If anything should serve to confirm Lott's thesis, it would be the huge increases in violent crime in nations that have recently acted to ban private ownership of firearms -- Britain and Australia. But that should only be necessary for those who refuse to notice that the highest violent-crime rates in America are found in those regions with the tightest controls on firearms ownership, such as Chicago and the District of Columbia.

-- This is just more evidence our President has no clue about private industry. -- Oh, he has more than a clue. He hates private enterprise...possibly because there's no place in it for him. After all, what skill or expertise has he demonstrated that would make him worth even minimum wage to a private employer? But Obama does love money: specifically, yours. Keep your hand on your wallet, folks. The nearly $20 trillion in private retirement savings and pension funds is a temptation he won't manage to resist for long.

The key insight that serves to predict and explain the behavior of any government functionary, "scientist" or otherwise, is that their overwhelmingly highest priority is to increase their own power and funding. Once you grasp that fact of "government service," all else falls into place.

Of course the Left has dogmatized us. They have no other recourse. They can't argue their case; it's been refuted too many times and too many ways. But their politics is the foundation of something else: their self-conception as smarter and more moral than the rest of us. So they have to put it above all logical or evidentiary examination -- and the only way to do that is to ridicule or vilify anyone who dares to disagree.

-- When they hear news of a tragedy their first thought is “How can this help the cause?”-- This is not quite right. Many self-styled progressives -- George Orwell, where are you when we need you? -- will grasp the outline of the tragedy, realize (dimly) that it cross-cuts their worldview, and then either refuse to acknowledge it, or strain to deem it "irrelevant." The sole common factor among progressives is that they regard their overt aims as exculpatory. "But I didn't intend bloodshed, destruction, and impoverishment!" is supposed to absolve them of all responsibility for what their policies might wreak.

"...the policies liberals advocate don't work." Remember always that that depends on the specific definition applied to "work." If by "work," one means, "accumulate more power in Washington, reduce the freedom of Americans, and create more commissariats for liberals," then -- MOST unfortunately -- liberals' policies work frighteningly well.

At this point there's only one safe haven remaining for a private citizen's savings: the actual possession of precious metals that no one else knows you have. Don't count on collectibles; fads come and go too quickly. Don't count on gemstones; the supply is far larger than most people know, and most of them can now be synthesized in labs. Don't count on land; nothing is easier to tax or seize, and anyway, you can't move it around. Gold and silver are the only refuges left. Buy the actual physical commodities, store them securely, and tell no one you can't trust with your life...because that's what you'll be doing.

While Miss Coulter is nearly entirely correct in the above, let's not minimize the attendant danger: That officious psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental therapists, many of whom are on the Left and instinctively against firearms, might decide to use a new-found power to classify their patients as "mentally ill" as a backdoor campaign against private firearms ownership. Beware giving any category of persons that sort of power -- especially persons in the so-called "helping professions." Their idea of "help" might not square with yours.

"Is it outlandish to suggest that other forms of murder might possibly become legal in the future?" Ponder the "Groningen Protocol." Refer to the pro-infanticide statements of Princeton's Peter Singer. And watch the Kermit Gosnell trial, now in progress.

Concerning your accusation: No, I would not. And by the way, I'm a conservative -- VERY conservative. Try Googling my name.

"Not only was the comment sexist..." It was not sexist. It was an observation of an objective fact. "Sexist" would be demeaning Harris's job performance or qualifications because she's a woman. Stick to properly political subjects if you want to be taken seriously.