Fairfax League of Women Voters to Hold Firearms Forum in Burke
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2015/mar/12/fairfax-league-women-voters-hold-firearms-forum-bu/

What is Fairfax County doing to cut down on firearms-related suicide and domestic violence? The Fairfax-area League of Women Voters will host an informational public forum to discuss the topic at Pohick Regional Library in Burke on March 22.

Moderator Dr. Kristin A. Goss, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke University, will lead a panel covering the collaborative efforts being taken by county organizations. Goss is a published author on firearms, including the books “Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America” and “The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know” (with Philip J. Cook).

The panel is scheduled to include Sandra Bromley, J.D., the county-wide domestic violence coordinator, Jesse Ellis, prevention manager of the Fairfax County Department of Neighborhood and Community Services and MPO James T. Frey, crime prevention officer in the West Springfield precinct of the Fairfax County Police Department.

“Firearms: Reducing the Risk in Fairfax County” will be held Sunday, March 22 from 2-3:30 p.m. at the Pohick Regional Library, located at 6450 Sydenstricker Rd. in Burke. For more information, visit http://www.lwv-fairfax.org

Are we allowed open carry at this event?

That would be funny to watch. It's at the library, can you open carry in the library?

Yes you can. The library is state funded therefore guns may not be banned on premises.
The police will be there though, so expect to be murdered, followed by a cover up.

John Geer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes you can. The library is state funded therefore
> guns may not be banned on premises.
> The police will be there though, so expect to be
> murdered, followed by a cover up.


LOL

Just more propaganda from the no-gun extremists.

“Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America”

This book is required reading for a course in college, as part of the school's effort to push a left-wing agenda. I made sure to get it at the library-I'm not interested in giving money to support someone working to take my rights away.To sum up the book, Goss claims that most people really want gun control (a statement for which she provides little evidence), but their efforts have been thwarted by groups like the Big Bad NRA. But, even though most people supposedly support more gun control, gun control groups just can't raise any money!

Like a typical statist, Goss favors "state patronage" which means getting the government to use taxpayer dollars to pay for gun control propaganda (because people are clearly too stupid to know what is good for them, so they must be FORCED to contribute to the cause). The book might be interesting for gun rights supporters, because it will give you a chance to "know your enemy" and understand the mindset and strategies of people in the gun control crowd. But get it at the library and spend the money you would have spent on the book on more ammo, or a contribution to a gun rights group.

Does that sound like an episode for a `Seinfeld' show? Goss is an "Assistant Professor of Public Policy Studies and Political Science" at Duke University. No other information about her background is given.

This study began as a Ph.D. dissertation and was then developed into this book. She spent a lot of time on it. You should not read this one-sided book unless you have a good knowledge of the facts about this topic. Her statements are often incorrect. There was no "constitutional amendment prohibiting sales and possession" (p.62). Any good book on Prohibition will explain the history of this movement. It was designed to outlaw the meeting places of workingmen where they could talk about the things that affected their lives and the cure. Their oppression at work led to "industrial drinking". Prohibition did not increase prosperity and reduce crime but the reverse. It led to increasing power for organized crime, which often worked in tandem with the elite. Does Duke U. profit from the poisoning and killing of cigarette smokers?

The flaw, or Big Lie, is its unproven assertion that Gun Prohibition is a good thing; no proof in this book. The 1968 Gun Control Act was followed by increased rates of violent deaths (Figure 2.1, page 41). After it was passed the legal technician who wrote this law admitted that whole sections were taken from the 1930s Nazi Gun Control law. This Nazi law was followed by the worst political oppression and highest rates of violence in 20th century Europe.

School shootings were unknown before the 1968 Gun Control Act but became a reality with the next generation. Localities with Gun Prohibition have the highest rates of violent death (Washington D.C.) while rural areas with widespread gun ownership have the lowest rates of crime. It all relates to economics and the absence of political oppression. The oppressed suffer from low wages, high taxes, and the poverty that causes crime and "senseless violence" (when somebody snaps). Areas with high gun ownership generally have more owner-operated businesses and a more egalitarian atmosphere.

The US has a lower rate of violent death than Japan or those "industrialized countries" that are never identified for comparison. America has more gun deaths just like it has more automobile deaths or private swimming pool deaths. A big country of 300 million with always have "more" than a smaller country with higher rates of deaths. That is why Gun Prohibitionists are either fooled by their emotional problems or misinformation by the corporate media. Or they are professional liars (from advertising), or lobbyists hired to misinform the public.

Every day 3,000 people enter the US illegally to flee the hell of gun-free countries! Figure 4.2 on page 140 shows the after-effects of the 1968 Gun Control Act in increased murders. Or are they caused by factors that can't be mentioned, such as the increased watching of cable TV shows? Goss doesn't tell that Morton Grove's law (p.162) was an attempt to prevent the competition of a new gun shop! Handguns were banned but there were no reports of anyone turning their guns in for confiscation. Starting in 1989 Florida there are now 36 states with a "right to carry" laws. The lack of this fact in this book demonstrates its bias and failure to adequately cover the topic of gun control. The high "fog index" for these chapters prevents its intended use but allows it to serve as a warning about its strategy. Chapter 7 indicts the gun control movement. Does Goss think corporate millions are needed for more political oppression?

If you are pro-2 Am, prior to this meeting you might want to read:

The Founders' Second Amendment origins of the right to bear arms, by Stephen Holbrook.

Several points:

The Founders who wrote the Constitution and the men at those ratifying conventions lived in a society where firearms were prevalent in almost every home. The bearing (carrying) of them was an everyday occurrence in every social strata.

Yes, it is an INDIVIDUAL right. The historical record of correspondence among the Founders and among the ratifiers that it is INDIVIDUAL is settled beyond (honest) dispute.

The militia of the day was every able bodied male between about fifteen and 60.
There was no formally organized militia apart from citizens able and willing to defend their communities. Using their own personal firearms.

The Constitution did not confer rights. It recognizes the existence of rights that have always existed. Our rights are not a gift from government.

If you show up with your guns to intimidate them you will only generate bad publicity.

If you ignore the event and go about your business no one will even know the event too place.

Better to do nothing.

So is the title "What is Fairfax County doing to cut down on firearms-related suicide and domestic violence?" just a strawman? I mean, do we have an epidemic of firearms related suicides here in FFX Co? Seems to me more suicides lately are being done by VRE.

Seems like they're trying to conflate real issues, violence against family and suicide, with gun ownership and make some sort of connection.

League of Lesbian Voters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Seems like they're trying to conflate real issues,
> violence against family and suicide, with gun
> ownership and make some sort of connection.


As always. If they don't then the stats don't really work for them.

The vast majority of firearms suicides are middle aged white men, most with long histories alcohol and substance abuse. Who they don't really care about anyway.

Most of the increase in domestic and family violence is related to the Hispanic community which in fact tends to own fewer guns.

If they wanted to have an actual reality-based discussion, then they'd be better off holding a forum about alcohol and drug abuse which is much more at the core of both issues. But that's not as easy of a problem as blaming those evil guns.

Omg women against guns. All the no penis guntards are gonna want to intimidate them with their big guns.

More like point and laugh at them.

The League of Women Voters was hijacked by the liberal goobers years ago. That's one reason you never see them in charge of serious candidate debates any more. Used to be a great nonpartisan information exchange; not anymore.

Organizing an anti-gun rally is just one example of how far the league of Women voters has fallen from their original mission.