The Anti-Gun Society on Aging DRGO
courtesy Inside Edition
Previous Post
Next Post

By Warren Lind, CSW

Aging Today and AgeBlog, the American Society on Aging’s media, published an article, “Grandparents, Gun Violence and Gun Policy”, this fall. Teri Kennedy, a PhD grandmother with the School of Social Work at Arizona State University, advocated the straight gun restriction party line, from the claim that the Dickey amendment “barred”research to universal background checks, banning “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines”, and “gun safety technology.”

OK, we have no disagreement with “promot[ing] safe storage of guns” (interpreted correctly) or “improve[d] access to and delivery of mental health services”. But, seriously . . .

DRGO correspondent Warren Lind, LCSW, a member of the ASA took enough interest to send the editor an extremely well-documented rebuttal. It follows here, with excerpts from the editor’s reply. His biggest may have been including my name as a co-author.

To the Editor:

Dr. Kennedy’s article does not have anything to do with the goals and vision of ASA and as such should have never been accepted as an article. (See

“Gun violence” is not a leading cause of death in America. The five leading causes are:

  1. Heart Disease:  614,348
  2. Cancer:  591,699
  3. Medical errors (malpractice):  A 2018 Johns Hopkins study claims more than 250,000 people in the U.S. die every year from medical errors. Other reports claim the numbers to be as high as 440,000.
  4.  Chronic lower respiratory disease:  147,101
  5.  Accidents: 136,053

Under the rubric of ‘Gun Culture and Gun Policy’ Dr. Kennedy cites various polls; these are meaningless. First, we don’t know what questions that were asked or how the respondents were selected. (Please Google the terms ‘The Problems with Polls’)  Second, should we poll the public on the right to religion, the right to free speech, or other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?  The Left has been attacking free speech on college campuses for decades – please go to

Dr. Kennedy proposes many “reforms” that have already been debunked or which are canards:

  • “Close gun sale loopholes”:  There are no loopholes; dealers who sell at gun shows must have a Federal Firearm License, and the BATFE closely monitors this.  Criminals get their guns by breaking into homes, gun stores, and even police cars, not to mention the black market.
  • Fact: Only 0.7% of convicts bought their firearms at gun shows. 39.2% obtained them from illegal street dealers.
  • Fact: Fewer than 1% of “crime guns” were obtained at gun shows. This is a reduction from a 1997 study that found 2% of guns used in criminal offenses were purchased at gun shows.
  • Fact: The FBI concluded in one study that no firearms acquired at gun shows were used to kill police. “In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study were obtained from gun shows.”
  • Fact: Only 5% of metropolitan police departments believe gun shows are a problem.
  • Fact: Only 3.5% of youthful offenders reported that they obtained their last handgun at a gun show.(See
  • “Ban the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and military-style assault weapons”. Magazines that come with firearms normally hold as many as 20 rounds, and no true “assault weapons” (that permit automatic fire) are marketed to civilians. (See  FBI statistics show that in 2016 there were 274 murders committed with long guns.  That same year 1,604 murders were committed using “knives or cutting instruments,”472 with “blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.),” and 659 with hands, fists, or feet.
  • “Promote the safe storage of guns”:  The experts at the National Rifle Association – since 1871,has been promoting gun safety, as do scores of other Second Amendment advocacy groups and gun dealers. Many firearm manufactures include free cable locks with each gun.
  • “Close Internet loopholes”:  All guns sold by dealers to individuals must go through a licensed FFL Dealer and FBI background check.

Accidental gun deaths have been decreasing yearly since statistics were first being kept.  Fact:Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S. (495 in 2016). For example, compared to being accidentally killed by a firearm, you are:

  • Five times more likely to burn to death
  • Five times more likely to drown
  • 17 times more likely to be poisoned
  • 17 times more likely to fall to your death, and
  • 68 times more likely to die in an automobile accident.


If Dr. Kennedy was truly concerned about elders, which is the focus of ASA, then she would be much more focused on:

1) Seeking ways to reduce the deaths caused by medical malpractice, not to mention the millions of injuries, and

2) Seeking to protect elders from criminal attacks.  From 2003 to 2013 rates of nonfatal violent crime against the elderly increased 27 percent, from 3.4 to 4.4 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 65 or older (Source:


Warren Lind, MA, MSW, LCSW

Here is the editor’s reply:

Hello, Warren,

We had received, in mid-Oct., your blog submission. We are unable to publish this for the following reasons:

– this has been written with the inclusion of an author who is not an ASA member; all blog submissions must be authored solely by ASA members.

– this piece has unsubstantiated narrative, which needs more accurate research/resources/references to back up the narrative.

– this piece does not include any resource information that our professional membership can use in their work to serve and support older adults and their families; this is a must for inclusion in AgeBlog (see attached guidelines).

If you would like to either rework this as a “resource piece” or submit a short Letter to the Editor (no more than 350 words), authored by you, we will consider either submission.

Thank you, Warren, for your support of ASA.


Alison Hood

We contemplated revising our response to meet Ms. Hood’s requirements. It was easy to delete my name, as I had actually contributed very little. Yet there is nothing “unsubstantiated” in Lind’s detailed response, and it has gobs of “resource information” referenced that would give ASA’s membership authoritative data about the real issues in “gun violence” and prevention. It became obvious we would be wasting our time once we realized that the original article she was happy to publish in Aging Today/AgeBlog did not meet Hood’s standards itself.

Lind continues to fight the good fight by writing for rational publications in the Midwest and responding to wrong-headed articles in other media. We thank him for sharing his good work.


This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission. 

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Liars protecting liars from being exposed. Facts? No place for those in this ‘conversation’ about ‘gun safety’ — i.e., gun confiscation methods and procedures. What blatant hypocrisy. An ‘unsubstantiated narrative’ — lol … hers is the one full of lies.

    • Hard to believe that grandma in the photo kept that three-pound Smith steady enough for the picture. And thinking she is going to shoot it double-action no less. Barn sides everywhere are trembling.

      • Funny, I haven’t read the whole article yet, but couldn’t help but think “that’s one bad a$$ grandma holding a bad a$$ revolver!”

    • most “street guns” start out as a straw purchase….gun show sales…whether private or through an FFL…are a non-factor….

  2. There is no such thing as ‘Gun Violence’. There is only Criminal Violence.

    I refuse to have ANY conversation with Socialists or Fascists that insist on firearms restrictions to combat ‘gun violence’.

    • While I get your attitude, I would like to point out that the reason we are in defense is because we continue to ignore the threat from the left. Our silence, or lack of rebuttals has left a giant void that has allowed the left to monopolize the “debate.” Terms like assault weapons and high capacity magizines are commonplace because we have let them become so. I urge you and everyone to call out the left and dispelled the ignorance whenever and where ever we see it. I am sending an email to the publisher of this blog as soon as I’m done here.

      • misnomers and misinformation are standard tactics if the anti-gun left that needs to be challenged at every opportunity….

      • Right! You got the real meaning, and I only hope that somebody follows through and publishes what the original article refuses to air.

      • Thank you for stating the absolute truth!
        The liberal/socialist lunatics must be brought under control.
        Their lies have to be exposed at every left turn these anti-American,haters make

  3. As an aging member of society I say that Mr. Lind’s rebuttal article was well written and included plenty of references that I can (and just did) look up.

    I am not a member of ASA, and in that vein, I offer the comment (with no due respect) to Ms. Hood that she is a politically-motivated, social-engineering quack of a hack…thank Heaven that she is not allowed to dispense Scheduled substances thereby contributing her part to the 250+k annual fatal medical “mistakes”.

  4. Gun violence? Is that anything like hammer violence? Car violence? Knife violence? Alcohol violence? Abortion violence?

  5. Anti gun opeds are no more than NPC copypasta. To believe they are sincere in any way one would have to accept that the author has no access to the infinite amount of data which shows their regurgitation of 50 year old dead horse talking points to as wrong as they are.

    • Exactly! Being this is the 21st century and this debate is taking place between Americans in America one can only assume that everyone on both sides has access to everything from the DOJ and FBI crime stats to the CDCs report on the number of DGUs, as well as all the other relevant information that is freely and readily available. Given this, anyone producing such counterfactual arguments formulated on nothing but incorrect and easily refuted assumptions and offering no evidence outside of circular and internal references can rightly be dismissed out of hand. They cannot be earnestly and honestly attempting to engage since their arguments are unsupported by fact and refuted by literally all available evidence. The briefest research, only a few minutes at Google, would provide zero supporting evidence and mountains of verifiable and highly trustworthy evidence to the contrary.
      In such a situation one can only assume that the person seeking debate is doing so dishonestly, ignoring the lack of evidence to support and overwhelming evidence against their position, or else they lack the intellectual capacity to read and u understand the relevant facts. Are we doomed to endlessly debate fools and liars? How does one handle such poorly researched, incorrect and illogical arguments in other fields? They are dismissed out of hand. Because these sophomoric attempts create confusion and distract from rather than advance understanding of their topic, the authors of such screeds are routinely criticised quite harshly. Often those involved are directly called out as liars, frauds or charlatans, other times they are merely dismissed as ignorant neophytes or as being intellectually challenged.

      In any case the time is long passed when such ridiculous, misleading and counterfactual arguments were worthy of response. It is, in this age of information, impossible to credit such garbage with the benefit of the doubt or to take it with any seriousness. The authors of such pieces may reasonably be expected to perform basic research first, and failing to do so, may rightly be called fools or liars or both. Mark Twain, on being asked how one should respond to such meritless but persistent arguments was quoted as saying those who make such arguments should be ridiculed, roundly and publicly, at every opportunity.
      That isn’t to say we shouldn’t offer rebuttals, rather that when we do we should freely and generously call out the author as being lazy, stupid, or dishonest. With such garbage as addressed in the OP, the author has no escape from such charges as clearly either laziness prevented basic research, stupidity precluded a proper understanding of the research, or dishonesty prevented proper reporting of the research. In any case, in no way should someone so lazy, so stupid or so dishonest be given any benefit of doubt or taken seriously in any way. If one wishes to spout unsubstantiated claims which are easily disproved, one ought to be treated as a fool.

  6. This shows the people that the anti-gun group don’t want to hear the truth. If you make a point they just flat ignore it or sweep it under the rug..In Commiefornia , one the most gun controlling states in the nation, the crime rate is up. You know the criminals don’t really obey the laws. The so called elected officials seem have their heads in the clouds when it comes to crime, The best way is you punish the crooks, not the law abiding gun owners.

    • need to understand that we’re the real targets…not the bad guys…it’s all part of their political agenda…

    • Indeed, the truth is merely an inconvenience to the left in general and gun controllers in particular. Merit, as defined by the left, involves determining whether or not something adheres to their dogma. At no time does whether something is true or not matter. Likewise, on the left, utility and practicality have no bearing on a things value, only it’s usefulness to the cause. It is not important that a thing even be possible, so long as it serves the narrative. If facts do not support the narrative one either ignores those facts or creates new “facts” that do support the narrative.
      This is why exposing leftists as being liars is ineffective in diminishing their position with the left. Honesty is not a valued trait to progressives, service to the cause is.
      Notice how the right speaks volumes about the dishonesty of various progressives and decries the unworkability of progressive schemes, but the left never seem to address either of these concerns.
      When progressives attack conservatives they talk about how unlikable they are, how hateful, not how dishonest. The reason is that to other progressives, having a “hateful” (meaning not in keeping with progressive orthodoxy) attitude is a serious crime, while being merely dishonest hardly matters at all.
      Likewise, progressives to not argue against conservative policies by indicating why such would not work, but rather by pointing out how such is anti…woman, gay, elderly, black, white, poor…which is progressive code for saying the policy is hateful (see meaning of hateful above).
      To a progressive policies are not good or bad, they are pro…woman, gay, black, poor, elderly etc (in other words they are dogmatically orthodox) or the policy is anti…poor, black, woman etc…by which they mean hateful (see above).
      Make no mistake, these words they use have meaning, just not the plain meaning they normally have in American English.

      In short: conservatives argue about what’s good for the United States, progressives argue about what is good for progressivism. When it seems the gulf of disconnect between right and left only ever gets wider, remember this.

      • I no longer use the words ‘progressive,’ ‘liberal,’ or ‘Democrat.’ They are communists, and want to install communism here. Using any words other than communist, allows the communists a nice-sounding cover that is dangerous to anyone who still has a working brain. The word ‘communist’ may not pierce through the minds of those who might still hear, but given that we are in a battle of words right now, it might matter.

        Communists are extremely skilled, well-versed, and deliberate in their use of particular words: racism, sexism, etc. They wield words as their weapons, and do it far more effectively than conservatives. Granted, they control the media that pounds their lies into the minds of the mostly unthinking masses. But short of armed conflict at this point, words are the weapons we must figure out how to use far more effectively.

        These people are communists. Many are ‘useful idiots,’ and actually believe that their causes are just. The few at the top are flat-out communists, and know precisely where they are going with all this: communism, of the same brand as the Bolsheviks had in Russia; i.e., brutal, murderous, and total.

        • I don’t disagree Mr. Buley. I use progressive and leftist for clarity of common understanding among those readers who may not yet have correctly identified these people as communists, or who maintain there is a difference. Further, if I insist that communists do x, and a reader isn’t aware that by communist I also mean progressives and leftists then they will not fully recognize the scale and scope of the problem.

          There is also a question of accuracy, as communist has a defined and generally accepted meaning where as progressive and leftist are more inclusive, have fluctuating meanings and maybe variously redefined over time. I would argue that all progressives are communists but not all communists are progressives, and in the modern US usage, leftist tends to mean ‘with socialist tendencies or leanings’ but often could be construed when compared to communists to mean a fellow traveler.

          What’s more important, and really requires a different paradigm is that all leftists, progressives and communists are statists.

          Left and right are misnomers, and cause much confusion. The important question is better represented on a vertical scale. At the bottom being anarchy and the top being totalitarianism.
          On such a scale American conservatives are a little below center while progressives, leftists, communists, fascists and socialists are all above the 75% line.

          On this scale one’s political and social beliefs are measured in terms of relative levels of government control and influence.
          To be on the right in America places one near or somewhat below center on this scale, and for example libertarians (little “l”) would rank below conservatives and rightists.
          Meanwhile both communists and fascists would be properly placed at the very top, well above the cut off line for tyrannical state control.
          Fascist and communist suffer from describing both a political and economic systems which leads to confusion. What is important to those who value freedom is the relative level of state control involved.
          What we are fighting about is the amount of statism one advocates. In America, to be “on the left” is to be very pro statist where as being “on the right” is to be anti statist. This is the relevant framework in which we are debating. In the end those on the right are unconcerned about whether we have a totalitarian communist or totalitarian fascist regime, and very concerned about whether we have a constitutional republic which recognizes our rights and liberties. That is, the nature of the totalitarian state isn’t what’s being argued, but whether or not to have one at all. In this way communists and fascists are fellow travelers, both advocating for statism, and are more alike than different.
          When the left and progressives in the US frame the debate as being between communists of the left and fascists in the right with some sort if statist tyranny inevitable they both create a false dichotomy and tip their hand…by admitting they can see only a totalitarian state one way or the other with no possibility of a constitutional republic that respects the rights and liberties of its citizens.
          In the end, the only labels that matter are pro liberty or pro state. The right in general, gun owners in particular and various others are the pro liberty crowd while leftists, progressives, communists, socialists and fascists are all decidedly pro state. This is our fight, stripped bare.

  7. How would you expect the Bimbo to react to the truth considering she lives in a world of lies and exaggeration. “YOU WANT THE TRUTH, YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH”!!! Truth doesn’t enter into the equation with the anti-gun lobby. It’s all about smoke and mirrors with them. Truth and facts only complicates their rhetoric. They believe a lie repeated enough times to enough people will eventually become a truth, and unfortunately there is validity in that statement when dealing with emotional low information people who receive 90% of the limited amount of news they get off YouTube. Winston Churchill once said “Alie will circle the earth several times before the truth gets out”. So maybe we should start practicing that same thing, before the left wing socialists are able to releace their lies, the truth should be already be out there digested by the people.

  8. Don’t let the tone of the reply by Alison Hood fool you. She just wants Mr. Lind to go away and not bother her anymore. Note that she didn’t say they would accept whatever he submitted even if it met her criteria – only that they would “consider it”. Have no doubt, their minds are made up and closed to anyone who doesn’t toe their line of bullshit.

  9. A college degree is only needed to certify you as a liar who is protected by the Academia. The definition of today’s PhD in 2018.

    There is easily accessible information available to the Layman. This can easily be used to refute the argument of any college educated person.

    I got my “union card”, a college degree. But when you have American PhD history professors telling you that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the individual but to the collective such as a National Guard, then I question the value having a college degree, with college professors who teach this drivel to their students.

    They might as well just teach to students, 2 plus 2 equals 5. And believe it, because I your college professor told you so.

  10. YAWN — No, not about the article — the yawn is about virtually the entire comments section.

    1 – We are losing the battle.

    2 – The major reason we are losing the battle is because the other side dominates the media directed both towards both the general public and towards nearly every non-shooting-specific segment of the public.

    3 – The second reason we are losing the battle is because (as demonstrated in the comments here) we spend all our time and energy preaching to the choir while completely accepting #2 as an unchangeable fact of life.

    • “The second reason we are losing the battle is because (as demonstrated in the comments here) we spend all our time and energy preaching to the choir while completely accepting #2 as an unchangeable fact of life.”

      OK, you’ve cursed the darkness, now how about lighting a candle.

      What do you suggest we do to turn the tide?

      • Concealed carry on demand in about 42 states, I have reciprocity with my permits to legally carry in over 40 states, relaxation of regs on suppressors, I don’t think we’re losing any battle- I believe the genie is already out of the bottle. Our worst enemies are the cynics who sit around pissing and moaning rather than organize and go directly to those who can make a difference. I honestly think there’s a pretty big segment who’d rather be able to say “I told you so” than get off their asses, open their wallets, turn on their brains for once and get involved.

        Might suck to be you, Tom C and others like you, but I actually enjoy the engagement and challenge, I’ve been active in this battle since 1971 and still relish justifying myself and that of the nation.

  11. Sooo tired of hearing about gun control when the biggest mass murderers in history kill 480,000 Americans (6,000,000 people globally) per year to the 30,000 that die by guns. That’s sixteen deaths for every one gun related deaths. The kicker is that we could significantly reduce tobacco related deaths so when people start screaming about gun control I always ask why they aren’t yelling about tobacco.

    • Hell, why aren’t they yelling about the 200,000 (minimum) hospital-caused / doctor-caused deaths each year? But nobody yells at doctors.

    • And when people talk about cigarettes I change the subject to doctors. I’m more likely to be killed by my doctor than by a bad man breaking down my door. I can protect myself against the latter, but I can’t make the former wash his damn hands.

  12. Looking carefully at the photo, an enderly lady, phone in one hand, a revolver in the other hand, which she appears ready to fire, one handed, double action. This picture is about as phones as a summers day is long.

  13. Since most of the American people aren’t exactly gun savvy. They believe the lies, lies and more lies told them by the antigun side. Their “statistics” since they come from “Official sources therefore must be true.
    Unfortunately Ive pretty much given up even discussing guns with non gun associates. Its always proven to be a waste of time on my part.
    You cant open a closed mind with facts.

  14. They refuse to print it because it was a pro-gun article and the Left ignores facts as contrary to their agenda.

  15. I do not fear a government with a gun !
    I fear a government that fears MY gun !

    Propaganda ! Gun control is pure propaganda !
    The corrupt public SERVANTS will never be without ARMED security !
    The wealthy will never surrender their guns & ARMED SECURITY !
    They both only want our guns so that WE have no way to stop their guns , that they will , willingly , wantonly ,grossly & groosomely use to kill US if we refuse to do their bidding !
    One only need remember documented history , ” example” wasn’t long ago , wealthy farm owners forced their workers ” at gun point ” to live in housing owned by the wealthy farm owner , locked in at nite at gun point , transported to the wealthy farmrs fields to work at gun point , forced at gun point to buy all their goods at a store owed by the wealthy farm owner ! The workers housing , transportation & goods always costing the worker more than what the wealthy farm owner is paying them ! Can it be more corrupt ? But the government & media ” controlled by the wealthy ” would have US believe that the wealthy are wonderful , law abiding , pillars of society & WE should be thankful that the wealthy ” from the goodness of their hearts ” give us jobs !
    No no , the wealthy trade us a job for greater wealth for themselfs !
    Now start pissing at me , that I’m jealous of the wealthy !

  16. Both “gun violence” and “gun safety” are misnomers. The former is used by progressive Democrats to excuse the violent street gang members, whom they see as “poor minorities.” The latter term as used by Democrats means that all law abiding owners of firearms and concealed handgun licensees, whom they see as “vigilant racists,” must be disarmed by the state.

    Violent crimes involving illegally purchased or stolen guns are committed by violent CRIMINALS. We citizens must protect ourselves from these violent criminals because the police cannot, and the state will not do so.

  17. Mental health services is a big joke. There is no science there whatsoever. You can take the same individual to 5 different practitioners and you will get at least 3 different diagnoses. This is not like REAL medicine. There is no X-Ray, CT scan, or other real-world test. Freud made up a lot of his stuff out of thin air and now a lot of that is preached like it is gospel. I mowed the lawn as a teenager for two retired psychiatrists. Craziest people I ever did meet. They were good to me personally, but they kept their whole house with the curtains drawn and didn’t want me cutting close to bushes, just leave the grass to grow up next to them. Paid me more every year when I never asked for it. Had me cut every week, even when it didn’t need it. Sometimes I had to look hard at my mower track to see what I had been and where I had to cover. They stayed locked up in that house until they died. You never saw them out in their yard (They lived next to my grandparents). I wouldn’t trust anything they told me.

Comments are closed.