Kamala Harris Gun Sense University
Courtesy Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton
◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

Vice President Kamala Harris believes gun control is a public health issue, giving Americans more reasons to be wary of gun control efforts.

The problem is, crime isn’t a disease, as much as gun control advocates want to treat it as such. Criminal activity is a behavior and science has yet to bring about a medical remedy that prevents an individual from committing crimes. But that’s not stopping Vice President Harris from tossing out debunked data, purposefully confusing suicides with criminal firearm misuse and conveniently glossing over the Biden administration’s failures to address the real problem of crime.

“I — as Vice President of the United States, I am acutely aware of the fact that gun violence is the leading cause of death of the children of America,” Vice President Harris told Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund’s Annual Gun Sense University Conference in Chicago last week. “It’s — it’s the number one cause of death — not some disease — well, although this is a form of a disease, to be sure.  Gun violence is the leading cause of death of our children.”

Two Problems

First, Vice President Harris is throwing around the debunked talking point of “gun violence” being the leading cause of death among children. That is a lie. NSSF exposed that false talking point in April. The University of Michigan arrived at that data by including adults aged 18 and 19 to the data set. In any other setting, people of those two ages are categorized as adults. They’re hardly children. Without that expanded age group, the talking point falls flat.

NSSF wasn’t the only one to shine a light on the lie. Breitbart busted the lie as well, as did the website Gun Facts. David Harsanyi took apart the false claim in The Federalist. Even NBC News gave the side-eye to the gun control industry’s loose interpretation of “children.”

Starting by stumbling out of the gate with a debunked talking point is hardly a way to build support for public policy. However, that’s exactly what Vice President Harris is attempting to do. Notice she called it a “form of disease.” Later in her remarks, she clued the crowd in more.

“But what we have been able to do, to your point about a public health crisis, is to put substantial resources into things like mental health, put substantial resources into community-based response…” Vice President Harris said.

That’s the second problem – the “public health crisis.” Rebranding the criminal misuse of firearms as a public health crisis raises considerable concerns. Analyzing a criminal justice problem through an epidemiological lens ends with a distorted picture of a very real issue. Misidentifying the problem ensures that no real solutions will be found. No vaccine will be discovered. No pill will be developed. And more importantly, no solutions will be identified.

Bad Diagnosis

In her remarks, Vice President Harris also lumped together suicide deaths with all other “gun violence” issues. That’s confusing the issues and it can’t be by accident. It’s done by design.

Suicide, especially suicide by firearm, is a serious issue. That’s why NSSF partnered with the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), the largest suicide prevention organization in America, to provide resources to firearm ranges and retailers to prevent the tragedy of suicide.

The Reload did a deep dive and noted that the antigun group Violence Policy Center listed 1,200 suicide victims as “killers” when they harmed no other individuals. The Reload further found that gun control laws have little to nothing to do with suicide prevention. Prohibitions of modern sporting rifles (MSRs) and magazine restrictions have no bearing on suicide prevention.

That’s what Vice President Harris said was part of this “public health crisis” response. She wants to resurrect an MSR ban, despite the fact that knives, fists and clubs are more commonly used in murders than all types of rifles combined. The vice president wants to ensure that those who are a danger to themselves are prohibited from buying guns.

She fails to mention, however, that the firearm industry is the leading force in getting all disqualifying background records into the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That includes those who have been involuntarily admitted to a mental health institution and adjudicated mentally defective – or told by a court they cannot be trusted to possess a firearm.

Vice President Harris added that based on her previous career as a prosecutor, “the gun manufacturers should not have immunity from litigation.” If she were a true student of the law, she would know that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) prevents frivolous lawsuits brought when remote third parties criminally misuse a firearm. That’s basic tort law – those who cause harm are responsible for the harm they cause. Vice President Harris’ argument would mean that beer breweries and automakers would be responsible for harm caused by drunk drivers.

Bad Medicine

The VP didn’t stop there. She claimed to be supportive of the Second Amendment yet has never once taken a stand to protect it. She only talks about chipping away at it, or in cases where she argues for bans on entire classes of firearms, negates it all together.

“That false choice [would] be to suggest that you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away…,” she explained. “I believe in the Second Amendment, but I also believe we need to renew the assault weapons ban. We need red flag laws. We need universal background checks.”

In that statement alone, she admits she opposes Second Amendment rights and washes over an individual’s due process rights and rights against illegal search and seizure. None of the states with red flag laws include due process rights protections and for universal background checks to work, it would require a national firearm registry – which is still illegal under federal law.

America only needs only look to the recent past to see how the federal government handles a “public health crisis.” COVID-19 demonstrated that they would compel individuals to take unwanted vaccines, restrict them to their homes and even abuse authority to restrict constitutionally-protected rights. The tendency of the government to assume police-state authorities is more than enough to warn Americans when their elected officials want to invoke a “public health crisis” as a reason to limit their constitutional rights.

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

71 COMMENTS

  1. “Criminal activity is a behavior and science has yet to bring about a medical remedy that prevents an individual from committing crimes.”

    Au contraire, there are one-drug, two-drug, and three-drug protocols that are effective in preventing an individual from committing crimes.

    • so you want to execute people pre-crime? guilty until proven innocent? those are.morally unacceptable, at least in this.country.

      now, after conviction, all bets are off.

      • I do not want .gov having the right to kill its citizens. For any reason. They can’t get building permits right. You want to trust them with life and death?

        • There are cases where there is NO doubt. There are cases where the disregard and hatred for life is so extreme that multiple victims are killed simply because they were not already dead.

          In cases that satisfy both conditions, a society that respects individual rights has no correct option OTHER than death.

          Where

    • But the individual must consume the drugs or be injected with them and if someone is bent on mass killing, the last thing they will want is a drug that will inhibit that action. Most seriously mentally ill folks vigorously resist taking any of the medications prescribed for such condition. That’s one of the signs of being seriously mentally ill. I’m certainly not a board certified psychiatrist but I spent enough time in court back when folks actually could be involuntarily committed for medical treatment without being H, S, or C.

  2. To misquote Michael Savage: ‘being a socialist-democrat is a mental disorder’.
    Which is best cured by ignoring them.

    • Ranger Rick,

      I strongly advise against ignoring $ociali$t-democrats. As the old saw goes, “You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.”

      Ignore them quite literally at your own peril.

  3. That woman’s mouth is good for only one thing.
    Ask Willie Brown what that is.😮😮😮😮😮

    • Umm, NO, not yet. This case is a three-judge panel decision that overturns the Hawaii butterfly knife ban. The Ninth could still take the case en banc and reverse the three judge panel, as it has done every time in the past, as I have to assume that Hawaii will be asking for such review. The point this guy is making is that if the Ninth follows the panels Bruen based analysis, the assault weapons ban is likely to fall. I am taking a wait and see attitude. Remember that the Ninth Circuit, after having ruled that there was not right to a ccw, and faced with the prospect of having to allow open carry as a right under the Second Amendment (as the only other way to carry in public), held that there was NO right to bear arms outside of one’s property. That decision was reversed and remanded by Bruen. The Ninth, to avoid embarrassment I suppose, sent it back to the trial court, Judge Benitez in fact, who had held that the ban was unconstitutional using what became the Bruen analysis. So it is still an open question, with multiple cases pending in mult8ple jurisdictions, not one of which is favorable to the 2A.

      • I just found out that plaintiffs have been advised that Hawaii will be filing a petition for rehearing en banc. No surprise. You cannot have an island paradise where people are allowed concealable deadly weapons.

  7. I still don’t get the point of a registry. Obvious step to confiscation aside.
    They always compare it to cars. Thefts happen. Hit and runs happen. Deliberate killing and destruction happen. 43,000 deaths happened last year.

    Confiscation aside do they really believe registration does something or is it just an empty NPC talking point they mindlessly repeat?

    So many policies from every direction regarding every aspect of our lives and you ask one person to play the proposal out to the end or just a broad stroke of logistics and they shut down entirely like you’re a bad person for asking them to think their ideas through.

    • I don’t think many people really think any of these policies through. Their talking points are designed to sound reasonable on the surface. How many people bother to look beyond the surface?

      Don’t you want justice? You aren’t a racist are you? Why would you want higher temperatures? Shouldn’t we at least be doing something about extreme weather? Do you agree that school shootings are bad? Then shouldn’t we do something? If you aren’t doing anything wrong, then you shouldn’t be worried about a registry.

      • Years ago,, GA decided “why have a DL#? Just put their SS# on the front of the license”.

        l said “BAD idea.” They said “If you are not doing evil, why would you care?” I don’t hold a GA DL, so I just laughed.

        Then there was the time the Iowa State Legislature decided to pass a law defining pi as 3. To “simplify engineering calculations”…

    • “Confiscation aside do they really believe registration does something or is it just an empty NPC talking point they mindlessly repeat?”

      Not once, in the entire history of man kind, in any country in the world, or in any sector of society has ‘registration’ of something with a ‘governing entity’ ever actually solved a ‘problem’. Its entirely about control and domination.

      for example, in more modern day times;

      Publicly traded companies are required to ‘register’ with the SEC in order to offer stock to the public. The reasoning was so it can be ‘regulated for the public good’ – but the stock market still hosts the most notorious financial ‘crooks’ in history which was the problem that ‘registering’ was suppose to prevent.

      Pharmaceutical companies are required to ‘register’ their ‘drugs’ with the FDA and the reasoning was so they could be ‘regulated for the public good’ – yet (collectively) millions die or are seriously injured annually from use of ‘registered’ prescription drugs which is what ‘registering’ was suppose to prevent.

      Doctors who go into practice are suppose to ‘register’ for and receive a ‘license’ to practice medicine. The reasoning was so it can be ‘regulated for the public good’ yet (collectively) hundreds of thousands die or are seriously injured annually due to medical malpractice.

      Remember this from history also: On April 26, 1938, the “Decree for the Reporting of Jewish-Owned Property” issued by Hitler’s government took effect, requiring all Jews in both Germany and Austria to ‘register’ any property or assets valued at more than 5,000 Reichsmarks (around $2,000 in American currency of the period, or $34,000 today). This made it easier to target and confiscate, and the Nazis did indeed do that.

      There are literally millions of examples of ‘registration’ of something (especially personal property) through all history of man kind and not once did it ever actually solve the ‘problem’ it was touted to prevent – but in every case it not only did not actually solve the problem but at some some point it was used against those in society. It is purely about control and domination, and part of the prelude to the psychotic narcissistic desire of a ‘ruling class’ to invoke tyranny.

      Y’all beginning to get the point ?

      • ‘registration’ comes in different forms, and never once has is solved the problem it was touted to solve.

        For example, FOID and ‘mandatory’ firearms carry permits are a form of ‘registration’ – touted a ‘to prevent crime and for public safety’. Yet, in states where these exist for the law abiding the criminals continue and crime has increased and the public is increasingly endangered by crime.

  8. I’ve been saying on this sight and others that the next attack on the 2nd Amendment will be from Mental Health. It has been the standard excuse for committing crimes and acts of violence for many years. Now we have been raising 2 generations of children that have been taught (specifically in the Liberal/Progressive educational Indoctrination system). Formally known as.Public Education. That if something in their life upsets them. It’s either a problem of their mental health or someone else’s. Mental Illness has been preached as the reason for their lack of success and personal enjoyment. The AMA is preaching it as the cause of violent crime. Deeming someone to have a mental illness is the easiest way to take the Rights away. As well as lock you away, as was done in the early 1900s. Up until the federal government stopped funding Mental Hospitals and Asylums in 1981. Beware of who gets to decide your mental state, because their political agenda will likely play a large role in that determination. You deserve the Tyranny…You Allow.

      • The public health line of attack on individual rights is very tempting to the anti-Bill of Rights types, given that many MDs and health professionals agree that the mere desire to own a gun/weapon is a symptom of mental illness.

    • Darkman,

      “Beware of who gets to decide your mental state, because their political agenda will likely play a large role in that determination.”

      That is the most succinct and most profound way of expressing that concept that I have ever heard. I tip my hat to you fine sir.

    • I worked as a court reporter reporting the court proceedings on involuntary mental health commitments. I don’t know how many hundreds of such cases I reported. In the years I did such I can only recall one case where the mental health process was, in my opinion and the opinion of the judge hearing the case, abused. A family owned a canning factory in this county. Their son worked managing the canning factory for basically room and board and pocket change. He disappeared from his indentured labor job one day and turned up working as manager for a rival canning company for a significantly substantial increase in pay. He also bought a Cadillac automobile based on his now increase in pay. Family had him involuntarily committed for 72 hour hold. Judge was to determine if he was sufficiently impaired to warrant 90 day involuntary commitment. After hearing lots of testimony the judge ruled that if he committed everyone in the county who purchased a new car who couldn’t afford one which was the basis for the family’s original filing, the state would have to build numerous additional mental health facilities throughout the county. He also ruled that he had to presume the Cadillac dealer had done a credit check prior to issuing credit and if he hadn’t, the was his fault and he had legal remedies to correct his error but he couldn’t commit someone based on a car dealers lack of business acumen. Oh, and the doctors testified they couldn’t detect any patent signs of mental illness. That was the only one out of hundreds. You haven’t lived until you have recorded the judges recitation of constitutional rights to someone who is sitting with arms and legs twisted together making loud, meaningless noises while rocking back and forth in his seat. While I generally have disdain for the court system as it exists in CA, I truly believe that at least the mental health commitment system worked according to the way it was supposed to work. At least in this county. As for Nurse Rachet and One Flew Over The Cookoo’s Nest, that was the Bollywood version of mental health treatment. Were there abuses in the system? Were there imperfections? Show me a human endeavor that doesn’t have warts and pimples. But rather than trying to fix the system and comply with court mandates, the politicians on both sides of the aisle through out the whole system. I can’t speak to any federal actions but in CA the bill that Reagan signed was supported by large majorities on both sides of the aisle. Had he vetoed it, it would have easily be overridden. The case that started the ball rolling originated in this county and the Public Defender who argued the Hop Louis case before the CA supremes considered the decision the pinnacle of his career. I have always wondered how he would feel about his victory seeing the results. Fortunately for him, he passed on not very many years after the decision and never got a chance to see the destruction the pinnacle of his career wreaked on our mental health system.

  9. “As you know, on this issue, for example, we applaud Germany in terms of what it has done as it relates to Nord Stream 2. As it relates to what we need to do domestically as well as what we need to do in terms of this issue generally, we have, as the president said, to reevaluate what we’re doing in terms of strategic oil reserves here in the United States to make sure that it will not have an impact, or we can mitigate the impact on the American consumer.”

    “Understanding that right now on the issue of energy, our allies have stood firm and unified in a way that many of the pundits didn’t predict would happen, to ensure that we are unified in our approach to this issue.”

    • You had one job Kamaltoe. Border czar-ina. I assume Willie Brown was satisfied. America isn’t. And they made fun of Dan Quayle! I betcha he’d be better right now🙃🙄Interesting word salad MWNN😀

  10. It took me a while to figure out why they’re so dead set on the idea that gun violence is a public health issue.

    I’ve finally settled on the fact that “public health” as a discipline holds some counter-intuitive ideas to be true. In some cases they may be right in some cases they may be wrong.

    Generally, we think of a society as being made up of individuals and that a healthy society is made up of healthy individuals. Ergo, increasing the health of each person contributes to overall societal health.

    Public Health (caps this time for a reason) holds as a doctrine that this is not true. It generally follows a logical path that is a species of “the greatest good for the greatest number” and in doing so openly admits that it expects to sacrifice certain individuals and even certain principles for the greater good, particularly during a “widespread health emergency” and even if it is foreseeable that such a sacrifice doesn’t actually benefit the greater number but merely provides for the benefit of the machinery that enables a system that claims to achieve this end.

    Which is to say that for all of its high minded talk of “the greatest good for the greatest number”, Public Health is really rather prone to default to something much, much closer to “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, particularly when faced with an emergency. In such cases the default position is far more about doing what you’re told than it is with doing the right thing.

    This is generally defended by an extremely myopic version of utilitarian philosophy which essentially states that “If we get it right 51% of the time, that’s good enough and since the goal is on a large scale, the methods must be so as well. Therefore deviation from the protocol is unacceptable even if the protocol is wrong for the given situation because it is questioning the protocol that undermines the effectiveness of the strategy and therefore reduces our ability to get it 51% right”.

    Mixed with the common human blind spot to the “unseen”, this produces a very top-down, “expert based” approach.

    Which, if you let you mind wander over the general and specific arguments contained within gun control proposals, lines up perfectly. Individuals, their rights and even their premature deaths are not of a concern to the “greater good” within this thinking because deviation from the program is the biggest risk there is.

    You can see why technocrats love it. You can also see why it’s so appealing from a policy perspective.

    • Have a bit over 3 years of seeing various aspects of medical tyranny (and the denial it happened) that is very much in agreement with why they will love being able to monitor anyone associated with the “disease” and target those who they do not like with various fines and threats of confinement as well as weekly testing (until the data becomes clear the ones being tested for non-compliance are safer than the general public and the testing ends with foa needed to get the results) and all forms of restrictions to where you can go and what you can do……… actually sorta never changed.

      • The overarching philosophy, to me, seems technocratic which is right up the gun-controller’s ally.

        But you’re undoubtedly correct that the concept(s) has(have) broader appeal both within the anti-gun world and even beyond that.

        The whole thing seems to me to be well intentioned but also corruptible in ways that make Karen extra moist, especially if she’s already predisposed to be something like an HOA Not-z.

        • Well they often seem to see kyle any time a drop of authority can be lorded over anyone they know so yeah easy to find your stasi.

    • Strych9, having been inside the public health machine, I’ve seen and heard things that cause me to agree with your analysis. Add in that the U.S. Public Health Service is set up as a military organization, and then consider this from their website:

      “See how you might serve on the front lines of public health as a physician, nurse, dentist, veterinarian, scientist, engineer and other professional embedded in a federal agency.”

      What they did in response to Covid, can be done to the private ownership of arms, if they are successful in officially recognizing “gun crime” as a public health crisis. The legal authority, and the mechanism, and the means, are all in place.

      • I’d be curious to know what you’ve seen.

        I’ve kind of put this together from interacting with half a dozen MPHs in the past few years with regards specifically to cancer research.

        Generally, I don’t have any reason to just point blank ask them questions specifically about the Public Health apparatus but I can kind if piece together how it generally “thinks” by talking to these people who all earned their MPH in different institutions.

        They all think differently to some degree but I note common threads in how they were trained based on what they agree and disagree about and, specifically, how they agree/disagree.

        It is my humble opinion that they’re all reasonably intelligent and overall decent people but that there are some well-worn grooves in how they think, particularly in regard to organization of certain aspects.

        Two of them have told me point-blank that in some cases the individual person doesn’t matter “in the context of public health”. They’ve been fairly clear that, in their opinion this is very rare but it’s also clear from their behavior and freely voiced opinions on the past few years that they might be, uh, shall we say “gifted” that opinion by someone “higher up”?

        • It doesn’t matter how intelligent they are if they’ve been programmed to be followers. I noticed long ago that they tend to be followers. Covid tyranny only reinforced that. Part of the reason for falling in line has probably evolved due to litigation fears.

        • A career in Public Health was on my short list for awhile, although I eventually moved away from it. College education and close association with several health inspectors from several different counties led to a number of training classes, then my state’s Sanitarian In Training program. I loved the technical aspects, but began to feel chafed by the “we’re from the government and we’re here to help” attitude of the system, so I walked away.

          I met a few of the commissioned officers (the federal military side of the system) and although they clearly were medical professionals, they were also serious military officers. I learned that as federal legislation was enacted over time to modernize the system (parts of which led to the creation of DHHS and later DHS), included across several pieces of legislation were passages that provided authority and means for significant intervention by federal health authorities during a proclaimed crisis. More recently included are armed response teams. We received a small glimpse of that crisis response machine during Covid. It can be taken well beyond that. We asked one of the training instructors about this, and she said that the consitutionality of this had not been tested by the courts, but quia melior est conditio possidentis (roughly, possession is nine points of the law). This was many years pre-Covid, and two of us cocked our eyebrows at this statement from the state employed instructor, but the remaining dozen or so nodded in acquiescence. One of several instances which led me to believe that the system is becoming inbred and steered in a particular direction.

          Our public health system has resulted in many extraordinary advances in general health, so it isn’t all bad. But woven throughout is a thread that, whenever it is pulled, will become one more piece in the puzzle of tyranny that is being put together before our eyes.

        • Interesting.

          I’d generally sum up what you’re saying, which is also much of what I observe, as “institutionalized informational incest” (I³).

          By which I mean that the doctrine has become so ingrained that the institution has become doctrinaire and lost its capacity for actual thinking. In the sciences it’s a common feature of a “stuck” or “dead” area of study often exemplified by mindless repetition of simple axioms that lead nowhere except back to the beginning of the axiom itself. Exploration of new space stops and the same work is done over and over again with slight tweaks to the grant proposal.

          “Doctrine is the last refuge of the unimaginative” isn’t just an apt statement about war.

          It’s a cross-disciplinary problem and has been for a very long time. Harley Bretz found this out the hard way nearly a century ago.

  11. “We invested an additional $12 billion into community banks, because we know community banks are in the community, and understand the needs and desires of that community as well as the talent and capacity of community.”

  12. “Criminal activity is a behavior and science has found a medical remedy that prevents an individual from committing crimes. Frontal Lobotomy” There i fixed it for you.

  13. One whom has most likely spread venereal diseases far and wide is now worried about a public health issue?

    I’m sure this skank has several armed guards uselessly keeping her dirty knees, sore back, and sore throat safe from harm.

  14. “We also recognize just as it has been in the United States, for Jamaica, one of the issues that has been presented as an issue that is economic in the way of its impact has been the pandemic.

    “So to that end, we are announcing today also that we will assist Jamaica in COVID recovery by assisting in terms of the recovery efforts in Jamaica that have been essential to, I believe, what is necessary to strengthen not only the issue of public health but also the economy.”

  15. Had to do a search; “AFLOE” stands for “Americans For Logic Over Emotions”. So let’s have the interview with a huge Everytown backdrop; not a trace of partiality in that. And what is Gun Sense University? The remedial grade to get into Clown College?

  16. As a public health professional, I’ve always fought against those who try to classify everything as public health.
    As a 2nd amendment proponent I’ve long fought against their efforts.
    An epiphany just struck me though. in public health, we try to isolate those who are infectious from those who aren’t to protect the uninfected. I’ve read that the overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by a relatively small and identifiable subset of individuals. if we were to take the true public health approach and isolate those individuals somewhere (i.e. prison), the community at large would be much safer. perhaps… there is a tried and true public health solution to violence we could all support.

    • Yes, we do have such an isolation system in place. It is called prison. I have long maintained that we cannot afford to allow criminal proclivity to exist among law abiding, generally peaceful citizens. How much is it worth to you to not have your 12 year old daughter kidnapped, raped, tortured and murdered? Or your 12 year old son for that matter or any relative or friend for that matter? I just read a diatribe against a pistol part that will turn a Glock into a fully automatic firearm. A 17 year old sprayed a residential neighborhood with 9mm projectiles seriously wounding a 12 year old. The 12 year old is going to suffer debilitating residuals from the multiple wounds for the rest of his life. The perp was sentenced to ten years (far too short in my opinion) and will be eligible for parole in three years, less than that with credit for time served pre-sentence. It turns out the perp was in the wrong neighborhood. The folks he thought he was shooting didn’t live where he shot up. Personally, I think he should have been sentenced individually for each and every penal code section he violated with the sentences to all run consecutively as opposed to concurrently as is the sentence in far too many cases. I don’t think crime should be cheaper by the dozen. We are not talking about buying pencils. We are talking about deliberate actions that significantly impact other people’s lives.

  18. “It’s time for us to do what we have been doing, and that time is every day.”

    “Every day it is time for us to agree that there are things and tools that are available to us to slow this thing down. And so right now we know we still have a number of people that, that is in the millions of Americans who have not been vaccinated, and could be vaccinated, and we are urging them to get vaccinated because it will save their life.”

    • If she is talking about Covid no they technically can’t be vaccinated. The EUA expired months ago and the nonsense FDA approved version is not available in the US (if it even still exists) so the only people who are supposed to get shots are those eligible for the infinite boosters (somehow exempt from approval process need to ask my DOH colleague how that works)…….not that I had to argue this with HR lately or anything. I do expect to see a push for RSV soon as the money needs to flow.

      • The quote is from January 2022. It’s one of “Kamala’s Greatest sHits” collected at Fox News.

        • Ah makes marginally more sense in context thank you. With that said she is well paired with Biden.

  20. “We’ve got to take this stuff seriously, as seriously as you are because you have been forced to take this seriously.”

  21. Criminal control works, gun control doesn’t.

    20,000 anti-gun laws already on the books proves it.

    Liberals don’t care about controlling “gun violence” they only care about controlling YOU.

  23. Biden already tried this ‘public health emergency/crisis’ thing with his DOJ intervention in the SCOTUS case of CANIGLIA v. STROM (953 F. 3d 112, vacated and remanded).

    Basically; Biden wanted the ‘community care taking’ exception to the 4th amendment to apply to the unwarranted and unlawful confiscation of Edward Caniglia’s firearms. At the time Biden was pushing a ‘guns are a public health emergency/crisis’ thing. Had Biden been able to get SCOTUS to side with him in this case he would have been able to use ’emergency’ powers under HHS to start unwarranted confiscation of firearms under a ‘community care taking’ premise just ’cause the government said so.

  24. She has had a placeholder in the dustbin of history for a long time. I’ll be glad when she goes.

  26. In speaking of firearms and suicide, I personally believe there is no correlation. I believe the suicide rate would remain essentially the same. Well, Lefty, what about a little support for such a ridiculous posit. Okay. Let’s take Japan. Firearms in Japan are really hard to get. The only non-governmental folks who possess firearms are professional hunters, licensed and regulated very strictly by the goober mint and who can only have shotguns AND, of course, high goober mint officials and very wealthy individuals. Even swords and knives other than for cooking are closely regulated. One needs a special goober mint permit to possess a sword or the personal knife, the tanto. A foreigner cannot carry a blade over 2 centimeters in public. I almost got busted in Haneda Airport because I had a pocket knife, a gift from my wife, a miniature Swiss Army knife but with engraved sterling silver scales and — wait for this — a blade one inch long, about a quarter of an inch over the big red mark on the baggage check guy’s pocket tape. All that said, Japan’s suicide rate is significantly higher than the U.S. suicide rate. How is that possible with almost zero firearms availability? Well, the most popular successful method presently is carbon monoxide inhalation. You can even join a suicide group on line if you are so motivated and go out in a carbon monoxide orgy under blue tarps and using charcoal braziers. There are several countries who have higher suicide rates per capita than the U.S. and manage quite nicely without firearms. Sp assuming only the goober mint had firearms we still would not be suicide by firearms free. Today an LASO deputy committed suicide by cop on a golf course here in SoCal. I don’t know if suicide by cop is added into the suicide by firearm statistics or is listed under cop killings. I guess it depends upon whether it is an LASO deputy or a 19 y.o. black gangbanger.

    • “In speaking of firearms and suicide, I personally believe there is no correlation. I believe the suicide rate would remain essentially the same.”

      And you would be correct.

      1. Suicides happen if a gun is available or not.

      2. A person at risk of suicide is always at risk of suicide if a gun is available or not. Anti-gun would have you believe that a person commits suicide with a gun because a gun was available – that’s 100% false.

      This thing about a person is ‘more likely to commit suicide and be at risk of suicide if there is a gun available’ is a myth created by anti-gun. People are driven to suicide by a mental health illness condition of some type caused by something that manifests as suicide ideation, it could be despair or hopelessness or depression or a terminal disease or any number of things and it can be transitory or temporary or a longer term mental illness condition but a mental health illness condition it is. Suicide ideation never goes away, it can be suppressed, sometimes for a long time and sometimes for the rest of the persons natural life, but its still there any can be triggered at any time thus a person at risk of suicide is always at risk of suicide.

      A person at risk of suicide is at risk of suicide if a gun is available or not, the risk does not suddenly appear because a gun is available like anti-gun wants people to believe. A person at risk of suicide is not less likely to not attempt to commit suicide simply because a gun is not available because a person at risk of suicide is at risk of suicide if a gun is available or not.

      The mental health community overall has been basically screaming this for years – A person at risk of suicide is at risk of suicide, period, no matter if a method is available or not.

      ~12 million people in the U.S. contemplate suicide annually, ~10 million contemplate using drugs or hanging even though they might be able to procure a gun some way or another.

      ~3 million annually actually plan their suicides, more than ~2.5 million plan to use drug overdose because its painless and they just fall asleep but also leaves a little bit of time when they might be found and saved.

      ~2 million people annually actually go through with attempting their suicides by uses of things other than guns even if a gun was available to them.

      ~400,000 suicide attempts (without firearms) annually are successful to cause death but attributed to other causes of death for the body function that ceased operating and are never listed as suicides.

      Of the ~12 million people in the U.S. that contemplate suicide annually, less than .002% of them contemplate using a gun.

      A firearm is the lest likely choice of method for suicide even if one is available.

      Even if there were no firearms, the suicide rate would remain essentially the same.

      This thing from anti-gun that suicide is more likely if there is a firearm present is based on a deceptive micro view – for example, if 7 people in 10 homes with a gun use that gun to commit suicide the anti gun says there is a 70% chance a gun in the home increases risk of suicide.

      But if there are 1000 homes in that area where those 10 homes exist, and all 1000 homes had a gun in them yet only these 7 people committed suicide…. this is the view anti-gun wants to hide, they don’t want you to think like that. Think about it, ~60% of the homes in the country have firearms available so that’s ~180,000,000 but lets discount that and say cut it in half even for the low end of the estimate so that’s about 90,000,000 but lets cut that in half again so we are looking at ~45,000,000. The point is..say there are 45,000,000 homes with firearms, one firearm per home (but in reality there are about 450,000,000 firearms in the country now – I’m only using 10% or 45,000,000 for example purposes, but you can use the low end of about ~30% of the country owning guns and do the math but in reality considering all means of ownership and possession for law abiding its probably closer to 70% of Americans ‘own’ guns).

      There were, supposedly, ~20,000 firearms suicides last year in 2022. That’s only 0.04% of firearms used out of that 45,000,000. If, as anti-gun claims, it were more likely that a person were to commit suicide because a firearm is available then why are there not more firearm suicides with (the number) 45,000,000 firearms and also considering that ~12 million people in the U.S. contemplate suicide annually and the vast majority of them can gain access to a gun but choose other methods if they do carry it out?

      There is no true correlation between firearms and suicide as anti-gun would have you think.

      • Its a completely bogus premise that because someone might do something ‘bad’ with ‘something’ that others can’t have ‘something’.

        Sure, if there is a person at risk of suicide in a home then take precautions even if it means removing a gun and/or other methods from the home. But don’t go next door and say ‘we are going to take your gun because your neighbor is at risk of suicide.” – and that’s what anti-gun is using the ‘suicide’ or their ‘gun-violence’ thing for, they don’t care about the mental illness or the reason (e.g. criminals gonna criminal), they just want to appeal to low-information voters to make it appear as if its a ‘plague’ that can only be solved by letting them have their way to remove constitutional rights ’cause tyranny wants to tyranny.

        Do we go “your neighbor is an alcoholic and might drive drink and kill someone, so we are going to take your car” ? No, we don’t. Yet about 32 people per day in the US are killed in car accidents due to drunk drivers, ~11,000 a year, but ~70,000 annually are involved in an accident (either in a car or as a pedestrian on foot or bicycle) and injured (to some degree) due to a drunk driver.

        Do we go “100,000 people last year committed suicide using drug overdose, so we are going to take you prescription drugs that keep you alive?”

        The whole anti-gun premise that ‘there is firearm suicide and gun-violence so its necessary to take away constitutional rights to solve this public health emergency’ is false premise.

  27. Our Leftist comrades seem to think that the problem is guns. Actually it is their FEAR of guns. In spite of dacian, the DUNDERHEAD’s claim to be an “expert”(JBOL) on the subject, he still can’t tell us the firing sequence of a cartridge. MINOR Miner49er is hell bent on Donald Trump’s alleged indiscretions. I am more than sure that MINOR is scared stiff of firearms. One only has to read his missives or should I call them misguided missals?

  28. Anytime a Liberals mouth is moving,you can be sure it’s nothing but lies and innuendos

  29. Considering that anything out of Laughing Girl’s mouth is insane, maybe in Chicago under the Democrats there IS a health problem (as in staying alive) but she wouldn’t dare say that.

Comments are closed.