Why This Blog?

The aim of this blog is to fit into the blogosphere like the bracingly tart taste of yogurt fits between the boringly bland and the unspeakably vile.

All comments will be answered if their author provides contact info.


I have no sponsoring group(s) or agencies, and I owe no allegiance to any candidate or group.

(C) Copyright 2012 DenRita Enterprises

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Guns=safe, Meds=deadly -- sometimes

If guns make us safe and drugs kill . . .

A recent study commissioned by the “anti-gun” U.S.  administration concluded that defensive uses of guns to thwart crime are at least as common as offensive uses of guns by criminals. And, on the next page the report noted that there were consistently lower injury rates among crime victims who resisted with guns. (Study)

Dem evil guns, or cars, or . . .

This conflicts with “demonization” of tools; “guns are bad/dangerous/evil.” One pundit noted tongue in cheek that he has had a firearm under constant video surveillance for over a year and it hasn't harmed or even tried to harm anyone.

Whether we're talking about the dangers of cars or guns or chainsaws, it’s the people, stupid! Or, in the case of inadvertent firearms discharges (there’s no such thing as a firearms accident in this blogger’s opinion), it’s the stupid people.

Demonstrates stupid behavior

That brings to mind videos of Sen. Feinstein, an irascible firearms opponent from Northern California. In demonstrating firearms she puts her finger on the trigger and directs the muzzles about the room and over her visitors.

A grade-schooler could list each of the four universal firearms safety rules she was violating minute by minute. However, the Senator only mentions features that supposedly make weapons “dangerous,” such as a pistol grip (at a right angle to the barrel) and a bayonet stud. She doesn't mention that her carelessness was far more dangerous than an AK47 in the hands of a trained 10 year old.

What causes violence, then?

If we accept the premise that people, not guns are responsible for firearms violence, we can ask “why?”
One answer suggested by a psychologist and authority is violent video games. It’s not so much the games; it’s the amount of exposure to competitive killing with psychological rewards. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book, On Killing, discusses the idea in some depth.

Daren Savage wrote about another, well-supported reason for firearms violence; psychotropic medicines. He outlined the drug regimens of each of the mass killers, demonstrating that each was taking medication that had known side effects that include loss of touch with reality, a propensity to violence, and/or an inclination toward suicide. (Daren's)

An authority in the field, albeit one with some skin in the game (he conducts defensive firearms training) agrees. Dr. Ignatius Piazza also writes about the universal association of psychotropic meds with violence. (Google "Front Sight.")

You-Tube clips feature interviews with a lot of therapists who emphasize the dangers. (Interviews) Even Michael Moore, the darling of the “Limousine Liberals” has placed the blame for Columbine – and other violence, on medications. (Moore)

Are we fighting windmills instead of dragons?

So, if we can show that firearms violence tends to be closely associated with psychotropic meds, and that the cities with the harshest anti-gun laws experience the most violence toward non-criminals, and that citizens using firearms to protect themselves from crime face less injury, why the push to “outlaw guns?”

They tell us to remember that sometimes people really are after the paranoids. Perhaps we should also remember that sometimes conspiracy theorists are right, too.

 The lion isn't afraid of the sheep -- especially when they're disarmed.

No comments:

Post a Comment