Bloomberg’s Everytown Just Makes Up Gun Facts

As if we didn’t already know…….

Let us help out Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown. For a group that claims to know a lot about guns, they apparently aren’t familiar with one of the best selling books ever from the University of Chicago Press: “More Guns, Less Crime.” There is also information from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Here are a couple of discussions from that book.

Or here

Oxygen-dependent California man dies 12 minutes after PG&E cuts power to his home.

If you haven’t figured out how to provide back-up power to where you’re living, and done it, you’re not just behind the power curve, you’re behind the 8-ball.

A Northern California man dependent on an oxygen supply died Wednesday, shortly after power cuts by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. affected his home, fire officials said Friday.

Robert Mardis, 67, died roughly 12 minutes after PG&E cut power to his home and the surrounding area. An autopsy report concluded the man died of severe coronary artery atherosclerosis, according to the Sacramento Bee.

California’s largest utility company instituted blackouts for its customers beginning Wednesday to prevent high winds from toppling power lines, which could cause deadly wildfires such as last year’s Camp Fire, which left 85 people dead and was attributed to PG&E equipment.

Guns Save Lives… but not in Democrat Controlled Cities

Democrats were shouting about gun control a few weeks ago. Their confiscation crusade crashed when Donald Trump started investigating the corrupt dealings of Vice President Joe Biden and his son in Ukraine. The news may have moved on, but all that breathless news coverage reminded me how glad I am that we can carry concealed. I know people who were the victims of violent crime.

With all the media coverage of gun-control, why doesn’t the news media report on the victims who defend themselves?…..

Why didn’t we hear their stories during the important gun-control debate that would have left these victims disarmed? When the news media bothers to answer that question, the media says they don’t want to cover examples of self-defense since it might lead to copycat defenders. That answer is unbelievable given how the media showers mass murderers with billions of dollars of publicity.. and so creates the next copycat mass murderer.** That answer is unconscionable since defenders save lives rather than initiating an assault.

The facts say guns save lives. Sadly, most deaths with a firearm are suicides, not homicides.* What the media doesn’t tell us is that gun-control hasn’t reduced the rate of suicide at all. That is true in the US, and it is true around the world. Gun-control laws don’t change the pain of the human condition, but gun-control does disarm innocent victims…………

I don’t have proof, but I think I have a clue. I think the media ignores armed defense stories because the media doesn’t want to spotlight the violence in our failed Democrat cities. It is easier to blame the gun than blame the failed politicians. The news doesn’t want us to know that we are over a hundred times more likely to use a gun in self-defense than to be murdered by a criminal with a gun.

Self-defense could make our cities safe again.. if the mainstream media would tell the truth.
It sure would upset a lot of politicians if a single mom living in the inner city could again feel safe in her home and feel safe on the street. The truth is that guns save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. Unfortunately, rather than making that single-mom safer, most gun control laws put that single-mom at greater risk. That simple fact would come as a surprise to most newspaper readers, and sadly, to most voters.

Politics and media-distortion of self-defense are getting us killed.
The good news is that violent crime is rare, and becoming less common each year. I already gave you statistics from the US Center for Disease Control and the FBI, but I have other evidence as well. For reasons I don’t fully understand, many of the self-defense instructors I’ve met had students who defended themselves. That means that self-defense is relatively common even though the news doesn’t cover it. Based on my experience and the experience of my friends, I have to agree that guns save lives, and disarming the victims will give is more victims, rather than fewer.

Putting Gun-Control to the Test

We all want to protect our family and friends. Gun-Control is the theory that disarming honest people will stop criminals. That is a fantastic theory, but does gun-control work in practice? Now that we have new FBI data at hand, we don’t have to guess if gun-control reduces violent crime. The answers might surprise you as we look from coast to coast. Does gun control save lives or cost them?

The gun-control laws in Los Angeles are extreme. You won’t get a permit to carry a handgun in public unless you are a judge or a politician. You have to be over 21 years old to buy a rifle. You also need to show a state firearms safety card and to pass a background check each time you buy ammunition. Those regulations prevent many honest citizens from having a firearm for self-defense. How well did those gun-control laws work at stopping violent crime in Los Angeles? The rate of violent crime in LA is more than twice the national average. (748/369 per 100 thousand)

Seattle gun-control laws are quite strict. Firearms purchases are taxed. You must to go through a background check to buy a firearm and you can’t loan a gun to a friend even if your friend already owns other firearms. People under 21 years of age may not buy many types of rifles. The police can seize your guns if you’re alleged to be a danger to yourself or to others. In addition, firearms have to be locked away when they are not in use. How well did those gun-control laws work at stopping violent crime? The rate of violent crime in Seattle is 84 percent above the national average. (680/369 per 100 thousand)

The gun-control laws in Chicago are intimidating. The regulatory hurdles to buy a gun, and to get a concealed carry permit, are among the most expensive and lengthy in the nation. Chicago outlaws the ownership of certain types of rifles and has effectively banned gun ranges in the city. Chicago has mandatory waiting periods, so residents who obey the law have to wait an extraordinarily long time between when they ask permission to buy a gun and when they may finally take possession of that firearm. The purchase of ammunition is also strictly regulated. How well did those gun-control laws work at stopping violent crime? The rate of violent crime in Chicago is almost three times higher than the national average. (1006/369 per 100 thousand)

In addition to state laws, New York City has its own burdensome gun laws. The licencing application to buy a long gun or handgun runs over a dozen pages and required a criminal background check. Owning a handgun requires a purchase permit as well as a state and city license. The application process takes from three to six months and requires a personal interview. You need a different permit if you want to have your firearm stored at your home or at your business. You need a separate permit if you want to store your firearm at a residence outside the city. Those permits do not allow you to have your legally owned firearm available for use as you travel to and from work or between your homes. New York also restricts the type of rifles you may own. They restrict the amount of ammunition your firearms may hold. New York also has so called “red flag” gun-control laws, so school officials, members of law enforcement, or members of your family can ask the court to block you from buying or owning firearms without you being present or represented at the hearing. These regulations don’t stop criminals since the rate of violent crime in New York City is 66 percent higher than the national average. (614/369 per 100 thousand)

Baltimore’s gun-control laws are extremely strict. They require mandatory background checks when firearms are transferred. A safety course and purchase permit is required to buy a handgun. Mental health professionals, law enforcement officers, or a family member can ask for a protective order to disarm a gun owner without the gun owner being present at the legal proceedings. Many firearms are in a restricted category so that law abiding gun owners may only purchase one gun a month. The state also has a registry of all handgun owners. Baltimore denies concealed carry permits to ordinary citizens so you are effectively disarmed in public. The state also restricts the type of rifles you may own, and the amount of ammunition that firearms may hold. These laws fail to reduce crime since the crime rate for Baltimore is almost five times the national average. (1833/369 per 100 thousand) With over 300 murders in 2018, Baltimore politicians called for more of the same.

The gun-control laws in Trenton prevent many honest people from owning guns. You need a state permit to buy any firearm, and this permit takes months or years to obtain. New Jersey routinely denies ordinary citizens the right to carry a firearm in public. The state also keeps a record of all registered handgun owners. The type of long guns you may own is restricted as is the ammunition capacity of all firearms. A judge may issue a restraining order to confiscate your firearms without you being present or represented. How well do those gun-control laws work at stopping violent crime in Trenton, New Jersey? The rate of violent crime in Trenton is more than three times higher than the national average. (1161/369 per 100 thousand)

The gun-control laws in Boston deeply restrict the rights of law abiding people to own and use firearms for self-defense. The city requires a permit to purchase either a long gun or a handgun. It also requires a license to own the firearm. Law enforcement officers have denied these permits saying that the citizen did not have a justified reason to own a firearm. Boston police may also refuse to issue concealed carry permits to citizens with a clean criminal record. The type of long guns you may own is restricted as is the ammunition capacity of all firearms. A judge may issue an order to confiscate your firearms without you being present or represented. How well do those gun-control laws work at stopping violent crime in Boston? The rate of violent crime is about 70 percent higher than the national average. (622/369 per 100 thousand)

We’ve looked at city after city and the evidence is clear. Gun-control laws do not make us safer. In fact, these laws probably put honest citizens in greater danger from violent crime. I found this data with a few hours of study so any honest journalist could have tested the theory of gun-control..if they wanted to know the truth.

Gun-control is getting us killed. The sad news is that politicians will continue to call for gun-control as long as it gets them elected. Fortunately, we can put a stop to that.

Florida Begins Arming Teachers as Large School Districts Rebuff Controversial Program

OKEECHOBEE, Fla. — Teachers in seven Florida county school districts will soon be locked and loaded thanks to a state law enacted this month that provides schools with the option to allow teachers to carry concealed guns.

The law expands on a safety measure known as the “guardian” program. The program was created in response to the February 2018 Parkland massacre but did not allow teachers to carry guns, in part due to the recommendation of former Gov. Rick Scott. Under the original law, guardians were either non-instructional personnel who volunteered, or employees — such as school resource officers — hired specifically to protect students.

Trump Rids Major U.S. Container Port of Chinese Communist Control

One more nail in lid of the coffin of Obammy’s anti-Americanism.
Now if we can convince Trump to get off the gun control ‘third rail’………

Under a long-term deal sealed by the Obama administration, a Chinese Communist company was set to control the second-busiest container port in the United States. In an unreported Trump administration victory, the Communists are out after a drawn-out national security review forced a unit of China-based COSCO Shipping Holdings Co. (Orient Overseas Container Line—OOCL) to sell the cherished container terminal business, which handles among the largest freight of imports into the U.S.

It all started with a 40-year container terminal lease between the Port of Long Beach in southern California and Hong Kong. The Obama administration proudly signed the agreement in 2012 giving China control of America’s second-largest container port behind the nearby Port of Los Angeles. One of the Trump administration’s first big moves was to get the Communists out of the Port of Long Beach. After a national security review and federal intervention, the Long Beach terminal business, which handles millions of containers annually, is finally being sold to an Australian company called Macquarie Infrastructure Partners. That essentially kills China’s decades-long contract with the Obama administration.

The deal never should have been signed in the first place considering the facility’s size, significance and the national security issues associated with a hostile foreign government controlling it. The southern California port is the premier U.S. gateway for trans-Pacific trade, according to its website, and handles trade valued at more than $194 billion annually. It is one of the few ports that can accommodate the world’s largest vessels and serves 140 shipping lines with connections to 217 seaports around the world. The facility encompasses 3,200 acres with 31 miles of waterfront, 10 piers, 62 berths and 68 post-Panamax gantry cranes. In 2018, the Long Beach port handled more than 8 million container units, achieving the busiest year in its history.

Removing Chinese Communists from this essential port is a tremendous feat and a huge victory for U.S. national security. You’d never know it because the media, consumed with the impeachment debacle, has ignored this important achievement. The only coverage of the finalized transfer is found in Long Beach’s local newspaper, which published a brief article omitting important background information on the Trump administration’s work to take back the terminal from the Communists. The story makes it seem like a regular business transaction in which “a Chinese state-owned company, reached a deal to sell the terminal, one of the busiest in the port, for $1.78 billion.” The piece also quotes the Port of Long Beach’s deputy executive director saying that the transaction process was intricate and involved one of “our most valuable port assets.” Buried at the bottom of the article is a sentence mentioning that the U.S. government, which regulates mergers for antitrust and security reasons, stepped in and required COSCO to sell its rights to the container terminal.

In the last few years China has bought cargo ports throughout the world, including in Latin America, the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Chinese-owned ports are located in Greece, Italy, Spain and other European locations. In sub-Saharan Africa there are dozens of existing or planned port projects funded or operated by China, according to a study that highlights the threat the Chinese investments present to U.S. influence in the region. One troubling analysis points out that “COSCO’s commercial expansion has created leverage for Beijing — leverage that has already resulted in countries that host COSCO ports adopting China’s position on key international issues.”

Self-preservation is a citizen’s natural right

Some argue that the Second Amendment does not make gun ownership a right, when really, it’s not about that.

The true heart of the Second Amendment is protection of the natural rights of the citizenry. It ensures the right of self-preservation and acts as a means to secure that right.

This right of self-preservation was described by John Locke in his 1690 “Second Treatise on Government,” from which the Framers drew heavily. Locke argues that this right allows men to live freely without interference by anything or anyone, including government.

It’s important to understand this point. Many of the Framers were students of Locke’s philosophical thinking and others of the time. It is ingrained into the very fabric of the Bill of Rights.

It even influenced Alexander Hamilton when he wrote in Federalist No. 28 that, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that natural right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of government.”

The Second Amendment is not a right bestowed by the government to the people. Quite the opposite. It secures the citizenry’s natural right of self-preservation from anything and anyone who wishes to take away their other natural rights or their liberty, including their own government.

To think that we, as free citizens, must ask the permission of our government for the right of self-preservation is simply ludicrous.

Mark Genarelli

Barboursville

Yellowstone visitor severely burned after falling near Old Faithful

Just to point out, again:
“ETOH (alcohol) is a force multiplier. It takes poor decisions and magnifies them into tragedies of epic proportions.”

A tourist visiting Yellowstone National Park on Sunday suffered severe thermal burns after he tripped into a hot spring near Old Faithful Geyser, according to local reports.

Cade Edmond Siemers, 48, a U.S. citizen who lives in India, told rangers he was walking without a flashlight at the time of the fall, the Jackson Hole News & Guide reported. He managed to get back to his hotel room and was eventually flown to the burn center at an Idaho hospital. He was listed in critical condition.

Park rangers said they detected “evidence” of alcohol use back in the hotel room.

NASA emails reveal a very near-miss from a “city-killer” asteroid

This is the “Extinction Level Event” that climate change prodigy Greta Thunberg should really worry about

Climate change prodigy Greta Thunberg spent the better portion of a week recounting her fears of mass extinction to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations.

However, emails from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) reveal that we very nearly had a significant and catastrophic climate change event for which humankind could hardly be blamed.

Internal emails from NASA show that the space agency was unaware of asteroid 2019 OK, described as a “city killer,” until the last moment on July 24.

The giant, football field-sized space rock was not detected by researchers until 24 hours before it was set to whiz past Earth at a distance of just 48,000 miles, traveling at 55,000 miles per hour.

“Because there may be media coverage tomorrow, I’m alerting you that in about 30 mins a 57-130 meter sized asteroid will pass Earth at only 0.19 lunar distances (~48,000 miles),” Lindley Johnson, NASA’s planetary defense officer, wrote in a July 24 email, adding the asteroid “was spotted about 24 hrs ago.”

Paul Chodas of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory indicated that the asteroid managed to slip through NASA’s tracking systems.

“This object slipped through a whole series of our capture nets,” he stated in an email to his colleagues. “I wonder how many times this situation has happened without the asteroid being discovered at all.”

NASA’s failure to spot 2019 OK sooner is certainly alarming especially since the agency has constantly stressed the importance of early detection in preventing an asteroid impact from happening. Hopefully, the space agency will implement better systems that are capable of tracking all asteroids that might approach Earth.

How many billions of dollars have been squandered by climate change activists and politicians, diverted to useless global warming projects and to ineffective energy technologies?

All of those resources, including the scientific research and experimentation, that have been used on “climate change” could be going to projects that could help us detect asteroids that really present a threat to this planet.

With this in mind, perhaps it now makes sense that NASA Administrators have just announced that the agency is planning to launch a space telescope to watch for hazardous asteroids as part of itsplanetary defense strategy.

The telescope will use infrared radiation to detect the heat of rocks hurtling through space. For now, NASA administrators are calling it the Near-Earth Object Surveillance Mission (NEOSM).

“This is a great step forward for thinking about human destiny, because the dinosaurs certainly did not have an asteroid survey program to protect themselves,” Richard Binzel, an asteroid researcher and professor of planetary sciences at MIT, told Business Insider. “Having knowledge of what’s out there is something that the planetary science community has been advocating for for nearly 30 years. So this is a breakthrough decades in the making.”

NASA’s new mission is expected to cost between $500 million and $600 million. It could launch as early as 2025, though that’s not an official timeline.

NASA has been steadily increasing its work in the area of planetary defense. Interestingly, an experiment for an asteroid killer is planned for 2021.

…This program received $60 million in funding for fiscal year 2017, $76 million for 2018 and it expects to receive $150 million in 2020. Figures for 2019 were not available because budgets had not been passed, according to NASA’s budget report.

The agency’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test, or DART, mission, which aims to “change the motion of an asteroid in space,” receives the bulk of planetary defense funding. DART functions by crashing into potentially dangerous asteroids at a speed of approximately 6.6 kilometers per second, or 14,764 mph, with the aim of changing the speed of the incoming asteroid.

A DART demonstration will occur in 2021 and will impact an asteroid of comparable size to that which passed the Earth in July — roughly 160 meters across. This is, according to NASA, “more typical of the size of the asteroids that could pose the most likely significant threat to the Earth.”

Personally, I would love to see this effort paired with the development of even more asteroid killing technologies from the U.S. Space Force.

While Greta jets around the world scolding Western civilization for its climate sins, American scientists and servicemen and women are working to protect us all from a real Extinction Level Event.

How to Spot Misleading Statistics in the Gun Control Debate

How to Spot Misleading Statistics in the Gun Control Debate
The academic debate over gun control consists mainly of a war of statistics. New studies come out every few weeks, and as a result, both sides are constantly locking horns over the validity or invalidity of this-or-that study in this-or-that country.

For those who aren’t formally trained in data analysis, this debate can seem impossible to navigate. How should untrained laypersons go about interpreting the findings of statistical studies?

It’s About Resistance, Not Prevention
Statistics come in all shapes and sizes, so the first thing we need to do is determine which kinds of statistics are relevant to the gun control debate and which are irrelevant. To do this, we need a clear understanding of what the gun control debate is fundamentally about. We can’t separate the relevant from the irrelevant if we aren’t clear about how to frame the issue.

So, what is the debate over gun ownership fundamentally about? Many seem to think that it’s about deterrence; that is, whether gun ownership prevents crime. The most well-known proponent of this view is John Lott, who argues that shall-issue right-to-carry laws are effective at reducing crime rates by means of deterring criminals. Lott’s research has been corroborated by a number of other studies and criticized by others.

Regardless of whether Lott’s research stands up to scrutiny, I want to suggest that it’s mistaken to think about the gun ownership debate chiefly in terms of crime prevention. On the contrary, whether there exists a right to own guns depends chiefly on whether guns are reasonable means of resisting crime.

Although prevention is more socially desirable (it is better that a crime not happen in the first place), any deterrent benefits that guns may have would owe to their resistance benefits, so the latter is more fundamental. Guns are valued for self-defense primarily because of their ability to dispense lethal force, which means that resistance—not prevention—is primary. Prevention is an added benefit, but it is secondary.

None of this is to say that Lott’s research is wrong. Rather, the point I’m making is that prevention and resistance are two very different things, and the latter is what the gun debate is fundamentally about.

To illustrate the difference, let’s suppose that I encounter a mugger while taking a walk. I brandish my firearm to the mugger, who is undeterred and rushes me with a knife. I then shoot the mugger, stopping the crime. In that situation, my gun has failed to prevent a crime, but it was successful at resisting a crime. The gun was an effective and reasonable means of self-defense even though it failed to deter the would-be mugger.

This is a very crucial point that must be carefully appreciated. Even if guns don’t prevent crime by reducing the overall crime rate, it wouldn’t mean that guns are not a reasonable means of resisting crime. As far as gun rights are concerned, the single most important issue is simply the question of whether guns do a good job when deployed against a criminal assailant. Deterrence is not the key issue at stake.

The Wrong Kinds of Studies
With that point in mind, we are now in a position to evaluate the relevance of empirical studies. Suppose for the sake of argument that pro-control advocates are right that gun ownership or right-to-carry laws do not deter crime. What follows from this? Nothing much, actually. Since the gun debate is primarily about whether guns are reasonable means of resisting crimes, the fact that guns may not work to prevent crime doesn’t really damage the case for gun ownership.

This same is true even if guns increase crime. Let’s revisit the earlier scenario involving the mugger. Suppose that upon seeing my brandished gun, the mugger becomes enraged and charges me. In that case, not only has my gun failed to prevent a crime, it may actually have worsened one. But that wouldn’t mean that my gun wasn’t a reasonable means of resisting crime, nor that I wasn’t justified in using it to defend myself.

The point here is this: even if studies showing that gun ownership or right-to-carry laws increase crime are right, they’re irrelevant. It doesn’t follow that guns are not effective when used in self-defense. Since the merits of gun ownership center around their resistance benefits, it is misleading to attack that by focusing on their lack of preventative benefits. The failure of a gun to prevent crime doesn’t imply its failure at resisting crime.

Proponents of gun control are therefore guilty of a subtle sleight of hand when they cite studies showing that guns lead to more crime or that gun-owners have a higher risk of being killed by a gun. Even if all these studies are true (and there is considerable reason to doubt that they are), they are wholly irrelevant to what is actually at stake in the debate over gun ownership. It confuses the risk that guns have in general with their effectiveness when used for self-protection.

Now to be fair, many gun advocates are guilty of making this same mistake, in that they frame the entire debate in terms of deterrence and crime prevention. While it’s not wrong to look at these questions, they should be secondary to what really matters. Gun advocates should direct their primary attention to the number of defensive gun uses and the effectiveness of guns in self-defense, as they pertain directly to the core issue of the gun debate: resisting crime.

So, the next time you see a study showing how gun ownership may increase crime or one’s chances of dying, know that it is irrelevant to what is actually at stake. Being able to make the distinction between prevention and resistance won’t make you an expert at data analysis, but it will go a long way in helping you wade through the morass of anti-gun statistics.

The Right Kinds of Studies
The type of studies we should be paying attention to are those studies that deal directly with the effectiveness of guns when used in a self-defense scenario. On that topic, there is a clear and overwhelming consensus that guns are effective when used in self-defense.

A 1993 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology found that out of eight different forms of robbery resistance, “victim gun use was the resistance strategy most strongly and consistently associated with successful outcomes for robbery victims.”

A 2000 study published in the Journal of Criminal Justice found that men and women who resisted with a gun were less likely to be injured or lose property than those who resisted using some other means or who did not resist at all. In the case of women, “having a gun really does result in equalizing a woman with a man.”

A 2004 study published in the journal Criminology found that out of sixteen different forms of victim self-protection, “a variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun, appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury.”

Finally, a 2010 study published in Crime and Delinquency found that resistance with a gun decreased the odds of robbery and rape completion by 93 percent and 92 percent, respectively.

Taking stock of these points, the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council concluded in a 2013 review of the literature that

studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.

When it comes to the use of studies and statistics, both sides tend to focus on the impact of gun ownership and right-to-carry laws on causing or deterring violence. These are certainly interesting issues to examine, but deterrence (or lack thereof) isn’t actually relevant to the key question in the gun debate. What matters is simply the question of whether guns are effective at doing what they’re designed to do. And on that question, there is clear consensus that guns are extremely effective at self-defense.

The 2nd Amendment is a reminder to government of a right we inherently have

Those who want to repeal it? They don’t want that reminder; Which just happens to be guns, and what they can be used for.

I’ll keep this brief. The 2nd Amendment is often mischaracterized by both the left and even its defenders on the right. To state it simply, our right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, one that is granted to everyone by powers higher than man.

Read it carefully: “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.”

Many misconstrue this as the founders giving us the right to bear arms by codifying it in the Bill of Rights. But in reality, this amendment was not intended to grant a right to anyone. It is simply a reminder of the existence of the right, an explanation of why this right is so important to the nation, and a decree that the right itself is above reproach from government……..

Law-abiding gun owners are the true targets of all forms of gun control. We know this because the proposed measures will adversely affect us while doing nothing to stop violent criminals.

Too Many Policy Makers Undermine Civil Order

Far too many local and national policy makers (i.e. politicians) have gone crazy in their efforts to undermine civil order in our country. As a result, they are undermining personal security; and it’s all in the shameful pursuit of power.

Think about it for a moment, the typical homeowner, and certainly parents with children, would outright laugh if ultra-left policies were mandated in the home. Yet these same—unprincipled—ideas have gained incredible momentum.

Consequently, they are destroying our inner cities. Furthermore, the same people (once again, politicians) are aiming for the suburbs.

Undermining Civil Order

In essence, their policies and laws have had a detrimental effect in the following manner:

  • Discourage security of property (open borders).
  • Desire to eliminate the ability of self-defense even though defensive gun use saves lives (gun ownership).
  • Appease the criminal element fighting against law enforcement efforts (recognize radical voices like BLM and Antifa as rational conversationalists).
  • Encourage the diversion of punishment for crime (eroding just sentences for criminals deserving to be incarcerated).

All of this means ultra-left policy makers are undermining civil order, which impacts personal security.

Individual citizens would not allow these same principles to run amok in their homes, but the destructive ideas have taken hold and are compromising safety at every turn.

While I understand my words have a political overtone, put politics aside for a minute and simply think pragmatically. Individual citizens (from the left and right) would not allow these same principles to run amok in their homes, but the destructive ideas have taken hold and are compromising safety at every turn. Inmates are running the asylum through proxy of willing shot-callers.

Establish a Reasonable Benchmark

What to do?

Establish a reasonable benchmark. Do not support or encourage a local, state, or national policy (law) that you would not approve at your own home with family members present! It’s really that simple.

Personal Choices Incongruent with Public Policy Positions

We should think this way because policy makers do, even if their personal choices conflict with public policy decisions.

Their homes are nestled behind walls, gates, and fences with alarmed security present. People with firearms are typically nearby to protect their every move. Moreover, their appeasement of radical voices does not carry over into their personal lives. No one is camped on their manicured lawns shooting heroin or taking a dump in their planters.

Finally, when a person of notoriety is victimized there is usually a severe penalty to pay, because true justice is always demanded from the self-righteous.

So, the next time you consider support or opposition to a law regarding public safety, ask yourself if you’d take the same course of action in your own home. It will sharply bring things into focus as you come to a conclusion.

– Jim McNeff

‘We have to do something’: Michigan school district considers arming staff

Addison — Standing on the sidewalk outside his school’s K-12 campus, superintendent Steve Guerra sweeps his hand across endless acres of farms, woods and marsh that surround his school and the 810 students inside.

Any direction Guerra stands — north, south, east or west — law enforcement is at least 20 miles away from Addison Community Schools, which sits remotely along the borders of Lenawee, Jackson and Hillsdale counties.

Guerra, who spent the summer reinforcing nearly 130 school windows with security film and adding 60 new security cameras, estimates police response time to his main school building from any three county sheriff’s departments is between 13 to 38 minutes.

“Both of those numbers are unacceptable,” Guerra said. “A school shooting is over in seven minutes. We are looking at other opportunities to keep our kids and staff safe.”

That includes arming school staff.

Addison school officials are talking about becoming the first school district in Michigan to allow its educators to carry guns.

The conversation started 18 months ago, Guerra said, when school leaders were searching for new ways to improve school safety, and it led to the creation of a safety committee comprised of three local board of education members to study and research the idea.

Then earlier this month, about 100 people attended a public meeting where students, parents and community members openly spoke of their support of and concerns about having guns inside the school.

Guerra said he has eight staff members who are concealed pistol license holders, including himself, teachers and a custodian, who have already volunteered to carry if the district moves forward with the option.

“I personally think that it would be a good idea,” Guerra said. “As the CEO and superintendent of my district, I can’t guarantee 100% safety in my district. Would employees carrying guarantee? No. It would reduce causalities.”

How to stop mass shootings: End war and the culture of violence

A noble aspiration, but this is a condition of the heart and mind of fallen man and that won’t change until we have a new Heaven and Earth.

Undoubtedly the worst day in any family’s life is when a police officer arrives at their residence to inform them that a loved one has been killed either in a mass shooting or in a senseless act of violence at work or driving or walking to or from their place of employment.

The family’s grief would be palpable; their anger would be understandable because no human being’s life should be ended by an act of violence. Unfortunately, there are violent human beings in every society who because of mental illness or are just plain evil — harboring resentment against “others” whether they are members of any easily identifiable racial, ethnic, or religious group.

The recent spate of mass shootings has brought into focus the AR-15 rifle used in virtually all the horrific acts of violence that have claimed hundreds of lives across America. In response, many media pundits, anti-Second Amendment activists, and virtually all Democratic presidential candidates decry the private ownership of the AR-15 “assault rifle,” and call for a “government buyback” of these firearms or outright confiscation of the rifle as their solution to ending mass shootings in America.

The AR does not stand for “assault rifle,” a gross mischaracterization of a firearm that was created in the 1950s by the ArmaLite Company that branded it. The AR-15 is a semiautomatic, lightweight rifle and has the same capabilities as a semiautomatic handgun. This means that only one round can be fired at a time when the trigger is pulled, unlike a machine gun, which is capable of firing bullets repeatedly by holding the trigger down. Since 1986 civilians can no longer purchase machine guns.

In short, the term assault rifle is a politically loaded term based on federal and state law definitions. The government defines an assault weapon as a semiautomatic rifle, pistol and shotguns that have the capability to use detachable magazines. Nevertheless, why would any citizen want to own a firearm that looks like a military weapon? The AR-15 is typically used for target shooting, hunting, home defense and competitive matches. In other words, 99%-plus of lawful AR-15 owners are peaceful, given that 5-10 million AR-15-type rifles are owned by private citizens.

But the advocates of banning the private ownership of so-called assault weapons assert that “Enough Is Enough,” and that to stop the carnage in America the government — which is supposed to protect our safety and security — must not kowtow to Second Amendment defenders who believe that there is a fundamental right to self-defense.

Have the “gun grabbers” thought through their proposal to ban the AR-15 or similar type firearm? Apparently not, because if they did, a ban on so-called assault weapons would, yes, increase shootings. In other words, the law of unintended consequences would kick in.

Prohibition of any substance or item leads to black markets. Our experience with alcohol prohibition during the 1920s and early 1930s and drug prohibition today are the quintessential examples of policies that increase violence — and corruption — in our society.

The violence that would ensue after a ban of so-called assault weapons would turn our cities — and rural communities — into killing fields as black market gangs would vie for turf to sell their contraband to individuals who would defy the government’s “assault” on their Second Amendment rights. In addition, law enforcement officers would have to be armed to the teeth to eliminate the assault weapon black market. Funerals for police officers would skyrocket.

But instead of a knee jerk reaction to mass shootings, maybe, just maybe, federal elected officials and presidential candidates would reflect how their actions have contributed to mass shootings.

A common trait of most mass shooters is that they served in the military, had been rejected to serve or came from a military family. In an essay, “Wars and Domestic Massacres,” Libertarian Lew Rockwell makes the compelling argument that our foreign policy of unending global conflict that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of individuals in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, promotes a “culture of violence” in America that cannot be dismissed.

In sum, banning rifles would not end mass shootings, but a foreign policy of peace and commerce with all would be the humane way of leading by example. Maybe then we will be safer at home instead of eviscerating the Second Amendment.

 

PRODUCT WARNING AND RECALL NOTICE

WINCHESTER® Super-X 17 HMR 20 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point

Olin Winchester, LLC is recalling two (2) lots of 17 HMR 20 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point Rimfire rifle ammunition.

Symbol: X17HMR1
Lot Numbers (last four characters): NB51 and NB61

Winchester has determined the above lots of 17 HMR ammunition may contain no powder charges. Ammunition with no powder charges may result in a bullet remaining in the barrel (i.e., a bullet-in-bore obstruction). Firing a subsequent bullet into the bore obstruction could cause firearm damage, rendering the firearm inoperable and subjecting the shooter and bystanders to a risk of serious personal injury.

DO NOT USE WINCHESTER® 17 HMR 20 GRAIN JHP SYMBOL X17HMR1 THAT HAS A LOT NUMBER ENDING IN NB51 or NB61. The ammunition Lot Number is stamped on the top of the 1000-round case and the outside of the 50-round plastic box as indicated here.

X17HMR1
X17HMR1

To determine if your ammunition is subject to this notice, review the Symbol and Lot Number. If it is Symbol X17HMR1 and the last four characters of the Lot Number are NB51 or NB61, immediately discontinue use and contact Winchester toll-free at 844-653-8358 for free UPS pick-up of the recalled ammunition.

This notice applies only to Symbol X17HMR1 with Lot Numbers ending in NB51 and NB61. Other Symbols or Lot Numbers are not subject to this recall.

If you have any questions concerning this 17 HMR rimfire rifle ammunition recall please call toll-free 844-653-8358, write to Winchester (600 Powder Mill Road, East Alton, IL 62024 Attn: X17HMR1 Recall), or visit our website at www.winchester.com.

We apologize for this inconvenience.

WINCHESTER

September 12, 2019

‘Red flag’ gun laws have caused backlash
Many counties in Colorado refuse to enforce law

GREELEY, Colo. – In the wake of recent mass shootings, President Donald Trump has called for “red flag” laws, which would temporarily prevent individuals in crisis from accessing firearms through a court order.

That has some wondering whether Congress could enact national red flag legislation in a rare instance of Democrats and Republicans coming together to pass a gun law.

But in Colorado, the state’s passage of a red flag law has sparked a backlash.

The state’s red flag law won’t take effect until next year, but opponents have already filed a lawsuit attempting to overturn it. A number of the state’s counties have declared themselves Second Amendment “sanctuaries” in an effort to fight back and some sheriffs, including Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams, have said they would rather go to jail than enforce the law.

Reams believes Colorado’s red flag law is unconstitutional and is afraid of what will happen when it takes effect.

“My biggest fear for the law is violating someone’s constitutional rights and the potential for placing my deputies in a situation for an encounter with an armed individual,” Reams told CNN.