'Gun Violence in America Is Off the Chart'

Keeping with the theme of lies from the left...

By Henry Percy


In August 2012, Fareed Zakaria wrote a piece for Time magazine in which he asserted that "gun violence in America is off the chart compared with every other country on the planet. The gun homicide rate per capita in the U.S. is 30 times that of Britain and Australia."

Because the arguments he made then are being parroted anew in the drive for gun control, his assertions cry out for examination in light of the facts. To start, why would he single out the "gun homicide" rate rather than the total homicide rate? I know a couple whose son was beaten on the back of the head with a tire iron. While his parents are bitter that neither offender was charged, I never heard them say, "Well, at least Tom was murdered with a blunt instrument rather than a gun."

Unfortunately, Mr. Zakaria neglects to document the sources for his facts, if indeed they are facts. Though holding a PhD from Yale and serving as a trustee for that institution, he does not recognize plagiarism when he commits it -- he issued an "unapologetic apology" for stealing much of his article and was suspended from publishing in Time for a month. Well, he did not call it stealing, merely a "terrible mistake ... a serious lapse." But he will be happy to talk to your Rotary Club -- his fee is only $75,000.

Let's look at homicide rates as reported in the 2011 Global Study on Homicide, conducted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The latest year with the most complete data is 2008, used here. The total homicide rate for the US was 4.1 times that of the UK and 4.5 times that for Australia. Still not good, but nowhere close to the "30 times" Mr. Zakaria laments.

The UN Global Study has data on 187 countries, ranging from a high of 61.3 per 100,000 in Honduras to 0 in Palau. Where was the United States? Number 99, with 5.4 homicides per 100,000. Over half the countries in the world had a homicide rate higher than ours.

Homicide in Developed Countries

Because admitting that the US homicide rate is low compared to over half the world's countries would undercut their arguments, gun-controllers instead compare us to "rich" or "developed" nations -- carefully cherry picked, of course. I cannot count how many articles I have read about the rapid expansion of the middle-class in Mexico, about Brazil's status amongst the rapidly rising BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China), etc. Mexico's homicide rate in 2008 was 2.4 times greater than that of the US, Brazil's 4.2 times greater. Somehow these countries are ignored when someone like Mr. Zakaria wants to make a point.

Of course, statistics always need qualification. For instance, the murder rate in the US would be higher were it not for the improvement in emergency room procedures in the past 10 years alone. On the other hand, homicides for many Third World countries are understated for a variety of reasons: they lack reliable, centralized databases, people are hesitant to report crimes to a corrupt police force, and so on. In addition, governments have plenty of incentive to understate their homicide rates, such as encouraging investment or not scaring away tourists. In short, many of the figures contained in the UN Global Study are probably too low.

Small versus Large Countries

There is another problem with comparing every country on the globe head to head: the vast differences in population size and makeup. For instance, Palau, an island nation in Micronesia, has a population of 21,000 and a homicide rate of zero. They could have two murders next year and suddenly move up to position 68. Comparing a country the size of the US, with 315 million people, to a country the size of Palau makes no sense. I am fairly confident there are many American cities with populations of 20,000 with a homicide rate of zero.

Homicide rates within the US vary tremendously by locality, as data from the US Census Bureau shows. For 2009, the high was 24.2 per 100,000 (District of Columbia) and the low 0.9 (New Hampshire). Moreover, New Hampshire is only half as murderous as Belgium, one of the "rich" or "developed" nations writers like Mr. Zakaria are so fond of comparing us to. In fact, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Utah, and Vermont all have rates lower than Belgium's.

Mr. Zakaria finds a "blindingly obvious causal connection" between "easier access to guns" and homicide rates. If that is so, why does the nation's capital, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, have a homicide rate nearly 27 times higher than that of New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die"), which has some of the most permissive gun laws (open carry without license, concealed carry licenses for $10)? Why does Illinois, likewise boasting extremely restrictive gun laws, have a rate over 9 times higher than New Hampshire's? If there is a "blindingly obvious causal connection," could it be that high homicide rates go hand in hand with restrictive gun laws? Or could the problem be with people, human beings, rather than inanimate objects?

Race

Shortly after being sworn in as Attorney General, Eric Holder told an interviewer that the US is "essentially a nation of cowards ... we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial." I don't know if Mr. Holder is an "average American," but here's a small contribution to the national dialogue on "things racial" from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

In 2008, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000) ... the offending rate for blacks (24.7 offenders per 100,000) was 7 times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 offenders per 100,000).

Guns from Mexico?

Just before New Years I was channel surfing and paused upon seeing the stern visage of the Rev. Jesse Jackson opining on the 500 murders in Chicago in 2012. He said he was not going to accept that, and added, "These guns come from the suburbs and from Mexico." Mexico? The advocates of gun control have been telling us for years that guns flow from the US to Mexico. While it has always been debatable how many of Mexico's weapons come from America, we do know that well over 2,000 were delivered to the drug cartels courtesy of our own federal government through Operation Fast & Furious. Now we are to believe that the bad guys in Chicago transport weapons across an international border and over 1,300 miles north?

Gun-Free Households

Then there is Amitai Etzioni, University Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University, writing on the Huffington Post. He urges everyone to put up a "gun free" sign in their home, apartment or condo and counsels parents not to allow their children to play in homes without the signs. Can't we just declare the whole world "gun free" and eliminate murder?

David Gregory, in a recent interview on NBC with Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Association, mocked the notion of posting armed guards in schools. As it happens, Mr. Gregory sends his children to Sidwell Friends School, where the children of presidents traditionally go (Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton studied there, as do Sasha and Malia Obama). With tuition at $34,000, Sidwell caters to millionaires and billionaires.

The "Friends" in the school's name refers to the Society of Friends (Quakers) who run it. Sidwell has an 11-member security department, many of them police officers (presumably armed, though it is difficult to know). These are in addition to the Secret Service detail that protects the Obamas' two daughters. It is a delicious irony that Quakers, dedicated pacifists, might welcome so many guns in their midst.

Here's a question for Professor Etzioni: Should David Gregory refuse to let his children play with Sasha or Malia because the White House is not gun free? If signs are so effective, here's an opportunity for the president to lead from the front by disarming the Secret Service and hanging "Gun-Free Zone" signs on the railings around the presidential mansion.

The Mentally Ill

What can be done? How about legislation making it easier to commit the mentally ill. Most were deinstitutionalized in the 60s and 70s? Between 1955 and 2000, the number of state psychiatric hospital beds was reduced by 93%. The campaign to release inmates was largely driven by: 1) the belief that the unstable could simply take medications and live in the community; and 2) cases of wrongful committal (yeah, man, the people that are locked up are the only sane ones, man, just watch One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest). Were people wrongfully committed to mental hospitals? No doubt. Are people wrongfully imprisoned? Of course. Is that sufficient reason to dismantle our criminal justice system? Are schizophrenics better off pushing a shopping cart, jibbering to themselves, and sleeping under overpasses? But, someone says, most of the disturbed are harmless. True. But how many Jared Loughners, James Holmeses, and Adam Lanzas can we tolerate wandering around among us?

Getting someone committed in Connecticut is nearly impossible:

Police said they had no evidence Lanza had been medicated when the killings occurred. But even if Lanza had a proven history of mental illness, having him forcibly committed would have been nearly impossible.

Connecticut is one of a handful of states in America that does not have an "assisted outpatient treatment" law. Under AOT laws -- the kind proposed and ignored earlier this year in Connecticut -- states can force a mentally ill person into treatment if there is a risk of harm to others. Without them, states typically cannot institutionalize someone unless they've already done harm to themselves or others.

What organization was largely responsible for defeating the bill to make involuntary commitment easier? The ACLU.

The suggestion that we make involuntary commitment easier raises outcries from advocates of personal freedom on both the right and left. But the sad truth is that the treatment mental professionals offer the severely disturbed is to: 1) prescribe psychotropics and hope they take them; or 2) prescribe psychotropics and institutionalize them, where they are forced to take their meds. The second option is usually impossible due to both the law and the lack of beds.

I know a woman whose highly intelligent son became schizophrenic in college and, without going into specifics, became a serious threat to himself and others. The court ordered him to stay on his medications, which he has -- so far. Will he do so for the rest of his life? Who knows, because the price the drugs exact is greatly diminished mental capacity. He is employed by a large retail chain as a box boy with no hope of advancement. The heartbreaking part is that he knows he has diminished capacity: not long ago he said, "Mom, remember when I used to be smart?" But distressing as his story is, far more tragic is a Jared Loughner or Adam Lanza living freely among us.

Henry Percy is the nom de guerre for a technical writer living in Arizona. He may be reached at saler.50d [at] gmail.com.

Governor Cuomo: Dishonesty is not Enough

All of us here are fully aware of the level of scumbag that highly visible liberals will sink to and we all know what a leftist, reactionary sack of crap Mario jr. is. Wait until the end for the really offensive, in so many ways, comments of "Fast Eddie" Rendell. They must be stopped and we have to use their own rules against them. From this article I see their method as "By any means necessary." OK sounds goos to me.

By William A. Levinson

New York's Governor, Andrew Cuomo, and his predecessor Eliot Spitzer (aka Emperor's Club VIP Client 9), are well known for their dishonesty and lack of integrity. As shown by their own state government's Web site, both fomented malicious, groundless, and frivolous lawsuits whose sole purpose was to harass law-abiding gun manufacturers. The failure of Cuomo's latest anti-gun legislation to exempt police officers proves him incompetent, and amendment of the law to exempt police officers reinforces his dishonesty even further.

Malicious Lawsuits Against the Gun Industry

Client 9, along with then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, are on record as orchestrating frivolous and malicious lawsuits whose sole purpose was to harass firearm manufacturers into bankruptcy. This is from Client 9's own Web site (emphasis is mine):

With the action, New York becomes the first state in the nation to sue gun manufacturers.

"For more than a year, we sought to achieve reasonable reforms through negotiations with the gun industry. It is now clear that most manufacturers and wholesalers are unwilling to give up the profits they reap from selling guns into the criminal market. So we must now seek a court to order to do what any good corporate citizen would have done voluntarily, and make our homes, streets and schools safer," said Spitzer, who was joined at a New York City news conference by U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo, anti-gun violence advocates and law enforcement officials.

Spitzer's lawsuit charges nine gun manufacturers, three importers and twelve wholesalers with contributing to and maintaining a public nuisance through ongoing production and distribution practices. Among the manufacturers named are: Glock; Sturm-Ruger; Colt's; Beretta; Taurus; Bryco; and Intratec.

...Secretary Cuomo said, "The gun industry should follow the lead of Smith & Wesson and accept common sense-safety standards to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals.

...Unlike lawsuits filed by more than 30 cities and counties during the last two years, the Attorney General's case focuses on a statutory provision of New York law that explicitly defines unlawfully-possessed handguns as a public nuisance.

...Specifically, the manufacturers and wholesalers are accused of contributing to and maintaining the public nuisance by engaging in design and distribution practices that place guns in the hands of criminals in New York State.

We agree that an unlawfully-possessed firearm is a public nuisance and even worse, just as an unlawfully-possessed narcotic (controlled substance) is a public nuisance. These items do not, however, fall into the wrong hands through the fault of their manufacturers. Gun manufacturers sell their products to the public only through Federally licensed dealers. FFL dealers who value their licenses do not sell to minors, and they must run background checks to make sure they don't sell to criminals. Pharmaceutical companies sell controlled substances via licensed pharmacists, who in turn require a doctor's prescription before they will hand such items over to a patient. The handful of doctors and pharmacists who engage in drug diversion are held professionally and, in some cases criminally, responsible, but nobody would even think of blaming the manufacturers.

Client 9's and Andrew Cuomo's attempt to sue gun manufacturers, therefore, illustrates their lack of ethics, character, and integrity. Their malicious lawsuit was, by the way, dismissed by a court of law. This fact is particularly telling, and damning as well:

In its suit, New York City contended that the gun makers had made themselves liable under that narrow exception, by failing to monitor firearms retailers closely enough and thus allowing guns to end up in the hands of criminals.

This takes us back to the simple fact that firearms retailers are licensed as such by the Federal Government and, in the absence of disciplinary action such as revocation of an FFL, the manufacturer can reasonably assume the retailer to be in compliance with the law. Cuomo's latest anti-gun legislation has meanwhile proven him incompetent as well as a declared enemy of the entire Second Amendment.

New York Bans Target Pistols and Police Sidearms

We showed previously that New York, under Andrew Cuomo's leadership, has declared war on the entire Second Amendment by banning .22 caliber target pistols that, while theoretically usable for self-defense, are best suited for making inexpensive holes in pieces of paper. Most of these pistols take 10-round or even larger magazines, and are therefore now illegal in New York. Now there is concern that the reckless, slipshod, and irresponsible haste with which New York's legislature enacted its new gun law also outlaws police sidearms that accept more than 7 rounds. Governor Cuomo must now scramble to "clarify" what the law means, and possibly amend his law to exempt the police. This exemption underscores his dishonesty even further.

Cuomo Opposes the Natural Human Right of Self-Defense

When Governor Cuomo argues that only the police should have magazines larger than 7 rounds, he is saying openly that private citizens do not have the natural human right of self-defense. If a private citizen needs to use a handgun for anything other than sporting purposes, he needs it for exactly the same reason a police officer needs it: self-protection against one or more violent aggressors. The only difference between the private citizen and the officer is that the latter has both the duty and the authority to intervene in situations in which it would be ill-advised or even illegal for the citizen to involve himself.

A police officer might have to defend himself from somebody he has challenged for breaking into an unoccupied building, or even from somebody who turns a non-criminal traffic stop into a lethal confrontation. You and I don't even have the authority to compel another driver to pull off the road and stop his vehicle, although we can call 911 to report a drunk or reckless driver. We might, however, have to defend ourselves from one or more violent home invaders. Once the perpetrator(s) initiates deadly violence against either a police officer or a private citizen, the defender has a legitimate need for a weapon that can end the violence. This could be a 9 mm pistol with a 17-round magazine, or a .45 Automatic with one-shot stopping capability. In either situation, the defender should have at least one extra magazine, and should know how to change magazines quickly.

Former PA Governor Rendell Adds Another Layer of Outrage

If Andrew Cuomo's outright dishonesty is not enough, former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, who also supported frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry, added still more outrage. These words should mobilize all supporters of the Bill of Rights, and alienate his own side in the bargain:

"...the good thing about Newtown is, it was so horrific that I think it galvanized Americans to a point where the intensity on our side is going to match the intensity on their side."

The only "good thing" about the Sandy Hook shooting was the perpetrator's decision to finally rid the human species of himself. The fact that Mr. Rendell finds this brutal crime politically convenient, along with Rahm Emanuel's "Never let a good crisis go to waste," tells us everything we need to know about the other side's ethics, character, and indeed basic humanity.

William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.

They're Coming to Take Our Guns Away, Ha-Haaa!

Wake up America. Here come Diane and Barack and Mario jr. Keep your focus down-range.

By Chad Stafko

You may recall the 1966 cult-classic by Napoleon XIV titled, "They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa." The lyrics of that song describe an individual who is out of his mind and who is being taken "to the funny farm" and to "the loony bin" so he can be attended to by "those nice young men in their clean white coats."

The subject of the song is simply considered a danger to society, a menace if you will, crazy, and unable to make rational decisions on his own. He's unreasonable and refuses to conform to the society around him.

Enter today's debate over guns. Obama, Biden, and the rest of the political left are using similar language and characterizations in their description of gun owners. Theirs is a coordinated effort to paint American gun owners as crazed, government-hating lunatics, whose guns, used for sport, recreation, and defense are somehow a great danger to our society, potential Adam Lanzas or Jared Loughners.

Of course, this should come as no surprise. Recall Barack Obama's description of middle-class voters and the challenge he faced in getting their votes way back in 2008, "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Today's push by the leftist media has managed to raise the insult level even higher recently. Take Carol Costello of CNN for example. On December 27th, in questioning NRA President David Keene, she shared this comment from her Facebook page, "Why is the NRA crazy? Why are they, like, out of touch with reality?"

Costello paints a picture of gun owners as out of step with society, yet recent polling is hardly indicative of such. A Gallup poll conducted earlier this month found that only 38% of Americans are dissatisfied with current gun laws, while 43% are either satisfied or believe the laws should be loosened.

Other polls have found only a slight majority of Americans believe there should be any increase in gun control legislation. Yet, we the legal gun owners of America are somehow considered out of touch and crazy? According to the liberals, legal gun owners who want to sustain their ability to defend themselves against those who wish to do them harm is some type of right-wing, extremist idea...an idea that they lament is found in our Constitution in the Second Amendment.

Oh, but there is plenty more insulting characterizations of legal gun owners from other prominent liberals and the White House.

Take former Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell. Appearing on that bastion of balanced reporting, MSNBC, Rendell characterized gun owners as "looney, nuts, off their rocker."

Note that Rendell isn't just saying we legal gun owners of America are wrong, but that we're lunatics and far out of the norm of society. Don't you think if Rendell had the power to somehow confiscate every gun in America he would jump at the chance?

Also, consider President Obama's comments Monday regarding those who oppose the heavy gun control proposals he's to announce Wednesday, "As far as people lining up and purchasing more guns, I think that we've seen for some time now that those who oppose any common sense gun control or gun safety measures have a pretty effective way of ginning up fear on the part of gun owners that somehow, the federal government's about to take all your guns away."

So, it's the 2nd Amendment crowd, the National Rifle Association, and conservative talkers and writers who are, in the words of Obama, "ginning up fear." Really? This is the man, remember, who characterized middle-class voters as people who "cling to their guns."

Obama also, back in 1996 when he was running for the Illinois Senate, filled out a questionnaire for a community group in Chicago in which he answered "yes" to a question that included whether the State should ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns.

And yesterday, President Obama took advantage of all the spadework, using his signing session for 23 executive actions to medicalize gun ownership under Obamacare, making it "clear that his health law, known as the Affordable Care Act, allows doctors to ask patients whether they have guns in their homes, and will tell them they are able to report any threats of violence they hear to police"

Indeed, how silly of us, legal gun owners to think that our President would ever seek to take away our guns. Just ignore the fact that he's from Chicago, which has some of the most stringent gun controls in America, and that he mocks those who cling to their guns, and that he filled out a questionnaire for a liberal community group in which he agreed that guns need to be out of the possession of Illinoisans.

And, we're the crazy ones?

Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest. He can be reached at stafko@msn.com