March 24, 2018

Shared Goal: Reduce Violence, Make Communities Safer?

Jim Shepherd at the Outdoor Wire ended his optimistic piece by telling readers that the National Shooting Sports Foundation sent out a press release encouraging people to become involved in the conversation, “to see violence in our society reduced and our communities and our children made safer.”

So far every so-called Second Amendment advocate group and most individual s0-called Second Amendment supporters have only talked about banning guns not being an answer, but have been willing to ignorantly support ridiculous efforts to make schools safer by “educating” (propagandizing/brainwashing) the public about violence and mental illness, while giving law enforcement more authority and leeway to confiscate your guns.

What’s not being addressed, and probably never will, are those issues that have MADE this society violent, angry, mentally ill, chemically altered, etc. that drives a person to exemplify that abnormal manipulation into violent actions.

If the real “Shared Goal” is to reduce violence and make our communities and children safer, the conversation needs to be broadened into areas where most people will become uncomfortable. It will never happen. Too much money at stake.


I’m Not All In With This Man’s “Gun Culture”

I read this article this morning of a man describing his world of “gun culture.” I thought a lot of it was well presented, although I didn’t necessarily agree with all of it, including some of the “feelings” he gets from carrying a concealed weapon, etc.

What I disagreed with the most was what is on display in this country at present. Somehow the “gun culture” has taken the high road, while on the one hand promoting a person’s right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms, and on the other hand assuming the role of a good totalitarian in support of fascist government regulation and control over an inalienable right to keep and bear arms and a person’s choice as to how to do that.

The author writes: “Many gun-rights supporters were appalled to learn after the Sutherland Springs shooting that the military was systematically underreporting disqualifying convictions to the federal background check database. Under pressure, the military has added more than 4,000 new names in just three months. Similarly, law-enforcement failures or background-check failures that preceded, for example, the Virginia Tech, Charleston, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, and Parkland shootings are spurring serious new consideration of the gun violence restraining order, a move that would allow family members and others close to a potential shooter to get in front of a judge to request that the court direct law enforcement to temporarily seize a dangerous person’s weapons. It gives ordinary citizens a chance to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something.

The intent here is understandable. What is seriously flawed in the circular thinking process is the belief that some Second Amendment restrictions affect only the lawful citizen and others don’t. This action requires that the True Believer fully trusts his government to do the right thing and protect us. How has that worked in the past?

I can’t be a part of this “gun culture.” I don’t like government telling me how, when and with what, I can defend myself.

The author is proud that the military has turned in more names of those now prohibited from buying and owning a gun, with complete faith and trust that each and every one of them was justified…by whose standards I might ask. Seriously, is there any valid reason that we should believe and trust the government to do anything that is right?

The writer has complete faith in his government that a “temporary” taking of a person’s property, deeming them “dangerous” (by whose standards I ask again?) is a good thing. And, I’ll bet this same person is the first to wonder why his inalienable right to protection is being systematically taken away and by piecemeal being ceded over to the Government for administration.

By God don’t we ever learn anything?


Maine Legislature Approves Consideration of Four Fascist Bills They Claim Will Make Schools Safer

Right on cue, the knee-jerk jerkers in Maine are hard at it proposing worthless fascist-style bills, I suppose feeling the need to “do something.”

History is proving that nobody ever learns anything from history.

Here’s a peek at the four pieces of proposed legislation that made its way past the emergency bill standards of the Legislature.

One bill seeks a $20 million bond to be used to “make schools safer.” Yesterday I weighed in on that nonsense. All you need to do is simply trust your government. And how has that worked out for all of us so far?

A second bill, according to the Portland Press Herald, “…would set up a process for police to temporarily confiscate guns from a person whom a court has found to be a danger to the community.” Think about this for a moment. What could possibly go wrong? And do you want others more insane than you deciding whether or not you are a danger to “the” community? By whose standards will this claim of “danger” be based? This is fascism at its finest carried out and perpetuated by useless eater totalitarians. Just blindly, out of fear of government, cede all your rights away, is slavery in its purest form.

A third bill proposal, “…would seek to build community education programs to raise awareness of those who may be a danger to themselves or others.” Historically, the Vatican, and thus the infrastructure of the Catholic Church have always taught their followers to spy on other people and turn them in if they are not following the laws of their church. This proposal I see as no different.

Consider that this proposal would allow insane, brainwashed morons, to educate other brainwashed, insane morons how to recognize someone who is a “danger to themselves and others.” By someone’s standards, everyone can fit that description. Just look at the insanity that has prevailed since the presidential election. And, I must ask, who is mentally fit to educate others as to their own insanity? We have gone mad!!

And to further perpetuate the fascist nonsense by propping up and showing adoration for the mental health profession, a fourth bill will be considered that would give shrinks, with masters degrees or higher, access to loan forgiveness programs.

So the insane make the rules for the rest of us as to their industry’s standards of mental illness and mental normalcy, and Maine is considering propping up this industry that has proven to make us all even that much more insane, by paying off their debt so we can expect and eagerly await being forced to conform to the State’s standards of mental normalcy.

Smart! Real smart!


Mental Health and “Gun Violence”

From Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association:

Dear MSSA Friends,
All the talking heads are frothing over the Florida school shooting.  All this rabid attention only inspires copycat acts.
Of course school shootings and mass murder are terrible.  But, let’s ask some intelligent questions about what’s going on.
Many talking heads bring up various suggestions about mental health, from more taxpayer funding, to wider screening, to better record keeping and sharing, to using mental health evaluations to strip people of their civil rights.  So, what’s the deal with mental health and “gun violence”?  (I put “gun violence” in quotes because the issue is really about violence against people, by any method.  One of the largest mass murders in US history was done in a New York City nightclub with a quart of gasoline.)
Well, I have explored the intersection of mental health and gun violence.  I have written about that intersection and posted that Online.  Please review my analysis at:
There are important points in this analysis you need to be able to express to friends, elected officials, and in letters to the editor.
Why do most of these incidents happen in schools?  Well, duhhh!  “Gun free zones.”  I put that in quotes because these places are NEVER gun free.  They are only gun free for the law abiding victims.  But “gun free zones” are low-hanging fruit full of ripe, defenseless victims for a madman planning yet another copycat killing spree.
To cure this societal defect, MSSA proposed the Montana School Safety Act in the last session of the Montana Legislature, House Bill 385.  HB 385 would have allowed trained and qualified school employees to be armed at work, to protect themselves and our precious children and grandchildren.  See the bill copy at:
HB 385 didn’t pass.  Opponents said it’s just too dangerous to have guns in schools.  Leave defense of our children to the professionals, they said.  Oh, but keep the fire extinguishers in the buildings, they said, because the staff of a school with a beginning fire can’t wait for professional firefighters.  Yeah, right.
How bad can it get?  How many children could a madman shoot in the target-rich environment of a school?  Well, I tested that.  Read about and see videos of my test at:
It could be very bad – much worse than the recent shooting in Florida.
So, what’s the solution?  It certainly won’t prevent drunk driving to take cars away from sober people.  And, it won’t inhibit madmen to make it more difficult for law abiding people to purchase or own firearms.  That’s obvious.
One solution is to get rid of gun free zones – all of them.  They’re dangerous places and magnets for violent madmen.  When one of these incidents happens, what’s the first thing people on scene do?  They call for police.  Why call police?  It’s not because of the nifty clothes police wear, and not because of the fancy cars they drive, but because police have guns they can use to shoot the perpetrator.  The victims are calling for guns.  Why shouldn’t the intended victims have guns so they can shoot the perpetrator themselves rather than wait fatal minutes for police to arrive?
It seems that this problem of mass murder needs to be examined through the lens of sociology, rather than of law or psychology.  More gun control laws have not worked anywhere.  Calls for more or better mental health are likely to only obscure important aspects of the problem, and postpone workable solutions.
Enough rant.
Best wishes,

Maine Governor Advocates for Stricter Gun Control Laws

It appears that Maine Governor Paul LePage has come out with recommendations that the existing laws on the books that severely rip apart our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, be strictly enforced and even beefed up. This is a classic example of fake “conservatives” pretending that they know what the term means while advocating for the smothering of individual rights and a destruction of your Second Amendment right.

LePage says that those who commit gun violence, “always have a relationship to either drugs, domestic violence or mental illness.” That may be so, or maybe not. However, drugs, domestic violence, and mental illness affects many aspects of everyone’s lives. If it is so important that these conditions are responsible for gun violence, then what is it that this fascist government is doing about drugs, domestic violence, and mental illness? Our society is nearly 100% dependent on prescription and over-the-counter drugs, pushed heavily through the media to ensure the addictions continue. It is said that mental illness appears more prevalent in our society only because of better detection. Really? Is it really a proper thing that any GI who seeks counseling, perhaps because of war distress, should be considered a mental problem and barred from owning a gun? Who gets to decide what mental disorders are and why they disqualify any individual from owning a gun? I see many in positions to make such decisions loonier than the patients they are condemning.

As a society, we promote violence in our media – movies, and music and just about everything we do in life. And yet, instead of addressing that problem, we think we can cure the domestic violence issue by severely limiting a person’s right to keep and bear arms.

While fake “patriots” pretend that they would never consider infringing on anyone’s right to free speech or freedom of expression (art, music, movies, video games, etc.) they think, evidently as Paul LePage does, that destroying the rights of law-abiding citizens to self-protection is a responsible thing to do; that somehow this will cure the drugs, domestic violence, and mental illness problems.

Fake Second Amendment advocates are the first to claim that taking away rights of law-abiding citizens is wrong, and yet this opinion piece of Governor LePage’s is a clear example of how one right is treated differently than all others. If drugs, domestic violence, and mental illness “always have a relationship” to gun violence, and you advocate for the destruction of the Second Amendment while doing nothing to address the other issues, thinking it’s a cure, you are an ignorant hypocrite.

Each time good-intentioned rights destroyers approach the Second Amendment with advocation of limited rights, the enforcement of the existing laws, and even strengthening the limits on rights, they are promoting gun control and are strong allies with the radical gun control fascists.

For the same reason gun control has no effect on criminals, gun control does nothing to stop drug abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence.

Time to give it a rest and begin strengthening our Second Amendment rights instead of looking for ways to further destroy them.

“The federal government must do a better job to provide adequate resources for background checks on people purchasing firearms.”<<<Read More>>>


Vegas Blow Back: The Stupids Who Are Stupid About Stupid Stuff

Evidently acting as though you have lots of questions, while intimating a need for “more legislation” is a person’s way of pretending to not be eager to further destroy the Second Amendment and place themselves on a plane of being rational, lacking in “knee-jerk” reactions over, yet another, perhaps staged “disaster” involving guns.

Jim Shepherd writes in Outdoor Wire, that there are a lot of “questions” surrounding the events in Las Vegas. There are always a lot of questions that never go answered and that is the purpose of the event. Keep the masses petrified and they will do anything.

As is the usual, because guns were used to kill, guns are blamed and demand is made by stupids to ban guns, even if they know or have proof “gun control” doesn’t work. Times like this is what politicians love. They can show to their constituency how much they want to tell and act just as the brainwashed masses want, while doing what they do best by creating more stupid laws that only prove how stupid you are and how stupid anyone is who follows along.

Hidden within the discussion linked to above, is the topic of mental illness. WHAT A CAN OF WORMS!! The author seems to indicate that the failure of politicians to effectively address mental illness and guns might be the root of the problem. Consider the stupid (mentally ill), corrupt politicians deciding what is mental illness….at least the kind that would disqualify you from owning or using a gun – and that, in the minds of stupid people, would stop mentally ill people (anyone who would kill is mentally ill…period!) from picking up a gun, baseball bat, knife, car, etc. and killing somebody – and there is never a call to ban those other “weapons.”

Mental illness is a doctor giving anybody who wants them, chemicals, in the form of pills, to stop what “ails them.” Stupid people don’t know which came first – mental illness or chemical influences. Obviously the majority, along with the medical establishment, exist with the idea that chemicals can cure anything and refuse to honestly think chemicals alter the state of every person who chooses or is forced to take them (Yes, even aspirin).

But let’s not go there. We love our drugs and to go along with it, we want anyone who is “mentally ill” to not have a gun, because…..somebody said that would be a good idea. If only we could get those “mentally ill” people on more drugs. More, more, more……

An honest assessment should reveal, but doesn’t, to any honest person that the world has gone mad. Even those, who on the surface appear “sane,” have gone mad. We just are incapable of seeing the insanity we are mired in and thus nobody thinks of themselves as insane. We meet, we greet, we go about our daily thinking those we meet are normal. Until, we get into the nitty-gritty of their real constitution.

Whether one wants to accept the fact that our own government, more precisely those that control our government, orchestrates these “disasters” for political gain and ultimate control over the minds of people, more guns or less guns, more drugs or less drugs, more labeling of mental illness or less label, nothing will change.

There is but one answer and because so few seek the Truth, the only other alternative is what we see.

Run scared! Give Government what they want! You love your servitude and government control. You are insanely stupid and can’t tell the difference. Stupidity is blindly following the stupid people who create the stupid problems. Your faith and trust is in man. A big mistake.

That is the true definition of INSANITY!


Shifting Paradigm: Changing How Gun Control is Discussed

*Editor’s Note* – Recall the old saying that if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.

A link to this article was posted on the Face Book page of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine – and I’m not sure I understand why. I certainly hope it was not because they endorsed the content of the interview with a “shrink” professor at a university.

At points here and there in the interview, the good professor makes some points about how mental illness is not necessarily the factor behind the causes of mass killings by deranged people. However, the overall tone of the interview is advocating for more government control and more government god-playing in making determinations as to who can and cannot own a gun based upon some god-man sitting in judgement over others of which he or she should never be given authority to do.

To present an interview that readers are led to believe is to “dispel” the “myths” of mental disorders and mass killing, when it is only shifting the paradigm and changing the way we discuss gun control, should be recognized for what it is and nothing more.

While we should advocate for a healthy society, one that includes a serious reduction in the promotion of violence, i.e video games, movies, music, etc., we will never eliminate the occasional nut job who wants to kill for whatever the reasons. I understand that there is always a certain risk to life no matter what I do or where I go. However, it should be MY CHOICE to be able to be prepared to protect myself from those rare instances if I DECIDE that the risk is great enough.

For many years there has always been topics of discussion as to why Americans should have a right taken from them to self protection and to prohibit tyranny. Now that the paradigm is shifting, thanks to ignorant people like Donald Trump who now want to make gun rights about mental health, don’t be fooled into believing that the desire of the anti-gun crowd has actually changed. Imagine that the government determines your Second Amendment “right” by making a determination on your state of mental health. Remember both sides of the fake Left and Right believe those of opposite ideology are mentally ill.

Whatever it takes to remove the threat of tyranny, the ruling elite will accomplish no matter how many fake shootings and psyops they create. Propping them up only accelerates the end result.

To separate the facts from the media hype, we talked to Dr. Jeffrey Swanson, a professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Duke University School of Medicine, and one of the leading researchers on mental health and violence. Swanson talked about the dangers of passing laws in the wake of tragedy ? and which new violence-prevention strategies might actually work.

Here is a condensed version of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

Source: Myths about mental health and violence, and what makes mass shootings more likely | BDN Maine


Another Example of Human Perversion Of Protection of Animals Over Humans

People need to understand that this action by humans to protect predators, or any animal, over the protection of humans, their property and livelihoods is an extreme mental illness, a perversion that goes beyond normal comprehension. When will we get it?

“Wolf attacks have been particularly prevalent in the region over recent months, with this incident the 129th in 2015 so far. Nearly 300 sheep have been killed, with the Roquebillière area particularly affected.

“The [current] regulation is still not sufficient…if effective measures are not taken, our shepherds will disappear,” concluded Estrosi.”<<<Read More>>>


S.F. Don’t Know How to Stop Woman Who Breeds, Releases Wolves Rats

SAN FRANCISCO — Authorities in San Francisco say their hands are tied when it comes to stopping a woman who has been breeding hundreds of rats in her home and then releasing them into public parks.<<<Read More>>>


Mental Health and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Next Thursday the Montana Legislature’s Law and Justice Interim Committee will hold a hearing to consider whether or not Montana should do more to capture mental health records and feed those into federal electronic systems, such as the NICS created by the Brady Law. Here is my written testimony to the L&J Committee:

Montana Legislature
Law and Justice Interim Committee
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and Mental Health
February 13, 2014

Testimony for Committee, by
Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association

Will improved mental health evaluations, and data collection and reporting of mental health information decrease violence, especially gun-related violence?

I. Qualifications to provide information.

Mr. Marbut is accepted in state and federal courts in civil and criminal cases concerning firearms safety, use of force, legitimate self defense, and related topics. Mr. Marbut is an active self defense instructor and has graduated over 3,800 students from curriculae concerning Montana laws, and the tactics and methods of defense. Mr. Marbut is a member of the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, and a follower of and sometimes contributor to the Force Science Research Center.

II. Precursor, background issues.

Before the question posed above can be effectively answered, some foundation issues must be addressed.

1. Are people with mental health issues commonly prone to future violence? No. A 2009 study found that individuals with mental health disorders no more likely to commit acts of violence than the rest of the population; rather, future violence was indicated by other factors, such as substance abuse and a prior history of such acts. One explanation is that some individuals with severe disorders are too disorganized or afraid to commit crimes. For example, individuals with severe schizophrenia may have delusions – for instance, a belief that they and others around them face a danger of attack or threat. This leads some persons suffering from this form of delusion to seclude themselves from the outside world and to express extreme caution toward others…

2. Is gun-related mass violence by persons with mental health issues increasing and is it a pressing national problem? No and no. Despite obsessive media reporting when such incidents occur, the number of those incidents and the number of victims claimed in those incidents remain static, this notwithstanding an increasing population size and increasing levels of gun ownership.

3. Is there an increased national murder rate that can be attributed to mental health failures? No. Actually, murder rates in the US are dramatically down, again despite increasing rates of firearms ownership, increasing population, and stressful economic times. Because overall murder rates, including murder rates with firearms, are in a definite downward trend, there is no rationale’ to claim increases because of people with mental health problems, or inadequate mental health reporting.

4. Is the state of the art in psychology capable of correctly identifying people with mental health problems who are prone to violence. No. This answer only repeats what many professionals and experts in the field of psychology insist, that the art of psychology simply does not possess the tools at this stage in the evolution of the art to accurately predict violence. Much better predictors of violence include drug use, and history of violence.
“Skilled and practiced mental health professionals have gotten a lot better at predicting short- term dangerousness,” said Dr. Steven E. Pitt, a forensic psychiatrist who consults with the Phoenix Police Department and directed the Columbine Psychiatric Autopsy Project after the 1999 school shootings. “But who’s going to commit violence in some unspecified future? You might as well consult a Ouija board.”

5. Is there any connection at all between mass shootings and mental health? Yes. Besides that we’d consider crazy any person who would take the lives of innocents, there is another connection between mass shootings and mental health. That connection is psychotropic drugs. All of the mass shootings in recent memory have been done by people who either were actively taking prescribed psychotropic drugs, or who were supposed to be taking psychotropic drugs but quit. In order to obtain these psychotropic drugs, these people perpetrating mass shootings were under the care of a mental health practitioner licensed to prescribe the drugs. See:

6. Base Rate Fallacy. A well defined and important but little known phenomenon is base rate fallacy. It has to do as much with statistics than with psychology, but it is essential for psychology. There is an excellent article on Base Rate Fallacy in Wikipedia at:
Anyone contemplating the issue of mental health and persistent mental health records would be wise to learn about and understand the concept of base rate fallacy.

The essence is this: Any widespread screening for a condition (e.g., mentally unstable person prone to violence) among the general population is guaranteed to turn up many more false positives than true positives, just because of an unavoidable error rate, which would be especially pronounced in the fuzzy field of psychology. The false positives would outnumber the true positives by one or more orders of magnitude. Thus, people not prone to violence would unavoidably be stigmatized and likely lose civil rights because of an error rate that cannot be eliminated.

7. Persistent records/improper records non-correction. There are not good, affordable or comprehensive mechanisms in place or available to get persistent records corrected if a person is incorrectly identified as prone to violence, or if the person gets treatment and is cured of any tendency towards violence. This is especially true of the National Instant Check System (NICS). People who are marked on NICS as ineligible for firearms transfer find it difficult or impossible to get records corrected.

Summery of a Texas legal case is in order here (US v. Bean, 537 U.S. 77(2002) ). After attending a gun show in Texas, Thomas Bean drove to Mexico. When Mexican officials stopped his vehicle at the border, they found ammunition, and Bean was subsequently convicted in a Mexican court of importing ammunition. Because of his felony conviction, 18 USC section 922(g)(1) prohibited Bean from possessing, distributing, or receiving firearms or ammunition. Bean applied to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) for relief from his firearms disabilities, but the ATF returned the application unprocessed, explaining that its annual appropriations law forbade it from expending any funds to investigate or act upon applications such as Bean’s. Bean then filed suit, asking the District Court to conduct its own inquiry into his fitness to possess a gun and grant relief from his inability to possess, distribute, or receive firearms or ammunition.

In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that the absence of an actual denial of Bean’s petition by ATF precludes judicial review. Because Bean’s application for relief from the firearms disabilities was not considered due to appropriation provisions, Justice Thomas reasoned that the court could not grant relief since the statute only permitted judicial review of an affirmative denial of an application.
Thus, Bean could not get his rights restored, notwithstanding that what he was convicted of in Mexico is not a crime in the US, simply because Congress had not funded the BATF’s process to correct records swept in from other countries, and restore Bean’s rights. Not only was Bean, a competitive trapshooter, unable to purchase new firearms, he was ineligible for life to possess any firearms he had previously purchased legally.

8. Barking up the wrong tree; “Gun free zones.” Besides psychotropic drugs, the other common denominator for mass shootings in schools, theaters, and other places, is that they ALL happen in purported “gun free zones.” These alleged “gun free zones,” of course, are NEVER “gun free,” but only gun free for the victims. People bent on mayhem never respect “gun free zones.” In fact. perpetrators of mass violence seek out disarmed victim zones, for obvious reasons. Only those who respect the law and have no murderous intent comply with such silly zone rules and are thereby rendered defenseless. Thus, “alleged “gun free zones” are demonstrated to be very dangerous places, places where deranged perpetrators are assured of a resistance free killing field. Collection and sharing of mental health records will do nothing to address this glaring problem.

9. Will a system-reported mental health deficiency prevent deranged people from acquiring guns? No. Almost universally, those who have committed mass shootings have acquired the guns they used through means that would not be interdicted by a NICS check. A mental health disqualification for firearm purchase will only affect those who obtain guns through legal channels. That is, mental health evaluation and disqualification would have zero effect on the class of people intended for interdiction, perpetrators of mass shootings.

10. Will the prospective loss of civil rights dissuade possibly needy people from seeing mental health professionals? Yes. If there are people who need psychological intervention, the expected loss of their civil rights via data sharing will certainly persuade many of them to avoid any contact with the mental health community. See:

III. Conclusion

People with mental health issues have no greater rate of violence than the public at large. Any mental health search for violent people would assuredly turn up far more false positives than true positives (base rate fallacy). These people tagged because of false positives would likely be stripped of their civil rights for life, with no practical way to get their records cleared or revised following treatment. Within the arena of psychology, experts disagree about whether the art has evolved sufficiently to provide tools allowing practitioners to correctly predict an individual’s future violence. Even if the violent people could be identified and documented through mental health screenings, and disqualified from firearms purchase, that would not interdict the ability of such individuals to obtain guns and commit mayhem. Integrating mental health treatment with civil rights denial systems will persuade many people who may need treatment to avoid treatment. Nor would any such system address the dominant twin problems with mass shootings of psychotropic drugs and the low-hanging fruit for violent people of “gun free zones.”

Finally, there will be those who will respond with some version of, “… but if it saves just one life …” Criminologist professor Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million people in the US defend themselves every year with a firearm. In most cases the mere display of a firearm is sufficient to make assailants go away and save the defender, since Kleck says shots are fired in only 9% of these cases. Causing a significant percentage of these 2.5 million people to be disarmed (revisit base rate fallacy) would certainly end up costing far more lives than might be saved through the fuzzy and problematic process of mental health screening and records sharing.

Will improved mental health evaluations, and data collection and reporting of mental health information decrease violence, especially gun-related violence? No. But it can destroy the civil rights of too many innocent people in a fruitless quest to “do something.” That would be especially unfortunate and unwise if the “something” were so easily predictable to be contraindicated.

Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
Author, Gun Laws of Montana