Violent Crime Went Up in 2015

Written by Greg Ellifritz

Topics: Book Reviews, News and Tactical Advice

  • SumoMe

Written by: Greg Ellifritz


According to the preliminary research put out by the FBI, violent crime went up in the first six months of 2015.  The crime of Rape was the fastest growing of all violent crimes.  The Number of reported rapes in the country rose 9.6 per cent.


I will let the criminologists and media pundits speculate exactly why we’ve had a sudden increase in crimes.  There are likely many factors involved.  Crime rates go in cycles.  We have been in a downward cycle since the mid-1990s.  It’s not a surprise that crimes are increasing.  The downward trend never lasts forever.


It’s interesting to me however, that the rape rate has risen so dramatically.  I regularly read books on a wide variety of topics hoping to glean some insight into how criminals choose their victims.  I recently finished a book called Escaping From Predators: An Integrative View of Escape Decisions.  The book is an academic study on predator/prey relationships in the animal world.



A few of the studies reported in the book may have some utility in describing why the rape rate has increased so suddenly. Two interesting paragraphs in the book leaped out at me.


The first was about how prey, if not kept under constant pressure from predators, essentially loses its “edge” and doesn’t make an effort to escape the predator as quickly.   A single past predation attempt makes animals much more alert, aware, and ready to escape.


“Generally, FID (Flight Initiation Distance- how close the predator is allowed to get before the prey species flees) may be highly dependent on the individual experiences with predators and humans (Blumstein & Daniel 2005), and one significant traumatic event may be enough to restore recognition of, and responsiveness to, a previously absent predator (Berger et al. 2001).”


Has our historically low crime rate not given potential victims the type of criminal experiences necessary to prompt them to flee a predator?  When people get complacent, they don’t take efforts to protect themselves.  The illusion of “feeling safe” may ultimately lead to a larger victim pool.



The second study was about how drug use alters animal fleeing behavior.


“In addition, chronic administration of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) fluoxetine and paroxetine both robustly reduced flight (Griebel et al. 1995a; Beijamini & Andreatini 2003). In contrast, cocaine and yohimbine substantially and selectively increase flight compared to other aspects of defensiveness (Blanchard et al. 1993, 1999). As the drugs selectively reducing flight are clinically effective against panic, while cocaine and yohimbine may precipitate or enhance panic (Cox et al. 1990; Bourin et al. 1998), these findings suggest that flight may serve as a relatively selective animal model for panic disorder (Blanchard et al. 1993; Griebel et al. 1996).”



SSRIs are the most widely prescribed anti-depressant prescription drugs in the USA.  Women are 2.5X more likely to be taking the drug than men.  A 2010 study showed that 21% of adult women regularly take SSRI medications.  That number is likely higher now as trends have been increasing.


So we know a lot of women are on SSRIs.  Before this study I had no idea that such drugs may affect rates of flight from predators.  Could some of the cause for the higher rape rates be the result of more women using SSRIs that blunt their natural survival responses?  It’s certainly possible.


We often obtain insights about human behavior from studying the animal world.  I would support additional  inquires that try to explore these same issues and how they may affect predation in human subjects.  I’m not convinced that such studies will ever come to exist, however.


In today’s culture, merely recognizing the fact that criminals choose a victim for a specific reason, is known as “victim blaming” and is decried by all manner of the intelligentsia.  The fact remains that victims CAN reduce their chances of being targeted by modifying their behavior.  Even though the science is not likely to ever be clear on the topic, if I was a woman who didn’t want to be victimized, I would pay attention to information like this.


Not allowing yourself to get soft and complacent combined with refusal to dull the senses with anti-depressant medication seems to be pretty good advice for avoiding crime…even if it did come from the animal kingdom.




If you would like to read more articles like this one, please sign up for my email updates.


32 Comments For This Post I'd Love to Hear Yours!

  1. Mike Mckay says:

    I am not actually disputing the findings as trying to verify such things is often impossible where any flaws in the claims are introduced at the data collection stage. But people should take a step back and do their own thinking first before blindly accepting any study in modern times as the instances where they are conducted with the aim of proving one particular political or social set of beliefs rather than with the aim of just seeing what the actual trends are is something that seems to be increasing rapidly due to the funding also influencing which flavours of research are conducted

    As I recall a national study into domestic violence in the US which was state funded and took years to compile was used to alter legislation and was then proven to have been based on deliberately slanted data collection practises such as only asking women in battered women refuges if they had ever experienced domestic violence etc etc thereby tainting the data and skewing the findings to fit with the desired aim from the outset

    That’s not to say that rape happens far too often in most countries, but men are far more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than women in most western countries and yet practically the entire focus on safety is directed towards women

    Similarly with domestic violence and even violent behaviour women are pretty much matching men punch for punch but female violence is also increasing rapidly in most cultures but we still see men being portrayed as the root of most if not all violence whilst violent women tend to be excused because of hormones, mood swings and other medicalised excuses whilst men are just treated as being violent for the sake of it as that’s the social impression of men that is perpetuated

    So the point I was getting to on the topic is that although it might be claimed that the actual figures have been low, the reality of it is that you cant go anywhere without seeing the near hysterical claims of men everywhere beating women up and raping them in pandemic proportions creating a fear based mentality that every man is nothing more than a rapist or abuser waiting for the right set of circumstances to try their hand at the acts

    So although women aren’t individually exposed to the oft exaggerated risks out there they DO on an almost daily basis get warned, scared or shown it so that the absence of a personal experience isn’t really necessary for them to be walking around in constant fear of it because of the impression of men they are bombarded with so frequently

    So I don’t believe the lack of situational awareness itself is likely to be the problem, but far more subtly is likely to be a by product of overinflated self images of empowerment or complacency as seen with pretty much every other type of crime the world over. Where although people are fully aware of the dangers they trundle along believing its something that only happens to OTHER people and not them

    And if the only alternative is to practically terrify people into a state of almost constant paranoia, fear and panic especially in a country where many of them own guns but lack the skill or training to use them effectively and only in justifiable situations then I think the current model is possibly a much safer one than the potential alternatives where each innocent but shot to death male just becomes another dead rapist as they have no way to put the record straight which is a very real possibility if the current trend continues IMO

    Just my two cents worth

  2. jellydonut says:

    I think it is much more likely that the stigma of reporting rape has been reduced, so that more cases are actually reported. I don’t think incidence has necessarily gone up.

    • Mike Mckay says:

      Yes that’s probably a factor too along with new legislation making things that aren’t technically “rape” now being classed as rape too

      Even if a woman participates willingly in consentual sex then even days later decided that she didn’t its still recorded as a rape

      Its also common practise around the world to fudge figures for many types of crimes adding more and more reasons they can be excluded from the figures meaning that many dips in crime rates often hide a real world increase in them but show a decline in the amount that are listed in statistics

      although to be fair working from the other end of the spectrum electronic methods of detection are helping to solve some crimes that couldn’t have previously have been solved. But that only affects crimes that are recorded in the figures to begin with and doesn’t affect the ones excluded by various means

    • Gary says:

      I agree. The stigma of being raped seems to be declining as statistics try to paint a picture that the % of women that can expect to be victims of a violent crime is very high. Thus more and more women feel they can report the crime rather than “live with the shame”.

      • Mike Mckay says:

        Actually as much as I do fully agree with some aspects of that the claim that merit excuses any amount of provocative but innacurate claims doesn’t have merit

        Hitler as an example promised to improve the standard of living for the german people, better health care and full employment. So because that has merit nothing else he said, however provocative it might have been was relevant or important?

        And when those provocative statements are oft used to force through changes in legislation that then apply to all men its the overall merit that should be considered not the cherry picked and convenient ones because history both recent and distant is littered with that type of evaluation and is described by the phrase that the road to hell is paved with good intentions

  3. Mike Mckay says:

    And the situation is likely to get worse as many feminist organisations are lobbying for rape to be treated as a proof of innocence process where the claimant is assumed to always be telling the truth leaving the alleged assailant to have to then prove they didn’t do it rather than there being an assumption of innocence until proven guilty

    Assumption of guilt in what is often no more than a he said/she said scenario is utterly ridiculous but its looking more and more like becoming a reality each year its being lobbied for in many countries

  4. Rod De Leon says:

    The way I read the article, Greg, I thought it is focused on the “flight” part of the fight or flight reflex. Some people automatically jump to the conclusion that any change in the status quo will lead to rivers of innocent blood running in the streets. While this certainly warrants further study, we all know that complacency kills. We as a nation are also more heavily medicated than ever before, for everything from ED to IBS. Unless Bill Cosby rape victims have skewed the numbers that much, I think your theory has merit, how ever provocative it may be to some people.

  5. Lloyd Reese says:

    We know that rape is the most under reported violent crime. The rates per 100,000 since 2000 have a downward trend line but were as high as 33.1 in 2002 and a low of 25.9 in 2013. (FBI-UCR) [Tried to find the actual rate per 100K between 2014 and preliminary 2015, and gave up.] I’ve always read and believe that year to year variations in crime rates don’t mean much. However, all crime is local. If you are the police chief and crime goes up on your watch, you may be job hunting.

    I also tried to find relevant DOJ/BJS studies derived from their victimology surveys. Gave up there too as far as useful data are concerned. While these surveys have shown that there is much more crime than report to LE, the up and down trends seem to be fairly consistent with the FBI’s UCR.

    • Mike Mckay says:

      Another facet of rape more than other violent crimes is the current political lobbying and its affect on what is classified as rape

      its at best lazy, and at worst deliberate manipulation of figures for political gains to ignore this when examining trends

      What would constitute rape now includes many scenarios that wouldn’t have been classed as rape a few decades ago or even over a smaller sample of data examples being where the “rapist” in total honesty was under the impression that their partner was completely consentual all the way through and didn’t by earlier definitions rape anyone but participated in consentual sex but where changes in the social and legal interpretations of rape have changed meaning they are now a rapist. Another would be the introduction of alcohol which is now classed in many cultures as negating any implied consent or ability to even give consent but ONLY where women are concerned. Meaning that if both people were equally drunk, or even where the man was far more intoxicated than the female the view that the female and only the female is now incapable of consent means that she was raped but not the man

      Objectively not only is this sexist, but it also paints women as being weak fragile creatures who lose all cognition after the intake of alcohol whereas men are classed as being completely in charge of all of their faculties no matter how much they drink

      Taken to its conclusion we should almost take the stance that women should be banned from drinking or should only be allowed to drink if accompanied by a man to look after them which is pretty ludicrous

      But the significance is that even if figures go up if the legislation or even just the social climate changes it will without doubt influence both who can now be charged and how a jury might react to borderline cases

      This isn’t obviously saying that all accused men are innocent, but merely that unless changes in the mindset of juries and the changes in legal presidents are factored into analysing data that any conclusions drawn from said data is inherently flawed and open to manipulation to prove whatever the person wants to prove when drawing their conclusion. Whether those conclusions are then peer reviewed positively or not will also be heavily dependant on the social climate and mindsets therein too

      If we constantly adjust the level at which we class something as rape then without any real change in either the reporting of an alleged rape or in the act itself the figures would have no alternative but to increase with each new scenario that falls under the unmbrella and framework of the legal definition. And each time the social climate alters the same can happen purely due to that too where a jury is used to reach a verdict that isn’t black and white clearly a rape by the initial definition

      An analogous comparative would be if firearms related injuries was expanded to include people pinching their skin whilst using or cleaning an unloaded weapon. Which would result in a “shocking” spike in firearms related incidents even though no such thing has occurred if that makes sense

      As for medication, that too is slightly ambiguous as when looking into that a few years ago its common in many countries for women to be far more likely to be medicated to get through everyday life than men.

      As much of that medication is for various forms of mental inbalance or severe mood swings et al theres the possibility for a correlation between people being more likely to think they have been raped when the scenario was ambiguous at best. Which in a pro rape litigation culture would also lead to more convictions’ without there being more actual rapes

      then we have things like the increasing anti male and feminism vs men animosity and near paranoia caused in some women because of the exaggerated risks spread via the media which could also influence the figures in several places and even more revenge based accusations creeping in with higher reports of actual crimes with it being such a one sided social discourse in favour of the alleged victim

      The last one being merely a flip of the view that the more certain people are of getting away with any crime the more people would be likely to take their chances. It would be remiss to not also assume that if you had a better chance of accusing someone of a crime and either not being likely to be prosecuted if found out, or more likely of it resulting in a convinction then that should be more likely too by the same logic

      My point is that the figures alone don’t really mean very much at all if only viewed in isolation and without also factoring in all of the intertwined factors that are also acting on the statistics

      the dangers of which are clearly shown in the US study into domestic violence which despite being widely publicised and accepted by the US government turned out to be fabricated to further legislative goals

      Many of the “facts and figures” still quoted and used today are actually from that exact same study, which despite being disproven are disseminated so widely that they are still cited from them being referenced in later studies such as the amount of college students who have been sexually assaulted and the amount of women as a percentage that claim to have been raped. As the data that created many of those percentages was deliberately tainted from the outset

      Possibly the only reason the original study was ever discounted at all was because it was actually a female scientist who did it. Had it been a team of male scientists its unlikely it would have been taken seriously and would most probably just been dismissed as disgruntled men trying to maintain the status quo or similar such claims

      And as women now make up the majority of academics and get the highest amount of degrees now the trend is likely to continue to move in the current direction indefinitely with inherent bias being far harder to detect or remove from future studies

  6. Cotter says:

    One thing I don’t think you fully understand Greg* is, in most situations, “not taking your meds” is a common recipe for disaster, and is NOT an option for most people who have nervous/neurotic/melancholia disorders.

    Indeed, for these folks, through no fault of their own, who suffer with OCD, panic attacks, general anxiety, (major) clinical depression, PTSD, or etc., SSRI’s are an absolute godsend, and makes their lives worth living once again.

    Not using such medical marvels would cause FAR more harm than good.


    *Greg Ellifritz: “A well-known “Uber Man” who performs more work, play, training, exercise, writing, and travel than four normal men. He is thought to be some sort of (still unclassified) superman, probably close to a Level 5 type”. ~The Oxford Book of Superhumans [N.Y., 2013 Edition])

  7. Mike Mckay says:

    On the not taking your meds topic in a country with legal CCW rights the idea of then suggesting someone who without their meds is likely to be extremely mentally unstable, possibly bipolar, extremely stressed or anxious even in quite serene situations and prone to acts of violence, paranoia, panic attacks and whole host of other issues is a recipe for disaster where someone removing a piece f paper from their pocket to ask for directions is likely to be shot, stabbed or at the very least assaulted as a suspected rapist or attacker

    And in a climate where the preponderance of assumption will be that because the accuser is female and the accused is male that its more likely to be the woman who was telling the truth

    And then we have another increase in attempted rapes as a result causing even more paranoia, anxiety, stress and pre emptive “self defence” or mistaken accusations many of which even if they don’t result in a prosecution will already have ruined a persons life as the accused unlike the accuser isn’t afforded the luxury of anonimoty until proven innocent and many take the view that theres no smoke without fire in such instances

    • Cotter says:

      Mike, I’m not 100% sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that anyone who has some depression, anxiety, or OCD issues is basically insane, stupid, and dangerous? Are you saying that because of this, they should not be permitted to own or carry a gun? In other words, anyone taking medications to control their problems should automatically not be given their Second Amendment Constitutional rights?

      Please let me know if I am misunderstanding your comment (if so, I definitely didn’t mean to).

      • Mike Mckay says:

        Primarily no, the main point was that where a scenario involved two males there would be more incentive to look at both peoples claims equally, but where the shooter was female, claiming she was sure she was going to be attacked or raped any concerted effort to examine her claims might be met with screams of mysoginy, male oppression or victimising the would have been victim etc

        But on what you thought I may have meant I do also think its something that should be re-examined too.

        If someone is bipolar AND live in a state where they can carry a concealed weapon it would be remis to not take that into account. How that would or could be done I wouldnt want to guess. But maybe something like happens with chemically steralised rapists and paedos where they HAVE to submit to regular blood tests to ensure they are in fact taking their meds

        Because as I have seen with several friends, just a couple of days without their pills, or where they have chosen to omit taking them or consciously decided they didnt want to results on them returning to their normal paranoid or violent behaviour. Which takes on a whole new dimension if they are also legal gun owners

        As much as I can see the whole rights thing there also needs to be responsibility attached to it too. As well as at least some effort however half assed or apathetic to protect the completely innocent bystanders they are likely to injure or kill should they stop taking their meds

        I dont and have never believed in absolute rights for things that have an easily identifiable chance of harming others.

        I doubt people with heart conditions are allowed to drive cars in most countries because of the increased risk of them hurting or killing themselves or others. Same with many mental illnesses and the obvious ones like bad eyesight

        Even the second ammendment isnt technically an absolute right as I understand it as certain types of criminals lose their right to own or carry guns because of a perciveed hieghtened risk if they are allowed to do so

        So whilst I am not saying that nobody with ANY type of mental illness should be banned from their entitlement I would think that were a person is identified as having a high propensity to violence or acute paranoia and where they have been found previously to stop taking their meds when the mood takes them then the risk they present is, or should be deemed to high to allow

        • Cotter says:

          Mike, with all due respect, I don’t think you understand American gun rights very well. What you are saying is that any petty bureaucrat, along with some liberal psychiatrist, should be able to take away a Citizen’s 2nd Amendment Rights on what is, let’s face it, just a whim (as you did not mention “adjudicated mentally ill”, anything less than a court proceeding proving dangerous mental illness IS a whim.)

          And no, in any country I have lived in, especially the U.S., having a heart condition most assuredly does not deny a Citizen (or anybody else) a driver’s license.

          The country you would love to live in sounds awfully Orwellian — very much like the U.K. is today (i.e., a “Nanny State”). And I’m not saying any of this out of spite or ignorance, or for any other negative reason, as I myself have lived in the U.K., but your idea of “freedom” sounds very English to me…)

          • Mike Mckay says:

            And yet here is the list of reasons for being denied a carry permit

            Possible reasons you would be denied a CWP (concealed weapons permit:
            ◾The physical inability to handle a firearm safely
            ◾A felony conviction (unless civil and firearm rights have been restored by the convicting authority).
            ◾Having adjudication withheld or sentence suspended on a felony or misdemeanor crime of violence unless three years have elapsed since probation or other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled.
            ◾A conviction for a misdemeanor crime of violence in the last three years.
            ◾A conviction for violation of controlled substance laws or multiple arrests for such offenses.
            ◾A record of drug or alcohol abuse.
            ◾Two or more DUI convictions within the previous three years.
            ◾Being committed to a mental institution or adjudged incompetent or mentally defective.
            ◾Failing to provide proof of proficiency with a firearm.
            ◾Having been issued a domestic violence injunction or an injunction against repeat violence that is currently in force.
            ◾Renouncement of U.S. citizenship.
            ◾A dishonorable discharge from the armed forces.
            ◾Being a fugitive from justice.

            Even two DUIs is reasonable cause for denial plus some pretty much unrelated ones to a persons ability to safely carry a gun like a dishonourable discharge which would be for many reasons that dont involve either firearms or violence,

            And maybe a heart condition specifically isnt enough reason for not getting a driving licence but it was only used as an example as there are other illnesses which ARE grounds for a denial of a driving license on the grounds of safety

            I also didnt mention trials or a lack thereof, merely that it should be grounds for denial. So where you just assumed it would be merely for ticking a box based on what I wrote would be interesting to see if you can point me to the place where I said it would be so simplistic?

            as I understand it ticking a box for such things only results in a delay whilst medical records and examinations are carried out to ascertain the extent of influence it might cause

            I also didnt say ALL mental illnesses, but am sure I quite specifically said ones where a person might be prone to violent or paranoid episodes. Which to be honest would be totally ridiculous if ANYONE thought it was wise to let someone who was, or could easily become mentally unstable with known violent tendencies to have a carry permit or gun regardless of country

            Otherwise if its viewed as an absolute right then stop banning violent criminals from owning them as its clearly a 2nd ammendment rights violation as their propensity to violence surely shouldnt be allowed to get in the way of them owning as many guns as they like should it?

          • Mike Mckay says:

            that said though there is a positive side too

            Theres a lot of peer reviewed papers and statistical data that shows correlation between gun ownership, depression and suicide where about half of all US suicides are with firearms and a person is 10 times more likely to commit suicide if they own a gun than if they dont as well as a 20% increase in suicides overall over a 3 year period

            As I am a stong believer in a persons right to choose both when and how they die I have absolutely no problem at all with someone with depression owning a gun in the slightest as the only person theyre likely to harm is themselves which is hardly a big issue and is also their basic human right to do so if they wish

            my only objection is where their mental illness is one that makes them likely to hurt other people as that isnt a right at all, and the right of their victim to NOT be shot by somoene who didnt feel like taking their meds is the one that should be prevalent

          • Cotter says:

            I’m now REALLY not sure where you stand on the 2nd Amendment; are you saying that there ought to be even MORE laws banning certain people from owning firearms than the already long list you quoted? Sounded tyo me like you want to check everyone out to make sure they’re “normal”. However, it’s a real shame that there is no psychiatrist (much less bureaucrat) that can predict who will go ape-sh!t and start killing people. And, typically (except for the very rare mass shooting event), the average killer is NOT considered as being mentally ill, nor does he have a history of mental illness.

            But sure, why don’t we add even MORE people to the government list who aren’t allowed to buy or own a gun: How about those Freemasons? (I just don’t trust ’em — they’re TOO secret); or perhaps someone who takes Valium (they’re obviously too high-strung to be trusted with a Constitutional Right); or maybe Atheists (how can you trust someone who doesn’t believe in a “Higher Power”?); or maybe people who own cats (they’re always kind of weird, right?); or perhaps anyone who’s a “loner” (because …

          • Mike Mckay says:

            Maybe if you could show medical evidence to prove that freemasons have a predisposition to violence then I would probably agree with you

            As that is the crux of my entire point which was pretty clearly stated that were someone has a predisposition to violence unless medicated AND I am sure I said where they have shown a tendency to stop taking that medication they are too much of a risk

            So what youre saying is that if someone IS prone to violence unless medicated AND is known to stop taking their medication they should be allowed to walk around with a gun lol, thats quite literally hysterical. Almost but not quite as funny as the fact you cant see how idiotic that stance is

            Hell, armed bank robbers also have a tendency to violence when not medicated too, so save your pennies and campaign for them to be armed too, after all ya wouldnt want to deny them their 2nd ammendment rights either would you?

            But to the general question yes, people who are KNOWN to present a high risk of committing violence should be allowed guns. Seems like a no brainer really. Same as paedos shouldnt be allowed to be primary school teachers and blind people shouldnt be allowed to drive.

            or do you think thats infringing on their rights too?

          • Cotter says:

            “…blind people shouldn’t be allowed to drive.”

            Now don’t get me going on THAT subject! Not only should blind people be allowed to drive a car, but why shouldn’t they also be allowed to pilot a 747 passenger jet! I ask you; Why Not? The answer: DISCRIMINATION!

            (I can’t waste any more time in an argument where you clearly don’t understand me, and I clearly don’t understand you. Cotter — OUT)

          • Mike Mckay says:

            Maybe when a blind person driving a car down a street runs your kids over and kills them you MIGHT be able to understand my point a bit more easily lol

            As I doubt very much you would be fighting for their right to continue driving

            But as long as its just someone elses kids that got killed I suspect you would fight for their right to drive

          • Cotter says:

            Uh huh. But anyway, you do realize the differences between a Right and a privilege? Driving is a privilege, so of course they do not give driver’s licenses to blind folks. HOWEVER, since firearm ownership is a Right, a blind person CAN purchase — and use — a firearm.

            PS: As I said before, you appear to have a very Nanny State mentality; you aren’t from England, are you Mike?

          • Mike Mckay says:

            Except that to be a right it would need to be extended to EVERYONE without exception which is not the case with anything including breathing in the US states with a death penalty

            Gun ownership has its exceptions too, so although its claimed to be, and is presented as such its clearly not as just one singular exception would prove rather than the several exceptions that already exist.

            You can call a dog a cat if you want, but it doesn’t stop it being a dog if its parents were dogs, it barks and lifts a leg to pee

          • Mike Mckay says:



            which isn’t the only example either, which shouldn’t actually happen if as claimed its a right rather than a privilege

            Yet it in fact does

            Woof woof

          • Cotter says:

            Mike, you’re gonna have to take all this up with our United States Supreme Court, because (especially lately) they would most assuredly strongly disagree with you.

            (Come on Mike, you keep dodging the question; you ARE British, aren’t you? Nothing to be ashamed of, but I’m very curious, as I’m rarely wrong about these things when it comes to American vs. Europe’s version of Freedom.)

          • Mike Mckay says:

            ahh sorry I thought I had said I was british at the start which was why I hadn’t answered it what I thought was repeatedly as it negates an opinion on gun legislation about as much as someone being male negates an opinion on pregnancy

            the article though whislt taking some of the delusional claims of the NRA to task about Katrina also says that its legal in many cases to remove guns from people temporarily making it a priviledge rather than a right in the true sense of the word as there aren’t really any absolute rights anywhere in the world as they are without exception a point of law which is always open to amendment, removal or alteration in their gist and detail

            An absolute right would mean that violent criminals in prison could have guns too, which they cant. Nor as the original discussion centred on can people with some medical conditions or people entering places whos sole purpose is the sale of alcohol

            So people with a mental illness that makes them prone to violence when combined with a propensity for stopping their medication wouldn’t be some apocalyptic removal of the 2nd amendment but would be a sensible pre emtive move that would actually protect rather than endanger the 2nd amendment by not giving anti gun campaigners extra ammunition for their lobbying in the form of unstable nutters going postal because they have been dumped or because someone called them a nasty name whilst off their meds

          • Cotter says:

            BTW Mike, that is a fascinating link you provided — excellent article. I read it, however, as disclosing the corrupt and incompetent N.O. police and government (especially the culpable N.O. mayor), rather than anti-NRA, but that’s my take.

          • Mike Mckay says:

            Just to highlight how irrelevant nationality is though, I would like ownership of handguns to be legal in the UK, and yet MANY americans want the right to be removed and more want it to be heavily restricted

            So are those American views more valid merely because theyre American? But if you didn’t know they were American you would just come out with the nanny state nonsense as a straw straw man response as though it is in some way pertinent to the opinion, which is isnt

          • Cotter says:

            Aha! Sorry Mike, but arguing with an Englishman about freedom in general, and especially about the freedom to purchase, own, and carry firearms, is like trying to explain colour to someone who has been blind from birth.

            Your people simply have no real concept of freedom, and you have not had freedom for so long that you can’t even imagine it. It is, quite literally, beyond your capabilities to understand. And that’s why we are Citizens, and you are merely subjects.

            Sorry to be so forthright about it, but I see no need to mince words.

  8. Tina says:

    Good to find an expert who knows what he’s tanilkg about!

  9. Mike Mckay says:

    I have if you check back been quite specific about the violence aspect and the medication part too rather than saying as you seem to be reading that ANY form of mental illness should be fair grounds for a restriction

    Amd although I can see the problems with both sides agreeing on where the line should be drawn I don’t think that alone is an excuse for letting quite literally anyone have them, or certainly not the carry part of the priviledge where instability CAN be shown by a doctor or psychiatrist

  10. Cotter says:

    “I would like ownership of handguns to be legal in the UK…”.

    Then you, Mike, are one of the few; and you should definitely be proud that you’re not just one of the U.K. herd.

    “…or certainly not the [handgun] carry part of the privilege…”

    Mike, it is not a PRIVILEGE, it is a RIGHT!!!