. These guys just don’t get Pat Act, 1021, HS, Koch brothers, Comms intercept, Corps being people, etc. or the tri-parte nature of our government, the purpose of the SCOTUS. They just have the intellectual capacity. To busy being enamored with their little stiff barrels. They don’t get that the game is OVER, so over. If they haven’t risen up by now, they never will. They are just little prawns blindingly chowing down on gun industry swill.

              • In your dreams, annonuser. It ain’t over until we say it’s over. But since you brought it up, please tell us all why it is your agenda to destroy the fundamental principles of the first and only nation in the history of the planet to be founded on principles of private, individual liberty trumping the arbitrary whims of self-appointed petty little kings and princes who think they have the Divine Right of Kings to Govern. Or are you one of those wannabe self-appointed kings or princes? Come to think of it, maybe you are a queen.

      • It really doesn’t matter why the founders included the Second Amendment, they did. Every mention of “the people” in the Constitution refers to the general population, not the militia or any aspect of government. So, the right of the people to keep and bear arms means just that.

      • “This idea of “defense against tyranny” appears nowhere within The Constitution (I know, I’ve read it cover to cover).”

        Then read the Declaration of Independence to understand why our nation was founded; read the Articles of Confederation to find out why the first effort came up short; read the Federalist Papers so you will know the intent of the Framers, and read the Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the American States.

        Somewhere along in there you might stop sounding like a high school sophomore who has learned just enough to think he knows it all, and sounds like an ignoramus when he spouts off on subjects he knows very little about.

        • Sophomore? I wish, I dropped out of High School at fifteen.
          But feel free to lord it over me as a big time, educated kind of guy, I can take it.
          The Declaration and The Federalist Papers are NOT the law of the land, no matter that you claim that jurists use them for “guidance” if push came to shove The Supreme Court can cleave only to The Constitution and steeled law.
          “Intent” is a matter of interpretation, which is why, thanks to the propaganda of the NRA we are even having this conversation. The “intent” of the Second Amendment was never questioned until the last quarter of the 20th century….

          • Well, that explains why you don’t know that “sophomore” is a Greek word that translates to “wise fool.” Sophomores in high school and later in college typically think they know all they need to know, and that’s when they most often drop out. If they stay in school and keep learning, they usually find they were a lot dumber at the age of 15 than they thought they were, and there is more to life than dreamt of in their very limited experience. Our present debate proves the point, Zip. You clearly need more education, or you wouldn’t be spouting foolishness.
            The Declaration of Independence sets forth the principles of liberty later established by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Federalist Papers are the explanations of the Founders of the principles of liberty and rule of law established by the Constitution; they were published in the newspapers of the time to encourage the people and their colonies to ratify the Constitution.
            Unfortunately the Supreme Court has proven several times over the years, especially during the Woodrow Wilson and FDR administration that it is quite capable of trashing the U.S. Constitution without a second thought — under the influence of the same kind of political ideology you, in your extreme ignorance, are trying to push off on us today.
            Gad, your ignorance of law and rights and fundamental principles is staggering, but let me point out to you a factor of your own argument: If you believe the Constitution is the only thing that matters in law, then perhaps you should note that the right to keep and bear arms is first guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment, which states that the federal government has no power over ANYTHING for which the subject matter jurisdiction has not been delegated by the Constitution, and states that the States have no power PROHIBITED to them by the Constitution, and then the Second Amendment PROHIBITS the States from having any power over the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
            Now, in your ignorance of law and principle, are you going to try to claim the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution? (And forget about claiming the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a militia; everyone 18-45 is in the militia in the first place and the Founders are clear everyone has the right regardless of militia, and the Supreme Court so ruled in Heller v. DC.) And yes, States (not the feds) can regulate the USE of firearms (when and where, for what purpose, safety regs, etc., not including provable self-defense) but neither the feds nor the States can lawfully regulate the keeping and bearing of arms: The Constitution, as amended, says so. If you learned to read before dropping out of high school, you can prove this for yourself.

            • Since you have been reduced to cheap insults, I’ll make this my last posting.
              I was frank about my lack of formal education and you chose to pick on that, pretty poor show.
              Clearly, my ability to communicate clearly and concisely, my grasp of English language and vernacular is not enough, you have your little needle and just have to use it.
              Cherish your guns, they are all that stands between you and regular folks.

              Peace out.

              • I don’t make cheap insults, Zip; I report facts and advocate for the liberties our nation was founded to preserve and protect via the U.S. Constitution as amended. My comments about your lack of education were not intended as insults, they were intended as explanations for why you are adhering to a destructive political ideology that deprives a free people of their rights. As for “cherish(ing)” my guns, I cherish people and use things, instead of cherishing things and using people. I suggest you tell your handlers they should do the same and then investigate the facts I have presented to you for yourself instead of depending on a bunch of Marxist apparatchiks and useful idiots to explain them to you. Thanks for the debate; a lot of people who sandbag these forums learned a lot they would not have learned had they listened only to your side of the debate.

      • *I* am part of a well-regulated militia– all armed citizens are. The meaning of that has already been settled, in every historical review of the meaning and has been so ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States.

        We have a God-given right to protect and defend ourselves and our families by whatever means necessary. If you try to kill me, I will use everything at my disposal to defend myself up to, and including, you. Our country was founded on the armed rebellion from tyranny and our founders ensured that we will retain that right.

        • So, when the government calls you will shoulder your AR15 and head up to San Diego to be loaded aboard the troop ships?
          For goodness sake grow up! The militia was required before the country had a standing army. We don’t need them now. Disband, go home and try and ignore what Fox News tells you.

          “God-given” ? Really?
          Can you give me the Book and verse in the Bible that tells us this ?

          • The militia was established to prevent a standing army, for a standing army has never failed, in other nations, to facilitate the oppression of the people. The only available counter to the potential tyranny of a standing army is a militia of all the people capable of bearing arms. That, and the practice, for the first time in the history of the world, a standing army sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land instead of the king or prince or other ruler, or even the government. And yes, “God-given” — or, if you choose, the birthright of a free citizen. If you choose not to believe that, fine; the founders of our nation of liberty believed it and they read the Bible — if you will pardon the expression — religiously. And they designed and established the first nation in fifty centuries founded upon principles of individual liberty. Rather than explain to you the obvious, I would like to know that which is less obvious, though I strongly suspect I have the answer already: Why do YOU want to take those liberties away from the first free people to ever exist on this planet?

            • You see, our fundamental difference here is this:

              YOU want no restrictions on anybody owning any kind of firearm, on stockpiling ammunition, on carrying openly in public firearms of all kinds.

              I want some kind of regulation to try and reduce the number of people dying from gunshot wounds, now how that would work, I’ve no idea. I think background checks would not be a bad idea. If a person has a record of violence (non-firearm) then it’s suggestive that giving them the means to kill quickly and efficiently is not a good idea.
              I think that the loopholes of purchases through private buyers, pawn shops and gun shows needs to be closed.
              I would like regulations that requires firearms to be in safe places in the home, places that children OR thieves cannot access and I would like regulations that any person convicted of violence against the person (basically, domestic violence) would have all firearms confiscated and be barred from owning them in the future.

              I’m NOT anti-gun. I’m anti death by gun.

              • Ah! Okay, after all your posturing and diverting the debate into nonsense and strawman issues, we finally have a basis for discussion, if you can stay on point. We’ll see.
                First, I will accept almost completely your first paragraph, with the caveat the law as intended by the Founders does not include EVERY kind of firearm; it includes only the arms by which the typical infantryman is equipped. And I happen to believe that while people have a right to carry openly, it’s both a little gauche and a little like giving away your Poker hand to carry openly unless engaging in an activity where it is appropriate. Unlike some anarchists masquerading as libertarians, however, that does not mean I believe people have a right to rock ‘n’ roll on a city street as long as they don’t hurt anyone.
                “I want some kind of regulation to try and reduce the number of people dying from gunshot wounds, now how that would work, I’ve no idea.” I will agree that your arguments so far indicate clearly that you have no idea. That’s not an insult; that is merely a demonstrable fact because the result of applying your arguments to the problem has, in every case, made the problem worse. That is very well documented.
                Let me ask you this: How would you feel about an interrogation under penalty of perjury by government as a precondition to being allowed to, say, express yourself on this blog? Of course, that might require a clean record of never having challenged any government policies, but that’s a small price to pay, for after all, “the pen is mightier than the sword.” Oh, and people do have their feelings hurt on these forums, don’t they? We can’t have THAT in this politically-correct world, can we?
                How would you feel about the aforementioned interrogation mandated by government before you crossed a state line on vacation or business? How about before you marched in a protest for or against illegal immigration — or, for that matter, for or against gun control? How would you like to be arrested on suspicion of some crime and be kept in a jail cell indefinitely until you confessed? (They do that in Japan.) How would you like to find yourself in jail for five years because some thug broke into your home and you body blocked him up against a wall and caused a little red mark on his lilly-white (or black) skin? (They do that in England.)
                Now before you claim that all this is off-topic and nonsense, let me point out that you do not experience these tyrannies in this country because our Constitution recognizes your rights and your rights are not subject to government interrogation to prove you are “not dangerous.”
                We have the right to be secure from interrogation and/or search in the absence of probable cause of wrongdoing under the Fourth Amendment, Zip. We have the right to due process before any of our rights are taken from us, including our right to be secure from an unwarranted interrogation and search. We have the right to a federal government that derives its authority EXCLUSIVELY from the Constitution of the United States as amended (See the Tenth Amendment) and we have the right to a State government that does not exercise any authority prohibited to it (see the Tenth Amendment). Your background check idea, first, would not have prevented any massacre like Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech, and second, sets the precedent that our rights to privacy, to due process, to a government that obeys the law, and every other right, are subject to government “compelling interest.”
                The single purpose of government at any level is to protect the rights of the people, Zip. You sure you want to go there?

                • Sandy Hook had plenty of armed civilians living in the neighborhood, that didn’t do any good and arming teachers is the answer? Up until a bigger, stronger pupil takes the gun away….

                  All the “rights ” you enumerate are completely ignored under the terms of The Patriot Act, so there goes your “protecting the rights of people”

                  You are waging a war that you can’t win. If some future President and a compliant Congress cared to they could impose martial law and do exactly what they pleased. Because gun owners are NOT any kind of militia they could eliminated one by one or in the small groups that got their shit together.

                  The difference between us is you live in fear of that and I don’t.

    • You are conveniently ignoring the FIRST clause of the Second Amendment, which predicates the right to keep and bear arms on the bearer’s involvement in “A well-regulated militia…” – which is maintained primarily for the security of “a free state”. Had the founders wanted to mire us in our current mess of the NRA’s making (with the help of useful idiots), they could just as easily have started the Second Amendment: “A heavily-armed rabble, accountable to no one…”
      They didn’t.

      • Actually, they did: The “militia of the several States” refers to every male between the ages of 18 and 45, and anyone else who wants to be a militiaman. Quite aside from that, there are several reams of quotations from the founding fathers writing knocking your thesis into a cocked hat: There is no doubt: They meant the people, and the reason they meant the people is because a well-regulated militia is essential to the security of a free State. It is also essential to the security of a free people. It also disincentivises elitist thugs and other criminals pretending to power from getting too rambunctious. Sorry, your thesis has been discredited for years.

        • “there are several reams of quotations from the founding fathers writing”

          If it’s not in The Constitution it has NO BEARING. Drag in all the quotations from The Federalist Papers or a KKK Newsletter, it makes no difference. The NRA has duped you into “interpreting” The Constitution to suit it’s own ends.

          • Well, you blew that one. The Federalist Papers is the pre-eminent source in the judicial area whenever there is a question of the intent of the framers. You can say it has no bearing if you want to, but that statement carries no weight for anyone but you. You’re going to have to do better than that if you want anyone to give you any credence whatever.

    • ” … the 2nd amendment was written in order to protect citizens from both criminals and as a last resort against tyranny.”

      You might want to read up on some history. The Second Amendment was written to enable slave owners to form “well-armed militias” to go after runaway slaves.

      Nice try, though.

      • Someone has certainly been feeding you a mountain of superfluous crap, Miguel. The founding fathers did their level best to prohibit slavery in their creation of the first Constitution in the history of the planet to establish private citizen liberty as superior to the whim of kings and princes and government functionaries in general, but at that time the economy of the southern States depended (the Southerners believed) on slavery, and they refused to ratify the Constitution unless their needs were accommodated. That’s why most of the northern founders freed their slaves voluntarily (and paid them wages if they stayed on), some before their (founder’s) death, some upon their death. Indeed, the truth of the matter is exactly the opposite of your thesis: The Second Amendment enabled minorities to defend themselves quite effectively from the KKK (cowards, one and all) in the Old South. We have had some ugly periods in our history when minorities of all kinds have been mistreated, sometimes with the approval of the Supreme Court — the Dred Scott decision for one, which led to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War. But while firearms, like all technology, has and always will be used for both good and evil, on balance the right to keep and bear arms has invariably advanced the cause of liberty for those willing to use them responsibly. On the other side of that coin, ill-advised attempts to deprive law-abiding citizens of their firearms has NEVER FAILED to result in advancing tyranny and oppression — because those in power never give up their power or their guns, but they always try to sucker their victims into becoming voluntarily helpless. For a macrocosm of that process, consider the power of the Third Reich, disarming and then murdering six million Jews and other “disfavored” factions. Then contrast that with a handful of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto with just a few stolen firearms holding off a German division for over a month before being gassed out. You are either a helpless sheep, Miguel, depending on others to keep you safe or at least keep their chains resting lightly upon you as you lick their boots and subsist on their table scraps, or you are a sheepdog willingly and honorably accepting the responsibility for the safety of the innocents and helpless in your community. Your choice. Cowardice should not be a capital offense; cowards often have something of value to offer society. But cowards are suicidal if they try to disarm the sheepdogs that keep them safe.

          • Nor do I. But I am unaware of any passage in the Federalist Papers asserting the reason for the Second Amendment to be to keep the slaves in bondage. Did some communist apparatchik tell you that?

              • The question is no more “simply too stupid to respond to” than the idiotic suggestion that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to keep slaves in bondage. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to prohibit government from depriving the people of their liberty teeth, their means of defending their right to Consent or withhold Consent to Govern. You will note the Declaration of Independence establishes, in so many words, our right to alter or abolish government whenever it becomes destructive of our rights. You are attempting to deprive us of the means of facilitating that right when it becomes sufficiently necessary, and we will not allow it. You do not have the right to do it, and every citizen in this country, save even one, acting in concert at the voting booth, does not have the right to do it. We are not a democracy; we are a Constitutional Republic with democratically-chosen representation. We have the right to keep and bear arms to keep it that way, and we will keep it that way whether you like it or not.

                • “We have the right to keep and bear arms to keep it that way, and we will keep it that way whether you like it or not.”

                  We’ll see. There are only so many school massacres that the public will tolerate, despite your best efforts to enable them to continue.

                  • Oh? Are you or your cohorts or apparatchiks planning more school massacres in an effort to justify your destruction of Constitutional rights? Are you a supporter of felon Eric Holder and his boss who allowed firearms to walk across the border in hopes the resulting drug war murders would justify more gun bans? Do you consider BP Officer Brian Terry, murdered with one of those Fast and Furious firearms to be unavoidable collateral damage to your quest to re-establish feudal tyranny in the Land of the Free? Is your obsession with control over others that important to you, that facilitating murder seems justified in your mind?

                    Well, unless you think murder is a political tool, school massacres are easily stopped: The Israelis stopped school massacres conducted by Palestinians overnight, and the Palestinians are a lot more dedicated to murdering Israelis than lunatics are dedicated to murdering school children. The Israelis armed their teachers with Galil 5.56mm carbines. End of problem.

                    Now then, Miguel: Every gun ban in history, including the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, resulted in a spike in both general violent crime and in school massacres. What are you going to whine and snivel about next if you manage to ban all guns and the school massacres go through the roof? You going to make it against the law to commit murder? Oh, that’s right; that is already the law with a possible death penalty; and it doesn’t stop murder. You think a law against guns is going to stop murder? Are you that brilliant, or what?

                    Oh, and you might want to take note that none of the school shootings to date would have been prevented by background checks or even brain scans in violation of our Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, and yes, Second Amendment right to be left the hell alone by government in the exercise of our rights over which government has no authority.

                    You want to stop school massacres? You guys are always looking for “a good first step,” so here is a “good first step” for you: Take down the “No guns allowed” signs. Stop advertising to lunatics that here is a target-rich environment of helpless children protected by dedicated teachers responsible for their safety who are incapable of fulfilling that responsibility.

                    In short, stop being an idiot about protecting our children. Stop making it easy for them to be murdered. Just taking down the signs will cut the massacres in half, as few as there are now. Arming the teachers will stop the vanishingly few that remain.

      • “the 2nd amendment was written in order to protect citizens from both criminals and as a last resort against tyranny”

        Ah, another modified version of “what they meant, then” …..sorry, still wrong, still laughable.

        The draft of the Amendment in 1789 read:
        “A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”

        No mention of “criminals” or “tyranny”

        Joseph Story in 1833 said:
        “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights”

  4. Credit where credit is due: John Lott — Mary Rosh being the name he uses when he want to write fan letters to himself, reviews of how wonderful John Lott is, etc. — is not totally under the radar. He has been found and shot down occasionally.

    I first found out about him in an Internet discussion of his silly guns-prevent-crime nonsense, and in the middle of it there was a totally vicious, well-researched, rational, and did I say vicious? destruction of some of the guy’s lies.

    The taker-down was a conservative, and a pro-gun guy, some of whose stuff I agree with, some I don’t. The excellent Clayton Cramer.

    Not all right wingers are dishonest wingnuts. Some of them believe in honesty and truth — and are competent to find out what the latter might be.


      • Another guttersnipe using Saul Alinsky’s shoot the messenger technique instead of addressing the issues — which means an empty response, since there is no effective opposition to our right to keep and bear arms. We will not comply with your tyranny regardless of your congames.

        • Paranoia rampant !
          How inconvenient that Obama didn’t “confiscate your guns” as the Right wings promised you! You have more open carry than ever before but it’s still not enough, you simply want to be John Wayne and be able to gun down all who DARE to say “It’s the 21st century, guys, calm down with your violent rhetoric”

          • The “Right Wings” didn’t promise us that. William “I don’t know what ‘is’ means” Clinton and Dennis DeConcini promised us that, and when his promise turned out make violent crime considerably worse, the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to sunset. And then B. Hussein Obama promised us that, and his far left Marxist sycophant apparatchik Harry Reid and the Progressive Caucus in the Senate promised us that, and when they found out (I helped them find out) that WE WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THEIR UNCONSTITUTIONAL COLOR OF LAW and we will defend ourselves if they pass this and try to enforce it, they discovered they didn’t have the votes they thought they had. So it wasn’t the Right Wingers who promised to confiscate our firearms; it was your messiah and his predecessors who promised us that, and — newsflash — we aren’t having any, Zip. Is your amygdala going into meltdown, yet? Don’t hurt anyone.

            • The Right Wing was beating the drums on “He will confiscate your guns” right up through the Presidential Election in 2008, please don’t pretend otherwise.

              If you think Harry Reid is a Marxist you are about as wrong as the dumbasses that claim The President is a Muslim.

              • Only because he said so. Only because he had Kerry sign the UN Small Arms Treaty registering all guns in international trade for future confiscation. Only because Harry Reid held an illegal vote to ban a whole list of firearms and failed because we — law-abiding gun owners — said no, you won’t. And if Obama isn’t a Muslim he sure acts like one, and his number one mentor in the White House, Valerie Jarrett, is an Iranian-born Muslim. Harry Reid is a member of the Progressive Caucus in the Senate, Zip, and “Progressive” is a codeword for Socialist and Socialist is a codeword for a Marxist who thinks the revolution to Marxism can be had by political reform rather than violent revolution. (But their Marxist handlers know better; the only purpose for socialism is to prepare the nation for the violent revolution, at which point they shoot all their “useful idiots” (V.I. Lenin’s words) in the back of the head and put everyone with a college degree to work plowing farm fields, and put all farm workers in the homes vacated by the college grads. It’s happened in dozens of countries, Zip. Like I said, you need an education.

                • Your twisted logic, straight from “The Blaze” and the KKK newsletter is actually quite amusing.
                  Sorry, but it’s YOU who need the education if you think there’s a link between Progressive, Socialist and Communist – that’s ludicrous and ill informed, but sadly typical of Right wing people that swallow the BS put out by Fox and Talk Radio..
                  Obama “sure acts like one” – how does a Muslim act? I’d like to know since his wife and daughters do not hide their faces or bodies and the whole family attends church regularly.
                  Also amusing is your take on that UN Small Arms Treaty – “registering all guns in international trade for future confiscation” – Wow! I kinda think that the whole of America would have known about that but NO, it was only those that clutch their guns in terror that have heard that, via the NRA of course.
                  Similarly you swallow BS about Jarrett, she was born in Shiraz, Iran, to American parents – she’s not Iranian and not a Muslim.
                  Keep polishing your guns and jumping at every shadow, it’ll keep you safe.

                  • I don’t read “The Blaze” or the “KKK Newsletter,” Zip, but I’m wondering why you are willing to admit that you do.
                    And frankly, in spite of your admission that you dropped out of school at the age of 15 I am astonished at your ignorance of the known derivative connection in which socialism was designed specifically for the purpose of degrading a nation’s economy and culture to the point at which the violent Marxist revolution can occur. Ever heard of the “October Revolution,” Zip? Officially known as the “Great October Socialist Revolution”? Commonly referred to as “Red October,” or “The October Uprising,” or “The Bolshevik Revolution”? It was a little before your time, 1917, and was the beginning of the Great Russian Revolution that led to the creation of the Soviet Union, a totalitarian dictatorship claiming to be founded on the communist principles of Karl Marx.
                    There isn’t enough room here to give you an education, Zip, and like most high school dropouts you’d rather cling to your carefully-designed (by your handlers) superstitions anyway, so just accept the fact that if you keep spouting that kind of nonsense you won’t be taken seriously by anyone.
                    “Wow! I kinda think that the whole of America would have known about that but NO, it was only those that clutch their guns in terror that have heard that, via the NRA of course.” Newsflash to the low-information types among us: Only the ignorant doofuses ignoring world events DON’T know about it, Zip. Your Muslim-sympathizing messiah infesting our White House has directed his sycophant John Kerry to sign it, and oh, it must have been the NRA that signed the letter to Obama opposing it instead of 80 members of Congress who made it clear it will not be ratified in the Senate.
                    (I’m sorry, Zip, but your ignorance is becoming embarrassing. Are you sure you want to keep shoving your foot in your mouth?)
                    Yes, Valerie Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Iran of American communist parents and spent the first five years of her life being inculcated in the Islamic beliefs, and after later growing up in Chicago was active in communist politics in that city including the Richard Daly “Thuggery Incorporated” political machine. She claims her religious affiliation is “A work in progress” but while she is a communist and therefore atheist by profession, she falls back on the Islamic indoctrination she had as a child — which, in areas of totalitarian domination and control over others, is fully compatible with communism most foul.
                    You don’t even know who you are supporting, do you? Gad, man, wake up and smell the coffee.

    • Oh, then allow me. I did a nationwide survey that proved he was wrong, so he is. Unfortunately, a racoon ate my hard drive and I’ve forgotten everybody and everything about the survey except the result.
      So, do you find Mr. Lott’s story credible when I use it to discredit him with my “proof.” Or, perhaps, you only agree with arguments like this one when you agree with the result? Important question to ask yourself.
      So, you see, the point is that I don’t get to lie and make stuff up and then assert that it is someone else’s responsibility to prove me wrong. Mr. Lott’s lie doesn’t get factual status because he told it first. Do you believe there was ever a survey about him on my hard drive? Of course not, you’re too smart for that. You should keep those smarts working when he tells his 3rd grade hard drive ate my homework story also.

  5. CDC budget for real, scientifically-based gun violence research: $00.00. Lott and those who quote him do not want facts to get in the way of their lucrative gun-promotion agenda. And the clowns who cite Lott’s “statistics” wouldn’t recognize a legitimate scientific study if they met it in broad daylight. — they’d just shoot it down. Unfortunately, Michelle Malkin, while probably on-target re Lott, is herself an unreliable reporter who does her own shoddy research for wide distribution to the credulous. I know this from personal experience, having unwittingly become her target in the past.

    • Fully agree with you in regards to Malkin. But her response is important if only to show Lott, who I know is seeing this, that his critics are not all subscribers to a “Liberal” agenda.

      Sorry to hear you were targeted by her. That could not have been pleasant.

    • The CDC go $10,000,000 last year through executive order. They performed a study on gun violence and the results were not what you folks wanted to hear. Here’s a quote from the CDC’s webpage I attached below: “During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.”


      Paul Joe G.

      • This data is not relevant. We need better more recent data. How effective would your doctor be treating your cancer with test results form a over a decade ago rather than recent medical tests? Same here. Your quote shows how ancient this data is, “During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence…”

        • Any data that does not support your agenda is not relevant, is it, Sheila? Sorry for you, but that is an epic fail: Medical science improves every year; the defensive use of firearms versus the criminal use of firearms does not, and the U.S. Constitution protection of our natural rights — including our right to effective means of self defense and defense of community and nation — does not.

    • The CDC lost all credibility on the subject of firearms a few years ago when their resources were used for completely bogus statistical research trying to discredit the right to keep and bear arms by — among other things — claiming that guns cause suicide because the majority of suicides are committed with guns. Problem is, Japan has just as high a percentage (compared to the population) as the US, and they don’t have any guns available to the population in Japan. That’s why a law was passed defunding any political research by the CDC, and rightfully so.

  6. Amen – this guy is a total crackpot. Anyone who makes up a fictitious person who then praises his work is completely untrustworthy.

  7. While I am 100% with you, Mr. MacDonald, in your criticism of John Lott, I am only halfway between you and Rusty Inman on the optimism of exposing this phony as a successful means to gaining headway against the gun industry. In my book, “Guns In America: Common Sense versus Nonsense” (Amazon), I didn’t rely all that much on statistics. I relied more on emotions. I’m not going to explain that in a brief way here, but it involves the premise that hopefully this is a caring nation and I 100% agree that the NRA plus others manipulate the masses without much difficulty. Anyway, with that aside, the Michelle Malkin criticism shocks me. And, I think you’re on to something.

    • Gun banners always rely on emotion, and emotion always results in failing to think a problem through, and therefore applying a remedy that invariably makes the problem worse. That’s why DeConcini’s Assault Weapon Ban was allowed to sunset; it made the problem worse. That’s why we are having this debate; your pretended solutions make the problem worse. The fact of the matter is, whether you consider John Lott a charlatan or not — and many reputable statisticians who were opposed to the private ownership of firearms peer reviewed his work and found it met the standards of scientific rigor — his work proved what gun owners have known for a couple of centuries, even including the founders of our nation: Arms in the hands of private citizens deters crime. Period. Full-stop. End of story. Anyone who says different is trying to sell you something you don’t want to buy, and you would be prudent to find out what it is before you find out you’ve been suckered into servility.

  8. Neither side of this debate has the moral high ground regarding the misuse of statistics, either baseless or seemingly accurate. No one is entitled to their own set of facts in any logical debate, so we hopefully get to pivot to the FBI stats which do not appear to have an upfront agenda before being collected, stratified and released (the interpretation thereof is another matter entirely). Simply bashing the opposition doesn’t cut it – it’s the same tactic your opponents use so let’s all be equitable in the assessments, offer logical positions backed by clear, unadulterated statistics and let the arguments stand or fall in themselves.

    • Then perhaps you shouldn’t start off by implying your opponent is unintelligent if you’re going to be taken seriously. Did you forget about your first comment before you posted this one?

      The stats in question cannot stand by themselves, that’s the entire point of this, “John.” Say, what’s your last name?

      • ..and there we have the pro-gun argument in a nutshell.

        Which is why it’s impossible to actually have any kind of discussion on the subject, the pro-gun caucus are filled with paranoia that their precious toys will be confiscated when, if fact gun control laws have be RELAXED over the past decade.

        Even when they get more freedom of gun ownership they cling to the propaganda of the Right and don’t realize they are being manipulated.

        • We’re having a discussion on the subject, Zip. It’s just not possible for you to win the debate when proven facts are brought up. You cannot win this debate because we will not allow you or your ignorant sycophants to destroy our rights. We are the only nation with the rights I have listed above (and many more) and the people whose ideas you are sucking up to can’t stand that. We have the rights our Constitution guarantees because we have the right to keep and bear arms to defend them in the final extremis. Yeah, some gun control laws have been relaxed over the last decade over the kicking and screaming objections of people like you, and a lot more are going to be relaxed in the future. You will not get your background checks because they are a violation of our fundamental rights. They were a violation when mandated by the Gun Control Act of 1968 for firearm dealers and they are a violation when mandated for transfers between private citizens, as required by the Initiative I-594 passed in Washington State the other day. Our rights are not subject to referendum or initiative or State or federal law. We will therefore no comply.
          We can have all the discussion you want; I welcome them because I will stand toe-to-toe with you and your sycophants and slug it out to the last man standing, but you will not win the field. Get used to disappointment.

    • Don’t need any statistics, John, even though they all indicate being armed is safer than being helpless, and wherever there are more firearms in private hands, crime is reduced compared to adjacent area where firearms in private hands are prohibited or severely restricted. We don’t need statistics because rights are not subject to statistics any more than they are subject to voter initiatives, referendums, or legislation.

  9. You don’t need to “silence” anyone Einstein. You need to have an intelligent debate in the arena of ideas and win or lose that debate based upon the merit or weakness of your position. What country do you live in???? If he’s a hack, show him for the hack (which it appears you are doing above). If he’s got a point, debate it. If he’s right, he’s right. You are writing this because you have the RIGHT to do so (that whole Bill of rights thing – and there are TEN, not just one). So does he, regardless of his methods and background. If you want to censor him, please be “quiet, Mike.”

    • What might be useful would be for you to utilize some of your, uh, passion for “intelligent debate in the arena of ideas” to stir Republicans in Congress to re-authorize funding for the CDC to engage in studies regarding gun-related violence and gun-related deaths in the U.S.

      Since 1996, the CDC has lived with virtually no funding for such studies and/or under the threat that, were such studies undertaken, there would be future funding consequences. This situation has, of course, been primarily the result of joint GOP/NRA efforts to prevent government studies that have anything whatsoever to do with determining whether there is a correlation between a nation awash in weapons (89.9 weapons per every 100 people) and incidents of gun-related violence/deaths (second only to Mexico in developed countries).

      Given that you clearly don’t like the idea of anyone being “silenced” and/or “censored,” and given your regard for “intelligent debate in the arena of ideas,” you would be the perfect person to articulate opposition to the “silencing” of the CDC per gun-related studies by congressional Republicans. And the perfect person to ask them why they felt it necessary to “silence” or “censor” the CDC per those studies.

      • The Republicans in Congress, along with the NRA and other gun lobbies, have not only been against CDC funding for gun-related studies, they’ve taken their opposition even one step further. The Tea Party Republicans, supported by the right-wing gun nuts, have refused to confirm President Obama’s nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, based on his opinion that doctors should be allowed to warn families who keep guns in their homes about the dangers firearms present to children, as well as provide gun violence statistics and preventive measures they can take to ensure their kids’ safety. Conservative pundits, politicians and hacks continue to oppose ANYTHING that would negatively impact the Second Amendment zealots and their “liberty.”

        • Children are more likely to die in swimming pool accidents or traffic accidents than by guns in the home. Gee, do you suppose Conservative pundits, politicians, and hacks will continue to oppose anything that would negatively impact their right to go swimming in their own backyard or drive to the grocery store? Ya think 194 children dying from firearm accidents last year compared to 300 million plus firearms in private hands in this country is a big problem? OTOH, do you think 250 million crimes in progress stopped by private citizens using firearms (and almost never having to fire them) per year might be a good reason to re-evaluate your obsession?

  10. While I have little or no doubt as to the accuracy of your charges per Mr. Lott—I’ve read any number of articles that disputed both his “findings” and, more importantly, his inability to provide verifying data/sources—I fear that you overestimate how much a takedown of his “studies” would lead to any changes of position by the gun lobby or its adherents.

    Gun-rights advocates at the grassroots level don’t predicate their opinions on the basis of objective fact/reflective thinking. Their opinions are reflexive and visceral, making them unavailable to rational, reasonable, logical debate that is fact-based and making them more than available to those that engage them at the affective level and speak to their underlying fear, anger and resentment. Hence the demagoguery of the gun lobby and the reason it is so successful.

    I wish I could be as optimistic as you per the implications of exposing Mr. Lott’s fraudulent work. I can’t.

    • What? Their opinions are ” reflexive and visceral” that is the basis for groups like Moms Demand Action. That group was literally created as a reflexive and visceral reaction to a shooting.

    • While I agree with your assessment of how self described conservatives “think”, I do feel it is a matter of degree. There are some on the fence who can be convinced. While I’m sure that number is quite small, it may move the fence once the fence sitters come down.
      So I think there is probably usefulness to telling these stories as well as retelling the true history of the second amendment, which most other pronunciation side are unaware of, accepting in its place the story the NRA tells.
      Keep slowly but surely moving the fence.

    • Ah, contraire! Gun-rights advocates at the grassroots level have been modifying their opinions all over the place in response to the idiocies that the far left apparatchiks call “objective fact/reflective thinking” because they are just as easily led around by the nose as most of the “useful idiots” V.I. Lenin describes as the followers of the leftist meme. Problem is, it hasn’t done them any good; the promised rewards of less violent crime has not come to pass; they have found their detractors are liars of the first order and are not leaving them alone after each incremental assault on their rights, and they are beginning to wake up to the fraudulent crap the leftist apparatchiks and their useful idiots have been trying to ram down their throats. They are beginning to realize that no one has any right to deprive them of their right to keep and bear arms, and no one has any right to mandate an interrogation under penalty of perjury as a precondition to exercising a right; no one has any right to mandate a search of the papers and effects as a precondition to exercising a right; no one has any right to deprive anyone of their right to due process as a precondition to exercising a right, and no one has any right to compel anyone to waive a right as a precondition to being allowed to exercise a right.
      I just know you will be terribly disappointed, but your totalitarian agenda is not long for this world, because you have no right to demand it even if you get every useful idiot in the country to vote for it: Fundamental natural rights are not subject to vote, Rusty, and no one is required to comply with color of law not supported by subject matter jurisdiction. In other words, you lose.

  11. Keep battering away at this fraudulent “expert”. I’m sure it’s pure coincidence that so many of the talking head experts and specialists on Fox News turn out to be totally bogus…

Leave a Comment