The Truth About Mass Shootings

800px-Monsoon_Lightning_Strike,_Table_Mesa

Your chances of being killed in a mass shooting? It’s the same as being struck by lightning.
Photo by Shredex

Are you worried about being killed in a mass shooting?  Do you believe in the media-hype behind the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT?  Are you “demanding a plan” to control firearms?  Do you favor resorting to gun control policies, which have been proven ineffective by criminologists and historians?  If so, you’ll love, “The Facts About Gun Control,” by John Fund of the National Review.

Reader Beware!  Your media-created, anti-gun fantasy is about to collapse!

Despite what you’ve been told by the media, mass shootings are no more common today than in prior decades.  They may even be decreasing.  In fact, sources say they peaked in 1929.  The same sources site that mass killing occurred before modern firearms (like the AR-15, the gun feared most by the collectivists) were invented.  In 1780, Revolutionary War veteran Barrett Mallory, often considered America’s first mass murderer, bludgeoned two people to death before setting fire to their home, killing their three grandchildren.

If the media has you convinced that you face a high likelihood of being killed in a mass shooting, you should avoid betting on horses.  Your odds of being killed by the Adam Lanza-type are nearly the same as being struck by lightning–about one in 700,000.

Until the Newtown murders, the worst school shootings in history occurred in the U.K. and Germany.  Does anyone remember what happened in Norway (another nation where guns are banned) in 2011?  In July of that year, Anders Behring Breivik, opened fire at a K-12 summer camp, killing 85.  The media, due to his right-wing views, call Breivik a terrorist–and not a mass murderer.  One might ask the question:  what’s the difference?

One common theme to most mass killings is the the perpetrator has a history of mental illness.  Despite the media claiming that the government is trying to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (which they’ve been doing since 1968, when the Gun Control Act was passed), they’re not actually helping these people with the treatment with their ailments.

John Fund cites Economists John Lott and William Landes, who conducted an impacting 1999 study and found:

“…a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.”

Mr. Fund’s report breaks down even more information that debunks the mainstream media’s fear-mongering lies.  It is up to you to decide: are you going believe the lies and “demand a plan” (as Comrade Bloomberg would like), or are you going to demand that the government cease all infringements on your Second Amendment rights?

Gun Control Advocates Exploit Religion

The tyrannical gun control cabal has found another avenue of exploitation to further their cause against liberty: religion.  In a nation where the church and state have been separated (in order to protect the former), even the Marxist-Leninist forces are teaming with supposed Christian leaders.  The amoral collectivists, largely opposed to religion, only invoke it when it serves their most sinister desires of control.  This exploitation of Americans’ sacred religious beliefs reflects that they will stop at nothing to advance their agenda.

Today, California Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill, which is a sweeping set of laws designed to ban “assault weapons.”   The bill would effectively ban the sale, production, and importation of 150 new “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.  During her introduction of the bill, Feinstein, flanked by a band of traitorous law enforcement officers–men and women who have violated their oath to defend and uphold the United States Constitution–opened with prayer from Rev. Gary Hall.

Dianne Feinstein is Jewish, and according to adherents.com, she’s a secularist. Needless to say, she’s hardly one to appeal to the “Cross Lobby.”  Feinstein’s new-found love for religion has surprised many.  However, anyone who has paid attention to Feinstein in the past was rather surprised.  In fact, she’s been given a 100% rating by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.  Dianne Feinstein is a hypocrite.  She’s a hypocrite who is exploiting the religion that most of her constituents follow.  What’s worse?  She using your religion to deny your rights.

Who is the Very Reverend Gary Hall?  I’m glad you asked.  Rev. Hall is the 10th dean of the National Cathedral.  A member of the Episcopal clergy, he is a rector at the posh Christ Church Cranbrook, in Bloomfield Hills, MI.  He also serves as a chaplain at the elitist Cranbrook Upper School. For a “devout” Christian, Rev. Hall sets a bad example.  As a Christian minister, you’d imagine that he would, at the very least, invoke the Name of Christ in his public prayers.  He didn’t, and I know why.  Hall is politically correct, and is more concerned about promoting a secular sense of “social justice” than Christianity.  If that were not true, he would never have joined forces with a tyrannical crusader like Dianne Feinstein.  One can delve deeper in the issue by looking at the organization of which Rev. Hall is the head. The National Cathedral is hardly a religious institution, and is a front for the communist-inspired Unitarian Universalist Church.  Just read their mission statement:

“The National Cathedral will be a catalyst for spiritual harmony in our nation, renewal in the churches, reconciliation among faiths, and compassion in our world.”

Or,

“The Cathedral is a spiritual resource for our nation: a great and beautiful edifice in the city of Washington, an indispensable ministry for people of all faiths and perspectives, and a sacred place for our country in times of celebration, crisis, and sorrow” (http://www.nationalcathedral.org/about/).

Rev. Hall is also using his religious “authority”  as an excuse to deny your rights under the Second Amendment. During today’s press conference, Rev. Hall stated that he could not justify condoning a society that allowed “ordinary citizens” to possess “assault weapons.”  Furthermore, he prayed that God would, ““bless our elected leaders with the wisdom and the courage needed to bring about the changes that the people demand.”  He also reaffirmed that only the government should possess certain types of weapons–and the types of weapons Americans need to defend the nation against tyranny.

Rev. Hall: the people aren’t demanding a ban on “assault weapons.”  According to a post-Sandy Hook Gallup Poll, 51% of Americans do not favor new legislation.  This statistic remains unchanged from 2011.  In fact, Rev. Hall, most Americans want to live long lives of liberty.  Lawful gun owners, who 99.7% of the time, do not commit crimes with their weapons (including semi-automatic, military-style rifles, are not responsible for the deplorable amount of violence in America–or the world.  In the 20th Century, the leading cause of murder was democide, or death by government. By only wanting the police and military to possess arms, Rev. Hall, you are promoting a practice that has led to more than 100 million murders in the past century.  The tables have turned.  Rev. Hall, you sound like a protégé of Father Coughlin, and would be better suited in a partnership with Adolf Hitler.

No “Assault Weapons” Found at Sandy Hook

Video

While the Sandy Hook Saga continues, and the web of lies purported by the media seems to be unraveling. It was reported this week by the mainstream media that four handguns were found inside the school. No rifles were located. Of course, this came as no surprise to anyone who knows anything about firearms. What we are learning (and many already knew) is that the government has exploited the Sandy Hook Tragedy to give validity to their cause of total civilian disarmament.

Michael Moore is a Big Fat Hypocrite

Image

Michael Moore is a hypocrite.  He may even be the biggest hypocrite in America.  His latest rant against our Second Amendment rights may be even more appalling than his 2002 film, Bowling for Columbine.  That rant, “Celebrating the Prince of Peace,” was featured on the filmmaker’s “Open Mike” column on MichaelMoore.com.

The column begins when Moore writes,

“So here’s my little bit of holiday cheer for you:

These gun massacres aren’t going to end any time soon.

I’m sorry to say this. But deep down we both know it’s true. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep pushing forward – after all, the momentum is on our side. I know all of us – including me – would love to see the president and Congress enact stronger gun laws. We need a ban on automatic AND semiautomatic weapons and magazine clips that hold more than 7 bullets. We need better background checks and more mental health services. We need to regulate the ammo, too.”

So, Mr. Moore, the mass killings aren’t going to stop anytime soon?  I thought that was the goal of the utopian, anti-gun crowd.  Do you have some inside information on a shooting that has yet to be perpetrated?  Aren’t you supporting policies, as outlined by Dianne Fienstein on 12/27/12?  If these policies work in the way they are intended, wouldn’t that decrease mass shooting?  Why keep pushing forward on an issue that will not be resolved by gun control?  If you’re “continuing forward because momentum is on [your] side,” aren’t you just, as Rahm Emanuel said, “Never letting a serious crisis go to waste?”  Aren’t you admitting that guns are not the issue, but want to ban them anyway?  This either proves that your arguments are illogical, or that you really don’t care about the 20 children who were murdered in Newtown, CT, but desire to assist the government in achieving the true goal of the international banksters: socialism.  I think your editorial proves both.

Moore continues his diatribe by writing,

“In fact, let’s be clear about Newtown: the killer had no criminal record so he would never have shown up on a background check. All of the guns he used were legally purchased. None fit the legal description of an “assault” weapon. The killer seemed to have mental problems and his mother had him seek help, but that was worthless. As for security measures, the Sandy Hook school was locked down and buttoned up BEFORE the killer showed up that morning. Drills had been held for just such an incident. A lot of good that did.”

Uh….no, Mr. Moore, wrong again.  Lanza murdered the lawful purchaser of those weapons, murdered her with them, and then killed 27 other innocent people.  As NBC reported, Lanza attempted to buy a rifle several days before the incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School, but was denied to purchase due to Connecticut’s strict gun laws (specifically, the waiting period).  Mr. Moore, you are correct about one thing, the weapons that Adam Lanza used were not legally defined as “assault weapons.”  You can continue, as you always will, and claim that safety drills are ineffective.  They’re not ineffective!  Should we ban smoke detectors and escape routes because buildings equipped with them still have fires?

Moore also writes:

“And here’s the dirty little fact none of us liberals want to discuss: The killer only ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were swarming onto the school grounds – i.e, the men with the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, he stopped the bloodshed and killed himself. Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or 40 or 100 deaths from happening. Guns sometimes work. (Then again, there was an armed deputy sheriff at Columbine High School the day of that massacre and he couldn’t/didn’t stop it.)”

Mr. Moore, you have just proven our point: Good guys with firearms stop crime.  In fact, according to Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University, guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes per year.  Most of the time, the weapon is never even fired. The right of the people, not just the police or military, to keep and bear arms was of vital importance of the framers of the Constitution.  Mr. Moore, can you imagine how quickly Adam Lanza’s rampage would have been quelled had the teachers (or even a few teachers) been armed?

Michael Moore outlines three reasons why he believes that American society is so violent:

“1. POVERTY. If there’s one thing that separates us from the rest of the developed world, it’s this. 50 million of our people live in poverty. One in five Americans goes hungry at some point during the year. The majority of those who aren’t poor are living from paycheck to paycheck. There’s no doubt this creates more crime. Middle class jobs prevent crime and violence. (If you don’t believe that, ask yourself this: If your neighbor has a job and is making $50,000/year, what are the chances he’s going to break into your home, shoot you and take your TV? Nil.)”

Poverty is certainly a problem in the United States, and sure, frustration and desperation often leads to crime.  Unfortunately, Mr. Moore, unlike you, I’m not worth $50 million, and do not live here:

Image

Michael Moore’s Home

From the looks of it, Mr. Moore, you don’t have any neighbors, and if you do, they’re probably afraid of the armed guard(s) that you have. We can’t afford armed guards like you can.  Don’t hide it, Sir, we know you have armed guards.  If your memory is foggy, just click here.  Wasn’t your bodyguard caught with an unlicensed firearm in New York’s JFK Airport?  So, let me get this straight: You don’t condone self defense, but you hire an armed guard?  One other thing: You want stricter gun laws, but hire people who can’t follow the strict gun laws that are already in place?  Mr. Moore, you are a big, fat hypocrite.

“2. FEAR/RACISM. We’re an awfully fearful country considering that, unlike most nations, we’ve never been invaded. (No, 1812 wasn’t an invasion. We started it.) Why on earth would we need 300 million guns in our homes? I get why the Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 million of them died in World War II). But what’s our excuse? Worried that the Indians from the casino may go on the warpath? Concerned that the Canadians seem to be amassing too many Tim Horton’s donut shops on both sides of the border?”

No, Sir.  No, siree.  My right to bear arms has nothing to with racism.  Why?  I’m not a racist, plain and simple.  In fact, some of the nation’s first gun restrictions were a result of racism. Just check out this historical synopsis. I’m white, and so are you, Mr. Moore. Stop trying to convince anyone otherwise. I’d also bet my bottom dollar that my neighborhood is more racially diverse than yours.

What’s that about the Russians?  20 million died during World War II, but 100 million died during the Soviet reign.  They were disarmed.  Many were worked to death.  Others were mass murdered by gunshot.  A political ideology similar to yours caused these atrocities.  Not that it makes a difference to you, but don’t you think these innocent Russians would have had a fleeting chance at survival had they been armed?  How about the 11 million people who were killed during Hitler’s reign?  We already know what the Jews did when they got their hands on firearms.  Have you ever heard of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising?

Moore concludes with his final point,

“3. THE “ME” SOCIETY. I think it’s the every-man-for-himself ethos of this country that has put us in this mess and I believe it’s been our undoing. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! You’re not my problem! This is mine!”

I don’t disagree that Americans are, by and large, selfish (on a macro level).  However, I’ll dare to contradict myself by mentioning that Americans are among the most charitable people in the world.  Voluntarily “spreading the wealth” is the American way.  America, however, is not a utopia.  It has never been a utopia, and it never will be.  Moore continues this point by discussing socialist healthcare reforms, with which I disagree.  However, I am not writing to discuss such matters.

In conclusion, Michael Moore argues that America has a nearly unsolvable problem with violence.  He further argues that more gun laws are needed to control racist, wealthy, and selfish white people.  He has missed the fact that among America’s 85 million gun owners, not all are wealthy, not all are selfish, and not all of them are white (or racist).  Furthermore, Mr. Moore concedes that guns in the hands of good guys can stop tragedies like the one that befell the poor students and faculty at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  Michael Moore does not want you, a peon, to possess a weapon that makes you capable of defending yourself.  However, he’s still free to live in his mansion with his armed bodyguards.  Michael Moore is a big, fat hypocrite.