Colorado’s Experience Soundly Refutes Common Anti-gun Talking Point

/in , , , , , /by

Last month, while addressing a group of Colorado sheriffs, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper spoke on the topic of the state’s 2013 measure outlawing almost all private transfers of firearms. According to the Denver Post, Hickenlooper told the sheriffs, “I think we screwed that up completely… we were forming legislation without basic facts.”

A new Associated Press report examining Colorado background check data in the first year of the new law proves the accuracy of Hickenlooper’s statement, and should (although likely won’t) end the repetition of an already discredited anti-gun background check factoid.

The report states that the Colorado Legislative Council, an offshoot of the state legislature that is tasked with analyzing legislation, estimated that 420,000 additional background checks would be conducted in the two years following the new private sale restrictions. This led the Colorado legislature to allocate $3 million to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to handle the anticipated increase.

However, the AP notes, “officials have performed only about 13,600 reviews considered a result of the new law — about 7 percent of the estimated first year total.” The article goes on to state, “In total, there were about 311,000 background checks done during the first year of the expansion in Colorado, meaning the 13,600 checks between private sellers made up about 4 percent of the state total.”

How did the Colorado Legislative Council get their estimate so wildly wrong?

They relied on the same bogus statistic (that 40 percent of gun transfers occur between private parties) which gun control advocates and the White House have been using to advocate for expanded background checks all over the country.

The 40 percent statistic is from a Police Foundation survey, the results of which were published in a 1997 National Institute of Justice report titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. The figure has been debunked repeatedly by the NRA and others, and even earned the President “Three Pinocchios” from the Washington Post’s fact-checker for his repeated use of the misleading stat.

Unfortunately, these public admonishments haven’t deterred gun control supporters from using this absurdly inflated figure. In November, Sen. Dianne Feinstein repeated the factoid in an opinion piece for the San Jose Mercury News. As recently as early July, the Brady campaign asserted in a press release, “Approximately 40 percent of all guns sales go unchecked.” A May press release from Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety reiterated estimates “that 40 percent of gun sales occur without a background check in the U.S.” Even President Obama’s official website, whitehouse.gov, has a page for his “Now is the Time” gun control campaign that continues to claim, “Right now, federally licensed firearms dealers are required to run background checks on those buying guns, but studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement.”

The data from Colorado’s first year of restricted private transfers makes continued use the 40 percent figure untenable. Still, some gun control advocates might seek to blame Colorado’s low increase in background checks on scofflaws, and those unaware of changes in the law, circumventing the new restrictions. Even if these factors did have a role to play in the underwhelming check numbers, they could hardly be expected to raise the percentage of undocumented private transfers by a factor of 10. Even if they could, it would merely weaken the case of the efficacy of private transfer restrictions. Evidence of background check avoidance would simply underscore NRA’s position that background check laws cannot affect the behavior of those who intentionally or unknowingly violate them.

Colorado’s expensive foray into background check expansion should serve as a warning to state and federal legislators as to the limited effect these laws can have, and the importance of collecting the “basic facts” before crafting legislation that inhibits the rights of their constituents.

Yet the tactics of gun control supporters are nothing if not shameless, so don’t expect them to relinquish the 40 percent myth any time soon. President Obama has openly embraced the confiscatory gun bans of Australia and Great Britain, and he and other gun control radicals realize they can’t achieve that goal without registration. “Universal” background checks are the next step in that direction, so for their proponents, the ends justify their dishonest means.

For everyone else, however, Colorado’s example is a resounding reminder that the war the proponents of “universal” background checks are waging is one of ideology, not one of facts, and it is certainly not in the service of “gun safety.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column is by the NRA-ILA with accompanying graphic.

Florida becomes Leading Safe Haven for Gun Manufacturers

/in , , , , , /by

Florida in particular, and Southern states in general, have become safe havens for gun manufacturers. In response to anti-gun legislation, labor issues and over-regulation in states where gun-making once flourished, like New York and Massachusetts,  manufacturers large and small are finding better places to do business across the American South.

The map below shows the recent relocation or expansion of forty gun manufacturing companies into Southern states. Of the forty companies Florida leads with way with ten companies or 25% of the total.

Guns_South_Map

Map courtesy of American Rifleman. For a larger view click on the image.

49H

John Zent.

John Zent in Gun Culture writes, “In the past six months, three preeminent firearm manufacturers—Ruger, Beretta, and Remington—announced plans to build new gun factories, and it’s no coincidence that all three chose not to expand at current locations. In fact, the companies publicly stated that moves to the gun-friendly South at least partly hinged on rampant anti-gun legislation in northeastern states where they have been long-time, tax-paying fixtures in the business community. In a Washington Times op-ed piece, Dr. Ugo Gusalli Beretta slammed the hypocrisy: ‘Unfortunately, as we were planning that expansion, Maryland’s governor and legislature voted in favor of new regulations that unfairly attack products we make and that our customers want. These regulations also demean our law-abiding customers, who must now be fingerprinted like criminals before they can be allowed to purchase one of our products.’”

“Significant gun manufacturing continues to occur in the northeast, where major players like Smith & Wesson, Kimber, Colt’s and SIG Sauer appear firmly entrenched. Ruger and Remington, for that matter, still have operations at their original locations. As American Rifleman Editor-in-Chief Mark Keefe pointed out in his “Keefe Report” last July (“Moving: It Isn’t That Simple”), there are many obstacles that stand in the way of gun-company relocation, not the least of which is concern for loyal employees. Nonetheless, one must wonder what the future holds for America’s traditional “Gun Valley” if states there continue on the course of self-destructive legislation that cripples corporate vigor and strips the rights of law-abiding citizens,” notes Zent.

Zent lists the following manufacturers who have relocated or expanded their facilities in the American South:

1) Ashbury Precision Ordnance, Ruckersville, VA
2) Sturm, Ruger, Mayodan, NC
3) Para USA, Pineville, NC
4) FNH USA/Winchester, Columbia, SC
5) Ithaca Gun, Aynor, SC
6) PTR, Aynor, SC
7) Daniel Defense, Ridgeland, SC
8) Daniel Defense, Black Creek, GA
9) MasterPiece Arms, Comer, GA
10) Lothar Walthar Precision, Cumming, GA
11) Knight’s Armament, Titusville, FL
12) Kel-Tec, Cocoa, FL
13) Diamondback, Cocoa, FL
14) Taurus/Rossi, Miami, FL
15) Heritage Manf., Miami, FL
16) Doublestar, Winchester, KY
17) Remington/Marlin, Mayfield, KY
18) Beretta, Gallatin, TN
19) Barrett, Murfreesboro, TN
20) Remington, Huntsville, AL
21) Steyr Arms, Bessemer, AL
22) Wilson Combat, Berryville, AR
23) Daisy Manf., Rogers, AR
24) Bond Arms, Granbury, TX
25) American Derringer, Waco, TX
26) STI Int’l, Georgetown, TX
27) High Standard/AMT, Houston, TX
28) Mossberg, Eagle Pass, TX
29) BPI Outdoors, Duluth, GA
30) Walther Arms, Fort Smith, AR
31) Nighthawk Custom, Berryville, AR
32) Surgeon Arms, Prague, OK
33) Shield/Texas Black Rifle, Shiner, TX
34) Alexander Arms, Radford, VA
35) Jarrett Rifles, Jackson, SC
36) American Tactical, Summerville, SC
37) Glock, Smyrna, GA
38) Core Rifle Systems, Ocala, FL
39) SCCY, Daytona Beach, FL
40) Ares Defense, Melbourne, FL
41) Serbu, Tampa, FL
42) Colt Competition, Breckenridge, TX

Somebody Picked the Wrong Girl

/in , , , , /by

Pitchfork Patriots writes, “In a new commercial that’s sure to get some liberal panties in a bunch, Glock has held nothing back. It’s amazing how conservative companies that liberals consider so controversial (like Glock or Daniel Defense) make such ‘safe’ advertisements and are still called out as controversial. There are no partially clad women, no violent altercations, no edgy language… but somehow because these gun manufacturers make guns, they are inherently controversial. Newsflash, folks! If we didn’t have gun manufacturers we wouldn’t have guns, and if we didn’t have guns what would be the point of our RIGHT to bear arms?”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/a2gCFOtaZPo[/youtube]

Gun Crimes Plummet Even as Gun Sales Rise

/in , , , , , /by

A majority of Americans say they think gun crime has increased over the past 20 years, even though it has actually fallen dramatically, a recent Pew Research Center survey shows.

Sources: DOJ, ATF AFMER & USITC, Pew Research Center, National Safety Council, Gallup

For more information visit: http://nssf.org/infographics

gun-crimes-plummet-even-as-gun-sales-rise_5203f959cd014

Governor Rick Scott Makes History Signing 5 Pro-gun Bills

/in , , , , /by

On, Friday, June 20, 2014, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed 5 pro-gun bills into law.  A strong supporter of the Second Amendment, Governor Rick Scott has now signed more pro-gun bills into law — in one term — than any other Governor in Florida history.

The bills are as follows:

HB-89 Threatened Use of Force  by Rep. Neil Combee/Rep. Katie Edwards and Sen. Greg Evers

SB-424 To Stop Insurance Discrimination Against Gun Owners  by Sen. Tom Lee and Rep. Matt Gaetz

HB-7029  Zero Tolerance/Pop Tart Bill  by Rep. Dennis Baxley and Sen. Greg Evers

HB-523 Concealed Weapon/Firearms Licenses Fast Track  by Rep. James Grant and Sen. Wilton Simpson

HB-525 Protection of Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Holder Information by Rep. James Grant and Sen. Wilton Simpson

A news article on Guns.com titled Florida governor signs five pro-gun measures into law, including “Pop Tart” and “Warning Shot” bills by Chris Eger on June 21, discusses these bills.  To read this article, please click here.

According to NRA/ILA:

It was a great session, marred only by the defeat of  SB-296/HB-209 by Sen. Jeff Brandes and Rep. Heather Fitzenhagen. This was the bill to allow law-abiding citizens to carry their firearms with them during a mandatory evacuation under a declared state of emergency, rather than leave them in their homes for theft by looters or destruction by hurricanes or other disasters. However, the Florida Sheriffs Association and numerous anti-gun sheriffs fought to kill the bill. They were not successful in their efforts in the House, because Representatives put your safety and your rights above anti-gun sheriffs who didn’t support the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

However, in the Senate, Sen. Jack Latvala became the champion of the Florida Sheriffs Association and supported their efforts to kill this gun owner protection bill.  Sen. Latvala pulled together a coalition of Republican Senators who were willing to sacrifice your rights and to pander to anti-gun sheriffs and help kill the bill.

Remember these names. Some are up for re-election this year. Some are not up for re-election until 2016.  Do not forget them.

Sen. Jack Latvala (R)  SD-20
Sen. Charlie Dean (R) SD-5
Sen. Nancy Detert (R) SD-28
Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla (R) SD-40
Sen. Rene Garcia (R) 38
Sen. Denise Grimsley (R) SD-21
Sen. Alan Hays (R) SD-11
Sen. John Legg (R) SD-17
Sen. Garrett Richter (R) SD-23

How Covering up Minority Crime Leads to Gun Control

/in , , , , , , /by

Commenting recently on the Elliot Rodger killings, arch-leftist Michael Moore wrote that while “other countries have more violent pasts…more guns per capita in their homes… and the kids in most other countries watch the same violent movies and play the same violent video games that our kids play, no one even comes close to killing as many of its own citizens on a daily basis as we do….” From a man who used to take the simple-minded gun-control position “fewer guns=less homicide,” it was surprising evidence of growth. After making his point, however, Moore made a mistake in following up with, “and yet we don’t seem to want to ask ourselves this simple question: “Why us? What is it about US?” It’s not, however, that we don’t want to ask the question.

It’s that we don’t want to hear the answer.

We can begin seeking it by asking another question: Why is it that Vermont, with approximately the same rate of gun ownership as Louisiana, has less than one-eighth the murder rate? Even more strikingly, why does New Hampshire have both a far higher gun ownership rate and a lower murder rate than England, Piers Morgan’s favorite poster-boy nation for gun control?

Professor Thomas Sowell provided more of these seeming contradictions in 2012, writing:

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks.

… [There are also] countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

So what’s the answer we don’t want to hear? The critical difference among these regions and nations is explained right in Sowell’s title: it’s “not guns.”

“It’s people.”

What “people” differences are relevant? Let’s start with race and ethnicity. In the cases of homicide in 2012 in which the races of the perpetrators were known, 55 percent were committed by blacks, 62 percent of whom were under 30 years of age. Black youths are 16 percent of the youth population, but constitute 52 percent of those arrested for juvenile violent crime.

The statistics for Hispanics are more difficult to ferret out because, unbeknownst to many, law enforcement agencies tend to lump them in with whites in crime statistics (the FBI has announced that it will finally categorize Hispanic crime — in its report on 2013). However, there is some information available. Examiner’s Ken LaRive tells us that “Hispanics commit three times more violent crimes than whites,” but that the disparity could be even greater because of their often being classified as white.

The National Youth Gang Survey Analysis reports that gang members are approximately 49 percent Hispanic, 35 percent black and 10 percent white. And while whites are 35 percent of NYC’s population, blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crime in the Big Apple and 98 percent of all gun crime.

Another good indicator is international crime statistics. Hispanic countries dominate the homicide-rate rankings, with Honduras topping the list with a rate eight times as high as that of our worst state,Louisiana. Also note that there are no European/European descent nations in the top 20 and not one Western-tradition nation in the top 30 (Russia and Moldova are 24 and 28, respectively).

And what can we say about these “people” differences? It’s much as with the question of why men are more likely to be drunkards than women. You could explore whether the differences were attributable to nature, nurture or both. But it would be silly to wonder if the answer lay in men having greater access to bars, alcohol or shot glasses.

This brings us to why covering up minority criminality encourages gun control:

Americans won’t understand that the critical factor is people differences if they aren’t told about the people differences.

They will then — especially since most citizens aren’t even aware that there are nations with more firearms but less murder — be much more likely to blame guns. Of course, this is precisely what you want if you’re a left-wing media propagandist.

There is a question that could now be posed by the other side: if the main difference in criminality is demographics, why not outlaw guns? After all, it won’t make a difference one way or the other, right? I’ll offer a couple of answers to this question.

First, for a people to maintain just liberties, a freedom must always be considered innocent until proven guilty; the burden of proof is not on those who would retain it, but on those who would take it away.

Second, while private gun ownership and just law enforcement can’t turn barbarians into civilized people any more than excellent schools can transform dunces into geniuses, they can act as mitigating factors that minimize criminality as much as possible given the “raw material” with which the particular society has to work. It’s much as how you can maximize your personal safety: you may be safer in a great neighborhood with no martial arts training than in a terrible one with that training. Nonetheless, it allows you to be safer than you would be otherwise whatever neighborhood you choose.

And what do the stats show in our fair to middling USA neighborhood? Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck reported that guns are used by good citizens 2.2 to 2.5 million times per year to deter crime. That likely saves many more innocent lives than are lost in massacres every year, but these unseen non-victims don’t make headlines the way Sandy Hook tragedies do. That’s why I like to say, using a twist on a Frédéric Bastiat line, a bad social analyst observes only what can be seen. A good social analyst observes what can be seen — and what must be foreseen.

Lastly, one more truth becomes evident upon recognizing that demographics are the main factor in criminality: even if you do believe in gun control, imposing it federally and applying a one-size fits all standard is ridiculous. In terms of people and crime, there’s a world of difference between towns in New Hampshire or Vermont, with their England-level murder rates, and cities such as East St. Louis, IL, or Detroit, which rival El Salvador in citizen lethality. You can make gun control the same everywhere, but you can’t change the fact that people will be very, very different.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Florida State Attorney Angela Corey wrongfully prosecuting lawful gun owners

/in , , /by

Florida has over a million citizens who have valid concealed carry permits issued by the Florida Department of Agriculture. The eligibility requirements are strict as are those reasons which make one ineligible for a concealed carry permit. It appears that those who carry are being increasingly prosecuted by State Attorney Angela B. Corey from the 4th Judicial Circuit.

State Attorney Corey’s website states:

As your State Attorney, I am charged with upholding the United States Constitution, as well as the Constitution and Statutes of the great and sovereign State of Florida, as they relate to the prosecution of crimes committed against our citizens. By adhering to this standard we will vigorously pursue justice for all victims of crimes while maintaining the rights of every individual.

In an email the Florida TEA Party states, “Florida Assistant Attorney Generals and Local State Prosecutors are out of control in fighting against the Second Amendment. Once again the anti-gun elements in the Florida Attorney General’s office are attempting to scuttle the appeal in the case of Norman v. State. The Norman case is the only viable case in the country arguing for recognition of the constitutional right to open carry.”

Norman v. State (FL) is the case of Dale Norman, a law abiding concealed carry licensee, who was arrested on February 19, 2012 and prosecuted in Fort Pierce, FL for violating Florida nearly complete ban on Open Carry after his otherwise lawfully carried handgun unknowingly became unconcealed while walking down the street the first time he carried outside his home with his new Florida concealed carry license. Watch the video of the arrest of Dale Norman:

According to the Florida TEA Party, “Since the appeal was first brought, the West Palm Beach Office of the Attorney General has repeatedly attempted to derail the case based on procedural arguments that the lower court did not properly certify its questions of great public importance. The AG’s office even appealed the case to the Florida Supreme Court in an attempt to keep the Fourth District Court of Appeals from hearing the case. They want the case heard by a Circuit Court where a recognition of the right to carry will not have state-wide effect and will be decided by only one local judge. A request was sent to the Assistant Attorney General in Palm Beach asking them to consent to the lower Court amending its judgement to include the certified question in the order of Judgement and Sentence to correct the AG’s claimed procedural defect that may exist.”

The response: We (the Attorney General’s Office) will take “no position”…

Florida Carry notes, “The Second Amendment question is fairly straightforward; Florida courts have clearly found that the carrying of a concealed firearm is a privilege, subject even to being banned completely, not a right protected by the constitution. Florida appellate courts have held that the ‘Retroactive application of (new Florida Statutes), is not unconstitutional because a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm is a privilege and not a vested right.’ Crane v. Department of State, 547 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1989). The Florida Legislature and Supreme Court have long recognized that there is a right to bear arms outside of the home. The ‘privilege of a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm’ recognized in Crane cannot replace, or substitute for, the fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. and Florida Constitutions.”

“No credible organization could question the pro-gun record of Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi who has signed on to support many important federal amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court that were filed by other state’s AGs, but her own office is apparently in need some deep house cleaning. The ruling and intent of the lower court is clear, that this case be reviewed by a panel of appellate court judges as a matter of great public importance that impacts thousands of law enforcement officers and millions of gun owners,” notes the Florida TEA Party.

There are two other cases that various Florida pro-Second Amendment organizations are involved with involving concealed carry permit holders In State Attorney Corey’s jurisdiction. In the first case, a man was arrested on his own front porch for having a handgun in a closed bag, while finishing moving. State Attorney Corey’s office claims that it was no longer his home, since he was moving, and is prosecuting him for a felony. In the second, a Florida concealed weapons licensee has been sentenced to 60 days in jail for an open carry ban violation after his shirt rode up over his holster in a store exposing his firearm.

The Florida TEA Party is asking its members to contact Attorney General Bondi and make their thoughts known. Attorney General Bondi may be contacted by using an email form, via Facebook, and on Twitter.

UPDATE 6/25/2014: Florida Representative Ray Pilon, a member of the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee, stated in an email, “She [Corey] is also the one that caused us to pass the so called ‘warning shot bill’ although that is not the purpose of the law. She prosecuted a woman for defending herself in a domestic violent incident. She missed and was prosecuted by Angela for Aggravated Battery. If the woman had killed her assailant she it would have  been ruled justifiable. It does surprise and concern me that Assistant Attorney Generals are doing what you posted.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Vermont: Safe and Happy and Armed to the Teeth | National Review Online
More State Attorney’s Office Resignations After Angela Corey and Bernie De La Rionda Use Department Operating Funds To Pad Their Retirement Accounts…

Hunting on Public Lands at Risk!

/in , , , , /by

You may have seen the news that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), along with other anti-hunting groups and individuals, filed a petition with the Interior Department demanding rules against hunting with traditional ammunition on public lands – one-fifth of the total land area in the U.S.

The National Sports Shooting Foundation (NSSF) warned this was coming after the HSUS playbook was discovered. After all, this is the same HSUS that is run by Wayne Pacelle, who has made his goals known:

“If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.” (The Kingman Daily Miner, 30 December 1991).

“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States. We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.” (Full Cry Magazine, 1 October 1990).

The 50 page-petition is littered with junk science and fails to make the case that the use of traditional ammunition is a threat to wildlife populations or to humans that would warrant such a drastic action. Are we really to believe USUS finds hunting acceptable just so long as hunters use alternative ammunition?  Hunters, sportsmen and target shooters aren’t gullible.  We know better than to trust HSUS with setting hunting policy for the entire country. But we can’t assume the Obama Administration’s Interior Department is on our side.

Call Interior Secretary Sally Jewell today at 202-208-3181 and tell her to reject this scientifically baseless petition from HSUS to ban traditional ammunition. Let the Department of the Interior know that requiring the use of alternative, non-lead ammunition, is nothing more than a back-door way to ban hunting by raising the price of participating in an American sporting tradition. Make sure to tell them:

  • There is no sound science to support banning traditional ammunition used by hunters for centuries.
  • Don’t allow the Humane Society and other anti-hunting groups to advance their end game of banning all hunting through the tactic of by banning the use of traditional ammunition for hunting on public lands.
  • There is absolutely no adverse wildlife population impact that warrants such a drastic measure.
  • There is no evidence that consuming game taken with traditional ammunition poses a human health to hunters and their family.
  • Hunters are the original conservationists.  Excise taxes (11%) raised from the sale of traditional ammunition the HSUS and others unfairly demonize is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. Banning traditional ammunition will harm the very animals HSUS claims to care about.

Call your officials today: DOI Office of Communications: 202-208-6416   DOI Executive Office: 202-208-3181 FWS Public Affairs: 703-358-222

Are Most Mass Murderers Really White?

/in , , , , /by

Aside from attacks on the Second Amendment, there is a certain theme that’s now repeated after every massacre committed by an unhinged individual: that most all mass killers are white. After the recent Elliot Rodger murders, for instance, Michael Moore said that he no longer had “anything to say” before immediately saying, “Nearly all of our mass shootings are by angry or disturbed white males.” Not to be one-upped in the inanity department by a mass of male whiteness, one Brittney Cooper at Salon wrote, “How many times must troubled young white men engage in these terroristic acts that make public space unsafe for everyone before we admit that white male privilege kills?” Ironically, Cooper had mentioned, parenthetically, that “as many commenters have pointed out, [Rodger] had a white father and mother of Asian descent,” but, hey, you can’t let a minor detail get in the way of a good racial screed. And perhaps mass killing is such a Caucasian domain that perpetrating one bestows a person with honorary whiteness. Yet about this we should ask a question:

Before rushing to play pin the tale on the honkey, did anyone bother to check the history of mass killings?

Because I have — a comprehensive list dating from 1982 through 9/16/2013 is found at Mother Jones here — and guess what?

Of the last 20 mass killings of that period, 9 were perpetrated by non-whites.

That would be 45 percent, which exceeds non-whites’ 37 percent share of the population.

Of the last 30 mass killings, 11 were committed by non-whites — right at the 37 percent mark.

And what if we go all the way back to 1982? We then have 66 mass killings in which the races of the perpetrators were known, and 22 of them, or one-third, were at the hands of non-whites. Note here that America’s demographics have been changing, with non-whites comprising only about 20 percent of the population in 1982; thus, if we consider an approximate average non-white population of 28.5 percent during the 31-year period in question, it appears that, again, mass murderers are disproportionately non-white.

In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever that mass killings are a characteristically white phenomenon.

And there never was.

In fact, the group most disproportionately represented on the Mother Jones chart is Americans of Asian descent. While only 6 percent of the population, they have been 15 percent of the 31-year period’s last 20 mass killers, 13 percent of the last 30, and 9 percent of the last 66. This is quite interesting, too, since Americans of Asian descent have a very low crime rate in general.

So in light of this, why are whites implicated in mass killings? The answer is one word: Prejudice.

Note that prejudice is defined as:

“1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.”

Claiming that a group commits a disproportionate amount of crime when, if anything, the truth is the opposite, is the epitome of forming beliefs without knowledge, thought, or reason. It’s seizing upon a fashionable falsehood for the purposes of maligning an unfashionable group and advancing a fallacious agenda.

The truth is that if we don’t want to be “cowards” on race, as Eric “the Red” Holder said Americans were, we do need to speak frankly about criminality in the US. But does this involve talking about “troubled young white men” who “make public space unsafe for everyone,” as Brittney Cooper suggested? Perhaps she might want to consult with Jesse Jackson, who once said that when he walked down the street, heard footsteps and thought robbery, he’d “feel relieved” if he turned around and saw a white person behind him. So, really, if we were cynical, we could think that the Coopers of the world were trying to deflect attention from black criminality by trumpeting the white-mass-killer myth.

Then again, this all could just be the result of the new Common Core math. Take Elliot Rodger, for instance. He killed half his victims with a knife, but the whole focus was on guns. (And he’s widely referred to as a “shooter.” I think he was a slasher.) He was half Asian, but the whole focus was on whites. You could also call it situational attribution: a mixed race person is defined by his minority half when he achieves, as with our first “black” president. But when such an individual is recognized as having committed a crime, he’s suddenly white. This can only make us wonder how long it will be before Barack Obama becomes white.

Anyway, the left may be upset that another one of their themes, the white-mass-killer myth, has bitten the dust. But all is not lost. In the area of massacres as in so many other things, they can always celebrate diversity.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED GRAPHIC:

guns and property crime

Gunophobia is a serious national problem — Therapy Now Available

/in , , , , /by
child with water guns

Stop gunophobia – its the right thing to do!

It is time to end the irrational, psychologically impairing and irrational disease sweeping America known as gunophobia. Gunophobia is defined as:

An unreasonable fear or hatred of rifles, pistols, pop-tarts shaped like guns, cap guns, water pistols or strangers who own guns or of that which is foreign or strange like buying a gun, shooting a gun, duck hunting and/or carrying a gun.

Notable gunophobics include: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Foundation. It should be noted that President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden like shotguns, which are guns.

The early explorers and settlers of the United States took full advantage of the abundant game to be found in the new lands they were beginning to inhabit. The ability to hunt wild animals for food not only offered a means for survival, but also allowed settlers to expand their territories farther west. It was taken for granted that every man, starting in his teenage years, would know how to shoot a rifle.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1791, as a direct result of the Revolutionary War; without access to weapons, the colonists would not have been able to defeat the British troops. In part, the Second Amendment states that a “well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mainstream: Girls with Guns in America
Texas Gun Store Marquee – ”I Like My Guns Like Obama Likes His Voters – Undocumented“
Wildlife is Thriving Because of Guns and Hunting

Disarming Americans 1-2-3: The Relentless Attacks on the Second Amendment

/in , , , , , /by

There is growing concern that law abiding gun owning Americans are under attack by every level of government.

In our public schools children are taught under Common Core that guns are evil and the Second Amendment is invalid. Joe Wolverton II, J.D. in The New American reports, “In a textbook approved by Common Core for use by students studying for the Advanced Placement (AP) history exam, the Second Amendment is defined this way: “The Second Amendment: The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.”

Anti-gun federal judges, including U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, are using the bench to help disarm law abiding citizens. Some governors, notably Mario Cuomo (D-NY), and a growing number of state legislators are joining with members of Congress, like Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), to disarm the law abiding American gun owner.

Finally, gun manufacturers are either moving out of anti-gun states or have stopped selling their products in anti-gun states like California.

All of these efforts are leading to a national crisis, for whenever law abiding citizens are disarmed, violent crime increases. Both the U.S. Department of Justice and Pew Research have reported that when gun sales increase crime plummets.

The latest tactic used by anti-gun advocates and the U.S. Department of Justice is “Operation Choke Point.”

On May 29th The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) today issued the following statement:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has been investigating the possible role of the federal government in influencing banks in their lending and business banking relationship decisions regarding companies in our industry. We have heard from several industry members that they had banking relationships terminated by their lending institutions.

We respect the right of financial institutions to make business decisions based on objective criteria. It is unacceptable, however, to discriminate against businesses simply because they are engaged in the lawful commerce of firearms, an activity protected by the Second Amendment.

Another effort to disarm law abiding Americans is gun registration. James W. Porter, President of the National Rifle Association, in his special report “Registered Firearms Today – Confiscated Firearms Tomorrow” states:

The long, sordid history of “gun control” tells us that losses of our rights have come a step at a time, always with assurances—lies—from the gun-ban crowd that law-abiding gun owners have nothing more to fear.

Today, in long-ago free states like New York, Connecticut, Maryland and California, peaceable citizens are in grave danger of being transformed into criminals for failing to waive the exercise of their right to keep and bear arms.

Read more.

In the article “California’s Most Ambitious Handgun Ban Now Underway” the NRA-ILA reports:

In 1976, the Brady Campaign, then known as the National Council to Control Handguns, said that the first part of its three-part plan to get handguns and handgun ammunition made “totally illegal” was to “slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.”  This month, anti-gunners finally got that wish in California.

America’s two largest handgun manufacturers–Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger–have announced that they will stop selling new semi-automatic handguns in California, rather than comply with the state’s “microstamping” law.  The law applies not only to entirely new models of handguns, but also to any current-production handgun approved by the state’s Roster Board, if such handgun is modified with any new feature or characteristic, however minor or superficial.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the law was “intended to help police investigators link shell casings found at crime scenes to a specific gun.”  That’s pure spin, however. In reality, the law, signed in 2007 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, is intended to terminate semi-automatic handgun sales and, over time, semi-automatic handgun ownership in the state. “Microstamping” will solve few, if any crimes and it is only a matter of time before a proposal to expand the law to include other firearms will follow.

Meanwhile, the National Shooting Sports Foundation has announced that it and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute have filed suit against the law in Fresno Superior Court “seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief against this back-door attempt to prevent the sale of new semiautomatic handguns to law-abiding citizens in California.”

Anti-gun activists often refer to California as the test bed for gun control laws they would like to have imposed throughout the country.  Thus, it goes without saying that gun owners outside California should anticipate “microstamping” efforts in their states, and do what it takes to elect pro-Second Amendment governors and state legislators to deny the anti-gunners additional victories.

The disarming of law abiding Americans is the goal, and any means are justified to achieve that end. A disarmed citizen is after all a dependent citizen. Unable to defend him or herself from criminals, including the government, is necessary for a totalitarian state to thrive and survive. History tells us so.

Beware of those bearing anti-gun gifts.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Operation Choke Point: Congressman Proposes Cutting Off Funding For DOJ Program Targeting Gun Dealers
Mayor Rahm Emanuel Continues Crusade: Wants Gun Purchases Restricted to Once A Month, Recorded, and Not Allowed Near Schools

Open letter to President Obama: On Using U.S. Military Forces Against We The People

/in , , , , /by

Dear President Obama,

I understand you considered using U.S. military force against militia forces at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. Well golly we are shaking in our boots. You understand this would have been in direct violation of the the 1878 “Posse Comitatus Act” and an act of war against “We the people”.

The Posse Comitatus Act states:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

This would also explain the purging of our military at the highest levels. I guess these purged commanders refused to comply with your request to shoot upon the American people if called upon to do so by YOU! Well you fired over 200 of these brave patriots and now they are 100 times more powerful as armed private citizens. You made a huge mistake.

Mr. President, you considered a military attack against the militia at the Bundy Ranch by applying the unconstitutional Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” which was issued by the Pentagon on December 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.” To continue it states:

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,”

The directive then states.

“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.

The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,”

Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.

The directive was signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn. The full text of the directive may be found on the Pentagon website.

So why did a U.S. official, a man who works in the White House state that you considered but then rejected deploying military forces under this directive during the recent standoff with our militia at Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s home?

Mr. President, why did you cave in and not fire upon the militia members at the Bundy ranch? Why did you order the Bureau of Land Management, (BLM) a federal, fascist like, militarized unit to stand down?

You must have seen the light and realized you would lose this fight. You would then have been arrested and impeached for crimes against the U.S. Constitution, charged with the murder of innocent Americans and you probably would have started a Second American Revolutionary War.

We the people will not permit such folly. The Second Amendment is probably the only thing keeping your progressive/socialist policies in check. It kept Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japanese out of our nation during World War II. Now its keeping you in check too. Agreed? Our founding Fathers were wiser than we could ever imagine, and you are the newest iteration of the Communist – Fascist – Marxist ideology they prepared us for.

Mr. President, defense analysts across this nation are watching you very closely and they state you have built tactical armed military units within non-security-related federal agencies. You have created Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams within the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Internal Revenue Service and the Education Department, etc., etc., etc.

Why are you doing this Mr. President and why is the Congress allowing you to do this? Where is Speaker John Boehner? There is ZERO leadership in the Congress for the people.

The militarization of federal agencies is in full swing and the White House continues to launch psychological Saul Alinskyesque attacks upon U.S. private citizens’ regarding ownership of firearms despite the fact that Americans are law-abiding citizens.

Where is the Congress of the United States? We paying them $175,000 a year for what, exactly? To sit around while the BLM, IRS, DHS and other federal agencies build armies against we the people? It is time for Speaker Boehner get off the fence and start writing a bill to disarm all of these federal agencies. DO IT NOW or blood will be spilled, American blood! Congressman Miller get off your seat and stand with the people! Write the bill, pass it and get it through the U.S. Senate.

I called the White House National Security Council direct line for an answer but your team won’t comment to me. What are you hiding Mr. President?

I am glad Mr. President you chose wisely and abandoned your attempt to shoot our Constitutionally legally amassed militia forces in Nevada. The outcome of such a battle would be a huge loss for the government. Trust me. There are more of us than you and we are not afraid to protect the Republic legally and constitutionally under all Amendments the Founding Fathers entrusted us with.

God Bless America and shame on the Congress for not protecting us. I guess it up to us. This is why more guns and ammo are being bought by American men and women. They are going to need them one day it appears. Mr. Obama is preparing a war against we the people.

Working off facts and not hear-say on this issue, I believe I am 99.9% right.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Undocumented Immigrants’ Will Be Able to ‘Join the Military’

Scandal: Veterans Administration taking guns away from 175,000 veterans

/in , , , , /by

Within the past week, Gun Owners of America received an e-mail from a member being treated by the VA (Department of Veterans Affairs).  The member was also receiving Social Security benefits, and Social Security had appointed a guardian to manage his financial affairs.

The member wrote us because the VA, based on the Social Security guardian, was moving to take his guns away.

Although it is Standard Operating Procedure for the VA to appoint its own guardians and use this to justify its gun ban on more than 175,000 veterans, it now appears to us that the VA is searching for new “gun ban excuses” to strip even more veterans of their constitutional rights.

Which brings us to VA Secretary Eric Shinseki.  It appears that the Obama administration is so busy using the VA to strip veterans of their gun rights that it doesn’t have time to provide them with medical treatment.

Shinseki was dragged before a Senate hearing Thursday to explain massive waiting lists for treatment.  High level executives at the VA ignored warnings that these lists existed, and agency officials issued falsified letters to conceal them.  Altogether, these delays may have resulted in the deaths of 40 or more veterans at the Phoenix location alone.  The scandal has now spread to at least 10 states, and seems to reflect an endemic problem with the VA.

Shinseki’s response?  He is pushing an Inspector General investigation which will be completed in August.  But even liberal Democrats have questioned how many veterans will die between now and then as a result of the department’s misplaced priorities.

As a result, the American Legion has called for Shinseki’s removal.

Why does this matter to gun owners?

The answer is this:  The VA appears to be too busy with gun bans to do its job.

“We’ve known that combat veterans are being systematically stripped of their rights for some time now,” says Dan Cannon, the founder and editor of GunsSaveLives.net. “There have been numerous reports of veterans losing their gun rights due to seeking counseling or help with depression, PTSD, or for simply not having their financial affairs in perfect order.”

We’re sure that the Obama administration will counter that it doesn’t take much time at all to take away a veteran’s constitutional rights.  But no matter how many personnel or how much time it takes to promote Obama’s anti-gun agenda, it is too much!

This is another example of a phenomenon which is pervasive in the Obama administration:  Politics over performance.

And it’s not going to stop until someone loses his job for pursuing Obama’s anti-gun agenda, at the expense of his department’s mission.

RELATED STORIES:

Lessons of the VA Scandal
Sen. Ed Markey Wants $10 Million Per Year to Treat Guns Like Disease at CDC
Krauthammer on Obama’s Response to VA Scandal: “The Buck Stops Nowhere”
Miami VA Whistleblower Exposes Drug Dealing, Theft, Abuse – CBS Miami
Where VA Has Taken Veterans, Obamacare is Leading All Americans

Gun Control Works

/in , , , , /by

Jot down what you think may have been the #1 cause of death in the world in the past 100 years then watch this clip. Bet you never thought of this!

Gun Free Zones Work. The number one killer of innocent people is gun control and gun free zones.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/0sujnvIV4g4[/youtube]

 

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Politico.

Texas Gun Store Marquee – ” I Like My Guns Like Obama Likes His Voters – Undocumented “

/in , , , /by

A gun store outside of Houston, Texas went for some shock and awe with its front marquee this week, at the expense of its characterization of President Barack Obama’s electoral demographic. The sign out front of Katy, TX’s Tactical Firearms reads, “I like my guns like Obama likes his voters: undocumented.” Tactical Firearms changes its sign every week, and the one-liners usually come from the staff. According to the owner, this week’s sign is reference to the fact that Texas does not require firearm registration. “Thank god for our First and Second Amendment rights,” he said in a statement to local news agencies. “It’s meant as a joke. It’s meant to be funny.”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/jbotP1QCuwE[/youtube]

This is not Tactical Firearms‘ first foray into the politics of gun control. Last fall the shop hosted a debate among then-CNN host Piers Morgan, Ted Nugent, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, and State Senator Dan Patrick.