Dueling experts and horrifying medicine

Will someone please present me with a comprehensive list of why civilians should not own firearms so I can address them at one time?

This is getting annoying.

UNFIT FOR … ANYTHING

The current reason that people should not have a firearm is mental instability.

Of all the … excuses given, this is the least rational, least plausible and most indefensible.

Certainly, some metal issues are obvious. For the past 21 years, I have lived with a human being with “limited” mental capacity. Jesse, my son, has Down Syndrome. He can read some words. He cannot drive. He has a hard time answering two-part questions or following a series of commands issued as one instruction.

He is also a hunter, knows more about guns, I bet you, than the average person. He has his own rifle (locked in a gun safe) and he’s made kills with it. We turned it into ground meat because hamburgers are his favorite meat. He also has a bow, thanks to some astonishingly awesome friends in Washington State, and was on the 4-H archery team in high school.

LET’S VOTE

So.

Who gets to decide if a person has mental issues that should prohibit them from owning gun?

Psychiatrists? These are the same people who vote, I do mean VOTE, on what constitutes a mental issue. Vote. 

"It (DSM-5) classifies psychiatric diagnoses and the criteria required to meet them. Gary Greenberg, one of the book's biggest critics, claims these disorders aren't real -- they're invented."

"The paper concludes that while the APA represented DSM-III, and the return to descriptive psychiatry it inaugurated, as a triumph of empirically based decision-making, the evidence presented here fails to support that view."


"Historically, many clinicians have been unaware that the DSM is more political than scientific, that there is little agreement among professionals regarding the meaning of vaguely defined terms, and that it includes only scant empirical data."

Where do these quotes come from? The authorities in the links just above.

S'far as the "empirical data" is concerned, psychologists and psychotherapists are some better than the shrinks. They at least rely on real world results.

As for the ability to prescribe medications, only shrinks get to do that. The record on shrink medications is extremely subject to the Decline Effect. "But the data presented at the Brussels meeting made it clear that something strange was happening: the therapeutic power of the drugs appeared to be steadily waning. A recent study showed an effect that was less than half of that documented in the first trials, in the early nineteen-nineties."

Doctors do not vote on whether or not someone has a broken leg. Doctors do not vote on whether or not the flu virus will make people sick.

You want people who vote on what a mental illness happens to be to decide? This same group once declared homosexuality to be a mental disorder.

A look at the history of shrinkology - http://www.uniteforsight.org/mental-health/module2

Mental illness? Get you some MORE history. http://nobaproject.com/modules/history-of-mental-illness

Some of these “illnesses” now horrify us. We are even more horrified by how these “patients” were treated. Yet, that was is mental health treatment.

I recommend you read The Great Psychiatry Scam. No doubt some of you are gonna “BS!” That and say this guy either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or has a axe to grind.  Dr. Colin A Ross is one of the current psychiatric greats on the planet.

Wherefore dost thou protest now?

DIDN’T VOTE ENOUGH APPARENTLY

Let’s make this more real. Why wasn’t Ted Bundy https://www.biography.com/people/ted-bundy-9231165 stopped before he killed more people? I guess enough people didn’t vote to stop him.

The Zodiac Killer. Jack the Ripper. Donald Henry Gaskins. Tsutomu Miyazaki. Luis Garavito.

OK, what about Charles Edmund Cullen? Lots more like him where he came from.

DUELING EXPERTS

Aight. Forget the voting.

Look at the court cases where people are hauled in front of a judge for competency hearings.

BOTH sides bring expert witnesses, experts in the field of mental health who testify to the exact opposite. Who ya gonna believe?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8935818 “Today, expert witnesses are the champions of victims and the accused. Legal disputes are increasingly being decided by the battle of the experts who must undergo the ordeal of cross-examination. “

Here, lemme beat you to near death with reality - http://jaapl.org/content/40/4/581 “Conflicting Expert Opinions Concerning Insanity”

“In the case of State v. McGhee, 787 N.W.2d 700 (Neb. 2010), Eric McGhee appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony. He filed a petition for postconviction relief and based his appeal on ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr. McGhee's primary complaint was that his attorney did not acquire a third expert opinion regarding his competency to stand trial and his defense of legal insanity in the face of conflicting expert opinions. He contended that a third expert opinion was necessary to break the “stalemate” between the two opposing experts. The district court denied his appeal without an evidentiary hearing, and he then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.”

Got money? Hire an expert to tell a judge and jury that the individual is/isnot mentally competent and hope the other side cannot match the fiscal resources needed to bring in expert witnesses. Then, let the unquestioned NON EXPERTS decide which expert is telling the truth?

And we come right back to voting again. Except now, you want people with no background in mental health to vote on whether or not someone is mentally competent to have a firearm.

Can I submit you to the same examination process to decide whether or not you are competent to do anything of my choosing?

Sigh. 

NEXT!

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

I have tried, and I mean REALLY TRIED, to not write this one. But dammitall, someone must step in with correct information. (sigh)

A few reminders to start this one:

"No one is coming to take your guns." http://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-great-gun-grab.html

"This is about protecting our kids." http://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-problem-is-guns-ii.html

"This is about stopping the killing." http://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-problem-is-guns.html

BAN MILITARY GUNS

Having shot down the top three arguments above, some in the gun grab crowd now say they only want to ban civilian ownership of military firearms.

They do not know what they are talking about. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I explain below.

Also, I am using the exact line of reasoning these people use when calling for gun bans. A major difference between me & them is I am using actual facts and reason to back up my points v. empty rhetoric and emotionally laden vitriol. (Well, most of the time anyway.)

In the interest of just hitting the major points, I will skip over a lot of things like swords, rapiers, man-catchers, advances in projectile tech and etc.

NEARLY 1,000 YEARS OF DEATH

Mr. Peabody, fire up The Wayback Machine. We are visiting the 1100s and the most feared weapon ever created by that time, the crossbow.

"Not surprisingly, the highest European authority of the day, the Roman Catholic Church, called for an outright ban on the weapon. And the Vatican wasn’t messing around — violating its decree could lead to excommunication, or worse: damnation of the soul. Strong language, to be sure. In fact, for much of the Middle Ages, the crossbow was considered to be one of the most destabilizing weapons in existence, not unlike today’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

So, to ban military weapons, we must ban the crossbow.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/20/fears-crossbow-terror-attacks-germany-weapon-found-jihadists/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/14/police-hunt-55-year-old-man-in-connection-with-crossbow-attack

FORWARD!

Mr. Peabody! Take us forward good sir!

Smoothbore rifles, which are on the current banned list anyway in the US, except for muzzleloaders... Well, even the muzzleloaders must be banned.

Loading a muzzleloader - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CEbBv4U71M . And that is for 1 shot.

"European military doctrine of the time called for the use of smoothbore muskets as the primary martial firearm.  Although less accurate than rifled arms, the smoothbore allowed for faster reloading, since a lead ball slightly smaller than bore diameter could be rammed down the barrel with wadding quite quickly, even as the barrel became fouled from gunpowder residue from previous shots."

For the sake of space, I shall skip over barrel rifling.

According to the "ban military guns" crowd, we must ban muzzleloading blackpowder rifles. The Brown Bess was issued to the British Army. This is but one example of many.

"It was the standard arm of the British soldier during the American Revolution. Unlike modern weapons, the musket was slow to load, inaccurate and frequently unreliable. The Brown Bess fired round lead balls, some the size of a quarter. With such an inaccurate gun, soldiers were often massed tightly together, firing a shower of lead balls at the enemy. "

CARTRIDGE ROUNDS

Mr. Peabody! We require your services to take us into the time of cartridge rounds. A cartridge round is self-contained. The bullet, powder and primer are all in one unit. The first cartridge rounds were developed for civilian use. So, banning ammo as being for "military purposes" is not permitted under these rules of engagement.

But we can point to cartridges and guns made for those rounds specifically made for military use.

The shoulder-breaker and moose hammer .45-70 Government is once again popular among shooters. As the name implies, this round was developed by and for the government. But we cannot ban ammo.

We can ban the rifle for which this ammo was developed. The Trapdoor Springfield as we call it today was built on government orders for government use. This single-shot rifle is designed to use black powder in the cartridge. Using some modern ammo can cause the rifle to explode. Really.

Single shot is slow to load. The rifle must be opened, the spent brass removed and a new round inserted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_A5HUhpZDs

But, this rifle that is more than 100 years old must be banned because it is a military firearm.

I have one. It was probably used to kill Native Americans. Ban it?

Another cartridge we cannot ban is the .30-06. This round was, again, developed by the government for military use. The ammo is on the world's Top 10 list for most popular deer ammo.

The ammo was developed for the Springfield Model 1903 bolt-action rifle. Since this is a military firearm, it can be banned. Never mind the fact that first few years the guns were made in such a way that firing modern ammo in them can cause them to explode. Literally.

It must be banned because it is a military rifle.

Got one of these too, one of the first off the line. I am truly afraid to shoot it because I do not want it exploding in my face.

Lemme point out here legendary Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock used the Winchester Model 70 in .30-06 in Vietnam. This is rifle is also called "a deer rifle" which the military gun ban crowd says they do not want to ban. Functionally, it is no different than the Springfield 1903, except it won't explode with modern ammo.

What is a sniper rifle? Briefly, here. Gonna look at another SERIOUS sniper rifle in a moment.

STILL IN USE

Someone will point out "Hey Baker, these guns are not used by militaries anymore." You certain?

The venerable Mosin-Nagant is STILL IN USE BY MILITARIES AROUND THE WORLD!

What is a Mosin-Nagant? A 30-caliber (think .30-06 deer rifle), 5-round fixed box magazine (think .30-06 deer rifle), bolt action (think .30-06 deer rifle) rifle (think .30-06 deer rifle) that started out in Russia made specifically for the military. Other nations started building them too, all for military use.

All. No Mosin Nagant was ever made, except under government contract for government use.

In what will certainly break the extractor (gun humor) of many in the precision shooting crowd who sneer at the Mosin Nagant, it is the most deadly sniper rifle in history based on the number of kills. The world's top sniper is Lyudmila Pavlichenko, a Russian lady, who used the Mosin. At the time, she was what the world called a feminist.

In form, function, fit, performance and even appearance, the difference between the Mosin Nagant and a modern Savage .30-06 deer rifle is strictly cosmetic. If you are one who says military firearms should be banned for civilian use - and I prove above the Mosin is still used by militaries - pick the one to ban.

Yes, I have two Mosins. One made in 1918 and it most certainly was used to shoot Nazis and others. I have one made in China, dropped on the battlefield during the Korean War. It was certainly used to shoot at American and other troops. Did the shooter killl anyone? Dunno.

By the "military gun" reasoning, they must be banned. Pick which one from the above must be banned.

THE TRUTH

The simple truth is people who call for banning military-style weapons do not know what they are talking about. Most cannot tell a Glock 19 from a silhouette single shot target pistol. They certainly do not know what a military firearm is. When pressed they come up with AR 15, AK 47 and a few other firearms with letters in the name. What about the AR7? Ban it? Why? Ban the M77? Why?

Magazine capacity and the ability to shoot rapidly are also brought up. Mag capacity, as I show above, has little to do with a firearm's lethality.

Firing rapidly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

This was done with a REVOLVER. I've shot full automatic firearms that don't cycle that fast. Full auto means you hold the trigger and it keeps shooting.

HISTORY SPEAKS

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14

In search of evil

TC posed this - Question of the day... Is profit evil?

What is profit? Profit, grossly defined is whatever is left after deducting all expenses. 

Under this definition, a good bookkeeper and business owner can make sure a business never makes a profit. Simply raise expenses until they exactly match the income and no profit.

Lemme insert a word before expenses - necessary.

Profit redefined is whatever is left after deducting all necessary expenses. 

Now we be getting' somewhere.

NECESSARY

The question then becomes, what is necessary. Fortunately, we have that one pretty much nailed to the wall.

Necessary is what it takes to live. To live you need air, water, food and shelter. You can live a few minutes without air. Some critters can go pretty much indefinitely without air, but humans ain't that way.

You can go 3-4 days without water. Unless you are these guys.

Depending on the particular person, living without food is possible anywhere from a few days to a month. 

About shelter. This is environmentally and geographically specific. People living in the tropic zones just need something to keep the rain off sometimes. Clothes are not needed in a lot of cases. The further north or south people live, the more protection they need from the environment. Get into the polar regions and heavy clothing and substantial shelter is necessary.

PROFIT

With the necessities covered, then anything else by definition must be profit.

For people living in tropical zones, profit can be shoes. Literally. Do people living in tropical zones really need shoes? For most of the history of humanity, they have lived without shoes.

No matter where a person lives in the world, a cell phone is profit. Humanity existed without this technology until the 1980s. Many people still live without one.

HYPOCRITE MUCH?

If profit is anything exceeding the basic necessities, then certainly more than 95 percent of the people living in industrialized nations (whether under socialism, communism, capitalism or a combination) experience and have profit.

Those people who scream "profit is evil" have a closet full of clothes, multiple sets of shoes, live in a dwelling that far exceeds their needs, have discretionary income, etc etc etc. They make a profit.

But being a hypocrite is part of the human condition.

EVIL

Which brings us to the last word, Evil. What is evil? At the risk of someone shouting "GODWIN'S LAW" at me, I tell you Adolf Hitler did not believe he was an evil man or what he was doing through the Holocaust was evil. (If you do not believe the Holocaust happened, never, ever make any effort to communicate with me.) Those behind the Russian pogroms did not believe they were evil. 

Here's a fast definition of evil - That which is opposed to the interests of the person defining evil.

Simple. Direct. Accurate.

IS PROFIT EVIL?

Back to the central question. Is profit evil? It certainly can be, depending on who is doing the defining.

Generally, those who define profit as evil are looking at what someone else has and get jealous. They stare down at their smartphones, post angry Tweets and invective on Facebook.

Profit much?

More cooperation, please

Consider this a heartfelt request for more cooperation from all'a y'all.

I need help. If you will simply do a bit more on your part – I'm doing the bulk of the heavy lifting here anyway – things will go a lot smoother.

Here's what I need you to do.

Follow the script.

You cannot imagine how many hours I spend (not many because I have far more important things to ponder, like what color my hair should be next week) thinking and planning these massive arguments I get into with all'a y'all.

I plan these debates out. Point. By. Point.

On every topic, I come up with a list (one) of discussion points. I carefully (not really) plan out my side of the discussion.

Then, and this is where the problem comes up, I plan out YOUR side of this roundtable (sometimes). All you have to do is follow the script. Some improvising is OK, certainly. Don't wanna cramp your style. But you MUST stick the general outline.

I've provided a handy list for y'all to follow.

• Stop bringing up extraneous points.

• Do not deviate from the outline by changing the crux of each of your replies which I have thoughtfully and painstakingly prepared.

• No insults.

• No whining.

It is entirely fine and expected that you do disagree with me. I can even handle ending the discussion with you still disagreeing with me, even though you are wrong. This should be rare.

For my sanity, you must stick to the course and stop interjecting things I have not planned.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this. I look forward to having all of you agree with me more often.

Unknown waters

Had two things hit recently that are leaving me in unknown waters.

Not exactly lost. The distant coastline hovers as a mirage above the water. I hope.

Definitely not floundering. The ship is solid and we will get there. But in the meantime, great care must be taken when navigating through this.

So, to de-obfuscate-

A while back I wrote stories about Ancestry.com, one of the commercial DNA sites. In exchange, the company ran my DNA. To my great surprise, my recent ancestry is exclusively west European. The Irish and the German I knew. Grandma Morgan was from Austria. Her ex-husband and my maternal grandfather also German, but an early arrival. That side of the family got here in time for the Revolutionary War. Grandma and Grandpa were of recent Irish stock.

Ennyhoo, I agreed to let Ancestry use the results to match up potential relatives.

If the website is right and this is not a scammer, I have a formerly unknown first cousin in Wisconsin. The lady said she was put up for adoption through the Catholic church. At the time, I had a relative living up there. Said relative has quite a list of arrests for scammer type crimes.

When Mom asked said relative about that time in Wisconsin and whether or not said relative had a child, the subject got changed in a hurry.

Been emailing back and forth with this lady through the Ancestry website. She is now quite irate because I will not give her contact info for her possible parent.

I do not share anyone's personal information with that person's explicit permission.

UPDATE - This woman, who definitely is a first cousin confirmed if she's not lying, went off on me and insulted me and this side of her entire family because I would not share information. So be it.

Ah so.

ISSUE 2

A friend called. Wants me to preach the dad's funeral. The dad and I met once, about an hour or more, and talked once or twice more.

This left me floundering. How can I bring comfort to the family? How can I give this man the send-off he truly deserves? What if I really make a mess of this?

I turned to two people whom I trust implicitly for advice. I asked what I should do under the circumstances.

They delivered. Fully armed with The Word and advice, I'm ready.

UPDATE - Was the service perfect? Nope. Was it well received? Family members said it was the best funeral they ever heard.

THE TAKEAWAY

Depending on whom you speak with, we get one ride on this merry go round OR we get a ride here and then maybe have to go to one of the crappier rides for a while or get bounced up to the ultimate ride.

Regardless of that, we're here. Do what you can to make this a better place while yer here.

If you are doing this right, you will make plenty of mistakes. That is not a contradiction nor an oxymoron. To repeat, to get things right, you've got to screw up.

If you never make a mistake, you are not doing anything.

So, go forward. Make mistakes. Screw up. You have my permission, not that you need it, to walk through this life with disasters behind you.

That's the key - Behind You.

Learn, adapt, be better.

Lockdown!

Amongst the other things I do, going to prison is a regular event. (I never get tired of that!)

I visit the state lockup in my community regularly for church services. The State of Georgia decided I'm good enough to be a state-certified prison minister. Going and seeing those guys really gives me a boost.

For more'n a year now as I walk in through the double gates, concertina wire overhead, a flock of small birds bounces from coiled wire to coiled wire chittering happily. On a recent visit, I noticed a nest in a corner on a post.

DERAILED TRAIN OF THOUGHT 

This just now, as I wrote that above, occurred to me. The nest is in the inner fence. The birds roost in the inner fence in the coils of concertina wire. None of them roost on the outside. They also get inside the coils at the top of the fence, settling in at least one layer deep. 

Wow.

Getting to these birds is certainly not impossible. They get in there. Climbing the chain link fence and slipping across the wires is no problem for the No Shoulders (snakes) that are abundant in the woods a little over 100 yards away. Rats could easily run up and down.

Falcons, hawks and owls, now there's another matter. A screech owl probably could get in through the coils, but that night predator would be going after prey only a bit smaller than himself. Probably not going to happen.

But the birds would have that same protection on the outer perimeter.

The birds also congregate at the gates. The concertina wire is thickest there. So not a great surprise. Yet they still go to the inner gate.

Wow.

BACK ON TRACK

These birds willingly enter a place where most humans want to leave. They seek the security of an artificial briar patch.

You can make all kinds of analogies about prison walls and bars are no barrier to a free mind. The simple fact is, few men who leave that place as a former "detainee" ever want to go back to spend more time as a ward of the state in the Iron Bar Hotel.  Sadly, many will make life choices that will send them back. In a sense, they do want to go back, I guess.

These birds not only enter there, but make it a home, a permanent dwelling. Yes, I have seen a dead bird at the foot of the fence.

They seek safety and find it. They can also leave anytime they wish which makes a major difference. If they were trapped, once freed, they would never go back. A trapped animal learns to avoid the same situation in the future. These birds do not see the trap because for them, it does not exist.

RIGHT OUT OF REACH

As I pass through the gates when it is light outside, the birds are chirping and chittering. I speak to them. Why? I just do.

Heading out, the sun is down and they sleep. By now they are accustomed to the SLAM! of the two gates closing so they do not budge. In the beginning, the gates WHAMMED! shut and they were all a-twitter. They have learned it's nothing to be concerned about. I leave them to sleep as I exit.

Each time as I pass, I say to myself "There's a message here. A lesson. There is something important going on here."

Each time I pass, whatever it is dances just beyond the reach of this thing I call a mind. It is there, like a deer on the edge of the field just at twilight, or is that a tree and a shadow. 

Regardless, it is something, whether or not I can make it out clearly.

Perhaps that is the message. Perhaps that is the lesson. Maybe it is something to be studied, marveled and wondered and yet never fully understood.

Atlas don't live here

In one of the Classical Mythologies, Atlas carried the world on his shoulders. In Discworld, A'Tuin supports four elephants that support the spinning disc that is the world. (Never mind the friction burns).

A few days agone, I felt like I was toting all of those at once. Yeah. It happens this time of year every year for the past 23 years. (Fire Ant Festival if you hafta know). But this year, lots of added burdens - ask and I shall not tell you.

Anyway, called out, yet again, to help I looked at the 30-minute drive ahead of me. I thought about the situation du minute. I started rolling the expected conversation through my head. The more I thought, the madder I got.

Ever been there? Start thinking and you just get madder by the minute?

PERSPECTIVE

On the drive, I came to an intersection. A funeral procession was turning, tying up the intersection. They turned right, I was headed straight. I could have zipped across without interrupting them,

Being raised the right way, I waited until everyone went through the intersection before I crossed.

Suddenly, I was not mad anymore. Seeing those cars with their lights on, following a hearse to a cemetery ... perspective.

The mortal remains of whoever was in that coffin...

They don't have to worry about new tires, mortgage payments, what is for dinner, keeping appointments and so on. Everyone who relied on that person, they cannot anymore. They have to make their own way now or find someone else to lean on.

IN THE MEANTIME

Until and if I'm taken to the last piece of real estate I'll ever need, I'm still here. More or less ambulatory (depending on this bum knee) and capable of doing stuff. Can't do as much as I used to, but I know more than I used to.

As I sit writing this (ignoring other work that pays a LOT more; made 13¢ this month through my blogs here), I am reminded of people I know and knew. Too many left this realm of existence far too early for my taste. Too many left behind people who needed 'em. I needed them.

I still need some of 'em. But they are not here so I have to manage as I can.

Of those who are not here and are still here, some won the battles. Some lost.

In the meantime, I'm still here. I will do what I can.

In the meantime, people count on me. I'll be there for 'em, as I can. More to the point, I'll be there for 'em if they let me. That's critical and if you don't get it, I'm not gonna explain any further.

DON'T SWEAT

David Lee Roth once said, "Don't sweat the little shit. It's all little shit." He is right.

If you don't believe that, visit Emory Children's Hospital one day. Visit the kids fighting cancers that will eventually kill them despite the world's best medical treatment and the most impassioned prayers you can imagine.

It may seem a crushing burden now. Put it in perspective.

It's little shit.

LEAN ON ME

I am burdened. No doubt. But so far I have a 100 percent success rate in shouldering these things.

Whatever does not kill me, makes me stronger.

— wow. That was an impressive burp even for me. It's a LandShark night. —

Where was I? Right. Getting stronger.

I will bear up under this. I will be the person others can lean on.

Because it won't be long until I need someone to lean on, and they will be there for me.

Yeah. Atlas don't live here. He took the burden alone. Me? I gots friends. I gots peeps who I can lean on because they want to be there for me. So many of 'em.

Right now, for some of them, it is their turn to do some leaning.

So, if you need to lean on me. We'll get through this.

The problem is guns II - UPDATED

I hate rereading something just to get updates. So, here's the update. Original below.

The most comprehensive study on guns and gun violence I am aware of, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/,  shows as gun ownership rises, gun violence rises. Yup. A study of nearly three decades.

"Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%."

Before the gun grabbers get excited and the gun rights folks draw down on me, read further. Here's where some people start mumbling, morons start celebrating and a handful of folks like me want to say "BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU THIS!"

"For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%."
"For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%."

AND
"For each 1-SD increase in proportion of household gun ownership, firearm homicide rate increased by 12.9%"


"For each 1-SD increase in proportion of black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 82.8%"


1-SD is one standard deviation. This is more math than I can handle.

What I can tell you from reading this report is race, income inequality and violent crimes increase the gun death rate in percentages and numbers far greater than gun ownership. Non violent crime increased the murder rate more than gun ownership. I can also tell you that locking more criminals up dropped the murder rate in a serious hurry.

THE ORIGINAL

I swear I thought I was done with this. My apologies for misinforming you. Maybe this is it.

This is Part II. Read part one here - http://porkbrainsandmilkgravy.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-problem-is-guns.html .

So, guns are the problem. But where is gun violence an issue? Fortunately, we have some fairly reliable information about this. We have some pretty good numbers showing clearly what the problem is. More importantly, we have solid facts, empirical evidence, telling us WHERE this problem exists.

Before I 'splain that, I tell you this. Some people have tried to address this situation. They get shouted down. They get shoved aside. They are insulted, denigrated, attacked and most disheartening to me, ignored.

I ain't talking about conspiracy theory fans either. (If you are a conspiracy theory fan, then please go away.)

Jesse Jackson in his famous "cut his nuts out" comment was attacking a former POTUS for perceived failures to address problems facing a segment of the national community. He decried the POTUS' response to growing violence in that segment of the community. Y'don't hear about that much. You just hear the emasculation comment, not the reason for it.

JUST THE AMMO, MA'AM

So, let's lay bare the barest possible facts. Let others interpret, spin, explain, whine and complain as they will. Cry HAVOC! and let loose the dogs of war. Praise the Lord and pass the ammo.

Then turn loose the spirit of UK Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli and say "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

NUMBERS ARE RACIST

So what about those statistics?

Numbers, as I am about to present, are racist. Well, racist according to the people who cannot dispute facts and have to turn to invective and rhetoric.

So, as much as I DESPISE this word, I have to use it. I hate the word because dividing people into groups based on melanin content is sheer stupidity of the highest magnitude. We are people. Humans. Homo Sapiens. Period. However, some people will only understand things when broken down into moronic categories. So, on with the moronics.

US population:

Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2016,  13.3%

American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2016,  1.3%

Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2016,  5.7%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent, July 1, 2016,  0.2%

Two or More Races, percent, July 1, 2016,  2.6%

Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2016, 17.8%

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2016, 61.3%

Got you some numbers? Good. 

MURDER IS RACIST

So let's look at another set of numbers and facts and see how murder is racist.

I tried to put these into a table that would come out here. I can't. Numbers make my head parts hurt.

You look at the page - https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

Fair warning. FBI stats are routinely under fire for UNDERREPORTING crime, especially where minorities are concered. Still, it is what we have.

So what you see here is black people kill other people in massively disproportionate numbers compared to the percentage of the general population. Yeah, racist, I know.

The worst offender is black people killing black people. In 2013:

2,245 black people killed 2.491 black people.

2,509 white people killed 3,005 white people.

That is 5,723 people murdered. Black people accounted for 44 percent of the murders. Black people account for 13 percent of the population.

Racist.

Black people account for less than 15 percent of the population, yet commit nearly four times the number of murders as other segments of the population.

I CAN'T HEAR YOU NOW

Where are the talking heads? Where are the interviews? Where the HELL is National Public Radio? Where the HELL is the Damnocratic Party?

Where the HELL are you and why are you not screaming about THESE NUMBERS?

How many inner city mommas have to cry over a casket before you get up in arms (arharhar) about these deaths? A handful of rich kids in an exclusive school in South Florida die and we have a national crisis. Black teens and young men die EVERY FREEKING DAY in our inner cities and you can't be bothered?

Racist much?

WEAPONS

Guns are responsible for 60 percent or the murders.

Looking at the (questionable but what we got) FBI data, in 2012 of 12,765 murders, 8,855 were done with guns. Narrowing that down, 6,371 were done with handguns. Rifles account for 322 of those deaths. Rifle types are not broken out.

An AR15 is a rifle. Based on the numbers, the AR15 is far less dangerous than a pistol (handgun). So why are you screaming BAN THE AR15?

NEED MORE STUDY

Some people complain the CDC is prevented, by federal legislation, from studying gun violence.

And?

What's to study? People kill people. The CDC needs to concentrate on the pathogens that kill and cripple people. We have all the evidence we need about gun violence.

What we do about it is another matter.

We have plenty of evidence showing where people kill people and who is killing whom. What we are doing about it is another matter.

Take the guns away, people will still people. In those 2012 stats, fully 1/4th of the murders, 3,920, were committed with something other than a firearm.

CALLING 'EM LIKE THEY ARE

The truth is you are screaming for gun control because you are scared. I get that. You are reacting out of emotion, not facts. Gotcha.

More importantly, you are acting out of what so many call "white privilege" because it is white children who are dying.

Scream on. Demand new laws. The fact is, you don't give a damn about the young black people who are dying in our streets. You only care about people who look like you do.

For every child killed in a school shooting, several die in our streets. And you say nothing.

Here is a salve for your conscience - http://snapjudgment.org/counted-oakland-story .

Parting company

It is a sad day when a trusted friend throws you over.

For years now I have defended the reporting on NPR, National Public Radio. For years, I've endured side looks and snide comments from my friends on the far right.

"How can you stand to listen to those liberals?" is the most common comment.

I admit once you get past the national level reporters, public radio news has a leftist slant. Even at the national level with new reporters, that is a problem. The experienced national crew did a great job of keeping the slant out of the news reporting.

Look up the studies by nonpartisan media watchdogs. NPR spent more time interviewing Reboobicans than Damnocrats. It spent more time covering the Right than the Left.

NPR delivered news and reports I found interesting, fascinating and useful. The reporters covered topics few others did. I had plenty "Driveway moments." A driveway moment is when you are so engrossed in a story, you just sit in your vehicle in your driveway listening to the report.

At the same time, I admit NPR and Georgia Public Radio infuriated me. Some of the shows, like the now-cancelled Tavis Smiley show, engendered the kind of rage that made me quit listening to Rush Limbaugh and other far-right talking heads.

As far as GPR is concerned, if it doesn't happen in Atlanta, Savannah and sometimes Macon or Columbus, it never happened. The Two Georgias are thoroughly evident in GPR's reporting. At the same time, I get that too. The bulk of GPR's listeners are north of fall line. Play to that audience because that's where the money is and it does cost to run radio stations.

TRACKING THE SLANT

For the past two weeks, I've gotten up in the morning and hit the radio button. The reports are nonstop whining about guns and why they have to be taken away. Non. Stop.

I get in the truck. Hit the radio button - more whining about guns.

You may think I'm kidding.

In the past 2 weeks, I've turned on NPR 40+ times. I have kept track.

If the segment airing right then is not whining about guns, gun whining comes on within 2-3 minutes. The exception is for programs like Marketplace, Snap Judgment (awesome!), the weekend shows, the nighttime music shows and others.

Yet when the shows break for the top-of-the-hour news, gun whining.

Radio goes off.

CASTING BREAD ON THE WATER

I do not make a lot of money. I do support causes I care about, when these causes will let me. I cast my bread upon the waters where I believe.

Now, I cannot support NPR. I cannot agree to spend my very limited resources supporting a news organization that has so obviously gone left. Nor will I support right-leaning outfits, in case you don't wonder.

I've never had a "membership" in GPR or NPR. I just sent what I could, when I could. Did it anonymously because I did not want to be inundated with spam.

No more.

That money, as little as it is, will now go to other organizations and services and groups that believe in unbiased reporting. This kinda outfit is getting harder to find, which is another reason they deserve our support.

Your mileage may vary. May your path take you where you need to go, not where you want to go.