Gun Crime in Chicago and Knife Crime in Britain have same Root Cause

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 16th, 2014

Week in Review

Chicago is adrift in a sea of blood.  Despite their strict gun laws there is an epidemic of gun violence in the city.  And the reason for this, say those on the left, is the availability of guns elsewhere.  Guns that are brought into Chicago and get into the hands of innocent young kids.  Forcing them to leave their peace-loving ways.  That’s the problem.  Get rid of all the guns and those kids will stay peace-loving and as pure as the wind driven snow.  For without guns there can be no violence.  Because what person would never think about picking up a knife (see Impose tougher sentences for knife crimes, says top judge by David Barrett posted 4/16/2014 on The Telegraph)?

The most senior judge in England and Wales has called on magistrates to impose tougher sentences for youths who carry knives.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, said more severe punishments could help cut the “prevalence” of such crimes.

In a ruling at the Court of Appeal in London, Lord Thomas said: “Given the prevalence of knife crime among young persons, the youth court must keep a very sharp focus, if necessary through the use of more severe sentences, on preventing further offending by anyone apprehended for carrying a knife in a public place and to securing a reduction in the carrying of knives.”

Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, has previously expressed his concern about knife criminals being handed cautions and other non-custodial punishments.

Mr Grayling brought in new measures in December 2012 which were designed to impose mandatory jail sentences on anyone who uses a knife or offensive weapon to threaten and endanger others.

Britain has very strict gun laws.  It’s like Chicago writ large.  So people can’t go to a part of Britain where there are lax gun laws.  Buy guns.  And taking them to another place in Britain that has strict gun laws.  Even their police don’t carry guns while walking a beat.  They do, however, have units that carry guns.  In response to rising gun crime.  But it’s the knife crime that Britain is struggling with.  And much of the knife violence in Britain is due to the same cause of the gun violence in Chicago.  Gangs.

Is knife violence preferred over gun violence?  Perhaps.  No doubt it is more difficult to stab an innocent bystander in a ‘drive-by’ stabbing.  But because knives are so easy to get almost any gang member can carry a knife.  And anyone with mental health issues can easily pick one up in most any kitchen.  And cause harm.  As in Calgary and Regina, Canada.  And in Murrysville, Pennsylvania.

It’s not the guns or the knives that are causing people to harm others.  These people are just determined to cause harm.  You can try to take away every conceivable weapon but if they want to cause harm they will find a way to cause harm.  Which is what we should be doing.  Trying to prevent them from causing harm.  Not just trying to prevent one way they can cause harm.  With guns.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT205: “Liberals reconcile conflicting positions with imaginary logic.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 17th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

We have Complex Numbers because there is no such thing as a Square-Root of a Negative Number

If we graph AC voltage and AC current we would see two sine waves.  Graphs that rise from zero, reach a peak, fall back through zero, reach a nadir and then rise back up to zero.  Which repeats over and over.  And when we have voltage and current we get power.  If we pick a point in time on our AC voltage and current graphs we can multiply the value for the current by the value of the voltage to arrive at a value for power.  If these two sine waves are on top of each other we will get the highest value for power.  If one graph moves ahead or behind the other (so we can see two sine waves instead of one) we will have a value less than the highest power.

Picture two capital ‘S’s lying on their side.  So they look like one period of a sine wave.  And one is on top of the other so we only see one.  If we draw a vertical line through the highest point on these ‘sine waves’ both ‘S’s will have the same highest value.  Let’s call that value ‘3’.  Giving us a power of 9 (3 X 3).  Now let’s move one ‘sine wave’ to the right.  And look at that same vertical line.  With the one ‘sine wave’ moved they won’t have the same value at that point.  One will be less than the other.  Because the maximum value for that ‘sine wave’ occurs to the right of the maximum value of the other.  Let’s say the value for the moved ‘sine wave’ at that point is now 2.  Giving us a power of 6 (2 X 3).

When the power and current are 100% in phase we get our maximum power.  When they move out of phase we get a value of power less than the maximum.  Even though the voltage and current waves are unchanged.  The degree they are out of phase is called the phase angle.  And it’s a problem for power companies.  Because the typical electric meter only measures part of the power a customer uses.  The real or active power.  Not the reactive power.  And it’s a combination of the active and reactive power that gives us apparent power.  What the power companies produce.  In the ideal world (where the voltage and current sine waves are on top of each other perfectly in phase) reactive power is zero and apparent power equals active power.  Mathematically we express this with complex numbers.  Where there is a real part (the active part).  And an imaginary part (the reactive part).  Where i2 = -1.  Something that can’t happen in the realm of real numbers.  As there is no such thing as a square-root of a negative number.  But it is this use of imaginary numbers that let’s engineers build the world around us.

Criminalizing Cigarette Smoking plus Decriminalizing Marijuana Smoking Equals more Democrat Votes

Complicated, yes?  Few of us understand this.  But that’s okay.  We don’t have to.  Engineers are very smart people that can do remarkable things mathematically to model and build our world.  And when they do that world is a better place.  Which is all most of us care about.  So imaginary numbers may be a foreign concept to most.  But they provide a very ordered and sensical world.  Unlike other imaginary things.  Like unicorns.  Fairies.  And imaginary logic.

Liberals are high practitioners of imaginary logic.  On its face it seems like gibberish.  Illogical.  And nonsensical.  But like complex numbers it’s the combination of these nonsensical parts that serve to advance an agenda.  For example, in their ideal world everyone would abort an unplanned and/or unwanted child.  While also saying that same-sex couples should be able to adopt and raise children.  But how can a same-sex couple adopt a child if no unplanned or unwanted child is given up for adoption?  Having both of these positions is like the square-root of a negative number.  It’s just impossible.  Unless you enter the world of imaginary logic.  Where unfettered abortion plus same-sex adoption equals more Democrat votes.

Liberals have banned cigarette smoking wherever they could.  First there were no smoking sections in restaurants.  Then they banned smoking entirely from restaurants.  Once upon a time people could smoke in the workplace.  Then they forced them into smoking lounges.  Then outside of the building.  And finally a minimum distance away from the doorway.  Because smoking will kill you.  The people around you breathing in second-hand smoke.  And the people breathing in the stink you leave behind after smoking (third-hand smoke).  Smoke in the lungs is the number one killer in America. It is so horrible that no one should be able to smoke.  No one should be able to advertise smoking.  Even the cigarette packages shouldn’t be pretty as that may entice kids to start smoking.  But liberals have no problem with people smoking unfiltered marijuana cigarettes.  With marijuana they take the exact opposite position than they do with cigarettes.  Go ahead and smoke.  You aren’t hurting anyone.  Having both of these positions is like the square-root of a negative number.  It’s just impossible.  Unless you enter the world of imaginary logic.  Where criminalizing cigarette smoking plus decriminalizing marijuana smoking equals more Democrat votes.

Hollywood Liberals hate Cigarettes and Guns but love them in their Movies

Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein recently said on the Howard Stern radio show that he hates the National Rifle Association (NRA).  And is going to make a movie to destroy them.  For he thinks guns in America are a horrible thing.  He hates them.  And hates people having them.  But he loves them when they are in his movies.  And has become quite wealthy glorifying horrific gun violence.  If you are unfamiliar with some of the movies he produced you can look them up on IMDB.  Here are just a few that are filled with over the top and very graphic gun violence (as well as sword violence, knife violence, blunt force violence, etc.).  Django Unchained (2012).  Grindhouse (2007).  Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003).  Gangs of New York (2002).  Pulp Fiction (1994).  True Romance (1993).  To name a few.  This is how the View content advisory under Violence and Gore begins for Django Unchained: “Note that most of the violence in this film are [sic] over the top and very graphic.”

Harvey Weinstein is a liberal Democrat.  Who believes the only reason why people are using guns to shoot a lot of people is because those guns are for sale.  Cigarette ads and pretty packaging will entice kids to start smoking.  But showing wholesale violence like in his movies would never encourage a kid to pick up a gun?  For that matter, the next time you see one of these movies note how many people smoke in them (or see Alcohol/Drugs/ Smoking under View content advisory on IMDB).  Having Joe Camel on a cigarette package is going to get a kid to start smoking but seeing his or her favorite movie star smoking—and making smoking look so cool—isn’t?   Of course it is.  Far more than any cigarette ad is.  Just as the vicious gun violence in these movies is desensitizing some kids to gun violence.  And is the reason why young kids are having pretend gun fights at school.  Not because they are card-carrying members of the NRA.  But because they saw it in a movie.

Liberals believe cigarettes and guns are horrible things.  And no one should touch them.  But liberal movie producers fill their movies with cigarettes and guns.  Because they are so cool and fun to watch.  Having both of these positions is like the square-root of a negative number.  It’s just impossible.  Unless you enter the world of imaginary logic.  Where criminalizing cigarette smoking and gun ownership plus glorifying cigarette smoking and vicious gun violence (and sex and drugs) in the movies equals more Democrat votes.  Which is what imaginary logic is all about.  Democrat votes.  Which is why liberals can have conflicting positions on the same subject.  Because they don’t really care about the subject.  Or the people they harm.  They just want the power that comes with getting people to vote Democrat.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

A Christmas Story, BB Gun, Psycho, Bonnie and Clyde, A Clockwork Orange, The Night Chicago Died, AFDC and Societal Decay

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 26th, 2013

Politics 101

(Originally published December 27th, 2012)

Kids playing with Toy Guns prior to the Sixties had a Moral Code and only Shot the Bad Guys

If you turned on the television on Christmas Eve you no doubt caught A Christmas Story.  The story of Ralphie’s quest for a BB gun.  Which wasn’t easy.  For the classic BB gun block was there at every turn.  From his mother.  His teacher.  Even from Santa Clause.  “You’ll shoot your eye out.”

This was everyone’s concern.  Not what the effect of playing with guns would do to Ralphie.  No one was saying playing with toy BB guns would make him take a real gun to school one day.  For that just didn’t happen back then.  When Ralphie fantasized about shooting people they were criminals.  Who he was protecting his family from.  And they were dressed up in classic criminal clothes.  Black knit cap.  Burglar’s mask.  Black and white striped shirt.  All comically exaggerated.  And when Ralphie shot them they ended up in a pile with an ‘x’ over each eye.  Almost cartoonish.

Before the Sixties this is how kids played with guns.  They pretended to shoot the bad guys.  Enemy soldiers.  Indians (back then it was okay to shoot them when playing make believe because they were threatening these kids’ families on the make-believe frontier).  Kids may have played with toy guns.  But they had a moral code.  Only shoot the bad guys.  Where the greatest concern of parents was voiced in A Christmas Story.  “You’ll shoot your eye out.”

Kids Playing with Toy Guns prior to the Sixties did not shoot Innocent Men, Women and Children

It was like that in the movies and on television, too.  That started changing in the Sixties.  Televising horrific war scenes from Vietnam into our living rooms.  Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) showing a brutal murder of a woman in the shower.  Bonnie and Clyde (1967) showed likeable bad guys unleashing horrific and graphic violence on innocent people as they robbed banks.  A Clockwork Orange (1971) showed young men in gangs having fun committing acts of ultra-violence including some very graphic and brutal rape scenes.

Contrast this to the earlier shoot-em up westerns.  On the lawless frontier.  Where everyone wore a sidearm.  And had a rifle on their horse.  When they drew their guns the lead flew.  A lot of people got shot.  And a lot of people died.  But throughout this violence it was always the good guys in their white hats fighting the bad guys in their black hats.  Their wounds were bloodless.  There were no squibs causing blood to fly to simulate real gunshot wounds.  And whenever these rough and tumble cowboys came into town and saw some lovely ladies what did they do?  They tipped their hats.

Kids grew up playing cowboys and Indians, soldier and cops & robbers.  But never did they shoot innocent men.  Or women and children.  They didn’t because no movies killed innocent women and children.  There were no video games where pimps shot prostitutes.  And there were no songs celebrating the shooting of cops.    The only song close to killing cops was Paper Lace’s The Night Chicago Died (1974).  A song about Al Capone’s gang wars and the cops fighting them.  But it’s from the point of view about a cop’s wife sick with worry until her husband comes home.

Gun Violence is a Product of Societal Decay created by the Political Left

While this rise in realistic graphic violence in movies was going on something else was happening.  We were losing our religion.  The Sixties had a catch phrase.  Sex, drugs and rock and roll.  It was the era of free love and expanding your mind with mind-expanding drugs.  Hallucinogens.   LSD.  Women started using birth control and abortion to facilitate that free love.  And did whatever felt good.  Abandoning the morality teachings of their parents.  And their church.  Turning on their religious past.

Radical elements of the feminist movement attacked marriage.  Calling all sex in marriage rape.  Demonizing men.  Encouraging women to raise their children without a man.  And the government stepped in to help.  With their Aide to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  Having the government step in to be husband and father.  Filling housing projects with single mothers.  And crime.  Which spilled over into the schools these kids attended.  Kids in gangs with guns.  Who didn’t play cowboys and Indians, soldier or cops & robbers.  But shot people for looking at them wrong.

Today gun violence is a product of societal decay.  But guns did not cause this societal decay.  The political left did.  They have long been desensitizing our youth to graphic violence.  And they have been systemically attacking religion and the conventional family.  Removing moral absolutes.  And making our youth incapable of empathy, allowing them to hurt others.  This is why people today can shoot innocent men, women and children.  When once upon a time people laden with firearms tipped their hats to ladies.

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: , , , , , , , , ,

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rise in Gun Ownership and Concealed Weapons Permits result in Decline in Gun Violence

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 11th, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama and the Democrats were furious over the defeat of proposed gun control legislation in the Senate.  Which is controlled by the Democrats.  But enough of the Senate Democrats broke ranks and voted with the Republicans.  Why?  Well, unlike President Obama, a lot of those Senate Democrats will be running in another election in 2014.  And they come from states that don’t believe the Democrats’ lie about out of control gun violence killing more of our kids than ever.  And why do they believe this?  Because contrary to popular belief gun violence has been falling for the last two decades (see With gun violence down, is America arming against an imagined threat? (+video) by Patrik Jonsson posted 5/8/2013 on The Christian Science Monitor).

As part of a broader trend of declining crime, gun violence in America – while still high relative to other Western countries – has dropped by 49 percent from 1993 to 2011, while nonfatal gun crimes dropped by 69 percent, according to the US Justice Department.

But that slow-motion decline in Americans turning guns on each other has failed to register with most people, only 12 percent of whom answered the question correctly when asked by the Pew Research Center in a poll released Tuesday. Some 56 percent of respondents said they believed that gun violence had actually increased over the last 20 years.

The reasons for the perception gap are manifold, including a steady stream of high profile shootings and massacres, an increased focus on crime by national media and cable networks, and partisan sniping about gun politics. But the gap is so huge, agrees D’Vera Cohn, a senior writer at Pew, in an AP interview, that it’s hard to explain…

Since 1993, the rate of gun violence dropped by the greatest degree in the 1990s and has stayed relatively stable since the early 2000s. But recent years have witnessed a dramatic shift in US gun culture, with millions of Americans getting certified to carry concealed weapons and women increasingly joining the ranks of gun owners.

An estimated 8 million Americans now have concealed weapons permits, and thousands wear guns openly in the 43 states that allow it. Atlanta Police Chief George Turner told the Monitor recently that urban police no longer automatically assume a citizen wearing a gun is in the process of committing a crime, as they did just a few years ago.

Gun ownership has increased.  The number of people carrying concealed weapons has increased.  And gun crime has decreased.  Hmm.  What could possible explain the fall in gun violence?  It’s a mystery all right.

The Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media have convinced 56% of the people that gun violence has increased these past two decades when it hasn’t.  But why would the Democrats do this?  And why would they push for gun control legislation when it appears more gun ownership actually makes it safer in the United States?  For some reason they are just hell-bent on getting rid of the Second Amendment.

Here’s something to consider.  What do people like Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting), James Holmes (Aurora theater shooting), Jared Loughner (Tucson supermarket parking lot shooting) and Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech Shooting) have in common?  They shot unarmed men, women and children.  People who couldn’t shoot back.  Imagine if James Holmes picked a theater in Atlanta.  And how fast people would have returned his fire.  Sure, some will argue that they may have shot innocent people in the process of stopping a homicidal maniac.  But would they have killed 12 and wounded 58?  Probably not.  In fact, chances are that James Holmes probably never would have started shooting people in an Atlanta theater.  Because he would know that someone in that theater could shoot back.  Which is the last thing these people want.  Which is why they pick unarmed people to shoot.  And they don’t stop shooting until someone arrives on the scene with a gun.

Guns didn’t make these people kill.  They were all suffering from mental health problems.  They picked guns perhaps because they enjoyed those violent video games so much.  But here’s something else to consider.  These people were pretty smart.  All but one was attending or had attended college.  Who knows what kind of evil genius they might have turned into.  And what other weapon they may have chosen.  Or built.  Such as a bomb.  For one thing we’ve learned from the Boston Marathon bombing is that college kids can build bombs.  So we’d probably be better off trying to do something about our mental health system instead of trying to get rid of the Second Amendment.  For had we heeded the warning signs and taken these people off the streets Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson and Virginia Tech would not have happened.  That’s for certain.  But would banning guns have stopped these mentally troubled people from harming others?  Probably not.  For we can never be certain what these people would have done if we had left them on the streets walking among us even if there were no guns for them to use.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Cars and Drugs kill more People than Guns

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 4th, 2013

Week in Review

The Obama administration and those on the left are making a full-court press to enact some kind of gun control legislation.  Because of the epidemic of gun violence.  As proven by the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.  The Aurora movie theater massacre.  The Virginia Tech massacre.  Etc.  It’s a killing field out there.  All because of guns.  The deadliest threat people face today.  Or so they would have you believe (see Highway Deaths in U.S. Rise After Six Years of Declines by Angela Greiling Keane posted 5/3/2013 on Bloomberg).

The number of people killed on U.S. highways rose in 2012 to end a run of six consecutive declines, the longest streak in the nation’s history.

Crash fatalities rose 5.3 percent to an estimated 34,080 from a year earlier, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said today in a report.

If you do the math that comes to 32,365 deaths in 2011.  According to the CDC this exceeds the number of deaths by firearms in 2011 (the latest numbers available—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, page 19).  Deaths by firearms in 2011 totaled 32,163.  Cars killed more people than guns in 2011.  Yet all we hear about is restrictions in gun ownership.  Even limiting the capacity of magazines to make guns safer.  But we hear nothing about making cars bigger, heavier and safer to protect their occupants in a car crash.  Why?  Apparently the government doesn’t care about 32,000+ dying a year in car crashes.  Seeing that as a small price to pay to make cars more environmentally friendly.  These people are just collateral damage in the war to save the planet from carbon emissions.

Killing even more people in 2011 were drugs.  Drugs killed 40,239 people in 2011.  And here we are.  Decriminalizing marijuana in a few of our states.  Which may be only a prelude to decriminalizing harder drugs.  For drugs like prostitution is a victimless crime, yes?  If people want to use drugs in the privacy of their own home what business is it of government?  So what if drugs kill more people than cars.  Or guns.  It’s time we stop passing judgment on others.  Unless, that is, they want to own a gun.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Brutal Knife Attack in Britain demonstrates Fallacy in Gun Control Argument

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 27th, 2013

Week in Review

The political left blames an epidemic of gun violence on law-abiding people owning guns.  Creating a gun culture in the United States.  Where any kid can go out and buy an assault rifle without a background check.  They say this is the reason why people are walking into grade schools, universities, movie theaters and high schools, shooting unarmed people.  It’s the guns.  Not a failure of our mental health system.  Where the political left has made it more difficult to commit someone who is a danger to themselves or to the public.  And they don’t blame violent videogames.  Or societal decay.  Where people have little empathy for others.  Which is why they can spend hours killing people in videogames.  Or walk into a room full of innocent and unarmed people and start shooting them.

According to the left none of this would happen if only we got rid of our guns.  Like Britain did.  Where even the cops don’t carry guns.  Making for a peaceful and loving society.  Where the people would rather link their arms together and sing Kum Ba Yah than harm another living soul (see Pictured: The horrific arsenal of kitchen knives used by 20-strong gang to hack teenage boy to death in front of commuters at Victoria Station by Leon Watson and Amanda Williams posted 4/26/2013 on the Daily Mail).

The 15-year-old had his life cut short at Victoria station in central London when he was chased and killed by the gang of youths.

Detective Chief Inspector John McFarlane yesterday blamed the ‘blitz attack’ on Facebook and Blackberry’s messenger service which allowed his killers to organise themselves.

He said the teenagers had lost touch with reality because of violent computer games.

He told the Times: ‘You’ve got people playing computer games where they’re shooting and stabbing people. Where is the real world for them? There is a blurring between the real world and this false computer world…’

Sofyen [Belamouaddenw] was stabbed nine times in the body and suffered wounds to his heart, a lung and major blood vessels…

The attack was the horrific end of a minor confrontation the day before in the fast-food area of Victoria mainline station between pupils from the two schools, in which a youth received a bloodied nose…

Sofyen died after being chased by about 20 pupils across the Terminus Way concourse and into the Underground station.

A youth led the charge with a Samurai sword. Others were armed with a flick knife and a Swiss army knife, machetes and screwdrivers.

Apparently guns aren’t the only thing that cause people to kill other people.  If these people were in Chicago they would have used handguns.  And one wonders if they had no handguns in Chicago would they use knives?  Like they do in Britain?  Probably.  For not having guns didn’t stop these people from killing this 15-year old boy.

Obviously with an attack this brutal there is a societal decay in Britain just as there is in the United States.  People are somehow losing their empathy for other people.  And have no problem in harming them.  Or even killing them.  And if it isn’t guns causing this what is?  Is it coming from playing videogames?  Perhaps.  Either from that or from watching movies.  Television.  Or from listening to rap music that glorifies violence.  They’re learning it somewhere.  For no one is born that way.

If horrific acts of violence can occur even without guns then gun control is not the answer.  Guns are only a tool a sick or depraved person chooses for his or her heinous act.  If a gun isn’t available they’ll just pick up a knife.  Or some other weapon.  We need to determine what is causing this societal decay.  So we can address the root cause of this rise in violence.  Is it a breakdown of the family?  The lack of a father figure in these kids’ lives?  Abortion?  Which teaches kids there are no consequences in life.  And there is little value to human life.  Or is it Liberalism itself?  Which attacks conservatism.  Our faith.  And our traditions.  Leaving our kids to grow up in a world void of a moral authority instructing them to be good.  So they end up being bad.  For doing whatever you want is more fun than sticking to the straight and narrow.

The left blames conservatives for a gun culture that creates gun violence.  While it is far more likely that it is the left’s relentless assault on our faith and traditions causing the societal decay that allows someone to more easily harm another living soul.  So perhaps instead of gun control we should be legislating against liberals.  Preventing their harmful influence on the general public.  That results in acts of violence.  For these people aren’t born this way.  They’re learning this behavior from liberals.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries