Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply

Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Equality: I want citizens to have the same access to guns as cops under the same general conditions for each (e.g. similar safety training, background checks, minimum age requirements, etc.)
8
47%
Cops Armed; Citizens Disarmed: I want cops and government agents to have access to more powerful guns than similarly trained and similarly qualified citizens.
7
41%
Cops Disarmed; Citizens Armed: I want trained citizens to have have access to more powerful guns than similarly trained cops.
2
12%
 
Total votes: 17

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7162
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Mounce574 wrote: February 21st, 2023, 9:34 am
I am a 5'3 115lb woman. So, no I don't feel like a man because I have never been nor will I ever be a man. I carry one because it makes me secure and capable of eliminating a threat if necessary. I am a veteran and very certain I know how to properly use my weapons appropriately. I do stay inside during storms. Your comparison of a gun is similar to whether a person wears the proper PPE when doing a job. If I don't and something happens to me, it was because I made the choice not to. However, if I was to be mugged on the street and didn't have a gun, is that the same? I don't think so.
Your gun ownership is more likely to hasten your own death by gunfire.
Think that over.
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by ernestm »

Scott wrote: January 24th, 2023, 12:46 am
ernestm wrote: January 19th, 2022, 3:03 pm Well frankly it seems to me the entire argument is misdirected. As to what people 'want,' there is what we 'can do' and what we 'should do.' What we can do is defined by rights in law, and is mistaken for what we should do. What we should do is [...]
I disagree. For reference, I am the OP (Original Poster).

This topic is explicitly and intentionally not about what "should" be done or "ought" to be done, whatever such things mean.

Thus, any mentions or arguments about 'shoulds' or 'oughts' are misdirected/off-topic.

The Original Post contains some very specific points and asks some clear understandable specific questions, none of which have anything to do with 'shoulds' or 'oughts'.

That is, of course, because I don't believe in 'shoulds' and 'oughts'. More on that can be found in my following topics:


- There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

- Do you agree there is no problem of evil?

- The Clarity of Amorality

- How Unassertiveness Leads to Aggression and the Illusion of 'Shoulds' and 'Oughts'

- Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom
Well, that's like asking if I want to die. What I want, alone and by itself, has absolutely bearing whatsoever on what reality is or how it can change. The answers are at the level of responses to a child saying it doesn't want to eat dinner. So I don't think it's particularly useful to consider philosophically. Have a nice day.
mrlefty0706
Premium Member
Posts: 61
Joined: November 3rd, 2022, 10:16 am

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by mrlefty0706 »

We do agree. I want citizens and police to have access to the same guns and no automatic weapons.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5796
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

ernestm wrote: January 19th, 2022, 3:03 pm Well frankly it seems to me the entire argument is misdirected. As to what people 'want,' there is what we 'can do' and what we 'should do.' What we can do is defined by rights in law, and is mistaken for what we should do. What we should do is [...]
Scott wrote: January 24th, 2023, 12:46 am I disagree. For reference, I am the OP (Original Poster).

This topic is explicitly and intentionally not about what "should" be done or "ought" to be done, whatever such things mean.

Thus, any mentions or arguments about 'shoulds' or 'oughts' are misdirected/off-topic.

The Original Post contains some very specific points and asks some clear understandable specific questions, none of which have anything to do with 'shoulds' or 'oughts'.

That is, of course, because I don't believe in 'shoulds' and 'oughts'. More on that can be found in my following topics:


- There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

- Do you agree there is no problem of evil?

- The Clarity of Amorality

- How Unassertiveness Leads to Aggression and the Illusion of 'Shoulds' and 'Oughts'

- Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom
ernestm wrote: February 24th, 2023, 6:07 am Well, that's like asking if I want to die. What I want, alone and by itself, has absolutely bearing whatsoever on what reality is or how it can change. The answers are at the level of responses to a child saying it doesn't want to eat dinner. So I don't think it's particularly useful to consider philosophically.
Insofar as you have absolutely no ability to affect such policies, I agree, since I practice the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting that which I cannot control.

A more complete poll than the one in the Original Post (OP) would be one with a forth option: No preference.
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.
mrlefty0706
Premium Member
Posts: 61
Joined: November 3rd, 2022, 10:16 am

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by mrlefty0706 »

A world without guns would be safer for all, no wars, no crime involving guns, many lives would be saved.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5796
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

mrlefty0706 wrote: March 7th, 2023, 2:03 am A world without guns would be safer for all, no wars, no crime involving guns, many lives would be saved.
With extreme politeness and respect, I think that is clearly not true. War existed long before guns were invented, and the murder rates per capita were much higher back then.

It's easy to imagine why that might be. For example, it is easier, more profitable, and less dangerous to be a viking when the women and farmers you are going to rape and pillage don't have guns. Might might make right, but equal access to simple guns helps equalize might slightly, and thereby reduces raping and pillaging and such. By simple guns, I mean something as simple as a 10-round non-automatic pistol. And by access I do not mean to exclude any limitations in terms of training, age, and licensing that are much different than it takes to get to drive around legally in a car in places like the USA. I'm generally all for limiting access to guns to the same degree and in the same way we limit access to cars.

Cars of course kill a lot more people than guns, especially simple guns like a 10-round non-automatic pistol.

While history shows it is untrue the world would be safer without the invention of guns, the world almost certainly would be safer without cars.

Granted such discussions are purely hypothetical, unless one has a time machine. We cannot undo the invention of guns or cars.

But the terrible destruction caused by the invention and mass rollout of the latter (cars) is something we can learn from, for the the purposes of how we approach new technology today and in the future, such as AI.

In any case, in regard to the titular question and primary subject of this thread, I know we already agree, which is great: We both chose equality as our answer in the 3-question poll in the Original Post (OP). The majority of other respondents also agree with you and I, which is also great. So it appears gun control isn't nearly as divisive of an issue as many would often think. :)
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.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by Belindi »

Scott wrote: March 7th, 2023, 7:03 pm
mrlefty0706 wrote: March 7th, 2023, 2:03 am A world without guns would be safer for all, no wars, no crime involving guns, many lives would be saved.
With extreme politeness and respect, I think that is clearly not true. War existed long before guns were invented, and the murder rates per capita were much higher back then.

It's easy to imagine why that might be. For example, it is easier, more profitable, and less dangerous to be a viking when the women and farmers you are going to rape and pillage don't have guns. Might might make right, but equal access to simple guns helps equalize might slightly, and thereby reduces raping and pillaging and such. By simple guns, I mean something as simple as a 10-round non-automatic pistol. And by access I do not mean to exclude any limitations in terms of training, age, and licensing that are much different than it takes to get to drive around legally in a car in places like the USA. I'm generally all for limiting access to guns to the same degree and in the same way we limit access to cars.

Cars of course kill a lot more people than guns, especially simple guns like a 10-round non-automatic pistol.

While history shows it is untrue the world would be safer without the invention of guns, the world almost certainly would be safer without cars.

Granted such discussions are purely hypothetical, unless one has a time machine. We cannot undo the invention of guns or cars.

But the terrible destruction caused by the invention and mass rollout of the latter (cars) is something we can learn from, for the the purposes of how we approach new technology today and in the future, such as AI.

In any case, in regard to the titular question and primary subject of this thread, I know we already agree, which is great: We both chose equality as our answer in the 3-question poll in the Original Post (OP). The majority of other respondents also agree with you and I, which is also great. So it appears gun control isn't nearly as divisive of an issue as many would often think. :)
If instead of guns the question included all offensive weapons especially knives then the solution would be a lot more weighted in favour of limiting weapons to national defence.

Also recent scientific enquiries about police attitudes show that weapons are safer in police hands if the policemen are properly educated in professional ethics.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5796
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Scott wrote: March 7th, 2023, 7:03 pm War existed long before guns were invented, and the murder rates per capita were much higher back then.

It's easy to imagine why that might be. For example, it is easier, more profitable, and less dangerous to be a viking when the women and farmers you are going to rape and pillage don't have guns. Might might make right, but equal access to simple guns helps equalize might slightly, and thereby reduces raping and pillaging and such. By simple guns, I mean something as simple as a 10-round non-automatic pistol. And by access I do not mean to exclude any limitations in terms of training, age, and licensing that are much different than it takes to get to drive around legally in a car in places like the USA. I'm generally all for limiting access to guns to the same degree and in the same way we limit access to cars.

Cars of course kill a lot more people than guns, especially simple guns like a 10-round non-automatic pistol.
Belindi wrote: March 8th, 2023, 7:22 am
If instead of guns the question included all offensive weapons especially knives then the solution would be a lot more weighted in favour of limiting weapons to national defence.

Also recent scientific enquiries about police attitudes show that weapons are safer in police hands if the policemen are properly educated in professional ethics.
Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply.

Technically, the question in the Original Post (OP) says "guns and weaponry" so if you want neither government agents nor citizens to have guns at all, not even simple tiny low-caliber low-round non-automatic pistols, or even single-round muskets that take multiple minutes to reload from the civil war era, then you could still answer the question, in terms of all weaponry such as dull swords, bows and arrows, and knives, and forks, and spoons. Or really sharp pencils. For example, if you wanted nobody to have guns--not even single-round 100-year-old muskets--but you wanted police to have knives, while citizens like you and I could only have forks but no knives, then you would choose the option to disproportionately disarm citizens and disproportionately arm police.

With that in mind, which of the three options is your answer to the three-question poll in the Original Post (OP)?


Thank you,
Scott
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.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by Belindi »

Scott wrote: March 10th, 2023, 7:51 pm
Scott wrote: March 7th, 2023, 7:03 pm War existed long before guns were invented, and the murder rates per capita were much higher back then.

It's easy to imagine why that might be. For example, it is easier, more profitable, and less dangerous to be a viking when the women and farmers you are going to rape and pillage don't have guns. Might might make right, but equal access to simple guns helps equalize might slightly, and thereby reduces raping and pillaging and such. By simple guns, I mean something as simple as a 10-round non-automatic pistol. And by access I do not mean to exclude any limitations in terms of training, age, and licensing that are much different than it takes to get to drive around legally in a car in places like the USA. I'm generally all for limiting access to guns to the same degree and in the same way we limit access to cars.

Cars of course kill a lot more people than guns, especially simple guns like a 10-round non-automatic pistol.
Belindi wrote: March 8th, 2023, 7:22 am
If instead of guns the question included all offensive weapons especially knives then the solution would be a lot more weighted in favour of limiting weapons to national defence.

Also recent scientific enquiries about police attitudes show that weapons are safer in police hands if the policemen are properly educated in professional ethics.
Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply.

Technically, the question in the Original Post (OP) says "guns and weaponry" so if you want neither government agents nor citizens to have guns at all, not even simple tiny low-caliber low-round non-automatic pistols, or even single-round muskets that take multiple minutes to reload from the civil war era, then you could still answer the question, in terms of all weaponry such as dull swords, bows and arrows, and knives, and forks, and spoons. Or really sharp pencils. For example, if you wanted nobody to have guns--not even single-round 100-year-old muskets--but you wanted police to have knives, while citizens like you and I could only have forks but no knives, then you would choose the option to disproportionately disarm citizens and disproportionately arm police.

With that in mind, which of the three options is your answer to the three-question poll in the Original Post (OP)?


Thank you,
Scott
For your questionnaire I clicked the option to disproportionately disarm citizens and disproportionately arm police.
The questionnaire did not include educating police recruits in professional ethics and the humanities which would make them more efficient human beings. If a specialised group of men are to be given extraordinary power that group needs extraordinary training and education with the focus on ethics.
mrlefty0706
Premium Member
Posts: 61
Joined: November 3rd, 2022, 10:16 am

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by mrlefty0706 »

Hi Belinda, sorry I did not respond sooner. I cannot disagree with your view but I answered the question based on guns, especially automatic weapons. Knives, swords, poisonous gas and rocks have probably killed more people since the beginning of human life than guns but in today's world the removal of guns would significantly lower the murder rate, wars and other deaths caused by gunshot.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8435
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

LuckyR wrote: June 30th, 2022, 3:16 am What makes the police different from most other groups is the denial by the above average cops that the incompetent cops are, in fact, incompetent.
I wouldn't dispute that this is the case, but I would dispute that this is what "makes the police different". They aren't different; they're just the same as the rest of us. All of us do what you describe, wrong though it may be, not just the police, the army, the politicians, or whoever. There is an ancient and historic disapproval of 'snitches', even when 'snitching' is a desirable and necessary act...?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8435
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

mrlefty0706 wrote: January 25th, 2023, 3:24 am I believe that neither the police nor citizens should have powerful guns and weaponry.
Scott wrote: January 26th, 2023, 12:07 pm I think we both agree then with the 3-answer poll question, in that it sounds like we both chose option #1: "Equality: I want citizens to have the same access to guns as cops under the same general conditions for each (e.g. similar safety training, background checks, minimum age requirements, etc.)"
I don't think that is so. I didn't complete the poll because it lacked a fourth option: no-one should have access to killing-tools. I think this missing fourth option is what mrlefty0706 is referring to. It is definitely what I am referring to, and advocating.


Count Lucanor (to Scott) wrote: February 11th, 2023, 10:47 am I could not vote, because I prefer there are no guns for anyone, and that this becomes the gun laws.
Yes, this is my view too.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5796
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Hi, Pattern-chaser and Count Lucanor,

Thank you for your replies! :)

Count Lucanor wrote: February 11th, 2023, 10:47 am I could not vote, because I prefer there are no guns for anyone, and that this becomes the gun laws.
Pattern-chaser wrote: March 21st, 2023, 12:10 pm
mrlefty0706 wrote: January 25th, 2023, 3:24 am I believe that neither the police nor citizens should have powerful guns and weaponry.
Scott wrote: January 26th, 2023, 12:07 pm I think we both agree then with the 3-answer poll question, in that it sounds like we both chose option #1: "Equality: I want citizens to have the same access to guns as cops under the same general conditions for each (e.g. similar safety training, background checks, minimum age requirements, etc.)"
I don't think that is so. I didn't complete the poll because it lacked a fourth option: no-one should have access to killing-tools. I think this missing fourth option is what mrlefty0706 is referring to. It is definitely what I am referring to, and advocating.
#1 -- The titular questions uses the word "weaponry" not "killing-tools". My 11-year-old daughter's huge super sharp kitchen knife is presumably also a weapon and a killing tool. One could much more easily kill with that huge super sharp knife than a BB gun or stungun. In fact, in one-on-one combat to the death, in which I get to choose my weapon from the two options, I'd probably choose my 11-year-old daughter's huge sharp kitchen knife over a weak little low-caliber 5-round non-automatic pistol. Some guns are so weak they really only work on birds not humans, and other guns are non-lethal by design. A gun that would be good for killing a human would typically ruin a bird-eater's dinner if used on the bird. :lol:

#2 -- Regardless, if you would quantify the amount of guns and/or weaponry you want cops and citizens to have as both being zero, then the answer is clearly equality. 0 = 0. In other words, if you don't want cops or citizens to have any weapons at all, including bean bag guns or huge super sharp knives, then the answer is equality. If the amount of guns you want cops to have is zero, and the amount of guns you want citizens to have is zero, then the answer is equality because zero equals zero.

In other words, the "forth option" you state is itself a subset of one of the three options: equality.

If you want cops to have no access to guns, and you want citizens to have no access to guns, then your answer is equality. If both have no access, then both have the same access.

Due to the way math works, the three options are exhaustive, and mutually exclusive.

Either A > B; A < B; or A = B.



Thank you,
Scott
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
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2320
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Scott wrote: March 21st, 2023, 12:36 pm
#2 -- Regardless, if you would quantify the amount of guns and/or weaponry you want cops and citizens to have as both being zero, then the answer is clearly equality. 0 = 0. In other words, if you don't want cops or citizens to have any weapons at all, including bean bag guns or huge super sharp knives, then the answer is equality. If the amount of guns you want cops to have is zero, and the amount of guns you want citizens to have is zero, then the answer is equality because zero equals zero.

In other words, the "forth option" you state is itself a subset of one of the three options: equality.

If you want cops to have no access to guns, and you want citizens to have no access to guns, then your answer is equality. If both have no access, then both have the same access.

Due to the way math works, the three options are exhaustive, and mutually exclusive.

Either A > B; A < B; or A = B.
Not quite so. The "equality" option in the poll states that it implies "the same access to guns as cops". It is not evident that the range includes the amount of zero guns, because cops universally ALREADY have access to guns/weaponry, as the police force has been typically an instrument of repression from the state, which owns the legal monopoly for violence. Note that not carrying guns/weaponry does not imply not having legal access to guns/weaponry.

Since cops have access to guns just by being cops, then the amount of zero guns is not available for citizens in the "equality" option of the poll.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
mrlefty0706
Premium Member
Posts: 61
Joined: November 3rd, 2022, 10:16 am

Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

Post by mrlefty0706 »

I have enjoyed reading the many responses to this question. There are several perspectives and if we remove politics from the equation the best answer significantly reduces the number of people that are hurt or killed by guns each year. When the right to bear arms was added as one of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution guns were single shot muskets not semi-automatic or fully-automatic guns like what exists today. Single shot rifles can be used for hunting and will give the game a fighting chance to survive. If revolvers were the only hand gun available for people to defend their home and family the threat of discharging the gun would probably deter many thieves and assailants. I am not a gun person and I am shocked by the daily gunshot killings and I believe tough gun legislation would significantly reduce these killings. So many innocent victims struck by random shots would be alive today. I personally believe hunting should be by bow and arrow which takes great skill and gives the animal a fighting chance. Wars would undoubtedly continue even if guns were totally removed since they occurred before guns were invented.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

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

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 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

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