RED FLAG on Red Flag Laws

The rising tide of red flag laws does not bode well for the United States of America.  Not only are they fraught with many potential avenues of failure and abuse, they’re also highly ineffectual, stopping less than 1/10th of 1% of their intended targets  — a statistically and absurdly tiny fraction of the problem.

For the first time in many years, I’m at a loss for world.  These proposals and the laws that have made the books are so ridiculously, unbelievably mind-bogglingly STUPID that I don’t know where to begin.

So, let’s begin at the beginning, with our United States Constitution.  Here’s a couple of key points:

THE BEGINNING

– The States were already in power at the time they agreed to join the Union.  They already had powers.  They still do.

– The Constitution specifically delineated a few key powers to the federal government and normalized relations between the States, primarily in the areas of commerce and common defense.

– Just in case anyone forgot that the people and the States retain the lion’s share of authority, our Founding Fathers included Amendments IX and X in our Bill of Rights:

Amendment IX:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

– Amendments to the Constitution become integral parts of the Constitution itself.  As the Constitution itself declares in Article. V., “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.”

– Between December 7, 1787, and May 29, 1790, all thirteen states ratified the Constitution.

-Subsequently, whenever a territory has applied to become a State, they do so with the full knowledge of and consent to the U.S. Constitution.

– One of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, proposed in 1789 and duly ratified by the states on December 15, 1791, is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”  Our Founding Fathers were so adamant about protecting this right they added an absolute:  “shall not be infringed.”  Moreover, this isn’t merely about restricting Congress from passing laws, as stated in the First Amendment.  Rather, it applies to the states, as well, and on December 15, 1791, all United States at the time become party to it, whereas all subsequent States became party to it when they applied for statehood.

WHERE WE ARE NOW

Sadly, instead of focusing on legitimate, science-based policing, these red flag laws throw that science out the window, criminalizing gun ownership itself, in a flagrant and very dangerous violation of the “shall not be infringed” clause of the Second Amendment i.e. the U.S. Constitution.

 

Piers Morgan’s Blitheringly Idiotic Gun Ban Drive

Piers Morgan has a passion for banning firearms.  His most frequently cited statistic is that the United Kingdom’s firearms murder rate dropped from thousands annually all the way down to the double digits (less than 100).  Sounds terrific, right?  Let’s ban all firearms now, right?

How Piers Morgan LIES
(click for full-size)

Well, not so fast.  You see, Piers Morgan lies.  He lies to you by using the term, “firearms murder rate,” “gun murders,” or “murders by firearms.”  He intentionally (possibly just stupidly) ignores murders which occur as the result of violent crime.  Speaking of which…

Piers Morgan fails to mention the fact that the UK’s violent crime rate more than tripled after they banned nearly all private ownership of firearms.  Apparently, a disarmed citizenry is far more susceptible to the other violent crimes of rape, robbery and aggravated assault.  Furthermore, since most murders are a result of violent crime at its worst, when their violent crime rate tripled, so did their non-firearms murder rate.

Put simply, the U.K. reduced their firearms murder rate but increased their non-firearms murder rate.

THE QUESTION:  Did the overall effect of the UK gun ban result in fewer murders overall or did the resulting tripling of the UK’s violent crime rate actually lead to more murders overall?  A related question involves how that would translate to gun bans here in the United States.  Would gun bans actually save lives, or would it cause violent crime — including murders related to violent crime, to rise?

To answer that question, I consulted with the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.  UCR “has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation. The program was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to meet the need for reliable uniform crime statistics for the nation. In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics” (Source).

Specifically, I examined their vaunted Table 1:  Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 inhabitants, 1997-2016.  This table provides both the raw numbers as well as the rate per 100,000 inhabitants for all violent crimes as well as the breakdown into murders, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.  It also provides the raw numbers and rates for non-violent property crimes, including burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft.

To be continued…

Emma González on Why This Generation Needs Gun Control

The blitheringly idiotic liberal rage Huffington Post claims, “Emma Gonzalez is not budging in her fight against gun violence.”

Good! As a concerned parent, neither am I.

The difference between Emma Gonzalez and I, however, is one of experience. I have more. FAR more, especially in the area of securing both facilities and people.

In addition to four years of managing pools, during which pool security, especially after hours, was critical in keeping kids safe, I was also certified as a Level II Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection representative for my unit in the military. But that 40-hour class of boiled-down know-hour condensing perhaps thousands of hours of experience of others, experts in their fields, is nothing compared to the 20 years I spent on active duty where security is always in the back, if not the forefront of people’s minds. I spent several rotations in combat zones, where the enemy is always trying to find ways to kill you. The security measures we used were highly effective, if not vexing to the enemy, an enemy far better equipped and more determined than was the shooter as Emma’s school.

By comparison, Emma Gonzalez’ experience is limited to that of a handful of fire drills, perhaps a couple of other drills, and having been a victim of an active shooter in her school. Terrifying, absolutely. Experience that qualifies her to properly identify the problem and properly respond, however, absolutely not.

For example, her article in Teen Vogue is utterly void of reason and rationality. It is based upon false premises, flat out wrong information, and idealism — how things “should” work — instead of how things actually work. Her ineptitude in the Teen Vogue article is worth an entire and lengthy analysis, which I will do elsewhere and send to my members of Congress, encouraging to steer well clear of the uber-idealistic liberal backing and crafting of all things Emma Gonzalez while opting instead to listen to area/facility/personnel security experts who were unfortunately ignored by most people in Parkland, Florida, including school district supervisors, school officials, and the sheriff’s department.

Put simply, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was wide open to the attack. Fortunately, most high schools around the nation are more secure.

In closing, I would like to highlight the comment mudstream media heralds the most, as it’s a prime example of how grossly they twist reality and distort the facts in order to sell their news, so much so that people like Emma Gonzales wind up saying stupid things like, “Any way you cut it, one of the biggest threats to life as a teen in the U.S. today is being shot.”

That’s not reality. That’s nothing more than media-hyped fear, fanned into flames by powers within this country who abuse journalistic integrity in order to advance their agenda, and they have absolutely no qualms about using, if not abusing, children like Emma Gonzalez in order to achieve their goals, which, quite frankly, have nothing to do with security, but rather, controlling the general populace.

Here’s REALITY:  “The five leading causes of death among teenagers are accidents (unintentional injuries), homicide, suicide, cancer, and heart disease.  Accidents account for nearly one-half of all teenage deaths” (Mortality Among Teenagers Aged 12-19 Years:  United States, 1999-2006.  Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db37.htm)

In FACT, homicides pull a distant third, at just 13%, behind unintentional injury (48%) and other causes/residual (17%).  While this study was completed a decade ago, homicide did not quadruple to become the leading cause of death as Emma Gonzalez wrongly claims.

Leading Causes of Death for Teenages

No, I am not a member of the NRA, or any other gun-advocacy group. I am simple a concerned father who chooses to arm myself with facts instead the blitheringly idiotic idealism of the liberal left.

As a realist, with significant education and training — vastly more than Emma Gonzalez, I am here to tell you that her story in Teen Vogue is so full of holes that anyone who listens to her “advice” is likely to be put in significantly greater risk than if they listen to experts who have been securing facilities and people for millennia.

I will tackle her article in Teen Vogue, later.

Mass Shootings: A Systems Analysis

Apparently, liberals have never heard of systems analysis, “the process of studying a procedure or business in order to identify its goals and purposes and create systems and procedures that will achieve them in an efficient way.”
 
Having been a systems analyst since 1989, I can attest that it’s also a great way to blueprint any system or situation in order to identify what’s wrong with the system, as well as what’s right or wrong about what’s being said about the system.
 
We now have enough data on mass shooters in order to analyze it as a system.

Here’s the lead in the article:  “Frustration is mounting in the medical community as the Trump administration again points to mental illness in response to yet another mass shooting.”

Dr. Louis Kraus (article) is apparently incapable of thinking through the issues using systems analysis. Perhaps he’s forgotten the the class in which we consider mass shooters: Violently Criminally Insane.

Certainly, most mentally ill people are not prone to violence.

Certainly many violent people and criminals are not mentally ill.

But anyone who would indiscriminately murder large numbers of human beings outside the bounds of lawful warfare is, by definition, violent, criminal, and insane.

Then along come the armchair quarterbacks like Dr. Kraus: “Mental health professionals welcome more resources and attention, but they say the administration is ignoring the real problem — easy access to guns.”

Dr. Kraus, that is absolutely NOT the problem: 150,000,000 (150 MILLION) Americans have INSTANT access to guns, yet I don’t see them running around blowing holes in school children or predominantly conservative concert-goers in Las Vegas. DO YOU, DR. KRAUS? Of course you don’t. Furthermore, the UK’s violent crime rate shot up from near-US levels to nearly triple US levels when their government banned and confiscated most guns. Clearly, the fact that they had an armed general populace was a significant DETERRENT to violent crime, WASN’T IT, DR. KRAUS???

So what’s the difference? Out of those 150 MILLION gun owners, many can be violent, but they’re not criminals. A few are criminals, but they’re not insane.

The difference is simple: 99.999998% of those who have access to firearms are NOT violently criminally insane. Put another way, simply compare 150 million to the roughly 3 people per year who commit indiscriminate mass murder of the kind we see in school shootings, mall shootings, and theater shootings. Nearly all of them DO Have mental health issues, DON’T THEY, DR. KRAUS?

Please pardon my allcaps, but I’m trying to point out what is clearly obvious to the vast majority of Americans who have had properly military and/or law enforcement firearms training: It’s NOT the guns. Guns are NOT the problem. In fact, mass shooters rarely exhibit either violent or criminal tendencies before the snap. But SNAP they do, and when they do snap, it’s psychological in nature i.e. broken mental health, and many people die.

Thus, when people like Dr. Kraus come along and claim, “The concept that mental illness is a precursor to violent behavior is nonsense,” I find such statements themselves to be nonsense. Don’t get me wrong: It may very well hold true for the 99.999998% of gun owners who do NOT commit a mass shooting during any given year.

But that’s not the group we’re discussing, is it? We’re discussing the 3 people each year who go on indiscriminate shooting sprees against dozens of people. We’re talking about the mass shooters in Orlando, San Bernardinao, the Navy shipyard, Sandy Hook, Aurora, at Gabby Gifford’s talk, Virginia Tech, the church in Texas, the church in Charleston, SC, Luby’s, etc. Each and every one of them is, by definition, MENTALLY ILL.

So OF COURSE President Trump is talking about mental illness.

What YOU can do, Dr. Kraus, is help identify the 0.000002% of gun owners who meet the full definition of “violent criminally insane” AND are likely to go on a shooting spree.

THAT’S how you can help, Dr. Kraus. Please do THAT, instead of sitting back on your high horse and obfuscating the issue.

Thanks.

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.”

Media Incapable of Even Formulating the Gun Problem

Given the fact that “Roughly two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides,” please tell me what percentage of those were committed with the OWNER’S firearm and what percentage were committed with someone ELSE’S firearm? In particular, I would like it broken down thusly:

Suicide committed with the OWNER’S firearm: X%
Suicide committed with someone ELSE’S firearm: Y%
– firearm owned by an IMMEDIATE family member: A%
– firearm owned by an EXTENDED family member: B%
– firearm owned by a friend, acquaintance, or their immediate or extended family: C%
– firearm owned by someone unknown to the suicide victim: D%

Such that: X%+Y%=100%
AND
Such that: A%+B%+C%+D%=Y%

This information is VITAL in determining both IF and WHAT might be done to mitigate the issue.

If you’re incapable of properly formulating the question, you can NOT answer it as a journalist.

Mass Shootings and Random Acts of Violence

I’ve long been a strong advocate of an armed populace as the best means of self-defense. I also believe it is by far the best deterrent and way to stop both mass shootings and terrorist attacks involving firearms.
 
Back when I first became interested in the topic of mass shootings, however, there weren’t as many, and at least here in America. It was largely relegated to the occasional insane person run amok. Aside from 9/11, we did not yet have to worry Muslims conducting their own mass shootings in the name of terrorism.
 
Now we do, and it looks to get a whole lot worse before it ever gets better.
 
Society has several tools available to deter terrorism and mass shootings:
 
– Intelligence (costly, even when highly focused)
– – requirements
– – planning and direction
– – collection
– – processing and exploitation
– – analysis and production
– – dissemination
– Security (the physical deterrence and protection of people 
– – Law enforcement (federal, state, county, and local)
– – Personal protection (planning, training, and weapons)
 
So, should we make it more difficult for people to obtain guns?  Should we reduce magazine capacities?  Increase background checks?  Reduce calibers?  Limit ammunition capability?  Create more “gun-free” zones?  Mandate the use of “smart” guns?  Increase waiting periods?  Ban certain types of firearms based on their appearance or general level of public trepidation?  Put a cop on every street corner?
anti-gun desperation
No.  NONE of these measures has proven effective in either deterring or stopping mass shootings or random acts of violence, and most of them significantly increase the cost of obtaining a firearm to the average law-abiding citizen who seeks protection.
By far the most immediate and most effective deterrent against both mass shootings and random acts of violence, whether the result of insanity or terrorism, is a well-armed general populace comprised of law-abiding U.S. citizens who are both properly armed and well-trained.
 
The greatest threat to our security comes not from the lunatics and terrorists, but rather, from those second-guessers, the Monday-morning armchair quarterbacks who are NOT well-trained (if at all) yet who for whatever blitheringly idiotic reason feel like they’re *somehow* qualified to force their opinions down the throats of an otherwise free and well-trained general populace, usually in the form of ideas that sound good but either do nothing or actually do more harm than the harm they’re supposed to address.
mass shootingsThroughout history, a well-armed/trained populace has always been the most effective deterrent and counter to mass shootings and random acts of violence.