I like to argue. A lot.

In college, I was invited to join our two-time defending national champion forensics team. Naturally, that involved a trip to D.C., so naturally, I dropped out of school instead.

But I kept arguing.

Except now, I’m not an idiot 20-year-old, and I’ve distilled my focus down to a single issue — the single issue: gun rights.

It’s a good fit.

Too bad it’s mostly a giant waste of time.

After all, the practical outcome of any argument with a #GunSense* advocate is this little beauty right here:

While the above represents perhaps the deepest, most profoundly meaningful treatise on the nature of fundamental human rights and interaction that’s capable of being conveyed in four words or less**, it usually takes an actual living brain on the other side to piece together its multilayered implications.

So Gonzales is and always will be the TL;DR of the never-ending gun debate.

If you’re like me, though, that TL;DR mic drop is considerably less fun than wading waist-deep into the Stupid. You probably view anti-gun zealots on the Internet just as I do: a sort of shooting gallery to test and refine your own logic and internal consistency. They are practice. This series, then, is for you, and in each new part, I’ll be discussing a single debate tactic or gambit typically used by one side against the other. I’ll do my best to present these in order of most to least common, but there’s a distinct ebb and flow to the politics of the day to day that makes that more or less impossible.

Why is this important?

Because even as #GunSense hemorrhages capital and capitols (there is more restored legal support for private firearms carry today than at any time in the last several generations), the ferocious rhetoric of anti-gunners around the country continues to heat up. Much like your typical rifle barrel, the hotter it gets, the less accurate all the blather becomes. As custodians of Gun Culture 2.0, we can’t afford to respond in kind. Rather, we ought to pace ourselves cooly and calmly, refuting every onerous, fallacious claim with unassailable logic, remembering all the while that an argument is only an argument when proper reasoning is the aim. No shooting from the hip here.

So, without further ado, I present:

Argument 1, “The Problem”

• #GunSense claim: “There is a gun death problem in America.”***
• Gun Rights response: “Prove it.”

Okay, yes, that’s a pretty TL;DR rebuttal, but it’s just to get things framed up properly. With something as crooked as gun control, that’s sort of a basic necessity, and it’s best handled at the outset. Indeed, for most claims, this one phrase will almost always be a valid first play. More often than not, the grabber will take the bait and cite the number of “gun deaths” from the latest batch of annual statistics. (Note: It would be apprpriate at any time to simply share a telling chart or two demonstrating the US’ declining “gun death” rates even as private arms ownership is at record highs and climbing, but these will be dismissed as “memes” and ignored outright, sourced or not.) After reminding them that suicide makes up two-thirds of the total and is a perfectly lawful natural right, both sides will settle on an average figure of roughly 10,000 to 14,000 such events per year. In 2015, according to this otherwise disingenuous pile of propaganda, there were approximately 13,500 “gun deaths” in the United States.

While there is no way to reliably qualify or quantify what exactly constitutes a statistical “problem,” it is possible, via some basic arithmetic, to put this seemingly large number into perspective.

First, consider the US population. At the time of this writing, there are an estimated 323,461,940 people living in America. To be conservative liberal, round this down to 320 million.

Now, the math (or “maffs,” for our redcoat friends across the pond):

• 13.5K/320M
  = 0.000042
  = 0.0042%
• 320M/13.5K
  = 23,703.70
  = 23,704
  = 1:23,704

Unlike the raw “gun death” total the antis like to toss around tethered to hysterical, childlike emotion, the above figures are actually contextually rooted. The first equation reveals that only 0.0042% of the US population is likely to die as a result of “gun violence.” That means, as the second equation shows, that any given person on US soil has a one-in-23,704 chance of being killed “by a gun.” Since so many antigun activists claim that “gun violence” is an “epidemic” that should be “treated like a disease” and “studied by the CDC” (more on that delightful bit of backfire in another post), let’s do that, just this once, for the sake of argument:

In medicine, what is the threshold for a disease to be considered an “epidemic”?

An epidemic is defined thus:

[T]he slow spread of infectious disease to a large number of people in a given population within a short period of time, usually two weeks or less. For example, in meningococcal infections, an attack rate in excess of 15 cases per 100,000 people for two consecutive weeks is considered an epidemic.

The aforementioned “15 per 100K” rate is the most-cited baseline I can find regarding infectious diseases, so let’s go with that. For “gun violence” to be an actual epidemic, the US would need to experience a whopping 3200 “gun deaths” per week. All. Year. Long.

Since there aren’t anywhere near 166,400 “gun deaths” each year in America, “epidemic” is right out.

Hell, by medical standards, even Chiraq’s “gun death” rate is well below the necessary threshold. There were 445 “gun deaths” in Chicago throughout all of 2015. For “gun deaths” to be an epidemic there, there’d need to be 405 per week (for at least two weeks in a row). Not. Even. Close.

Clearly, “gun deaths” are not an epidemic. The bigger question, then, is: Are “gun deaths” even statistically significant?

You already know the answer.

Most mathematical models define statistical significance as at least five percent (0.05) of a given sample/population, but this can vary down to one percent depending on the area of study. From the initial calculations above, “gun deaths” occur at a rate of 0.0042% (0.000042), which is several orders of magnitude beneath either threshold for statistical significance.

In other words, US “gun deaths” are statistically insignificant.

If at this point the target of your overwhelming scientific acumen is still trying to argue (“Tell that to their families!” is not an argument, albeit I’ll write about how to handle that sometime down the road), he or she will posit that it doesn’t matter. He or she will insist that 13,500 “gun deaths” are simply and self-evidently “too many.”

Good.

Here’s your trump card: Respectfully ask them what number of “gun deaths” would be “juuust right.” The savvy-ish remainder will give up here, but a few morons may grasp at straws and, perhaps, cut the number in half.

Good.

Now you bust out this link (or, better yet even, its CDC source) and proceed to explain how approximately 80% of all “gun murders” are committed by known violent criminals against other known violent criminals (usually in gang- or drug-related events). Be sure to ask why it’s a “problem” that hoodlums and gangbangers are killing each other. Since there is no viable answer for this (unless it comes from the smelliest, flower-in-their-hairiest, most emaciated hippie on the face of the Earth), you can successfully and legitimately reframe the argument around the new number of “gun deaths” of innocents: 2700.

Reworking the original math, that leaves us with:

• 2.7K/320M
  = 0.0000084
  = 0.00084%
• 320M/2.7K
  = 118,518.52
  = 118,519
  = 1:118,519

In the US, “gun deaths” of innocent people are even less of a “problem,” way less of a epidemiological imperative, and way, way more statistically insignificant.

Oops.

But dont despair — the antigun parrot will come to the conclusion that “even one gun death is too many.”

Congratulations, you’ve won the debate.

But #GunSense will never give up, so we won’t either. I just need to decide whether to cover “militia” or “nukes” next week.

*Linguistically speaking, #GunSense is a blending of the term “gun control” and the word “nonsense.” Logically speaking, it’s a redundant, pathetic portmanteau, more French**** in spirit than even the word that describes it.

**Technically, “molon labe” gets the same point across in only two words, but that serf language, like most serf things, is dead and irrelevant.

***#GunSense drones will almost always say “gun violence problem” when they actually mean “gun death problem,” as all of their citations will invariably focus only on deaths rather than total casualties. For the one antigun activist you ever meet that actually gives a shit about the people who dont die from their wounds, you might want to adjust this article’s math a bit. Obviously, this will not change the thrust of the argument’s general conclusions.

****I will stop***** ridiculing the French continent the moment its subjects sack up and wrest power back from the overlords that disarmed them.

*****Continue

Moms Demand Action (MDA) has a way of using fear in most of its posts.

On an article over Oklahoma’s three new gun bills in legislation is pretty straightforward and the article suggests these bills will make us be at a greater risk of guns becoming violent. (Shout out to Colion Noir’s #SteelWaiting movement where gun owners wait for their guns to suddenly attack someone).

The three bills MDA lists and describes:

H.J.R. 1009, which would call into question almost every gun law in the state;

This bill literally changes the state constitution to say “The right of each individual to keep and to bear arms . . . shall not be infringed. Any regulation of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny”. So, this bill reinforces Shall Not Be Infringed. So when THE constitution, THE Bill of Rights says it, people feel free to infringe. But when a state constitution says it, people finally understand what it means? It is infuriating that the sentence about any regulations will be subject to strict scrutiny. Shall not be infringed should mean exactly what it says. However, that separate sentence will make it absolutely clear that this right is to be taken seriously. It would be great for schools to not be gun free zones, as this article suggests HJR 1009 would lead to. But there will still be a process to go through to undo that.

This bill, which will be up to a public vote in November, does not abolish the permit system as some media outlets have said. It is possible that the bill will lend a hand in that outcome, but the bill itself simply rewords the state constitution in a clear manner for those who question the great documents from the 1700’s.

Also, I shortened out all of the technicalities of what weapons are included. Feel free to read it yourself.

S.B. 1185, which would allow visitors to Oklahoma to openly carry firearms in the state without so much as a permit or training;

This is a great reciprocity bill. With an out-of-state driver’s license for a state where permitless carry is allowed, someone is allowed to carry here under the same constraints. That’s a win. It’s great for out-of-state visitors who have not purchased licenses just to go out of state often or only once a year.

H.B. 3098, which would eliminate the state’s requirement that Oklahoma residents have a permit before openly carrying a handgun in public.

True statement there. No falsifying going on here, actually. Just a bit of them saying that permitless carry is bad. That’s their opinion. I have no problem with them saying their piece.

Now, how do they suggest action? There is a “Join Us”, “Donate”, and “Become a gun sense voter” button. That last one takes you to a page to sign up and whatnot. The article ends with saying the legislation is too dangerous to pass by silently. Silently? I have seen a lot of news coverage on these bills, and have been following HB 3098 since Feburary 11. More fear tactics I suppose.

Later in the article is this nugget “S.B. 1185 would grant more freedom to openly carry handguns in public to out-of-state residents than Oklahoma currently grants to its own citizens.” Yes, someone from a less intrusive state would technically have more freedom. Yes, that’s a problem- because I would love the same freedoms of mine to not be tread on.

I mentioned fear tactics a little bit here. This article uses it in the title, and at the end. Reading past that, I found the article enlightening and made me love these bills more. It had slightly notions of the bills being bad, but no more than regular news reports. They remained [mostly] factual on the bills, and explained what each one would do and what it could lead to- more FREEDOM.

Thanks for reading, and thanks MDA for the off-hand support.

I’ve done a lot of research over gun free zones. In fact, that is how I came across this blog. Thinking I would find an anti-gun website, I clicked on it to see what their sources were. I then figured out that this is a great site, and kept up with the site while doing more research. So I just want to express my findings with the rest of you. By the way, I am a senior in college. Just so you know, not everyone in academics is anti-gun 🙂

Honestly, I have always been opposed to the idea of gun free zones. When I began my research for my composition class I thought, “Hey, what if I find condemning evidence against allowing guns in certain zones.” So I put off that “what-if” and decided to cross that bridge when I get there. However, I never even laid eyes on the “Bridge ices before road” sign.

Instead, most of the information I came across suggested that gun free zones, especially on college campuses, were unnecessary (not to mention the stripping rights of citizens). Utah has mandated that public colleges and universities allow concealed guns on campus. The University of Utah fought for two years against the bill and lost in 2006. Which means that Utah has had this bill for more than a decade. In K-12 schools, licensed faculty are allowed to carry concealed. In 2014, Ron Isaacson, assistant director of public safety at Dixie State College, cited an incident where a handgun fell out of a bag and onto a chair in a library. Another student sat on the gun, picked it up, and allegedly did not realize it was real. No one was hurt. There were “a few” reports of threats according to Isaacson as well. In the entire state, no discharges have occurred on higher education facilities.

What about K-12 you ask? Well, according to the Salt Lake Tribune, “The folks at Westbrook Elementary School in Taylorsville can thank their lucky stars” all because a teacher’s handgun went off in a restroom. The lady was in the restroom alone (and before school started), and the firearm negligently discharged, hitting her in one leg. Thankfully, as far as I know, the lady was not penalized. Perhaps while pulling her pants up or down, her holster was not good enough and an accident happened. That’s what we learn here. We did not decide that guns on campus is bad.

There have been no classroom shootouts over disputes. No drunk students have wandered onto campus to shoot anyone. When Isaacson’s best defense after a decade against preferring no guns on campus is a student who could not recognize a real gun and held it, it becomes quite clear that gun free universities are unnecessary. There are many other reasons why gun free zones should not exist, but I will save some of my other sources for the future.

Have a nice day, everyone.

Update: I just wanted to say thank you to the community here for the kind welcome!

There is this idea that gun owners are not aware of dangers; that we do not understand the risk of firearms. That is simply not the case. Most of us know the four rules of gun safety. Still, it is important to maintain these rules and make sure they are known to everyone.

1. Always treat firearms as if they are loaded.

Honestly, all rules stem from this number one rule.

2. Never point a firearm at something you are not willing to destroy.

Because of rule #1, rule #2 exists to make it painfully obvious that accidents can occur. Negligent discharge is from carelessness, not from a bad holster.

3. Only place a finger on the trigger if you are prepared to shoot.

This is from rules 1 and 2 and the idea of general safety. Don’t be physically ready to shoot if you are not prepared.

4. Always know what your target is, and what is behind, beside, and in front of it.

This rule is over knowing about stray bullets and inaccuracy. What if the target is missed- is there a safe backdrop? The same goes for a bullet if it will pass through the target. What if someone is standing in front of you and just to the side- you could hit them if they stand too close or hit them with a ricochet.

There are other lessons taught as well, such as: teach those who don’t know better. Anyone who does not regularly use firearms might not know as much as you do. The rules are pretty “common sense”, but I hate that connotation because these rules should be known by heart, not by trial and error (and because saying something is “common sense” does not mean anything in a vacuum).

Now, onto what brought this to my mind. I saw an article by Peter Manseau over accidental gun deaths that are explained by “somehow” someone had an accident. Manseau is an author. “In Michigan, an 11-year-old boy was killed when “somehow he got a hold of a gun and started playing with it.”” He also wrote a newspaper article, op-ed on LA Times, as well as a book over the same subject. His works over this subject simply pull articles from colonial to current newspapers where firearm accidents occurred where children, parents, and others died from accidents where rules of safety were violated. He doesn’t say it that way though, he simply states that these people died from guns. He never draws a conclusion. He never tries to help the situation. He could help out with training/safety courses. He could write articles on gun safety in papers that do not regularly carry pro-gun rhetoric.

I don’t see how pulling up articles of accidents will help the situation. Instead, there is this article going around parading the deaths of people from firearm accidents that leave firearms in a negative light. There is no mention of the falling firearm-accident rates. There is no mention of 505 (2013) accidents per year in the U.S.A. That’s not a number to be happy to hear, just bear in mind that it is lower than 776 (2000). No mention of safety precautions that should be followed. He only states that these accidents are usually explained with “somehow” things went wrong.

We, as gun owners, “somehow” agree with you, Peter. It is tragic when these accidents happen. Although, we have “somehow” come to the conclusion of the Rules of Gun Safety. I do not want something labeled as a “smart gun”, I don’t want the government to place restrictions on me because other people failed these rules. I don’t support mandated training. Instead, I want more people to be conscious of possible accidents and know what steps to take, such as teaching their children how to handle guns. I also want to see even more progress on people taking training courses by their own wishes, and see less of the horrendous accidents like the ones that Peter went out of his way to display in an ill, written collage.

If you want to see less of these accidents, learn to take precautions in your own life. You cannot mandate others into absolute safety, or strip the rights of others for your own perceived safety.

Have a nice day.

Hello readers,

I am Laredo, and I am one of the new [nearly] daily bloggers that Miguel has invited on board for the site. I am honored to be allowed this and will be honest and sincere to everyone here. I grew up in an Army family that taught me how to hold firearms at the age of 5. I have always enjoyed shooting guns and being patriotic as hell. So, I am here to do my part of contributing to our culture and way of life.

By that I mean that I will keep things straight forward, and know how to take criticism if I misspeak or am disagreed with. I believe that the best way to continue fighting for our rights and traditions is to be factual, sincere, and express what we feel while keeping our cool- at least most of the time. So in my blog pieces I will usually talk about guns, gun free zones, legislature involving guns, etc. as well as posting a few pieces about hunting, fishing, and trapping stories to bring up morale after reading the latest post from CSGV and others. I also might revisit old topics that most of us know, but that is useful for anyone new to know. It might seem odd to that, but sometimes we forget we were ignorant to something at a point in our lives that we now feel is basic knowledge.

For today, I just want you all to get a feel for who I am. I appreciate this opportunity and understand that I am not better than those who do not write for the blog. So feel free to comment below anytime, because I enjoy conversations about gun related topics. I will be posting on most days of the week and do not have a detailed schedule to give you.

I also want to give an update on permitless open carry in Oklahoma, the state of my residence. The bill has passed through the Senate, and it is now back at the House for approval of Senate-made amendments. I’ve read the bill thoroughly, and it will be a major improvement to releasing holds on our rights here! Have a good day, ladies and gentlemen.

Dear reader,

How are you? I am fine. My name is Andy, and I’ll be contributing various features and essays to Gun Free Zone on a regular basis. Now, I dont often enter a GFZ willingly, but the chance to write for one of the most informative and entertaining pro-gun websites in the 2A blogosphere was simply too good to pass up. I’d like to thank Miguel for this unique opportunity, because, while I’ve written hundreds of articles for other outlets over the years (and still do here and there when an increasingly rare thought occurs), I’ve never actually had an established avenue through which to share my musings on the topics that actually mean the most to me and mine (and, I hope, you and yours).

And that’s firearms.

Well, not just firearms. Dont get me wrong — I love those. I love everything about them. Even Jennings has a tiny place in my heart. But I also love what firearms represent. Guns literally mean the world to me, as they are the literal means to preserve the world in which I live — my world. Guns secure and thus embody that most fundamental right to exist as an individual, free (or near as dammit) from the yoke of aggression and its ultimate tyranny.

Of course, that also means that tyrants dont like guns in the hands of thinking citizens, and restrictions creep. But 50 million Bloombucks and 21,000 gun control laws cannot erase 27 words put to parchment 229 years ago. Indeed, the anti-gun movement is failing faster and falling farther than ever before as post-Boomers are booming and blasting and rat-a-tat-tatting from sea to shining desert. (The Pacific’s right out because potato California.) Gun sales are clogging up NICS lines month after month, new shooters are charging thumbs-forward to weekend CCW classes, and the 24-hour mainstream news cycle designed to scare folks into submission is having the exact opposite effect: The public sees more and more clearly the ancient and immutable need for individual self defense in a crowded, chaotic, natural world.

Yep, Gun Culture 2.0 is pushing back. Hard. And it kicks like a motherf****** mule.

Yet far from uncouth, this is a culture of peace, patience, respect, and dignity. We are winning the culture war. Without aggression, without coercion, without threats, we are standing firm in the belief of the sanctity of ourselves. We are winning by educating and recruiting the erstwhile ambivalent, the fence-sitting, the fearful and hesitant. We are winning by forcing our garbage lawmakers to repeal their garbage laws through true grassroots political means, all while exposing gun control (and its exploitive “Gunsense” branding) as a cult of fraudulent, fear-mongering bigotry and hate.

So, you know, that’s pretty badass.

Anyways, I’ll be discussing this kind of thing (and a whole lot more) in the weeks and months to come. Expect gun and gear (p)reviews, lifestyle commentary, half-baked memes, bad puns, rambling tangents, and clunky turns of phrase. I ain’t no poet, after all.

But William Wordsworth was, so I’ll leave you with this little mashup I made a few years ago. It’s still one of my favorites:

Many thanks to Miguel for inviting me aboard, and many thanks to all of you for reading!