Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Brad Watts
Brad's posts

Post has shared content
Interesting, in gonna have to double check the stats but wouldn't be surprised. 
The Case Against Self Defense Prohibition Or Restriction

Violent crimes don't happen because people have guns. People acquire guns--when and if they are able (they may not be)--because violent crimes are happening where they live and work. 

Laws that impose prohibitions just make things worse, as history has proven repeatedly and emphatically. At best, prohibition laws have no effect. That's why it's so easy to buy marijuana or cocaine. Even in high security prisons! And why outlawing guns totally won't work, no matter how many centuries go by while we wait for the supply of guns to diminish to zero.

The common claim is that 'the US is the most violent country in the world,' or that 'the murder rate in the US is higher than just about anywhere else because of the prevalence of guns.'  Such claims are false:

Current Worldwide Homicide/Murder Rate: 


Firearm Ownership Density:

Yes, the US has the highest firearm ownership density.  However, it's homicide rate (4.2 per 100k) is roughly half the worldwide average (7.6 per 100k,) and other nations with relatively high firearm ownership densities have far lower murder rates than does the US.

Mexico, for example, forbids bearing firearms outside the owner's home and has a firearm ownership density 6 times lower than that of the US (15% versus 88.8%,) but it's murder rate (16.9 per 100k) is 4 times higher than the US (4.2 per 100k.) The number of homicides per 100k gun owners in the US is 4.73, whereas the number of homicides per 100k gun owners in Mexico is 112.57, which is 24 times higher than the rate of homicides per gun owner in the US. That alone falsifies the claim that the density of gun ownership is the problem.

As for "gun massacres" that occur at schools, movie theaters and shopping malls, it must first be observed that the rate at which such attacks occur at such locations is far higher than the rate at which such attacks occur at military bases, police stations and firing ranges. It should also be noted that the perpetrators almost invariably commit suicide once armed resistance appears, regardless of whether the armed resistance that first appears is wearing police uniforms or civilian clothes. And finally, it should be noted that when the first armed resistance to appear is one or more private gun owners, that it appears much more quickly than the police arrive to the same event, and that far fewer people die:

In the US, firearms laws and ownership density vary from State to State, and in many cases from county to county and from city to city.  Those differences provide data that is more applicable to the United States, because comparing locales in the same country greatly reduces differences in crime rates that are due to socio-cultural factors. Another reason that the internal US data has a higher significance is precisely because the US has the highest density of firearms ownership: More guns means the data have higher statistical significance.

When the internal US data are analyzed, the only intellectually honest conclusion is that there is a negative correlation between firearm ownership density and crime rates in the United States:,_Less_Crime (in other words, more guns = less crime.)

Kennesaw, Georgia has a law that requires that heads of households own and maintain a firearm: 25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA' => 

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189. That's in spite of the fact that the law requiring gun ownership isn't enforced.

Kennesaw, Georgia falsifies the hypothesis that there is a positive causal relationship between the density of firearm ownership and crime rates. So does the internal US data as a whole. So do police stations, military bases, firing ranges, and all the other nations with relatively high firearm ownership densities but relatively low crime rates, such as Serbia or Switzerland.

Any argument that reverses cause and effect is utter nonsense.

Gun violence is a socio-cultural problem.  It is not a hardware, device or tool problem. Solutions should be aimed at causes, not at symptoms or effects. 

Self defense deniers, to be logically consistent, should be clamoring to make cars illegal because some people drive irresponsibly.

But it is invalid to consider only the costs of gun ownership, which is what we are doing when we compare the density of firearm ownership to crime rates, murder rates or death rates due to accidents with firearms.  That would be like deciding to ban cars or the practice of medicine solely based on the death rate due to car accidents or due to iatrogenic (doctor-caused) accidental deaths. Both of which, by the way, are far higher than the death rate attributable to the private ownership of firearms, even when accidental deaths are included. 

We must also consider the benefits of taking risks or allowing risky activities to occur. That's the reason we don't ban cars or the practice of medicine: The benefits outweigh the costs.

According to the peer-reviewed research in Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun [], firearms in the US are used defensively about 2.5 million times per year. About a quarter of the time, the incidents occurred away from home.

In 91.7% of the cases, the criminal, attacker or aggressor was not harmed in any way by the defender's firearm. That's one reason you don't hear about such cases in the news (you can probably guess the other major reason.) 

In 73.4% of the incidents, the attacker/aggressor/criminal was a stranger to the defender. Firearms were used defensively against a family member or intimate associate less than 10% of the time. 

In over half the cases, a single defender was faced with two or more attackers/aggressors, and faced with 3 or more in over a quarter of the cases. The odds of successful defense without the use of a firearm become very small very quickly as the number of opponents rises. A gun is the only likely way to defeat 3 or more attackers. It at least provides a reasonable chance of running away to safety, even when faced with many attackers.

In 79.7% of the cases, a concealed weapon was used by the defender. So there is sufficient time to retrieve a concealed weapon. 

In 84.5% of the cases where self defense with a firearm was successful, the aggressor was the first to threaten violence or to initiate actual aggression. So defenders generally do, in fact, have time to successfully use their weapons defensively.

In 15.7% of the cases where a gun was used in self defense, the defender believed that there was a high certainty that someone would have died had they not used their firearm in self defense. In another 14.2% of cases, the defender believed that someone probably would have died unless they had used their gun in self defense. Combined, and assuming that each case only saved 1 life (the most conservative assumption,) that's 747,500 lives saved per year because we allow the private ownership of firearms, versus an annual death toll from firearms (accidents plus homicides) of about 30,000 in the US [;].

But in order to compare apples to oranges, let's restate the numbers above as rates per 100,000 gun owners: 

The rate in the US at which the private use of guns save lives is 841.8 lives saved annually per 100,000 private gun owners.

The rate in the US at which the private use of guns costs lives is 33.78 lives lost annually per 100,000 private gun owners.

So the cost benefit ratio is roughly a factor of 25: 25 lives are saved annually in the US per life lost due to the private ownership of guns.

However, the death rate due to firearms includes suicides.  The suicide rate by means of a gun is more than half the annual number of deaths. []. Even a total prohibition of gun manufacturing, import and ownership that was totally effective would have no significant impact on the number of suicides. Suicide is easy to do by many different means. So the actual net benefit is a least twice as high as computed above.

The objection will be that, if private ownership of guns were eliminated, it would no longer be necessary to use privately-owned guns in self defense. But that is false:

There are many other weapons that criminals can and would use, in a society without guns. They can (and still do!) simply use greater numbers, physical health and physical strength.  And defending oneself with a knife or other weapon that's not a firearm, or with martial arts training, not only requires far greater skill and fighting experience, it also requires far greater physical health and strength. Most women and the elderly would be effectively defenseless.

Society will never be without guns. That genie is out of the bottle, and it grants no wishes.

Gun manufacturing will never be outlawed. The military and the police must have them, so they must be manufactured. If they're manufactured, there will be a black market for any firearms that are banned, same as is true for drugs (including ones that aren't manufactured for legitimate uses.)

And 3D printing and later nanotechnology will make a mockery of all laws criminalizing the possession and sale of anything at all.

Post has attachment
A nice rundown of the numbers and how his statements are basically revealing the harsh truths that the left doesn't want the rest of the country to see.

Post has shared content
Same thoughts from me.
Happy Rosh Hashanah to all my Jewish friends!

Post has attachment
Hehehehehe snark

4,015 days and a few hours ago, our lives as Americans changed in an instant. We found out what our real enemy was capable of, and how cowardly they could achieve their goals. Our enemy was not the country of Afghanistan, it was not the country of Pakistan, it was not the dictatorship of Hussein over Iraq, or the constant mumblin out of Iran. It was not Muslems as a whole.

Our enemy was an ideal, an ideal more terrifying than any massive army or powerful military. It was an ideology based on acts of giving one's life for your belief would provide you with untold treasures and "honor". It was an ideal created on a bastardized interpretation of a religion, a religion who's history ties very closely with the history of Christianity (of which I am myself). It was, and still is an ideal that has turned brother against brother, and sister against sister. It is a spiritual civil war, and a war that one would be lead to believe cannot be ended from the outside. However, that will not stop those of us who understand that there is no black and white, but also understand that you must realize where your alliegences lie.

The acts of cowards lead to the deaths of thousands, and the eventual death of many more in the following conflict. Fathers, mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers, brothers, sisters, sons, & daughters. Whether in the towers, the Pentagon, in that field in Pennsylvania, or on the ground in Afghanistan, those who were lost will be remembered by those who truly care. They will be remembered by those who could care less about political correctness, and by those who hnor the memories despite race, religion, sex, or creed.

Memorials are being held around the world. Here in the US, in the field in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in our hearts and minds.

God speed and God bless those who lost family or friends, or even acquaintences on that fateful day. I will never forget.

Will you?

To whomever decided that it was a good idea to steal either my wife's or my card number, and then start racking up charges at Zoosk, and other yet to be revealed locations.. I have a few choice words for you.

Get a job you low life piece of shit. Grow some balls, and earn some respect, maybe even some dignity. Maybe realize that you have a conscience, and just spending other peoples hard earned money is not a good moral choice.

In two words: FUCK YOU.

That is all.

Post has attachment
Getting pretty exciting.  About a week away from the grand opening of my wife's bakery.

Post has attachment
+Felicia Day I remember seeing your video on your "vast tracks of land" in Skyrim... and increasing supply of items.  Well, this may be helpful :-P

Post has attachment
This needs to be real... bwahahaha!

Post has attachment
Wait while more posts are being loaded