December 1, 2022

A Gun Study Nobody Will Talk About

U.S. News & World Report reveals, “Half of all global deaths from gun violence occur in six countries in the Western Hemisphere, according to a new study that exposes trends in fatal shootings, particularly in the cause of death.” Topping the list in the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation study are Brazil, the United States, and Mexico.

Yet one of the more interesting results of the study is that the U.S. actually ranks 30th in the rate of homicides with guns, which, given the prevalence of firearms in our nation, flies in the face of those claiming that more guns cause more violence. The trick to ranking the U.S. second overall is suicides. More on that below.<<<Read More>>>


There Are Fewer School Shootings Now Than During the 1990s

But…But…But…We’re All Gonna Die!

No sense in looking at any of this information. Facts are always getting in the way of agendas. Regardless, I was surprised to read this stuff.

“And when it comes to things like homicides, there is no evidence that things are getting worse. It is indeed true that things aren’t like they were “when we were kids,” but that’s a good thing. There were far more homicides in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s than there are today. Things were even worse than that during the 1970s. In fact, the homicide rate in the US was cut in half between 1991 and 2014. And while the homicide rate has inched up over the past two years, it is nowhere near where it was “when we were kids.” 

“For anyone familiar with these trends, it should not be a shock to hear that a subset of those homicides — school shootings — have decreased over that period as well. “<<<Read More>>>


SMAHT! Wicked Smaht!

After a march on Washington….


Common Sense Solution to Gun Violence

*Editor’s Note* – I received this in my email yesterday. I was going to discard it but then decided it was worth a laugh, whether it’s accurate or not. It’s theater. All of it always is theater. Some thing will never change.

In 1865, a  Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States  .

In 1881, a  left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United  States – who later died from the wound.

In 1963, a  radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President  of the United States.

In 1975, a  left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the  United States.

In 1983, a  registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the  United States.

In 1984,  James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a  McDonalds restaurant.

In 1986,  Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in  an Oklahoma post office.

In 1990,  James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC  office.

In 1991,  George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a  Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen , TX.

In 1995,  James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5  coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999,  Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a  church service.

In 2001, a  left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed  attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.

In 2003,  Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a  Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007, a  registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010, a  mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep.  Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011, a  registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and  shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012,  Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in  Minneapolis.

In 2013, a  registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a  school in Newtown ,CT.

As  recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship  yard.

Clearly,  there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

Not  one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was  involved in any of these shootings and murders.


It  should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

We  don’t need gun control, we need Democrat control.

Guns  don’t kill people, Democrats do!


Gun control rebrands, recovers

*Editor’s Note* – There is little reason to put much stock in the “data” that Milbank uses in his opinion piece. That aside, readers should not be fooled into believing that this “rebranding,” i.e. a focus on somehow creating a means of keeping “all guns away from certain people,” will accomplish the fake stated goal of preventing gun violence, nor is it a concise representation of the long term goals of anti-gunners. This is incrementalism at its finest. Whether planned or happenstance, regardless of what appears to be working – or at least what form of propagandizing is working – this is an incremental step that they hope will work as they continue to chip away at people control disguised as gun control, or in this case keeping “all guns away from CERTAIN people.”

The more important question here is why isn’t those who present themselves as opposing gun violence, addressing the root problem of violence. Many tools are used in the perpetuation of human violence. Guns happens to be just one of the many. It’s not the tool, is about what causes the will or desire to be violent.

Gross overstates the case. (Among his tipping-point evidence: supportive tweets from Kim Kardashian.) But there is some truth to what he says. From the legislative debacle following Sandy Hook, the gun-control movement has retreated to a limited but pragmatic approach. Gone is the notion of “gun control,” replaced by “reducing gun deaths” or “gun violence prevention.” Gone, for now, are efforts to restrict any type of gun or ammunition. Instead, the movement has found a laser focus on background checks.

Source: Gun control rebrands, recovers — Opinion — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine


Playing With Gun Numbers



White House Staffer Threatened Boyfriend, a U.S. Capitol Police Officer, With His Own Gun

*Editor’s Comment* – Perhaps the “sex” was that bad?

According to charging documents, Barvetta Singletary sent her boyfriend a text on Friday, asking him to come to her Upper Marlboro home for sex. After they had sex, Singletary confronted her boyfriend about the other woman he was dating.

Investigators say Singletary asked her boyfriend to step outside, and they both went to his car. Once inside the car, Singletary asked to see her boyfriend’s cellphones, police said. When he refused, Singletary reached into his bag and retrieved two cellphones and the victim’s .40-caliber Glock 23 service weapon, charging documents state.

Source: White House Staffer Threatened Boyfriend, a U.S. Capitol Police Officer, With His Own Gun: Police | NBC4 Washington


Bill Whittle: Number One With a Bullet


Avoiding Root Causes of Gun Violence

gunandscalesofjusticeI read with interest yesterday Paul Mirengoff’s article at the Powerline Blog. Mirengoff’s is the first article I’ve seen that even comes close to addressing the root causes of what leads to gun violence or violence in general. He calls it the war on standards.

His argument is that in the case of Aaron Alexis, the latest fruitcake to murder masses of people, a failure of the criminal justice system may have been the root cause of Aaron Alexis ever making it into Building 197 of a Washington, D.C. Navy facility.

In 2004, Alexis blew out the tires of a car that supposedly belonged to someone that made him angry. It is my understanding that at the time this action was considered illegal in Seattle, where the event took place. However, everything appears to have been lost in the bureaucratic shuffle and Alexis was never charged and no record existed that would have showed up in a background check. Is this where it all began?

This is only one case of paperwork hindering and/or preventing “criminal justice.” I personally know of more than one case of “criminals” being allowed to “slip through the cracks” in order to cover up issues, do favors, or in carrying out some kind of plea deal. In one instance, a teacher was caught having an affair with a student. In a “deal”, the man was allowed to quit his job in return that the school department would not place the offense on his record. He soon got another job at a nearby school. Is this not another failure of the “criminal justice system?”

What would have changed in Washington, D.C. had Aaron Alexis’ record showed a past record of gun violence? Perhaps nothing, however, was his employers or even the U.S. Military given an accurate account of this person before he was given a job, a security clearance or allowed in a restricted area? Could he have bought a gun?

As a society we fail miserably when it comes to addressing the root causes of our problems. In the recent Washington, D.C. mass shootings, the debate immediately goes to banning guns and yet, few, if any, bring up the fact that it is virtually impossible, according to D.C. law, to own a gun there. If that law is so wonderful and is designed for public safety, as the lie goes, then isn’t this another case proving laws banning guns do nothing to deter mentally ill people, or those prone to violence or the common crook?

Recently, an unending push by the Obama Administration to restrict magazine sizes and toughen background checks, is argued to have zero affect on gun violence. If we had those “tougher background checks”, would Aaron Alexis have been prohibited from buying his shot gun? Remember, his act of gun violence in Seattle in 2004 went unreported and therefore would not and did not show up in his background check to buy the shotgun in Virginia two days before his murdering spree. Is the problem here the existence of guns?

Some would say so. They believe that if we could just ban all guns, this stuff would go away. Would it? Where’s the data that shows that? Data actually indicates the opposite. Shooting sprees occur in “gun free zones.” And how is our record in properly enforcing existing laws? Is there any corruption involved?

Let’s face it, guns bring out the most emotional and irrational conversations between pro and anti gun advocates. So long as this exists, there is never any hope that facts might get in the way of decision making.

I agree for the most part with Mirengoff that actions and reactions, combined with politics, special interests and basic overall corruption has sparked a war on standards. Standards could also be substituted with the word “morals.” But this has been going on for decades and yet as a society we bury our heads in the sand, never to address the root causes, always placating to the politically correct.

For example, today I learned that Starbucks is going to announce that guns are no longer welcome in their coffee stores. Why? Because too many people are showing up with guns and that is offending some of their customers. In addition, the owner says that he has to walk a fine line in order to placate all of his customers. In other words, he doesn’t want to drive business away because some people might be scared or offended by the sight of a gun and yet, he wants to appear sympathetic to gun rights and the Constitution. Is it possible to have it both ways?

The owner of Starbucks has every right to dictate, within the law, the rules of his establishments, however, if you will notice in this ABC News article, there is no mention that due to the increase in people showing up to their stores with more guns, that there hasn’t been any increase in gun violence or related problems.

Due to the assault on standards, it may be the root cause of why, after every mass shooting or horrific gun violent act, the cry seems only to go out for a ban on guns. We’ve not finished destroying that standard yet, evidently. If existing laws cannot be properly executed for reasons that might range from, inept paper shuffling to outright racism and corruption, what hope is there that even a background check would do any good?

The other rant that is taking place on all news media outlets has to do with mental illness and the demand that somehow if Aaron Alexis had been fingered as a psycho, none of this would have happened. I continue to ask the question, what is it that people want? From what I have been hearing on the news since this event is that anyone being treated for mental illness should be locked up. Really? Everyone? And if not everyone, then which ones? How many? Who gets to decide?

There are basic standards in which, if we did a better job of adhering to them, perhaps some of these tragic events could have been avoided. However, no system is perfect. No laws are ever going to stop this nonsense. Thinking that taking away liberties from normal people is going to solve this problem is irrational in nature and oppressive in turn, with no change toward a desired outcome to end or reduce gun violence.

Failure to address root causes is akin to never fixing a flat tire so long as adding air will get you where you need to go for now and thinking there would never be a blowout.


Time Warner Questioned over CNN Gun Violence Coverage

Time Warner Criticized for Public’s Misperception of Gun Crime in America

Gun Crime Rapidly Declining, Public Thinks it is Rising

Conservative Activist Blames Bias at Time Warner’s Cable News Station, CNN, for Distorting Public View of Gun Violence

Time Warner CEO Vows to “Strive to do Better” In Presenting the News Fairly

Atlanta, GA / Washington, DC – At today’s annual meeting of Time Warner shareholders held at the CNN Center in Atlanta, Georgia, National Center for Public Policy Research Free Enterprise Director Justin Danhof, Esq. confronted Time Warner CEO Jeffery Bewkes over his company’s bias and partisan positions regarding the Second Amendment.

“Media bias has become so bad in this country, that regarding the Second Amendment, it has actually altered the American public’s perception of reality,” explained Danhof. “As the owner and operator of CNN, Time Warner is culpable for the real world effects of its bias.”

Danhof explained to Bewkes that American gun crime rates are dramatically declining. Between 1993 and 2011, gun killings fell 39 percent and non-lethal gun crime dropped 69 percent. Despite this great trajectory, a majority of the American public mistakenly believes that gun crimes are on the rise.

“The public can be forgiven for their misperception regarding gun crime statistics,” explained Danhof. “The way many so-called cable news journalists at CNN and elsewhere jump to cover gun tragedies as a way to advance a political agenda is repulsive and relentless.”

“Time Warner owns CNN and is therefore responsible for the anti-gun rhetoric spewed by its activists such as Piers Morgan – a liberal partisan who has never met a shooting tragedy he wouldn’t exploit on his quest to abolish the 2nd Amendment,” said Danhof. “Morgan and his mainstream media cohorts have exploited gun tragedies so much in fact that it has altered the public’s perception of reality. This has to stop.”

“Conservatives often complain about media bias, but don’t know what to do about it,” noted Danhof. “Well this is a real world example where bias is affecting reality. Conservative and free-market minded Americans need to use these real world examples and confront bias with facts.”

“Bewkes recognized that bias is a matter of perception, and seemed fully aware that many individuals like me find the content and presentation of CNN’s news and opinion programming extremely slanted,” explained Danhof. “Bewkes said he would strive to do better and that CNN’s goal was to present the news in a non-partisan way.”

Danhof also presented Bewkes with the results of a Rasmussen poll that showed that only six percent of Americans consider the news to be very trustworthy, pointing out that this is lower than Congress’ approval rating.

“I told Bewkes that the distrust in the media is well earned,” added Danhof. “I told him that CNN should strive to present facts and stories, and let the viewer make up their mind what to think. Bewkes acknowledged that this was the optimal approach to news presentation and he would work to achieve that end.”

Time Warner Inc. isn’t the only company exploiting the 2nd Amendment in a partisan way. One of Time Warner’s former divisions has also jumped on the anti-Second Amendment bandwagon.

Just weeks after the tragedy at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Time Warner Cable (now separate from Time Warner Inc.) announced that it would limit certain gun commercials stating: “We no longer accept ads showing semi-automatic weapons and guns pointed at people. We stand by this policy. If it’s essential to a business owner to show this kind of imagery in their commercials, there are other advertising options in the marketplace.”

“If Time Warner Cable wants to be consistent, it must ban all depictions of semi-automatic weapons and instances of guns being pointed at people across the company’s entire cable platform,” said Danhof. “Short of that, this decision is the definition of hypocrisy.”

Last week, Danhof confronted Comcast CEO Brian Roberts over his decision to ban all gun advertisements across Comcast’s cable and broadcast offerings. Read more about Danhof’s efforts here and here.

In addition to Time Warner Cable and Comcast, Google, General Electric and Groupon have all recently joined the anti-Second Amendment corporate bandwagon.

The National Center’s work to combat anti-Second Amendment corporations and confront media bias has been covered extensively, including by the Hollywood Reporter, Politico, the Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, the Washington Free Beacon and the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Today’s Time Warner meeting, combined with the National Center’s presence at today’s Amazon and Home Depot annual meetings, moves the total of shareholder meetings attended this year by the National Center to 30.

A copy of Danhof’s question at today’s shareholder meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

National Center President David Ridenour is a Time Warner shareholder. Danhof attended today’s meeting as his proxy.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.