-- Civilians with Guns Intervening in Active Shooter Incidents - 5/14/18
-- gun turn-in programs are "ineffective" - 8/27/13
-- Six Facts That Show Gun Control Is Not The Answer -
-- Soros - 10/20/17
-- Cupp On guns, let's focus on facts, not fear - 12/03/14
-- A WWII story that most people will never know - posted 10/04/11
-- The American Hunters and Shooters Association - this is a Covert Anti-Gun organization - Posted 11/16/09
-- 109th Congress: Lock Up Your Safety
-- 108th Congress: McCain Puts Gun Shows In Peril
-- 107th Congress: Incumbent Protection Muzzles Gun Owners
-- 106th Congress: Anti-gun Amendments Abound
Civilians with Guns Intervening in Active Shooter Incidents
Data from the FBI's Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017 report; legal civilian gun carriers tried to intervene in 6 out of 50 incidents, and apparently succeeded in 3 or 4 of them.
May. 14, 2018
Backers of laws that let pretty much all law-abiding people carry concealed guns in public places often argue that these laws will sometimes enable people to stop mass shootings.
Opponents sometimes ask: If that's so, what examples can one give of civilians armed with guns stopping such shootings? Sometimes, I hear people asking if even one such example can be found, or saying that they haven't heard of even one such example. This prompted me to post in late 2015 about 10 such incidents that I had found in roughly the preceding 20 years.
Thanks to a recent FBI report, we have more data on 2016-17. The FBI found 50 shootings throughout the U.S. that it labeled "active shooter incidents"—"one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area." Of those, four involved situations where the FBI believes that "citizens possessing valid firearms permits successfully stopped the shooter." (Four others involved "unarmed citizens [who] confronted or persuaded the shooter to end the shooting.")
On September 28, 2016, at 1:45 p.m., Jesse Dewitt Osborne, 14, armed with a handgun, allegedly began shooting at the Townville Elementary School playground in Townville, South Carolina. Prior to the shooting, the shooter, a former student, killed his father at their home. Two people were killed, including one student; three were wounded, one teacher and two students. A volunteer firefighter, who possessed a valid firearms permit, restrained the shooter until law enforcement officers arrived and apprehended him. [UPDATE: A commenter points out that the firefighter apparently restrained the shooter after the shooter's only gun had already jammed, though the firefighter apparently hadn't know when he went looking for the shooter; the FBI report did not note this.]
On September 24, 2017, at 11:15 a.m., Emanuel Kidega Samson, 25, armed with two handguns, allegedly began shooting in the parking lot of the Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in Antioch, Tennessee. After killing one person, the shooter entered the church and shot six people. A citizen who attempted to subdue the shooter was pistol-whipped. During the altercation, the shooter accidently shot himself. While the shooter was preoccupied, the citizen, who possessed a valid firearms permit, retrieved a handgun from his car and held the shooter at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived. One person was killed; seven were wounded. The shooter was apprehended by law enforcement.
On November 5, 2017, at 11:20 a.m., Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, armed with a rifle, exited his vehicle and began shooting outside the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. He then entered the church and continued shooting at members of the congregation. The shooter exited the church and was confronted by a citizen who possessed a valid firearms permit. The citizen shot the shooter twice, causing the shooter to drop his rifle and flee the scene in his vehicle. The armed citizen, together with the owner of a pickup truck, pursued the shooter. The chase ended when the shooter's vehicle struck a road sign and overturned. Twenty-six people were killed; 20 were wounded. The shooter committed suicide with a handgun he had in his vehicle before police arrived.
On November 17, 2017, at 4:30 p.m., Robert Lorenzo Bailey, Jr., 28, armed with a handgun, allegedly began shooting in the parking lot of Schlenker Automotive in Rockledge, Florida. The manager of the auto repair shop and an employee, both possessing valid firearms permits, exchanged gunfire with the shooter. One person was killed; one was wounded. The shooter, shot twice during the exchange, was held at gunpoint by the manager until law enforcement arrived and took him into custody.
In one more incident, "a citizen possessing a valid firearms permit exchanged gunfire with the shooter,causing the shooter to flee to another scene and continue shooting."
On October 23, 2017, at 11:23 a.m., Alan Ashmore, 61, armed with a shotgun and a handgun, allegedly began firing into several homes and a vehicle in Clearlake Oaks, California, killing two people, including his father, and wounding one. Another person was wounded while fleeing out of a residence window. The shooter then shot and wounded a responding law enforcement officer before fleeing in his vehicle. The shooter drove to a nearby gas station and exchanged gunfire with the vendor, who possessed a valid firearms permit. The shooter fled the scene in his vehicle and drove to another gas station where he fired more shots. The shooter then drove to a nearby winery and shot at some employees before surrendering to law enforcement officers after a short vehicle pursuit. The entire incident lasted about 30 minutes. Two people were killed; three were wounded (including one law enforcement officer and one person who sustained injuries incidental to the incident). The shooter was apprehended by law enforcement.
And in one more incident, a man with a concealed carry permit tried to help, but was shot and wounded (and the police seem to have at first thought he might have been one of the bad guys, though fortunately they figured things out quickly enough):
On May 29, 2016, at 10:15 a.m., Dionisio Agustine Garza III, 25, armed with a rifle and a handgun, began shooting at Memorial Tire and Auto in Houston, Texas. One person was killed; six were wounded, including two law enforcement officers and an armed civilian who was wounded while attempting to stop the shooter. The shooter was killed in an exchange of gunfire with law enforcement officers.
A few observations:
[1.] Unsurprisingly, sometimes the good guy with a gun succeeds and sometimes not. Sometimes (as in the Burnette Chapel Church incident) the success might be a lucky break; sometimes a lucky break for the defender might have ended the incident more quickly. And it's impossible to tell for sure how many lives, if any, were saved in the aggregate, because that's generally a counterfactual. Still, the aggregate pattern seems to be that armed civilian self-defense takes place in a significant fraction of active shooter incidents.
[2.] None of this proves that broad concealed carry rights on balance do more good than harm (or vice versa). It's simply a response to claims that I've heard that the good guy with a gun never helps; these incidents further show that there are potential pluses to broad concealed carry rights, and of course there are potential minuses as well.
[3.] Some shootings are in places where concealed carry is not allowed, such as on school premises or in jurisdictions where concealed carry licenses are often hard to get. It's hard to tell for sure how many of the shootings fit into this category, because laws vary from state to state, and rules vary from business to business (plus in some states carrying in a business that prohibits guns is itself a crime). But it's possible that there would have been more defensive uses of guns in some of these cases if people were legally allowed to have their guns there.
[4.] Finally, always keep in mind that active shooter situations should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for less than 1% of the U.S. homicide rate and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander). But people talk about them a lot, so I thought I'd offer a perspective on them for those who are interested.
Thanks to Clayton Cramer for the pointer.
to a Center for Disease Control (CDC) report, “Priorities for Research
to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” gun turn-in programs
It wasn’t supposed to be like this.
After fighting to restore $10M in funding to the Centers for Disease Control on gun control, the Obama administration is now doing its level best to bury the results.
“Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” was released in June.
Yeah, we haven’t heard much about it either.
But it’s damning to the gun control movement and those who advocate for victim disarmament in the name of public safety.
What are the findings?
Guns and Ammo has a nice run-down:
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
This entry was posted on August 27, 2013
Six Facts That Show Gun Control Is Not The Answer
Spencer Platt/Staff/Getty Images
In the wake of the Parkland, Florida high school mass shooting, mainstream media outlets and Democratic politicians have been working overtime to push for a crackdown on Second Amendment rights. CNN, for example, held a "town hall" event wherein teenagers who attend the targeted high school were used as props to paint Second Amendment advocates and Republican politicians as callous and willing to turn a blind eye to the murder of schoolkids.
But the reality is, stripping law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights and constructing anti-gun legislation has not worked. Here are six facts that show why gun control measures advocated by the Left are not the answer.
1. Over 98% of mass shootings happen in "gun free zones."
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, so-called "gun free zones" have been targets of more than 98% of all mass shootings — this is why they are often fittingly referred to as "soft targets."
"According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, only a little more than 1 percent of mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred in places that were not considered to be a gun-free zone. In fact, as Crime Prevention Research Center President John Lott Jr. noted in October 2015, only two mass shootings in the U.S. since 1950 have occurred in an area where citizens were not prohibited from carrying a gun," reports The Blaze.
Former Vice President Joe Biden introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) to the U.S. Senate in 1990 and it was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.
2. Gun ownership does not correlate with a higher homicide rate.
More guns do not equate to a higher homicide rate, despite what the Left purports. In comparison to countries like Russia, Venezuela, and Mexico, the United States has an exceedingly higher number of guns per capita, yet a lower homicide rate.
And take the Swiss, for example. The nation of about 8 million is armed to the bone, with an estimated 2 million guns in circulation while boasting limited gun legislation. Demonstrating that gun ownership does not correlate with the homicide rate, Switzerland saw less that 120 homicides committed with a gun, per government data, as noted by USA TODAY. They also boast a low crime rate.
Additionally, data analysis from John R. Lott, Jr., in his aptly titled book "More Guns, Less Crime," has revealed that more guns can equate to less crime.
3. Gun bans are ineffective — yes, even the much-touted "gun buyback" program in Australia.
According to a Center for Disease Control (CDC) report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” gun turn-in programs are "ineffective":
There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).
Additionally, as noted by The Daily Wire, a British Journal of Criminology study from 2007 and a 2008 University of Melbourne study found that Australia's temporary gun ban did not appear to effect the already declining homicide rate.
"Prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward [trend] in firearm homicides, and this pattern continued after the buyback," wrote Crime Research Prevention Center President John Lott of Australia. "It is hence difficult to link the decline to the buyback."
And after Britain implemented a similar gun ban, they had increased homicides in the following five years, until "Britain beefed up their police force," notes Lott.
4. There's a correlation between higher gun ownership and fewer mass public shootings.
Between 1977 and 1999, "right-to-carry laws reduced both the frequency and the severity of mass public shootings; and to the extent to which mass shootings still occurred, they took place in those tiny areas in the states where permitted concealed handguns were not allowed," found Bill Landes of the University of Chicago and Lott.
5. Defensive gun use is higher than criminal firearm use.
The number of defensive gun uses are higher than the number of criminal firearm uses. There was a range of 500,000 to over 3 million defensive gun uses in 2013, according to research from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council published by the CDC. That same year, there were 11,208 firearm homicides and 414,562 nonfatal illegal gun uses, according to the CDC and National Justice Institute, respectively. Even when taking the low end of the defensive gun uses, it's clear that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal gun uses by Americans.
6. The government has failed to protect us time and again.
The government has failed us time and again when it comes to potential mass killers. Take this last school shooting in Florida, for example. As noted by Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro on Friday, recent reports have confirmed that "the FBI was warned specifically about the Parkland shooter not once, but twice — and did nothing," "the Broward County Sheriff’s deputies were called to the home of the Parkland shooter at least 39 times since 2010," the "Sheriff’s Office was warned multiple times about the Parkland shooter," and that "an armed officer was present during the shooting and did nothing."
And the FBI has dropped the ball in other recent catastrophes, too:
Anti-Gun Billionaire George Soros
Pumps $18 Billion into His Political Apparatus
Friday, October 20, 2017
This week it was announced that hedge fund billionaire and radical left-wing activist George Soros has infused his Open Society Foundations with a gift of $18 billion. According a New York Times report, Soros funneled the money to the organization over the course of several years. The paper also called the Hungarian immigrant’s gift, “one of the largest transfers of wealth ever made by a private donor to a single foundation,” and pointed out that Open Society is now the second largest “philanthropic” organization in the U.S.
Gun owners will likely find the Times’s characterization of Soros’s political arm generous, given that the organization has routinely targeted Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Further, the group’s global reach has imperiled gun owners throughout the world.
On the domestic front, in 2000, Open Society published a widely circulated report entitled, “Gun Control in the United States.” The publication called for a host of new federal and state gun restrictions.
Gun owners will likely find the Times’s characterization of Soros’s political arm generous, given that the organization has routinely targeted Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
At the federal level, the report recommended the criminalization of private transfers, a ban on affordable handguns, and maintained that many semi-automatic firearms be banned from private purchase. The report also lauded President Bill Clinton’s efforts to impose a federal licensing system on gun owners. However, the radicals at Open Society contended that Clinton’s policy was not ambitious enough and “on its own would fall short.”
The report recommended that states “should move toward consistent regulatory frameworks based on licensing of firearm owners and registration of guns.” The publication also concluded that states should enact gun-rationing laws and coordinate efforts to enact further gun control.
In the early 2000s, Open Society also gave support to gun control groups such as the Million Mom March, the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, and Women Against Gun Violence. Further, the group funded various frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry, including a high-profile case brought by the NAACP.
In recent years, Soros’s anti-gun efforts have been eclipsed by those of another billionaire, former-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. However, the Open Society continues to attack American gun owners.
Open Society has worked closely with the Joyce Foundation and given grant money to their projects. The Joyce Foundation funds a host of anti-gun initiatives and is a chief financier of the handgun prohibitionist organization the Violence Policy Center. In 2013 Open Society granted $150,000 to the Joyce Foundation’s Fund for a Safer Future. According to the initiative’s materials, their goals include “background checks on all gun sales; [and] bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.”
A 2016 interview with one of Open Society’s grantees, Marlon Peterson, provides an idea of Open Society’s current position on the Second Amendment. Peterson said that NRA and the “firearms industrial complex” had, “bastardized the Second Amendment for capital gain at the expense of thousands of American lives every year.” The grantee went on to add, “This nation needs to be bold enough to reconsider our relationship to the Second Amendment.”
Concerning Open Society’s global efforts, the group has a close relationship with international gun control activist Rebecca Peters. An Australian, Peters came to international prominence in 1996 as a campaigner for her country’s gun ban and confiscation regime. Peters went on to be the program director for the Funder’s Collaborative for Gun Violence Prevention, which received funding from Open Society, and then direct the International Action Network on Small Arms. IANSA is a gun control umbrella organization whose members include U.S. gun control groups such as the Brady Campaign and States United to Prevent Gun Violence along with foreign groups like Gun Control Australia.
Beyond Peters, Director of the Control Arms Secretariat Anna Macdonald holds an Open Society fellowship. Control Arms was a leading backer of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. Further, Open Society Director of Learning and Grant Making Natalie Jaynes is an alumnus of both the Small Arms Survey and Gun Free South Africa.
Soros’s $18 billion contribution to Open Society ensures that the organization will be able to plague gun owners well into the future. To face a foe with such immense resources and a sophisticated political apparatus will require gun rights supporters to be vigilant and to rededicate themselves to NRA’s vital cause.
|Fed assails seniors' right to
Chris Cox September 16, 2015
Sly Obama executive order would deprive 4.2 million social security recipients of Second Amendment rights. 635774204402569540-nra
Ten years ago, a college librarian in Texas was forced to retire because she was suffering from severe asthma, which required oxygen therapy. She went on disability and appointed her husband, Richard Woodman, of Weatherford Texas, to be her representative payee so he could handle their financial affairs. In his words, "she did not wish to have the worry." Woodman said his wife had never been mentally unstable and, after years of successful treatment, her asthma improved. Now, however, due to a new gun control proposal from the Obama administration, she will lose her constitutional right to own a firearm.
Sound far-fetched? It's not. It’s simply the latest in an ongoing series of attempts by President Obama to restrict gun ownership in the United States. This time, he's targeting older people and those with disabilities. If Obama’s plan is implemented, 4.2 million social security beneficiaries will automatically lose their Second Amendment rights, which would represent the biggest gun grab in American history. No due process. No court adjudication or finding of dangerousness. With the click of a button by a faceless bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., 4.2 million people would be classified as “prohibited persons” for no legitimate reason.
On July 18, news broke that the Social Security Administration (SSA), in response to a presidential memorandum, is developing a system to report the names of recipients who receive their benefits through a "representative payee" to the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS), which would prohibit them for purchasing or possessing firearms. We've been overwhelmed with calls ever since, including a call from the Texas librarian's husband. Woodman had one question for us: "What are you doing about this?"
Our answer: Everything we can.
Needing some help to manage your finances should not be grounds for losing a fundamental constitutional right. Having a disability does not make you a threat to society, nor does aging make one mentally unstable. But not according to the Obama administration, which is moving to strip millions of people of a fundamental right — without due process and in one fell swoop. Unsurprisingly, it was done behind closed doors. Obama issued the directive in 2013, and the program has been in development ever since.
With that kind of secrecy and that kind of scope, there’s no reason to believe it will stop at the SSA. Obama and his bureaucrats have consistently shown their willingness to restrict the rights of Americans by executive fiat. The Bureau of Veterans Affairs, for example, has already adopted a similar policy — as a result, about 177,000 veterans with a fiduciary were reported to the NICS, denying brave men and women a basic American freedom they served to protect.
This issue goes straight to the fundamental tenets of our democracy. Our constitution was created to prevent government from taking fundamental rights away from millions of people without due process of law. In this instance, the government is deciding to eliminate necessary tools of self-defense from those who need it most — older Americans and folks with disabilities.
People from across the political spectrum have spoken out in opposition. The Los Angeles Times, which broke the story, quoted a Yale psychiatrist, Dr. Marc Rosen, who studies how veterans with mental health problems manage their money. In his words, "Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe," he said. "They are very different determinations."
The National Council on Disability weighed in with a letter to Vice President Biden, "Whatever merits such a proposal might seem to present, such benefits are outweighed by the inaccurate and discriminatory inference that would result: equating the need for assistance in managing one's finances with a presumption of incapacity in other areas of life."
Texas Congressman Sam Johnson and other congressional Republicans, in a letter to the SSA said, "Millions of responsible seniors and people with disabilities rely on a representative payee. Simply using this system does not mean beneficiaries are a risk to themselves or others."
All Americans should be outraged at this government overreach. Rest assured that the National Rifle Association will fight this by any means necessary. We've already called on the president to immediately suspend this activity, and if he doesn't do so voluntarily, we've called on the Congress to stop him from implementing this outrageous gun control scheme. Already, members of Congress have called on the SSA to stop the development of this program and Johnson on Wednesday introduced legislation that would prevent the SSA from putting their plan into action. The The Social Security Beneficiary 2nd Amendment Rights Protection Act, would ensure Americans don’t have to choose between the benefits to which they are legally entitled and their Second Amendment rights.
Hopefully soon, we’ll be able to call Richard Woodman back and report that this outrageous dismantling of constitutional freedoms has been stopped in its tracks.
Chris Cox is the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.
On guns, let's focus on facts, not fear
December 3, 2014 By S.E. Cupp CNN
The CNN Guns Project explores the role of guns in the United States. Those advocating for gun control need to know what they are talking about, So-called "experts" know so little about what they are covering.
Criminals won't be deterred by gun laws, Cupp says
Editor's note: S.E. Cupp is a political commentator for CNN and is also the author of "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity," coauthor of "Why You're Wrong About the Right," a columnist at the New York Daily News and a political commentator for Glenn Beck's The Blaze. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. [CNN and their editors are gun grabbers - how they let her write this article is a surprise.]
(CNN) -- What's the difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon? What's the definition of an "assault weapon"? What features are cosmetic and which make a gun truly dangerous? Is there really such a thing as "high capacity ammunition"?
You might not know the answers to these questions. But you'd expect the lobbyists, activists, pundits and politicians who advocate for gun control to, wouldn't you?
Yet more often than not, the very people looking to peel back our Constitutionally-protected Second Amendment rights are the ones who can't answer these simple questions. Whether it's a pundit who doesn't know the difference between a semi-automatic and automatic rifle or a congresswoman looking to ban high-capacity magazines but can't explain how magazines work, shouldn't language matter?
This is more than just a matter of semantics. When the President of the United States promises he's not coming after your hunting rifle or self-defense handgun, but legislators propose assault weapons bans on guns that could include your hunting rifle and self-defense handgun, it matters.
When pundits and activists use terms like "rapid-fire" and "assault weapon”, but can't explain which guns those terms refer to, it matters.
When newspapers don't distinguish between gun criminals and law-abiding gun owners, publishing the names and addresses of the latter to create a false moral equivalency between the two, it matters.
And when politicians tell women they can't be trusted to defend themselves with a gun, but can't explain why, it matters.
I can't think of another issue where so-called "experts" are required to know so little about the very thing they are covering. Passion, apparently, is the only requisite. This ignorance goes well beyond surface-level basics. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of how gun crime works, who is to blame, and what to do about it, and because they do not understand the facts of gun crime, these gun control advocates instead prey on fear and emotion to spread an ill-informed agenda.
For example, do you know how many gun crimes will be prevented by banning guns in retail outlets like Target and Starbucks? Exactly, precisely zero.
That's because committing crimes of any sort, including with a firearm, at Target and Starbucks was already illegal in all 50 states and still is. Criminals don't follow gun laws and will not be deterred by the invisible line of demarcation that Target has said it will not even enforce and that gun control advocates are celebrating as a meaningful gun safety victory.
So-called "gun-free zones”, as we have tragically seen at schools, hospitals, military installations and retail areas, do absolutely nothing to prevent gun crime. Other utterly meaningless measures, like limiting magazine capacities, have proven so unworkable, unenforceable and ineffective, lawmakers have attempted to roll them back. (And in New York, they succeeded.) In Colorado, Gov. John Hickenlooper even apologized to his state's sheriffs for passing legislation he admits he didn't understand and didn't think anyone would actually vote for.
Even the so-called "smart gun" technology that gun control advocates support, like gun-locking and --tracing mechanisms and ballistic fingerprinting, isn't very smart. To work, it still requires the gun user to register the weapon, something we know criminals don't do very often.
Knowing things like this, you'd think the "experts" on gun control would pursue other ideas to prevent gun crime. But facts are inconvenient and political symbolism is much, much easier. Gun rights advocates are just as interested in preventing gun crime. But we want to do it armed with a set of facts and a basic level of knowledge about the issue. If the gun control groups want to join us in the fight, then they have to study up.
|Evan Todd, a man who was shot and wounded at Columbine
High School in 1999 as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold conducted one of the
most stunning and devastating mass school shootings in the history of
America, penned a letter to Barack Obama which called upon him to stand
with freedom and with the people and not with thugs and criminals. Todd
made logical arguments against gun bans, universal background check and
high capacity magazine bans. Ultimately, he asked Obama “Whose side are
Todd’s letter to Obama, as posted on The Blaze, reads:
As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:
Universal Background Checks
First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.
Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.
Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.
It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.
Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons
The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.
Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.
10-Round Limit for Magazines
Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”
Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?
Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.
Selling to Criminals
Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”
Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?
Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.
Criminals and murderers will always find a way.
Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.
Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?
You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:
First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.
Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.
This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.
Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.
Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd
The problem is the Left only uses an emotional argument. They know gun control legislation and taking law abiding citizens guns won’t work, but they are ridden with guilt and so instead of listening to their Creator who commands them to repent, they think they can solve the problem that depraved man has. They think they can stop all crime and all sin from occurring and they can’t. They just create a haven for it to work in.
Mr. Todd’s letter will probably make it in to “File 13″ or as it is commonly called, the trash can.” The Left do not want to have a national conversation on firearms. They want to have a national monologue about firearms. In the end there is no debate. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, with the purpose of keeping a free state, shall not be infringed. That is the law of the land and furthermore it is our God given duty and responsibility in the preserving of the lives of our families and our neighbors against tyranny, which for the Left only occurs in foreign lands. They don’t even see their own tyranny in all of this.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/columbine-victim-asks-obama-whose-side-are-you-on/#ixzz2Lp2rR5bL
A WWII story that most people will never know.
I can't verify that the Japanese actually said this, but it makes sense that they would consider it - story follows:
After the Japanese decimated our fleet in Pearl Harbor Dec 7, 1941, they could have sent their troop ships and carriers directly to California to finish what they started. The prediction from our Chief of Staff was we would not be able to stop a massive invasion until they reached the Mississippi River.
So, why did they not invade? After the war, the remaining Japanese generals and admirals were asked that question. Their answer... they know that almost every home had guns and the Americans knew how to use them. The world's largest army... America 's hunters!
I had never thought about this....
A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion: There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin . Allow me to restate that number, differently. Over the last several months, Wisconsin 's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world..
More men under arms than in Iran . More than in France and Germany combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed. That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan 's 700,000 hunters. All of whom have now returned home.
Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
America will forever be safe from foreign (and hopefully, domestic/govern-mental) invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower. Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer, it's a matter of national security. Now if we could just get these folks to vote.
That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.
Food for thought when next we consider gun control.
The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) is
one of the new covert anti gun groups. For anti-gun
politicians to achieve their goals they have
created new organizations with names designed to confuse gun owners and
hide their real agenda.
AHSA was created with the specific intent to provide political cover for anti-gun politicians. Politicains can now claim support from a “sportsmen’s” group. In truth, the anti-gun credentials of AHSA’s leadership is well documented. For instance, AHSA president Ray Schoenke has a long history of giving political donations to some of the most anti-gun politicians, including Al Gore, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy. In 2000, Schoenke donated $5,000 to Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and the Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation also made donations to the Brady Campaign. AHSA Board member John Rosenthal remains the leader of Stop Handgun Violence, the Massachusetts anti-gun group. And one of the leading organizers of AHSA is Bob Ricker, who has been a paid expert witness against gun manufacturers in a number of reckless lawsuits. (For more information, see Anti-Gunners Don Camo As Elections Loom.)
AHSA’s political activities are predictable when you consider its primary goals are to discredit the NRA and advance the interests of anti-gun politicians. AHSA's first effort was in the 2006 Missouri Senate race. AHSA used direct mail to mislead sportsmen and distort the landmark work NRA was doing to protect millions of acres of wetlands in Missouri. While NRA was working with legislators to protect the 100-year flood plain in Missouri from development and ensure that land would be available to hunters, AHSA produced direct mail falsely claiming the NRA had “sold out hunters” so that they could mislead sportsmen into voting for anti-gun candidate Claire McCaskill (See Who Needs Another Alternative To NRA for more information.) Unfortunately, AHSA’s lies were at least partly to blame for McCaskill’s election and the loss of Sen. Jim Talent, a valuable friend of gun owners and sportsmen.
While the NRA counts membership in the millions, AHSA can only claim a few hundred members and has done nothing to advance the issues important to sportsmen. On top of that, in its first foray into Second Amendment issues, AHSA chose to stand alongside one of the leading anti-gun politicians in America: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. AHSA supported Bloomberg’s effort to repeal the law that protects confidential law enforcement data from disclosure that threatens the privacy of gun owners and the safety of law enforcement officers—all so that Bloomberg could use the information in reckless lawsuits against the firearms industry (for more information, see: The "Tiahrt Amendment" on Firearms Traces: Protecting Gun Owners' Privacy and Law Enforcement Safety). By standing with Bloomberg, AHSA President Ray Schoenke made his claims that “we are a gun rights organization” impossible to defend.
|Blogger Shot Down for Calling Rifles
February 26, 2007 By Randy Hall CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
(CNSNews.com) - A sportsmanship and outdoor living magazine has ended a regular column by one of its online bloggers after a posting in which the writer said he considers high-powered AK and AR rifles "terrorist" weapons that "have no place in hunting."
The controversy erupted earlier this month, when Jim Zumbo ran a piece entitled "Assault Rifles for Hunters?" in his "Hunting With Zumbo" column on the website of Outdoor Life magazine, a publication that calls itself "the Source for Hunting and Fishing Adventure."
"As I write this, I'm hunting coyotes in southeastern Wyoming," Zumbo wrote. "The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue.
"I call them 'assault' rifles, which may upset some people," he stated. "I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles.
"In my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting," Zumbo argued. "We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern.
"As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons," he added. "To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them."
Soon after, Zumbo posted a follow-up message entitled "I Was Wrong, BIG TIME."
"Someone once said that to err is human. I just erred, and made without question, the biggest blunder in my 42 years of writing hunting articles," he stated. "Obviously, when I wrote that blog, I activated my mouth before engaging my brain.
"Believe it or not, I'm your best friend if you're a hunter or shooter, though it might not seem that way," he noted. "I'm sorry for inserting my foot in my mouth."
On his website, Zumbo is described as "one of the country's most well-known and respected outdoorsmen. He has dedicated his life to hunting, the pursuit and enjoyment of the outdoors, and writing about his experiences for his readers."
The site also notes that Zumbo sold his first article to Outdoor Life in 1962 and has had over 1,500 articles published in all the major outdoor magazines.
Over the several days following the posting, Outdoor Life and other companies with which Zumbo had long-term relationships received thousands of emails and telephone calls responding to the column.
Last week, Outdoor Life pulled Zumbo's blog, replacing it with a statement that read: "Due to the controversy surrounding Jim Zumbo's recent postings, Outdoor Life has decided to discontinue the 'Hunting With Zumbo' blog for the time being.
"Outdoor Life has always been, and will always be, a steadfast supporter of our Second Amendment rights, which do not make distinctions based on the looks of the firearms we choose to own, shoot and take hunting," the statement added.
Todd Smith, editor-in-chief of the monthly magazine, subsequently posted a statement of his own, entitled "Outdoor Life and Jim Zumbo Part Ways."
"In light of comments made by Jim Zumbo in his February 16, 2007, blog posting on the magazine's website, Mr. Zumbo has offered to terminate his association with Outdoor Life, and the magazine has accepted his offer," Smith said.
"Accordingly, he will no longer be contributing to the magazine in print or online," the editor-in-chief wrote.
"We respect Mr. Zumbo's First Amendment right to free speech, and we acknowledge his subsequent apology and admission of error," Smith added. "We regret this turn of events, as Mr. Zumbo has been a good friend to this magazine and lifelong advocate for hunters and hunting rights."
Remington Arms Company, Inc., made a similar statement on its website.
"As a result of comments made by Mr. Jim Zumbo in recent postings on his blog site," Remington "has severed all sponsorship ties with Mr. Zumbo, effective immediately," the news release noted.
Other sponsors cutting their ties with Zumbo include Cabela's Outfitters, Gerber Legendary Blades, High Mountain Seasonings, the National Rifle Association and Haas Outdoors, Inc., the home of Mossy Oak Brand Camouflage. "Jim Zumbo Outdoors," a cable TV series on the Outdoor Channel, was also cancelled.
Several telephone calls seeking response from Zumbo were not returned by press time. However, the outdoorsman commented on the events in a posting on a blog hosted by fellow hunter Ted Nugent.
"Looking back, I can't believe I said the words 'ban' and 'terrorist' in the context that I did," Zumbo said. His said his biggest regret was "that I inadvertently struck a spear into the hearts of the people I love most ... America's gun owners. And, even though this huge cadre of dedicated people has succeeded in stripping me of my career, I hold no grudges."
"I will continue to stand as firm on pro hunting as I've ever done," he wrote. "What's different now is that I'll do all I can to educate others who are, or were, as ignorant as I was about 'black' rifles and the controversy that surrounds them."
"My promise to you is that I'll learn all I can about these firearms," Zumbo added, and "I'll do all I can to spread the word." As a result, "maybe in a roundabout way, we can bring something good out of this."
Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service
|Home Back Top|