In early 2015, I found half of 400 members in a Tea Party forum ready to shoot children for stealing apples from a backyard apple tree. At first no one believed me. Now no one doubts it, but the problem remains. So here is Part 3 in the seriesThe 9/16 Report: Firearm Casualties in the USA andThe 2/18 Report: Third Eyes on Guns and Hate Propaganda from the Appletree.

Gun owners are 8 times more likely to shoot family and friends, either intentionally or by accident, than to kill in self defense
Gun owners are 8 times more likely to shoot family and friends, either intentionally or by accident, than to kill in self defense

For tabular representation of 20 years of deaths and injuries, built from >6,000 data points, please seeThe 9/16 Report.

FBI and CDC Data was built into 6,000-point spreadsheet for this report
FBI and CDC Data was built into 6,000-point spreadsheet for this report
[1.] New third Eyes
1.1 - Please use RUBBER BULLETS for Self Defense
1.2 - CDC Research into Violent Injuries?
1.3 - Armed Guards on Every Street Corner?
1.4 - Gun Violence Tax Credit?
1.5 - Lobbies to Match NRA Political Contributions?
1.6 - Education on Hate Propaganda!

Free PDFs, and all spreadsheet data, are available electronically.


916 Report: Firearm Casualties and Solutions

Cost: $0.00


Cost: $0.00

1. New Third Eyes

While this article focuses on the NRA, gun-control advocates frequently respond with hate propaganda themselves, which only exacerbates the problem. Some don't!!! My favorite solution is here, from #neveragain


1.1. Please Use only Rubber Bullets for Self Defense

Assault guns should be modified so they can only fire rubber bullets, but due to the anger, people only discuss banning them or not.

It's difficult to know the correct perspective on this problem, so here I speak as a Freemason in a 400-year-old lodge. From that perspective, this nation is not mature enough to live without the ability to threaten violence. In fact, the need is increasing, as our military is increasingly bigger too, now eight times larger than any other nation's. Maybe it's six or seven times larger now. Considering the sheer scale of it, specific numbers are a distraction. So gun violence is something people will have to live with for a long time.

This nation needs to threaten violence, so preferably, the weapons should not be intentionally lethal. As detailed in Part Two, gun owners are eight times more likely to kill their own family and friends, either intentionally or by accident, than to kill a criminal during justified self defense. They are emotionally incapable of handling the responsibility, demonstrated by their emotional inability to care about other dead besides the criminals they demand to attack.

Requiring rubber bullets for self defense is for the same reason one doesn't give sharp objects to people with poor physical coordination, like young children. They are bound to hurt themselves. But it will be a long time before this could become law, although it could. For example, assault-caliber weapons must be modified to fire only non-lethal ammunition in some parts of Europe. Meanwhile, children die every day.

If a person REALLY needs a gun for self defense, then after all the accidents, all the deadly family quarrels, and all NRA's incitation to fear and hate, there's no reason to allow anything but rubber bullets. This solution avoids the problem of defining exactly what 'assault guns' are, and I need to mention, this kind of statement is the reason most people cite as being why I should be banned. They consider me insulting.

If you need rubber bullets, I recommendDICK'S SPORTING GOODS, because it voluntarily stopped selling assault rifles. It'll keep another of your gun outlets open, and if you need bullets, you don't need to buy anything else there, no matter how amazing all the other stuff is.

1.2. CDC Research into Violent Injuries?

We have no data at all on the increasing violent injuries, totaling more than all other firearm casualties combined, while the NRA distorts fatality data to make it appear some threat of attack by a stranger is the only violent crime to consider. While it's been proposed before to allow CDC research into guns again, no one has yet suggested what they do. So I present this suggestion.

When stating violent crime is falling, NRA points only to homicide. In fact, violent injuries are way up, but ignored
When stating violent crime is falling, NRA points only to homicide. In fact, violent injuries are way up, but ignored

Maybe it's not the best research direction. All we can say for certain is that the most important resolve proposed on Feb 28, 2018 was to reverse the Dickey amendment and sponsor CDC government research on gun violence, countering the NRA's initiatives to prevent any further research at all, for decades. Please bear in mind, if the NRA is like any other successful and influential organization, it's also been planning increased assault-gun sales for decades, knowing it would have to appeal, one day, to the more violent fringe for continued profit; and to encourage the most violent fringe, for its own perpetuation. The evidence of that truth is plainly stated above.

As the CDC would do the research for historical reasons, the knowledge would be epidemiological. Some would complain that guns are treated as disease. Maybe the ability to threaten violence has indeed become an addiction. But fairly, epidemiology is a scientific method which is powerful enough for good results, regardless its origin. The problem, again, is that the vast majority of Americans are too ignorant to appreciate the results, not even knowing how the scientific method works, which is not their fault. Most feel their intuition about truth means they understand science and 'know' truth unquestionably., then seek proof to validate the intuition afterwards (a growing phenomenon referred to as a new 'post-information era'). Science instead proposes that we present a question, seek information with experimental research against control data, and draw the conclusions after we discover the results.

Hence enabling CDC government research may be the durable and permanent step. As indicated in part one, violent injuries outnumber all other types of firearm casualty combined, but there is no research on them at all.

1.3. Armed Guards on Every Corner?

On the other hand, given the scale of the intent to kill and maim in self defense without regard to all those others dying as a consequence, the specific solution could also be, for example, an armed guard on every street corner, such as in North Korea. If you feel that is too absurd, please remember, the President has suggested arming schoolteachers, which the NRA told him was a new idea. Actually people in Utah and Nevada have been talking out it for years, so now Florida is already in the process of doing it, it's actually ball two in the hardball match. It's rather rather irrelevant whether the President knew of the armed schoolteachers in Nevada, but even so, when the President offered it as the first suggestion to teenagers from the most recent school shooting, it still just sounded wrong, I even wrote to the Dept. of Education asking how many teachers wanted training on how to shoot their children. And the answer was resounding: "No teachers at all."(Huffington Post)

But, on second thought, and properly thought, who can really know what is actually *necessary* without better gathering of data? First, we have to put aside the problem of how to *get rid* of armed guards if it doesn't work out right. That is far too much thinking of the future. And my conclusion that America's hatred would turn it into that which it hates most is only academically hermeneutic. It's not knowledge that's easy to prove with statistics, as so often demanded in the post-information era. It's a Jungian perspective: "hatred transforms us into that we hate the most." There's other views from peers. Freud would call the passion for guns a compensation for erectile dysfunction.

I am no longer the person to resolve this issue. According to numerous gun salesmen, I am already a cowardly idiot, whereas according to quite a few Libertarians, I should be shot as a traitor to freedom, and two even threatened to do so. Must our nation have such a mystically tragic fate, or such puerile an angst, or so paradoxical rejections of rationality? What sanity is there when 2nd-amendment supporters use arguments for assault guns that equally aptly to rocket-propelled grenades, tanks, and 50kt nuclear low-yield 'tactical bunker busters? Who can say?

When I asked one of the few more coherent 2nd amendment supporters those questions this month, he calmly explained "You're wrong, because it is legal to own a unarmed tank, and then to use the canon, you only need a particular grade permit.." that he then specified in detail. I should not need to point out that is an indication I am actually NOT wrong, to a far more disturbing level of accuracy than, sadly, many others can now appreciate. Even the more lucid of those outspoken on the 2nd-amendment are, according to world metrics, insane. They want battle-ready tanks too, they even know how to get them, and have no ability to reason logically. Either they are insane or terrorists trying to sell tanks. Why should someone even want to find out how to get a battle-ready tank? It's not something I'm prepared to dig into any further.

Considering the pervasive level of infatuation with violent threat, maybe armed guards on every street corner really is the only solution. It seems like turning the USA into North Korea to me, but am I wrong to say that's so bad? Benjamin Franklin said no democracy should last more than few centuries, or it is destroyed by its own corruption. John Adams agreed with him. Maybe the end is due. Or maybe it really is as awful as it sounds. Who can say? I'm not particularly keen on the prospect of living like I am in N Korea, but if that's the ONLY option, so be it.

1.4. Gun Violence Tax Credit?

Politicians from Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the city of Los Angeles have contacted me concerning my suggestions on this, but none of them returned the money as a tax credit, as I outline in Section 2 above. Without returning the money equally to everyone as a tax credit, then reducing the gun violence tax when violence goes down, i don't believe it easy to demonstrate this as Constitutional. If it were done properly, there would be unified effort to reduce gun violence, which would please both sides of the currently divided debate.

If the USA had something like UK's House of Lords, such an idea could be discussed, but in the current situation, the GOP is right that the left mostly wants gun-violence tax to increase revenue, and doesn't want to return it as a tax credit. So again, i think this nation is not yet mature enough to exercise this solution, but if you are interested, there is a thorough explanation here.

1.5. Lobbies to Match NRA's Political Contributions

It has problems, but this idea really deserves more attention. I did try asking about this, but all I got from the anti-gun lobbies in response was donation solicitations (and more bans).

1.6. Education on Hate Propaganda!

Whether the NRA is usinghate propaganda or not, the increasing hatred and polarity on all issues indicates that it should be more widely understood. You may argue about the violence, but the ignorance has indeed reached an epidemic level, where even those who know the most are ridiculed as 'stupid intellectuals.' Of the thousands of people who have objected to my research, all of them are Americans adamantly refusing to accept that the NRA's own research statistics on guns (such as 2.5 million crimes stopped by guns) are fake news (the original statistics have been deleted from the NRA site, all studies indicate the number is 20 times too high, and guns have only stopped 0.2% of actual crimes. The NRA continues to state the same numbers). I find the most support from Europeans and Asians instead.

CDC research may be the most durable action we can take immediately, but at this stage of our nation's development, the majority are still incapable of appreciating, accepting, or properly acting on the results until the hate propaganda is recognized for what it is. hate propaganda is most effective when people do not know what it is, or how it works. For these reasons, I believe these observations now deserve universal and unilateral attention. In particular, if gun-control activists don't spread awareness of hate propaganda now, the NRA also has what I've written. If you don't believe it was using Nazi mind manipulation techniques before, it knows about them now.