The Government's Results

I've been reading Country Driving: A Chinese Road Trip by Peter Hessler (review to follow). 

For a while the author spent some time in a small village, during this time he learned about its history.  One aspect of its history was the ownership of the land.  The land has been leased, rented, privately owned and owned by the government.  China, as you know is communist.  When China was newly communist it had the goal of improving the lives of its citizens, so it collectivized the ownership of land. 

But now only the wealthiest and politically connected can afford to own land.

"A half century after the revolution, rural land reform has accomplished exactly the opposite of its original intentions." (p. 188)

I recently read a quote (perhaps from Milton Friedman) to the effect of: if you want to know the effect of a government program assume the opposite of its stated goals.

This book isn't about politics or economics, and yet the author, unknowingly, discovered for himself what happens when the government does something.

We should all understand that no government program accomplishes what it sets out to do, it achieves the opposite.

Quote of the Day, 12/18/2012

A big, bright shining smile from a pretty girl is worth more than any university degree she has, worth more than any job she has, worth more than any other baloney modern women wrongly believe makes them attractive to men.

- Bold and Determined

Huffington Post Comments, 12/16/2012

Me:

Murders per 100,000 citizens:

Illinois (only state without concealed carry) = 8.4
Neighboring states (with concealed carry) = 5.3, 1.3, 2.6

New Hampshire (least restrictive gun control) = 0.9
Neighboring states (with more gun restrictions) = 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0, 4.0

Does gun control reduce crime?

If by "reduce crime" you mean "increase the number of murders," then yes it does.

http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-gun-control-reduce-crime.html

slowdime

gun violence has been dropping the last 6 years straight  

Me

And more people own more guns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/gun-sales-2012_n_2303513.html

***
Me

Murders per 100,000 citizens:

Illinois (only state without concealed carry) = 8.4
Neighboring states (with concealed carry) = 5.3, 1.3, 2.6

New Hampshire (least restrictive gun control) = 0.9
Neighboring states (with more gun restrictions) = 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0, 4.0

Does gun control reduce crime?

If by "reduce crime" you mean "increase the number of murders," then yes it does.

http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-gun-control-reduce-crime.html

Romeover

Murders per 100,000 citizens

United States = 4.2
Finland = 2.2
Canada = 1.6
France = 1.1
Spain = 0,8
Iceland = 0.3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Me

Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun = 0.7
Gun crime in England, where guns are banned, up 35%

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html

The problem with comparing countries comes from the fact that there are too many variables. Comparing a relatively homogenous country like Spain, Finland, and Iceland to the US which has a varied culture and population is misleading.

My stats compared similar states to each other. There are more murders per capita in Illinois than in Indiana and IL has more restrictive gun laws.

There are more murders per capita in Vermont than in New Hampshire and NH has the least restrictive gun laws in the country and the lowest number of murders per capita in the country.

Compare like place to like place. 

***
Me

Murders per 100,000 citizens:

Illinois (only state without concealed carry) = 8.4
Neighboring states (with concealed carry) = 5.3, 1.3, 2.6

New Hampshire (least restrictive gun control) = 0.9
Neighboring states (with more gun restrictions) = 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0, 4.0

Does gun control reduce crime?

If by "reduce crime" you mean "increase the number of murders," then yes it does.

http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-gun-control-reduce-crime.html

the-lexicon

ALL studies that report numbers like this are false on their face. FALSE. They are statistically corrupt and the methodology is complete garbage.

You can't compare murder rates to gun laws, state-by-state, and expect it to mean ANYTHING.

the inference here is that concealed carry in a state like NH is CAUSAL to the low murder rate. It's simply false. People carrying guns is not stopping other people from murdering. It's simply not. It's a ridiculous conclusion.

Me

All studies that report numbers that are the opposite are false. They are statistically corrupt corrupt and the methodology is complete garbage....

Do you see what I did there (and without all caps)?

It must me nice to able to win an argument merely by declaring all of your opponents' claims to be wrong.

The claim being made by the left is that if we had more restrictive gun laws, we would have fewer gun crimes. The opposite is precisely true.

Is it just a coincidence that the states that have more restrictive gun control also have more murders per capita then their neighbors with less restrictive gun control? 

 Also: the source for my stats was the U.S. Census Bureau.

If you are claiming that a part of the government cannot be trusted, then we will agree. And I will question why you want an entity that cannot be trusted to have more control over our lives.

the-lexicon

I don't know if it's a coincidence... but the correlation between restrictive gun control and murders per capita is specious and does not point to any actual accrued benefit either way.
I'll bet there's a correlation between less restrictive gun control and the number of sunny days in a year, on average.
Meaningful?  you tell me.

nope, you can't put words in my mouth and make me speak them.  I think the government CAN be trusted.  ADDITIONALLY, I think that people who hoard weapons to fight the government are INSANE. 

Me

If your claim is that more gun control will reduce crime, and the data shows the exact opposite, and that still doesn't convince you, then what would?

Would any amount of evidence convince you that gun control makes the world more dangerous?

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

The CO shooter went out of his way to the one movie theater that bans guns for his attack.

The CT shooter got his guns illegally and went to were guns were not allowed. How would adding one more law, that he would not have cared about, prevented this shooting? 

Why can the government be trusted? Don't those of you on the left complain that the government is too friendly with the 1%? Don't those of you on the left complain that the government can not be trusted on abortion, gay marriage, right to work laws, etc?

We would people that have guns be insane? Because the governments of the world have killed more than 50 million people this century, but only after the citizens were disarmed? See: the Holocaust for the first example 

 ***
Me

Murders per 100,000 citizens:

Illinois (only state without concealed carry) = 8.4
Neighboring states (with concealed carry) = 5.3, 1.3, 2.6

New Hampshire (least restrictive gun control) = 0.9
Neighboring states (with more gun restrictions) = 1.3, 2.0, 3.0, 3.0, 4.0

Does gun control reduce crime?

If by "reduce crime" you mean "increase the number of murders," then yes it does.

http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/12/does-gun-control-reduce-crime.html

ChineseBracelet

Nice blog post you are quoting there. Unfortunately, "Spootville" (for god's sake) makes the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causality.

Besides, are law-abiding gun carriers in those neighboring states actually drawing their guns and chasing off would-be shooters? Do you have any numbers on that?

And: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

Me

Thanks for the compliment for my blog. It is quite nice isn't it. :)

If I made that mistake, then everyone who is calling for gun control to prevent shootings is making the same mistake.

Isn't the claim from the left that: if we had more restrictive gun control, then shootings would not happen, or happen as often?

I don't have the stats for guns saving lives easily accessible. If you want them, then I'd recommend this: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355687849&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime

Here is a website that lists lives potentially saved by guns. I'd bet that you have not heard about one of them thanks to the media. http://gunssavelives.net/

Here is video of a 71 year old using his gun to save people. Would he have been able to save anyone if he had been unarmed? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoLGC-n4i4

The study you linked to has issues. Starting with missing this:

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.3

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.3.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/mass-shootings-stopped-by-citizens-vs-mass-shooting-stopped-by-police-2511412.html

Shout This From The Rooftops!

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

- John Fund 

The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals.

The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals.

The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals.

The only f*cking one to ban guns!


So Mr. I'm Afraid of Guns, would you like to explain how gun control would have prevented the school shooting or reduce crime?

Exception, not the rule, maybe? 

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

 - John Lott

Links!

Also...

Links!

Dr. Tim says we are all at least half libertarians already, why not become complete libertarians?  Liberty is what has made us more prosperous than anyone, anywhere, at any time.

excerpt:

Liberty’s first virtue is its practicality.  Liberty immunizes the general population from the tragic mistakes of its individual members. When two people exchange in bad faith, those two people alone suffer the consequences.  Unless, of course, those two people just happen to be John Boehner and Barack Obama - then the innocent victims number in the hundreds of millions. 

The idea itself is absurd; why should two men you have never met negotiate how much of your labor they will keep for their own purposes?  What if they compromise on all of it?  Would you celebrate the spirit of bipartisanship and breathe a sigh of relief that a crisis has been averted?  Will you be happy that Washington is working again?  Does gridlock still seem like such an awful thing? 

For that matter, can you even describe the crisis they are trying to avert without using the word “cliff”?   It is a fiscal curb, crack in the driveway, a chalk line. 

They are niggling over the last half trillion as if the first $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities doesn’t matter.  If Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner would decide to quit stalling and take all of the nation's wealth, we would finally be equal.  That should make many people happy, as equality - not freedom - is the progressive's perverted idea of justice.  

Equality of outcome has a price, and that price is everything. 

The relevant question is not which of those two men will convince the Beltway paparazzi that the other guy blinked: it is how much government do we need?   We can answer it in two minutes right here: Democrats, write down how much of your own income you would have given to George W.Bush if he could spend it any way he chose; Republicans, do the same with President Obama in mind.    

What did you decide?  5%, maybe less?  There you go – nearly everyone is already half-libertarian; now just keep both the left hand and right hand out of your wallet - and your school, your work, your bedroom, your gun rack, your church, your charity, your emails, and your stash - and you will complete the journey.      

Alas, the current President does not read Moment Of Clarity, he does not seek consensus on such trivial matters, and he does not regard the Constitution – wisely written to protect us from guys like him - as particularly relevant to his ambitions.  He is hell-bent on raising income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans, and the Republicans appear to be ready to do what they do best – cave. 

Francis Begbe writes the best description of the CT shooting that I have read anywhere.

excerpt:

So, just another few things. First, events like these cannot be predicted. They are Black Swans in the truest sense, although negative Black Swans are more likely to occur than positive Black Swans. With youth unemployment as high as it is, with hypergamy being what it is, with obfuscating leftie Boomer mentality pirulating every aspect of society, all exacerbated by a mental condition, that is what makes people just give up. The foot on the face of the beta male. Work on that. This wasn't a suicide neither, this was an act of desperation, an act seen though the lens of a horrible, crushing future. Second, murders like this don't occur when someone "snaps". They are usually meticulously planned, months and months in advance. Lanza was long gone before yesterday, long gone. Was something going on here with the mother we don't know about as well?

One problem with Francis' post is this: "obvious disclaimer, I'm not saying that gun restriction causes murders"

Banning guns may not be the direct cause of more murders, but more murders do happen where guns are banned.

Katie Pavlich says:  "New data out from the UK, where guns are banned, shows gun crime has soared by 35 percent."

The following chart shows the number murders in each city in the Washington D.C. area.  Which city, do you suppose, is the only one that banned handguns?

 
Dana Loesch comments on the CT shooting.

excerpts:

Where have these mass tragedies occurred? Virginia Tech. Aurora, Colorado. Schools, the majority of them. What do these locations have in common? They are designated “gun-free” zones. Are progressives unable to recognize that their gun control was already in place? Guns were already forbidden? The only solution left is “confiscation,” which goes beyond what they imply by “control.” I would like to hear it explained how a gun-free school zone, in a state with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country, would have prevented the actions of a man whose intent was not following the law that day?

another excerpt:

From Glenn Reynolds in USA Today:

One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well.

excerpt:

I’d like for the left to explain how it is people are dying from gun shots in Chicago when the city explicitly banned them?

excerpt:

The NSC estimates that in 1995, firearm accidents accounted for 1.5% of fatal accidents. Larger percentages of fatal accidents were accounted for by motor vehicle accidents (47%), falls (13.5%), poisonings (11.4%), drowning (4.8%), fires (4.4%), and choking on an ingested object (3.0%).

Ban gravity! Ban Poison! Ban water! Ban fire! Ban choking!

Plus there are links to good gun stories. (at the bottom of the page)

Jeffery Tucker, my favorite author and who's website is at the top of my list of blog links for a reason, says that, despite the Fed's insistence to the contrary, the Fed's activities will hurt, not help, our unemployed.

excerpt:

Ben Bernanke began his press conference with a touching tribute to the unemployed. Oh, how he cares! And so deeply! His description of the problem was accurate enough. But then out came the smoke and mirrors.

Bernanke said that to remedy the unemployment problem, he will continue the Fed’s program of asset purchases. Specifically, the Fed will continue to buy and hold mortgage-backed securities (yes, they are still sloshing around the banking system) and Treasury securities — $40 billion-plus per month. Plus, he will keep the federal funds rates at near zero.

The great change, he said, is the intense focus on the policy objective of unemployment. The committee sees no inflation threat, so it might as well turn its attention to the labor markets. The Fed loves the unemployed, you see, and wants to help them.

But here’s the disconnect. What the devil does buying bad debt from zombie banks have to do with getting people jobs? The relationship between assets purchases and policy goals is murky at best.

“I need a job, so I hope the Fed buys more bad mortgage debt” — said no unemployed person ever.

Good news! John "By The Way I Served in Vietnam" Kerry is going to be our new Secretary of State!  Don't you feel safer?  How soon do you suppose that quibble in Syria will get cleaned up once By The Way I Served in Vietnam arrives on scene?

"Oh no!" the bad Syrians will say, "Tough and scary By The Way I served in Vietnam is here to end evil and save the day! Whatever shall we do!?!"

[Note to my liberal readers: The previous two paragraphs are sarcasm.  Sarcasm is when someone says one thing but means the opposite.]

Our Guns Will Be Taken

It was not a surprise that the response of the New York Times to the Connecticut public-school shootings was to run, not one, not two, not three, but four editorials calling for yet another push for gun control. The mainstream media have been waiting literally years for something like this to happen, and they are not about to let such a crisis go to waste.

Don’t give them an inch. Cut them no slack. Punch back twice as hard. When they bring the knife of emotional blackmail to the argument, draw your .50 caliber Desert Eagle of facts, logic and history and blow them away without mercy.

No, Americans will never give them up; he who surrenders his unalienable right to arms also gives up his right to call himself an American.

-Vox Day

Thanks to the school shooting the government, that you voted for, will make several attempts to ban or restrict gun ownership.

Understand that any attempt to restrict or ban any gun means a lessening of our freedom.

Banning gun ownership was a first step before the Holocaust and every other genocide this century.  Understand that this is what can happen when guns are taken from the people:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany  established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China  established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Now is not the time to stay quiet on an issue.  If our guns are taken or restricted, we will be completely defenseless against the government.  We could become the next country on the above list.

You say, "that won't happen here."

But why not?

The government has already stated that killing American citizens is acceptable.

The government is already spying on us with unmanned drones.

What is to prevent the government from killing you if it feels like it?

Its has done so in the past. 

Most famous example: "Seventy-six men, women and children, including the sect leader, David Koresh, died in the fire."

Second most famous example: "Ruby Ridge was the site of a deadly confrontation and siege in northern Idaho in 1992 because Randy Weaver refused to be an informant for the federal government. It involved Weaver, his family, Weaver's friend Kevin Harris, and agents of the United States Marshals Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation. It resulted in the death of Weaver's son Sammy, his wife Vicki, their family dog Striker, and Deputy US Marshal William Francis Degan."

Understand that those are only the two most famous cases.  The American Government has killed civilian Americans repeatedly.

***

If you are in a situation where you are talking to someone who favors restricting, or banning, any guns, then it is your responsibility, as an American, to correct that person.

We know gun control doesn't work; all of the recent publicized shootings occurred in "gun free zones."

The problem is the people who do the shooting not the guns.

What did recent shooters like Adam Lanza, Jared Lee Loughner, and James Holmes have in common? They were disturbed young men that no law could deter from their intended destruction. Why were the warning signs ignored? All of these men were clearly troubled, all three were on medication. Loughner’s warning signs went ignored. We don’t yet know if Lanza’s family knew he was experiencing problems or if they witnessed warning signs. Holmes was severely medicated and apparently abused his regimen.

- Dana Loesch

Inform a confused person that guns also save lives.  But a gun saving a life is not as newsworthy and you have not heard such stories, even though they occur daily.

Examples from the past five days:

Ohio Homeowner Shoots and Kills Burglar Who Also Broke Into Neighboring Apartment

[Video] Oregon Mall Shooter May Have Been Stopped by Concealed Carrier

TX Homeowner Shoots Knife Wielding Home Invader While on the Phone with 911

MS Resident Shoots Burglar Who Tries to Escape From 3rd Story Balcony

[Video] 77 Year Old Atlanta Grandmother Opens Fire on Burglar

[Video] 81 Year Old Detroit Man Fights Off Intruder With Antique .22 Revolver

[Video] Texas Store Clerk Shoots Knife Wielding Armed Robber on Crime Spree

Guns, potentially, saved lives in each of those cases during the last five days.

Look at this video and ask yourself what the outcome would have been if this armed 71 year old man had not saved the day.  This is actual video of a senior citizen saving the day about the time of the Aurora shooting, and I'll bet that you never heard about it.  This happens every day in this country and many people want you to be unarmed!

***


If you are in a situation where you are talking to someone who wants to ban, or restrict, any guns, then you must correct them.  Or watch your freedom disappear.

Points to argue:

1. Point to the stories where guns saved lives.  This website lists such stories.

2. Point out that the 2nd amendment exists because the founders of our country wanted the people to be able to overthrow the government if the government turned on the people.  The founders of our country used guns to get rid of British control of our country, and they wanted future Americans to have the same option.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

- Samuel Adams

The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government

-Thomas Jefferson

3. Point out that the states that have more gun control have more murders than their neighboring states.  The "neighboring states" part is important because by comparing neighboring states we can compare similar places.  Your opponent may point to the murder rate in other countries, but this is misleading.  You cannot compare the crime rate of a country of 3 million whites to a country of 310 million people of all races and backgrounds.

4. Point out that "assault weapon" is a political term to sound scary and gain support for their banning.  No person who knows anything about guns will describe one as an "assault weapon."  Guns may be described as fully automatic, semi automatic, lever, pump, bolt, etc.  But "assault weapon" has no meaning except as a political one.

The Clinton Gun Ban (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) was the last time an "assault weapon" was defined. 

Look at the definition of an "assault weapon" and understand that an "assault weapon" is a gun that looks scary not a gun that is meaningfully different from a gun that is often used to hunt ducks, deer, turkeys, etc.

Note that a pistol that weighs more than 50 oz and has a flash suppressor counts as an "assault weapon."  How does weight make a gun more dangerous?  If the anti-gun people are were arguing against some handguns because they weigh more than 50 oz, they would be rightly ignored because banning a gun because it is heavy is stupid.  And yet that is what they are doing; they get away with it because they call them "assault weapons."

For more stupidity in the definition look at what makes a shotgun an "assault weapon."

According to the definition this is an "assault weapon" (pistol grip + hold more than 5 rounds):



And this shotgun does not qualify as an "assault weapon":






Except for how it looks, these two guns are the same.  They work the same, most of the parts are the same. They are the same!

But the people who want to ban our guns think the one on top is scary and should be banned, despite their being no meaningful difference between them.

You say, "if there is no difference, then why do you care if one gets banned?"

I care, and so should you, because if there is no difference, why would we restrict the freedom of the people.  How can we live in a free country if our freedoms are restricted?

A more accurate definition of "assault weapon" is: “It’s black and makes us poopoo in our panties!”

Alternate names for gun bans:

* The Piss Off People with Guns Act
* The Not All the Nazis’ Ideas Were Bad Act
* The Disarming Law Abiding People Sure Is Easier than Disarming Criminals Act
* The Sissies Scared of Loud Noise Act
* The Freedom Is too Scary Act
* The Ban as Many Guns as We Can Trick People into Allowing Act
* The I Don’t Know Crap About Guns, But I’m Told These Ones Are Bad Act
* The Impossible to Vote for If You Have Functioning Male Parts Act

4. Point out that when someone who knows nothing about guns want to ban "only some" guns what they think that they want banned is fully automatic weapons (multiple shots with one trigger pull).  Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since the National Firearms act of 1934.

Why should we add a new law to ban something that is already banned?

5. Point out that the recent shootings occurred in "gun free zones."  Only the people who follow the law were unarmed by the laws.

Criminals don't care if they break one more law.  Why disarm peaceful citizens if criminals are not disarmed too?

By doing so the criminals are put at an advantage, and the law abiding citizens need to hope that there is a cop around.  And hopefully a cop that shoots the criminal not the law abiding citizen. (Just for starters.)

6. Point out that even if we got rid of all gun, crazy people will still kill and injure children and adults.

On the very same day as the CT shooting a crazy person in China stabbed 22 children.

Raise your hand if you heard about this.  Our media is complicit in helping support the government when it comes to restricting our freedoms.

Banning guns does not end violence.

***

Some advice for debating people:

1. You will not convince the person that you are debating.
2. You might convince a witness to the debate.
3. Name calling and insults from you are unacceptable and will encourage the other side.
4. If you do not get called names and insulted by your opponent, then you are not debating right.
5. Mercilessly attack their arguments, not their person.
6. You demeanor must be polite, cheerful, and in good humor.
7. You should not get mad, for any reason.  
8. If you argue that guns are good, then the facts are on your side.
9. Stay positive and stay focused, look for the flaws in their arguments and destroy them with your words.

If you need any help finding sources or argument for debate, then contact me or any other blogger who favors guns for assistance.  You may find links to other gun supporting bloggers in my sidebar.

***

This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.

-Adolph Hitler

If you say or do nothing while the left comes for our guns, then you cannot call yourself an American, or a man.

Fashion Advice for Girls

I find fashion to be irritating.  For the most part I'd rather ignore it.  However, its seems that modern girls are unable to find clothing that fits them well and looks good.  In other words, its a rare girl that is able to dress herself competently.

Here is some fashion advice from someone who would prefer to forget the subject, but you girls are so doing so badly that I need to tell you what you are doing wrong.

1. Designer stuff is unnecessary - Sometimes we buy things because it is a stylish brand.  This is fine, if you can afford it.  But spending a lot on clothes because of a brand name is a waste of money if your goal is to look good for a guy.

Straight guys don't know the difference between a Vera Wang purse and a Target one.  (I don't even know the name of another designer.)

Would you girls think less of me if I drove an Ferrari 355 instead of a 458?  Do you know the difference between those two car models? Do you care?

Its the same with designer clothing for straight guys.  If you want to impress other girls, gay guys, or you can afford it, then go for the overpriced stuff.  Otherwise skip it.  Being able to live frugally can be a virtue.

2. Don't wear dirty clothes - I'm constantly surprised at how often I see girls wearing dirty shoes and dirty sweatshirts.  Do those of you that wear them think that you look good while doing so?

I seem to see a lot of girls wearing sweatshirts with holes in the ends of the sleeves.  Why would you continue to wear clothes that have holes in them? 

Wearing dirty clothes shows that you do not care about your appearance.  It says that you are unable to keep yourself clean.  Is this the message that you want to tell the world?

3. Flip-flops look terrible - It seems that every girl owns several pairs of cheap, dirty, foam that they wear because they are "comfortable."

I'm sure that there are lots of fat guys who think that wearing speedos is comfortable.  Should they wear them every day?

Wearing flip-flops says , to guys, that you are dirty, lazy, and don't care too much about your appearance.

Coloriffics Avery

Wearing a better sandal says, to a guy, that you care more about your appearance, are more stylish, and therefore better than girls wearing cheap dirty foam.

Because so many girls dress badly these days it shouldn't be too hard to dress better.  You can't dress better than other girls by dressing the same way.

BTW, the only sandals worse than flip-flops are better flip-flops.  The standard flip-flops are cheap pieces of junk. If you spend more than a couple of dollars to get flip-flops that are made out of leather, have gel soles, or have flowers on them, then they show that not only do you not care about your appearance but you also think that investing real money in awful fashion is a good idea.

What guy wants to spend time, and money, on a girl that thinks that spending money on awful and expensive things is a good idea?

4. Uggs are ugly - Not only are they ugly, but they are named uggs because the designer's wife thinks that they are ugly.

Another problem with Uggs is that they cost too much.  (If they were free, they'd still cost too much.)  In order to wear ugly boots, you need to spend a pile of money.  Apparently, genuine UGG brand Ugg Boots can cost $150-200!

I had no idea that they could cost that much.  I did not like them before I knew how much they cost, but now I'll question the intelligence of any girl who wears them.

For less than $50 you could get these boots:

Not Rated Musket

I guarantee you that guys will hit on girls wearing these in preference to those wearing $200 ugly crap.

Try this experiment:

1. Find a girl who looks about as good as you do
2. Wear exactly the same thing
3. One of you wear uggs, one of you wear the above recommended boots
4. Count how many more guys talk to the girl with the good looking boots first

I bet that you'll be surprised at how many guys prefer not-uggs.  My guess is: all of them.  Ask them which they prefer, if you still disagree.

You can't dress better than other girls by wearing the same thing.  Wear something better than other girls and marvel at the difference that it makes.

5. Dresses and skirts are good - Its not often that I see a girl in a dress or a skirt, and that's quite disappointing.

What do celebrities wear on the red carpet? Dresses? Or dirty sweatshirts?

Why wouldn't wearing a less formal dress be better than wearing the same junk that other girls wear?

I can't express in words how much better a girl looks in a dress compared to the average crap modern girls wear.

 

Hurley Undertow Dress

(Note how the model is not wearing flip-flops.  Note that no model wears flip flips.  Is that because flip-flops are too stylish? Or becasue they look like hell.)

I submit to you that unless its cold out, or you are going to be doing manual labor, there is no reason not to wear a dress or skirt.

They look amazingly better than any kind of pants, or (heaven help us) leggings.

Dress buying notes:

• Too high above the knee can look slutty
• Floor length is not for casual wear
• Show off your narrow waist
• Straight guys don't care about the brand label
• Dresses made out of cloth patches make you look homeless

Even if you are flat chested, have no butt, and are very plain looking, having a narrow waist makes you more attractive than "girls" who are fatter than you.  If you've got a narrow waist, then show it off!

6. Don't wear pants that are baggy in the butt - If you wear baggy in the butt pants, then I figure that your butt matches.  Tight pants on a girl are a wonder to behold.  If you don't want to wear tight pants, then wear a dress or skirt.  They look better anyway.

I'll fitting pants are a sign of sloppiness, and who wants to be around a slob?

***

So, those are six points for women's fashion.  If you wear, and don't wear, the things that I just listed then you will look better and get more positive attention from men.

You can't dress better than other girls while wearing the same lousy crap that they do.