Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Discuss the March 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month, Final Notice by Van Fleisher.
Forum rules
Because this forum is host to a potentially controversial special gun control topic series, all posts will be held for moderation to ensure each forum topic stays on-topic and to ensure the Forum Rules are strictly enforced.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by RJG »

3uGHZD4MLj wrote:ok, I've looked around a little, I'm not going to bother listing sources and results, but I can see that you're less safe with a gun in the house, period.
If you let people know (e.g. put a sign in your window) that you have a gun in the house ("and are not afraid to use it!"), then wouldn't this make you "safer", especially so in some neighborhoods? ...and if you don't have a gun (and the bad guys know it) then doesn't this make you "less safe"?

Scott wrote:It should not really be looking at the aspects of gun ownership that lead to the result but just be looking at the net results (i.e. what percentage of gun owners were injured or killed over a certain timeframe versus what percentage of non-gun-owners were injured or killed over the same timeframe).
This is not a fair assessment of gunowner safety ("safer or less safe"). ...how about the percentage of gun owners who were NOT injured or killed (because they owned a gun)?

If you ONLY look at the injuries and deaths (i.e. ONLY the 'bad' stuff associated with gun ownership), and refuse to look at the 'good' stuff associated with gun ownership, then your conclusion will ALWAYS be "less safe"! ...which makes this 'one-sided' study/analysis wholly 'invalid' (aka "totally bogus") for determining "safer or less safe".

Scott wrote:Here is the official conclusion of the meta-analysis:"Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide."
Is this same "access to firearms" ALSO responsible for and associated with saving lives, and protecting one-self from harm? ...or did this study (meta-analysis) conveniently close its eyes to this part?
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Belindi »

It depends upon who one is. If I advertised that I had a gun and was not afraid to use it people would assume that I was mad so I'd be less safe. If a policeman advertised that he had a gun and was not afraid to use it he would be safer from sane violent people . If a youth owned gun and was not afraid to use it he would be recruited into a gang then he would get himself killed. Soldiers are often safer if they are armed with guns. Nations are safer if they own guns .
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by LuckyR »

RJG wrote: March 20th, 2019, 3:46 pm
3uGHZD4MLj wrote:ok, I've looked around a little, I'm not going to bother listing sources and results, but I can see that you're less safe with a gun in the house, period.
If you let people know (e.g. put a sign in your window) that you have a gun in the house ("and are not afraid to use it!"), then wouldn't this make you "safer", especially so in some neighborhoods? ...and if you don't have a gun (and the bad guys know it) then doesn't this make you "less safe"?

Scott wrote:It should not really be looking at the aspects of gun ownership that lead to the result but just be looking at the net results (i.e. what percentage of gun owners were injured or killed over a certain timeframe versus what percentage of non-gun-owners were injured or killed over the same timeframe).
This is not a fair assessment of gunowner safety ("safer or less safe"). ...how about the percentage of gun owners who were NOT injured or killed (because they owned a gun)?

If you ONLY look at the injuries and deaths (i.e. the 'bad' stuff associated with gun ownership), and refuse to look at the 'good' stuff associated with gun ownership, then your conclusion will ALWAYS be "less safe"! ...which makes the 'one-sided' study/analysis wholly 'invalid' for determining "safer or less safe".
Reasonable questions about admittedly less important (statistically) issues. Broadcasting gun ownership theoretically could lower the chance of home invasion, though since that is incredibly rare and since criminals never plan on getting caught in the act, the chance of such an effect, even if true, which is far from proven, moving the needle much on overall stats likely puts the issue in the insignificant category.

What is not in doubt is that guns are a prime target for burglars because of their high resale value, so I would think twice about a yard sign broadcasting my guns.

Fact is that increased suicide lethality and accidents push gun ownership clearly into the more dangerous side overall, though as I mentioned suicide is not evenly distributed so for certain populations the effect will be smaller (predominantly gun accidents). Remember for the purposes of this thread community effects are not being taken into consideration.

The number of crimes actually thwarted by waving one's gun in the face of a criminal is infinitesimally small though the number of crimes that don't even happen due to gun ownership are difficult to quantify, though since crime morbidity is much, much smaller than that of suicide makes it more of a hopeful rationalization.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by RJG »

Hey all, my point is simply this:
1. If you only look at the bad (unsafe) stuff associated with gun ownership, then the conclusion will naturally be "less safe".
2. And if you only look at the good (safe) stuff associated with gun ownership, then the conclusion will naturally be "safer".

Another way to say it:
1. If you compare the 'bad' stuff of gunowners to non-gunowners, then gun owners are "less safe".
2. And if you compare the 'good' stuff of gunowners to non-gunowners, then gun owners are "safer".

So if we wish to statistically determine if gun ownership is truly "safer" or "less safe" (to the gun owner), then we need the statistics on BOTH sides of the equation. Otherwise the conclusion is bogus.

Scott wrote:...what percentage of gun owners were injured or killed over a certain timeframe versus what percentage of non-gun-owners were injured or killed over the same timeframe...
This is view #1. It only compares the 'bad' ("injured or killed") of gun ownership to non-gunowners. It excludes the 'good' of gun ownership to non-gunowners. Therefore the conclusion of "less safe" (based on this one-sided set of statistics) is invalid.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by LuckyR »

So who is only citing one set of data?
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by RJG »

LuckyR wrote:So who is only citing one set of data?
Scott's words --- "Here is the official conclusion of the meta-analysis: "Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide."" --- which is in reference to https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814

...which is only view #1 !!
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by LuckyR »

RJG wrote: March 20th, 2019, 5:36 pm
LuckyR wrote:So who is only citing one set of data?
Scott's words --- "Here is the official conclusion of the meta-analysis: "Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide."" --- which is in reference to https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814

...which is only view #1 !!
Did you read the article? Compiling overall data on homicide risk between gun owners vs non gun owners takes into account any homicide prevention attributed to the protection afforded by the gun, thus the overall increase in homicide overwhems the protective effect (if any) of guns.

So I guess no one is citing one sided data.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:1. If you compare the 'bad' stuff of gunowners to non-gunowners, then gun owners are "less safe".
2. And if you compare the 'good' stuff of gunowners to non-gunowners, then gun owners are "safer".

So if we wish to statistically determine if gun ownership is truly "safer" or "less safe" (to the gun owner), then we need the statistics on BOTH sides of the equation. Otherwise the conclusion is bogus.
LuckyR wrote:Did you read the article? Compiling overall data on homicide risk between gun owners vs non gun owners takes into account any homicide prevention attributed to the protection afforded by the gun, thus the overall increase in homicide overwhems the protective effect (if any) of guns.

So I guess no one is citing one sided data.
Lucky, I re-read this and I only see ONE-SIDED here. I could find NO DATA showing the 'good' stuff (the lives saved), this study only looks at the 'bad' stuff (the lives lost) of being a gun owner. This study focuses only on 'dead' gun owners, not 'live' gun owners.

Again, if we wish to determine if gun ownership is truly "safer" or "less safe" (to the gun owner), then we need to look at BOTH sides of the equation. Otherwise the conclusion is biased, and non-valid.

Bottom-line: Having access to guns can be 'bad' (unsafe) AND it can be 'good' (safe). Those conclusions based on studies that focus ONLY on the 'bad' (or ONLY on the 'good') should not be trusted as valid for determining the safety of gun owners.

Belindi wrote:It depends upon who one is. If I advertised that I had a gun and was not afraid to use it people would assume that I was mad so I'd be less safe. If a policeman advertised that he had a gun and was not afraid to use it he would be safer from sane violent people . If a youth owned gun and was not afraid to use it he would be recruited into a gang then he would get himself killed. Soldiers are often safer if they are armed with guns. Nations are safer if they own guns.
As always, you make very good points here.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by LuckyR »

RJG wrote: March 20th, 2019, 9:00 pm
RJG wrote:1. If you compare the 'bad' stuff of gunowners to non-gunowners, then gun owners are "less safe".
2. And if you compare the 'good' stuff of gunowners to non-gunowners, then gun owners are "safer".

So if we wish to statistically determine if gun ownership is truly "safer" or "less safe" (to the gun owner), then we need the statistics on BOTH sides of the equation. Otherwise the conclusion is bogus.
LuckyR wrote:Did you read the article? Compiling overall data on homicide risk between gun owners vs non gun owners takes into account any homicide prevention attributed to the protection afforded by the gun, thus the overall increase in homicide overwhems the protective effect (if any) of guns.

So I guess no one is citing one sided data.
Lucky, I re-read this and I only see ONE-SIDED here. I could find NO DATA showing the 'good' stuff (the lives saved), this study only looks at the 'bad' stuff (the lives lost) of being a gun owner. This study focuses only on 'dead' gun owners, not 'live' gun owners.

Again, if we wish to determine if gun ownership is truly "safer" or "less safe" (to the gun owner), then we to look at BOTH sides of the equation. Otherwise the conclusion is biased, and non-valid.

Bottom-line: Having access to guns can be 'bad' (unsafe) AND it can be 'good' (safe). Those conclusions based on studies that focus ONLY on the 'bad' (or ONLY on the 'good') should not be trusted as valid for determining the safety of gun owners.
Perhaps the article was too technical or I was too confusing in my commentary.

One potential "good" of gun ownership would be to scare off potential evildoers/murderers, another would be to not be chosen as a victim by evildoers, because of the criminal choosing easier prey/victims. These "good" effects WOULD be captured by the homicide data ie the homicide stat should be lower among gun owners IF the effect existed at all AND if it outweighed the "bad" effect of gun ownership.

To be honest the problem with the study isn't the argument you are trying to make, it's that perhaps gun owners as a group are more vulnerable to violence (by geography, economics or culture) which is the reason they choose to own guns, thus their guns are a marker for murder, not the cause.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by RJG »

LuckyR wrote:One potential "good" of gun ownership would be to scare off potential evildoers/murderers, another would be to not be chosen as a victim by evildoers, because of the criminal choosing easier prey/victims. These "good" effects WOULD be captured by the homicide data ie the homicide stat should be lower among gun owners IF the effect existed at all AND if it outweighed the "bad" effect of gun ownership.
Yes, but we don't know the total of 'good' effects versus 'bad' effects of gun ownership, so as to then ascertain if it is 'good' or 'bad' (safe or not-safe) to be a gun owner. We are only told of the 'bad' effects here.

LuckyR wrote:To be honest the problem with the study isn't the argument you are trying to make, it's that perhaps gun owners as a group are more vulnerable to violence (by geography, economics or culture) which is the reason they choose to own guns, thus their guns are a marker for murder, not the cause.
Good point. I can't disagree with you. And as Belindi also pointed out, it depends "who" these gun owners are. If the gun owner is a bad guy, a thug, or gang member, then they will have a higher likelihood of owning a gun and also a higher chance of being a homicide victim. But if you live in a small rural Texas town as I do, then 80% + of us own at least one gun, with all of us still alive, and without being a homicide victim. So gun ownership in our town keeps us all very safe (no one wants to mess with us that carry guns).
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

RJG wrote: March 20th, 2019, 3:46 pm
Scott wrote:It should not really be looking at the aspects of gun ownership that lead to the result but just be looking at the net results (i.e. what percentage of gun owners were injured or killed over a certain timeframe versus what percentage of non-gun-owners were injured or killed over the same timeframe).
This is not a fair assessment of gunowner safety ("safer or less safe"). ...how about the percentage of gun owners who were NOT injured or killed (because they owned a gun)?

If you ONLY look at the injuries and deaths (i.e. ONLY the 'bad' stuff associated with gun ownership), and refuse to look at the 'good' stuff associated with gun ownership, then your conclusion will ALWAYS be "less safe"! ...which makes this 'one-sided' study/analysis wholly 'invalid' (aka "totally bogus") for determining "safer or less safe".
Those are two sides of the same coin. The percentage not injured or killed is 100% minus the percentage that were injured or killed.


RJG wrote: March 20th, 2019, 3:46 pm
Scott wrote:Here is the official conclusion of the meta-analysis:"Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide."
Is this same "access to firearms" ALSO responsible for and associated with saving lives, and protecting one-self from harm?
Sometimes access to firearms saves the owner's life; sometimes access to firearms does the opposite. Nobody is denying it does both. That was a given, explicitly stated long ago in this topic. The titular question is simply regarding the total net effect.

Please see these following comments of mine from the fourth post in this topic right on the first page which, where I was responding to someone who was making the opposite point as you but thus was off the question for the same reason as your valid points are off the actual question at hand:
Scott wrote: March 19th, 2019, 10:20 amYour example only demonstrates what is already a given. The question is about the sum statistical net effect (i.e. the net consequential result when all the ways gun ownership make the owner safer are weighed statistically with all the ways gun ownership makes the owner less safe).
---
RJG wrote: March 20th, 2019, 3:46 pm ...or did this study (meta-analysis) conveniently close its eyes to this part?
I have no idea what your question means. I literally don't understand the meaning of your sentence. Nonetheless, here is the link to the meta-analysis in question: https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814 ... systematic

RJG wrote: March 20th, 2019, 5:36 pm
LuckyR wrote:So who is only citing one set of data?
Scott's words --- "Here is the official conclusion of the meta-analysis: "Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide."" --- which is in reference to https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814

...which is only view #1 !!
I didn't provide that source/link. Another member did earlier in the topic, and I replied that I believe that link is the most convincing piece of credible evidence in regard to the titular question provided in this topic so far. Thus, based on that piece of evidence, my belief regarding the answer to the titular question has changed based on that evidence. Should more convincing credible counter-evidence be provided, I would of course change my tentative conclusion.

RJG wrote: March 20th, 2019, 5:02 pm
Scott wrote:...what percentage of gun owners were injured or killed over a certain timeframe versus what percentage of non-gun-owners were injured or killed over the same timeframe...
This is view #1. It only compares the 'bad' ("injured or killed") of gun ownership to non-gunowners. It excludes the 'good' of gun ownership to non-gunowners. Therefore the conclusion of "less safe" (based on this one-sided set of statistics) is invalid.
No, it doesn't exclude the good stuff. If the frequency with which gun owners lives are saved due to their gun ownership is higher than the frequency with which they are killed due to their gun ownership, then the net effect will show that. The net effect shows both. Hence the word net. The titular questions asks for both (i.e. the net effect).
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by RJG »

Scott wrote:Those are two sides of the same coin. The percentage not injured or killed is 100% minus the percentage that were injured or killed.
You are missing the point. You are only comparing those killed or injured to those not killed/injured. How many people are alive (and not injured) today because they owned guns?

Guns can 'kill' people and guns can 'save' people. BOTH of these! Focusing only on the 'killing' part does not tell you how many people were 'saved'. You can't claim that guns are safer or less safe without knowing which number is greater; the 'killing of lives' or the 'saving of lives'.

Scott wrote:Sometimes access to firearms saves the owner's life; sometimes access to firearms does the opposite. Nobody is denying it does both. That was a given, explicitly stated long ago in this topic. The titular question is simply regarding the total net effect.
Yes, agreed! But, to calculate the "total net effect", you also need to know how many were 'saved or non-injured' because of guns. You are only accounting for the people killed/injured, and neglecting those saved/not-injured.

You cannot calculate "net effect" with only one variable (or one-side of the equation).

RJG wrote:This is view #1. It only compares the 'bad' ("injured or killed") of gun ownership to non-gunowners. It excludes the 'good' of gun ownership to non-gunowners. Therefore the conclusion of "less safe" (based on this one-sided set of statistics) is invalid.
Scott wrote:If the frequency with which gun owners lives are saved due to their gun ownership is higher than the frequency with which they are killed due to their gun ownership, then the net effect will show that.
Agreed. But we first need to know the 'good' and the 'bad' numbers to determine the 'net' effect. Note: the good number does NOT equal the total number minus the bad number. For example, if we have 100 gun owners, and 10 were killed by gunownership, and 8 were saved by gunownership then the net effect is that "gunownership" is "less safe" by a factor of 2%.

Again, we can't determine the "net effect" until we know BOTH sides of the equation. This study (meta-analysis) that you reference, only looks at one side; the bad.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Scott (in post #4) wrote: March 19th, 2019, 10:20 amThe question is about the sum statistical net effect (i.e. the net consequential result when all the ways gun ownership make the owner safer are weighed statistically with all the ways gun ownership makes the owner less safe).
RJG wrote: March 21st, 2019, 10:02 am
Scott wrote:Sometimes access to firearms saves the owner's life; sometimes access to firearms does the opposite. Nobody is denying it does both. That was a given, explicitly stated long ago in this topic. The titular question is simply regarding the total net effect.
Yes, agreed! But, to calculate the "total net effect", you also need to know how many were 'saved or non-injured' because of guns. You are only accounting for the people killed/injured, and neglecting those saved/not-injured.

You cannot calculate "net effect" with only one variable (or one-side of the equation).
I am not calculating only one side. I am not asking people to calculate only one side. I have no idea how a person even could calculate one side.

I am not only accounting the people killed/injured by guns.

Rather, we are including in the calculation all four of the following:

(1) non-gunowners who were killed or injured (e.g. those who may have been killed or injured because they didn't have guns in the sense that they would have been saved from their death or injury if they had a gun)
(2) non-gunowners who were not killed or injured
(3) gunowners who were killed or injured
(4) gunowners who were not killed or injured (e.g. who may have been saved from death or injury as a result of their gun ownership)

#1 + #2 = 100% of non-gunowners

#3 + #4 = 100% of gunowners

#1 + #2 + #3 + #4 = 100% of people

When I ask for the net effect, it necessarily entails calculating all four of those.

Any study is going to have flaws or limitations. But the flaw or limitations you are mentioning are not flaws or limitations in my question and are not the flaws or limitations in the study provided by another member as evidence of an answer to my question. So far in my opinion that particular meta-analysis is so far the most convincing credible piece of evidence that has been provided so far in this forum topic. (Emphasis of the phrase so far intentional.)
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Beyondthecave
Posts: 117
Joined: July 31st, 2012, 11:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Pinker ala The Better Angels
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the gunowner safer or less safe?

Post by Beyondthecave »

@RJG wrote
But if you live in a small rural Texas town as I do, then 80% + of us own at least one gun, with all of us still alive, and without being a homicide victim. So gun ownership in our town keeps us all very safe (no one wants to mess with us that carry guns).
You may believe high gun ownership rates in the town make all of the people in the town safer. I do not. If we are rational, we should be able to rationally resolve the dispute by looking at the data. I provided that data in my prior two posts. @Teralek also cited a wealth of data. The data show that higher gun ownership rates correlate with higher homicide and suicide death rates. People are generally less safe when factors are present that correlate with higher death rates.
In the garden beyond our cave, lovers of wisdom, nourished by the light of Compassion, flower and bear the fruit of intellectual imagination. Among them, the Indigo Sage sings that the Holy Spirit (Compassion) is the alpha and omega of wisdom.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Gun Control Series Q1 -- Does gun ownership make the GUNOWNER safer or less safe?

Post by RJG »

Scott wrote:Rather, we are including in the calculation all four of the following:

(1) non-gunowners who were killed or injured (e.g. those who may have been killed or injured because they didn't have guns in the sense that they would have been saved from their death or injury if they had a gun)
(2) non-gunowners who were not killed or injured
(3) gunowners who were killed or injured
(4) gunowners who were not killed or injured (e.g. who may have been saved from death or injury as a result of their gun ownership)

#1 + #2 = 100% of non-gunowners

#3 + #4 = 100% of gunowners

#1 + #2 + #3 + #4 = 100% of people

When I ask for the net effect, it necessarily entails calculating all four of those.
What do "non-gunowners" have to do with anything??? --- What do bananas (non-apples) have to with the 'color' (green or redness) of apples?!!! (i.e. "What do non-gunowners have to do with the 'safety' (safer or less safe) of gunowners?")

Note: If you are interested in the 'safety' of "non-gunowners" or of the "whole bowl of fruit", then you need to change your topic question accordingly.

Beyondthecave wrote:You may believe high gun ownership rates in the town make all of the people in the town safer. I do not. If we are rational, we should be able to rationally resolve the dispute by looking at the data. I provided that data in my prior two posts. @Teralek also cited a wealth of data. The data show that higher gun ownership rates correlate with higher homicide and suicide death rates. People are generally less safe when factors are present that correlate with higher death rates.
Yes, but unfortunately this "wealth of data" only shows the death rates and the 'bad' stuff. It only shows the 'cons' (the bad). And if we wish to rationally determine if guns are good or bad, then we need to compare the good with the bad; the 'pros' with the 'cons'. ...for a one-sided singular view of the 'bad', ALWAYS looks bad!
Post Reply

Return to “Final Notice by Van Fleisher”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021