Guns and Crime Revisited

A reader asks for some clarification on the "arm the people to reduce crime" concept...

But what about crimes of passion? Everyone has a knife on the plane now. Some irritated passenger doesn't like his seat on the plane - gets angry - and kills the air hostess... the chances of crimes like these would increase, don't you think?

If everyone is given guns to protect themselves, don't you think many disheartened lovers would kill their loved ones?

By providing guns to everyone, don't you think you would be providing an easy opportunity to angry people to kill on impulse?

Another thing:

In 1904, there were zero car accidents. There were hardly any cars on road. Observation shows, the more cars on road, the more car accidents occur.

Wouldn't more guns lead to more gun accidents? What to do about that?

Wow! Some really interesting questions here. And before I answer them, I'd like to point out that most of them are to do with specific results of arming the people. That is, picking one tiny little thing amongst the entire range of results and showcasing it as a failure of the day - and doing so without any evidence to back it up. Or what I call, an unsound foundation of thought. Anyway. To my answers...

To the first part... people getting angry and pulling out their knives... the REALITY is, people do NOT pull out weapons to attack other people they might be angry with. And those who do, would attack the other person even if both were unarmed. BUT by arming the attackee (the person being attacked) the attacker might think twice about it and refrain from the attack.

I deal in REALITY and NOT fantasy maybe stories.

How many fist fights have you seen on a plane? Even in the old days when real knives were given with your meals, how many knife attacks took place on aircraft? How many hostesses where killed by angry passengers?

And before I go on, let me add... remember, the hostess would ALSO be armed. And no person in their right mind would approach someone to cause some agro knowing the person they were going to aggravate was armed, would they?

I know the following example is fantasy but it illustrates my point: Watch an action movie. Notice how the bad guy has a gazillion body guards. Notice too how even though the good guy is armed, he quickly forgets any idea of getting the head bad guy as soon as the body guards all stand up and draw their weapons.

The same could be said of what would happen on a plane should the fantasy storey angry man want to draw his knife because he is unhappy with his seat. Suddenly he would have every hosty on the plane around him with weapons drawn. And the fight would be over before it began.

Onward.

Now to disheartened lovers... again I deal in REALITY. A disheartened lover who is hell bent on killing the person they deemed to have caused them the pain, doesn't need a gun to do it. Look at the current crime statistics... all kinds of weapons are used to kill people including machetes, baseball bats, fists, and anything at hand. Guns are most used in these situations under premeditation. The availability of the gun does not make the person do the killing in these instances. The gun is just a tool the killer uses to accomplish the job they want done. That is all. Take away the gun and the killer will use something else, while also knowing the victim is unarmed.

Now to the killing on impulse question. Again, I deal in REALITY. And in the really real world, the more armed a populace is the less crime there is. In the U.S., the towns with very relaxed gun laws - the ones that allow a citizen to carry a firearm freely - have the lowest crimes rates. Compare these places to any western city that has tight gun control (such as the U.K.) and you see astronomical crime rates. AND, each and every time the gun laws are tightened, the violent crime rates go UP.

Australia is a classic example. A few years ago the government banned all semi-auto rifles of any caliber, any shotgun with a magazine capacity of more than two. All owners of such weapons had to hand their weapons in.

Also, ALL firearm owners HAD to undergo a safety test before getting their license back. ALL firearm owners HAD to buy gun safes to store the weapons in. And, ALL HAD to have "valid" reasons for owning the weapon - membership of an approved gun club or a "letter of authorization" issued by a land owner giving you permission to hunt on their land were considered valid reasons. Self protection and/or self-defense was NOT a valid reason any more.

What this means to a crook is... they can break into a home safe in the knowledge the likelihood of meeting an armed homeowner is slim to none. And those who do have guns have them locked away in the safes they are forced to store them in. So the crook knows there is no way the homeowner will be able to quickly grab the key, rush to the safe and unlock it, then unlock the ammo box (the ammo must be stored separately by law), load the gun and defend himself before the crook (who is armed from the get go because crooks don't do what the law says) has accosted the homeowner.

The result of this change of law in Australia as seen an EXPLOSION of home invasions AFTER the new laws came into effect. The crooks know the homeowners are pretty well defenseless. And can attack at will.

Now let me pose something back to you... if you know everyone is armed, and you fear people could snap, you will be less likely to yell abuse at someone for any reason. In fact, you will be darn polite, won't you? Specially if you illogically fear people will be overcome with madness and pull their weapons at the drop of a hat. So an armed society is a polite society.

I want you to cast your mind back a whole bunch of years to the shootings at Columbine High School. You know the one... it's the one the anti-gunners love to use as an example. Ok. Think about this some and ask yourself some questions. How many students would have died that day IF the other students had been armed? How quickly would the whole thing have been over IF the other students had been armed? And knowing that the all the other students were armed, do you think the two killers still would have done what they did? And give logical reasons to back your answer.

If you truly give this some thought, you will see that the students being attacked would have defended themselves and killed the attackers and ended the event before you knew it. A lot less death would have happened. And even possibly no death at all because the attackers were smart enough to know the odds - remember, they did plan this quite well so they were not acting on impulse.

It is only because the other students had no way to defend themselves that so many were killed that day.

Now to your vehicle example. The more cars on the road the more car crashes there are because people do NOT pay attention when they are driving.

Since I began driving I have driven over one million kilometers. I have NEVER smashed into another car. That's because I PAY ATTENTION while I am driving. People who do NOT pay attention cause crashes.

Case in point: I was driving through a roundabout. The car wanting to come on nearly hit me because they were not paying attention (I could see they were not even looking. And I could see that because I pay attention while I am driving. And that means paying attention to what other drivers are doing too). I avoided the crash BUT less than half a mile up the road the driver of the other car, who had turned into the road behind me, crashed into another car at another intersection.

I see women doing their hair and makeup while driving. Men get rubber necks driving past women.

Sit behind most people talking on a cell phone and watch how bad they drive.

It is lack of attention that causes crashes. Put more people on the road all paying no attention and there will be more crashes.

I have not crashed into anyone even after all the driving I do because I pay attention. And I pay attention because I realize and accept that I am in control of a deadly weapon. Because make no mistake about it, a ton of steel traveling at unnatural speeds is a deadly weapon. Just look at what happens when people are unable to control that weapon - they crash and die.

This way of looking at the vehicle is NOT taught to learning drivers. And I likewise question the skill level needed to obtain a license.

Passing a driving test which shows you can steer a car around the road and do a reverse park, does NOT mean you can drive the car. Driving a car and steering a car are two different things.

Now. More cars on the road is NOT the same as saying more people owning a gun means more gun deaths. If the gun owners were all in the streets shooting their guns off then yes, there would be more gun deaths. But ownership does not mean deaths as a matter of course. That is an erroneous conclusion - and one bandied about by the anti-gun crowd without any evidence to back it up.

Consider circumstances which are the same as far as both weapons are concerned...

Cars drive on roads. Guns are fired on rifle ranges. Both authorized places of use have rules governing the use of the weapons at those places.

You say, more cars on the road means more car crashes. But I add the most important bit... the WHY... and get the answer that crashes are NOT caused by the number of cars on the road but by drivers not paying attention to what they are doing. In fact, I cannot think of a single crash where both people were fully aware the whole entire time. Can you?

A gun range can be full - every designated shooting space is occupied - or it can be fairly empty. Either way, there are no accidents. The more guns in use at the range does not increase the number of accidents at the range.

So when compared to their authorized use locations, you get a different story all together.

Now let me say this: A license to own a firearm should not just be given after a multiple choice "safety" test. A license needs to be given after practical hands-on gun handling and safety has been gone through. If that requires five one hour hands-on sessions at the local gun range, then so be it. If that requires different hands-on training depending on the type of firearm bought, then so be it.

Parents do not let their child handle a knife without instruction and initial supervision. It should be likewise for guns.

Proper safety handling needs to be taught. And not just via a multiple choice test after reading a booklet. That is silly and proves nothing (I passed my repeated safety tests without having read the booklets). But by the instructor's instruction and then approval.

Hands-on learning is the only way we learn correctly. This is how gun safety needs to be taught.

Now let me add some additional comments regarding the issue of gun control.

Notice how now and then the news will report that the police are being held at bay at a certain person's house. The talking heads will mention the person inside is armed. But never say WHY the police were there in the first place. And even after it is all over they never reveal why the police where there.

This is an example of how one armed person inside their own home, is not charged enmass by the government thugs and dragged away for reasons unknown. Just because they have a firearm.

Notice how bank hold ups take place at banks without armed security. The crooks don't try to rob banks with armed security because they might get shot. So they pick soft targets.

I know of two stores that used to get robbed almost on a monthly basis. After years of this, the owner of the first store bought a gun and killed the next armed robber. That store was NEVER robbed again. Store number two likewise bought a gun and likewise killed the next armed robber. And just like store number one, store number two was never robbed again. Crooks read newspapers too. When they see crime reports of robberies they know the store is unarmed. When they see the story of how the owner shot a robber, they make a note not to rob that store and pick a soft target instead.

My uncle owned a fish and chip take away store. After months of shit going down he got himself a weapon. The next time shit went down he grabbed the metal weapon from under the bain maree where it had been sitting getting hot, jumped the counter like a mad man and chased the thug away. He never had a problem since.

When people arm their property with guard dogs, crooks stay clear.

The problem with the anti-gun crowd is that they don't use any facts to back up their arguments. They use emotional and unsubstantiated arguments. And arguments like "more guns means more death" without any backing. Or questionable backing like the vehicle example. If more of anything meant more results, then we should see an extraordinary amount of stabbings and knife attacks because knives are in every home. We should see an untold amount of beatings with baseball bats because they are likewise readily available.

Fact: All real evidence points to an armed society being a polite society with hardly any crime.

And let me finish with this: If all the women of the shit hole Saudi Arabia were armed, would they be treated as second class citizens not worthy of anything like they are now? Or would the fuckers who call themselves "Royal" and who perpetuate this heinous behavior towards women, grant them more freedom?

Governments, like criminals, do not like an armed populace. And all dictatorships and fascist states first start with gun controls. Yes gun control works. Just ask Stalin, Hitler, Ghaddafi, Castro, Mao and so on.

And let me throw just one more thing in for your consideration. The freedom the people of the United States have is BECAUSE the citizens had guns. If, as is the wish of the anti-gunners, guns had been banned a few hundred years ago, the U.S. would still be under the yoke of the U.K. - or something like Australia (a misguided kind of independent constitutional monarchy thing).

A Bunch of Muriels

Losers. Degrading. Pathetic. These are the words that swam through my head while I was doing a bit of channel killing - kill one channel and surf on over to the next - and stumbled upon a show called "Surprise Wedding".

If you haven't seen the show (no great loss) its premise is: the bride tricks the groom into coming onto the TV show - and - while the cameras are rolling she asks him to marry her.

He is NOT expected to answer right away. He can go to a different room and either "phone a friend" to ask their advice/opinion about the set up, or, he can tell everyone to get stuffed and think it over himself.

While this is going on, the girls get into a wedding dress (or maybe they were already in a wedding dress - I don't know as I didn't see that bit). They each come to the host of the show, see part of the phone call the guy made and then, in a degrading fashion, try to convince the guy he should say yes and marry them.

It was like watching a bunch of desperate Muriels (from Muriel's Wedding). The depths these women had sunk to. The humiliation they were willing to endure just to get a ring on their finger from a guy who had obviously been delaying.

And during the convincing stage begging stage the reason one of the Muriels used to try to convince the guy to marry her was not to leave her on the stage alone.

Just picture it. A couple getting married - and all that entails from that moment on - just so the women won't look any more humiliated than she already is. That's no way to begin a marriage.

Another one of the Muriels got upset because her guy didn't want to "phone a friend" and wanted to think about it himself. Personally, I would be glad at such a move because it means he can make up his own mind. And this is the very thing my wife said during that segment. The last thing I would want - if I was a woman (and the last thing my wife said she would want) - is a guy who needs to phone friends before being able to make a decision. But maybe she was hoping the person he would phone would do some convincing for her. Who knows?

I didn't see the end of this show (15 minutes was about as much as I could handle) though I did see one of the wedding ceremonies. And thought it rather ironic that one of the vows was to be HONEST with the other person. I mean, here is a marriage which is taking place because the bride has been DISHONEST. That is, the wedding is taking place because of dishonesty, yet one of the vows is to be honest. Not off to a good start there.

Does such a show have any saving grace?

Yes. If there is a saving grace it is that it does force the guy's hand. The woman finds out now whether there is any possible future together. And the sooner this is known, the sooner it can either take place or they can go their separate ways to find someone else. Of course, the downside is the manner in which this is found out. There is a LOT of pressure put on the guy and that could either see a wedding take place which shouldn't have - or - see no wedding take place that would have under normal conditions that didn't involve such manipulations and trickery and pressure.

Rail Against The Machine

Picture this in your mind... there is a BIG machine. It is six storeys tall and half a mile wide and half a mile deep. It is totally encased in metal that is fifty feet thick. To you, it looks like a big block of solid metal.

Now imagine that HUGE machine is inching its way towards you. You have seen it swallow up cars and even houses. And no matter what anyone does to it, the metal does not dent and overall the machine appears to be impervious.

In your mind you go up to this slow moving behemoth and you pound against the surface of the machine with the meaty parts of your fists - as if you were stabbing the machine but without holding a knife.

Feel how totally and utterly futile your attempts are at trying to stop this machine. Realize the hopelessness of your efforts. And know that no matter what YOU do to the machine, it will not stop on any account. It will just keep on coming.

Now add to this vision. Now imagine you see other people in its path but they seem unaware of the machine. You try to warn them but they aren't listening - or they don't care. You try and try and try. But it's as if you are speaking another language.

Finally, you say to yourself, "To hell with this. I'm outta here" and you hop in your car and drive off. Leaving the slow moving machine to do what it does best - consume everyone and everything who remains in its path.

Pretty bleak picture, isn't it?

And yet, that is the society we live in. Although, instead of a big indestructible machine that is impervious to all assaults on it, we have a government - same thing really.

And just as it was useless to fight the machine, it is equally useless to fight the government or try to get it to change for the betterment of the people.

Sure. I enjoy writing about the ways and methods which people could really and truly prosper. What with my zero tax + property rights writings. But let's face reality. It is pointless to fight something you cannot change while simultaneously giving up on things we can change.

I cannot change government. You cannot change government. And those who make a truly concerted effort to change government, usually end up on the bottom of the political scrap heap like yesterday's discarded newspaper.

What we can do, however, is say "to hell with it", get self-interest and go do our own thing. We can individually break free - if we truly want to and work at it. And we become an example to others.

Most people will do nothing. In fact, they will NOT want you to be free. After all, they aren't free. And if YOU broke free then that would put a lot of pressure on them to do likewise. Because we all understand the idea that "what one man can do another can do." And as long as it was always someone else, we had excuses. But when it is someone you know, then there is no excuse.

But I digress. As I've written elsewhere here, when you operate from a point of self-interest - true self-interest - then and only then do all sides actually benefit.

Self-interest would see you look for ways to be free and you would get free. As opposed to the current state of affairs where people complain about their lack of freedom, dead-end job, and any and all sundry. But they won't really lift a finger to do anything for themselves. They blame the government and want it to change to satisfy them. Railing against the government machine while giving up going after the things they could actually get.

The whole point is to realize this folly.

I know my writing will not change the government one iota. Not even if any people in positions of power with the ability to "make policy" were to read it. It goes against everything a government stands for. I use my writings as a way to share ideas. To enlighten you, my reader. So that YOU can break free of your own accord. So that YOU can likewise stop railing against the machine and get busy doing the other thing.

Marches, demonstrations, rallies, etc., are all just useless railing against the machine. Look at the protests before the Iraq war started. Didn't make a lick of difference to what the machine did. And it was as effective as standing there pounding your fists upon fifty foot thick steel.

Look at the lobby groups. If they were to come together in a productive fashion instead of the machine railing fashion they come together under, they would actually create a lot of value. Instead, they try to change the direction the machine travels in to suit their own agenda and suck the values out of the real value producers.

What it all comes down to is: Don't try to convince people to your way and don't try to change the government machine. Just do what you want to do - get yourself free and to hell with everyone else. And if the other people do want to know how you did it... bill 'em.

Cow Juice vs Orange Juice

I have recently come across some remarkable - but little known - research. And I'd like to share it with you. The research is not what you think it is as you start to read this entry. And you may be surprised by it. So please, bear with my anti-milk beginning for the real shocker further on...

Oh yeah... some of the research is over ten years old and some is over thirty years old!!!

First, let me state right off the bat, I do NOT drink milk. I do NOT believe we humans are meant to drink the excretions of another species which are designed for that species' new borns.

From a milk point of view, we are not baby cows. Cow's milk is designed to be consumed by baby cows. Cow's milk is full of bacteria - that is why it MUST be refrigerated. And every time you drink a glass of milk you are drinking a glass full of multiplying bacteria (nice thought, eh?). You are also drinking udder wash, anti-biotics (anti-biotic means anti-life: think about it), natural cow hormones as well as artificial hormones, and other nasties. If it wasn't for the fact cow's milk comes from another species, the additives alone should be enough to NOT drink it.

If you'd really like a rundown on WHY we humans should not drink milk I suggest going over the following two websites: http://www.notmilk.com and http://www.nomilk.com.

Anyway. The first bit of research concerns milk. And to sum it up states...

where per capita milk consumption is highest, women tend to experience the sharpest age-related falloff in fertility!!!

It all started when gynecologist Daniel W. Cramer of Harvard Medical School linked galactose consumption with increased risk of ovarian cancer. (Galactose is what the body turns milk sugar into.)

He and his team then began collecting and cross referencing published data from 36 countries comparing high milk consumption with fertility rates. The data first compared women in the 24 - 29 age group. And the data showed a greater correlation the older the women were.

For example: In Thailand where 98% of the population cannot drink milk, the fertility drop off from most fertile, was only 26% in women aged 35 - 39. In comparison, in Australia and the U.K. where 95% of the people are able to drink milk, the drop off in fertility from prime was 82% for the same 35 - 39 age group!

Further. When rats where given galactose they became infertile. And women with galactosemia (an inability to metabolize galactose) and who have high concentrations of the sugar in tissue are infertile!

So even though you might be able to drink cow's milk, your body might not be able to metabolize it. And if that is the case and you are a woman, it could make it difficult (near on impossible) to get pregnant.

But it doesn't end there.

Doctor Andrew Saul used to be a milk farmer - he owned/managed a milk diary. As his livelihood depended on his cows being able to give milk, he HAD to know how to keep them pregnant and make sure they did NOT succumb to anything which could prevent them getting pregnant like endometriosis.

The dairy farmers' solution to prevent endometriosis is to supplement the cow's feed/water with selenium. The modern medicine man's solution to fix problems in women is artificial drugs.

The reason selenium is probably so important in stopping endometriosis is because it works closely with Vitamin E - and Vitamin E has been known to help create strong uterine linings since the 1930s!

Another element to consider in all the endometriosis problems is Folic Acid. Doctors are always suggesting a pregnant woman (or wannabe pregnant woman) take Folic Acid supplements. But consider the source of this Folic Acid - dark green leafy vegetables. In fact, the word Folate gets its name from the Latin "Folium" which means leaf.

Of course, cows get plenty of this from the grass they eat all day. However, many humans shun the dark leafy greens and eat a folate-devoid diet.

Anyway. This dairyman decided he'd had enough of cows and became a biologist as well as a nutritionist. Which I deem as a breakthrough because it means he is combining knowledge from different sources.

During his research he came across some research done by Doctor Frederick R. Klenner - who became a doctor in 1936!

Dr. Klenner did extensive research with Vitamin C - ascorbic acid - which is found in orange juice as well as many other fruits. And part of that research involved fertility and pregnancy.

He found a high dose of vitamin C (6000mg) resulted in HIGH sperm counts as well as healthy sperm - super sperm.

But it's with the women that I think he had quite remarkable results.

As pregnant women came into his practice he began giving them high doses of Vitamin C. He gave them 4 grams daily for the first trimester, 6 grams daily for the second trimester, and 10 grams daily for the third trimester. With 80% getting a booster of 10 grams when they went into hospital.

He found:

* The only time the women had leg cramps was when they didn't take their Vitamin C

* When Striae gravidarum (stretch marks) where encountered it was ALWAYS due to over eating and lack of walking

* Labor was shorter and less painful

* There were no postpartum hemorrhages

* No patients required catheterization

* No toxic manifestations

* No cardiac stress even though 22 women had rheumatic hearts

* The infants born were all robust

* Not a single case required resuscitation

* No miscarriages

* No feeding problems

* Not a single deformed baby

* Among the births were the Fultz quadruplets - they took the mother's milk on the second day and, at the time, were the only quadruplets that had survived in southeastern United States

* The nurses referred to these babies as the "Vitamin C Babies"

When the children were born they were all given 50mg of Vitamin C daily. And he also had them take their age in grams of Vitamin C until they were 10 years old. It was/is important to continue with the C as the baby got it during gestation and some will be in the mother's milk. (Klenner did loads more research with Vitamin C and you can read a ve-e-e-ery lo-o-o-o-o-ong and interesting 1971 paper of his here.)

All in all, his results are quite amazing. Where else would 300 hundred consecutive women all go full term without any miscarriages or deformities or other problems.

The other interesting thing about Vitamin C is that is plays such an important roll in cell strength, collagen (as you may have heard), blood vessel wall integrity and so on.

Other research has also shown women who cannot go to term - they always abort - being able to go to term once they began Vitamin C supplementation in the ranges mentioned in this entry.

So in conjunction with my other writings on this subject, removal of all soy products and other estrogen creating products, removal of all high copper foods, and HCL supplementation to help nutrients get into the body and uterine lining, it seems wise to add: remove all diary consumption as it directly effects the ovaries and makes women infertile, and take HIGH doses of Vitamin C to help the body repair and build what it needs to.

Why the need for Vitamin C supplementation?

Because we (the primates) cannot make our own. The other animals on the planet can all make their own Vitamin C. We have a missing element in our liver which prevents Vitamin C being made. So we must ingest it. As meat contains no Vitamin C, we must get it from fruits and vegetables. (Meat eating animals can all manufacture their own Vitamin C.) Which adds even more weight to the "we are not meant/designed to eat meat" concept.

To get the high doses mentioned in this entry, visit your health food store and get ascorbic acid powder (make sure it contains no preservatives). There is no way you can eat 80 oranges a day.