Tucker Carlson Nails It on Guns and "Red Flag" Laws:

I'm for keeping weapons out of the hands of those bent on evil as much as anyone. However, I DO NOT trust U.S. courts, or ANY legal authority with determining whether or not a person is "mentally fit" to own a gun. Tucker Carlson gets this right:

Remember, what we're dealing with here is not so much a problem with mental illness, but a problem with evil, and a failure to properly deal with it. 

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

With COVID, We Should’ve Learned Our Lesson on “Do-Somethingism”

After the evil perpetuated at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, in a column entitled “Don’t Surrender To Do-Somethingism On Guns,” David Harsanyi at The Federalist is mostly correct when he writes, “Law-abiding Americans have no obligation to take ownership of a madman’s actions.” The only thing I take issue with in Mr. Harsanyi’s piece is in him referring to the Ulvalde mass murderer as a “madman.”

Again, when such events occur, we must be careful not to confuse evil with mental illness. Of course, “madman” doesn’t necessarily always refer to someone who is mentally ill, however, inevitably—even among those who should know better—whenever we have a mass shooting, a frequent and near immediate default assumption is that the perpetrator was mentally ill. Perhaps the Robb Elementary School murderer was mentally ill, but we don’t yet know that, and early indications are that he did not have a history involving mental illness.

What’s more, ascribing mental illness to the Robb Elementary murderer doesn’t help Mr. Harsanyi’s case. If someone who kills another human being is “mentally ill,” then it means something should have, or could have, been done to cure them, or protect others from them. As I noted in 2018 (see above link), after the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School massacre in Parkland, FL,

As our culture grows more and more secularized, it has become a very common practice to describe those who commit widespread acts of violence—especially if such violence involves the death of multiple human beings—as “crazy.” Some of this is tongue-in-cheek, but much of it is sincere. I believe this is the direct result of the psychiatric community attempting to redefine what is moral.

For decades we have witnessed the psychiatric community take acts that were long considered evil, or at least immoral and illegal, and deem them a “psychological disorder” that needs to be cured. It’s just good for business, I suppose.

In his essay, The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, C.S. Lewis noted that, when it comes to crime and punishment, we too often are facing off with those who believe “that all crime is more or less pathological.” Thus, instead of the criminal “getting what he deserves”—what used to be called “justice”—we must heal or cure him, and, as Lewis puts it, “punishment becomes therapeutic.”

Additionally, when we refuse to simply call evil what it is, lawmakers—especially, but not exclusively, Democrats—feel emboldened to “do something” to “fix” the problem. After all, when politicians can paint themselves as part of “the solution,” it makes re-election more likely. If we learned anything from COVID-19, this should have been the lesson!

Shortly after COVID-19 entered the U.S., countless politicians across America were all too eager to act. Not that our government should have done nothing, however, as American leftists—as well as those throughout the world—well demonstrated, for most of us, their “cure” was indeed far worse than the disease.

Led by Anthony Fauci—one of the leading prophets of scientism of our time—and his ilk, millions of American individuals, and hundreds-of-thousands of American businesses, churches, and schools were duped into following—or worse: enthusiastically embracing—the “corona-communism” of the champions of Big Government in America. 

The longer the charade played out, the more it became clear—as the data in schools, professional sports,  airplanes, Antarctic research stations, and the like revealed—that almost everything we did to “slow the spread,” including the “six feet” nonsense, was worthless and unnecessary. This is especially true of useless masks and foolish lockdowns.

These two highly destructive measures seemed—until the evil notion of vaccine mandates came along—to be the favorite of “do-somethingism” apologists throughout America and the world. For well over two years now, far too many Americans have lived under democrats devastating “do-somethingism” in the name of “public safety.” This is in spite of the mountains of evidence that point to the ineffectiveness of masks and lockdowns when it comes to controlling the spread of COVID-19.

Nevertheless, those beholden the Covid Cartel are still pushing masking and the like. This is true even in schools, where science has well demonstrated mandatory masking the most unnecessary, as well as the most destructive. It just goes to show that, once “do-somethingism” takes hold, it’s hard to get rid of!

If so many Americans weren’t susceptible to “do-somethingism,” the left wouldn’t continuously try—and often succeed with—it. And if they can’t accomplish their do-something wish list via legislation or executive order, the American left has often been able to rely on like-minded judges in U.S. courts. Tragically, many Americans simply want to be mothered, and the left is only too happy to play such a role.

The left’s “do-somethingism” on COVID-19 has destroyed countless lives and livelihoods. The damage is still being measured, and worse, still happening! If the American left can “do-something” to get rid of guns (or ammunition) in the U.S., they absolutely will. As numerous nations have proved, America has remained America largely because of the Second Amendment.

Recently, the idea that America needs to be “fundamentally transformed” has reached the highest levels of the left. The quickest way for this to happen would be to take guns from law-abiding Americans. We largely surrendered to "do-somethingism" on COVID, we should never make that mistake with guns. 

(See a version of this piece at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2022, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

Another School Shooting: Why and What Should We Do?

Two days before the recent mass murder of students at a Santa Fe high school in Texas, very near my home, a 13-year-old girl was killed when the car her father was driving hydroplaned and collided with a school bus. The girl’s father—who was also seriously injured—may face vehicular homicide charges because his tires were too slick.

Two weeks ago we endured the third anniversary of the death of my beloved pastor and father-in-law, David Fitzpatrick. David was killed by an impaired (alcohol and drugs), hit-and-run motorist. David’s killer pleaded guilty to first degree vehicular homicide, among other charges, and is now spending (hopefully) many years in prison.

Last month, just minutes from our home, a man with a history of domestic violence murdered his ex-wife and her sister, shot and wounded a 16-year old, and then killed himself. Thirteen-year-old and two-year-old children also in the home were spared serious injury.

On average, there are about 50 homicides a day in the U.S. Whether through criminal neglect or murderous intent, upon the sudden and tragic death of a loved one—among a myriad of other questions—each day in the U.S., thousands of Americans are left to ask “Why?”

I recall vividly the gut-wrenching moments on May 4, 2015 when we knew there was a bicyclist down in the area where my father-in-law used to ride. The calls to David’s cell phone that would never be answered; the rushed and lonely drive from my job to the crash site, still not knowing for sure whether David was alive; the moment I encountered the Georgia State Patrol officer who confirmed our worst fears; pulling into my mother-in-law’s driveway and watching her, my wife, and my wife’s sister awash in grief; attempting to comfort our four children; making the phone calls to David’s and Margie’s siblings, my parents, et al, telling them of the terrible news—like so many others who deal with such a loss, all of this sent me to an awful place I had never before been and never want to return.

What’s more, the investigation into David’s death led us to discover that his killer had a decades-long criminal past (including multiple drug-related crimes) that was ignored—due to a lack of proper inquiry—by our local law enforcement when he was on trial for other charges in 2010. If the judge then had been aware of these past convictions, David’s killer almost certainly would have then faced serious jail time instead of mere probation. We will always wonder if David might still be alive if the district attorney’s office had done its job in 2010 and presented the evidence needed to put his killer behind bars. As is often the case in these tragedies, we sometimes wonder: would this have changed things? And: how do we prevent this from happening again?

Thus, after once again witnessing students slaughtered at the hands of a lone gunman bent on evil, I understand—though I typically strongly disagree with—those who want “action” from their government on “gun control.” I also understand those asking, “Why did this happen to us?”

As unpopular as this is likely to be, I’m going to say it anyway. The answer to “why” these dreadful things happen is nearly as old as creation itself: sin. As my late father-in-law would sometimes point out in his sermons, if you are hurting, if you are suffering, it is almost always due to one of two things: your sin or the sin of another. Just prior to the first murder in the history of humanity, God warned Cain,

If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.

The very next verse describes Cain murdering his brother Abel. Cain—like the rest of us—should have learned from the failure of his father and mother: walk with God and live in peace, or go your own way, do your own thing—i.e., rule your own world—and live in fear and suffering. Whether we like to admit it or not, operating out of our own selfish desires, each of us is capable of terrible things.

Most of us do not think ourselves capable of murder, but Jesus warned us that anger in our hearts makes us “subject to judgment.” On countless moral matters we have ignored the Word of God and gone our own way. This is the ultimate problem facing the world, and there’s only one solution.

This has always been the case. From very near the beginning of time, human beings have been killing one another, stealing from one another, enslaving one another, sexually abusing one another, and so on. God gave a perfect Law—upon which all other human laws should be based—to reveal to us what is right and what is wrong. Knowing that none of us is capable of perfectly keeping His Law, and thus were (and are) “guilty” of breaking all of it, God made a Way that we all might be “saved.”

Another unpopular sentiment: in the eyes of God, your sin and my sin make us just as guilty as a mass murderer. What’s more, because of our desire to elevate human “wisdom” and determine truth for ourselves while at the same time ignoring God’s wisdom and His eternal truths, we have become blind to what is sin, or “evil.”

For example, large swaths of our culture think that hunting for sport is morally unacceptable but killing an unborn child is okay. Additionally, many Americans—especially so-called “millennials”—believe the “right” to do whatever one wishes in the sexual realm is more important than freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

In other words, and as most in their right-minds well know, many in our culture have stooped to calling what is good evil and what is evil good. To say that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman—in other words, agreeing with God on the matter—will quickly get one labeled a “bigot.” To oppose the radically perverse gender agenda of the modern left—e.g., simply pointing out the biological differences between a male and a female—can draw protests and threats of physical or financial harm.

Since Columbine (1999), using a very liberal definition of a “school shooting,” there have been 287 deaths as the result of someone wielding a gun at or near a school. In that same period, millions of children have been slaughtered in the womb. Countless children and adults alike have suffered—many to the point of death—as the result of divorce, “shacking up,” sexual promiscuity, and the like.

To stem the tide of evil, we must encourage a culture—in our personal lives, as well as our homes, businesses, schools, and government—that embraces the eternal truths of our Almighty God. We will never completely eliminate, or solve the problems of, evil in this world. We will not make any real progress—something that can be achieved—towards defeating evil in this world unless we recognize truly what is evil and what is to be done about it.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

On Liberals and the 2nd Amendment: Why Repeal What You Already Ignore?

Make no mistake about it, in the hands of the American left, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not safe. For that matter, virtually nothing wise or precious or sacred or holy or otherwise good is safe with those corrupted by a liberal worldview. Whether marriage, the family, the church, life in the womb, education, small businesses, fossil fuels, law enforcement, the military, the Constitution, and so on, time and again liberals have proven themselves to be on the wrong side of the truth.

What’s more, in the hands of today’s leftists, the Second Amendment—and anything else in the U.S. Constitution with which modern liberals are unhappy—is in jeopardy whether or not it is “repealed.” As most now well know, John Paul Stevens—a retired associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court—recently gave his direct endorsement to the shockingly foolish—but increasingly popular among democrats—idea that the Second Amendment should be repealed.

Few should be should be surprised by Stevens’ position in this matter. With the way-too-close Heller decision a decade ago, he almost then got his wish. In 2008, liberals were a mere one vote short of effectively killing the Second Amendment. In a republic that properly respected and understood its Constitution, Heller wouldn’t have been necessary, and under the absurd circumstances that such a case should make it to the highest court in the land, the vote to uphold the Second Amendment wouldn’t be close.

As Charles Cooke put it,

Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller “interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself.

In their efforts to remake America into their image of a leftist utopia, rarely have liberals let the Constitution stand in their way. For decades now—whether as public executives, legislators, or judges—liberals have conveniently ignored the Constitution, or “interpreted” it beyond recognition.

For two centuries the “right” to healthcare, housing, a “living wage,” marriage, education, and the like, escaped the vast majority of Americans—including our politicians and jurists. In the late 19th century, President Grover Cleveland explained well the prevailing thought on government and a citizen’s “right” to public funds. While taking a stand against government aid involving a very deserving orphanage in New York City during a severe economic crisis, Cleveland—a Democrat—said,

I will not be a party to stealing money from one group of citizens to give to another group of citizens. No matter what the need or apparent justification, once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again…

In 1887, after vetoing a bill that appropriated $10,000 to buy grain for several drought-stricken Texas counties, Cleveland declared,

Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Nevertheless, in recent decades, as they increasingly made a god of government and sought to build a massive welfare state (through which votes could be purchased), democrats and those like-minded have fully embraced the notion of “paternal care on the part of the government.”

Today’s liberalism stands upon two duplicitous notions that both require a modern “interpretation” of our Constitution: 1.) the godless pagan principle of “Do What Thou Wilt,” and 2.) the presence of an “omnicompetent” Government that is all too eager to mother us. And as C.S. Lewis put it, “If we are to be mothered, mother must know best.”

Of course, and in spite of the claims of modern liberals, such a political philosophy does not bring justice, and it certainly does not promote liberty. On the contrary, as Lewis also noted, such a modern State exists “not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good—anyway, to do something to us or to make us something.” Something indeed. Lewis depressingly concludes that under such a regime, “There is nothing left of which we can say to them, ‘Mind your own business.’ Our whole lives are their business.”

One of the primary functions of the U.S. Constitution, as the Preamble expressly declares, is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.” One of the chief means through which such Blessings are “secured” is by ensuring the right of the people to arm themselves. Of course, a government that increasingly makes our “whole lives…their business” is in direct conflict with the idea of securing “the Blessings of Liberty.” Thus, we get “interpretation” of a “living Constitution”—especially when it comes to things like guns.

To repeal a Constitutional Amendment is an arduous effort that would require serious legislative lifting. Thanks to Barack Obama, democrats today are in no shape to pursue repeal of anything, but thanks in large part to men and women like John Paul Stevens, they don’t have to.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Virginia Lawmaker Gets It Right on Guns and Gun Violence

Nick Freitas, an Iraq war veteran and a Republican member of Virginia's House of Delegates lays down some facts, data, and logic on guns, gun-control legislation, and gun violence. Watch: 

FYI GOP: This is the kind of politician you need to be running for U.S. Congress.

Guns, Men, and Murder: The Data

I love guns. I’ve been around them all of my life, and I currently own several—for hunting and self-defense. One of my most memorable gifts growing up was a single-shot 410 shotgun (that I got for Christmas when I was 12). Before I was old enough to own a real gun, my friends and I were quite skilled in using all sorts of scrap wood, duct tape, nails, and so on to manufacture the most magnificent replicas. Back then, if I was not playing with some sort of ball, I was in some sort of battle.

Not all of my experiences with guns have been pleasant. One of the toughest moments in the life of my family happened when I was 17. At the time, my 13-year-old brother was hunting turkeys near our home. A tragic accident with a faulty double-barreled 12-gauge shotgun cost him his right arm.

Nevertheless, soon after he had healed from having his arm amputated, my brother was learning to shoot—even long guns and compound bows

My brother shooting a compound bow--with one arm.

—with one arm. (He also played high school baseball and football with one arm.) Now in his mid-forties, he still hunts (and fishes) to this day. In other words, even enduring a traumatic and tragic accident involving a gun as a young teenager, neither he—nor the rest of us close to him—ever let a fear or a hatred of guns creep into our psyche.

After another horrific shooting at a “gun-free” government school, those corrupted by a liberal worldview would have all of us share their fear and hatred (warning: language) of guns, or at least their hatred of guns in the hands of those who stand opposed to a liberal, big-government agenda.

Thus, instead of more good guys with guns, time and again liberals insist that the answer to stopping those bent on doing evil with powerful weapons is to take guns from the good guys. The infamous Sheriff Scott Israel of Broward County, FL again made this foolish argument—tragically to “thunderous applause”—when debating the NRA’s Dana Loesch.

Responding to Loesch and pushing democrat talking points to a (mostly) like-minded audience, Israel told the Parkland crowd, “You just told this group of people that you are standing up for them. You’re not standing up for them until you say, ‘I want less weapons.’” Of course, “less weapons” means “less guns,” and “less guns” means elect more democrats so that we can have—among many other terrible outcomes—a bigger government with more “gun control” laws. As the data reveals, in the United States, fewer guns or more gun control laws do NOT equal less murder.

Last year it was widely reported that the vast majority of murders in the U.S. occur within a very small portion of the country. More than half of all murders in the U.S. occurred within just two percent of the counties. Over two-thirds (68 percent) of the murders in America occurred within only five percent of the counties. (There are 3,141 counties, or county equivalents, in the U.S.)

This table shows the worst three percent of counties, in which almost 60 percent of the murders occur. Almost all of these counties are in large urban areas, where democrats rule. Of course, large populations will typically have more murders. What we should consider in this debate is the murder rate in these counties.

Of the 10 worst counties for the number of murders, five of them are also among the worst when it comes to murder rate. Of the 30 counties with the highest murder rate, 19 of them are in the worst three percent for total number of murders. But whether one considers the sheer number of murders, or the murder rate, the other telling and significant piece of data in our debate is the presence of guns in these areas.

City-Data lists the top 101 counties when it comes to “lowest percentage of residents that keep firearms around their homes” and “highest percentage of residents that keep firearms around their homes.” As the table linked above also reveals, of the three percent of counties—95 total counties—with the highest number of murders, 43 of these counties are in the top 101 when it comes to lowest rates of gun ownership.

Only 19 of these counties are in the top 101 when it comes to highest rates of gun ownership. Of the 10 counties in the U.S. with the most murders, all are in the top 101 when it comes to lowest rates of gun ownership.

Additionally, as this table reveals, the overall murder rate for the top 101 of highest and lowest rates of gun ownership is virtually identical. The murder rate for the top 101 counties with the highest rates of gun ownership is 6.28 per 100,000. The murder rate for the top 101 counties with the lowest rates of gun ownership is 6.15 per 100,000. Also, of the 30 counties with the highest murder rate, nine of them are in the top 101 of lowest rates of gun ownership, while five of them are in the top 101 of highest rates of gun ownership.

At the state level—where data is more readily available—the numbers reveal the same: there’s no correlation between the presence of guns and the rate of murder. The average murder rate for the first 25 states (lowest half of gun ownership rates) is 5.0. The average murder rate ranking for the last 25 states (upper half of gun ownership rates) is 4.9. For the bottom 10 and top 10, the average is 4.2 and 4.3 respectively.

The average murder rate ranking for the first 25 states is 24.4. The average murder rate ranking for the last 25 states is 27.6. For the bottom 10 and top 10, the average is 22.8 and 23.7 respectively. Put simply, more guns does not mean more murder. And inversely, fewer guns does not mean fewer murders. Put another way, more laws against gun ownership has done almost nothing to reduce the rate of murder in America.

The only way to reduce murder is to recognize that it is an act of evil that must be dealt with from a proper political and spiritual perspective. Men murder because their hearts are dark. To stop them, we must meet force with force. To change men, we must get to their hearts. Sound legislation can work to protect us, but focusing on the weapon of murder and attempting to legislate away evil by targeting a tool is the height of folly.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Guns and Murder (by State)

(See the column: Guns, Men, and Murder: The Data. See these tables also: U.S. Counties and Murder and Guns and Murder (by County).)

The numbers below are from Wikipedia (murder rate) and from Business Insider (gun ownership rate). The states (and D.C.) are ranked by percentage of gun ownership. Murder rates and murder rate ranking averages are shown at the end of the table.

State	Gun %	Murder Rate	Murder Rate Rank
1. DE	5.2	6.7	43
2. RI	5.8	2.7	11
3. NY	10.3	3.1	15
4. NJ	11.3	4.1	22
5. NH	14.4	1.1	1
6. CT	16.6	3.3	17
7. OH	19.6	4.3	24
8. NE	19.8	3.3	18
9. CA	20.1	4.8	29
10. MD	20.7	8.6	48
11. MA	22.6	1.9	7
12. ME	22.6	1.7	4
13. DC	25.9	24.2	51
14. IL	26.2	5.8	36
15. OR	26.6	2.5	10
16. MO	27.1	8.3	47
17. PA	27.1	5.1	32
18. WA	27.7	2.9	14
19. NC	28.7	5.2	33
20. MI	28.8	5.8	37
21. VT	28.8	1.6	3
22. VA	29.3	4.6	27
23. OK	31.2	6.0	39
24. GA	31.6	6.0	38
25. UT	31.9	1.8	5
26. KS	32.2	4.4	25
27. AZ	32.3	4.5	26
28. FL	32.5	5.1	31
29. IA	33.8	2.3	8
30. IN	33.8	5.6	34
31. CO	34.3	3.2	16
32. WI	34.7	4.2	23
33. SD	35	3.7	20
34. TX	35.7	4.8	30
35. MN	36.7	2.4	9
36. NV	37.5	6.2	41
37. TN	39.4	6.2	42
38. KY	42.4	4.7	28
39. MS	42.8	8.7	49
40. SC	44.4	8.2	46
41. LA	44.5	10.3	50
42. HI	45.1	1.3	2
43. ND	47.9	2.8	13
44. AL	48.9	7.2	44
45. NM	49.9	5.6	35
46. MT	52.3	3.5	19
47. WY	53.8	2.7	12
48. WV	54.2	3.8	21
49. ID	56.9	1.9	6
50. AR	57.9	6.1	40
51. AK	61.7	8.0	45

• The murder rate average of the first 10: 4.2
• The murder rate average of the last 10: 4.3
• The murder rate average of the first 25: 5.0
• The murder rate average of the last 25: 4.9

• The murder rate rank average of the first 10: 22.8
• The murder rate rank average of the last 10: 23.7
• The murder rate rank average of the first 25: 24.4
• The murder rate rank average of the last 25: 27.6

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com