Increasingly Covered: School Shootings

Another school shooting tragedy:

A gunman has fatally shot a student at a high school near the US city of Portland, Oregon police say.

Authorities said on Tuesday the suspect was also dead and the situation had stabilised.

Increasingly common?

Shootings at schools and college campuses in the US, where there generally is easy access to guns, are an increasingly common occurrence.

Self defense is a natural human right. The US Constitution does little more than recognize and defend those natural right from infringement by government intervention. The Constitution does not grant any rights. The founders recognized this reality, and they rightly viewed firearms as tools, that the person can be either good or evil, and curtailing natural rights would not defend against the world's evils. 

Gun control is a divisive issue in the United States, where the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, beside basic rights such as free speech and freedom of religion.

President Barack Obama's plan for broader background checks on gun purchases, along with proposals for a ban on military-style assault rifles and limits on ammunition capacity, failed last year in Congress.

These measures failed in no small part because these measures have been attempted in the past, with negligible results at best, often with greater negative unintended consequences. 

More:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2014/06/student-gunman-dead-us-school-shooting-201461021523104470.html

Unfortunately, the gun control debate tends to focus on inconsequential details of firearm ownership and its market. They type of firearm itself is nearly unrelated to these sort of tragic shootings, and often leads pro-rights advocates to believe these measures are merely avenues to curtail overall rights. The paranioa and conspiracy theories are based in solid statistical and historical relevance. 

Quite unfortunately, this debate also disregards the science behind the rhetoric, focusing on emotional arguments and emotional knee-jerk reaction rather than rational discourse and effective policy. 

Until reason returns to the debate, there will continue to be those who readily take advantage for political gain, not letting a tragedy go to waste. 

PolicyMic and Bloomberg

PolicyMic is becoming just another media outlet for partisan politics, with michael Bloomberg using it to promote his rebranding of the failed Mayors Against Illegal Guns as the new Everytown. The message remains the same, that only police (like New York's gang who couldn't shoot straight under Bloomberg) need to have firearms, and they promote only the tragedies, over and over, never letting a good tragedy go to waste. They hardly address social issues, and tout gun bans as the end all to social violence, ignoring statistics and reality in favor of emotional arguments and opinions.

"Since the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 74 school shootings in America. How many more before our leaders pass common-sense laws to prevent gun violence and save lives?
Communities all over the country live in fear of gun violence. That’s unacceptable. We should feel secure in sending our children to school — comforted by the knowledge that they’re safe."

More:
http://everytown.org/article/schoolshootings/?utm_source=PolicyMic+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a0ea9c1d69-Mic_Report_6_11_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_51f2320b33-a0ea9c1d69-285138917

Harry Reid calls for universal background checks following Las Vegas ambush

Senator Harry Reid never lets a tragedy go to waste, jumping on the anti-gun bandwagon (he really never fell off) and promoting a solution that may or may not even address this particular scenario:

"According to the senator, future incidents such as the Las Vegas attack could be mitigated by a move to require all firearms transfers, even those between two otherwise law-abiding citizens, be subject to a background check. At least one of the suspected murderers from this weekend’s violence is known to have a criminal record, although it is currently not known how he obtained the weapons used in the ambush."

Might it be prudent to wait for the facts about this specific tragedy before proposing knee-jerk solutions? Perhaps we should find out what the criminal and psychological background of the shooter, or how the firearms were acquired? These questions and more should be answered before offering solutions that effectively negate specific risks, rather than setting policy that negatively impacts law-abiding gun owners.

More:
http://www.guns.com/2014/06/10/harry-reid-calls-for-universal-background-checks-following-las-vegas-ambush/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=harry-reid-calls-for-universal-background-checks-following-las-vegas-ambush

No, We Don’t Need to ‘Fix’ the Second Amendment

Former Justice John Paul Stevens wants to "fix" the Second Amendment in the following way:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."

Apparently, he doesn't grasp the intent of this civil right, believing that civilians have no need to defend themselves.



No, We Don’t Need to ‘Fix’ the Second Amendment - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Liberals Love Guns

Residents of a small liberal college town are embracing Brownell's opening shop, where they will manufacture "high-capacity" firearms magazines among other gun-related products. Perhaps education is truly more effective than partisan politics to deal with social issues...

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BreitbartFeed/~3/SOYV72hBaIA/story01.htm

Ban plastic guns?

"Homemade plastic guns, that can shoot real bullets, aren't toys from Santa's workshop, but, rather, lethal weapons made more easily attainable through the burgeoning technology of 3-D printers."

Worried about plastic guns?

http://www.topix.net/guns/2013/11/renew-ban-on-plastic-guns?fromrss=1

Don't be. Worry about criminals, not your neighbors. Laws restricting legal activity have little measurable effect on criminals, they only snag your honest friends and neighbors in the spiderweb of regulations, causing more harm than intended prevention.

Ignore the ignorant fearmongering, think critically, think independently.

College punishes students for using gun to stop intruder

Two seniors from Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington were placed on indefinite probation Sunday after pulling a gun to defended themselves when a six-time felon attempted to enter their apartment.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/drudgesiren/oGpG/~3/vE17hyijYTM/allhl.php

As usual, bad laws and policies tend to punish the victim and enable the criminal.

Obama Takes NRA Advice on Guns in School

So, after the Left scoffed at the NRA after the Connecticut shooting, Obama seems to be taking their advice:

"According to CNN, on September 27 the DOJ announced $45 million in funding meant to "create 356 new school resource officer positions.""

"The $45 million will be distributed in the form of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants. One of the earliest grants will be to Newtown, Connecticut, to create two new officers for Newtown schools."

http://breitbart.com.feedsportal.com/c/35151/f/651115/s/31da84a2/sc/24/l/0L0Sbreitbart0N0CBig0EGovernment0C20A130C0A90C290CCNN0EObama0ETaking0EPage0EOut0EOf0ENRA0EPlaybook/story01.htm

Insurance as Gun Control

"In response to the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., some legislatures have begun to consider new regulations requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance. Unlike similar requirements for automobile owners, such laws could easily be written in ways that would render them unconstitutional. This article explores some of the constitutional pitfalls, but concludes that a carefully drafted statute would probably be upheld under current constitutional doctrine. The benefits to public safety would be modest, but such a regulation would be preferable to many politically popular gun control proposals that would be ineffective, unconstitutional, or both. The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." This right is not unqualified, but its core purpose is to protect the individual's interest in self-defense. Regulatory measures that may decrease the misuse of guns frequently also compromise the ability of individuals to defend their lives. Thus, gun control laws make tradeoffs between the legitimate interests of the individual and the government, and the judiciary's emerging Second Amendment jurisprudence will largely be concerned with policing those tradeoffs."

http://cato.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=98c97f42691d5de57bc944822&id=64534d0df9&e=2033c8b5bc

Supposedly Unbiased Caro Costello Complains About Lack of Gun Control

Sadly, seeing so many defenseless victims year after year because of strong gun control measures means that Costello is actually right, but for reasons other than those she espouses. The reality is that there are evil people in this world that have no concern for the lives of others, or for the laws intended to make us safe. Gun control does not work, never has, never will, but its supporters make these tragedies worse by misdirecting attention and promoting failed agendas. Clinton led the charge and disarmed those on installations like that of the recent Navy yard shooting. Supporters of these measures seem to honestly wonder how this could happen, but the stage was already set for tragedy.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2013/09/24/cnn-reporters-slam-lapierres-comments-navy-yard-shooting-sad-movie-weve-

Colorado Recall Election

The Colorado gun control debate is boiling over, with a potential recall changing the political landscape. 

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/09/nra_video_on_co.php

Gun Control vs Common Sense

Best 7 minutes on gun control I have ever seen! - YouTube

The Law of Unintended Consequences and Gun Control

President Obama's policies have been criticized by some as harming the economy. The "stimulus" policies he has put into place are not working, according to critics. Indeed, the economic recovery has been unusually slow.

The president's policies have been very good for one industry, however: firearms. With the president embarking on a campaign to ban so-called assault weapons (this article calls them "modern sporting rifles") and high-capacity magazines, demand has skyrocketed. That article quotes one manufacturer of AR-15′s as saying they have a one-year backlog of orders.

Career politicians rarely have a working understand of economics or sociology, and the reactions to certain restrictions or prohibitions for political gain are sufficient evidence of this ignorance.

The president's strategy to stimulate the firearms industry is not new or untested. When the federal government required new toilets to limit the water they used per flush in the early 1990s, that increased the demand for high-capacity toilets. The president's proposed firearms policies are merely taking a cue from policies that have been proven in the past to increase demand in a particular industry.

Full article: http://blog.independent.org/2013/04/25/the-presidents-policies-economic-stimulus-for-one-industry/

Expanded Background Checks Fail in the Senate

The U.S. Senate stood on the side of liberty today as it killed two measures aimed at restricting the rights of law-abiding private citizens.  In a vote of 54-46, the Senate rejected the expansion of background checks to include sales between private citizens, thus keeping the so called "Gun Show Loophole" alive for now.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein could not even rally a simple majority vote in her attempt to restrict law-abiding citizens from owning weapons she feels are objectionable.  Her bill failed by an embarrassing margin of 40-60.  Both of these represent huge defeats to the Obama Administration.

Feinstein and fellow fearmongers are seeing the lack of public support for her efforts by the lack of legislative support. If legislators gave support to Feinstein, they would find themselves out of office during the following election cycle. The gun control anti-rights advocates are seeing public backlash at bad legislation. 

http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/stop-big-government/expanded-background-checks-fail-senate-myth-gun-show-loophole-lives-0053611

Obama “willfully lied” on guns

I have yet to meet more than a handful of what empty suits like Obama say are part of the 90% of the population that believes gun control works. It is willful ignorance to believe that laws can stop violence. 

http://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/40214255/0/alternet_breaking_news~Obama-The-NRA-%e2%80%9cwillfully-lied%e2%80%9d-on-guns

Brash Obama Rush to Judgement

Despite no inclination to the motivations of the suspected Boston bombers, Obama seems more than willing to make assumptions and display double standards regarding motivations:

One thing we do know is that whatever hateful agenda drove these men to such heinous acts will not — cannot — prevail. Whatever they thought they could ultimately achieve, they've already failed. They failed because the people of Boston refused to be intimidated. They failed because, as Americans, we refused to be terrorized. They failed because we will not waver from the character and the compassion and the values that define us as a country. Nor will we break the bonds that hold us together as Americans.

Fortunately, while the lamestream media remained silent, witnesses were using technology to remind us why traditional media is nearly irrelevant and dead. Reactions by law enforcement and media were to threaten independent reporters and fire up the spin cycle, twisting the facts to support the official story.

That sounds like great advice.  Too bad nobody gave it to the whiny hyper-partisan Barack Obama who had an emotional meltdown in front of the cameras when his push for gun control legislation failed.  He certainly didn't have any trouble "jumping to conclusions" and making a "rush to judgment" about the "motivations of the individuals" who opposed him.

Fortunately, supporters of Obama and the anti-rights gun control lobby are relying on ever-declining emotional support. As the facts about gun control become more apparent, just as legitimacy of state (mainstream) media is in decline, the population begins to see that gun control is about control and guns are a sidebar. The debate has little to do with facts, and even poster children like Giffords are less that convincing, since numerous laws were on place that should have prevented her own tragedy if laws actually prevented crime.

No rational argument for gun control is advanced by the likes of Obama or Giffords.  Their entire case rests on scurrilous presumptions about the motives of those who oppose them.  They deny the very possibility of reasoned disagreement.  

Obama's philosophy treats his political enemies far more harshly than the heavily-armed and murderous enemies of the American people.

"Obama's rush to judgment" http://feedly.com/k/10q5wQ4

Can Control Tough Sell After Boston Tragedy

Given the recent Boston tragedy, and the lack of firearms as a primary destructive tool, anti-right gun control proponents are likely to face more resistance as communities see the need to defend themselves against unknown threats, exacerbated by the inability of law enforcement to prevent the first act of "terrorism" in this country in years, despite a tenfold increase in spending on "defense" and the militarization of the domestic police. If anything, America is looking more like Nazi Germany as a result of the efforts to make the country more safe, yet is a miserable failure.

Gun Control Push Will Be Even More Difficult After Boston: http://feedly.com/k/Zapc8M

The Second Amendment is Dead, Long Live the Right to Bear Arms

Perhaps the best way to guarantee the posterity of the natural right to bear arms is to prevent governments from having any authority over that right.

http://zerogov.com/?p=2928

Irrational Arguments and Fearmongering

Anyone believing that gun bans will reduce violent crime is either ignorant of the nature of criminals, or supporting them.

I am neither conservative nor liberal, and it is an intentionally divisive effort to try to force people to choose one side or the other on a debate like this, especially when the facts do not lend themselves to the idea that gun control promotes public safety.

Unfortunately, one side of this debate tends to rely on an emotional argument as a result. "Think of the children" is a common argument in the debate, hoping that few will take a contrary position that makes them appear to oppose things that would make children safer. Gun control, anti-rights proponents tend to rely on irrational arguments and fearmongering, rather than statistical analysis of violence or the actual effects of firearms regulations.

I am a bit of a nerd, looking more into the science and statistics of an issue before making a strong case either way. I would love to live in a world where the prohibition of a thing made society safer, but this is the real world, and we only have to look at alcohol, drugs, assault, and violence to see that despite numerous attempts to get rid of society's problems through law, most people tend to ignore bad laws, and criminals by nature ignore them as well. The difference is that criminals intend to do harm or violate the natural rights of others, and laws are entirely ineffective at changing the nature of criminals. Thornton's book on the subject helps to dispel the idea that prohibition can have more positive benefits than negative costs.

Worse yet, a complex, convoluted, and contradictory network of laws and regulations tends to snag nonviolent people who do not seek to violate the rights of others, criminalizing the acts of those who are obviously not criminals. Most people can name a law or regulation they have recently broken and not feel bad about it, for a victimless crime is not a crime. 
 

JPFO Neil Smith: Jim Crow Rides Again

Oleg Volk on the racist origins of gun control:

"… their real goal isn't disarming the criminals but disarming everyone they view as potential political opposition. Some segments of gun control are aimed at producing a local electoral majority, the prime example being the Colorado bills that would cause enough pro-gun people to move out of the state to ensure a long-term Democrat majority. Others are aimed at disarming the "most probably enemy" population groups, and both political parties are guilty of that to some extent, though the Democratic party does it far more."

http://jpfo.org/alerts2013/alert20130404.htm