In pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, free
markets and individual liberty
"There is but one straight
course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DOJ Study Fails to
Show 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Worked By George
Prudden
there have been a number of calls for more controls on firearms,
particularly another ban on so-called assault weapons. Michael Bloomberg was
one of the first to use this tragedy to encourage more legal controls on firearms ownership. To understand if reinstating the
“assault weapons” ban would be effective, we should look at what an assault
weapon is and the effects of the decade-long ban that was in place from 1994 to
2004. Prior to the adoption of the assault weapons ban (AWB) in the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, there wasn’t a specific definition
of an assault weapon. The closest thing to an assault weapon would be an
assault rifle, which is a short-barrel (under 16 inches) which can shoot in
semi-automatic (one bullet with each pull of the trigger), select-fire (usually
3 bullets with each pull of the trigger), or fully-automatic (multiple bullets
with each pull of the trigger). Sale, ownership, and possession of firearms
that can use select-fire or are fully-automatic is controlled through the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1968. The AWB covered a
different set of firearms from those covered by the NFA of 1968. he most
popular of the so-called assault weapons sold in the US are the AR-15-style
models (Despite allegations to the contrary, the AR refers to Armalite, the
original manufacturer, not “assault rifle.”) Undoubtedly there are some that
purchase them because they are “military style,” but much of the popularity
comes from the versatility. The design of the rifles is modular, making
customizing and changing configuration very easy. Because most of the parts for
the AR-style models are standardized, there are a plethora of accessories
available. Though reputed to be “high-power,” the AR-15 ammunition isn’t.
The development of the ammunition, and hence, the rifle, came from the need
for the military to carry lighter ammunition than the .308 caliber used in
the M-1 rifle the AR-15 replaced. If we look at ammunition power, the .223
caliber that the AR uses is actually fairly low, as is the diameter of the
bullet itself. Ammunition power is measured in foot-pounds (ft/lbs). A review
of some of the energy data from Hornady, a major manufacturer of ammunition shows that the
AR-15 .223 caliber is not particularly high powered. For comparison, .308 (the
caliber of the M-1 the AR replaced) and 30-06, a traditional hunting caliber
are listed:
One distinct advantage we have to decide whether reinstating the AWB
would be effective is the benefit of empirical evidence. Part of the law
enabling the AWB also required the Department of Justice to look at the effect
of the ban on crime before and after the decade that it was in place. "The
[read the full DOJ Here here] study failed to show a significant impact on “assault
weapon” use or support the allegation that large capacity magazines lead to
more murders. However, other analyses using a variety of national and local
data sources found no clear ban effects on certain types of murders that
were thought to be more closely
associated with the rapid-fire features of assault weapons and other
semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines. The ban did not produce
declines
in the average number
of victims per incident of gun murder or gun murder victims with multiple
wounds."
Mass murders are
tragic and, fortunately, rare. There is no data to support the notion that
reinstating an AWB will prevent further tragedies. In fact, two of the largest
mass murders in US history, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers
and Pentagon, and the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing did not even
involve firearms. Sadly, there is precious little we can do to prevent these types of
attacks.
~~~~~~
Scores of kids killed at home, out of national spotlight
How many children and youth would that be?
Picture a death toll of elementary-school-age children, and younger, that is six times the 20 first-graders killed Friday at
Sandy Hook. That would be 180 children, 11 years of age or younger, who
were killed by a firearm in 2010, according to the
most recent report on violent deaths from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, says Jonathan Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project for the
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The CDC breakdown: 41 deaths were
classified as unintentional, 127 as homicide,
four as suicide, and eight from an undetermined intent. And overwhelmingly,
they died one by one at home. I ask you, who is
going to take on the social pariah that is taking the children's lives? No one.
It is easier to "blame" guns, not the perpetrators.
~~~~~~
FLASHBACK: Asst.
Principal Ends School Shooting With Personal Gun
This article was originally published in the Boulder Weekly, and is posted here
by permission.
"Sixteen year
old Luke Woodham was distraught due to the fact that his girlfriend of the time
had broken up with him, so he started by beating and stabbing his mother to
death at their home. Woodham then took a lever action .30-30 hunting rifle with
him to his school, Pearl High. He made no attempt to hide or conceal the rifle.
He entered the school and began shooting students. Two people were killed and
seven others wounded. The first person killed was Woodham’s ex-girlfriend.
After she was shot Woodham began shooting indiscriminately at anyone in the area.
Woodham knew that the police would soon be on their way, but he had no plans to
allow himself to be captured or kill himself (as is popular with many mass
murderers). Woodham had planned to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and
continue his shooting spree while police were occupied with the confusion at
Pearl High. Woodham successfully made his way to his car well before police
arrived. However, Woodham would never make it to Pearl Junior High.
Assistant
Princiapl Joel Myrick heard the shooting when it began and immediately
went into action. After getting several students to safety and figuring out
what was going on Myrick knew what he had to do. Myrick had a Colt .45 handgun
in his truck. Due to gun laws Myrick was not allowed to carry his gun on his
person. Myrick ran to his vehicle, retrieved the gun, loaded it, and headed
back to the school.
Woodham was already
in the parking lot, getting into his car. Myrick confronted Woodham in the
parking lot, held his gun to the boy’s head and managed to subdue Woodham until
police arrived. There is simply no telling how many lives were saved by this
educator who took steps to make sure that he was prepared for any situation and
to use a weapon when it was necessary to save the lives of others. At
Sandy Hook, the principal heroically tried to physically subdue the gunman.
She was shot and killed. Joel Myrick shows, if she had her own gun, this
could have ended differently"
~~~~~~
Some Gun-Control
Ruminations for Liberals in Light of Friday’s Massacre by Chris Graham
I offer a few things for liberals to
actually think about after they’ve cleared their thoughts of all emotion
(emotion negatively affects our ability to reason):
- If you are a person who is moral enough not to commit massacres, then you do not need a law making it harder for you to commit massacres.
- The school’s principal on Friday was killed when she lunged to take the killer’s gun from him. He shot her. She and 25 others, 18 of whom were kids, would still be alive today if she had shot him instead of trying to take his gun. Why didn’t she shoot him instead?
- The school was a gun-free zone. Why didn’t the shooter obey the school’s no-gun policy? Why didn’t the shooter think, “Oh, we can’t bring guns to this school? Well, crap, there go my shooting-spree plans”?
- You know what does not stop bullets from hitting kids? The backs of teachers. You know what does stop a bullets from hitting kids? A gun in the hands of a good person.
- The shooter, Adam Lanza, had a mental disability. Current law dictates that he’s not allowed to own any gun, period. So what we saw yesterday was the effect of a 100-percent ban on guns for the shooter. Yet he got guns anyway, through illegal means. The gun ban did not stop him.
This is the reality: Guns will always exist, as will evil.
No gun ban will ever stop those who do not obey bans, nor those who are evil. At this point, however, I am willing to ban all guns just to
show liberals the true fruit of their policies. Let them feel the guilt of the increase of deaths resulting from their
desire to take guns away from, in effect, only the do-gooders.
~~~~~~
Obama Hasn’t Shed
Any Tears Over Pre-Natal Murders by Philip Hodges
Connecticut’s
liberal governor Dan Malloy invoked the term “evil” to describe the murderer’s
actions that left 20 children and 8 adults dead. Liberals seem to think they
get to use the word “evil” as soon as a tragedy affects children. Child abuse
is evil. Child molestation is evil. And of course, murdering children is
evil…unless the child is not born yet, in which case the mother has a right to
murder it, and liberals will fight tooth and nail to uphold that mother’s right
to murder her unborn child. Since 1973, about 50,000,000 babies have been
murdered at the hands of abortionists. That’s almost 1.3 million a year, over
3,500 per day and about 150 per hour. In the time it took the school shooter to
kill all 28 people, almost a 100 pre-born babies’ lives were ended.
Speaking of the Connecticut tragedy at a press conference, Obama shed a few
tears. He said:
“The majority of those who died today were children. Beautiful
little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. [LONG PAUSE] They had their
entire lives ahead of them. Birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their
own.”
Yes, they had their entire lives ahead of
them, just like millions of babies that have been murdered because women have a
“right” to murder them when they’ve become a burden to the mother.
~~~~~~~
Clinton’s
“Diplomatic Illness” Shouldn’t Stop Benghazi Testimony
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton
suggested Monday that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is trying to
avoid testifying about the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, by
coming down with what he called “a diplomatic illness.” Clinton was scheduled to testify this week before a House panel and to
present an independent report on the incident. The report, which she received
on Monday, will still be presented to congressional leaders in a closed door
session Wednesday. But the secretary won’t be there because of a concussion she
suffered during a fainting spell this past weekend brought on by the flu. “I
think she will have to testify at some point,” Bolton told Fox News’ Greta Van
Susteren Monday evening, suggesting that her illness excuse was somewhat
suspect. “You know, every foreign service officer in every foreign ministry in
the world knows the phrase I am about to use. When you don’t want to go to a
meeting or conference, or an event, you have a ‘diplomatic illness,’ Bolton
told Van Susteren. “And this is a diplomatic illness to beat the band. “I
certainly hope it was nothing serious, but this was revealed in a way that I
think was not transparent,” Bolton continued. “And I think there is an
obligation here, especially if Secretary Clinton decides to run for president,
to indicate what happened. She may not be testifying this week, but she will
not escape it forever.”
~~~~~~
Tax Hikes On
Wealthy: GOP Folds On Obama’s Bluff by Mark Horne
John Boehner as
speaker of the House has caved
to Obama’s demands for a tax hike for the rich. What does this mean?
First, it means the deficit
will widen and the debt load will increase. Even if the government took 100
percent of the income of the wealthy, it would not cover the deficit. The
only strategy that could possibly do anything meaningful for the national
debt-burdened economy is for the government to cut massive amounts of spending
out of the budget. All Obama has been willing to offer is a measly $400
billion reduction in planned spending over the next decade. Boehner is hoping
to get more from him in return for tax hikes, but how much more? At this level,
it is all way too measly. We know this is the case, because we’re reached
another debt ceiling and are going to be expected to raise it again.
Second, Boehner’s cave
is going to discourage Republicans and embolden Democrats. I hope
Republican grass roots voters will not stay discouraged. I hope they will
get mad and get to the voting booth in 2014 to drown Congress in Tea Party
candidates. But this is an unmistakable spitting on the GOP base.
Democrats, on the other hand, will have less reason to make concessions. They
will think they have the power.
Third, economic growth
will slow. The people most able to expand the economy and start businesses that
meet needs and provide jobs will be hit with more confiscations. This means
not only that money that could be used will go to the government, but that
there will be fear and uncertainty that will motivate “the wealthy” to simply
keep what money they have left and not risk it in the hope of profits.
Since the debt situation for the United States is going to get worse instead
of better, we were already facing an uphill struggle to find a way to put
people to work. Now we will have tax increases on top of the worsening national
deficit.
Fourth, when we reach the
next Presidential election, it will be even harder to run a credible
campaign that shows the GOP candidate represents an alternative to the Democrat
candidate. Boehner and his cohorts have done to the Republican chances
of reclaiming the White House roughly what George H. W. Bush did when he broke
his “Read my lips: no new taxes” pledge. Republicans became disillusioned
and Clinton won the White House. One can argue that going over “the fiscal
cliff” would have been just as bad on the economy. Maybe. But I suspect he
deficit reduction in the fiscal cliff would have been much more significant
than what we will get once Boehner and Obama are finished with their dance. And
deficit reduction may have given investors more confidence. I certainly doubt that “the fiscal cliff” will be any
worse than what Boehner and Obama cook up.
~~~~~~
America’s Moral
Stockholm Syndrome by Gary DeMar
Gabrielle Ludwig is 6-feet 6-inches tall and
weighs 220 pounds. ‘She’ plays basketball for the Lady Saints, the women’s
basketball team at Mission College in Santa Clara, California. Gabrielle is the
former Robert John Ludwig. Gabrielle is a surgically altered and
hormone-induced woman. “As someone living as a woman
and taking female hormones since 2007, Ludwig was eligible to play in the NCAA.
Transgender student athletes who have taken medication to suppress testosterone
for a year may compete on women’s teams under a policy adopted last year.”
Ludwig is 50 years old. Under any other set of circumstances such an absurd
thing would never happen. But in our day of unlimited toleration (unless you
don’t believe in tolerating such things) even the bizarre has become
normalized.
If you or I speak out in denouncement of
normalizing gender “reassignment surgery,” we will be declared the worst type
of bigots. And it seems that Ludwig’s real female teammates
don’t have a problem with their 50-year-old teammate masquerading as a woman. Teammate
Amy Woo, 19, said "Ludwig has brought a maternal influence, helping the
team keep problems in perspective. “We all love her,” Woo said. “If someone is
going to talk against her, they are talking against all of us because it’s like
she is part of a family.” If anyone talks against her? Ms. Woo has been
morally lobotomized. I can feel sorry for Mr. Ludwig, but I can’t condone
his radical decision to make himself into a fictional woman. Ms. Woo and her
teammates have an educational form of the Stockholm Syndrome; they’ve been in
government schools too long and have identified with their captors.
“Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a
psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy, sympathy and have
positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending
them.”
~~~~~~
Highest-Paid
California Trooper Is Chief Banking $484,000 By Alison Vekshin, Elise Young & Rodney Yap
California Highway Patrol division
chief Jeff Talbott retired last year as the best-paid officer in the 12
most-populous U.S. states, collecting $483,581 in salary, pension and other
compensation. Talbott, 53, received
$280,259 for accrued leave and vacation time and took a new job running the
public-safety department at a private university in Southern California. He
also began collecting an annual pension of $174,888 from the state. Marty
Morgenstern, secretary of the California Labor & Workforce Development
Agency, talks with Bloomberg’s Alison Vekshin about the pay and retirement
packages of California Highway Patrol officers. According to data compiled by
Bloomberg, California has the highest-paid state troopers in the U.S. More than
5,000 troopers made over $100,000 in 2011. (Source: Bloomberg) Besides Talbott,
44 California patrol officers earned more than $200,000 in 2011, compared with
nine in other states - five in Pennsylvania and four in Illinois, according to
the data. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger meets with cadets at the
California Highway Patrol Academy in West Sacramento, Calif., in this file
photo. California Highway Patrol hats on the laps of CHP Academy cadets during
graduation ceremonies at the Academy in West Sacramento, Calif.
Union-negotiated benefits, coupled with overtime that can exceed regular pay
and lax enforcement of limits on accumulating unused vacation, allow some troopers to double their annual
earnings and retire as young as age 50. The payments they get are unmatched by those elsewhere, according to
data compiled by Bloomberg on 1.4 million employees of the 12 states. Some,
like Talbott, go on to second careers.
No comments:
Post a Comment