Previous Post
Next Post

Pill gun (courtesy

“Here’s a secret: I’m diagnosed bipolar. I take four medications to function normally. I can say that out of all the feelings I’ve had, all the mood swings, all the depression, I’ve never wanted or needed a gun.” – L. Lee in Bombshell Study: Gun Owners Tend to Be Angry, Unstable, Impulsive [via]

[h/t DrVino]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Sadly reading her “About L. Lee” seems to confirm your intimation of her mental state.

      “considers herself an uppity Southern woman and the only sane person left in the swamps of South Georgia. ”

      If you think you are the only sane person in a entire state, then you might be the crazy one!

      Not to mention her apparent prejudice toward anyone questioning her.:

      “If you are a conservative troll and want to keep her too busy to write liberal propaganda definitely buy her craftin supplies. 😉 “

    • That would dry up all conversation on Lefty blogs. BTW, this “study” sounds as baseless and result driven as the Wintermute “study” from about 1988 which has been shredded and eviscerated countless times.

  1. Really? And if one has 6 or more guns, blah, blah, blah…
    Who the heck participates in these “studies”?

      • I know one of them. He’s cool. It’s a job and one that pays quite well. Don’t confuse those guys with the minature tyrant.

        • Tyrants and their hired guns are one in the same there Frank. I would have more contempt for the piece of garbage that allows and accepts evil in it’s presence, than I would have for the evil man.

          The body guard is the definition of comfortable coward. Cash before conscience.

  2. How come they can have a Suppressor on the pill dispenser, but I can’t have one at all?

    I have to find one of those to go with my 1911 shaped bottle of Hijos de Villa Reposado.

    • In the case of the person taking those pills, the suppressor symbolizes what the pills do to them. People taking psychotropic medications are not generally good candidates for gun ownership.

    • Is that tequila any good? I have one of those 1911 shaped bottles that I bought as a souvenir the first time I visited Austin, and I’ve been considering cracking it (now would be the time, It’s about ten years old). I have a wine fridge, it’s been cared for, I just didn’t originally buy it to drink and sort of forgot about it.

  3. Americans Against The Tea Party, eh?
    And Google says their site is just chock-full of incredibly stupid anti gun rants.

    I think I can avoid contributing to their page view count.

  4. Projection continues apace.

    Funny how it doesn’t work both ways – You take four psychotropic drugs to feel “normal” and I don’t have a problem with that.

    I exercise a natural, civil, and constitutionally-protected right and you think I’m “unstable”.

    • It’s worse than that. His opinion ignores huge icebergs of logic. The very fact that he had the time and opportunity to visit a doctor, who had the time and opportunity to attend med school, (for their to even be a med school, and a pharmacuetical company) for him to have the time and opportunity to even have a thought, and the time and opportunity to post it anywhere. All that is predicated on a balance of threat from his fellow man, and that balance requires ‘arms’. And the lack of balance would require a greater need for the implementation of arms.
      Self-described “Unstable people” din’t get to decide ANYTHING for the rest of us. Most of all who is ‘unstable’.

  5. Scientific studies, like firearms, should be handled with respect and caution. If you misuse a gun, someone may die. If you misuse a study, Jenny McCarthy may latch onto your propaganda and cause thousands of preventable deaths.

      • JROs point is valid. Both scientific research and guns can be mishandled and used improperly. mainstream media (along with JM) frequently misrepresent research findings to everyone’s detriment

        • Agree, the problem with most “scientific” research it is that is driven by money. Here’s a quote by Richard Horton, Editor in chief of the prominent medical Journal, The Lancet, take it for what it’s worth. “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
          Throwing outspoken celebrities under the bus adds nothing to the conversation and is intellectually dishonest.

        • Denying that the opinions of celebrities have major sway in the U.S. is intellectually dishonest. Denying that a significant portion of the population listens to what celebrities say, takes it to heart, and acts upon it without doing any further research is intellectually dishonest. It is not JM’s fault that people listen to her and she’s entitled to her opinion, of course, and she probably came to that opinion by reading something and/or talking to someone else who fully convinced her of it, but were JM’s comments and outspokenness and celebrity status directly responsible for the rapid growth of the anti-vax movement? YES. Did her comments directly cause preventable deaths? Yes. I agree with Jolly Roger. My wife is part of a “natural parenting” group in our region and there’s an anti-vax contingent on there. I’ve seen with my own eyes how many of them refer to JM whenever they feel a need to present “facts,” reasoning, backing, purpose, etc for their choice. JM is their role model / leader in this.

        • Jeremy, no one said celebrities don’t have both disproportional and underserved influence over the public. We’ve seen it countless times with gun rights. As far as your statement as JM being some role model or leader with parents who are choosing to opt out of vaccines for their children is either dishonest or misinformed. She is used as the classic straw man to attack the position without debating the science behind the position. The ‘rapid growth’ of the number people questioning and researching vaccines has nothing to do with JM and everything to do with people starting to wake up and doing some research INSTEAD of listening to celebrities.

  6. “Liz Lee considers herself an uppity Southern woman and the only sane person left in the swamps of South Georgia.” From her bio. Little note: if you’re diagnosed bi-polar and take meds to function, you may want to rethink the adjective sane.

    • only sane person left in the swamps of South Georgia

      If you can’t spot the sucker in your first half hour at the table….

      • Ha! I thought it was the first thirty seconds…

        It also shows the extreme contempt the anti gun left has for just about everyone but themselves.

        The ‘only sane person’ in south Georgia is a pill popping wacked out liberal nut? Okay….

  7. So… A woman who takes major medication to “feel normal” is projecting her issues on to the majority of people who don’t have severe mental problems? Color me shocked.

  8. “Bombshell Study: Gun Owners Tend to Be Angry, Unstable, Impulsive”

    According to the quote the title should be NON gun owners. And we’re NUTS. Suuuuuuuuuure.

  9. Are we supposed to take the opinion of someone that is bi-polar and takes 4 pills a day to “feel normal” seriously ? Who knows what is going through her head when she sits down at the keyboard ?

  10. I’m glad that her meds allow her to function in society. Does that mean that those of us that don’t require meds are not as good as her?With all my mood swings and episodes of anger and emotion, I have never once felt the need to eat a sardine sandwich. So my adversion to sardines means that no one needs sardines? My comparison makes about as much sense as her’s does.

    • Only if you talk about the pain and fear you have of accidentally consuming sardines and how banning them makes you feel safer and how if it saves even one children’s palate it will be worth it.

  11. I call B.S. on the “study” referenced in her article. Where is this study ? Need to see the methods used and the background information or it is just more propaganda. I am not angry at anyone and the gun owners that I know are not angry at anyone in particular.

  12. An utterly bogus headline – No bombshell, not even a party popper
    I quote from one of the commenters below:

    From: Josh Davis

    “The study doesn’t say what this article says that it says. The article makes it sound like if someone is a gun owner, then it’s likely that they are angry, unstable, and/or impulsive, and the study doesn’t say that at all. It doesn’t even show that people who have those characteristics are more likely to be gun owners, which I would have actually expected.

    This study categorized people based on how many guns they own into 0, 1, 2, 3-5, 6-10, or 11+ and looked at the percentage who are angry, unstable, and/or impulsive. The average for the whole population was 25%. The 0 group was 25.4%, an ABOVE average tendency to fit the category. The only category of gun owners that was higher than non gun owners was the 3-5 group, with 27%. The study shows that people who own fewer than 3 or more than 5 guns have a lower tendency to fit the category, with single gun owners rounding out the bottom at 21.9%.”

    Pretty much statistically insignificant findings.
    About 25% of people are angry, unstable, or impulsive.
    Who’da guessed?

    • This study categorized people based on how many guns they own into 0, 1, 2, 3-5, 6-10, or 11+

      Ah, binning. An often necessary part of data analysis, it’s also one of the easiest ways that researchers (or propagandists) can manipulate study design so as to give the results they want. I can practically guarantee you this binning scheme came about something like this:

      1. Compared gun owners to non-owners. This was scrapped when it showed gun owners, overall, to be MORE stable.

      2. Subsequent iterations probably had the 3-5 cohort split up, with each part grouped with an adjacent bin. Set up this way,those bins either showed below average instability, our failed to reach statistical significance. They may have also considered each number on its own, but found the results for 3,4 and 5 failed to reach significance each on their own.

      3. Finally, they found that grouping 3-5 together and isolating them from other cohorts, they could find the positive result they wanted.

      • The author will be comforted by the fact that I fall into 10+ firearms range and don’t have anger issues. On the other hand, the 20+ swords I own probably add to the calming effect. Swoosh. Bang. Swoosh. Bang.

      • Yep! And even worse than that, even if there were a correlation between angry and impulsive people and gun ownership, they were unable to demonstrate any correlation between angry and impulsive people and “gun violence.” So why the call for more gun bans? Oh, yeah, ’cause guns…and Think Of The Children™. 🙂

  13. From the source article,

    Jeffrey Swanson, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University shared [sic] explained the evidence:
    “… now we have more evidence that current laws don’t necessarily keep firearms out of the hands of a lot of potentially dangerous individuals.”

    Whether or not any such “evidence” really exists, how in the world does anyone define a “potentially dangerous individual”? What are the “danger” units of measure? What “danger” threshold does someone have to meet so that we imprison them before they act out?

    And then we have this gem from the source article:

    In other words, yes, we are protected from those with diagnosed mental illness.

    Really?!?!?!? Last I heard just about all of the recent spree killers had known mental illness and were still out walking the streets! That most certainly does NOT meet my definition of “protected from those with diagnosed mental illness”.

    Finally, from the source article

    However, if an angry person with impulse control issues has a clean record and clear medical history, they pose more of a danger to society.

    Ya think? If such a person is truly dangerous to society, keeping them from acquiring firearms (which is impossible by the way but I’ll humor gun-grabbers) has no impact on their ability to set a crowded building on fire or drive a pickup truck into a crowd of people.

    Who are these people who thrash around trying to predict who is most dangerous and when to infringe on their rights before they have attacked anyone? That is a fool’s errand. It is way simpler and much, MUCH less expensive to simply be prepared for the “angry person with impulse control issues” … oh, and violent criminals.

    Pro tip: that means being armed. A cell phone is useless during a violent attack.

    • ‘…current laws don’t necessarily keep firearms out of the hands of a lot of potentially dangerous individuals.’

      No sh!t. This is why I have a gun. If the government could keep them out of the hands of bad guys I wouldn’t need one.

  14. “Gun Owners Tend to Be Angry, Unstable, Impulsive”

    Anti gun people tend to be crazy! Did he note that anywhere in there?

  15. ‘I can say that out of all the feelings I’ve had, all the mood swings, all the depression, I’ve never wanted or needed a gun.’

    Of course not. Guns are for thwarting criminal attacks. For mood swings and depression we have beer.

  16. Looks like more proof that “studies” will have whatever result the people paying for/performing the “study” are looking for. The mental health issue we hear repeatedly may be the Trojan horse for gun control; realize that all psychiatric disorders are 100% subjective opinion. There are no lab tests or objective data to confirm or deny any psychiatric diagnosis. The potential for this to be exploited with political dissidents is pretty clear.

    • Yes, there are lab tests and positive diagnoses for many psychotic all disorders. More and more we are discovering that psychological conditions are manifestations of the physical structure of the brain.

      Psychological states can be induced through physical modification to the brain and can be neutralized in a similar fashion.

      In the future we may be dealing with the reality of having captured a mass killer and applied a “cure” for his/her condition, considering the moral dilema of punishing a person who now feels remorse acutely for what they did during a definably altered state of mind.

      Not to mention the likely outcome of misapplication of emergent technology in creating sociopathic criminals out of normal people.

      We can currently induce fear paranoia reverence lust and other states at will in a laboratory setting. Who do you hold accountable in the future when a mistake at the hospital leads to the creation of a columbine shooter out of a normal kid going in for a checkup?

  17. I’m going to throw out a realistic statistic. 100% of people are capable of “angry out burst” and have the ability to harm someone.

  18. After you really get to know someone who is bipolar and understand how they work you start to see signs of that mental disorder in many people. The most obvious is a serious lack of critical thinking ability and a drive to push an emotionally based decision. Many anti gunners have shown these traits. Many politicians have shown these traits…

    • ‘Lack of critical thinking’…..that defines 98% of the US. That’s the problem with these mental disorder labels, where’s the proof?

  19. So, when this woman is sitting at a bus stop and having a conversation with a bottle of her urine that she carries and cares for like a baby people ignore her and try to avoid making eye contact with her.

    Give this same woman a keyboard and suddenly she’s a goddess to people like God and willy lunchmeat and kapo bloomberrg.


  20. “The study found that a large number of individuals in the United States self-report patterns of impulsive angry behavior and also possess firearms at home (8.9%) or carry guns outside the home (1.5%).”

    What? When did 8.9% of the people in a study become a “large number”? This must be some strange use of statistics that I have not previously encountered.

    • The numbers seem odd to me as well. I have to wonder if they even bothered to compare the portion of “angry” people with guns to the portion of the general population with guns. It almost sounds like they began with those self-reporting anger issues and then looked among them for gun owners.

  21. I had a girlfriend who was bi-polar and the ex-wife is nuts. I approve this thing being unarmed…why do the crazy project their insanity on everyone else?

  22. This is just a perfect microcosm of America today — a crazy person heaping scorn on sane people, while the Amen Corner of even crazier people celebrate their collective insanity.

  23. There are so many problems with this, I don’t know where to start… Projection, Needs, Detached from reality, Only crazy needs a gun? If I’m so angry and unstable, why haven’t I shot anyone yet?

    Maybe is psychotic dickbags would stop attacking my human rights, I wouldn’t be so grumpy about dickbags attacking my human rights? Provoke, antagonize, then point finger at them; one of the few tricks in the liberal bag…

    • Liberalism contains key traits of many mental disorders but I would still classify it as a disorder in of itself.

  24. “…I’ve never wanted or needed a gun.”

    Well that’s super that you’ve come to that realization. Can I assume that you’ll support my decision arm myself since I am not burdened by the same afflictions?

  25. So if you read the study out of those polled with anger issues only 8.9% owned guns and 1.5% carried outside the home so how is this gun owners tend to angry? How about, “Those with anger issues tend not to own guns”… “out of those polled with anger issues 98.5% didn’t carry a gun out of the home and 91.1% didn’t own any guns at all.” Or only antis have anger issues.

  26. Study behind paywall, but copy here

    TL;DR version: 8.9% self-report patterns of impulsive angry behavior and have guns at home. 1.5% carry outside of home. Presumably knives at home are 100%

    Other interesting correlations are at

    Example: people who drown after falling from a fishing boat strongly correlates with marriage rate in Kentucky.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here