Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Gun reform that will actually work

Published

on

In the wake of the horrific high school shooting in Parkland, Florida on Thursday, Leftists took to their usual diatribes — they called the NRA a terrorist group, Jimmy Kimmel cried on live television (again), and mainstream news organizations touted misleading if not outright false statistics. All of the above pleaded for yet-unspecified “comprehensive” or “common sense” gun reform.

Through it all, I repeatedly asked vocally adamant gun control supporters, “What is your plan? What law would have prevented this from happening?” Many conservative leaders did the same. Still, no one on the Left seemed capable of providing a coherent answer, short of a full-on gun confiscation and/or ignorance of laws that are already in place, such as a ban on machine guns (which weren’t even used in this shooting).

Pointing this out won’t stop Lefties, obviously, but my intent with this article is not to continue debating what hasn’t, can’t, or won’t work when it comes to gun control, nor to debunk recurring arguments and statistics. That’s an important task, but for right now, I’ll leave it to the likes of Steven CrowderBen Shapiro, and Matt Christiansen.

My goal here is to defy perhaps the most frequent accusation pointed at conservatives during any gun debate, which is that we aren’t willing to discuss how to stop this kind of thing from happening again. And I’m not talking about preaching the gospel or inspiring a deeper respect for life — I mean genuine legislation.

Here are four measures that will actually make an impact in preventing mass shootings:

1) Repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, over 98% of mass shootings in America from 1950 to 2016 occurred in gun-free zones. It should be common sense to understand that criminals target the weak, vulnerable, and unprotected — such as groups that are guaranteed to be unarmed.

This 1990 legislation was introduced by none other than former-Vice President Joe Biden and signed into law by Bush Sr., prohibiting the presence of firearms within 1000 feet of public, private, and parochial elementary and high schools.

Some locations might be gun free de facto rather than de jure, such as churches, where it is not prohibited by law but not necessarily common practice to carry a gun, but the unknown always goes in favor of the potential victims. In a room where a shooter has one firearm and the crowd has zero, you do the math.

The way to prevent shootings is to put more guns in the hands of good guys than in the hands of bad guys. In order to discourage mass shootings, killers need to fear the possibility of getting caught on the other end of a barrel.

This is not to say that teachers should necessarily be required to carry weapons, but those who are trained and feel inclined to take that precaution should be welcome to do so in order to protect their students and colleagues — a proposal which 81% of police officers favor, as provided by USA Today.

2) Place armed security at all public schools

Most federal buildings feature an armed guard of some kind, and many have additional security measures such as metal detectors. So why are our children left unprotected on public (meaning federally operated) school grounds? As Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh contends, there is no sensible argument for abandoning our children to such a clear threat.

Some have argued that the presence of police officers or guns might traumatize young children, but do you know what’s even more traumatizing? Watching your friends get slaughtered by a homicidal maniac with a psychotic vendetta.

The Parkland shooter was previously expelled from the school and prohibited from carrying a backpack on campus, yet somehow that ban didn’t work, as the shooter mosied onto an unsecured campus with a backpack toting a rifle and ammunition — after all, who was going to stop him?

3) Reform the mental health system

Not all people who suffer from mental illness are violent — not by a long shot. Nor are all murders committed by the mentally ill. But the fact is that mass shootings account for a miniscule percentage of total gun homicides in the U.S., and many if not most mass shootings are executed by mentally unstable individuals.

Our country needs to reform its mental health system and consider increasing the amount of people who are institutionalized in mental health facilities.

Ironically, the same groups calling for common sense gun reform immediately backstep when mental illness is brought into the conversation, obfuscating relevant data on two fronts: firstly by falsely claiming that this will lead to a witch hunt of anyone with depression or anxiety, which is simply not true — we’re talking about those who present a danger to themselves or others — and secondly by conflating all gun killings with just mass murder, which is defined by wholly different parameters.

The Atlantic ran the latter kind of piece in October 2017 following the Las Vegas shooting, which cited a statistic that fewer than 5% of gun homicides are committed by a person with a previously diagnosed mental illness. That could very well be true, but it’s beside the point, first marginally because this doesn’t account for undiagnosed illness, but primarily due to the fact that mass shootings only account for 2 or 3% of gun murders anyway, so we’re talking about a completely different set of facts. In the same article, The Atlantic tries to play off a statistic from 2001 and another from 2016 that peg the rate of mass shooters with mental illness closer to one in four, or 25%. By their own admission, if we reform involuntary commitment laws to allow for easier institutionalization of the severely ill, then we can immediately cut down on mass shootings by a quarter.

One might call that statistically significant.

On The Rubin Report, Ben Shapiro links the rise in mass shootings to the large-scale emptying of mental facilities in the 1960s and 70s, leading to an upsurgence in homelessness, violent crime, and, yes, mass shootings, because even if only 25% of mass shooters are previously known to have been mentally ill (this coming from the same folks who claim we’ve had eighteen school shootings this year when the answer is closer to four), every single one of the viral shootings in recent memory, if it wasn’t committed by a terrorist, was brought about by someone who is mentally ill, from Parkland, to Sutherland Springs, to Las Vegas, and so on.

And for those squawking about Trump weakening prohibitions on the mentally ill buying guns, this is a lie. He repealed an unconstitutional gun ban on senior citizens who needed help documenting their Social Security finances, which is a far cry from violent schizophrenia. The ACLU, not known for its conservatism, supported Trump on this action.

4) Audit the Fed(eral Bureau of Investigation)

This issue is far more pressing than anything related to the Federal Reserve.

As reported by CNN, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has ordered a review into the FBI’s process for handling tips following its admitted failure to properly address notification given in early January of a potential threat from the Parkland shooter.

According to the FBI’s statement, the tipster informed them about “[the shooter’s] gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting,” yet “no further investigation was conducted at that time.”

This kind of negligence certainly ought to raise eyebrows, and Florida Governor Rick Scott has called for Christopher Wray, the FBI director, to step down.

Now, in fairness, how many credible tips does the FBI receive on a regular basis? Probably a lot. How many of those threats does it successfully neutralize? Probably a lot.

But as Stephen Gutowski of The Washington Free Beacon tweeted on Friday, this is the fourth mass shooting in recent years where “the FBI was informed of significant warning signs beforehand.” Gutowski doesn’t mention, by the way, the federal oversight on the Sutherland Springs shooter, whose dishonorable history of military service should have disqualified him from gun ownership during his background check.

In addition to the tip itself, the shooter also gave off red flags by way of social media comments that he wanted to become a professional school shooter and take vengeance against police, as well as 39 home responses from police in only seven years.

Tack on growing suspicion of the FBI’s integrity in the handling of recent investigations, and at the very least, we ought to support Sessions’s decision to figure out what’s going on in the Justice Department.

No legislative action will ever fully solve this problem, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t find reasonable improvements while still respecting natural and constitutional rights. But we’ll never move forward if all we can resort to is virtue signalling and name-calling on Twitter.

If you want gun reform and you don’t like my ideas, then tell me your plan — just know I’m giving up hope that anyone on the Left really wants to have that conversation.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Advertisement

0

Guns and Crime

Let’s subsidize the 2nd Amendment

Published

on

Lets subsidize the 2nd Amendment

If there’s one thing that chaps my fiscal conservative khakis, it’s subsidies. Too much in taxpayer dollars is given to people and private businesses through programs designed to “help” them despite the demonstrable reality that most subsidies merely enable continued failure. For example, ethanol subsidies combined with fuel mix mandates artificially inflate demand and price while setting farmers up for a cataclysmic fall when superior alternatives arise. Then, there are sugar subsidies which take money from taxpayers so they can then spend MORE on sugar-based products than they would if the subsidies didn’t exist.

In our welfare state, individual subsidies are often panned by the right and embraced by the left, but there are clear arguments about both perspectives. People really do need help sometimes, and it’s not just because they’re lazy or wishing to live off welfare. Many need help through hard times so they can get themselves back on their feet. On the flip side, the left’s perspective that more people on welfare means they’re helping more people is one of the most backward concepts latched onto by a political ideology known for its backwards concepts.

As a whole, both individual and corporate subsidies need to be reduced by weening as many as possible off the assistance merry-go-round through increased prosperity and opportunity, In many cases, this can be accomplished by pulling government out of the way and letting Americans do what Americans are capable of doing when unhindered.

With my obligatory anti-subsidy rant out of the way, let’s talk about guns. More importantly, let’s talk about crime. As crazy ideas go, this is one that’s certain to be panned by both the right and the left, but it’s crazy enough to work. As I’ve said before, the way to mitigate gun violence is to make gun laws looser, not stricter. A gunman’s favorite venue is a place where there are no other guns present. Gun-free zones are massacre spots waiting to happen.

The argument that more “good guys with guns” would help relieve the so-called gun violence epidemic is demonstrated in places where the opposite is the law of the land. Chicago decided to eliminate “good guys with guns” with obtuse gun laws that restrict law abiding citizens from owning firearms. But their gun problem has consistently been getting worse. This makes no sense to the left who can’t seem to grasp that criminals will do as criminals do. They’ll acquire, carry, and utilize firearms illegally, and in a place where the law abiding citizenry is disarmed, it’s the criminals who will rule the streets.

It’s time to give the people the means by which they can defend themselves against crime and government tyranny. Instead of trying to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, we should arm them. It’s time for the government to subsidize the 2nd Amendment.

Any adult who is willing to go through gun safety, care, and usage training and who has no criminal record should be offered a “personal firearm” with varying degrees of government assistance. Low-income families can get them for free, one per household. Others can receive a voucher to help subsidize their purchase of qualified firearms from registered dealers participating in the program.

Just because someone can’t afford a gun doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have one. If the government allows easy and often free access to healthcare, education, food, and other necessities, they should also offer free and easy access to the one thing that can protect them when things get really bad.

Many will balk. They’ll say it’s a terrible idea because more guns means more crime. But they’re wrong. More guns in the hands of the right people will mean less crime. Moreover, the knowledge that any given household a criminal may intend to enter has a certain likelihood of having an armed resident is a deterrent in itself.

There are plenty of drawbacks, which is why this concept is practically impossible to implement in America today. The first time a government-subsidized firearm is used in a deadly crime will be the policy’s death knell. As a society, we have a tendency to focus on individual instances rather than the big picture, which is why calls for “assault weapons” bans are so prevalent despite the fact that less than 1% of 1% of AR-15 owners use their firearms to commit a crime.

But wait a second. You’re thinking it’s ridiculous to call for government to help people acquire more firearms because some will be used to harm others. It’s a terrible plan, you’re thinking. But isn’t that the argument made by pro-abortion activists who are calling for government to fund abortion?

Obviously this is article is (mostly) tongue-in-cheek. It’ll never happen. But it’s no less ludicrous than people calling on government to fund abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood. As Will Chamberlain from Human Events noted, the same calls to subsidize Planned Parenthood could be made into calls to subsidize the NRA.

At least with gun subsidies it’s certain that doing so will save lives. With abortion subsidies, it’s all about taking life.

Why should low-income families have to choose between putting food on the table and having access to the tools that can keep their family safe? The left calls for subsidized abortions to take lives. Why not subsidized guns to save them?

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Keep attacking gun control. The President is listening.

Published

on

Keep attacking gun control The President is listening

We may never know what the President heard. Perhaps it was internal polling that showed his base has no appetite for gun control. Maybe he read an article (we’ve posted about two dozen on gun control in the last month) or watched a video detailing how the bipartisan measures being proposed are both unconstitutional and ineffective. It could have been an adviser or someone close to him not named Ivanka who said gun control is a bad idea.

Whatever prompted the change of heart, the President indicated over the weekend that he has soured on universal background checks and now Democrats are up in arms attacking his apparent backtrack.

Democratic leaders assail Trump’s apparent reversal on background checks

Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are lamenting President Donald Trump’s apparent about-face on enhanced backgrounds for firearm sales, with Schumer calling the move “not only disappointing but also heartbreaking.”

Trump told reporters this weekend he will look “very strongly” at ideas from both Democrats and Republicans but said to remember that “we already have a lot of background checks.” Those remarks followed Trump’s Aug. 7 claim that “we can bring up background checks like we’ve never had before.”

In the Senate minority leader’s view, Trump’s remarks amounted to backing away from burgeoning bipartisan talks on reviving and amending the background checks bill by Sens. Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey.

Following a string of three mass shootings in less than two weeks, many Republican lawmakers were joining their Democratic counterparts in calling for one or more of three primary legislative actions: universal background checks (which already passed the House), incentives for states to pass red flag gun laws, and a new “assault weapons” ban. The last one was always very unlikely. Universal background checks were seemingly a foregone conclusion until the President’s remarks over the weekend.

That leaves us red flag gun laws. Hopefully, the President will realize they are ineffective, risky to both law enforcement and gun owners (like Gary J. Willis), and most importantly they’re clearly unconstitutional. This draconian measure shouldn’t just be rebuked by the White House. It should be repealed in the 17 states that already have them in place.

Conservatives need to keep up the pressure and let the White House, GOP, and President Trump know we must focus on real solutions to violent criminals that do not include taking away law abiding citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Why isn’t gun control considered to be sexist as well as racist?

Published

on

By

Why isnt gun control considered to be sexist as well as racist

Liberty [Gun] Control is rooted in racism. It also adversely affects women. Why isn’t it considered to be racist and sexist?

A recent video from One America News Network entitled: ‘Gun Rights Are Women’s Rights’ made this very important point on the topic of Liberty Control. The basic facts of science have one sex at a disadvantage to the other, with guns being the great equalizer.

Why doesn’t the Left have to answer for the sexism and racism of Liberty control?

These days, the national socialist Left wields pejoratives Racism and Sexism like an assault weapon. So why aren’t these labels applied to them for their incessant attacks against freedom? Firearms are the great equalizers, with the Left’s gun confiscation agenda having a disproportionate effect on women and minorities.  Somehow the Left escapes these facts being applied to them, while they exploit those words with abandon.

We’ve already detailed the racism aspect of this issue here, and case for Liberty control being sexist made in this video.

Why the gun is civilization..

We will wrap this up with a column written in 2007 by Marko Kloos on a WordPress blogging site the Munchkin wrangler. It encapsulates the issue of firearms down to one proposition on how human being deal with each other.

MARCH 23, 2007 by MARKO KLOOS
Why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[Emphasis added]

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending