Gun Control in its Proper Perspective

According to Statista, there are 1.25 million violent crimes in the U.S. each year.  However, roughly 725,000 (37%) are stopped before they happen by armed, law-abiding citizens with guns.

Gun control’s success rate in stopping violent crime is less than 1%. Armed, law-abiding citizens stop 37% of all violent crime.

Armed, law-abiding citizens are roughly 50 TIMES more successful than gun controlSo why do politicians keep pushing gun control instead of encouraging armed, law-abiding citizens?

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That’s why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides……Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.”

Remember, when it comes to “gun control,” the important word is “control,” not “gun.”

Nikolas Cruz – Another Mass Shooting

Despite the fact that an article entitled, “Antidepressants Are A Prescription for Mass Shootings” first appeared in November of 2012, five years ago, as part of CCHR* Florida’s efforts, now we have a shooter, Nikolas Cruz, with a 7-year history of calls to 911, FBI involvement, and repeated evaluations by licensed therapists, all of whom deemed him not to be a threat.  Here’s another salient article.

The fact they were all wrong is undeniable.

I’m a data/systems analyst. In 2012, shortly after the Newton shooting, I located, downloaded, and began analyzing a very detailed set of data on mass shootings between 1981 and 2011. That’s 30 years of mass shootings.

There are only two substantial conclusions one can draw from the data:

1. Even the best psychological practitioners cannot successfully identify everyone who might prove harmful to themselves and others. Many mass shooters had been evaluated by psychologists or trained/licensed therapists who failed to identify them as a threat. Deeming everyone who passes through their doors as a threat, however, is not the answer. Less than 1 out of 10,000 subjects evaluated for potential harm, yet dismissed as non-harmful, ever go on to engage in a mass shooting. You cannot deprive the other 9,999 (actually, a lot more) of their own rights.

2. So-called “gun-free” zones occupy less than 10% of the physical space frequented by the general public, yet are where more than 80% of all mass shootings occur. In fact, more than one mass shooter has confessed they targeted a gun-free zone precisely because it was a gun-free zone so as to minimize the likelihood anyone would be armed and could shoot back.

Based upon the indisputable facts communicated by the objective data itself, along with 27 years of military and civilian education and experience in the use of firearms, here are my recommendations:

1. Stop designating areas as “gun-free” zones. Not only is that a wide open invitation to mass shooters, but it also denies the lawful general public their Constitutional right to defend themselves. Given the undeniably clear data and findings, the so-called “gun-free” zones are pathetically stupid. Stop designating zones as “gun-free.”

2. For areas where you really do not want firearms, such as K-12 schools, courtrooms and prisons, authorities bear the responsibility of protecting those who must be there. Secure the physical facility from unauthorized entry. Employ well-trained armed guards to stop unlawful armed intruders. Single point of access. Controlled entry. We do a very good job of this with courtrooms and prisons. Some municipalities do a very good job of this with schools. Take heed. Learn. Do. Protect our kids.

3. For more adult areas like malls and movie theaters, stop preventing law-abiding adults from defending themselves. Law-abiding citizens use firearms somewhere between 650,000 to 800,000 times each and every year to defend themselves against violent crime, usually without having to fire a shot. I’ve been involved in three such incidents. No shots fired, but the attack was stopped. In fact, because armed, law-abiding citizens are not cops, they invariably hold their fire until it becomes absolutely necessary to stop the attack. Error rates are only 2% for armed citizens, but 11% for law enforcement officers. Thus, disarming law abiding citizens is pathetically stupid.

4. Don’t touch the current psychological evaluation programs in place. Although it’s not an exact science, they do a very good job, with a very low error rate, in terms of identifying those who are a threat to themselves and others.  Trying to monkey with that from a legislative perspective would be a pathetically foolish thing to do.

5. Stop politicizing the issue. It’s not Trump’s fault. It’s not Hillary’s or Obama’s fault. It’s not the fault of Democrats or Republicans. In fact, most of the “solutions” proposed by politicians would greatly exacerbate the issue. Stop it. Knock it off. Do the research and find out what really works. Limits on magazines? Caliber? Number of guns one can buy during any given time period? Absolutely none of these foolhardy measures has ever stopped a single mass shooting. What HAS stopped mass shootings is when either a law-abiding citizen or law enforcement officer at the scene SHOT the mass shooter before they could continue. Securing places where people who must attend are disarmed, like students in schools, is the best way to deter such shootings in the first place.

6. Stop the blitheringly idiotic headlines. Mainstream media bears a huge responsibility to print the truth, instead of sensationalism like, “No other country has these types of…” Phooey. I can name thirty countries off the top of my head where such shootings are far worse than they are here in the United States of America.  Fact-checking is a basic yet critical responsibility of all journalists.  Those who fail to check their facts make the problem much worse.

7. Investigate the relation between mass shootings and psychoactive drugs. When a mother of four on psychoactive drugs drowns all four kids in a bathtub as her very first indication she has any violent tendencies, it’s a statistical anomaly. When similar events, including mass shootings, are repeated thousands of times over thirty years, you’ve got a real problem, and the drugs are highly suspect.

Yes, mass shootings are a tragedy. Let’s not create further tragedy by resorting to knee-jerk gun control that has not nor will ever stop mass shootings and is likely to make them much worse by progressively disarming law-abiding citizens who can and do protect themselves and others.  Instead, let’s secure certain facilities and respect the rights of all citizens to defend themselves in accordance with our Constitution.

*Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Solving the Problems of Traffic Congestion

Yes, I’m a really smart guy.  No, I’m not a traffic engineer.  I have, however, conducted extensive studies involving both aerial and seaport throughput and transloading operations for the United States military.  You don’t even get to do that unless you’e a pretty smart guy (or gal), so someone thought I had enough smarts and experience to put me in a serious position of responsibility where I’d gain a whole lot more knowledge and experience.

I will comment extensively on these at a later date.  For now, they serve as placeholders:

  1.  A very good, science-based look at the fundamental physics of traffic:  https://jliszka.github.io/2013/10/01/how-traffic-actually-works.html
  2. An incredibly non-scientific and decidedly ass-backwards look at what drives traffic congestion:  https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
  3. U.S. Department of Transportation’s The Seven Sources of Highway Congestion and Unreliable Travel:  https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/chapter2.htm

Bottom line:  While many state legislators are busy with legislation based on the mind-turds I call “articles found in Wired Magazine,” others prefer to source from decades of exquisite science that, if use properly, can greatly alleviate traffic congestion on America’s highways while costing just pennies on the dollar as compared to adding more lanes.  Keep in mind, however, there’s a point where minimizing causing factors while facilitating throughput will have reached its peak, and adding just one more car to the road will precipitate the traffic wave that cuts throughout in half.

Traffic Wave Experiment:

More Detailed Analysis of the experiment above:

 

Traffic Waves, Explained in Detail, including how variable speed limits and actually slower speeds can mitigate the appearance of traffic waves:

WH Press Secretary on 2018 Government Shutdown

2018 Government Shutdown
WH Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders
January 18, 2018

Reporter: Sarah, does the president think it’s acceptable for Republicans or Democrats to allow a government shut down at the end of the week? You have, obviously, different options here, but does he think it’s acceptable for a shut down to occur this week?

Sarah: The President certainly doesn’t want a shutdown and, if one happens, I think you only have one place to look, and that’s to the Democrats, who are holding our military and national security hostage by trying to push through other policies that have nothing to do with the budget. We would like to, again, get a budget deal done, a two-year budget deal, a clean budget deal, and then focus on negotiations following that deal with finding a permanent solution to DACA and responsible immigration reforem. We’ve said that many times before. Our position has not changed.

Reporter: But Republicans control congress, they contol the White House…

Sarah: It takes 60 votes, and Republicans don’t have 60 votes, so, Democrats either need to decide that they’re going to come here to do their jobs, and they’re going to govern and they’re going to put our national security ahead of their own personal political agendas, or they’re not. It’s really simple and that’s a decision you’re going to have to ask the Democrats, “What’s more important?” National security or political agendas. I can’t answer that for you.

Complete Press Conference (the comments above commence at 27 minutes into the briefing):

Editorial:  I love the fact that Sarah Huckabee Sanders doesn’t mince words.  She cuts to the chase, getting to the Crux of the matter, while preventing satanic liars from derailing her efforts.  Frankly, that’s a very rare skill.

I find that to be AWESOME!

Bottom Line:  The 2018 shutdown of the U.S. federal government was orchestrated by Democrats for no other reason than to fund their pet programs, which We the People don’t want, and have nothing to do with the ongoing operation of our government.  By holding our nation’s military, seniors and others hostage, the Demoncraps are committing political terrorism.  Our Founding Fathers never planned for this because they never imaged that any elected government officials could ever stoop to such henious, if not hellacious depths of moral depravity as Schumer and ALL Demoncraps in the U.S. Senate did on Friday, January 19, 2018.

The last government shutdown, orchestrated by Obama and the Democrats in 2013 as nothing more than a loser’s temper tantrum, cost the United States economy $24 BILLION dollars.  That’s not chump change.  That’s enough to bring our military back into a normal state of readiness, one which collapsed under incessant funding cuts over the last eight years.

Instead of doing what’s right, however, the Demoncraps are throwing yet another temper tantrum while slashing away at our economy like spoiled little children who didn’t get their way.

Oh, wah, you spoiled little Demonbrats.  GROW UP.  You’re not three years old any more.  Keeping our nation running is a very serious responsibility.  Stop avoiding your singularly important responsibility of passing a budget and get our government back on track.  NOW.

Demoncraps Caught Trading DACA Slaves For Money

“Trump says Democrats ‘just want to talk’; don’t really want deal for young illegal immigrants”
 
Demoncraps have long had problems with proper political negotiations. They think everything, including that which they claim to support, is up for negotiating some kind of personal gain. Let’s see if this is the case, here…
 
“DACA is probably dead because the Democrats don’t really want it, they just want to talk and take desperately needed money away from our Military…”
 
Ahhh… There it is! It’s not about the kids, other than as a means to a different end. Demoncraps want the money, funds that keep our military strength sufficient to avert most wars, and provide for less costly, decisive victories when wars cannot be avoiding.
 
They’re just using the kids as bargaining chips, HOSTAGES, if you will, in order to get their money. This was never about the Demoncraps’ little illegal immigrant slaves, as they see them. It was only about Demoncraps getting to play with more money!
 
The Demoncraps would rather have play money in their pockets now than avoid very costly wars in the future. Hell! They’re willing to trade our nation’s national security, “the security of our free state,” down the toilet just so they can play around with OUR money on THEIR shiny new mega-million dollar bobbles.  To them, DACA children are nothing more than bargaining chips.
 

The question is, “Why?” Could it be related to the trillions of dollars which “disappeared” out from under Obama’s nose while he was in office? How many of you would like to bet the Demoncraps have an entire INDUSTRY of money-sucking connections throughout government for the sole purpose of augmenting their salaries?

Then there are the simple-minded Demoncraps who think they’re “saving the kids.”  Well, here’s some DACA Stats they’re certainly ignoring:

DACA Stats

The fact is, the vast majority of “dreamers” are nothing but a bunch of THUGS.

Here’s the full article:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/14/trump-says-daca-probably-dead-team-backs-strong-stance-blames-democrats.html

What the Liberals are saying about President Trump’s Tax Cuts Plan

I recently spotted a typical liberal response to President Trump’s Tax Plan:
“I have an MBA, and these tax cuts will have little to no effect on the economy.” – Jess*

Well, Jess,* I have two degrees in business, two degrees in science, and two degrees from which I graduated summa cum laude, one of which is my own MBA, so with all due respect, I’ll see your MBA, raise you two science degrees and two SCLs, and recommend you spend more time studying economics.

I see Ivanka Trump graduated cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in economics in 2004. Do you she that might have some input into President Trump’s tax plan?  I’ll bet she did.  I’m also willing to bet that both of them knew enough not to solely trust their education and experience, but instead solicited input from dozens of top experts in a variety of fields.

Perhaps it was on the advice of the Reagan-era policies of Milton Friedman, who held a PhD in Economics from Columbia University, and was a Fulbright Visiting Fellow at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, whose “tax cuts increase the economy” advice to President Reagan absolutely resulted in both tax cuts as well as the resulting strong economy throughout the 1980s and well into the 1990s.

That may not mean much to you, but this and tons of repeating history very strongly confirm that President Trump’s tax cuts are precisely the right move. Indeed, the economic jumped yet again after the bill passed, a very strong indication it’s the right thing for our economy.

*Not his real name.  Names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Madam Secretary, the 25th Amendment and the Removal of Donald Trump

Washington Post headlines read, “We really do need to deploy the 25th Amendment.”  “The fictional White House in “Madam Secretary” will provide viewers with a crash course in the implementation of the 25th Amendment — the mechanism for removing the president from office — in the CBS drama’s next episode, titled “Sound and Fury.”
 President Trump and Vice President Pence
They’re absolutely certain to get it wrong, as all the talk I’ve seen to day fails to mention the fact that only Vice President Pence can invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.
I’ve provided a short outline, below, taken directly from the 25th Amendment. I highly encourage you all to print it out, watch the episode, and see how close to (or far away from) reality the writers, directors, actors, and producers actually come.
 
My contention is that the 25th Amendment is NOT “the mechanism for removing the President from office” as stated by the producers of Madam Secretary.  More specifically, the 25th Amendment is not the mechanism by which anyone who dislikes the President could remove him from office.  That venue lies with impeachment, not the 25th.
Before we continue, let’s examine the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution in its entirety, as preserved and reported by our nation’s Library of Congress:
Amendment XXV - LOC
 Sections 1, 2, and 3 simply confirm that it is the Vice President, and no one else, who assumes the duties and responsibilities of the President if the President should the latter no longer be able to do so due to death, illness, injury, or mental incapacitation. Obviously, the line of secession is much longer, but that’s Congressional legislation, not the 25th Amendment.
 
Section 4 is where the VP and a majority of either:
– a majority of the principal officers of executive departments (cabinet)
– majority of the principle officers of Congress
may declare in writing that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and present that declaration to both the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
 
Upon such declaration, the Vice President shall immediately assume assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.  The key, however, is that those other entities cannot accomplish this on their own.  It absolutely requires the Vice President’s complete and unreserved involvement.
 
Here’s where it gets a little sticky.
 
The elected aka original President can then write a counter-declaration to the same two heads of Congress saying that no such inability exists, at which point he shall immediately resume the powers and duties of his office.
 
So, here’s what we have so far:
 
VP and either cabinet or Congressional officers declare the President is unfit to the two head of Congress. VP assumes the office.
 
But if the President counter-declares, then he resumes his office.
 
Are you with me so far? Ok. Now it gets even stickier:
 
If the VP still thinks the President isn’t fit, then he, along with a majority of the cabinet or officers of Congress can, within 4 days, present their case again, at which point all of Congress assembled within 48 hours and makes a decision within 21 days to decided who either remains or becomes president: The original President or the Vice President. If they fail to make a decision, the powers and duties remain with the original President.
 
Did you notice what’s required throughout this scenario? That’s right: The VICE PRESIDENT, the President’s right-hand man. Without the VP, NONE of this happens. Congress cannot initiate this action. The cabinet cannot initiate this action. The Supreme Court cannot initiate this action. CNN cannot initiate this action, and neither can the Demoncraps or a TV show named “Madam Secretary.”
In fact, Rolling Stone magazine reaffirmed this finding in their excellent article covering this very issue.  They even provided a handy graphic Rolling Stone Graphicshowing how many entities must concur before it’ll happen.
 
I find the claim that “The fictional White House in “Madam Secretary” will provide viewers with a crash course in the implementation of the 25th Amendment — the mechanism for removing the president from office — in the CBS drama’s next episode, titled “Sound and Fury” “to be dubious, if not spurious, and highly misleading of the public.
In fact, it borders on,  if not crosses, the line of “inciting a riot.”
 
Rather, they will probably paint a very false picture about how, if enough Demoncraps raise hell, and infuriate Congress enough, then Congress can *SOMEHOW* make the decision, even without the VP’s input, a point which I hope the 25th Amendment itself has made abundantly clear simply cannot happen.
In other words, “wrong,” so sayeth our Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land.” – Article VI.  Clause 2.
 
That’s just not reality, there, Hollywood.  The reality is that it’s an AMENDMENT, not merely federal law, and the 25th Amendment DEMANDS the Vice President’s concurrence. Furthermore, as an Amendment, no emergency session of Congress, even with the three-quarters vote required for repealing an Amendment can overturn it, not without first being properly ratified by three-quarters of the States, which will take several years.
So, Demoncraps and libtards, if it makes you happy to keep barking up that dead tree, be my guest.  Go ahead and waste your time.  I think the rest of America, however, might not consider you to be so blitheringly idiotic if you simply read the Constitution, including, in this case, the 25th Amendment itself.