How Many Locks Are "Enough"?

Oregon's Initiative Petition 44  demands that all firearms must be kept locked, or locked up.   If your firearms are stolen, you are liable for all injuries (etc).

All of my firearms are locked up.  The locks are on the doors and windows of my home.   I never go farther than the corner mailbox without locking up.   Any more stringent lock-up measures would inhibit my ability to defend myself in my home

Yes, some firearms are locked in safes; others remain available (although not in "plain sight").   Ammunition is typically stored out of plain sight, but not locked up.

Now, the new Oregon Firearms Initiative suggests that if someone breaks into my home and steals my firearm(s), I'm criminally liable for any harm that criminal causes using my stolen firearm.

Where's the justice when the victim becomes the criminal, and the criminal's subsequent crimes are shared by the victim?

SECTION 2. (1) A person who transfers a firearm must transfer the firearm with a trigger or cable lock engaged or in a locked container equipped with a tamper-resistant lock.

Continuing the Bizarre ... a firearms "transferer" can't "transfer" firearm gun without a trigger lock?
How goofy is that?  When you sell a gun, you're not responsible for the actions of the buyer (except that you can't sell a gun to a felon, madman, etc.)   If HE needs a trigger lock, let him buy his own damn trigger lock!

I live alone; I don't need no stinking Trigger Lock!

COULD a minor gain access to a firearm I sell?  (There are no minors in my home; but that doesn't seem to matter.)  Who knows the age of the burglar who breaks into his home during his absence?  There are many flaws in this bill;  there is no allowance for "Reasonable Precautions", because it's purpose is not to provide safety but to intimidate legal firearms owners.

Requiring me to hobble my guns because a minor MIGHT invade my home?   That's madness!


There ought to be a law saying that an intruder is singularly responsible for his own actions.

There use to be; where did it go?

Amy Schumer Asks for Donations to Gun Control Group In Lieu of Wedding Gifts

Every direction I turn, someone is asking me to give them money.

Is that the way your life turns, too?

Honestly, even in news articles, someone (including people I not only DO NOT KNOW but even those I WOULD CHOOSE NOT TO KNOW) expect me to give them money which would be better spent on causes which would benefit ME, not them. I'm thinking ... tomorrow's dinner would be a better investment in my pension.

What IS it about "Public Figures" that they toil not, they perform no useful purpose, but because of their notoriety they seem to feel that the cash dollars which I have  earned should be haphazardly pitched in their direction

Are these people, who have never met me, deserving to milk me like a barren cow just because I am presumed to know their name?   Am I entitled to bug them for 10% of their earnings if I tell them my name is "Jerry" and now they owe me money?

I guess that they believe "it doesn't hurt to ask", but for a total stranger (and a homely visaged one at that) to entreat me to pay for her freaking WEDDING by donating my retirement fund for a cause which I would not willingly support (either gun control, or the possible extension of her piss-poor politics via her prospective progeny)  .... that, to me, seems  an excessive exercise in Hubris.

• (Is that a run-on sentence?  Never mind. )

Amy Schumer Asks for Donations to Gun Control Group In Lieu of Wedding Gifts: \

After announcing that she had wed chef Chris Fischer in a surprise ceremony this week, comedian Amy Schumer asked fans to forgo wedding gifts and to instead send donations to the Michael Bloomberg-funded gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer told fans about her wedding via Instagram, and denied she’d had a shotgun wedding, writing:“No, I’m not pregnant.” She then added: “And no gifts but thank you for asking. Instead please consider [a] donation to everytown for gun safety. Thought of Mayce and Jillian a lot yesterday and sending love to everyone who has been affected by gun violence.”

Okay, there is some humor implied in this announcement.  Specifically, the relationship between the term "shotgun wedding" and the plea for TOTAL STRANGERS to contribute to  Bloomberg's "Everytown for Gun Safety" ... really, did she think this trough?   I suspect such subtlty is beyond her.

I doubt it as much as I doubt the sanity of her fiance, who is supposedly willing to spend the rest of his life in the company of this airhead!

(And thank you Jesus for someone-who-isn't-me to bite the bullet and wed this ditzt! Can you imagine the children which would presumably result from this marriage???)

All I can say is, that if I ever contributed to "gun control" causes, which I would not do because they're all inane and insane, I certainly would not contribute my hard-earned dollars to any cause which is endorsed by Amy Schumer.  That's a perfect union, when you think about it; an airhead espousing an airhead cause ... what could be more intellectually perfect?

(Okay, I stuck the word "intellectual" in the last paragraph knowing full well that "Amy Schumer" (or anyone with the Schumer Name, including the congress-critter),  is not deserving to be mentioned in the same book, let alone the same paragraph, with the word "intellectual".)

(And yes, I realize that I inserted a parenthetical phrase inside of another parenthetical phrase; she is so inane, she deserves to be described parenthetically (parenthetically speaking).)

It may occur that the entire Schumer clan serves no better purpose than to cause outraged observers to violate the sylogisms which are strictly limited in " Wright's Rules of Essays".

On the other hand, the Schumers may (individually, and as a clan) be merely the scum of the earth, and deserve no higher approbation.

Funny? I thought we already had enough of this from Democrats~

Investment Watch -Hoax! (Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Door)

Giving the Government Power to Determine Gun Ownership – InvestmentWatch:  (Nov. 16, 2017)

Legislation is being brought to the Senate (announced Tuesday) in a cross party bid that will effectively mean the Federal government has the final say on who is and who is not allowed to buy a firearm. 

Is this something beyond current firearms laws?

No, it's just a bad joke.

I don't mind jokes, even bad ones .. but I wish it had been presented less amateurishly.
As it was done, the tongue is too firmly in cheek; it's just a poor attempt to goad someone into responding as if it was a legitimate news report.

This isn't a 'legitimate" website, and "Not The Onion".   It's an attention-grabbing device.

Oh, hell, it's The Internet!  ANYBODY can put up balderdash and get it published.
As satire, it deserves even less credit than if it was true "financial reportage"

I've been online since 2008 and nobody has kicked me off the internet ... yet.

But even I am funnier than these guys.

Did you hear the one about the chicken crossing the road?

Oh .. you did?

Can you please explain it to me?  I didn't get it .. I think.

Steven Crowder... not his best journalistic contribution to the Second Amendment!

Steven Crowder Challenges College Students To Change His Mind On Guns - Bearing Arms - college students, Gun Control, ill-informed voters, Steven Crowder:

 Steven Crowder is one of the more interesting personalities on YouTube, mostly because he’s funny while also providing some pretty smart commentary. He recently tried something new. He set up a table at Texas University and challenged students to change his mind. In the process, he challenges their points of view. Check it out:

"Pretty Smart Commentary"?

It's pretty smarmy commentary.

Even if I agree with Crowder, he hasn't provided any valid discussion of the Second Amendment. 

Challenging College Frosh on campus in front of a camera is apparently nothing more than a publicity stunt.   And I always thought Crowder was better than that.  But I was wrong.

I found the miniscule count of dialogues interesting, but one-sided.  I would have preferred to see what happened when the students who sat in his visitor chair were more than "Bobble-Heads".   But he didn't have the guts to publish any encounters where he had to actually WORK to defend the Second Amendment.   The most intelligent response from any of the few college-age adolescents he "interviewed" was HUH? 

Unfortunately, it's impossible to comment directly on the article without a FaceBook page.  Like that's going to happen!

Over-all?

Two Thumbs Down for obvious editing of responses to make the Host look good.

... and a Third Thumb Down (if I had one) for restricting comments to FaceBook. 

Crowder has done some decent journalism in that past (not much, but some). But this is nothing more than Ambush Journalism, and clue-less college frosh are his unsuspecting targets of choice.

"Smart Commentary"?   I call it "Smarmy Commentary", and that's being generous.

BOO!

Welcome to Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love

I would think that a guy who was going to a job interview wouldn't be the most likely source of a lot of money for three men.

Watch the video.   This vicious beating was personal, not a robbery.

Caught on Cam: 3 Men Beat, Rob Victim Leaving Job Interview | NBC 10 Philadelphia:

 A man who had just left a job interview was brutally beaten, knocked unconscious and robbed by three men in the Kensington section of Philadelphia. The attack was captured on surveillance video. The 25-year-old victim, who did not want to be identified, told NBC10 he had just finished a job interview inside a restaurant at B and Tioga Streets back on April 15 at 12:30 p.m. As he walked out of the restaurant he was suddenly attacked by three men. A surveillance camera captured the suspects punching and kicking the man until he lost consciousness. The men then stole his cellphone, wallet and money before fleeing the scene.

Liberal Press Again Skews Facts About Firearms Violence Research

Gun Violence Researchers Race to Protect Data From Trump | WIRED:
(February 07, 2017)

 AROUND 11 AM Pacific on January 20th, while newly-inaugurated President Trump finished a celebratory lunch in the Capitol Rotunda, Magdalena Cerd  noticed something different about the White House’s website: All of its references to climate change had disappeared. Cerd  is an epidemiologist at UC Davis’ Violence Prevention Research Program, which focuses on another politicized region of science—gun violence. So she knew what that meant.  (emphasis added)

Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't know what 'that meant'; but the insinuation that the Trump White House was censoring published (or private) research data about "Climate Change" is obvious,

There are a lot of details which are not examined or made clear in this amateurish article, which suggests that it should be ignored except as an example of unprofessional reporting.  It's more important for what information it does not provide, than for the bias which is revealed.

And even more telling, research data about "gun violence" was, as insinuated by this WIRED article, also at risk of having been "disappeared".

This article is a patent attack on the integrity of the Trump White house, for purely political reasons.

 “It was a real call to action,” Cerd  says. With links to climate data vanishing, she worried the same thing could happen to gun violence data on websites belonging to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “I was on Amtrak between Berkeley and Sacramento,” she says. “So I sent an email to Garen Wintemute saying we needed to start downloading our data immediately.”

Does that mean that the research data of the UC Davis' Violence Prevention Research Program was not regularly backed up?

This is difficult to believe, considering that tens of thousands of dollars were probably invested in the research.   The UC Davis Web Master wasn't encouraging the research teams to perform website and data backups at least daily (and more responsibly, more than once a day) or that the data wasn't available on an offsite data repository?   It's a base canard against the professional practices of a respected Educational and Research Facility.

Rather than to point the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate at UC Davis tech support, I find it much more likely that the UC Davis research program managed to lose (at least temporarily ... whether they recovered the data is not discussed in the article) valuable research data, and in an attempt to cover up their embarrassing lack of data integrity supervision has chosen to blame their oversight on an external agency.

Specifically, a political foe:  the current President of the United States of America.

The suggestion that the President would be responsible for a loss of research data is not only bizarre, but it is a sad commentary on whomever provided the 'background' information for this article ... and for the author, who rushed to judgement by printing innuendo instead of facts.

(In fact, the article suggests that the President had the power, and the resources, to delete 'research data' from multiple, federally funded, generally reliable websites such as the Center for Disease control!)

And the worst approbation is for the website, which allowed this article to be published without requiring the minimum standard of finding at least two sources which support the same interpretation.

I once considered WIRED to be a reliable data source, if only for its technical content.
Now that the website has undermined its own integrity, every single word they ever published will be tainted.

So long WIRED.   Nobody will ever trust you, since you turned Political.

(The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award)

Why I Voted for Hillary Clinton - The Truth About Guns

Why I Voted for Hillary Clinton - The Truth About Guns:

,,, which candidate would make me the most money? On a macro level, Hillary Clinton was the obvious choice. She might be more corrupt than a floppy disk in a magnet factory, but she’s a known quantity.  She would have kept the stock market happy and my retirement account growing —

This November 09, 2016 article by a writer who identifies himself as "Firearms Concierge" just gained much rancor from the gun community by describing the self-centered reasons for his Clinton Vote.

Personally, I'm not sure if this is a gag or whether the author is really that mercenary.

But one thing is quite certain; he got 300 comments on his article in 48 hours.   If his intention was to graphically demonstrate how many people will read one article and react by writing a comment, he has achieved his goal.

There are some links which purport to identify the writer by his real name, but I'm not about to reveal it here.

Who knows?   Someday I might get so desperate for fame and fortune that I will write a similarly attention-getting article.   Anonymity is not such a bad thing when you swim in the internet slime.

11:11

11:11

Eleven-Eleven.

It means something.

It's a DATE!

02:23:45 means something, too.

It's my birthday.

Other than that .... I can recall other significant dates and times.

Remember when 01:23:45 @ 06/07/89 was significant?

I remember that day.    It was when I was working as an analyst for Freightliner Corporation, and we though this was ... eerie!

We all took a moment of silence at that moment.

Then we went back to work.

Because earning a living was IS much more significant.

If you're superstitious, knock yourself out today.

If you're practical ... what are you doing reading this tripe?
Get back to work and earn your day's pay!

Nobody Wants To Take Away Your Guns! (Except for the dangerous ones)

We've been hearing a lot about the media-inspired (and vaguely defined) "Assault Rifles".

In an attempt to accelerate the daily "Two Minutes Hate", gun-grabbers and the media have introduced a new term:
"High-powered rifles".

... gun control advocates from the West Coast are banding together to call for a 10-bullet magazine restriction and a ban on all high-powered rifles they call assault weapons. 

[emphasis added, click on the link]
OOoooooo ... scary!

But while the term "High-powered rifles" may scare little girls, it's suggestive of "Another Gun Ban Movement" ... which might be scarifying to little old men.

In truth, the Left, the 'Anti-Gunners' and other media whores are becoming more adept at inventing new political platforms from which they can attack The Embarassing Second Amendment.

As usual, there is no definition to the term.  In my home state, it was illegal illegal to hunt deer with a caliber less than .25* (which has since been changed in the game laws).

Now that the .223 and the .22-250, etc. are legal to hunt 'big game', does that mean that every deer rifle in America will be confiscated by the Gun Haters?

Well, that does seem to be the trend.

But remember: "Nobody Wants To Take Away Your GUNS!"

Just the dangerous ones.

Oh, and if you have a moment, see the under-the bar parts: 310

Philando Castile shooting

All I want to know is what was in the pocket.  Was it a Wallet, a Concealed Handgun License, a Driver's License, or a handgun?

Why in the HELL has the MSM not mentioned this in the past WEEK when they have printed thousands of words about it?

Minnesota officer reacted to gun, not race, attorney says:

The Minnesota police officer who fatally shot a black man in a Minneapolis suburb earlier this week spoke out through his attorney Saturday saying that the shooting had nothing to do with race. The officer, identified as Jeronimo Yanez, shot and killed Philando Castile Wednesday during a routine traffic stop. Castile and his fiance, Diamond “Lavish” Reynolds, were pulled over for an alleged busted taillight. Authorities told the Associated Press that Yanez approached the vehicle from the driver’s side while his partner, Officer Joseph Kauser, came around the passenger side. Yanez eventually opened fire, striking Castile multiple times. Minnesota attorney Thomas Kelly was mum on the exact reason why Yanez shot Castile, simply telling AP the Latino officer reacted to “the presence of that gun and the display of that gun.” Kelly went on to say that the officer, who was placed on administrative leave after the event, is distraught and saddened. The story made headline news after Reynolds live streamed the aftermath of the shooting on social media site Facebook. In the video, Reynolds narrates the scene, stating that the officer shot her fiance as he was reaching for his wallet.

Hear the responses to Couric's 'embarassing 9 second lapse'

Katie Couric Gun Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview:

This website at the Free Beacon provides the audio tape which fills the 9-second gap in the Couric video.

Oh, go listen .. you know you want to.

Couric “Gungate” reporting

The Fraud In “Gungate” Is Real, And Should End Katie Couric’s Career – Bearing Arms

Bearing Arms has done a rather good job of summarizing the Couric "Shot Herself In The Foot" incident, and I won't attempt to gild the lily.   This link is offered in case someone in the firearms community has been on vacation on a mountain top and needs to catch up on the controversy.

People Still Being Shot In The People's Republic of Canada?

Toronto gun violence must be addressed by entire city, Rexdale pastor says - CBC.ca | Metro Morning:

A Toronto-area pastor says there's a feeling of hopelessness and helplessness in the city's Rexdale neighbourhood and it's a problem for the entire city to fix. On Sunday, a 35-year-old pregnant woman was shot and killed in a drive-by shooting while riding in the back seat of a vehicle in the area. 

What's this?   People are still being shot in Canada?
That's impossible!   Canada has many of the gun laws which American anti-gun groups have been trying to establish for years, and for the specific purpose of eliminating exactly the kind of tragedies described above!

Canada  (see link here)

(Cliff Notes Version: strict compared to U.S. laws. Ottawa sets gun control laws that may be supplemented locally.)

• 18 years or older to own a gun, licensed only, background check and public safety course
• 1995 Firearms Act: owner licensing
• Licensing of all long guns (since abandoned due to billions of dollars expense to enforce)

UK STOPPED GUN VIOLENCE:
The online newsletter BUSINESS INSIDER announced the success of the same Gun Control Safety measures that Canada (and other United Kingdom countries, for example) in an article titled:
"How Australia and Other Developed Countries Have Put A Stop To Gun Violence" by Walter Hinkley (January 15, 2013)

Perhaps this announcement was premature.   Gun Violence continues in Canada. Non-gun violence has peaked in countries where private citizens are not allowed to defend themselves with firearms against thug.  See "yobs", below.

HOW AMERICAN GUN DEATHS AND GUN LAWS COMPARE TO CANADA'S

The National Observer, in a December 04, 2015 article, observed that:

According to a StatsCan report from 2012 – the most recent year available – the U.S. suffered a total of 8,813 murders involving the use of firearms that year. Canada, in the same year, recorded just 172 firearms-related homicides.“When looking at firearm-related homicide rates in comparable countries, Canada’s rate is about seven times lower than that of the United States (3.5 per 100,000 population), although it is higher than several other peer countries. While Canada’s firearm-related homicide rate is similar to those in Ireland and Switzerland, it is significantly higher than the rates in Japan (0.01 per 100,000 population) and the United Kingdom (0.06 per 100,000 population),” states StatsCan’s findings, which do not include Quebec figures.

Note that Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world, even though guns are absolutely forbidden there.  UK has even more draconian firearms-ownership regulations ... but the rate of non-gun violence is higher there than both Canada and America combined, because Brits are not allowed to arm themselves in protection against assault by YOBS.

SUMMARY:

Yes, it's possible to dramatically decrease the number of gun-related murders by highly restricting or even eliminating the private ownership of firearms.

That just means that the criminals do not fear lethal resistance from their victims.
The odd thing is, when anti-gun folks laud the 'improvements' in a society where guns are highly restricted, or totally banned, they see higher rates of robberies and burgularies (including 'occupied dwelling' incidents, muggings, other assaults and murders by knives, bludgeons, and fist-and-feet.

The quality of life dramatically decreases when the public is not allowed the tools to defend themselves against even casual assault and robbery.

Ask any Brit, for example, or Australian who feels defenseless against young hoodlums who feel confident that they will not be met with an effective defense in a home invasion.

(1)

Police are confident their firearms database has not been compromised and say they do not believe there is any link between their inspection and the Mt Rumney home invasion.

(2) The Failure of Canadian Gun Control (Dave Kopel)

(3)

Published on May 15, 2013

The Gun Ban In Australia Caused Increase In Crime And Home Invasions

Two thousand angry Australians gather to demand their gun rights and justice. Ginny Simone reports that the people of Australia gathered at the feet of Parliament with signs and outraged chanting in protest of the country's gun bans. Interviewees from the crowd discuss the gun buyback that required citizens to surrender their weapons with the threat of jail, an event that resulted in the confiscation of over 6,000 guns. With millions of dollars spent and no reduction in crime and actual increases in crime including home invasions, from the gun bans, Australians demand the right to defend themselves and to feel safe in their homes.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat

Other voices: Lawmakers, OK gun violence research plan:

The San Francisco Chronicle published this editorial on March 19: 

 The raft of new gun policies sweeping the nation — arm teachers, arm students, flash your piece under "open carry" laws — share one trait: There is not a shred of evidence they work to reduce gun carnage.
That is because Congress essentially has banned federal spending on gun violence prevention research for more than 20 years.

(sigh)

I've addressed this issue SO often, (at least twice in the past 2 years) you're tired of hearing about it.
And I'm tired of writing about it.   But the Liberals keep coming back with the Big Lie ... if they say it often enough, loud enough, some people will believe it.

The Truth Is:
The CDC was defunded after the NRA notified the government that they (CDC) had allowed their own personal bias to skew their (federally funded) research findings on Gun Control.

The CDC was free to publish any opinions that seemed reasonable to them, but they were no longer authorized to use federal funding to finance that research.   NOBODY told them they couldn't continue the research, or publish 'biased' reports.

But they were weren't going to be paid for their Liberal Lies; not by the Feds, anyway.  (And they're a Federal Agency, so 'private donations' are frowned on.)

NO OTHER research facility ... either Federal or State ... was affected by this de-funding.

If California wishes to fund research which will prove conclusively (to them) that Guns Have No Redeeming Value, they're welcome to have at it.  Unfortunately, "The Land of Fruits and Nuts" has lost the cachet which was originally ascribed to CDC, so nobody is going to pay much attention to them because we already know that the Second Most Liberal State In The Union is determined to fund any measures which will undermine the 2nd Amendment Rights of their citizens.

 It's all about mind control; not gun control.  And everybody knows that.

---

I've spent the last 6 or 7 years training new shooters who want to compete in Practical Pistol competition.  All seem to be just honest, good-hearted people who want to find  A Place To Shoot, and to compare their skills against other like-minded people.

And yet, there are people who want to renew the mantra that "Guns Are Bad".

Guns are not bad.  There are some people who use them for bad purposes, but I'm fortunate in that my exposure to 100+ NEW friends a year hasn't revealed these 'negative values' in any of the fine folks who take a day out of their life to meet people with similar interests.

And as for those who are determined to see only the down-side of private civilian firearms ownership?

To quote my old Drill Sergeant:

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Except, of course for my moments later article about Senator Ron!

Bernie Speaks ... and shoots himself in the foot

ENDO (Everyday No Days Off) posted a video of Bernie Sanders talking about gun control.

I won't deprive the original poster the traffic, but I'm pretty sure that many readers will find the comments of Mr. Sanders .... interesting.

I recently posted a comment on Ms. Clinton's efforts to "out-Bernie Bernie" on the gun control issue.
My point there was that Hillarious was being absurdly obvious about the extremes to which she will willing to go to garner the Presidential nomination.

Apparently, Bernie's staff people have been talking to Hill's staff people, and the have agreed to present the same (or similar) political plank:

Guns are bad. Really bad. Awful, in fact.  And we should be, like, thinking they are bad.

Somebody should do something about the gun-badness in America today.  I'm The One!

Go, watch, it's better theater than M*A*S*H!

"They" have plans for us ....

Gun ownership and social gun culture -- Kalesan et al. -- Injury Prevention:
 Published Online First 29 June 2015
Abstract: 

We assessed gun ownership rates in 2013 across the USA and the association between exposure to a social gun culture and gun ownership. We used data from a nationally representative sample of 4000 US adults, from 50 states and District of Columbia, aged >18 years to assess gun ownership and social gun culture performed in October 2013. 

State-level firearm policy information was obtained from the Brady Law Center and Injury Prevention and Control Center.

One-third of Americans reported owning a gun, ranging from 5.2% in Delaware to 61.7% in Alaska. Gun ownership was 2.25-times greater among those reporting social gun culture (PR=2.25, 95% CI 2.02 to 2.52) than those who did not.

In conclusion, we found strong association between social gun culture and gun ownership. Gun cultures may need to be considered for public health strategies that aim to change gun ownership in the USA.

(Correspondence to Dr Bindu Kalesan, Department of Epidemiology, Mailman 

School of Public Health, Columbia University)

________________________________________

YOU WILL NOTE that this article has little to say about the positive benefits of firearms ownership; it's tacitly assumed that there are no benefits, only negative consequences

The conclusion,, that there is a need to "... change gun ownership in the USA" is also a basic assumption.

The change?  To eliminate gun ownership in the USA.

There's just this one little drawback to their diabolical plan to emasculate America:

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns

GEEK LAW #1: Any statement citing Brady as a reference source is assumed to be unscientific, unsound, and incorrect.

Doctor to Doctor: Guns are Icky and may cause you to shoot yourself

Physicians: 'Get Rid of Those Guns':
(September 03, 2015)

Doctor, use your brain. Do not make it easy to shoot yourself in the brain, like my own Sacramento surgeon did. Get rid of those damn guns from your house, car, and office. They are much more likely to kill you or your family than they are to protect you.

Doctor George D. Lundberg advises his colleagues to resist the lure of the Evil Gun, because they may tempt an otherwise sane professional to commit suicide.

I should go to my own physician and inquire as to whether there is a cure for Hoplophobia.   Maybe there's a tiny little pill that ... oh, wait!

Carter's Little Liver Pills

That should do it.

NOBODY Obeys!

Going Underground | Firearm Non-Registration Rates | Gun Facts: If registration doesn’t impede gun ownership nor affect crime, what is its purpose? Apparently none.

Just saying .. and it's a very interesting commentary (with fewer words than you will find here) describing the relationship between firearms registration and crime rates.

STOLEN from GUN FACTS

Country	Registered	Est. low unreg­istered	Est. high unreg­istered	Percent Unreg­istered (average low/high)	Homicide rate
Greece	100,000	1,500,000	1,500,000	1500%	1.7
France	2,802,057	15,000,000	17,000,000	571%	1.0
New Zealand	335,000	850,000	1,000,000	276%	0.9
Germany	7,200,000	13,000,000	23,000,000	250%	0.8
Brazil	5,240,000	14,840,000	9,600,000	233%	25.2
Mexico	4,490,000	10,000,000	10,000,000	223%	18.9
Turkey	3,000,000	4,000,000	8,000,000	200%	2.6
Belgium	870,000	600,000	1,200,000	103%	1.6
England & Wales	1,742,300	300,000	3,000,000	95%	1.0
Montenegro	86,000	40,000	89,000	75%	2.7
Poland	314,641	200,000	200,000	64%	0.8
South Africa	3,737,676	500,000	4,000,000	60%	31.0
Spain	3,051,588	1,500,000	1,500,000	49%	0.8
Finland	1,600,000	50,000	1,500,000	48%	1.6
Canada	7,000,000	900,000	5,000,000	42%	1.4
Netherlands	330,000	125,000	125,000	38%	0.9
Sweden	2,096,798	50,000	1,500,000	37%	0.7
Australia	2,500,000	400,000	700,000	22%	1.1
Norway	1,320,000	125,000	125,000	9%	2.2

Apparently, Americans aren't the Only Ones who are reluctant to register their guns .. regardless of what their National Leaders think they SHOULD do!