Politics of fear? Maybe not.


The LTE writer thinks the 2A Sanctuary movement is the ‘politics of fear.’

Not really, we are concerned, maybe angry at having to fight the same irrational garbage every year, but if we were actually afraid, it would get real quiet. The politics of fear is totally on the gun control side. Consider,


All deaths by gun are about 12/100K, but 2/3rds of those are suicides.

Of homicides, 80% are gang shootings, so the rate of firearm homicides for non-gang members is just under 1/100K, comparable to Australia, less than most of Europe. So, for most of us, fear of being shot to death is simply irrational. But that isn’t all. One of the reasons being killed in the course of a robbery, rape, or home invasion(again excluding drug gang members,) is so unlikely is the deterrent effect of private firearms ownership. So, reducing firearms ownership by law abiding citizens will INCREASE the likelihood of being killed in a robbery or rape.

So, applying those real risk numbers to proposed legislation, with regards to suicide, consider that firearm type, or magazine size is irrelevant to suicide. 1 shot is sufficient.

Regarding homicide, in 2018, in VA, with 8.5 million people, rifles of all types were used  in just 8 homicides. But homicides, as reported by the FBI and VDH, include murders, but also justifiable homicides such as self defense and police action, and hunting and other accidents, and again, 80% of homicides in general are gang related. So, your chance of being killed with a so-called assault rifle is substantially less than 1 in 1 million.

Studies by the Rand Corp showed that (with the possible exception of the Las Vegas shooting) magazine size played no part in the outcome of mass shootings.

Your chance, as a non gang member, of being murdered with an ‘assault’ firearm are less than the 20th Century worldwide risk of being murdered by your own legal government, a risk that is vanishingly small in the US BECAUSE we are armed.

So, where is the politics of fear?

24 thoughts on “Politics of fear? Maybe not.

  1. “Not really, we are concerned, maybe angry at having to fight the same irrational garbage every year …”

    You know what? That statement is true of those of us who think 40,000 preventable deaths a year is too much and whose minds are not clouded by gun fetishes.

    BTW, your oft-repeated racist “gang” blaming statistic is BULLSHIT. It may be a deliberate distortion of this statement from the National Gang Center . . . “From 2007 through 2012, a sizable majority (more than 80 percent) of respondents provided data on gang-related homicides in their jurisdictions.”

    That same gang tracking government agency reported as follows . . . “The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.”

    So 13% supported by government surveys and studies versus 80% pulled from somewhere -either your ass or some NRA website eager to deceive old white men like you. Typical.


    Liked by 3 people

    1. Please refer to the VA Dept of Health link.

      You will see that homicide victims are 80% young black men, Take your choice, is that a result of gang activity or are they just incredibly violent all on their own?

      I prefer to assign the connection to the drug war and the gangs it spawns, but if you prefer to declare it to be a racial attribute, I can’t stop you.

      Either way, old white men like me aren’t the problem.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You show your true colors as you dig deeper to justify the spreading of falsehoods. YOU are the one who makes the leap from the death toll among African-American young men in one state for one year to push a falsehood. Who is the one making assumptions? I did not make ANY. I tracked down the evidence to refute your “alternative fact.” The best estimate of gang-related homicides is that it is about 13% of the total and not 80% as you claimed.

        Your argument, as always, boils down to the claim that gun violence is not really a problem we need to address because, gee, the victims are mostly black.

        Old white men ARE the problem because they are the one blocking meaningful and Constitutional reform that would save thousands of lives annually.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. From your cite

          ” Analysis for this section pertains only to law enforcement agencies reporting gang problems. Please see the Prevalence of Gang Problems section.
          Number of Gang-Related Homicides*

          *Because of the many issues surrounding the maintenance and collection of gang-crime data, caution is urged when interpreting the results presented below. For more information regarding this issue, see: http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/About/FAQ#q5. ”

          Following that link you find that only those homicides REPORTED by local police as gang related are counted.

          So, when we hear on the news that a young black man with along criminal history of drug related arrests is killed by another young black man with along criminal history of drug related arrests, that is not counted as gang related unless the local police report it to the FBI as a gang killing.

          But OK, let’s modify my characterization.

          80% of murderers are connected to the drug trade.


          It remains that restricting MY access to firearms will have no effect on that 80% of homicides.


          1. Happy?

            No, you have grossly distorted the facts. And the only evidence you have with your new spin is the racial mix of victims in one state in 2017. The facts are readily available. You just do not like them. The murder of a spouse or romantic partner is, for example, is a huge component of the statistic – bigger than the number attributed to gang violence. Your arsenal MAY not be a threat to me but, it is a threat to you and your family. You cannot make this problem go away by saying it is a drug war thing. That is part of it, but not the biggest part.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Because I say so? Uh no. Because I have done some research and found some evidence. Unlike you, I do not make things up to bolster my opinions.

            According to the government agency tracking gang activity the number of gang related homicides is approximately 2,000 per year or about 13% of gun homicides. They also report that even in the notorious gang cities of Chicago and LA such homicides are about 50% of all homicides – nowhere near the 80% nationwide that you are asserting.


            Murders by intimate partners is also around 2,000 per year reaching 2,237 in 2017.

            My statements are based on evidence. Your insistence on attributing 80% of all gun murders to inner city blacks involved in drug wars is a self-serving fantasy.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Again read the quote from your own link, the numbers reported do not mean what you say they mean. Read the link.

            Gang killings not specifically reported by local police are not counted. So, when one drug dealer kills another that isn’t counted unless there is a specific gang attribution by local police.


          4. I grant you the data available to the government is incomplete – thanks NRA – but there is nothing in the link I provided that supports your claim that 80% of gun murders are drug related. The opposite in fact. In two of the worst cities for gang violence that rate is still not 50%.

            We keep going around in circles because your position is that gun murder victims are mostly black so there is not gun violence problem we need to solve. Rather than state it that way you choose to assume that these black victims of gun violence are all drug gangsters. They are not.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Of course the problem of black on black violence should be solved. Between the deaths and injuries, and incarceration, that is a huge waste of human potential.

            But the solution there is not getting rid of the guns, it is eliminating the financial engine of the gang wars, drug prohibition, and getting rid of the incentives for single parent matriarchal family structure.


  2. It is a politics of fear. Trump used it to his advantage and now the VCDL is riding that same train. If the laws that pass out of the GA are TRULY unconstitutional, then the courts will strike them down. THe pre-emptive fear factor being put forth is doing more harm than good. -IMHO

    You and the VCDL do not believe that ANY gun reform is common sense.That is the issue. Windmills need defeating, Don Q.


    1. We understand that the 2A Sanctuary resolutions are weak legally, but they are an excellent way to show the urban/rural divide that is a real problem and that nothing good comes of forcing urban ideas on the rural parts of the state where life is very different.


  3. What do Democrats have against applying a test of reason when making law instead of acting on unexamined prejudices and assumptions?

    I would suggest a 3 step review of proposed gun legislation.

    1) There must be a public good to be accomplished of sufficient scope to justify curtailing the rights of citizens. Not offset by unintended consequences
    2) the proposed measure must actually accomplish that public good in practice, not just be a useless gesture
    3)there must be no alternative way to accomplish that good without infringing on people’s rights

    What rational objection can there be to applying that test?


    1. I think those are reasonable steps and that they are being applied at some level.

      The problem is in the interpretation; “sufficient scope”, and “without infringing” are subjective. Your determination and mine would probably differ.

      And #2 while it sounds reasonable will only be known after the fact.

      I doubt you would be satisfied even if the Assembly followed your suggestions.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “I would suggest a 3 step review of proposed gun legislation.”

      I would add something like: The Bill of Rights shall not be violated.


  4. #2 is best tested by federalism. If something has been tried and failed in California or Connecticut and failed, it is not reasonable to expect it would work in Virginia either.

    As far as scope is concerned, we do that with traffic laws all the time. If we limited all cars to 15mph we would save lives, but at a cost. To what extent would you consider it prudent to ban AR type firearms if you have a 1 in 1 million chance of being snot with one but they are used hundreds of times a year for self defense?


    1. My overarching point was that however the steps(?) were implemented you would probably not agree with the conclusions reached for example the trade-off between a 15mph speed limit relative to the subjective determination of “cost”.

      As to your “Federalism” test, maybe, but not everything has been “tested” and the argument falls apart completely when one considers the ease with which we move between the States and thwart whatever measures have been attempted.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Well, if we can’t come to reasonable compromises, then we have to go to court for a literal interpretation of Article I section 13.

        But if your chances of being shot with an AR type rifle are less than 1 in 1 million and they are used for self defense hundreds of times a year, would you not agree they are a net good?

        For a long time, I opposed the use of ARs for home defense because of the overpenetration problem, but with the new frangible ammunition, that problem is greatly reduced and ARs have proven far more effective for home defense than handguns, particularly for women.

        So, how do you balance your 1 in 1 million chance of being shot with an AR against a woman living in a rural area where police response times are longer than 15 minutes having her choce of self defense?


        1. We’ve had this chat before, boiled down: a pistol grip 12 gauge, I like my old Mosberg (cylinder choke) and think it would suffice.

          I continue to disagree with your “home defense” argument. The Courts are probably where the issue(s) will end up.

          As to the data point you raise; it’s really hard to tell since the NRA contributes to so many sources for data cited and pushes the “defense” narrative relentlessly.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. If the shotgun is your choice, fine. I have sufficient skill with my handguns for that to be my home defense choice, but for many women, the shotgun is too long and has too much recoil if fired off the shoulder, and their hands are not large enough to get a good grip on a double stack handgun and handguns require a lot more practice anyway.

            What’s right for you or me is not necessarily right for everyone, so I don’t seek to impose my choice on others.


          2. “I don’t seek to impose my choice on others.” Very egalitarian of you.

            Using your logic we should allow Anti-tank level weaponry and adjust for ALL levels of skill and ability.

            Again, using women’s needs as a justification for public access to mass killing weapons is just a really, really weak argument.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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