Ruger LC9S


Guest Post by Michael Owen

No amount of statistics or facts will sway either side in the gun control debate, because they are all looking for simple solutions to complex problems. The facts of those complex problems are uncomfortable and nobody really wants to come to grips with them.

We don’t really have a single America with a moderately high rate of gun deaths. Instead, we have two Americas, one of which has very high rates of gun ownership but very low murder rates, very comparable to the rest of the First World democracies. . .

The other America has much lower rates of gun ownership but much, much higher murder rates, akin to violent third world countries. . .

Those on the left favor simple minded restrictions that target first world America, with its high gun ownership but very low murder rate, but don’t address the root causes of third world America’s violence at all. Meanwhile those on the right correctly feel their civil rights are constantly threatened. . .

Meanwhile, over the past 40 years, while the number of guns in private hands has doubled, the murder rate has dropped by half. . . The uncomfortable fact is that roughly 80% of the US homicide rate is associated with the drug trade, and the drug trade is violent because the drug war reserves it for violent criminals.

We have a system in place where the government subsidizes poverty in urban areas, imposes economic blight in those same areas through heavy taxes and regulations, renders the residents permanently unemployable via the “criminal justice” (sic) system, and creates a lucrative black market in drugs by restricting supply. . The drug trade is violent because those in it have no access to courts to settle disputes. . . Guns are not the proximate cause of gun violence in the US.

Childlike magical thinking and simple “fixes” to complex problems will not work. But it is comfortable, and self-righteousness feels so good. So I expect it to continue indefinitely.




This is a short but sweet synopsis of the differences in perception amongst Americans regarding guns.


Bottom line, the 2nd Amendment Right is enshrined in the Constitution, tied to the inherent right of effective self defense, and broadly held amongst the populace.


The vast majority of the problems with guns occur in urban situations, ruled politically by Democrats, with higher concentrations of Welfare participation, more drug running and gang activity, and greater racial minority concentrations amongst the residents.


Where more conservative politicians rule, and where a higher percentage of the population is Caucasian, the gun violence is muted.

There’s a lesson to be learned there, but the willfully blind demand that it be ignored.



Categories: Political

Tags: , , , , ,

3 replies

  1. Mr. Owen’s “Two Americas” nails a critical point, which is that we have a subculture within this nation with its own standards for morality and respect for human life. This subculture vastly skews the appearance of the U.S. as a violent nation.

    BUT it looks to me like Owen’s main objective in his essay was to suggest that it is the U.S. policies on drugs that are responsible for the two Americas. He said:

    >>“We have a system in place where the government subsidizes poverty in urban areas, imposes economic blight in those same areas through heavy taxes and regulations, renders the residents permanently unemployable via the “criminal justice” (sic) system, and creates a lucrative black market in drugs by restricting supply. . The drug trade is violent because those in it have no access to courts to settle disputes. . . Guns are not the proximate cause of gun violence in the US.”

    I beg to differ. Even if one could argue that an unrestricted market on drugs would dry up the black market and end the drug wars in urban areas, this doesn’t explain why these drug wars should have been disproportionately concentrated in the black community to begin with. In theory it should have affected whites the same way, proportionally. Ergo, there has to be another explanation. In reality buying and selling drugs as a common career choice in the black community evolved as a consequence of systemic poverty and cultural devolution which in turn were the consequence of liberal welfare policies that discouraged self achievement. You can decriminalize drugs, and within a few years there’ll just be other illicit activities for people to war over in ghettos, because this is the only quick path to the luxuries they don’t know how to otherwise attain.

    The real answer to the two America dynamic, IMO, is to phase out welfare as we know it, which would gradually force more blacks to venture beyond the ghettos in search of jobs. This would result in natural integration and ultimately reduce the incidence of gun violence among blacks.


  2. I agree with both Mr. Owen and Curtmilr except for one sentence that gets my dander up.

    That is Mr. Owen’s very first sentence wherein he implies an equivalency between the gun rights groups who accept honest, factual data as proof of their position as opposed to the gun control faction whose talking points all come from the unicorn and rainbow world of Utopian feelings and wishes.

    I have yet to see any gun control group refute the facts and statistics that prove that gun control hasn’t worked as they promised and more armed civilians haven’t resulted in a “Wild West, blood in the streets” scenario.

    Other than that nit that I just had to pick, Mr. Owens does highlight a critical situation that is seldom mentioned (it’s not politically correct), and that is that there are really two Americas:

    For “one” America, the gun ownership rates are low (only the thugs have guns, law-abiding citizens don’t), but with much, much higher murder rates. He’s right to point to America’s drug problem as a primary cause. Mostly among the inner city thugs, he states that roughly 80% of the homicide rate is attributable to the drug trade.

    The “other” America is one with a “moderately high rate” of gun ownership, but very low murder rates – that pretty much encompasses all other areas, suburban and rural, that are NOT inner city environments.

    It’s an excellent piece that cuts to the core of the high murder rate, yet the gun control crowd won’t concentrate their efforts primarily where it would do the most good – result in the best return on their investment.


    Because it would be too difficult.

    That’s why they’ll never do either, they know that drying up the drug supply in the inner cities will be almost impossible without getting really tough on perpetrators, and arresting the dealers and suppliers will meet with major pushback since most of them are black. Neither of those measures fit within the political ideology of the gun control group.

    So, their answer is to use misdirection to legislate against an inanimate object that, without a human, is completely safe, and impose useless laws on law-abiding citizens – simply so they can say that they are doing something.

    [BTW, that Ruger LC9s is a sweet pistol – it’s my EDC]

    Liked by 1 person

    • To attack the core problems, poverty and drug culture, would both be considered racist political attacks against people of color. The law-abiding mostly white populace has been until recently somnambulate and subject to systemic abuse of their rights, using the bludgeon of racial accusation.

      That changed after the election of Obama, as racists could never have elected a half-black President. The fact that he immediately started over-playing the race card cemented the trend to ignoring the claim entirely, unless the racism was obvious. So the mostly white flyover country majority is now somewhat immune to the shaming-into-silence gambit. We prefer speaking truth to power and common sense approaches. Not every problem is a nail, but if it is, hit with a damned hammer!

      State regulated distribution of most drugs would virtually eliminate the drug turf wars and the apparent easy money lure of trafficking. It would also identify users in need of voluntary intervention. Taxes on same could handle treatment center costs and would likely generate surpluses. Legal access would also eliminate the lure of the forbidden for young folks to demonstrate their inner “rebel”.

      I fully agree that we should roll back and ultimately eliminate Welfare. Government should not be in many areas, with the most prominent being charity, education, and healthcare. These are each hard nuts to crack politically, largely because of the residual strength of the education government propaganda, so I would like that change to be first. That is largely why Sec. De Vos was installed. Healthcare was a failed attempt by Obama, and will devolve back to private and State markets. Charity requires honest distributors with such corruption evidenced by the Clinton & Gates Foundations, not to mention Rockefeller, Ford, etc. Traditional charities are too top heavy in big dollar administration costs to be seen as true. Meanwhile the churches have diverted from core Christianity long ago, so Welfare reform will be a harder pull..

      No easy answers, so incremental gains, stealing the Long March in the contrary direction looks necessary.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: