Gun Control Activist David Hogg Targets Semi-Automatic Rifles

A survivor of the 2018 massacre on Valentine’s Day at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, and now enrolled at Harvard, student gun control activist David Hogg has become a sought-after speaker at colleges and universities, and the odds are off the chart that he’ll be given a prime-time slot at the Democratic National Convention in August.  While I fully support his right to protest things he thinks are wrong, I respectfully disagree with his belief that school carnage will end if semi-automatic rifles are banned.

When I was in high school in the early 1960s, there were no mass school shootings.  The only times I remember seeing a police officer at school was once a year to give a talk about obeying the law.  Only occasionally were policemen summoned to schools to deal with violent students.  After the profound cultural changes our society has undergone since the 1960s, threatening behavior by troubled students is commonplace — Nikolas Cruz, who used an AR-15 to murder seventeen people at Stoneman Douglas High, was threatening teachers and other students with violence long before he did the unthinkable.

The dramatic increase in violent behavior by students is why most schools in America now have at least one full-time police officer.  Some schools have more, many more.  Like its counterparts in other large cities, the public school system in Detroit has its own police department, which employees hundreds of administrators, investigators, campus police officers, security personnel and a K-9 unit.  Why is it necessary for so many school districts to have their own police department?  The answer is a national tragedy: schools in our largest cities and counties have become dangerous places where lawless behavior by students is so prevalent that police must be close at hand.  Prior to the anything goes ‘sex, drugs and rock & roll’ cultural decay that generally began in 1968, school systems that had their own police department were virtually non-existent.

If, as I believe, banning semiautomatic rifles will not put a dent in school shootings, what will?  Here’s my answer.  Most school shootings are carried out by severely disturbed young white males whose thought processes went haywire due to acute mental illness (bad genes, drugs) or a dysfunctional childhood (bad parenting) — or both, as was the case with Nikolas Cruz.  Another reason for school shootings can be laid squarely at the feet of the corrosive cultural decline of the society in which these deranged mass murderers developed their upside down sense of right and wrong.

The anything-goes progressive culture that permeates virtually every facet our society teaches these young madmen the politically correct concept of moral relativism, the idea that moral judgments are values that can vary, depending on the viewpoints of differing cultural norms.  In other words, there is no clear-cut right and wrong.  If some people believe it’s O.K. to throw gay men from rooftops — an approved practice in some Muslim countries — who’s to say that’s wrong?  It’s what their native culture believes.  In contemporary America, troubled young minds receive mixed messages about what’s permissible and, far more important, what’s totally off limits.

When I was David’s age, kids had ready access to guns, but not to violent imagery.  Young people of today are bombarded with gratuitously violent movies and video games that make the act of pumping bullets into human beings seem almost hip.  Some studies show little connection between such viewing and mass shootings, but how can a constant stream of bloody visual carnage not have a profoundly negative impact on troubled young minds?  The simulated violence that blurs the distinction between fantasy and reality is knowingly mainlined into the consciousness of today’s youth by the entertainment industry and its anything-goes progressive values.

Progressive curriculums in our schools and colleges teach budding white male mass murderers to be ashamed not only of their country, but their skin color, as well.  Their already-confused minds are methodically indoctrinated with the concept of white privilege, a political narrative designed to create racial guilt and self-loathing among white people.  Militant feminism further erodes the self-worth of young white males by stereotyping them with the invented malady known as toxic masculinity.  Message: They’re not only white and male, God forbid, they’re also wildly cruel to women.  The constant assault on their gender and skin color turns some of them into emotionally damaged young men who withdraw into isolation and anger.

Our society’s progressive-dominated culture teaches mentally troubled young white males to loathe themselves, that right and wrong are malleable concepts, and that viewing simulated images of gory violence is a cool way to have fun.  No wonder some of them become mass murderers.  Through its relentless indoctrination in political correctness, multiculturalism, racial politics and feminist victimization, progressivism further screws up the already screwed-up minds of future school shooters.  The dramatic cultural upheaval since I was in school coincides almost perfectly with the sharp increase in self-inflicted deaths by young people: the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that in 2017 the suicide rate among young people reached its highest point since the government began collecting such statistics in 1960.

Would David also ban knives and automobiles?

I read that four times more people are stabbed to death than are killed by rifles, including semi-automatics, such as AR-15s.  I’m not sure if that ratio is entirely accurate, because the FBI’s crime statistics breakdown of the specific kind of gun used to commit murder is somewhat ambiguous.  In any event, a lot of people are killed by knives each year. I’m sure David would agree that those deaths are just as tragic as the ones taken by Nikolas Cruz, yet no sane person would call for banning knives.

Left at rest, a loaded gun is incapable of spontaneously discharging. The only way a gun can kill is if a human picks it up and fires it.  Making guns the scapegoat for school shootings and other mass killings is no different than blaming DUI manslaughters on cars and trucks.  I have never been arrested and have no history of mental illness.  Other than to home invaders and anarchists, my AR-15 poses a threat to no one.  Taking such weapons away from responsible people like me wouldn’t stop a single school shooting.  The battle we face is not against inanimate objects used by deranged people to kill.  The battle is against the mental illnesses, drug addictions and cultural depravity that cause disturbed people to do horrible things.

©John Edison. All rights reserved.

CULTURAL ROT: The Left’s War Against Guns But Not Criminals

“I respect the culture and the tradition and the concerns of lawful gun owners. At the same time, the Second Amendment, like all other rights, is not absolute. – Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., June 2, 2022, White House

“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. –  Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution


The “broken glass theory” in criminology states that visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes.

When you allow crime you get more crimes. Worse, if you idolize any criminal then you are, by definition, wanting and encouraging more people to become criminals.

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., his administration, Democrats in Congress and the Democratic Party have made gun control front-and-center issue for the 2022 midterm election. At the same time they are breaking more and more glass as they do so.

Tuesday, May 31st, 2022 on MSNBC, Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said that after last week’s deadly shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, “gun violence protection is going to be on the ballot” in the upcoming midterm elections.

Gun violence protection is code for draconian gun control. 

At the same time Biden and Democrats continue to make convicted felons and criminals, like George Floyd, into virtual martyrs. George Floyd is the epitome of a broken glass.

Before and since the Uvalde Massacre there has been an ongoing effort to idolize criminals and criminality.

On May 25th, 2022 Barack Hussein Obama tweeted the following:

What Obama has done is make it a priority to demonize the police while elevating a convicted felon into a cult idol. If you are black and a criminal then you’re idolized by the likes of Barack Hussein Obama. This fits the narrative of the Black Lives Matter movement and their goal to instill the myth that black lives matter more than any and all other lives.

Their combined messaging is that no matter how evil blacks are the police are far worse.

Another example is that of Democrat Stacy Abrams. Discover the Networks reported,

Stacey Abrams serves as a board member and governor of a UPS family foundation that has repeatedly voiced support for defunding and abolishing the police, according to Fox News.

Georgia gubernatorial candidate Abrams has tepidly tried to distance herself from the #DefundThePolice movement in the past, but she’s still listed as a board member and governing person at the Seattle-based Marguerite Casey Foundation, which tweeted #DefundThePolice as recently as March of this year and #AbolishThePolice as recently as February.

The foundation has also tweeted support for abolishing law enforcement and prison systems. On Feb. 11, the group shared a story about the “Prison Industrial Complex in Atlanta” and tweeted “#AbolishthePolice.” The foundation also hosted an event in early February titled, “Becoming Abolitionists—A History of Failed Police Reforms & Vision for True Public Safety.”

In October 2021, the foundation held a book giveaway event promoting a book of essays called Abolition For The People: The Movement For A Future Without Policing & Prisons by cop-hating communist Colin Kaepernick.

Abrams has received at least $52,500 in income from the far-left foundation, according to her financial disclosures. Her campaign told Fox News Digital that Abrams does not hold the same views as the foundation.

If I wanted more school massacres

Democrats Introduced Bill to Get Police Out of Schools – Despite Slaughtered Children

If I were against law and order and didn’t care about the deaths of the 19 children and 2 adults massacred by 18-year-old Salvador Ramos I would:

  1. Make public schools gun free zones and not allow principals, law enforcement officers, teachers to be trained and armed to defend themselves and their students.
  2. I would use every school shooting to make America a gun free zone, using the myth that guns kill people, not evil people kill people.
  3. I would use people like Golden State Warriors basketball Coach Steve Kerr who “joined dozens of Oakland Unified School district parents and students who are calling for the district to dismantle its internal police force.”
  4. I would shout from the roof tops and in front of news cameras and from the school house to the White House “gun control, gun control, gun control and more gun control.”
  5. I would use filmmakers like Michael Moore to state on television, “We will not acknowledge that we are a violent people, to begin with. This country was birthed in violence with genocide of the native people at the barrel of a gun. This country was built on the backs of slaves with a gun to their backs to build this country into the country that we got to have. We do not want to acknowledge or two original sins here that have a gun behind the ability behind our ability to become who we became.”
  6. I would create a black idols like racist propagandist Joy Reid who called for Canada, and Mexico to build walls in response to U.S. mass school shootings.
  7. Then I would get actors like Rob Reiner to blame the killing of innocent children by a deranged boy on my political opponents. I would put these word into Reiner’s mouth, “The blood of every child that dies of gun violence in this country is on the hands of the Republican Party.”
  8. Of course, I would have my evil servant from CNN Wolf Blitzer to state without proof that guns are “weapons of mass destruction” and are too easy to get in America. “Every time there is an incident like this, you hear about efforts to deal with mentally unstable people who can certainly go out there and buy a weapon of mass destruction, go out there and buy a gun or rifle or some sort of assault-type weapon and go to there and eventually start killing wonderful, wonderful, people,” Blitzer blathered for me, the devil.
  9. I would have the president of these United States call for totally disarming American citizens while the blood of the 19 Uvalde, Texas children is still fresh, the flags at half staff and their young  bodies not yet put in consecrated ground.
  10. Finally, I would have Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. unveil his Anti-Policing Policy on May 25, 2022, the 2nd anniversary of George Floyd’s death. Just a few days after a boy named Salvador Ramos massacred 19 children and two teachers.

The Bottom Line

Worshiping evil doers and making a cult image of George Floyd, as though he were god in the black community, will have the continuing effect of more crime the black communities. For example like in these top five deadliest cities:

  1. St. Louis, Missouri with 64.54 murders per 100,000 residents,
  2. Baltimore, Maryland with 58.27 murders per 100,000 residents,
  3. Birmingham, Alabama with 50.62 murders per 100,000 residents,
  4. Detroit, Michigan with 41.45 murders per 100,000 residents,
  5. and Dayton, Ohio with 34.18 murders per 100,000 residents.

To understand please read Chicago: 75% of Murdered Are Black, 71% of Murderers Are Black

Nothing says it all or better than this tweet by Jason Whitlock and his take on cops at the Uvalde Massacre school shooting,

Whitlock is stating the absolute truth, “When your culture makes George Floyd the hero, real heroes stand down. Cultural rot has consequences.”

If you want more crime, anti-social behavior and civil disorder then simply demonize the police and idolize the criminal.

You then will create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes like murder, rape and human trafficking.

Biden’s border crisis is the epitome of the broken glass theory. Want more crime then let the criminals cross the border, for each individual, regardless of age or reason, who crossed our borders illegally is a criminal and has broken our American glass window.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Congressman Matt Gaetz to GOP Senators: If You Back Red Flag Laws, You Are A Traitor

RELATED TWEETS:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Knife Control or Criminal Control? LA Hospital Stabbing, 3 Medical Workers Seriously Wounded

Texas School Shooter Fired Outside School for 12 Minutes Before Entering

Nadler doesn’t want 18-yr-olds to buy guns because brains aren’t formed, but drafting is OK because numbers

Poll: 51 Percent of Americans Favor Teachers, Administrators Carrying Guns

Biden’s Trans Policies Are Putting Men In Women’s Prisons And Kicking Christians Out Of Law Enforcement

The Mass Shooting and Liberal Utopian Society

Gun Control Pays Too Well

Yesterday, Joe Biden stupidly said a 9mm bullet is a high-caliber weapon that “blows the lungs out of the body.”  He’s an ignorant fool.  9mm rounds are typically used in handguns, not high-powered rifles.   He called for more gun control after Uvalde, but Democrats always do after a tragedy, because their motto is ‘never let a good crisis go to waste’.

Biden and his fellow Democrats would rather be authoritarian and talk about how the Second Amendment is “not absolute” than do something that might actually solve the problem.  They’d rather take guns away from law-abiding citizens and pass more gun control laws that haven’t worked in places like Chicago.  Red flag laws didn’t stop the grocery store shootings in Boulder or Buffalo.  Gun control is a complete failure, but Democrats keep pushing it at every turn.  You have to ask yourself why, when they can’t point to any success.  I would wager it has something to do with where the Democrats’ bread is buttered.  When’s the last time you heard of a billionaire like Michael Bloomberg giving away millions of dollars to promote armed guards in schools?  It doesn’t happen.  But Bloomberg and others like him give away millions to Democrats and left-wing activist groups to push gun control.  So Democrats get to indulge their authoritarian fantasies and get paid for doing it.  Life is good, if you’re in the gun control racket.

Back in the real world, a whole menu of common-sense solutions have been put forth and ignored in recent days on the subject of school shootings, so let’s take a look at some of them:

A father who lost his daughter in the Parkland shooting recommends a single point of entry that is locked down, armed guards, and teacher training.  It’s not likely anyone dressed in black carrying a rifle would be allowed in.  That would go a long way toward solving the problem, wouldn’t it?  That’s just the beginning of what’s possible.

Comb social media and develop algorithms to identify troubled students in advance to get them the help they need – profiling.  Recruit volunteer armed guards from retired military and law enforcement personnel.  Arm the teachers like they do in Israel and conduct active shooter drills until they become as routine as fire drills.  When’s the last time you heard of a school shooting in Israel – maybe 1956 and 2002?  Missouri allows teachers and school staff to be armed, and two school districts in St. Louis are moving ahead with teacher firearms training and annual retraining.

Israel uses a multi-layered approach:  profiling, armed guards, outside patrols, cameras, metal detectors, and a single point of entry.  Visitors must have a reason for being at the school and must sign the visitor log.

Take immunity away from social workers and counselors, and hold them liable for letting disturbed people slip through the cracks.  They should be specifically trained to profile students most likely to erupt. Evacuation and safety plans should be drawn up locally and reviewed on a regular basis.  This is what security professionals advise and have seen make a difference in emergency situations.

The Democrats won’t even consider ideas from the Right side of the ledger.  They’re too busy lining their own pockets with big bucks from the gun control lobby.  They have a financial conflict of interest on this issue and their demands for gun control should just be ignored.  If they won’t let the adults in the room solve the problem, then, the next time there’s a story about murdered school kids being laid to rest in tiny coffins, blame the Democrats.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

BLM UNHINGED: Policing is Just a ‘White Supremacist Institution’ Rooted in ‘Slave Patrolling’

Breitbart News reports that the Marxist revolutionary group Black Lives Matter (BLM) railed against the “white supremacist” institution of “policing,” decrying its roots in “racism” and “slave patrolling,” while attacking politicians who support “our killers,” in a series of tweets Thursday.

In the wake of President Biden signing an order to improve accountability in policing, the official BLM Twitter account whined, “Maintaining a white supremacist institution like policing costs Black lives. This continued commitment by politicians to support our killers makes them accessories to our demise.”

“Politicians have been protecting systems of policing as if it could magically abandon its roots of slave patrolling and anti-Black violence,” BLM continued in subsequent tweets. “Banning choke holds and requiring body cameras doesn’t keep us safe. More money for ‘training’ doesn’t keep us safe.”

Fact check: policing does not have roots in “slave patrolling and anti-Black violence.” Policing is a very basic law-and-order measure employed by different cultures going back many, many centuries. Ancient Rome, for example.

But according to the corrupt, racist, neo-Marxist BLM movement, Biden’s executive order “willfully ignores the inherently racist origins of policing & advances the same ideas over and over again as if somehow it will magically make old, outdated approaches work.”

“Halfway measures will not save our people from white supremacy and state violence,” BLM tweeted.

Fact check: white supremacy today has absolutely zero political and cultural power in America. And most black Americans disagree with the BLM radicals about policing — they want more, not less, of a police presence in their communities.


Black Lives Matter (BLM)

168 Known Connections

BLM’s D.C. Chapter Objects When Shot Police Officer Is Hailed As “Hero”

After a Metropolitan Police officer was shot and wounded by a barricaded black suspect on the night of January 24, 2022, the Washington, DC chapter of BLM posted a series of tweets asserting that the American public should not “jump to conclusions” reflexively depicting such officers as “heroes.” “Let’s wait till we have all the information (isn’t that what y’all tell us),” the chapter tweeted, condemning “the difference in how people talk and act when an officer is hurt vs when they hurt a Black person.” “This is the point we’ve been making for months,” said a subsequent tweet. “Tear jerker press conferences and proclamations of heroes coming soon. Imagine if people knew these folks’ name. Being black in DC is more dangerous than any job.”

BLM-DC also posted a link to its #StopMPD campaign, which called for an end to “police violence and terror” while rejecting claims that not all officers are “bad” people. “This assertion is almost always coupled with examples of law enforcement officials who step outside of their assigned duties to ‘help’ Black people and champions the belief that we can change systems by changing the individuals who work within this system, but not [changing] the system,” the #StopMPD campaign declared. “We’ve seen time and again that doesn’t work.” The #StopMPD webpage also described the District of Columbia as an “occupied police state” that had always been hostile to nonwhites.

To learn more about Black Lives Matter, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The right to bear arms is “child sacrifice” — and abortion is not?

As an Australian with conservative values and close family ties to the United States, I find mass shootings like the recent unspeakable tragedy in Texas every shade of confusing.

There is little doubt that ready access to guns in America makes the murderous fantasies of the insane more accessible, tempting, and efficient.

On the other hand, a laser focus on gun laws ignores a whole host of underlying cultural rot that contributes to these nihilistic horrors. Where do we even start? The drug epidemic, mental health, the expulsion of God from public schools, violent video games, social media, and fatherlessness (the latter especially) all play their diabolical part.

And then there’s, you know, the “right” to kill unborn children.

“I think of child sacrifice as a modern phenomenon, a barbaric one that defines this country,” mourns Maureen Dowd in a New York Times piece entitled ‘America’s Human Sacrifices’. “We are sacrificing children, not only the ones who die, but also those who watch and those who fear the future. Children having their tomorrows taken away. Small sacrifice if we can keep our guns.”

Dowd certainly puts her finger on a problem there, but without the slightest trace of irony she continues: “The Republicans are doing everything they can to stop women from having control over their own bodies and doing nothing to stop the carnage against kids; they may as well change the party symbol from an elephant to an AR-15.”

Hang on. If the radical autonomy of “a woman’s right to choose” supersedes a child’s right to not be killed in the womb, why on earth should Americans be prevented from keeping their second amendment rights to bear arms? After all, merely owning a weapon is not the same as ending a life, which is precisely what every abortion achieves.

Dowd is right to invoke abortion, but she has done so for all the wrong reasons. If we’re going to discuss child sacrifice and abortion in the same breath, let’s begin with the 63,872,429 babies killed since the passage of Roe v Wade.

The irony was likewise lost on a slew of leftwing lawmakers who sought to score political points while the news of the Texas tragedy was still fresh.

“As a nation, we simply cannot allow this to continue. Every single day, children and young people are losing their lives to people who do not value the sanctity of life and take advantage of the unabated presence of firearms in our communities,” pro-abortion Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said in a statement.

Sanctity of life? If only we were really talking about that!

Abortion advocate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was pining for a tussle with Republicans in the aftermath. “There is no such thing as being ‘pro-life’ while supporting laws that let children be shot in their schools, elders in grocery stores, worshippers in their houses of faith, survivors by abusers, or anyone in a crowded place,” she wrote on Twitter. “It is an idolatry of violence. And it must end.”

The word “projection” springs to mind.

It was a grim spectacle in America last week — one that continued long after the last gunshot rang out. But to make the Uvalde tragedy all about gun laws is an exercise in mostly missing the point. And to weaponise it for political gain is unconscionable.

If every gun in America were confiscated tomorrow, the endemic mass killing of abortion would, if many of the Uvalde mourners had their way, remain.

Sure, let’s talk about gun laws. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that a technocratic tweak can alleviate America’s moral malaise. And may we never speak of child sacrifice again until we make wombs safer than a Texas school.

AUTHOR

Kurt Mahlburg is a writer and author, and an emerging Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He has a passion for both the philosophical and the personal, drawing on his background as a graduate… More by Kurt Mahlburg

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kamala: There’s ‘No Place in Civil Society’ For ‘Assault Weapons’

Lee: No Gun Safety Laws Violate Integrity of the 2nd Amendment

Booker: Until We Love Kids More than Guns Nothing Will Change

No Charges For FBI Agents Who “Covered” For Child Rapist With 500 Victims, Allowing Him To Continue To Prey On Kids

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘No One Better’: WH Tasks Susan Rice with Gun Control Effort

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters during the daily briefing on Thursday that President Joe Biden is putting Domestic Policy Adviser Susan Rice in charge of the administration’s gun control efforts.

“She is coordinating the President’s whole-of-government approach to reducing gun violence,” said Jean-Pierre. “She has decades of experience coordinating interagency processes in the federal government. There is no one better at bringing department heads to the table to drive the process.”

She did not mention Rice’s role in the Obama administration’s disastrous response to the attacks on the Benghazi consulate in Libya in 2012 that left four Americans dead or her role in defending Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s service record.

“We have a whole-of-government approach that I just mentioned, that Ambassador Susan Rice is leading, along with other departments,” Jean-Pierre replied to questions about whether Biden would appoint a “czar of gun things.”

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) reacted to the news on social media. “The architect of the Benghazi cover-up?” he asked. “I can’t think of anyone worse.”


Susan Rice

33 Known Connections

Rice’s Enormous Wealth

In a disclosure filing that she released on March 20, 2021, Rice reported that she held between $36 million and $149 million in various assets — far more than the $13.6 million to $40.4 million she had reported in 2009. According to an ABC News report in 2021: “In her most recent filing, Rice reported holding shares worth between $250,000 and $5 million in major corporations including Johnson & Johnson, Apple and Microsoft. She also had a significant amount of stock options in Netflix, where she served as a board member, and reported earning more than $300,000 from exercising Netflix stock options in the past year. In addition, she reported shares in several oil and gas industry companies, including $1 million to $5 million of holdings in the Canadian multinational natural gas distribution company Enbridge Inc.”

To learn more about Susan Rice, click here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Gun-Grabbing O’Rourke Changes Position on AR-15s Yet Again

Olbermann: Conservatives in the ‘School Children Killing Business’

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Father of Shooting Victim Has a Simple 3-Point Plan to Protect Schools and it Doesn’t Ban Guns

UPDATE: Biden Looks Absolutely CLUELESS as Uvalde Residents Boo


I, like every other God loving, law abiding American grieve for the 19 children and 2 adults murdered by a mentally insane, Evil young man apparently using AR-15 style semi-auto rifles BUT the gun(s) he used did not commit these terrible crimes; he and the Devil did.

It also appears, just like the Parkland, Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School killings in 2018, to have been entirely preventable had School and District Administrators not been negligent.  We know from MSD case law enforcement and both the FBI and Sheriff levels were negligent as well but we the jury is still out in the case in the Texas shootings; we do know they stalled for 45 mins before a brave Border Patrol Agent took it upon himself to move in and kill the murderer.

A Dad of a child killed in FL school shooting is right below and I mentioned most of what he said during my brief presentation at WH 912 meeting Thursday night starting with “We don’t need more gun control”  Rather What we Need are:.

  •  Physically secure schools, not ones with unlocked doors and gates that shooters can easily enter classrooms thru.
  •   Armed, trained Resource Officers or Security Guards such as we have in FL in every school under the Sentinel/Guardian program
  •   Armed, trained school personnel which FL law allows but School District Administrators & most County Sheriffs have been against for no good reasons.
  •   LE standard operating procedures to run to the sound of gunfire in schools, without delay. rather than waiting to “develop the intel or the situation”
  • Better identification and care for mentally unstable people especially those known to others like medical, LE and education officials as potentially dangerous.

This is especially true when these murderers are sending threatening signals over social media.  We need the legion of leftist social media watchdogs and algorithms to be more concerned with actual threats of violence than censoring conservative speech they wrongly find to be “hateful speech” because of differences in political ideologies. Both Cruz in Florida and Ramos in Texas had sociopathic issues broadcast over social media.

We don’t need the Federal Government and the Department of IN-JUSTICE “administrative deep state” dictating unconstitutional policies and a leftist Congress or RINO State Legislators overreacting and passing laws and implementing witch hunt procedures impacting law abiding gun owners from exercising their 1st, 2nd, 4th  5th and 14th Amendment rights by mis-labeling them “domestic terrorists”, “white supremacists” etc.

This is disinformation designed to scare them from speaking out against the socialist/Marxist/communist policies of the O’Biden Administration.

Gird yourself, another round of emotionally driven, non-fact based, barrage of gun control efforts are own their way!

Father of School Shooting Victim Has 3-Point Plan to Protect Schools – And It Doesn’t Involve Banning Guns

Andrew Pollack — the father of Meadow Pollack, who was murdered in the 2018 Parkland, Florida, high school shooting — said he was “so angry” after learning of Tuesday’s elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, because it could have been prevented.

As Democrats, including President Joe Biden, have tried to use the tragedy that resulted in the deaths of 21 people to once again argue for more gun-control laws, Pollack countered that is not the answer.

“We shouldn’t be focusing on gun control now. Parents should be focused on what they can do. They could learn and educate themselves,” he told Fox News Wednesday.

“We should be looking at what we can be doing to fix these things in schools. A single point of entry. How did the intruder get into the school? It should be locked down. We need school resource officers. And it’s just terrible to think that this was all avoidable,” Pollack further stated.

The Floridian also tweeted a simple three-point plan to make the schools safer, offering what is needed is 1) an armed guard; 2) a single point of entry; and 3) teacher training.

“We send out $Billions to other countries all the time. Why not fund school safety in America?” Pollack asked.

©Royal A. Brown, III. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Trump: Schools Need to Confront Bad Behavior Quickly, No Law Can Cure the Effects of a Broken Home

RELATED ARTICLES:

In Uvalde, A Picture Is Emerging Of Extreme Cowardice And Incompetence Among Local Police

Florida Sheriff Grady Judd Says His Officers Will ‘Put A Bullet Through Your Head’ If You Attempt A School Shooting

Who is the Texas school shooter? What we know | Fox News

RELATED TWEETS: 

The Devil Went Down to Texas: The Utter Evil of the Uvalde Massacre

To massacre children is literally Satanic.

Paul Harvey: If I were the Devil…


It’s hard to know what to say in the wake of a heart-rending tragedy like Tuesday’s massacre in Uvalde, Texas. It would be easy—but irresponsible—to interpret the event conclusively when so little is known. It would be easy—but wrong—to try, in spite of that ignorance, to force one’s narrative framework on it in pursuit of an agenda.

But our attention is irresistibly drawn to such a horror. We are compelled to stop and silently reflect. But, after reflecting, it is imperative that we talk about it—to express condolences and outrage, yes, but also to learn from it as best we can. To truly honor the victims, we must figure out how to prevent similar atrocities from happening again.

Especially at this early stage, it is impossible to know exactly what would lead a person to do something so evil. But certain revelations about the 18-year-old killer raise societal issues that, even if they weren’t the decisive factors in this case, are tremendously important regarding the issue of violence—and evil—in general.

The Daily Beast reports:

Although Salvador Ramos was described as “quiet” by numerous people who knew him, a young woman who worked with him at Wendy’s until March detected an aggressive streak. Several former friends said he had stopped showing up at school and was not going to graduate with the senior class this year.

“He would be very rude towards the girls sometimes, and one of the cooks, threatening them by asking, ‘Do you know who I am?’ And he would also send inappropriate texts to the ladies,” said the former co-worker, who did not want her name used.

“At the park, there’d be videos of him trying to fight people with boxing gloves. He’d take them around with him.

Some would attribute such an “aggressive streak” to males being broadly socialized to be forcefully assertive and competitive. They largely blame this culture of “toxic masculinity” for mass shootings and violent crime in general, both of which are predominantly committed by men.

This blame is misplaced, however. As Jordan Peterson wrote in 12 Rules for Life:

“Those who put forward such theories assume, first, that aggression is a learned behaviour, and can therefore simply not be taught, and second (to take a particular example) that, ‘boys should be socialized the way girls have been traditionally socialized, and they should be encouraged to develop socially positive qualities such as tenderness, sensitivity to feelings, nurturance, cooperative and aesthetic appreciation.’ In the opinions of such thinkers, aggression will only be reduced when male adolescents and young adults ‘subscribe to the same standards of behavior as have been traditionally encouraged for women.’”

Peterson above quotes “Prescription for reduction of aggression,” a 1980 paper published by L.D. Eron in The American Psychologist.

But as Peterson points out, “it is not the case that aggression is merely learned.” Aggression is an innate part of human nature that can manifest very early in life (emphasis added):

“…it appears that a subset of two-year-old boys (about 5 percent) are quite aggressive, by temperament. They take other kids’ toys, kick, bite and hit. Most are nonetheless socialized effectively by the age of four. This is not, however, because they have been encouraged to act like little girls. Instead, they are taught or otherwise learn in early childhood to integrate their aggressive tendencies into more sophisticated behavioural routines. Aggression underlies the drive to be outstanding, to be unstoppable, to compete, to win—to be actively virtuous, at least along one dimension. Determination is its admirable, pro-social face. Aggressive young children who don’t manage to render their temperament sophisticated by the end of infancy are doomed to unpopularity, as their primordial antagonism no longer serves them socially at later ages. Rejected by their peers, they lack further socialization opportunities and tend towards outcast status. These are the individuals who remain much more inclined toward antisocial and criminal behavior when adolescent and adult.

“Outcast status”—the bottom of the pecking order—is a dreadful place to be trapped, especially for a young man. Judging from reported testimony, that is exactly where Ramos resided. As The Daily Beast related:

Former friend Santos Valdez Jr., told The Washington Post that the two had been close friends until Ramos’ behavior started to “deteriorate.” He said Ramos, who was often bullied over a speech impediment that included a stutter and lisp, once cut up his own face with a knife “just for fun.”

Some men become so resentful of their lowly place in “the order of things” that they seek to bring the whole structure crashing down, even if it means their own destruction. They are desperate for appreciation and respect: to feel high-status. But they have failed to learn how to earn it by channeling their assertive and competitive impulses in pro-social directions. So they decide to go out in a blaze of infamous “glory,” to, just for once and however fleetingly, feel “powerful,” even if they are too cowardly to assert their dominance over anyone other than little children.

Such a wicked deed is to say literally, “to Hell with it.” To Hell with society, with morality, with the structure of Being itself. It is to say, as Satan did in Paradise Lost when, resentful of his status, he tried to overthrow God, “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” To commit such nihilistic rebellion is to embody the archetype of the Devil, the Adversary, the Villain.

Again, I don’t know if that’s what happened in the case of Salvador Ramos. But I wonder if it is. And in any case, I do believe the potential for such evil is inherent to the human condition and must be guarded against by us all.

But the preventative for that evil is not to try to repress (or disarm) the assertive, competitive, and ambitious energies that can feed it, as many efforts to address so-called “toxic masculinity” end up doing. The solution, as Peterson explained, is to channel those energies toward the good: toward individual accomplishment, enterprise, great deeds, and heroic service.

If we want people—young men especially—to reject the role of the Villain, we must encourage them to embrace the role of the Hero.

AUTHOR

Dan Sanchez

Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor-in chief of FEE.org.


This article was adapted from an issue of the FEE Daily email newsletter. Click here to sign up and get free-market news and analysis like this in your inbox every weekday.


EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New Shooting, Same Old Bag of Tricks

Biden and Democrats use mis, dis and malinformation to politicize the Uvalde, Texas tragedy.


It didn’t take more than a few minutes after the Texas school shooting was reported yesterday for Democrats to start howling for gun control.  ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste’ is a favorite motto of the Left.  This is what the Democrats and the Left do.  It’s how they roll.

That’s not the only cynical ploy of the Left.  Learn some of the others and you will no longer be taken in by the Left’s despicable tactics.  Today, we expose their methods.

The D.C. government received $750,000 in settlement money from the Trump organization and inaugural committee in a lawsuit over supposedly improper use of the Trump Hotel during Trump’s inauguration.  Now the D.C. government is channeling that money to two left-wing groups.  One preaches antiracism and is associated with a bevy of left-wing causes like lowering the voting age and providing government housing to all.  The other pushes abortion and income redistribution.  See how this works?  Extort money in court cases and spread the wealth around to your leftist buddies.  The Obama Justice Department excelled at this, extorting settlements in the billions of dollars that floated many a leftist boat.

Federal COVID relief money was handed out to schools based on enrollment.  The Los Angeles Community College District kept the money flowing by not looking into reports of thousands of fake ‘bot’ students – computer programs that imitate human users.    Another strategy used by leftist institutions of higher learning is to charge outrageous overhead on federal grants and use the extra cash to finance their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.  Not to be outdone, House Democrats recently loaded up the China bill with all kinds of money for completely unrelated diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring in federal agencies.

Another favorite parlor trick of the Left is cancel culture.  Don’t like what somebody is saying?  Just shout them down or, better yet, get their events canceled completely.  Transgender activists planned to disrupt an event at Texas A&M in February featuring Matt Walsh, author of a book warning of the dangers of gender transitioning young children.  But the activists’ entire plan leaked online.  It called for dressing normally then, 20 minutes into the event they were to stand up, raise their left fist, and start chanting ‘Stand Up, Fight Back’ as a large group.  For anyone who doubts left-wing cancel culture is real, I recommend you watch a truly stunning video of what happened to Jeff Younger, invited by a conservative student group to speak at the University of North Texas in March.  In the video, you will see an entire room full of activists pounding on the table, shouting slogans in unison, flipping the bird, and otherwise being as obnoxious as possible to prevent Younger from speaking.  I’m only 15 minutes into the video, but the activists are literally going insane right in front of your eyes the entire time.  Younger, you might know, waged a custody battle with his ex-wife over her gender transitioning of one of their kids.

When all else fails, they just lie.  Why not?  It sounds good and a lot of people will believe you.  I’m sure a lot of people believed Elizabeth Warren when she claimed earlier this year Elon Musk paid zero in taxes.  In fact, he paid the largest income tax bill in U.S. history – $11 billion.  See, it starts with small lies, like claiming you’re part Indian.  Before long, you’re telling whoppers.  The bigger the lie, the more people will believe you.  That’s a basic operating principle on the Left.  They got it from their socialist buddy Hitler.

Then there’s the House Democrats allegedly using privately funded staff to investigate oil companies for spreading ‘disinformation’ on climate change possibly in violation of federal law and House rules.  The Democrats deny they did anything wrong, but Virginia’s previous Attorney General, a Democrat, got called out when he brought in Michael Bloomberg-funded staff to pursue the billionaire’s personal agenda on climate change through official means.

Finally, there’s my personal favorite: The Dependency Machine.  The Democrats cause a problem, then turn around and say, ‘Oh, but we’ll HELP you.’  They did it with Obamacare.  They made insurance really expensive and handed out subsidies to help people afford it.  A recent example is the Biden administration deliberately making energy prices go up, then doling out $4.5 billion to help low-income families cover higher heating bills the Democrats caused in the first place.   The whole racket is designed to make as many people dependent on government and the Democrats as possible.  It’s called buying votes.

So, when you hear Democrats howling for gun control today, just remember that never letting a good crisis go to waste is just part of their bag of tricks.  You have to wonder, where would the Democrats be without their bag of tricks?

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.


It’s Time to Start Defending our Children

 Arm Teachers and Harden Our Schools


RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Police waited 40 minutes to enter Texas school as shooter went on killing spree: witness

NBA’s Steve Kerr called a ‘hypocrite’ after TX school shooting rant; he backed removing cops from schools

The Devil Went Down to Texas: The Utter Evil of the Uvalde Massacre

Moore: We Need Moratorium on Gun Sales — ‘Time to Repeal the 2nd Amendment’

Reid: Canada, Mexico Should Build Walls in Response to U.S. Mass Shootings

Reiner: Blood of Every Child that Dies of Gun Violence is on GOP

CNN’s Blitzer: ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ Are Too Easy to Get

Studies Find No Evidence That Assault Weapon Bans Reduce Homicide Rates

The studies, data, and examination of the available evidence by scholars suggest that assault weapon bans or buybacks will have little if any effect on rates of violent crime and gun violence.


Mass shootings are unconscionable acts of violence and are the most acutely disturbing form of gun violence. In the wake of such tragedies, many gun control advocates lambast gun rights supporters for allowing “weapons of war” onto the streets of America and not supporting “responsible gun reform.”

The measures put forth are usually either a ban and/or mandatory buyback of “assault weapons,” most of which are more accurately known as semi-automatic rifles. (“Assault weapon” is a vague term that varies state to state and can include common pistols and shotguns depending out other attachable accessories.)

While these initiatives are “common sense” to advocates, if one takes the time to examine the data and evidence, it becomes abundantly clear that gun control in this form will do little to reduce gun violence.

VIEW INFOGRAPHIC: HOMOCIDES 2007 – 2017

Mother Jones’s database of mass shootings, defined as shootings involving three or more fatalities, shows that between 2007 and 2017, there were 495 people murdered in such events. When breaking down those shootings by the weapons involved, it is revealed that around half of those victims (253) were murdered by a perpetrator with an assault weapon (AW), such as an AR-15.

Over the same timeframe, FBI annual crime reports show that there were 150,352 homicides in total, of which 103,901 involved firearms. This means that mass shootings involving AWs constitute 0.17 percent and 0.24 percent of all homicides and firearm homicides, respectively.

To further illuminate the relative infrequency of mass shootings with “assault weapons,” consider the fact that in 2017, some 1,590 people were murdered using knives or sharp instruments.

Over the last five years, 261 people were murdered with AWs in mass shootings (an average rate of 52 murders annually.) At such a rate, it would take over 30 years of mass shootings with AWs to produce the same number of deaths as one year’s worth of knife murders. (It would take 135 years’ worth of mass shootings with AWs to produce the 7,032 deaths that handgun homicides did in 2017.)

Consequently, even a completely effective ban/buyback of AWs would have an incredibly small impact on rates of homicide and gun violence, and then there is always the probability that people intent on committing mass violence will substitute AWs with other available firearms or methods of destruction (such as homemade explosives.)

There are theoretical reasons to doubt the effectiveness of a ban or buyback of assault weapons, but it also doesn’t help that real-world evidence suggests these measures fail to produce reductions in gun violence.

Between 1994 and 2004, the federal government banned the manufacture, sale, or transfer of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.  A subsequent Department of Justice study found no evidence that the ban had had any effect on gun violence and stated that “should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

A recent study published this year in the Journal of General Internal Medicine examined state gun control policies and found no statistically significant relationship between assault weapon or large-capacity magazine bans and homicide rates. A Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMAstudy came to the same conclusion.

In 1996, Australia experienced a horrific mass shooting. In response, the government implemented a mandatory buyback scheme that banned and confiscated certain types of firearms, including assault weapons.

A 2016 JAMA study on the matter found no statistically significant change in the trend of the country’s firearm homicide rate following the law’s passage. The authors also noted that the decline in firearm suicides post-ban could not clearly be attributed to gun control since non-firearm suicides fell by an even greater magnitude.

VIEW INFOGRAPHIC: THE FREQUENCY OF MASS SHOOTING OVER TIME

Last year, the RAND Corporation released an extensive scientific analysis of available evidence on gun control measures and how they relate to various crime outcomes. Regarding the effect of assault weapons bans on mass shootings, they determined the evidence was “inconclusive.”

When former President Bill Clinton claimed the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban was associated with reduced mass shootings, Politifact rated that claim as “half-true,” noting that “the ban’s impact remains unclear.”

Using Mother Jones’s data on mass shootings, I constructed the graph you see above. Prior to the ban, on average five people were killed with assault weapons in mass shootings per year. During the ban, that number went slightly down to four. Post-ban, it rose to 22.

But mass shootings with assault weapons didn’t rise until 2012—eight years after the ban ended. In the seven years after the ban, there was only an average of four people killed in mass shootings with assault weapons per year.

Given the fact that the pre-ban period and the seven years after the ban had essentially the same rate of mass shooting deaths with assault weapons, it is hard to prove that the ban had any effect on mass shootings.

The studies, data, and examination of the available evidence by scholars suggest that assault weapons bans or buybacks will have little if any effect on rates of violent crime and gun violence. There seems to be no relationship between these gun control measures and reductions in firearm homicide or suicide, and there doesn’t appear to be any clear evidence they reduce mass shootings.

AUTHOR

Being Classically Liberal

Follow Being Classically Liberal on Facebook.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Cash Register Attendant Pulls A Handgun On A Criminal During Attempted Robbery In Viral Video

A cash register attendant’s quick thinking might have saved his life.

In a viral video tweeted by Zaid Jilani, a cash register attendant armed himself after spotting a suspicious person, and it turned out that his instincts were 100% correct.

A masked man pulled a gun at the register in what appeared to be a robbery attempt, but the attendant was ready to rock and roll as he presented his own firearm. Fortunately, no shots were necessary, and the bad guy took off. You can watch the insane situation unfold below.

Saw this video on Reddit of a cashier noticing a suspicious customer and preparing himself. Should probably run the CIA.

pic.twitter.com/3cwYCHupGr

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) May 14, 2022

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All right reserved.

Are AR-15 Rifles a Public Safety Threat? Here’s What the Data Say

Is it true that the AR-15, a popular firearm owned by millions of Americans, is a unique threat to public safety?


From Parkland, Florida, to San Bernardino, California, the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle and its variants have seemingly become the weapons of choice for mass shooters in the United States.

Many people simply cannot believe that regular civilians should be able to legally own so-called “weapons of war,” which they believe should only be in the hands of the military.

According to Pew Research, for example, 81 percent of Democrats and even 50 percent of Republicans believe the federal government should ban “assault-style rifles” like the AR-15. Given the massive amount of carnage AR-15s and similar rifles have caused, it makes sense that the civilian population simply cannot be trusted to own such weapons, right?

Perhaps, but is it really true that the AR-15, a popular firearm owned by millions of Americans, is a unique threat to public safety, so dangerous that it deserves to be banned or even confiscated by the federal government?

It cannot be emphasized enough that any homicide is a tragedy, but in order to get a sense of how dangerous to public safety “assault-style” rifles are, it’s useful to compare their usage in homicide to other methods.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are the two authoritative sources for homicide statistics in the United States.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the CDC reports “produce more accurate homicide trends at the national level” because they capture less under-reporting than the FBI statistics.

However, the homicide data recorded by the CDC includes all homicides committed by civilians regardless of criminal intent. The FBI data instead focuses on intentional homicides (i.e murder) known to law enforcement and excludes non-negligent homicide (i.e. manslaughter.)

According to the BJS, the FBI data is “better suited for understanding the circumstances surrounding homicide incidents.” This is especially true given that the FBI, but not the CDC, records the type of firearm used in a given homicide. For the purposes of this analysis, the data from the FBI will be used.

There are two further limitations of FBI data worth noting.

Firstly, the FBI reports do not look at “assault-style” rifles specifically, but rather, murders involving all types of rifles, whether they are committed with an AR-15 or a hunting rifle.

Secondly, each year there are a few thousand homicide cases where the type of firearm used goes unreported to the FBI. This means that some murders listed under “unknown firearm” may, in fact, be rifle murders.

To account for this under-reporting, we will extrapolate from rifles’ share of firearm murders where the type of weapon is known in order to estimate the number of “unknown” firearms that were in actuality rifle homicides.

If we take the time to look at the raw data provided by the FBI, we find that all rifles, not just “assault-style rifles,” constitute on average 340 homicides per year from 2007 through 2017 (see Figure 1.). When we adjust these numbers to take under-reporting into account, that number rises to an average of 439 per year.

Figure 2 compares rifle homicides to homicides with other non-firearm weapons. Believe it or not, between 2007 and 2017, nearly 1,700 people were murdered with a knife or sharp object per year. That’s almost four times the number of people murdered by an assailant with any sort of rifle.

Figure 1. The Relative and Absolute Frequency of Rifle Homicides 2007-2017

Figure 2. Homicides per year by weapon 2007 – 2017

In any given year, for every person murdered with a rifle, there are 15 murdered with handguns, 1.7 with hands or fists, and 1.2 with blunt instruments. In fact, homicides with any sort of rifle represent a mere 3.2 percent of all homicides on average over the past decade.

Given that the FBI statistics pertain to all rifles, the homicide frequency of “assault-style” rifles like the AR-15 is necessarily lesser still, as such firearms compose a fraction of all the rifles used in crime.

According to a New York Times analysis, since 2007, at least “173 people have been killed in mass shootings in the United States involving AR-15s.”

That’s 173 over a span of a decade, with an average of 17 homicides per year. To put this in perspective, consider that at this rate it would take almost one-hundred years of mass shootings with AR-15s to produce the same number of homicide victims that knives and sharp objects produce in one year.

With an average of 13,657 homicides per year during the 2007-2017 timeframe, about one-tenth of one percent of homicides were produced by mass shootings involving AR-15s.

Mass shootings involving rifles like the AR-15 can produce dozens of victims at one time, and combined with extensive media coverage of these events, many people have been led to believe that such rifles pose a significant threat to public safety.

However, such shootings are extremely rare, and a look at the FBI data informs us that homicide with these types of rifles represents an extremely small fraction of overall homicide violence. Banning or confiscating such firearms from the civilian population would likely produce little to no reduction in violent crime rates in America.

AUTHOR

Being Classically Liberal

Follow Being Classically Liberal on Facebook.

RELATED ARTICLE: 9th Circuit Rules California’s Under 21 Gun Sales Ban Unconstitutional

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

A Gun Rights Reminder: Levi’s Doesn’t Support You

As President Joe Biden pushes to even infringe your Second Amendment rights, we wanted to remind you that he isn’t doing so alone. Many corporations have decided that your right to bear arms comes second to their political advocacy – advocacy which violates your human and constitutional rights to self-defense.

One of the worst offenders is Levi’s (1.00), the clothing company which has donated over a million dollars to strip your ability to defend yourself and your family from intruders, criminals, and tyrants. As we highlighted in 2018:

Levi Strauss is a clothing company with an agenda. It has a “1.00” ranking in all five of 2ndVote’s categories where it takes corporate action and just a month ago launched a million-dollar anti-gun campaign.

You may remember that Levi’s desire to control your life isn’t limited to guns. The company recently forced out a senior executive who didn’t hold to their restrictive policies on masks and vaccines. It is the height of irony that Levi’s views self-defense against a man-made virus more important than self-defense against criminals and corrupt government – even though masks and vaccines are of limited value, at best, when it comes to stopping the spread of COVID-19.

Levi’s offenses are myriad. The company donates to Planned Parenthood and Human Rights Campaign, and wants you to put climate alarmism ahead of real issues like having a job and defending your family. It’s no wonder we rank them at a paltry “1.00” out of 5.00. Truth be told, our algorithms score them well below a one, but we trim it there to keep things in perspective.

It’s time to ditch Levi’s in favor of better options for your 2ndVote money. Consider shopping at Everlane (3.00), Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. (3.06), Lululemon Athletica (3.16), and Cabela’s (3.26) — all companies which focus on impressing you, the customer, not a few loud liberal talking heads.

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents

In the USA there are between 2.1 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year.


UPDATE: Related tweet.


How is it that so many kids raised on “Harry Potter”, “The Hunger Games”, “Star Wars”, and all the Marvel action figure movies manage to miss a critical point of the stories? The lesson being: If you want to prevail over evil villains, you must have the proper tools to fight back.

Millions of people protect themselves and their families with guns every day in the United States. They choose guns as a means of self-defense for the same reason the Secret Service uses them to protect the president: guns stop bad people from doing bad things to good people.

It’s absurd to speak about the right of self-defense in theory but then deny people the tools they need to exercise that right.

Without a gun, most Americans are defenseless at the hands of a violent criminal. How many of us have training in hand-to-hand fighting, the physical strength, and the mental resilience to react in a fight-or-flight situation to repel an aggressive predator, especially someone who attacks us first and is armed with a deadly weapon?

Does a gun guarantee your safety? No, but it gives you the ability to defend yourself against an armed, physically superior, or mentally unstable attacker (or all three).

Why in the world would anyone not want to have the means to protect themselves and their families against criminal predators and lunatics? Worse yet, why would anyone actively lobby their government to deprive themselves and every other law-abiding citizen of the most effective means to protect themselves?

The gun grabbers are convinced that if we shut down the National Rifle Association and take away guns from law-abiding gun owners, then bad people will no longer have the tools to do bad things.

A gun is a tool, plain and simple. You should own a gun for the same reason you install smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, purchase fire extinguishers, and buckle your seat belt. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Smart people are prepared. Foolish people bring a knife—or nothing at all—to a gunfight.

The gun grabbers say: “There is no evidence that guns save lives.” The truth: If there is no proof that guns save lives, then why does every American law enforcement agency, including the U.S. Secret Service, carry guns? What’s the point of the guns?

There is an old saying in the world of investing: “Do what the smart money does.” This means that when you personally invest, it makes sense to buy and sell the same investments as the “smart money” people—large banks, institutional investors, hedge funds, and investment gurus like Warren Buffett. The idea is that these industry leaders have a better understanding of the marketplace and better access to information than ordinary investors do. And that is usually true.

What do the “smart money” people do when it comes to protecting lives?

Virtually all professionals carry guns—and lots of them. Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies charged with protecting the streets you walk on all carry guns. The Secret Service protects the president with guns. The federal Department of Homeland Security, with its $44 billion annual budget, issues its own agents handguns and fully automatic rifles (rifles far more powerful than the AR-15s many gun grabbers don’t want you to have to protect yourself).

So, the smart money in the business of protecting lives chooses guns. That’s right. They choose guns!

But if you don’t want to follow the smart money on guns, then let’s turn to the statistical scoreboard. Does civilian gun use help in self-defense against criminals?

The U.S. Department of Justice investigated firearm violence from 1993 through 2011. The report found, “In 2007–2011, about 1 percent of nonfatal violent crime victims used a firearm in self-defense.” Anti-gun zealots attempt to use this statistic to discredit the use of a gun as a viable means of self-defense, and by extension, to discredit gun ownership in general.

But look deeper into the numbers. During that five-year period, the Department of Justice confirmed a total of 338,700 defensive gun uses in both violent attacks and property crimes where a victim was involved. That equals an average of 67,740 defensive gun uses every year. In other words, according to the Justice Department’s own statistics, 67,740 people a year don’t become victims because they own a gun. (I suspect that if more states allowed concealed carry to be widespread, the number of instances of defensive gun uses would be even higher.)

Is it significant that at least 67,740 individuals use a gun in self-defense each year? Well, in 2016, 37,461 people died in motor vehicle accidents in the United States; in 2015, the number was 35,092 people. Mark Rosekind, administrator of the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA), called those road fatalities “an immediate crisis.” If the NHTSA administrator considers it a crisis that approximately 37,000 people are dying annually from car accidents, then saving nearly twice that many people each year through the use of firearms is simply stunning.

In reality, the Department of Justice findings about defensive gun uses are very conservative. A 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council found that:

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence… 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…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008… On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey…”

The most comprehensive study ever conducted about defensive gun use in the United States was a 1995 survey published by criminologist Gary Kleck in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. This study reported between 2.1 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year.

Ultimately, the number of defensive gun uses doesn’t matter much to the anti-gun zealots. Whether the number is 67,000 or 2.5 million or anywhere in between, they’ll do whatever they can to dismiss defensive gun uses as insignificant. They want to focus only on the dead people lying in the street rather than those folks who use a firearm to remain standing.

I suspect those people still alive would have a different view.

Reprinted from The Daily Signal

Excerpt from“#Duped: How the Anti-gun Lobby Exploits the Parkland School Shooting-and How Gun Owners Can Fight Back”.

COLUMN BY

Mark W. Smith

Mark W. Smith is a constitutional attorney and author. Smith currently serves as the vice president of the New York City chapter of the Federalist Society and is also a presidential scholar and senior fellow in Law and Public Policy at The King’s College in New York City.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Ukraine Grants Citizens the Right to Bear Arms—Hours Before Putin’s Invasion

The right to bear arms has always been about liberty, and many are beginning to see in the wake of the conflict in Ukraine.


Russian soldiers flooded into Ukraine Thursday under orders from President Vladimir Putin, threatening to obliterate a peace that has existed on the European continent for more than 75 years.

News reports say cities were bombarded by land, air, and sea, and Ukrainian forces were struggling to hold ground surrounding Kiev, Ukraine’s capital, against tens of thousands of Russian soldiers.

Prior to the attack, Ukrainian officials took steps to help Ukrainian civilians protect themselves.

“Ukraine’s parliament on Wednesday voted to approve in the first reading a draft law which gives permission to Ukrainians to carry firearms and act in self-defense,” Reuters reported.

The 30-day emergency order, National Review reports, would “grant citizens the right to bear arms.” It would also allow the government to conscript Ukrainians between the ages of 18 and 60, “adding nearly 200,000 troops to the country’s defense.”

Permitting Ukrainians to arm themselves is a sensible measure. But as Charles Cooke points out at NRO, “it’s also a bit late.”

While Ukraine has relatively loose gun control laws by European standards, estimates suggest only about 1.3 million firearms exist in the country, which has a population of some 43 million. This diminishes the chances of Ukrainian civilians being able to offer serious resistance, an idea that is hardly far-fetched, Stephen Gutowski points out at The Reload:

“…the history of warfare is rife with examples of smaller, weaker, and less organized forces besting even the greatest militaries in the world. From the American Revolution to Vietnam, Iraq, and multiple wars in Afghanistan, it isn’t difficult to find templates for how a Ukrainian resistance could eventually prevail if Russia attempts to capture and hold it.”

Speaking on CNN, Nina Lvovna Khrushcheva, a professor of international affairs at the New School in New York, also said small arms could be decisive.

“If every Ukrainian takes a gun, Russians don’t have a prayer,” she told John Berman. “I mean the military can fight, but… Ukrainians are really ready today.”

Ukrainian leaders apparently agree. The government on Thursday took the unusual step of issuing thousands of automatic weapons to civilians, following the issuance of its emergency order.

Unfortunately, the likelihood of serious resistance is low because the Ukrainian government embraced the right to bear arms so late.

“Next time,” Cooke points out, “bear arms earlier.”

Cooke’s words could be construed as flippant, but his point is a deadly serious one.

The Founding Fathers enshrined the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and they made it clear that they were not “granting” citizens the right, but codifying what was a natural right.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, explained in 1789. “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

As some astute observers pointed out on social media, the Second Amendment was never “about hunting” or even self-defense (in a civil sense). It was always about liberty.

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty,” the legal scholar Tucker St. George wrote in 1803. “The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

These sentiments were echoed decades later by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers,” Story wrote, “and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

It’s wonderful that Ukrainian officials finally sought to extend the full, natural right to bear arms to their people. The only tragedy is that it took so long.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.