Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

Howard Nemerov

Former civilian disarmament supporter and medical researcher Howard Nemerov investigates the civil liberty of self-defense and examines the issue of gun control, resulting in his book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working? He appears frequently on NRA News as their “unofficial” analyst and was published in the Texas Review of Law and Politics with David Kopel and Carlisle Moody.
Follow Howard:

Media Lied About Sandy Hook Shooter? Say It Isn’t So!

Friday, March 29th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

Yesterday, Reuters published a “factbox” of “items found in Newtown gunman’s home, car.” It included lots of hardware references, like a “large cache of guns, ammunition, swords and knives.” (It’s the guns, stupid!) Reuters said there were “NRA membership certificates” for both the murderer and his mother.

The NRA issued a concise rebuttal:

There is no record of a member relationship between Newtown killer [name redacted by this author*], nor between [killer’s mother], with the National Rifle Association. Reporting to the contrary is reckless, false and defamatory.

Of course, Reuters would counter that the NRA is defensive and lying, or something along that line. Except for one problem that challenges Reuters’ credibility: Reuters conveniently left out the most important item in the killer’s inventory.

In early March, top law enforcement officials attended a semi-annual meeting in New Orleans. Danny Stebbins, a colonel from the Connecticut State Police, presented his report on the Sandy Hook shooting.

Investigators found a “spreadsheet 7 feet long and 4 feet wide.” This spreadsheet contained “extensive research” of “mass murders of the past, and even attempted murders.” Police concluded: “They don’t believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet.”

“We were told [the murderer] had around 500 people on this sheet,” a law enforcement veteran told me Saturday night. “Names and the number of people killed and the weapons that were used, even the precise make and model of the weapons. It had to have taken years. It sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research.”

Police reached other conclusions:

  • This was the work of a video gamer who intended to place his name on top as all-time high scorer in real-life shoot-em-ups.
  • He picked the elementary school because it offered the best opportunity to “score” the most points before police arrived to stop him.
  • Video gamers lose all their points to the character who kills them, so this murderer planned to “retain” his points by committing suicide so law enforcement couldn’t take his points.
  • Said one official: “They have pictures from two years before, with the guy all strapped with weapons, posing with a pistol to his head. That’s the thing you have to understand: He had this laid out for years before.” [emphasis added]

Reuters didn’t tell the whole truth because the anti-rights narrative succeeds by sympathizing with murderers and derogating law-abiding citizens. The NRA is America’s oldest civil rights and gun safety organization. But the NRA stands in the way of the anti-rights agenda, so the NRA, consisting of nearly five million law-abiding Americans, must be demonized in order to destroy its influence.

Corrupt media’s goal is to stop people from learning the truth about the Sandy Hook shooting, and instead socially engineer Americans into willingly surrendering their civil right of self-defense. To accomplish this, any lie is acceptable.

(* In my position as journalist, I don’t give sick murderers the attention they crave by publishing their name.)

Read bullet | 9 Comments »

Biggest Gun Ban States = Lowest Prosecutions for Federal Gun Law Violations

Thursday, March 28th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

First, a little background: The Syracuse Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC, compiles reports on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) referrals for prosecution of federal gun laws. Some of the most common violations are from US Code Title 18, Chapter 44, Sections 922 and 924. Examples:

  • Unlawful shipment, transfer, receipt, or possession by a felon [922 (g)1].
  • False/Fictitious statements in order to acquire a firearm/ammunition [922 (a)6].
  • Use/carry of firearm during crime of violence/drug trafficking offense [924 (c)].

I examined a curious trend in my book “Four Years of Gun Control.” The Clinton administration pushed to ban firearms that looked like military rifles, pretending to be interested in making America safer. But ATF referrals for prosecution of federal gun law violations declined under Clinton. Under Bush/Ashcroft, ATF referrals increased 67%. They also increased 77% under Clinton’s predecessor, George HW Bush, proving that there always were criminals out there deserving prosecution.

Under the Obama administration, ATF referrals have remained the lowest since 2001.

Now US News reports:

The districts that contain Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City ranked last in terms of federal gun law enforcement in 2012, according to a new report from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks federal data.

(The ATF may refer evidence to federal prosecutors, but attorneys may decide to not prosecute. Nevertheless, both referrals and prosecutions indicate the justice system’s willingness to punish criminals.)

Chicago: Home of gun hater Rahm Emanuel, who wants his black constituents not only disarmed, but stupid, too. Home of our Chief Executive Gun Banner, Barrack Obama. Largest city in the only state still banning concealed carry…for law-abiding citizens (Chicago thugs carry concealed all the time).

Los Angeles: Largest city in a state that’s the perennial winner of the Brady Campaign’s “best and safest” state because of all their gun control laws.

New York City: Home of gun banner billionaire and Chief Executive “Government Has the Right to Infringe on Your Rights” Michael Bloomberg. Largest city in a state where Governor Andrew Cuomo rammed through draconian gun control laws before he realized they turned cops, not just law-abiding private citizens, into criminals.

Now we find out these sound-bite personalities, who profess to care about our safety, curiously live where they’re least likely to prosecute the most violent criminals. These are the same people who castigated the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre for stating that we need to do a better job enforcing existing gun laws.

With data this consistent, the only reasonable conclusion is that just like “gun-free” schools create free-fire zones for mass murderers, gun control creates criminal-enablement zones. After government disarmament, these same thugs, already proven to be violent, will have a much easier time terrorizing you.

It’s time to shift the dialogue.

  • Gun control isn’t about safety.
  • Gun banners only care about obtaining power to tell you how to live.
  • They use the most violent among us to promoted their agenda.

Read bullet | Comments »

Senate Votes to Block UN Arms Trade Treaty

Tuesday, March 26th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

During the Senate’s passing of their (congressional budget) Concurrent Resolution 8 on March 23, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe successfully inserted Senate amendment 139 to “prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.” (Text of bills can be retrieved from Library of Congress “Thomas” site.)

In a 53-49 vote, the Senate passed Inhofe’s amendment. The list of Yeas and Nays is what’s important going forward, and contains both good news and a warning.

Along with all 45 Republicans, 8 Democrat senators voted Yea:

  • Mark Begich, Alaska
  • Joe Donnelly, Indiana
  • Kay Hagan, North Carolina
  • Martin Heinrich, New Mexico
  • Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota
  • Joe Manchin, West Virginia
  • Mark Pryor, Arkansas
  • Jon Tester, Montana.

Now the bad news: Joe Manchin has been working with Senator Schumer on universal background checks. This is an important step towards federal registration, since Senator Schumer’s bill requires permanent retention of sales records. Senator Tom Coburn, the other Oklahoma senator, has also interacted with Schumer, and has stated that “enhanced” background checks are “the right thing to do.”

Montana Senator Max Baucus claims he’s against the Schumer bill, but Baucus voted against passing Inhofe’s UN Treaty ban.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also voted against Inhofe’s amendment, and is already promoting a gun control package that includes universal background checks. In 2010, Reid was graded “B” by the NRA, but now he’s acting like a Brady endorsee.

The last bit of good news is: If the other seven Democrats voting against the UN treaty hold true to the Second Amendment, none of the Reid/Schumer gun control bills will pass the Senate.

Now it’s your job to contact your senators, and keep this momentum going.

Read bullet | Comments »

Rahm Emanuel Closing Black Schools

Saturday, March 23rd, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

From CBS:

The Chicago Public Schools’ plan to close 53 schools and 61 buildings, mostly in black neighborhoods, has some West Side residents vowing to fight the Emanuel administration until the end.

Claimed one protestor: “I don’t see any Caucasians being moved, bussed, or murdered in the streets as they travel along gang lines, or stand on the steps of a CPS school.”

A student protestor said: “We will have more gangs, more murders, more killers, and everything.”

Bingo! From the mouths of babes…

I’ve been correlating violent crime with state ratings by the Brady Campaign since 2001, the first year they began publishing report cards. Brady gives their “best” scores to states with the most gun-control laws. Right-to-carry (RTC) states—with liberal laws empowering citizens to carry concealed handguns in public—perennially get lower scores, because Brady considers RTC laws unsafe. For example, in 2011, RTC states averaged a Brady score of 8.2 on a scale of 100; non-RTC states averaged 55.5.

But the following two graphs show that Brady’s “best” states are the most dangerous. In 2011, RTC states averaged a violent crime rate of 343.3, compared to non-RTC states’ 476.6. RTC states’ average murder rate was 4.3; non-RTC states averaged 5.3.

Getting back to today’s story, Rahm Emanuel is real big on gun control. As Chicago mayor, Emanuel’s been promoting stronger national gun-control laws. He’s even urged banks to stop doing business with gun manufacturers. Emanuel’s top cop, Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, accused Second Amendment supporters of being “guilty of corruption and of endangering public safety” for their political activism. McCarthy also believes our allegedly lax federal gun laws are racist. This is a curious allegation, considering the historical truth rebuts McCarthy.

Read bullet | 16 Comments »

Whosoever Holds Both the Power of the Sword and Purse…

Monday, March 18th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

Recently, European Union (EU) finance ministers demanded “that Cypriots pay up to 9.9 percent of their bank deposits in exchange for a 10 billion euro ($13 billion) bailout” of Cyprus, which is on the edge of defaulting on its debt. Even the European Central Bank was against this policy, and markets reacted predictably:

The initial response of investors was unambiguous. Shares lurched lower, the euro fell to a new three-month low, while safe-haven assets such as gold and German government bonds jumped.

The cost of insuring the debt of even high-quality European banks against default also rose sharply with analysts citing fears the decision could spark contagion across peripheral regions with the potential for widespread outflows of deposits.

This means that people who earned enough money to create savings will be punished for irresponsible, runaway government spending that drives the country into unsustainable debt. People living on the government dole and just scraping by escape this tax, since they can’t afford to save.

As in America, voters are to blame for reelecting politicians who continue unsustainable economic practices, but that’s a topic needing its own vetting. The Cyprus collapse is in part due to voters’ resistance to “austerity measures,” which usually mean no more “free” stuff. Our love of “free” stuff is an Achilles heel for most humanoids. (Cats, too. Isis is our furry little Occupier, but at least a strong wind won’t blow away our living room chair.)

                       

I am Isis, and I approve of this message…if there’s food involved.

The curious question here is: All European countries have lots of gun control laws, and lower rates of gun ownership. Is there a correlation?

Previously, the EU considered citizens’ savings “sacrosanct.” But that’s the problem: Savings were “sacrosanct” because a group of bureaucrats said so, not because of any constitutional acknowledgement of God-given rights. So it’s nothing to these people to revise a policy. They are the higher law.

When Constitutional scholar David B. Kopel, Economics professor Carl E. Moody, and I published our analysis of gun ownership, and economic and civil rights across countries, we found strong positive correlations between levels of gun ownership, and political and economic freedom (more guns, more freedom).

Now, we have an example of more gun control corresponding with more government power to confiscate people’s hard-earned wealth. For example, in Germany, only licensed individuals may purchase a gun, and all guns are registered. Applicants must pass a criminal and mental health background check, and prove a “genuine reason” for wanting to own a gun. Personal protection is a valid reason only under “exceptional circumstances.”

Cyprus is similar: registration; valid reason for ownership; must pass criminal, mental health, and domestic violence background checks. They will deny an application if “an apprehended likelihood of family violence exists” (kind of like the movie Minority Report?).

According to the Small Arms Survey, no European country comes closer than half the ownership rate in America (Finland and Switzerland). More gun control, less gun ownership.

President Obama and congressional Democrats—along with a few Republicans—are pushing gun control. Since Obama took office, America hasn’t had a budget, but he did preside over spending us into over $5 trillion in debt during his first four years of office.

More debt, more gun control…and then what?

Read bullet | Comments »

Colorado Legislators Propose to Ban Shotguns

Saturday, March 2nd, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

Looks like Vice President Biden’s double-barreled shotgun might be the future for Colorado hunters. CBS reports:

A popular hunting shotgun could be banned under one of the bills moving through the state Capitol.

Most hunters use pump, or semi-automatic, shotguns. With an extended tube, many hunting shotguns can hold more than the proposed maximum of eight shells.

After the Clinton gun ban in 1994, manufacturers redesigned shotguns to eliminate extensions. The problem here is that it’s unlikely gun companies will endure the expensive retooling process in order to satisfy one state’s regulations. In this manner, shotgun sales in Colorado may be greatly curtailed.

The next time a gun banner tells you “we’re not taking guns away from anybody,” ask them if that includes Colorado.

Gun control means victim disarmament.

Read bullet | Comments »

L.A. Times: Violent Movies Don’t Cause Violence, but Guns Do

Saturday, February 16th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

Betsy Sharkey of the Los Angeles Times penned an op/ed claiming that violent movies don’t make people violent, but instead are a “positive force.” Her diatribe highlights the mental disturbance that’s the result of hoplophobia. Here’s some analysis of her points.

“A good deal of movie violence is designed as a way for us to experience it vicariously.”

Why does she need to “vicariously” experience violence? If she were writing about XXX-rated movies, we would call it pornography, which purportedly offers viewers vicarious stimulation, too. According to a Psychology Today author: “pornography not only arouses, it tutors our imagination.” In this way, pornography “shapes male expectations” and “splits men’s consciousness,” destroying their ability to relate to real women.

Now we’re supposed to believe that violence-pornography doesn’t affect people’s minds, while sex-pornography does. Welcome to the split consciousness at the LA Times.

Here’s more evidence of a “split consciousness.” Sharkey acknowledges violence “has been with us since the dawn of mankind.” Violence preceded guns, too. Imagine a woman with a stick facing off with a large male. Now replace that stick with a pistol. It’s no wonder that rape increased in Britain and Australia after they enacted massive gun bans.

Another point of Sharkey’s is just as revealing: The thought of filmmakers making their movies “less gruesome” is, to her, “the scariest proposition of all.”

Why shouldn’t this be considered addiction? Addicts live in fear of losing access to their drug(s) of choice, upon which they’ve come to depend. The Medical Dictionary notes: “Using drugs repeatedly over time changes brain structure and function in fundamental and long-lasting ways.” [emphasis added]

Evidence suggests that those long-lasting brain changes are responsible for the distortions of cognitive and emotional functioning that characterize addicts, particularly the compulsion to use drugs.

Why shouldn’t watching violent movies cause similar results? This concept is widely accepted by researchers. Here’s the conclusion from a group of authors representing the Universities of Arizona, California, Iowa State, Michigan, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin:

Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts.

I’m not a psychologist, nor am I diagnosing anybody here. But responsible journalists should always reflect on how to best serve society, considering the power we’ve been given to influence public discourse.

In that vein, we must ponder: If an author is addicted to the vicarious thrills she experiences from watching violence-pornography, then her brain function may have altered to the point that whatever she avers as truth must be examined. Furthermore, if such mental illness exists, then it’s socially irresponsible for the Times to continue allowing her to publicly praise violence-pornography as a “positive force,” because such enabling behavior not only damages the author’s chances of recovery, but it fosters an environment wherein more get led into addiction. If a major media organization says it’s okay, such rationalization can convince an impressionable person balanced between conscience and social pressure.

Read bullet | Comments »

Invest Two Minutes to Protect Your Right of Self-Defense

Friday, February 15th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

A law enforcement contact sent me this link to Ruger’s “Take Action Now” page. It contains this boiler plate letter:

Dear (Recipient),

I am a law-abiding citizen and responsible gun owner.

I am saddened by the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut, but I believe that efforts to impose new restrictions on me and other lawful and responsible owners like me are misguided. Did you know that violent crime with firearms has declined since the Federal “assault weapons ban” expired in 2004?

Your focus should be on strengthening mental health care and improving the quality of data supporting NICs checks (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). Do NOT pass more gun laws; instead, work to enforce the more than 20,000 gun laws already on the books.

I am your constituent and I vote. Please represent me.

Sincerely,

You only need to fill in your contact information below the letter and click on the red “SUBMIT” button. It automatically determines your districts based upon your address and sends a copy to all your state and federal representatives.

The entire process takes less time than it took to read this Tattle, but the dividends are priceless.

Read bullet | Comments »

Armed 87-Year-Old Trumps Attacker With Violent Record

Friday, February 15th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

A 49-year-old male was out on personal recognizance after being convicted of battery. According to the female victim, the attacker “took off his shirt” and “made sexual advances to her.” When she rebuffed him, he “got upset” and assaulted her.

The victim, age 24 and pregnant, got away, took her 3-year-old daughter, and ran to her landlord’s house. The attacker pursued her, and again began assaulting her. The landlord, age 87, tried to break it up at first, to no effect. He finally got his handgun and shot the attacker twice.

Lieutenant Britt Snyder of the Chaves County, New Mexico Sheriff’s Department said:

“From the information that we’ve been given, we think it sounds fortunate that the landlord was armed in this case. He certainly would have been no match for a man that’s 40 years younger than him.”

Here’s a law enforcement professional who understands that the laws of physics and physiology trump political correctness.

Speaking about his gun control proposals, President Obama stated: “But if there’s even one thing we can do, if there’s just one life we can save, we’ve got an obligation to try.”

Mr. President, one handgun just saved three people. Stop trying.

More: State of the Second Amendment

Read bullet | Comments »

Texas Panhandle Church Hosting Concealed Carry Class

Sunday, February 10th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

From the Amarillo Globe-News:

Calvary Baptist Church in Dumas will host a concealed handgun license class March 2, and although a house of worship is an unconventional locale for a class on how to safely use and carry firearms, the Rev. Brad Foster looks at it as a community service opportunity for the church.

Reverend Foster says his church likes to “think outside the box.”

“However, we’re not making a political statement, except we don’t mind being associated with being in support of the Second Amendment.”

Jim Edlin, Sunday school director at Calvary and an organizer of the class, said more than half the people who have enrolled in the class have been women.

“Some of them are teachers, and they’re more passionate about it than anyone else.”

Reverend Foster says this is one of those areas “where politics and the Bible intersect.”

Some ignorami — undoubtedly worshipers at the Imbasilica of St. Marx — commented that “Jesus was a man of peace and love.” But Jesus preached reasonable self-defense. I’m not familiar with some of the modern perversions of the Bible, so maybe the St. Marx version deleted Luke 22:35-39:

And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.” [36] Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”

Constitutional scholar David B. Kopel published an excellent read on the Old Testament and self-defense. Relying primarily on the King James Version, Kopel cited numerous biblically-supported acts of self-defense and defense of others. Kopel published another paper discussing how six major eastern religions — Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism — also support self-defense.

Kopel noted the falsehood of claiming Mohanda Ghandi was a proponent of non-violence. Ghandi understood the need for self-defense as a tool to reduce violence in society: “I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advice violence.”

“Non-violence cannot be taught to a person who fears to die and has no power of resistance…[A] man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward. He harbors violence and hatred in his heart and would kill his enemy if he could without being hurt himself. He is a stranger to non-violence.”

Cain asked: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” But he already knew he held the wrong answer in his heart.

Those who justify laziness and cowardice by misinterpreting scripture — and not partake of their God-given right of self-defense — not only betray God’s will, but in truth promote increased violence. Remember, self-defense is not violence, but negative violence in that successful self-defense removes predators from society, and cows them into greater restraint from fear of choosing a victim who will successfully repel attacks.

God’s will for us is to be free, and to help others attain freedom. Self-defense is a key part of His plan.

Read bullet | Comments »

‘Gun Rights?’ Stop Playing a Loser’s Game

Saturday, February 9th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

I receive a daily email distribution on Second Amendment related media coverage. Today’s subject line said “gun rights.” Today was the last day I’m taking that sitting down.

“Gun rights” keeps the focus on guns, which is where the Alinsky-loving people-haters want the focus to remain. By continuing to support their narrative, we will lose our guns, and then our rights.

I couldn’t care less about guns. I don’t love guns; I don’t even like them. But as a self-defense tool and a symbol of Liberty and self-actualization, they are excellent. Inanimate objects don’t have rights. People do. We have a civil right of self-defense, and guns are the best tool available to promote and protect that right.

When a 250 pound predator breaks into the home of a 120 pound woman, does she or doesn’t she have the right to stop him from raping and murdering her?

Remember that the U.S. Supreme Court already ruled that police have no duty to save her life. Even a woman who obtained a restraining order has no special relationship with police. If the cops write a report on her three dead children, they’ve discharged their duty. (See TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES.)

Does a neighbor have the right to come to another’s defense? Neighbors helping each other strengthens the fabric of society.

Do citizens have the right to help a stranger being attacked? The cowardly try to deflect us from their craven natures by saying we should not get involved and just call the police and consider ourselves as having done our duty as members of civil society. (“Civil society”? Now there’s an oxymoron for you.)

People helping people strengthens civil society. So what does that say about those telling us to not get involved?

They claim that getting involved, or even defending yourself, just “increases the violence.” Really? Two problems here:

First, self-defense is not violence. If you successfully accomplish legitimate self-defense, the courts don’t find you guilty of a crime. Your self-defense doesn’t appear on the FBI violent crime reports. Even the government recognizes self-defense isn’t violence.

Second, self-defense decreases violence. One predator removed from society is many crimes not committed in the future. Cops tell me that by the time a criminal gets arrested, he’s committed many crimes that go unreported or not cleared by police. For example, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that between 2000 and 2008, only 42% of rape victims reported their attacks to police. Only 71 prison sentences were handed out for every 1,000 rapes committed. That means a rapist has a 93% chance of getting away with it. (It’s a big Excel workbook, so there’s no citation. But if you want to look into it, go to the BJS site and search for “Federal Justice Statistics” for each year.)

For those still insisting that keeping their heads in the sand means that Castle Rock v. Gonzales doesn’t exist: It’s even worse than that. I document in my book Four Hundred Years of Gun Control that after Britain and Australia destroyed the civil right of self-defense, they began dismantling double jeopardy. As they did with gun control, they claimed this was a benefit to society.

In reality, this means that incompetent prosecutors can haul you back into court for another go-round. The government can afford to spend the money on another trial, because it’s not their money and they can always raise taxes as expenses rise. Meanwhile, the defendant has been rendered powerless via disarmament and is at risk of bankruptcy from ongoing legal expenses.

Both societies were rendered harmless to redress grievances against their government via civilian disarmament. No more right of self-defense against criminals below or above.

So the next time somebody talks to you about “gun rights,” ask them if they mean the civil right of self-defense, and ask them some of the questions I asked above. It’s time to stop being on the defensive by talking about “gun rights,” and take back the narrative by talking about the civil rights of self-defense and the freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Read bullet | Comments »

Armed Guard Stops School Shooter

Friday, February 1st, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

Two teenagers’ conflict turned into a shooting yesterday afternoon, resulting in one teen being wounded. Before the shooting became more catastrophic, an off-duty resource officer was able to disarm the shooter.

When NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said that we should protect our children with armed security, he was scoffed at. But here’s the truth: An armed guard stopped a school shooting before anybody got killed.

Instead, scoffers said the only solution is more gun control.

This was a middle school, and the shooter was fourteen years old. The ATF lists federal gun laws surrounding the possession of a handgun by minors, including this gem:

Federal law prohibits, except in certain limited circumstances, anyone under 18  years of age from knowingly possessing a handgun, or any person from selling, delivering, or otherwise transferring a handgun to a person under 18.

The “teen” violated U.S. Code Title 18, Section 922 and the Gun-Free Schools Act. It’s already illegal to bring a gun into a school. It was already illegal for him to possess a handgun. (Assuming he hid the gun to get it into the school, it must be a handgun, especially since media isn’t talking about the gun, though CNN described the shooter “pulling out a gun.”)

He also circumvented the school’s metal detectors. So here’s an example of somebody who had no problem breaking federal gun control laws and local regulations to attempt murder.

Yeah, more gun control would do the trick.

Read bullet | Comments »

Reader Input Needed: Why is Fascism Equivalent to Communism?

Friday, February 1st, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

This is my first attempt to work with PJM readers to form a knowledgebase. If we can pool our talents and put all the information in one place, this will help us fend off current and future attacks on our rights. So here’s your chance to help save America, right from the comfort of your desk.

Today’s lesson regards the divisive tactic of equating conservatives with fascists, as if fascism is also a right-wing manifestation. But fascism and communism are far more similar than not, and it’s time to kill this Alinskyism (rules 3, 4, 5, 8,10, and 13).

Human Rights Watch reported the Chinese government—i.e. the Communist Party—recently announced they’re planning to “stop using” their Re-education Through Labor (RTL) system “sometime this year.”

Under the RTL system, individuals can be detained and subjected to forced labor for up to four years on the decision of the Public Security Bureau alone. According to the Chinese government, the system is designed to reform minor offenders, such as drug users and prostitutes, through work.

So when you buy those cheap products made in China, you’re supporting the system I call Chinese Redistribution of American Profit (CRAP). Unpaid labor lowers production costs, raising profit margins and/or making your iPhone and TV more affordable.

But there’s a darker side to the dark side of communist forced labor. According to Agence France-Presse:

But opponents say they are also used to silence government critics and would-be petitioners, who seek to bring their complaints against officials to higher authorities.

In other words, all nails sticking up will be hammered flat.

But the most curious aspect is RTL reminds me of the Nazi’s “Arbeit Macht Frei” (Work Will Free You). This hangs above the Auschwitz concentration camp, as well as having appeared elsewhere.

In early 30s the slogan “Arbeit Macht Frei” was very popular because of high unemployment level in Germany. Later it became a favorite motto of Nazi officers who forced prisoners to work in inhuman conditions. The slogan appeared over the gates of many forced labor and extermination camps around the world.

Nazi stands for “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.” Apologists get around the left/right disconnect by claiming the Nazis supported private property, conveniently ignoring that the property remained “private” as long as the owner served Nazi goals.

University of Barcelona researcher Germà Bel wrote that during the 1930s, Nazi Germany privatized “public services previously provided by government,” including “steel, mining, banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways…”  Bel concluded that “privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.”

German researchers Christoph Buchheim and Jonas Scherner, of the University of Mannheim, note that the Nazis usually allowed firms to “devise their own production and investment patterns” and for “war-related projects freedom of contract was generally respected.” However, the authors also noted:

In view of the violence displayed by the regime otherwise it can be taken for certain that the reason was not any respect for private property as a fundamental human and civil right.

In other words: “As long as you play ball with us, we’ll ‘respect’ your private property.” Nazi government force determined how resources were used, just as communists do.

Besides forced labor—a cute name for slavery—other “features” shared by fascists and communists are:

  • Civilian disarmament.
  • Government-sponsored mass murder, labeled “Democide” by Professor Rudy Rummel.

Rummel estimates that during the 20th Century, the three biggest socialist governments—China, USSR, and Nazi Germany—murdered 76.7M, 61.9M, and 20.9M, respectively. That’s a total of 160 million murder victims. This number is mind-numbing. To perhaps put it in a more comprehensible perspective, it would take 10,920 years for American criminals to murder this many people, using 2011 FBI murder data as the divisor.

So here’s your homework assignment: What other “features” do fascists and communists share?

Read bullet | Comments »

Rahm Emanuel ‘Reassigning Desk Cops’ to Combat Violence

Thursday, January 31st, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel claims to have found “200 more cops at desks” who will be reassigned to the streets: “To do what I think is a key component, which is to reduce gun violence and gang activity, before a flame becomes a fire. To put it out.”

In 2011, Chicago had the 6th highest murder rate of all cities over 500,000 population (out of 34). Of cities over 1 million population, Chicago ranked 2nd after Philadelphia (out of 10).

Which brings up some questions:

  • Considering Chicago’s perennial competition as “Murder Capital of America” when does the “flame” become a “fire”?
  • If these cops aren’t needed for administrative work, what were they doing at a desk?
  • How many other cops are on “desk duty” who could be out protecting the public?
  • Will Emanuel reduce his own security detail to put more cops on the street, or does he think he’s so much more important than the People of Chicago?

According to the latest available FBI data, Chicago had 12,092 full-time officers in 2011, or 4.5 officers per 1,000 population. Obviously, some of these officers were on desk duty. A Sun-Times article notes that Chicago hasn’t had a police entrance exam since 2010, and only plans to hire 500 officers in 2013. In any case, Chicago PD is 5% short of the 9,641 beat officers they’d like to have. This means that over 2,900 officers are on desk duty (FBI count minus the assumed 9,159 current beat officers).

Assuming three shifts per day, this means Chicago fields about 3,053 officers per shift, making the very best assumption that no officers are stuck in court hearings, sick, on administrative leave for using their service weapon, or on vacation. This means that on any given shift, there’s one officer per 1,000 population.

Alderman Bob Fioretti accused Emanual of balance Chicago’s budget by “eliminating more than 1,400 police vacancies.”

“We have an over-arching gang problem that keeps expanding every time we turn around. The murder rate is going up. Auto theft and bank robberies are going up.

Meanwhile, Chicago still has the strictest gun control laws in America, and Emanuel and his police chief Garry McCarthy insist it’s just “gun violence” as if the two are synonymous. Both want far more federal gun control than currently exists.

But why bother changing failed policies as long as nobody demands you stop blaming inanimate objects and start taking responsibility?

Read bullet | Comments »

Another Botched ATF Operation

Wednesday, January 30th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

Reporters John Diedrich and Raquel Rutledge of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published an excellent investigative report on the ATF’s latest fiasco of an undercover operation. Agents moved into a Milwaukee store early in 2012, along with Milwaukee police officers, to set up a “sting aimed at busting criminal operations in the city by purchasing drugs and guns from felons.”

The sting resulted in charges being filed against about 30 people, most for low-level drug sales and gun possession counts. But agents had the wrong person in at least three cases. In one, they charged a man who was in prison – as a result of an earlier ATF case – at the time agents said he was selling drugs to them.

Other cases reveal that the agency’s operation was paying such high prices that some defendants bought guns from stores such as Gander Mountain and sold them to the agents for a quick profit.

This project led by ATF’s Violent Crime Impact Team:

The agency launched the initiative in 2004 and quickly reported “enormous” success. Agency officials touted a drop in firearm-related homicides in pilot cities and credited the $35 million effort with helping local police departments solve other crimes.

But a U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General’s report two years later found no evidence that the teams reduced firearm crimes in the targeted areas. Authors of the report cited “inadequate direction” and “ineffective oversight” by the agency.

Worse, burglars made off with $35,000 in merchandise, and the ATF managed to put a fully-automatic machine gun on the street.

After clearing out, they “left behind a sensitive document that listed names, vehicles and phone numbers of undercover agents.”

The property owner says ATF owes him $15,000 for damages to property.

The report is worth reading in full. Then call your elected representatives and ask them to investigate the ATF now, because Obama’s plan is to enhance ATF powers in order to better harass law-abiding gun owners.

Read bullet | Comments »

27 Murdered in Cairo Riot

Sunday, January 27th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

Last December, 26 children and adults died at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Gun banners immediately attacked law-abiding gun owners and the National Rifle Association.

Today, the Associated Press reported that two soccer players were among the 27 murdered during a riot over an earlier soccer-related riot:

Violence erupted in Port Said after a judge sentenced 21 people to death in connection with a Feb. 1 soccer melee that killed 74 fans of the Cairo-based Al-Ahly team.

The two soccer players were shot during this riot:

Dr. Abdel-Raham Farah says Mahmoud Abdel-Halim al-Dizawi, a soccer player in Port Said’s Al-Marikh club, was shot three times and died.

He says Tamer al-Fahla, a soccer player who used to play for the city’s main Al-Masry team, was also shot dead on his way to Al-Marikh club.

According to Small Arms Survey, Egyptians own a mere 35 firearms per 1,000 population, compared to America’s 888 per 1,000.

There’s been no response yet from Dianne Feinstein or the Brady Campaign over this most recent mass murder.

(Rick Moran covers the political aspects of this riot.)

Read bullet | Comments »

The More Things Stay the Same

Thursday, January 24th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

I’m reading Harlow Giles Unger’s excellent biography of John Quincy Adams. Unger rates up there with David McCullough in his ability to bring history to life.

When James Monroe announced his intention of retiring after his second term as president, it served as the starting gun for many serving in his Cabinet.

“With the exception of [Secretary of State] John Quincy, cabinet members all but renounced their oaths of office and personal pledges to the President and launched a bitter struggle for political power the left the President impotent…” (page 221)

Treasury Secretary William Crawford called Monroe an “infernal scoundrel” and raised his cane as if to assault the president. Monroe grabbed fire tongs to defend himself, and told Crawford to leave.

Andrew Jackson used his popularity as the winning general in the Louisiana and Florida campaigns to build his own power base. By violating the outgoing Spanish governor’s diplomatic immunity and arresting him, Jackson embarrassed the administration during the sensitive turnover of Florida to the U.S.

“Jackson resigned in a rage, went home to Tennessee, won election as senator, and returned to Washington to wreak havoc on his political enemies.” (page 221)

“As cabinet members and other presidential aspirants turned on the President or on each other, the vicious rhetoric created political schisms in Congress not seen since the days of the Confederation of American States.” (pages 221-2)

Infighting in Washington D.C. may be a good thing, focusing power-mad mini-tyrants’ energies on each other rather than working together to pass more bailouts and debt ceiling increases that sell out the People. In any case, we can find comfort in knowing that prostiticians always return to their natural inclinations. Being able to predict an attacker’s behavior makes it easier to devise winning defensive tactics.

Thus we know beyond a shadow of doubt that Dianne Feinstein’s theatrical production of introducing a new “assault weapons” ban is nothing but a sham. We know beyond any doubt that any protestations by Feinstein and her ilk that banning guns create a safer society is a lie.

History: Study it, or repeat it. Your choice.

Read bullet | Comments »

Toledo Blade Makes School Defense About Itself (Update)

Saturday, January 12th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

First the good news: A rural Ohio school district has decided to arm staff in order to make students safer from insane people looking for notoriety. From the Toledo Blade:

Montpelier schools may be the first in Ohio to ramp up security by authorizing employees to carry weapons.

The district has about 1,000 students in kindergarten through 12th grade and 75 teachers in one building in this Williams County village of 4,000.

Now the bad news: The Blade entitled their piece “Armed-janitor plan draws mixed reaction from Montpelier parents.”

So what’s the “mixed reaction”? The Blade found one person who allegedly “disagreed.”

Shannon Siler said she was not sold on the idea of having janitors holstered with guns. She said she prefers hiring police officers to tighten security in the school.

“I am a little leery. I know they are going to be doing all this training and stuff, but what if a janitor goes psychotic?” said Ms. Siler, the mother of two girls.

“There is a need to beef up security. … But, it all starts at home. Lock your guns up.”

That’s the most controversial interview the Blade found: Somebody who preferred police while agreeing that more security is necessary. And what if a police officer goes psychotic? How many janitors have gone psychotic and rampaged through the school? Didn’t Sandy Hook Elementary prove that psychotic individuals don’t need permission to carry a gun at school in order to mass murder? The Blade didn’t examine such questions.

Another mother, Teresa Hickman, said: “I don’t have a problem with it. With all the shootings going on in these little schools this will make me feel more at peace.” And:

Mark Earle, father of two Montpelier students, said that arming janitors to deter violence could become a standard practice for schools in Ohio and throughout the country.

Montpelier Superintendent Jamie Grime noted the school board gave unanimous approval. Montpelier Police Chief Jeffrey Lehman referred them to Tactical Defense Institute, which provides training for the National Association of School Resource Officers. So there’s broad community support.

This isn’t the first time the Blade exposed their anti-rights beliefs. Ohio Second Amendment group Buckeye Firearms noted the Blade’s belief that armed defenders shooting armed robbers is wrong because these “seemingly bad guys were shot while allegedly attempting to rob Toledo stores.”

Being robbed at gunpoint is frightening, and we do not presume to judge, as police would say, the righteousness of either shooting. But it must be remembered that robbery is not a capital crime, and it’s only by chance that no one other than the would-be robbers was injured. (Source here.)

Why would the Toledo Blade create “controversy” where there’s none?

UPDATE: Chad Baus, Buckeye Firearms Vice Chairman, reports that he talked with Superintendent Grimes. Baus says Grimes did not specify that only janitors would participate in this program. That’s a fabrication by the Toledo Blade.

Read bullet | Comments »

Obama Gives Himself Armed Protection for Life

Friday, January 11th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

H.R. 6620, the “Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012” was written by Republican Trey Gowdy (SC-4, NRA Grade A), and passed with virtually no discussion or opposition. Two anti-rights representatives, John Conyers (MI-14) and Robert Scott (VA-3), co-sponsored along with pro-rights Lamar Smith (TX-21).

(NOTE: Directions for retrieving bill details from Library of Congress at bottom. Search results are temporary, making internal article links impossible.)

Rep. Gowdy’s Communications Director, Josh Dix, noted that this bill was introduced before the Sandy Hook shooting, though Obama signed it yesterday. It provides a uniform set of protection standards for former presidents. Under legislation passed during the Clinton administration, lifetime Secret Service protection was changed to ten years, beginning with George W. Bush—not anti-gun Clinton, who signed this into law—who now gets protection for life, as does Obama and future presidents. The rationale was that when there’s an emerging threat, it would have been more costly to move resources to protect ex-presidents beyond their ten-year coverage. The Secret Service decided it would be more economical to maintain protection, rather than operating on an emergency ad hoc basis. The bill doesn’t allocate additional taxes; the Treasury Department must still operate within what they’re allocated every year. (Of course, there’s nothing stopping a future Congress from increasing Treasury’s allocation.)

The bill itself is relatively short, amending two clauses in U.S. Code Title 18, Part II, Chapter 203, Section 3056 (Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service). Subsection (a)(3) now reads:

Former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes, except that protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage unless the former President did not serve as President prior to January 1, 1997, in which case, former Presidents and their spouses for a period of not more than ten years from the date a former President leaves office, except that—

(A)protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage or the divorce from, or death of a former President; and

(B)should the death of a President occur while in office or within one year after leaving office, the spouse shall receive protection for one year from the time of such death:

Provided, That the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to direct the Secret Service to provide temporary protection for any of these individuals at any time if the Secretary of Homeland Security or designee determines that information or conditions warrant such protection.

Subsection (a)(4) now reads:

Children of a former President who are under 16 years of age for a period not to exceed ten years or upon the child becoming 16 years of age, whichever comes first.

In a follow-up conversation, Mr. Dix noted Rep. Gowdy’s appearance on “Lou Dobbs on Fox Business” where he rips Obama’s plan to “shred the Second Amendment.”

How to Find Bill Details: Go to Library of Congress’ Thomas, click on “Try the Advanced Search”, select Congress 112 at top. In “Enter Search” box select “Bill Number” from dropdown window, then enter H.R. 6620 in search box to right. Click on “Search” button and you will go to the “Bill Summary & Status” page, which contains links to co-sponsors, bill text, congressional actions, and other information.

Read bullet | Comments »

Rifle Ban Has Little to Do with Homicide

Thursday, January 10th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

While Sandy Hook Elementary gives the Obama administration emotional fuel to promote a gun ban, government data show that civilian rifle ownership and murders with rifles have little in common.

The following graphs resulted from collating data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, and Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms. Between 1991 and 2011, civilian rifle ownership increased from an estimated 74 million to 112 million (51% growth). During that same period, the number of rifle homicide victims declined 57% (see graph below).

(Spearman’s rho equals -0.87, a strong negative correlation: more rifles, less homicide with rifles.)

Examining rates better compares growth in both gun ownership and population. The following graph compares the rate of victims shot with rifles (per 100,000 population) versus the rate of civilian rifle ownership (per 1,000 population for a more usable number). The rifle ownership rate increased 22% between 1991 and 2011, while the rifle homicide rate decreased 65%.

(Spearman’s rho equals -0.89, a strong negative correlation: higher rifle ownership, lower rifle homicide rate.)

In terms of crime data, the effective years for the Clinton “assault weapons” ban (banning scary-looking semi-automatic rifles) were 1995 through 2004. (September 13, 1994, was the enactment date, including over two-thirds of the FBI’s 1994 crime data; same for the sunset year, September 13, 2004.)

Focusing only on the three years following the ban’s sunset — and ignoring two spikes during the ban plus the increased rate right before the ban’s end — might make a case to low-information voters that the gun ban worked. But the longer the trend, the more reliable the result. Looking at time periods before, during, and after the Clinton ban show its questionable impact on murderers using rifles: While rifle homicide rates declined 45% during the 10-year ban period, they continued declining 31% during the 7-year post-ban period (see table below).

There’s no evidence gun bans work. The National Gang Crime Research Center concluded: “Gang members were significantly more likely to report it has been easier since the Brady Bill went into effect to acquire illegal guns.” There’s no evidence a gun ban stymied them, either. Both the Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences found no evidence that the Clinton ban impacted crime.

Why, then, the sudden push to ban semi-automatic rifles?

Read bullet | Comments »

New ‘Less Lethal’ Shotgun Round Geared Towards School Defense

Saturday, January 5th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

Integrity Ballistics recently announced their Burns Round, a “less-Lethal 12-gauge shotgun technology for law enforcement.”

According to CEO Jim Greer, the company was founded after 9/11 by chemical engineer Joe Kolnik, with the sole purpose of building a company around this product.

Greer says the Burns Round is designed to stop threats by causing pain on contact, and considers it a more effective law enforcement tool than beanbag rounds in reduced-force situations. The overall contact energy is similar to a beanbag round, but it reduces penetration potential, because it expands on contact to a 50% greater diameter than the beanbag.

There’s an obvious application for school resource officers trying to stop an intruder bent on mass murder, but it could also be useful in many other self-defense situations. When tested against construction materials, the Burns Round tends to get stopped by walls, as opposed to common rifle and pistol bullets which can pass through walls and remain lethal. So in a school, business, or residential environment, a defender may have less concerns over missed shots injuring or killing non-involved parties. It may also reduce police liability from collateral injuries, as happened when New York City police wounded nine innocent bystanders during a shootout.

Integrity Ballistics doesn’t have any current plans for other firearms products. Being a small company with six employees, they’re focusing their resources on getting the Burns Round to the law-enforcement market before exploring other options.

Read bullet | Comments »

I Support President Obama’s Plan for Making Schools Safer

Friday, January 4th, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

President Obama claims he cares about making our children safe while in school. We should take him at his word. But the problem is when words conflict with actions. As it’s said, actions speak louder than words.

President Obama sends his daughters to Sidwell Friends School, whose student roster reads like a list of Who’s Who’s Children. It even includes the children of NBC’s David Gregory, who berated NRA’s Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre over the idea of armed school security.

The Sidwell faculty directory includes eleven staff in their Security Department. Seven of these staff are specifically called “Special Police Officer.” Special Police Officers, or SPOs, are licensed to carry guns on duty.

Sidwell ran a job advertisement last November via JobHustler.com. Candidates are expected to act like police officers in many ways, including the ability to be armed on the job:

“The ideal candidate will have the ability to write clear concise reports, prepare preliminary investigative reports, as well as interview witnesses, suspects & victims.”

“Mail, fax, or email resume, information for three references and a copy of your current driver’s & Special Police Officer licenses to: HR@sidwell.eduHuman Resources Sidwell Friends School 3825 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20016 Fax: (202) 537-2418.”

What Obama really believes is what he does. Contact your school board today. Tell them we need to follow the president’s lead. Our schools need appropriately armed and trained individuals on campus to protect our children against insane people looking for a moment of notoriety.

Read bullet | Comments »

Armed Defenders DO Stop Mass Murders

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2013 - by Howard Nemerov

Here’s a story about the mass murder that didn’t happen at San Antonio’s Santikos Mayan Palace 14 theater.

Upset over his girlfriend breaking up with him, model-citizen-not-to-be-named-here sent her a message telling her he would go to the restaurant where he worked and “shoot somebody.”

According to Bexar County sheriff’s Sgt. Raymond Pollard: “[not-named-here] went inside, chased people out the back door, and followed one employee as he ran toward the theater, apparently because he was the easiest target.”

Ron Borsch, manager of the SEALE Academy and longtime police trainer and member of Bedford, Ohio Police Department, has been compiling mass murder data for over a decade. He noted that these killers want to quickly inflict maximum damage, so they select places where they expect the least resistance, like “gun-free zones” (e.g. schools, business banning concealed carry).

Unfortunately for no-name, Bexar County sheriff’s Sgt. Lisa Castellano was working off-duty as a security guard at the theater. After no-name wounded two people, shooting one in the back, Sgt. Castellano “cornered him after he ran into a men’s restroom, shooting him several times and taking his gun.”

Both two victims seem to be physically safe, the back-shot victim being quickly released from the hospital.

Bleeding heart media wasted no time blaming the gun:

A restaurant employee who asked not to be identified said such an attack was out of character for Garcia, known as “Chuy” to coworkers.

“He’s a good kid and not violent. He’s quiet and minds his own business,” the coworker said. “I have nothing bad to say about him.”

The police don’t agree. The shooter “was charged with attempted capital murder of a police officer and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, according to arrest records. His bail was set at a combined $1 million.”

Read bullet | Comments »

Update: Gloucester Township Police Station Shooting

Saturday, December 29th, 2012 - by Howard Nemerov

How does a suspect obtain a gun after entering a police station in handcuffs? A tragedy of errors, perhaps. From ABC:

The man who “unleashed a barrage of gunfire” on three police officers this morning in New Jersey was an employee of the New Jersey Department of Corrections who had been arrested for allegedly stalking his ex-girlfriend’s home.

The suspect was arrested for stalking his ex-girlfriend and was taken to the police station for processing. At one point, he was left alone with the female officer on a room, and his handcuffs removed. (During fingerprinting? The police electronic fingerprinting system is like a large scanner/copier. Being a sensitive part of the booking procedure, this machine is often given its own room. In order to obtain a professional license, I’ve been through this.)

The local Gloucester Township Patch reported that the shooting occurred over four hours after the suspect was taken into custody. The suspect tackled Ruth Burns and grabbed her gun, after she removed his handcuffs. From ABC:

When the officer, identified as Ruth Burns, called for help, Sgt. James Garber and Sgt. Kevin Thyne, who were right outside the room, rushed in to help.

Burns was shot in the foot. Thyne suffered a laceration to his abdomen after a .40 caliber bullet ricocheted off his duty belt, and a gazing wound to his chin. Garber was shot in the chest (stopped by duty vest), and also in the abdomen below his vest. He’s in stable condition after surgery.

From the Patch:

The police chief noted the ongoing investigation will include a review to determine whether Burns should have been armed at the time she removed the handcuffs from Jones and was attacked.

Should a female officer with perhaps one year on the job be left alone with a man possessing potentially violent tendencies towards women?

Read bullet | Comments »

Tragedy at New Jersey Police Station

Friday, December 28th, 2012 - by Howard Nemerov

Fox announced today: “Three cops reportedly shot inside New Jersey police station.” What distracted me at first was the wording of their title. We often talk about how mass murders never happen at police stations, because these cowards look for soft targets like schools and other “gun free” zones. Did some dingleberry finally try a crazy stunt?

No, as Fox Philly reports, even though they also ran a potentially misleading title: “3 Officers Shot At Police Station, Suspect Killed, Officials Say.” Gloucester Township Police had brought a suspect to the station for processing on a domestic violence charge. He “got into as [sic] violent struggle with officers at the station” and was able to “obtain a firearm.” He shot one officer in the gut and inflicted “very minor” wounds on two others, before being shot to death by defensive fire.

So yes, a model citizen (thank you, Andy Sipowicz) tried shooting up a police station. But no, he didn’t introduce the firearm.

When I interviewed about reserve police, the detective said “complacency kills.” Did the officers get complacent, thinking they were in the station and nobody in his right mind would try something? Can somebody who commits domestic violence be considered in their right mind?

Gun banners say because we now live in modern, civil society, we should disarm and let the police handle all criminal issues, including violent attacks on private citizens. What does this incident say about the veracity of their claim? And who in their right mind thinks we’re civilized? Of course, to be a gun banner you must reject reality early and often.

But those same gun banners, devoted to mythological buzz-phrases and catchy sound bites, may only read the title and say: “See, those NRA goons are idiots! Cops didn’t stop this shooter from attacking a police station.” Thought this conveniently ignores how cops stopped the shooter before anybody was killed. (Did I say gun banners like to ignore reality?)

But that leaves one relevant question: If we put cops in schools, will somebody will take away their guns and start shooting? Or does this indicate there needs to be more than one armed, trained defender per school?

Weigh in below.

Read bullet | Comments »

Obama: Guns for Me, But Not for Thee

Thursday, December 27th, 2012 - by Howard Nemerov

In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy, anything the president says about his daughters and guns is of vital interest.

During an interview with Barbara Walters, President Obama discussed how his daughter Malia has started dating.

“One of the main incentives of running was continued Secret Service protection so we can have men with guns around at all times,” the father of two joked.

Breitbart reports the Obamas send their daughters to a school with armed security.

It’s completely reasonable for a concerned father to want the best protection possible for his children. We should all take our lead from the president on this matter.

The problem is with Obama’s double standard. After Newtown, Obama “urged Congress to vote on measures banning the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines…”

The Secret Service, as an official law enforcement agency, uses true assault weapons such as the Heckler & Koch MP5. Real assault weapons can fire multiple rounds with one trigger pull. We can’t own these, courtesy of 1934 and 1986 federal firearms laws.

The “assault weapons” Obama wants banned fire one round per trigger pull. They have cosmetic features similar to military assault weapons, but these “scary” features make them low-hanging fruit in the incremental drive towards civilian disarmament.

The Secret Service also uses standard-capacity magazines, conveniently labeled by Obama as “high capacity.” Modern technology produces reliable magazines capable of carrying 30 rounds or more, which are the new standard.

What Obama is really saying is that he wants his daughters protected by men with assault weapons loaded by standard-capacity magazines, while the rest of us poor schlubs must stumble around with partially disabled pea shooters, hoping our daughters aren’t kidnapped, raped, and murdered by criminals who don’t respect the law.

Read bullet | Comments »

Bloomberg Uses Tragedy to Tell the 99% How to Live

Sunday, December 16th, 2012 - by Howard Nemerov

Not one to let a tragedy go to waste, within hours after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, anti-rights New York Mayor Bloomberg went on the offensive:

“Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough,” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, co-chairman of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said in a statement yesterday. “We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before.”

In my last post, I noted how gun bans, increased violence—especially against women—and feudalism all go hand in hand.

Let’s examine feudalism in action. Today. In America.

As the 20th richest man in the world, Michael Bloomberg is in the 1% of the 1%. As mayor, he gets 24/7 armed police protection:

[New York] Mayors typically are protected by a five- or six-person team of plainclothes detectives, including one who often goes ahead to secure the destination. There are generally three teams that rotate for the 24-hour job.

So guns aren’t necessarily the problem, just guns owned by the little people.

Bloomberg even has detectives with him when at home in his 12,500 square-foot, $30 million townhouse:

Over the past two decades, in transactions that have gone all but unnoticed, Mr. Bloomberg has been buying up space in the building next door, knocking down walls and combining two entire floors along the way. He now owns four of the six apartments at 19 East 79th Street, a white 1880 neo-Greco co-op town house.

New York mayors had a two-term limit, until Bloomberg advocated for three terms as his own tenure wound down, because it “offered voters greater choice.” Then, the three-term mayor reversed himself and began promoting two-term limits after he left.

Three for Bloomberg, but only two for the little people, for whom rules are written.

To own a gun in NYC, a handgun permit application costs $340, plus $91.50 for fingerprinting. Rifle and shotgun permits cost $140, plus the fingerprinting fee. These fees are non-refundable if you’re denied. These increased costs add another hurdle for the working class choosing between protecting their family and feeding them. Of course, criminals don’t have to pay these fees, giving them an edge in the use of force. But this is all part of the feudalism formula: Keep raising the bar on lawful self-defense, making it easier for criminals on the street and in government offices to prey upon those who produce the food, goods, and services that everybody needs to live.

Baron Bloomberg says gun control will make us safer. The question remains: Safer for whom?

(Note: This isn’t a classist rant. If you invented a better mousetrap, may you be showered by God’s abundance. It’s only when the wealthy and powerful conclude, on the basis of their outer successes, that they are superior beings designated by God to order everybody else’s life that responsible media needs to highlight such transgressions.)

Read bullet | Comments »

Ban the Second Amendment? Sure, If You Love Violence

Saturday, December 15th, 2012 - by Howard Nemerov

Rick Moran writes that we should ban the Second Amendment if we truly want gun control.

The only real solution is to repeal the Second Amendment, make most guns illegal, and give anyone who commits a crime with a gun a life sentence if convicted. Banning the sale, distribution, and ownership of handguns, assault weapons, large clip handguns, etc. plus locking away the criminal element that uses guns would put a big dent in violent crime — maybe.

As a former civilian disarmament supporter, I know Rick is right on one point: “Gun control” is a façade, a scam; the true goal is civilian disarmament. Let’s all stop kidding ourselves on that point.

Let’s assume Rick’s talking somewhat tongue in cheek on this, because here’s the facts. Australia and Britain banned guns in 1997. Violent crime skyrocketed over the next 10 years. The leading crime category was rape of women. Meanwhile, rape has been declining here in America, where a law-abiding woman can buy a handgun in order to participate in her civil right of self-defense. British women get raped twice as often, and Australian women thrice as often, as American women. I document this all in my book 400 Years of Gun Control.

So what gun banners want is to sacrifice women for the sake of feeling good that we did something about “gun violence.” Curious that those most stridently promoting civilian disarmament usually pretend that they care about women’s rights.

But over 10 years later, getting a gun on the streets of London is easier than ever.

And of course, the government that controls both the purse and the sword also controls the crime data they release. Gun crime is much higher that the UK government wants us to believe.

And there’s nothing to stop murderers from killing, gun or no. Britain’s murder rate hasn’t declined after all.

But don’t worry, there’s still one way government can pretend crime is down: close police stations. If there’s no cop around for victims to file a report, that crime effectively never happened.

So there they are, over 10 years later, and people are still killing, raping, assaulting. And decent people have no way to stop them. Of course, the government wonks will always have their own protection. So in the end, banning guns leads us back to feudalism: the few elites control the arms, resources, and political power; the rest of humanity living in fear for their lives from both the criminals on the streets and those running the country.

Read bullet | Comments »

Another Mass Murder in Gun Free Zone

Friday, December 14th, 2012 - by Howard Nemerov

By now, you’re probably aware that at least 26 people, including 18 children, were murdered today at Newtown, Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School.

This tragedy happened despite the school district implementing new a “new safety policy designed to prevent situations such as what happened on Friday.” These new protocols included:

  • Locking exterior doors during the day.
  • Visitors required to ring the doorbell and register at the office.
  • Photo ID required if staff didn’t recognize you.

There was no provision for training and arming teachers and qualified parents. This was wishful thinking, assuming that everybody was “nice” and that an insane person bent on publicity would behave by the rules.

As with nearly all mass murders, this occurred in a gun-free zone. The shooter was breaking the law as soon as he carried a firearm onto school property. He broke the law as soon as he aimed a gun at his first victim, even had he never pulled the trigger.

School-zone mass shootings didn’t begin until after passing Clinton’s Gun Free Schools Act. (There were prior mass murders, but explosives were used to kill 38 children.)

The victims were given a pretty security blankie to suckle on, being told to go back to sleep and feel good that the school “cared” enough to enhance their security protocols with no need to acknowledge that the real world is a dangerous place. Bad people are running around at large, some of them calling themselves public servants. Bad things happen to good people. Deal with it by claiming your God-given right to life. Arm yourself. Train like your life—or your family or community—depends on it. Be awake in public. That’s what being part of the militia is all about.

The next time some two-legged sheep or posturing predator uses such tragedies to bleat that more gun control will make us safer, place the blame on the tool creating these mass murders: Government that promises to keep us safe, yet fails to do so every day. Government that demands we pay taxes for all these feel-good “safety policies,” but after taking money from hard-working taxpayers, turns around and tells us they are not obligated, in the final analysis, to save our lives.

More from Bryan Preston.

Read bullet | Comments »

Business Insider: Politicians ‘Making Money’ from NRA

Friday, September 7th, 2012 - by Howard Nemerov

Business Insider reported on “The 15 Politicians Who Receive The Most Money From The NRA.” Heading their list is Steve Fincher (R-TN) at $9,900. The Center for Responsive Politics reports the NRA has contributed $568,946 so for in the 2012 election cycle.

While these data are true, the concern is BI’s lede, which mentions Aurora, Colorado and other public shootings, but nothing about people who saved their lives using guns.

There are other groups besides the obvious (e.g. Brady Campaign) with vested interests in promoting gun control. For example, lawyers have demonstrated a consistent tendency to support anti-rights politicians. Had BI done a professional report, they would have noted this truth as well.

Putting the NRA’s contributions into perspective, the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) has contributed $2.5 million so far this election.

Skadden Arps and Sidley Austin, two law firms representing patent holders of firearms technology that would require gun owner licensing and firearms registration, have contributed over $2.2 million this election cycle.

No doubt, BI considers this amount, representing about 3,000 lawyers worldwide, to be democracy in action.

So BI: Is the NRA, which NRA’s Chris Cox calls “a bi-partisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members,” * some sort of anti-democratic conspiracy?

 

* September 2012 edition of America’s 1st Freedom

Read bullet | Comments »

Senator Dianne Feinstein: Gender Traitor?

Thursday, September 6th, 2012 - by Howard Nemerov

Yesterday, California Senator Dianne Feinstein declared she would “return to Congress to reintroduce ‘an updated assault weapons bill’.” Said Feinstein:

“Weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our classrooms, in our schools or in our movie theatres.”

Has anybody seen fully-armed military personnel hanging out in schools and movie theaters?

Feinstein is “one of the most vocal proponents of gun control on Capitol Hill.” The truth is that gun control equates with civilian disarmament. The graph below includes CDC gun ownership survey data for the years 2001 and 2002, plus Brady Campaign grading data for those years. States Brady graded A (best) due to the most gun control laws also have the lowest gun ownership rates. States Brady considered the “worst” (least gun control) had the highest gun ownership rates.


Another inconvenient truth for Feinstein is that states with the lowest gun ownership rates (most gun control) have the highest homicide rates.

Feinstein wants defenseless women to be raped, robbed, and murdered. Women like Martha Lewis, who was forced to shoot an intruder at 3AM. After kicking down her door, he started up the stairs even though he saw she was armed. Lewis said:

“There‘s so much talk about banning guns and gun control but they’re for protection. There’s no way that I could have fought him off.”

Women like 66-year-old Rosa Myles, who needs a walker to get around. She was saying her nightly prayers just before midnight when she heard noise “coming from the back of the home.”
Upon investigating:

Suddenly, a tall man lunged with a knife at her, grabbing her hand. Unable to move around very well and using a walker, Myles was able to put up little resistance. He began pushing her around, demanding jewelry and money.

After being “tortured,” he took her to her bedroom where she kept money. She was able to retrieve a handgun and shoot him while he was counting cash.

Dianne Feinstein hasn’t a clue about how average Americans like these women live. With a net worth of about $70 million, Feinstein can afford to live next to “Billionaire’s Row” in San Francisco, overlooking Presidio Park.

Read bullet | Comments »

Do Private Citizens Have Greater Responsibility Than Cops?

Tuesday, September 4th, 2012 - by Howard Nemerov

Bing Michael Yee, a concealed handgun licensee, was walking his dog, when another dog “ran out of a house and toward him.” Yee fired an unknown number of rounds, killing the dog. In an email interview, Cedar Park Police Captain Jeffrey Hayes said:

Mr. Yee was arrested and charged for Deadly Conduct and Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon.

The Deadly Conduct charge comes after he discharged his weapon in the direction of individuals, resulting in shrapnel or debris striking a female causing an injury.

The Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon charge comes after he then aimed his gun at the people in the front yard of the home across the street, as well as aiming his gun at a non-involved witness to the incident.

Texas Penal Code states that defensive force can be used when “reasonable,” meaning that objective criteria must exist to justify the use of force. (“Feeling afraid” doesn’t exist in Texas Penal Code.) Further, a justified defense doesn’t absolve the defender if he “injures or kills an innocent third person.”

The justice system should properly determine if Yee’s shooting was “reasonable,” or if the shooting was reckless enough to justify a major felony conviction. According to Captain Hayes, Yee violated NRA’s first gun safety rule: “ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.” (For defensive purposes, the “safe” direction is towards the attacker.)

Last month, two NYPD officers wounded nine innocent bystanders in a shootout with an armed man who’d just killed his ex-boss. Three of those wounded remained hospitalized for days. In fairness, there’s no evidence the cops aimed anywhere but at the shooter.

Today, a NYPD Public Information Officer confirmed that both officers are back on active duty.

Read bullet | Comments »

Armed Citizen Stops Violent Attack on Cop

Sunday, August 26th, 2012 - by Howard Nemerov

Perry Stevens was minding his own business when he witnessed an attacker on top of Officer Brian Harrison.

East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s spokesman Greg Phares says Officer Brian Harrision was escorting a funeral procession Friday when he pulled Temple over and wrote him a ticket for breaking into the procession.

Temple took exception and attacked Officer Harrison. Stevens ordered Temple to “stop and get off the officer.” Temple, who was already wounded once by Harrison, continued his attack, so Stevens shot him four times in the abdomen.

According to East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s spokesman Colonel Greg Phares:

He again orders Mr. Temple to stop what he was doing and get off the officer. Those commands are ignored and he fires a fifth shot and that hits his head. The incident is over with, and as you know, Mr. Temple is dead.

Police have already called the shooting justified. Mr. Stevens has a concealed carry permit.

Temple reportedly had a criminal record.

Two concerns here. First:

Both Phares and Baton Rouge Police Chief Jeff LeDuff stopped short of crediting Stevens with saving the officer’s life.

True. It’s impossible to know if Stevens saved Harrison’s life. That would require some sort of concurrent, alternate reality where Stevens didn’t intervene, then comparing the two outcomes. Life isn’t a tidy double-blind clinical trial.

The FBI reports that in 2010, 19 police officers were slain while alone on patrol. Seven officers were killed with their own weapons. Of 56 officers killed, 16 had fired their own weapons, as Harrison did.

Second: Only local station WAFB reported this incident. FBI Supplemental Homicide Reports show that private citizens killed police attackers only three times annually since 2000. Yet an unusual and compelling story of self-defense by a concealed carry licensee gets mentioned only by local media. Media blackouts allow anti-rights propagandists to continue claiming that self-defense incidents are rare, so banning concealed carry wouldn’t be an imposition.

Also read: 

Should the NYPD Even Be Issued Firearms?

Read bullet | Comments »

NYPD Officers Wound 9 Bystanders During Shootout

Sunday, August 26th, 2012 - by Howard Nemerov

As coverage of the Empire State Building shooting winds down, this Reuters report is making the media rounds today:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – All nine of the bystanders wounded on Friday near the Empire State Building were hit by police gunfire, six by bullet fragments, when officers fatally shot a man who had killed a former coworker, authorities confirmed on Saturday.

Granted, the two officers were trying to stop an armed shooter before he hurt anybody else. But if an armed citizen accidentally shoots an innocent bystander, they can be charged with violent crimes like aggravated assault or murder. For example, Texas Penal Code states:

RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON.  Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

Three wounded bystanders remain hospitalized. The two officers were assigned to administrative duty pending an internal investigation, standard procedure for any police shooting.

Read bullet | Comments »

After Afghan Terrorist Attacks, Troops Must Keep and Bear Arms At All Times

Sunday, August 19th, 2012 - by Howard Nemerov

With the recent murders of American troops by alleged Afghan allies, military officials have ordered troops in Afghanistan to go armed at all times:

U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan are being ordered to carry loaded weapons at all times while on base, in response to a rash of Afghan soldiers and policemen turning their weapons on coalition forces.

This proves that military brass knows even off-duty troops are safer when armed. They understand the positive relationship between guns and safety: Our tax dollars pay for a private security firm “charged with protecting and safeguarding the occupants, visitors, and infrastructure of the Pentagon, Navy Annex and other assigned Pentagon facilities.”

Anti-rights propagandists like Brady Campaign are curiously silent about the policy change. Where’s the outrage? Where’s the ranting that “more guns means more violence”?

Granted, they believe cops and military can have guns because they’re trained, a point that deserves further examination.

Some precedents come to mind:

  • The Supreme Court has ruled that government can force us to buy a product because we’ll be “taxed” if we don’t comply (Obamacare).
  • Government requires education, forcing us to send our kids to school and punishing us if we either don’t comply or don’t pay for a valid alternative (e.g. private school, home schooling).

The Militia Act includes “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age” and “female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” The Obamacare precedent makes it logical that all law-abiding citizens should own firearms (keep arms) and train with them beginning at age 17. Then we should be forced to carry them on our person (bear arms) in order to provide for a safer society.

Then anti-rights complainers will be satisfied…assuming it’s really about guns.

Read bullet | Comments »