top of page

WELCOME

The Conservative Voice Forum, hosted by Derrell B. Thomas, is a commentary platform dedicated to social issues, politics, law, religion, and ethics. Our goal is to build meaningful considerations on high profile topics, current events, and to present challenges to both left and right positions on issues.

 

GUNS AND LAW:

 

How does law stop violence?

​​

​​

​​​

Should politicians rely on fraud, bias, and misleading research to pursue laws intended to keep you safe?

​

Is it fair to depend on anti-gun organizations’ studies but reject pro-gun associations? To avoid bias why not reject both options and place more weight on independent examens?  

​

We hear anti-gun pro-safety promises that “Law will protect you.” Affirming, “We need more laws….” “We need more restrictions [read laws] on guns to stop gun crime.” Is this correct? How can we know?

​

My question is: HOW DOES LAW STOP MADMEN? I have yet to hear a specific answer to this question. What I hear is circumlocution (politic speak), where policy makers speak around the topic but fail to offer a specific answer to the question----how?

 

Analysis of Law's Power on Violent Criminals

 

Law consists of words on media. Citizens get informed. This shares a similar concept to the adage "Knowledge is power." But that old proverb fails on at least one critical point. Knowledge may provide information, but it cannot guarantee success. The person with that knowledge must DO something with it. (Not to mention, what if the knowledge is incorrect?)

​

Law cannot force an individual to obey it. We see on our freeways daily how speed limit laws affect drivers. Some comply, too many wildcards don't and drive reckless of safety. Why? Let's look at that analysis.​ Let's begin with this question: how does knowledge of law (words) force compliance?

​

Only two forces are at work to bring compliance to the law. Said another way, law’s “power” relies on:

​

  1. Self-Compliance. A person’s willingness to obey that information [law]. Or,

  2. By compulsion, physically enforced by LEOs (law enforcement officers). This compulsion comes in at least two forms.

        a.  Out of guilt, respect, or fear in the presence of an officer (fear of getting caught), you choose to

             comply to the law, which defaults to the first Self-Compliance. Or,

        b. Physical brute force by a law enforcer, whether by physical hand to hand arrest or by

            mechanical means (tasers, guns). Physical force is applied against a noncompliant person.

​

Hence, law’s power lies in only these two forms: self-compliance, or physical force. 

​

Hence, NO LAW stops anyone from breaking it. In regard to the belief that Gun Control Laws can control “gun violence,” politicians and activists speak like the knowledge of law will force criminals and madmen to comply. "We need more laws to control gun madness." "We need restrictions on guns to make us safer."

 

If laws were effective in stopping "gun-toting" madness, explain why 95% of mass murders occur in Gun Free Zones? (See Crime Prevention Research Center [CPRC], a world respected think tank on gun violence.) 

​

Two questions to ask yourself next time you hear of a mass shooting on the media.

​​

  1. Who brought the gun into the gun free zone?

  2. Who did not bring a gun into the gun free zone?

​

The answer to the first: the lawless madman who did not self-comply to the law.

The answer to the second: law-abiding (defenseless) victims who either do not own a gun, or, if they do, chose to comply with the law forbidding to bring their defensive gun into the gun free zone.

​​

Next question: Who stops the madman? The answer: someone with a gun, be it an officer who arrives after dispatch, or a citizen who intervenes from outside the immediate scene. 

​

​Another question: Why do politicians have armed security? According to their own assurances to the public, shouldn't the gun control laws they pass protect them? Don't they trust the laws they pass to be effective at stopping madmen? Why then do they expect us to?

​

I hope you took note of my forth sentence in this article. I said, "We hear anti-gun pro-safety promises that 'Law will protect you.'" Please note the words "pro-safety," in referring to anti-gun policies. They are convinced that pro-armed defense policies are not pro-safety, and that armed citizens make society (individuals) unsafe. Unequivocally false as I will demonstrate another time. My research convinces me both sides of the gun debate want people safe. 

​

But won't more people carrying guns make you and me more at risk? Isn't it the job of police to keep us safe? After all, they have extensive training, whereas armed citizens do not. We must ask, how effective is police training compared to that offered to armed law-abiding citizens? Are armed citizens more dangerous?

​​

According to CPRC research, records show that in 2006, there were 683,396 full time police. Violations among these officers averaged 0.017% = 118/683,396. That's impressive. Remember that: 0.017% out of 683,396 officers were involved in crime. What about all those “evil, careless, angry” citizen permit holders? CPRC observed,

 

         Compare that to firearms violations of concealed handgun permit holders in Florida. Between                 October 1, 1987 and December 31, 2011, there were 168 revocations for firearms related violations           in Florida (after January 2011, Florida stopped breaking out the firearms related violations by                 themselves). Over that period permits were issued to over 2 million permit holders. 168/2 million           = 0.008%. For Texas for 2015, the rate was about 24/1 million = 0.0024%. Michigan shows very                     similar rates of revocations of thousandths of a percentage point for firearms related violations.[1]

           

         Consider more as CPRC bears out:

​

         But that isn’t a fair comparison for Florida permit holders because the violation rate for officers               is an annual rate and the rate for permit holders is over decades.

​

            Remember this: comparing police against citizens who carry defensive guns, police involved in criminal activity average 0.017% for one year, vs civilian permit holders at 0.008% over decades. Civilian permit holders are exceedingly safer than police, losing permits for any type of firearm violation at a rate of thousandths of one percentage point.

​

Comparison of LEO training to what citizens need is neither fair nor applicable. Police training involves class studies on law, plus, laws apropos to physical techniques of criminal/suspect engagement for physical arrest. A citizen only needs to know defense laws (such as castle doctrine, and requirements to retreat or stand your ground), and how to defend themselves against violence. Their goal is to survive a violent attack, not to seek, engage, and arrest.

​​

WHAT ABOUT THOSE STATISTICS? 

​

I referred above to questions about the reliability of gun research resources. Is it appropriate or conducive to our public health (read, our safety) if individuals (that includes me!), groups, and politicians rely on research that lies, misleads, misinforms, or contains partial information, that if more variable influencing data were included, it would change the conclusion? What of researchers with at minimum the potential for bias? Is it wise to rely heavily on them?

 

Wouldn’t it be wiser, more respectful to rely on independent sources? From not one or two sources, but many, in order to compare data?

 

Below you’ll see the major resources in the gun debate. I’ve separated them into two categories.

 

Red Flag Sources (doubtful reliability):

​

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) Government sponsored, no accountability, which at best provides conflict of interest; importantly, the CDC does not use appropriate methodology and influential variables in research on crime behavior that the vast majority of criminologists and economists use, instead, they use an older methodology appropriate for biological diseases that infect the human body, that cannot factor human behavior choices over law obedience and morality.

​

Other health research avenues (Same as above)

​

Adam Lankford International best seller on gun crime prevention, yet he withheld resources for his data, even from those who support his views. Why would he withhold his resources?

​

Michael A. Bellesiles [pronounced buh-LEEL]. Praised as the bane of pro-gun advocates for his work. Among his research sources, Bellesiles cited non-existent sources, and did not search thoroughly all documentation others found available that disproves his conclusion. His work was debunked, he lost his professorship, and an award given by an anti-gun organization was removed. (The latest news stated he is attempting to rebuild his damaged reputation.)

​

Pro-gun Control Groups These include Mom’s Demand Action, Every Town for Gun Safety, Brady Campaign, Newtown Action Alliance, Gifford, etc. By their position, they present obvious potential for bias. Is it possible their research can be reliable? Sure. Is it possible research by the NRA can be reliable? Sure. Why reject one, but embrace the other? That is pure unadulterated bias.


Reliable Sources:

​

CPRC (Crime Prevention Research Center) Anti-gun enthusiasts attack Dr. John R. Lott Jr., president of the CPRC as unqualified. My critical research on CPRC discovered this isn’t a one man show, it’s a think tank of professors and research scientists across America, and every criticism of Dr. Lott personally has been soundly refuted. I’ll share more on CPRC later.

​

Majority of Criminologists and Economists These researchers use different and updated methodology not used for biology health research. This method includes different input variables which use appropriate influences on crime behavior, peer reviewed, providing sources of data. The majority of these independent researchers support the findings of CPRC, and vice versa.

​

FBI/Police Reports Local possibilities of bias. All need outside independent verification.

​

The NRA I was testing you. I do not rely on NRA’s research for the same reason I reject gun control groups.

 

Yet, we see the Media present research by anti-gun groups and politicians without providing opposing presentations. Or, when opposing views are presented, the Media shows weak or edited responses, leaving an uninformed populace assuming they are hearing a balanced facto presentation on the subject of social (personal) safety.

 

Our lives depend on reliable, trustworthy information. It’s been said, only two groups of people want citizens disarmed: criminals and tyrants. More on this in coming months.

​​​​​

​

NEXT

Check our website for upcoming further considerations on The Inhered Right of Self-Defense, the differing interpretations on the Second Amendment, and much more.

 

[1] CPRC, “Updated: Comparing Conviction Rates Between Police And Concealed Carry Permit Holders,” 2015, crimeresearch.org

​

WHENCE COMES JUSTICE?

 

 

We turn our focus on the ground of ethics. Upon what idea or religion or materialistic philosophy can we find sufficient, reliable ethic that is applicable cross-culturally? More thoughts will be added, though admittedly, I am slow on to post. Hey, I have a life to life. I appreciate your patience.

 

  1. Materialism and Morality

 

We all sense on some level an intuitive[1] appeal to a moral standard that says, “Hey! What you did isn’t right. You can’t do that, despite being stronger. In fact,” as some may argue, “because you’re stronger, you ought to be a better example.” They expect our politicians, law officers and military leaders ought to be examples extraordinaire. Whence does that sense come from?

 

Could it be herd survival instinct; that is to say, that the herd collectively possesses this instinctual sense that rulers ought to behave themselves for the safety and well-being of herd members? But whence arises herd ethical expectation? That idea cannot originate from some nebulous collective thought as if it were a consciousness thought-cloud hovering over the herd invading their minds. No, it first originates from one individual shared with others within the herd of humanity. They are concerned about their own personal safety. They unite in agreement toward that purpose. They recognize that leaders are in a position of power, and out of fear, they could argue, “You’d better behave yourself, and in fact, we’d be more comfortable if you were even a better example!” But what example can they appeal to? Is our sense of justice merely taught, whether by parents, church or school, as each child is a blank slate?

 

I can see how fear can motivate those concerns for personal safety, and we could mislabel it justice. But that isn’t justice. It’s fear of abuse or death. To what law can they appeal? They can argue only out of survival fears; they cannot argue that abuse against them is a moral failure. That is a cry for justice.

 

On the world stage, how is it that the United Nations call such and such King or Emperor just and benevolent, or a dictator? By what moral standard does the U.N. appeal to judge other nations?

 

The base laws of Nature that Materialists ascribe to, are the instincts of Survival, and Dominance that ensures the first. I presume therefore only one instinct as they both serve only one purpose—survival. But continuing the common thesis of two instincts, these serve as the a priori moral standard for human behavior.

 

On a personal individual level, if a strong man approaches you and punches you in the face and steals your valuables, on what ground can you appeal? He is the dominant one. Bound by the two laws of Nature, a (supposed) victim’s appeal against abuse, theft of property, or fear of death, is based on survival instinct. But victims cannot argue against the second law of nature, Dominance, as if it were a moral evil. The dominant person’s survival instinct is to assure his survival is dominate over yours. By victims appealing to a “moral” wrong, would violate the strong man’s “moral” right of dominance.

 

Victims (the weaker) have no appeal beyond fear. What of rape? Many justify sex on mutual consent. But that is a concept someone thought of arbitrarily. They justify human behavior on their idea of what sounds morally correct. But that idea cannot override the second law of nature, Dominance. The drive for dominance is inhered with something more than the desire for survival. An example is the sex instinct. (Note, that some have argued that the sex drive is Nature’s instinct for propagation. I can easily argue the case that sex isn’t only for propagation of the race, but for pleasure.) Hence, the strong man who desires pleasure can justify rape based on the “moral” law of Dominance. The woman (or child!) cannot appeal to a moral violation without violating the law of Dominance.

 

Whence then comes our internal sense of Justice? But I get ahead of myself in my presentation. We must consider more in depth the concept of moral justification.

 

 

Morality Exists as Ideas

 

Recognizing the two laws of Nature that drive life, I argue that any discussion on morality is vain, for the Strongest may conquer those who argue “abuse of morality,” and the Strong justly claims it is their right to do so. Many theses have been submitted in attempts to justify human behavior, with consequential punishments against those who violate justified behavior. On what basis do I claim that discussions on morality are useless based on a purely Materialistic avenue?

 

Because such discussions of morality (whether against two individuals, or before the United Nations jurisprudence) rests in one justifying jurisdiction: the mind in the form of an idea. Moral concepts are exactly that. Concepts. Thoughts in one person’s mind, presented to others (who may or may not agree). If enough people consent, then viola! They pass laws (local, or national, or international), based on agreed ideas in people’s heads. Others disagree, and Wham. We’ve got wars. The law of Dominance takes over. If Hitler had won, who’s to say the slaying of any and all he didn’t like is somehow immoral, deserving of punishment?

 

Every person’s idea is equal to any other, for the justifying qualifier is merely “idea” (thoughts) in someone’s head. Therefore, no idea can be superior to the two laws of Nature. How can they posit their morality exceeds either of these two laws, when we are but physical matter, and that gray organ resting on our shoulders is all we’ve got to boast our ideas are somehow superior to others?

 

Such ideas cannot adequately explain our inhered sense of Justice. Hitler punched others, and Jews and the whole united world cried Foul! And rightfully so. Punch a Materialist in the face, and he’d cry Foul. For good reason. Something lives in the breast of humanity that appeals to Justice. Even the most primitive cultures appeal to it. Steal a primitive man’s wife and you’ll experience his response.

 

That inner intuition appeals to something greater, something or someone to whom we can appeal to for this seemingly mystery called Justice.

 

Judeo-Christianity

 

If we are but molecules colliding with other molecules of earthen material, how and why do we possess a fifth sense of something superior, something beyond us? Why does the song “Over the Rainbow” call to our hearts? As C.S. Lewis bore out, our senses: hunger, thirst, sexual desire, and the satisfaction of beauty (ethereal pleasure), lead us to find a corresponding fulfillment of those desires. God is economical. If He creates a longing, He created the corresponding fulfillment. For hunger, He created food. For thirst, He gave us water. For sexual desire, the sexes are provided. For beauty, flowers and sunsets are given. If we find in ourselves a desire for something greater than ourselves, it corresponds that something must exist to satisfy that longing, put there in our souls by our Creator.

 

We find that our inner intuition, that inner sense of Justice exits, put there from beyond mere molecular material. Materialism cannot explain this strong sense of justice that resides in every human, in every culture. I have yet to find one who believes in amorality that does not seek justice when wronged. As in, it’s justified to lie to others, but when they catch someone lying to them, well, the audacity!

 

That intuitive sense of Justice is nebulous, though powerful. Hence, God, having put in us that longing has created the corresponding fulfillment. God called prophets to reveal Himself to us, and to provide the objective morality that is applicable to all people, in all ages, for all ethnicities. There is found no greater morality given to men than by those Jewish prophets and Apostles. In fact, their own prophets professed that God said His moral laws are for the whole world. No other morality can be applicable for every culture, every race. And God claims to have sent His Son as a Savior for us who have broken His laws; a claim that the Christ Himself adhered to and is presented as the Hope of the World.

 

 

 

 

[1] Webster defines intuition in part as “immediate cognizance or conviction without rational thought: revelation by insight or innate knowledge.

bottom of page