FA+
Shop
Is freedom crazy?
12 years ago
General
[edit: I somewhat "jumped the gun" on this particular journal. As a principal I do not delete journals, as I feel if I said it, I should stick by it. But this should be regarded as a slip of the "post" button, as I put up this first draft without giving proper context, or going into details on quite a few things. On average what I post i a 3rd, or 4th draft.. this is more a brainstorming session. So, you may notice that over the next day or so, the journal may change to better represent a much more whole view from my prospective. This is more a warning that if you quote part of this in an argument, by the time I respond to you it may have changed. It's not really a fair way to argue. So, I wanted to make sure to tell you before that this journal is subject to change.)
I am blessed.
I know I may not come across as the most thankful, meek, or even spiritual individual. Really though, I am blessed. Whether trough providence, or though tireless effort, or just dumb luck I have been given a gift that almost 5,000 of you appreciate. I do not wish to look like a braggart, or arrogant in any way. If anything I am surprised to be as appreciated as I am. My ability to make costumes for many of you has afforded me some interesting perspective.
I have the means, albeit a slim margin with some exchange rates, to live mostly where I choose. Nothing lavish, nothing grandiose, but the humble ability to choose where I live. I find it interesting that of all the places I choose to live, I have choose to live here, in the United States.
Now you may think it is because I have some birthplace pride, or perhaps it is just geographical convenience, but it's not. If you know me, you know I am not exactly one to feel obligated to a location. no, I choose to live here for a deeper reason. A reason many of you may not understand, a reason I don't even expect you to share with me. But a reason I hope you respect.
I live here for freedom. I am not talking that "Murika" flag waving, truck jumping, firework freedom ether.
I am talking the freedom that many of us take for granted, a freedom many of us wish that we didn't have, but a civil right none the less. I am, of course, talking about a right to keep and bear arms.
Now, what does the gun symbolize? To me it symbolizes something truly unique, the ability to have the power to murder, and not to use it.
Wait, wait, wait.. What?
Yes, I know it might sound crazy, but to allow so much freedom, that you are actually giving the ability to take another life with the pull of a trigger, and you don't do it.
For so few places in the world do we allow a citizen, our fellow man, to hold our very lives in our hand, yet with this greatest of liberty afforded to us we do not see the moral decay of humanity. As the titan Prometheus has given man fire, we have been handed the most uncommon of power, yet we have seen that with this symbolic flame that man posses, man remains predominantly good. In keeping with the Greek Mythos, no good deed goes unpunished.
I ask you, what is crazier? The fact that we allow a society so free, that we enable an individual the power and freedom to own a device capable of killing another man with more ease than making a phone call, yet the overwhelming majority of those free people refrain . Or that a small group control the individual rights of individuals in some places to such an extent that they are removed not only the aforementioned object to dispatch another another life in malice, but are not even afforded the right to self defense, and in that place the despicable reprobates of a culture may still pray upon the innocent.
I can understand framed in those terms you may assume I have come to a false dichotomy. this is not true. It is truly miraculous that we live in such a place, and do not see the decay of society simply from that freedom alone(e). That very freedom is not only the vessel for our prosperity, but it is the true realization of what an uninhibited human can achieve.
Self governance rests within the objective morality of a society. That the values of the individual may be so strong that we may collectively trust our fellow man with our very lives.
The cynic in me always makes me question the motivation of a "good person". Perhaps it is not a moral society that allows me such an optimistic interpretation of our humanity. Perhaps these observations are reminiscent of a human mutual assured destruction, nothing more than a civilian arms race in the cold war of our collective distrust of our neighbors, and friends.
In those times I remind myself of the random acts of kindness, or in a strictly material sense, altruistic individuals who have shown me that people are giving. I look at myself, and even in my selfish acts of self gratification through giving to others, I still want what objectively seen as "good".
I remind myself that I do not, and will never look forward to having to defend myself. That I pray that I never have to make a choice to do so. I fear that if the time came I would not even be able to defend myself. I remind myself that we don't murder simply because there is a law to prohibit it. We don't murder because even in the elementary sense we understand it is wrong. Even if we do not do it to others because we just don't want to be murdered ourselves, our very empathy makes us who we are. My apprehension to even my most basic right to self defense is oddly comforting. Comforting in the fact that I take no pleasure in my right, that I take no pleasure in my responsibility. Oddly comforting to know holding the awesome power with the proverbial sword of Damocles I am still scared, fallible, vulnerable. Wielding the unnatural power of the gods... I am still man.
Living in a free society may not be safer. Trusting your fellow man could one day lead to our untimely end. If there is one thing I have learned though my existence is that without the liberty to live a free life, I will never be granted enough safety to truly ever live. I would rather die a free man, knowing that I truly lived, than live as a safe man, knowing that I will eventually die.
So, remember my friends, it's not about gun rights, It is about human rights. That with great power, comes great responsibility. You have a responsibility to fight for your freedoms, you have a responsibility as a free individual to be predominantly good. Many men and women, greater than I, have made the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives to allow you the opportunity to live a free life.
Keep in mind, I am not promising you a safer world. I am only giving you the basic principals to make your own world a better place if you choose to do so.
I know that this may come across as idealistic, or even as patriotic zealotry. Please remember, that we all have to strive for our ideals, knowing full well we may never reach them. As the old saying goes "if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything".
In closing, I think when we come across a problem we should not ask "what freedoms should we limit to solve this" but rather "what freedoms can we allow to solve this". Please think about that.
Thank you.
I am blessed.
I know I may not come across as the most thankful, meek, or even spiritual individual. Really though, I am blessed. Whether trough providence, or though tireless effort, or just dumb luck I have been given a gift that almost 5,000 of you appreciate. I do not wish to look like a braggart, or arrogant in any way. If anything I am surprised to be as appreciated as I am. My ability to make costumes for many of you has afforded me some interesting perspective.
I have the means, albeit a slim margin with some exchange rates, to live mostly where I choose. Nothing lavish, nothing grandiose, but the humble ability to choose where I live. I find it interesting that of all the places I choose to live, I have choose to live here, in the United States.
Now you may think it is because I have some birthplace pride, or perhaps it is just geographical convenience, but it's not. If you know me, you know I am not exactly one to feel obligated to a location. no, I choose to live here for a deeper reason. A reason many of you may not understand, a reason I don't even expect you to share with me. But a reason I hope you respect.
I live here for freedom. I am not talking that "Murika" flag waving, truck jumping, firework freedom ether.
I am talking the freedom that many of us take for granted, a freedom many of us wish that we didn't have, but a civil right none the less. I am, of course, talking about a right to keep and bear arms.
Now, what does the gun symbolize? To me it symbolizes something truly unique, the ability to have the power to murder, and not to use it.
Wait, wait, wait.. What?
Yes, I know it might sound crazy, but to allow so much freedom, that you are actually giving the ability to take another life with the pull of a trigger, and you don't do it.
For so few places in the world do we allow a citizen, our fellow man, to hold our very lives in our hand, yet with this greatest of liberty afforded to us we do not see the moral decay of humanity. As the titan Prometheus has given man fire, we have been handed the most uncommon of power, yet we have seen that with this symbolic flame that man posses, man remains predominantly good. In keeping with the Greek Mythos, no good deed goes unpunished.
I ask you, what is crazier? The fact that we allow a society so free, that we enable an individual the power and freedom to own a device capable of killing another man with more ease than making a phone call, yet the overwhelming majority of those free people refrain . Or that a small group control the individual rights of individuals in some places to such an extent that they are removed not only the aforementioned object to dispatch another another life in malice, but are not even afforded the right to self defense, and in that place the despicable reprobates of a culture may still pray upon the innocent.
I can understand framed in those terms you may assume I have come to a false dichotomy. this is not true. It is truly miraculous that we live in such a place, and do not see the decay of society simply from that freedom alone(e). That very freedom is not only the vessel for our prosperity, but it is the true realization of what an uninhibited human can achieve.
Self governance rests within the objective morality of a society. That the values of the individual may be so strong that we may collectively trust our fellow man with our very lives.
The cynic in me always makes me question the motivation of a "good person". Perhaps it is not a moral society that allows me such an optimistic interpretation of our humanity. Perhaps these observations are reminiscent of a human mutual assured destruction, nothing more than a civilian arms race in the cold war of our collective distrust of our neighbors, and friends.
In those times I remind myself of the random acts of kindness, or in a strictly material sense, altruistic individuals who have shown me that people are giving. I look at myself, and even in my selfish acts of self gratification through giving to others, I still want what objectively seen as "good".
I remind myself that I do not, and will never look forward to having to defend myself. That I pray that I never have to make a choice to do so. I fear that if the time came I would not even be able to defend myself. I remind myself that we don't murder simply because there is a law to prohibit it. We don't murder because even in the elementary sense we understand it is wrong. Even if we do not do it to others because we just don't want to be murdered ourselves, our very empathy makes us who we are. My apprehension to even my most basic right to self defense is oddly comforting. Comforting in the fact that I take no pleasure in my right, that I take no pleasure in my responsibility. Oddly comforting to know holding the awesome power with the proverbial sword of Damocles I am still scared, fallible, vulnerable. Wielding the unnatural power of the gods... I am still man.
Living in a free society may not be safer. Trusting your fellow man could one day lead to our untimely end. If there is one thing I have learned though my existence is that without the liberty to live a free life, I will never be granted enough safety to truly ever live. I would rather die a free man, knowing that I truly lived, than live as a safe man, knowing that I will eventually die.
So, remember my friends, it's not about gun rights, It is about human rights. That with great power, comes great responsibility. You have a responsibility to fight for your freedoms, you have a responsibility as a free individual to be predominantly good. Many men and women, greater than I, have made the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives to allow you the opportunity to live a free life.
Keep in mind, I am not promising you a safer world. I am only giving you the basic principals to make your own world a better place if you choose to do so.
I know that this may come across as idealistic, or even as patriotic zealotry. Please remember, that we all have to strive for our ideals, knowing full well we may never reach them. As the old saying goes "if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything".
In closing, I think when we come across a problem we should not ask "what freedoms should we limit to solve this" but rather "what freedoms can we allow to solve this". Please think about that.
Thank you.
I have about a one-in-twelve chance of someone trying to kill me because of my minority status. One. In. Twelve. I can be fired for it. I can be denied healthcare for it. Police routinely beat and/or imprison people of this particular [second] class. I am far more likely to die from a bullet than you... either by suicide (my chances for that are something like 75-80%) or by murder. And no amount of gun toting's gonna save me from that one... someone in similar minority groups as I am (multiple, overlapping ones) was sent to jail for murder after she defended herself and killed the man who physically assaulted her and her group of friends. Although she stabbed him and he bled out. Maybe if she'd had a gun, the jury would have been more sympathetic... since this country seems to value gun ownership over human life anyway.
For you to laud the freedoms of gun ownership as a "civil right" when I can't leave my house without fear of bodily harm is... gut wrenching, and exactly the kind of thing people mean when they say "check your privilege."
I don't even have another reply for this, because you are so blinded to the problems of people not in your particular group that you won't likely see sense in anything I say anyway. I recommend getting an outside perspective before you make up your mind.
I also never said I didn't see moral decay. I simply didn't equate that decay directly to a right. They are two very different things.
What civil right is there to your safety?
I know you and I share quite a bit in common, but are out of phase on a few issues here. Now, am I reading into this wrong, or are you a little irritated with me for my opinion?
I never claimed to have a right to safety, but a society that writes off the concerns I listed above as less important than a member of the majority's right to gun ownership is a society that needs to get its priorities straight. Not that we've ever had those particular ducks in a row, but it's 2013. It's high time we discuss this, and the fact is that guns are sold to and owned by many irresponsible, racist, sexist, violent members of this society, and that is normal and defended by so many people it makes my head spin. And if one of them shot me, everyone would defend their right to have had the gun they shot me with, as long as it was "legal." They'd likely be let off fuckin' scott-free. Meanwhile, if I shot them, there's a great chance I'd be serving some really serious jail times, even if it was self defense.
I certainly wouldn't mind guns being taken away from some white males if it meant I wouldn't have to fear for not only my life, but the lives of my family and many friends. If deleting guns altogether meant my mom wouldn't have to be afraid for her life and well-being every time she wanted to go have a drink with a friend, meant my best friend wouldn't have to be afraid of sexual assault and worse just for having the gall to exist, meant many of my friends wouldn't have to be afraid of someone thinking they're scary and gunning them down, would I do it? You bet your ass. In a heartbeat.
I'd rather not go into my identity on a public forum, because some of it is quite personal. I could tell you in a note if you'd really like to know, and I have a study to back it up. It's not from my ass, I promise. It's a combination of things.
I'm not sure I'll be replying much, because to be perfectly honest, I don't think I'll get anywhere with this conversation, and I don't feel like arguing about gun rights anymore. I know where it will go. I'm tired and angry, and I have a feeling this will only make it worse.
Anyway, I hope you feel better, and if you are ever up to it, i will have my debate reply ready to go. If not.. it's not hurting anyone sitting in my saved folder.
The way you're talking it sounds like you expect to be shot to death. Frankly, I think being shot would be preferable to hanging, stoning, being burnt alive, being hit by large vehicles, knife, gas, pushed off a ledge, thrown off a building, held under water until you drown, thrown off a bridge with cement shoes, etc. All of these methods have been used by the very people you are alluding to. People will always find a way to kill the people they want dead.
If you're that afraid where you are, you should definitely move your entire family to somewhere that is safer. It's just plain stupid to think that nowhere is safer, so why live in fear when you can change that?
"you should definitely move your entire family"
Because I can afford to do that.
If you're so afraid of dieing where you are, you can't NOT afford to move. It's absurd to complain when it is fully within your power to change the situation. You can't change crazies, if they want to kill you, they'll find a way. You can, however, learn how to protect yourself, or get yourself out of the situation.
don't tell me not to complain. you have no idea what my life is like, and you don't get to police my anger, here. fuck off.
you should probably just stop. you have no idea what my situation is, and you're woefully ignorant about the problems faced by oppressed groups, apparently.
No danger? Doesn't exist.
Place where you're not going to get lynched for being black/asian/hispanic/native american? Los Angeles is the first city that comes to mind. Most of California and Florida come to mind. Almost anywhere in New England, probably the Dakotas and Carolinas. Likely Chicago.
You're choosing to be offended by things because you want a moral high ground and you don't have one. (Neither do I because this isn't a morality issue.) You know, as well as I, that my crazies comment was about people that want you dead. I don't consider people that want to murder other people sane. If you fit in that category, then feel free to be offended.
Finally, I didn't tell you not to complain. I told you that complaining when you can fix something is stupid. All you did was give excuses as to why you can't, but honestly, restaurant turn-over rate is about 2 weeks for a position. Retail is 3-4. Those jobs exist everywhere, even when the economy sucks, because let's face it, that's when Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and McDonald's flourish. If you don't want to or can't move, you can learn how to defend yourself.
I'll stop now, not because you want me to, but because I don't like repeating things and arguing with people who have no drive to make things better for themselves.
Good luck. I seriously hope your situation changes, because nobody should have to live with that much fear.
I don't feel it's freedom that you're getting when someone allows you to have a firearm, because when you take hold of it, you're still confronted by the rules, and the rules, though murky at times, still disallow you from doing whatever you want with it (like shooting whoever you want).
Technically you're free to shoot someone anyway, but the consequences of your actions are in your mind, the impact of the consequences for you and those you care about. Shooting someone is a choice with a large amount of consequences to it. Same with suicide, you're free to do so, but it has consequences usually not only just for you.
So I find it problematic to call it true freedom, because I believe in a situation where someone really gets the freedom to do what they want, without anything holding them back, that people tend to find a lot more bad sides to them.
If you look at experiments like the"Stanford Prison Experiment", you will find that when true freedom in certain aspects is offered,(in this case, the chosen guards are free to enforce the laws as they see fit) the limits to how that freedom is used, generally disappear after a while.
Two groups were formed out of random students, one to be the guards, one group to be the prisoners. The experiment was going to last two weeks, but after six days, the activities that happened in the prison were too mean and shocking to continue the experiment.
The guards slowly but surely became more and more sadistic in their iron grip of their little prison. It's super interesting, if a little depressing :(
So I don't think people not just shooting other people is really an indication of being a good person, but rather a person who has a lot to lose if they were to take an action, remove that, and the limits seem to come off as well.
((I'll be away for a week, so I won't be responding any time soon, just so you know XD))
So, true freedom, is really more as free as you can get. But surely it is more free than a society that practices a prior restraint.
Using a prison as your piebald is hardly what I would call contradictory evidence. You are talking about anarchy over liberty.
I never advocated a system without laws. I simply advocate a system where you are trusted first. and punished when you break a law. not preemptively removed a right for some thought crime.
I don't think yelling "fire" in a movie theater can really be compared to owning a lethal weapon. Though I get what you're saying with prior restraint and how countries are simply blocking access entirely, thus limiting freedom. There's a big difference between a weapon that is highly lethal, versus a troubling event that just bothers people.
Though this is tricky to say as well, because many items you find in your home have the possibility of becoming lethal, so how you define what is more lethal? How do you say what is good restrained and what is bad restrained?
Statistics are also really tricky on this point, because comparison between different countries or sometimes even regions of the same country are hard to do when the method for gaining those statistics differ in various ways pretty often.
It's really hard to define good or bad people based on the statistics or on comparisons between countries and their crimes, there's a lot more involved.
So how about this, I live in the Netherlands, and a specific benefit of the firearm restrictions that we have in place, is the use of that restriction as evidence in court. There have been many cases where the evidence for a conviction purely on drug related issues or violence related issues isn't enough, but owning an illegal firearm on top tips the scale in favor of a conviction.
Now I'm not sure this would work the same in a country of which one state could swallow the Netherlands up and want seconds, but I feel it's a positive point that deviates away from a lot of the mass murder arguments used a lot.
Would it be a limit of someones freedom if they had to go through a psychological test and go through training that they need to complete before they're allowed to own a firearm? It would restrict firearms, but not completely, everyone would be allowed to earn the right to own and carry firearms.
The United States has a unique relationship with firearms compared to the entire rest of the developed world. Although it's a myth that firearms ownership is nonexistent in Europe (it's actually fairly widespread), no other country with a similar development index has such a ubiquitous and open relationship to gun ownership as the United States. For better or worse, Americans are socialized to accept firearms ownership as natural in a way that citizens of other highly developed countries are not. It's not that citizens of other highly developed countries don't own guns; they do. By and large, they just don't talk about them or consider them like we do. I have spent some time living abroad in Western Europe, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that the "gun control debate" is as alien a concept to most Europeans as eating horsemeat would be to most Americans. I don't mean this in the sense that all Europeans favor heavy gun control, although in my experience many do; they just don't understand why that issue, of all issues, should be considered such a matter of open, acrimonious, and public debate. The people that own guns don't talk about them; they keep them at home or in storage and use them when they see fit. Look at it this way; imagine if an enormous public debate opened up in Europe tomorrow about whether or not it should be legal to own sex toys. Most Americans would simply cringe at that, because we've long ago decided that ownership of such things should be a PRIVATE choice. And when I say "private," I don't just mean "individual:" I mean actually keeping it to yourself. It is not a topic of polite conversation to talk about how many dildos you own (well, at least not to most people...). In reality, this kind of issue arises all the time between people of different cultures. Every society has a different set of hot-button issues it confronts, some of which might not make sense to denizens of another society. In America, guns are one of those issues that many outsiders don't understand. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, or that it makes the United States morally superior or inferior to other nations. It's just the cultural reality we live in. As Herman Kahn said, "We did not make this world. We just live in it."
So what does this mean for the gun-control debate? It means that, because of the unique cultural situation of the United States, I don't feel that we can look at other societies for examples of why gun control is good OR bad. The European tradition of firearms ownership in particular is so dissimilar from the United States that it's impossible to extrapolate the implications of European-type firearms regulations for the American market, and doing so would be a pointless exercise anyway. I said before that European firearms ownership is not that uncommon, although it is not nearly to the level of the United States. One of the reasons that European gun control schemes "work" at constraining the level of gun violence is that they were put in place when firearms ownership was still a rarity. The European tradition of gun ownership grew up under a set of restrictions that was much more stringent than anything found in the United States. Now Americans are debating the merits of retroactively trying to regulate as many as 750 million unregistered firearms. My advice to those undertaking such an enterprise is, "Good luck." You have neither the political consensus, nor the judico-constitutional opinion, nor any kind of realistic scheme for bring that many firearms under any semblance of "control" in a meaningful manner. Joe Klein wrote a pretty good article for TIME called "How Guns Won" that elaborates on this point. He's much more anti-gun than I am, but he still makes valid points about how intrinsic gun culture has become to American identity. You are not going to succeed in eroding overnight a tradition that has been created over centuries, one which is now backed by an enormous political and economic machine which many average Americans see as a key pillar of their sovereign strength. In that sense, the "moral" debate over gun ownership is basically irrelevant; realism carries the day on that one.
If we're really, honestly serious about containing gun violence in the United States (which is a plague), we need to address the cultural issues first that have normalized it. Because we won't get anywhere with a purely legalist solution that is both wholly unrealistic and unfair to many involved parties. Instead, we need to ask ourselves why we have such a different relationship from the rest of the developed world in our approach to firearms ownership. Is it our culture? Our history? Our laws? Our media? Some combination of all of these? What is our cost-benefit relationship with firearms ownership, and can we modify it in a way that both preserves individual liberty and reduces the human toll of gun violence? The solution to this last question may or may not be found in laws, and compulsion. It may be more in the way that we choose to educate our children, how we socialize them, and the the kind of media we expose them to. I don't have a lot of hope that our current generation will be able to devise enduring solutions to the gun violence epidemic, but maybe it will be different farther on down the line.
As far as a comparison with Europe, most of the time if you see me drawing a comparison, it is because someone else has brought up the topic first. Cross referenced data is highly ineffective in a statistical debate. Though this journal did not delve into the mechanics of those statistics, or even the policy outside of what is considered a civil right by country. Really, you can not take two experimental piebalds, then without a control make finite observations by comparison. As, we don't have a control country to try out policy with, really any speculation as to the effectiveness of policy in any uniform sense is naive at best. Again, I understand the alien nature of overt, or even proud gun ownership as it would be to most of the world. Still, as far as the rights of gun ownership in relation to our own issues, we see that in our own country, (really the best place to compile data for our unique situation) that when gun control has been introduced we saw a rise in crime, and even murder rates. Aside from the NFA act of 1934 (during the end of prohibition) we have seen the opposite of what gun control should technically do. I know I may be preaching to the choir on this one. Yet, even with that being said we even see Similar results in many of the countries in the EU that tout their control efforts as effective. In the UK for instance, we saw a massive spike in crime after the 1997 handgun ban and their murder totals went from under 600 in 1997 to spike at over 900 6 years later. All with a gradual climb. And only reaching parody to their 1997 rate in 2010. So, what confuses me, is when you see statistics such as these, why is it not brought to a more public forum? Clearly if the laws where effective as we tout, then there would not be much room to argue. Why do I bring all this up? I feel that because we are so open, and we do consider gun ownership a right, then we are not left with less freedoms while our problems remain effectively the same, or worsen. Hell, one of the main reasons you even saw an eventual parody in crime rate as far as the UK is concerned is because of a massive uptick in law enforcement officers. I am not sure why so many people like to bring up Europe. (and why they choose to ignore eastern European countries) . For a 0% UN backed gun ownership rate statistic in former Soviet countries, any gun related homicide over 0 is highly suspect.
As far as the context of an objective morality when it comes to a country, we have to ask if we are talking about the morality of the citizens, the morality of humans as a whole, or the morality of a government of that country. My little post above is firmly rooted in the idea that "humans are basically good". That even without prior restraint of an ethically run government, people can self govern enough to not kill each other when given to tools to do so. If we do want to bring up the morality of government.. ehh.. that's cool. But to be fair, it is a separate argument. (one I am very willing to have, just not one brought up in this journal). As I do not find it moral to allow a group of individuals rights above other individuals. Essentially, morality is not changed by job title.
As far as gun violence being a plague. I like to bring up that without any real gun policy change calling for more control nationally since 1986, we have seen an overall decline of over 50%. Our national gun violence, and murder rates are now falling below even our 1967 rates. Here in Florida we have had a CCW program on the books since 1987. And we dropped state wide from 12 per 100,000 in 1987 to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2012. Below the national average. With indications we are still dropping. That is an almost 75% drop in gun related crimes. All this happened with more of a freedom to carry a concealed weapon on you. (if somebody wants to bring up the Zimmerman case, please hold your comment for the next journal I post specifically about that)
I actually live within 3 miles of Sanford Florida. And spent the first 10 years of my life in Sanford. So, I am can personally attest that over the past 20 years, it has gotten much better here. Now, I really do not know if that is at all related to our CCW issuing. I don't. I could be because we had more sunny Wednesdays over the past 20 years. It could be because we put in that new slide at the playground. Or opened the Paw-ark. Or dog park in downtown. The bottom line is, we still saw a drop faster than the national average as freedom was expanded. So, in the very least we see that these freedoms did not constitute a rise in crime rates.
In regard to your last statement, We see a clear bias against guns. I don't need to get into it very much. but it's interesting to see the news media coverage for negative gun related news has climbed steadily over the past 25 years, even as the national rate saw a 50% overall decline during the same period.