Some facts on shootings. When total picture analyzed, one thing is very clear about murders by gun. Top murder cities have been run by democrats for a long time.
Guys, below in email is a nice review of gun crime. I thought appropriate to send a long in light of OhB still saying crazy people or lunatics will never kill because all the guns are taken from every law abiding citizen. Also, 95% of mass murderers were mentally ill and typically stole their weapons from a relative. Maybe, just one law to punish the gun owner if a relative uses his or her weapon to commit mass murder.
Personal experience for me from yesterday. I had to use my shotgun to defend myself and my dogs. I heard them barking and went out to see what for. They had found a rabid ground hog that had climbed one of my trees. I got close enough to know it was not well with foam coming from its mouth. I retrieved my shotgun and put it out of its misery. No weapons?
. what would I have done?
Retreated to the house with my dogs and cowered until it died or went on to maybe infect other animals or people. The old saying is "A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again."
OhB says that there are no mass murders in states with strictest gun laws tonight on his address to USA at 5:30 PM Central.
Macro or Micro analysis. His was macro and way off target. To identify and solve the problem, vote republican.
The file below is updated through 2013. You make the judgement about gun control based on facts and not the voodoo science of OhB.
Not in this article but the world rankings , USA would be ranked about 4th from bottom of all industrialized countries, if Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, Baltimore, Milwaukie and New Orleans were not included in the stats. In common to all high murder rates are long term democratic cities with the strictest gun control laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateNot one Republican run city on this list. True reduction of the gun death rate is related directly to what politics are in charge and has been for a very long time. To solve the problem---vote Republican. Below chart from this link.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/la-chicago-rank-1-and-2-gun-murders-no-has-highest-rateOverall number of gun murders:
1. Los Angeles.......................1,141
2. Chicago..............................1,139
3. New York.............................1,101
4. Philadelphia...........................729
5. Houston..................................701
6. Detroit.....................................686
7. Miami.......................................594
8. Dallas......................................469
9. Washington.............................440
10. San Francisco......................439
Gun murders per 100,000 people:
1. New Orleans...........................19.0
2. Memphis...................................9.4
3. Detroit.......................................8.6
4. Birmingham..............................8.4
5. St. Louis...................................8.1
6. Baltimore..................................7.7
7. Jacksonville..............................7.4
8. Kansas City..............................6.8
9. Philadelphia..............................6.2
3 sections to this post-- 1) statistics from one gun-free city who averages close to 1000 murders a year 2)Article on one group who always has been supporting Obama 3) Guns and founding fathers--- LB
If 2nd Amendment attacks succeed, look what is most likely for the rest of the country? Where is the reporting guys?
Newtown happens and the 2nd amendment should be repealed or altered. Newtown children 19 of 20 white. Chicago children mostly black. Media silent about Chicago violence. WHY?????
Chicago: 446 school age children shot so far this year with strongest gun laws in country media silent
By Clash Daily / 19 December 2012 /
The cesspool known as Chicago probably has the toughest gun laws in the country, yet despite all the shootings, murders, and bloodshed, you never hear a peep about this from the corrupt state run media. In Chicago, there have been 446 school age children shot in leftist utopia run by Rahm Emanuel and that produced Obama, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. 62 school aged children have actually been killed by crazed nuts in Chicago so far this year. So why isnt this news worthy? Is it because it would embarrass those anti second amendment nuts who brag about Chicagos tough gun laws? Is it because most of the kids who were shot and killed were minorities? Or is it because the corrupt media doesnt want to show Chicago in a bad light?
THE LIST OF MURDERED SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN 2012
18 YEARS OLD- 15
17 YEARS OLD- 16
16 YEARS OLD- 16
15 YEARS OLD- 6
14 YEARS OLD- 4
13 YEARS OLD- 2
12 YEARS OLD- 1
7 YEARS OLD- 1
6 YEARS OLD- 1
446 School Age Children Shot in Chicago so Far Last Year
THE LIST OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN SHOT IN 2012
18 year old- 110
17 year old- 99
16 year old- 89
15 year old- 62
14 year old- 39
13 year old- 21
12 year old- 10
11 year old- 2
10 year old- 3
9 year old- 1
7 year old- 3
6 year old- 2
5 year old- 1
4 year old- 1
3 year old- 1
1 year old- 2
So why isnt this news worthy?
The leadership in Illinois - all Democrats.
President: Barack Hussein Obama
Senator: Dick Durbin
House Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr.
Governor: Pat Quinn
House leader: Mike Madigan
Atty. Gen.: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike)
Mayor: Rahm Emanuel
Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.
State pension fund $78 Billion in debt, worst in country.
Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% - highest in country.
A culture of corruption that would make a Louisiana politician blush with envy.
Can't blame Republicans -- there aren't any!
http://www.infowars.com/communists-cheer-on-obamas-gun-grab/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://drudgegae.iavian.net/r?hop=
http://www.infowars.com/communists-cheer-on-obamas-gun-grab/Communists Cheer On Obamas Gun Grab
________________________________________
William F. Jasper
New American
Jan 25, 2013
It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obamas plan to attack Americans right to keep and bear arms as a means to end gun violence. A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.
In a January 18 article, Peoples World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.
The article, entitled, Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy, written by Peoples World labor and politics reporter Rick Nagin, claims that the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans.
It is for that reason, declares Nagin, as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.
The Communist Partys journalist continued:
As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly gin up fear that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.
However, gun rights advocates dont need to gin up fear that President Obamas common sense proposals will lead to even more onerous infringements than the current calls to ban or restrict so-called assault weapons; the gun control zealots have been quite emphatic about intending to severely restrict (and many have called for a total ban on) all privately owned firearms. A December 21 article for the Daily Kos is one of the candid admissions against interest by the Left that the real end goal is a total monopoly of gun ownership by the government. Entitled, How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process, the regular Daily Kos writer Sporks says:
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
The writer then outlines the piecemeal plan by which the federal government can begin with registration and end up with confiscation. The Daily Kos article also cites the need to delegitimize hunting as well. We should also segway [sic] into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK, it says. By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.
Nagin surely must know that it is not merely groundless paranoia exploited by extremists inspiring fear that President Obamas multi-part gun control plan is but the opening wedge in a new drive for ever-expanding federal restrictions and infringements of the Second Amendment. And Nagin surely is aware that his comrades ruling China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and other communist countries have never stopped at partial restrictions on private ownership of weapons.
As The New American reported recently, Communist Chinas ruling mandarins, sounding very much like our own media commentators, have blasted the United States for our rampant gun ownership. A Chinese government report last year detailing alleged human rights violations in the United States declares:
The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership.
More recently, on December 14, 2012, the Beijing regimes Xinhua news agency editorialized:
Twenty-eight innocent people, including 20 primary students, have been slaughtered in a mass shooting at an elementary school in the U.S. state of Connecticut. Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.
Action speaks louder than words, concluded the Xinhua editorial. If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make preparation for a protracted war and considerable political cost.
Communist China, of course, is no paragon of virtue when it comes to liberty, safety, and human rights. Its total ban on private ownership of guns under Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) guaranteed that the Communist Party would have unchallenged power. And, as Professor R. J. Rummel has pointed out in his several published studies on democide (mass murder by governments): Power kills and absolute power kills absolutely. In the case of Communist China, the mass murder by the communist government under Mao was somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 million souls!
And China remains a rigidly controlled police state to this day, notwithstanding the limited market reforms that the Party has allowed for pragmatic purposes to obtain the capital and technology it needs to modernize. Only Party officials and the police and military (who must be members of, and be vetted by, the Communist Party) are allowed to possess weapons.
Maos comrades in Russia, Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin, likewise disarmed the civilian population before initiating mass murder. As did Adolf Hitler and every other successful mass-murdering tyrant throughout history. Vladimir Gladkov, a radio propagandist on Vladimir Putins Voice of Russia program, expressed disappointment on December 20 that the Sandy Hook mass shooting probably would not generate the support President Obama needs to implement his desired gun controls. Unfortunately, there are grounds for very serious doubt that even after this terrible massacre, a ban on selling weapons will be introduced in the US, said Gladkov.
Again, considering that rigid, absolute, centralized power is the essence of all totalitarian regimes, those regimes must, therefore, automatically strike down all checks and balances that would limit their central authority. It is not surprising that spokesmen for these totalitarian governments would endorse policies that give the government a monopoly on deadly force.
The American Founding Fathers, on the other hand, recognized that the armed private citizen is the ultimate check and balance against the centralized monopoly of force which invariably turns tyrannical and deadly. Nagin and Peoples World, not surprisingly, side with communist tyrants and deride American commitment to our natural rights enshrined in our Constitution.
The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans, says Nagin. Nagin, according to the profile provided on Keywiki by Trevor Loudon, has been a member of the CPUSA for several decades and a writer for the Peoples World and other communist publications since 1970. He is a member of the Newspaper Guild and the Communications Workers of America as well as a political coordinator for the AFL-CIO in Ohio. In 2012 he was the Democratic Leader in Cleveland Ward 14 and served on the County Democratic Party Executive Committee.
We recognize the totalitarian ideology and objectives of Nagin and other communist propagandists when they advocate disarming of civilians and a total monopoly of force in government. Many of the other people advocating the same gun control policies may not have those totalitarian objectives in mind but by their support of these policies they would lead us down the same deadly path nonetheless.
See more important reports at TheNewAmerican.com.
This article was posted: Friday, January 25, 2013 at 5:48 am
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://drudgegae.iavian.net/r?hop=
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm
________________________________________
The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so. By David Mamet.
by David Mamet | January 29, 2013 12:00 AM EST
A city in eastern Poland.
Karl Marx summed up Communism as from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.
In announcing his gun control proposals, President Obama said that he was not restricting Second Amendment rights, but allowing other constitutional rights to flourish.
For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called The State, and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs. Needs and abilities are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to the State shall take, the State shall give.
All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.
Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individuals abilities.
As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individuals abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.
President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the needs of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he needs.
But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining needs? And note that the president did not say I have more money than I need, but You and I have more than we need. Who elected him to speak for another citizen?
It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. One-size-fits-all, and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is slavery.
The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned goodthat we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.
The Constitutions drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: He has obstructed the administration of Justice
he has made Judges dependant on his will alone
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance
imposed taxes upon us without our consent
[He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.
Who threatens American society most: law-abiding citizens or criminals? (Matt Rourke/AP)
This is a chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms will default to dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance with law.
The Founders recognized that Government is quite literally a necessary evil, that there must be opposition, between its various branches, and between political parties, for these are the only ways to temper the individuals greed for power and the electorates desires for peace by submission to coercion or blandishment.
Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced, else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy votes, and deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.
Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.
The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.
Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.
Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition