1: Guns Opening
3: Case, Sandy Hook Response
4: Information Rant
5: The Assault Weapons Ban, What it Does.
1: Guns Opening
I had posted a short rant about Gun Control advocates a while ago which prompted many responses of varying kind. Some agreeing with my babble, some not, some ranting their thoughts, some challenging and engaging. What I found interesting is how people against gun freedoms would argue vs those in favor of gun freedom. I recognized the pattern as what I deal with when speaking on religion. One person even showed me a "Study" that "proved" more guns means more violence. They were so sure of this they even pointed out that the "Study" even uses such phrases and "prove" or whatever it was. : /
I'm a skeptic and don't like taking things on face value. So I read the "Study" and was concerned it was bull the moment I looked at it. The graph data was so improbable on its face when you take all the variables involved. The pattern it took was absurd. Regardless, I read it. The terms, the conclusions, really everything was not only non scientific but stupidly biased. As I checked the source material, it was from an activist group against guns. Wow, that would be like trusting a study by the parents of the kids with autism, suggesting the vaccines caused it, as part of their lawsuit as a proper scientific document! (by the way, it's since been completely debunked. Get your vaccines idiots!) My response was "resting my case" however, looking back I should have linked a counter "study" from the N.R.A. (National Rifle Association) but then I felt the person wouldn't have caught the irony.
With the last journal on the topic, a great deal many of people assumed I was a gun enthusiast and some PM's i received were quite rude. The rest spoke to me about guns In ways I couldn't repeat the words of because they assumed I was a Gun Enthusiast which I am not.
SO I decided to write a proper journal on the topic and explain what my views are and then make my case as to why, and then add my opinions. Well then, if we are going to take this line of thought seriously, we must first start at the beginning.
The Second Amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the Security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Please note: I chose the version ratified by the states and endorsed by Thomas Jefferson. There was slight punctuation differences with the version passed by Congress.)
People Against guns do pick at the punctuation differences a lot. To rephrase their position into a more blunt way, they believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are very well written documents EXCEPT when it comes to the 2nd Amendment! Suddenly, "The People" means something OTHER than what it has meant up to this point which happens to be the same meaning after the second amendment. One person even argued that it's out of date because we don't need a militia now that we have a National Guard to protect us, which kind of misses the point.
I have to point out a few things. The regulated militia is necessary for a free state. Not run by the Federal Government, but the state so they aren't helpless when the Federal Government gets too corrupt. The right of the people to bare arms is to keep our government in check, and so WHEN the people need to revolt again, the people would be armed. The founding fathers believed it was inevitable because corruption is inevitable. Having just fought a war themselves, this was a very important issue ot them. So much so, they got to it second. A Government that is not afraid of the people will not serve the people but instead serve themselves and abuse the people.
If the people allow themselves to be at the mercy of a government, they open the doors to many kinds of abuses such as taxation without representation. I live in California and regularly see what happens when a Government has a free hand. Through shady methods, they want to increase the amount of money used to clean rain water in L.A. county from $100,000,000 a year to $400,000,000 a year. We pay the highest utilities, property, car, income, taxes of any kind in the country. I myself pay a higher tax percent rate on income tax as a security office (I'm poor, except by Democrats reasoning apparently) then millionaires do in 49 other states. (Yes, even Hawaii was just passed by us) of the 10,000,000 to enter the population of California from 1985 - 2005, 7,000,000 went on welfare while we gained about 108 thousand new tax filers/payers. This excludes the hundreds of thousands of citizens moving out of California during that time. The Democrats have a super majority in every house now and despite the unprecedented highest tax increase by any state in the U.S. in history (again, again) we are facing another 7 taxes over the next couple months. (as of the time this was written. Since then, even more taxes have been pushed.)
Can't help notice California has the hardest Gun Control laws. The concept of defending yourself legally are, "Run as soon as possible. If cornered, you can only defend yourself until you can find an opening to run away." I should add that they have been releasing thousands of Murderous felons by order of the Governor to save money on prison cost. We spend about 56,000 per prisoner per year, every year. The concept of "Maybe we should stop paying the prison guards so much money for things like how long it takes to walk from their cars to their posts." Never crossed the Governments mind. The People ARE being killed by these felons (and since this was written, so are rapes and murders from the rapers on parole that take off their ankle bracelets that are not even punished for doing that) The Government just doesn't care, and why should they? The people have no ability to defend themselves and the cops are happy to abuse this. With the highest paid teachers in the country we have the worse grades and highest drop out rates. (Over 60% in some reason) the people listen to the media that are just stenographers instead of reporters and the Government employees number so high they can pass propositions. We are losing many cities to Bankruptcy and thanks to Antonio Villaraigosa L.A. is planned to Bankrupt in a couple years maybe 3 at the most. (Since this was written, they also passed another 11% pay increase for firefighters and police which has the effect of increasing salaries for other police and firefighters from other cities. It's a circular effect they set up to insure their pay goes up every year or two)
The sad thing is, I could keep going on and on but I wanted to only make one thing clear: Taxation without representation is an ugly thing... But so are crime rates. Piers Morgan was boasting how the U.S. could learn a thing or two from the lack of Gun Violence in the U.K. I think the U.K. could learn a thing or two from the U.S. about violent crimes and crime rates in general. These aren't arguments of course. I just want to emphasize that the problem is not that simple and I hope to convey why in this journal.
Some believe the heart of the problem are guns themselves. When researching a few gun terms, at a gun store in my city, the owner took a hand gun, loaded it, put a bullet in the chamber and then set it down on the table between us. That gun was certainly not interested in killing anybody, or even for that matter shooting at all. It lacks neurons, therefore it lacks the ability to make decisions.
When I watched him disarm the gun, pointing it up, finger off the trigger, etc. My mind wandered to a picture of a 9 year old girl holding a rifle very safely and correctly next to a picture of Diane Feinstein of California, holding a gun incorrectly and unsafely. She had it pointed at the audience, finger on the trigger, etc. I have absolutely no doubt that she was given that gun by her ARMED security and she irresponsibly never checked for herself if it were loaded or not.
Diane Feinstein is also the one behind this new "Assault Weapons Ban" which I will go into more detail later in this journal. Instead, I'm going to begin at the heart of the actual problem: Humans. But please, don't lose sight that I actually do hate guns. Just I prefer to think about reality, not childish Utopian nonsense.
When a specie evolves a trait, the trait is not static or unchanging from individual to individual. For an example, lets talk about Flight Distance in the only natural canine uninfluenced by human selective breeding: the Wolf, (Sorry Fantastic Mr. Fox). Now some wolves found a convenient food source, the trash areas of humans. Now, Flight distance is how close a potential threat can get to the wolf before it runs away. This distance is not the same for every single wolf. There is, variation: Some too close, some too far. My dog owes her existence to one that had too small a flight distance but luckily made a friend with a curious human.
Within a wolf pack, we see even more variation. Some are more Alpha, others less so. Some are big, some are small, some friendly, others abusive and yet are still the same specie. The lesson is clear: among any social species, there will be variation in how individuals conduct themselves relative to other individuals of the same species, even within the same pack. Even those born at the same time will act very different from each other, even if made by the same parents. From humans, to trees, to microscopic organisms, variation exists. There will always be some humans in society that breaks the rules the majority agree upon. Maybe one day, we will start to rewrite peoples brains but that in itself raises lots of moral questions and choices which this journal isn't the place to talk about that. (Personally, I feel it a horrible idea though, very grotesque. In short, who decides how we should all act?)
Regardless, brain remapping is a technology we have not mastered yet. For now at least, some people will be below average with their moral compasses. There will always be some crazy people. Some good, some bad, and the balance of power always sways back and forth... But so does the balance of people sane and insane. (AKA: Crazy Person) The average person will always not be a crazy person because a society built up of crazy people always fails. Anarchy, collapse always follows.
3: Case, Sandy Hook Response
Far too many people in this country uses horrible scenes like this to push their agendas and far too many people flock to these "Feel good" bills and symbolic actions because they care. I really do believe these people care, just don't bother researching anything, or understand anything. Maybe they don't even know how to research. In an earlier journal, someone sent me what they called a "Study" but it was just a propaganda piece put together by an anti gun group. That is as trustworthy as one put together by the National Rifle Association. Actually reading the "study" showed it was completely unscientific. I get this kind of thing a lot when talking about Religion.
Personally, I think the biggest problem is that people want a blanket solution that will cure everything. In my opinion: I think this stems from a presumed moral high ground in that, "Thou shalt not kill" is a moral absolute, even though it isn't. Having searched for arguments in favor of Gun Control, I only find assumed moral absolutes without any justification. My moral choices are done only after I collect data on the specific case, never before.
Sandy Hook, Colorado responses are: More Gun control Laws, (which I will cover later in the journal) a bonfire where they destroy "Violent" Video Games. Before I conclude what I think should be done, we must first gather the facts aka "data." This is of course just me being scientific. First gather the facts before making the hypothesis. Test hypothesis, confirm it so it can graduate to the top level in science: Theory. For all we know, their responses might be correct! Let us now see what happened and what conclusions we come to.
A mother has a son that is crazy. Mother is taking care of her son, which is hard because he's crazy, further he's growing up and becoming more of a hassle. She is a teacher, she is a survivalist and owns guns, body armor and is ready for the zombie Apocalypse. She understood her son was becoming too much for her to handle and tried to get government help to commit him.
Son lived in the basement and was an enthusiast for military weapons. He played video games. He spent most of his time alone. He had a nose. He resented that his mother was so controlling of his life. He perceived his mothers loving the students more than him because she was nice to them and not him. He's crazy. He was issued a court date where his mother was going to try and prove he's crazy to have him committed.
Phenomenon: He kills his mother, takes guns to the school his mother worked at. Kills many students.
Hypothesis: He had access to guns, and guns kill people. If he didn't have access to guns, he wouldn't have killed people.
Crystal: No, even that same day there was stabbings at a school in China. The highest death toll at a school massacre by 1 person since 1907 didn't even involve guns. Further, he was crazy, not stupid. If he wanted to retaliate against the students, he had enough knowledge of weapons to come up with something. Just think back to the guy using a home made mace and a bug spray machine converted to a flame thrower. He clearly perceived the students as the target of his mothers affections and therefore retaliated against them. It wasn't random. To him, they deserved it. Further we know he had put thought into it because of all the research he had put into all the massacres and attempted massacres in U.S. history. To think he wouldn't have killed anyone if he had no guns, is childish.
Hypothesis: Video games are violent. People that play games will mimic or be inspired to be violent.
Crystal: No. No correlation established, and all arguments failed testing. Further, these arguments are as unsubstantiated now aimed at video games as they were towards movies, and T.V. before that, and Comic books before that, and radio before that, etc. The arguments have never changed and were never scientifically even suggested. Honestly, this kind of stupidity is common with agenda pushing, IE: Assume the problem, then find evidence to support it. You're doing it backwards. However, as I'm trying to be impartial right now, I shall refine your stupid arguments into a far more realistic and practical one.
So we know through science, that people playing video games while playing them are not focused on the murder aspect in the same sense as the non playing observer is. They are more focused on puzzle solving, or points, or plotting routes from point A to point B, etc. However, the guy in question for this case was crazy. It's therefore possible that he takes in the information and sorts it differently when compared to the average person. Sadly, we lack the data to make this theory and to be honest, I think there are far better avenues to go down before bothering with this one.
I want to point out an update, the idiot police are trying to say it's because of video games he did this because: He has a big sheet of paper with all the attempted and successful murderers. He wanted to be at the top.... so they think that means: The more kills you get, the more points you get. AND the reason he killed himself is because when other people kill you they get your points, so he wanted to keep them. ................................. Uhh, I play First Person shooters, and when you kill yourself, you lose points. When are you killed, you lose points, NOT they get your points. Their arguments are make belief. Clearly, agenda driven.
Hypothesis: If it saves even 1 life, it's worth whatever it takes.
Crystal: There is fundamental flaw in this argument. It's not an argument, just an appeal to emotions. By this argument, we need to ban pencils, bath tubs, cars... Especially since more die from motor vehicles each year then by fire arms (Including legally justified killings, suicides, cop shootings etc) We should lock up all mentally unstable people the moment they show the slightest sign of "abnormal" behavior. Why not? Isn't it worth it if we save even one life? We should legislate: Religion is illegal since there is a direct correlation with homicide rates relative to piety of a country. More religion, more murder, rape, teen pregnancy, STD's, squalor, etc. So make it illegal and enforce it, because it's worth it if we save even one life! (so on and so on.)
Hypothesis: Accidents happen! For example, a kid finds his fathers Glock under the car seat, and shoots his father.
Crystal: A sad story. I'll ignore that the father should have been more responsible then forgetting he left a loaded gun in his car under his car seat... The point is, that accidents DO happen. I will respond to that. Yes, sadly there are sad stories of accidents. There are also the opposite. Take for example the 85 year old woman that was able to save herself from a mid 20's robber. When the cops arrived, he was on the floor, hands behind his head. Those of us in California that actually pay attention would think of the Merced Pitchfork Murders. (For those of you not in the loop, that's where lots of kids died that knew how to use guns couldn't get the guns due to gun laws, AND neighbors were unwilling to help also due to gun laws. Imagine what it must have been like to be crawling out the window, knowing that you could shoot the guy killing your sisters and brothers with a pitchfork if you could only get the gun. Or knowing your neighbors had a gun, but wouldn't use it or let you use it due to the same laws stopping you from saving your siblings. Imagine living with that for the rest of your life. Hundreds of stab wounds because you couldn't shoot the naked stranger killing your family) Or that after the batman movie shooting, the next day another theater shooting occurred only an off duty officer had her gun and killed the gunman before he could shoot up the theater saving lots of lives.
Bringing up examples of good results or bad results in itself isn't an argument. Just an appeal to emotions. First state your position, then justify it. Examples serve as an aid to help others understand your point, not to be an argument in itself.
Hypothesis: Have police on site, visit school to school.
Crystal: That's temporary, costly and may result in a gun fight which 'is' better than the alternative. I'm not really in favor or against this one. Just view it as a temporary fix.
Hypothesis: Ban Guns, so bad guys and/or crazy people won't have access to them.
Crystal: Lets ignore the 2nd Amendment, and the reasons for it. Lets simply ban guns, take them all away... From the good guys since we only know where their guns are. Like the U.K. we'd get an increased spike in crime, robberies, and rape because the balance of power would heavily sway towards the bad guys. (This is why they were quite loud about the U.S. NOT banning their guns) If you want to remove guns in a practical and safe way fine, but that isn't even on the table today so I'm not going to discuss cases like Australia.
The cartel of Mexico has no problem running drugs past the open boarder, or seizing Federal U.S. Land from the U.S. unchallenged already. The Obama Administration is quite happy to give it to them with resistance of only, putting up signs telling Citizens to stay out because it's dangerous. For many people on the boarder areas, their guns are a life line since the government has abandoned them. Further, like alcohol, you'd just feed organized crime and the bad guys will still have their guns AND know they can run rampant like in Philadelphia. We already knows what happens when you ban all guns.. Only idiots, ignorant, or people closing their eyes to reality think you can just ban guns outright.
Your responses make no sense to THIS case. (or any others really) Childish.
Crystals Hypothesis on what happened, and how to help prevent a repeat.
Crazy son retaliated against the students in rage after his mother tried to get rid of him. I think he was going to kill those kids with or without a gun and it would be thought out instead of impulse. What set him off was his mother trying to get help from the government. Because crazy people have and deserve rights too, isn't a good enough reason to put more people at risk.
I suggest adapting things so if someone goes through the process of proving someone is crazy and a danger to society, shouldn't we as a culture accept it might be better to error on the side of caution and restrain the potentially crazy person and evaluate them in a timely manner? Perhaps some other change to the system? In my opinion this is the sort of discussion we SHOULD be having. What to do so we can make sure an incident like this is not repeated and at the very least, deterred.
As a side note, it would also help having the discussion about helping people that can no longer handle the crazy person in their household. A lot of people complain, "Where were the parents?" or "Why didn't they force them to take their medications?!" Because it's illegal to kidnap someone and its illegal to force drugs down peoples throats. If someone has schizophrenia and is highly dangerous when off their medication, there is absolutely nothing you or their parents or kids can do to make them take their medication. The Police cannot arrest them until a crime has been committed. The courts and laws block you constantly if you seek help.
My solution might not be the best, honestly barely gave it any real thought but I just feel its' a better discussion that should be had then what we have been having. There was a similar situation recently, Congress woman Gabriel Gifford, and the Batman movie shooting by James Eagan Holmes, and yet nobody seems interested in discussing the details. Instead they wall want to push some kind of odd agenda. Blaming video games, or movies, etc.
Enough about my opinions, lets get back to what everyones response has been to the shooting. I mean, I don't like guns so I would be default in favor of Sensible Gun Control, right? Right! However, is that what they have actually been discussing? Uhh no. One of my personal favs is this limit on bullet magazine count despite the existence of 3D printers, which completely voids the concept of policing magazines. The entire ban on "Assault Weapons" is this level of stupidity too. : /
4: Information Rant
When interviewed about the Sandy hook shooting, President Obama said they are looking at changing laws. When told the National Rifle Association said it won't work, Obama dodged the point by implying the NRA just think its "too hard to solve." instead of course addressing why the NRA think his ideas won't work. In the same interview, when told the NRA suggested armed security guards at schools, Obama said he was "Skeptical" about the idea and wasn't sure the People would like the idea. "We have to do something." finally something we agree on! However Obama once said, "That's the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
Obviously he's wrong again but lets use his definition of insanity for a moment after all it is what he seems to think Insanity is. By his own definition of insanity, Obama's plan to "Do something." Because we've "Got to" is an insane plan. That's always the excuse used to do nonsense on this topic. Now playing with words aside, his plan is completely stupid, and it shows that in response to crazy people going on killing sprees they push for another Assault Rifle Ban.
(Record skip noise) O_o uhh wait, (looks at her notes) 2009: 31,347 deaths by guns. (that's about 10.2 for every 100k population) Of that, 12,636/31,347 were considered Homicides (which includes suicide) of which 348/31,347 were by "Rifles" or 2.55%. Golly, better stack that before people realize it's even lower in 2012... Umm...... Lets include shot guns... That's 418/31,347 or 3.07%... Lets add in "Unknown Firearms" to that: 1928/31,347 or 14.14% Hey! That's a good jump! Total now is 2,694 or 19.76% (yes, those of you sharp enough to notice that "unknown firearms is more than then RIFLES and SHOTGUNS COMBINED.) So with padded numbers by combining all these still only covers almost 20%.
Okay, so Rifles account for 348/31,347 (2.55%) How about "Cutting objects/knives"... 1825/31,347 (13.38%) almost as much as unknown firearms.(good job you sharp people! That's still more than shot guns /Rifles combined times 2) "Other non cutting non fire arms" 1864 or 13.67%.(those of you sharp are like, wow by now I"m sure) I'm starting to think Gun Control fanatics are either getting faulty data or are less concerned about lives as just removing the big bad guns. "Hands/feet" 801 or 5.87%... That's more than double Rifles (assault or non assault rifles combined) (it's also more hen Rifles and Shot guns combined.... to be fair not by much. 5.62 is Rifles / Shot gun combined, but still hands and feet top it!)
Wait, the math.... we are still missing about 47%! Hmm where could that 47% be? "Handguns" 6452/47.32%. (anime falls) So okay, if their concern was human life, clearly rifles are not the priority. Not necessarily something to be ignored but seriously! Get some perspective people! (The flu kills 3,000 - 46,000 each year which includes mostly kids and elderly and we generally DO find the cures to this every year! Sorry anti vaccine groupies, but you suck and fail at existence.)
If you combine the total deaths from school shootings defined as: Suicide, homicide at school, on the bus, on the way to or from school by guns from the continents of North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia from 1907 - 2012... and then compare it to lightning strikes in the U.S. and only those that result in death: you get a ratio of about 14.055/1 in favor of lighting strike deaths.
I'm not saying ignore the problem, I'm simply pointing out what's wrong with the reasoning here. Clearly, the priority of the "Assault Weapons ban" is not to save human life or even children life overall. Especially when you take the case of Columbine where laws were already in place to stop that shooting and failed. Maybe the NRA was correct, this time...
Doing the same thing over and over again like Obama, Feinstein, and the vast majority of gun control activists, really will fail... again, again, again. I need to stress here that the only reason I can find gun control fanatics use to justify their actions is preserving human life. At least they don't fail as badly as the Catholic Church has at fixing their pedophile issues. (Last I checked, the guy put in charge of that was arrested for child porn. What a shocker. o_O)
Enough though, we should cover this Assault Weapons ban, what they are saying it will do, and translate it from gun jargon to something we can all understand.
5: The Assault Weapons Ban, What it Does.
First, we have to get some terminology defined because people use so many terms in this discussion despite the fact they don't understand the meaning of them. So I'm going to try defining these words in a way that laymen and non gun buffs like me can actually understand without confusion.
-Automatic: Like a machine gun. Hold the trigger Rambo! This is military Grade! Hold the trigger down and it will shoot non stop.
-Semi Automatic: This is what the People get. Pull the trigger and hold it down, only 1 bullet comes out until you pull the trigger again.
-Bolt Action: Shoot, then pull the bolt out, pop out the metal case for the bullet, put in a new bullet, lock the bolt again, shoot, repeat.
-Magazine: What most call a clip, it's the thing you put bullets into that helps with reloading the gun between shots. When out of bullets, you change the magazine to reload it.
-Clip: The bullets are attached to it, and you load gun with built in magazine. Think the chain gun used in Predator.
-Automatic Weapon: U.S. Political broad term for weapons that are semi automatic, look visually similar to military grade weapons, are not bolt action, uses a magazine (regardless of how many bullets the magazine can old) in conjunction with other features like; a pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug. Please note this is a political term, not a technical term and therefore is subject to change at any time.
I need to take a moment and note what I see as a blatant attempt to mislead the General Public. You say "Assault Weapon" and people think machine guns like you see in movies or video games, etc. They do not think of hand guns or a shot gun with 4 bullets in it. The blatant attempt to prey on the fears of the masses upsets me so I must try extra hard to be unbiased in this part of the journal unless giving my opinion of course. Lets begin.
The Bill would establish certain accessories on a gun as "Bad Features." This includes folded stocks (the part you put against your shoulder) pistol grips (The part of the pistol you hold onto) or a magazine that can possibly hold 10 rounds or more (They have since changed it to what they call "High Capacity" or 30 bullets or more.) If a gun has any one or more "Bad Feature," it is considered an Assault weapon under their working definition. This would include guns with a built in magazine as well.
In my opinion, This magazine thing is just more preying on fears of the General Public. If a gun uses a magazine, why then could you not design a magazine for it with 10 bullets or more? Therefore, banning guns with "The possibility" of "using" magazines with 10 bullets or more really means: Ban Guns that use magazines/clips. To be fair, they said 900 guns would be exempt by name but did not say which. It's possible for now, this problem might not be so extreme in the final draft. Of course it would go there eventually as every massacre results in an incremental escalation of more gun control laws that don't save any lives and that only law abiding citizens follow.
This law would ban varies guns by name which closes the loop hole of just changing features on said guns. It also bans "features" meant to prevent new guns with the same functions to hit the shelves with different names. Banned guns would no longer be manufactured in the U.S.
Guns already owned legally would be Grandfathered in. However all the shot guns, rifles (assault or not) and handguns grandfathered in would need to be registered the way machine guns are. This puts a lot of new regulations such as: cannot cross state lines without approval which currently takes 4-6 months to get. After the bill it would be millions of requests instead of the couple thousand currently. Lots of paperwork, background checks, pictures, fingerprints, police chief paperwork they must sign that would be generated for each individual gun. (This is not initial back ground checks, it's redundant ones, etc) This is going to cost a large amount of money that we don't have.
Looking over the bill and then thinking about what happened at Sandy Hook, makes me ask what I feel is an obvious question.. "How is this bill going to have any effect on preventing or discouraging the incident from happening again?" In fact, making an argument for a single life being saved is hard and not firmly founded. Sure it can be done, "oh discourages gun sales" but by the same argument one could say that increases violence with guns. It's just not an argument. Really I can't make a single argument in how this would save any lives. The usual ones don't stand to any scrutiny.
Honestly, we are now faced with what this Bill is actually about. Registration. Extreme Registration, with random checks of documentation and verifying the guns are where they should be or face minimum 10 years in Federal prison. (even if the guns were stolen with how it was written last I checked.) Don't forget that this only targets legally owned guns by law abiding citizens. What concerns people like me is escalation. Where does the next step lead? Always to, confiscation and I value all our rights under the Constitution.
Is that all this is really about? It's not my place to speculate on their intentions but we at least know what isn't their intentions by their actions: Saving lives.
In closing, it has become clear that saving lives is not what concerns this current gun control push. At best, it attempts to fix 15% of guns used by criminals since 40% are from friends and family (legally bought) and 45% black market on the streets. It is good to fix 15% but only 1 or 2 parts of the entire plan the Obama Administration has posted effects this, and even just that creates Constitution Battles. Never mind that it doesn't really help in the end anyway. (Shrugs) In the end, I find the majority of people are too distracted or afraid to face the reality. As Ash said in the movie, Army of Darkness "Good, Bad, I'm the guy with the gun."
Too many people that want Gun Control for all the right reasons have no knowledge on the topic and thus act contrary to their goals. They say silly things like, "Less guns = less gun injuries" but California guns increased by millions and injury falls every year further by thousands. This no more proves more guns = less injuries then the opposite statistic would. This isn't an argument.
I personally do blame the pro gun control mob mostly because of their ignorance. People that like their guns are too busy trying to resist the silly actions Gun Control fanatics to do anything meaningful or helpful. "From my cold dead hands" and they wonder why those ignorant of guns get so scared.
Side note: "Nobody blamed the Light saber." Just had to throw that in somewhere.
Religious people are very emotionally invested in what they believe to the point they only listen to other like minded people whenever gathering what they think is evidence to back up their claims regardless of what reality has to say. Gun control fanatics appear to be very emotionally invested from what I've seen and thus incapable or unwilling to objectively study the situation. Because I usually deal with Religion, perhaps that's why I feel able to relate to the Gun fans despite that I don't like guns. It's stressful trying to explain to things that cover their ears and shut their eyes, humming all the time.
When I started this project, I did not expect this result. I had anticipated a fair and reasonable discussion on both sides of the line. My assumption was it boils down to value judgments, a simple subjective difference of opinion. I was incorrect, which means I am now faced with telling the vast majority of Gun Control fanatics what i must say to Religious.
There is NO EXCUSE for your ignorance in the age of the Internet and Search Engines.
My Journals usually have no source section it's generally just one book... their Holy Book. This has given me the bad habit of not keeping careful track of my sources when writing these so please bare with me as I site the ones I used for this one from memory as best I can.
1: Federal Bureau of Investigations. For any #'s used on death counts. Due to how many variables are involved in their process, there is a margin of error I didn't bring up nor cared enough too. The data is reliable enough to form the conclusions I made, and is unbiased enough for these purposes as well.
2: Wikipedia. I feel dirty using this but it served well in reminding myself about a few specific people and was a good refresher on previous shootings.
I also found a list of school shootings on it and their death counts. There is a margin of error in doing this but after debating the points with myself, I decided to use it. My points still stand even if you decided to double the death counts, hell even if you tripled them.
3: Google and various sites: Lightning strikes and death tolls from them. Went to multiple sites and don't remember which one I stuck with. The numbers i went with were conservative and focused on the U.S. only instead of world wide to help lower the margin of errors. Even though the numbers I used were shocking enough, the correct numbers are actually higher, probably by about 66%. I chose to error by being overly conservative, because the shock values are still high enough and it prevents people from arguing I'm padding the data since I'm doing the opposite.
4: Diane Feinsteins website for the Gun Laws drafted in her Bill. These aren't finalized yet, only drafted. (Update: Though these proved accurate enough in the official release from the Obama Administration after this journal was written.)
5: Gun Enthusiasts / store owner in the town. To explain what guns these law actually effects and to demonstrate things I didn't know since I am not a gun enthusiast, nor know a lot about the various types of guns that exist. I wouldn't know which guns are targeted, only what features were. They also showed me a lot of guns in the process so I could see and understand better.
6: The Obama Administrations plan released and covered by multiple news agencies. I went to the original PDF's instead of just a news story. Unlike T.V. and Newspaper news, I'm not a stenographer. I actually research things.
Note: As I wrote the journal, the story was evolving and overall insignificant changes have and will occur. Maybe the amount of bullets on a clip or magazine will change (They did, from 10 to 30), but my points would be relatively unchanged.
Update: and really weren't changed enough to matter anywhere in this journal.
Now, the next journal is actually finished already and just waiting me to type it from paper, and proof read it. I'll be turning my gaze back to Religion, this time in the form of the 12 step Program. I'm also considering doing some notes regarding marriage since a lot of Christians incorrectly believe their religion founded the practice despite the church not even writing it into Canon Law until 1563. *shrugs* we'll see.
As for me, been dealing with a lot of stuff. I"d prefer not being a drama queen so I won't explain everything I've been dealing with. I'll draw again sometime when I'm up to it.
Hope you enjoyed the read.