Well, when all they have is deceit

The Left’s Artificial Inflation of Mass Shooting Numbers

Left-leaning media outlets like CNN and The Washington Post claim there have been hundreds of mass shootings this year alone. The real numbers are much lower.

The figures they use are based on data from the Gun Violence Archive which currently clocks the number of mass shootings in 2022 at 251, on par with the number of shootings on their record this time last year.

The FBI does not have numbers yet for 2022, but in 2021 they reported 61 active shooter incidents. Only 12 of those were considered mass killings according to the federal definition which says three or more deaths constitute a mass killing. The GVA, on the other hand, reported 692 mass shootings in 2021. That’s more than 11 times greater than the FBI’s official recorded number.

The culprit of the difference between the two agencies’ numbers is that the FBI gathers data on active shooter incidents and the GVA counts mass shootings. The two terms have slightly different definitions. However, the FBI’s active shooter data contains comparable information to the GVA’s mass shooting data.

In fact, the difference between how the FBI defines an active shooter and how the GVA defines a mass shooting reveals how the larger numbers provided by the GVA’s data collection criteria can be twisted by the left to spread fear and further their gun-grabbing agenda.

The GVA says a mass shooting occurs when there are “Four or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location not including the shooter.” They also note the way they collect their mass shooting information (via GVA):

GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.

GVA believes that equal importance is given to the counting of those injured as well as killed in a mass shooting incident.

The FBI does not define Mass Shooting in any form. They do define Mass Killing but that includes all forms of weapon, not just guns.

In that, the criteria are simple…if four or more people are shot or killed in a single incident, not including the shooter, that incident is categorized as a mass shooting based purely on that numerical threshold.

Note that the GVA definition of a mass shooting does not have a threshold number of deaths required to define an incident of gun violence as a mass shooting.

The FBI defines an active shooter as follows (via FBI):

One or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.

The FBI also looks at the inclusion of the following features to determine whether or not an incident is an active shooter event (via FBI):

Shootings in public places, shootings occurring at more than one location, shootings where the shooter’s actions were not the result of another criminal act, shootings resulting in a mass killing, shootings indicating apparent spontaneity by the shooter, shootings where the shooter appeared to methodically search for potential victims, shootings that appeared focused on injury to people, not buildings or objects.

In their reported numbers of active shooter incidents, the FBI does not include incidents of gun violence that result from the following (via FBI):

Self defense, gang violence, drug violence, contained residential or domestic disputes, controlled barricade/hostage situations, crossfire as a byproduct of another ongoing criminal act, an action that appeared not to have put other people in peril.

These criteria make the FBI’s definition of an active shooter much more exclusive. Because of the GVA’s broad definition of a mass shooting, they would count incidents fitting the above descriptions as mass shootings so long as four or more people were injured or killed.

In other words, if someone was attacked by multiple criminals and shot the attackers out of self defense, the GVA would consider it a mass shooting. If four or more people were shot in an incident of gang violence, the GVA would consider it a mass shooting, and so on.

These sorts of shootings are no less significant, but by labeling every incident of gun violence affecting four or more people a “mass shooting,” the Left makes it sound like acts of violence on the same scale as Uvalde or Buffalo happen every day.

The term mass shooting has strong connotations that are not applicable to most of the shootings in the GVA’s numbers. As Katie wrote, referring to something as a mass shooting implies a lot more than the number of people shot.

All violent crime should be cause for concern and the GVA’s numbers reveal violence is no small issue in the United States. But untruthfully referring to so many of these incidents of violent crime as mass shootings is just a fear-mongering tactic used by the Left to push their agenda of greater government control over law abiding citizens.

It’s sensible to own an AR-15
By Jim Beckham, Henderson Friday, June 10, 2022 | 2 a.m.

I get so upset when I hear President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and other members of the Biden team talk about people not needing an AR-15-type assault weapon because its sole purpose is to kill people, and that was not what was guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

First, that is not the sole purpose of the AR-15. Many Americans just enjoy taking it out to shoot at targets and improve their skill with the weapon that could be used to defend their homes.

Secondly, the militia language in the Second Amendment indicates to many scholars that the states that approved that amendment hoped their residents would keep a weapon to defend their new country should another country invade, or an uprising were to take place within their new state.

Well, the musket was the arms for war when that amendment was written, and semiautomatic weapons, including the AR-15, are the arms for war today. For that reason, if citizens want to be prepared for invasions or internal strife, the AR-15-type weapon is the most appropriate to own today.

I would wager that Ukrainians wish their country had a Second Amendment to allow citizens to own weapons to prepare to defend their nation.

The Power to Tax and Regulate Guns is the Power to Disarm Women and Minorities

The world has changed. Racial minorities are buying guns for lawful self-protection more than ever before. Urban women are the fastest growing segment of legal gun owners. That is wonderful news and long overdue. Tempering that good news are the unfortunate conditions in our inner cities that may have provided new motivations to own a gun. Recently we’re seeing gun-prohibitionist Democrats propose huge taxes on guns just as minority members of society become gun owners. We’ve seen this political behavior before, and politicians repeat behavior that works. It looks like Democrat politicians are doing it again, and racism and political advantage are always wrapped in the excuses of public safety.

Home Defender by Oleg Volk, image used with permission

Continue reading “”

They either don’t care and are rubbing our noses in it, or they’re still building a case to depose him after January, next year

Elderly Woman Rushed to Austin Hospital After Explosion Causes Fire at La Grange Church

FAYETTE COUNTY, Texas — An elderly woman was rushed to an Austin hospital after a large fire broke out at a Catholic church in Fayette County Thursday morning.

Fayette County Sheriff Keith Korenek said in a press release that firefighters responded around 6:27 a.m. after reports of an explosion at the Queen of the Holy Rosary Catholic Church, located at 936 FM2436 in Hostyn. This is just south of La Grange and about 67 miles southeast of Austin.

FAYETTE COUNTY, Texas — An elderly woman was rushed to an Austin hospital after a large fire broke out at a Catholic church in Fayette County Thursday morning.

Fayette County Sheriff Keith Korenek said in a press release that firefighters responded around 6:27 a.m. after reports of an explosion at the Queen of the Holy Rosary Catholic Church, located at 936 FM2436 in Hostyn. This is just south of La Grange and about 67 miles southeast of Austin.

Several deputies and fire departments responded including LaGrange Fire Department, Schulenburg Fire Department, Muldoon Fire Department, and Fayetteville Fire Department.

When fire crews arrived, they located an elderly woman inside who had suffered burns and was transported to Dell-Seton Hospital in Austin by Fayette County EMS.

Sheriff Korenek is asking the community to keep the victim in their prayers.

Hmm. Inciting insurrection?

Biden Warns of ‘Mini-Revolution’ if Roe V. Wade is Repealed

 

President Joe Biden on Thursday warned of the potential for a “mini revolution” in November’s mid-term elections should the Supreme Court decide to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which made the right to have an abortion a constitutionally protected right.

Biden’s remarks come hours after a man travelled from California to Maryland with the intent on taking the life of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who has voiced his decision to repeal Roe v. Wade in a leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion earlier this year.

Speaking to Jimmy Kimmel on his late-night show which aired on Thursday, Biden said that overturning the court precedent would be “ridiculous,” and motivate large numbers of Democrats to turn out to vote.

“I don’t think the country will stand for it,” Biden said. “If in fact the decision comes down the way it does, and these states impose the limitations they’re talking about, it’s going to cause a mini revolution and they’re going to vote these folks out of office.”

Continue reading “”

The Real Reason Why Fox Isn’t Airing the J6 Show Trial (and Why CNN and MSNBC Must).

*****

The dirty little secret that Bump and others of his ilk refuse to admit is that Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are all partisan networks. Every one of them. Anyone who can’t see that is being willfully ignorant or outright lying. CNN and MSNBC want the Democrats and their leftist ideology to prevail, and Fox wants the same for conservative ideals. Yet left-wing media outlets like the Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC continually perpetuate the myth that they are pure as the newly fallen snow and would never, ever, EVER stand for biased news, all the while laughing at their dwindling number of viewers who fall for the ruse………………

This is not just seen in Australia. This is world wide. And I can think of something that happened recently to lots of young people.

Healthy young people are dying suddenly and unexpectedly from a mysterious syndrome – as doctors seek answers through a new national register

  • People aged under the age of 40 being urged to go and get their hearts checked
  • May potentially be at risk of having Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS)
  • SADS is an ‘umbrella term to describe unexpected deaths in young people’
  • A 31-year-old woman who died in her sleep last year may have had SADs

People aged under 40 are being urged to have their hearts checked because they may potentially be at risk of Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.

The syndrome, known as SADS, has been fatal for all kinds of people regardless of whether they maintain a fit and healthy lifestyle.

SADS is an ‘umbrella term to describe unexpected deaths in young people’, said The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, most commonly occurring in people under 40 years of age.

People aged under 40 are being urged to have their hearts checked, because they may potentially be at risk of Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS) (pictured, woman experiencing chest pain while running)

The term is used when a post-mortem cannot find an obvious cause of death.

The US-based SADS Foundation has said that over half of the 4,000 annual SADS deaths of children, teens or young adults have one of the top two warning signs present.

Those signs include a family history of a SADS diagnosis or sudden unexplained death of a family member, and fainting or seizure during exercise, or when excited or startled, reported news.com.au….

 

 

Don’t Tell Joe: A Federal Government Study Showed 1994 ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Didn’t Reduce ‘Gun Violence’

Do something.

This is a response—and perhaps a natural one—to a human tragedy or crisis. We saw this response in the wake of 9/11. We saw it during the Covid-19 pandemic. And we’re seeing it again following three mass shootings—in Buffalo, New York, Uvalde, Texas, and Tulsa Oklahoma—that claimed the lives of more than 30 innocent people, including small children.

In this case, the “something” is gun control. In Canada—where no attack even occurred—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the introduction of legislation that would freeze handgun ownership across the country.

“What this means is that it will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada,” Trudeau said in a press conference.

In the United States, the rhetoric has tended to be more heated but also vague, though some specific proposals have emerged.

Over the weekend, Vice President Kamala Harris called for an all-out ban of “assault weapons.”

“We know what works on this. It includes, let’s have an assault weapons ban,” Harris told reporters in Buffalo after attending the funeral of a victim.

On Thursday, President Joe Biden, while speaking from the White House before a candlelit backdrop, called on Congress to pass new gun control legislation, including a ban on assault weapons.

“How much more carnage are we willing to accept?” Biden asked.

There are numerous problems with this proposal, starting with the sticky question of defining what an “assault weapon” is.

Assault rifles, which by definition are capable of selective fire, are already banned under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The vague phrase “assault weapon” is basically a tautology—by definition, any weapon can be used to assault someone—and virtually useless. The term might be effective politically, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the guns politicians choose to define as “assault weapons” typically “are no more dangerous than others that are not specified.”

We know this because the US had a ban on “assault weapons” as recently as 2004, something gun control supporters recently pointed out on Twitter.

“We had an assault weapon ban for 10 years: 1994-2004,” said Dr. Joanne Freeman, a historian at Yale University. “The world didn’t end. People kept their (other) guns. They bought new guns. It was hardly an attack on gun ownership.”

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 targeted firearms deemed “useful in military and criminal applications but unnecessary in shooting sports or self-defense.”

Freeman is right that the ban lasted a decade before expiring on September 13, 2004. She’s also right that the world “didn’t end” and Americans continued to use and purchase other types of firearms.

What Freeman didn’t bring up was the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the government’s Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Nearly two decades ago the Department of Justice funded a study to analyze this very topic, and it concluded that the assault weapon prohibition had “mixed” results.

Researchers noted there was a decline in crimes committed with firearms classified as assault weapons, but noted “the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns.”

In other words, there was a decline in crimes committed with firearms that were banned, but the drop was replaced by crimes committed with other types of firearms that were not banned.

Continue reading “”

Well, he’s a demoncrap politician, which means he’s a cheat and a liar.

FBI data contradicts [Senator] Murphy’s claims on young adults and active shootings

While the Senate negotiations on a legislative response to the recent mass murders in Buffalo and Uvalde continue, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy told CNN on Thursday morning that an attempt to ban adults under the age of 21 from purchasing modern sporting rifles is now “off the table” as the two sides work to find something they can present to their colleagues that might win approval from 10 Republican senators.

Murphy, the Democrat leading the negotiations in conjunction with Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, framed the shift as one of the compromises that will be needed to get at least 10 Republican votes, given the obstacle of the filibuster.

The compromise, Murphy explained, would be adding “additional scrutiny” to 18- to 21-year-olds looking to buy a weapon like the AR-15, though he stopped short of specifying that some sort of waiting period would replace raising the age.

“I think we continue to try to find a path to 60 votes that includes some provision that recognizes these 18- to 21-year-olds tend to be the mass shooters, and that many times, they have juvenile criminal records or past histories of mental health that should prohibit them from buying a weapon,” Murphy said, adding he thinks there is some Republican support for raising the age, but not enough to meet the 60-vote threshold to clear the filibuster.

Here’s the thing: Murphy is just flat out wrong about adults under 21 being most likely to commit these types of attacks, as the FBI’s recent report on active shooter incidents in 2021 clearly demonstrates.

Just 16 of the 61 incidents documented by the FBI involved a killer under the age of 24, much less 21. I took a deeper look into the FBI report and found that only five of the 61 incidents last year involved suspects under the age of 21; less than 10% of the overall number of these heinous crimes. And of the five incidents, two involved the use of a rifle, while three involved handguns.

It seems to me that these senators, including Murphy, are looking more at the killers in Buffalo and Uvalde, who were both 18-years of age at the time of their mass murders, than examining the actual statistics, which completely undercut the argument of targeting specific firearms or a particular age.

Meanwhile, you’d think that corporations would have gotten the message that customers want them to focus on their products and services instead of wading into the culture wars by now, but that’s not stopping the heads of hundreds of business from calling on Congress to pass new gun control legislation in the wake of the mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas.

Many of the names on the list of signatories of an open letter to the U.S. Senate, however, are familiar names for Second Amendment advocates, because they’ve been issuing their corporate calls for gun control for several years.

The letter is signed by some of the nation’s largest companies including Bloomberg LP, The Permanente Medical Group, Levi Strauss, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Lyft and the Philadelphia Eagles.

Bloomberg obviously has been in favor of all kinds of new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms for years, and it’s hard to expect anything less from the company run by the gun control lobby’s biggest sugar daddy. Levi Strauss and Dick’s have also been longtime corporate supporters of gun control measures, while Lyft has imposed its own driver disarmament policy that leaves contractors unable to defend themselves from armed robbers or carjackers without their ability to drive for the company being terminated. If they don’t even want their own contractors to be able to protect themselves in their own vehicles, you can imagine the contempt the company has for the right of average citizens to be able to keep and bear arms in self-defense.

The letter was apparently put together by Levi Strauss and Bloomberg’s pet gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety, and Axios, who was first to report on the missive says that the document is void of any support for specific pieces of gun control legislation under debate, opting instead of boilerplate language urging the Senate to “take urgent action to pass bold gun safety legislation as soon as possible in order to avoid more death and injury.”

In a fascinating twist, while the CEOs of three professional sports teams (the San Francisco 49ers, San Francisco Giants, and Philadelphia Eagles) signed on to the letter, no one from the Tampa Bay Rays organization lent their name to the anti-gun effort, even though the baseball team recently used its social media platforms to advocate for unnamed gun control laws and to back Everytown for Gun Safety’s gun control mission. The Rays absence from the letter might have something to do with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ even more recent veto of a bill that would have spent more than $30-million in state funds on a training facility that would be mostly used by the team, though the governor didn’t directly tie in the veto to Rays’ gun control messaging.

I doubt that the negotiations in the Senate are going to produce anything that these anti-gun CEOs would truly consider “bold”, and I’m glad to hear Murphy say that a gun ban for adults under the age of 21 is apparently no longer a part of the discussions. Still, based on Murphy’s comments it seems the Senate negotiations are still aiming in the wrong direction by focusing on young adults and modern sporting rifles in spite of what the data actually tells us.

School resource officer shoots, kills ‘suspicious person’ outside Alabama school

GADSDEN, Ala. (AP) — Authorities say a person who was outside an Alabama elementary school was shot to death by police.

Etowah County Sheriff Jonathon Horton tells The Gadsden Times there was a report of someone trying to get into either Walnut Park Elementary School or vehicles outside the building on Thursday morning.

Other officers responded and the person was shot to death. One officer suffered minor injuries. All the children are safe.

Tony Reddick, Superintendent of Gadsden City Schools, said he received an urgent call from Walnut Park’s principal.

“I got a call from the principal who’s really distraught, and I really couldn’t make out what was happening,” he told News Channel 8 sister station WIAT. “But I knew it was something pretty bad.”

He told WIAT that the school system is vigilant in preparing for events like these. He and the school’s principal, he said, had just participated in a seminar that included school safety training on Monday.

McConaughey Just Picked His Political Party. Huge Mistake.

Matthew McConaughey is a cut above most political celebrities.

He doesn’t spit fire and brimstone like director Rob Reiner or Alyssa Milano. Nor does he bend the truth until it snaps like a branch, as the “View” hosts do on a regular basis.

The Oscar winner is calm, measured and unwilling to demonize the mainstream Left or Right.

In a way, he’s everything we want in a celebrity sticking his neck out on the issues of the day. Except he just made the biggest mistake of his quasi-political life.

He chose a side. And he chose badly for more than a few reasons.

McConaughey’s recent gun control plea, made via the current White House’s invitation, won’t be easily forgotten. His policy suggestions proved generic and unlikely to move the needle on gun violence.

Then again, why would anyone expect the “Dallas Buyers Club” star to set forth any bold new agendas? He’s an actor, not a gun control expert. He brings a layman’s touch to the subject, meaning there’s little reason for him to even be on such an important political stage.

It’s one thing for a celebrity to share a hot take on Twitter. It’s another to travel to Washington, D.C. and demand said take be given the gravitas of a State of the Union address.

Figures like John Lott and Dana Loesch have been enmeshed in guns for years, if not decades. Agree or disagree with their opinions, they’ve studied the topic aggressively and offer sober insights.

What has McConaughey done to measure up?

More importantly, the star has been carefully straddling the line between Democrats and Republicans in recent years. He’s teased running for Texas governor, inserting himself into various narratives along the way.

And he’s done so without choosing a party. That’s no accident.

Embracing generic gun control platitudes, from the Biden White House pulpit of all places, changed that. And he did it at a moment when Team Biden is on its heels, pounded by terrible polling numbers and facing a Red Wave come November.

It’s not politically smart to back the wrong horse.

Not only did McConaughey pick a political side, but he also did so at the worst possible time. Today’s Democratic party doesn’t resemble the one President Barack Obama commandeered just a few short years ago.

It’s angry, uncompromising and beholden to its far-Left base. And that seems to clash with everything the actor represents.

The modern Left looks the other way when its side commits political violence, or it implicitly eggs it on. It gently nods as protesters descend on the homes of Supreme Court Justices, assuming the legal eagles lean to the Right.

McConaughey’s “new” side often demands abortion up until birth, cheers on Big Tech censorship and champions Cancel Culture.

The actor may not embrace those extreme measures, but his new party does. And how will Democrats take to McConaughey’s kinder, gentler approach? They’ll rage against his willingness to defend Trump voters, as he’s done in the past. They’ll steam over his inability to demonize the other side.

Conservatives offer a bigger tent today, witness Dr. Oz’s primary victory in Pennsylvania. Or, closer to Hollywood, look at how the Right rallies behind left-leaning comics like Ricky Gervais, Joe Rogan and Dave Chappelle.

No one fought harder for Rogan than the Right, and even he admitted as much.

Republicans might have made room for a center-leaning soul who just so happened to be a movie star. Democrats may cheer McConaughey on as he pushes more gun control measures, but every other time he opens his mouth they’ll demand he shut it, and fast.

The political neophyte will learn that lesson soon enough.

Because the AR-15 Can Deter a Mob
Americans deserve the chance to protect themselves from rampaging mobs and (God forbid) the government itself if tyranny arises.

*****

Now to the point. This is not a piece about dealing with misinformation. Official efforts to combat “misinformation” are laughably political and partisan. This is about gun control. Why do Americans need AR-15s with a high capacity magazine? Because too often, mobs inflamed by planted rumors are allowed (even encouraged) to rampage through American communities. Ask Kyle Rittenhouse. The AR-15 is a jury-approved tool of self-defense against a mob of attackers.

Mobs like these don’t materialize in a vacuum. Tyrants, dating back to the Romans, have employed mobs to influence politics. Mussolini, Mao, Hitler, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran, all developed an “on and off” switch for their street goons. And no, it’s not different when the mob is inflamed by social justice concerns. Every mob since before the Romans claims to be fighting for justice of some kind.

Recall that Kamala Harris rather conspicuously pledged to “stand by” Kenosha rioters and helped raise money for Minneapolis rioters who burned down an entire police facility. Biden excused the Kenosha riots on the grounds of “the original sin in this country . . . slavery, and all the vestigages of it.” One should not hold one’s breath for help from the Biden Administration if one’s city descends into chaos.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey and Kyle Rittenhouse have demonstrated that the AR-15 with a conspicuous high-capacity magazine is the appropriate tool to deter a mob (in the case of the McCloskeys) and may be wielded as a legitimate instrument of self-defense (in the case of Rittenhouse). And, as I pointed out in 2020,

Americans can also see that powerful rifles are turning up in the possession of violent rioters and looters. In this video, one can clearly see Raz Simone, then a noted leader within Seattle’s ‘Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone,’ handing out an expensive, tricked-out AR-15 to a complete stranger.

Simone somehow went from an Airbnb host to a Tesla-driving, arsenal-distributing mogul in the space of a few weeks. As shown in this video, a militant left-wing militia group called NFAC . . . staged an armed protest in Kentucky during which an accidental discharge wounded three people.

Unfortunately, we live at a time when social and legacy media help agitators spread lies to incite mob violence. And for a variety of reasons, one may not be able to count on law enforcement to engage a violent threat. Once the threat materializes, it’s possible that the police will “maintain a perimeter” while “waiting for equipment and backup,” while people continue to die. Jurisdictions governed by the Left have been particularly brazen about selective protection based on politics. The University of California recently was forced to settle a lawsuit charging that UC Berkeley withheld security and protection from conservative speakers.

Americans deserve the chance to protect themselves from rampaging mobs and (God forbid) the government itself if tyranny arises. And they should not take for granted that their Republican representatives will stand firm to protect these rights.

Things are different now. Gun confiscators are willing to weather the backlash of moderate gun owners to achieve their greater objectives. Indeed, the hopeless condition of their midterm prospects leaves them with little to lose. It’s in the air. The NRA is bankrupt and compromised. Anti-gun forces (not all of them Democrats) control Congress and the White House. And before you count on the Supreme Court, remember the mob now knows where each of the conservative justices live. The Second Amendment has never been in greater peril.

Police investigate circumstances surrounding shooting death of man found near Detroit home

DETROIT – Police are investigating the circumstances surrounding an overnight shooting after a man was found dead near a Detroit home.

The discovery was made around 4:35 a.m. Tuesday in the 16500 block of Salem Street, according to authorities.

Officers said a man was found dead near a home in the area. His age is unknown.

They believe the man might have been an intruder who was shot during a home invasion. 

[ya think?]

The person inside the nearby home is cooperating, according to officials.

No additional information has been revealed.