Gun Free Zones – Fact vs Fallacy – A Letter…

gun free zones
What we see; what they see

A few days ago, following the recent tragedy in yet another of America’s many gun free zones, I examined every shooting spree since the end of WW II.  Of the 52 massacres over the last 65 years, ten were rejected because they didn’t fit the typical shooting spree and involved things such as deliberately set fires, bombings, and situations where the public was never in a position to return fire (such as the Kent State Massacre).

gun free zones
There’s only ONE way to stop a shooting spree…

The results with respect to the 42 remaining shooting sprees will astound you.  More than 75% of them occurred in so-called “Gun Free Zones,” which occupy less than 10% of areas frequented by the average citizen on any given day.  Statistically speaking, your average citizen is THREE TIMES more likely to die of a shooting spree in a Gun Free Zone than they are to die of a shooting spree in an area where people are allowed to keep and bear arms.

It’s clear that the whole idea of creating a “Gun Free Zone” does not protect citizens from firearms.  Far from it.  Establishing such “Gun Free Zones” actually triples the danger to the lives of those who must frequent those zones, whether they be children or mall employees.  The following graphic tells story of how the United Kingdom (UK) opened the door wide to violent crime by disarming its citizens.  Click on the graphic to see the details in the full-sized version:

gun free zone

Let’s face it:  The nutcases who conduct these shooting sprees may be insane, but they’re not stupid.  The media itself has clearly revealed the amount of planning that goes into most shooting sprees and the conclusion is inarguable:  Most perpetrators specifically target Gun Free Zones, almost certainly because they believe no one will be shooting back at them.

On a similar note, more than 50% of all shooting sprees are stopped, not by cops, but by law-abiding citizens, two-thirds of whom are armed.

Gun Free ZonesSo again, the question of why we’re disarming law-abiding citizens (less safe) and creating Gun Free Zones (WAY less safe) MUST be called into question at every level.

Nothing highlights the fallacy of gun control more than “Gun Free Zones.”  They’re the epitome of control, yet the most dangerous knee-jerk response by far.  Clearly, more control is not the answer.  Never in the history of America has gun control ever reduced crime.  In fact, Muslimtime and time again we see the same repeating pattern:  When gun control in an area is relaxed, crime drops.  When gun control in an area is increased, crime rises.

Jan 1, 2014 Update:  Ever since a federal court forced Chicago to process concealed carry applications, crime dropped.  In less than six months, it has dropped by more than 30%.  That’s MASSIVE.

These are facts, people.  I’m asking to you remain cognizant of these facts, and to base your decisions upon the facts, rather than siding with a bunch of hysterical, nonsensical, and ignorant rhetoric lifted from the whiny ramblings of a few emotionally-driven special interest groups.

Siding with FACTS will help keep American citizens safe.  Siding with ignorant rhetoric will not.  For the sake and safety of ourselves and our loved ones, let us please stick with the facts.

Thank you.

Addendum:  The following letter from a man in Australia was supposedly debunked by the liberal rag SNOPES, but was confirmed to be true by a friend of mine who was born and raised in Australia and who lives there to this very day.  Like the statistics gleaned from the UK’s disarmament mess, the Australian government has learning the hard way that gun-free zones do not work, and when you try to create one big gun-free zone for your entire country, well, that’s just particularly stupid:

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent …
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent …
* Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns …’

You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it’s too late!

The Hidden Threat of Genetically Modified Foods

When it comes to food quality, most European countries tend to err on the side of caution.  There are MANY questions, concerns, and controversies over genetically modified foods, the most solid of which is that despite the fact that we’ve mapped genomes, we still have little to no understanding of what many genes do or how they interact with other genes.

genetically modified foods
Just Label It

We we do know is that modifying one gene for a desirable effect will almost certainly affect how other genes behave.  That may involve raising or lowering the threshold of environmental stimuli required to turn the other gene on or off, or turning the other genes on or off completely.

Since we have a poor understanding of what the various genes in a specific plant do, this may introduce toxins into the life-cycle of the plant, toxins which may not harm the plant at all, but which may prove to be either acutely or chronically harmful to humans.  It’s fairly esay to detect any acutely harmful chemicals in trials.  Chronically harmful chemicals, on the other hand, take years to detect, requiring very long-term studies involving tends of thousands of people.

How prevalent is this threat?  According to the American Cancer Society, “Environmental factors (as opposed to hereditary factors) account for an estimated 75%-80% of cancer cases and deaths in the US.” – p. 51, “Cancer Facts and Figures 2012,” American Cancer Society.  We’re aware of some carcinogens, but strongly suspect there are many more low-level carcinogens.  We also suspect that because of their high numbers and widespread use throughout modern society, they are responsible for much, if not most cancer in humans.

Cancer, however, is merely one of many human ailments known to be affected or caused by environmental factors.

genetically modified foods
Say NO to GMO

Our bodies evolved over millions of years to work in harmony with nature, including being resistant to most things in the environment which would have otherwise caused us harm.  When we introduce new environmental factors, whether they be in the form of man-made compounds, increased concentrations of compounds normally found in nature, or genetically modified foods, we have introduced an unknown factor.

The bottom line is this:  Short-term trials do not uncover long-term health concerns.  Only long-term studies will do this, and it’s both premature and irresponsible for any government or scientific body to declare genetically modified foods as “safe” on the basis of short-term trials.

I agree with the graphic.  Just label it.  We’re not asking you to pull genetically modified foods off the shelf.  We do, however, reserve the right to decide for ourselves whether or not we want to eat genetically modified foods.

Retired Officer Status

I received an excellent question from a friend about retired officer status.  I’d like to share the results of my research with others who may be wondering about this themselves:

Short answer:  According to Air Force Officer’s Guide, 34th E., 2005, Stackpool Books (ISBN: 0-8117-3194-4):  “An Air Force officer placed on the retired list is still an officer of the United States.”

Long answer:  As a retiree, you remain a commissioned officer in the Air Force, and the proper form of signature is Joe R. Citizen, Rank, USAF (Ret).  Although you’re not on Active Duty, you are in the Retired Reserve, which consists of all Reserve officers and enlisted personnel who receive retired pay on the basis of active duty and/or reserve service.

For all practical purposes, however, you’re a civilian with pay and privileges commonly afforded to retired service members.  You no longer have statutory authority to issue orders, but you’re not under anyone else’s orders, either, except functional ones involving proper conduct while on base or use of the facilities.  You’re authorized to wear your uniform at certain functions, such as funerals and parades honoring of our country.  You are authorized travel aboard military transportation, but at the lowest priority.  You are not under authority to follow gag orders issued from within the chain of command, as are active duty service members.  You must, however, safeguard classified and FOUO information.

Also, once you’re retired, that’s it.  You’re out.  You’re subject to recall, but only under very specific and restrictive circumstances.  Specifically, “In the absence of fraud, the retirement of an officer under a particular statute exhausts the power of the president and the secretary of the Air Force … there is no authority for the restoration of a retired officer to the active list for the purpose of being again retired.” – ibid.  Put simply, once someone’s DD-214 is cut, it’s set in stone.  The laws governing this were specifically created to prevent higher-ups from recalling a retired service member to active duty for the purpose of either punishment (reduction in rank) or reward (promotion) and then retire them in their new rank.

Many more privileges and restrictions exist for retirees, and the Air Force Officer’s Guide is a great place to start!

If anyone finds anything wrong with the above please bring it to my attention, with sources.

Thank you!

Avoiding the Urban Assault Nightmare

This urban assault nightmare should never happen here in America.  Unfortunately, it has happened, far too often, and often illegally.  This happens when the following three things exist:

1.  Congress refuses to remove the un-Constitutional provisions in the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).urban assault nightmare

2.  Obama refuses to remove the un-Constitutional provisions in his Executive Orders.

3.  Sworn law-enforcement, military, and civilian authorities refuse to honor their oaths of office.

Conversely, when sworn authority is given an unlawful order i.e. one contrary to the Constitution, and they do their duty and refuse the unlawful order, the urban assault nightmare will be averted.

Similarly, if Congress impeaches Obama, as is their duty to do so, this nightmare will be averted.  If they bring the NDAA in line with the Constitution, as is their duty to do so, this urban assault nightmare will be averted.

If Obama, brings his Executive Orders in line with the Constitution, as is his duty to do so, this urban assault nightmare will be averted.

This is why we have checks and balances here in America – to avert nightmares such as the one  depicted above.  Only two requirements must be met in order to avert disaster:  Adhere to the Constitution, and do your duty.  That’s it!  At it’s heart, our system of government is very powerful, yet very simple.

Ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  We have the authority, the responsibility, and the duty to tell a wayward government “NO!”  They have the responsibility and the duty to listen.

When people at any level, from the joe citizen to Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, shirk their duty to support and defend the Constitution, and instead do whatever they want, the system crashes.  It is long overdue for everyone, everywhere, to start doing what’s right by our nation.  The best way to begin is by reading, understanding, following, supporting, and defending the Constitution of the United States of America.

Had our President and members of Congress done that, we wouldn’t being hurdling over this fiscal cliff.  Our economy would have been strong, and our national debt low.

Please think about this.  Think about why consumer confidence tanked just after Obama was re-elected, when it had been on the verge of making a comeback.

Thank you.

Bullies and Lunch Money

The Beatles said it best:  “Can’t buy me love.”

ObamagriftFriends who would be your enemies if you did not give them your lunch money are not your friends.  They’re you’re enemies!  The only way to deal with a bully is to put him in his place.

I was bullied on a number of occasions growing up.  When that happened, I tackled them, and sat on them until they cried, “Uncle!”  After that, no more bully!  At least not to me, anyway, and usually, no longer to others.

When a country or a religious group gets out of line and starts bullying ourselves or others, they need a swift kick in the pants.  You don’t need to enter into a prolonged conflict on their soil.  You just need to hit ’em hard and fast, while telling them “KNOCK IT OFF!”  If they don’t listen, hit ’em again.

Sooner or later one of two things will happen:  They’ll either knock it off, or they’ll declare war on us.  If the latter, no matter.  Doesn’t mean we need to go fight them on their own soil.  That’s what they WANT us to do.  We have superior intel and firepower, so, sit back and let ’em stew.  They’ll either forget about it or will continue to “wage war” against us.  If the latter, then impose and enforce trade sanctions.  If they build something that’s bad, take it out.  If they start waging ware on our soil, take them out.

Whatever you do, DO NOT give bullies your lunch money!

Sadly, our burden of Obamagrift runs into the TRILLIONS of U.S. dollars.  He is fiscally raping our nation, and this must stop.  What do you tell a rapist?  You tell him “NO!”

Write your Congressman, whether they agree with you or not, and tell them “NO!”  Write the President and tell him “NO!”  Tell them, “It’s our country, and you can’t have it!”  Tell them they’re not authorized to give it away, either.  Be polite, but be firm, and never back down.  Remember, ours is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

This only works, however, when WE THE PEOPLE stand up and take our country back from those who would run it into the ground.

Our Time of Reckoning Is At Hand

If any of you might be thinking “our time of reckoning is at hand,” you’d be right.

The American People need to come to grips with something, and they’d better get it real quick, before their government takes away something they granted a long time ago.

Owning and carrying (that’s the “keep and bear” part) is NOT a “privilege.”  We do NOT have a “Bill of Privileges.”  We have a Bill of RIGHTS.

The Second Amendment, number two in the ten Amendments in our Bill of RIGHTS, reads as follows:  “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (emphasis mine)

In February of 1982, the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session, published document 88-618 0, entitled The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Report.  Therein, you will find such quotes as:

“In my studies as an attorney and as a United States Senator, I have constantly been amazed by the indifference or even hostility shown the Second Amendment by courts, legislatures, and commentators.”

“James Madison would be startled to hear that his recognition of a right to keep and bear arms, which passed the House by a voice vote without objection and hardly a debate, has since been construed in but a single, and most ambiguous Supreme Court decision.”

“Thomas Jefferson, who kept a veritable armory of pistols, rifles and shotguns at Monticello, and advised his nephew to forsake other sports in favor of hunting, would be astounded to hear supposed civil libertarians claim firearm ownership should be restricted.”

“No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second Amendment’s words “right of the people” mean “a right of the state” — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The “right of the people” to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to “bear arms” relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of “right of the people” but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to “keep” arms. These commentators contend instead that the amendment’s preamble regarding the necessity of a “well regulated militia . . . to a free state” means that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term “militia” to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.”

Indeed!

“In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.  In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.” – Wikipedia’s entry on “Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Dec 25, 2012.

The problem with the Supreme Court of the United States of America is that they are SO bogged down these days in precedent and legaleze from the many thousands of decisions rendered by them and the lower courts with respect to firearms, that they’re unable to see the forest through the trees.  It’s a VERY SIMPLE forest, people, and it looks like this:  “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” (emphasis mine)

Thus, when the Supreme Court “listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment,” were they infringing on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms?”

Hell yes, they were!  Just as were the “many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms.”  Put simply, U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and Mr. President, what in the hell do you think “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” means, anyway?  Here’s a clue:  “infringe: 1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another ”

By definition, ANY “prohibition” or “restriction” is an infringement.  Therefore, it logically follows, by definition, that any ruling by the U.S. Supreme court which upholds an “prohibition” or “restriction” is also an infringement.

So, was the Supreme Court’s “Heller ruling which indicated that “traditionally lawful purposes” was restricted to “self-defense within the home” an infringement?

You bet your ass it was.

And was the Supreme Court’s “MacDonald” ruling which limited the powers of local and state governments an infringement?

No, of course not.  The reason it wasn’t an infringement is simple:  Our Founding Fathers, the ones who both founded this country, creating our Constitution and it’s Bill of Rights, NEVER wanted to EVER AGAIN see American citizens at the mercy of their government.  Instead, they wanted American citizens to know, understand, and act upon just one thing:  That the United States of America is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people.

This is why I founded RYOC – Run Your Own Country!  It’s not our government’s country.  It’s OUR country!  WE THE PEOPLE are the ultimate authority in this great nation of ours, and it’s up to US to ensure our nation remains on the narrow path, the one upon which our Founding Fathers sent us, the one which lead to the greatest nation on Earth, and the only one which will get us out of this mess we’re in today.

How do we do that?  Simple, and it takes just two steps:

First, stop drooling over politicians’ rhetoric.  Look at their voting record, instead.

Second, vote ALL those who fail to adhere to our Constitution, the law of our land, out of office.  Obama, H. Clinton, Pelosi, Steinfein, and Reed come to mind as the WORST offenders on this point.  They just need to go.

That’s it!  Continuing education, however, is critical.  If you haven’t read our Constitution lately, please do.  An initial read should take you no more than ten minutes.  You can read it, as well as the other documents upon which our nation was founded, at the Library of Congress’ website, here:  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html  Also, take a look at that Congressional Report.  It was written thirty years ago, but it was never more applicable at any time between then and now than it is today.

Good luck, and God Bless!

Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre

Yesterday, yet another firearms-related tragedy occurred at the Sandy Hook Element School in Connecticut.  It was the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech Massacre.

As graduate of Virginia Tech, I’d like to say how sad I am for the family, friends, and colleagues of those who were lost or injured.  Your grief must be overpowering, and the only words of comfort and hope I can provide is to say, hold on.  Don’t try to go this alone.  Go ahead and lean on those who love you — that’s why they’re there.  Accept whatever help is offered, and seek help whenever you need it.

As a retired military officer, I’d like to add some additional thoughts about how easily this tragedy could have been prevented.  Not by ever more strict gun control or by locking down the school and scanning everyone who enters, but by employing the most effective deterrent ever envisioned by any government.

Before you let your mayors, city or county counsel members, governors, Congressmen, or the President react in typical knee-jerk political fashion, please remember this well-known axiom, at least among law-enforcement professionals such as those who maintain the FBI’s Crime Statistics database:  GUN CONTROL LAWS DO NOT WORK!

They never have, and they never will, and for one simple reason:  Criminals do no obey the law.  Because of this, the only effect of gun control laws are to disarm the honest, law-abiding citizens who have proven time and time again throughout human history they’re more than capable of both deterring and stopping crime.  Meanwhile, gun control laws do not stop, much less deter either criminals or the criminally insane.

What if a teacher were armed?  Why do you think they ramped up the Federal Air Marshal program?  How many successful mid-air hijackings have we had since 9/11?

Let’s briefly examine all the major firearms massacres in the United States over the last 50 years, and ask just two questions:  Were the victims armed, or NOT ARMED?  How many people died?

– The teachers at Sandy Hook:  NOT ARMED.
– The students at Virginia Tech: NOT ARMED.
– Giffords and her enterouge: NOT ARMED.
– The vacationers on that Island in Norway: NOT ARMED.
– The shoppers at the mall in Oregon: NOT ARMED.
– The crew and passengers aboard AA Flt 11, UA Flt 175, AA Flt 77, and UA Flt 93:  NOT ARMED.
– The students at Texas A&M: NOT ARMED.
– The moviegoers at the theater in Aurora: NOT ARMED.

Two Notable Exceptions include the Fort Hood massacre, where the only person who WAS armed was the one who stopped the massacre, and the Fairchild Air Force Base massacre, where the only person who WAS armed was the one who stopped the massacre.

Do you see the pattern, here?  The pattern is that the only way to stop a shooting spree is to take down the shooter.  Tackling them is extremely risky, and is very likely to get you killed.  Shooting the shooter, on the other hand, is fairly quick, and any competent marksman armed with a decent caliber can stop an unlawful shooter hell-bent on a shooting spree.

Were you aware that of all criminal activity stopped in progress that more than 50% of it is stopped by a private citizen?  It’s true.  And were you aware that more than 2/3 of those private citizens were armed?  It’s sad that less than 5% of Americans are armed!  If more of us were armed, we’d have a LOT less crime!

I would also like you to consider what The People are saying in response to articles on this and other shootings.  The overwhelmingly vast majority of them are calling for decreases in gun control laws, and for one good reason:  So they can defend themselves!  I’m sure you’ve heard the addages:  I carry a gun because I can’t carry a cop; A firearm on every hip is far less expensive than a cop on every street corner; and When seconds count, cops are just minutes away.

Consider this:  There are approximately 1,400 accidental deaths due to firearms here in America each year, despite there being at least as many firearms as there are motor vehicles.  Yet we have 35,000 accidental deaths due to motor vehicles.  That’s TWENTY-FIVE TIMES GREATER!  Yet do we outlaw motor vehicles?  Heck no.  So, can we be rational about this?  Please?

Here’s the kicker:  Approximately 168,000 crimes are thwarted each year by ARMED citizens.  Put simply, armed citizens STOP crime 857 times more often than the occurrence of accidental deaths due to firearms.  Similarly, crimes are stopped by armed, law-abiding citizens 18 times more often than firearms are used in murders (9,369).  So, are we to disarm law-abiding citizens and allow those 168,000 crimes to run amok?  Really?  How in the world does that make any sense whatsoever?

Source:  FBI Crime Statistics.

So which political idiots are proposing the elimination of the most highly effective anti-crime tool in the history of the world?  Obama?  Hickenlooper?  Are you seriously trying to tell myself and the rest of the American people that you want to disarm honest, law-abiding citizens when their effectiveness rates of stopping crime is so incredibly high?  Do you honestly expect me or any rantional, intelligent, logical person to believe your disarmament model, proven a dismal failure at Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Giffords speech, the Norwegian Island, the Oregon mall, Texas A&M, and the Aurora theater, is prudent?  That it actually deters or prevent crimes?

If so, you really are an idiot.  Disarmament neither deters nor prevents crimes!  Disarmament only ENCOURAGES crimes.  It leaves honest, law-abiding citizens vulnerable to criminal activity, and unable to defend themselves.  It turns what could be your best deterrent or most readily available means of stopping a massacre into nothing more than rich targets of opportunity.

Fifty years of FBI crime statistics have PROVEN there’s a strong correlation between increasing gun control and increasing crime. They also PROVE there’s a strong correlation between relaxing gun control and relaxing crime.

So, folks!  PLEASE write your mayors, your city counsel members, your governors, your state legislators, and your Congressmen, and tell them to STOP AND THINK about REALITY before they knee-jerk your town, city, county state, or country into HIGHER crime rates.

Yes – I’m praying for the families of the casualties, as should we all.