It’s been an “interesting” time lately. Are we seeing the beginning of a full court press?

If you’ve ever heard the phrase “May you live in interesting times” then you understand why it seems so apropos these days.

In the past 6 weeks we’ve seen a number of highly publicized mass shootings in addition to the usual gang related violence that is reported, then ignored by everyone.

June

On June 17, a deranged idiot decided that he’d try to start a race war by shooting up a the oldest African Methodist Episcopal Church in the Southern United States, in Charleston South Carolina

Dylan Roof, pictured below, was a poster boy of how the system has failed to stop mass shootings yet again.

 

He killed 9 and wounded 1, seeking out South Carolina State Senator Clementa C. Pinckney, who was the pastor for the church.

In the days after the shooting took place, the narrative began to take shape – Roof had been arrested for drug possession. Roof was awaiting trial.  Somehow he’d gotten a gun – early reports stated that Roof had been given it by family.  It seemed like this was going to be seized upon as evidence that Universal Background Checks needed to be passed, lest another tragedy like this take place.

Then, just before the UBC bandwagon could reach full speed, law enforcement sources revealed that Roof had purchased the gun at a store and filled out the necessary background check paperwork.

Roof should have been prohibited from buying the gun – under federal law those facing charges where they may be imprisoned for over a year are not allowed to own or purchase firearms.  When Roof filled out his 4473 to purchase the murder weapon, he lied.  This lie should have been caught by the NICS system, but his arresting paperwork hadn’t been filed properly.

The Narrative had changed.  Robbed of their opportunity to blame the “gun show loophole” for this atrocity, the people upset by this pivoted and went after another the Confederate Flag which was prominently featured in Roof’s social media profile and symbolized the racist views expressed in his manifesto.

Ironically, Pinckney had voted against South Carolina’s laws that would have repealed prohibition of  concealed carry in churches without the express approval of church staff.  Obviously the law failed to stop the shooting.

In the aftermath of Charleston, President Obama made a number of statements, but in one televised address he suggested that the US should follow Australia’s example:

When Australia had a mass killing – I think it was in Tasmania – about 25 years ago, it was just so shocking the entire country said ‘well we’re going to completely change our gun laws’, and they did. And it hasn’t happened since.

This was important, because Australia did several things: They banned multiple classes of firearms, and they confiscated privately owned weapons under the guise of a mandatory “buy back”.

Never before has this been suggested at such a high level in this country.  Previously politicians may have suggested confiscation obliquely, or in unguarded moment, but for a sitting President to state it outright was an eye opening moment.


July

A few weeks later, on July 16, there was another mass shooting.  In contrast to the Charlestown one, this shooting was carried out by a self-radicalized homegrown Islamic extremist decided to target a Chattanooga, TN recruiting office and then a Navy Reserves center. Local law enforcement chased him down, and killed him shortly thereafter.

FBI officials and the media quickly played down any attempt to classify the shooter as a “terrorist” despite him travelling to Jordan shortly before the attack took place.

FBI Evidence technicians process the scene at the Marine Recruiting Center in Chattanooga, TN. Juxtaposed with the bullet holes from the shooter’s attack  is the “Firearms Prohibited” sticker that graced the front door to the offices,

 

The perpetrator was revealed to be Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, who carried out the attack with an AK-47 style rifle, a pistol, and possibly a shotgun.  Four Marines were killed at the scene while Navy Petty Officer Randall Smith died later at a hospital.

The Brady Center and other antigun groups didn’t waste any time in immediately calling for more gun control, despite not knowing how the firearms were obtained.   The FBI special agent in charge of the investigation stated that

“Some of the weapons were purchased legally and some of them may not have been,”

Attempts were made to try to highlight the need for a renewed assault weapons ban, others wanted to focus on Armslist.  Instead, the public reacted in a wholly unexpected way; they were outraged that military personnel were unable to defend themselves.

Paradoxically, though, people remembered that the military areas were gun free zones – press pool photos and footage showed the front doors of the Marine recruiting center riddled with bullet holes, next to a “Firearms Prohibited” sign.

Despite this, the intended victims fought back.  This was confirmed by statements from various military officials: the Marines did not run, and did not die laying down.  At least one Marine and one Navy officer had fought back with personally owned firearms – despite standing orders prohibiting having them.  No information has been provided on how many lives were saved as a result.

The reaction was swift.  Private citizens showed up in droves to guard the “defenseless” recruiters.   Senior military officials didn’t like that, viewing them as a security threat.  Naturally, it didn’t take long before someone showed off their lack of safe firearms handling skills by having a negligent discharge in the parking lot – and no one was surprised when this individual had previously had firearms confiscated for doing the exact same thing.

Politicians also seized upon the incident – Senator Moran (R-KS) introduced legislation end gun free zones on military installations:

The Safeguarding Service Members’ Second Amendment Rights Act, would repeal bans on military personnel carrying firearms on Armed Forces military installations and Department of Defense (DoD) sites and prohibit the president, secretary of defense and secretaries of military departments from enacting similar restrictions or prohibitions in the future.

Governors in at least a half dozen states ordered that National Guardsmen be armed.    In lieu of active forms of protection, some areas decided that to ‘turtle up’ and stacked sandbags inside recruiters offices.

The antigun side of the debate was not faring well in the court of public opinion.

(Un)fortunately, they soon had another chance to make their opinions heard.


 

On July 23, John Russel Houser opened fire in the Grand 16 movie theater in Lafayette LA, during a showing of Amy Schumer’s “Trainwreck” – killing two, wounding multiple others, then killing himself after seeing the police arrive on scene.

Police outside the Grand 16 theater after the July 23 shooting in Lafayette LA. Source: CNN

Details about the shooter quickly made their way into the media: Houser had been involuntarily committed by his family.  Houser had been convicted of arson.  Houser admired Hitler & the Tea Party, and hated President Obama.

You could practically see the antigun talking heads rubbing their hands with glee over this.   They had their perfect example for why gun laws needed to change.  Clearly there was no way that this guy had gotten his gun legally, right?

Wrong.  Houser bought his gun at a pawn shop after passing a background check.

Turns out that despite a well documented history of domestic violence, arson, and involuntary commitment, Houser was never actually prosecuted.  All of this could have been avoided had he been convicted for arson back in 1989, and “[c]ourt documents filed as part of a divorce say Houser had a history of hospitalizations for mental conditions.”

Usually involuntary commitment makes someone a prohibited person in the eyes of the ATF.  Unfortunately, the system failed in this case too:

That’s because Georgia, where Houser was the subject of a mental health evaluation in 2008, removes mental health records from the federal database used to conduct background checks after five years.

Politics waits for no man, though, so at this time various parties are still spinning and attempting to control the message.

Presidential candidate & Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal  suspended his Presidential campaign to handle situation and urged other states to tighten their reporting of prohibited persons like Louisiana has done.  Reactions to this ranged from New York Times claiming he wanted toughen gun laws (instead of the more accurate description of improving proper reporting compliance) to Wonkette’s ever so classy accusation that he was giving the NRA a rimjob.  A Buzzfeed editor showed her overt bias by stating don’t pray, push for more gun control – and got called out for it, resulting in an apology from her superiors.


There seems to be indications that gun control proponents have decided it’s finally time to start calling for the removal of the 2nd Amendment altogether, or at least curtail it severely.

Legendary attorney Alan Dershowitz stated in an interview:

We have tried an experiment for the last 250 years and it’s failed miserably and we have to start a new approach. The new approach has to be guns should not be available to people generally, except if they have a significant need.

Surprisingly, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was actually ahead of this wave, stating in early July:

“I’m going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better,” Clinton said Tuesday in Iowa City.

A few days earlier, she said in Hanover, N.H.: “We have to take on the gun lobby. . . . This is a controversial issue. I am well aware of that. But I think it is the height of irresponsibility not to talk about it.”

President Obama, who stated outright that gun control was his biggest disappointment with his time in office, said that he was going to devote the last 18 months of his term to gun control and that gun ownership was a bigger problem than terrorism

Even Bernie Sanders has gotten in on the gun control bandwagon, saying  “certain types of guns, used to kill people exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America” – apparently not realizing that this effectively be every self defense firearm in the country.

Antigun media allies certainly haven’t changed their tune:

Celebrities like Richard Dreyfuss, Judd Apatow and Rebel Wilson have also been sure to add their two cents.

Interestingly enough, the American public doesn’t seem to agree with the media, politicians, or celebrities, as a recent opinion poll revealed that more Americans see guns as the solution, not the problem


 

Fake update: It would appear that I’m not alone in noticing this trend:

Business Insider: The dark reason why guns are virtually guaranteed to be a major issue of the 2016 campaign

After years of ducking presidential-campaign battles over gun laws out of fear of the powerful gun lobby, it appears that Democrats are finally ready to go on the offensive.

Democrats are becoming more and more outspoken about gun violence in the wake of seemingly ever increasing mass shootings, despite the fact that the American public remains as opposed as ever to many gun-control measures

It remains to be seen whether this represents a turning point in election politics, or a repeat of Clinton’s 1994 mistake.

Advertisements

A Redditor knocks it out of the park with regards to Australian Gun Politics

Ban advocates always use misleading statistics leaving out violent crime, battery, and murder and focusing only on gun crime even though when you remove guns statistically the violence simply transfers to stabbings and beatings.

Having lived in Oz and America I have to point out that the aussie government makes these statements omg no guns yay constantly but when I looked for their statistical analysis Australia’s own government admits in their studies that gun control did not make a difference to violent crime:

Gun control does not slow the homicide rate:
stats:http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf A particularly showing piece of data is the homicide rates. 1996 had 354 homicides, 1997 had 364 homicides, 1998 had 334 homicides, 1999 had 385 homicides, 2000 had 362 homicides. I should point out that the legislation and ‘buy back’ happened in 97, and there was a 7% drop in homicides with firearms, outside of the average 2-4% decreasing trend. That 7% out of trend drop was immediately replaced and exceeded by an >8% increase in homicide with various other weapons. If anything, our legislation has stated quite clearly that without treating the cause of the issues, banning weapons is completely irrelevant and people will just kill with something else. Why Howard and his supporters feel this legislation that statistically and objectively accomplished literally nothing is worth flaunting, i have no idea.”

There are scientific university sources for my argument. Here’s a Harvard study source for my argument: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

Even the latest data shows increase in violence: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/victims.html they often Twist statistics in order to say if it didn’t kill it doesn’t count which is disingenuous. Classifying violence in order to reach performance targets is really reaching for strings. Whereever you look for stats you will see violence is on the rise in australia: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/new-police-statistics-show-rising-violence-but-less-crime/story-e6frf7kx-1225759461492 “Armed robbery increased by 10 per cent and, although the most common weapon was a knife, Mr Lay said the 44 per cent increase in firearm use was alarming.” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/frightening-rise-in-domestic-violence/story-e6frgczx-1226125910364

Australia has gone on to ban pepper spray, tasers, extendable batons, bb guns, knives of any type from being carried at any time, any type of self defense tool you could imagine is illegal or requires a permit that is practically impossible to obtain. Even if you decide to defend yourself with your bare hands you will be convicted if they can prove you used anything other than “equal force”.

Yes the first thing I think about when some lunatic violent criminal invades my home and threatens the life of my children is if I used equal force or not. As a veteran if you want to threaten me with bodily harm I’m going to do what I was trained to do and to think that anyone else that has their life threatened shouldn’t be able to defend themselves is frankly childishly immature. If you criminalize self defense then only criminals will have the upper hand.

For historical examples of how gun registration leads to confiscation which leads to genocide you need to have a look at Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership “The Genocide Chart”: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

They should know something about that.

Over and over again American Colonists insisted that Native Americans turn over their guns as a show of good will or because they were given a written agreement to be protected and over and over again those that now had the upper hand and control turned around and slaughtered the natives.

My argument is simply not about if access to guns allows people to kill or not to kill. That is irrelevant. People will kill with a knife, with a glass, with their bare hands, by starting fires, even forest fires, some of the worst forest fires in australian history were started on purpose. People are inherently violent. Violence is a language and the zero tolerance for use of the language of violence is incredibly insipid. The complete ban of communication between people with violence means only those that are criminals will be able to be heard and everyone else is a victim. I’d rather speak the language and prevent myself from becoming a victim rather than wait for the police to figure out who to charge and who’s mother to call and give the bad news. Banning the language of violence means that only those that want to have control over or exploit others will know how to speak the language. If everyone else is afraid, unskilled, and knows they are to be punished if they use this language older then words then we have a weak populace that can be more easily exploited.

As for mass killings in australia, they always say, the gunban got rid of ANY mass killings. This is also NOT TRUE you might have heard of these australian mass killings: Childers Palace Fire – In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people. Monash University shooting – In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. Churchill Fire – 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7th of February 2009.[6] Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire – 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18th of November 2011.[7]

Sure, violence is on the rise, but crime is on the fall. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/new-police-statistics-show-rising-violence-but-less-crime/story-e6frf7kx-1225759461492

32-50% of violent crime follows alcohol use. Maybe we should ban alcohol before we ban guns? http://www.nllea.org/documents/Alcohol_and_Crime.pdf

To review crime is down yet stabbings, rape, and domestic violence is up but not classified a crime because only the robbery and killing is a crime, so don’t worry: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/victims.html

FBI statistics show that crime is dropping in the big bad USA evil deathmachine: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21582004-crime-plunging-rich-world-keep-it-down-governments-should-focus-prevention-not

Over a thirty-year time frame, an average of about 20 mass murders have occurred annually in the United States: http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/no_increase_in_mass_shootings.html http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/simple-facts-mass-shootings-arent-simple-72055/

This fall in crime only exists because they don’t consider white collar crime such as laundering Mexican drug cartel money and fast and furiously giving cartels guns to be crimes. Own a bank and go absolutely crazy giving out loans and selling titles willy nilly till balance sheets are in a red chaos then hold the american economy hostage for bailouts. Not a crime. Bypass laws and forge titles to forclose faster? not a crime. Libor scandle. Not a crime. Maybe crime is down, but science proves corruption is at its all time high: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed–the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html#.UvzvW_mSwVl

I wonder if the corrupt benefit from disarming the populace?

Gun myths: http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm