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

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.)
1
17%
Cops Armed; Citizens Disarmed: I want cops and government agents to have access to more powerful guns than similarly trained and similarly qualified citizens.
4
67%
Cops Disarmed; Citizens Armed: I want trained citizens to have have access to more powerful guns than similarly trained cops.
1
17%
 
Total votes: 6

AverageBozo
Posts: 339
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

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

Post by AverageBozo »

Robert66 wrote: July 28th, 2021, 8:02 pm
AverageBozo wrote: July 28th, 2021, 8:58 am
Robert66 wrote: July 28th, 2021, 2:44 am
AverageBozo wrote: July 27th, 2021, 3:16 pm The utopian goal is for no one to have weapons of any sort and for there to be no violent crime or no criminals.

My claim is that there is no way to get there. My doubts are evident in the form of the following questions.

What incentives are there for anyone to discard his weapons?

If there’s no effective incentive to eliminate all weapon ownership, what forceful method is available to remove those weapons from the States or from the entire world?

If there were an effective incentive or forceful method to accomplish this, how long would it take to complete the task?

Where would the weapons go to be stored or destroyed? How would that location be secured from would-be looters if not by armed guards?
Who is claiming a utopia with no criminals, violence, or weapons is possible?

There are incentives. A monetary incentive: the government pays you for the weapon you hand in. More importantly the incentive of saving lives. Studies in Australia showed that the large gun buyback has succeeded in preventing hundreds of gun deaths, mostly because many suicidal people no longer had access to a gun. Not having a gun around could also prevent you shooting someone possibly killing them when **** goes down. Of course if you try pointing out these facts (yes facts - proven here in Australia) to a US citizen you will get nowhere because apparently they are unwilling to try and stop the carnage, instead they prefer to believe that every individual is potentially either a threat you need to arm yourself against, or else a hero ready to take out the next mass murderer and prevent the death of a bunch of school kids. There may be another category of people who don't like having more guns than people around, but you never seem to hear from them.

How long? You could start improving the situation immediately. How long until utopia? A very long time. The Great Wall of China took a very long time to build, but more importantly it now exists.
So you are optimistic that we ca reach that goal, or at least come satisfactorily close, around the globe, based on Australia’s experience. Well and good.

I don’t think Americans will ever get there, much for reasons you cite .
No I am answering your question about incentives, and pointing out that regardless of the impossibility or otherwise of reaching the utopia you have described, improvements could be made immediately.
Got it. I should not have overstated your position. I understand that you believe that improvements could be made immediately. To be clear, I don’t think that significant improvements can be made in America at all.
Stoic Spirit
Posts: 15
Joined: July 26th, 2021, 10:03 am

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

Post by Stoic Spirit »

Robert66 wrote: July 28th, 2021, 7:59 pm
Stoic Spirit wrote: July 28th, 2021, 8:37 am
Robert66 wrote: July 28th, 2021, 2:50 am
Stoic Spirit wrote: July 26th, 2021, 10:36 am Either everyone should carry a gun or no one. I agree that it makes no sense to arm police officers among unarmed civilians. Because it's a clear sign that the gun control doesn't work.

But should the nuclear weapons be privatized?:)

SP
Yes of course nuclear weapons should be privatised. Who would trust a government with them? Rich and powerful people should own them . They could trickle them down on us from their spaceships.
The government is exactly the gang of rich and powerful people, with right of initiating a violence on anyone. Everything is already owned by the oligarchic ruling elite, including the citizens. I don't claim that the gun control always leads to genocide, but that's undoubtedly true there's no genocide without gun control. The same rules apply to nuclear weapons. Their existence is unimaginable without their monopoly over guns, means in private ownership.

Thanks for reply

SP
Sorry I don't understand what you are arguing here. Are you arguing that privately owned nuclear weapons are needed to counter an imbalance in the ruling elite which allows government too much power? And that by the same logic everyone should carry a gun?
Yes exactly. You pointed out. Either everyone should carry a gun or noone in order to keep a balance.
But if this would be fulfilled, nuclear weapons would not exist either, because that's a clear sign of imbalance. Don't you understand? the privately owned nuclear weapon is an oxymoron, it contradicts its own existence. Because even the bare existence of nuclear weapons is an ultimate result of the state monopoly over guns, which is imbalance.

SP
ManInTheMoon
Posts: 76
Joined: June 18th, 2021, 1:51 am

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

Post by ManInTheMoon »

I picked the third option.

If there are going to be tax funded government police, there should be precautions to prevent them from being able to enforce unjust laws or harass innocent people. I would think they should be disarmed, so they can't use intimidation or force.

If police ever are allowed to use force, they should be held personally responsible for any costs and consequences. They should definitely not have any special privileges or powers above the people they're supposedly protecting.
WanderingGaze22
Posts: 172
Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am

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

Post by WanderingGaze22 »

I have thought long and hard about all the tragedies surrounding law enforcement and I have come to the conclusion that it might be better if weaponry of certain classes be handled more securely and within the laws. I have considered those that strongly support the 2nd amendment and feel that committees comprised of respectable, analytical community pillars with experience should evaluate the weaponry and consider the outcome. Anyway this looks, people have always developed ways to counteract guns and do have a right to know what exists and what is available in accordance to state laws. Worst case scenario however implies significant amounts of casualties and intense protests against weaponry. So if the old adage remains true, all that needs to be done is speak softly and carry a big stick, we can come up with something for sure.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1477
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 »

I would vote for this option:

Equality: I want citizens and cops to have no access to guns or any other lethal weapon, which should be banned from society. Enforcement agents could have privileged access to any other technology designed to disrupt violent behavior.
Stoic Spirit
Posts: 15
Joined: July 26th, 2021, 10:03 am

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

Post by Stoic Spirit »

The problem is that the gun control hurts those who follow rules and respect law, and has no effect on outlawers. All armed crimes are committed against the unarmed people, in gun free zones. The gun control restricts those who would never commit crime, because the authority has no control on criminals and terrorists, who are outside of legal system by default. I ask why the cops need a gun if they can only intervene when it’s too late. Making records over the cooled corpses of victims does not require weapon. Only the victims would need gun desperately and those who respect law and follow rules. Or we have to admit the self defense is not a human right. There's absolutely no other way around.

SP
Steve3007
Posts: 10351
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

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

Post by Steve3007 »

Count Lucanor wrote:I would vote for this option:

Equality: I want citizens and cops to have no access to guns or any other lethal weapon, which should be banned from society. Enforcement agents could have privileged access to any other technology designed to disrupt violent behavior.
"Phasers on stun" eh? In a world of ever developing technology this is an increasingly viable idea. The idea of carrying a weapon with the intention of stopping violence but which has a high probability of inflicting death or life-changing injury will perhaps seem more and more absurd.
Stoic Spirit wrote:All armed crimes are committed against the unarmed people, in gun free zones.
Yes, that is inevitably true if the unarmed people are not breaking the law prohibiting the carrying of guns, although of course there could be plenty of armed crimes committed again people who are breaking that law. But if, for the sake of argument, the number of armed crimes in the gun-free zone was far fewer than the number in the gun-filled zone, would you see the sense in gun-free zones?

I myself live in what is essentially a gun-free zone. That also means that the police don't routinely carry guns. In that environment, it seems, the vast majority of criminals don't feel the need to carry guns. Can you see why?
Memaw18
Posts: 14
Joined: November 7th, 2021, 4:38 am

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

Post by Memaw18 »

This is a tricky question/poll. I'd rather have both or equality. Whether we like it or not, both have the possibility to take advantage but both can use advanced guns or armory if there will be a zombie apocalypse or wars.
Steve3007
Posts: 10351
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

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

Post by Steve3007 »

Memaw18 wrote:This is a tricky question/poll. I'd rather have both or equality.
That equality, in which all sides have roughly equal firepower, is the state of equilibrium towards which arms races strive. If one side has a given level of firepower then other sides generally tend to move towards a similar level. So I think the most relevant question is: What do we want that level to be?

As I said in my last post here, it seems that as a general rule cops, citizens and criminals will tend to move towards the same level. In a society where one group carries guns routinely, all groups are more likely to carry guns routinely. And the converse is also true. The same goes for other types of weapons.
Stoic Spirit
Posts: 15
Joined: July 26th, 2021, 10:03 am

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

Post by Stoic Spirit »

Today, a criminal or a terrorist can get unhindered from anywhere in the world to the door of your house and no one can stand in their way. Today, anyone who wants to kill you, will succeed. The cops won't prevent them doing so. This is the reality of the world today. The reality of mass societies, where no one belongs to anywhere. You can think about how much of the tax you paid will protect you.

Before modernism, a trespasser was soon in trouble when they were found in the territory of others with no invitation: "Who are you? What a hell are you doing in my land, homestead, village, canton?" How could the one who wanted to harm you through dozens of small estates, the little cantons, and states get to you if they got stuck at first? Not to mention you weren't unarmed either. It worked, although the protection was provided by amateurs, not professionals. The reason for this, that the protection was individualistic, not collective.

How to react centrally to an attack that does not come centrally? How can we be protected from aliens collectively, against aliens who attack us individually?

The weapon is like the first aid box in the cars, averting the immediate danger until the experts arrive.

One who denies the importance of this does not want us to be protected: e.g criminals, and politicians.

SP
AverageBozo
Posts: 339
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

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

Post by AverageBozo »

Stoic Spirit wrote: December 5th, 2021, 4:23 am Today, a criminal or a terrorist can get unhindered from anywhere in the world to the door of your house and no one can stand in their way. Today, anyone who wants to kill you, will succeed. The cops won't prevent them doing so. This is the reality of the world today. The reality of mass societies, where no one belongs to anywhere. You can think about how much of the tax you paid will protect you.

Before modernism, a trespasser was soon in trouble when they were found in the territory of others with no invitation: "Who are you? What a hell are you doing in my land, homestead, village, canton?" How could the one who wanted to harm you through dozens of small estates, the little cantons, and states get to you if they got stuck at first? Not to mention you weren't unarmed either. It worked, although the protection was provided by amateurs, not professionals. The reason for this, that the protection was individualistic, not collective.

How to react centrally to an attack that does not come centrally? How can we be protected from aliens collectively, against aliens who attack us individually?

The weapon is like the first aid box in the cars, averting the immediate danger until the experts arrive.

One who denies the importance of this does not want us to be protected: e.g criminals, and politicians.

SP
and those who believe murder is wrong. A pacifist who kills someone would likely rather have died than killed.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 5904
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

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

Post by LuckyR »

Stoic Spirit wrote: December 5th, 2021, 4:23 am Today, a criminal or a terrorist can get unhindered from anywhere in the world to the door of your house and no one can stand in their way. Today, anyone who wants to kill you, will succeed. The cops won't prevent them doing so. This is the reality of the world today. The reality of mass societies, where no one belongs to anywhere. You can think about how much of the tax you paid will protect you.

Before modernism, a trespasser was soon in trouble when they were found in the territory of others with no invitation: "Who are you? What a hell are you doing in my land, homestead, village, canton?" How could the one who wanted to harm you through dozens of small estates, the little cantons, and states get to you if they got stuck at first? Not to mention you weren't unarmed either. It worked, although the protection was provided by amateurs, not professionals. The reason for this, that the protection was individualistic, not collective.

How to react centrally to an attack that does not come centrally? How can we be protected from aliens collectively, against aliens who attack us individually?

The weapon is like the first aid box in the cars, averting the immediate danger until the experts arrive.

One who denies the importance of this does not want us to be protected: e.g criminals, and politicians.

SP
Several things.

First, the majority of murders are by folks the victim knew, not strangers. Therefore the second paragraph goes up in smoke.

Second, the best way to avoid a stranger murder attempt (which do happen on occasion), isn't a weapon, or a law enforcement officer. It is living your life in such a way that you aren't on the radar of murderers, who, BTW are not average citizens.

Because of the first two, the only way a firearm is going to have a greater chance of providing protection than harm to you (since they can do both at known rates), is if you are at so high of a risk of being murdered that you have other problems you should be addressing besides firearms.
"As usual... it depends."
Stoic Spirit
Posts: 15
Joined: July 26th, 2021, 10:03 am

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

Post by Stoic Spirit »

LuckyR wrote: December 6th, 2021, 3:12 am
Stoic Spirit wrote: December 5th, 2021, 4:23 am Today, a criminal or a terrorist can get unhindered from anywhere in the world to the door of your house and no one can stand in their way. Today, anyone who wants to kill you, will succeed. The cops won't prevent them doing so. This is the reality of the world today. The reality of mass societies, where no one belongs to anywhere. You can think about how much of the tax you paid will protect you.

Before modernism, a trespasser was soon in trouble when they were found in the territory of others with no invitation: "Who are you? What a hell are you doing in my land, homestead, village, canton?" How could the one who wanted to harm you through dozens of small estates, the little cantons, and states get to you if they got stuck at first? Not to mention you weren't unarmed either. It worked, although the protection was provided by amateurs, not professionals. The reason for this, that the protection was individualistic, not collective.

How to react centrally to an attack that does not come centrally? How can we be protected from aliens collectively, against aliens who attack us individually?

The weapon is like the first aid box in the cars, averting the immediate danger until the experts arrive.

One who denies the importance of this does not want us to be protected: e.g criminals, and politicians.

SP
Several things.

First, the majority of murders are by folks the victim knew, not strangers. Therefore the second paragraph goes up in smoke.

Second, the best way to avoid a stranger murder attempt (which do happen on occasion), isn't a weapon, or a law enforcement officer. It is living your life in such a way that you aren't on the radar of murderers, who, BTW are not average citizens.

Because of the first two, the only way a firearm is going to have a greater chance of providing protection than harm to you (since they can do both at known rates), is if you are at so high of a risk of being murdered that you have other problems you should be addressing besides firearms.
Hopefully you are lucky enough and you do not live in such an area at high risk of terror as so many people can't afford to live elsewhere. In Israel passers-by open fire on terrorists as one man. These are not normal conditions, I know, but if the same happens in Europe, well, people will have to wait for the counter-terrorist forces to arrive on the scene, but in the meantime, eighty to a hundred people will die.

I think terrorists and criminals deserve to talk to them in their own language. And the victims would deserve to be able to fight back. If predators are lurking around us we have to be armed. The solution is not to run away. We cannot escape forever.

If you live in 'normal' country the risk is enormously low to be a victim of terrorism and crime, indeed, but the same rules apply. it can happen to anyone that you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and you need to be prepared for that, because it's technically and infrastructurally possible for the reason mentioned above, and everyone has only one life.

SP
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 5904
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

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

Post by LuckyR »

Stoic Spirit wrote: December 18th, 2021, 11:32 am
LuckyR wrote: December 6th, 2021, 3:12 am
Stoic Spirit wrote: December 5th, 2021, 4:23 am Today, a criminal or a terrorist can get unhindered from anywhere in the world to the door of your house and no one can stand in their way. Today, anyone who wants to kill you, will succeed. The cops won't prevent them doing so. This is the reality of the world today. The reality of mass societies, where no one belongs to anywhere. You can think about how much of the tax you paid will protect you.

Before modernism, a trespasser was soon in trouble when they were found in the territory of others with no invitation: "Who are you? What a hell are you doing in my land, homestead, village, canton?" How could the one who wanted to harm you through dozens of small estates, the little cantons, and states get to you if they got stuck at first? Not to mention you weren't unarmed either. It worked, although the protection was provided by amateurs, not professionals. The reason for this, that the protection was individualistic, not collective.

How to react centrally to an attack that does not come centrally? How can we be protected from aliens collectively, against aliens who attack us individually?

The weapon is like the first aid box in the cars, averting the immediate danger until the experts arrive.

One who denies the importance of this does not want us to be protected: e.g criminals, and politicians.

SP
Several things.

First, the majority of murders are by folks the victim knew, not strangers. Therefore the second paragraph goes up in smoke.

Second, the best way to avoid a stranger murder attempt (which do happen on occasion), isn't a weapon, or a law enforcement officer. It is living your life in such a way that you aren't on the radar of murderers, who, BTW are not average citizens.

Because of the first two, the only way a firearm is going to have a greater chance of providing protection than harm to you (since they can do both at known rates), is if you are at so high of a risk of being murdered that you have other problems you should be addressing besides firearms.
Hopefully you are lucky enough and you do not live in such an area at high risk of terror as so many people can't afford to live elsewhere. In Israel passers-by open fire on terrorists as one man. These are not normal conditions, I know, but if the same happens in Europe, well, people will have to wait for the counter-terrorist forces to arrive on the scene, but in the meantime, eighty to a hundred people will die.

I think terrorists and criminals deserve to talk to them in their own language. And the victims would deserve to be able to fight back. If predators are lurking around us we have to be armed. The solution is not to run away. We cannot escape forever.

If you live in 'normal' country the risk is enormously low to be a victim of terrorism and crime, indeed, but the same rules apply. it can happen to anyone that you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and you need to be prepared for that, because it's technically and infrastructurally possible for the reason mentioned above, and everyone has only one life.

SP
Well, you are correct that you only have one life. Thus it is odd you aren't addressing the known risks of firearms in increasing the risk of accidents and suicides. You are also correct that I personally live in a "normal" country as I suspect the vast majority of posters on this Forum do. I mentioned that if your risk of stranger murder and/or terrorism is so high to outweigh the known risk to the owner of gun possession, then (and only then) should you use safety as your reason for gun ownership. Naturally there are numerous non safety reasons, but we're not discussing those here. You are correct that regardless of where you live you "need to be prepared for" the possibility of crime, but it is an error to suppose that the only or best way to prepare is by acquiring an instrument that has a higher statistical chance of harming your family than protecting you.
"As usual... it depends."
Stoic Spirit
Posts: 15
Joined: July 26th, 2021, 10:03 am

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

Post by Stoic Spirit »

LuckyR wrote: December 18th, 2021, 4:13 pm
Stoic Spirit wrote: December 18th, 2021, 11:32 am
LuckyR wrote: December 6th, 2021, 3:12 am
Stoic Spirit wrote: December 5th, 2021, 4:23 am Today, a criminal or a terrorist can get unhindered from anywhere in the world to the door of your house and no one can stand in their way. Today, anyone who wants to kill you, will succeed. The cops won't prevent them doing so. This is the reality of the world today. The reality of mass societies, where no one belongs to anywhere. You can think about how much of the tax you paid will protect you.

Before modernism, a trespasser was soon in trouble when they were found in the territory of others with no invitation: "Who are you? What a hell are you doing in my land, homestead, village, canton?" How could the one who wanted to harm you through dozens of small estates, the little cantons, and states get to you if they got stuck at first? Not to mention you weren't unarmed either. It worked, although the protection was provided by amateurs, not professionals. The reason for this, that the protection was individualistic, not collective.

How to react centrally to an attack that does not come centrally? How can we be protected from aliens collectively, against aliens who attack us individually?

The weapon is like the first aid box in the cars, averting the immediate danger until the experts arrive.

One who denies the importance of this does not want us to be protected: e.g criminals, and politicians.

SP
Several things.

First, the majority of murders are by folks the victim knew, not strangers. Therefore the second paragraph goes up in smoke.

Second, the best way to avoid a stranger murder attempt (which do happen on occasion), isn't a weapon, or a law enforcement officer. It is living your life in such a way that you aren't on the radar of murderers, who, BTW are not average citizens.

Because of the first two, the only way a firearm is going to have a greater chance of providing protection than harm to you (since they can do both at known rates), is if you are at so high of a risk of being murdered that you have other problems you should be addressing besides firearms.
Hopefully you are lucky enough and you do not live in such an area at high risk of terror as so many people can't afford to live elsewhere. In Israel passers-by open fire on terrorists as one man. These are not normal conditions, I know, but if the same happens in Europe, well, people will have to wait for the counter-terrorist forces to arrive on the scene, but in the meantime, eighty to a hundred people will die.

I think terrorists and criminals deserve to talk to them in their own language. And the victims would deserve to be able to fight back. If predators are lurking around us we have to be armed. The solution is not to run away. We cannot escape forever.

If you live in 'normal' country the risk is enormously low to be a victim of terrorism and crime, indeed, but the same rules apply. it can happen to anyone that you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and you need to be prepared for that, because it's technically and infrastructurally possible for the reason mentioned above, and everyone has only one life.

SP
Well, you are correct that you only have one life. Thus it is odd you aren't addressing the known risks of firearms in increasing the risk of accidents and suicides. You are also correct that I personally live in a "normal" country as I suspect the vast majority of posters on this Forum do. I mentioned that if your risk of stranger murder and/or terrorism is so high to outweigh the known risk to the owner of gun possession, then (and only then) should you use safety as your reason for gun ownership. Naturally there are numerous non safety reasons, but we're not discussing those here. You are correct that regardless of where you live you "need to be prepared for" the possibility of crime, but it is an error to suppose that the only or best way to prepare is by acquiring an instrument that has a higher statistical chance of harming your family than protecting you.
I also would like to live in a world where no guns are needed, in a totally gun free world, but sadly this is not that world. I do not deny that there may be a problem with the possession of a firearm, just as a kitchen knife or car is responsible for many accidents, but I cannot understand how this could be a bigger problem than that the victims of a crime or terrorist attack do not have an effective means to defend themselves. Of course there are people who shouldn't hold gun, because they are mentally unstable or unfit. But I am not talking about them, but about responsible, innocent law-abiding citizens whose rights to effective self-defense are being violated in many countries, and who would never obtain a weapon from illegal sources like criminals and terrorists do.

SP
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

Upcoming Philosphy 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)

Living in Color

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

Previous 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