Firearms Legislation: Gun Grab or Common Sense?

Poll any group of Americans on gun control and you’ll get a wide variety of answers and recommendation, most based on skewed media reporting and falsely conflated data sets. If there is one certainty, it’s that we need to come together on the available information and find a way to really understand the issues involved from all perspectives and coalesce behind the ideas that protect and preserve both life and liberty.

It must be stated for the political left to understand in no uncertain terms, those of us on the right have no desire to see any children harmed in any way. Gun violence affects every one of us and it is the highest form of arrogance and ignorance to suggest that, because we value our sacred, God-given right to keep and bear arms, we are somehow less protective and more dangerous with regard to the raising of our progeny. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Though they disagree with us on the constitutionality of gun ownership it is dire that they recognize that the very reason we refuse to budge on the issue of guns, with respect to our rights and proposed control legislation, is that we love and want to protect our families and we understand the original intend of the 2nd amendment was never about home protection or hunting, it was and remains about repelling tyranny. So, then, I believe the real and greatest hurdle we face is how to move forward.

Who Knows Best?

If you ask those on the left, likely you’ll hear that the best method of parenting is to be open and accepting of alternative lifestyles, ready to be a buddy to their kids, to let them experiment with religious beliefs or the lack thereof, letting kids make up their own minds and they might even encourage experimentation with drugs to help those kids discover who they really are. They are likely to be more permissive of sexual exploration at an earlier age and want their children to be accepting of all lifestyles and open to unrestrained diversity. In their eyes, this is the progressive and modern way to correctly raise children.

We on the right would mostly be on the opposite side of that coin with respect to all of the aforementioned child rearing techniques – more inclined to believe sexual and mental health are inextricably woven together and affect each other in ways similar to body dis-morphia and anorexia or bulimia, when one is out of whack with the other. Likely we would fight the urge to be best friends with our children believing that approach to be potentially damaging to the balance of authority. We would probably be more inclined to expect our children to be of the same faith and practice that faith in the way we’ve deemed appropriate and would generally, teach same-sex relationships, abstinence and a pro-life stance as the correct approach to sexual, mental and physical health. We are also more likely to home-school than the average progressive parent.

I would suggest that neither side’s intention is to allow harm into the lives of our children and that the divide is actually in our interpretation of the information and how best to guide them in the way they should go. To put it another way, we both want what is best, it’s simply a matter of what we believe is the most effective and appropriate way to bring these kid-lings up to be well adjusted, responsible, honorable and productive members of our society.

Just The Facts, Ma’am…

Since it should be obvious that we are not out to injure each other and cripple our children or destroy their collective future, let’s now have a look at the facts surrounding gun violence.

Part, if not most of the problem is that there are forces beyond us – in the sociopolitical stratosphere on both the left and the right – that have a specific agenda with regard to all things, including and especially gun control since this topic feeds and fans the fire of several other issues that promote those agendas and delineate the boundaries of those powers. These forces work to galvanize our citizenry and push us into tribes which makes it easier for them to divide and conquer us … and, this method of operation actually works very, very well. They use the media to sway us into one camp or the other with perfection; you’re either pro-choice or pro-life, pro or anti death-penalty, pro or anti same-sex marriage, pro or anti gun, pro or anti illegal-immigration, pro or anti this or that etc., etc., … to the point that we are no longer one nation unanimously united, but a country decidedly divided. The only way to mitigate this purposeful divide is to reason with facts and make decisions based on common knowledge. Please consider the following with an open mind and digest the facts entirely before coming to any conclusions. It is much too important to allow ourselves to be carried away with a knee-jerk reaction, which almost always results in grave mistakes and horrible missteps.

The Data

Based on raw data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the stats are quite clear – from the latter half of the last century until present day, the rates of gun violence and gun crimes/deaths are actually on the decline. We found several studies which purposely rearrange the data, conflating one type or kind of incident with another, purposefully bolstering the argument in favor the left – in an effort to allow for the most liberal interpretation – but still, the actual raw reported facts do not lie.

We will show below that using this data – in raw form – even from a couple of left leaning websites guilty of reporting on trends in a way that omits other factors that are very important and necessary to show the data in an impartial way – prove the anti-gun lobby wrong. The real standout in the cross-section of these studies is California who has the highest restrictive rating at #1, yet is ranked 26th in murder per capita. If the theory based on liberal logic was correct, California should at least be in the bottom 5 or 10 with regard to murder rate, but it is not. Secondarily, Maryland is considered the 5th most restrictive state in the nation yet it also sports the 5th highest murder rate. See the real trend emerging here?

CheatSheet.com (CS) lists the most gun restrictive states (in top eight format) to prove these states have the least [gun]violence. They also neglect to show this data in relation to the overall murder rate and how that is affected by gun ownership, so we have obliged using murder rate data found at another left leaning website, The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC):

  • California – CS Restriction Rating #1 
    • (murder rate #26 by DPIC) 4.9 per 100k
  • Connecticut – CS Restriction Rating #2
    • (murder rate #44 by DPIC) 2.2 per 100k
  • Colorado – CS Restriction Rating #3
    • (murder rate #31 by DPIC) 3.7 per 100k
  • D.C. – CS Restriction Rating #4
  • Maryland – CS Restriction Rating #5
    • (murder rate #5 by DPIC) 8.0 per 100k
  • Massachusetts – CS Restriction Rating #6
    • (murder rate #46 by DPIC) 2.0 per 100k
  • New Jersey – CS Restriction Rating #7
    • (murder rate #28 by DPIC) 4.2 per 100k
  • New York – CS Restriction Rating #8
    • (murder rate #34 by DPIC) 3.2 per 100k

For the purposes of a control, LibertyOrDeath.blog used a state generally considered by the left as a pro-gun state with “backwards values” and “inbred intelligence” – our home state of Texas. CS did not rank Texas so we enlisted the reputable stats from PoliticIt.com (PI).  **Also offered as a control was the least restrictive state, Utah.

  • Texas (PI Restriction Rating #39
    • (murder rate #24 by DPIC) 5.3 per 100k
  • **Utah (PI Restriction Rating #50
    • (murder rate #42 by DPIC) 2.4 per 100k

Another gem we found was that Texas, usually associated with open gun laws (though they are actually more restrictive than many suppose) and crazy rednecks (there might some truth to the second part) was ranked higher by far with regard to the ease of gun ownership but only 2 places higher (at 24th) than California with regard to the murder rate … and Utah, the most lenient state had one of the lowest murder rates (42nd) of all  – which would indicate that Texas is actually a much safer place to live than the left coast liberal haven and anyone wanting to own a gun with no restrictions and avoid being murdered should move to Utah.

Using intersecting data from above with another left leaning website, The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), a group that is dedicated (under the auspices of simply and innocently providing community information) to fighting against capital punishment, we see that violent crimes/murder in those same states is arguably higher in the absence of guns (reported trends from 1996 to 2016) . This would suggest that the greater the number of guns per capita in a given location the lower one can expect the rate of violent crime/murder to be. But don’t take our word for it.

CDC: It’s EZ2C

I’ll now lay out for the reader even more raw, empirical data in table form. The following statistics clearly show the downward trend in gun violence since the 1970’s (sources: CDC, NCVS, WISQARS, U.S Justice Department reports; some also aggregated by Pew research group). This downward trend is irreconcilable with the media frenzy that’s constantly decrying our “need for common sense gun legislation” or to “do something now” and their overt propagandizing of the populous with leftist engineered evidence and half-truth headlines. While the right does some galvanizing of its own, it pales in comparison to the efforts by the left to do anything and everything they see as necessary (the ends outweigh the means) – which is basically anything at all – to win power and influence legislation in such a way as to serve them. Francis Underwood, eat your heart out.

Indisputable raw CDC data disproving the myth of an increase in gun violence and murder rates:

CDCData1aCDCData1bCDCData5

Add to this the fact that gun violence incidences are constantly and consistently over-inflated and purposely misreported, a scheme that is clearly linked to the agenda of the upper echelon on the political left with the express intent to inflame the passions of those who are less informed (or only informed through their echo chamber) and who may not research the facts for themselves, thereby successfully creating a grander public perception (with the help of the liberal mainstream media) of a demand to eliminate guns, which does in fact engender the intended response. A fear tactic employed at different times with different targets in mind, but an effective one, nonetheless. Nevertheless, the ultimate goal remains to completely remove guns from our society – a fool’s errand that is utterly unattainable in the United States of America as we are simply not like the rest of the world and the spirit of exceptionalism and patriotism burns too brightly to be extinguished. Short of dramatically and drastically changing the demographics of this nation in just couple of voting cycles  (part of the agenda of the political left), there is just no way to get these patriotic Americans to forsake their liberties without civil war (also, on the table for the globalist statist).

Still, some have even called for the United States to follow the United Kingdom’s method of madness. That’s not a great plan if you look at the numbers (as reported by the BBC, a British government run liberal news establishment). Guns are fully banned, yet almost roughly 6,500 crimes were attributed to them in 2017; a dip of perhaps five hundred incidences out of seven thousand from 2011.

UKGunCrime

Knife crimes, in the absence of guns (wait, sorry, the gun stats are virtually the same ten years later even after the ‘ban’) are up a horrifying 20% per the BBC’s statistical data. Not really a record to brag about and certainly not a modus operandi the U.S. should replicate. So, not only has gun crime continued unabated in the face of an outright gun ban but knife crime has also increased at an alarming rate.

UKKnifeCrime

The irony is, even though we have the Reagan era ‘War On Drugs’ as a prime example of the lack of efficacy of such a move (since there will always be a virtually impenetrable black market providing an endless supply to criminals), the left still preaches ‘common sense gun laws’ (restrictions; baby steps) but, that’s because it is ancillary to their endgame. And still, the CDC facts fly in the face of the left’s skewed and conflated reports. Case in point, the rankings of leading causes of death does not even include gun violence as a representative factor of great significance, rather adding it to the ‘all other causes’ category.

CDCData4

The Most Important Numbers to Know…

The honest truth is that to be murdered by a firearm, while horrible, is far less likely statistically than many other more common, everyday occurrences like being killed in a car accident. Per the CDC’s statistics below, you are more than twice as likely to be killed on the road (36,161 deaths) than to be mortally wounded as the victim of an attack (act of aggression) with any sort of firearm (14,234 deaths) with the exception of suicide (22,018 deaths) which is an act against oneself and therefore, not applicable. In fact, you are also twice as likely to be killed by falling (34,488 deaths, of which 33,381 were accidental) than you are of being killed with a gun. You are even 3.33 times more likely to die from accidental poisoning (47,478 deaths) than from an attacker utilizing a firearm.

CDCData3

The facts are simply the facts. It should be clear to everyone that no American wants anyone to die because of the purposeful or accidental discharge of a firearm, and the data is clear – there is sufficient evidence to prove that guns are not the real problem in this country.

Guns Don’t Kill People

Yes, that phrase is parroted over and over again, ad nauseam, and many liberals who fear guns see it as a flippant, disrespectful mantra but the fact remains, this statement is one of the simplest of truths. Guns are dangerous tools that, if wielded by an evil human with malicious intent, can easily and quickly take the life of others in great numbers, with little to no effort, resulting in horrible, nightmarish bloodshed. I know of no normal law abiding citizen who would argue the opposite position. But, we must remember that any number of implements – literally countless ways with boundless methods, limited only by the imagination – can be employed to take the life of another human. It is not the tool or the implement that is responsible for ending life, it is the evil, cold and darkened heart of the human wielding that weapon that is deserving of the blame. And it must be in the forefront of our consciousness that just as the war on drugs has never reduced the availability of illicit drugs, neither will guns ever be eliminated.

The only saving grace at such a time – when a criminal (who, as a rule does not follow the law and can obtain a firearm on the black market with ease) decides he will follow his murderous heart’s desire and take human life – is that moment when a life-honoring and respecting, responsible, law abiding citizen who has gone through the trouble of a certification course in most cases, given his fingerprints to the FBI, has been issued a license to lawfully carry a weapon in public and has practiced shooting his weapon so as to be true and can confidently discharge his weapon into a target while avoiding collateral damage – stands up to challenge the attacker, drawing his weapon and either ends the attack without firing a round or dispatches the attacker, stopping the bloodshed in its tracks … as has happened time after time in the last decade in this country. Unfortunately, these occurrences barely get a peep from the mainstream media because it is damaging to the leftist narrative and serves to undermine their cause. Please, if you actually care about truth and are willing to follow where it leads you, do research these cases as they are almost never reported except when a local story is picked up nationally, which is honestly, fairly rare. One of the most compelling reasons for widespread gun ownership can be found in this video:

We do not need fewer guns and more legislation. It serves no purpose to make murder extra, extra, extra, super-duper, really, really illegal and massive restrictions simply keep guns out of the hands of those law abiding citizens who might otherwise be able to end an attack when the police are several minutes away. This is a clear logical fallacy. Murder is against the law, period and that’s enough. What we need is for those who are charged with performing background checks, following local, state and federal laws already on the books, and implementing those checks and balances that have been put into place to catch those who shouldn’t have guns, to do their jobs efficiently and effectively. The main theme that continually crops up after one of these mass shootings is that there were signs, someone saw something but said nothing, or there was failure in the system to deny lawful access, and it’s those failures that are killing our children – not lawfully obtained and legally owned guns. The greatest evidence of this is the Gun Show Effect … if guns kill people why has there never been a mass murder at a gun show where thousands of guns and ammo are just lying around?!  I know the reader can figure that one out.

Guns and other inanimate objects don’t kill people – people kill people.

Charitable Donations

Help us continue to provide content with a charitable donation. If you enjoy our blog please consider a small contribution to the cause.

$1.00

 

Freedoms & Rights

Judge Kelly emphasized the “very limited nature” of his ruling and noted that he had not determined that the First Amendment had been violated.

The Dilemma & the Decision

Last Wednesday, CNN’s Jim Acosta was vociferously excoriated by President Trump for shamelessly grandstanding and showing gross disrespect for his hosts (President Trump and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders) as is his usual tact at White House briefings. After having had enough of Acosta’s continued challenging of his stance on whether or not the approaching thousands-strong horde of South American migrants should be termed a “caravan” or “an invasion,” the President scolded Acosta and told him to take his seat and allow other reporters a turn.

At that point and at the command of President Trump, a young female intern attempted to retrieve the mic, reaching across Acosta in an endeavor to secure it. Acosta refused, pulling the microphone away and pressing down against the intern’s arm with his own, managing to repel her efforts (video below). Sometime after this, and at the President’s behest, the secret service approached Acosta outside of the White House and relieved him of his credentials because of what Sarah Huckabee-Sanders characterized as Acosta’s “putting his hands” on the intern. To her credit, the intern hasn’t publicly complained about Acosta keeping her from doing her job the way he has expressly chided the President on national television about keeping him from doing his.

While many in the media and on the left scoffed at the accusation, it’s clear that with regard to the letter of the law, Acosta did indeed touch the intern without her consent. Whether the intent or result was menacing or not wasn’t the point from the White House’s perspective – the disrespectful nature of the incident was, though to be accurate, in some jurisdictions the simple unwanted touch of another is enough to constitute an assault. The ensuing claims by the liberal talking heads and the legacy media that it was the intern who actually assaulted Acosta is both irresponsible and willfully ignorant – especially in light of the #metoo movement and the lefts incessant claims that “all women must believed” without exception or evidence and that we should “believe survivors” without establishing first that there has been an act which must be survived. To her credit, the intern did not assert that she was assaulted.

It would seem the left and the legacy media really only cares about women when they are useful to their narrative, after all, have we heard anything from Christine Blasey Ford since the failed attempt at taking down Judge Brett Kavanaugh was thwarted? Queue the crickets…

Judgement Day

The Associated Press reports today that U.S District Court Judge Timothy Kelly, a Donald Trump appointee, announced his decision to order the return of CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press credentials and immediately reinstate his WH press privileges. He said that Mr. Acosta’s credentials must be reactivated to allow him access to the White House complex for press briefings and other events. He declined to rule on the original suit but found that CNN was likely to prevail on its Fifth Amendment claim – that Acosta hadn’t received sufficient notice or explanation before his credentials were revoked or been given sufficient opportunity to respond before they were.

Judge Kelly emphasized the “very limited nature” of his ruling and noted that he had not determined that the First Amendment had been violated. The Judge told attorneys to file additional documents in the case by Monday.

Facts Do Not Care About Feelings: The Editorializing Begins

This blogger disagrees entirely with the judges personal convictions that CNN would likely prevail in their Fifth Amendment claim as it is ridiculous on its face and had nothing to do whatsoever with a right to due process.

Amendment V

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The Fifth Amendment doesn’t speak to this case in any way, shape or form and the claim from above that specifically is called upon to administer justice in this case – that “Acosta hadn’t received sufficient notice or explanation before his credentials were revoked or been given sufficient opportunity to respond before they were” – doesn’t even exist in the Fifth Amendment or any amendment, period. The closest thing to a claim that might be argued is as follows:

“…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

To deprive someone of life or liberty is a legal term for incarceration which is not applicable. To separate someone from their property is actually about the illegal seizure of such under Eminent Domain or Civil Asset Forfeiture, though to give Acosta and CNN the benefit of the doubt and to view it in the most liberal sense possible, one might construe it as being a legitimate claim if the credential was Acosta’s personal property, which it is not. It is a temporary pass issued by the owner – the White House – which can be revoked at anytime for any reason, if the owner so chooses – without cause or explanation.

Acosta wasn’t compelled to testify against himself, tried in double jeopardy, deprived of due process nor was his private property seized by any stretch of the imagination and therefore neither he nor CNN has legal standing to make the Fifth Amendment claim.

Freedoms

In closing, I would point out that Jim Acosta has not been deprived of a single one of his freedoms; in this case, the falsely claimed revocation of his freedom of speech or his freedom to lawfully assemble continue to be an exercise in futility as does any appeal to a due process violation. He has not been threatened with bodily harm, incarceration or frivolous law suits that endanger his personal treasure, property or effects. Jim Acosta is simply a Marxist aggressor taking plays from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals .

13thRuleForRadicals

Rights

One final word on rights … the President of the United States of America also has them. They are not diminished by his position nor are they amplified by his office. Just as any other American, the President can choose to converse with a willing participant or refuse or deny to speak with anyone, at any time, for any reason because, like all Americans, he also has the right to free speech and the right to withhold that speech, if he so chooses.

(link: The Constitution of the United States of America)

(link: The Bill of Rights)

Charitable Donations

Help us continue to provide content with a charitable donation. If you enjoy our blog please consider a small contribution to the cause.

$1.00

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program already in progress.

 

Other Blog Posts:

 

Liberal Lunacy: Not Babies … Theybies?

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!

A BIG NO to Planned Parenthood Ads … Instead, Liberty or Death