The Mall in Columbia Shooting: What We Should Have Learned by Now

The Baltimore Sun published an extensive article (which you can access here) that covers the shooting at The Mall in Columbia on January 25 of this year. After reading the piece, I could do nothing but shake my head as the chilling details sounded all too familiar. After the Newtown tragedy, I had become heavily engaged in researching and commenting on gun control issues, including the factors commonly found around mass shooting incidents. This incident at The Mall in Columbia was a textbook case of points that gun rights advocates have been stating all along, but these points seem to fall on deaf ears, or at least they fail to sway those who have an agenda to disarm law abiding citizens.

Key Points

1. The shooter was inspired by the mass shooting at Columbine High School in 1999. He waited until the exact time that the Columbine shooters began their shooting spree to start his own shooting spree. He even committed suicide in the same manner as one of the Columbine shooters.

2. The shooter suffered from mental health issues and indicated in his journal that he had been hearing voices in his head. He also indicated a lack of emotions and feeling of empathy. Although he admitted to hearing voices to a doctor, he did not seek or receive any treatment afterwards.

3. The shooter had been planning the incident for months prior to the January 25th incident. He had been researching mass shootings, especially Columbine.

4. The shooter brought plenty of ammunition and even a bomb that did not detonate. The police have no answer as to why he chose to end his shooting spree at the time he did, as he could have easily kept the shooting spree going.

5. The shooter carried out his plans with a Mossberg 500 shotgun that he purchased on December 10, 2013, well after Maryland's new Firearms Safety Act went into effect on October 1st of the same year, which included an "assault weapons" ban. The shotgun that was used is one of the more popular shotguns available, and is not considered an "assault weapon." It is clear that the shooter had time to reload and plenty of ammo to use. The shooter fired 9 rounds, which is more than this particular shotgun can hold at one time.

During the press conference that revealed all of these details, Howard County Police Chief William McMahon pointed out the need to focus on mental illness. This is something that many gun rights advocates have been saying all along. Nothing in Maryland's Firearms Safety Act of 2013 does anything to address situations like this despite the fact that the Newtown incident, which shares many of the key points above, was used as an excuse to pass the legislation.

I'll leave you with this quote from Mr. Vincent DeMarco of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence and my reaction.

Based on what we know, this tragedy could have been much worse. The shooter bought the shotgun he used at a gun store in Rockville, MD in Decemeber of 2013. This was after Maryland's new Firearm Saftey Act of 2013 went into effect on October 1. As a result, the shooter was not able to buy an assault weapon or a magazine that could fire more than 10 bullets at one time. We will never know how many lives were saved because he could not buy an assault weapon such as an AK-47.  We hope this will inspire other states and the federal government to also ban these weapons of mass destruction.

Thank goodness that the shooter didn't choose to emulate the Columbine or Virginia Tech shooters and just bought multiple guns with multiple magazines and ammunition. At the end of the day, the tool doesn't matter. It's the mindset of the individual that does matter, but I'm sure for people like Vincent DeMarco, they can't be bothered with things like that when it doesn't suit their political agenda.

Minor edit: Although this was not brought up in the original Baltimore Sun article, another key point that this incident shares with almost every other incident is that it happened in a gun free zone. However, in Maryland a carry permit is almost impossible to obtain anyways since Maryland is a "may issue" state.

Bad Journalism Spreading Misinformation

Facebook issued a statement due to pressure from anti-gun groups to take down gun-related pages. Anti-gun groups have stated that anyone can buy a gun on Facebook without a background check, a claim which is patently false. Facebook's policy statement in reaction to the anti-gun groups highlights two key elements on how they will handle gun related posts. The first is that Facebook will now prevent minors from viewing posts related to firearms. The second is that any user who sets up a transaction via Facebook is reminded to follow the law, and that they cannot advertise a willingness to evade the law. That's it. Nothing too big right?

Well not if you follow the mainstream media like USA Today who touted this as a major victory for gun control groups. The author, Natalie DiBlasio reports:

"The social media giant is blocking minors from seeing postings of gun sales and will take down sales that don't require a background check or cross state lines."

However that is not what the statement by Facebook lays out. Facebook's statement says:

"We will not permit people to post offers to sell regulated items that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law. For example, private sellers of firearms in the U.S. will not be permitted to specify “no background check required,” nor can they offer to transact across state lines without a licensed firearms dealer."

Again, Facebook is basically saying that people cannot advertise a willingness to break current firearms laws. A private transaction can still be arranged through Facebook for a gun sale as long as it follows the law.

Based upon this false information, Natalie DiBlasio reports that the Facebook statement is a major win for gun control groups. I'm sure it would be if only it were true.

Update:

After going back and forth with Ms. DiBlasio on Twitter, I confirmed with a Facebook representative that posts promoting a private gun offer will remain on Facebook as long as they do not violate Facebook community standards. Per my email exchange with said Facebook representative, these standards are:

• Does the post include a specific indication that the person is willing to evade or help others evade the law?  If so, we will remove the post. If not, it will remain on Facebook.
  • Two examples we’ve pointed out as specific indications are offers that demonstrate a willingness to sell a firearm across state lines without a licensed dealer; and offers where someone specifies no background check is required.  
• Does the post include a specific, direct threat against another person’s (or group’s) safety? If so, we will remove the post and potentially notify law enforcement. If not, it will remain on Facebook.

This confirms that Natalie DiBlasio's article is providing false information about Facebook policy. The statement that the social media network will take down sales that don't require a background check or cross state lines are not being taken down. The policy simply states that you can not advertise a willingness to evade or help others evade the law.

Media Plays on Audience's Liberal Bias?

I'll leave this screen captures here of IGN.com's main page. You'll notice the different headlines, but the headline for the article in the showcase for the promoted articles is very different from the original title of the article. It seems like someone changed the headline in order to get more clicks / views from their liberal audience.

If you are a news organization, you are not at liberty to lie or mislead your audience. Your job is to provide information, not misinformation. Where's the accountability?

Even in Chicago a Good Guy With a Gun Can Stop a Bad Guy With One

This story from The Blaze made me think for a bit. Long story short, three thugs decide to commit armed robbery with a gun against a person at a gas station who happened to be filling up their car with gas. As the events unfold, the story ends with the one dead robber, two criminals on the run, and the victim alive and well, all because the victim had his own gun to defend himself. The real kicker is that all of this unfolded in the rabidly anti-gun city of Chicago, where its impossible for law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm to defend themselves. Well except for law enforcement, as it so happens that the victim was an off-duty Sheriff's sergeant.

But what if the victim wasn't law enforcement? What would have happened to another less fortunate law abiding citizen? They wouldn't have had any means to defend themselves at all, and they would have totally been at the mercy of the armed robbers. By definition, criminals don't obey laws, so all the anti-gun laws and policy in Chicago has done is create a populace of victims.

I'll leave the reader with this thought. If you make it impossible for law-abiding citizens to own firearms to defend themselves, then of course all you are going to hear is people using firearms for nefarious purposes. Anti-gun policy sets the stage for nothing but news of bad guys committing heinous crimes with guns, while making a good guy will not be able to defend themselves with a gun. Maybe that's why gun control advocates say self defense with guns rarely happens… because they want to make it impossible for it to happen.

Colorado State Senator Evie Hudak Resigns Rather Than Face Recall

As some might remember earlier this year, two Colorado state senators, Senate Pres. John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron, were successfully recalled by their constituents in historic election, that was prompted by their support and subsequent passage of wildly unpopular gun control laws. Not long after the historic recall election, that same energy was put forth in an effort to recall another state senator, Evie Hudak, who supported the same gun control legislation.

What was at stake though was control of the Senate by the Democrats. If Hudak were to be successfully recalled she would be replaced by a Republican, which would give the Republicans control of the state Senate. However, rather than face a recall, Sen. Hudak has decided to resign.

Her reasons were that it would protect the newly passed, and unpopular, gun laws which were one of the major reasons why she was being recalled in the first place, by allowing another Democrat to replace her. Another reason why these Senators were facing recalls is that they chose not to listen to the interests of their constituents, and instead to national politics. Not only is this resignation a slap in the face to the good people of Colorado, but it also confirms the latter point of the recall.

The democrats in this instance have conceded that the legislation is unpopular and that Sen. Hudak would have likely lost the recall election she faced. Basically they do not wish to abide by the will of the people.

These politicians are putting politics and party as a priority instead of the people who they are supposed to be representing. Ms. Hudak and her ilk are the reason why faith int he democratic process is dwindling. They would rather game the system and advance their agendas rather than listen to their constituents. To these types of politicians I say good riddance.

Police Misconduct and Arrogance vs. Your Second Amendment Rights

Earlier this year, C.J. Grisham was out hiking with his son along a Temple, Texas road, when they were approached by a Temple Police Officer. Grisham is carrying an AR-15 latched to his chest which is completely legal in the state of Texas. The officer instructs Grisham not to touch the firearm, and Grisham complies, however the situation escalates as the officer grabs the rifle and can be seen attempting to unlatch it from Grisham without prior instruction or consent that he was going to disarm Grisham.

At this point, Grisham grabs the stock of his rifle saying that the officer shouldn't be disarming him, and what follows is a stunning display of police arrogance and misconduct.

The initial reason given as to why Grisham was stopped was that police received a call of someone walking around with a rifle, again, something that is completely legal under Texas law. The officer stated that Grisham was "rudely" displaying his rifle, whatever that means.

During the encounter, more police officers, including a superior officer, join in on the situation. Some of the most shocking displays of police arrogance come when the superior officers claim they are "above the law" meaning they can disarm you whenever they want. If you are not breaking the law or not a danger, I would ask, how is it that agents of the state can so willfully proclaim that they can "disarm" you whenever they so please?

This makes me wonder, do these officers really think they are above the law? Do they even know what the laws they are supposed to follow and enforce are? Have they even read the United States Constitution, including the Second Amendment?

Many police officers deserve the utmost respect because their jobs are difficult, but especially because they have the responsibility of enforcing the rule of law. However, the rule of law applies to everyone equally and the fact that one puts on a badge and uniform does not exempt them from the law, but it holds you to a higher level of scrutiny. These officers displayed the utmost contempt for the laws they were meant to uphold, and the unfortunate victims of this are the great citizens of this country.

How Gun Control Advocates Manipulate the Debate

We've all heard the terms in the gun control debate: assault weapon, weapons of war, military-style weapons, arsenal, and rapid fire killing machines capable of spraying bullets. It's about time we call "assault weapons" what they actually are: semiautomatic firearms that fire one bullet at a time with each pull of the trigger. They are not the same weapons that our military uses, nor are they the ones used in war. What we call these firearms does matter if we want to have a healthy discussion about them.

After watching the video below, I felt compelled to write this article. As the presenter in the video points out, labels are a very powerful way to control the debate before the debate even gets started. If you call something an "assault weapon" or a "rapid fire killing machine," you've already limited any meaningful discussion of the topic. Surely no one wants anyone to have a rapid fire killing machine!



Consider the difference in impact of these two statements, where the first is a quote from President Obama:

“But I am also betting that the majority, the vast majority, of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would agree we should be available to prevent an irresponsible few from buying a weapon of war.”

Versus …

“But I am also betting that the majority, the vast majority, of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would agree we should be available to prevent an irresponsible few from buying a semiautomatic firearm."

Notice the difference?

Even when our politicians reference these firearms as "military style guns," they are already making that decision for us, that these should not belong to the ordinary citizen because they only have military uses, when in fact that is not true. When Obama calls these firearms "weapons of war," he is already planting the seed in our minds that these firearms are meant only for "war," when in fact they are used for other purposes.

Furthermore, labels can also be used to elicit emotions like fear, insecurity, and disdain. When gun control advocates call these guns "weapons of war" or "military-style assault weapons," they are already assigning a negative connotation to these guns. Our politicians in turn can use these negative emotions to garner support for legislation that they say will make us safer.

Instead of calling the new gun control legislation an "assault weapons ban," maybe we should call it a "scary semiautomatic firearms ban." What we name this new legislation matters *cough* PATRIOT Act *cough*.

These labels are used to control what we think about certain things even before the discussion starts. They can also be used to control people's emotions and thoughts on a particular subject. In that sense, the language of labeling becomes more powerful than any gun can ever be, especially in the hands of a politician.

Another Public Shooting Fades From the Media

This week there was another public shooting, this time outside of a high school in Pittsburgh, PA. The shooting resulted in three teens being wounded, but no fatalities. This was briefly picked up by news media across the country, but media coverage has quickly faded. We can only guess as to why this might be the case, but let's try anyways:

No Fatalities

None of the victims died during the incident although one is recovering in the hospital at this time.

Possible Drug / Gang Related Activity

Although there is no conclusive evidence at the moment, there is speculation that this attack was in retaliation to a previous incident, and authorities suspect drug and/or gang related activity. One contributing reason as to why we don't know the facts is that no one is cooperating with police in this incident.

It's possible that the reason why this is not getting more attention, especially from gun control advocates, is that this situation actually backs up what gun rights activists have been saying all along during the debate over gun control. Not only did this take place in a "gun-free zone," but this incident of gun violence is just another example of the circumstances in which gun violence occurs in this country, something that gun rights advocates cite repeatedly. If the perpetrator(s) of this shooting were around the same age as the intended victims, then the gun used in this act was more than likely obtained illegally as well. But let's not let that get in the way of "common sense" right?

Montana Democratic Governor Candidate Compares Political Opponents to Terrorists

Recently, I pointed out how the founder of Moms Demand Action, Shannon Watts, reminded me of the tactics of the reprehensible Joseph McCarthy. It seems though, that such tactics are becoming all too common in politics these days. Former Montana Lt. Governor John Bohlinger (D-MT) is the only the most recent example of this.

Like Ms. Watts, Mr. Bohlinger, upon announcing his candidacy for Governor, compared the Tea Party to the Taliban. Bohlinger even went so far as to comparing the Tea Party's actions to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in World War 2 and the September 11th terrorist attacks.

While the inflammatory tactics are nothing new, they should not be tolerated as acceptable public discourse, especially for individuals who seek to advance public policy. There is a disturbing trend of politicians and pundits who seek to divide us for their own political gain through the use of galvanizing and hateful rhetoric.

The question is, will the American public accept this rhetoric or will they stand against it?

Moms Demand Action: Founder Shannon Watts Compares Gun Owners to Taliban

Recently I came across this little video snippet of Moms Demand Action founder, Shannon Watts, comparing a recent gathering of counter protesters from Open Carry Texas to the Taliban, a terrorist group.



Shannon Watts comparing her political opponents to terrorists is an attempt to demonize them in order to garner support for her cause. This is nothing new as we've seen similar comparisons made by Democrats in Washington describing Tea Party Republicans as "terrorists" and "hostage takers" during the recent Federal Government shutdown.

Being a bit keen on history though, I was reminded of similar tactics being used by Ms. Watts and DC Democrats by a certain Wisconsin Senator bent on levying false accusations on innocent people in order to demonize them for his own political gain.

It only took the courage of a journalist named Edward R. Murrow to shine a light on the Senator's reprehensible behavior for the public to take note and put an end to the fear mongering. Remember, at the end of the day, all of us still need to live together side by side. Demonizing our neighbors, who work hard, raise families, try to live our lives, and pursue our dreams, will do nothing to help move our society forward.

We can't allow those who seek to turn us against each other for political gain to triumph. They should be called out for their division and fear mongering politics like this gentleman from Wisconsin.

Sen. Joseph McCarthy (Wisc. 1947-1957)

Another Public Shooting and the Lessons Not Learned

There was another public shooting recently which took place in a shopping mall in New Jersey. There were no casualties in the incident except the shooter himself as he eventually took his own life. Already the story is disappearing from the media, probably because the story lacks the drama that comes with a high body count. This is one of the reasons why I have such disdain for mainstream media. There are many lessons that we could learn from this to help us tackle the real issues that lead to the tragedies that the mainstream media love to focus on. So what can we learn from this incident?

For starters, we can assume that the shooter could have killed some of the people around him if he had intended to do so, but apparently that was not his intention. He was not aiming at anyone in particular, but instead fired several rounds that struck an escalator, elevator, and the general environment around him. We shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that this couldn't have easily resulted in a mass shooting if that was the perpetrator's intent. The biggest take away out of this incident is that it is not the type of gun involved that really determines the outcome, but it is the person and his motivations that play the biggest factor.

Secondly, after some time, the shooter retreated to a storage area in the mall, where he committed suicide by shooting himself. This scenario plays out time and again in these public shootings, where after the initial events take place, and law enforcement arrives, the perpetrator takes his own life. It becomes obvious that this person had personal issues, and perhaps mental health issues to some degree. In addition, the fact that he retreated at all, assumes he was expecting some type of armed response to his actions. Just like most other incidents, the mental health of the perpetrator comes into question.

One of the last major lessons that I see from this incident is that gun laws would not have stopped any of this from happening. The perpetrator did not buy his gun or obtain it legally. He had stolen the firearm from his brother who did obtain the gun legally. A universal background check or gun registry would have done nothing to prevent this from happening, and yet these are the solutions that gun control advocates propose for these situations.

Just as the we learned from the tragedy in Newtown, it did not matter that the perpetrator did not get their gun legally. They were already willing to commit a crime with a firearm, yet we are to somehow rationalize that someone willing to commit murder would make a conscious decision to not break that specific law? The only explanation that I see for gun control is that they want to take away the availability of guns. That would mean that in this instance, they would deny the legal owner access to a gun so that his brother would not be able to steal it. Perhaps that is the gun control advocate's unstated goal all along.

At some point, we all have to realize that it's not the gun that matters in all of these displays of public violence, but its the perpetrator, their intent, and their mindset that matters. A recent poll showed that most Americans identify the main issue that affects all of these public shooting instances is mental health, and yet we do not yet have a national conversation about it. Instead, we are drowned with mainstream media, pundits, anti-gun groups, and politicians talking about gun control and banning certain firearms.

The failure though is not just in our mental health system. The responsibility for this also falls on the mainstream media, pundits, and politicians who refuse to take up the issue of mental health because it does not benefit them monetarily or politically. The American people are aware that mental health is the key factor in all of these instances, despite being deluged by conversation from gun control advocates.

Gun control advocates' first priority, however, isn't in helping people or solving the underlying problems that lead people to lash out violently. Instead, they are more interested in spreading their hatred of guns and the people who own them. They label their opponents as those who oppose their spin on 'common sense,' but is it really common sense to not focus on what most Americans already identify as the problem in society?  Perhaps if the body count were higher, the talking heads might be blasting it on the airwaves 24/7.

Russell Brand is Both Right and Wrong

Recently actor/comedian Russell Brand sat down for an interview where he talks politics and the state of the world today. In the interview he foresees a revolution of a frustrated 'underclass' against the 'apathetic' political class. He points to the 'Occupy movement' as one of the visible signs that we are at the tipping point where something has to give. See the interview below:

I would agree that the needs of the vast majority of the people are not being met by the political class, and that these politicians are not being held accountable for this. I also agree that we are seeing frustration boil over and we are beginning to see frustration manifest itself in political movements. I find it rather myopic of Mr. Brand that he points out the 'Occupy' movement while never once recognizing or mentioning the Tea Party / Liberty movements. These movements predated any 'Occupy' activity, and unlike 'Occupy' they have maintained their strength and presence while at the same time made some political gains.

This is another point of contention that I have with Mr. Brand. He says he does not vote because it does not make a difference. The political gains made by the Tea party / Liberty movements have proven that voting can still make a difference. Not voting though, makes no difference whatsoever, and the act of not voting, especially when espoused by a prominent celebrity, dangerously perpetuates the idea that voting is a futile effort. The 2012 election cycle in the United States already had under a 54% turnout rate. I would posit that the reason why we are in the mess we're in today is because of voter apathy towards elections in that those that don't vote, like Russell, don't feel like their vote matters and those that do vote don't do their due diligence in voting intelligently and holding their elected officials accountable.

My major point of contention however, is with Mr. Brand's, solution to all of this. Mr. Brand wants an egalitarian socialist system with a massive redistribution of wealth. The one major flaw in this is the same flaw that we are suffering from today, in that this system would still be run by people. In fact, I would hypothesize that this type of system would make today's problems worse, not better.

Think about it for a minute. Such a system would require massive if not total state control of economic activity. Entrusting a government with more control over a people's economic lives has never turned out well, and there are countless examples from just this past century, but I suppose Mr. Brand glossed over those cases in his history courses.

While Mr. Brand is right when he says that the political class are not responding to the needs of the people and he rightfully recognizes that they are serving the needs of big business and corporations, how exactly would that change if we were to give the state even more power over the economy. The problem is that the state already has too much power over the economies. That is why they are beholden to the special interests. Corporate cronyism is rampant because through government, corporations can impose their interests on the rest of us. There is an old saying that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Why would I want to entrust a government with such absolute power?

Mr. Brand also misses the target when he criticizes 'profit.' What is profit other than gains made through work? Profit is nothing more than an economic incentive to do something. Profit is not a zero-sum game or transaction where if one person makes a profit it comes at the expense of someone else. No, the whole point of conducting trade or business is so that all parties involve come out ahead relative to their situation. While true, some may not come out ahead, it is up to the individual parties to gauge their situation and make that decision. The perfect example is professional sports when two teams trade players. Teams agree to trade players because they see a need that the other team's player could fill for them, so in essence both teams could potentially come out ahead. If there were no profit motive why would anyone bother to conduct any such activity?

The frustration of the political class that Mr. Brand vociferously point out is indeed evident, but he that in itself is not anything special. Millions upon millions of people are already aware of it. I do agree that we are approaching that tipping point where something has to give as well, however that is where I draw the line with my agreement. Mr. Brand's ideas about voting, but his proposal for a socialist egalitarian system would do nothing except exacerbate the problems we see today. This is why we should not idolize celebrities or the ideas they espouse. While I applaud Mr. Brand for recognizing and voicing his own political frustration, it behooves us all to think about the current state of the world and think critically for ourselves instead of letting others do the thinking for us.

The Show

As of right now, there is a bipartisan budget deal that kicks the can down the road for another 3 months. Washington DC insiders win, the rest of us lose... good game.

So what was all the hooplah about if democrats basically got everything they wanted again? What exactly did they concede during negotiations (or the lack thereof)? Can anyone please point that out for me because I don't see any concessions worth a lick.

They should have just kept the federal government shutdown along with Congress and the Executive Branch because neither of them did anything fruitful this entire time. Might as well shutdown mainstream media too as they just turned it into a spectacle while parroting the false narrative for the Obama administration that the federal government would default on its debt.

Mainstream media is in bed with the federal government lock stock and barrel. This past Sunday, mainstream media ignored the vet rally in DC, where thousands of vets tore down the barricades that were blocking off war memorials and monuments and piled them in front of the White House.

The "Million Vet March' was the top trending story in social media, yet it was wholeheartedly ignored by the mainstream media. In an age where Miley Cyrus twerking makes headlines, why does such a powerful message and rally from thousands of veterans in our nations capital go unreported? Please someone explain that to me?

The only answer that I can come to is that we no longer have a free press that informs us, but one that is used to manipulate, push agendas, and distract. We not only need an alternative to these two political parties, we also need an alternative to mainstream media to step up.

The Most Non-Essential Government Employee?

As many know, this week the media has been covering the partial federal government shutdown ad nauseam. During this time federal government employees who are labeled as non-essential have been furloughed, and yesterday Congress passed a bill to provide backpay to all of those furloughed employees.

I'd like to propose relabeling the President of the United States as a non-essential government employee, as he has shown no signs of negotiating to resolve the situation, making me wonder what exactly is he doing at this time.

Well I guess he's too busy offering his opinion on renaming the Washington Redskins and barricading national parks and memorials to have any time negotiating. He is even going so far as to barricade attractions that are not run by the federal government. That's essential right?

Or maybe he is busy fixing the Obamacare servers...

CNN Coverage of The Colorado Recall Election is a Perfect Example Misleading Journalism

Recently two Colorado State Senators were recalled by voters in their district in a historic election that showed what happens when representatives show out right contempt for their constituents. One of the central issues involved in the recalls of Sen. John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron, both democrats, was their support for new gun control laws that were passed by the state legislature. The recall movement, which started at the grassroots level in Colorado, became the focus for both sides of the gun control debate nationwide. CNN though would lead us believe that the all powerful gun lobby bank-rolled the entire movement. From CNN:

"Colorado

In what some view as evidence of the gun lobby's might, two Democratic state senators were kicked out of office in a recall election this week. The election -- controversial in itself because it was the first-ever at a state level -- was initiated after the two voted in favor of new gun control laws.

The new laws, effective last July, limit firearm ammunition magazines to 15 rounds and require universal background checks on all firearm sales.

The recall was viewed as a battleground between gun rights activists and gun control advocates. It was just in July 2012 that a mass shooting killed 12 people and wounded 58 others in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.

The new gun laws polarized Colorado along party lines: Democratic voters supported them, but Republican voters opposed them, a Quinnipiac University poll said last month.

In the recall, the powerful gun lobby, the National Rifle Association, spent between $400,000 and $500,000 to oust the Democratic lawmakers. The NRA denied it initiated a national effort to oust the two lawmakers, saying it was fundamentally "a local effort," the group told CNN.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire and major proponent of gun control, spent $350,000 to keep the Colorado lawmakers in office.

Gun control advocates, however, charged the recall was successful because of "the shadowy maneuvers of the corporate gun lobby and a handful of extremists," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence."

The problem with their coverage arises when you investigate the numbers and what actually happened. Did the NRA donate funds for the recall effort? Yes they certainly did, and according to the Denver Post that figure was around $361,703. Did Mayor Michael Bloomberg donate $350,000 in an effort to support the two gun control senators? Yes he did as well. But why did CNN stop their coverage there?

CNN would have the audience focus only on the funds provided by the NRA and Bloomberg. What CNN leaves out is that there were other contributors that supported Senators Morse and Giron. For example, Eli Broad, a billionaire from California, contributed $250,000 to a group supporting Sen. Morse in the recall. Without focusing solely on the NRA and Bloomberg, most estimates show that pro-Morse and pro-Giron groups outspent their opposition by a 6-to-1 margin in the election.

CNN is misleading their audience into believing that the "might of the gun lobby" toppled two local state senators, when in fact these Senators had ample, if not overwhelming, resources to defend themselves in their recalls. The reality is that Morse and Giron were simply voted out because of their contempt for their constituents. CNN really should rethink its motto when it labels itself "the most trusted name in news" if they intend to keep using it after publishing such misleading articles.

Obama's New Executive Orders on Gun Control and Why the Liberal Mainsteam Media is a Farce

Reading this article by the New York Daily News, one would come away with the impression that Obama is doing all he can to combat gun violence in this country in bypassing Congress with two new executive orders. However, one would have to take the New York Daily News at face value in order to believe that. For those that really want to analyze the executive orders and their efficacy in combatting gun violence, these new executive orders make us wonder what planet this administration and the New York Daily News is from when they try to frame this as 'common sense' gun laws.

One of the executive orders now restricts the importation of military surplus firearms that have been sold overseas. While this sounds good, it really has zero effect on gun crime. Some might think that military surplus firearms refer to machine guns or 'weapons of war' that gun control proponents like to refer. True machine guns or modern weapons that our military use are already highly regulated and extremely difficult to buy. So much so, that what this executive order actually does is restrict the importation of your great grandfather's old rifle that he might have used in World War 2. How many gun crimes are committed with old World War 2 era rifles?

Obama's other executive order has to do with restricting NFA trusts. NFA items are those items like machine guns that require one to go through a thorough background check with the BATF in order to purchase as well as requiring a tax stamp. These items are highly regulated and the violation of NFA laws come with very harsh penalties. However this administration and the article would have us believe that criminals obtain machine guns and other NFA items through NFA trusts in order to obtain these highly regulated firearms without a background check. This claim is blatantly outlandish. Criminals do not go through NFA trusts to obtain firearms. Why would they? If they are interested in buying a machine gun from an associate, why would they go through legal channels to do it? Please Mr. Biden, explain to me how this is common sense.

The only thing these two executive orders accomplish for this administration is making it appear that this administration is addressing gun violence by targeting firearms that were never really used in gun crimes to begin with. In the end the only one that loses is law-abiding gun owners. Criminals will shrug and continue being criminals while this administration and gun control advocates pat themselves on the back.

Police Are Supposed to Help Us Right?

I would like to preface this post with the fact that I have the utmost respect for police officers. They have extremely difficult jobs, and they put their lives on the line day in and day out to uphold the law and maintain peace. With that said though, there is a reason why we hold police to a higher standard (or should hold them to a higher standard) than most other people. We do not expect that when we call the police to help in a particular situation that the police would actively contribute in bringing about the worst possible outcome of that situation. This story out of Arizona just makes me sick because that is exactly what happened.

Michael Angel Ruiz decided to climb on to the roof of a building for unknown reasons. He may have had personal problems, but he was known to have substance abuse issues. Police were called to the scene to assist in the situation. Ruiz was unarmed so in this instance the only danger he posed was to himself if he were to fall off of the roof and injure himself.

But when police arrived at the scene, they decided to use their taser on Ruiz multiple times to coax him off the roof. When Ruiz complied and dropped down onto a landing area, he was immediately met by multiple police officers with one of the officers placing him in a chokehold for minutes. Once Ruiz was cuffed (and unconscious), police carried Ruiz down the stairs of the landing without securing his head. During this time, Ruiz's head was allowed to smash against the stairs multiple times. When Ruiz arrived at the hospital, he was pronounced brain dead. Five days later, Ruiz's family decided to take Michael Angel Ruiz off of life support.

Though Michael Angel Ruiz posed a safety risk to himself, it looks like the greater risk to his safety in this case was that of police abuse and negligence. We can rest assured though that the police will investigate themselves in this matter, but as of this writing, I have not seen a statement by police indicating that any of the officers involved in this incident being placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. They are still out there "serving" the public.

It's Official: Gun Control Advocates Want to Rely on Emotions Rather Than Reason

The Second Amendment Foundation recently got ahold of this document being distributed among groups that advocate for more gun control. The document outlines a strategy for engaging other people with the purpose of advancing gun control policy. I was not shocked upon discovering that the document emphasizes the use of emotional arguments rather than facts in trying persuade others to support stricter gun control.

This is something that many gun rights advocates have known for quite some time, in that arguments for gun control appeal to emotions rather than facts, but now we know officially that it is part of the strategy. With that aside though, there are still glaring falsities being put forth in the document, such as pushing ideas and statements that don't even make logical sense. When you apply critical thinking to some of their statements, we realize just how vapid their arguments are.

Here is one example of a ludicrous statement put forth:

"Our police officers are at risk every day when they confront criminals who are armed to the teeth with military-style weapons that are freely available."

Now let's put aside the hyperbole of "military-style" weapons for a moment. This statement wholly ignores that 'assault weapons' have been statistically shown to make up such a small percentage of crime that even banning these weapons outright would have little to no impact on crime. Criminals simply do not use these 'military-style' weapons. In addition to that, convicted criminals are already barred from purchasing firearms under existing laws, so one might wonder how exactly are they 'freely' available. 

While I applaud the authors of this document for creative use of language to form a powerful message, it just goes to show that they are trying to mislead and deceive the public. When people resort to  measures like this to push an agenda, reasonable people must question whether their argument has any merit or credibility.

On the topic of credibility, much of the document focuses on demonizing the NRA. This is a common tactic where one side will label an organization or institution as being representative of their opposition because it is easier to attack a faceless organization than to attack the millions upon millions of individuals who actually believe in what that organization stands for. 

The document readily admits that the NRA is a mainstream organization with a lot of support, but at the same time tries to demonize this institution. Furthermore, it outlines that gun control advocates should not get bogged down in an institution versus institution debate. With the recent reports that the gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns has been misusing public resources for their own purposes,  losing members because they misrepresented themselves, and even went so far as trying to bribe members into staying in the group, it's no wonder that gun control advocates want to stay away from such discussions.

While I could refute much of the documents 'arguments' for gun control piece by piece, the big takeaway here is that gun control advocates' positions rely heavily on emotional impact rather than rational debate, and although many gun rights advocates already know this, we now have the document that actually confirms what we've suspected all along.

To Hollywood: Make Movies, Not Political Statements

Sometimes I wish that Hollywood stars would just keep quiet about their politicking and just make good movies. I already think about politics enough that I don't need to be reminded of it when I walk into a movie theatre. Matt Damon is just the latest example of what I mean by this.

When the weekend rolls around, by habit I check out what's new in the movie theatre that week. This week I see Elysium is opening up, and I was interested in seeing it as it received fairly good reviews on Rottentomatoes.com. However, I am then reminded that it stars Matt Damon who was in the news recently as being a hypocrite.

Education is a subject that I have a strong opinion on, as I believe the current system of education is deeply flawed. I won't get into those reasons in this post as they are irrelevant to the point here, but let me state that I am all for giving parents as many options as possible for educating their kids.

A while ago Matt Damon let it be known that he did not support school vouchers and charter schools, and instead deeply supported the public school system. While I don't agree with him, I respect that he has a right to his opinion.



However, recently Damon moved to Los Angeles, and lo and behold he has decided to enroll his kids in private schools rather than let them go to public school. So, he is ok with having the choice for his kids on which schools to enroll in, but not everyone else.

This is not the first time that Damon has been called out for his hypocrisy. On the topic of guns and gun control, Damon famously stated that he hated guns, and he recently appeared in the Demand A Plan video for more gun control. An actor who has made a career out of portraying gun violence on the movie screen is advocating for more gun control? Hypocrisy at it's worst.

To the fine actors of Hollywood, I recognize that you are entitled to your opinions no matter much I disagree with you. However, when you become a hypocrite to the level that you can't even follow through with the ideology that you shove in my face, then you are destroying whatever chance I have at enjoying your movies and your skills on the silver screen.

7 Gun Control Facts That Are Actually Myths

Dianne Feinstein introduced her Assault Weapons Ban fresh on the heels of Obama laying out his 23 executive orders to curb gun violence, and now gun control advocates are in full force laying out their arguments to restrict our Second Amendment rights. I am sure those on PolicyMic have heard the arguments before, but here we will lay out some of the most popular talking points in favor of more gun control and debunk those myths.

1. Myth: The Second Amendment does not guarantee the individual right to bear arms and only applies to a well-regulated militia.





In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment does apply to the individual's right to bear arms independent of any involvement in a militia. Many gun control advocates however point towards the phrase that the right does not extend to "dangerous and unusual weapons"; however, it does say that those weapons that are in "common use at the time" are protected. One would have to argue that semiautomatic rifles are not in common use depsite millions of them being in circulation in the United States alone.

2. Myth: More guns equals more gun crime.



A comprehensive Harvard study shows that the burden of proof that "more guns equal more deaths and fewer guns equal less death" has not been observed by evidence across a wide array of nations. This can also be seen in the United States over the past two decades, as more guns have gone into circulation while both the violent crime rate and homicide rate (including those committed with firearms) have declined dramatically.

3. Myth: The UK and Australia gun bans have reduced violent crime.



Both the UK and Australia instituted strict gun control legislation which basically eliminated private gun ownership in 1997. However, neither countries' legislation had an impact on lowering violent crime, and in both cases violent crime actually went up in the years following the enactment of the gun legislation.

Some gun control advocates, like Piers Morgan, would point towards the lower homicide rate of each country, but the fact of that matter is that both countries enjoyed the same lower homicide rates than the United States even before enacting their gun legislation, making those claims disingenuous.

Moreover, despite the UK having its gun ban, the violent crime rate is still far above that of the United States, and the country has also earned the title of violent crime capital of Europe.

4. Myth: Assault weapons are firearms that our military uses in war.



In 1988, the term assault weapon came into use to describe a broad array of semiautomatic firearms that looked like machine guns. These firearms being called assault weapons are not the same firearms that our military uses. The military uses firearms that are capable of "select-fire", meaning they have the ability to fire a single round or multiple rounds with each pull of the trigger (the M4A1). Civilian semiautomatic firearms can only do the former, not the latter (AR15).

Gun control advocates knowingly pushed the term assault weapon to gain public support against these firearms. John Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center stated:

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

5. Myth: The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban didn't work because it wasn't strong enough.



The fact is that the Assault Weapons Ban did not work to reduce violent crime because the firearms that it targeted were used very rarely in criminal activity. In his 2004 study of the original Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, Koper pointed out:

"Similarly, the most common AWs prohibited by the 1994 federal ban accounted for between 1% and 6% of guns used in crime according to most of several national and local data sources examined for this and our prior study" and "the overwhelming weight of evidence from gun recovery and survey studies indicates that AWs are used in a small percentage of gun crimes overall."

6. Myth: You don't need an AR-15 because it has no legitimate purpose.



AR-15's can serve many purposes. Its utility and modular design is one of the reasons why the platform is so popular. As this New York Times article points out as well, the AR-15 can be used for competition shooting, target shooting, hunting smaller game (varmint hunting), as well as self-defense. Just ask the Korean shopkeepers during the L.A. riots of 1992.

7. Myth: 40% of firearms are sold without background checks.



This myth came from this 1997 study of a small sample of 251 interviews. 60% percent of the respondents in the study purchased their firearms through a retail store or pawn shop, which must be FFLs or licensed firearms dealers that conduct background checks. The assumption is that the remaining 40% did not go through an FFL and background checks.

This number runs into problems though, as the study explains that 3% were obtained through the mail, 4% from a gun show or flea market, 17% from a family member, 12% from a friend or acquaintance, and 4% other. However, it does not explicitly say that these transactions did not go through an FFL or background check.

The study concedes, for example, that the 3% who obtained a firearm in the mail probably went through an FFL dealer. Retailers at gun shows and flea markets who are FFL's are still required to run background checks as normal. Even firearms from family members, friends or acquaintances may still be required to go through an FFL depending on state law. One can see that the 40% number quickly falls apart.

Hopefully this will put to rest many of those talking points or myths that some have heard time and again regarding gun control. But with all of this said, what is there left to talk about? Oh right... mental health and the actual causes of violent crime.

Originally posted on PolicyMic.com - February 2013