Mass Shooting and Gun Control Facts Support Ownership by Law Abiding Citizens

Murder is Illegal Gun Control

The Facts About Mass Shootings Support Gun Ownership, Not Gun CONTROL

By    21, 2019

By painting the tragic Parkland shooting as a failure of gun control, however, Pelosi disregards the indisputable fact that the shooter’s rampage was enabled by years-long, system-wide failures of policy and personnel.

Andrew Pollack, the father of shooting victim Meadow Pollack, is on a campaign to hold those who failed the Parkland victims accountable. This includes the resource officer and deputies whose inadequate response allowed the shooting spree to continue for 11 long minutes, the FBI officials who ignored a tip about the shooter’s intentions just over a month prior to the attack, the Broward County superintendent whose “Promise” program kept students’ criminal activities from being reported to police, and the school officialsmental health providers, and officials from the Broward Sheriff’s Office who ignored a series of red flags, not to mention murderer’s lengthy history of violence and mental health issues.

….

Before Democrats look to new measures of gun control, they should concern themselves with the enforcement of existing gun laws, keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, and holding accountable institutions and policies which allow threats to go undetected.

If Democrats impede law-abiding Americans from arming themselves to protect their fellow citizens, and themselves, then the only people with access to weapons will be those who purchase them illegally, with criminal intent.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/21/facts-mass-shootings-support-gun-ownership-not-gun-control/

Was there one school shooting a week in 2018, as a Florida lawmaker said?

…[Florida Democrat Rep. Alcee] Hastings, of nearby Boynton Beach, called on Trump to support gun control and cited a statistic about school shootings nationwide.

“In 2018, we endured a school shooting nearly once a week,” Hastings said in a statement to the media.

Hastings’ spokesman told us he arrived at the one-shooting-per-week statistic by citing a database of school shootings compiled by Education Week, a national education publication. Hastings divided a 180-day school year by 24 shootings to arrive at one shooting every 7.5 days.

It is not apparent from Hastings’ statement that the underlying data lumps together various types of shootings on school property — everything from indiscriminate mass shootings to an accidental shooting. …

Read More: https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2019/feb/11/alcee-hastings/was-there-one-school-shooting-week-2018-florida-la/

The School Shootings That Weren’t

 August 27, 2018

This spring the U.S. Education Department reported that in the 2015-2016 school year, “nearly 240 schools … reported at least 1 incident involving a school-related shooting.” The number is far higher than most other estimates.

But NPR reached out to every one of those schools repeatedly over the course of three months and found that more than two-thirds of these reported incidents never happened. Child Trends, a nonpartisan nonprofit research organization, assisted NPR in analyzing data from the government’s Civil Rights Data Collection.

We were able to confirm just 11 reported incidents, either directly with schools or through media reports.

In 161 cases, schools or districts attested that no incident took place or couldn’t confirm one. In at least four cases, we found, something did happen, but it didn’t meet the government’s parameters for a shooting. About a quarter of schools didn’t respond to our inquiries.

Read More: https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent

 

Gun Violence Lies to Disarm Law Abiding Citizens

anti-gun liberal

Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say

… Fridel and Fox used data collected by USA Today, the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and a NYPD report on active shooters.
Their research also finds that shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the 1990s.
Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today, Fox said.

“There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” he said, adding that more kids are killed each year from pool drownings or bicycle accidents. There are around 55 million school children in the United States, and on average over the past 25 years, about 10 students per year were killed by gunfire at school, according to Fox and Fridel’s research.

DOJ STUDY: Gun Control Laws Won’t Work Because Criminals Get Their Guns Illegally

Mac Slavo
January 24th, 2019

It took the United States government’s Department of Justice an entire study dedicated to gun use and criminals to figure out what logical human beings have already understood for decades. The result of their own study found that gun control laws will never work because criminals will never use legal channels to obtain guns.

According to Fox 5, the findings based on the 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI), discovered that about 1 in 5 or 21% of all state and federal prisoners reported they had “possessed or carried a firearm when they committed the offense for which they were serving time in prison.” The survey released by the DOJ this month declared that criminals unsurprisingly rely on the black market for their guns. 

 According to the study, an estimated 287,400 prisoners has possessed a firearm during their offense. The findings concluded 6 percent had stolen the weapon, 7 percent found it at a crime scene and 43 percent obtained it off the street or on the black market. More than 25 percent had received it from a family member or friend, or as a gift.
 

French Uprising Shows Why We Need the Electoral College

Europe Yellow Vest Uprising

The problem in France is that all of the power and representation is centered in Paris with the French elites, who could care less for the common Frenchmen and French women living outside of Paris.
This is the same situation we would have in the states if the Electoral College was abolished.

The Riots In France Perfectly Illustrate Why We Need The Electoral College

  13, 2018

The debate over the Electoral College comes up constantly during American elections, including the midterms last month, with many on the left calling for a popular vote instead. The process of electoral delegates voting for one particular party even if the popular vote of their state had only a slim majority makes the presidential elections seem generally unfair.

Under the electoral system, lower-population states have outsized influence, higher-population states have somewhat limited influence, and swing states enjoy all the attention. With a popular vote, so the thinking goes, each citizen would have a voice, and the president and his administration would consequently have more legitimacy and better serve the American population.

Conservatives argue that popular elections would lead to politicians giving overriding preference to people in large population centers (i.e., cities) and ignore sparsely populated rural areas. This would result in a “tyranny of the majority” where urban majorities behind the winning party would be overrepresented and rural minorities would be even more underrepresented.

To this, the left simply responds, “So what?” Why should anyone care about what happens to hillbillies withering away in ghost towns? Why should ignorant farmers and ranchers living on big, unpopulated fields have more of a voice than educated professionals living in uptown? Cities are the centers of commerce, industry, education, and culture; they clearly put more in the system than small towns.

It should also be noted that people who support popular elections will cite European countries, like France and other European Union member states, as a reason to give up the Electoral College. If sophisticated Europeans have accepted direct democracy, they reason, Americans seem positively provincial to continue on their present course.

In truth, the bias against rural communities and for European cosmopolitanism often fuels these arguments for the popular vote more than anything substantial. Still, even if the sentiment behind the argument assumes the worst of people in the countryside and the best of people in old cities of Europe, the logic behind it deserves a response. Why should this group receive these protections?

A Popular Vote Feeds into Progressivism

There are two things to consider for this question: (1) what a popular vote implicitly suggests about the role of government, and (2) how a government that exclusively represents urban voters would act.

First, to understand what the argument for a popular vote says about the role of government, one should look at the premises: politician overserve small states, and underserve large ones. These premises envision government as a great provider and the states as needy dependents; they do not present government as the representation of so many different constituents. The motivation behind supporting a popular vote is to make sure the government gives more fairly, not that the government truly speaks for everyone impartially.

Constitutionally speaking, the government should not favor any state or any individual. As defined by John Locke, it does not give out favors, but secures freedoms of life, liberty, and property. People are protected by the government to provide for themselves and prosper. The government keeps the peace, while the people keep their property, and the idea of redistributing property to meet the demands of a favored constituency simply does not exist.

Because liberals have come to see government as a provider, and they shift ever leftward into socialist utopianism, they see elections as opportunities for enrichment. If they really saw government as a representative body of officials intended to secure rights, national elections really wouldn’t make a difference whether they were based on popular vote or something else. A popular vote is thus based on a distorted expectation about government and rewards the wrong kind of leaders. Demagogues who promise to give away more social benefits quickly overcome the statesmen who promise to uphold their duties so people can benefit themselves.

This doesn’t mean that the Electoral College eliminates the possibilities of urban demagogues, but it does discourage it. A politician who has to meet the needs of all kinds of voters, instead of just a few, will not easily be able to make so many promises, nor be able to vilify or ignore unpopular minorities.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/13/the-riots-in-france-perfectly-illustrate-the-need-for-the-electoral-college/

Study Proves Strictest Gun Control has No Effect on Gun Deaths

Blond with Rifle

Study does not find population-level changes in firearm homicide or suicide rates in California 10 years after comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor policies enacted

UC Davis Healt  November 19, 2018

study of firearm homicide and suicide rates in the 10 years after California simultaneously mandated comprehensive background checks for nearly all firearm sales and a prohibition on gun purchase and possession for persons convicted of most violent misdemeanor crimes found no change in the rates of either cause of death from firearms through 2000.

The study, which posted online Oct. 12 as in press at the journal Annals of Epidemiology, was conducted by the Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP) at UC Davis and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It compared observed annual firearm homicide and suicide rates in California over 10 years following enactment of comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies in 1991 with expected rates based on data from 32 control states that did not have these policies and did not implement other major firearm policies during the same time.

“In the 10 years after policy implementation, firearm suicide rates were, on average, 10.9 percent lower in California than expected, but we observed a similar decrease in non-firearm suicide,” said Garen Wintemute, professor of emergency medicine and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis, senior author on the study.

“This suggests that the policies’ estimated impact on firearm suicide may be part of broader changes in suicide risk around the time that the California policies were implemented,” he said.

The study found no net difference between firearm-related homicide rates before and during the 10 years after policy implementation.

Read More: https://health.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/13362

Attn. Gun Control Advocates: We Banned Assault Weapons Before … And It Didn’t Work

Investor’s Business Daily 3/01/2018

Gun Control: Maybe they are too young to know, or have faulty memories, but whatever the reason, all those pushing for a ban on “assault weapons” in the wake of the Florida school shooting ignore the fact that the last time the country imposed such a ban it failed to make a measurable difference.

It turns out that various independent studies came to the same conclusion: the ban had no measurable impact on the number of shootings or the number of shooting deaths while it was in effect.

A 2005 report from the National Research Council, for example, noted that “A recent evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes.”

A 2004 study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice found that while the ban appeared to have reduced the number of crimes committed with “assault weapons,” any benefits were “likely to have been outweighed by steady or rising use of non-banned semiautomatics.

As a result, the Justice study found “there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.”

The main reason the failure of the ban to make a difference: “assault weapons” account for a tiny share of gun crimes — less than 6%. Even among mass shootings, most didn’t involve an “assault weapon” in the decade before the ban went into effect.

Mass shootings didn’t stop during the ban, either — there were 16 while the ban was in effect, which resulted in 237 deaths or injuries. In fact, it was while the ban was in effect that the Columbine High School massacre happened, in which 13 students were killed and 24 injured.

What’s more, gun deaths have steadily declined since 1994, even though the rate of gun ownership has climbed.

Read More: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/we-banned-assault-weapons-before-and-it-didnt-work/

 

Second Amendment Opponents are Gaslighting Americans About History

Children Need to be Taught the Real History of the World

The New York Times Botches America’s History With The Gun

   30, 2018

ver the past 50 years, a wide-ranging, well-funded political, cultural, and legal revisionism effort has been undertaken to erase much of the United States’ history and culture of the gun and the Second Amendment. The New York Times’s Nick Kristof’s recent column, “It’s Time To Talk About The NRA” (because no one’s been talking about them!) is a good example of this trend.

I’ll ignore Kristof’s partisan contentions about firearm violence, gun control, and the National Rifle Association’s lobbying, fundraising and scoring—much of it highly debatable—to point out three of the misleading historical assertions he embraces.

First, Kristof makes the claim that contemporary firearm advocates, in an effort to “reinterpret” the Second Amendment, had “expanded the gun-buying constituency by reframing the purpose of firearms from hunting to personal security.” As even a cursory reading of the Founders and American leaders through the 19th century can attest, this is untrue.

The predominant philosophical concern driving the creation of the Second Amendment was protection from domestic or foreign tyranny, or protection of personal property and life. As John Adams explained (quoting legal authority William Blackstone) when defending a British soldier who had fired into an American mob in 1770, self-defense was “the primary canon in the law of nature.”

In my book “First Freedom: A Ride Through America’s Enduring History with the Gun,” I detail how this ideal was widely embraced by the Founding generation. The right to defend your property, life and liberty girds the entire American project. Not a single Founder ever challenged the notion of individual firearm ownership. Most celebrated it. Individual ownership of firearms was so omnipresent in colonial days—and beyond—that Americans saw no more need to debate its existence. Debates over the Second Amendment involved a disagreement over who should control the militia: state or federal government.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/30/new-york-times-botches-history-with-of-gun/

The CDC Is Publishing Unreliable Data On Gun Injuries. People Are Using It Anyway

By  and   OCT. 4, 2018

For journalists, researchers and the general public, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention serves as an authoritative source of information about Americans’ health, including estimates of how many people are killed or injured by guns. The agency’s most recent figures include a worrying uptick: Between 2015 and 2016, the number of Americans nonfatally injured by a firearm jumped by 37 percent, rising from about 85,000 to more than 116,000. It was the largest single-year increase recorded in more than 15 years.

But the gun injury estimate is one of several categories of CDC data flagged with an asterisk indicating that, according to the agency’s own standards, it should be treated as “unstable and potentially unreliable.” In fact, the agency’s 2016 estimate of gun injuries is more uncertain than nearly every other type of injury it tracks. Even its estimates of BB gun injuries are more reliable than its calculations for the number of Americans wounded by actual guns.

An analysis performed by FiveThirtyEight and The Trace, a nonprofit news organization covering gun violence in America,1 found that the CDC’s report of a steady increase in nonfatal gun injuries is out of step with a downwardtrend we found using data from multiple independent public health and criminal justice databases. That casts doubt on the CDC’s figures and the narrative suggested by the way those numbers have changed over time.

Read More: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-cdc-is-publishing-unreliable-data-on-gun-injuries-people-are-using-it-anyway/

 

Facebook (Developed/Funded by CIA): Hurts Us/Our Kids, Records/Spies on Us, Censors Us

Facebook Darpa Lifelog

Ex-Facebook Executive: “You Don’t Realize It But You Are Being Programmed”

Authored by Mustapha Itani via Medium.com,

Several months ago, one of the early pioneers of Facebook and its first President Sean Parker, voiced his regret regarding helping create social media in the form we know it today, saying:

“I don’t know if I really understood the consequences of what I was saying, because of the unintended consequences of a network when it grows to a billion or 2 billion people and it literally changes your relationship with society, with each other,”…

”God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.”

Parker says the social networking site exploits human psychological vulnerabilities through a validation feedback loop that gets people to constantly post to get even more likes and comments.

“It’s exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology,” he said.

“The inventors, creators — it’s me, it’s Mark [Zuckerberg], it’s Kevin Systrom on Instagram, it’s all of these people — understood this consciously. And we did it anyway.”

Read More: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-23/ex-facebook-executive-you-dont-realize-it-you-are-being-programmed

Sean Parker calls Facebook a social validation feedback loop

Former Facebook Exec: ‘You Don’t Realize It But You Are Being Programmed’

Government is Enforcing Ideology and Extortion with Violence

I need it for my Juice Box!

The Plastic Straw Ban: Enforced With Violence

  07/30/2018

The latest trend in banning plastic stuff is the nationwide trend toward eliminating plastic straws from restaurants. A commonly-given justification for the ban is the fact that there’s a lot of plastic garbage floating around in the ocean. Of course, this rationale seems a bit odd for some locations. In Fort Collins, Colorado, for example — which is about a thousand miles from any ocean — locals feel the need to “do their part” by convincing local restaurateurs to ban the offending objects.

One can already see that this will be inconvenient for toddlers and their parents, and for the physically disabled, but with private firms choosing whether or not to use straws, it’s not really an issue that requires a strong opinion.

On the other hand, when it comes to government-sponsored bans on straws, things are considerably different.

This is because at the heart of every government law, rule, and regulation is the fact that violence must ultimately be employed to enforce those laws. Indeed, Santa Barbara, California has announced a new ban on plastic straws that brings sizable punishments, if violated:

Violating Santa Barbara’s plastic straw ban could land you in jail for up to 6 months and a fine up to $1,000 per violation.

However, the City says it won’t actually punish anyone that severely if they break the rule.

And how do we know the state won’t punish people accordingly? Well, we have nothing but the promise of its spokesperson. After all,

municipal code does state a violation could land the provider in jail for up to 6 months and lead to a fine up to $1,000; however, there are no plans to actually enforce that penalty. Instead, the city will do education and outreach in order to get providers to comply.

In other words, the actual statute makes it clear that any violators are subject to large fines and jail time for each infraction. That means passing out 5 straws could lead to years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.

In the future, will judges and city prosecutors refrain from applying these penalties because some city employee said they won’t back in a 2018 news story? Don’t bet your livelihood on it.

Read More: https://mises.org/wire/plastic-straw-ban-enforced-violence

Ex-United Nations Man Turned Democrat: “We Have To Regulate Every Aspect Of People’s Lives”

DANIEL GREENFIELD  

The full quote apparently ran…

In explaining his reasons for supporting a ban on plastic straws, Councilman Jason Dominguez, who represents District 1 on the city’s Eastside, uttered these words: “Unfortunately, common sense is just not common. We have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives.”

Every. Aspect. Of. People’s Lives.

Remember when the left pretended that it wanted to get government out of the bedroom… only to fully occupy it with tanks and barbed wire?

Oplinger said he believes that Dominguez didn’t intend the comment to sound like he supports massive government overreach. Anyone who truly felt that way, Oplinger said, probably shouldn’t be an elected official.

Read More: https://freedomoutpost.com/ex-united-nations-man-turned-democrat-we-have-to-regulate-every-aspect-of-peoples-lives/

 

How the Federal Government Broke from the Constitution to Grow Into a Global Tyranny

bird-of-prey

The Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here

January 28, 2014

Nineteenth-century America was the closest thing to capitalism—a system in which government is limited to protecting individual rights—that has ever existed. There was no welfare state, no central bank, no fiat money, no deficit spending to speak of, no income tax for most of the century, and no federal regulatory agencies or antitrust laws until the end of the century. Consequently, total (federal, state, and local) government spending averaged a mere 3.26 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).1 The Constitution’s protection of individual rights and limitation on the power of government gave rise to an economy in which individuals were free to pursue their own interests, to start new businesses, and to create as much wealth as their ability and ambition allowed. This near laissez-faire politico-economic system led to the freest, most innovative, and wealthiest nation in history.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, however, capitalism and freedom have been undermined by an explosion in the size and power of government: Total government spending has increased from 6.61 percent of GDP in 1907 to a projected 45.19 percent of GDP in 2009;2 the dollar has lost more than 95 percent of its value due to the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies; top marginal income tax rates have been as high as 94 percent; entitlement programs now constitute more than half of the federal budget; and businesses are hampered and hog-tied by more than eighty thousand pages of regulations in the Federal Register.

What happened? How did America shift from a predominantly free-market economy to a heavily regulated mixed economy; from capitalism to welfare state; from limited government to big government? This article will survey the progression of laws, acts, programs, and interventions that brought America to its present state—and show their economic impact. Let us begin our survey by taking a closer look at the state of the country in the 19th century.

America’s Former Free Market

The Constitution established the political framework necessary for a free market. It provided for the protection of private property (the Fifth Amendment) including intellectual property (Article I, Section 8), the enforcement of private contracts (Article 1, Section 10), and the establishment of sound (gold or silver)3 money (Article I, Sections 8 and 10). It prohibited the states from erecting trade barriers (Article I, Section 9), thereby establishing the whole nation as one large free-trade zone. It permitted direct taxes such as the income tax only if apportioned among the states on the basis of population (Article 1, Sections 2 and 9), which made them very difficult to levy.4 Finally, it specifically enumerated and therefore limited Congress’s powers (Article I, Section 8), severely constraining the government’s power to intervene in the marketplace.

Federal regulatory agencies dictating how goods could be produced and traded did not exist. Rather than being forced to accept the questionable judgments of agencies such as the FDA, FTC, and USDA, participants in the marketplace were governed by the free-market principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). As historian Larry Schweikart points out:

merchants stood ready to provide customers with as much information as they desired. . . . In contrast to the modern view of consumers as incompetent to judge the quality or safety of a product, caveat emptor treated consumers with respect, assuming that a person could spot shoddy workmanship. Along with caveat emptor went clear laws permitting suits for damage incurred by flawed goods.5

To be sure, 19th-century America was not a fully free market. Besides the temporary suspension of the gold standard and the income tax levied during the Civil War, the major exceptions to the free market in the 19th century were tariffs, national banking, and subsidies for “internal improvements” such as canals and railroads. These exceptions, however, were limited in scope and were accompanied by considerable debate about whether they should exist at all. Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln supported such interventions; Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and John Tyler generally opposed them. These interventions (except for tariffs) were, as Jefferson, Jackson, and Tyler pointed out, unconstitutional. But history shows that they were also impractical. Tariffs were initially implemented, beginning with the Tariff Act of 1789, as a source of revenue—the main source in the 19th century—for the federal government. Pressure from northern manufacturers, however, to implement tariffs for purposes of protection led to the “Tariff of Abominations” (1828), which was scaled back by 1833 due to heavy opposition from the South. Tariff rates then remained relatively low—about 15 percent—until the Civil War. By 1864, average tariff rates had risen to 47.09 percent for protectionist reasons and remained elevated for the remainder of the century.6

As to national banking, the Second Bank of the United States’ charter expired in 1836, thereby paving the way for the free banking era—which lasted until a national bank was reinstituted during the Civil War. By virtually every measure of bank health, this free banking era was the soundest in American history. In terms of capital adequacy, asset quality, liquidity, profitability, and prudent management, national banking proved to be inferior to free banking.7

Read More: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/rise-of-american-big-government/

THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT: The Mystery That Will Not Die…

The MYSTERY surrounding “The Philadelphia Experiment” simply WILL NOT go away. What happened in 1943 in the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard on October 28, 1943? Could the government be hiding SCIENCE from us? NAW…say it ain’t so!

Google Records Being Used by Police

This case might not be as bad as some, but important to know about…

Google Says Repeat: 2 + 2 = 5

Why The Police Are Quietly Turning To Google To Find Criminals | Zero Hedge

Why The Police Are Quietly Turning To Google To Find Criminals | Zero Hedge

…few people really understand how much information they’re surrendering to Google and Facebook, and law enforcement agencies are taking advantage of this ignorance…

As North Carolina TV station WRAL points out in a recent expose, Law enforcement are becoming more aggressive in requesting data gleaned from individuals’ cellphones when they’re investigating major crimes like murder, rape and arson – even when these requests are unjustifiably broad-based by the standards of applying for search warrants.

In one controversial technique that’s increasingly being employed in these types of investigations, police draw a perimeter around the area where a crime – like a murder, for example – occurred. They then apply (and typically receive approval) for a search warrant to collect the data from all smart phones that crossed into the perimeter around the time that the crime allegedly occurred.

Read More: www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-18/why-police-are-quietly-turning-google-find-criminals