Oscar seems to have revitalised the gun control advocates who daily render a deluge of misinformation to the public and media. Some in ignorance of the facts but all from gun control is correctly described as propaganda selling hate and fear of guns to the public. Like sharks they can smell blood from miles away. Gun control would have us believe this question is unanswered or in doubt. The public in fear of being shot quiver in fright and horror as gun control and government feed the public with irrelevant and misleading information. Relating horror stories and graphical descriptions of the trauma of the victims who's blood they now bask in. Parading rehearsed victims still in shock and getting them to weep and wail how bad guns are and this would never have happened if... Then the "facts" are presented and guess what we now have a new class of crime invented by gun control in order to get around some very inconvenient facts. "Gun crime" fits the bill as now gun control can discard all those nasty inconvenient things were substitution takes place or criminals no longer need a gun to face disarmed victims. A knife will now do nicely for what a gun was previously needed for. In particular where a crime committed with a firearm carries a higher sentence. Criminals are not stupid. In order to actually have a debate the evidence must be in doubt or very scanty indeed. A review of of the available evidence was exactly what the National Academy of Sciences did. This prestigious organisation examined 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, 80 gun-control laws, plus their own studies. Its findings are published in a 328-page report. It could find no evidence to support the conclusion that government restrictions on firearms reduces gun crime, gun violence and gun accidents. Nor was this finding isolated or a mistake. The CDC a known gun control propaganda factory which had its funding cut by congress for wasting tax payers money conducted its own research to reverse that congressional funding cut. In October 2003, the Centre for Disease Control concluded after examining its selected best 52 studies, papers and laws, there is no meaningful proof gun control efforts have any affect on crime control. Nor is this information new or unknown. The Carter administration intending to build a case for comprehensive federal gun restrictions handed out a major research grant to professor James D. Wright and his colleagues Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly. Wright and his colleagues were asked to survey the state of research regarding the efficacy of gun control, presumably to show that gun control worked and that America needed more of it. When the researchers produced their report for the National Institute of Justice in 1982, they delivered a document quite different from the one they had expected to write. Carefully reviewing all existing research, the three scholars found no valid evidence that America’s 20,000 gun-control laws had reduced criminal violence. By now it has become quite obvious that there are no reputable valid competing studies that show a different outcome. Or that some gun control measures work but not others. That gun control does not work in one country but will work in others. Gun control is a complete lie. The only question that remains is why is nobody aware of this fact and how are organisations like the SAPS, government and gun control given credibility and coverage for what there is no evidence to support, gun-control. Is public safety, the lives and well being of everyone including children so easily thrown aside by the SAPS, government and the media in order to promote the falsity of gun-control? The current claims that there is some success of gun control has absolutely no evidence other than the tainted biased utterances of gun control and governments. None that a number of prestigious very reputable research organisations and researchers could find. Where is the debate? What is in doubt? Based on the available evidence for what possible reason could anyone demand gun control or gun control laws? What would be the valid justification?