Gun Control Advocates Would Be More Persuasive If They Didn’t Rely On Big Lies And Fake Statistics: The Latest From Kamala Harris

The only example of a similarly polluted public policy debate I can think of right now is the hoary “women are payed 76 cents for every dollar a man is paid for the same job” myth. Wait: there are the inflated and misleading Wuhan virus fatality stats. And come to think of it…never mind, we’re talking about the Bill of Rights here. The fake statistic in Harris’s tweet—and to be fair, her claim didn’t originate with her—representing a toxic hybrid between the “Do something!” gun hysteria and the “Think of the children!” rationalization—is popping up everywhere lately. Frankly, I believed it when I first saw it last week. After all, as Harry Reid would say, it works. But it’s a Big Lie.

Axios has a typical iteration of the stat. The peculiar thing is the root of the lie is right in the open for all to see: its stats for “children” include 18- and 19- year olds. Under the law, 18 and 19 year olds are not children, they are adults. They insist on being referred to as adults. They are only included as “children” in studies when the researchers want to twist the results. Then the politicians, activists and pundits who cite such studies use the misleading results to evoke images of innocent fifth-graders being gunned down in their classes. But when you remove 18- and 19-year-olds—that is, non-children—from the statistics, the number of gun-related deaths among children falls precipitously.

The CDC‘s numbers say the leading killer of children between 1 and 14 are accidents like car crashes, suffocation, and drowning. Twice as many children under 12 die in automobiles as from gunfire. For some reason, these studies don’t count a child who is one-year-old or less, but do count the non-kids over 17 as “children.” If the stats began at birth rather than starting at one year, the leading killer of all children would be diseases and genetic abnormalities…. but that result wouldn’t support the anti-gun hysteria, so they don’t.

While the stats are being deflated at one end, the increasing gun violence inflicted by and on 18 and 19- year olds—you know, young adults— is on the rise in many cities. Also included as “gun violence against children”: suicides.

School shootings and gun-related deaths of all people in the U.S. are serious public policy concerns. Like all such issues, however, they must be examined, debated and addressed honestly, using evidence that is clear and fairly represented. Anti-gun activists like Harris aren’t willing to do that. When advocates can’t make their case honestly, there is a rebuttable presumption that their case isn’t legitimate. The presumption that such advocates themselves aren’t trustworthy isn’t even rebuttable.


Source: The Federalist

71 thoughts on “Gun Control Advocates Would Be More Persuasive If They Didn’t Rely On Big Lies And Fake Statistics: The Latest From Kamala Harris

  1. I’ve come to the conclusion that most, if not all, of the anti-gun activists are bald-faced pathological liars, yes liars, or they’re delusional (characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary). I haven’t heard one argument come out of their mouths for over 50 years that isn’t intentional misrepresentations of the truth, outright lies or pure emotional hysteria. They know the crap they’re presenting as “facts” is nothing of the sort, it’s all manipulated statistical propaganda, outright lies and pure hysterical emotion.
    Here’s how it seems the anti-gun activists view their rhetoric; “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it” which is what Paul Joseph Goebbels said way back in the earl 20th century when he was the Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany.

    If someone, anyone, can show me a reasonable argument coming from these people that’s not manipulated statistical propaganda, outright lies or hysterical emotion I’ll take that into consideration in the future. Until that point in time, here is what these anti-gun activists get from me at the end of presenting undeniable actual facts…

    • Echo and endorse the previous message. Spent a couple years promoting “open carry” near Seattle. Amazing how few complaints and how many compliments I received. Including mayors and law enforcement. Of course this is outside the blue hive cities.

      • I complement every person I see exercising their open carry rights.

        Some years ago when I was going to Walmart for my Mother, there was a guy in front of me heading in the front door with his wife and kid, he was open carrying and there was a couple of what I would call mouthy vagrants sitting by the entrance doors that started harassing him for open carrying calling him a coward, and some other expletives. Well that group of imbeciles got an ear full of the Constitution, the law and some additional “stuff” from me and when one of them started to move aggressively towards me he got put back on his ass from whence he came and told to f’ing stay there. I walked into Walmart and the guy and his family were waiting for me, he thanked me for sticking up for him and I thanked him for his open carry courage. He really didn’t want to get into any kind of altercation with the mouthy vagrants especially with his family present.

        I went straight to the Customer Service counter and told them that the people by the front door were harassing people walking in, they said they had it all on tape, and by the time I left the police were there sending the mouthy vagrants away.

    • My longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, once wrote that the argument for gun control rests upon a foundation of dishonesty, invincible ignorance, and sheer malice.

      Now, rank-and-file supporters and sympathizers fear the street thug and the gangbanger. Sadly and tragically, too many of them have compelling reasons to fear the street thug and the gangbanger.

      But what motivates the leadership and spokesholes?

      This is an important question to answer, and what it boils down to are the motivations of the rank-and-file in contrast with the motivation of the spokesholes.

      The rank-and-file fear muggers and carjackers and gang members, just like you wrote. Sadly and tragically, for too many of these people, these fears have a compelling basis in reality.

      But for these spokesholes you write about, it is about their political identity.

      And their political identity tells them that the White male conservative is the enemy.

      What does this have to do with gun control laws?

      These people associate private gun ownership with the White male conservative. As such, gun control, to them, is a tool to hurt the White male conservative.

      This is why they have far more animus against Kyle Rittenhouse than the McMichaels, or Nikolas Cruz, or Tookie Williams, or Brian Mitchell, or Bernie Madoff. That is why they support decarceration and defunding the police. that is why they accuse cops of hunting down and gunning down unarmed Black men. That is why they accuse the criminal justice system of being systermically racist. Adn this is why they support gun control laws even though they would be enforced by these very same police in this very same system.

      But what do the motivations of the spokesholes matter? Why would their animus against White male conservatives matter regarding whether or not gun control laws will help reduce and punish urban violence, protect us from the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member?

      The answer is that the rank-and-file are not the group from whom most of the campaign contributions come from.

      It is the spokesholes.

      The people who administer and enforce the law will listen more to the spokeshoples, for their money talk much louder than the rank-and-file.

      And as such, we can expect these people to target the White male conservative, instead of the mugger and the carjacker and the gang member. That is whom their donors have animus against.

  2. I have to believe the gun-related suicide numbers among (non-adult) teens are statistically significant when compared with actual gun violence.

    Regardless, the StreetsBlog piece emphasizes the importance of language. “Children” evokes images of my four-year-old granddaughter (and those of pre-teen age), but the studies cover an age range much wider than that. And as you highlight, eighteen- and nineteen-year-olds are legally adults.

    Terminology is crucial for gun-control advocates to generate the right images. VP Harris has done that again, just as she did when discussing abortion and (mis)quoting the Declaration by listing our unalienable God-given rights as “liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

  3. I’d group 14-17 yr old gang members as being functionally in the 18+ category, and see how the stats looked then.

    • Willem Reese wrote, “I’d group 14-17 yr old gang members as being functionally in the 18+ category, and see how the stats looked then.”

      I’d lower that age since there are loads 12-13 year old gang wannabe’s out there trying to prove themselves by wielding or using firearms and I’d put a qualifier on it.

      “I’d group all 12-17 yr old’s in the 18+ category if they commit a felony while using a firearm and then see how the stats looks.”

      I have zero tolerance for anyone that violates firearm laws. I’m also an advocate for absolutely no plea bargains for anyone that uses a firearm in any way while committing a felony if they are 12 years old or older.

      • Anyone who’s a participant in the criminal behaviors that get him hurt or killed, even if there are (possibly valid) arguments about the level of their sense of agency & etc. should be considered in a separate group from completely innocent victims, IMO.

  4. Yes, it should say “children and adolescents/teens” since estimates aren’t available for 1-17 year olds alone.

    I don’t think adding teens to that sentence would change the effect of the message.

    • Amy Lewis wrote, “Yes, it should say “children and adolescents/teens” since estimates aren’t available for 1-17 year olds alone. I don’t think adding teens to that sentence would change the effect of the message.”

      Did you actually miss the fact that the entire statistical analysis is falsely misrepresented when she used the word “children” and even if she use the word adolescents like you suggest it’s still false because facts reveal that two of the age groups included in the statistical analysis are actually adults by law, they are not children or adolescents. Using the words teens would also be false because it also included non-teens in the analysis.

      What VP Harris presented is a bald-faced propaganda lie. VP Harris is either a liar or delusional, you choose; see my comment above.

      • No. The stat is from a paper titled “ Current Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the United States” and deals with ages 1-19.

        So the description “children and adolescents” is correct.

        • Amy Lewis wrote, “No. The stat is from a paper titled “ Current Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the United States” and deals with ages 1-19. So the description “children and adolescents” is correct.”

          Adolescent: in the process of developing from a child into an adult.

          Eighteen and nineteen year old ADULTS are no longer adolescents by definition.

          You’re definitively wrong.

          • The study defines children and adolescents as 1-19 years of age. As does the WHO…it’s a term used in healthcare and scientific studies and is defined as 1-19 years of age.

            They’re not “fully” adults yet. They’re in the process of being adults. They’re also still teenagers.

            It’s the area between childhood and full adulthood.

            What aren’t you getting?

            • Amy Lewis wrote, “They’re not “fully” adults yet.”


              What part of adolescents become adults by law at the age of 18 in the United States of America and are no longer legally considered to be adolescents by definition do you not understand?

              Amy Lewis wrote, “It’s the area between childhood and full adulthood.”

              Are you intentionally being obtuse or are you really this stupid?

              • No, she’s just desperately spinning to avoid accepting reality and attaching responsibility where it belongs. The statement that gun violence is the leading cause of children’s deaths is false. Nobody regards 18 and 19-year-olds as children or “kids,” and the obfuscation is deliberate. There is no good faith argument to the contrary. She’s doing this because she’s shameless, and without integrity. Or she’s a troll. I haven’t quite figured out which yet.

                  • Amy Lewis wrote, “Yes but the statement guns is the leading cause of death in children and adolescents/teens is correct.”

                    So how far outside of the stadium is a troll like you going to attempt to drag the goalpost to intentionally deflect?


                  Adult Law and Legal Definition
                  An adult is a person who has attained the age of majority. The age of majority is the legally defined age at which a person is considered an adult, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities of adulthood. The age of majority is defined by state laws, which vary by state, but is 18 in most states. Rights acquired upon reaching the age of majority include the rights to vote and consent to marriage, among others. However, the right to vote is 18 nationwide under the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the state laws.

                  It is the age at which one becomes a legal adult and gains full legal rights. It is also the age at which a person is liable for their own actions, such as contractual obligations or liability for negligence. In general, a parental duty of support to a child ceases when the child reaches the age of majority.

                  The age of majority may be relevant in matters, among others, such as guardianships, defining the head of households, legal standing to bring lawsuits, foster care, alcohol purchases, emancipation, licensing, and marriage.

                  Thus they are LEGALLY ADULTS and NOT children or even adolescents under the law which is the point that is under contention. Just because a title of a paper or article is imprecise does not make it accurate, true, or applicable.

                  • Gee I dont know!

                    Probably because I already explained that the term adolescent is a specific age range (10-19) which is used in studies and statistics, like the ones we’re talking about.

                    If you all want to be pedantic, then it’s “adolescent adults” but no one ever says that.

                    Adults is anyone over the age of 18 so it’s not the correct term here since the study is only about 1-19 year olds…not all adults over 18.

                    Again, “children and adolescents” is the correct term.

                    • Amy Lewis wrote, “Adults is anyone over the age of 18 so it’s not the correct term here since the study is only about 1-19 year olds…not all adults over 18.”

                      I anyone wants to use this as a great example of what delusional logic looks like in written form when by all rights the writer should be getting that Kernongdefluggle feeling, that statement takes the cake.

                      Kernongdefluggle: (kərˈnông’di’fləɡəl) is that feeling a person gets when they interject an absurdly ignorant statement in a public conversation that even they don’t truly understand.

                  • Do you not understand?

                    Adults are anyone ages 18 and up correct?

                    If all 18-19 year olds like asparagus, would it be accurate to say all adults like asparagus?

                    • Now that said, it is undeniable that Amy has no leg to stand on, and her writhing and pretzel-making is embarrassing, insulting and redolent of bad faith. Harris said that gun violence is now the #1 cause of death for American children. It isn’t. She has a staff; she can google: what she said is untrue. She’s Vice-president of the US: she has a duty not to spread falsehoods. End of issue.

                      Blathering that she could have said something else, or that 18 and 19 year-olds are sorta kinda like adolescents which are sort of kind like children if you’re not technical about is just pathetic, and the mark of a shill. Steve’s characterization is unduly harsh, but a negative assessment of the character of anyone who tries to defend Harris is not only fair, it is mandatory.

                    • Jack wrote, “Steve’s characterization is unduly harsh…”

                      To be a bit of a contrarian here…

                      What you wrote is true in a very real Ethics Alarms sense of discourse civility of presenting an ad hominem without any other argumentation content, but I think what I wrote is also (without presenting all the actual definitions) a definitively accurate description of what Amy Lewis has been presenting in this thread. After I went back to look at other things she’s written in other Ethics Alarms threads, I noticed a similar pattern.

                      A form of Hanlon’s Razor applies, but Amy does appear to be actively trying to drag people down to her level of stupidity so she can beat them with her experience, it’s intentional therefore it’s trolling. At this point in time, I choose to believe that the underlying core of Amy’s argumentation is stupidity and not necessarily the kind of pure malice that a normal troll exhibits, but I could be wrong. Remaining as delusional, as we’ve seen with Amy do, when presented with actual reality shows either some real talent in projecting stupidity or actual stupidity. In the end, stupid people can only blur and muddy reality by piling on moronic nonsense so long before someone stands up and says, “enough is enough”; that’s where I’m at.

                      I’m not stooping to Amy’s level of utter stupidity anymore.

                  • Steve, you calling anyone a moron is like…the funniest fucking thing ever.

                    You know everyone thinks you’re a joke right?

        • Actually, “children and adolescents and young adults” is more correct, since those 18 and older are considered adults.

          The point is that VP Harris’ use of “children” is intentionally misleading with the ages being studied. Even “children and adolescents” casts a somewhat biased picture of the swath being covered. “Teens” is a better term, but the image for teens that comes to mind for most people is not high-school seniors and college freshmen.

          VP Harris could have said “teens aged 13-19 are more likely to die from firearms than traffic accidents, according to at least one study.” That’s 100% accurate, and then we wouldn’t be arguing insinuation, innuendo, and hidden semantics.

  5. Of course, 18- and 19-year-old gang bangers are children. Every black kid under the age of thirty who gets killed is some mother’s “[My] Baaaaby!” They never grow up. And that’s a problem. Unless a cop’s involved. Then once Mr. Crump and the Reverend Al show up, it’s a windfall.

  6. well, 21, 25, and 35 are ages that gatekeep some adult activities. Booze, Car rental and health insurance, being President. They can make valid contracts are required to register for Selective Service (Biological Males anyhow), and can even join the armed forces. The difference is LEGAL versus some random papers definition of children. I really don’t care what the WHO or other international body has to say except mzybe the Geneva Convention and that is soo old news to most of the armed folks on the planet.

  7. Unless those gun “control” activists are willing to discuss measures that are more effective at addressing gun violence, like stiffer prosecution of the thugs using guns illegally (especially in Dem-run hellholes) and institutionalization and removal from public of those with mental issues, i have no interest in hearing their fake BS targeting law-abiding gun owners

  8. A list of ‘school shootings’ went around FB a couple of weeks ago, with the caption ,’Just keep scrolling (crying emoji)’ then, ‘ In case you’ve lost track’. It’s 9 pages, roughly 60 ‘school shootings’ per page. My BS detector told me that can’t possibly be true, so every time I have 5-10 minutes of time on my hands, I Google a few.

    First of all, what image do the words ‘school shooting’ evoke in all of you here? I think a fairly specific set of conditions comes to mind. So far, on the list of ‘school shootings’ I’ve found-

    A kid living in a crack house finds a gun, and brings it to school and shoots a classmate in the arm

    An accidental discharge in the hall by a school resource officer, no injuries

    A drug deal gone wrong, and a high school student shot as a result(not on school property)

    The threat of a shooting that came to nothing

    A man entering a seminary and shooting a priest, then killing himself

    A man killing his faculty advisor be cause he didn’t pass the bar exam

    A suicide in a school bathroom

    ‘Benjamin Tasker Middle School’ rang a faint bell. A student there was an off-campus victim of the D.C. Sniper. Seriously, this is also a ‘school shooting’!

    A kid killed at an inner-city bus stop miles from school, a kid tackled as soon as someone saw the gun, I could go on and on about all the baloney on this list, and I’m still on the first page! Any group/activist who’ll lie to me so blatantly loses my respect and attention rapidly. The Out Town shooting lists are as dishonest (a man committed suicide at 10:30 pm in his car with a handgun in the parking lot of a school closed and slated for demolition…’s a school shooting, too!). Like the ‘15,000 lies’ list, if you make it hard enough to slog through and check, people will just let it go by.

    Words mean something. Calling a gun discharge of any kind within 5 miles of a school a ‘school shooting’ is blatant manipulation of people’s emotions and fear mongering , and more purposeful change-the-definition-to-dupe-people sleight of hand that is liberal activist’s stock in trade. 

    • Agreed. A “mass shooting” is now two people killed at a shoot-out at a dance hall at two in the morning on Sunday. That’s not a “mass shooting,” it’s a bunch of fuckwads getting drunk and settling their disagreements with Glocks.

  9. If children under one year of age were included, wouldn’t “Elective Abortion” have to be included as a significant cause of death? Just asking.
    VP Harris has simply spewed the latest iteration of a misleading statistical trope that has been circulating for years now. As Steve W. said, all the anti-gunners have is lies and hysteria. They are living in a dream world where criminals obey laws, where innocent citizens are never wrongly charged with violating one or more of the more than 20,000 federal, state and local gun control laws already on the books, where the BATFE doesn’t legislate by fiat, and where the Second Amendment is an archaic inconvenience. The hoplophobes are driven by their irrational fear and can’t be reasoned with, only defeated.

    • That actual children are killed by gunfire as often as they are is a legitimate cause for concern and a reason to look for rational, legal, constitutional solutions. 4th or 5th most common cause of death? That’s horrible. But anti-gun activists won’t argue based on the real facts—those won’t provoke a pure emotional response that over-rides basic common sense and necessary balancing considerations.

      • Jack, if you would actually read the thread, you would see I actually agreed with you that Harris was wrong.

        This all started with me saying that the study says “children and adolescents” and then I was attacked because people don’t know what “adolescents” mean.

        No children are adults, but some adolescents are adults, and some are not, and some are teenagers, and some are not.

        I tried to logically explain to them how adolescents is a term used in statistics and healthcare and it’s a specific age range (10-19).

        The study doesn’t use “adults” because it’s not all adults (18 and up), it’s all “children and adolescents”.

        The conversation on your post organically evolved to discuss why those terms are used and I was attacked and called a moron for trying to explain a misunderstanding.

        Not cool.

        • I know that, and I did read the thread. And I’ll apologize for over-stating the problem with your approach: I’m sorry. The only “but” is that you still felt compelled to find mitigation in the details, and searching for mitigation when one’s favored personage has done wrong is a bad habit. Still—I went overboard, and that’s also a bad habit. I had just completed the article about the Washington Post trying to minimize the disgusting revelation that the White House and the LA Times had conspired to make it look like Joe could whip off a detailed answer to a presser question, and it’s readers piled on with even more spin. Yeah, I think my annoyance at that spectacle spilled over to you.

          Not cool.

          Again, my fault, and I’m sorry. I’ll do better.

        • Amy Lewis wrote, “This all started with me saying that the study says “children and adolescents”…”


          It started when you wrote, “So the description “children and adolescents” is correct.” (my bold emphasis) and then you proceeded to double down on your “is correct” and try to justify your “is correct” nonsense with more nonsense repetitively.

          Amy Lewis wrote, “…. and then I was attacked… “

          Let me get this straight; you intentionally trolled this thread with your adolescent bastardizations and other moronic nonsense to get reactions from your fellow commenters, and now you’re the victim? Give me a freaking break Amy. If you can’t take the heat…

          Amy Lewis wrote, “….because people don’t know what “adolescents” mean.”

          That’s where your pretzel making and goal post dragging began. You’re lying Amy, people know what the difference between and adolescent and a legal adult are, you are the one trying to intentionally bastardize that.

          Face reality Amy, in the United States of America when a person turns 18 year old they become a legal adult and they’re no longer, as you wrote, “not “fully” adults yet. They’re in the process of being adults.”. Either they are an adult or they’re not, there is no in-between. What you wrote is not a misunderstanding, it’s an intentional bastardization that’s utterly rejecting the facts that are right in front of your face.

          What’s “not cool” is your bastardizations and moronic nonsense then turning around and playing the victim.

          • Steve, I tried explaining to you that “children and adolescents” IS CORRECT.

            Adolescents is a specific age range used in statistics and healthcare. 10-19 years of age.

            That’s why the term was used in the study and not “adults” since adults is anyone 18 years and older but the study didn’t discuss all adults.

            Why are you ignoring this fact.


              Adolescents are described as 12-17 on the CDC website–a conflation of health and statistics, and later on that same page up to 19 years old. Please cite that “adolescent” is definitively used to describe 10-19 year-olds in “statistics and healthcare.”

              Why use a nebulous word (adolescent) when the actual brightline cutoff is included in the study itself, except to arouse specific emotions?

                • Why are you using a WHO definition in relation to CDC stats, when the CDC uses the term adolescent to refer to a wide variety of age ranges?

                  “This establishes the age range that everyone uses in healthcare studies.” And yet I posted a link that shows that the CDC also uses adolescent to refer to ages 12-17.

                    • My point is what I brought up earlier, which you ignored, in an awfully sealiony manner.

                      Why use a word that is nebulous in public usage (even if it’s officially defined by the WHO), is used nebulously even on the CDC website elsewhere, and causes asinine arguments about definitions, when a brightline already exists? Ages 1-19.

                  • It’s not nebulous.

                    And in the study stupid Harris tweeted about, they define children and adolescents as 1-19 years of age.

                    It’s a scientific study and that’s the term these people use. They also define the age range for readers in the paper (1-19)

                    I dont get why this is confusing for you.

                    • It’s absolutely nebulous, as exhibited by the discussion above.

                      It may not be nebulous within the confines of the study, which (presumably) defines its terms at the top of the study.

                      But the vast majority of people exposed to this study, especially when their only exposure is via a tweet, will not equate “adolescent” to ages 10-19. Therefore, if Harris were to have said “children and adolescents” rather than simply “children,” it would have resulted in bad communication, as the meaning would have been unclear, except to the people who actually read the study. I don’t see how that would have been any more responsible than what Harris actually tweeted.

                  • Again, just because you don’t know what an adolescent means, doesn’t make it nebulous or wrong to use

                    What would you have them say then? 1-19 year olds?

                    That’s fine.

                    • Here’s a hint–if you don’t want to be attacked by everyone, you don’t have to act the way you do. I suspect you don’t mind being attacked, though.

                      I would disagree that some adults are adolescents, considering adolescence is typically defined as the period between childhood and adulthood; in other words, adolescence ends when adulthood begins.

                      And adolescent definitely doesn’t mean “10-19 years old” outside of papers that define it as such. But I don’t want to get in the way of you doing what you need to do to feel better about yourself.

                  • “I would disagree that some adults are adolescents…”

                    I mean…that’s wrong but okay.

                    “adolescence ends when adulthood begins.”


                    Imagine just making up definitions for things you don’t understand to win an argument… Instead of just being like “oh wow thanks, I learned something new today”

                    • Amy Lewis wrote, “Imagine just making up definitions for things you don’t understand to win an argument…”

                      Imagine that happening!

                      Who would do such a thing?

                      Here’s some facts for you Amy:

                      I gave you a definition of adolescent that, surprise, surprise, I didn’t make up. Here it is again; Adolescent: in the process of developing from a child into an adult.

                      Vitaeus gave you a detailed definition of a legal adult above that, surprise, surprise, Vitaeus didn’t make up.

                      These definitions are the basis for much of the discussion in this thread and you have basically ignored them and deflected from them at every turn.

                      There comes a point in a discussion where it becomes very obvious that what once appeared to be talking past each other has become something entirely different, intentional trolling, and I believe you have crossed that point.

                      You have squandered any respect and appearance of integrity you may have had trying to tell everyone that they are wrong when they have stated that 18 and 19 year old individuals are adults and not considered adolescents in our society anymore because they actually are legal adults. That separation of legal adults from children/adolescence is at the root core of this whole discussion and you have intentionally deflected from that root core and are using trolling tactics to drag the conversation down into the endless abyss of your rabbit hole, this is exactly what an experienced trolls does. Between those things, outright lies and making verifiably false accusatory statements, like we’re “making up definitions…to win an argument” as quoted above, it’s become very clear to me that you’re an experienced troll (job well done) and I’m done with you.

                      Now it’s up to you how or if you choose to respond.

      • “…a pure emotional response that over-rides basic common sense and necessary balancing considerations.”
        Yes, i.e. “gun control” laws, every one of them. We need criminal control, idiot control, and lunatic control. We already have too much gun control.

  10. The stats as noted don’t contain enough information to identify the problem. If you can’t truly identify the problem, you can’t honestly suggest a solution. The information given only creates the mental impression of “guns, children, death”, which gives the anti-firearms zealots free rein to bombard firearms producers and firearms owners with proposals for more worthless proposals and regulations that will magically end criminal behavior (this time!). I find it hard to believe that’s completely unintentional.

    Details about the types of crimes committed, the perpetrators, and the firearms used may well indicate that the typical proposed solutions from the left would have done little or nothing in preventing them. We already know, though it’s rarely reported by most MSM, that deaths from school shootings are statistically rare, as are murders using any type of rifle (much less an “assault weapon”). What we don’t have are the numbers on how often 14 yr old “A” uses a stolen pistol to shoot 16 yr old “B” who killed A’s brother the previous week over a drug deal gone sideways. How much gun crime involves similar scenarios where none of the criminals would have been deterred by expanded or “universal” background checks on firearms sales, red-flag laws, or a waiting period on a gun purchase? Where none involved an “assault weapon” or a 30 round magazine? Where none were due to lack of “firearms safety training”‘ or “safe gun storage”? ….etc,. etc.

    Without this knowledge or any indication from the antis that they’re actually interested in obtaining and presenting this information, we can only understand that they have no true interest in lessening gun crime (statistically heavily involving their voting demographics), but are instead interested only in controlling and dishonestly laying blame on their sane and law-abiding political opponents and certain inanimate objects. Like Kamala’s blather, it’s deflection from from taking responsibility for the results of the societal rot they continue to create and condone.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.