"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.

" (A sword is never a

killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
- Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 4 BC 65 AD
Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other
countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms
- James Madison, considered the father of the US Constitution
"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of
them."
- Zacharia Johnson, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788
During World War II, six million Swiss had guns and six million Jews did not.
- Author unknown
sort of like the people who repeat foolish slogans like "guns kill" as though guns
sprout little feet when no one is looking and run around shooting people all by
themselves.
- Doug Casey, financial columnist
If you dont have to give up your car because others drive drunk with theirs, then why
do you have to give up your gun because others commit crimes with theirs?
- Anonymous internet wag
When a crime is committed, does the gun go to jail?
- From BrotherJohn.com
Lets stop playing games. The problem is people, not guns. Our society suffers from a
deficiency of personal responsibility not from an excess of personal freedom.
- Star Parker, African American writer and commentator
The horrifying truth is this: we live now in a culture that not only does not respect life,
but discards it like trash not only at the beginning of life, but also at the end, and
every place in between. What has happened to us?
- Catholic Deacon Greg Kandra
were also going to make it clear that when a pig gets iced thats a good thing, and
that everyone who considers himself a revolutionary should be armed, should own a
gun, should have a gun in his house.
- Bill Ayers, leftist activist and confidant of gun control happy Barack Obama, in A Strategy
To Win, appearing in New Left Notes, September 12, 1969. Note: This quote is included
both show the hypocrisy of todays anti-gun left, as well as expose them as the
purveyors of violence the left has always been when it suits their purpose. This in no
wise implies support of Ayers, and in fact this paper is utterly against what Ayers
articulates here.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.'"
|
- HL Mencken
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the
people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
against tyranny in government

- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Blaming Newtown on guns is like blaming Chappaquiddick on the Oldsmobile.
- Ben Crystal, Personal Liberty News
Eliminate guns and they go to bombs, eliminate bombs and they move to poison or
something else. Bad people are just bad people.
- David, otherwise anonymous internet poster.
The trigger is in the head, not the gun.
- Michael Howell
INTRODUCTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The utterly horrific Colorado and Connecticut shootings are still being processed, as I write, into
the collective conscience of America. First, clearly the care for the wounded and survivors must
be paramount for everyone. Let us all labor with one goal to that end at present. Once this is
over, however, there will be time for reflection on what has caused tragedies such as these, and
others. Here are some preliminary thoughts that join my thoughts and prayers for the victims that may be worth reflecting on in the months ahead:
Is it guns, or people, that kill? As the old saying goes, Teddy Kennedys cars have killed more
people than all the guns of 99.999% of all gun owners in America. And this true around the
world. My brother lived in ultra-safe Switzerland for years. Why is Switzerland so safe? Is it
because guns are outlawed?
Hardly.
Wikipedia notes: If you were a Swiss man, you would be a soldier as well. Every able-bodied
Swiss man must go to the army in Switzerland for 90 days (Rekrutenschule-Ecole de recrue)
and then every 2 years until the age of 42, he must return for practice for 19 days. This allows
the government to raise an army of 400,000 men, fully armed, within 24 hours, as every soldier
has an assault gun in his house, complete with ammunition.
http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/swiss-business-guide/swiss-army.html ; moreover, Each
individual is required to keep his army issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm SIG 550 rifle
for enlisted personnel or the SIG 510 rifle and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic
pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified personal retention
quantity of government issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56/48 rounds 9mm)
http://en/wikipedia.org/wiki/gun_politics_in_switzerland. Switzerland which has had three times
the gun ownership as, for example Germany, has also had a much lower murder rate. And
statistics like this ring true throughout the world. A short 3 minute video is here, for those that
wish to see a short report on the Swiss and their guns http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=1WFUu7cfa7k&feature=player_embedded#t=22s
Indeed, Thomas Sowell notes countries with stronger gun control laws than the US, such as
Russia, Brazil and Mexico (Mexico basically bans firearms completely, yet has a higher gun
2

homicide rate than the US), have much higher murder rates, while there are many countries
with high rates of gun ownership but low murder rates, such as Israel, New Zealand and
Finland. In fact, in Mexico, the murder rate is 22.7 murders per 100,000, whereas the global
average is ~7 homicides per 100,000, and the gun happy US is 4.8 murders per 100,000.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-to-end-gun-debate-forever.html. That is correct
- the US, which has the widest gun ownership in the world, is below the worldwide average in
homicides. Of course, in the US, approximately 90 million legal owners of guns, owing 300
million firearms; murdered zero people last year. Contrast that with the approximately 170
million Prof. R.J. Rummel of Univ. of Hawaii, in his book Death by Government, says were killed
in the last century, the majority of them after their governments disarmed them (Stphane
Courtois, author of the highly regarded Black Book of Communism estimates 94 million were
murdered by Communists alone). An hour long, very sobering summary video documenting
what happens when the population has their weapons removed can be found at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDivHkQ2GSg&feature=player_embedded#t=8s Or perhaps
one might wish to contrast this to the 32,000 people who lost their lives including thousands of
youth in car accidents last year (see
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf or
http://www.nhtsa.gov/NCSA to get the latest exact figure). And for those of you who correctly
answered the cars are necessary, but guns are not objection, a gold star, for indeed you are
correct but armed population, as the Founding Fathers repeatedly noted, is the sine qua non
of a free country and a free population. Free as in - as historical records show comparison
to a country like the USSR, Cuba or China that end up murdering millions including children
(just google Ukrainian Kulak and look at the photos of millions of children who were murdered
by Stalins government. As the saying goes, Free men have guns; slaves do not.
A recent interview in The State Journal of West Virginia, at d, guns and the 2nd Amendment.
Predictably, the media talking head, who is of course anti-gun, interviews Keith Morgan,
president of the West Virgiinia Citizens Defense League. The reporter indicates a national
debate on guns is long overdue. (Yes apparently leftist media reporters all get their same
talking points from the same, lame LeftistTalking Point Depot!), to which Morgan replies I
have to take issue with the immediate premise that we started out with that its a long overdue
discussion. The discussion is as old as the country itself. The Framers set everything up and
settled that discussion pretty well with the wording and language of the Second Amendment
Mr. Morgan has it 100% nailed on the head!
HOW EFFECTIVE IS GUN CONTROL?
A 2000 study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms revealed that 47% of guns used
for crime are obtained via a straw purchase, while another 26% are stolen. So, how effective is
firearms control in practice? In gun-control
happy Chicago which has banned guns for
all practical purposes - the city has become
the leading alpha city for gun murders in the
world. 2012 ended with around five hundred
murders in the city.
http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-reaches-500homicides-fatal-shooting-145951769.html 3

sixty of which were children! In fact, gun free Chicago had more murders than the entire nation
of Japan in 2012, and actually, as of April 2013, was averaging one shooting every 6.3 hours
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/04/rahmaland-one-shooting-every-63-hours.html.
Corrupt socialism will do that for you!
For comparison, drug war ridden Mexico City has 8.0 murders a year per 100,000 population,
Moscow 9.6, Sao Paolo 15.6 and Chicago 19.4. Similarly, Washington DC, which has banned
concealed carry since 1975, has one of the highest rates of murder in the U.S. And of course,
one might also have the temerity to ask why there are no theatre, mall or school shootings in
Israel, where a goodly percentage of the population is armed, including fully automatic
weapons. (Picture from http://janmorganmedia.com/2012/12/why-you-dont-hear-about-anyschool-shootings-in-israel/ )
Lets examine Chicago and a similar size city, Houston, which has concealed carry. How do they
compare?
Chicago , IL

Houston , TX

Population

2.7 million

2.15 million

Median HH income

$38,600

$37,000

% African-American

32.9%

24%

% Hispanic

28.9%

44%

% Asian

5.5%

6%

% non-Hispanic White 31.7%

26%

A reasonably similar matchup -until:

Chicago, IL Houston, TX
Concealed carry gun law No

Yes

84 dedicated gun shops,

1500 places to buy guns
(Walmart, etc.)

# of gun stores

Homicides, 2012

506

207

Homicides per 100k

18.4

9.6

Average January
high temp, F

31

63

Presumably the leftist conclusion from the above is that cold weather causes shootings! Am I
exaggerating? Here is a woman on a university campus, circulating a petition to have pressure

cookers banned because they cause bombings: http://www.ijreview.com/2013/04/49187college-students-sign-petition-to-ban-pressure-cookers/

OK, so what about New York City? Yes, there was a reduction in gun shootings in 2012, but
there were still 414 homicides in 2012. Notwithstanding the fact that NYC is almost becoming a
police state, a one year drop could be attributable to many things, and as Frank Zimring,
professor of law at UC Berkeley told NPR, "If you're gonna make the assumption that changes
in crime rates always are responding to policies then why shouldn't we be blaming the police for
the slight increases [in New York's murder rate] in 2010 and 2011?" No word from Mr.
Bloomberg on that nor why Mr. Bloomberg has changed his tune from al Qaeda hates us for
our freedoms to the situation today, where the NYPD conducts unconstitutional stop-and-frisk
searches all over NYC. And the reality is that the general trend in NYC has been a general
trend of a drop in murder rates in NYC since the 1990s.
As a matter of fact, Dr. John Lott spoke on the Piers Morgan show shortly after the Connecticut
school shooting, and noted that since 1950, in almost every public mass shooting in which three
or more people died, it was in a setting where guns are banned, such as schools. (One obvious
problem being that when your victims are unarmed, you have more time to stop and reload!!) Of
course, relative to the Sandy Hook tragedy, Connecticut already had banned "assault weapons,"
and the Newtown school was already a gun free zone. There also is already a total ban on guns
in the possession of mentally unstable in Connecticut. A lot of good that did. And if the shooter
didnt get it from his mother in this case, do you really think he wouldnt have gone to the black
market to get one, or turned to other tools, such as the bombs the leftist Unibomber or Timothy
McVeigh used? Were people any less dead because those two men used bombs instead of
guns? On a personal level, when I was a student teacher in Illinois, a young high school student
set a bomb right outside my classroom it was found before it went off, but could have killed
many students if it hadnt been found in time. Are we next going to ban intelligence so that
people cant make bombs out of various materials? As a matter of fact, perhaps we already
have banned intelligence or at least wisdom from our schools. But that is a story for another
day. along with some enterprising researcher conducting a study correlating the number of
school shootings with the number of teachers having sex with their students.

Meanwhile, hidden from public view by a leftist media, school shootings are indeed occurring in
countries with strict gun control. Former psychology professor and Army Ranger Lt. Col. David
Grossman noted in Dec., 2012, on his Facebook site at
www.facebook.com/LtColDaveGrossman, that gun control poster child Germany has had two
mass murders in their high schools that had body counts surpassing those at Columbine, while
Dunblain, Scotland had a massacre in a kindergarten class, and just down the road from where
I used to live in Alberta, Canada, the town of Taber experienced a school shooting. Handguns
are outlawed in Canada1. Finland has had three school massacres, and of course there was the
Anders Breivik massacre in Norway, which also has restrictions on gun ownership. And if it isnt
guns, its knives. Grossman notes in gunless Belgium, a sicko dressed as the Joker from
Batman got into a day care centre and hacked a dozen babies in their cribs, injuring them. Two
more babies were killed, as well as one daycare worker. If leftists want schools and other areas
as gun free zones, perhaps we should make those who created gun free zones liable for the
murders that occur there? And at the same time, may we ask why government buildings in
Washington DC are gun free zones or is it that the let them eat cake ruling class gets
armed security everywhere they go in the town (not to mention exemption from ObamaCare),
while the rest of us poor, unwashed masses have to trust our safety to luck? In fact, there is a
formal petition to the White House to have the Secret Service protecting the president and
others in Washington made a gun free zone remember, it is guns themselves that are the
cause of crime. (Article at http://www.examiner.com/article/white-house-petition-demandssecret-service-be-replaced-by-gun-free-zone?cid=Editorial-NearYou-HP-RecentArticles
But, in case you dont believe Lt. Colonel Grossman or Dr. Lott, perhaps you might believe the
man running lead for Obamas gun control task force after Sandy Hook, Joe Biden? Here is
Biden in his own words, explaining that gun control will not stop a potential mass shooting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTyoppK_aDM&feature=player_embedded#t=2s
The top ten school massacres are listed here, for your reference:
http://listverse.com/2008/01/01/top-10-worst-school-massacres/, the worst being the Beslan
school massacre in Russia, with 386 dead, and over 700 injured by Chechen militants. In the
US, one of the first US school massacres occurred, as Mark Steyn notes, on July 25,1764,
when four Lenape Indians walked into a one-room schoolhouse in colonial Pennsylvania and
killed Enoch Brown and ten of his pupils. One child survived, scalped and demented to the end
of his days (no assault rifles were recorded as being used in this attack); and the worst
massacre in a US school occurred May 18. 1927, in Bath, Michigan, when school board
treasurer Andrew Kehoe used a bomb to blow up the Bath Consolidated School, killing 44
people, including 38 children. Again, much to the chagrin of the left, no assault weapon was
used.
And the comments from the left that masquerade as fact, such as the post-Sandy Hook Bill
Clinton statement: Half of all mass killings in the United States have occurred since the assault
weapons ban expired in 2005. Half of all of them in the history of the country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=or-inV1KKDE#t=0s are not even
close to reality. Leaving aside the definition of what is is, what are the actual facts?
Unfortunately similar to the ClimateGate revelations someone actually did the research in a
2007 book entitled Mass Murder in the United States A History, authored by Grant Duwe,

1 Actually, overstates the case. Handguns are severely restricted, but not outlawed
6

director of research and evaluation at the Minnesota Dept. of Corrections. Heres what Duwe
found, as summarized from http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/bill-clinton-caught-in-lie-overmass-shootings-fact/ :
In the past 100 years, there have been 156 mass killings where at least four people were killed
publicly with a firearm in under 24 hours, where the killings did not include robbery, drugs or
gangs. As of Jan., 2013, there have been 32 mass public shootings since Clintons assault
weapons ban expired on Sept. 13, 2004, with seven in 2012. Here is the tally by decade:
1900s : zero
1910s: 2
1920s: 2
1930s: 942
1940s: 8
1950s: 1
1960s: 6
1970s: 13
1980s: 32
1990s: 42
2000s: 28
2010s (three years): 14
Data from Boston.com, using data extracted from official police reports to the FBI, shows mass
shootings in the US over the past 30 years have not increased. (See
http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/no_increase_in_mass_shooting
s.html or as below)

Of course, the vast majority of these were not committed with semi-automatic rifles; rather, they
were committed by handguns. Why no outcry re. handguns? Is it because they look less
scary? Or might it really be because rifles could be used by a free people to defend
themselves against totolarianism? Perhaps the left should lift all restrictions on long guns, and
legislate against handguns if they honestly wanted to make a dent in the death toll. (And while
they are at it, perhaps they could pass legislation against Fast & Furious Eric Holder being
anywhere within 100 miles of any gun at all.)
On the other side of the school shooter equation, in 2008, the isolated Harrold Independent
School District in Texas, noting the damage done in the Columbine shootings, among others,
decided the 20 minutes it could take police to arrive could lead to a horrific disaster, trained
school staff were allowed to carry firearms in school. The result? Dead students? Mayhem?
Actually nothing, except a safe school. School district superintendent David Thweatt simply
stated Were the first responders. We have to be. We dont have 5 minutes. We dont have 10
minutes. We would have had 20 minutes of hell if the school was attacked. In fact, Evan Todd
who was shot and wounded at the Columbine massacre makes this exact point (and a few
more!) in his open letter to President Obama of Feb., 2013, found at
http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/23858-have-you-read-evan-todd-s-letter-to-obama-yet .
Todd elucidated on his points in a further interview found at
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/19/being-shot-gave-this-columbine-survivor-strongviews-on-gun-control-heres-why-he-opposes-more-restrictions/ Interestingly, the well-known
reporter Cal Thomas, after researching the Sandy Hook attack, reported that Adam Lanza had
researched which school to attack, and from the information available, chose Sandy Hook as he
felt it was a clearly soft target. http://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2013/04/09/gun-lawsand-human-nature-n1561595
But lurking behind the school shooting question is the issue of never let a crisis go to waste,
per Rahm Emmanuel. Is it really guns, or is it rather the gun grabber agenda that is in the dock
here? If the former, why no comment from the leftist media that every month after the Sandy
Hook shooting, on average 40 juveniles will be murdered with something other than a rifle? Or
doesnt that meet with the agenda du jour? (And Im just waiting to hear some leftist claim that
rifles cause global warming!)
And finally, if gun grabbers are so concerned for the kids, why then this story that came out
just after Sandy Hook:
Amid all the hubbub surrounding Sen. Dianne Feinstein's "assault weapons" ban, there are still
everyday stories of average law-abiding citizens using firearms to defend themselves and
others from evil -- or in this case, serious harm. An 11-year-old boy was riding his bike in a
Washington, DC, neighborhood when he came upon three pit bulls. The dogs pounced, mauling
the boy. Fortunately, a neighbor saw what was happening, grabbed his handgun and rushed out
to shoot one of the pit bulls. A DC police officer patrolling nearby on a bicycle heard the shot,
and came to the boy's aid as well, shooting the other two pit bulls. The boy's injuries were
severe, but he will survive, thanks to the quick action of this neighbor. However, the hero is
under investigation for violating local gun laws -- discharging his weapon while not on his own
property. No word yet on whether charges will be filed, but DC's gun laws are what put children
at risk. (Source for this story not retained, but published week of 21 Jan., 2013)
This story clearly illustrates that for many on the left, it is not about the kids. It is about their
agenda.
DEFENSIVE GUN USE
8

Could it be, as former gun control advocate turned gun rights supporter Dr. John Lott of Univ. of
Chicago maintains, in his eponymous book More Guns, Less Crime, that we are safer with more
guns? The young boy who drove off two home invaders in Houston in 2012 reported at
Houstons KHOU TV with his fathers AR-15 evil assault rifle would certainly agree. See
www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE. And heres another story of anevil AR-15 used to
drive off intruders: New York Resident Scares the Hell out of Intruders video at
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/ar-15-defense-weapon-new-york-resident-scares-the-hell-outof-intruders_012013; story also found at
http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/MoreStimulatingTalkRadio.html?
feed=104668&article=10729296 And then there were the young students in Rochester, NY
who thankfully were able to use an AR-15 to protect their lives during a break in see
http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Homeowners-Scare-OffBurglars/7yaLSXAvCUGBkwgAZpGO4g.cspx. Finally, another story of an AR-15 used to save
lives, this time in Detroit, where armed robbers retreat when they realize they are outgunned by
a single guard with an AR-15: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=hwRoXIk1H3Q&feature=player_detailpage#t=33s. As a matter of fact, as the nonstereotypical gun owner Dan Baum who is a Jewish Democrat who wrote for the New Yorkernoted, while Joe Nocera at the Times runs a daily tally of gun killings. He's not running a daily
tally of how many people defend themselves with guns. For one thing we don't know about it
most of the time. David Hemenway at Harvard is very pro gun-control and he thinks it happens
about 80,000 times a year. If that's true, that means that guns are saving 10 times as many
people as they're killing. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/what-liberalsneed-to-understand-about-gun-guys/273736/
Similarly, as Aubrey Blankenship and Celia Bigelow told Piers Morgan (video and story at
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/22-year-old-schools-piers-morgan-onguns/#yi5kmq2Ub6bbVgmH.99), there are very good reasons, particularly for women, to have
not only guns, but specifically AR-15s. Stated the two ladies in a companion column in the
National Review, One, theyre lightweight, the 22-year-old Bigelow responded. Theyre quite
accurate. I can shoot them much more accurately than a handgun or a shotgun. And three I
want a gun that can hold a lot of ammo, because if Im faced with an intruder or multiple
intruders that come into my home, I want to make sure I have enough ammo to get the job
done, especially if theyre armed. I dont have to take the time to reload We saw a situation
in Georgia just a couple weeks ago where a mom was hiding in her attic with her two children
when an intruder entered her home. She had a handgun that only had six rounds in it. She fired
all six rounds, missed the intruder once, hit him five times in the face and in the neck. And he
still lived.
And given that there are around eight thousand home invasions per year (and not one
conducted by well-mannered, non-violent Boy Scouts), with at least one in five households
experiencing a break-in at some point, the people above are just the tip of the iceberg.
But returning to Dr. Lott, here is Exhibit A: scarcely one week before the Colorado tragedy, a
similar situation had an opposite ending in Florida, where 71 year old Samuel Williams stopped
an armed robbery when two masked men entered the Palms Internet Cafe around 10 p.m.
Friday, July 13, 2012. Make your own conclusion from the surveillance camera, which captures
it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZNC2VwyaPU&feature=player_embedded#t=0s .
Exhibit B: Scarcely a month after the Colorado theatre shooting, on the opposite side of the
country, an Orange County, CA. jewelry and coin dealer thwarted and armed robbery and
possible employee deaths by defending herself with her pistol. Video surveillance footage at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjXJBpV9YRI And as if this wasnt enough, the Oregon
9

Clackamas Town Center Mall mall shooting which was overshadowed by the Connecticut
school shooting a few days later was stopped by a citizen, Nick Melti, exercising his right of
concealed carry. Full details of this incident not reported by the lamestream media are at
http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-anarmed-citizen. At the risk of overkill (pun intended), heres another video of a 65 yr. old woman
thwarting FIVE armed robbers with her pistol in her store: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=PoDNJQtNVoc&feature=player_embedded#t=0s. In fact, it appears to be the case that, as
ex-gangsta rap artist turned Christian rap singer Travis Tyler, known as Thisl notes, more gun
restrictions are not the answer, as this will not stop criminals from getting guns. But listen to
Thisl in his own words: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/January/Ex-Gangsta-RapperMore-Gun-Laws-Not-the-Answer/ (note that Thisl also identifies fatherlessness as a huge role
in gun violence, as well as the issue of mental illness). Interestingly, Mark Mattioli, who lost his
six year old son at Sandy Hook, also stated before a gun violence task force shortly after the
shooting that guns are categorically not the problem rather, it is mental health issues, issues
that stem from media violence, lack of personal integrity, lack of parenting, etc. A Mattioli video
speaking to this issue is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=fqpzOSYqX3c&feature=player_embedded#t=8s. Ann Coulter speaks to the Mattioli video at
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/10/coulter-liberals-go-crazy-for-the-mentally-ill/, noting
that the one critical piece missing from the leftist analysis of gun violence is that they refuse to
deal with that fact that the vast majority of gun violence is caused by mentally ill. Says Coulter:
Mass shootings dont correlate with gun ownership; they correlate with not locking up
schizophrenics and For most of the 20th century, from 1900 to 1970, there was an average of
four mass public shootings per decade. Throughout the 70s, as the loony bins were being
emptied, the average number of mass shootings suddenly shot up to 13. In the 3.3 decades
since 1980, after all the mental institutions had been turned into condos, mass shootings
skyrocketed to 36 on average per decade. And as exhibits for this exact issue, see Adam Lanza,
Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, paranoid schizophrenic One
L. Goh, who murdered a number of people at a Christian college in 2012, Nidal Hassan, and
others. For a complete list of mentally ill committing crimes, Coulter directs readers to E. Fuller
Torreys book, The Insanity Defense: How Americas Failure to Treat the Seriously Mentally Ill
Endangers Its Citizens. Fox News also does a concise expose of the issue at
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/10/it-not-knives-it-not-guns-it-mental-illness-that-kills/
But returning to the issue of the deterrence and such things as concealed carry, it turns out that
the leftist Mother Jones article claiming to have produced its own study of all public shootings in
the last 30 years, which concluded In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian
using a gun, is an outright fabrication - in looking at just the most recent Oregon episode. And
as Ann Coulter pointed out in an article shortly after the CT shooting, found at
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/19/ann-coulter-we-know-how-to-stop-school-shootings/
Mother Jones, in typical leftist fashion reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases
where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or
more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasnt stopped. Dont try this trick in
a stats 101 class, or you will be flunked. Coulters article provides some extremely enlightening
examples of mass murders stopped by an armed bystander:
Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, same week as the CT shooting: Jesus Manuel
Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden
restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia
four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero. (More details on this theatre-shooting-thatwasnt because the shooter was stopped by someone with concealed carry is at

10

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/the-theater-shooting-the-main-stream-media-didnt-focus-onwhy/ )
Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed
carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (Im excluding the shooters deaths in
these examples.)
Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then
begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns
at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates as well as the trained
campus supervisor; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that
day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student
heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car
and points it at the gunmans head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a
restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
(Coulter neglected to cite some other cases, such as the high school shooting by Luke
Woodham in Pearl, Miss., or the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, CO., where
armed volunteers stopped the mayhem immediately.
Not included in Coulters article was a shooter who opened fire two weeks after the Sandy Hill
massacre. Unfortunately, he did it in a place where people were armed the Gloucester
Township Police HQ and, while people were wounded, no one was killed except the shooter.
http://news.yahoo.com/3-cops-shot-nj-police-station-143541945--abc-news-topstories.html
Theres one more gunman incident Coulter also missed: On Aug. 29, 2010, and armed gunman,
Thomas Richard Cowan, entered Sullivan Central High School in Blountville, TN., and pointed
his gun at the head of the school principal. This may well have ended up another Sandy Hook
event except for the fact that a Sullivan County Sheriffs Deputy, Carolyn Gudger, was
stationed at the school, and confronted the gunman with her own gun. Cowan retreated from
this confrontation, and was later killed when he pointed his weapon at other police who had
arrived since the initial confrontation. No Sandy Hook here. Thats because there was armed
resistance.
The Marc J. Victor article cited elsewhere in this paper adds several more incidences to the list
above, where an armed populace prevented a Sandy Hook massacre. Victor cites a 1997 high
school shooting in Pearl, MS., stopped when the vice principal retrieved a handgun from his
truck; a 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and
apprehended the shooter with his shotgun; a 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was
quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard; a 2002 law school shooting in
Grundy, Virginia came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the
shooter; a 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah ended when an armed off-duty police officer
intervened; a 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas was halted by two co-workers who
carried concealed handguns. What part of guns saved lives dont leftists get?
Let me answer the question above, if I may. Heres what leftists dont get and which illustrates
they really dont ultimately care as much about each precious life lost at Sandy Hook as they do
their precious agenda (and yes please do use your best Gollum voice from Lord of the Rings
when you say the word leftist precious agenda; and no, our guns are not precious to most gun
owners rather, our freedom and liberty are precious, and guns are simply a guarantor of that).
One story which represents thousands of other unreported stories every year - with the
11

headline of Woman Hiding with Kids Shoots Home Intruder Multiple Times, illustrates the point
very simply: A quick prcis of the story will suffice. A woman hiding in her attic with children
shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday The incident happened at a
home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an
upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County
Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man
broke in using a crowbar. But the man eventually found the family. The perpetrator opens that
door. Of course, at that time hes staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver, Chapman
told Channel 2s Kerry Kavanaugh. The woman then shot him five times, but he survived,
Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he
moved http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/
This story has more than meets the eye. Suppose it was not just a single home invader, but
three or four and she was a resident of shot capacity limiting New York or another state
banning those evil assault rifles that carry too many rounds? What if she like many of us
wasnt such good shot, under duress (and possible darkness), and missed with her six rounds?
Then what? While she may have to abide by the round capacity laws, the criminal who is
already a criminal and thus doesnt care can carry a high capacity weapon on his side, making
the law even more dangerous for the law abiding citizen not safer.
Pam Loman of Shawnee, OK. went through the same experience a few weeks later, scaring off
three men trying to break into her home. http://www.breitbart.com/BigGovernment/2013/01/13/Oklahoma-Woman-Stops-Robbers-With-Her-Gun reports: She was
cleaning her home on Friday when a man knocked on her front door, while two others stayed in
the car. When she did not answer the man resorted to banging on the door. Mrs. Loman got
scared and went for her gun.So my instinct was to go get a gun. I dont know why, I never in
my life felt like I needed to go get a gun, said Mrs. Loman. She had both hands on her .32caliber pistol when the man knocked down her door. And just all of a sudden, with one kick, he
knocked the door completely in. The frame came flying down. Things came flying everywhere,
she said. And he saw that I had the gun, and he grabbed the door handle and pulled the door
shut. Mrs. Loman said if he did not run away and came into the house she would have shot
him.
At the risk of pun intended overkill, here are ten other stories cited by John Hawkins that you
may review to understand how guns saved the lives of men or women, stopped rapes and
saved the lives of children: http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/02/02/10-storiesthat-prove-guns-save-lives-n1503549/page/full/. Another similar story of a woman saved from
being beaten possibly to death by a concealed gun carrier who protected her is here:
http://fox6now.com/2013/03/12/marine-with-concealed-carry-permit-stops-man-from-beatingwoman/ . And heres a few more for the road in the event the above is not enough to convince
you of the utility of guns to save lives:

12

A convenience store clerk and an immigrant defend themselves against attackers in

Florida. The attackers fired first and were aiming to kill, these men defended themselves
and protected the innocent. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/15/3183760/tworobbers-shot-dead-in-hollywood.html

A man in San Antonio walks out to find a man going through the contents of his locked
vehicle. He confronts the man and lawfully defends his life and his property.
http://www.kens5.com/news/SAPD-Car-thief-killed-another-wounded-outside-Stone-Oakhome-186923501.html

A family in TN had a man threaten to break their door down in the middle of the night.
They went for their firearms and called for help. They called the police who responded
remarkably fast, in just 4 minutes they were there. Unfortunately it took less than 4
minutes for the criminal to break their door down and come in their home, even after
being shot at. This was a man determined to achieve his criminal
actions.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/15/Tennessee-Family-UsesFirearms-To-Stop-Late-Night-Intruder

A woman home alone in Oklahoma in the middle of the afternoon has a man kick her
door in. She was quick enough to grab her revolver and the man upon seeing the
revolver closed that door he just kicked in and turned tail. I bet she wishes she had more
than 6 rounds available to her, I guess in NY she could have had seven.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/13/Oklahoma-Woman-StopsRobbers-With-Her-Gun

A man in Houston has a criminal shove a gun in his chest as he tries to get into his
vehicle. Two nearby good Samaritans come to his defense and give chase to the
criminal while they are being shot at. The victim a non-gun owner sure seemed thankful
that these two men happened to have their carry permits issued to them.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/Robbery-victim-wants-to-thank-Good-Samaritans-whocame-to-his-rescue186572461.html. This story illustrates exactly how guns have been
used in the citizenrys responsibility to protect the innocent (see
http://www.protectfreedom.com/2012/12/17/gun-control-and-the-second-amendmentneed-to-find-harmony/ for one writers take on this).

Thankfully, something like the above would never happen to gun grabbers Dianne Feinstein,
Chuck Shumer or any of the Hollywood glitterati, as they are surrounded by guards, who are
armed. In fact, Obama signed a bill Jan., 2013 that rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a
10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. The bill, which will cost
American taxpayers millions of dollars will have Obama (and other presidents) protected for life
as well as their children up to age 16, by armed guard. Hypocritically, during an ABC Nightline
interview recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his reelection was the ability to have men with guns around at all times, in order to protect his
daughters (see http://www.bizpacreview.com/2012/12/29/obama-admits-to-wanting-men-withguns-guarding-his-daughters-12581 ) The Sidwell Friends school attended by Obamas
daughters in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security guards on duty at all times
(http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service ). Of course, the NRA suggestion of arming
trained school staff for the poor unwashed masses at the common public school has been
derided by the elite thats only for the special people! Or as the Washington Times put it, As
The Washington Times put it:
It is important to remember that while they are talking about disarming you and me, they are
not talking about disarming themselves. They will still be coddled in their fortresses. The closer
you get to the Capitol the more armed guards there are. Up close, there are bomb proof guard
shacks, literally, on every street corner. Squads of machine gun-carrying guards dot the
magnificent marble buildingscape at all times. Leaders in Congress ride around with escorts of
huge armed men. Is that because what they do every day is more dangerous than what you
and I do every day Cited from http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/washington-times-gun-freezones-are-only-for-the-little-people/#ixzz2JlOzSVO7 . Meanwhile, what happens to the average
citizen who as in the case of post-Katrina New Orleans is disarmed by the authorities?
Hear for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVyV9ojTA_I . Better, listen to real police
13

themselves tell you that you are on your own until they can get there whenever that is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1AQ1WBb81BE#t=14s
Below: Sidwell Friends, another gun free school NOT!

Sen. Diane Feinstein, who wants Mr. and Mrs. America to turn in their guns,(see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=blXkl9YVoHo#t=2s where she
states this ) admitted to availing herself of concealed carry for her own protection at one point
see http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B1EObqM9Z0s#t=2s . Of
course, our aforementioned gun control nut NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg has armed
bodyguards at all times, and, in personal communication with a friend and neighbor who is a
recently retired senior staff member from the Illinois State Police, he noted that at least up to
2009 when he retired, Bill Ayers, the leftist, Obama crypto-crony who was co-founder of the
communist Weather Underground (that conducted bombings of public buildings, including
police stations, the U.S. Capitol Building, and the Pentagon), whenever he was in a classroom
teaching at Univ. of Illinois Chicago, was always assigned to have armed state police in his
classroom for protection. Its just you, dear reader,that are left to your own (unarmed) devices
when you are threatened.
And lets not forget the ever-hypocritical gun controller Michael Moore, who also maintains
armed bodyguards, one of whom was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon at New Yorks
JFK airport back in 2005.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144921,00.html#ixzz2FnQC65J3 . Yes, this is the
selfsame Mikey Moore who owned shared of Haliburton (see Peter Schweizers book Do As I
Say, Not as I Do: Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy) and has both an extremely expensive penthouse
in NY, as well as a massive, multimillion dollar mansion on Torch Lake, MI., as seen below.

14

(Of course, the ultimate example of hypocrisy was illustrated by NY Governor Cuomo who
stated after Sandy Hook, in granting permission for Learjet leftist Hollywood to bring AR-15s to
New York, that "There's no reason not to make a change ... to give an industry comfort,
"especially ... [one] we want to do business in the state." Apparently, Cuomo didnt desire to
hinder any of those uber-leftist, gun-control fanatics Hollywooders from making movies that
glorify the criminal violence he's claims hes trying to end.)
In contrast to the heavily defended Sidwell Friends school, or the latte leftists protected by gun
toting guards, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures
the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead);
Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); the Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa.
(five little girls killed); a public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little
girls).
And heres one more question: What if it is not only a half dozen people killed, but rather
something like the horrific Beslan School massacre in gun control-happy Russia in 2004? 334
people were slaughtered over half children by Chechnyan Islamists. Good thing everyone in
the school was unarmed right?
One might consider dare I quote him? Michael Moore, in perhaps the single lucid comment
of his entire career. Regarding the Sandy Hook massacre, he wrote in the Huffington Post: The
killer only ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were swarming onto the school grounds
i.e, the men with the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, he stopped the bloodshed and
killed himself. Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or 40 or 100 deaths from
happening. Guns sometimes work. Of course, Moore goes off on another deranged tangent
after this, but in this case he actually got one paragraph right. And perhaps, with the direction
our society is going, a properly secured firearm on school premises, wielded by fully trained
school staff, may be what is needed. Why should there be a wait be for the police to arrive as
more death occurs?
In fact, police themselves, as a rule, support civilian use of guns, and not just high profile cases
such as several sheriffs in Colorado, Utah, or the sheriff of Milwaukee, WI. Heres what police,
themselves, think, per a questionnaire submitted to 15,000 law-enforcement personnel, asking
about civilian gun use:
When asked what the likely outcome would have been at Aurora and Newtown had a legally
armed civilian been there, 80 percent said there would have been fewer casualties; 6.2 percent

15

said it would have prevented casualties altogether. Only 5.5 percent thought it would have led to
greater loss of life.
When asked what could be done to prevent future mass public shootings, the most popular
answer picked by 28.8 percent was for more permissive concealed carry policies for
civilians. More aggressive institutionalization of the mentally ill was the choice of 19.6 percent.
More armed guards were favored by 15.8 percent. Of course, none of these solutions are
acceptable to the gun grabbers. Improved background checks were in fourth place, the choice
of 14 percent of the respondents, followed by longer prison terms when guns are used in violent
crimes (7.9 percent). What did the law-enforcement professionals have to say about about the
lefts favorite solutions? A meager 1.5 percent put tighter limits on weapons sales at the top of
their list. While legislative restrictions on assault weapons and larger magazines didnt even
get a nod from one out of 100 of the boys and girls in blue, it was the choice of .9 percent.
When it comes to making the public safer, including our children, the only professional group
devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility has the right
answer: Get more arms in the right hands. And do a better job of getting the truly crazy off the
streets. (Cited from http://personalliberty.com/2013/04/19/a-huge-defeat-for-the-gun-grabbers/)
Dr. Lott, the former gun control advocate turned gun supporter, documents many thousands of
similar situations where civilian guns saved lives, but here is one woman, in her own words,
discussing after the fact how her gun saved her life: http://bcove.me/zgbghtxu. As a matter of
fact, Gun Owners of America, at http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm, cites statistics indicating
guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense, or around 80 times a day (other statistics
estimate this number could range as low as 1.5 million, but either number is a lot!). This
includes 200,000 women a year using guns to defend themselves against sexual abuse in
fact, here is the actual 911 recording of some woman doing exactly that:
http://www.therightscoop.com/holy-crap-911-call-of-woman-defending-herself-against-stalkerwho-broke-into-her-house/. It is precisely these situations that the gun grabbers would make
worse! As a matter of fact, as of 2008, armed citizens killed more violent bad guys than the
police (1,527 vs. 606). Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to
prevent crime than they are to take lives (http://thetruthwins.com/archives/you-wont-believe-thecrazy-things-that-are-being-said-about-gun-owners ). Cato Institute has a complete article on
this topic for your further reading, Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from
Citizens," In fact, renowned author and poet Maya Angelou is a poster child (make that elder)
for using guns in self-defense, telling Time Magazine in 2013 she once stopped a a presumed
attempted burglary at here home by firing her gun. Said Angelou: I do like to have guns
around I dont like to carry them, but I like if somebody is going to come into my house and I
have not put out the welcome mat I want to stop them.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2139706,00.html
Interestingly, during the composition of this paper, during a radio broadcast on WMBI radio, April
23, 2013, at 1:15 AM, a caller who identified himself as George, the owner of a limousine
company, stated something very interesting, that corroborates the above. He noted that, as
airlines at one point prohibited people from transporting guns, criminals in Florida would follow
people who took out rental cars at airports to rob them, knowing they would be unarmed. Just a
small tidbit, lost to history, and ignored by the politically correct but for those murdered during
these crimes, including children the gun grabbers are complicit.
And what happens when people are not able to arm themselves? Just ask the citizens of
Hungerford, England, where twenty years ago Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree, killing
16 people. As no one in the town was armed, he took over eight hours before anyone with a
firearm was alerted and able to stop the rampage. While Obama used children a stage props,
16

including plaintive letters from children asking him to ban guns in his January, 2013 anti-gun dog
and pony anti-gun sales pitch, he forgot to discuss the recent cases of Kendra St. Claire, who
used a gun to protect herself from a home intruder, a mother who shot an intruder to protect her
two young sons, or an 18 year old widowed mother who shot two intruders to protect her baby.
GUN CONTROL SIMPLY DOES NOT REDUCE CRIME
Importantly, Dr. Lott is not alone in his opinions on gun control. As David Kupelian writes at
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/how-obamas-gun-order-will-backfire/ , during Jimmy Carters leftist
tenure, he also tried to push through draconian gun control laws. And what better way to do so
than by funding a massive four year study at Univ. of Massachusetts, conducted by Drs. James
Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly, under the auspices of the National Inst. of Justice
supposed to be the most comprehensive study on the subject ever done. The study came out in
in 1981, in three volumes, entitled Under the Gun. This work is available to the gun grabbers,
but unfortunately they arent going to read it any time soon, as the Cliff Notes version of the
study is as summarized by co-author Wright, Gun control laws do no reduce crime, and the
authors, who started out as gun control advocates like Dr. Lott, ended up like Dr. Lott, changing
their minds .(Dr. Lott himself has also stated Gun control just does not work. Indeed, it makes
things worse.) A slightly longer Cliff Notes version of the study was rendered by David Kopel,
co-author of the law school textbook Firearms Law and the Second Amendment. Says Kopel
Carefully reviewing all existing research to date, the three scholars found no persuasive
scholarly evidence that Americas 20,000 gun-control laws had reduced criminal violence.
Some of the findings of the study included:
-

The landmark federal Gun Control Act of 1968, banning most interstate gun sales, had
no discernible impact on the criminal acquisition of guns from other states.

Detroits law providing mandatory sentences for felonies committed with a gun was
found to have no effect on gun-crime patterns.

Washington, D.C.s 1977 ban on the ownership of handguns (except those already
registered in the District) was not linked to any reduction in gun crime in the nations
capital.

Polls claiming to show that a large majority of the population favored more gun control
were debunked as being the product of biased questions, and of the fact that most
people have no idea how strict gun laws already are.

Some other findings from the National Institute of Justice studies include statements such as
The report finds no significant link between assault weapons and murders and Since assault
weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicides and the existing stock of guns is
large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence.
Similar to the Jimmy Carter era gun laws, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
the Clinton era, signed into law in 1994, and was in place for a decade, did zilch, too, as the
number of mass shootings actually increased slightly during that time., and a study by
Northeastern University, the Census Bureau and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel showed that in
the 10 years prior to the Clinton gun bank there were 173 mass shootings (as they defined
them) with 766 victims, but during the decade of the Clinton ban, there were 182 mass
shootings with 820 victims.

17

Yet another 2003 study by The Centers for Disease Control, which is known as supporting gun
control, published a major study in 2003 that acknowledged, The Task Force found insufficient
evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws
reviewed on violent outcomes. (Dont worry as soon as you cough up yet some more tax
dollars, the left will be back at it. Perhaps this time tying guns to global warming/cooling/change
in fact, in January of 2013, Christy Hefner of Playboy Enterprises did exactly that see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf5bRoReLa8 or http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/30/center-foramerican-progress-christie-hefner-climate-change-a-factor-in-chicagos-murder-rate/ ).
Would it help to hear an eyewitness account of someone who was in a shooting, and saw her
parents killed because she was restricted from carrying a gun to protect herself? Watch Dr.
Susan Gratia explain her personal experience, before the U.S. Congress, of being defenseless
in the face of an attacker http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=mMloa_eU5gA&feature=player_embedded And speaking of women, why is there a war by
the left on women when it comes to guns? In 2012 CBS news reported "female participation in
target shooting in the U.S. has nearly doubled in the last decade, growing to nearly five million
women since 2001." Only leftists treat women as stupid. . Women know what the left is doing to
this country, and by extension, their safety. And women are voting with their feet by running to
the nearest gun store and learning how to shoot. But gun grabbers dont seem to care one whit
about the women they want to disarm. But I guess that is you know. the leftists war on
women. They talked about it a lot during the fall, 2012 campaign. Only now it appears they
must have been referring to their own war against women. And speaking of wars, you will notice
zero lamestream media coverage of anti-gun people threatening to kill the NRA leaders
children, not less. http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/31/anti-gun-advocates-threaten-to-kill-nrachairmans-son-video/ .
The unfortunate thing about the Colorado shooting is that, while Colorado has concealed carry
laws, the theatre where the shooting occurred was a gun free zone - despite what Roger Ebert
fallaciously stated in the New York Times (as a matter of fact, Warner Houston at Breitbart.com
wrote in 2009 that an Alaskan member of a gun owners message board had wanted to enter a
Cinemark theatre, but was refused entry because it was gun free zone). So, what about other
locales in Colorado where concealed carry is allowed, and a shooter began a rampage? We
have exact, historical records: In Dec., 2007, five people were shot (two killed) when gunman
Matthew Murray, packing a semi-automatic rifle and two pistols, attacked the New Life Church in
Colorado Springs (he had gone to another site previously, killing two, while wounding others).
This might have been a tragedy similar in scope to the recent Batman movie shooting except
that the gunman was shot by church security office Jeanne Assam with her personally owned
concealed weapon. Similarly, on April 22nd scant months before this tragedy, and also in
Aurora, CO. a convicted felon shot and killed the mother of the pastor, Delano Stephan of
New Destiny Christian Center as the service was ending. We dont know how far this could have
escalated as the shooter was shot and killed by someone with a concealed gun. (See
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/04/22/2-shot-outside-aurora-church/.
A church shooting at a multi-cultural South African church occurred a few years back, with
similar results to the Colorado Springs shooting. Known as the St. James Massacre, in 1993, a
packed Sunday evening church service of approximately 1,000 worshippers was attacked by
Islamic terrorists, who used automatic weapons as well as grenades. They assumed they would
meet no armed resistance, but were mistaken. Charl Van Wyk was carrying a .38 revolver that
18

evening, unknown to the attackers. With 11 worshippers dead, and 53 others wounded, Van
Wyk outgunned and alone chased the attackers from the scene, preventing a much higher,
Columbine-like death toll (and what, exactly, would have happened, if, say, the principal at
Columbine had been equipped and trained with a firearm during that attack? Would have ended
up similar to this?) Said Van Wyk afterwards, "When last did you hear of a multiple-victim
shooting taking place on a firearm range, in a police station or at a gun show, or wherever many
firearms are found anywhere in the world?" asks Van Wyk. "You haven't. That's because
criminals prefer unarmed victims, or soft targets. No wonder they love gun control it makes
their work so much easier and their working environment much safer." Van Wyks story is retold
in his book Shooting Back.
Incidentally, Aurora, CO., where the tragic Holmes shooting occurred, has some of the most
strict gun laws in the state, including:

Dangerous weapons including firearms prohibited.

Revocation of license for furnishing a firearm to a minor or someone under the influence.

Window displays cannot include firearms with barrels less than 12 inches long.

Unlawful to carry concealed dangerous weapon.

Unlawful to discharge firearms, unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range.

Unlawful to possess firearm while under the influence of intoxicant.

Unlawful to have loaded firearm in motor vehicle.

Unlawful for a juvenile to possess a firearm.

Of course, all the explosives in Holmes apartment were illegal, too. And in Sandy Hook, Adam
Lanza had already broken 41 laws when his shooting stopped. Apparently adding a 42nd law will
make all the difference?
Dr. John Lott also discussed the Aurora theatre killing, stating There, you have seven movie
theaters that were showing the Batman movie when it opened at the end of July. Out of those
seven movie theaters, only one movie theater was posted as banning permit-concealed
handguns. The killer didnt go to the movie theater that was closest to his home. He didnt go to
the movie theater that was the largest movie theater in Colorado, which was essentially the
same distance from his apartment as the one he ended up going to. Instead, the one he picked
was the only one of those movie theaters that banned people taking permit-concealed
handguns into that theater. What is it about facts like this that leftists dont get?
One state to the west, Utah, saw a similar situation where on Feb. 12, 2007, Muslim Sulejman
Talovic, who told his girlfriend the day before his rampage that his martyrdom would be the
happiest day of his life, opened fire in the crowded Trolley Square mall, killing five.
Unfortunately for Sulejman, there was was an armed bystander, off-duty Ogden policeman Ken
Hammond. Officer Hammond pinned down Talovic preventing futher deaths - until a SWAT
team arrived and provided the martyrdom Talovic wanted. Hammond was credited with saving
countless lives something, unfortunately, the gun free zone in Aurora, CO. did not
experience.
And regarding the limited bullet magazine issue, a few points need to be made. First, it is
common knowledge that stopping power with certain calibers is questionable. William
Levinson, in Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine, in American Thinker, Jan. 3,
2013, notes this was learned by the US Army in the war in the Philippines during the early
19

1900s, when more than one dead US soldier was found with an empty gun by his side, a head
split open by a machete, and a dead adversary not too far away who had later bled to death.
The issue caused the Army to change calibers to a .45 caliber. Of course, not everyone carries,
or is able to carry or use, something so big and powerful, and what is carried may not be able to
convince a determined attacker who is, say, hopped up on PCP. (See
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/gov_cuomo_heres_why_your_seven_shot_gun_
magazine_limit_is_already_outdated.html for a full rendering of the drugged up attacker issue
perhaps multiple attackers!)This also assumes accurate shooting something people struggle
with in the best of times under perfect training conditions with a stationary target!
I personally have a neighbor, a former Marine and retired senior Illinois state trooper, who
related the story to me of one fellow Illinois policeman who was shot through the heart and of
course died but before dying was able to continue his return attack by running approximately
50 yards and killing his attacker. This same state trooper related to me another situation where
an armed attacker took some nurses hostage at the Illinois Inst. for Mental Health at 1601 W.
Taylor St. in Chicago in the early 1990s, and engaged in a gunfire exchange with multiple police,
led by one Lt. Ottomo of the CMS. Despite being hit by as estimated by my state trooper
neighbor - between fourteen and eighteen 9 mm rounds and three shotgun blasts, he continued
to resist by shooting until he was finally jumped by the police and physically subdued. This
criminal actually survived the encounter with a minimum seventeen shots to his body. And all
this with highly trained police shooters!
A similar case to the above occurred in Miami in 1986, in a shootout between two bank robbers,
William R. Matix and Michael Lee Platt, and police. While both robbers were killed, so were two
officers, with three more seriously wounded. Sadly, one of the bad guys, William Matix was hit
through his arm and lung, but still went on after that to kill two of the Miami Division special
agents who had stopped him before dying himself.
A similar example is the case multiple bullets not stopping an individual is the sad case of Dustin
Theoharris, who was an innocent party in a mistaken Seattle area police shooting, who was hit
16 times at very close range by the police (with 20 total bullets shot), and lived. See
http://personalliberty.com/2013/04/17/sleeping-man-shot-16-times-may-sue-police-for-abuse/
Incidentally, in arguing for large magazines, it is of note that 20% of the bullets the trained police
shot, at close range, actually missed. In Katie Pavlichs article, Why Do We Need High Capacity
Magazines? To Stop the Bad Guys, found at
http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2013/04/17/why-do-we-need-high-capacitymagazines-to-stop-the-bad-guys-n1570035?
utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl she outlines the same concern,
noting knock-down power does not exist with small arms. As one instructor put it, Real life
isnt like in the movies when somebody gets shot with a handgun and they go flying across the
room and handguns of all types dont reliably stop a dedicated adversary from stopping their
actions. Rather, many times multiple rounds are simply needed. In fact, according to Pavlich,
Overseas, the average number of rounds per enemy casualty is 50,000. The truth is, its not
always easy to hit your target when youre under stress.
And William Levinson reviewing the cases of home invasion by multiple gang bangers in his
above noted article, Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine, is not alone. Just one
example out of approximately 8,000 home invasions per year was discussed in the April, 2013
20

edition of the Chicago Tribune at

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/schaumburg_hoffman_estates/chi-copsman-one-of-4-to-storm-hoffman-estates-home-with-assault-rifle-20130427,0,1180374.story, in
article entitled: Cops: Man one of 4 to storm Hoffman Estates home with assault rifle, where a
suburban Chicago home was assaulted by five men and robbed. An AR-15 on the side of the
defender sure could have come in handy there!
Perhaps in the Hollywood movies, one shot is placed perfectly every time. But if so, I suggest
we then require the Learjet leftists of Hollywood, or our politicians in D.C., to have their armed
guards allowed pistols with only a couple shots. And we should also ask why the police get to
defend themselves with multiple bullet magazines, but the average citizen cannot. As Levinson
asks in
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/01/the_antigun_movements_bridge_too_far.htm
l, if it is true that ordinary citizens have the basic natural right to self-defense (which, importantly,
pre-dates the Constitution), then they have a legitimate need for the same kind of weapons that
are available to police officers. If a police officer or a civilian has to use a firearm for any nonsporting reason, he or she must use it for exactly the same application: self-protection against
one or more violent individuals. What is so difficult to understand about this?
A very clear, real-life video demonstration of the futility of limiting magazines is illustrated by
Sheriff Ken Campbell of Boone County, IN..at http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=b2Upjn5DR0o&feature=player_embedded#t=6s. In a nutshell, the accompanying story, found
at http://www.examiner.com/article/new-video-destroys-myth-about-large-capacity-magazines,
notes a shooter, using a Glock pistol, fired his first string with two 15-round magazines in
20.64 seconds, then with three ten-round magazines in 18.05 seconds and finally with five sixround magazines in 21.45 seconds. Another shooter, and inexperienced woman identified as
Christy, then repeated the exercise, firing the same sequence, with two 15-round magazines
in 22.9 seconds, three ten-rounders in 25.51 seconds and the final five six-round magazines in
26.93 seconds. Now, I slept through junior high math class, but even I, myself, can do this kind
of math. Magazine limitations will do little to nothing to stop further Sandy Hooks and Aurora,
CO. massacres. This story is also found at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/01/sheriffdebunks-fallacies-surrounding-gun-magazines-in-this-viral-vid-plus-his-response-to-bidensshotgun-advice/ Very importantly, this video shows that the time it takes to change magazine
would not allow someone from even 25 feet away to get halfway to the shooter before he can
change magazines and start firing again. And while on the subject of sheriffs speaking out, here
is a compilation of sheriffs speaking out against gun control across the countryhttp://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=727C44A99F2D84C3A9D00F4BC69D8D39
Now compare the above information to Dianne Feinsteins comment here: Limiting magazine
capacity is critical, because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to
pause to change magazines and reload that, the police or brave bystanders have the
opportunity to take that individual down."
But, the reality is that Feinstein has even less of a clue about the magazine issue than noted
above. The fact of the matter is that the average number of rounds used by a criminal in a
homicide is less than five. As Magpul Industries noted on their Facebook site at
http://www.facebook.com/magpul/posts/575588089120211 "We are told that one of the reasons
that [Colorado] Gov Hickenlooper [signed] the magazine ban is the statistic presented by the
Golden police chief that an increasing number of Law Enforcement officers have been shot with
magazines that hold more than 10 rounds since the expiration of the federal AWB. Since most
handguns ship with standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 or even 15 rounds,
21

that would make sense ... but what that statistic doesn't tell you is that the average number of
rounds fired in a criminal homicide is less than 5 rounds. The capacity of the magazine never
comes into play. It just happens to be what is in the firearm, regardless of how many rounds
were actually fired. This is just another example of how the anti-gun lobby has to twist statistics
in order to find support for their position. The real, objective facts support none of their agenda,
so half-truths and distorted statistics are used to tell the story they want to tell.... As this fight
continues, ask for the whole picture. Ask how polls were conducted, and what questions were
asked before believing their 'stats'. Question bias is another favorite tactic of the anti-gun lobby.
Accept no statistic without the whole picture."
FIREARMS AND THE CONSTITUTION
Thus, it appears George Washington had it exactly right, when he said A free people ought not
only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And
their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render
them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies. (George
Washington's First Annual Message to Congress January 8, 1790, cited from
http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=324. James Madison felt
similarly, stating in the Federalist No. 46, in 1788 "Besides the advantage of being armed,
which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of
subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are
appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any
which a simple government of any form can admit of." And George Mason, in a speech at the
Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788 state "[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was
formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was
governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to
enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink
gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."
Yet another Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson agreed with Washington and Madison,
saying "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the
assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be
attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." Jefferson also noted "The constitutions of
most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that it is their right and duty
to be at all times armed and The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Cesare
Beccaria, another, lesser known Founding Father, also concurred with Jefferson, noting: "Laws
that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to
commit crimes. ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants;
they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be
attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Now, if you are concerned these might have been the only two founding fathers in support of the
right to bear arms, I direct you to http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm, where you will read over a
dozen other quotes from founding fathers strongly encouraging
the right to bear arms, including more by George Mason, coauthor of the Second Amendment during Virginias Convention to
ratify the Constitution, 1788 who wrote, I ask, Sir, what is the
militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best
and most effectual way to enslave them. Richard Henry Lee,
American Statesman, 1788 penned To preserve liberty, it is
22

essential that that whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike,
especially when young, how to use them. Noah Webster himself wrote in his An Examination
of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, in 1787, "Before a standing army can rule,
the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme
power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the
people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on
any pretence, raised in the United States." And of course Patrick Henry hit the nail on the head
when he stated to the Virginia Ratifying Convention "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if,
to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you
could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a
democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the
punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?" And Henry may have
well sounded the same rallying cry today that he did over 200 years ago, when he asked Are
we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted
with arms for our own defense? A very instructive 10 minute YouTube of Founding Father
quotes on guns can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Yx4xjxmPwQo&feature=player_embedded#t=252s
Joseph Story, who served on the Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845, and is known for his
authoritative Commentaries on the Constitution, made crystal clear what the Founders thought
the 2nd Amendment was about and for:
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected
upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign
invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against
sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in
time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile
means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or
trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly
been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral
check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are
successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
The fact is that the Founding Fathers knew and as was expressly stated in the Constitution
that our rights come from the Creator, not government. And because this is so, government
cannot rescind them from the common man. That is, unless, the government is of, perhaps, the
National Socialist persuasion in which case you would find laws like the Nazi Weapons Law of
November 11, 1938, the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons found at
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/NaziLawEnglish.htm. As a matter of fact, the Founding Fathers in
some senses were simply continuing the logic of earlier English common law and the English
Bill or Rights of 1689, which included the right to bear arms. William Blackstone (1723 1780)
perhaps one of the most significant legal minds of the English-speaking world, stated this right
was part and parcel of the natural right to self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic
duty for the people to be able to act common defense of the state (essentially, the militia). In a
nutshell, the 2nd Amendment came from a long lineage of experience and thoughtful
consideration it was not the product of the Ku Klux Klan, David Koresh nut jobs inside their
Waco compound, some other kind of misanthropic community.
The philosophy the Founding Fathers had did not die with them, of course. Even President
Andrew Jackson, who was of the next generation, and died in 1845, stated The right of
resisting oppression is a natural right.
Even in modern times, Ronald Reagan understood the issue, stating "The gun has been called
the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a
23

great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government
whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed and There
are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their
security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting
government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the
means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the
Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they
are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism -government." This is the same Reagan that reminded us that "We must reject the idea that
every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the
American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions" and When dictators come
to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons. ... I do not believe that [our
nation's leaders] have any desire to impose a dictatorship upon us. But this does not mean that
such will always be the case. A nation rent internally, as ours has been in recent years, is
always ripe for a 'man on a white horse.' A deterrent to that man, or to any man seeking
unlawful power, is the knowledge that those who oppose him are not helpless."
But lets leave Reagan behind as another conservative leftists hate. So how about Hubert
Humphrey, Democrat vice president under LBJ. Heres his thoughts on guns: "The right of the
citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more
safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has
proved to be always possible." Earlier, John F. Kennedy similarly noted, Today, we need a
nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard
the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life. Hardly Dianne Feinstein!
This is clearly at odds with New York governor Cuomos statement in 2013 that "What the
extremists do is spread fear and unrealistic theories of conspiracies and the citizenry that needs
to be armed because the government is possibly tyrannical, and they need their arms to defend
themselves against the tyrannical government." Does Cuomo think JFK, Hubert Humphrey, as
well as the other significant Americans quoted within this paper are extremists?
And prior to Humphrey, in 1943 Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson created legal precedent
about the inherent viz., natural rights that are recognized, not granted by the American
government, that The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the
vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials
and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. Ones right to life, liberty,
and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other
fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote they depend on the outcome of no
elections. I might mention that the 2nd Amendment is ummm one of the amendments!
In our present day, fellow conservative Allan West concurred with Reagan, noting An armed
man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject. Columnist Christopher Brownell summarized
both Wests and Reagans sentiments by stating Turning men into slaves is not love. But that is
what gun control is all about: turning men into slaves. Love for mankind is not in taking care of
him, but in letting him be free to take care of himself. With gun control, liberals want to take
away the means for men to preserve their liberty." But perhaps the pithiest comments came
from Sen. Rand Paul, who when asked about Obamas gun control laws by CBN simply
stated Im against having a king. I think having a monarch is what we fought the American
Revolution over and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, thats
someone who wants to act like a king or a monarch, and Gov. Rick Perry, who said Guns
require a finger to pull the trigger. The sad young man who did that in Newtown was clearly
haunted by demons and no gun law could have saved the children in Sandy Hook Elementary
from his terror. There is evil prowling in the world it shows up in our movies, video games and
online fascinations, and finds its way into vulnerable hearts and minds. As a free people, let us
24

choose what kind of people we will be. Laws, the only redoubt of secularism, will not suffice. Let
us all return to our places of worship and pray for help. Above all, let us pray for our children.
Indeed, it appears ex-Secret Service agent Mike Bogino was correct when he said about the
whole gun grabber agenda There is no such thing as gun control, theres only people control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8WLXhahw_A&feature=player_embedded#t=81s. Bodino
concludes by noting the right to own guns is not granted by legislator, any more than the right to
free speech or the right of free assembly. Rather, the right to these as well as the right to own
firearms - is intrinsically the citizens right, and recognized, not granted. And the reason, Bodino
notes, is that we live in a society of wolves and you cannot fight back by creating more sheep.
Boginos sentiments were echoed by Cuban refugee, Manuel Martinez, who noted in his halting
English testimony before the Oregon state government that In 1957 a Revolution individuals
malicious individuals, masquerading as Democrats, revolutionaries, established a regime
a dictatorial regime in my nation. Called Communism, Socialism, Stalinism, Marxism, and
whatever other named -ism you want to put on it. The reason why it was done was to take away
the guns from the People. The right of the people to wear guns. That is a God-given Right. Its
not given by anybody. Its not given by any group. Its the same thing as freedom, which is a
God-given Right. And no one, absolutely no one, has the authority to take it away. To cease to
defend the Second Amendment, and my God-given Right of freedom, will cease only with my
death.Gun Control does not protect anybody. It doesnt protect the citizens, it doesnt protect the
People. The only reason for gun control is for the Government to be protected from the Citizens.
In that way the Government can manipulate the People and subjugate them. Thats whats
happened in Cuba for 52 years 54. The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=N1ABw6IMKn0&feature=player_embedded#t=78s
Interestingly, even in Piers Morgans England, Sir William Blackstone, in his 1765
Commentaries on the Laws of England, a seminal work that profoundly influenced Americas
founders, said that having arms for defense is a natural right of resistance and selfpreservation.
Now as you reflect on these quotes, call to mind quotes of gun control fanatics like Rep.
Jerrold Nadler (Communist NY) who told a reporter: the state should have a monopoly on
legitimate violence. Of course, Nadler did not define what legitimate violence is, or who gets
to define it, or in what circumstances it is defined. The truth is, as Bob Livingston states, When
the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence, Americans are no longer citizens; they are
subjects. Americans will not become subjects. It is for precisely this reason that writer Robert
Anderson wrote in Gun Control and Political Correctness Citizen gun ownership is ultimately a
form of "insurance" for a future, unknowable risk. Switzerland, as well as our own country, has
acknowledged and practiced this form of "insurance" for a long time. We all know gun
ownership by citizens can impose heavy costs, but they are costs dwarfed by the greater horror
of millions of future citizens being denied any means to defend themselves against an evil
government slaughtering them with impunity.
But just in case you are still unconvinced, let me add a few more Founding Father quotes for
your reading pleasure: Richard Henry Lee wrote "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the
whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young,
how to use them; Samuel Adams stated "And that the said Constitution be never construed to
authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to
prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own
25

arms; Patrick Henry added "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing
degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference
between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the
management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose
hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" And
finally, Thomas Jefferson stated, "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in governmentWhen the
people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is
liberty."
You will note that the Founding Fathers envisioned the ownership of guns not just for hunting, or
self-defense, but also to protect against tyranny. British General Howe disarmed Philadelphia in
1778, and his counterpart Gen. Gage had done the same the previous year in Boston. Tench
Coxe, a lesser-known Founding Father discussed this very issue in an article in the
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1778, stating: [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the
hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in
the hands of the people. Are we really that much more removed from the danger of tyranny
today than back then? And if you answer in the affirmative, on what basis do you arrive at this
conclusion? Certainly, modern writers like Edward Abbey, who wrote An armed citizenry is
the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny echo exactly
what Founding Fathers like George Mason, a delegate from Virginia to the United States
Constitutional Convention, who once made the following thought provoking statement, stated
about arms allowing us to resist tyranny: [W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was
formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor
of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave
them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.
The truth is, as Tim Young states in Personal Liberty, that The
Constitution was written with revolution in mind, not the peace
that we have internally had for about 150 years now. I say 150
years, because we fought ourselves with our armed militias in
the Civil War; we have been lucky to have had internal peace
since then. But you cant closed-mindedly say that the 2nd
Amendment was for limited weapons. It just wasnt. It was
meant to keep people on the same level as the government so
that they could fight for their rights if necessary.
http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/07/pointcounterpoint-your-2nd-amendment-rights/ And also of
note re. the 2nd Amendment the Constitution says it guarantees, not grants, our gun rights.
There is all the difference in the world between those two verbs! As a matter of fact, as Robert
Steed, of Vernon, CT., noted in his states gun control hearings after Sandy Hook, the
Constitution does not guarantee public safety rather it guarantees liberty. Listen to Steed,
himself, speak at http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=ledhyTAE2zo&feature=player_embedded#t=0s (6:43 min).

26

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the public at large does not succumb to tyranny.
And in fact, the public at large is the militia the whole of the people composed of citizen
soldiers from the community, whose very reason detre is to defend the community, by carrying
weapons comparable to what individual soldiers would have. And what part of shall not be
infringed do the gun grabbers not get? How much more explicit does the Constitution need to
be?
In fact, one Tienanmen Square survivor, who emigrated and moved to the US, had virtually the
exact same words to say about guns, freedom and liberty as those dead white guys, the
Founding Fathers. His six minute address is at at http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=miEmIfhfxuc&feature=player_embedded#t=0s, or, to summarize his salient points:
The power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed.
Chinese patriots in Tiananmen were crushed by AK-47s because they could not fight back
as they were not armed.
The argument that a man with a rifle has no standing against the military technology and
machine of today is ridiculous. 20,000,000 residents of Beijing would have quickly proved that
wrong had they been armed in 1989.
When a government turns criminal, when a government turns deranged, the body count will not
be 5, 10, or even 20. It will be in hundreds like Tiananmen Square, it will be in the millions
When a government has a monopoly on guns, it has absolute power.
When a government has all the guns, it has all the rights.
To me, a rifle is not for sporting or hunting. It is an instrument of freedom. It guarantees that I
cannot be coerced, that I have free will, that I am a free man.
Here is a man we must listen to, unless we want to end up like oppressive China ourselves.

And lets examine one case where guns ensured justice that will set the leftist gun grabbers
hearts a-twitter the 1964, desegregation of the Jonesboro High School in Louisiana.
Authorities resisted the desegregation, including the use of fire hoses and similar on black
27

citizens. Things did not look positive, until four regular, everyday-type black men with shotguns
showed up. No shots were fired, the mob melted away, the authorities retreated, and the kids
went into the school without incident. These men called themselves the Deacons for the
Defense an armed citizens militia in the town, which also protected black citizens from the
Klan, and which spread throughout the south. Previously, if black citizens were unarmed, they
could not protect themselves, nor go to the voting booths without fear and engage in their
Constitutional rights to vote. The right to bear arms allowed blacks to protect these rights, and
even. ML King even hired the Deacons to protect marches. A short video on this topic is found at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qzYKisvBN1o.
In fact according UCLA Constitutional law professor Adam Winkler as noted in the Wall Street
Journal at http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/09/21/love-your-gun-thank-the-black-pantherssays-new-book/ [The history of gun control in America] was a constant pressure among white
racists to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans, because they would rise up and
revolt... The KKK began as a gun-control organization. Before the Civil War, blacks were never
allowed to own guns. During the Civil War, blacks kept guns for the first time either they
served in the Union army and they were allowed to keep their guns, or they buy guns on the
open market where for the first time theres hundreds of thousands of guns flooding the
marketplace after the war ends. So they arm up because they know who theyre dealing with in
the South. White racists do things like pass laws to disarm them, but thats not really going to
work. So they form these racist possess all over the South to go out at night in large groups to
terrorize blacks and take those guns away. If blacks were disarmed, they couldnt fight back.
Brendan ONeill corroborates this information at a UK Telegraph article, found at
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100172070/traditionally-racists-andreactionaries-demanded-gun-control-in-america-why-have-leftists-now-joined-in/, stating
Before the 1980s, Right-wingers and racists were the most vocal in demanding that the states
in America should strictly circumscribe gun ownership. Where the revolutionary government of
1791 made the second amendment to the US Constitution, which insisted on the right of the
citizenry to bear arms as a safeguard against tyrannical government, successive legislators and
campaigners who were freaked out by the prospect of former slaves getting hold of guns called
for a rethink of this fundamental liberty. So after the Nat Turner rebellion of 1831, when a band
of black rebels shot at white slave owners and freed their slaves, the state of Tennessee altered
its constitution. Where once it had guaranteed that the freemen of this state have a right to
keep and to bear arms for their common defence, post-Nat Turner it said the free white men of
this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence. ONeill cites passed
in Tennessee in the 1830s and North Carolina in the 1840s forbidding blacks from owning
firearms, as well as race-specific gun laws passed in Florida in the 1890s. The New York 1911
Sullivan gun law is similarly thought by many to have been in racist reaction to the massive
influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe getting their hands on guns. As Gary
Kleck has summarized the issue in his book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, The
historical purpose of gun-control laws in America has been one of discrimination and
disenfranchisement of blacks, immigrants and other minorities.
Kleck and ONeill are not alone in their summary. In Feb. 203, Stacy Swimp, president and CFO
of the Frederick Douglass Society compared the current gun control push to laws before and
after the Civil War that were passed to restrict blacks from owning guns. Stated Swimp: History
is rife with examples. Theres a direct correlation between gun control and black people
control The first gun laws were put into place to register black folks, to make sure that they
would know who we were that we could not defend ourselves, Harry Alford, CEO of the Black
Chamber of Commerce concurred with Swimp, and publicly thanked the NRA in this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9RABZq5IoaQ#t=80s, noting
that the NRA was founded by people who wanted to protect free slaves from the Ku Klux Klan..
28

who showed the slaves how to use those arms and protect their families. Many of us (blacks)
wouldnt be here today if it wasnt for the NRA. Several other black leaders speak out against
the gun grabbers in no uncertain terms in this 3:08 YouTube. Does a single liberal wish to step
up to the plate and own this history as a precursor of their own laws? And perhaps white leftists
might care to answer black gun rights supporter, Colin Noir, who addresses the whole idiotic
issue of gun control at http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=L_n1Pb_ms7w&list=UU193r5YXcpQJV34N99ZbhzQ&feature=player_detailpage (1:30 min.)
or http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eqmNFlp8Kg&list=UU193r5YXcpQJV34N99ZbhzQ#t=62s (3:15)
The Rev. Kenn Blanchard, author of Black Man with a Gun and leader at Washington D.C.s
historic Berean Baptist Church, is yet another African American confirming what is written above
Blanchard told NPR host Michel Martin Gun laws have started in this country since 1640
since we were colonies, and its always been against a group its always been to control
somebodyIt was the Chinese, it was the Native Americans, it was the Africans.
http://www.npr.org/2013/02/28/173151752/black-reverend-guns-are-important-to-my-church?
ft=1&f=1001. The well-known Star Parker, founder of Center for Urban Renewal and Education
feels exactly the same as Blanchard, and in early 2013 released the hard-hitting 30 second
video equating gun control to Jim Crow laws and worse see http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=uMV1hNXt1JM&feature=player_embedded#t=4s . Parker also cites the Mississippi Black
Code of 1865 (which you can read yourself at
http://wps.ablongman.com/long_longman_lahdemo_1/0,8259,1546454-,00.html ), which
included this gun control clause to keep blacks unarmed:
PENAL LAWS OF MISSISSIPPI
Sec. 1. Be it enacted,That no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of
the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her
county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife, and on
conviction thereof in the county court shall be punished by fine, not exceeding ten dollars, and
pay the costs of such proceedings, and all such arms or ammunition shall be forfeited to the
informer; and it shall be the duty of every civil and military officer to arrest any freedman, free
negro, or mulatto found with any such arms or ammunition, and cause him or her to be
committed to trial in default of bail.
But while on the topic of race, black Americans also need to step up to the plate in terms of gun
violence. If Ann Coulter is correct, the white population has the same murder rate at Belgium.
http://topconservativenews.com/2013/06/is-it-guns-or-demographics/. Of course, this has
nothing to do with the colour of ones skin but rather dealing with issues such as the lack of a
father in the home, and similar.
Before moving on, let me cite one more African American, senate candidate, single mother of
three, NRA member and Ph.D. candidate at Univ. of Tennessee Brenda S. Lenard. Said Lenard:
Gun control historically begins with blacks who were forbidden from owning guns. It was very
easy for slave owners to keep and control blacks with gun control. The same thing is
happening today, she said. It is a slow process of gun confiscation.The government should
not infringe on anyones rights, and adding that although blacks were one of the first groups to
be targeted, todays gun grab is not just about race, but about fundamentally altering civil rights
for all Americans. In sum, its not about guns rather, says Lenard This is about power and
control and The Second Amendment is a God-given right. As Americans, we should not have
to ask permission from our government to protect ourselves, our homes, and our families.
29

And yes, you are correct. It should take about 1.4 nanoseconds to call any African American
who believes in freedom and no longer wants to remain on the plantation living under the
control of the man an Uncle Tom or Tomette. Or whatever the racist, sexist left call black
women who wont knuckle under to the successor of the plantation era, todays nanny state.

A similar situation to the Jonesboro High School incident also occurred with a white population,
at the so-called Battle of Athens, just after WWII, when a corrupt sheriff essentially took over
Athens, TN., including usurping a free and fair vote. Armed citizens forced the corrupt political
machine out, and freedom was restored. A 13 minute YouTube rendering of this episode can be
found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw&feature=player_embedded#t=4s, and
would be very instructive for those leftists who think it cant happen here. A fictionalized but
full of verisimilitude as to how guns have protected freedom - account of a similar situation can
been viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViswBS1Q_E&feature=player_embedded#t=0s
One final point about armed citizens. People like Piers Morgan continually make what they think
is the clever point about the fact that we dont allow people to purchase tanks or 50 caliber
machine guns to defend themselves from government tyranny. US Representative Gwen
Moore (D-WI) put it this way "Where are we going with [the Second Amendment]? I mean, do
individuals get to own nuclear weapons? Do they get to own submarines, with this notion that
they have a right to bear arms? No." National embarrassment Joe Biden weighed in with the
same thought, stating For example, if the idea was to be able to repel a tyrannical government,
then you should be able to own an F-15 if you have the money to buy it, with full ordnance. But
you're not allowed to do that, and the [Supreme] Court says you can deny certain weapons
available for individual ownership. You can't have a nuclear bomb."
The answer to people like Uncle, Joe, Piers and Gwen, who have not taken the time to fully
think through the issue is this: It is true that society has decided that people should not be able
to arm themselves with an Abrams tank, or F-15. But, despite all the technological advances
since the Constitution was written, society still believes the core idea of defense against
potential tyranny applies. As noted by the Chinese dissident above, a mass number of armed
citizens disbursed throughout a city would indeed be able to turn back a modern army unless
that army was prepared to level a whole city.
Essentially, the argument for allowing citizens AR-15s is the concept first advanced by France
with its Force de Frappe or Force de dissuasion. A brief history lesson is in order regarding this,
as it is directly applicable to the question Piers Morgan just doesnt get. In sum, after Charles de
Gaulles return to power in 1958, he was concerned that the US would not protect France from a
Soviet invasion by the 1960s, the US was knee deep in Vietnam, and besides, why would the
US risk America for France? As Wikipedia notes and is critical to the discussion here The
strategic concept behind the Force de Frappe is one of countervalue, i.e., the capability of
inflicting to a more powerful enemy more damage than the complete destruction of the French
population would represent. The enemy, having more to lose, would therefore refrain from
proceeding any further. This principle is usually referred to in the French political debate as
dissuasion du faible au fort (Weak-to-strong deterrence) and was summarized in a statement
attributed to President de Gaulle himself:
Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one
does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can
kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French. Similarly, General Pierre Marie
Gallois said "Making the most pessimistic assumptions, the French nuclear bombers could
destroy ten Russian cities; and France is not a prize worthy of ten Russian cities" and French
30

Admiral de Joybert in his book La paix nuclaire (1975), simply put it this way Sir, I have no
quarrel with you, but I warn you in advance and with all possible clarity that if you invade me, I
shall answer at the only credible level for my scale, which is the nuclear level. Whatever your
defenses, you shan't prevent at least some of my missiles from reaching your home and cause
the devastation that you know. So, renounce your endeavour and let us stay good friends.
Judge Alex Kozinski, of the liberal 9th Circuit Court, made a similar point in his dissent with his
fellow judges, and is worth quoting at length:
All too many of the other great tragedies of history Stalins atrocities, the
killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few were perpetrated
by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been
avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims
were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act
required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold
off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six
million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle
cars. My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The
prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun
crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The
Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those
exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed
where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those
who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no
one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies
may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to
make only once. Judge Alex Kozinski dissenting in Silveira v. Lockyer, 328
F.3d 567 (9th Circuit 2003) (full text
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/328/328.F3d.567.01-15098.html )
This, then, is the answer to the AR-15 question. While the force that is allowed citizens is indeed
still asymmetrical, both the Constitution, as well as experience from history, dictates that
citizens, to remain free, must have enough force at their disposal to be a force de dissuasion.
The above, along with the facts that the AR-15 has indeed been used multiple times for home
defense (as noted in this paper), and is almost never utilized in crimes, and is not automatic, is
the answer why we should allow so called assault rifles (which in fact, are not assault rifles!) to
the public.
But lets look at this from another angle that of the legal one: As a matter of fact, as the very
important article at http://www.utahpreppers.com/2013/02/the-gun-owners-guide-to-criticalcourt-cases/#more-4861 notes, there are legal precedents including ones by the US Supreme
Court that prohibit gun confiscation. Citing Heller v. McDonald, Columbia v. Heller, Mack and
Printz v. the United States, the United States v. Lopez (all within the past 20 years), as well as
other cases earlier in time, case law has shown that the restriction of gun ownership by the state
is heavily circumscribed Gun ownership is a right that is recognized, not a privilege that is
granted. End of story.
Incidentally, weapons that are allowed in most states include flamethrowers, 2,000 6,000
rounds per minute (up to 166 rounds per second) mini-guns, black powder cannons, grenade
launchers (grenades are not legal), nun-chucks, umbrella swords, spearguns, and more.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2013/03/28/10-Weapons-You-Wont-BelieveAre-Legal.aspx
31

GUN CONTROL AND OTHER COUNTRIES

Of course, some readers wont like the Founding Fathers (no tolerance for dead white guys
that gave the world the best if not perfect example of a free country ever in the history of
man) or intimating that the Obamas government isnt perfect. So I then refer you to politically
correct exhibit B, from Mahatma Gandhis, own mouth: Among the many misdeeds of the
British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the
blackest. Or exhibit C: As a former policeman commented to me, Can you trust the United
States government...sure, just ask an American Indian. Lets not forget exhibit D, either, from
the Dalai Lama in the Seattle Times, May 15, 2001: If someone has a gun and is trying to kill
you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. I will intentionally omit
mentioning that the Obama administrations drone attacks have most likely killed many more
innocent children than the Sandy Hook shooter
that will be something you, yourself, can
investigate (but to help you you can start with
this story which you never read about in the
MSM that killed children, just like Sandy
Hook: The villagers who rushed to the road,
cutting through rocky fields in central Yemen,
found the dead strewn around a burning sport
utility vehicle. The bodies were dusted with
white powder flour and sugar, the witnesses
said that the victims were bringing home
from market when the aircraft attacked. A
torched woman clutched her daughter in a lifeless embrace. Four severed heads littered the
pavement.
The bodies were charred like coal. I could not recognize the faces, said Ahmed al-Sabooli,
22, a farmer whose parents and 10-year-old sister were among the dead. Then I recognized
my mother because she was still holding my sister in her lap. That is when I cried - full story at
http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2012/12/us-kills-12-civilians-destroys-a-community2444626.html . Apparently certain collateral damage is OK?) By one account, as of Jan. 2013,
in Pakistan alone, nearly 900 civilians have been reported killed, including 176 children.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/01/11/obama-2012-strikes/ Joel Bowman, in his
Feb. 23, 2013 article, To Drone or Not to Drone, cites similar horrific statistics, noting Obamas
targeted killing operations have so far resulted in the deaths of between 473 and 893 civilians
in Pakistan. Of these victims, 176 were children. They had names like Syed Wali Shah, a
seven year-old boy, and Maezol Khan, an eight year old girl. Between 1,270 and 1,433 innocent
people were reported injured in the attacks. Any word from the Obama worshipping leftist media
on these childrens deaths, which far dwarf the numbers at Sandy Hook?
And then there is the petition from women in India, per the Times of India, where females in this
country are demanding gun licenses from the licensing department of the Delhi Police,
particularly after on brutal gang rape occurred in Dec., 2012. See, Delhi Women gun for
Licenses; Rape Triggers Big rush to Acquire Arms, at
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-01/delhi/36093841_1_gun-licencesinheritance-clause-delhi-cops. So much for the dead white guys canard.
And I ask you this: What sorrow has anyone in the Obama administration
offered for the hundreds of Mexicans who were killed by the Fast &
Furious scandal for which Obama invoked executive privilege to prevent
facts from coming out? Any comment on the young Mexican beauty
32

queen, Maria Susana Flores Gomes, pictured here, who was killed by the Obama
administrations Fast and Furious guns?
Any word from the gun grabbers on this story below, which came out right after Sandy Hook on
10 January, 2013: with nary a peep from the left:
The Obama administration defended agents of the Drug Enforcement Agencys use of force
against the 11-year-old and 14-year-old daughters of Thomas and Rosalie Avina. The
excessive force included putting a gun to the youngest girls head. Attorneys for the Obama
administration defended the actions of the agents arguing that the DEA agents conduct was
plainly reasonable under the circumstances. The sound from the left on this one? Crickets.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/obama-admin-once-defended-agents-putting-gun-to-littlegirls-head/#ixzz2Hcg4RIEL
On the other hand, multiple genocidal dictators have stated their love for gun control. Heres a
few: From Joseph Stalin, who established gun control in 1929: If the opposition disarms, well
and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves (a very informative, 4 minutes
YouTube that includes Stalins use of gun confiscation is found at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV1aYxCzepI&feature=player_embedded#t=5s ). The USSR
murdered around 61 million; Mao stated War can only be abolished through war, and in order
to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun. Mao may have murdered around 20 -30
million and, like all other tyrants, he never did put down the gun. Adolf Hitler at a dinner talk on
April 11, 1942 said: The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their
subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go
so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of
any sovereignty. So lets not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will
bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied
Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire
occupied country. Idi Amin, who established gun control in 1971, killed a mere 300,000
(remember, to leftists, Stalins dictum is sacrosanct: The death of a single person is a tragedy;
the death of million is a mere statistic). And then there is the Hero of Waco, Janet Reno, who
betrayed the real goal behind the incrementalists, by stating Waiting periods are only a step.
Registration is only a step. Prohibition of firearms is the goal. Then, of course, there is tyrant
wannabe Joe Biden, who went on record after Sandy Hook as saying It is clearly within the
right of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public.
Heck, even the hacker group Anonymous has come out against Obamas gun control by stating:
Throughout history, authoritarian governments have used gun violence as an excuse to take
peoples firearms and control their population. This is exactly what Adolf Hitler did to disarm the
German people and look at the atrocities his administration did. Obama has been working hard
to try and ban all semi-automatic weapons and shot guns while at the same time increasing the
weapons and firepower that police and government agencies have.
CONCEALED CARRY, CRIMINALS AND ENFORCEMENT OF GUN CONTROL
And exactly how is the Obama administration going to enforce their gun laws? Hire Janet Reno
to come back and conduct a thousand Wacos around the country? And what will they do with
states, such as Wyoming with its Firearms Protection Acts, which is a law being introduced that
would arrest any federal agents who try to enforce Obamas gun laws? (see
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/10/Wyoming-Lawmakers-To-Federal-GunGrabbers-Don-t-Tread-On-Us ). In any event, as Awr Hawkings notes, in Nancy Pelosis rush to
33

jam Obamacare down Americas throat, she, along with Obama, apparently forgot Senate
amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c slipped into the bill to the bill to buy off the NRA during
that fight. Specifically, this section states that the government cannot use doctors to collect "any
information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition." So one
more avenue is closed.
But to return from this issue to the present - what about concealed carry? Statistics from the
recent past show states that passed concealed carry reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes
by 5% and robbery by 3%. Florida, which passed concealed carry in 1987, saw its higher than
average homicide rate drop 52% during the following 15 years after passage, to below the
national average. You are correct that correlation is not causation, but concealed carry did not
result in chaos, as the left stated would surely happen. In fact, the average Floridian is more
likely to be attacked by an alligator than by a concealed carry holder. After the law was passed,
per David Kupelian, eight of Floridas 10 largest cities experienced drastic decreases in
homicide rates from 1987 through 1995: Jacksonville, down 46 percent; Miami, down 13
percent; Tampa Bay, down 24 percent; Orlando, down 41 percent; Fort Lauderdale, down 53
percent; Hollywood, down 30 percent; Clearwater, down 21 percent; and Miami Beach down an
incredible 93 percent. As of mid-2011, there are 2,031,106 concealed carry permits issued in
Florida and the last time I checked, there were zero shootouts at the OK Corral over the past
two and half decades in Florida, other than ones conducted by gangs using illegal weapons.
Indeed, as US Senator Orrin Hatch stated, The effect of that legislation on state crime rates
has been astonishing. The predictions of the gun-control advocates were wrong, flat wrong.
And danger from concealed carriers is virtually nonexistent. Statistics from Dr. John Lott found
one 18 year period where only 23 handgun murders were committed by those who had
concealed carry permits. This is as opposed to 400,000 lives saved every year by defensive gun
use (per Dr. Gary Kleck, Florida State University).
And coming from a totally unexpected quarter, the Sacramento Bee out of socialist California
noted in a Dec. 30, 2012 article that even as gun dealers sold 600,000 guns in California last
year as opposed to 350,000 in 2002 gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in
California During that same period, the number of California hospitalizations due to gun
injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,800, a roughly 25 percent drop, according to
hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health. Firearm-related deaths
fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800, an 11 percent drop, state health figures show.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/5079151/california-gun-sales-increase.html . Here are the
graphs from the Bee:

34

Similarly, DickMorrisTV.com, in his Feb. 7th, 2013 video entitled Guns Up, Homicides Down,
noted that from 1987 to 2013, the percentage of Americans owning guns has risen from 36% to
46% - while at the same time deaths are down during that same time by 42%. Hardly the
epidemic of gun violence the left is blathering about. And to put the final nail in the coffin (pun
intended) about gun homicides, a study released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on May 7,
2013, found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011, a 39%
reduction, while a similar report released by Pew Research Center found a consonant decline in
gun homicides per 100,000 people went from 7 percent in 1993 to 3.6 percent in 2010, a drop of
49%.Both Pew and the Justice studies found nonfatal crimes involving guns was down by
around 70% over the period of their studies. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-gunviolence-down/2013/05/07/id/503237

35

As a matter of fact, the US. Dept. of Justice, in its (admittedly dated) publication, The Armed
Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons, Research Report July, 1985, stated that
60% of felons they surveyed agreed that a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he
knows is armed with a gun; 74% agreed with the statement one reason burglars avoid houses
when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime; and finally, 57% of
felons agreed that criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are
about running into police. A more recent survey found that of male felons in 11 state prisons
across the USA, 34% had been scared off, wounded or captured by an armed victim of their
crime; 40% of felons made a decision not to commit a crime because they feared the potential
victim had a gun; 69%of felons knew other fellow criminals who had been scared off or captured
by an armed victim, and 57% of felons polled agreed that criminals are more worried about
meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police. And how do criminals get
their guns? A study about guns and felons, cited at
http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/28253/#Kfd7EWciAw0jzwQi.99, found that, from the result of
interviewing more than 18,000 state and federal inmates conducted nationwide, almost 80 % of
those interviewed got their guns from friends or family members, or on the street through illegal
purchases." It is for this reason that the head of the Illinois State Rifle Association, Richard
Pearson, stated after a 15 year old girl, Hadiya Pendleton, was shot and killed Jan., 2013,
just blocks from Barack Obamas tony home in an upscale Chicago neighborhood that Gun
laws in Chicago only restrict the law-abiding citizens and theyve essentially made the citizens
prey.
And as long as we are talking surveys, presumably 100% of the felons surveyed didnt like the
grub where they were incarcerated.
Statistical comparisons with other countries also show that burglars in the United States are far
less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where
fewer civilians own firearms.
Based on a 2000 study, Americans use guns to defend themselves from crime and violence
989,883 times annually generally against criminals who have no problem acquiring guns
illegally. A recent nationwide survey of almost 5,000 households found that over a five-year
period 3.5 percent of households had a member who used a gun to protect themselves, their
family, or their property. This also adds up to about the same 1,000,000 incidents annually.
During the Clinton era, the Justice Department identified 1.5 million cases per year of citizens
using guns to defend themselves. Newer studies all point towards a figure of 2.5 million
thats the new number for how many times Americans defend themselves from violent criminals
each year. And when it comes to women, the old Jimmy Carter Justice Department found that
of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32 percent were actually committed. But when a woman
was armed with a gun or knife, only 3 percent of the attempted rapes were actually successful.
Todays statistics show each year about 200,000 women use a gun to defend themselves from a
sexual crime or abuse. As one case in point showing there is no way the left will ever learn
from history - way back in in 1966 the city of Orlando, FL., in response to a spike in sexual
assaults, offered firearms training for women. Rapes droped by almost 88% the following year.
And no, as Democrat strategist Zerlina Maxwell stated about reducing rape vis--vis the gun
issue, her solution is not going to work: "I don't think that we should be telling women
anything. I think we should be telling men not to rape women and start the conversation there.
We can prevent rape by telling men not to commit it."

36

Meanwhile as gun sales climb to record highs - 47% of American adults currently report that
they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property, and given that many gun owners
have multiple guns, there may be more guns now than Americans - 2010 FBI data shows
violent crime continuing to fall (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crimein-the-u.s.-2010 ) in the United States, with homicides dropping out of the top 15 causes
of death in the country. These statistics undermine a favorite argument of anti-gun
groups that more guns equal more crime. Rather, the reverse is true. As Lawrence G.
Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel noted, These statistics vividly
demonstrate that the lawful possession and use of firearms by law-abiding Americans does not
cause crimeThere have never been more firearms in civilian possession in the history of the
United States, and crime, including homicide, continues to decline throughout the country. In
fact, guns cause crime about as much as cameras cause child pornography, and if it is true that
guns kill, how does anyone ever get out of a gun show alive?

The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, per
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey-2007.html
with 5% of the worlds population owning 3550% of the worlds civilian-owned guns, so it must
have the highest death by firearm rate, right? As a matter of fact, if one looks at all 178 countries
in the world at the Small Arms Survey website, the US is #28. Not in the top ten, not the top
dozen, not the top twenty or even twenty five. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
can also be examined to verify this data, at http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-andanalysis/statistics/data.html, with a shorter summary of this data found at the UK Guardians
website at http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownershipworld-list . As Yogi Berra might have said, Whod a thunk the UN would ever support gun
ownership!

37

But if you need the gun ownership vs. violent crime condensed into a simple graph, here it is,
courtesy of http://www.arcticpatriot.com/2013/01/england-safer.html :
The truth is, when guns are outlawed,
only outlaws will have guns (in fact,
per official Dept. of Justice statistics,
only 8% of guns used in a crime are
purchased legally

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt ) . The truth is, that the Colorado shooter would

still have found ways to get, or make weapons, even if they had been made illegal - certainly,
Timothy McVeigh and the leftist Unibomber found a way, and the Columbine killers had set
bombs that didnt go off, but police determines could have killed up to 488 students if they had
gone off as the killers had planned. The truth is if guns kill people, then pencils misspell words,
cars drive drunk, and spoons made Oprah fat. The truth is that one never sees gun murders at
gun shows, where guns are seemingly every two steps one takes. The truth is that, as Stephen
Dubner wrote, far more children die each year in swimming pool accidents than in gun
incidents. And finally, the truth is, as Plato (c. 428 -348 BC) wrote, "Good people do not need
laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." Maybe
someone can go tell Diane Feinstein this quote.
Truly, if America bans guns, then the criminals would buy guns just as easily as they now buy
illegal drugs or fake IDs. And of course, simple historical lessons like the prohibition era are
totally lost of the gun grabbers. While background checks are presented as a cure all by
Obama, the truth is that his executive orders will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals by
strengthening the background-check system. Rather, people with ill intent wont be walking into
a gun shop anytime soon and submit to background checks they will just go to the black
market. Background checks are fine insofar as that goes, but to present them as a cure-all is a
fraud. At the late professor, American Enterprise Institute scholar and presidential Medal of
Freedom recipient James Q. Wilson wrote, The tragedy at Virginia Tech may tell us something
about how a young man could be driven to commit terrible actions, but it does not teach us very
much about gun control. And relative to tougher background checks, Wilson added, access
to guns would be relatively easy many would be stolen, and others would be obtained
through straw purchases by a willing confederate. It is virtually impossible to use new
background-check or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Those
they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow.

38

Besides, as a video from Defense Distributed recently showed the world, if criminals want high
capacity magazines, it wont be long at all before people can simply print their own 30 round
magazines in their local 3-D printing (see http://alt-market.com/articles/1279-3d-printedfirearms-render-gun-control-moot for more information.)
And one more point needs to be mentioned about gun shows and background checks while we
are at it. John Malcolm writes in http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/08/background-checks-andthe-so-called-gun-show-loophole/ that a claimed 40% bypass of background checks for gun
purchases made at gun shows or non-firearm dealer. This is demonstrably false. This data is
now 20 years old and worse, it was skewed even when it was done, relying on a telephone
survey of just 251 people in 1991-2 when the number was 35.7%, +/- 6%. While this could have
been rounded down to 29.7 percent, our dear leftist rounded it UP to 40%. Gee, who woulda
thunk! Of course, if you subtracted the number of those who got their gun as an inheritance, gift
or prize the number dropped to 26.4% As a matter of fact, the number of people who actually
bought guns at gun shows, as determined by this survey in 1994, was only 3.9%. But close
enough for government work right? Yet the 40% number is trotted out today (such as the
statement by Baltimore County Police Chief James Johnson Malcolm concludes the hamhanding of this faux data by summarizing Citing this data as evidence of how many firearms
are currently purchased through private sales not subject to background checks is akin to citing
data about current seat belt usage that is derived from a limited sample taken years before a
mandatory seat belt law went into effect or before cars were even required to have seat belts.
VERIFIABLE FACTS
As a matter of fact, as Thomas Sowell points out in his article Invincible Ignorance, gun control
apologists are easily disproven by a number of easily verifiable facts: Gun ownership is higher in
rural areas than in urban, but urban areas have a higher murder rate; legal gun ownership is
higher among whites than blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks; and most
tellingly, gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, but the murder rate went down. And
while liberals crow that England has stronger gun control laws than the US, with a lower murder
rate, a mere scratch beneath the surface exposes serious flaws in the gun grabber argument.
Long story short, England has had a lower murder rate than the US for two centuries, and for
the bulk of that time, the laws did not differ. In fact, Sowell notes in the mid 1900s, one could
buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked, while New York, which had the stringent
Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, had several times the murder rate of
London. In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London, but by 2000 after
stringent gun control laws were put in place there were over one hundred times as many
armed robberies. Sowell concludes by noting Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for
the difference in murder rates. People were the difference. The short Sowell article can be
found at http://lewrockwell.com/sowell/sowell123.html. And one point Sowell left out: if it is true
that as the left posits repeatedly drug control doesnt work, why would gun control be any
different? With the 300 million guns in the US, how effective would confiscation be? The reality
is that there will be plenty of guns left but only in the hands of criminals. But of course, gun
confiscation will not work - even law abiding citizens indicated in a poll that 2/3rdds of them
would not comply with an order to turn in their guns. In a Fox poll of of U.S. voters, question 46
in the survey of more than 1,000 registered voters asks if there was a gun in the household. Of
the 52 % said yes, someone in their home owned a gun . But on to Question 47, addressed to
those with a gun in their home: If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you
39

give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns? The response: 65 percent reported they
would defy the law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/jan/20/two-thirdsus-weapons-owners-would-defy-federal-gu/#ixzz2IzIH2kQq . But in any event, the whole
confiscation issue is absurd: 70% of gun related crimes are committed by repeat offenders, so
why the over-the-top obsession about non-offenders?
And gun control happy England had also best not call the kettle black. While the numbers are
probably massaged lower than they really are to make things look better, the UK has had a very
troubling 77% increase in violent crime recently, with 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 residents
while what we consider crime ridden South Africa has only 1,677. Is CNNs Piers Morgan
listening? And if so, is he intellectually honest enough to address these facts?
If not, the UKs Telegraph let all the cats out of the bag in a July, 2009 article, entitled UK is
violent crime capital of Europe, found at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-andorder/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html . A few salient facts from this article by
Richard Edwards, the crime correspondent for the paper: since around the time of Englands
gun ban, there has been a 77% increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses. In
2007, there were 927 murders (apparently, its gun murders bad, all other murders good to the
left), and 5.4 million crimes in total. In 2007. The Telegraph reported from figures cited from
Eurostat, the EUs database of statistics that from 1998 to 2007, crime in the UK had
increased from 652,957 offenses in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007. In other
words, with over 2,000 crimes per 100,000 population, the UK per the Telegraph is the most
violent place in Europe. Interestingly, Japan which is also disarmed has a massively lower
homicide rate, according to the UN statistics cited at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#cite_note-geneva-5.
In fact, for Japan, with a population of around 130 million, total homicides were 506, while the
UK, with 53 million people less than half that of Japan - had 722 homiicides, per the most
recent data. I.e., England has about three times the murder rate of Japan. Clearly, there are
other factors at work reducing violence to just firearms is grossly simplistic.
And one more truth for your consideration. Less than 48 hours after the Colorado theatre
shooting, Mexican coyote (illegal alien smuggler) Ricardo Mendoza-Pineda lost control of his
Ford F250 pickup on Hwy 59, just outside the town of Golidad, TX., and struck two trees, killing
15, and injuring eight. One of the dead was an eight year old girl.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/us/texas-death-toll-rises-in-crash-of-pickup-truck.html ; this
tragedy killed more human beings than the Colorado theatre shooting, but was buried in the
back pages, and I am sure you never heard of this incident. As WND.com asked: Does a mass
killing have to be in a hail of bullets nowadays to make the news. And illegal is illegal and this
happened during the commission of a crime, just like Colorado. Die by the gun, or die by the
wheel, youre still dead, and dead because of crime.
The reality is that gun control is on an agenda by the
political left, which is why you never heard about this
mass death.
FAMILIES AND GUNS
The truth about gun ownership creating more safety is
practically illustrated in Kennesaw, GA where gun
ownership is mandatory for every head of household,
per ordinance [Sec 34-21], which states: (a) In order to
provide for the emergency management of the city, and
40

further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and
its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a
firearm, together with ammunition therefore, and (b) Exempt from the effect of this section are
those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them
from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of
households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of
beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
Kennesaw contrary to what the gun grabbers would have you believe - is not the Wild West,
but rather was voted by Family Circle magazine as one of the nations 10 best towns for
families. (http://www.familycircle.com/family-fun/money/10-best-towns-for-families/?page=4)
The city website also claims Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County this in
one of the most populated counties in Georgia. In fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesaw had
only one murder, in 2007, while Mayor Bloombergs gun control nirvana New York City in a
recent 25-year period had more than 15,000 murders 2, 245 in 1990 alone (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NYC_murders.PNG) in contrast to Kennesaw, Georgias one.
Yes, these are clearly different cities. not the exact same timeframes and there are a host of
variables to be examined but fifteen thousand to one?? I, for one, am not going to even bother
with doing the math for this. In 2012, Georgia had a crime rate of 4,043.8 per 100,000
population, while Kennesaw had a crime rate only 61% of that and the violent crime rate was
even less. Per http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html here is what
comparative violent crime rate is for Kennesaw:

The real truth is that it is the inter-generational socio-pathology that the left has created that has
created this society of killers and psychopaths as PatriotPost has illustrated in a story found at
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2936).
Across the western nations, stories such as the following in the Five Minute Forecast abound
(this story is set in France, but it could be anywhere from Fort Worth to Philadelphia): A client
was recently telling me about her niece, who has had three children, each from different fathers.
She now has a new benefit-scrounging live-in lover. In addition to his own benefits, she
41

provides him with free housing (which he won't get independently) and pays him 500 Euros a
month of her 1500 Euro state handout, to try, out of pathetic desperation, to persuade him to
stick around. They plan a fourth child, quite openly for additional revenue generation purposes.
Meanwhile the first three play truant and run free, mostly to avoid being hit by this 'stepfather'.
They are feral (emphasis mine).
And its not just France. Moving across a continent, an ocean, and a culture, James Cook of
Investment Rarities discusses how the nanny state is destroying a complete value system
resulting in extreme violence. Cook states:
At one Minnesota reservation mothers tell their daughters to expect to be raped and to keep
quiet about it. At South Dakotas Pine Ridge reservation, population 40,000, there are 3,000
child abuse cases each year. In addition there are 20,000 arrests each year, one for every other
person. A tribal officer reports, We pick up a guy for some alcohol-related offense and are out
of town for an hour taking them to jail, and in the meantime people are here clubbing and
stabbing each other. Indians were once the most self-sufficient people on earth. For thousands
of years they experienced none of the behavioral pathologies present on todays reservations.
What changed them? The government began to support them. They no longer had to make
their own way. Idleness and boredom were powerful incentives to mischief. If our government
had never given them a penny they would have left the reservations behind and been fully
integrated in our society often reaching the upper levels of achievement
http://www.investmentrarities.com/best_of_jim_cook12-10-12.shtml
As the family recedes (or is shoved by politics) into the background and the nanny state takes
over, personal responsibility is destroyed, consciences are seared, and as shown above
violence increases in at least in one section of society, while another section people the aging
baby boomers - just turns to white collar crime why kill someone and steal their money, when
you can have a lawyer take it, or engage in legal embezzlement a la MF Global. As Cook
summarizes the issue by stating Sometimes it seems easier for a Muslim terrorist to leave his
religion than a liberal to see the obvious mess they are making of our countryIf you care
about people dont give them money they didnt earn. It does not rescue them from poverty, it
enhances dependence and encourages dysfunction. It is the most destructive social force on
earth. Evidence of cultural degradation? Heres a few headlines from the post-Thanksgiving
Black Friday sales: Gang fight at Black Friday sale; Shots fired outside Walmart;
Customers run over in parking lot; Men steal boys shopping bag; and Shopper robbed at
gunpoint outside Best Buy.
As a matter of fact, a very convincing case can be made that much of the cause of gun
problems is really caused by the dissolution of the family, as written about in Ruth Dafoe
Whiteheads seminal work on this issue, Dan Quayle Was Right
(http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/04/dan-quayle-was-right/307015/ ). This,
mes amis, is what really lies beneath the issue of violence, similar to the unseen part of an
iceberg. To wit: As Off the Grid News points out in 2012, Since the year 2000, there have been
twenty-six cases of mass murder (four or more victims) in the United States, as opposed to
twenty combined during the 1980s and 1990s. And before the 1980s, mass killing sprees were
actually quite rare in this country, usually averaging no more than one or two per decade. (see
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2012/08/14/psychiatric-drugs-and-mass-murder-exploring-theconnection/ ). Time Magazine lists the top mass shootings of the past 50 years at
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings-of-the-past-50-years/ You will
notice the gradual increase over the years in frequency of these atrocities. In fact of the top
twelve incidents, seven have occurred since 2007. And the top five prior to 2012? Except for
42

Columbine in 1999, the top five were April 16, 2007, Feb. 14, 2008, April 3, 2009, and Nov. 5,
2009 (see http://thebuzzcincy.com/1198585/five-of-the-worst-mass-killings-in-the-us-history/ ).
Indeed, in perhaps the only thing Vladimir Ilyich Lenin got correct, he stated Destroy the family,
you destroy the country. And his leftist scions are doing a pretty good job at both.
Indeed, African-American Walter Williams writes in Are Guns the Problem, When I attended
primary and secondary school during the 1940s and '50s one didn't hear of the kind of
shooting mayhem that's become routine today. Why? It surely wasn't because of strict firearm
laws. My replica of the 1902 Sears mail-order catalog shows 35 pages of firearm
advertisements. People just sent in their money, and a firearm was shipped. Dr. John Lott,
author of More Guns, Less Crime, reports that until the 1960s, some New York City public high
schools had shooting clubs where students competed in citywide shooting contests for
university scholarships. They carried their rifles to school on the subways and, upon arrival,
turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach and retrieved their rifles after
school for target practice. Virginia's rural areas had a long tradition of high-school students
going hunting in the morning before school and sometimes storing their rifles in the trunks of
their cars that were parked on school grounds. Often a youngster's 12th or 14th birthday
present was a shiny new .22-caliber rifle, given to him by his father. What has changed since
Williams early days? He cites statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics, where
in 2010 there were 828,000 non-fatal criminal incidents in our schools, including almost a
half million thefts, 359,000 violent attacks, of which 91,400 were serious. As well, 145,100 public
school teachers were physically attacked, and 276,700 threatened. In a similar article, Williams
also writes: "Many of today's youngsters begin the school day passing through metal detectors.
Guards patrol school hallways, and police cars patrol outside. Despite these measures,
assaults, knifings and shootings occur. ... For well over a half-century, the nation's liberals and
progressives ... have waged war on traditions, customs and moral values. These people taught
their vision, that there are no moral absolutes, to our young people. To them, what's moral or
immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion or a consensus. ... Customs, traditions,
moral values and rules of etiquette, not laws and government regulations, are what make for a
civilized society. ... The importance of customs, traditions and moral values as a means of
regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. Police and
laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized
society." The war by the leftists on moral values and absolutes is perspicaciously captured by
Williams in the above quote.
And besides, if ban on alcohol didnt work, the ban on marijuana never worked, the ban on
illegal immigrants didnt work, why would banning guns be followed and by criminals to boot?
Dr. Pat Fagan diagnoses the family problem exactly as Williams does, writing at
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/03/bg1026nbsp-the-real-root-causes-of-violentcrime "The real work of reducing violent crime is the work of rebuilding the family. Institutions in
the community, such as the church and the school, have demonstrated their importance in
helping to restore stability. Government agencies, on the other hand, are powerless to increase
marital and parental love; they are powerless to increase or guarantee care and attention in a
family; they are powerless to increase the ability of adults to make and keep commitments and
agreements. Instead, thanks to policies that do little to preserve the traditional family and much
to undermine it, government continues to misdiagnose the root cause of social collapse as an
absence of goods and services. This misdiagnosis is government's own contribution to the
growth of crime. Having misdiagnosed, it misleads.
The cause of violent crime isn't gun policy--it's family policy. And until Americans step back and
examine the real problem, the President will continue exploiting these tragedies to accomplish
43

his ultimate goal: expanding government at the expense of personal freedom. Fagan also
notes:

Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families
abandoned by fathers.

High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families

abandoned by fathers.

State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the

percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent
increase in juvenile crime.

The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by
fathers.

The type of aggression and hostility demonstrated by a future criminal often is

foreshadowed in unusual aggressiveness as early as age five or six.

The future criminal tends to be an individual rejected by other children as early as the
first grade who goes on to form his own group of friends, often the future delinquent
gang.

African-American columnist Larry Elder, in his Gun Culture' -- What About the 'Fatherless
Culture? goes even further, discussing race and the absence of fathers in the black family (the
problem which is also increasing in other races while in fact, many dont even see this as a
problem!).Elder says the face of gun violence is not Sandy Hook, but Chicago. Half of the gun
murders each year involve both black killers and black victims, mostly in the city and tellingly
gang related. It has been a half century since Daniel Patrick Moynihan The Negro Family: A
Case for National Action. When he wrote this, 25% of blacks were born out of wedlock, and it
was a national scandal. Today? That number is 72%,of blacks, 36% of white children and 53%
of Hispanic children born outside of marriage. Elder quotes Rutgers University sociology
professor David Popenoe, who wrote "Life Without Father" in 1996,where he describes the
massive erosion of fathers in America. Popenoe concluded that boys raised without fathers
were more likely to have problems with drugs, alcohol, behavior and social interactions. Several
studies during the '90s found that disruption in family structures was a predictor of children's
gang involvement. How many of these mass murder types came from broken homes, such as
Adam Lanza did? Elder concludes with the story of Tupac Shakur, who stated before his death,
"I know for a fact that had I had a father, I'd have some discipline. I'd have more confidence."
He stated he hung out with gangs because he wanted to belong to a family structure, and it
offered structure, support and protection -- the kind of thing we once expected home and from a
father. (See also Elders article on violence and fatherlessness at
http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2013/02/21/on-guns-obama-finally-talks-about-theculture-of-fatherlessness-n1516828?
utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl )
As a matter of fact, as Human Events points out at
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/13/coulter-trouble-in-the-nanny-state/, Controlling for
socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person
will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single mother. At least 70 percent of juvenile
murderers, pregnant teenagers, high school dropouts, teen suicides, runaways and juvenile
delinquents were raised by single mothers. A study back in 1990 by the Progressive Policy
44

Institute showed that, absent single motherhood, there would be no difference in black and
white crime rates.
We have established that the family is in decline, with the black family showing the most
erosion. And as if on cue, while whites comprise approximately 67% of the population,
Hispanics 16% and blacks, 13%, blacks are responsible for roughly half the murders in the US
today, with the murder rate among blacks is eight times as high as among whites. This is not a
comment on race rather, it is comment on the decline of the family. In the old days, we had
both fathers and lax gun laws in the culture, with almost non-existent mass shootings. Today we
have no fathers, much stronger gun laws, and more shootings particularly as exemplified in
the declining black family. You do the math. (Incidentally, African-American Walter Williams
writes in Cultural Deviancy, Not Guns, that the low marriage rate among blacks is recent, with
census data showing a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults
from 1890 to 1940. It is not racism that caused the dissolution of the black family; rather, it is the
nanny state.)
The above notwithstanding, who is committing the mass of gun murders, statistically speaking?
Another interesting question, which again should be laid at the feet of the left, who have caused
this situation, too. The fact of the matter is that, as WND reports at
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/real-gun-threat-illegal-alien-street-gangs/#FusAXftu7RZaGg4J.99,
according to the FBI, it is criminal street gangs usually made up of illegal aliens with absentee
fathers that are acquiring the high powered, military-style weapons to take on both the public
and the police. WND reports Criminal street gangs are responsible for the majority of violent
crimes within the U.S. and are the primary distributors of most illicit drugs, according to a 2009
report by the Justice Departments National Drug Intelligence Center, or NDIC. Judicial Watch
at http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/01/illegal-immigrant-gangs-commit-most-u-s-crime/
comes to the exact same conclusion. And if you are thinking Mexican drug cartel involvement,
you are exactly correct. Unfortunately, the NDIC was one government programme (perhaps the
only one!) Obama didnt like, for the NDIC was shut down June, 2011, with their reports on this
completely scrubbed from the Justice Departments website. (So much for that transparent
government promise, yet again! More disappearing documentation just like Obamas
university transcripts) The FBI reported in 2011 there were 33,000 gangs, with 1.4 million
members in street, prison, motorcycle and other types of gangs. One study in Virginia found that
90% of perhaps the most violent gangs, the MS-13, are illegal immigrants, while USA today
quoting 1 million gang members in 2009 revealed at
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-29-ms13_N.htm that up to 80% of crime
is committed by gangs. The Dept. of Justice website at http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ is a good
place to start your own research.
A few random examples are instructive: In San Francisco an MS-13 gang member murdered a
father and son with an assault weapon because their car blocked his from making a turn. In Los
Angeles an MS-13 member just released from prison murdered a high school football star as he
walked home from the mall. In Maryland a 14-year-old honors high school student was shot to
death on a crowded public bus by an MS-13 illegal Salvadoran alien. And I am positive you
have never read of a single one of these incidents, unless it happened locally. Where is the
outcry to save our children. Oh wait. Illegal aliens are simply undocumented, and part of
the privileged group, so issues like this are not reported by a complicit media.
But illegal alien or not, fatherlessness draws boys to gangs. Does Tupac Shapurs quote
above, about an absent father, start to ring any bells?

45

Off the Grid News also attributes mass murders to psychiatric drugs, as do people like Dr.
Ignatius Piazza, founder and director of Front Sight, but ultimately, this may boil down to the
same issue, as the destruction of the family leads to psycho-social pathologies, which are often,
in turn, treated by drugs. As if on cue, Dr. Joel Rosenburg notes in his Flashtraffic email that
violent crime in the United States has surged by more than 460 percent since 1960 you
know since the sexual revolution, no fault divorce, swinging/wife swapping and a decade later
abortion - began in earnest. Yes, violent crime in general is down in the more recent decades
(starting the early 1990s) perhaps attributable to the aging population but this is at the same
time gun ownership is skyrocketing, as noted above. This may well prove the point: gun
ownership isnt the central issue in these mass murders rather, psycho-social maladjustment
is. The problem is not guns; rather it is the absence of moral conscience aided and abetted by
a corrupt, leftist Hollywood, and the lack of intact, nuclear families. As the UKs Guardian
reported Dec., 2012, at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/9764688/A-dad-is-tenthmost-popular-Christmas-list-request-for-children.html , a dad is the tenth most popular
Christmas wish for children in the UK, while in the US, one in three children live without their
father, as the number of two-parent households have fallen by 1.2 million over the past 10
years. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253421/1-3-US-children-live-father-accordingcensus-number-parent-households-decreases-1-2-million.html. An interactive map of the US,
showing where fathers are most absent, can be found at www.washingtontimes.com/fathers. As
your own research project, do a comparison of this map to where you know the violent crime is.
If one can read, one should be able to understand what the destroyed family means, and how it
impacts everything including the increase in mass murders by youth adrift both mentally
morally.
As CS Lewis warned us decades ago in The Abolition of Man, "We make men (and now boys)
without chests (hearts, morals) and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour
and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate, then bid the geldings be fruitful."
Maybe we shouldnt be so surprised at the mass killings and violence our young men are
perpetrating. One random headline illustrates the issue perfectly - the day I edited this paper,
several news outlets reported this story: Woman set on fire in L.A. as she sleeps on bench
(http://news.yahoo.com/woman-set-fire-la-she-sleeps-bench-173532304.html). How did the
perpetrator come to this point in his life? The story doesnt say but perhaps it doesnt need
to and I would wager good money on what his probable personal history was.
Dont believe that the dissolution of the family is an issue? In Society Muck Up: Why 6-Year-Old
Girls Want to Be Sexy, Regis Giles cites studies indicating Most girls as young as 6 are already
beginning to think of themselves as sex objects, according to a new study of elementary schoolage kids in the Midwest. Story at (http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2012/12/society-muck-upwhy-6-year-old-girls-want-to-be-sexy/) 6 year old sexual objects? Really? If you think this is
normal or OK, or think this will lead to well-adjusted young women (in this case) I suspect
there is a Yes we can chant in you need to be at.
Meanwhile, the organization Childhelp, which assists children affected by violence released a
report stating that 3.3 million reports of violence, affecting over about 6 million children are
received annually. Every day in the country more than five children die for reasons related to
violence. 14% of men in U.S. prisons have experienced childhood abuse, as well as 36% of
female prisoners. This violence is a result of parent who, in many cases, were themselves often
parentless, unchurched and undisciplined. Five children a day dying is the equivalent of almost
100 Sandy Hooks per year but still we ignore what Moynihan warned of, and add to it yet
more.
In 2011, BBC conducted an investigation and discovered over the last 10 years, over 20,000
children have died in the U.S. in their own homes at the hands of family members. Perhaps
46

outrage over Sandy Hook ought to be replaced by outrage over what the left has done to our
families.
Still not convinced? Still blaming guns? Try this on for size: There is a video game, Kindergarten
Killer,that you, dear reader, can play. Here is the description of the game:
As a hitman for hire, you were recently given orders to take out the headmaster of a
kindergarten school. Your job is to not ask questions, so you carry on with the job and head to
the school. One thing leads to the next and you accidentally kill a teacher. The kids saw it and
they get riled up. The children rise up in arms and open fire at you at every chance they get. But
despite everything that happened, your target still roams alive so you head back to the office
and kill your target before heading back to the office. Enjoy a crazy shootout in Kindergarten
Killer. There are hundreds of other, similar games out there. Did the Connecticut shooter play
them? Had he watched and been desensitized by the garbage Hollywood puts out? It has
been said a child growing up in the US today will see 16,000 murders and 20,000 acts of
violence before he reaches age 18. Why has no one in the media been asking questions on this
issue nature, rather than just focus on guns themselves? And dare anyone in the media take on
the Hollywood Industrial complex? Although, as a side note, some of Hollywood has taken on
the pro-gun attitude, including amazingly Whoopi Goldberg being a member of the NRA,
along with James Earl Jones. Avengers star Jeremy Renner is a gun owner, and E! reports
Robert DeNiro and Jennifer Lopez have applied to carry guns, while gun owner Angelina Jolie
has stated: If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, Ive no problem shooting
them. Husband Brad Pitt also is a gun owner.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/1/gun-toting-hollywood-moviestars/#ixzz2JlG0bgSk
Ben Stein summarizes the issue of the Sandy Hook mass shooting at Spectator.org, stating I
read that the killer was socially awkward (putting it mildly) and reserved. I know what that often
means. He spent much of his miserable life playing shoot em up video games on line or on
machines. I see a troubled young man doing that often. Up close and personal. In these games,
the player just spends his whole day attempting to exercise and exorcize his loneliness and
low self-esteem by shooting imaginary creatures and creating damage all day long. At a certain
point, just killing on the console blurs into doing it in real life. Killing is just what the kid does
all his life. How much of a stretch is it for him to shoot into a movie theater or a political
gathering or a kindergarten in real lifeif his life is so pitiful that he does not know whats real
and what is not? If you are looking for a villain, try shoot em up games.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/17/god-help-us
Pulitzer Prize winner Dave Grossman, the famed author of the highly acclaimed On Killing, a
heavily referenced, Marine Corps commandant required reading, historical study on training
U.S. soldiers to learn to kill has some observations about our video violence saturated society.
In a Human Events article at http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/24/killology-againstviolence/, Grossman notes that we can understand mass murders the same way we learned to
increase the firing rate for US infantrymen from 15-20% in World War II to 90% or better in
Vietnam, by using one simple explanation: Skinnerian, operant conditioning or put more
baldly, simply desensitizing soldiers to taking a human life. Examples of this would be shooting
life-like figures, or using rhythmic shooting exercises, etc. Grossmans thesis is that today we
are doing the same to our young with our video games, as well as (leftist!) Hollywood movies
and TV. The Human Events article noted in 2000, the American Medical Association, the
American Psychological Association, the American

47

Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry made
this joint statement for a Congressional health summit.
At this time, well over 1,000 studies, including reports from the Surgeon Generals office, the
National Institute of Mental Health, and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within
our medical and public health organizationsour own memberspoint overwhelmingly to a
causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children, they
wrote. The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is
that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and
behavior, particularly in children.
Grossman has a more recent book, Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill, that explores this issue more
fully. Says Grossman The killers, they all had one thing in common: they dropped out of life,
and they immersed themselves in the culture of violence. Ring a bell for anyone? And
regarding the video angle, he adds No one should be talking book banning. The research
doesnt support that. What the research tells us is weve got to stop violent visual imagery
inflicted upon children and weve got to treat it like automobiles, or firearms, or sex. Grossman
adds that we also restrict things such as tobacco, pornography, and alcohol by age, as children
are not yet physically or mentally mature enough to deal with these things safely. If we dont,
Grossman warns : This generation is going to give us evil like nothing weve seen before,
Grossman said. Sandy Hook is just the beginning.
Then there is the June 2011 decision, where the Supreme Court struck down a California law
banning the sale of violent video games to children, as supposedly these games are protected
under free speech. What is in these games? Videos teaching kids to kill policemen, shoot up
schools like the Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech or other school shooting situations, with
the game reward being literally going the Hell. Then there are other games teaching
children to steal cars, rape women, and even shoot John F. Kennedy dead for the opportunity to
win a $10,000 prize. And then America is shocked to hear about school shootings.
But perhaps the matter is best summed up by Selwyn Duke, who wrote [W]e worry that a child
witnessing one parent continually abuse the other will learn to be violent, as children learn by
example. Yet often forgotten is that while a person can model behavior seven feet away from
the television, he can also model it seven feet away through the television. ... We've transitioned
from a pre-TV America where boys sometimes brought real guns to school for target shooting to
a TV-addicted America where boys bring toy guns to school and get suspended. And, of course,
the reasons for this societal sea change are complex. But if we're going to point to one factor, is
it wiser to blame the AR-15 than PG-13?"
To which I simply add: Just dont tell Learjet leftists of Hollywood any of the above they are
too busy making good money off all of this, while at the same time shedding crocodile tears over
massacres while going everywhere with armed bodyguards and full time security around their
Learjet leftist mansions. Do I exaggerate? Two months after the horrible Sandy Hook massacre,
the top two movies at the box office were Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D and Django
Unchained. The January 2013 edition of Parents Television Council one month after Sandy
Hook! - gave following samples about current TV shows: Law and Order: Special Victims Unit
had one show with a prostitute helping detectives catch a mass murderer replete with bloody
scenes of victims shot in the head; American Horror Story had shows (it is disgusting even to
write this, let alone watch it!) where a mass murderer was sucking the breasts of a lactating
prostitute, then killing her; a mad scientist sawing off the head of a victim; the same scientist
murdering a woman, then having sex with her corpse; a nun raping a priest (dont ask me! I
didnt watch it!); a killer dressed as Santa Claus raping a man, his wife and his daughter on
Christmas eve; The Following, premiering Jan. 17th (celebrating the one month anniversary of
Sandy Hook, perhaps?) glorified an escaped serial killer who set up a social network of
48

copycat killers who now murder on his command, shows people set on fire, a victims jugular
being slashed open; a dog being gutted and left to bleed to death, and the obligatory graphic
sex. Boasted Kevin Williamson, it is not for the faint of heart. I guess so. PTC reports that
Williamson takes pride in the fact that the show was inspired by the Columbine shootings.
CBS President Nina Tassler states about her network Nothing that is on our air is inappropriate
yet she will not let her own 14 year old daughter watch the graphically violent Criminal Minds
show. PTC followed up on the topic with its April, 2013 newsletter, noting that they had
examined 392 popular shows, and of them, 121 had gun violence, with 193 other shows other
kinds of graphic violence.
Most people, of course, will not go out and perform copycat crimes. Of course, a small,
disturbed percentage will. Mick LaSalle notes in PTC that like the Taliban, this garbage targets
disenfranchised young men and boys who are unformed and weak in personality. And just as
bad is the fact that all this electronic manure desensitizes and degrades the culture overall.
THE DRUG AND VIOLENCE CONNNECTION
As the Illinois State Rifle Asociation notes, the Sandy Hook CT. shooter, Adam Lanza, not only
came from a divorced family, but was apparently a mentally ill young person whose wealthy
family insulated him from reality until he decided to create his own reality at the expense of
more than two dozen innocent people. Laurie Higgins in the Illinois Family Association
concurred with this report, noting that Lanzas father (as well as an older brother) left when
Adam was 16, and remarried a few years later. Reportedly, Adam Lanza had no contact with his
father or brother since 2010. How did this affect Adam, and why is this not part of the national
debate on violence? Even more importantly, a few days after the shooting, it was reported that
Adam Lanza was on a violence-linked anti-psychotic drug called Fanapt, as reported at
http://www.businessinsider.com/adam-lanza-taking-antipsychotic-fanapt-2012-12 or
http://naturalsociety.com/predictions-confirmed-shooter-adam-lanza-was-on-violence-linkedanti-psychotic-fanapt/. The Fanapt story was later retracted, but family friend of the Lanzas,
Louise Tambascio, stated during an interview with 60 Minutes that I know he was on
medication and everything, but she homeschooled him at home cause he couldnt deal with the
school classes sometimes, so she just homeschooled Adam at home. And that was her life.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/16/friends-newtown-gunmans-mother-home-schooled-sonkept-arsenal-of-guns/ Tambascio also told ABC News, I knew he was on medication, but thats
all I know. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/16/friends-newtown-gunmans-mother-homeschooled-son-kept-arsenal-of-guns/ Lanzas old babysitter, Ryan Kraft, also went on record as
stating Lanza was taking medications of this sort early as age 10. Maybe its time Obama had a
national discussion about his cronies and lobbyists in Big Pharma, who seem to push kids into
the latest drug du jour at the drop of a hat? Or doesnt that fit his political agenda and his never
let a crisis go to waste attitude? It is already on the labels themselves that drugs, like Prozac,
Zoloft, Paxil, and Ritalin are causing people to commit violent acts (see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QheBbuC5UU&feature=player_embedded#t=91s where a
number of reputable psychiatrists comment on this issue). Read the documentation in the drug
packages, or online, yourself its right there in black and white. The top ten psychiatric
prescription drugs linked to violence as listed by Time Magazine - in a Jan. 7th, 2011 article at
http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/07/top-ten-legal-drugs-linked-to-violence/#ixzz2FNH7YyEl are the antidepressant/anti-anxiety drugs desvenlafaxine (Pristiq), venlafaxine (Effexor),
fluvoxamine (Luvox), paroxetine (Paxil), fluoxetine (Prozac), sleep aid Halcion, ADHD drug
Strattera, several brands of amphetamines used to treat ADHD, the anti-malarial Lariam, and
the anti-smoking medication Chantix. See also http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/07/top-tenlegal-drugs-linked-to-violence/#ixzz2G16Hp6aG. Of course James Holmes in the Colorado
massacre was also on psychotropic drugs, including a generic version of Zoloft called
Sertraline, as well as clonazepam see
49

http://www.naturalnews.com/039796_James_Holmes_psychiatric_drugs_antidepressants.html
or http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-james-holmes-documents20130405,0,6067279.story.) Yet a further analysis of the association of prescription drugs with
violence and shootings, from Brandon Turbeville, is at
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/psychiatric-drugs-school-violence-and-the-big-pharma-coverup_012013, while internationally known psychiatrist Dr. David Healy agrees with the summary
that these drugs cause violence a Cliff Notes version of Healys sentiments is simply this:
Psychotropic drugs prescribed for school children cause violent behavior. The non-Cliff Notes,
detailed version of his rationale behind this may be found at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/toppsychiatrist-meds-behind-school-massacres/ Healy has a website, RxISK.org, that allows
people to post personal experiences with SSRIs, and is a data repository open to the public.
If anyone is wondering why the US leads in school gun murders, perhaps you might want to
explore the relationship between drugging our kids and violence. Note that not only are school
gun murders up, but youth suicides are up dramatically was well. This shouldnt be surprising, of
course, as both are cut from the same cloth disinhibition, messing with brain function,
disturbing the level of self-control, and more. Granting that correlation is not causation, Dr.
Bertram Karon from Michigan State Univ. notes the US has six times as many children on
Ritalin, around four million, as any other country, and all of France only has 8,000 kids, in total,
on Ritalin, while his home city of Lansing Michigan, alone, has around that many. In fact, the
US accounts for around 90% of Ritalin prescriptions in the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujuDvwSOFto&sns=fb
We must fully consider the question of Todd Walker in his article, found at
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/how-many-pills-until-pharmageddon_012013: Can prescription
drugs cause you to kill someone? And the answer is Absolutely, per Dr. David Healy, author
of Phamageddon.and quoted in the paragraph above. Violence and other potentially criminal
behavior caused by prescription drugs are medicines best kept secretWant to find out if the
drugs you or a loved one are taking might cause violent behavior? Enter the name of the drug
over at the Violence Zone. Even if its just a pill to help you quit smoking, side effects can be
deadly. Dont expect to hear about this on major media outlets. Pharmaceutical companies have
a vested interest in keeping journalists in line.
David Kupelian at WND also documents a horrifying number of shootings associated with
psychotropic drugs at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hookreporting/, including not only Columbine killer Eric Harris, who was on Luvox, but also: Patrick
Purdy, who killed five children and wounded 30 in 1989, who was on amitriptyline and
Thorazine, Kip Kinkle, who killed his parents, and 22 other fellow students, who was on Prozac
and Ritalin; the 1988 Winnetka, IL. shooting by Laurie Dann, who killed one and wounded six
while taking Anafranil and lithium; the 1997 Paducah KY school shooting by Michael Carneal,
who shot and killed three while on Ritalin; the 2005 Jeff Wiese shooting, which killed nine and
wounded 5 on the Red Lake Indian Reservation, which occurred while Wiese was on Prozac;
the 1989 shooting of 20 co-workers, killing nine, by Joseph Wesbecker in Louisville, KY, while
he was on Prozac and which Eli Lilly settled a lawsuit by survivors; a 1996 shooting of his
father by Kurt Danysh while on Prozac; or the horrible case of a mother one town over from
where I currently live, Naperville, IL., who killed all five of her children while on antidepressant
Effexor. The case of the Virginia Tech murder of 32 people by Cho Seung-Hui may also have
been prescription drug related, too, as Kupelian discusses in this article. As if further evidence
were needed, the Luvox label itself states that 4% of
children in one study went manic out of control
behavior.

50

To what degree is the prozac-ing and ritalin-ing of our young contributing to these shootings?
As noted above, these prescriptions state on their warning labels that violent behavior is one
possible outcome of taking their drugs. Yet, there is nary a peep from the media. Why? Jason
Charles the Truth Alliance notes At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by
those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs. There have been 109 wounded and 58
killed. Of these 14, seven were seeing either a psychiatrist (five of them) or psychologist (two of
them). It is not known whether or not the other half were seeing a psychiatrist, as it has not
been published." Details of this issue are at CCHR, http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/ )
Not to push the issue, but, as Obama has said, we must ensure a school shooting like Sandy
Hook never happens again, so lets examine some other links on gun and non-gun related
violence related to psychotropic prescription drugs like Zoloft, Prozac, and the like. The list is
not pretty:
Per www.blacklistednews.com/Mental_illness%2C_medications_and_school_shootings
%3A_Preventing_another_Sandy_Hook/23220/0/38/38/Y/M.html, There have been 31 school
shootings since Columbine, in which Eric Harris, age 17 and Dylan Klebold, age 18, killed 12
students and one teacher, and wounded 23 others. (An assault weapon ban (1994-2004) was in
effect at the time lot of good that did). Harris was known to be taking Zoloft, then Luvox.
Klebolds medical records have never been made available to the public.
A website called SSRI Stories (http://www.ssristories.com/index.html )has compiled a sortable
database that lists over 4800 incidents of suicide, violent crimes and other incidents between
1988 and 2011, including school shootings that involve people that were prescribed SSRI
medications. Here is one more short list of a few more school shootings (see
http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?sort=date&p=school for more details) that involved SSRIs:

Steve Kazmierczak, age 27, inexplicably went on a shooting rampage on Feb. 15, 2008
in a Northern Illinois University Lecture Hall before taking his own life. He had been on
Prozac, Xanax and Ambien, but had stopped taking Prozac a few weeks before the
shootings. Toxicology reports showed traces of Xanax in his system. Five dead, 20
wounded.

Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average
starting dose for adults) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfathers girlfriend and
many fellow students in Red Lake, Minnesota on March 24, 2005. He then shot himself.
10 dead, 12 wounded.

Cho-Seung-Hui, age 23, showed signs of anger before he went on a shooting rampage
on the Virginia Tech campus that ended only after a police officer shot him dead.
Officials said prescription medications related to the treatment of psychological problems
had been found among Mr. Chos effects, but no details of his treatment or the
medications have been released to the public. 33 dead, 17 wounded.

Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer
meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky on Dec, 1, 1997. Three teenagers were killed, five
others were wounded.

Not mentioned in this article is Jared Loughner, whose aberrant psychological state has been
amply chronicled, including one email by fellow student Lynda Sorensen, who emailed her
friends We have a mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living cr** out of me.
He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an
automatic weapon. Everyone interviewed would say, Yeah, he was in my math class and he was
really weird. Loughner was just a regular drug user, of course.
51

Of course, violence involving SSRIs does not always involve firearms:

Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home
from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanics file, then
attacked his younger brothers and sister.

Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil). After five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61
times.

John Odgren, age 16, stabbed a 15-year-old student to death at Lincoln-Sudbury

Regional High School in MA on Jan. 19, 2007. Odgren was being treated for Asperger's
syndrome, a form of autism, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression
and anxiety. The defense said changes in Odgren's clothing habits, as well as changes
in his sleep and speech pattern, may have indicated a problem with his medication that
could have lead to a manic, paranoid state.

The list of incidents like the above on SSRI stories is seemingly endless and all of the
circumstances are different except for one all of them involve a mentally ill patient on some
sort of SSRI medication. Some have claimed that up to 90 percent of school shootings have
involved a shooter on prescription medications (http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-medslinked-to-90-of-school-shootings/ ) While that is impossible to verify without the release of
medical records in all cases, enough have been confirmed to establish a link between SSRIs
and violence, especially when the black box warnings on the medications mention the potential.
Maybe we need to ban SSRIs to stop the slaughter? Martha Rosenburg at
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/prescription-drugs-are-often-behind-mass-shootings327408.html also cites a number of cases that would certainly support this, as does Jeanne
Lenzer in the BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989), which refers to a report by the Institute
for Safe Medication Practices stating: It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were
associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing serious, disabling, or fatal
injuries, including 128,000 deaths. Have we really come full circle to the point where we now
accept again Stalins dictum that a single death is a tragedy, but a million is just a statistic?
That we are comparing the death of 20 innocents to 128,000 many of whom are children only
makes Stalins statement slightly less apt.
An exceedingly important article by Lawrence Hunter in Forbes, entitled Psychiatric Drugs, Not
a Lack of Gun Control, Are the Common Denominator in Murderous Violence, is found at
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2013/01/14/psychiatric-drugs-not-a-lack-of-guncontrol-are-the-common-denominator-in-murderous-violence/ In this article, Lawrence discusses
a large body of evidence from peer reviewed publications, such American Journal of Psychiatry,
The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and The Journal of
Forensic Science, discussing this very issue. Lawrence also cites the article School Shooters
Under the Influence of Psychiatric Drugs, found at http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters, ,
which found that between 2004 and 2011, there were 12,755 reports to the U.S. FDAs
MedWatch system of psychiatric drugs causing violent side effects including: 1,231 cases of
homicidal ideation/homicide, 2,795 cases of mania and 7,250 cases of aggression. Since the
FDA admits that only one to ten percent of all side effects are ever reported to it, the actual
occurrence of violent side effects from psychiatric drugs is certainly nine or ten times higher
than the official data suggest.
An eight minute video on the subject is here for those who prefer a YouTube presentation on the
topic http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1XHNJyti1gE . As
52

psychiatrist Peter Breggin observes in the

video: One of the things in the past that weve
known about depression is that it very, very
rarely leads to violence. Its only been since the
advent of these new SSRI drugs that weve had
murderers even mass murders taking these
antidepressant drugs.
The question is this: Instead of Piers Morgan,
Obama and Joe Biden taking the NRA to task,
as Lawrence points out, why hasnt the White
House asked the heads of the pharmaceutical
companies to the White House to discuss the
issue? After all, arent the kids worth it?
Lawrence concludes by asking
some very perspicacious
questions:
Why arent there bills being introduced in Congress and state legislatures to
tighten down on the indiscriminate, unmonitored use of these killer drugs?
Why is the government still suppressing information about the shooters
psychiatric drug use at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech?
Why is the government turning America into a police state in the name of
protecting us against nonexistent reefer madness while it turns a blind eye to
the real, deadly med madness created by psychiatric drugs and the
uncontrollable violent rages they produce in some people?
Could it be there is a quiet conspiracy afoot among pharmaceutical companies,
the government and the gun grabbers to make Mr. and Mrs. Gun Owner of
America the patsies for the violence and to blame lone-wolf violence on guns
rather than psychiatric drugs?
Could it be that power-hungry politicians and gun snatchers are out to exploit
rare tragedies such as Sandy Hook and use the blood of innocent children to
scare America into giving up its constitutional rights to own and bear arms and
use them as a deterrent against tyranny?
Could it be that big pharma is todays big tobacco?
Could it be there is an intentional effort underway in the centers of power in
Washington, DC to hide the truth from the American people about the strong
connection between psychiatric drugs and violence and to protect the
pharmaceutical companies from civil and criminal charges for their
responsibility in these heinous crimes?
Could that be the explanation for why there continue to be lawsuits against gun
manufacturers not for defects in their products but rather for the misuse of
their products by drug-addled individuals and why there are few lawsuits
against pharmaceutical companies for the obvious flaws in their products, which
are producing violence and mayhem?
Could it be the Gun Control movement is simply a blind; just an effort by the
triple alliance of left-fascists, big-government politicians and big-pharma
53

prescription-drug dealers to dose and oppress the American people in the name
of public safety, officer safety and social order?
The fact is, the kinds of guns used by mass shooters are far less relevant than
the kinds of drugs they were prescribed.
And while on the topic of drugs, the issue of illegal drugs is also a major contributing
issue to gun violence. A former police captain interviewed at Natural News, at
http://www.naturalnews.com/038391_gun_confiscation_executive_orders_cops.html,
pulled no punches on the contributing factor of these drugs particularly
methamphetamines. Said this individual: "Most of the gun violence in our city is drug
addicts raiding the homes of other drug addicts. The statistics might appear to show a
lot of armed robberies and shootings, but it's really just a small subset of homes or
apartments getting raided over and over again by the same people, the drug dealers."
When I asked what the real drug problem was, he answered without hesitation. "Meth."
Not pot, not marijuana, not even heroin. Meth is the drug that drives violent crime in
America's cities. One then ask oneself, why is it our young are turning to illegal drugs
(as well as gangs)? The answer is so blatantly clear, I wont attempt to insult your
intelligence by proffering my opinion here.
We also need to examine the issue of deinstitutionalization of the truly mentally ill. Perhaps the
ACLU might be the real reason behind so many mass killings, given their hyper-aggressive legal
acts they engage in in this area. James Simpson, cited elsewhere in this paper addresses this
issue by noting In the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law (2008), Jason C.
Matejkowski and his co-authors reported that 16% of state prisoners who had perpetrated
murders were mentally ill today, while government at most every level has bloated over the
past half-century, mental-health treatment has been decimated. Moreover, a 2011 paper by
Steven P. Segal at the University of California, Berkeley, found that a third of the state-tostate variation in homicide rates was attributable to the strength or weakness of involuntary civilcommitment laws(See http://joemiller.us/2013/01/study-gun-ban-lobby-in-bed-withmainstream-media-others/#ixzz2JQWH9Fhu). Sheriff Mike Winters, of Jackson County, OR.,
made a very similar point in his cogent, well-reasoned interview with local reporters, found at .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hX7su5tMioQ#t=430s.
Another reason mass shootings are occurring more frequently is that the left has destroyed the
last vestiges of personal responsibility honour and respect; while so-called Hollywierd pushes
filth, violence and the demeaning of fellow humans down the throats of the vulnerable young
and the easily suggestible - as they, themselves, make millions on the Faustian bargain.
Heres one story illustrating this very issue, that came out one month after Sandy Hook: Four
Young Adults One the Son of a Police Sergeant Lured Two Friends to a House, Robbed
and Strangled Them and then Played Video Games (See http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=33202
or http://news.yahoo.com/illinois-double-slaying-called-brutal-heinous-223037767.html for
details on this horrific one). No shooting, no mass press coverage. Police Chief Mike Trafton
said: "This is one of the most brutal, heinous and upsetting things I've ever seen in my 27 years
of law enforcement." However, it is very indicative of what is happening to the culture, be is
prescription drugs, the dissolution of the family, the reduction in religious faith, and more.
Meanwhile, if you think the erosion of personal responsibility is an exaggeration, just look at the
ever-quotable Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who spoke on the House floor in 2013, stating: Dont
condemn the gangbangers, theyve got guns that are trafficked that are not enforced, that
are straw purchased and they come into places even that have strong gun laws.
54

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/04/representative-jackson-lee-dont-condemn-the-gangbangersits-the-guns-fault/ So there you have it! Its not the criminals fault. If we didnt have guns, they
wouldnt be able to kill. We just need to be more sensitive and perhaps create a more socialist
environment. And as Political Outcast notes, presumably she feels the same way about Adam
Lanza, the person responsible for the crisis that liberal politicians wouldnt dare let go to waste.
It wasnt his fault that he killed all those kids and teachers. It was because guns exist, and he
got his hands on some of them. Of course, if he had used a car, bomb, poison or a knife, that
would also not be his fault either. You know, just like the two Boston Marathon bombers, who did
not legally own the firearms they used in a shootout with police. Dzhokhar was too young for a
license, and Tamerlan never bothered applying for one. In fact, if these two guys had tried a
home invasion to take hostages, an AR-15 or two in the hands of a homeowner just might have
come in handy.

FOR SAFETY, BAN HANDS AND FEET

There is a place for psychiatric drugs. However, there is not a place for wholesale, mass
drugging of our children. But, leaving this issue aside, if we are to ban guns instead of drugs,
may I humbly suggest that we also ban hands and feet, as well as knives (and lets include
butter knives you can never be too careful and besides, someone might sharpen one with a
whetstone). Within a month of the Aurora, Colorado tragedy, nine people were killed and others
wounded in a knife attack in China (see http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-kills-eight-knifeattack-reports-102629246.html - this is a different Chinese knife attack from the one that
occurred the same week as the Connecticut shooting, where around two dozen were stabbed).
There are a multiplicity of fatal knife attacks I could choose from in the US, but to select a recent
a couple at random, there was one in Flint, Michigan, where five were killed and eight injured by
a knife wielding assailant. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/us/07brfsSERIALKILLER_BRF.html?_r=0 and one at a Houston community college in 2013 that injured at
least 14, four critically when initial reports came in http://news.yahoo.com/multiple-injuriesreported-stabbing-houston-college-173356578.html or
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/09/17673057-at-least-14-hurt-in-stabbing-spree-ontexas-college-campus. Thankfully, race-baiter Al Sharpton has already indicated knives are a
possible target for the U.S. hear him say so himself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=nssQETWpf10&feature=player_embedded . In March 2013, also in China, knife-wielding
attackers killed 29 people and injured 143 in a frenzied attack at a Chinese railway station. The
attackers, four of whom were killed by armed police, launched the horrific attack at Kunming
railway station in Yunnan province at around 9pm local time yesterday. Full story at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570996/At-27-dead-109-injured-gang-knife-wieldingmen-attack-train-station-China.html#ixzz2uozgDV6k Of course, once we are done banning
knives, perhaps we can ban vehicles, too. In case you dont remember, there have been mass
killings with cars where people drove into crowds in both NYC and Chapel Hill, NC., just to
name a couple. The fact of the matter is, that, per the FBI, the number one weapon used in
homicides is a baseball bat: in 2005, there were 445 murders with rifles, but 605 with hammers
and clubs; the next year the figures were 438 and 618 respectively, and this trend continued
through 2011 with 323 murders committed with a rifle, and 496 with hammers and clubs (and I
am omitting the other years for brevitys sake, not to play the usual leftist game of leaving out
inconvenient facts, such as what Al Gore does with his faux global warming charade).
Breitbart.com correctly concludes from this that if more people had a gun, less people would be
inclined to try to hit them in the head with a hammer.
But here is the main point, as Bill Whittle pointed out in his speech to Congress in 2013: Hands
and feet are used to murder twice as many people as rifles, knives five times as many as rifles,
55

and medical malpractice, 300 times as many as rifles. Importantly, the reason we dont ban
knives or doctor is that, per Whittle, society perceives they do more good than bad. And using
that reasoning, firearms should never be banned as they prevent a 100 times more violent
crimes than murders committed with firearms. (see http://joemiller.us/2013/03/bill-whittle-theconstitution-is-being-destroyed-only-guns-can-defend-us/#ixzz2OqydpEPB for complete story).
Shtfplan.com illustrates the death toll from guns vis--vis other modes of killing graphically
below (see http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/americas-biggest-killers-the-chart-antigunners-dont-want-you-to-see_01052013)

Perhaps we should, as Freedom Outposts Sylvan Malis sardonically asked at

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/04/after-gun-control-whats-next-knife-control/ How about
establishing a database for Knife DNA? Test every knife for the unique cutting serration from
the blade of the knife. That way you could trace the knife that caused an attack on someone
back to the owner of the knife. But wait, theres more. How about requiring serial numbers on
knives, and of course installing safety devices on knives so they cant cut someone, especially
on purpose. Dont forget mandatory classes on knife safety and the Concealed Knife Carry
permit. There will have to be serious penalties for someone who doesnt keep a knife in an
approved locked knife storage safe with a secure keypad entry system.
And one more point: a handful of men with no guns, only boxcutters, murdered over 3,000
people over a decade ago, and Timothy McVeigh before that murdered hundreds with no guns
in Oklahoma City. Maybe we should be banning other farm implements and warehouse tools!
Personal Liberty.com, at http://personalliberty.com/2012/08/01/time-to-ban-hands-feet-and-thefda/?eiid= cites similar figures with non-firearm murders. In 2010 alone, 742 people were killed
by hands or feet, with 540 people killed by blunt objects (and, per
http://www.naturalnews.com/034569_iatrogenesis_accidental_death_medicine.html, lets not
forget the 98,000 to 106,000 contingent upon which study you use - of people who died last
56

year as a result of FDA approved drugs). There were similar statistics exonerating rifles for 2011
from the FBI: Out of approximately 8,500 gun related homicides, only 3% used rifles of any kind.
Meanwhile, knives killed 1,694 (five times as many as all rifles combined), blunt objects a few
under 500, and hands and feet 728. In 2010, only 0.1% of all gun homicides involved five or
more victims. Even the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence admits that, since 2010 up to
the time of the Connecticut shooting, a grand total of 35 people had been killed in 9 separate
incidents in which an assault weapon was involved (even if the gun was not the murder
weapon). There is very little evidence the assault gun laws will actually do anything, as prior to
the federal assault weapon ban, the type of firearms banned were used in a mere 2% of gun
crimes (and these were mostly pistols), per a National Institute of Justice study found at
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf. Regarding the assault gun ban, University
of Pennsylvania criminologist Christopher Koper and his co-authors concluded, "Should it be
renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small
for reliable measurement. Too small for reliable measurement!? Infogram illustrates the
matter here:

Here are the 2011 statistics from the FBI page itself:

57

And regarding automatic weapons, as Natural News points out they are highly regulated,
extremely expensive ($15,000+) and VERY difficult to acquire. They're also extremely rare and
have NEVER been used in any school shooting in America. Just to acquire an "automatic
weapon," you must go through extensive background checks and fingerprinting. You must apply
to the federal government (ATF) for permission, then wait six months or longer to be "approved"
by the ATF.
www.naturalnews.com/038443_gun_myths_assault_weapons_background_checks.html#ixzz2G
7kpy5w1. Per this article, a true assault rifle must have a selector switch between single,
three round burst, and full auto fire. Importantly, not a single one of the civilian AR-15s actually
have these features, and thus there are virtually no military assault rifles on the street today.
Besides, the military seldom uses automatic fire themselves, as it is generally is not of value by
virtue of being inaccurate. If you would like a factual description of what an assault rifle is, see
the article by former peace officer Earl Griffin at http://www.infowars.com/regarding-gun-control58

what-is-an-assault-rifle/ Meanwhile, the whole ban on high capacity magazine to prevent mass
killings is a logical non-sequitur. Why? Because the average reload time on an AR-15, or similar,
is two seconds. Most mass murders take minutes, or more. In the case of Sandy Hook if in
fact the gunman really did use the assault rifle as claimed and fired 150 rounds he obviously
changed his 30 round magazine at least four times, and only stopped when armed police closed
in on him. Worse, if a criminal shooter is carrying multiple guns, they simply swap guns and
reload when possible. In other words, the Feinstein law banning high capacity magazines will do
zilch. Except take away on one more liberty. If you wish to verify how quickly it takes to reload,
see the videos of people doing so at http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=yHYARkMZiig&feature=player_embedded#t=23s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjHjur_dho&feature=player_embedded#t=39s or http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=_IVeFmHNzVk&feature=player_embedded#t=59s
But, the simple proof is in the pudding. The deadliest mass murder in US history was at Virginia
Tech in 2007, with 32 people killed. Was a machine gun used? A vilified AR-25?
Nope.
The shooter simply used two vanilla handguns, supplied with a backpack full of Feinsteinapproved 10 round magazines. Similarly, at Columbine, one of the two boys simply carried 13
ten round magazines with him. The math is not hard to do. Unless you have a leftist agenda,
and are willing to sacrifice lives for that agenda as the left has always been wont to do.
A letter signed by 1,100 Green Berets and Special Forces veterans also spelled out the
difference between an automatic (in this case a M4A1) and semi-automatic AR-15, in a letter to
Washington, DC found at http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40772
they note the AR-15 is a rifle that cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it
is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semiautomatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the
operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. And regarding high capacity
magazines, they decry the gun grabbers uninformed comment that just a few seconds of
changing magazines could have saved the lives of people. Rather, the letter notes As experts
in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity
from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty
10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 8 seconds make any real
difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. As Exhibit
A of this fact, the letter cites the Columbine massacre, noting When the Federal Assault
Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and
magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995,
which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons
Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was
armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris
simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacres aftermath.
Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself. A summary of this Green Beret article is found at
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/special-forces-take-on-domestic-enemies-of-gun-control-inletter/#ixzz2JbyJBsoD
In any event, fully automatic weapons have been banned since the 1934 National Firearms Act
(before which even children could order guns through the mail, with parental permission)
though of course media either doesnt know this, or doesnt know the difference between an
automatic and semi-automatic, or for the few that do have a modicum of knowledge, think it is
ok for the police to have them witness the Salt Lake City Tribune, which published an editorial
59

stating Assault weapons that can fire numerous times in seconds are designed for only one
thing: killing large numbers of people. The military and law enforcement officers need that
ability; ordinary law-abiding citizens do not, (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/5567797282/law-constitution-federal-gun.html.csp). Yes, you read that correctly - apparently the police
need to be able to kill large numbers of people in their routine of daily law enforcement in
Obamas America. What? To polish off Joe Businessman who was doing 10 miles over the
speed limit as he was late to Johnnys basketball game? Maybe take out a few 10 year olds
skateboarding where they shouldnt be? Did anyone at the newspaper even read what this
person wrote? As the Examiner concludes about this inimitable piece of ignorance, If there is
any conceivable scenario in which law enforcement officers need to kill "large numbers of
people," then "large numbers of [we the] people" need as much firepower as we can possibly
acquire. http://www.examiner.com/article/government-prepares-for-war-with-the-people-andmass-media-approves
Oh yes. Shortly after this was written, a man wielding a knife began stabbing people in Salt
Lake City only to be stopped by someone with a concealed carry permit.
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-citysmiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx No comment from the savants at the Salt Lake City
Tribune on this, of course, and this will be nowhere reported in anything other than the local
news, as here: http://joemiller.us/2013/04/gun-carrying-man-ends-stabbing-spree-at-salt-lakegrocery-store-video/ .
But here is a question for you: As columnist Jacob Sullum writes, if large capacity magazines
are not useful for self-defense or defense of others, why not impose the same limit on police
and bodyguards? And if the capacity for additional rounds do provide more protection, why
should law-abiding citizens be denied that protection? The reality is that a larger magazine
allows a defender to engage multiple assailants not uncommon in todays gang filled world
in a situation where there often can be the fog of war. In any event, the assault rifles the left
wines about which only fire one bullet per pull - means they are no more automatic their a
standard pistol which does the same thing. Of course, the Feinstein amendment rushed to ban
cosmetics like pistol grips, which Ben Crystal points out are about the same thing as banning
car spoilers to stop car accidents. And, oh yes the car accident total, as of 2009, saw an
average of four children under age 14 killed every day, with 500 injured. A total of 31,000 people
in total were killed. No frantic outcry from the media there.
Mark Almonte, in his March 4, 2013 article, Why Does Anyone Need a High Capacity Magazine,
at http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/why_does_anyone_need_a_highcapacity_magazine.html#ixzz2Md56Vzg4 takes each objection against high capacity magazines
and handily dispatches them. Almontes paper deserves a full read by anyone interested in this
question, but in summary, the gun grabbers have a gross misconception about bullet stopping
power and accuracy, and a misunderstanding about the true threat of multiple attackers, which
in turn denies people the necessary means to effectively defend themselves. On what basis,
Almonte asks, do politicians arrive at a ten bullet limit per magazine? What is their evidence or
research for this? As a matter of fact, there is none it is just an arbitrary political choice.
Almonte also notes the only shot that can reliably cause immediate incapacitation is a hit to the
brain or spinal cord, and even a bullet directly to the heart allows a criminal to have enough
oxygen in his blood to continue shooting for 15 more seconds. And contrary to Hollywood
movies, many bullets do not have the power to knock a human down otherwise the recoil from
shooting would knock the shooter down. FBI statistics state that A ten pound weight equals the
impact of a 9 mm bullet when dropped from a height of 0.72 inches and equals the impact of
a .45 when dropped from 1.37 inches. Worse, an assailant on crack, meth, high on adrenaline,

60

or the like will often prevent him from even feeling pain, or knowing he has been shot. As a case
in point, Almonte cites the case of Michael Platt:
In 1986, in Miami, FBI agents were involved in a shootout. Despite being shot six times,
Suspect Michael Platt was still able to gun down two FBI agents and injure three others. Platt
was hit by four more gunshots, but he continued to be a threat by pointing a gun at responding
officers. It wasn't until bullet number twelve struck Platt in the chest that he was incapacitated.
Similar examples of suspects being shot five to six times without being incapacitated occurred
in Philadelphia and Georgia. In a self-defense situation, you may have to inflict half a dozen or
more gunshot wounds on your attacker in order to neutralize the threat. That's assuming that
you are able to land half-a-dozen hits on your target.
The issue of accuracy is also central, according to Almonte, noting According to an NYPD
report (see http://www.nyclu.org/files/releases/Firearms.Discharge(2005).pdf ), there were 16
officer-involved shootings in 2005 where the suspect shot at police officers. The NYPD officers
hit their targets 8% of the time. The officers fired an average 17.3 rounds to stop the threat. One
factor that certainly contributed to the low percentage of hits is that in 70% of the gunfights, the
suspect shot first. Other studies have officer-involved shootings at a 51% hit rate, but they don't
include officer-involved shootings that have no hits, and they don't isolate gunfights, where the
suspect is shooting at the officer. Almonte also notes another study by Florida State University
criminologist Gary Kleck, in which he states that in 53% of defensive gun use in the U.S., the
victim faced multiple attackers. So, now you have issues of stopping power, accuracy and
multiple attackers in over half of defensive situations. That means doubling the number of
bullets needed for each additional attacker!
But why take my word for it? Let me simply cite leftist New York Times, which notes at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2& that police
officers who must continually train and certify with their firearms only hit their targets 34% of
the time. In other words, they only hit one of three shots. What do you expect of a nervous,
working stiff homeowner who is suddenly awakened at 4 AM, and has to hit a moving target in
the dark? I suggest we leave the 10 round magazines, if they are so effective, in the hands of
those protecting Ms. Feinstein and her minions.
Then there is the leftists war against women. In fact, women account for 46% of all defensive
gun use critical in that this helps equalize the size and strength differential. Reducing the
magazine size only helps the bad guy when he attacks a woman.
Almonte concludes his article by asking, If a law-abiding citizen, who's cleared a background
check and received firearms training, can be trusted with one bullet, why can't he or she be
trusted with a hundred bullets? Is the first bullet any less deadly then the 99th?
One more detail needs to be said re. assault rifles. To get more exact about the figures cited
above relative to rifles and crime, according to the FBIs CIUS report on Murder Victims by
Weapon, the grand total of firearms used in 2011 to commit murder was 8,583 (see
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls ). Of the 8,583 murders, only 323 rifles were used, or exactly 3.76%
of the total, of which only a smaller portion of that 3.76% were assault rifles. Too small for
reliable measurement indeed. Perhaps, if the gun grabbers really want to keep us safe, they
could ban the FDA with the tens of thousands who have died from their sanctioned drugs. (Now
you know why Dr. Marcia Angell, MD., former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine,
stated regarding the FDA and the like - in the New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009:
It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to
61

rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure
in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of
The New England Journal of Medicine.). And I am not alone. Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns
Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health a dozen years ago published Doctors Are The
Third Leading Cause of Death in the US., in the Journal of the American Medical Association
(JAMA). Starfield's documented how 225,000 Americans die from iatrogenic causes including
12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery, 7,000 per year due to medication errors in
hospitals, 20,000 due other hospital errors, 80,000 due to hospital infections, and 106,000 due
to negative drug effects. http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm . Natural News.com
states that doctors kill 2,450% more Americans than all gun related deaths combined. As it
relates to psychotropic drugs, should we count the dead in Aurora and Sandy Hook among
those iatrogenic deaths? Other doctors may concur, such as Dr. Joseph Mercola who cites a
study by Dr. Bruce Pomerance of the University of Toronto who concluded that properly
prescribed and correctly taken pharmaceutical drugs were the fourth leading cause of death in
the U.S. Mercola also cites an article authored in two parts by Gary Null, PhD, Carolyn Dean,
MD, ND, Martin Feldman, MD, Debora Rasio, MD, and Dorothy Smith, PhD, that come to similar
conclusions. However, it is not the point of this article to take issue with the FDA, other than to
question the association between massacres not with guns, but rather due to psychotropic
drugs.
John Noveske, a gun manufacturer who was killed in a mysterious car crash, also asks the
same questions about drugs and gun violence: He notes the following cases at his Facebook
site at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Noveske-Rifleworks/181862575167497?ref=ts&fref=ts,
just before his mysterious death. Note that many of these cases are related elsewhere in this
paper, but are added here in that for some cases, Noveske adds additional information, while
other cases are not listed elsewhere in this paper. Note all the cases here are gun murders, but
serve to illustrate that psychotropic drugs are clearly related to violent death (also see
http://www.naturalnews.com/038616_John_Noveske_mysterious_death_car_crash.html#ixzz2J
soKVsGQ for summary of same article )
Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school
shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others,
before killing themselves. Klebold's medical records have never been made available to the
public.
Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting
dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather's girlfriend and many fellow
students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.
Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which
caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23
classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.
Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.
Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.
Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.
Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school
and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.
62

Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six
others.
A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand
off at his school.
Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in
West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..
A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax
and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.
Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing
four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.
TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and
wounded six of his class mates.
Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.
James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22
caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other
children and two teachers.
Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania
Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) school shooting in El Cajon, California
Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.
Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.
Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from
work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic's file, then attacked his
younger brothers and sister.
Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be
on Prozac along with several other medications.
Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his
head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was
opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and
other SSRI antidepressants.
Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.
Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering
many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.
63

Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed
Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide hanging from a tall ladder at the
family's Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.
Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her
closet. Kara's parents said ".... the damn doctor wouldn't take her off it and I asked him to when
we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to
Paxil...")
Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002,
(Gareth's father could not accept his son's death and killed himself.)
Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family's detached garage.
Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school.
The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead,
hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.
Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison
bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.
Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his
death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for
insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness
symptoms.
A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.
Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been
diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and "other drugs for the
conditions."
Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and
wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a
benzodiazapine.
Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing
himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently
been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace
amounts of Xanax in his system.
Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed
eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School then he committed suicide.
Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court
records show Coon was on Trazodone.
Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his
New York high school.
64

Missing from list... 3 of 4 known to have taken these same meds....

What drugs was Jared Lee Loughner on, age 21...... killed 6 people and injuring 14 others in
Tuscon, Az
What drugs was James Eagan Holmes on, age 24..... killed 12 people and injuring 59 others in
Aurora Colorado
What drugs was Jacob Tyler Roberts on, age 22, killed 2 injured 1, Clackamas Or
What drugs was Adam Peter Lanza on, age 20, Killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown Ct
Roberts is the only one that I haven't heard about being on drugs of some kind.
The upshot of all this? Intellectual honesty, as well as respect for the dead, demands that we
examine all possible causes of these massacres. But, of course, that would not match with the
agenda of the left and the gun grabbers.
But lets leave the drug angle behind. There are other bad reasons behind the gun controllers.
Another reason to support the availability of guns is that contrary to the leftists fondest
wishes, mankind is fallen. As Jeff Jacoby has noted [Wars are not] caused by nuclear missiles,
or al-Qaeda terrorism by box cutters. We fool ourselves if we imagine that by fixating on
missiles and box cutters we can avoid reckoning with the cruel side of human nature. ... The
desire to believe ... that 'people are truly good at heart' is powerful. Sadly, history refutes the
idea that human nature alone will make a good world. Controlling bad things may sometimes be
prudent. But it is above all by controlling ourselves -- by fortifying the better angels of our nature
-- that the struggle against evil progresses."
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Then, there is the legal side of the equation. Columnist Harry Binswanger lays bare the
intellectual and legal fraud behind the gun grabbers by noting: "[T]he government may not
descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have
proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove
that he won't violate another's rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to. But this is
precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the
absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational,
responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them
irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the
irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable. The government may coercively
intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force. ... Statistics
about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population is no evidence against you. That's
collectivist thinking. The choices made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will
make. ... The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively evident. It has no
right to initiate force against the innocent. And a gun owner is innocent until specific evidence
arises that he is threatening to initiate force. And in any event, guns are already one of the most
heavily regulated products in America. As if that has done a lot of good!
But, what do the professionals say about strong gun laws and the reduction of firearm
homicides? Attorney Marc. J. Victor summarizes it succinctly at
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/victor7.1.1.html , noting In 2004, the National Academy of
65

Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications evaluating 80
gun-control measures. Researchers could not identify a single regulation that reduced violent
crime, suicide or accidents. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control analyzed ammunition
bans, restrictions on acquisition of firearms, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access
prevention and zero tolerance laws. After their analysis, the Centers for Disease Control
concluded there was no conclusive evidence that any gun control laws reduced gun violence.
Foreign researchers have also come to the same conclusion. In Australia in 2008, a peer
reviewed study at the University of Sydney reached virtually the same conclusions as both the
National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control. Gun control measures
simply do not reduce gun violence.
And as we discuss professionals, what does the FBI say? In their Uniform Crime Reports,
found at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s, in 1992 the US had a violent
crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000, with a murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate of 9.3 per
100,000. When you consider the numbers, we are talking an extremely small percentage. 20
years later and with the large increase in the number of guns what was the same rate at the
end of 2011? Well, if you listen to the leftist media, your answer will be wrong. According to the
FBI site above, the violent crime rate dropped to half of what it was in 1992, or 386.3 per
100,000 in population (vs. the 2.034 in gun control nirvana England). Similarly, murder dropped
almost 50% to 4.7 per 100,000. Ever hear anyone at a news outlet broadcast that after a
shooting spree? Of course, this same report illustrates it is certain urban areas in most cases
the cities having the stricter gun control laws such as Chicago that have the higher murder
rates.
One twist to the gun control cities needs to be noted, however. Washington DC instituted strict
gun control several decades ago. Here is how that played out:

Compare the chart above to the National Inst. of Justice chart below, which graphs the whole of
the United States. :

66

Did the handgun ban in D.C have any significant effect, compared to other states that did not?
Look at the two blips in the graphs, and draw your own conclusion. But if you need help. Jeffrey
Shapiro at economicpolicyjournal.com, in his article What I Saw as a Prosecutor in
Washington, D.C., Makes Me Wary of Strict Firearms Laws, at
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/01/what-i-saw-as-prosecutor-in-washington.html,
noted that the DC ban on firearms in 1976, which even prohibited people from keeping guns in
their homes for self-defense, had surprise, surprise unintended effects. Violent crime
increased after the ban was enacted, with homicides going from 188 in 1976, to 369 in 1988, to
454 by 1993. Correlation is not causation, it is true. But if you wish to take the risk, good luck to
you. Even worse, the D.C police department was mandated to create a special Gun Recovery
Unit, which meant the police were forced to spend resources checking otherwise law abiding
citizens with meager returns for the investment. In 1997 Police Chief Charles Ramsey
disbanded the unit and re-assigned them to patrol duties.
AMERICAN HISTORY AND FIREARMS
On a broader level, as noted above, of course guns also have historically ensured American
freedom, both from internal tyranny as well as external invasion. Bill Bonner wrote When King
George sent troops to put down the revolution a letter appeared in the London paper. It came
from a man who had lived in the colonies. He told his countrymen that if they were shipping out
to fight the Americans they should be sure to write their Last Wills and Testaments before they
left. Because the Americans all had guns and knew how to use them.
And King George wasnt alone: Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief, Imperial Japanese
Navy, killed in action, April 1943, reportedly said You cannot invade the mainland United
States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. And now you know why, perhaps,
after the Sandy Hook shooting, China called for the American population to be disarmed, just
like the Chinese population is, in a Xinhua article entitled Innocent Blood Demands No Delay for
U.S. Gun Control (really, China? Tell us more, then, about your enforced abortion policy against
67

women who do not want it after they

have had a single child). This is the
same China where the founder of
the current government, Mao
Zedong, stated political power
grows out of the barrel of a gun.
(Full quote is All political power
comes from the barrel of a gun.
The communist party must
command all the guns, that way,
no guns can ever be used to
command the party.) The Chinese
fellow below was lucky. Estimates of
the death toll at Tienanmen Square
in 1989 of people who werent so lucky range from several hundred to several thousand. No one
really knows, as the socialists running the government wouldnt release the figures.
But, assuming guns, themselves, are the problem, lets look at the government, and all the
assault weapons and ammunition it has assemble just in the past year: In April 2012, the DHS
purchased 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets, which Natural News says is enough to
wage a seven year war with the American people. The purchase order is here, for your own
examination http://www.naturalnews.com/files/DHS_ammo_buy.pdf . DHS then went on to
purchase another 750 million more rounds of ammunition as well, in addition to the following
goodies: Over 1 million rounds of hollow-point .223 rifle ammo ( you know the Adam Lanza
Connecticut shooting rounds); over half a million rounds of non-hollow-point .223 rifle ammo;
220,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #7 ammo (target ammo); over 200,000 rounds of 12
gauge shotgun #00 buckshot ammo (tactical anti-personnel ammo); 66,000 rounds of 12 gauge
shotgun slugs (tactical anti-personnel, anti-vehicle rounds); over 2 million rounds of hollow-point
.357 Sig JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel); 0ver 4 million rounds of .40 S&W JPH
(hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel); over 60,000 rounds of .308 match grade antipersonnel sniper rounds (BTHP); Plus, hundreds of thousands of additional rounds of .38
special, .45 auto, 9mm, 7.62x39 (AK rifle) ammo, and others. And then in January, the
hypocrites at the DHS had the temerity to announce they were buying 7,000 assault rifles with
the clever (for a bureaucrat!) idea that they would call them personal defense weapons and
fool the public. See the actual request by the General Service Administration (GSA) request for
proposal (RFP) by the Department of Homeland Security on the Federal Business Opportunities
website at https://www.fbo.gov/?
s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0
And one more question posed at Natural News,
http://www.naturalnews.com/035607_government_checkpoints_Martial_Law.html and
http://lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m27.1.html : What is behind this? The DHS does not
fight foreign wars it only operates in the U.S. Worse, hollow point ammunition is banned by
the Geneva convention,and not used by the U.S. military, per http://lewrockwell.com/adamsm/adams-m27.1.html . In total, 1.6 billion rounds were purchased in just 2012 alone, meaning
every single man, woman and child has five bullets with their name on it. So, if guns are the
cause of crime, well, Ill let you draw your own conclusions. Of course, the leftist media has said
little to zilch about all of this either. (And yes, I realize we are talking government here, so many
of the shooters may well be horribly inept but still 1.6 billion bullets?!)
Ah, but you say this is the government with the guns, so it is OK. The reality is that those
who maintain this have neither listened to the Founding Fathers statements noted above, nor
68

have they still, after 2,000 years, answered the question the Roman satirist Juvenal posed: Quis
custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will watch the guards, or more colloquially, who controls the
controllers)? Perhaps some of the 500 TSA (as of 2011) agents who have been arrested for
stealing passenger goods could answer that question? And this number is probably just the tip
of the iceberg, as, for example, a 2008 investigative report conducted by Pittsburgs WTAE
station found that despite over 400 reports of baggage theft, about half of which the TSA
reimbursed passengers for, not a single arrest had been made. Of course, the TSA does not, as
a matter of policy, share baggage theft reports with local police departments, so it could be
much worse.
OK, you say but gun control - its for the children. To which I only ask, which children? The
60 children who were murdered in gun-free Chicago in 2012, as noted above? The ones the left
has zero compunction about leaving trillions and trillions of dollars of debt to pay off? The ones
that escaped partial birth abortion? The kids that currently have one trillion dollars in student
debt, all so the their Marxist professors can retire at age 52, after having every summer off and
only twenty hours of contact time, or less, with the students each week?
OTHER COUNTRIES
But what about other countries? Im glad you asked!
For England, as the article Barbarians Within the Gates, Part III, Schwarz Report, Oct. 2011, p.
5 noted, The UKs ban on handguns in 1997 did not stop actual crimes committed with
handguns. Those crimes rose nearly 40% according to a 2001 study by Kings College
Londons Centre for Defense Studies, and doubled by a decade later, according to government
statistics reported in the London Telegraph in October 2009. Joyce Lee Malcolm corroborates
this information a Dec. 26, 2012 article at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?
mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop , nothing that Within a decade of the handgun ban and the
confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according
to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is.
Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another
massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a
colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people. In fact, James Simpson, in his
must-read article found at http://joemiller.us/2013/01/study-gun-ban-lobby-in-bed-withmainstream-media-others/#ixzz2JQWH9Fhu, notes that After the handgun ban, gun crime,
including handgun crime, skyrocketed. In 1997/98, there were 2,636 crimes committed with
handguns in England and Wales. By 2001/02, handgun crimes had increased to 5,871. Overall,
firearms were used in 9,974 crimes. (Gun crime soars by 35%, Daily Mail, Jan. 9, 2003).
Firearms crime in the U.K. peaked in 2005/06 and has declined since. In 2010/11, firearms were
used in 7,024 crimes, and 3,105 of these were handgun crimes, down from the earlier peak, but
still well above its 1997/98 level. In 2010/11, 9.3 percent of all homicides were committed with a
firearm. U.K. firearms crime and violent crime in general remain well below U.S. levels, but both
have increased dramatically despite a century of gun control. (Press release, Home Office, Jan.
19, 2012).
But, as they say in the old Ronco commercials Wait! Theres more! Summarizing from
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/pulling-back-the-lefts-demonizing-of-the-modern-musketreal-numbers-of-violent-crime-in-the-us/#ixzz2GshnLp3F, the UKs Home Office Statistical
Bulletin, which provides crime figures for England and Wales, ex Scotland and Northern Ireland
(which thus skews the numbers slightly down) show that in 2011, there were 762,515 violent
crimes in a population of 56 million, including approximately 125% more rape victims per
69

100,000 people each year than the United States does

(http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims ) and 133% more assault
victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does
(http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims ). In sum, there were
1,361 violent crimes per 100,000 population in the UK or 3.5 times the rate of the U.S. The UK
murder rate is lower, at 1.3 per 100,000 population. However, it is not noted what weapons are
using to commit murders or violent crimes in the UK. The net of this is that the UK has a higher
rate of violent crime than armed Americans, and that more guns do not mean more violent
crime.
As evidence of the above, two charts on rape and assault victims in Piers Morgans safe, merry
olde England, cited from http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims and
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims are shown below:

70

Ben Swann of Fox News also concentrated on this UK gun issue when he addressed the Piers
Morgan/Alex Jones debate of early Jan., 2013. Morgan incorrectly cited 35 gun deaths in UK in
2011 vs. 11,000 in the US. Not true at all. FBI crime stats show there were 12,664 homicides in
the US., with 8,583 were firearm related, not 11,000. Of those, 400 were listed as justifiable
killings by law enforcement, 260 in the same category by private citizens. England does have a
lower homicide rate, but with a population of 62 million, the UK actually had 59 homicides in
2011. Adjusted for population, that would equate to roughly 300 or so murders. But thats basic
math, which you cannot expect the left to do. The reality is, that as Dr. John Lott has noted, the
overall number of gun murders in Britain being low does not prove that the gun ban worked,
considering that the figure was already comparably low BEFORE the ban as well, i.e., the ban
did not cause a decrease in gun murders, even according to the official numbers. In a nutshell,
as theendrun.com notes, gun murders in Britain being low does not prove that the
gun ban worked, considering that the figure was already comparably low BEFORE the
ban as well, i.e., the ban did not cause a decrease in gun murders, even according to the
official numbers. See http://www.theendrun.com/larry-pratt-british-gun-crime-stats-a-sham.
Even more importantly, the anti-gunners in general have no clue that, as Lott states, total
homicides are the most important concern, rather than how a homicide was committed.
Worse, the violent crime rates are most likely under reported (gotta them tourists pouring in,
yknow!). The UKs Independent reported a few years ago that there may be up to 2 million
71

violent crimes missing from the official data!

http://web.archive.org/web/20080706191657/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2710
596.ece . See also the very enlightening article at http://www.theendrun.com/larry-pratt-britishgun-crime-stats-a-sham that has a very highly documented discussion on the massaged UK
crime rate numbers. Even more disturbingly, in the most recent report I have, 2006, there was
one knife crime committed for every 374 people in England, while in the US it was one gun
crime for every 750 people the same year. As Bob Livingstone points out, In other words, a
person was twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the U.K. as he was a gun crime in
the United States. Theredoes that make you feel more safe?
And then there is the case of a soldier beheaded in the streets of London in May, 2013, by a
jihadist wielding a machete. According to The Independent the victim was a soldier, who was
beheaded right out in the street. Story is at http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/401720/SoldierBEHEADED-and-two-men-shot-in-London-TERROR-ATTACK, and an actual video of the
attacker speaking to a cameraman before the police arrived is at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V6KLZGoj2xU#t=2s . Good thing
Piers Morgans UK doesnt have guns, or otherwise the victim would have been shot rather than
beheaded.
One other point of interest about British gun laws need to be made: According to Fernando
Aguirre, a resident of Northern Ireland (see his web site of http://ferfal.blogspot.com/), handguns
in fact are allowed in one part of the UK, and allowed to be used in self-defense as well
Northern Ireland. And, of course, you know what is coming next, dont you? The part of the UK
that has the lowest firearm homicide is. no, I wont make you guess Northern Ireland.
According to UK government statistics, Northern Ireland has 20% fewer gun related murders per
year than the rest of England, Scotland and Wales, is spite of obviously much higher gun
ownership. Yes, there could be multiple explanations for this. But suffice to say, the simplistic,
unscientific propaganda of the left about guns needs some serious examination. See the Ferfal
blog for further documentation on this.
Still, what of the delta between the US and UK murder numbers? Do fewer guns actually mean
less crime? But you know the answer to this. The UK has the second highest overall crime rate,
the fifth highest robbery rate, the fourth highest burglary rate, in the EU and most importantly
England has the highest violent crime rate in the EU, with 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000, far
ahead of even South Africa at 1,609 per 100,000. The US has a rate of 466 violent crimes per
100,000 not even in the top 10. (See Telegraph article The most violent country in Europe:
Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2HQDkC3re)
And Piers Morgan wants us to be more like the UK?
Following leftist logic, the US has the worlds highest gun ownership rates, so it should have
the highest gun murder rates, correct? Actually, Honduras, Jamaica and El Salvador, along with
24 other countries. The US with the highest gun ownership rate - is #28, with a rate of 2.97
per 100,000 population. The full story is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=tRJ0ls_W9XM&feature=player_embedded#t=72s which also references sources for this data
at the Fox19 site. Of course, England has always had a much lower gun crime rate even
before the gun control implementation which the gun grabbers never mention. Also not
mentioned is the fact that gun crime has almost doubled in England since the gun ban went into
effect.

72

But, when it comes to knives, just for good measure, England has proposed a 10 year sentence
for possession of any knife with a blade more than three inches long (I literally have no idea if
this includes butterknives!). When researchers from West Middlesex University Hospital found
that kitchen knives were used in as many as half of all stabbings, the BBC reported on the move
to ban kitchen knives, stating The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed
knives to be publicly available at all. They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and
found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen. None of the chefs felt such knives
were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was
needed. The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if
used in an assault but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs. In contrast, a pointed long
blade pierces the body like cutting into a ripe melon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm . Another UK paper, the Inquisitor, justified the
ban by invoking Middlesex again, stating A West Middlesex University Hospital group
contends that violent crime is increasing in Great Britain and kitchen knives are used in
approximately half of all stabbings. The team claims that many of the knife attacks are impulsive
acts and that a kitchen knife is too convenient of a weapon. No word yet if England has banned
running with scissors or people using pencils with sharp points. And it is singularly unfortunate
that England did not think to ban knives like ones under the current ban one thousand years ago
during the Viking invasions (Im sorry Mr. Svensson, but before you do any looting, raping or
pillaging in England, youll have to check your blades in with the customs officials Next in
line!!)
Across the English Channel, Hollands draconian gun laws certainly havent helped witness
the recent report at http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20052416.html , entitled 7 Killed 15
Wounded in Dutch Mall. And of course, across the border and going back a few decades to
Germany, Nazi guns laws against Jewish firearm owners 60 years ago, as Stephen Halbrook
has written, played a major role in laying the groundwork for the eradication of German Jewry
in the Holocaust. Disarming political opponents was a categorical imperative of the Nazi
regime (a full rendering of Nazi gun control laws, including ones against the Jews, is found at
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html). As if any further clarification were
needed, Hitler himself reportedly stated in 1935 For the first time a civilized nation has full gun
registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient. The world will follow our lead."
(Note: the authenticity of this quote is hotly debated, but even if apocryphal, it certainly captures
Hitlers political zeitgeist, as the Nazi gun control summary at
http://www.conservapedia.com/Gun_Control_in_Nazi_Germany points out). Doug Giles at
ClasDaily.com has a fairly comprehensive list of Nazi gun regulations at
http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/empire-state-takes-the-lead-adolf-gives-his-nod/
And just for good measure, Hitler later added after his conquests The most foolish mistake we
could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all
conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own
downfall." The experience with Hitler outlined above was anticipated by the wisdom of the
Second Amendment, which declares: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This right
reflects a universal and historical power of the people in a republic to resist tyranny, which was
not recognized in the German Reich and led to a holocaust. One would do very well to google
the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 and compare to the United States Gun Control Act of 1968, as
well as more recent laws. But Ill leave that sobering research to you.
But why believe me, your humble writer? Rather, listen to a citizen of Austria, Katie
Worthman, a survivor of the Nazi regime (and later three years under the Soviets) in her own
73

words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TvLdRz5pF7s#t=0s.
Worthman is someone who is very aware how the media corrupts things and allows tyranny to
gain a foothold, stating "In the beginning, Hitler didn't look like, or talk like a monster at all. He
talked like an American politician."
Worthman says the common wisdom of Hitler overthrowing governments with the force of
arms isn't true - rather Austria elected Hitler with 98% of the vote at the ballot box. Worthman
also notes Austrians had guns, but the Nazis pulled the same guns are dangerous ruse, then
went to gun registration, and finally forced people to turn in their guns to cut down crime - and
if one didn't... there was capital punishment.
Mrs. Worthman notes Hitlers tyranny "didn't happen over night, but it took five years, gradually,
little by little, to escalate to a dictatorship but adds that the antidote to that is When the
people fear the government, that's tyranny, but when the government fears the people, that's
liberty." And I trust Worthman a heckuva lot more than Dianne Feinstein when it comes to
understanding tyranny. Worthman concluded her interview by stating Keep your guns, keep
your guns and buy more guns."
Perhaps one might also care to examine Russia, which also has relatively strict gun control
laws, under their Federal Weapons Act of 1996 (see http://www.gunlab.com.ru/excerpts.html).
Did their laws prevent the 2002 theatre siege by Chechen militants, which over one hundred
killed? See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/28/chechnya.russia6 or YouTube at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbvKhdVGOoo if you need to refresh your memory of this
atrocity. But Russians have already lived through what happens under a tyranny. This is why
Pravda published an article by Stanislav Mishin in Dec., 2012, entitled Americans, Never Give
Up Your Guns. See http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335americans_guns-0/ for the story, but here is the one critical takeway quote from it: Moscow fell,
for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten
thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets
and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city
alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own
issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The
Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were
asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly
shot. Mishin concludes his article by noting the real agenda of the left, both in Russia and
elsewhere: Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do
not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their
ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey
without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the
ear. In fact, this reflects precisely what Joseph Stalin said: If the opposition disarms, well and
good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.
It is simply true, as William Jasper writes, that A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all
dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the
hands of the state. And the results of this monopoly was a holocaust of Russians that was ten
times that of Hitler and the Jews But lets leave the 61,911,000 dead (as per the figure revealed
with the USSR fell and its archives were opened) under Soviet tyranny and move on to other
countries
74

Moving to Mexico, per the UN, gun controlled Mexico (guns are technically legal, but are
extremely difficult to qualify for, as well as to find a gun shop) has a homicide rate of 22.7 per
100,000, while the gun happy US rate is 4.8 and significantly, the global average is 7
homicides per 100,000.
In Australia after they banned guns in 1997, by one report armed robberies went up 69%;
assaults with guns up 28%, gun murders up 19% and home invasions up 21% (except the
Australian government still refuses to define what a home invasion is (no word if they have
defined what the meaning of is is, either). Full details of the Aussie imbroglio are at
https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA or http://www.youtube.com/watch?
feature=player_embedded&v=p8RDWltHxRc - or see article by attorney Marc J. Victor at
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/victor7.1.1.html In the Joyce Lee Malcolm WSJ article cited
above, she also addresses the Aussie gun ban of 1997. The result of it? According to Malcolm,
the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of
firearms homicides declining 3.2%. According to their study, the use of handguns rather than
long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the
two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with
firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in
the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the
government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms. In
2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a onethird decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and
20% in sexual assaults. Malcolm concludes that the gun laws of England and Australia have
not made the population any noticeably safer nor prevented massacres. A revealing six minute
video of this imbroglio can be found here http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/governmentcorruption-1/what-happens-after-gun-bans.html Of course, the Aussie laws did chew up a cool
half billion dollars in taxpayers money exactly similar to the Canadian experience noted a few
paragraphs below. But not to disparage the Aussies completely - Peter Reuter and Jenny
Mouzos from leftist Brookings Inst.published a 2003 study which found homicides continued a
modest decline after the gun ban, concluding the effect of the National Firearms Agreement
was relatively small, with the firearm homicide rate declining 3.2%. Of course, this decline was
already in progress before the ban.
Ann Coulter working off yet another inane NY Times article entitled More Guns = More
Killing, particularly has fun with the goofy leftist commentary on gun control in Australia by
noting that according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, the homicide rate has been in
steady decline from 1969 to the present, with only one marked uptick in 1998-99 right after
the gun ban was enacted. Meanwhile, Coulter notes while suicides by firearms dropped after
the ban, so did suicides by all other means. (And you are correct, no one on the left appears to
have done the math on that one, either. Apparently banning guns stopped people from doing a
Marilyn Monroe or jumping off the local bridge.) But as you might expect with the left, it gets
worse, and Coulter nails it: After the ban on guns in the Oz, accidental deaths by firearms
skyrocketed, despite mandatory gun training requirements for those few remaining souls who
owned guns. As always, the legerdemain of the left factors in again, as until a coroner certifies a
death as suicide, its categorized as unintentional. So, Coulter summarizes, either mandatory
gun training led to more gun accidents an abject failure of big government or suicides are
being counted as accident. As Al Gore might say, how convenient. Coulter article is found at
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/09/coulter-doing-the-research-the-new-york-times-wontdo/
Could the Australia legerdemain get any worse? Mais oui! Unknown to the left, there are things
called control groups. Coulters article simply went and found a country unknown to liberals
75

New Zealand. Similar demographics, similar history, similar socio-economics (and after sharing
a house while doing graduate work with a massive cadre of both Kiwis and Aussies, no, I am not
dumb enough to confuse the two). Heres the basic math that even a junior researcher should
have found: Mass murder in Australia, from 1980 up to 1996 was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000;
the Kiwi rate was 0.0050 per 100,000. Australia, as noted, banned arms in 1997, and viola!
There were no more mass shootings subsequent to that! Not mentioned, of course, was that
fully armed New Zealand has also has not a single mass murder either since 1997. So much
for research integrity from the Gray Lady of New York with apologies to Walter Duranty or
not.
Indeed, it is true, as one internet wag put it:
Government regulating housing = people ended up losing their houses.
Government regulating commerce = people ended up losing their jobs.
Government regulating firearms= ?
Do the math yourself..
Moving to Jamaica, which instituted total gun control in the 1970s, this country has had one of
the highest murder rates in the world for many years, according to the U.N. approximately 60
per 100,000 population. Only El Salvador and Honduras, as noted above, have higher murder
rates in the world. http://www.caribjournal.com/2012/02/08/jamaicas-murder-rate-falls-to-sevenyear-low-but-still-caribbeans-highest/. Infogram puts the matter graphically like this:
Gun ownership the US is #1:

Murder rates US not even in the top 25:

76

But it gets even more embarrassing. Fareed Zakaria he of plagiarism fame pulls off a Piers
Morgan disinformation gambit in his Aug. 2012 Time Magazine article, where he claims the gun
homicide rate in the U.S. is 30 times that of England or Australia. Summarizing from Henry
Percys Gun Violence in America is Off the Chart article in American Thinker, here are several
issues: Why does Zakaria cite gun murders instead of total homicides? Does it really make that
much of a difference, Percy asks, is someone is killed with a gun or a blunt instrument? (Well,
on the plus side, at least Tom was only murdered with a blunt instrument rather than a gun)
Actually, quoting from the 2011 Global Study on Homicide, conducted by the UN Office on
Drugs and Crime, the total homicide rate for the US was 4.1 times that of the UK, and 4.5 times
that of Australia. Not 30 times. But close enough, I guess, for the leftist media. Of course, as
mentioned elsewhere in this paper, gun crime was higher in the US even when England had
almost identical gun laws. That is, gun laws havent changed anything. Overall, the U.S comes
in a paltry #99 worldwide 5.4 homicides per 100,000 - with over half the countries of the world
having a higher homicide rate even though the US has the most guns per person in the world.
Mexico has a rate 2.4 times greater than the US, and Brazil, which requires extensive
background checks and strict registration that even a Massaschussets liberal would love, 4.2 to
5 times greater. Socialist Venezuela, which bans all semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns,
has a rate 11 times that of the US. Significantly, Chile has laws similar to the US, including open
carry, yet has a gun homicide rate lower than the US (examining these statistics, one could be
forgiven for surmising it perhaps is socialism that is the central principle behind gun crime!) And
most likely, the numbers around the world are under-reported, as there are not centralized
databases, people may not report murders to corrupt police, or countries may not want to scare
away tourists. Another question Percy raises: Mr. Zakaria found a blindingly obvious causal
77

connection between easier access to guns and homicides. Perhaps so if you are part of the
leftist media that cannot do statistical analysis. In 2009, Washington DC which has stricter gun
laws had a murder rate of 24.2/100,000, while Live Free or Die, open carry without
license/concealed carry license for $10 New Hampshires rate was 0.9. Gun loving states like
Idaho and Utah have rates not much higher, while socialist, gun control-freak Rahm Emmanuelinfested Illinois has a rate 9 times that of New Hampshire. .
But lets look at another socialist country the blue states in the U.S. As the Canadian site The
Poog notes at http://thepoog.com/?p=4435, in an interactive chart titled Crime vs Gun
Ownership, produced from a site called Data Masher, Poog lists the top 15 rankings states and
notes that they are all - based on the last 4 elections states that are blue (4/4), light blue (3/4)
and purple (2/4) - i.e., Democratic states. In the table below, Poog then adds in parentheses,
the state rankings in terms of number of guns purchased based on background checks by the
FBI as presented by the Daily Beast. (There is no data available for Illinois or California so gun
stats for Chicago and Los Angeles are not captured.)

1. Massachusetts (blue) (46)

2. New Jersey (blue) (50)
3. New York (blue) (48)
4. Hawaii (blue) (49)
5. Maryland (blue) (45)
6. Delaware (blue) (43)
7. Connecticut (blue) (19)
8. Iowa (light blue) (31)
9. Michigan (blue) (37)
10. Nevada (purple) (32)
11. Rhode Island (blue) (47)
12. Ohio (purple) (39)
13. Florida (purple) (42)
14. Minnesota (blue) (22)
15. Pennsylvania (blue) (25)
Poog concludes that 11 of the 15 are solidly Democratic based on the last four elections, three
are 50/50 and one is mostly Democrat (3/4). The heavy concentration is in the Northeast When
we look at the number of guns purchased by state there is a curious inverse relationship. The
top six ranked states in terms of gun crime were in the bottom eight ranked states in terms of
number of guns purchased. So, it appears that Democrats less guns, but use them to commit
more crimes!
Closer to home, as a dual US/Canadian citizen, who has spent half my life in both countries,
Canada very strict gun control legislation. The always well-done Canada Free Press, as one
example, has a list of shootings and violent crime just in Toronto, at
http://www.canadafreepress.com/gun-shootings-toronto.htm And from the personal side, from
having a very close friend having a neighbor murdered right outside her front door in a suburban
area of Ottawa, to my brother in law telling me about a knife murder at a mall down the street, to
78

the week we moved from Canada, when someone with an illegal gun committed murder on
Elgin St. in Ottawa, the whole gun grabber thing is a disaster in Canada. The results of strict
Canadian gun control laws?
On Jan. 13, 2011 the Ottawa Citizen, even acknowledged that Canadian gun legislation is an
abject failure:
As strict as Canadian gun laws appear, they do not prevent the movement of illegal firearms in
or out of this country, nor their possession, and only cover those firearms that have been
registered. Last year, Canadian police services reported some 8,000 victims of violent gun
crime, ranging from assault to robbery and homicide a rate of almost one person per hour
victimized by violent gun crime. On average, more than 1,200 Canadians are killed and more
than 1,000 injured with firearms each year.
In fact, this statement was corroborated just over a year later, when two people were killed in
Quebec in yes, you guessed it a Gatineau, Quebec school. See
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/person-dead-quebec-day-care-children-safe18889191
And if you thought the Representative Giffords shooting in Arizona was bad (and it was!) in 2006
a Canadian gunman uploaded pictures of himself posing with a rifle. He bragged on his blog
that he loved the Internet game based on the Columbine shootings. One day he decided to stop
playing. He went to a Montreal college and, when all was said and done, he killed one person
and seriously wounded another 19 before he shot himself. Less than 10 days after the Colorado
theatre shootings, Toronto had a shooting that killed two and wounded 21
(http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/17/one-dead-several-injured-in-scarborough-shooting); in
turn, this had been preceded a month earlier by a Toronto mall shooting at the Eaton Centre,
which killed one and injured seven (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/02/world/americas/canadamall-shooting/index.html). The stories in Canada go on, but I wont.
Canadas stringent gun laws, in the form of Bill C-68, apply to handguns and rifles. This has
been universally acknowledged as an abject failure, including over $1 billion dollars lost on
something that didnt work. Heres the details:
There are nearly 7 million registered long guns in Canada. Since 2003, when mandatory long
gun registration was introduced, of the 2,441 homicides in Canada, less than 2% (47 to be
exact) have been committed by those registered guns (figures cited from Canadian Centre of
Justice Statistics). According to Statistics Canada, in 2008 there were around 23,500 victims of
violent crime committed with a knife, with homicides and attempted murders about 1/3rd of such
incidents (cited from Lawyers Weekly, 21 May, 2010). No word yet whether leftists will introduce
a long butterknife or dinner settings bill - you know, you can never be too careful about those
doggoned table settings, including possible strangulation by napkins!! It really is the fact that,
as one wag wrote the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Banning the legitimate ownership of
handguns to prevent the illegitimate use of handguns is equivalent to the idea that banning
sexual relations between a husband and wife will prevent rapes in dark alleys.
DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO
Lets examine other leftists, and what they do for personal protection. For the sake of brevity, I
wont even begin to cover all the politically correct Hollywood types like Michael Moore who are
for gun control but use armed guards for their own protection other than provide one
example of the hypocrisy du jour: David Gregory on CNN mocked the NRAs Wayne LaPerrier
79

after the Sandy Hook shooting for proposing armed guards at schools. But of course, as yet
another latte liberal, Mr. Gregory sends his kids to the uber-luxe Sidwell Friends school in
Washington, DC, which if you scan the schools online staff directory - you will find a security
department of at least 11 people, of which many are former police officers (and you can bet they
aint totin just yellow pads to issue detentions to would-be bad guys!) And of course, Obamas
children go to this school as well, so theres also Secret Service personnel at the institution. But
that returns us to Orwells dictum about socialists, which we see put in practice everywhere and
every time socialism is put in place theres one rule for the special folks, and another rule for
the hoi polloi. And if you dont believe that, maybe you need to check out one of Michelle
Obamas seemingly monthly uber-luxe vacations. (I wont bother the remind you that Sen.
Dianne Feinstein, as exposed by Mark Levin, had a concealed carry permit , and once stated
If somebody tries to take me out Im going to take them with me
http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2012/12/diane-feinstein-carries-concealed.html (see also
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/feinstein-1995-her-concealed-carry-permit-i-know-urge-armyourself-because-thats-what-i-did ). Harry Reid also admitted to gun carry and hunting at
http://mrctv.org/videos/harry-reid-praises-guns-2010-i-carried-gun-every-place-i-went Then
there is another liberal hypocrite from the Washington Post, the late Carl Rowan, who wrote in
1981 that anyone who wasnt a law enforcement officer who committed a crime with a handgun
should be sent to prison for ten years without parole - while in 1988, as Aaron Goldstein wrote,
Rowan shot and wounded an intruder at his D.C. home with an unregistered .22 caliber pistol.
Well, Rowan didnt acquire a badge in the intervening seven years.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/27/liberals-who-cling-to-their-gu. But any way you cut the
above, we need to remember, as Martin Luther King warned us, Never forget that everything
Hitler did in Germany was legal.
Basically, the attitude of these leftists is explained in a nutshell by Jon Rappoport Im a
limousine liberal. I dont believe in owning a gun. I wouldnt know how to shoot a gun if my life
depended on it. But I do have fourteen men who work for me who carry weapons
(http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/this-what-i-want-to-hear-obama-say-about-guns/
)
Incidentally, here is gun expert Feinstein, compared to a smart 6 yr. old:

Let me conclude with an anecdotal story to help reify the matter. Canadian John Myers writes
about a personal experience in Alberta (and which is borne out by Dr. John Lotts
aforementioned book, More Guns, Less Crime) at
http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/civil-liberty/with-gun-control-canadian-

80

criminals-are-making-a-killing/?eiid=&rmid=2011_01_26_PLA_[PIZ0411C]&rrid=238494331.
Myers writes:
I never imagined that a time would come where I would have to level my shotgun at a person;
that I would take deadly aim with it. But that happened when I as a senior at the University of
Calgary and was cramming for a final. Around midnight I heard a car screech to a stop outside
my parents home which sat on an isolated street. I was home alone with the family dog, Elsa, a
Great Dane with a gentle disposition.
In the news had been reports that two men were terrorizing women on Calgary streets. Two
young women, Laurie Boyd and Debbie Stevens, had been dragged from their cars at night and
murdered. I heard pounding at the front door. I knew something was seriously wrong when I
opened the door to find my girlfriend Angela standing before me crying. Before I could even ask
her what was happening a second car pulled into our driveway with the high-beams on.
I took Angela inside and went outside to see what the commotion was about. I brought the
family dog with me and kept her leash wrapped tightly around my hand. Two men were walking
straight towards the door; neither one saying a word and neither showing any regard for me or
our dog which was growling and barking.
I dragged the dog back inside and gave her to Angela. I remembered the Remington that I kept
in the front closet. I found it and then fumbled for the single target load shell that I kept in the
corner of the hat shelf. It was all the ammunition I had, but I was damn happy to have it. I was
shaking, but I loaded the shell. I slipped back outside. I was surprised at how close these
strangers were to me; perhaps fewer than 20 paces. I remember the taller of the two had his
hand reached inside his coat. It was dark so at first I dont think they noticed my shotgun. But
they knew it was there when I raised it to my shoulder and pumped the fore-end, chambering
the shell. In a split second they spun and ran to their car, roaring off into the darkness.
More than a year later two men, Jim Peters and Rob Brown, were charged and convicted on
multiple charges of murder. My girlfriend Angela later became my wife. To this day we dont
know if those men were the Calgary serial killers. All these years later we remain certain of two
things: These men had evil intentions and we were damned lucky to have that shotgun.
The fact is, the left doesnt really want dialogue about guns. Thats just a gambit for the Yes
we can chanters. They want to triangulate those in the middle out of the discussion, then
continue the process of propagandizing more to their side, until they hold the political high
ground. The real attitude of many though not all - leftists is illustrated by the darkened mind of
Donald Kaul, columnist for the Des Moines Register. Kaul wrote Dec. 29, 2012 about the NRA
that they should be branded a terrorist organization, and we should tie Mitch McConnell and
John Boehner to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until
they saw the light on gun control. Now, there is one enlightened, dialogue-seeking, non-violent
soul!
The truth is, theres more to gun ownership and gun rights in America than meets the eye, as I
have shown above. Dont let the leftists take the moral high ground on this one - that belongs
one hundred percent to the gun owners.

81