Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Mass Shootings’

What The REAL Problem Is Behind Mass Shooting, Hint: It’s Not Gun Laws


Posted By 

URL of the original posting site: https://redrightvideos.com/what-the-real-problem-is-behind-mass-shooting-hint-its-not-gun-laws/

President of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins appeared for an interview on Fox News to discuss the recent shooting in Texas.

Perkins said,

Well, I’m willing as a former police officer and an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, I’m willing to sit down with the Left who say, “I don’t want to hear any more about your prayers.” Well, I agree. Praying alone is not enough. It’s time to act, and it’s not just about having a conversation about restricting those who should not have guns, criminals, but it’s also a discussion of the absence of a moral core in our culture today.
I mean, look, we’ve taught our kids that they come about by chance through primordial slime and then we’re surprised that they treat their fellow Americans like dirt.
It’s time we talk about the result of the Left’s systematic march through our institutions driving religious expression from the public square. I think we have to go back to the point where we instill in these children – at least give them the opportunity to know that they’re created in the image of God, therefore they have inherent value, and as the first president United States said, “Don’t think that we can have morality without religion.” We’ve driven religion from our public life, and we’re shocked that we no longer have morality and we no longer value human life.

Todd Piro then brought on Corey Brooks who is pastor of New Beginnings Church in Chicago, Illinois

Brooks elaborated further,

I agree a lot with with Tony just said. The fact that morality is at a … low in America right now, we have to do everything we can to make sure that we turn America back toward God. It’s unfortunate that in so many institutions, God has been forced out of the equation and as a result, you see individuals throughout America who have emptiness – whether you’re dealing with the kid in Texas or a kid on the block in Chicago – a lot of these young people have emptiness inside; they’re needing attention affirmation, and acceptance, and until we get that settled, and no matter how many laws we do, no matter how restrictive we make it – Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws, but yet we still have a high surge of violence – that is because we’re lacking in morality.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Pin Head

Democrats routinely overlook the real cause of mass murder, mental health, and choose to blame something more politically expedient like President Trump and law-abiding gun owners.
Mass Murder Blame GamePolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco cartoons at FlagAnd Cross.com here.

An adult children’s Book for all ages APOCALI NOW! brilliantly lampoons the left. ODER >  HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

take our poll – story continues below
  • Who do you believe is the most intolerable member of congress?

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Wednesday November 8, 2017


This Pic DESTROYS The ‘Mass Shootings Are A WHITE Male Problem’


Published by ClashDaily.com | on October 6, 2017

URL of the original posting site: https://clashdaily.com/2017/10/pic-destroys-mass-shootings-white-male-problem/?

It only takes a well-placed pinprick to pop the liberal narrative. You’d think these guys, when crafting a lie, would be careful not to make one that’s easily disproven.

But maybe not… after all, the left has had a lock on the media for so long, they thought they could say whatever they pleased.

That’s why Zimmerman could be excoriated as a ‘white Hispanic’ (despite his mother being Peruvian with some African ancestry) at the same time that any criticism of President Obama or his policies (who also had one white parent) was dismissed as racist.

For eight years, no mention was ever made by the media of Obama’s maternal ancestry.

The reason is obvious. Race is politicized, and worse, weaponized.

No wonder the Left loves to make sweeping claims about mass shooters being a ‘white male problem’.

It distracts from conversations about jihadis… or the mounting death toll in Chicago, etcetera.

The Left’s knee-jerk reaction is to blame race. But is that reaction right? Or fair? Does it miss the REAL problem?

Colorado Teachers Get Firearm Training, Will Be Armed in Future


Reported By Andrew West |  June 22, 2017

The argument by many is that “gun free” school zones do nothing to deter the criminally-armed from committing whatever heinous acts they wish.  After all, they are criminals who are not concerned with any sort of legal obstacle to their expressed purpose.  The lack of firearms on school campuses only serves to enhance the efficiency of their horrific schemes, as victims are forced to rely purely on the ability of first responders to arrive, assess, and arrest the assailant before the damage can be done.

One possible solution has risen above them all, in terms of common sense and efficacy:  Arming teachers.  A well-trained teacher could mean the difference between life and death in these incidents, not to mention that the deterrent effect of having this simple safeguard in place would prevent a great number of school shooters from even attempting their day of rage.

Now, as Colorado prepares to arm their own educating populace, many are heading to the gun range for specialized training.

“Over a three-day session, 17 school personnel will be taught at a Weld County range near Denver on how to become ‘armed first responders.’

“They will be taught by the ‘Faculty Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response’ group or FASTER, for short.

“The ‘FASTER’ group was founded in response to the devastating 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

“They say the training won’t replace police, but it will help ‘stop school violence rapidly.’ The program also teaches medical aid.”

Colorado, of course, has a dark history of modern mass shootings, with two of the most prominent American examples occurring within the state.

  • In 1999, the modern school shooting was born in Columbine, Colorado, as two high school students planned and executed a massive takeover of their campus in which they shot and killed 13 members of the school and then themselves.  For many Americans, the Columbine Massacre, as it became known, was the first such incident of its kind, sparking a debate over how best to prevent any future similar incidents.
  • Thirteen years later, James Holmes entered a packed movie theater in Aurora, Colorado carrying several firearms, and began indiscriminately firing into a crowd of Batman fans.  This incident saw 12 killed merely 22 miles from Columbine.  Holmes was arrested at the scene without putting up a fight.

In both cases, a “good guy with a gun” would have easily been able to limit the damage done by the perpetrators.

Obama LIES About Guns and Islamic Terrorism — Why Won’t the Media Say This?


waving flagWritten by Rob Morse on July 29, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/07/obama-lies-guns-islamic-terrorism-wont-media-say/

Only in America can a Socialist politician feel sure that his lies will go unquestioned by the news media. Too many Americans believe these lies, both from the President and our media. Those lies are getting Americans killed.

In 2009, President Barack Obama said, “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” The evidence says otherwise.

I can understand missing a few incidents, but by November 4th of that year, Muslims had committed 1682 violent attacks. That wasn’t enough of a clue for President Obama. The next day, November, 5th, a Muslim officer in the US Army shot and killed 13 servicemen at Fort Hood, Texas while shouting “allahu akbar”. The officer had been under investigation as a security threat, but the investigation was closed because the officer was Muslim. The Obama administration called the attack “workplace violence.”

It wasn’t workplace violence. It was religious terrorism. US soldiers paid with their lives while Obama hid behind political correctness.

In January of 2015, two Muslim brothers walked into the office of a French humor magazine Charlie Hebdo. The two terrorists murdered 12 people and injured 11 more with guns they had obtained illegally. French citizens are not allowed to carry firearms for self-defense. The victims died unarmed and defenseless.

In June of that year, an avowed racist with a criminal history passed his FBI background check and bought a gun in South Carolina. He shot 9 people in a black church. Carolina law made the church a gun free zone, so the victims were disarmed. President Obama said, “At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.” I’ve already shown you evidence the president ignored. The president lied and the major media never exposed him.

In July of 2015, an Oregon college student passed several background checks and bought several rifles. He then asked his fellow students if they were Christians. He shot his victims in the head if they said, “Yes.” The attack occurred on a junior college campus that is another gun free zone. Not even the one security guard was armed.

Responding to the attack, President Obama said, “The United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws.” The president lied again. We have some 23 thousand firearms laws here in the US. The problem is not an absence of laws and regulations. Far from it. The problem is that murdering terrorists don’t, and won’t, obey gun laws. They never have. Not here in the US, and not anywhere else. That shouldn’t come as news to anyone. Let me show you more.Disarmed Citizenry

President Obama ignored the fact that criminals ignore gun laws. both in the United States and in other “advanced nations.” Our ignorance of European violence does not mean Europe is a safe place. There were 18 attacks by Muslim terrorists in Europe during the preceding 12 months. The terrorists used illegal weapons to kill and maim their disarmed victims. I mention the victims because most European citizens are denied the legal right to carry a firearm for self-defense. They are denied the right to keep a firearm accessible in their home. That is the same “gun control” that President Obama wants to import into the United States. Failure never stopped our President.

A mentally ill man got a gun and shot three innocent victims in a Louisiana movie Theater. As I mentioned, criminals and crazies don’t obey gun laws. President Obama said, “We are the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months.” I’ve showed you the contrary facts that violence is both widespread and frequent. Why didn’t the media tell you that?

A few months later, 9 Muslim terrorists attacked three separate targets in and near Paris, France. The terrorists again stabbed, shot, tortured and bombed their way through innocent and unarmed victims. The terrorists killed 137 people and injured an additional 368. That terrorism is not confined to Europe. We have it here in the United States.

In San Bernardino, California, a Muslim immigrant couple murdered 14 people and wounded an additional 24 at a year-end Christmas party. The office Christmas party was held at a “gun-free zone” so the victims were legally disarmed. Terrorists don’t obey gun free zone signs… even in California. The death toll would have been much higher but the bombs the terrorists left behind failed to detonate.Criminals and Dictators

The terrorists had been screened several times by the FBI. They had no criminal history and bought their firearms legally in California. Background checks don’t stop terrorists, but that didn’t stop our president from proposing more of them.

President Obama said, “…we don’t know why they did it… We do not know their motivations… And we’re going to have to, I think, search ourselves as a society to make sure that we can take basic steps that would make it harder — not impossible, but harder — for individuals to get access to weapons.”Leftist Propagandist

Mister President, California gun laws already made it extremely hard for an honest civilian to buy a firearm. Disarming honest civilians hasn’t stopped terrorists at all

In Orlando, Florida, a Muslim terrorists killed 49 victims and injured an additional 50 people at the Pulse nightclub. The murderer called 911 to announced his allegiance to ISIS and his dedication to Allah. The club was another “gun free zone” so the victims were disarmed by Florida law.

The murderer was a security contractor for the TSA. He had been reported for suspicious behavior by colleagues at work and by gun store employees. They contacted the FBI… who did nothing. The murderer passed several security background checks.

President Obama said “…our politics have conspired to make it as easy as possible for a terrorist or just a disturbed individual like those in Aurora and Newtown to buy extraordinarily powerful weapons… and they can do so legally.” The murderer used a 22 caliber rifle and a 9mm handgun. Neither is considered to be a high powered cartridge. The rifle was not an AR, and had no parts in common with an AR rifle. Facts don’t matter when you can tell unchallenged lies.dangerously delisional

The president wasn’t done blaming firearms for the actions of terrorists. President Obama said, “We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.” Even the Washington Post called him a liar.

Within a month, Muslim terrorists would kill and injure hundreds more as they ran over families on a boardwalk in Nice, France and shot youngsters in a McDonald’s restaurant in Munich, Germany. Our President finds it easy to lie, but difficult to reach an obvious truth.

The American news media will never call President Obama a liar, but I will. I’ve shown you that he is. Why is this news to some?

About the author: Rob Morse

Rob Morse is a high tech geek who left California for Louisiana. He writes and podcasts about technology and society.
Hey Leftist fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Ann Coulter Letter: How Does Immigration Reduce Mass Shootings?


waving flagCommentary by  Ann Coulter  | 

How Does Immigration Reduce Mass Shootings?

With the media frantically hiding the content of Donald Trump’s terrorism speech from last week, he should respond to every question with the central point of that speech: How does this kind of immigration make our country better? How does it make the country safer?

Media: Show us your tax returns! 

Trump: Show me how our immigration policies are good for the people who already live here.

Media: Tell us why you fired Corey Lewandowski!

Trump: Tell me how our immigration policies are making the country safer for the people who already live here.

Media: How are you going to match Hillary’s corporate fundraising?

Trump: How are our immigration policies helping the people who already live here?

Sooner or later people will say, “That’s a good question — why is this necessary?”

When the Third World immigrants admitted under Sen. Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act — as well as their children — commit mass murder, the government and media tell us it’s a gun problem. Or it’s “our” culture. Or it’s “homophobia.” Or we have to keep admitting millions of Muslims because otherwise the ones already here will REALLY hate us.

Isn’t that extortion? We’ve already admitted millions of Muslim immigrants, but if we don’t take in millions more, the ones we’ve admitted will go on killing sprees?

How did we get in the position where we’re screwed if we’re not in the good graces of the Muslim community? Maybe we should stop doing that.

As any competent health professional will tell you, prevention is always better than a cure. No one says, Go ahead and have sex with that syphilitic whore — we’ve got a cure! You don’t need to worry about a leaky roof — we’ve got mops!

They know that’s not a good argument, which is why the media refuse to tell you what Trump actually said in his terrorism speech.

Like defendants with a losing case being forced to cough up bits of discovery, it took the FBI a week to release a redacted transcript of the Orlando shooter’s 911 call pledging allegiance to ISIS. Even then, the first version came from George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth: “I pledge allegiance to (omitted), may God protect him (in Arabic), on behalf of (omitted).”

That was too much even for Speaker Paul “That’s Not Who We Are” Ryan, prompting the FBI to produce the full version of at least one of Omar’s calls. (It turns out, he wasn’t pledging allegiance to Wayne LaPierre or Phyllis Schlafly.)

To hide the epidemic of immigrant mass murders, all the lists have to include massacres from a time when there weren’t many immigrants here — before Kennedy’s Immigration Act had fully kicked in and overwhelmed our country with the Third World. Fox News ran a chart compiled by Mother Jones magazine that includes mass shootings from the 1980s. Why not the 1960s? Why not include Bonnie and Clyde?

Could we look at mass murders from the last decade?

Those include:

2016: Orlando, Florida, second-generation Afghan immigrant Omar Mateen — 49 dead;

2015: San Bernardino, California, first- and second-generation Pakistani immigrants Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook — 14 dead;

2015: Chattanooga, Tennessee, Kuwaiti immigrant Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez — 5 dead;

2014: Isla Vista, California, half-Malaysian immigrant from England, Elliot Rodger — 6 dead;

2013: The Boston Marathon, Chechen immigrants Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev — 4 dead;

2009: Fort Hood, Texas, Palestinian second-generation immigrant Nidal Hasan — 13 dead;

2009: Binghamton, New York, Vietnamese immigrant Jiverly Wong — 13 dead;

2007: Virginia Tech, South Korean immigrant Seung-Hui Cho — 32 dead.

In the same time period, about a half-dozen mass murders were committed by American white men in their own country, where — despite Teddy Kennedy’s best efforts — they far outnumber Vietnamese, Pakistanis and Afghans.

All the American shooters were visible nut cases who never should have been let out of a straitjacket. Their psychotic episodes wouldn’t even count as mass shootings if committed by immigrants. Pakistani Naveed Haq’s 2006 mass shooting at the Seattle Jewish Federation, for example, isn’t generally included on lists of terrorist attacks because, according to his parents, he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was on lithium.

Why do we need this? How are our current immigration policies helping the people who already live here? How are they making our country better, stronger, safer?

The operation to remake our country began with lies and has been sustained with lies ever since. Teddy Kennedy swore up and down that his 1965 Immigration Act would preserve America’s traditional “ethnic mix” and would not “inundate” our country with people from “deprived nations.”

In fact, his law brought in the poorest of the poor, from the most dysfunctional cultures in the world, and effected the most dramatic demographic transformation of any nation in all of human history.

But today, you’re Hitler if you support Teddy Kennedy’s original claims about his own bill.

When tolerance becomes a one way street Prayer for revival Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

More Mass Shootings & Mass Murders Occurred Under Hussein Obama than the Previous 4 Presidents Combined


waving flagWritten by

URL of the original posting site: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/12/more-mass-shootings-mass-murders-occurred-under-hussein-obama-than-the-previous-4-presidents-combined/#MfoYJaAYxktgEWdq.99

It’s amazing how much we see and how much we forget. Mass shootings and mass murder is nothing new. However, under Barack Hussein Obama, both have increased exponentially when we view the numbers in light of previous occupants of the Oval Office. In fact, when it comes to mass shootings and mass murders, more have occurred under the Marxist-in-chief than the previous four presidents combined

While the administration and the Democrat National Committee Chair have been throwing out overblown numbers regarding mass shootings, the reality, though still disturbing, is nothing like what they have been presenting. Using information compiled via a database with incidents, fatalities and injuries from real mass shootings in the United States, take a look at the real numbers under Hussein versus our previous four presidents, and remember, unless Congress does its duty and removes this guy from office, he still has over one year left!

  • Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) – saw 11 mass shootings with 101 fatalities
  • George H. W. Bush (1989-1993) – saw 12 mass shootings with 94 fatalities
  • Bill Clinton (1993-2001) – saw 23 mass shootings with 141 fatalities
  • George W. Bush (2001-2009) – saw 20 mass shootings with 158 fatalities
  • Barack H. Obama (2009-2015 – 7th Year) – saw 162 mass shootings with 864 fatalities

The data was compiled by TruthStreamMedia.com via several sources. To put things in perspective, take a look at the chart below regarding the number of mass shootings under these presidents.

 More Mass Shootings & Mass Murders Occurred Under Hussein Obama than the Previous 4 Presidents Combined That isn’t all, TruthStreamMedia also produced the following chart that shows in the listed shootings where there were eight or more people killed.

 More Mass Shootings & Mass Murders Occurred Under Hussein Obama than the Previous 4 Presidents Combined

As Aaron and Melissa Dykes point out, “Obviously this isn’t so easily simplified as more guns in the hands of more crazy people, the way the media likes to spin it. We have more gun laws now than ever before. Less types of guns are legally available to the average citizen than ever before. We also have more ‘gun-free zones,’ zones where, just by the way, most of these shootings happen (because mass shooters do not follow laws or care about zones, obviously). So that’s not it.” 

While the Dykes have talked about pharmaceutical use playing a part in these shootings, and we have too, there seems to be something else going on here, especially when you consider that five out of the 12 deadliest mass shootings in American history occurred in Barack Hussein Obama’s first term! That’s almost half!

For those who understand his Saul Alinsky tactics and his Marxist thought, you can clearly see that he is one that encourages these kinds of shootings in order to advance a gun grabbing agenda in violation of the Constitution and the rights of the people.Alinsky Rules for Radicals

Perhaps Steven Seagal is correct about many of these mass shootings: They are simply engineered for a political agenda.

Following the controversial Sandy Hook shootings, Obama implemented 23 executive actions. He followed up just months later with two more executive actions. After every single Islamic jihad attack on US soil, he fails to identify the ideology that he loves so much as the reason behind the killings. Instead, he simply attacks gun owners and the rights of gun owners. In fact, he openly lies to the world about mass shootings, claiming that they don’t happen in other countries. He did this recently in the very city where a mass shooting by Islamic jihadists claimed the lives of nearly 130 people and injured hundreds.

With just one more year to go in his second term, Obama has said that he will give “sustained attention” to gun control. Hold onto your guns America, and keep your powder dry! This is going to be a heck of a year that we stare down tyranny and terror on our own soil!

Hey Leftist Epidemic of racism In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Since 2009, 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Have Occurred in Gun-Free Zones


waving flagPosted by Tim Brown

URL of the original posting site: http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/10/since-2009-92-percent-of-mass-shootings-have-occurred-in-gun-free-zones/#yRA4TyFQepvJLdHz.99cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) recently released a report that indicates that since January of 2009 to July 2014 92% of all mass shootings in the US occurred in gun-free zones.  The CPRC report was released to combat the liars over at Everytown for Gun Safety, a Michael Bloomberg, communist gun grabbing organization. According to Everytown, who pushed a gun safety study claiming that only 14% of mass shootings took place in gun-free zones, 86% of mass shootings have occurred in places where guns are allowed.

In its presentation, the CPRC report, put out by John R. Lott, Jr. and Rebekah C. Riley, claim, “Everytown’s recent analysis of mass shootings is riddled with errors. Mistakes are made on the number of mass shootings as well as the extent of mental illness, the killers’ ages, and even where the attacks occurred. Those errors occurred because they did not do a complete news search on each case. They made simple accounting errors and included cases that did not fit their claimed criteria (4 or more shooting deaths). Also, their arbitrary definition of “assault weapons” seems chosen to obtain the results that fit their ideological agenda. Their numbers should not be relied on for any type of policy analysis.”Disarmed Citizenry

So, let’s be honest here, because clearly Everytown was not. They did not make errors. They made calculated deceptive claims. In the vernacular, they lied, and they know it.

According to the CPRC report, Everytown’s claims of 86% of mass shootings occurring outside of gun-free zones is because of their “inclusion of attacks in private homes” and “numerous errors in identifying whether citizens can defend themselves.”The Leftist Propagandist

Not only does Everytown’s report fail to identify cities that infringe on citizens’ rights to carry a gun, but they also fail to distinguish between citizens and police officers who carry guns.

The CPRC report also takes the time to educate ignorant people about so-called “assault rifles.”

“It may seem obvious that using assault weapons would result in far more victims than if other types of guns had been used,” reads the report. “After all, firearms such as the AR-15 and the AK-47 are ‘militarystyle weapons.’ But the key word is ‘style’—they are similar to military guns in their cosmetics, not in the way they operate. The guns covered by the original federal assault weapon ban were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military, but semiautomatic versions of those guns.”

“The civilian version of the AR-15 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as small game hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage,” the report continues. “The civilian version of the AK-47 is similar, though it fires a much larger bullet—.30 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .223 inch rounds used by the Bushmaster. The civilian version of these guns is hunting rifles. They have just been made to look like military weapons.” Hey Leftist

This is important because the call from gun grabbers pushes the fear of scary looking weapons, when the rest of us gun owners understand they’re really just “cool” looking. But here’s an important question, are there more fatalities when these kinds of guns are used? CPRC answers:

“Mass public shootings vary greatly and averages can be misleading. Except for the tragedy at Newtown, the typical attack with an assault weapon actually results in slightly fewer deaths than shootings with other types of guns. That one attack greatly skews the results as Adam Lanza used an assault weapon to kill 26 people at the Sandy Hook Elementary School as well as his mother. When all mass public shootings are counted, the average number killed with assault weapons is 10.2 per attack versus 6.5 in a non-assault weapon attack. Excluding the Newtown shooting, assault weapons are actually associated with slightly fewer fatalities — 6 versus 6.5.”

GunsSo, sticking to the actual definitions of what a mass shooting is (four or more injured or dead in a single shooting), CPRC takes the same data, but deals with it fairly and demonstrates that Everytown is pulling a Climate Change data fraud on the American people. In the same manner that Climate Change should be dismissed as being advanced by Communists, the same can be said of the anti-gun push by Bloomberg’s communist organization Everytown for Gun Safety.

Climate Change isn’t about the environment. It’s about money and control, and the same is true with the anti-gun movement as well.

In the end, it matters not what the numbers spell either way, as the restrictions on government over the rights of the citizens continues to remain in black and white in Article 2 of the Bill of Rights… “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Armed Makes sitting ducks In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Ann Coulter Letter: “The Problem Isn’t Guns Or White Men”


Authored by  Ann Coulter  | 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/10/07/the-problem-isnt-guns-or-white-men

The Problem Isn't Guns Or White Men

The media act as if they’re performing a public service by refusing to release details about the perpetrator of the recent mass shooting at a community college in Oregon. But we were given plenty of information about Dylan Roof, Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Jared Loughner.
Now, quick: Name the mass shooters at the Chattanooga military recruitment center; the Washington Navy Yard; the high school in Washington state; Fort Hood (the second time) and the Christian college in California. All those shootings also occurred during the last three years.The answers are: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, Kuwaiti; Aaron Alexis, black, possibly Barbadian-American; Jaylen Ray Fryberg, Indian; Ivan Antonio Lopez, Hispanic; and One L. Goh, Korean immigrant. (While I’m here: Why are we bringing in immigrants who are mentally unstable?)

There’s a rigid formula in media accounts of mass shootings: If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that won’t work, blame it on guns.

The perpetrator of the latest massacre, Chris Harper-Mercer, was a half-black immigrant, so the media are refusing to get too specific about him. They don’t want to reward the fiend with publicity!

But as people hear details the media are not anxious to provide, they realize that, once again: It’s a crazy person. How long is this going to go on?

When will the public rise up and demand that the therapeutic community stop loosing these nuts on the public? After the fact, scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpful before the wanton slaughter.

Product manufacturers are required by law to anticipate that some idiot might try to dry his cat in the microwave. But a person whose job it is to evaluate mental illness can’t be required to ascertain whether the person sitting in his office might be unstable enough to kill?Maybe at their next convention, psychiatrists could take up a resolution demanding an end to our absurd patient privacy and involuntary commitment laws.

True, America has more privately owned guns than most other countries, and mass shootings are, by definition, committed with guns. But we also make it a lot more difficult than any other country to involuntarily commit crazy people.

Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness — both imminent and physical — as determined by a judge. Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards — you might almost call them “common sense” — allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors.

The result of our laissez-faire approach to dangerous psychotics is visible in the swarms of homeless people on our streets, crazy people in our prison populations and the prevalence of mass shootings.

According to a 2002 report by Central Institute of Mental Health for the European Union, the number of involuntarily detained mental patients, per 100,000 people, in other countries looks like this:

– Austria, 175

– Finland, 218

– Germany, 175

– Sweden, 114

– England, 93

The absolute maximum number of mental patients per 100,000 people who could possibly be institutionalized by the state in the U.S. — voluntarily or involuntarily — is: 17. Yes, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are a grand total of 17 psychiatric beds even available, not necessarily being used. In 1955, there were 340.

After every mass shooting, the left has a lot of fun forcing Republicans to defend guns. Here’s an idea: Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine?

Liberals will howl about “stigmatizing” the mentally ill, but they sure don’t mind stigmatizing white men or gun owners. About a third of the population consists of white men. Between a third and half of all Americans have guns in the home. If either white men or guns were the main cause of mass murder, no one would be left in the country.

But I notice that every mass murder is committed by someone who is mentally ill. When the common denominator is a characteristic found in about 0.1 percent of the population — I think we’ve found the crucial ingredient!

Democrats won’t be able to help themselves, but to instantly close ranks and defend dangerous psychotics, hauling out the usual meaningless statistics:

– Most mentally ill are not violent!

Undoubtedly true. BUT WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANOREXICS, AGORAPHOBICS OR OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVES. We were thinking of paranoid schizophrenics.

– The mentally ill are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence!

I’ll wager that the percentage of the nation’s 310 million guns that are ever used in a crime is quite a bit lower than the percentage of mentally ill to ever engage in violence.

As with the “most Muslims are peaceful” canard, while a tiny percentage of mentally ill are violent, a gigantic percentage of mass shooters are mentally ill.

How can these heartless Democrats look the parents of dead children in the eye and defend the right of the mentally deranged to store their feces in a shoebox, menace library patrons — and, every now and then, commit mass murder?

More Evidence In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Facts Don’t Work on Gun Control, so Obama Uses Emotion


waving flagPosted by David Limbaugh David Limbaugh | Oct 06, 2015

Politicizer in Chief
In his speech on the Umpqua Community College shooting in Oregon last week, President Obama sounded more Second Amendmentupset about America’s gun laws than about the horrific massacre. We barely had the preliminary facts about the shooting, the shooter and the victims, and he was already lecturing the nation again on gun control.

Instead of calling the nation to prayer, he said we would learn about the victims in the coming days and then “wrap everyone who’s grieving with our prayers and our love.” Those words out of the way, he immediately pivoted to complaining that “our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It’s not enough. It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel (or) prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America — next week or a couple of months from now.”

We didn’t hear much “heartache and grief” in his speech, but his anger was palpable. It wasn’t anger at the shooter, and it wasn’t sympathy for the victims. It was outrage — or apparent outrage — at America’s Second Amendment advocates.

“We are the only advanced country on earth,” said Obama, “that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months. … The United States … is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense gun-safety laws — even in the face of repeated mass killings.” He said these events happen so often that they’ve “become routine. … We’ve become numb to this.”More Liberal Gibberish

He may speak for himself, of course, but I don’t know too many people, especially gun rights advocates, who are numb to such savagery. Many of us believe our society would be safer against gun violence if there weren’t so many “gun-free” zones and if we had more armed guards.Picture1

As he has so often done before the powder is dry after similar incidents, he used his bully pulpit (emphasis on “bully”) to misstate statistics as if he were trying for a record number of Pinocchios from fact-checkers.

He said: “We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don’t work — or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens, and criminals will still get their guns — is not borne out by the evidence.”Lies Lies and More Lies

What he conveniently omitted is that Oregon had recently strengthened its laws on gun sales and is above No-weapons-590average among the states on gun regulation. It is one of only 18 states that require universal background checks before the sale of any firearm.

Being a proud Chicagoan, Obama is surely aware that his beloved city, which has distinguished itself in recent years for epic gun violence and death, is in a state that has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. How, then, can he claim that gun laws work? And how would implementing his idea of “common-sense gun-safety laws” make sense?

Though the United States has a high actual number of fatalities from mass shootings given its larger population, Obama ignores that other nations — such as Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel and Switzerland, which all have restrictive gun laws — have higher ratios of such shootings per capita.Guns

The president also fails to acknowledge author John Lott’s findings as of 2010 that all the multiple-victim public shootings (where three or more were killed) in Western Europe and in the United States occurred where civilians were not allowed to carry guns.

Charles C.W. Cooke, in his “The Conservatarian Manifesto,” urges that we regularly debunk “the claim that America is in the midst of a gun-violence ‘epidemic’. … Two reports, both released in May 2013, revealed a striking drop in gun crime over the past twenty years.” Cooke writes that “during the very period that gun laws have been dramatically liberalized across the whole country, gun crime has dropped substantially.”Down-by-Lib-600-CI

In his rant, Obama didn’t just distort the evidence. He effectively accused the Republican Congress of allowing these deaths by opposing gun control laws for political reasons, proving that projection is still an important weapon in his partisan arsenal. At a time when he should be using his office and his influence to urge healing and unity, Obama uses them for strident community organizing to advance his agenda.

It is instructive that Obama rages at conservatives and scapegoats the weapons themselves rather than the criminals involved or the state of the human condition that underlies their actions.Armed

It is remarkable that he demands an unconstitutional and meaningless change in the laws purportedly to save innocent lives but vigorously opposes all laws that would protect innocent babies in the womb.

And it is disgraceful that he seeks to inflame our emotions to seduce us into ignoring the facts and suspending our critical faculties long enough to surrender our vital Second Amendment rights.

 Disarmed Citizenry The Leftist Propagandist  In God We Trust freedom combo 2

NEW SHOCKING DETAILS EMERGE: About The Christians Slaughtered On Oregon Campus


waving flagWritten by Wes Walker on October 5, 2015

War on Christians

It turns out we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg with the slaughter of those students at Umpqua Community College. We had already seen glimpses of the killer’s hatred — especially of Christians — in the initial accounts of surviving witnesses. But others are now painting a more complete picture of his cruelty.

He said he’d spare an 18 year old girl if she begged for her life. She begged. He shot her anyway.

The doomed Christians were ordered to crawl to the middle of the room before being shot dead.

Evidence already suggests that this was planned some time before. It was calculated, deliberate. He wanted people to die. We know by his choice of victims that this was not random. He hated a particular, identifiable group. He hated Christians and wanted them to die.CP 01

Any other group so clearly singled out, and the bandwagon would inevitably roll out some kind of a hashtag-lives-matter campaign — vigils, t-shirts, the whole shebang.

As Caleb Howe rightly points out, when the narrative suits the usual talking heads, they will dive headlong into questions of “motivation”. But this tragedy didn’t play by their rules. There is no helpful racial angle, no way to blame the victims. So, in keeping with that “never let a crisis go to waste” motto, they are trying to bring the story back to that well-worn path: gun control.

Never let the story get away from the intended narrative. And definitely steer it away from any conversation about the growing number of Christians targeted by violence.Combined

No, they will steer this story back to gun control. Of course they will. They have to.

Because where we see a tragedy born out of cruel hate, they see an opportunity to harness public emotion for political advantage. Public emotion is gold for politicos with big goals and weak arguments. It’s undirected angst looking for answers, and just look who’s ready to ride in on that white horse to save the day.

Gun control. That’s the solution, right?

If only those students, the ones begging for their lives, and crawling across the floor under a sadist’s gaze had been somewhere else — somewhere safe. Maybe in a gun-free zone. That would have changed everything… right?

Knuckle-dragger that I am, maybe I’m just too thick to see they’ve got a valid point. I mean, just look at how safe their gun laws have made Chicago.

The Leftist Propagandist Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Criminologist: No, Mass Shootings are not on the Rise


Following the shooting at an Oregon community college, Obama took to the podium to voice his disgust for gun laws and how these incidents seem all too routine, and how Americans have grown “numb” to mass shootings. Predictably, he blamed lax gun laws, as in his routine, and he said, as many on the left insist, that mass shootings are on the rise. And things like, “We’re the only developed country that has to deal with mass shootings.” Every other developed country has eradicated mass shootings by enforcing heavy controls on guns, such as national confiscation as in countries like the UK and Australia. They might have extremely high rates of violent crime, but at least most of their violent crimes and murders don’t involve guns. As to why a mass shooting which resulted in nine fatalities is worse than Chicago violence which results in far more fatalities, I have no idea:

As widely reported in the mainstream media, in a 15-hour period between Monday night and Tuesday morning a total of 14 people were shot in Chicago, including two young boys. Six of those people died.

Indeed, the stats show that in the last two weekends in Chicago, 98 people were shot and 13 people were killed. This is going on every single day.

Apparently, last month was Chicago’s deadliest month since 2002 with at least 60 murders. But Obama never seems to care about those shootings and killings. It’s like he doesn’t even consider them. They don’t count. Black gang violence isn’t newsworthy to him.

According to criminologist James Alan Fox, mass shootings aren’t on the rise. What is on the rise is media-fueled hysteria and hype:

Notwithstanding the sadness caused by each of these tragedies, nothing has really changed in term of risk. One can take virtually any period of months or years during the past few decades and find a series of shootings that seemed at the time to signal a new epidemic. The ‘80s were marked by a flurry of deadly postal shootings, which gave rise to the term “going postal.” The ‘90s witnessed a string of mass shootings in middle and high schools carried out by alienated adolescents with access to borrowed guns, prompting the venerable Dan Rather to declare an epidemic of school violence.

More recently, the “active shooter” has become the new boogeyman armed with a gun. Of course, there were shootings in public places long before this frightening catchphrase was created. Nowadays, any time someone shows up with a gun in a school, a church, a movie theater, a shopping mall or a restaurant, twitter becomes alive with messages of alarm.

I certainly don’t mean to minimize the suffering of the Oregon victims and their families, but the shooting spree is not a reflection of more deadly times. Consider the facts.

According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria.

In order for the media to stay in business, they’ve got to keep inventing new fears. Can you imagine if they told the truth about things like mass shootings? People wouldn’t watch them as much. They’re ratings would go down. Their ad revenue would start to dry up. Networks would have to downsize.

They’ve got to make it seem like this is the worst it’s ever been. It’s like every four years, “this is the most important presidential election in history.” They’ve got to keep people hooked up to the tube. If people can be convinced that this really is the most important presidential election, people will stay tuned in.

If people can be convinced that gun-wielding maniacs are everywhere, and times are more dangerous today than they ever have been, people will stay tuned in out of fear. People will get the impression that mass shootings really are on the rise.

In reality, they’re not. Just the media’s hype and hysteria.

Guns In God We Trust freedom combo 2

The Australia Gun Control Fallacy


The massacre in Charleston, South Carolina of nine members of a Bible study at a historic African-American church has horrified the entire country. Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old avowed white supremacist, has confessed to the shooting. As news of this cold-blooded murder spread, attention turned, as it inevitably (and understandably) does after such incidents, to the subject of the presence of guns in American society.

Yet it quickly became apparent that America’s moribund gun control debate would remain moribund. President Obama’s declaration that the country “needs a change in attitude” had a rote quality to it, as did Hillary Clinton’s ringing endorsement of “common-sense gun reforms.” As for Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s (D-New York) exhortation to pass legislation she recently introduced to require gun owners to obtain liability insurance on the grounds that “[i]f you want to buy that Uzi, the thinking goes, you should also have to pay for the risk that gun poses to society as a result,” the less said the better.

Calls for stronger background checks on gun purchases or a new ban on “assault weapons” have become formulaic. They’re like winding a Victrola: the record resumes spinning but it plays the same old song. Another tune in the gun-control songbook, however, is worth listening to. Not as many sing it, but nonetheless it is instructive as it shows the chorus of the media and gun-control advocates at their laziest and most uncurious, and at their most disingenuous if not dishonest. What song do I mean? I forget its name, but it goes something like this.

What Australia Did After a 1996 ShootingHey Leftist

After any mass shooting someone will invoke the name “Australia” and raise the question, “Can Australia’s gun-control laws be a model for the United States?” This time the honor belonged to CNN’s Laura Smith-Spark, who recounts the circumstances that led to Australia’s current gun-control laws and outlines their provisions. The laws were passed after the Port Arthur massacre, a 1996 mass shooting in which one man killed 35 people. Australia outlawed semi-automatic rifles, certain categories of shotgun, and implemented strict licensing and registration requirements. The cornerstone of its new gun-control scheme, however, was a massive gun buyback program. The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds raised via a special tax.

The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds raised via a special tax.

The Australian paradigm became popular in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, school shootings in 2012. USA Today, ABC News, Slate, the Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor were among the outlets that published articles urging Americans to look closely at the actions their antipodean cousins took after a similar tragedy. Nor are Americans the only ones who think we should heed the Australian example. Numerous Australians have expressed pride in their country’s gun laws by penning columns beseeching Americans to transport America’s gun laws from Down Under.

These articles all point to the reduction in the rate of gun deaths in Australia after the new system was established as its main achievement. But it is the policy that allowed that system to be established which holds the writers’ and consequently the reader’s attention. That policy is the gun buyback program, which removed up to one million weapons from Australians’ hands and homes. This was, depending on the estimate, a fifth to a third of Australia’s gun stock. The statistic does not seem remarkable as a raw number, but it is quite so when expressed as a percentage. No wonder commentators fixate on it. The problem is the way most of them tell that tale: when they describe Australia’s gun buyback program, almost none of them tell the truth about it.

The Australian Law Banned and Confiscated GunsGuns

The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory. Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of gun confiscation. Only the articles from USA Today and the Washington Post cited above contain the crucial information that the buyback was compulsory. The article by Smith-Spark, the latest entry in the genre, assuredly does not. It’s the most important detail about the main provision of Australia’s gun laws, and pundits ignore it. That’s like writing an article about how Obamacare works without once mentioning the individual mandate.

Yet when American gun control advocates and politicians praise Australia’s gun laws, that’s just what they’re doing. Charles Cooke of the National Review shredded the rhetorical conceit of bellowing “Australia!” last year after President Obama expressed his admiration for gun control à la Oz:

You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change this. Again, one doesn’t bring up countries that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward confiscation.

Cooke, of course, is right. When gun control advocates say they want Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States.

Democrat Leaders Support Gun ConfiscationGun Control Supporters cropped

Not all gun control proponents prevaricate. Some are forthright about their intentions. After Sandy Hook, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) stated she was considering legislation to institute a mandatory national buyback program. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also expressed an interest in confiscation, at least for assault weapons. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” Ultimately, New York did not institute confiscation, but did require registration of existing assault weapons and banned all sales of new and existing ones within the state.

Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money. So those hostile to gun rights continue to demand mandatory confiscation.

Gun buybacks remain a popular policy with the Left because it is the only way of achieving what the Left regards as the only acceptable gun-control solution: reducing the number of guns in America. Matt Miller of the Center for American Progress proposed such a program after Sandy Hook. Conceding that anything mandatory was unlikely to pass Congress, he pitched a gun buyback program as a form of economic stimulus: give people cash for guns, which they can then spend on other things. “Make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse. Instead of a measly $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500.” Why a gun owner would accept $500 for a gun that likely cost considerably more is a question Miller unsurprisingly does not ask, let alone answer. Posing it would puncture his balloon.

Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money. So those hostile to gun rights continue to demand mandatory confiscation. Earlier this year, the advisory commission appointed by Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy after Sandy Hook recommended banning the sale and possession of “any rifle or handgun that accepts a detachable magazine.” Commission members shrugged off suggestions that this would entail an unconstitutional prohibition on most firearms Americans own, saying it was not their job to take such niceties into account. The editorial board of the Newark Star-Ledger displayed similar “magical thinking” last September when it called for mandatory confiscation in New Jersey. Predictably, the board cited the Australian example, pointing to the drop in gun violence there as all the necessary justification for inaugurating such a program here. The editorial board concluded by bemoaning America’s “hysteria over ‘gun confiscation,’” which would keep their fantasy just that.

How Would Government Get the Guns?cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg

On this point at least they are correct. Gun confiscation is not happening in the United States any time soon. But let’s suppose it did. How would it work? Australia’s program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms. There are about as many guns in America as there are people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60 and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.

To achieve in America what was done in Australia, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.

The 310 million guns in America are not owned by 310 million Americans. Just how many Americans own guns, though, is controversial. The General Social Survey shows gun ownership on a four-decade downward trajectory, to 32 percent of households in 2015. A 2011 Gallup poll, on the other hand, found gun ownership at a two-decade high, with 47 percent of Americans stating they possessed a firearm. As Harry Enten of The Guardian observed, the answer to the gun ownership question seems heavily dependent on wording and methodology: phone surveys consistently find higher rates. Moreover, and this is the key point, those rates, however the surveys are conducted, have been static for at least 15 years, while background checks have soared.

A third to a half of the U.S. population translates to 105 to 160 million people. A fifth to a third of guns is 60 to 105 million. Now that we see what is required for an American buyback scheme to work on an Australian scale, we can at last we confront the question gun-control advocates never ask, let alone answer: how do you take 60 to 105 million firearms from 105 to 160 million Americans? The answer to that question is the answer to the question of whether the Australian example really is valid for America after all. If the experience of “blue” states which introduced gun regulations that have nearly universal approval on the Left is any indication, liberals are likely to experience keen disappointment.

Americans Resist Gun Confiscationburke

Both New York and Connecticut imposed strict new rules on the possession and sale of guns after Sandy Hook. Among these were requirements for the registration of so-called assault rifles in both states and in New York a ban on “high-capacity” magazines regardless of when they were manufactured or purchased. Compliance with the registration requirement has been modest at best, as hundreds of thousands of gun owners in both states refused to register their weapons. So far, then, the laws have been most successful in creating hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers who feel obligated to break the law.

If New York and Connecticut won’t go along, what do Democrats expect would happen in “red” states?

New York and Connecticut are two of the “bluest” states in the Union, states with staunchly liberal Democratic governors and legislatures dominated by Democrats and Northeastern Republicans who vote for gun control. Yet the residents of these states have refused to go along with the kinds of laws that gun-control advocates view as a minimum for what they would like to see adopted at the federal level. If New York and Connecticut won’t go along, what do they expect would happen in “red” states?Progressives will not answer that question because they never ask it, not even to themselves, lest somehow they say it out loud. On guns, the Left is incoherent, even insincere. It won’t say what it wants because what it wants is “a nonstarter politically, unfeasible in reality, and, by the way, completely unconstitutional”—that is, confiscation on the Australian model.Liberals refuse to confront the implications of their Australian dream because doing so would force them to give that dream up. Those implications are easy to spell out, though. A national gun buyback law would turn a significant portion of the American people into criminals. Residents of New York and Connecticut snubbed their new laws. The other 48 states are not New York and Connecticut. Civil disobedience on a national scale would ensue.

The Australia Plan Would Require Coercion and ConflictTree of Liberty 03

New York and Connecticut authorities so far have shown no inclination to enforce their laws by going door to door to round up unregistered guns and arrest their owners. But that’s what would be necessary to enforce the law. A federal law, therefore, would require sweeping, national police action involving thousands of lawmen and affecting tens of millions of people. If proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans’ hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans’ hands.

If proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans’ hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans’ hands.

Australian-style gun control, in other words, would require government force and coercion on a massive scale. Now, progressives don’t understand the nature of coercion, so maybe they would not see police action to enforce gun confiscation as coercion. Or, perhaps, they actually do understand that their ideal form of gun control requires it, which is why they keep speaking in code and talk about “Australia” and not “wholesale confiscation.”Citizen Control

Let there be no doubt. Gun confiscation would have to be administered by force of arms. I do not expect that Tyranney Alertthose who dismissed their fellow citizens for clinging bitterly to their guns are so naive that they imagine these people will suddenly cease their bitter clinging when some nice young man knocks on their door and says, “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to take your guns.” As though somehow those who daily espouse their belief that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to resist government oppression and tyranny will not use the Second Amendment to resist what they see as government oppression and tyranny. Or maybe they are so naive.

Many on the Left—and for this they are to be commended—have voiced their opposition to the increasing militarization of America’s police. Yet only a militarized police could enforce an Australian gun-control scheme in the United States. To take arms from men requires men with arms. There’s no other way to do it.Comming Soon 02

Yet because of the numbers of guns and men with guns in this country, any policy to remove those guns will inevitably depend on some measure of coercion, quite possibly a heavy measure. Does anyone honestly believe this country has the will or resources to seize 60 to 105 million firearms from 105 to 160 million Americans? “Progressives believe it,” I hear you answer. Yes, but the ones who do, believe this dishonestly.

Modeling Australia Means Civil War

When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws as its own, he is really saying the cause of gun control is so important that he is willing to impose these laws even at the cost of violent insurrection. Make no mistake, armed rebellion would be the consequence. Armed men would be dispatched to confiscate guns, they would be met by armed men, and blood would be shed. Australia is a valid example for America only if you are willing for that blood to be spilled in torrents and rivers. To choose Australia is to choose civil war.

In an op-ed for the New York Times written after Sandy Hook, John Howard, the prime minister who oversaw the passage of Australia’s current gun laws, implored Americans to consider his nation’s example. Yet Howard fully understood the fundamental irrelevance of his country’s laws to the United States, and undermined his case by highlighting the differences between the two countries.

Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)Armed

Leave aside that Australia had—and has—far fewer guns and people than we do. Forget the bits about the gun lobby or Australia’s greater urbanization. The crucial point is the final one: Australia does not have a bill of rights, and that, ultimately, is the reason it was able to confiscate guns. Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the Second Amendment, but the fourth and fifth as well, and possibly even the first. Progressives generally have no compunction about breaching the Second Amendment, but one wonders how many others they would be eager to violate in their quest to nullify the second. Civil war and a tattered Constitution: such are the consequences of invoking “Australia.” It is not a model; it is a mirage.

There is an essential mendacity, whether intentional or not, to all suggestions that Australia’s system of gun control is suitable for the United States. Conjuring Australia isn’t innocent. But this trick does serve one valuable purpose: when gun controllers perform it they reveal what they truly desire. An Australian-style gun-control regime, it must be abundantly clear by now, would not only be impractical in the United States, it would be immoral. We would all be better served if American gun-control advocates acknowledged this reality and left their fantasy Down Under where it belongs. 

Varad Mehta is a historian. He lives in suburban Philadelphia.
freedom In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Ann Coulter Letter


Mental health laws are trouble for Democrats

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/12/18/mental-health-laws-are-trouble-for-democrats/

Mental health laws are trouble for DemocratsBy: Ann Coulter  12/18/2013 05:01 PM

Instead of always taking incoming fire, how about Republicans start sending some back? It’s great that they stopped HillaryCare, but if they had actually fixed health care by forcing health insurance plans to be sold in a competitive free market, there would have been no opportunity for shyster Democrats to foist Obamacare on us.

It’s fantastic that we caught the Boston Marathon bombers, but why don’t Republicans fix an immigration system that brings foreign terrorists and mass murderers to our country? Let the Democrats explain why we couldn’t make room for a Danish surgeon because we needed another Chechnyan terrorist.

And it’s terrific that Republicans have managed to block sweeping gun bans after every mass shooting over the past few years — opposition to new gun restrictions has more than doubled since Newtown — but how about they actually do something to stop the next mass murder?

All these shootings are united by one clear thread: They all were committed by visibly crazy people, known to be nuts but not institutionalized.

Mental illness was blindingly clear in the cases of Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Maj. Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood), Jared Loughner (Arizona shopping mall), James Holmes (Colorado movie theater), and a dozen other mass shootings in the past few decades.

But in every instance, Democrats’ response was: Let’s ban high-capacity magazines! Let’s limit private gun sales! Let’s publish the names of everyone who owns a registered gun!

Mass shootings don’t correlate with any of these things. They correlate with not locking up crazy people. We’re not worried about school kids being systematically gunned down by angry husbands, gang members or antique gun collectors. We’re worried about a psychotic showing up in a public place and shooting everyone in sight.

There’s absolutely no point in making it more difficult to buy firearms at gun shows — unless gun dealers have no trouble getting files on the mentally ill. Until we do that, we’re wasting our time.

Fixating on guns after a crazy person commits mass murder is like draining the ocean to find a ring you dropped.

Liberals can take the position that crazy people living on the street and filling up our prisons and homeless shelters are a necessary evil that is a consequence of their idee fixe. But then, when one of their pet victims shoots up a movie theater, they don’t get to blame it on guns.

In every one of these mass shootings, there was someone in a position to say before the attack, “Trust me, this person is a psycho.” Try getting Jared Loughner or James Holmes through any mental illness hearing in which they’re required to speak. (Though both might end up being offered their own shows on MSNBC.)

If someone was brought back from the 1950s to today, he’d tell us: “I couldn’t help but notice that all the people who committed mass shootings were batsh*t crazy. Why were they not locked up or forced to take medication?”

We’d have to say, “Because some people — we call them ‘liberals’ — get a warm feeling of self-righteousness by defending the right of the deranged to crap in a shoebox, carefully label it and put it in a closet.”

Democrats absolutely will not address the one thing that was screaming out from all of the mass shootings: a crazy person committing the crime. We can’t medicate them and we can’t lock them up because the ACLU has handcuffed society’s ability to deal rationally with the mentally disturbed.

Not only will Democrats refuse to address the problem of the mentally ill on their own, but they will fight to the last ditch to protect any crazy person’s right not to take his medication.

At some point in the 1980s, not being “judgmental” became the highest form of virtue — although the left is plenty judgmental about things they don’t like, such as white males, smokers, Christianity, Wal-Mart, Fox News, talk radio and NASCAR.

Liberals are so determined not to stigmatize anybody that their solution is always to make all of society suffer instead:

– To avoid hurting Muslims’ feelings, everyone has to strip to his underwear at the airport.

– So no one feels excluded, we’re not allowed to say “Merry Christmas!”

– To avoid singling out gays, the government and media lied to Americans for a decade about the coming explosion of heterosexual AIDS. (We’re still waiting.)

– To stop people from noticing patterns, the media bend over backward to avoid telling us the race of dangerous criminals on the loose.

– To prevent hurt feelings, everybody gets an “A.”

And to avoid “stigmatizing” the mentally ill, society has to live with the occasional mass murder.

These anti-stigmatization rules don’t even help the people they claim to be protecting. But defending ridiculous rules that ruin things for everyone else makes liberals feel heroic.

Rather than constantly playing defense on gun rights, why don’t Republicans force Democrats into taking uncomfortable positions for once? Make them choose between ticking off the ACLU or ticking off soccer moms — as well as all of sane America. (Don’t kid yourself: The non-insane are still a potent voting bloc in this country.)

Republicans should say, “We owe it to the memory of these kids to unclog the regulations that prevent us from forcing psychotics to take their medication.”

Ann Coulter is author of the new book, Never Trust a Liberal Over Three – Especially a Republican (Regnery 2013).

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: