Facts? Evidence? Nahhhh

My day started with a bagel, large coffee, and a copy of today's Collegian at the Business building. I flipped through the Collegian as usual, but stopped abruptly when I came upon today's editorial entitled Second Amendment: Gun owner database necessary for safety. Take a moment to read through it. Needless to say, I was immediately driven to formulate a response, which ended up turning into a two and a half page piece. The following is the full text of my response.


Dear Board of Opinion,

I am deeply saddened and disappointed by today’s editorial, Second Amendment: Gun owner database necessary for safety. That said, I will add that it is the kind of writing I have come to expect from Collegian writers. While I’m sure you would claim to a creditable news publication, yet you allow the publication of such an unsubstantiated article. I do understand that the article was published as an “opinion” piece, the article quickly turned into one where the writer(s) assert their opinion as undisputable fact. This would have been well and good, except for the 100 percent lack of facts or evidence to back up said “opinion”. This, too, I expected upon seeing the heading of the editorial, as most people who take such a position on the issue of gun control rarely—if ever—have any evidence to back up their claims.

As a gun owner and gun rights advocate, I am constantly forced to engage in debate over the issue of gun control. I say ‘forced’ because as a staunch supporter of this country and the freedoms it gives me, I cannot stand idly by while people attack my rights through unsubstantiated claims based almost wholly on an emotional reactionary response. Today’s editorial is just another one of those responses. I sincerely hope that all those writers who contributed to today’s editorial will take a moment to read through this response just as I read through theirs.

Many people like to dispute the matter of ‘rights’ when it comes to gun control. Today’s editorial states, “[the] databases do not violate any citizens' rights. Most gun owners are responsible buyers, and any person who purchases any gun understands that records are kept of their purchase. It is an inherent risk when buying a firearm.” I wonder; did any of this editorial’s contributors take a moment to explore this claim? Not only does our Federal Constitution clearly state our “right” to keep and bear arms, but also the Pennsylvania State Constitution takes an even stronger position on our rights: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned” (PA Constitution, Section 21). The key words there are “shall not be questioned”. Don’t get me wrong here; I clearly see the need for the various background and character investigations that come with the legal purchase of a firearm, but that is where it should end. As my interpretation of our Constitutions—both Federal and State—goes, the databases in question are a clear violation of our right to keep and bear firearms without question. There should be no “inherent risk” when purchasing a firearm.

The theory behind the deployment of these firearm databases is, admittedly, pretty sound. If there is an easily-accessible list of all the firearms and their owners, every gun-related crime should be easily and quickly solved, right? Sadly, this theory seems to avoid one clear and blatant fact: criminals are criminals because they don’t obey the law. It has been shown over and over again that a large majority of criminals responsible for gun-related crimes acquired their weapons through illegal means. In a segment on ABC’s 20/20, John Stossel discusses the myth (and it is a myth) that strict gun control reduces violent crime. In the segment (video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg), John goes to a prison and interviews inmates about guns and gun laws. He asks them why the laws weren’t working. One inmate responds, “I'm not going in the store to buy no gun.” Another inmate adds, “There's guns everywhere, if you got money, you can get a gun.” John goes on to add, “A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily.” So how, then, would a firearms database do anything to help solve crime when a majority of the guns used in those crimes weren’t purchased legally in the first place? That’s right. The firearms database is completely useless in the majority of cases involving violent gun crime.

Today’s editorial takes the position (as most anti-gun people do) that more firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens (such as domestic abuse victims) would only lead to more violence. This is perhaps the most glaring unsubstantiated claim made in today’s editorial: “…more lenient gun laws would not have helped the [domestic abuse] situation and will not aid other cases of domestic dispute. Permitting more people to obtain guns will only further the violence, not end it.” This quotation is also perhaps the most glaring example of where an “opinion” is asserted as clear, undisputable fact. It seems that the writers of today’s editorial have the gift of foresight, as that quotation seems to try to tell the readers what will or will not occur in the future. I wonder if any of the contributors to today’s editorial thought to do a little research to try to back up their claims? It’s quite obvious to me that no research was done, because if anyone had done any, they would quickly find that nearly all of the research and studies done on effects of gun ownership come to the opposite conclusion. From the aforementioned John Stossel piece: “The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.” Have you heard of the handgun ban in the U.K.? That must be the safest country in the world, right? Dead wrong. From another one of John Stossel’s articles, “But [the strict gun-control laws] didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.” (link: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1) So what about here in the states? Well, an academic study done in 1999 by John R. Lott Jr. and William M. Landes looked at public, multiple-victim shootings between 1977 and 1995. While I could summarize their finding for you, the following selection from their Abstract says it best: “Our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws.” (link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637) You read it correctly. More guns (or even just the possibility of more guns) in the hands of law-abiding citizens is the most effective method of preventing shootings like VA-Tech or the editorial’s story of domestic abuse.

I hope at least on some level that I’ve succeeded in my goal of presenting a well-constructed and sufficiently substantiated argument against today’s purely emotional and reactionary response. I sincerely hope that the next time Collegian writers choose to take such a feeble position on a very controversial issue, they at least make an attempt to present some evidence to show why they have taken such a position. “…it’s a matter of common sense,” today’s editorial states. Perhaps it’s just me, but “common sense” tells me to do a little investigation before I go spewing controversial claims and asserting them as truth. Common sense also tells me that the only thing “irresponsible” here is the inevitable push to punish law-abiding citizens (people like myself) every time there is an incident like VA-Tech. I would like to expect better things from the news publication representing my University, but articles like today’s editorial makes it hard to take your publication seriously.

John Stossel: Gun Control Isn't Crime Control

Okay. I know I said a couple posts back that I was done with Gun Control posts, but I just came across article and couldn't resist putting it up here for the rest of you. My Gun Control (part 2) post was the full text of a very good article written by Mr. John Stossel of ABC's 20/20. I was browsing around the PAFOA forums today and discovered that Mr. Stossel had recently written another article about the utter failure of gun control as a crime deterrent. Perhaps one of the best examples of this is the UK gun ban:

After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.

But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.

As I have been saying over and over again, strict Gun Control laws do nothing to curb violent crime, and only take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Taking guns out of the hands of good people only leaves us defenseless against the criminals--who, by the way, still have guns because they get them illegally--who choose to exploit a gun-less society. Mr. Stossel again uses the example of the UK:

England's ban didn't magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

The necessary realization is that people like the madman who was responsible for the VA-Tech shootings (I'm choosing to not use his name as I don't believe it is right to idolize him like the media enjoys doing) will always find ways to carry out their evil deeds. Again, I'll leave it up to Mr. Stossel to put it bluntly:

There's no way to know whether [VA-Tech shooter's] murderous rampage could have been stopped in a similar way, but what's certain is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that legislators intend. More guns (in the right hands) can stop crime, and fewer guns (in the wrong hands) can make for more crime. Gun control isn't crime control.

The pumpkin

So I got bored sitting here at my computer tonight, and decided to 'Google' myself (read: I went to Google and searched for my name, you sickos). Most of what came back in the results I expected; mostly just websites that I own and/or do work for. There were a couple, though, that I didn't expect (or forgot about).

First was the results posting of a 2-mile race me and my dad entered in about seven years ago. Oddly, I was also listed in the results for some Coaches vs. Cancer run, which I never did. I think someone else in my family ran in my name after I decided not to do it or something.

The second unexpected thing really, truely, made me laugh out loud. The second result that Google returned was a page on The3DStudio.com. I remembered it as soon as I saw it. My freshman year in high school--so long ago now--I was enrolled in a computer graphics introductory class. One of our assignments in the fall was to make a 3D model of some 'halloween' thing. For me, the result of that assignment was this pumpkin, which I was most certainly proud of. In fact, I was proud enough to submit it to The3DStudio.com. I'm not sure why the 'Added On' date is so off. Perhaps because they revamped their website over the past years. Anyways, I was happy to see that over 400 people had downloaded my humble model, and a couple people even left some positive reviews!

All in all, that was my entertainment for the night.

Gun Control is NOT the answer (Part 3)

So I hope some of you were able to gain some insight from John Stossel's article in my previous post. If you still don't want to believe me, then I have one more article and even an academic study to share with you.

I found my way to this article from a post over at the PAFOA Forums. In his article, Jacob examine how the VA-Tech gun ban did nothing to protect the victims, and may have actually accounted for the ease in which Cho was able to execute his plans.

...there is a difference between feeling safe and being safe. The university's gun ban not only did nothing to protect people at the school; it left them defenseless as a cold-blooded gunman methodically killed 32 of them over the course of two and a half hours.

In his article, Jacob links to an academic study conducted in 1999 by John R. Lott Jr. and William M. Landes entitled Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement. Jacob summarizes Lott and Landes' paper by saying, "Looking at public shootings with multiple victims between 1977 and 1995, Lott and Landes found they were substantially less common in states where law-abiding residents are allowed to carry handguns after meeting specified requirements such as a background check and firearms training."

I believe that Lott and Landes drive their point home, though. From their paper's Abstract:

Our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce normal murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws.

I'm going to try to keep this post as the last in this series of Gun Control posts. Hopefully I've conveyed enough evidence so that at least some of you will begin to construct your own thoughts and opinions outside of the sensationalized anti-gun propaganda that the media likes to feed you.

Gun Control is NOT the answer (Part 2)

If you didn't get much out of my previous post about how Gun Control doesn't solve any problems, then I hope the following will help you see this issue more clearly.

John Stossel (yes, from ABC) has written many articles about Gun Control, and is currently working on a story about people who've used guns for self-defense. Here is one of his recent articles about the failures of Gun Control.

Myths About Gun Control
By John Stossel

Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people. "Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference," said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law.

Sorry. Even the federal government can't say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.

I wanted to know why the laws weren't working, so I asked the experts. "I'm not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background check or not."

"There's guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you can get a gun."

Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.

A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, "When you gonna rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder because you don't know what to expect out of them."

What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!"

In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.

Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez' house and shot her, she grabbed her husband's gun and started firing. "I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year.

And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted 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" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia.

What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Needless to say, Mr. Stossel is my new favorite person in the media.

Gun Control is NOT the answer

Today's horrific events at VA Tech seem to have given people the energy to springboard back into the Gun Control debate. Many of you alread know my stance on this issue, but for those of you who don't, I personally intive you to read the following (originally posted by myself on a shameful Facebook Group wall):

Gun Control infringes on our Constitutional freedoms. If you let congress take that away, you are just setting the precedent for them to take even more freedoms away, maybe even one that some of you anti-gun people enjoy.

There is a famous quote that floats around concerning the lack of thought that goes into gun control: "If guns are banned, then only criminals will have guns." Before you go off and spout some silly knee-jerk reaction, think about that quote for a second and try to realize what it's actually saying.

It's saying that the way things are now, there are criminals with guns (who, by the way, get most of their guns by illegal means anyways), and law-abiding citizens (like myself) with guns. If you take away our right to own weapons (for whatever reason) then only criminals are left with guns. And that brings me to my next point.

Gun Control is an ass-backwards policy. Gun Control advocates always like to spout all of their reasons why gun bans will "make violent crime go away." But please think about this: how do you think most criminals get their guns? Do you really think a silly Gun Control law would have kept that kid from getting his hands on those guns and killing those people? The answer is, sadly, NO. Criminals are "criminals" because THEY BREAK THE LAW. This is exactly why gun control does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent violent crime. Take Washington D.C. for example. Up until recently, they had strict handgun laws in an attempt to decrease violent crime. Why did that law get repealed? BECAUSE IT DID JACK SHIT. Gun Control laws only take guns out of the hands of LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS. VA-Tech was a "gun free school zone." Well that did a lot to save all of those people's lives today, didn't it?

If you actually take a moment to educate yourself with actual statistics concerning violent crime, you'll find that States with liberal Open and Concealed Firearm Carry laws rank among the safest States in the entire United States. Criminals are less likely to commit crimes (especially violent crimes) when they know that there may be armed citizens around. It makes sense. Before you go ranting and raving about how citizens with guns just shoot everything, please educate yourself by looking at those States' Deadly Force laws, which clearly govern the acceptable use of such weapons. Us law-abiding citizens take these laws very seriously, and wouldn't hesitate to apply those deadly force laws to protect lives (maybe even yours). Just think about what today's outcome might have been if VA-Tech would have allowed CCW (Concealed Carry of a Weapon) and an armed student or faculty member was at the right place at the right time. Think of the lives that could have been saved by one brave person.

I am not a religious man, but my heart and thoughts go out all of those families who lost a loved one today.

The basic idea here is, Gun Control laws don't solve any problems. Events like that of today, as terrible as they are, make me even more proud to live in a State that allows its citizens to protect themselves and others. I know that many of you are quick to say that armed citizens only create more problmes, but the statistics don't work in your favor.

The people of the Internets

Today was the last straw. I have lost all faith in Digg as worthwhile online community of people.

I have decided that in order to preserve my sanity, I cannot post comments on any politically charged or controversial stories. This decision came out of a story that ran on the front page today: the usual left-wing anti-Bush/anti-America garbage. I posted several intelligent comments about various bullshit claims that people made. Now, nearly all of my comments have (sadly) been "buried." I've decided that rather than continuing to post comments to try to call these people out on their bullshit, I'm just going to not post on these kinds of stories anymore.

I encourage you to follow the link to the story (here) and read through the comments so you can understand what I mean. All of my comments will be easy to spot (my icon is solid black with the letters "LEX" in green). You'll have to manually expand my comments to read them (just click on 'show comment'). There are other users on Digg who agree with me, but they, too, are usually drowned out by all of the ranting and raving.

Edit (18:32): It seems that something strange is going on over at Digg. A very large chunk of comments (including many of mine) have mysteriously disappeared from the top of the comment stack. I'll update again if they come back.

Edit 2 (23:47): I have confirmed that a large chunk of comments has been removed from the Digg story that I link to and talk about above. Since that chunk contained a majority of the comments that I was talking about above, the point of this post is now rather moot. I suppose you'll just have to take my word for it!

Crime close to home

On this past Saturday night (Sunday morning) there was an armed robbery in my apartment complex.

This is just the most recent example of the growing trend of petty crime in and around the State College area ("petty crime" in this case, means anything ranging from petty theft, to armed robbery, or various assaults). It seems that we can no longer get through an entire week here anymore without reading about another incident. While most of these incidents happen downtown (just another reason I don't live downtown), this most recent case in my apartment complex was sort of a wake-up call. Even though my roommates and I are pretty good about keeping the door locked, I'm sure now we will be extra vigilant.

Over the past few months, I have become very serious about security. I'm sure the increasing trend of crime in State College has something to do with that. While I won't go into details here, (for security reasons, heh) I will say that I am glad that I live in a State that allows me to posses instruments that I can use to protect myself and others from people who would wish to do us harm.

In order to take such a step, one must dedicate time to educate themselves about the numerous laws (both Federal and State) pertaining to accepting such responsibilities. It is of extreme importance to also prepare yourself mentally for the possibility that you may have to implement those instruments in a show of lethal force. If you are unsure of whether or not you can accept any and all responsibility relating to such actions, then you should probably take a step back and re-think your decision to protect yourself with such instruments.

One of the best places I've found to gather knowledge about such issues is the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association (PAFOA) Discussion Forum. I am an active member of the PAFOA, one of over 2,600 members who would be happy to answer any questions you have about protecting yourself and/or your property.

Lastly, I'll leave you with a quote I saw in one of the PAFOA's members' forum signature:

"Do no harm. Do know harm."

Welcome to version two

STOP! Before you hit the 'back' button, you are at the right place! Let me explain.

In one of my last posts on my old blog, I wrote, "I'm not sure why i stopped writing." I can tell you now why I think I did stop writing: I stopped because I wasn't angry anymore. I became content with who I was, and am still happy to this very day about who I have become. I no longer needed to write in order to vent, because I had nothing left to vent. I guess I could illustrate it by saying that it was like I had no pressure left to be released; I was--you could say--finally at equilibrium.

So why did I start this new blog, you ask? Well, I think writing about things is still important. I follow current events very closely, and usually always have varied opinions about the daily content of the news. I'm often commenting on some of the more controversial stories on Digg (where my username is also 'lexington86'). I've also come into some very strong opinions concerning politics and religion, so you can be sure to see posts about those topics.

I'm sure it's going to take me a while to get back into the swing of posting as often as I used to, but I'd like to get back to that point eventually. I hope you enjoy the new "look and feel" of the blog, and I'm looking forward to reading your comments whenever you wish to leave them.