and yet the homicide rate and armed robbery rate in Australia did not decline... http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html those pesky facts and statistics keeping breaking the gun control farce of an agenda.
Cutting and pasting the same comment over and over again doesn't make it more true, you know. Like the 98% scientists one you use all the time on the global warming threads.
He's posted that like a dozen times. Doesn't get it. Ignores every piece of counter info without providing any comment. The parrot knows how to parrot, and that's about it.
Democratic New York State Sheriff Urges Citizens To Carry Guns In Mass Shooting Aftermath Slowly but surely America is losing it. In the aftermath of the San Bernardino mass shooting, which according to the FBI is now being treated as a terrorist attack, and since ISIS is at least indirectly related makes it the biggest terrorist attack on US soil since Sept. 11, the suggestions, proposals, if not outright threats on how to respond, show just how schizophrenic US society is becoming when it comes to this most sensitive of social issues: gun violence. Case in point, yesterday afternoon, a sheriff from New York State's Ulster Country, Paul Van Blarcum, asked residents in his county to carry their legal guns in the wake of a mass shooting in California that has reignited a national conversation about gun control. "In light of recent events that have occurred in the United States and around the world I want to encourage citizens of Ulster County who are licensed to carry a firearm to PLEASE DO SO," Ulster County Sheriff Paul J. Van Blarcum wrote on Facebook Thursday. "I urge you to responsibly take advantage of your legal right to carry a firearm." According to NBC, Van Blarcum's Facebook post, which also urged active duty and retired officers to carry guns "whenever you leave your house," had been shared more than 28,000 times by Friday afternoon. The post also drew more than 3,000 comments. His appeal is addressed to a very small set of people: only about 10,000 people in Ulster County are licensed to carry handguns, Van Blarcum told the AP. That's about 5 percent of the more than 180,000 people. Which means if terrorism does strike in this otherwise sleepy country 100 miles north of New York City, it would the obligation of each gun-carrying citizen to protect 19 of their peers. As could be expected, the responses ranged on both sides of the spectrum with extreme opinions prevailing: some posters thanked the sheriff, saying his message would help keep the county safe. Others said more firearms would only lead to more violence. "There were more positive comments than negative, but the negative ones are very adamant," Van Blarcum told The Associated Press. What is most surprising is that Van Blacrum is, according to the AP, a democrat. In other words, he can't be blamed of being just another gun crazy republican, hell bent on forming his own militia. "I'm not trying to drum up a militia of any sort," Van Blarcum said, according to NBC New York. "It's just a reminder that if you want to, you have a right to carry it. It might come in handy. It's better to have it than not have it. We're partners with the public in crime prevention." Ironically, Blarcum's post came as many, especially fellow democrat President Barack Obama, are calling for stricter gun control measures following the recent string of high-profile shootings. "We're going to have to, I think, search ourselves as a society to make sure that we take some basic steps that make it harder — not impossible — but harder for individuals to get access to weapons," Obama said Thursday. What is strange is that two ideologically similar people can have two such diametrically opposing opinions on how to deal with the threat of imported terrorism. However, what is beyond debate and is demonstratively factual, is that as we showed earlier today, ever since Obama's election, gun sales have soared, mostly over concerns that the president, who has been very forthright with his anti-gun agenda, could make selling of weapons illegal with an unexpected executive order at any moment. What we also showed, is that over the past 20 years, the murder rate in the US has steadily declined even as total new gun sales have risen. While correlation does not equal causation, in this particular case the case can be made that it is Van Blacrum whose response is fundamentally right. However, where things get truly deranged, is that just 100 miles south of this update county, another democrat, this time NYC mayor Bill de Blasio is taking on gun makers directly, in a way he hopes to really make them hurt, by forcing New York pension funds to sell their shares. According to the NYT, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio urged the city's pension funds on Friday to divest their holdings in stocks of gun makers after this week's mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. This has precedent: two of the funds in the city's $155 billion pension system dropped their holdings in gun manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson Holding Corp and Sturm Ruger & Co Inc after the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012. This time de Blasio is targeting everyone. Those two funds were the New York City Employees Retirement System and the New York City Teachers Retirement System. Funds for the city's police and fire departments and the city's board of education have not divested. "I call on all government pension funds in New York City and across the country to divest immediately from funds that include assault weapon manufacturers," de Blasio said in a statement. De Blasio also appealed to private investors to dump gun stocks and funds that invest in them. This is what happens when punitive socialism meets capital markets: "the mayor urged the city comptroller "to divest as soon as possible if no verifiable assurance is given that assault weapons will not be sold to civilians." The comptroller's office, which oversees the funds, said it was down to the mayor to present detailed plans to pension fund board members. "We look forward to receiving that proposal," said John McKay, a spokesman for the comptroller. "Gun violence is a real and constant threat to our children, families and communities." Ironically, NY pension investments in gun makers across the three funds amounted to a paltry $2.1 million, as of Sept. 30 - in other words selling their stakes would maybe impact the stock price by 1 cent or so. These two dramatically opposing reactions to the same "terrorist" event, which one can claim the US brought on itself with the CIA's creation of the Islamic State as a clandestine method to overthrow Syria's president al Assad, and by two people who are both democrats, shows just how ridiculous the gun control debate is set to become in the coming days. At this point, if we had to forecast the final outcome, we would say that just as we accurately predicted the terrorist events in Paris two months earlier, so this time the "terrorist attacks" together with comprehensive 24/7 TV coverage, in the US will get worse and worse until one of two things happen, if not both: the NSA will see all of its surveillance powers reinstated legally in the coming months, while the US will see increasingly more escalating "attacks" until ultimately Obama's crackdown on gun sales and possession hits its breaking point and the president's gun confiscation mandate is finally executed. We hope we are wrong.
The Ignorant Gun Control Crusade By Rich Lowry December 08, 2015 Self-righteousness is liberating. The same people who are most exercised about guns in America, and want to ban and even confiscate entire categories of firearms, know little about them and evidently feel no compunction to learn. The worst terror attack in the United States since September 11 has become the occasion for another frenzied, poorly informed push for new gun restrictions. President Barack Obama gave a prime-time address on the terror threat, in which he resolutely reaffirmed the status quo in the campaign against ISIS. Except that he hopes that gun control, one of the signal political and policy failures of our time, will now be deployed to help foil the apocalyptic terror group. Almost every time there is a mass shooting, there is a rush to push old gun-control chestnuts, regardless of their applicability. The San Bernardino terror couple didn’t buy their guns at a gun show (making the effort to close the so-called gun-show loophole irrelevant); they weren’t on the terrorism watch list (so the proposal to ban people on the list from buying guns wouldn’t have stopped them); and Syed Farook passed a background check when he bought two handguns (rendering calls for universal background checks moot). The president and the New York Times, which saw fit to publish a front-page editorial for the first time since it thundered against Warren Harding in 1920, have fastened on the two “assault weapons,” AR-15s, used in the attack. The Times called them “weapons of war, barely modified.” President Obama referred to them as “powerful assault weapons.” On this question, the Left has fallen for its own propaganda. Decades ago, gun-controllers decided to play on the confusion between semi-automatic versus automatic weapons to push for a ban on nasty-looking assault weapons, even though they are, for the most part, functionally indistinguishable from other semi-automatic rifles. The AR-15 is one of those semi-automatic guns. It isn’t exotic or particularly powerful. It is the most popular rifle in the country. At least 3.5 million are in circulation. It is lightweight, accurate, and without much kick. You wouldn’t use it in combat and, in fact, wouldn’t necessarily use it to hunt. A .223-caliber gun, it is less powerful than many handguns. Some states forbid .223-caliber rifles in deer hunting because they aren’t powerful enough to reliably take down the game. If gun-controllers know any of this, they hide it well. Nor do they seem to care that a prior version of the assault-weapons ban, in effect in the ten years after 1994, was wholly ineffectual. A Department of Justice-backed study concluded, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” (Rifles of all types, let alone assault rifles, are used in gun homicides only rarely.) The proposal to keep people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns sounds sensible, yet it is problematic in that it denies people an explicit constitutional right on the basis of little or no due process. Last year, the Times itself inveighed against “the shadowy, self-contradictory world of American terror watch lists.” If the watch list is to become a no-gun list, it has to be cleaned up, and listees should have an opportunity to challenge their status upon attempting to buy a gun. Such a prohibition would affect a tiny slice of gun purchases and would likely be mere symbolism, like the assault-weapons ban. The overriding reality that gun-controllers ignore is that almost all gun homicides are committed with handguns in routine street crime, and are often obtained in informal networks operating outside the gun rules we already have. But please don’t confuse the anti-gun campaigners with facts. Their ignorance is invincible, and necessary to their crusade.
Handguns, and semi automatic long guns over a certain lethality score need to be banned. Any gun at all can be owned and kept at a secure firing range. It's that simple folks.
In Wake of San Bernardino, Sheriffs Urge Residents to Carry Guns by Jacquellena Carrero Several sheriffs are urging Americans to take the fight against terrorism into their own hands in the wake of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. Sheriffs in New York, Florida and Kentucky are joining a growing chorus asking Americans who are licensed to carry guns to do so. Ulster County, New York, Sheriff Paul J. Van Blarcum issued a statement urging New Yorkers to carry firearms just one day after Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook carried out their attack, which killed 14 people last week. Sheriff's call to arms polarizes many 2:29 "In light of recent events that have occurred in the United States and around the world I want to encourage citizens of Ulster County who are licensed to carry a firearm to PLEASE DO SO," Van Blarcum wrote on the sheriff's Facebook page. "I urge you to responsibly take advantage of your legal right to carry a firearm. To ensure the safety of yourself and others, make sure you are comfortable and proficient with your weapon, and knowledgeable of the laws in New York State with regards to carrying a weapon and when it is legal to use it." Paul J. Van Blarcum is serving his third four-year term as Ulster County Sheriff. Ulster County, New York Van Blarcum's post has drawn widespread attention, having been shared more than 33,000 times and having garnered almost 4,000 comments. He's also inspired other sheriffs to make similar calls to action. Sheriff Michael Helmig wrote in an open letter to residents of Boone County in northern Kentucky that it's their "responsibility" to protect the country from domestic terrorism. "I have reminded my current and retired Deputy Sheriffs of their responsibility to carry their firearms while off-duty," Helmig said. "I would also like to remind the people who have applied, been trained, and issued a license to carry a Concealed Deadly Weapon (CCDW) that they also have a responsibility to carry their firearm, which they are proficient with, for the safety of themselves and others." Brevard County, Florida, Sheriff Wayne Ivey said in a video message that citizens carrying guns could be the first line of defense in active-shooter situations. Florida Sheriff Calls for Owners to Carry Guns in Wake of San Bernardino 1:19 "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," Ivey said in the video. Ivey said he is not promoting vigilantism but instead wants people to train themselves so they can fend off an active shooter "until the cavalry can arrive." However, not all county officials believe more guns is the answer to preventing future attacks. Ulster County District Attorney D. Holley Carnright said he is "not convinced" armed residents are the solution. "Though I fully support our right to bear arms and to defend ourselves I am not convinced more guns in the hands of untrained or unskilled civilians is the answer and nor do I believe does the Sheriff," he wrote. "I think it is better to prevent than to respond. Our best course is, if you see something, say something." But in an open letter to police chiefs nationwide, the country's most famous tough-guy sheriff, Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, urged chiefs to reach out to holders of legal firearms and "let them know it is OK" to use them in a "mass shooting scenario" until officers can arrive. "Now it's the police chiefs' turn," Arpaio wrote Tuesday. "I want the chiefs to take a stand for what is right." The National Sheriffs's Association has not taken a position on urging citizens who are licensed to carry firearms to do so, said Patrick Royal, a spokesman. "Every sheriff is responsible to their local electorate," he told NBC News. "Each takes actions to suit their communities' needs."