Do More Armed Citizens Make Us Safer By Metis (AI Assistant)

19 Oct 2026 4 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , ,

Introduction:

After the recent school shooting wherein an armed citizen stepped in and saved many lives, the newspapers went gaga over it.  Once more it was the old story. We need to all be armed so that we can prevent such mass killings.  You have heard the trope, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”  While this situation may indeed happen, it is more the exception rather than the rule. 

The real question is this “Are we safer with more guns and more people armed or are we less safe with more people having access to own and carry a weapon?

I asked my AI assistant whom I call Metis to address this question.  The following is her reply.  I have not edited a single word that she wrote.  Let me know what you think in the comments section. 

Metis: 

An armed citizen who stops a mass shooter deserves recognition for the lives saved.  Yet that rescue cannot, by itself, tell us whether encouraging millions of people to carry guns makes society safer.  Public policy must account for everything that follows from wider gun availability, including the violence that additional guns may enable.  My reading of the evidence is that widespread civilian carrying is a poor public safety strategy, even though an individual carrying a gun can sometimes save lives.

That conclusion requires qualifications.  Research does not provide a dependable numerical comparison between the chance of a citizen stopping a massacre and the chance of additional guns producing one.  Evidence about mass shootings is less conclusive than evidence about homicide overall.  Those limitations should guide our confidence without preventing us from reaching a judgment.

Consider what the question asks us to compare.  One side concerns an emergency already underway: a killer is shooting, and a citizen might intervene.  The other concerns the consequences of a social policy over years: more people possess or carry firearms, and the frequency or severity of violence may change.  A percentage describing how attacks ended cannot be directly compared with a percentage describing changes in homicide rates.  They measure different things.

How often citizens stop an attack

The FBI studied 160 active shooter incidents occurring between 2000 and 2013.  Five ended after armed people other than police exchanged gunfire with the attackers.  Four involved security guards; one involved a citizen with a firearms permit.  That single ordinary civilian intervention represented approximately 0.6 percent of the incidents in that historical dataset.  The report also documented successful interventions by unarmed people.  [1]

The figure needs careful handling.  It is historical, drawn from a particular dataset, and describes one type of successful intervention.  It does not mean an armed citizen confronting a shooter has only a 0.6 percent chance of succeeding.  In many incidents, no armed civilian may have been present or positioned to act.  Estimating success when an opportunity exists would require reliable information about those opportunities, including unsuccessful attempts.  The FBI percentage does not supply that denominator.

Definitions introduce another difficulty.  An active shooter incident involves someone actively killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.  A mass shooting may be defined by a threshold of people wounded or killed.  Researchers use different thresholds and may treat domestic violence, gang violence, and public attacks differently.  Their totals therefore cannot always be combined or compared.  [1, 4]

There is a legitimate objection to counting only completed massacres: someone who stops a gunman early may prevent the incident from reaching the threshold.  That success could disappear from a database restricted to mass shootings.  A fair assessment must allow for this possibility.  It must also avoid assuming that every interrupted shooting would otherwise have become a massacre.  The outcome that would have occurred without intervention is often unknowable.

These problems leave us with a narrower, defensible finding.  Armed civilian intervention can work.  Existing incident counts do not establish the precise probability that a particular citizen will succeed, or prove that increasing the number of armed citizens produces a net public benefit.

There is another measurement problem worth remembering.  The share of attacks stopped by civilians could rise simply because more civilians carry guns.  That increase alone would not show whether total deaths declined.  We would still need to know whether attacks became more frequent, whether interventions reduced casualties, and what happened to other forms of violence.  Conversely, a low intervention count cannot demonstrate that every additional carrier is ineffective.  The useful policy measure is the change in harm across the population exposed to the policy.  A count of successful rescues contributes to that assessment, but cannot complete it on its own.

What broader research tells us

To evaluate public safety, we need research that examines outcomes across communities and over time.  RAND’s Gun Policy in America project reviews studies of firearm policies, evaluates their methods, and grades the strength of the evidence.  Its current synthesis finds supportive evidence that shall-issue concealed-carry laws increase total homicides, firearm homicides, and violent crime.  Supportive is RAND’s strongest evidence category.  [2, 3]

Shall-issue laws generally require authorities to issue concealed-carry permits to applicants meeting specified legal criteria.  Research on these laws is more informative than simply observing that one place has many guns and another has fewer.  Studies can examine what happens after policy changes while attempting to account for other influences.  They remain observational studies, subject to methodological limits, rather than controlled experiments involving otherwise identical societies.

Nevertheless, the direction of the stronger evidence matters.  The claim that expanded carrying protects society predicts a reduction in violence after the policy changes.  RAND’s assessment points toward increased violence instead.  Individual defensive benefits may exist within that outcome, but they have not produced the overall reduction in homicide that the public safety argument promises.  [2, 3]

We must also distinguish carrying from ownership.  These findings do not measure the consequences of every firearm kept for hunting, sport, or home defense.  They bear directly on the proposition that making public carrying more broadly available improves safety.  They cannot justify treating every possible restriction on ownership as equally effective.

Mass shootings deserve their own qualification.  RAND rates the evidence on how concealed-carry laws affect mass shootings as inconclusive.  That does not establish that expanded carrying prevents massacres, nor does it establish that such laws necessarily increase them.  It means available research cannot reliably settle that specific policy question under RAND’s standards.  We should say so plainly.  [3]

A separate study published in The BMJ in 2019 examined states from 1998 through 2015.  It found that greater estimated gun ownership and more permissive gun laws were associated with higher mass-shooting rates.  Its definition required at least four victims killed by firearm, excluding the perpetrator, and included domestic and other incidents.  This finding supports concern about gun availability, but an association cannot establish exactly how many attacks additional ownership would cause.  [4]

The study and RAND’s conclusion answer different questions.  An association between estimated ownership and mass shootings is not the same as a demonstrated effect of a particular concealed-carry law.  Preserving that distinction makes the argument more credible.  Evidence should retain its meaning even when a stronger claim would better serve our preferred conclusion.

Why a rescue cannot settle public policy

A successful intervention is compelling because its benefit is visible.  A person acts, the attacker stops, and survivors can identify someone who helped them.  Prevention is harder to see.  When a policy helps prevent a killing, there may be no dramatic event and no identifiable person who knows that their life was spared.  This difference can influence which evidence attracts our attention.

Imagine, purely as an illustration, that a change in gun policy enabled five lifesaving interventions but also contributed to twenty additional deaths.  The interventions would remain valuable, and the people who acted might deserve gratitude.  The policy would still have increased the death toll.  Those numbers are hypothetical; the point is that evaluating the policy requires counting benefits and harms together.

Wider availability could affect violence through several routes.  A gun might be available during an escalating argument, stolen and later used in crime, or used in a mistaken response to a perceived threat.  A defender might also stop an assault.  These are possible mechanisms, not a substitute for measuring outcomes.  Research must determine what happens when such effects operate across an entire population.

Calling someone a responsible owner does not resolve that calculation.  It describes an important intention or record of conduct, but public policy operates across people with different judgment, circumstances, and training.  Nor does questioning expanded carrying imply that ordinary owners are would-be mass murderers.  An overall increase in harm can occur without most owners ever committing a violent crime.

What I would support

My conclusion favors policies evaluated by their results.  RAND finds evidence supporting several specific approaches, including safe-storage laws that reduce firearm harms among young people and waiting periods that reduce total homicides.  Its review also finds evidence that certain background-check requirements reduce homicide.  The strength and scope of those findings differ by policy and outcome; none should be advertised as a guarantee against every massacre.  [2]

People also bring constitutional principles and personal values to firearm policy.  Evidence cannot decide every question about rights or acceptable restrictions.  It can test the factual promise that wider civilian carrying makes the public safer.  On that question, the stronger evidence gives us reason to doubt the promise.

I would honor the citizen who saves strangers during an attack.  I would also ask whether our policies reduce the number of people who ever face that terror.  My judgment favors reducing dangerous access through measures supported by evidence, while assessing their actual results.  The lives saved by an armed defender count.  So do the lives lost elsewhere under the same policy.

Sources

[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation.  A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013.  Published 2014.  See Resolutions, printed page 11.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013

[2] Smart, Rosanna, et al.  The Science of Gun Policy, Fifth Edition.  RAND, 2026.  See Key Findings.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4360-2.html

[3] RAND.  The Effects of Concealed-Carry Laws.  See evidence summary for violent crime and mass shootings.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry.html

[4] Reeping, Paul M., et al.  State gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the US: cross sectional time series.  The BMJ, 2019;364:l542.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6402045/

What’s Wrong with Our Cops?

27 Jan 2023 20 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

cops

My mentor, Dr. W.E. Deming used to say, “Put a good person in a bad system and the system will win every time.”  The latest cop fiasco with five Black men beating a young Black man to death no doubt has many people either scratching their heads or gloating.  Those scratching their heads are trying to understand how it can be that so many officers would beat a helpless man to death.  Those gloating are no doubt saying “See, it was Black cops beating one of ‘Their’ own to death.”  Still others are saying that if it were White cops, they would not have been charged with anything.  The problem with each of these perspectives is that they ignore the system.  Police operate within a system.  A bad system produces bad results.  Let me explain further.

We need to start off by understanding what a system is.  Some definitions that work for me are as follows:

1.

A set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network.

“The state railroad system”

2.

A set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized framework or method.

“The public school system”

3.

Deming defined a system as ‘a network of interdependent components that work together to try to accomplish the aim of the system.  The aim for any system should be that everybody gains, not one part of the system at the expense of any other’ 

A friend of mine said that the purpose of a police system is to to protect and serve the public.  

Systems can be very complex and difficult to understand.  When I was doing my management consulting, I would often bring a large group of senior managers from a company together to chart or map the “system” that they worked in.  This was usually a prelude to defining objectives and looking at “systemic” problems more wholistically.  That is a way of saying I wanted them to see the big picture.  We could do the same thing with any system.  In what is a very cursory or limited analysis of a “police” system, I offer the following factors or components.  These four factors make up a large portion of the system that police work in every day.  I would like to explain each and give my thoughts on how they create the dysfunction that seems to be prevalent in so many law enforcement agencies.  ‘

  1. Authoritarianism
  2. Exclusion
  3. Jeopardy
  4. Fascism

I do not claim that all police systems are dysfunctional.  I also do not claim that cops do not have a very difficult and demanding job.  There is perhaps no job in America that is more difficult than being a police officer.  Nevertheless, parts of the police system while designed to protect officers have been and still are major sources of dysfunction.

authoritarianism

  1. Authoritarianism

There is a saying that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  I speak from experience that many officers get corrupted by the power that the gun, badge and night stick welds.  Growing up on a street corner society, I had my share of run in with cops.  I was arrested before I was 18 for assault and battery and for felony larceny.  This does not count my numerous other altercations with police for which I “escaped.”  When I was young, I used to say that “The only good cop was a dead cop.”  Later, my opinion changed 180 percent and I began to appreciate the need for good policing.

The problem though is that in many cases, police let the power that they are given go to their heads.  This problem does not exist in isolation from the other factors that I will discuss but it is exacerbated by the tendency for police to think that they are above the law or that they do not have to answer to the public they serve.  Many cops take umbrage at being questioned as they act like they have the absolute right to ask questions but not to answer them.  How often have you heard in TV dramas the officer say, “I am asking the questions here.”  The person who asks the question has the power and is the authority.  The person answering is “powerless.”  TV is not reality, but it reflects some of the attitudes that exist in law enforcement.

community policing

  1. Exclusion

Cops are for the most part isolated or segregated from the public.  The old days of Officer O’Malley walking a beat and talking to kids and neighbors in a friendly demeanor no longer exists.  Talk of “community policing” is for the most part a myth or a relic of a bygone age.  We seldom see a cop unless we are in trouble, or we need something, or we are watching the 10 o’clock news.

Isolation is not a good thing.  It creates an “us-them” atmosphere.  We don’t see police as belonging to our neighborhood or as being “friends.”  We view them with hostility and suspicion when they knock on our front doors.  It does not matter whether they are Black and we are Black or whether they are White and we are White.  They knock on our door and we immediately feel threatened.

guns

  1. Jeopardy

A police officer is in life threatening jeopardy every single moment of every single day.  Perhaps, never in history have cops been so threatened.  Their lives are on the line twenty-four seven.  A cop can be blown away going to a domestic dispute or merely stopping a car to give a ticket or a warning.  The proliferation of weapons has made police more vulnerable.  The bad guy always gets the chance to shoot first and the cop must give a warning before he/she shoots.  It is easy to see why some cops go over the edge and shoot first without asking questions.  I do not say that this is justified but how would you like to go out every day not knowing whether or not you would be shot dead by some crazy who had an AK 47 or a AR 15 or a Glock 17.

facism

  1. Fascism

Before exploring this facet of law enforcement, we need to define fascism.  One definition from Wikipedia is as follows:

“Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultra-nationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition.” 

Police exist to protect the status quo.  There are many who mock the “Golden Rule” with,  “Those who have the gold make the rules.”  Cops are on the side of the system that pays the bills.  They protect the government against protestors, marchers, and often peaceful gatherings of citizens who they think pose a threat to “law and order.”  They also protect the government, companies and society against rioters, looters, thieves and not so peaceful protestors.

The major problem with cops is that they are on the other side of the equation when it comes to social upheaval and change.  They did not see Civil Rights as a necessary antidote to racism.  They did not see the suffragettes as giving women the right and dignity to vote.  They often were and still are on the other side of the union-management divide during strikes and labor protests.  It would seem to many people that cops work for corporate America and not the citizens of America.

I have pointed out four elements that in many cases define law enforcement to many Americans.  There are many other elements that make up the law enforcement system in the USA.  I have written several other blogs on this subject.  The four elements that I described are the most problematic and I think help to best answer the questions that this blog started with.  “How could five Black officers beat a young Black man to death.”

If you follow what I am proposing, you can understand that these five men were “just doing their job” as the system defined it.  I am sure that any one of these five men would define virtues that many would call exemplary.  I have no reason to think that they were “bad” men wanting to do bad things.  Caught up in a bad system, you and I would more than likely have done exactly what they did.  You can argue this latter point with me.  But in my experiences, I have seen too many “good” people do bad things when working in an environment that fostered either negative, immoral or unethical behaviors.

PS:  I watched the video today (Jan 28) of the beating that Tyre Nichols received.  At first, I did not want to watch the video.  I have seen too many videos of police brutality in the past.  They are sickening, sad, tragic and pitiful.  I did not think that I could bear to watch yet another one.  However, I did.  I do not feel that I have the right to comment on such cases if I do not see what has actually happened. 

The one thought that I got out of this video was that it could have been YOUR SON, Your FATHER,  YOUR BEST FRIEND, YOUR MOTHER, YOU or ME that was on the ground and beaten to death.  Tased, Confused, Disoriented, Maced, Kicked, Punched, and Battered, would you have run?  Would you have been able to comply with commands screamed at you?  

In my next blog, I will offer some ideas that might help to change the system.  Changing the system is the only way to change results.  Dr. Deming insisted that 94 percent of variations observed in workers’ performance levels have nothing to do with the workers.  Instead, most performance problems are caused by the system, of which people are but a part.  “People cannot perform better than the system allows”, which he explains in his book,  “The New Economics.”

deming

For further thoughts on this subject of police violence, an excellent article that I came across is

The killing of Tyre Nichols was heinous and shocking. It was also not an aberration by Simon Balto

Why Gun Control is Not Enough!

06 Jul 2022 14 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Good Guy with a Gun Myth

Gun control is only a first step.  Some of the Second Amendment advocates are right about one thing.  There are some of us who want to take their guns away.  Not all of their guns, but some of their guns.  Licensing, background checks, restrictions on types of firearms, restrictions on clip size, none of these will stop the mass killings in America.  There is a simple reason for this.  There are too many guns in America available.  Look at it this way.

Assume that there were 100,000 cars in a given area.  Assume that for every 100,000 cars there would be an average of 100 accidents per year.  This assumption can be verified by statistical analysis of car accidents in a given area.  Some places will have more accidents than other places, but all places with cars will have some accidents. 

There are many factors governing who will have an accident, when they will have an accident and where they will have an accident.  No amount of statistical analysis can precisely predict when, where or who will be connected with an accident.  We use licensing, registrations, vehicle checks, drivers tests and still we have a current death rate in 2020 of 12.9 deaths per 100,000 vehicles.  This is a 58% improvement from the motor-vehicle death rate in 1937 with 30.8 deaths per 100,000 population.  Cars have become safer with airbags, better brakes, seat belts and other safety devices.  Yet we still cannot prevent an accident from happening.  —Historical Fatality Trends

Now if we increase the number of cars from 100,000 to 1 million and assuming all other variables stay equal, than we can assume that there will be ten times more accidents or that we will go from 100 car accidents per year to 1000 car accidents per year.  Or with a death rate of 12. 9 deaths per 100,000 vehicles, we will now have a total of 129 deaths per year.  Applying this same logic to firearms explains why the number of mass murders and firearm fatalities is increasing.  However, the statistics are more difficult.  Part of this has to do with the congressional oversight protecting the gun industry in the USA. 

Let us assume that for every 7500 guns in America that there will be 1-gun related fatality.  This statistic is derived from the fact that in 2020, there was a total of 45,222 deaths related to firearms in America.  The number of guns in America is estimated at about 340,000,000.  (The wide variances in registered guns by state, the lack of information on unregistered guns, the extreme variability in guns per capita make a definitive statistic nearly impossible.)  Dividing the total number of guns (a rough estimate) by the number of gun related deaths gives us 1 fatality for approximately every 7500 guns.  

“A new report from the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions analyzes Centers for Disease Control and Prevention firearm fatality data for 2020—a year that saw the highest number of gun-related deaths ever recorded by the CDC and a sharp increase in gun homicides.  Among other things, the report concludes that states with the most robust gun laws have lower gun-related death rates.  The Center for Gun Violence Solutions is based at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.” —- John Hopkins School of Public Health

Applying the same car logic to guns in America, if we have 1 death per every 7500 firearms available then increasing the number of firearms will increase the number of deaths and injuries.  However, we already know that increasing the number of firearms has increased the number of deaths and injuries.  Three hundred and forty million firearms are now causing over 45,000 deaths per year.  Double the number of firearms and we can have nearly 100,000 deaths per year.  Of course, we could do the opposite of what we did with cars and make firearms even more lethal.  (Something that many gun owners relish).  Making guns more lethal would up the death toll.  Bumper stocks was one example of this increasing lethality.

Conversely, if the logic holds, decreasing firearm lethality should decrease both deaths and serious injuries.  But an even better strategy would be to decrease the number of guns in America.  The logic here is that there is no way that we will be able to prevent the carnage that is happening daily with background checks, mental health clinics, psych screenings or any other suggestions that have been offered.  As long as we have 340 million guns available to any individual that suddenly loses his or her sanity, there is going to continue to be daily incidents of mass gun violence. Given the right circumstances, we all can become potentially bad guys.

Increase the number of guns or the lethality of guns and you will increase the number of people who die from firearms. 

Decrease the number of guns in America or decrease the lethality of guns and you will decrease the number of people who die from firearm deaths. 

Its that simple folks.  But the difficult part is developing the will to fight a battle against a mindset driven by fear to buy ever more guns and an industry bent on selling ever more guns.

More guns = more deaths.  No amount of “GOOD GUYS” with a gun is going to change this fact.

Why A Gun Will Not Make You Safer!

08 Jun 2022 24 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

guns

Every gun sold in America makes you less safe than you were the minute before that gun was sold.  The gun lobbies and Second Amendment devotees want you to believe the opposite.  There are two motives for this.  One is to sell more guns.  This is a motive for the gun lobbyists, gun manufacturers and NRA.  The second motive is by the Second Amendment advocates who seriously believe that guns will protect you from “bad” guys with a gun.  This is wishful thinking which more often than not is false.  However, there are many cases on record where guns have protected people from criminals and other deviants.  Nevertheless, statistically speaking, you are not safer with more guns.  In fact, you are less safe as each gun sale adds to the growing epidemic of gun violence in USA America.  You will only be safer when there are less guns to be had for sale.  The argument I am going to present will clearly prove my point.  However, before I present it let me state the following truths.

  • I am a gun owner
  • I am a military veteran
  • I actually like guns, knives, and other weapons (nunchakus, hunting bows, etc.)
  • I have hunted moose, seal, elk, pheasant, and deer
  • I do believe that some guns should be available for hunting and sports shooting

So, why do I believe that more guns lead to more school shootings, massacres, homicides, suicides, and other violence?  Why do I think that we need to seriously dial back on the following three aspects of guns?

  • Gun availability
  • Gun lethality
  • Gun carry

To understand why more guns are dangerous, we must first start with understanding human psychology.  You will accept that anger is a normal human emotion.  Assuming a bell-shaped curve of ranges for anger, some people will get much angrier than others.  Some people will resort to violence, road rage, domestic abuse, fights, etc. when they are angry.  Let us assume that one percent of people sometimes fall into the “extreme” anger range.  Thus, out of 1,000,000 people, there will be 10,000 people who may become violently angry at some perceived slight, disrespect, or abuse.

young-girl-firing-two-gunsNext, let us establish a lethality of weapons.  I will put it thus:  fists are not as lethal as brass knuckles.  Brass knuckles are not as lethal as clubs.  Clubs are not as lethal as knives.  Knives are not as lethal as guns.  Handguns are not as lethal as rifles.  The range of lethality that I have noted is “most” often true but there are always exceptions.  Thus, I will say again, the lethality of the potential weapons structure I have described is most often the case but not always.

Now, let us assume that one percent of the people who fall into the “extreme” violent range might act out using a weapon of some sort.  That would mean that during any particular episode of extreme anger, a hundred people or one percent of 10,000 people could conceivably pick up a gun to use as a weapon.

5310758_052119-wtvd-charlotte-kids-learn-to-shoot-vid

If we take the fact that there are 257,000,000 people over the age of 18 in the USA as of 2020 (Annie E. Casey Foundation Data Center), then extrapolating from the one million people we started with, we would have to multiply the 100 potentially violent and angry people who might use a gun by the percentage of gun owners in America who have a gun available.  According to a Pew Study, four-in-ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 30% who say they personally own one.

So, we need to multiply as follows:

257,000,000 million adults over the age of 18 in the USA

X

30 Percent of adults who personally own a gun in the USA

X

100 potentially very angry people per every million adults who might be tempted to use a gun

257,000,000 x .30 = 77.1 million X 100 per million = 7710

That gives us the following:  7710 potentially very angry people on any given day who might use a gun in some act of violence.  Now let’s half that number since women are not usually as violent as men and we arrive at the following figure of 3855 adult men in the USA who might go berserk, grab a gun, and enter what domestic abuse counselors call the “Cycle of Violence.”

0201aa_7b79899f47f14b6ab14fb1ed7b3e0571_mv2

The “Cycle of Violence” can be described as follows:

“The term cycle of violence refers to repeated and dangerous acts of violence as a cyclical pattern, associated with high emotions and doctrines of retribution or revenge.  The pattern, or cycle, repeats and can happen many times during a relationship.  Each phase of the cycle may last a different length of time, and over time the level of violence may increase.  It often refers to violent behavior learned as a child, and then repeated as an adult, therefore continuing on in a perceived cycle.” — WIKI

maxresdefaultThis cycle explains quite well what happens in many cases of gun violence or other types of violent outburst.  In phase two, tensions are building up.  This could be from a variety of different causes.  It might be strains from the work place or strains from home relationships with family and children.  The strains are often cumulative particularly with people who may lack the ability or means to discharge their stress.  The stress builds up until the individual finally explodes.  The explosion could be in words or actions.  Actions might involve throwing things, punching things, hitting things or various levels of assault against things or people using a wide range of weapons.

download (1)Phase three is the incident itself.  A trigger is needed to set the individual off.  Perhaps the individual gets fired or their spouse asks for a divorce.  Maybe they have a fight with a neighbor, or a car cuts them off at an intersection.  When the trigger occurs, the individual explodes.  The explosion could involve a violent attack that might go from simple threats or curses all the way to shooting someone.  The availability of weapons will play a major role in the level of violence.  This is one reason why a “waiting period” for purchasing a firearm makes  a lot of sense.  In two recent mass shootings, there was no waiting period for the purchase of a high-powered rifle and the individuals engaged in shooting massacres within a week of buying their rifles.

Phase four is a down period or a period of extreme remorse.  The violent individual feels a deep sense of guilt or regret and longs for forgiveness and to makeup to their victim for their transgressions.  If their victim is still alive they will apologize profusely and swear to never do it again.  They will promise anything to make amends and obtain forgiveness.  Obviously, if their victim or victims are dead, one act that they can take to escape their feelings of remorse is to end their own lives.  This explains why so many of these mass shooters commit suicide before they are apprehended.

nssfjan21x1

If the violent individual makes it through phase four and is still alive, there will be a phase of calm and peacefulness.  It will seem like everything is going to be okay.  Phase one may last days or weeks but unless the individual receives some type of therapy, the tensions will inevitably build up again.  The result will be another explosion after another triggering event takes place.  This is how the cycle of violence works over and over again.

The result of this anger cycle combined with an easy access to guns is an epidemic of gun violence.  It is an epidemic that includes nearly 25,000 suicides a year and about 14,000 homicides a year.  There are clearly only two solutions to reducing this death rate.  One solution would be to reduce the potential number of people in our society who are prone to violent outbursts or what some might label as mental illness.  The second solution would be to reduce the number of guns available or at least make it more difficult to obtain a gun when someone has a violent outburst.

downloadMany anti-gun control people push the solution that more mental health is needed.  The problem with this solution is that anger and angry outbursts are as normal in the population as mom, God, and apple pie.  There is no way to treat all the people in America who might lose their temper on a given day.  There is no way to tell when or where these outbursts will take place.  Therapy for “normal” people is not on the radar.  Make no mistake, your best friend, your neighbor, your cousin just might “lose” it tomorrow and go on some type of violent jag that results in death for someone else.  It happens all the time.  The papers are full of reports of people who lose it and end up killing their loved ones and themselves.

20150404_USD000_0The other solution is to reduce the availability or the lethality of guns in society.  This solution makes the most sense.  We can somewhat reduce the availability of weapons through background checks, waiting periods, age restrictions, gun training, and reducing the ability to carry a gun in public.  We must get rid of these ridiculous concealed carry laws.  It should be illegal to carry a gun in public concealed or otherwise unless you have a permit with a valid reason for why you need to carry a gun.

1999-_Gun-related_deaths_USAWe can reduce the lethality of guns by limiting clip capacities and by eliminating rifles that were designed for military purposes and not hunting.  Why anyone would need a rifle with more than a three round capacity is beyond me.  Rifles should be for hunting or target shooting and nothing else.  Any game that you are hunting will be gone long before you can chamber and fire your third round.  A .223 caliber was first designed for the military in Vietnam.  I had to qualify on an M-16 in 1965 when they were first issued.  It was like shooting a bb gun.  Easy to shoot with a round that was designed to wound and not kill.  They said this would take two or more people out of the war instead of just one dead body.  The individual shot by a .223 would be severely wounded and would need someone to take him back to a medic or out of the war zone.  Read any of the gun magazines today and it looks like they are selling guns and accessories to someone who is going to war.  Helmets, bullet proof vests, high-capacity magazines, laser sights and guns more fit for killing humans than hunting are touted and readily available.

_124922926_guns_flag976

I don’t deny that it would be difficult to make some distinctions between a military or assault rifle and a rifle that could be used for hunting.  It some cases it would be like trying to differentiate between tweedle dee and tweedle dum.  However difficult it might be, it could be done as long as two reasonable people could agree on the definitions.  No definition will convince or persuade everyone.  We must not let perfection stop us from trying to protect the lives of our children and our citizens.  If some mistakes are made in banning guns that are best designed for killing then so be it.  We will all be better off for it.   It is the only solution that will end the epidemic of gun violence in the USA.

PS

I think my theory above accounts for a large percentage of mass murders and some suicides. I know that a small percentage of mass murders are committed by individuals with a grudge against another group, ethnicity or race. Call them racists or ideological nut cases. I doubt they go through any “cycle of violence” such as I have described. My guess is that they develop some screwball theory and believe that their violence will help them wipeout whatever group they harbor negative attitudes against. Their hatred could be political, racial, or other wacko ideologies.

As for suicides, the major reason for suicides according to the mental health literature (retreatbehavioralhealth.com) is due to depression. Women tend to overdose with pills while men tend to use a handgun. Gun checks, gun licenses, gun waiting periods are probably not going to reduce deaths by suicide substantially since I cannot imagine how a background check or a license would stop someone who is depressed from owning a gun. Nevertheless, the easy availability of guns and their lethality does make them very dangerous for anyone suffering from depression.

Pope Francis and Cardinal Cupich: Thoughts on Gun Controls

25 May 2022 8 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , ,

“What do we love more: our instruments of death or our future?”

People should be working now, the pope said, to ensure a similar tragedy can never happen again. In the U.S., his sentiment was shared by another senior Catholic leader: Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago.

“The Second Amendment did not come down from Sinai,” Cupich said via Twitter. “The right to bear arms will never be more important than human life. Our children have rights too. And our elected officials have a moral duty to protect them.”

The cardinal noted that research has shown the expired federal ban on certain rifles was effective in preventing the terror of mass shootings.

“As I reflect on this latest American massacre, I keep returning to the questions: Who are we as a nation if we do not act to protect our children? What do we love more: our instruments of death or our future?” Cupich asked.

There have been 27 school shootings so far this year in the U.S., according to Education Week, which tracks gun violence on K-12 school properties.

Three Essential Reads on Gun Violence in America

What We Know about Mass Shootings in the USA

The Brutality of the Second Amendment

09 Jun 2021 117 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , ,

FTK3ZHBEIVD2LODLQ7GZHZH6XE

The Second Amendment is the lever for mass genocide in America.  Every day Americans witness another mass killing or wanton murder.  Road rage shootings.  Family violence.  Workplace shootouts.  Shootouts in churches, parking lots, malls, grocery stores, Walmart’s, and on every highway and byway in America.  Twelve-year-old children taking guns to schools to kill as many people as they can.  Husbands killing entire families in a rampage.  Employees terminated coming back to assassinate former co-workers and their ex-bosses.  And throughout every one of these berserk episodes of violence, the same old tired excuses are made:

  • We need more mental health training
  • We need more guns to protect the innocent from the maniacs
  • We need better ways to screen people before they can purchase a gun
  • Guns don’t kill people, people do
  • When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
  • We can never stop gun violence
  • We are so sorry for your loss and we offer our prayers for the survivors

There is not a nicer or more politic way to call the state of gun violence in America for what it really is.  It is predictable state sponsored genocide supported by bullshit excuses made by cowards and sycophants who pander to the maniacs who are too afraid to go to sleep at night without a gun under their pillow.

A three-year-old girl was shot by a five-year-old boy in a house in Cass, Minnesota. The police did not elaborate on the relationship between the children or the gun that was used.  It is also unclear how the five-year-old boy was able to access a firearm.  — U.S. News, August 14, 2021

Cops add to the death toll because they know that any person walking on the street might be armed and dangerous.  Once upon a time, cops asked questions and shot later.  Today, the fear and paranoia of society drives police departments as well.  Cops now shoot first and never ask questions.  In one sense, it is hard to blame them when everyone in the good old USA is probably better armed then they are.

There are those on the left and right who will defend gun ownership.  Asshole judges strike down laws that communities try to establish to protect themselves from gun violence.  These same assholes live in gated upper-class communities and remain far removed from the violence that they create with their legal shenanigans.

In the first paragraph of his 94-page opinion, Judge Benitez lays out the heart of his reasoning colloquially: “The popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment.  Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller…and United States v Miller….” — From “Reason” by Brian Doherty

57753d5742c6e.imageThis logic is simply bizarre.  It is almost beyond comprehension.  A rifle based on a cartridge designed during the Vietnam War is now touted as a “perfect” defense weapon.  It sounds like every home should buy one.  Americans live in a country where there is no protection from crime according to the NRA and gun manufacturers.  The NRA kisses the asses of manufacturers to grab more and more power as they perform like Pied Pipers for their members.  “Come along, buy a gun, protect your rights, protect your family and children.  Don’t let the criminals make a victim of you.” The NRA is a monster that has metastasized on the fears of Americans.  Politicians court the money and votes of NRA members to get re-elected knowing fear is a great motivator.  To paraphrase a comment made by the Nazi Hermann Goering:

“The people can always be convinced to buy more and more guns.  It is easy.  All you have to do is tell the average person that they may be victimized by criminals and denounce the gun control people for lack of patriotism.”

f64a35a5b23f852cd5a1200b18848236“The more guns we have the safer we will all be,” scream the gun fanatics.  I have neighbors walking around in their yards with guns strapped on their hips.  I often see shoppers in some stores sporting revolvers and automatics on their belts.  Walmart’s has asked that shoppers do not open carry guns.  Do you know why?  It is because people get nervous when they see these idiots walking around with pistols on their belts.  I worry more about being shot by one of these jerks than I do by some armed robber.  In the event of a store robbery, I suspect I might be more likely to be shot by the so called “good guy with a gun.”

aiden-ftd

We can have countless and fruitless arguments over what and why the Founding Fathers included the 2nd Amendment.  We will never know, and it really does not matter.  We are not living in 1789.  What I do know is that a six-year-old child named Aiden was riding in a car seat with his mom who was driving him to kindergarten.  Suddenly Aiden exclaimed, “Mommy, my tommy hurts.”  Aiden Leos died before they could get him to a hospital.  He died when two assholes with guns decided to shoot at his car because of some perceived violation of their road rights.  The two assholes decided that their second amendment rights trumped the rights of Aiden and his family.

So shouldn’t we be able to drive on roads and freeways without fear of being shot? I say the answer is a resounding YES. So why allow guns in cars in the first place? Before Minnesota passed a law in 2005 to allow “law abiding” gun owners to carry guns around with them wherever they go, this was just not happening. Or if it was, it was pretty rare. Sure, some who have illegal guns have likely been carrying guns around all along. But now we have made it part of our every day culture as if it is normal.  

I am sick and tired of reading about these instances of insanity.  I am increasingly worried that one of these bizarre situations will befall someone I love or even my wife and me.  They are occurring with more and more frequency and more and more randomness.  No one is safe.  Carrying a gun on you does not make you safe.  Having a concealed carry permit does not make you safe.  Being a nice person and an honest citizen does not make you safe.  We are being victimized by lovers of the Second Amendment.  By neighbors who think that by arming themselves and everyone around them, we will all be safer.  Was anyone really ever stupid enough to belief this?  How much more evidence is needed to contradict any such assumptions?  What will it take for these morons who distort the Second Amendment to realize the dangers that they have brought to our country?

web_5a05f6c1c197dI admit that I have always liked guns, knives, rifles, and assorted military hardware.  However, I like them in their place.  Rifles for hunting when hunting is a sport and not a crap shoot like so much of it is today.  Baiting bears with donuts and then shooting them from a tree perch does not seem very sporting to me.  I like target shooting.  I enjoy shooting some black powder pistols that I own.  A friend gave me an old revolutionary style musket which is fun to shoot.  I do not shoot at squirrels or birds or rabbits.  I use it for target practice.  I am not against hunting deer, elk, and other animals for food.  Many people in rural areas depend on game animals to supplement their diets in lieu of costly meats at a grocery store.

Screen_Shot_2014-06-10_at_3.37.00_PM

The problem with guns comes when we ignore the unintended consequences of gun ownership.  When we create a climate where every idiot and moron in the country is carrying a gun.  Who are these idiots and morons you may well ask?  They are you and me and my friends and friends of my friends.  They are everyone who might get stressed out someday and lose their common sense.  They are people who become depressed and give up on life.  They are people who become so angry with perceived injustices that they want to strike out at anyone for revenge. They are everyone and anyone.  They are the man or woman or child that is walking down the street.  They are your mother, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, or best friend.  They are the quiet guy who lives down the block.  They are the helpful next-door neighbor.  They are the quiet student who sits in the back of the class.  They are the military recruit who somehow loses it and goes on a shooting rampage.

23905 (2)I don’t know who might kill you.  I don’t know when they might kill you.  I don’t know why they might kill you.  Best odds are that it will be totally random, and you will never see it coming.  You will never know when it will happen.  The statistics show that you have a 75 percent chance that if you are murdered it will be by a gun and not by poison or a knife.   (Number of homicide victims, by method used to commit the homicide)

The USA has become a warped and bastardized version of the “Old West.”  Gun advocates like to portray themselves as upholders of the “Code of the West.”  In their mystic interpretation of events, people walked around with guns wherever they went.  Supposedly this was because of the lack of “law and order.”  In reality, Most western towns had ordinances prohibiting carrying of guns in town.

  • There were few old-fashioned gun fights in a front facing mano a mano style.
  • Cowboys on the range did not wear their guns all day long but kept them in the chuck wagon.
  • The “old west of the cowboys and cattle drives” lasted less than fifty years.
  • Towns established police departments and law and order rules as quickly as they were able to as many of the new territories soon became states.

cjones03182018How then have we gone from sanity to insanity?  From being able to walk down a street or go to work or school and not worry about some nut case coming in and killing us?  When did America go from being a country with “Law and Order” to a country where everyone needs to carry a gun to protect themselves?  How have we let the politicians, NRA and gun manufacturers convince everyone that it is not safe to walk outside without a concealed carry permit and a Glock or Smith & Wesson hidden someplace beneath our bullet proof vest?

The answer is simple.  Eliminate fear.  Eliminate open and concealed carry laws.  Guns are for home protection and hunting.  We have created a country where there is no place to be safe anymore.  Everyone has the potential to be the next killer, or the next asshole gone crazy.  No amount of mental health training is going to stop the mad rampage of gun deaths in America.  The only thing that will stop this is when people realize the obvious.  Guns are not making us safer; they are killing us.

Updates since I wrote the above blog:

News from June 21, 2021, Minneapolis Star and Tribune

Gun violence
Ten mass shootings happened across the nation this weekend, leaving at least seven people dead and more than 40 injured. It was the latest in a streak of violent weekends in America. The weekend before this, there were also 10 mass shootings that left 12 people dead across seven states. (CNN defines a mass shooting as four or more people shot, not including the shooter.) This weekend’s violence included shootings at several parties and celebrations, including in California, Indiana and Colorado. According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have been 293 mass shootings in 2021 so far.

News from June 22, 2021, Minneapolis Star and Tribune

St. Cloud Professor Shot

St. Cloud University Professor Ed Ward was shot to death Sunday in his doorway in what police are calling a random incident…. Officers arrested the suspect and recovered the gun, and the suspect admitted to officers that he shot the victim.

3535– Tuesday, August 27, 2019 — Four Young Boys Growing Up in America, Part 2

27 Aug 2019 6 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , ,

images

Twenty years have gone by since we have left our four young men.  They have now each reached their 32nd year of life.  Not one of them will see their 33rd year of life. 

Whitaker had achieved everything his parents had wanted him to.  He had gone to college, taken over the family business, got married to a beautiful young debutante and now had two young children.  The oldest, a girl, was nine years old and a boy seven years old.  Whitaker loved his wife and children very much.  Like his parents, Whitaker joined the prestigious country club and was head of the planning committee for events.  

The investment business was going very well, and his many clients were always pleased with the way that that their accounts were growing.  Whitaker seemed to have a magic touch.  Everything that was bronze or copper, he could turn into silver or gold.  His family life was also picture perfect.  Two very well-mannered children and a stay at home wife who alternated time between home and working on various local committees to help the less fortunate in the community.   

It was a beautiful Saturday morning in May.  Apple blossoms were blooming, his wife was planning a dinner that evening with some club friends and his kids had their usual Saturday morning league sports.  Whitaker had breakfast with his family and kissed each of them goodbye.  He took his golf bag and left for the country club.  There was some business to attend to with the planning committee he told everyone and if he had enough time, he might get in a round of golf. 

manual safety

Whitaker arrived at the club around 9 AM.  He greeted some friends upon arrival and then went up to an office that he kept in a private room at the club.  He entered the office and locked the door.  He walked over to his desk and sat down.  From a locked drawer in his desk, he removed a Ruger 9 mm automatic pistol.  He looked at it for a minute as though undecided but finally he flicked the safety off.   Whitaker put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger.  He died instantly.  Club members hearing the loud report rushed up to the room.  They had to batter the door down and when they entered, they found Whitaker slumped over his desk and quite dead. 

Jamal was heading to the country club about the time that Whitaker decided to depart this life.  Jamal had gone to college and obtained a law degree.  He had married the woman of his dreams and now had a set of five-year-old twin girls.  Jamal was a brilliant orator and could remember facts and figures that would astonish his listeners.  His law firm had prospered, and he now had two partners and more clients than even they could handle. 

Jamal had moved from the inner city to a well-manicured upscale home in the elite section of town.  He had a swimming pool, jacuzzi, a three-car garage and two large stone fireplaces.  Although never much of an athlete, he had taken up golf and joined the most prestigious country club in the city. 

This Saturday morning, he had packed his bags in an old beater car that he kept, kissed his wife and kids goodbye and headed off for a round of golf at the country club.  Despite having a Porsche, he always felt more comfortable in the old beater.  He told himself that driving it would keep him humble and help him to remember where he had come from.  He did not want to have his newfound wealth and status go to his head. 

As he headed to the country club through the expensive homes and gardens that dominated this area of town, he soon noticed a police car following closely behind him.  Then, the lights started swirling and the sirens started blaring.  “Pull over” a voice from the police car demanded.   Jamal pulled to the curb as did the police car.  A uniformed officer came over to Jamal and asked him what he was doing in this area.  Jamal still unperturbed, replied that he was going to play golf at the country club. 

The officer had received word of a shooting at the club and seeing a black man in an old car driving through this area had raised his suspicions.  “Step out of the car please,” he asked.  This was a little too much now for Jamal.  “Sir, I am a lawyer and I belong to the local country club.  What do I need to step out for?”  “Because I told you to sir,” replied the officer. 

Jamal had not been treated this way in a long time.  He was now feeling pretty angry, not to mention the potential embarrassment at being put up against his car within one mile of his country club.   Jamal spoke “I am not getting out of this car.”  The officer now quite irritated, unbuckled and drew his 10 mm Glock.  “Get out of the car, right now,” the officer demanded.

glock

Jamal swung the car door open, stepped out and started to walk away.  The officer shouted “Stop, Stop, Stop.”  Jamal either not hearing or not caring continued on walking down the street.   Suddenly, three loud blasts echoed throughout the neighborhood as the officer pulled the trigger of his pistol three times.  Each shot hit Jamal squarely in the back.  The first shot was enough though since it went through Jamal’s scapula, then his heart and lodged against a rib.  The next two shots were superfluous as Jamal was already dead when he hit the ground.  

Robert was fed up with life.  Nothing had gone right for him.  He had flunked out of high school and then got kicked out of the Army because of some asshole with more stripes than he had.  He had got married and had three children.  He came home early one day from a construction job and found his wife in bed with his best friend.  She took the kids and left.  Truth be told, he did not really give a dam.  His wife was an asshole, his best friend was a jerk and his kids were a pain in the butt. 

Things were looking up though.  It was Saturday.  The weather was fine, and he had the day off from his new job at the nearby cement plant.  The outdoor rifle range had opened.  Robert had bought a new rifle and was excited about taking it to the range and trying it out.  It was a Kel-Tec RDB 5.56 Bullpup.  Robert had purchased an optional fifty round magazine and one thousand rounds of ammunition.  He thought it would be more than enough ammo for a fun morning at the firing range. 

Robert arrived at the range and found that all twenty-four firing lanes were already occupied.  He looked around for the Range Master to see if he might have any idea when a lane would be opened.  It was a new Range Master, whom Robert did not know.  He was surly and brusque and replied that he did not have the slightest idea when a firing lane would open.  His manner really pissed Robert off.  Robert told him “I have been a member of this range for ten years; you should be more respectful to members.”  The Range Master laughed and told Robert that as far as he was concerned, he could take his business elsewhere. 

Something snapped at that moment in Robert.  Everywhere he turned, people treated him with disrespect and like he was dirt.  This was the final straw.  He would show the world that he was somebody and that no one could push him around.  Robert packed up his rifle and ammo and left.  He had made a decision that would change his life forever.

bullpup

Robert drove to the large indoor shopping mall just a few miles from where he lived.  He knew it would be packed on a Saturday morning.  He arrived and parked in a handicapped parking lot.  “Fuck, them too” he thought as he walked away and left the keys in the car.  He entered the mall through a side door and proceeded to take an escalator to the top floor.  Upon getting up to the second level, he took the gun off of his shoulder and surveyed the tableau in front of him.  Lots of kids with their moms.  Mothers pushing strollers.  Fathers walking holding their young children.  Teenagers hanging out with their friends and their ever-present cell phones.  “Fuck them all,” reflected Robert as he aimed his rifle at a nearby couple on the first floor and started pulling the trigger.

As soon as the first shots rang out, pandemonium reined.  Parents screamed and kids were running everywhere.  Robert kept aiming and firing, rather heedless of whom he was firing at.  Fortunately, security guards were close to where Robert sat and seeing him, they quickly opened fire.  Robert had already killed six people and wounded at least twenty-five others.  He knew his time was up, but he reflected, he would go out on his own terms.  He put the Bullpup under his chin and pulled the trigger.  The rifle blew the top of his skull off and Robert died instantly. 

Jack woke up this beautiful Saturday morning thinking how wonderful life was.  He had a great wife and a young five-year-old son.  His career since finishing college had gone very well.  He worked for a successful computer firm and had recently been promoted to a district manager position.  He lived in a nice house in a modest suburban neighborhood, not far from where he had grown up. 

He was making a list of chores to do this Saturday when his wife asked him if he could run a few errands for her.  She had the job of doing the Sunday fellowship snacks for their local church and was going to be busy doing some baking this day.  Would Jack get some more sugar and eggs at the local grocery store?  “Sure” Jack said.  He started to get his keys when his young son began to shout “Daddy, daddy, can I go with you.”  “Of course,” replied Jack. “Get your coat and let’s go.”

They climbed in the car and drove to the supermarket where Jack quickly found the sugar and eggs and some other food items.  Upon heading back to the car, Jack told his son: “Lets go to the mall and we will find a nice birthday gift for your mom since her birthday is next week.  You can help me to pick it out.”  His young son thought that was a fun idea and both dad and son headed for the nearby mall.

Upon arriving at the mall, they walked down a large open aisle looking in store windows along the way.  Jack requested his son to keep his eyes open for something that he thought his mom would like.   A loud sound like thunder broke the thoughts going through Jacks’ head.  Jack quickly realized that the echoing sounds were the sounds of gunfire.  He pushed his young son down on the floor and threw his body over his son. 

556

That was the last effort that Jack ever took in this life.  A 5.56 caliber bullet entered Jack’s front chest and penetrated his heart.  His young son felt the life go out of his father and started crying.  When the medics arrived, Jack had been dead for ten minutes. 

  • More than 38,000 men, women, and children are killed with guns each year in the United States.
  • Over 85,000 people are injured every year.
  • More than half of all gun deaths are suicides.
  • Among high-income countries, the United States accounts for 80 percent of all gun deaths in the world, 86 percent of all women killed by guns, and 87 percent of all children younger than 14 who are killed by guns.

  Giffords-Stats-Page-Breakdown

 

Will a Gun Help in a Gun Fight or Why the Bad Guys Often Beat the Good Guys?

18 Jan 2016 3 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

gunpoint1I am a military veteran.  I have hunted and shot a variety of rifles, revolvers and automatic weapons.  I am not against guns.  As an American, I am very concerned about the amount of gun violence in our country.  However, I am even more concerned because too often it seems like the “Bad” guys win and the “Good” guys lose.  Over the past twenty years, I have studied and read about many of the gun battles that have taken place in history.  From cowboy shootouts, to holdups, to police shootouts such as the Newhall massacre and the Miami-Dade FBI debacle, I have read these stories in an attempt to find the underlying reasons for the good guys losing and the bad guys winning.   My blog this week is about the risks and rewards that might accrue from carrying a gun.  As with any tool or piece of technology, there are pros and cons to its use.  In the case of guns, the nexus of these factors can be best characterized as “risk.”  There is a risk.  Carrying a gun is a risk.  Not carrying a gun is a risk.  What are the risks?  When do the advantages outweigh the risks?  These are the questions that my blog will look at this week.  Hopefully, you will be able to make an informed decision about the issue of gun carry and gun control after you read my blog.  Too many people are preaching the advantages of gun carry without looking at the risks and downsides.

My study of violent gun encounters has led me to see that the issues most people consider in a gun encounter do not adequately address the situation.  There is no comprehensive theory of what it takes to win in a gun battle.  Too often, gun advocates think that merely carrying a weapon will insure success or that weeks on the firing range will make a difference in a gun encounter.  Several recent simulated gun battles have shown that this is not the case.  All too often, the bad guys still win.  Why?   A good theory should answer this question.  Furthermore a good theory should allow us to study the critical factors and identify ways to enhance these factors for the good guys or deny these factors to the bad guys.  Until this can be done, both the people for guns and the people against guns are stating their cases from purely emotional viewpoints.  A good theory supersedes emotions and passions by substituting facts and data for feelings and grief.

I propose that a successful gun encounter will depend on six factors.  I will list and explain each of these factors.  These six factors will make up what I am calling a model for a successful gun encounter.  I will also suggest three scenarios to see how this model might be able to predict the outcome of each scenario.  The three scenarios will include:

  1. A lone wolf terrorist shooting in a full capacity stadium or a large hall.
  2. A home invasion with the intent of robbery.
  3. An attempted holdup on the street by a bunch of thugs.

The six factors are:

  1. Speed
  2. Accuracy
  3. Firepower
  4. Offensive Position
  5. Defensive Position
  6. Nerve

In developing this model, I have toyed with the idea of some factors “weighing” more than other factors.  However, this does not seem like a valid proposition.  It is more likely that no single factor can be a deciding factor and that regardless of how strong any single factor is, it will depend on the relative strength of each of the other factors.  Thus, no one factor in itself can decide the outcome of a gun battle. This fact alone is interesting since so much of the gun literature is involved in arguing whether you should carry a 10mm or a 44 magnum.  I have read countless articles on whether a home owner should have a revolver or automatic weapon.  The authors spend hours arguing about which is a more effective deterrent and ignore the other five critical variables.  My model thus proposes that each variable or factor is a critical determinant of the outcome of a gun encounter.  Let us look at each variable.

  1. Speed

western gunfightIt is a well known fact that in the Old West gun battle speed did not always determine the outcome of the encounter.  Speed without accuracy is useless.  Speed without firepower may also be useless.  It is often said “do not bring a knife to a gun battle.”  Nevertheless, deployment of a weapon and the speed with which a weapon can be deployed is a key factor in the success of a gun battle.  Numerous scenarios show a knife fighter killing a gun fighter because within a certain distance, the knife fighter with a fixed blade weapon may trump the gun fighter owing to the speed of deployment.  A key problem in home invasions may be the speed with which the homeowner can access and deploy his weapons.  The invader may have the advantage because they come in with a weapon in hand while the responsible gun owner may have his gun in a locked safe.  The invader will probably not wait for the home owner to access his safe key, load and chamber his weapon and fire.

  1. Accuracy

This factor requires relatively little discussion.  If you cannot hit what you are aiming at, no amount of speed or fire power will compensate, unless of course you are throwing a bomb which is not a factor that we are considering here.  This is one area where practice and gun range time can make a difference in the outcome of the gun encounter.  However, accuracy also must take into consideration the weapons used.  Generally at longer differences, a rifle will be more accurate than a pistol.  This latter fact might nullify any advantage of concealed carry in the event of a terrorist scenario where they are armed with assault rifles.  A concealed carry holder will not have much accuracy beyond fifty feet or even less with some pistol models.

  1. Firepower

The gun magazines have published hundreds if not thousands of articles in the pages of their magazines arguing over the best rounds to use for self-defense.   But ballistics size is only one factor.  As noted above, the accuracy of a round is a critical factor as well. Furthermore, firepower does not just depend on the caliber of the weapon.  Firepower also includes the timing and amount of ballistics that can be delivered in a given time frame.  Obviously two bad guys with assault rifles with fifty round clips will have much more firepower than a good guy carrying a Colt 1911 or a Glock 10mm.

  1. Offensive Position

Offensive position is defined by asking “How easily can you make the shot?”  The better your offensive position, the easier it will be to hit your assailant.  Someone may have a strong offensive position but a weak defensive position.  The converse is also true.  You can have a strong offensive position but little ability to avoid being shot.  Charging a pill box is one example that comes to mind.  Surprisingly many gun battles have seen the assailant simply charge their attackers.  This is one reason many experts recommend a strong enough ballistic to take down an opponent.

  1. Defensive Position

A strong defensive position can be defined by asking “How easily can I avoid the shot?” The stronger your defensive position, the more difficult it will be for your assailant to shoot you.  You can have a strong defensive position but have no ability to make a shot.  The optimum in a gun battle is to secure both a strong offensive position and a strong defensive position.  However, as with everything in life, this is not always possible.

  1. Nerve

The gun battle with the Boston Marathon suspects was described by police officers as “eight minutes of sheer terror.”  Put yourself in their place.  Loud explosions, people screaming, smoke clouding the air, visions of blood splattering around you, more explosions, more screaming, suddenly you see your friend hit by a round, he is covered in blood and something gory is leaking from his gut.  More screams, more explosions.  You can see hardly anything now because of the smoke.  You can’t hear anything except explosions, sirens and screams.  But you must be calm because that is the only way you can fight back.

Marine Lance Corporal Anthony Andrada who had served in the Iraq War was asked to compare violent video games to a real life combat situation.  Here is what he said:

“The games attempt to show how realistic the war situation is, but in the end, it’s just a game and not really what war is really like.  They are all more of just shoot and move type games.” Even though these games may look and sound realistic to a degree, Andrada says, “The feeling of real danger isn’t there.”  He adds, “During dangerous missions, I constantly feel uneasy and on guard at all times.”  Furthermore, he says the games do not capture aspects of daily life that include the “fatigue of going out for long hours and daily stresses.”  Due to the inherent limitations of the medium, Andrada believes that videogames don’t implement this sense of uneasiness because “they can’t.”  — What Do Real Soldiers Think of Shooting Games?

Dave Spaulding in an excellent article in Handguns titled “What Really Happens in a Gunfight?” describes his observations from twenty-five years of lethal force investigations and talks with over 200 individuals who had survived a gun fight.  He states:

“The various phases of body alarm reaction that have been discussed over the years such as tunnel vision, slow motion movement, loss of digital dexterity and the like, were all recalled by the subjects interviewed. None of the people I spoke with remember suffering all phases, but everyone remembers suffering at least one of the sensations listed under the category of body alarm reaction. Those that understood what was happening to them better handled the sensation during the encounter versus the people who did not. Without a doubt, forewarned is forearmed.”

The famous western pistoleer, Wild Bill Hickok, once noted that it was one thing to shoot at a target, but another thing to shoot at a man who was shooting back at you.  Gun fighting takes strong nerves.  This is perhaps the most subjective factor in my model.  At least theoretically, all of the other five factors could be measured.  However, I know of no way that “nerve” has ever been measured before the fact or any way that it could be measured.

Applying the Six Factor Gun Encounter Model

I want to show how the model could be used to study various gun encounters by using the three scenarios I mentioned above and applying the model to each one.  One argument that probably will be made to my choices of decision factors is that I am biased.  That is why, I am trying to make this model very transparent.  Consider my evaluations of the various scenarios using my model and then go ahead and score the scenario yourself.  See what you come up with for scores and outcomes.

Lone Wolf Shooter:

texas tower shootingThe first scenario we will look at involves a “lone wolf” shooter in a packed theater or hall.  Whether the shooter is mentally ill or a terrorist is irrelevant to the scenario.  We will assume the shooter has put on a Kevlar vest and has a Colt AR 15 .223 caliber assault rifle as well as a Glock 40 caliber side arm.  He has several extra clips for both weapons.  Our good guy is in the hall someplace carrying a concealed 9mm Beretta with no extra clips

Here is how I would rate the situation using the Six Factor Gun Encounter Model: I am going to simply score it as + for an advantage, – for a disadvantage and 0 for no advantage.  I will explain my reasoning below.

Key Factors Bad Guy Good Guy
Speed + –
Accuracy + –
Fire Power + –
Offensive Position – 0
Defensive Position – +
Nerve + +

Speed, I gave the advantage to the bad guy since he came out shooting.  Accuracy goes to the bad guy and firepower as well due to his choice of weapons.  Offensive position is poor for the bad guy but the good guy has no advantage since he/she is pinned down.  Defensive position is also poor for the bad guy and our good guy may have an advantage assuming that he is concealed and the bad guy does not have any knowledge that he has a weapon.  The problem for our good guy will be in deploying his advantage in this area which he will not be able to do unless he can get within an offensive position to use his weapon.  Nerve, I will score equal and that is being somewhat generous.  We know that the bad guys seldom lack the nerve, since their rampage is already a fact, but can our good guy face down the bad guy in a hail of bullets and blood?

I score this scenario 4-2 for the bad guy.  I would give our good guy at best 10-1 odds against being able to prevail in this scenario.  Now, what good is this model?  Can it only help us after the fact? Does it only tell us things that we already know?  Can we use this model to develop alternate strategies for our good guys that will help them prevail?  I believe the answer is yes.  Let us look at what would be the best options for out good guy in this scenario.

We are not going to be able to change our choice of weapons.  Thus, any strategies will have to address the factors of position and nerve.  Nerve is important here because our good guy needs to ask himself if he wants to do more than just survive, which would entail one set of strategies or does he want to try to be a hero and bring down the bad guy at a higher risk to himself.  If he/she chooses the first option, he must find the best defensive position he can and simply stay there until an offensive opening occurs.  If he/she chooses the second option, then he/she must find a way to develop a better offensive position without compromising his defensive position.  He must develop a position that will nullify the advantages of firepower and accuracy that the bad guy has.  This will not be easy.

Home Invasion:

Home-Invasion-Defense-Plan5A friend of mine recently sent me the following story.  Very similar to a home invasion but it involved a couple in a hotel room.

“Just watched an interview between a news show host and a couple in their sixties, who had recently been assaulted in a “reputable” motel chain!  The man was exiting the shower and saw his wife trying to fend off an attack by a gun wielding assailant.  He was able to eventually reach his handgun located in the nightstand, and a firefight ensued at a distance of less than five feet.  The criminal was overcome, but the husband was shot three times and sustained injuries that require continued operations!  The couple are suing the motel chain for not notifying them of the inherent danger in what proved to be a high risk area.” — CNN News Report

I was able to find the actual interview and can add the following facts from reading the report noted above:

  • Assailant was killed by the good guy
  • Assailant was attempting armed robbery and wanted money and valuables
  • Gun battle happened when robber opened fire first
  • Good guy was shot three times. Once in leg and twice in abdomen
  • Good guy somehow accessed two handguns he and wife carried but had concealed in the room and/or her purse

I would rate this scenario as follows:

Key Factors Bad Guy Good Guy
Speed + –
Accuracy – +
Fire Power – +
Offensive Position 0 0
Defensive Position 0 0
Nerve + +

The bad guy gets the nod for speed since his gun was already deployed.  The good guy was the better shot and had two guns to the bad guy’s one so he gets the nod for accuracy and firepower. Neither side had a defensive or offensive advantage and were shooting at each other from a distance of five feet.  I give both sides’ equal score for nerve, but perhaps a slight edge to our good guy who was fighting to protect himself and his wife.

Although this scenario shows a win for the good guy at 3-2, an additional question might be at what cost?  In this case, our good guy is severely wounded and his wife could have been killed.  For what?  Some money and some jewelry in a hotel room.  Given the odds in this scenario, which slightly favored our good guy, one should ask if the outcome was worth the engagement as it played out.  I think our good guy would have been better off giving the bad guy what he wanted and then engaging him as he departed the room.  The factors above suggest that a more reasonable encounter would have found our good guy looking for a more advantageous strategic position both offensively and defensively.  It was only a certain element of luck that one or both of our good guys were not killed instead of the bad guy.  I personally think the risk was not worth it in this scenario, but that a more thoughtful analysis of the factors could have led to a better outcome.

Street Mugging:

You and your boyfriend have just left the movie theater after a 9 PM show.  It is now about 11 PM and you have two blocks to walk to your car.  You are carrying a concealed weapon in a specially designed purse but your boyfriend is not carrying.  As you walk down the block, you notice two guys coming towards you.  They look in their early twenties or late teens and both are somewhat unkempt looking.  As they approach you, one of them stops in front of you and asks you for light?  You begin to explain that you don’t smoke, when he suddenly pulls a gun and starts yelling for you to “give it up.”  Your boyfriend is bewildered and starts to take out his wallet while you try to calm both perps down a bit.  “OK, don’t hurt us, we will give you anything you want.”  The perp replies:  “You bet your ass you will or we will cap both of you mothas.”   What do you do?

I would rate the scenario as follows: (Assuming the situation remains relatively the same.”

Key Factors Bad Guy Good Guy
Speed + –
Accuracy 0 0
Fire Power + 0
Offensive Position 0 0
Defensive Position 0 0
Nerve + +

Newtown2I give the bad guys the + for speed since they already have their weapons deployed.  The good guys have no advantage for either firepower or accuracy since they are standing face to face with the bad guys and even a 22 caliber can be deadly.  Neither side has either a defensive or offensive position with a significant advantage, except to note that the bad guy already has his gun out. However, we already gave him a + for speed and firepower.  In terms of nerve, we will assume that both sides have equal nerve.  Thus, as the scenario stands, the bad guys have the edge 3-1.  The good guys need to stand down until they can change the scales.  Can they shoot the bad guys as they run or walk away?  What are the repercussions should they do so?  This is an interesting legal question that might be answered very differently from state to state.  In most states, once you are no longer in bodily jeopardy, you cannot shoot an assailant as they are fleeing, regardless of how much of your money they have.

What can we conclude?

So what can we conclude from my model?  What differences if any would such logic make in a real gun fight?  I think we can draw the following conclusions with some degree of reasonableness.

  1. Carrying a gun does not necessarily confer any advantage
  2. When the bad guys have the advantage, you are at high risk by drawing your gun
  3. It is critical to wait until you have a distinct edge in one or more of the six factors described otherwise the risk is too high to risk drawing your gun.
  4. If you think the perps are going to kill you no matter what you do, then you must develop a rapid advantage in at least one factor or you are going to die anyway.
  5. A good guy with a gun does not mean he/she will beat a bad guy with a gun.

Where do we go from here?

I started this paper by making an argument that most considerations of gunfights as they are described in gun magazines are too superficial and do not realistically consider the key factors other than the weapon that are essential to a successful gun encounter.  I believe this is true whether on the street, in the home, in a war zone or in a private venue of some sort.  The initial advantage will be with the bad guys.  The good guys must consider all six factors and attempt to manage these to his/her advantage.  Failure to do so, will result in death for the good guys.

I hope this paper will start a dialogue that might lead to more varieties of strategies than simply carrying a concealed weapon as a solution to crime and violence.  The thought that concealed carry will make our streets and home safer is both naïve and dangerous.  Gun battles are won not simply by having a gun but by having a strategic advantage during the gun fight.

Time for Questions:

Are you willing to shoot someone to protect your property?  Your life?  Do you carry a concealed weapon?  If so, have you ever had to use it to protect yourself?  Do you think guns have made America a safer country? Why or Why not?  What do you think it would take to make you feel safer on the streets at night?

Life is just is beginning.

The UK counter-terror officials have issued new official guidance for citizens to follow in the case of a Paris-style gun and bomb attack. The document outlines what to do in “response to a fast-moving incident such as a firearms or weapons attack” and also advises businesses to develop procedures for a “dynamic lockdown”.

The document is based on observations following the assault on Bataclan music hall where terrorists barged in and fired indiscriminately at the crowd.

Guidance says that it is better to “escape if you can”, “insist others leave with you” and “leave belongings behind”.

If there are no escape routes, then the best thing to do would be to find cover from the gunfire behind “substantial brickwork or heavy reinforced walls”. It should be noted that cover does not mean that you are safe as bullets can go through materials such as glass, brick, wood and metal.

First – Run, leave belongings behind and get yourself as far away as possible from the attacker

Second – Hide, find a cover from gunfire, but at all times be aware of your exits and try not to get trapped. Make sure your phone is silenced. Lock and barricade yourself somewhere but move away from the door.

Third – Call the police and inform them of the location and description of attackers. Stop others from entering the premises.

 

Bring Back Legalized Dynamite!  Fight Crime!  End Violence in the Streets!

29 Jun 2015 Leave a comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , ,

dynamite bomb isolated on white

dynamite bomb isolated on white

How many of you remember the good old days in America?  When dynamite was legal and you could carry it in your bib overalls?  When men were men and women were women and Blacks stayed on their side of the street.  There was no such thing as a minority and you could still smoke a good cigar anyplace you wanted to.

Once upon a time, it was legal to carry dynamite but then the government do-gooders decided to take our dynamite away.  The faggot pinko commie intellectual commie pinko faggot government bureaucrats decided that the common people should not be allowed to carry dynamite.  These 2nd Amendment deniers and dynamite control advocates pushed the US Congress to pass a bill that would heavily regulate dynamite in all fifty states.  It was a bad day for 2nd Amendment advocates and responsible dynamite owners.  The ADA (America Dynamite Association) did their best to prevent the passing of this bill.

“Those who use the sword will die by the sword. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”  Matthew 26:52

she-s-dynamite-costumeThe ADA started a national campaign to protect our Second Amendment rights.  They sent out millions of flyers to alert the common people to the fact that their rights were being taken away.  The flyers said “When dynamite is allowed, only outlaws will have dynamite.” This slogan became the rallying cry for advocates of legalized dynamite throughout the nation.  It was also widely proclaimed that “dynamite saves lives” and that homes which were protected by dynamite were 75% less likely to be invaded.  Alas, it did no good.  Even with the support of many Republicans, Right Wing Talk show hosts and several noted cowboy actors, the bill was approved and dynamite became a federally regulated substance.

“I go out to buy a gun to make my family safer.  This way I can protect them from crooks, burglars, bad guys, drug addicts, rapists, minorities, illegal immigrants, terrorists and anyone who wants what I have.  Sounds like a good idea right?” 

Today, dynamite is so heavily regulated that you cannot simply go into a hardware store to get your dynamite anymore.  We can see the negative effects of this regulation everywhere.  Here are some examples.

Fishing and Hunting

accidents-18You can no longer use dynamite while fishing or hunting.  Once upon a time, every fisherman and hunter carried a stick of dynamite with them.  All you had to do was simply drop a stick of dynamite into your nearby lake and you could get as many trophy fish as your boat could carry.  Deer kills have also gone down.  It was a lot easier to get your deer limit with dynamite.  You would just wait in your deer stand until a herd of deer came by and while they were gathered around your salt lick, you could drop a stick of dynamite into the middle of the gathering and you would get two or three deer with a single blast.  They have taken all the fun and sport out of fishing and hunting.

“Except for one thing!  My wife now needs to buy a gun to be safer as well.  Do you know why? Well, more wives are shot by their husbands then by strangers or terrorists or minorities or psychopaths, unless you want to count husbands who murder their wives as psychopaths.” 

Parties and July 4th Celebrations

But even worse and more intrusive in respect to our 2nd Amendment rights, you can no longer use dynamite at your local 4th of July celebration or your child’s birthday party.  Kids all over America are now deprived of their basic rights to see a mega-blast at their parties and family celebrations.  Now they have to settle for those wimped up things that they call fireworks today. Believe me when I say, the old dynamite did a much better job than these stupid sparklers and bottle rockets.

Crime and Punishment

duckyousucker_610_407shar_s_c1Finally, it is a well-known fact that since dynamite has become federally regulated crime has gone up, abortions have gone up, divorce has gone up and less people are now going to church on Sunday.   I have interviewed many experts from the ADA over this subject and most tell me that the problems in America seemed to start with the regulation of dynamite.  More Americans now feel less protected on the streets at night without their dynamite.  There once was a time when people could walk the streets at night, comfortable with the fact that no one would bother them because they carried their dynamite in a well concealed spot.  Today, crooks no longer fear dynamite.  The average citizen has been left naked and vulnerable to the deprivations and assault of any would be criminal.

Send two dollars to the ADA to help fight dynamite control.

Time for Questions:

Do you belong to the NDA?  Why Not?  Are you pro or con dynamite control?  What do you think society would be like if everyone could carry concealed dynamite?  What about our 2nd Amendment rights?

Life is just beginning.

First they start with dynamite and before you know it they will be banning p-shooters and water pistols.

God, Guns and Gays

06 Apr 2015 6 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Have you noticed the increase in guns in the USA?  The increase in concealed carry laws and the increase in handguns sold seems to be paralleled by the increase in Gay marriage laws and the increase in Gay rights.  I bet most of you did not notice this fact.  I think it suggests something very obvious:  Gays are pushing for more guns on the streets because “Handguns lead to more Gay rights.”  That’s right folks, those people pushing for more permissive gun laws are the same people pushing for more Gay rights.  Fags want guns so that we will become powerless when they take over the USA.  (Listen to “Probably Gay, the Homophobia Song”)    alg-gay-marriage-jpg

“Any person 21 years of age or older, who is not prohibited possessor, may carry a weapon openly or concealed without the need for a license….A political subdivision may not enact any ordinance, rule or tax affecting the ownership, transportation, possession, purchase, transfer or use of firearms or ammunition.  In addition, a political subdivision of this state shall not require or maintain a record, list or database containing the personally identifying information of the person who buys, sells, leaves for repair or consignment or leaves for temporary storage, any weapon owned by that person.”  —- Arizona Gun Law — NRA -ILA

That’s right!  It’s a plot by homosexuals (people who have only one sex) to subvert the USA and turn us into a country dominated by Gays who will have all the guns.  I will bet you did not notice that the guy you just saw walking around with the big Glock strapped to his belt was a Fag!  I have noticed that down here in Arizona with the most permissive gun laws in the USA that Gay men all have guns.  I am worried that I will be forced to suck cock by a Gay male with a big gun and thereby turned into a raving homosexual.  It is really scary.  I no longer feel safe on the street at night.  And did you know that it is all because of the religious right?

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
“Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.” 

GAY MARRIAGE OPPONENT HOLDS SIGN IN PROTEST OUTSIDE STATEHOUSEThat’s right!  The religious right is behind Gay rights.  The religious right have created this problem with all their pompous ravings about God hating fags.  Now all the fags are getting guns to protect themselves from Gay hating gun toting Christians.  “When guns are allowed only Gays will have guns.”  More and more we keep hearing about how God has condemned Gays to a barren-less existence.  Gays cannot go to heaven.  Gays will be punished.  Gays cannot propagate.  Gays cannot spread the word of God or at least create more Gays or something like that.

After thinking and worrying about this problem for some time, I have decided to go right to the source of the problem.  That’s right, God!  If my pastor, priest, rabbi, swami, minister, shaman, or imam all say that God hates Fags, then I am going to find out why.  What has got God’s drawers all wadded up about Gays?  Was God molested by a Fag when he was young?  Or is God a closet Fag who has a subliminal hatred towards Gays because he/she (God just might be a Lesbian Fag) cannot admit his own sexuality.  Which way does God roll?   I have invited God down for an interview.  She/he graciously accepted.  The following is our conversation. TheInterviewWithGod

John:  Thank you God for accepting my invitation to come down and talk to us today.

God:  No problem John.  I was just creating a few more universes.  Something I do in my spare time.

John:  Sounds like fun. I will bet that keeps you really busy.

God:  Not as busy as you might think. It only takes about six days and then I rest on the seventh.

John:  Well, I invited you here today to clarify a few points.  The major point is about homosexuals, fags, lesbians and Gays.

God:  Happy to answer any questions you have John.

John:  Well, there are many people who believe that the Bible is your word and in the Bible are many references to your hatred and animosity towards Gay people.

God:  Look John, I don’t deny that I gave some guidance to you people down here when it came to how to live a proper life, but you know as well as I do how screwed up communication can get.  “He said, she said, I said” and before you know it “God is against Gays.”  This Bible you talk about is not a very consistent book and much of what is in there is folklore or comes from your own twisted human interpretations of what I told the prophets.

John:  Let me give you a quote directly from the Bible:

gay men“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.” — Lev. 20:13

God:   Did not your prophet Jesus say that I was a God of Love?  Why would I want anyone to be put to death?  You people down here have a penchant for killing.  I gave you all free will and you use it to maim, attack, hurt, malign, and murder with any number of rationales for your actions.  I created some people who are Gay and some who are straight.  Do you not think that I who have the power to create Heaven and Earth could have simply not created Gay people?

John:  Do you mean to say God that you could have just created all straight people and not put any Gay people on the planet Earth?

God:  What do you think John? I have created stars, galaxies, planets and universes beyond your imagination.  I created the first plants, animals and humans.  Could I not have simply created a planet with all Gay people or all straight people?  Did I need to let you have sex organs to populate your small planet?  Could I not have simply created six billion humans with no penchant or ability for sexual activity?

John:  Ah! I am glad you raised the issue of sexuality.  Can you tell me “why did you make us sexual creatures?”

God:  Isn’t the answer obvious John?  Look at all the fun you have with sex!  Sex is your biggest recreational activity.  And sometimes you get children out of these unions and sometimes you don’t.  Sex is fun anyway.  It says in your Bible that sex is for procreation but millions of you have sex every night with no intention of procreation.  In fact, from where I view the Earth, millions of you have sex every night with people whom you are not even married to and this when many of you are already married.

John:  Why create the possibility of recreating ourselves?  You could have simply made us immortal or simply replaced each of us as we died.  This would have saved a lot of problems for the human race.

God:  Have you not noticed how many of you love children?  I wanted to make life interesting for you.  What would your lives be without the children that many of you have?  Your children make you into mini-gods.  Parents are the gods to their children, like I am the parent to you.  I am your God and I am your parent.  But I never said that everybody would have children nor that there would not be many children without parents. There are good parents and bad parents.  That is the free will that I created for humanity.

John:  Well, Gays cannot have children through the natural birth process.

God:  So what!  Are there not many people who give up their children or children who do not have parents?  Many of you humans are not fit to be parents.

John:  Sounds like you are saying that you don’t have anything against homosexuality.

God:  I created homosexuals, bisexuals, heterosexuals, asexuals and many other kinds of sexuals. These are all my creations.  What is it your Bible says about God’s Creations?

“He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end. I know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good in one’s lifetime.”— Ecclesiastes 3:11

I did not say I made anything ugly or anything without a purpose.  You might never understand my reasons or purposes because they are beyond human understanding.

Think-about-it-gay-rights-33482870-430-336John:   Well God, we have a lot of people down here speaking in your name that are preaching hatred for Gays as well as preaching many other types of hatreds.

God:   I sent Jesus to straighten this all out but you simply crucified him.  Nailed him to a cross.

John:  Could you send someone else down to tell all these would be Christians to leave Gay people alone and let them live their own lives?

God:  Look around and you will see that I already have.  You humans have hard hearts unless of course one of your own is Gay and then that seems to change everything.  I may have made a mistake when I gave you all free will because you seem to use it mostly for doing evil rather than doing good.

John:  Would you send another flood or perhaps a large earthquake or meteor to destroy the world and start over?

God:  Perhaps, but only if I thought things were so hopeless here and that everything you were doing was evil.  I still see a great deal of potential in humanity.  There are many good people among you who spread love and not hate.  Many of you who are not Gay haters or religious bigots or racists or zealots. I would never destroy your world when there are so many good people trying to make my world a better place.

John:  Then to summarize.  You don’t hate Gays?

god loves everyoneGod:  I have no concept of the word “hate.”  You are all my creatures.  Everything that crawls, digs, walks, swims or flies is something that I created and something that I love. 

John:  Thank you God for taking the time to meet with us today and give us your thoughts. 

Time for Questions:

Do you hate Gays? Why?  Do you think Gays should not be allowed to marry? Why? If you do not hate Gays, what do you do to help them in their fight against prejudice and discrimination?  You cannot sit on the fence and do nothing.

Life is just beginning.

“Perhaps we should worry less about judging people for being Mormon or Baptist or Muslim or gay or straight or black or white or Latino or by their religious or political brands and worry more about electing thoughtful, serious and ethical politicians on both sides of the political isle who are willing to work together for progress.” —- Charity Sunshine Tillemann-Dick

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.” —- Barack Obama

 

 

 

 

 

Previous Older Entries