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?

How do we stay safe?

​

​

HOW DOES LAW STOP MADMEN?

​​​

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, or vice versa?

 

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? This is the beginning of a longer consideration. More thoughts will be added, though admittedly, I am slow on progress. 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, no matter how much stronger you are. 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. It first originates from one individual shared with others within the herd of humanity. They are concerned about their own personal safety. They recognize that leaders are in a position of power or might, 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.

​

Yet another example. How is it that historians call such and such King or Emperor just and benevolent, or a dictator? Against what standard do they appeal? By what moral standard does the U.N. appeal to judge other nations?

​

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. Appeals to abuse, of theft of property, is based on survival instinct (protect what I believe is necessary for my survival), but cannot argue against the second law of nature, Dominance. His survival instinct is to assure his survival is dominate over yours. You would violate his instinctual right of dominance to cry foul. You have no appeal beyond fear. What of rape? Many justify sex on mutual consent. But that is a concept someone thought of arbitrarily, others agreed. 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.

​

How does rape factor into survival? The rapist isn’t concerned about generating progeny. Neither is consensual group sex. What about deadly gang turf wars? It’s about control of drug distribution, prostitution, and control. How do these play into moral issues?  

 

1. Morality Exists as Ideas

      Some attempt to offer some form of morality as necessary for social order to ensure the first Law of Survival. But that concept does not allow for and cannot fully explain the purpose of the Law of Dominance. This second Law assumes its rightful responsibility to assure its survival. Hence, 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. All discussion of morality rests in one justifying jurisdiction: the mind in the form of an idea. Every person’s idea is therefore equal to any other, for the justifying qualifier is merely “idea” in someone’s head. But 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?

​

      On what basis can the UN hold international war tribunes? How can the UN hold any nation accountable for what they label a war crime? How can Dominance be a crime when it fulfills the first priority of survival? Indeed, the Law of Dominance seeks dominance by its very nature, and cannot be nullified or brushed aside.

​

      To posit that Dominance possesses no right to take the life of another thereby destroying another’s Right to Life contradicts the concept and purpose of Dominance. Atheists insist Humans are nothing more than a dominate animal; hence, Humans inherently possess the Right to Dominate any species and any individual or herd of humanity as they will. Adolph Hitler assumed their blue-eyed Aryan descent were a superior race. He had every right to that “idea,” for it originated in his gray organ, just as equally as others had the idea he was wrong, if God does not exist.

​

I asked the question above: On what ground can any person or group assert their opinion, (i.e., their thought process) is superior to others? Without God, thought remains the sole justifying qualifier. No other qualifier exists outside of the sphere of thought. If God does not exist as the Creator of the distinct Human Race, then evolution with its two laws reigns supreme, and Dominance is the Crown of human behavior. The Strong dictates by power alone what they will do in the sandbox of humanity. Let the weaker fear, conspire, deceive as they will. Theirs is to fight or flee.

​

Yet, they cannot explain the experience they themselves possess when wronged, and the experience of all people: that inner intuition, that inner appeal to something greater, something or someone to whom they can appeal for this thing called Justice.

 

2. Judeo-Christianity

If we are but molecules colliding with other molecules of earthen material, how and why do we possess that 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. For hunger, food is created. For thirst, water is given. 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 God our Creator.

 

We find that our inner intuition, that sense of justice exists, 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 who will not seek justice when wronged. They may feel justified to lie to others, but when they catch someone lying to them, well, the audacity!

 

In the latter case of culture, an argument presents itself that cultures are different. That is true, but we find more commonality than differences. Yes, a few cultures present extreme values, such as cannibalism and human sacrifice. These are rare among cultures of the world. Yet even in these we find similarities. Rape a primitive man’s wife and he may kill you. We also discover that the rest of modern societies condemn these human behaviors. By what standard do we judge them?

 

For humanity not knowing where to look for an unseen fulfillment, God called prophets to reveal Himself to us. There is found no greater morality given to men than by those Jewish prophets and Apostles. No other morality can be applicable for every culture, every race of humanity. And God claims to have sent His Son as a Savior for us; a claim that the Christ Himself adhered to.

 

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

bottom of page