Debunking “Your gun endangers your family more than it protects it”

In a discussion over at Politico about this article:

I ended up in a discussion with several folks over at politico on the oft cited anti-gun statement that you’re more likely to be shot by the gun in your home vs. helped by it.  There were a number of different comments from different progressives, but each cited the FACT that you or a family members would be killed or maimed by a gun before ever being helped.

After reading a few of those, I suggested to an anti gunner that your odds of being shot in your home decline greatly if you’re not among a subset of victim-crime categories that correlate directly to gun deaths within that group.

Here is the exchange:

Phil Ostrand Anan 7 • 
Owning a hand gun, endangers your family more than it protects you.
 
Leopold B. Scotch Phil Ostrand
This is a cited stat that fails to take into account: suicide (proven to occur if gun available or not), criminal elements in households (gangs, convicts, drug trade, etc), alcoholism and abuse, love triangles.You eliminate those behaviors and the numbers become extremely rare. You are more likely to die from your space heater.
 
Enter Cayse:
Cayuse Leopold B. Scotch • 
“32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States. Of those, around 60% are suicides” -google. That still leaves 12,800 gun deaths. Now how many from space heaters?
 

I dug through the numbers and here are my thoughts / my reply:

“My point about the space heater number (which is actually 400 deaths in 2011 according to the National Fire Protection Society) is that we’re dealing with ridiculously non-meaningful correlations between gun-ownership and gun deaths when there are very high correlations that should be addressed vs. trying to build bridges across a chasms of near-zero correlations.
To that point, I listed more than just suicide as a subset that needs to be removed from “you’re more likely to die from the gun” stat.   So, its not 400 deaths vs. 12,800, but rather close to 400 vs  2,950, as I’ll explain.
Firstly, you ignored completely the the remaining direct causal factors of gun violence beyond suicide  . Consider:  of the CDC’s 11,101 gun homicides in 2011, 80% were gang-related = 8,900.
So if you avoid being in gangs, your odds go dramatically down. Consider, that leaves 3,965 gun deaths after you eliminate 19,766 suicides from the CDC total of 32,163 for 2011.
So, depending on source, you have anywhere from 270-310 million firearms in private hands. 3,965 deaths = of all guns, somewhere between .00147% and 0.00128% of all guns in existence were used to kill someone in 2011.
So why not focus on the problems of the inner city and the direct causal relationship between the breakdown of the nuclear family in the inner city, poverty, and gangs? Or for that matter, the direct correlation between the War on Drugs and the black market it creates to gang violence and other deaths?

XXVIII – The Liberty and Consent Protection Amendment

XXVIII

The individual liberty of The People (those residing in these United States) shall not in any circumstance be infringed upon by other individuals, groups, or governments of any type whatsoever.

1) The People are, and always shall remain, as a right of humankind from the moment of conception and birth, inherently full owners of their own lives, including their body, their labor, and the fruits derived thereof;

A) As full owners of their selves, The People individually own their present selves, their past selves, and their future selves;

i. As owners of their present selves, The People are the exclusive owners of their personal efforts and labor, to be voluntarily associated and dispensed as each chooses;

ii. As exclusive owners of their past selves, The People are inherently entitled to the exclusive ownership of their accumulated fruits of their present efforts, e.g. property, wealth, etc., to do with as they please, and in perpetuity;

iii. As exclusive owners of their future selves, The People are inherently entitled to remain free from unwanted influence and coercion, threats thereof, as affirmed forthwith;

2) The People shall always be entitled to the right of consent, whereby they reserve the opportunity to consent to, or outright reject, all initiatives of and associations with others;

3) This right to Individual Liberty shall always be reserved by all The People who are of sound mind;

A) The liberty of those medically deemed of unsound mind shall be protected from themselves and/or others by guardians as the law establishes.

B) Children, until the Age of Consent (age 18), being of limited faculty to make sound decisions, shall remain the legal responsibility of their parents or guardians, and shall have limited rights to self-determination until achieving the age of consent; but shall otherwise retain the rights to consent;

i. Laws shall be constructed to protect children from themselves;

ii. Laws shall be constructed to protect children from predators who would avail themselves upon the innocence of a child in order to violate the child’s liberty before the child is capable of sound consent;

C) Belief in the merits and defense of Individual Liberty shall solely never be deemed to be a mental illness, or classify any among The People as being of unsound mind.

4) The People, as heretofore described, shall always reserve the right to make their own informed and voluntary associations, and to consent to activities which they deem appropriate so long as their actions do not violate the Individual Liberty of others among The People.

5) The People shall be free to protect themselves from the unlawful coercion, fraud and force used by others wishing to violate Individual Liberty as a means of achieving their goals, and may associate as they wish to do so.

6) The sole exception where an individual, group, or group organized as a government may violate the consent of another person or group is when that other person or group is in the act of aggressing against the right to consent of others, or has aggressed in such a manner whereby prosecution for such crimes is necessitated as a matter of protecting this Amendment.

7) Individual Liberty shall always remain inalienable regardless of the justification of those who would choose exceptions or exemptions in order to violate it. Under no circumstances, save those exceptions noted in this amendment, may The Peoples’ rights to Individual Liberty and to consent ever be violated.

Leave Ethnicity Out of It. Authoritarianism is the Problem

I don’t get the whole racism thing.   Scouring comment sections on articles about the politics of the day, invariably you find a moronic comment.  Granted,  I’m always keeping in mind that I may not be reading an actual racist, but rather a “progressive planter” who is following Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals model for undermining the authority of your political enemy, whereby you keep your followers from sympathizing with the enemy by painting your enemy as a racist unworthy of receiving even two-seconds of your time.

That aside, there are no doubt legit rants about “the Jews”, blacks, legal immigrants, Muslims, illegals, etc.   Half the time they mix it in with socialism or communism, etc.   Always it’s a “they are killing this country” type of thing.

What ignorance when it comes to the universal hate on ethnicity.  And as for commie and socialist?   All of it is distractions from the core point:

I sort ’em all out by one factor: Do they believe in individual liberty? Or are they fundamentally authoritarian with the methods they choose? What do I care if they are Jewish or black?   Besides, some of the biggest defenders of individual liberty I have ever met or read were Jewish, gay [Lessons of “Bridgegate”], etc.

On the other hand, if you believe you and your group of voters are more important than another persons’ individual liberty, and your chosen methods and policies demonstrate absolutely no respect, whatsoever,  for others’ innate right to consent… And your resort to violence or threats thereof to achieve your goals?   Well… Simply — you are an authoritarian of some form or another.

Let’s do a quick walk on authoritarian behavior vs. liberty.  It is one word:  Consent.

Difference between rape and making love = Consent or not.

Murder and suicide = consent or not.

Theft and charity = consent. Laundering it through an election does not make it right.

You get it?

That said, you racist types — Why not attack the behavior and define those individuals for what they truly are?  But leave the rest of the Jews, blacks, and gays out of it. I’ve met plenty of good people, and some of the greatest liberty defenders you’ll find mixed in.

Now, some authoritarian folks don’t known any better and stoop to authoritarian policies without even understanding that’s what they’re voting for.  They wouldn’t know individual liberty if it beat them over the head due to an government school education that serves like an indoctrination of the virtues of government interventionism and the required violations of individual liberty.   You know who these people are — they are a ton of [fill in your ethnicity here].  Meanwhile, plenty of [fill in your ethnicity here] are authoritarians outright — commies, progressives… or right-wing anti liberty types.

That in mind, I’ll take a liberty-defending “illegal” any day over some sit-on-his-but “I’m entitled ’cause I’m ‘Merican Citizen” type who thinks he’s owed something from his hard working neighbors. Or some NeoConn – let’s use your tax dollars to remodel the world for “democracy” (not liberty, mind you….) type.

As for those darned Jews:

“It is curious that people tend to regard government as a quasi-divine, selfless, Santa Claus organization. Government was constructed neither for ability nor for the exercise of loving care; government was built for the use of force and for necessarily demagogic appeals for votes. If individuals do not know their own interests in many cases, they are free to turn to private experts for guidance. It is absurd to say that they will be served better by a coercive, demagogic apparatus.” — Murray Rothbard

Liberty — either your for it or against it. There is no in between.

 

Progressive Operatives Are the Racists in Your Comment Section

The left has officially declared  that if your against Obama and/or progressive methods, you are a racist.  They have set about convincing everyone of this as a means of getting the fence sitters to ignore all criticism.  All very Orwellian —  thought planting kind of stuff.

Hence, there’s plenty of incentive for them to post extreme racism and hate on the comment sections of politician and news sites, and then reference that planted material in order to assassinate the entire message and messenger of the related criticisms.  The old “guilt by association” tactic.

This is, of course, impossible to prove.  But we do know that Saul Alinky’s Rules for Radicals is all about such deceit to achieve the essentially neo-Marxist / Fabian Socialist Utopia progressives wanted to enable.

And we do know progressives are all about calling other people racists…Look at the largely unfounded Tea Party accusations — Every progressive knows that racists attend Tea Party gatherings, although none has actually seen one.     They’re quick to accuse their opponents of being haters of the poor, wanting elderly to starve and arranging things so kids have no healthcare options…. Etc.

It’s all designed to put your opponent on the defense and get them off track.

It is followed by another Alinksy rule: Ridicule.  They’re “Tea Baggers”, Got it?

So why wouldn’t they be doing this?

To David Horowtiz: Is Communism or Authoritarianism the Real Problem

I just read an article over at Breitbart discussing David Horowitz’s recent comments at a Heritage Foundation function where he, in no uncertain terms, labeled the entire Democrat Party a bunch of “communists”.

“My parents called themselves progressives,” Horowitz explained with regard to his communist parents. “The agenda was a Soviet America…the slogan of the communist party in those days was peace, jobs, democracy. Sound familiar?”

He continued:

“The communist party is the Democratic Party.”

Having watched Horowitz come out of the closet as a conservative in the early 1990s, I found Horowitz’s positioning and timing interesting.  The Heritage Foundation is influential among many conservatives who cling onto the GOP because they continue to believe that it somehow will throw them more than bones when it comes to liberty.  And, here we find many democrats and independents joining republicans in questioning the whole idea of Obamacare, with many critics of Obama using the “communism” and “socialism” to describe what Obama and D’s really want / intend.

I also found it to be a GOP-centric attempt at focusing Republicans on a legitimate foe, while avoiding the real issue at hand when it comes to communism.

Lets be clear: You or I really would not care one ounce about communism if communists just went off and bought some property on their own someplace in order to create a voluntary communist enclave that is populated by those who voluntarily choose to join and remain part of such a commune, while leaving the rest of us alone.

The problem is, most all communists want to foist their ideology on the rest of us without giving us a choice in the matter. THAT is the problem with communism, but for the few on the fringe who simply joined communes and were done with it: It is inherently authoritarian. (Authoritarian meaning “The State has the Authority to Do as It Pleases regardless of individual liberty / consent”, keeping in mind that democracy can be fully authoritarian at the expense of minorities.)

That said, I don’t care about communism per say, but I do care about the means people choose to implement it.

That in mind, we need to run ALL politicians through the lens of individual LIBERTY. There we quickly discover that Communism itself is not a danger, but rather AUTHORITARIAN communism (albeit a redundant phrase in practice, since 99.5% of communists wish to force their fellow humans into their ideology, even if it means nearly 100 million deaths, as we have previously witnessed in the 20th century).

In other words, we would have rooted-out / exposed Obama’s true problem — he’s an authoritarian at heart – and not gotten gummed up in the debate over if he’s a communist (socialist, etc) or not, a debate many still find themselves sucked into today.

That said, when we use the Lens of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, we can most assuredly discover that all progressives and most all democrats a quasi-authoritarian to full-blown authoritarian types, believing that, while some liberty should be protected,  Government should ultimately decide and may, when convenient, void whatever liberties it so chooses — ala, once again, Obamacare.    (Notice now how the whole “is Obamacare Socialist or not” debate similarly distracts from the real point: We’re all chained to it!)

However, we also discover the hypocrisy of many of those who shout loudly about the bogeyman of communism. While they have fingered a dangerous foe, they often promote a different, authoritarian-method-enforced philosophy or set of priorities which is similarly dismissive or dangerous to Individual liberty. In this we find most all progressives and a ton of liberty-lip-service GOPers.

What we will find, if we are honest and not hypocritical, is that most elections argue over various shades of authoritarian behaviors laundered through the ballot box,

JFK’s “Ask Not” used to enable big government and liberty violations

With all the JFK hubbub in the wake of the 50th anniversary of his assassination, I keep seeing, hearing, etc. the famous soundbite from his Inaugural Address:

…And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

I’d feel a lot better about that JFK speech if he’d not hung out in the gray area of what the Democrats now clearly promote at their Conventions: “We all belong to our Government”.

In other words, I’d have preferred something more along the lines “ask not what your government can do for you. Ask what you can do for your fellow man and the economy so there’s no excuse for politicians to try to make every little thing the job of the government.” Not a great soundbite, and I’m in too much of a hurry to edit, but I think the point is there: The JFK soundbite has been used to make noble the idea that we should give up our liberty and wealth, rights, etc. for the “good of the country”, which implies, by Government Means and authority. e.g. — give up your liberty.

The speech mentions the “L” word only once:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Indeed. Including engaging Vietnam, in which his VP cum President forced young men into a war in Vietnam regardless of their views on the subject, liberty, etc.  “… do for your country” or else, is what it came to, and is what we’re always presented with election after election.

Conversation: If you don’t want big government, you want Somalian Chaos (etc.)

MrTouchShriek

11/6/23

Bigger picture here — the Tea Party managing to lose in ALABAMA of all places is probably the nail-in-the-coffin for their political viability down the road.

Blake Adams MrTouchShriek

11/6/23

I think the main lesson is that you cannot discount the effect of money in elections. The Chamber of Commerce support behind the establishment candidate helped. This goes to prove that Citizens United decision of the SC will have repercussions (irrespective of whether you agree with it or not). All who care about this great democracy need to understand the fact that money in electoral politics is a distorting factor. Unlimited spending by unknown groups simply is not healthy.

Leopold B. Scotch to  Blake Adams

Let’s not blame the money. It’s what’s for sale that will always be the problem. So long as each election is an advance auction sale of loot in the forms of confiscated wealth via taxes and confiscated liberty via regulations, to the benefit of special interests, the power elite and special interests will run the show at everyone else’s expense.

 

Blake Adams to Leopold B. Scotch

11/6/2013

You can always elect to move a country with no taxes and no regulations. Example: Somalia! Check it out. Absolute FREEDOM and LIBERTY.

Civilization requires a balancing act between each member of the society. Do you want to go out on a road where there are no rules, speed limits, stop signs, drivers licenses?

Do you want to live in a society where might is right?

Do you want to live in a society where there are no air quality standards nor any standards for water quality, food, etc.

Throwing the terms liberty and freedom as if they have no relation or context to the times we live in, and using the terms regulation and special interests as if they are dirty words.

The problem with the current GOP/T-party is that they thrive on slogans, bumper stickers, innuendos, flimsy conjecture and mostly driven by fear and have this 18th century wild west as their utopia!

Leopold B. Scotch Blake Adams

Says blake:

“You can always elect to move a country with no taxes and no regulations. Example: Somalia! “

This is a tired strawman of the progressives and other big govt types (GOP, etc.) –“If you don’t let us bend you over with our countless ways of pushing you around, you must want Somalian chaos, because that’s the only other option to our know-it-all progressive ways.”

I call B.S.

Somalia’s situation  is all about mini-authoritarian tyrants and killers banding together and violating the freedom and liberty of others.

Liberty is about consent and voluntary association. Government is nothing more than a claim of some to a monopoly on force and the violence necessary to enforce laws to achieve specific ends. Your Somalian war-lords define themselves as “governors” of their territory and claim authority to violate liberty to achieve their goals.

“Check it out. Absolute FREEDOM and LIBERTY. “

ME: Freedom to violate liberty for those with a monopoly on power, more like it. Using your logic, pre Wilson, FDR, LBJ and the modern regulatory state we had Somalia in the U.S. (I hope you’re not a teacher.)

Assange and the Politics of Rape and Reputation Asssassination

I’ve run into a lengthy conversation with some folks who claim, outright, that Assagne is a rapist.  Yet, this appears to be the story of two women, Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen, collaborating after discovering that Assange had been sleeping with both of them over a number of days. Yet the Western Media largely promotes this as a case of clear cut Rape, while their Governments certainly don’t mind that the founder of Wikileaks is getting a dose of prosecution, and may even be pressuring the charges along to fulfillment.  Meanwhile, the Swedish prosecutors, while perhaps assisting those who would like Assange jailed for the mere act of exposing secrets, seems also to be happy to tread deeply into highly dubious, extremist-feminist theory about rape and consent.   All and all, an intriguing tale!

But before I go any further, I must be clear:   rape is rape.  There is no in-between.  The difference between rape and sex is the word “consent”.

The Two

Many out there refuse to publish the names of the two women involved in the Assange case, lumping it in as a simple case of hiding the identity of rape victims.  But that’s in total denial of the reality of this case. Neither woman claimed rape originally, and many of the details of this case would be lost by hiding the identities of who these woman are — and if they were even initially seeking prosecution, or if the prosecution was the outgrowth of another agenda.

Anna Ardin is a leftist, feminist and animal rights activist in Sweden, and the Press Secretary of “The Brotherhood Movement”, a fringe, left-wing Christian faction of Sweden’s Social Democratic party. She is a former Swedish embassy official who served in Buenos Aires, and Havana: she was reportedly asked to leave Cuba after her interactions with Cuban exile groups linked to the CIA (although suggestions that she is a CIA operative are dubious at best, as her associations appear purely incidental). Ardin also interned for the editorial page of GT, the Gothenburg edition of Expressen (relevant later). She also previously worked at the Uppsala University, handling equality issues for the students’ union as the “gender equity” officer. She is the author of “Seven Steps to Legal Revenge”, which details how to maximize revenge / inflict pain on enemies by getting people to stalk them and by using other nefarious tricks.

Sophia Wilen was self described Assange fan and an aspiring photographer. An employee of the local Social Democratic-controlled council in the northern town of Enkoping, Wilen later told police that she had seen Assange on television and had become “obsessed” by him.

The Story

The story begins with Ardin having invited Assange to Stockholm, Sweeden to speak at a Brotherhood Movement event. Assang accepted Ardin’s offer to stay at her home, which she said would be unoccupied because she would be with her family for a few days. Assange arrived on 8/11/2010, but Ardin returned early on 8/13, and they cohabitated on a temporary basis while Assang was in town for the event. On the evening of 8/13 they had sex, both admitting that a condom was used but had broken.

Who Owns Education?

In Germany, apparently your choice and consent as an adult is irrelevant. Your child belongs to the State when it comes to education:

At 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 29, 2013, in what has been called a “brutal and vicious act,” a team of 20 social workers, police officers, and special agents stormed a homeschooling family’s residence near Darmstadt, Germany, forcibly removing all four of the family’s children (ages 7-14). The sole grounds for removal were that the parents, Dirk and Petra Wunderlich, continued to homeschool their children in defiance of a German ban on home education.

Those who gravitate to government tend to have very little respect for the concept of consent.  Essentially, those in government are some shade of “authoritarian”.   They believe their personal belief system on specific solutions to specific problems are the best, and they refuse to allow for others to say “no thanks”.  The Wunderlich family is victimized by this authoritarian mentality, while the rest of the German nation indifferently lets their family be broken up by a radicalized state.

It’s a shame that in the United States there is a growing movement of those in the Education Industrial Complex, from unions to textbook printers, who want to apply a similar squeeze on U.S. homeschooling.   A tactic being pressed in California: one must have union-approved teaching credentials to home-school children.   Not surprisingly, the California appeals court — a part of the Government Apparatus noted already above — believes individual consent and basic liberty is subservient to “the law”:

Coup de Egypt

For those of you able to see the live cam, we can see that Democracy for some is tyranny for others. What many younger and Western educated Egyptians wanted was change when it came to Mubarak.  What they didn’t want was an Islamic tyranny.  And so we see a coup knocks out Morsi, and after the Morsi regime backed away from protecting minorities like the Coptic Christians, who have been persecuted heavily since Mubarak was overthrown…  well, let’s hope the fragile bits of liberty remaining in Egypt are able to grow roots and gains some strength.

As for the U.S. meddling that brought Morsi into power, these photos and these other photos all tell a tale of how dysfunctional U.S. foreign policy has grown.  Moreover, it illustrates once again how picking one side makes you the enemy of the other.

Frankly, when it comes to the Middle East, between radical Shiites and Sunnis, may there bad luck for each blow that misses.  Hopefully they destroy each-other, wannabe radicals learn their lesson that “Radical Mohammad” results in lots of dead Muslims, and the moderates can build from what’s left.