Sandy Hook, Gun Control, Second Amendment, Patriot Act, Motor Vehicle Accidents and Partial-Birth Abortion

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 13th, 2014

Politics 101

(Originally published January 10th, 2013)

The Social Democracies of Europe were all Oppressive Absolute Monarchies at one Time

What happened in Newtown, Connecticut, was a tragedy.  The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary took 26 lives.  Including 20 children.  The most innocent of us.  Which has ignited a firestorm of debate over guns.  The Left blames these deaths on an epidemic of gun violence.  Caused by people having access to guns.  So the Left wants to have a real debate on gun control.  To stop this epidemic of child deaths caused by firearms.  By severely restricting access to guns.

Those on the Right, on the other hand, want to protect their Second Amendment right.  The right to keep and bear arms.  Which allowed the First Amendment.  Freedom of speech.  The British colonial governors tried hard to clamp down on the anti-British sentiment in their American colonies.  And to muzzle that anti-British speech.  They sent over British Red Coats to occupy American cities to keep order.  And to find and confiscate the Americans’ guns.  So the first few amendments of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) protected free speech.  Gave us the power to protect ourselves from future state oppressors.  And they even included the Third Amendment.  Which states, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”  Again, further protection from state oppression.

The nature of states is to oppress their people.  Most have throughout history.  Even the social democracies of Europe were all oppressive absolute monarchies at one time.  Where kings could do pretty much anything they wanted to.  England changed that with representative government.  America expanded on these liberties in the New World.  And ever since has been very wary of government.  Until the Twentieth century.  When the growth of government began.  Transferring ever more power to the federal government.  Everything the Founding Fathers feared would happen without a Bill of Rights.

When it comes to Restricting our Constitutional Rights Liberals Trust Government while Fearing Republicans

Those on the Left say the Constitution is a relic of a different age.  That today’s government is a kinder government.  A more caring government.  One that just wants to take care of the people.  By providing generous benefits.  Of course this is how some of the worst dictatorships started.  Nazi Germany and the USSR both put the people first.  Or so they said.  Even their names said they were putting the people first.  The Nazis were National Socialists.  And the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  Socialism is all about taking care of the people.  Yet these nations had some the most brutal secret police that terrorized and oppressed their people.  For there is no easier way to dictatorial power than championing the people.  And once the people stop fearing their government is when the state can take away their guns.  To make that oppression easier.  The Syrian government is currently having difficulty oppressing their people because they failed to keep guns out of the hands of those they wish to oppress.

If you read a history book you will read a lot about state secret police and state oppression.  It’s more the rule than the exception.  When you grow up in a free country it’s hard to believe this.  And when you’re young you think whatever you know and have experienced is normal.  And that things have always been that way.  Which is why the younger liberals dismiss talk about the transfer of power to the federal government.  While the older conservatives who have seen great change in their lives and know history still fear their government.  While the younger liberals grow up believing that government is not to be feared but to be trusted blindly.  They even look at what China is doing with their economy with approval.  Where the government controls the economy.  They like that.  Because liberals believe we can always trust a government more than a private corporation.  Even if that government oppresses their people.  Like they do in China.  Where people still deal with famine in the country.  Rural workers are paid poorly and live in dormitories in the city factories.  And political dissidents are tortured in labor camps where they manufacture goods without pay.

So naïve liberals trust government.  Completely.  Unless it’s George W. Bush using the Patriot Act.  That they fear.  But when President Obama uses the Patriot Act liberals ask, “The Patriot what?”  When it came to secret wiretaps on people with known ties to terrorists the Left quaked with fear over where these abuses of power would end.  But when President Obama starts talking about gun control they haven’t a care in the world.  Because when it comes to restricting our constitutional rights liberals trust government while fearing Republicans.

People killed 37 Kids with Guns in 2010 while Partial-Birth Abortions have claimed some 2,000 Lives a Year

President Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  For the best way to advance an agenda (especially an unpopular agenda) was in the emotional chaos following a serious crisis.  Such as the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary.  The majority of Americans oppose gun control.  But in that majority are some people that they may be able to convince that some restrictions on the Second Amendment is a good thing in the emotional chaos following Sandy Hook Elementary.  Convincing them that guns are causing an epidemic of childhood deaths.  That without guns these kids simply wouldn’t be dying.  A powerful message during emotional times.  But if you remove the emotions and look at some facts you see something different (see 10 Leading Causes of Death, United States by the Centers for Disease Control).

These are deaths by unintentional injury.  Looking at the leading causes of death in 2010 (the latest year of data) for children aged 5-14 you see 1,643 deaths.  About half (809) of those are from motor vehicle accidents.  Drowning came in next at 251 (15.3%).  Then fire/burn at 135 (8.2%).  Then suffocation at 79 (4.8%).  You have to go all the way down to number 7 on the list to get to firearms.  Where we can see they killed 37 children in 2010.  Or 2.3% of the total number of kids aged 5-14 who died from an unintentional injury.  Based on an approximate population of 41 million kids aged 5-14 the total number of kids killed by firearms comes to about 0.00009% of this total.  According to the CDC’s numbers, guns aren’t killing a lot of kids.  Motor vehicles are.  But firearms are not.  So taking away our guns will probably not change these numbers much.  If at all.  So the motive can’t be saving children’s lives.  In fact, one can make the argument that there is a greater killer of children out there than anything on the above list.  Abortion.

It’s hard to get numbers on abortions.  But if you check various sources the number appears to be over a million a year.  Wikipedia shows 1,313,000 abortions in 2000.  Including 2,232 (about 0.17% of all abortions in 2000) that were partial-birth abortions.  Whatever your politics on the abortion issue are one thing regarding partial-birth abortions is clear.  These are human lives.  For the ‘partial’ part of these abortions requires terminating the life of the fetus while the head is still inside of the mother.  For if they terminated the life of the fetus outside of the mother it would be murder according to the law.  And you can’t kill something that isn’t alive.  In fact, an accidental wrongful death of a pregnant woman often results in two charges of manslaughter.  One for the mother.  And one for the unborn fetus.  Assuming there was no spike in partial-birth abortions in 2000 one can assume that number is representative of all years.  Which is far more deaths than by motor vehicle accident let alone from firearms.  Yet President Obama wants gun control to save kids lives.  When he could save even more by simply revising his stance on partial-birth abortion.  Something he argued to keep when a state senator in Illinois.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lax Knife-Control Laws in Toronto results in Four Stabbings in One Night

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 15th, 2014

Week in Review

International law restricts the kind of bullets we can use in war.  In general, they have to have a full metal jacket.  So they don’t flatten out in flight and make big holes in bodies.  Causing great suffering and trauma to anyone wounded.  Which is why today a lot of soldiers can survive from gunshot wounds.  Whereas the lead Minié balls of the American Civil War did horrific damage to tissue and bone.  Shattering bone such that any arm or leg wound typically resulted in an amputation.  And a belly wound meant death.  For it just did so much damage to the internal organs that there was no repairing them.  Much like another horrific belly wound.  From a bayonet.  As it made a long, wide wound.  Often running in one side of a man and out the other.  And doing irreparable damage.

Even today a knife wound can cause more damage than a bullet. Because it makes such a large hole through a body.  Making long and deep cuts in internal organs.  Also, a person has to be close to use a knife.  He can’t stab someone from a distance.  Like you can shoot someone with a gun from a distance.  So anyone willing to stab someone is pretty cold-blooded.  As you see, hear and feel a person’s death.  And anyone that can do that is a very dangerous person.  Especially with our lax knife-control laws (see Two dead, two wounded in separate GTA stabbings by Chris Doucette posted 2/13/2014 on the Toronto Sun).

TORONTO – Two men were killed and two others were wounded in three separate stabbings within hours of each other in the GTA [Greater Toronto Area].

The bloodshed began just after 9 p.m. Wednesday in Rexdale, Toronto Police said, and it kept emergency responders busy for several hours.

Every time there is a shooting in the United States the left calls for stricter gun-control legislation.  As if that would remove all violent crime in the country.  Because if a person can’t get a gun that person can’t shoot anyone with a gun.  And they would never think about picking up a knife to harm someone.  Which would leave the bad guys with nothing to do but to link arms and sing Kumbaya.  Like they do in Canada.  Well, everyone in Canada but those picking up knives to stab people.  Funny how in Canada they don’t blame knives for these crimes.  Or demand more restrictive knife-control legislation in Canada every time someone gets stabbed.  Like some Americans blame guns for gun crimes in the United States.  And try to restrict gun ownership every chance they get.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

FT206: “If we got rid of Jim Crowe Laws we can get rid of another bad law like Obamacare.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 24th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

Colorado has allowed Recreational Use of Marijuana even though Federal Law prohibits its Sale and Use

Everyone on the left is saying it.  Those in the mainstream media are saying it.  Even some on the right are saying it.  Obamacare is the law of the land.  And it isn’t going away.  As no law ever goes away.  So get used to it.  And quit your bitching, conservatives.  Especially you radical Tea Party extremists.  With all of your Constitutional this and Constitutional that.  If you’re all about the rule of law then follow the rule of law.  And quit trying to repeal Obamacare.

Marijuana is a class one narcotic.  Federal law prohibits its sales and use.  Yet those on the left have tried long and hard to decriminalize it.  Comparing it to alcohol.  Which is not a class one narcotic.  For the left does not like the law criminalizing the sale and use of marijuana.  And have bitched so much about it that at first states have allowed medical marijuana.  And now Colorado has allowed recreational use of marijuana.  Washington, too.  Even though federal law prohibits the sale and use of this class one narcotic.

There are millions of illegal aliens in the United States.  Who are in the country illegally.  But those on the left want to change our laws so they aren’t here illegally.  They want to grant them amnesty.  Forgive their law-breaking.  And give them citizenship.  Because they are sure that if they do they will then thank those on the left (i.e., the Democrat Party) by voting Democrat.  Especially when they’re telling them that the only reason why they are illegal is that Republicans hate Hispanics.

The Supreme Court made Law the People or Congress would not by Decriminalizing Abortion

The Second Amendment to the Constitution grants the people the right to keep and bear arms.  The left doesn’t like guns.  And they especially don’t like people owning guns.  So the left hates the Second Amendment.  Have long campaigned to curb gun ownership.  And have used every opportunity to advance new gun control legislation.  Whenever a mentally troubled individual goes on a shooting spree they blame the gun and not the mentally troubled individual.  Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner and Seung-Hui Cho were all mentally troubled people.  Yet the discussion is always about taking guns away from law-abiding gun owners.  Not identifying these mentally troubled people before they hurt someone.  Which they could still do even if you take other people’s guns away.

Abortion was illegal everywhere in the United States.  The left did not like this.  So they campaigned long and hard to decriminalize abortion.  Which they could not do.  At least, in Congress.  Because the majority of the people opposed decriminalizing abortion.  And they never had the votes in Congress to pass a law allowing abortion.  Which is why there has never been an abortion debate in Congress.  Not liking their odds in Congress they turned to the courts.  On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court made law the people or Congress would not.  And decriminalized abortion.

The progressives in the early 20th century saw the people were just not smart enough to know what was best for them.  And drinking was not.  Husbands drank away their paychecks, came home drunk and beat their wives and gave them (and their unborn children) the syphilis they caught from prostitutes hanging out in saloons.  So the progressives got a new amendment added to the Constitution to prohibit the sale and transportation of alcohol.  The Eighteenth Amendment.  A law the people didn’t like.  And they repealed the Eighteenth Amendment with the Twenty-first Amendment.  The only Constitutional amendment to be repealed.

The Left tries to Change or Go Around via the Courts Laws they Don’t Like

During the 1950s and 1960s Jim Crowe laws kept America segregated.  Separate but equal went the mantra.  The Southern Democrats made it difficult for blacks to vote.  And treated them as second class citizens.  Giving us race riots in the Sixties.  And a civil rights movement.  From the Montgomery Bus Boycott to Martin Luther King’s I have a Dream speech in Washington the movement grew in intensity.  Leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Overturning the Jim Crowe laws and desegregating America.  Thanks to a united Republican Party that was able to overcome Democrat opposition in Congress to pass the bill.

The Southern Democrats did not lose the American Civil War well.  They did not like the Fifteenth Amendment allowing their former slaves to vote.  And they did not like the Thirteenth Amendment freeing their slaves.  So the planter elite and their fellow Southern Democrats created the KKK.  And began passing Jim Crowe laws to keep the defeated South racially segregated.  The way it was written into the U.S. Constitution.  The way it had to be written into the Constitution to get the Deep South to join the new United States of America.  As the planter elite made clear.  If there was no slavery there would be no United States.

We’ve had a lot of bad law in this country.  Laws that we’ve repealed.  Sometimes even over Democrat opposition.  In fact the Southern Democrats pulled the southern states out of the union and into civil war with the northern states to defend the planter elite’s right to own slaves.  Just as the planter elite forced those who wrote the Constitution to leave slavery alone if they expected their states to join the new union.  And we’ve had laws the left just doesn’t like.  Laws they’ve worked long and hard to change.  Such as criminalizing gun ownership and decriminalizing marijuana.  Or to get around them via the courts.  Such as abortion.  So the argument to just accept Obamacare because it’s the law of the land is a pretty weak argument.  And chastising Republicans for not accepting laws they don’t like is hypocritical to say the least.  We should be able to get rid of bad law.  And Obamacare is a bad law.  As it is doing the opposite of what it was supposed to do.  So why not repeal it?  I mean, if we were able to get rid of Jim Crowe Laws we should be able to get rid of another bad law like Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hollywood may hate Law-Abiding Gun Owners but they love Gun Violence

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 17th, 2013

Week in Review

Liberals win elections because they have friends in powerful places.  Our public schools.  Our universities.  The main street media.  Television.  And, of course, Hollywood.  As a percentage of the population we’re only talking about 21% of the people.  But these friends have powerful soapboxes.  Making their minority views sound like majority opinion.  Such as their hatred of gun ownership.  And their desire for gun control legislation.  Despite their love of guns.  And gun violence (see Blame Washington, Not Hollywood, For R-Rated Violence In PG-13 Films by Scott Mendelson posted 11/14/2013 on Forbes).

“If (studios) are prevented from freely advertising R-rated films, they will simply find ways to allow more and more “objectionable” material into PG-13 rated films.” – Me, in May, 2001

Well, it’s finally happened.  After over a decade of studios stuffing more and more R-rated content, specifically R-rated violence, into PG-13 movies, we’ve reached the point where PG-13 films actually have more gun violence than R-rated films. There has been a lot of hand-wringing about the study which will be published in the December issue of Pediatrics, but almost none of them are looking at the real issue. This isn’t some conspiracy by Hollywood to fill our kids’ heads with images of no-harm/no-foul gun play. It’s the logical end-result of a 2001 bill spearheaded by Joe Leiberman and nearly passed into law that would have given the Federal Trade Commission the power to regulate how R-rated films were marketed. And frankly I tried to warn anyone who would listen nearly thirteen years ago.

They may want to take away guns from law-abiding gun owners but they sure love to play with them in the movies.  A lot.  For there is nothing more fun than shooting up people.  Apparently.  And their gun fun on screen has inspired videogames where kids can mimic what they see in the movies.  And go on shooting sprees of their own.   Sometimes, though, they do it in real life.  Why?  Is it because law-abiding people can buy and own guns?  Or is it because they like what they see in the movies so much that they want to do the same in their videogames?  And when that bores them, a few of them want to do it for real?  To bring that movie or videogame to life?

Those who do typically suffer from some mental health issues.  But that doesn’t stop them from enjoying those gory movies.  And those gory videogames.  For many of our mass shooters were avid gamers.  Hollywood and videogames may not be totally to blame.  But they are probably more to blame than law-abiding gun owners.  So if they really want to end gun violence perhaps they should look at what they’re doing more and at responsible gun owners less.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

FT196: “One life is important in gun control debate, 5 million lives are negligible if they lose their insurance because of Obamacare.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 15th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Some of the Richest People in the United States live in the Suburbs of Washington, D.C. 

Liberals say they care about the people.  While they say conservatives only care about their money.  Conservatives want to cut taxes and government spending so they can keep more of their money to spend on their families.  Liberals want to increase taxes and government spending.  To take more money from taxpayers to spend on other people.  People who are more deserving of that money than the people who earned it.

Liberals say they want to tax and spend because they care about people.  And not money.  Like conservatives.  Yet the more money a liberal government collects in taxes the more powerful that government grows.  And the richer those in government get.  Just look at the wealth surrounding Washington, D.C., which includes six of the ten wealthiest counties in the U.S.  It used to be the military industrial complex.  Now it’s the government industrial complex.  For liberals do not like the military.  And gut defense spending to fund their welfare state.  Spending our money to reward their friends.  And buying votes by making people dependent on government.

Some of the richest people in the United States live in the suburbs of Washington, D.C.  Who got rich on taxpayer money.  Where those connected to the liberal aristocracy enjoy obscene levels of wealth.  While the median family income falls.  Leaving families in the rest of the country to get by on less.  While those connected to government enjoy those obscene levels of wealth.  Yet liberals care about the people.  And not these obscene levels of wealth.

Liberals have grown Very Wealthy by Caring for the People ‘instead’ of Money

So it’s no secret the more money the government collects the better liberals in government live.  The bigger government grows the more government jobs that are available.  Allowing liberals to spread the wealth.  Other people’s wealth, that is.  So it’s good for those inside the government aristocracy.  Which is why liberals ‘care’ about the people.  So they can run a massive welfare state.  With them at the top.  Like Old World royalty.  Passing alms out to the people.  Where the people grovel.  And are obedient.  Grateful for what royalty gives them.  Thanking them politely.  And never forgetting their place.  The dirt beneath their feet (to borrow a line from the musical Les Misérables).

It is hard, then, to believe liberals when they say they care about the people.  As caring for the people has made them very wealthy.  Wealth they acquired by taking it away from other people.  Via taxes.  It is harder still to believe them when you look at their actions.  Whenever there is a high-profile gun crime, for example, they immediately use it to advance gun control legislation.  As if America is suffering from a plague of gun deaths.  And that only when the government takes away guns from law-abiding gun owners will the dying stop.  Of course, others throughout history have wanted to take away the people’s guns.  Including the British in 1775.  When the shot heard ’round the world was fired.  Kicking off the Revolutionary War. 

So Americans are very suspect whenever anyone comes after their guns.  Because that means only one thing.  Those trying to take away those guns want to make these gun owners weaker.  The question is, why?  Why do governments want to make their people weaker?  Probably for the same reason ruling elites everywhere do.  When you’re greatly outnumbered you don’t want the people you’re oppressing to be able to fight back.

For Every Person who ‘picked’ an Obamacare Policy 38 People lost the Insurance they Liked and Wanted to Keep

Listening to liberals you would think that the only way people are dying in America is from gun violence.  Is this true?  If not exactly how are people dying?  Well, according to the Centers for Disease and Prevention (see Table 2. Deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates for 113 selected causes, Injury by firearms, Drug-induced Injury at work, and Enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile: United States, final 2010 and preliminary 2011) the total deaths in 2011 was 2,512,873.  Some of the leading causes of death were cardiovascular diseases at 778,503 (31.0%).  Cancers (Malignant neoplasms) at 575,313 (22.9%).  Chronic lower respiratory diseases at 143,382 (5.7%).  Just with these three groups of diseases we’re at 59.6% of all 2011 deaths.  And that’s before we get to non-disease related deaths.  Such as Drug-induced deaths at 40,239 (1.6%).  Motor vehicle accidents at 34,677 (1.4%).  Falls at 26,631 (1.1%).  And one of the least causes of deaths.  Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms at 11,101 (0.4%).

Gun deaths account for less than one half of one percent of all deaths in 2011.  Yet they want to take guns away from law-abiding gun owners to stop an epidemic of gun deaths totaling 0.4% of all deaths in 2011.  That’s what liberals are focused on.  That.  And the decriminalization of drugs.  Because drugs are a victimless crime.  Something only responsible adults choose to do.  Despite drug-induced deaths being more than three and half times greater than gun deaths.  But liberals are hard on guns.  And soft on drugs.  Even though more people die from drugs than from guns.  Yet liberals care about people. 

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was to provide affordable health insurance to about 50 million of uninsured people.  With the rollout of Obamacare only 106,185 ‘picked’ an insurance policy in October (some may have bought a plan or simply placed one in their shopping cart).  While 4.02 million people in 28 states have lost their health insurance (see White House to Allow Insurers to Continue Canceled Health Plans by Carol E. Lee and Louise Radnofsky posted 11/14/2013 on The Wall Street Journal).  So for every person who ‘picked’ an insurance policy 38 people lost the insurance they liked and wanted to keep.  Considering 59.6% of all deaths in 2011 were from heart disease, cancer and chronic lower respiratory diseases taking away health insurance from 4.02 million people could very well cause more people to die from these diseases.  For they are very common diseases.  And these policy cancellations are only from the individual market.  When the cancellations for the employer-provided plans start hitting next year we may be seeing hundreds of millions who will lose their health insurance.  Which is by design.  To force the people who already have insurance into costlier plans to pay for those who don’t.  And, of course, to make government bigger.  As well as making liberals in the government aristocracy wealthier.

Whenever there is a high-profile gun death the left renews their push for new gun control legislation.  Even if it saves only one child.  They say this despite guns being responsible for less than one half of one percent of all deaths.  Yet when they take away health insurance from 4.02 million people who may die from heart disease, cancer and chronic lower respiratory diseases, these deaths are negligible.  Acceptable.  A small percentage of the population whose deaths won’t mean a thing in the grand scheme of things.  All that is important to them is protecting and growing the government aristocracy.  So they can continue to live in the wealthiest counties in the U.S.  While enjoying their regal lives paid for with other people’s money.  Yet it’s the liberals that care about people. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Does rise in Knife crime call for Knife-Control Legislation?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 26th, 2013

Week in Review

Every time there is a killing involving a gun the left tries to revive the gun control debate.  But they say nothing about box cutters (see Teen ‘infatuated’ with murdered teacher by Bob Fredericks posted 10/24/2013 on the New York Post).

The 14-year old accused of fatally slashing pretty math teacher Colleen Ritzer may have been infatuated with her and snapped when she spurned his advances, according to a new report Thursday…

Chism confessed to cops that he slashed her throat with a box cutter after following her into a women’s restroom at the school, a Boston TV station reported Thursday.

Or knives (see 5 Dead in Brooklyn Stabbing by EMMA G. FITZSIMMONS posted 10/27/2013 on The New York Times).

Five people were killed in a stabbing in Brooklyn on Saturday night, officials said.

Does the left try to restrict box-cutter and knife ownership?  No.  Yet there were probably more knife deaths in New York this past week than gun deaths.  Of course they would say it wasn’t the box-cutter or the knife that killed these people.  It was the people using these implements that killed these people.  For the vast majority of box-cutter owners and knife owners use these cutting implements responsibly.  Just like gun owners.  But gun owners will never get that consideration.

If these victims had a gun these grisly murders might not have been.  For a gun takes away the advantage of a bigger and stronger assailant.  So someone of a smaller physical stature doesn’t have to be a victim.  And it lets them engage a person with a knife BEFORE the knife-wielding attacker can get close enough to use that knife.  Giving the advantage to the defender in a knife attack.  Which gun control legislation will take away.  Giving the advantage back to the bad guy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Democrats push for Gun Control Legislation despite Fall in Gun Crime

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2013

Week in Review

The left hates guns.  They want to take away our guns.  And repeal the Second Amendment.  Which is why they exploit every tragedy that involves a gun that they can.  (Except for the horrible gun crimes in Chicago that rarely receive any media attention.)  To foment anti-gun sentiment.  And it’s been working.  For the America people believe that gun crime is out of control (see Mass shootings are up; gun murders down posted 9/21/2013 on The Economist).

On September 16th a former navy reservist, Aaron Alexis, shot 12 people dead at a military base in Washington, DC. Though rare, such tragedies are increasingly common in America. The past 30 years have seen 67 mass shootings (in which four or more people were killed by a gunman not involved in a conventional crime), says Mother Jones magazine. There have already been five this year, after seven last year. Massacres grab headlines, and so may explain why many Americans believe, incorrectly, that gun crime is on the rise. In fact, gun murders have fallen by half in the past 20 years.

In 2012 there were about 500 people shot to death in Chicago.  Which receives scant news coverage.  But every time there is a mass shooting (Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech) it is not only front-page news but there are calls for new gun control legislation.  Because gun crime is out of control in America.  This is the narrative.  And why the left loves mass-shootings.  For it inflames the people to perhaps accept something they don’t want in the heat of the moment.  Further gun control legislation.

But gun crime is not out of control.  Apart from the Democrat-controlled Chicago.  Actual “gun murders have fallen by half in the past 20 years.”  Despite Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech.  But you wouldn’t know that listening to the Democrats.  As they are apparently lying to the American people to take away our guns.  Which begs the question.  Why?  If gun crime is actually falling then why do they want to take away our guns?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Left is using the Washington Navy Yard Shooting to Revive the Gun Control Debate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 19th, 2013

Politics 101

Gun Crimes often involve an Anti-Social Gamer who lacks Empathy for their Victims

There was another terrible thing that happened.  Depending on where you get your news from you might have gotten one of two general headlines.  You either saw/heard something along the lines of “Another failure in our mental health system leaves dangerous man among the public—kills 12 at the Washington Navy Yard.”  Or you saw/heard something like “AR-15 assault rifle responsible for yet another senseless massacre—people demand comprehensive gun control legislation.”

You probably can guess that the left-leaning media ran the AR-15 headline.  Who blames guns for all gun-violence.  Never the people pulling the triggers.  Whereas the media without a political agenda will have noted the failure in our mental health system as a greater concern for the safety of Americans.  As all of the gun massacres the left points to as proof that we need comprehensive gun control legislation have a common denominator.  The shooters all suffered from mental health issues.

Adam Lanza suffered from some personality disorder (perhaps Asperger disorder).  He was anti-social and played violent video games alone in the basement.  His disorder may have left him unable to feel empathy for other people.  That and the world of gaming where he killed over and over may have allowed him to feel nothing as he gunned down 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  Someone should have institutionalized Lambert.  For he was the danger.  Not the guns.  He chose the gun because that’s what he used in his video games.  But if there was no gun available he may have done something else.  For he was a smart kid.  An honors student.  And he was 20 years old.  He could have used a car to run people down like in one of those video games.

In the Worst of Gun Crimes the Left focuses on the Guns and not the Mentally Unsound Shooters

Before Sandy Hook a mentally disturbed James Holms killed 12 and wounded some 70 more in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting.  Before that a mentally disturbed Jared Loughner killed 6 and wounded 12 in a Tucson supermarket parking lot (2011).  Before that a mentally disturbed Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 and wounded 17 at Virginia Tech (2007).  All of these shooters had some serious mental health issues.  Some had been treated.  Some should have been treated.  And they probably should all have been institutionalized before their shootings.

But they weren’t.  In fact, some parents today are at their wits’ end when they have a family member that may be a danger to the general public.  But there’s nothing they can do.  For today you can’t just institutionalize people like we once did.  Because of civil liberties.  Which is a good thing.  To those who may have been wrongly institutionalized.  But it leaves those that should be out on the street.  Where they must first do something to be committed.  Like Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech, etc.  Then and only then can we remove these people from our streets.

Yet in the worst of these gun crimes the left focuses on the guns.  Not the shooters.  It’s not the people pulling the triggers.  But the triggers.  And they claim that if we remove the triggers we’ll remove this crime. Despite these mentally unsound people still being on the streets.  Who are in most cases very smart people.  And highly educated.  Who could probably figure out a way to get a gun if we had repealed the Second Amendment.  Or think of some other creative way to kill their innocent victims.

The Left blamed the AR-15 for the Washington Navy Yard Shooting instead of our Failed Mental Health System

So why does the left do this?  Well, because they want to take away our guns.  Why?  One can only guess.  They are generally anti-capitalists and would like to turn the United States into a more socialist country.  Like they’ve done with our health care.  Does the left want to do more than just make America a social democracy?  Other countries that had a political party/leader that went on to oppress their people often started by taking away people’s guns.  Because if they didn’t the people may just fight back.  And the last thing any dictator wants is a civil war like there is currently in Syria.

Is this why the left wants to take away our guns?  Who knows.  But it makes one wonder.  Especially when we see they can barely contain their glee whenever another mentally unsound person goes on a shooting spree.  So they can revive the gun control debate.  Which they have to revive as the polls clearly show the American people don’t put repealing the Second Amendment high on their wish list.  No, what they want is a better economy.  A job.  A safer world to live in where they don’t have to worry about their kids getting hurt or killed by an improvised explosive device while attending a marathon.  But the left focuses on the guns.

As they were still looking for potential shooters at the Washington Navy Yard the left was already reporting that it was yet another gun-crime made with that hated of all assault rifles.  The dreaded AR-15.  Everyone on the left was reporting this with glee.  Hoping to revive the talk about comprehensive gun control.  There was only one problem.  This mentally disturbed person did not use an AR-15.  He used a type of weapon Vice President Joe Biden recommended women get instead of a handgun for their personal protection.  A shotgun.  Even though they got the facts wrong it didn’t change the narrative.  The left blamed the AR-15 anyway and called for an assault rifle ban.  Without a word about our failed mental health system.  That allows mentally unsound people to wander among us where they can do great harm.  Because locking up mentally unsound people pays no political dividends.  While allowing them to remain on the street does.  Especially if they get their hands on an AR-15.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama’s Anti-Business Economic Policies Responsible for Rise in Gun Crime

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Following the Sandy Hook Shooting, the Aurora movie theater shooting, the shooting of Gabriella Giffords in Tucson, etc., there has been a movement by those on the left to push for gun control.  Because guns were to blame for all of these shootings.  Not the shooters.  President Obama and other Democrats said it was elementary.  Get rid of the guns and you get rid of these crimes.  For without these guns these shooters would have been placid and congenial members of their community.  Greeting their fellow citizens with friendly salutations and helping little old ladies cross the street.  Yes, that’s the world we could have.  According to Democrats.  If only we get rid of our guns (see Wave of street violence shakes Baltimore by Justin Fenton, Justin George and Luke Broadwater posted 6/29/2013 on The Baltimore Sun).

The ongoing violence — three more shootings, one of them fatal, occurred Saturday — is calling attention once again to Baltimore’s homicide rate and gun violence problem, which had been in decline in recent years. Last year, however, the number of people killed in Baltimore increased 10 percent. And at the midpoint of 2013 the number of homicides — 117 — is the highest in six years, raising questions about whether the city is backsliding.

Other cities have seen a similar trend, though crime rates have dropped significantly in Washington, New York and Dallas. Last year, violent crime rose in the United States for the first time in six years, with the largest increases occurring in cities like Baltimore with populations between 500,000 and 1 million, where homicides increased 12 percent. Among cities in that population range, Oklahoma City, Louisville, San Francisco and Memphis saw significant percentage increases, though none has a murder rate approaching Baltimore’s…

So there had been a decline in gun crime in “recent years.”  Odd.  I don’t recall any new gun control legislation in “recent years” to account for that decline in gun crime.  If guns cause gun crime than any fall in gun crime must correspond to new laws restricting gun ownership.  At least, according to those on the left.  Yet we’ve had a decline in gun crime without a corresponding rise in restrictions to gun ownership.  Puzzling.  Because those on the left say that this is just impossible.  For if we can have a fall in gun crime without new gun control legislation then all of their arguments to pass new gun control legislation are nothing but lies.  Which they probably are.  For there are other reasons for a rise in crime.

“We can’t stop, we can’t let up, because I know there’s still a lot of active gangs, and as long as those gangs are still in business, you have the potential for crime,” [Jim] Graham [Washington City Councilman] said…

And it’s not just because of job growth in those cities, Roman suggested. Huge surges of immigrants filling those cities have contributed to lowering crime, he said. Immigrants move into blighted areas and create cohesive communities with low crime — contrary to stereotypes that such communities cause societal problems, he said.

“It’s about racial and economic segregation,” Roman said. “It’s about immigration and gentrification…”

So it’s not guns but racial and economic segregation.  And gentrification.  In other words government is the cause for this rise in gun crime.  For their anti-business economic policies cause unemployment.  Especially for the unskilled.  And the young.  These policies are responsible for urban decay.  They first chased businesses out of their cities.  And those who did not follow the jobs went instead on government subsistence.  Giving these people little reason to get out of bed in the morning.  Little reason to work on any job skill.  But they only subsist on government subsistence.  While having a lot of spare time on their hands.  Where they spend time thinking about a better life.  A better life that takes more money than the government gives them.  So they turn to gangs.  And the drug trade.

Meanwhile immigrants move into little pockets of distressed areas.  Because it’s all they can afford.  And they work hard.  Building a business.  And a community.  Among themselves.  Leaving those on government subsistence on the outside looking in.  Meanwhile affluent middle class move into areas with great potential.  Areas on the water.  Old warehouse districts.  Etc.  Build them up.  And push their little borders out.  Displacing those remaining in what little was remaining of their old neighborhoods into other distressed neighborhoods.  Creating that racial and economic segregation.  And gentrification.

Ander said [Chicago] appears to have headed off a sustained increase in gun violence by broadening its approach to include funding for school-based programs for at-risk youth and a private-sector fundraising drive to expand other youth programs.

“If you rely only on the police to suppress and reduce crime, there are other unintended costs,” she said, referring to policies that strain relations with the public…

Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League and mayor of New Orleans from 1994 to 2002, said Baltimore’s crime is an economic problem that many cities struggle with. One in four residents in Baltimore lives under the poverty line, and the unemployment rate was 10 percent at the end of May.

A major factor is unemployment among youth and young adults, Morial said. “So when you take the illegal narcotics and trafficking in dope, and on top of that you have easy access to guns combined with high unemployment and very difficult economic conditions, it exacerbates the problem.”

In these cities with high rates of gun crime it is often black on black crime.  Those left behind by any urban renewal.  Some who have nothing but gangs and drugs to turn to.  So you have armed gang members on the streets.  Often of one racial group.  But police don’t dare be proactive.  Trying to ward off potential crime.  With programs like ‘stop and frisk’.  Because that will only strain relations between the police and the communities they’re trying to protect.  For these people have enough to deal with without turning their communities into police states.

Easy access to guns?  Yes.  That is a problem when criminals have easy access to guns.  But taking away the guns will not prevent people from becoming criminals.  If it did they would not be broadening their approach to reach at-risk youth.  Which is clearly an admission that it is not the guns.  But an environment that places youth at risk.  An environment created by anti-business economic policies.  Especially since President Obama entered office.  For his policies have given us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  With Obamacare being at the top of the list of those anti-business policies.  With his energy policies a close second.  Causing businesses to stop hiring people.  The source of all these cities’ crime problems.

So who is responsible for this rise in gun crime?  Those who have put forward anti-business economic policies.  That have left our cities with high unemployment rates.  Giving these gangs a lot of recruits.  So it is President Obama who is responsible for the rise in gun crime that occurred during his administration.  Those who campaigned for him.  The mainstream media who protected him and dispensed his propaganda.  And those who elected him to office.  All share responsibility for the economic decline during the Obama presidency.  Which has caused this increase in gun crime.  For there is no better way to help at-risk unemployed people than by giving them jobs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Oregon Teen wanted to be like the Columbine Murderers the Media turned into Celebrities

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 1st, 2013

Week in Review

Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson and Virginia Tech were crimes caused by the Second Amendment.  Or so argue the Democrats.  Who want to use these episodes to press for their long-desired gun control legislation.  But the guns these people used weren’t the cause of their murder sprees.  Their mental health problems drove them to commit murder.  But instead of addressing the failures of our mental health system we focus on the guns.  Because the Democrats have long had a burning desire to pass gun control legislation.  Because gun bans will make the world a safer place (see Records: Teen wrote detailed plans for school plot by JONATHAN J. COOPER posted 5/28/2013 on AP).

An Oregon teen accused of planning an assault on his high school wrote detailed plans to “shoot and throw bombs throughout the school,” then kill himself before engaging with responding police officers, according to court documents released Tuesday…

At about 11:10, he would begin blasting music from the car while walking toward the school, a napalm firebomb in one hand and a duffel bag in the other.

“Drop duffel. Light and throw napalm, unzip bag and begin firing,” the notebook said. “Cooly state: ‘the Russian grim reaper is here.'”

The line is apparently a reference to the 2003 film “Bad Boys II.”

The plan went on: “Throw a smoke bomb prior to walking in. Proceed to enter the school, then shoot and throw bombs throughout the school. Kill myself before S.W.A.T. engages me.”

The detective wrote that the notebooks indicate that Acord “compares himself to both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold,” the teenagers who killed 13 people at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999 before turning their guns on themselves…

On Monday, Acord’s mother, Marianne Fox, issued a statement through a Corvallis lawyer, Alan Lanker, saying the teenager struggles with a rare form of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

This was in Oregon.  Oregon isn’t even a red state.  It’s a blue state.  So if anything they must have an anti-NRA attitude there.  So it wasn’t a gun culture pushing this kid to a bomb crime.  It was mental health problems.  According to his mother.

Thanks to the Left’s relentless coverage of Columbine they turned those two kids into heroes for others like them.  Every kid that was ever pushed around by a bully now dreams of doing the same thing.  Thanks to the celebrity the media gave them.  They really need to stop making these people sound so awesome to others suffering from mental illness.  If they didn’t go wall-to-wall with coverage perhaps this kid would have never heard about that mass murder.  And never planned his.

Once again a person suffering from mental health problems chose a soft target for his crime.  A school.  Which is a gun-free zone.  Why?  Because he didn’t want anyone shooting back at him.  And once someone did arrive on the scene with a gun he would stop murdering innocent people.  And kill himself.  The lesson here?  If there were people with guns at our schools people wouldn’t make plans to murder unarmed people there.  Because all they want to do is kill a lot of innocent people before someone can hurt them.  This is the problem with taking guns away.  It doesn’t stop bad people from doing bad things.  It just makes it harder for good people to protect themselves from bad people.  Who are trying to shoot them.  Or throw bombs at them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

« Previous Entries