Reason #1: Liberals continually move the goal when talking about gun control
As marginally mentioned (and somewhat maligned) in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, on 2 March 2018, Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas delivered the following speech to the Virginia House of Delegates. Through this speech Delegate Freitas covers a number of the reasons that conservatives do not trust those who argue for gun control, despite their insistence that they will hold an “open and honest debate.”
So, over the last several days, Mr. Speaker, there’s been a lot of discussion about an “open and honest debate” with respect to school shootings, gun violence, gun control, etc. An open and honest debate, as I understand it, is one that would rely on data, facts, evidence, analysis, reason, logic, etc., etc. And I’m certainly willing to have that debate.
I think if we were going to look seriously at school shootings and gun control, we would analyze things like “why do all mass shootings seem to take place in gun-free zones?” Wouldn’t it be reasonable to test whether or not the efficacy of gun-free zones have actually achieved what their intended intent is.
We would start to look at most of these shooters coming from broken homes. What sort of government policies have actually encouraged broken homes? You can look at left-leaning think tanks like the Brookings Institute, that will actually say that some of it can be attributed to various cultural changes that happened in the sixties, to include the abortion industry. You can look at a more conservative-leaning organization that will say that the welfare state contributes significantly to dismantling the family, as families became more and more dependent upon the government than they were mothers and fathers in the home raising children.
We can look at various datas with those areas in the United States and around the world that have strict gun control measures, and what their crime rates look like, whether its Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, and others that have incredibly strict gun laws, and yet for some reason haven’t seemed to stop the gun violence in those particular areas.
We can look at the analysis out of FiveThirtyEight – which is considered more of a left-of-center data analysis think tank – where you have several analysts now who have confirmed through the data that they were looking at — not just the United States, but Canada, Great Britain, and Australia — they were shocked that the data did not support what they thought gun control measures would actually achieve.
We can look at the number of cases within the United States where a gun has been used for self-defense. Estimates range everywhere from 100,000 uses to close to 1,000,000 uses within the United States. Now some organizations and some reporters only want to report on the ones where a gun was used and it actually resulted in the death or maiming of the perpetrator. But if you look at the ones where the gun was used, and the mere presence of a firearm actually dissuaded a criminal from committing an act of violence, an act of rape, an act of murder, the number shoots up. It skyrockets.
So when people on this side talk about the importance of the Second Amendment, please understand it’s not just some base philosophical conviction that we all have. It is rooted in the idea that, while we may be a post-enlightenment society, the vast majority of horrible atrocities that we’ve seen have happened in those post-enlightenment societies. They’ve happened as a result of governments systematically disarming citizens and claiming themselves to be the sole responsible party for their security, and then turning on those same citizens and punishing them. That’s the most egregious cases, but in the individual cases of self-defense, that’s why the people on this side of the aisle hold the Second Amendment in such high esteem. Because we honestly believe that you have an inherent right to defend yourself, and your ability to defend yourself should not be exclusive to your size. Firearms provide someone that is weaker and not as fast the ability to actually to defend themselves from a stronger attacker.
Some of the other things that the would look at, and certainly I would hope we would have bipartisan support for, all of us agree that we need to make sure that our students are better protected when they go to school. One of the things that we would look at is arming certain teachers. Not every teacher. But a teacher that is comfortable with it, is former law-enforcement, is former military, that is now in the classroom. Delegate Plum said yesterday that, that was ridiculous to consider. Why? Is it because the other side of this debate will only accept one “solution” to this problem, and that is tearing apart or gutting the Second Amendment?
And I understand. We’re gonna mention just a couple of the bills that were done this year, right? Background checks, getting rid of bump-stocks? If you’re wanting the other reason why we can’t have an honest debate over this one, it’s because quite frankly, I don’t think any of us on this side of the aisle believe you when you say that’s all you want to do. It’ll be bump-stocks and it’ll be background checks. Then it’ll be different kinds of background checks that register the guns. Then after that it’ll be “we need to ban assault weapons.” What’s an assault weapon? Something that looks scary. Then after that, it’ll be semi-automatic rifles. After that, it’ll be semi-automatic handguns. Then it’ll be revolvers, shotguns. Because when the policies fail to produce the results you are promising to your constituents, you’ll be back with more reasons why we’ve got to infringe on Second Amendment rights.
The other reason why it’s really difficult to have an honest and open debate about this is because of members of this body comparing members on this side of the aisle to Nazis. Members on the other side of the aisle saying that when a 24 year old teacher gets up that the whole debate is between the Second Amendment or her life. That’s a false dilemma.
And quite frankly, one of the ones that I found the most offensive (along with being compared to Nazis) was being compared to segregationists. I just want to remind everyone of something very quickly. It was not our party that supported slavery, that fought women’s suffrage, that rounded up tens of thousands of Asian-Americans and put them in concentration camps, that supported Jim Crow, that supported segregation, or supported mass resistance. That wasn’t our party. That was the Democrat party.
Now I’m thrilled that Democrats no longer believe that. And I don’t believe that a single current member of this body who is a Democrat ever believed those things. But I would really appreciate it if, every time you want to make a powerful point, you don’t project the sins, the atrocities, and the injustices that the Democratic party perpetrated on others, onto us.
So if we want to have an open and honest debate, I am all for that. Let’s do that. But it does start with a certain degree of mutual respect. It starts with a certain degree of not assuming that “the only reason why we believe in the Second Amendment is because the NRA paid us off.” Well if that’s the sort of logic you want to use, why don’t you go take a look at how much money the NRA spends and how much money Planned Parenthood spends. Because when I get up here and I talk about abortion, I don’t assume that you’re all bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood. I don’t assume you’re horrible people because I disagree with you on a policy position. I assume that you have deep convictions and that we can have an argument and a debate about it. But if you’re not willing to reciprocate that level of respect, well don’t be surprised when it becomes more difficult to talk about these things.
Because there is a lot that we can do, and there is a lot that we need to do to ensure the security of our children and our citizens. But yes, we are going to have a problem with so-called “solutions” which infringe on people’s liberty under the promise the government will provide for their security. Because ultimately, in this last school shooting, we had a perfect example of government being engaged over thirty times and still failing to provide security for those students.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As for myself, I was busy with papers when CNN held their dog-and-pony show where Sheriff Israel praised himself and teenaged victims of the Parkland school shooting demonized politicians. However, I did turn to the transcripts and recordings of the meeting until I saw that the show was staged against those who were demonized as the “gun lobby.”
Like many other instances of “debate” over gun rights, this one-sided diatribe against those who use guns (even the majority of us who protect ourselves legally) works to undermine any true debate. Therefore, it stands against reason for us to lay down our second amendment rights just to silence some poorly-thought-out polemics against gun ownership.
Well thank goodness CNN went after the likes of NRA, Dana Loesch and law abiding gun owners then https://t.co/wbFvVsHYcx
— 🇺🇸 yvonne burton (@_YvonneBurton) February 28, 2018
Reason #2: “Law enforcement officials” don’t enforce the law
FrontPageMag tells how leftist school policies aided the classroom-to-grave pipeline of Nikolas Cruz
In a 27 February 2018 FrontPageMag article, the link between Obama’s PROMISE program and the Valentine’s Day school shooting are exposed. (The emphasis in bold is mine.)
If the FBI and local law enforcement had followed established policy, the Valentine’s Day murder of 17 high-school students by Nikolas Cruz could very well have been stopped. Gaining less media attention, on the other hand, is the role of educational policies in the total failure to protect the students from a known threat.
As the Sun-Sentinel of Florida’s Broward County reports, Nikolas Cruz “kicked doors, cursed at teachers, fought with and threatened classmates and brought a backpack with bullets to school.” In 2014, administrators transferred Cruz to an alternative school for students with “emotional and behavioral disabilities” but two years later changed course and retuned Cruz to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Cruz was banished for disciplinary violations but “never expelled from Broward schools. Legally, he couldn’t be.”
Under federal law, the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Nikolas Cruz had a right to a “free and appropriate” education at a public school. As special education lawyer Stephanie Langer told the Sun-Sentinel, “You can’t just kick kids out of the public schools because you are afraid of them, or because they are hard to educate.” In Parkland, Florida, that notion overrode the right of other students to an education free from fear, and as it turned out, deprived them of their right to life as well.
Broward County Schools superintendent Robert Runcie refused to reveal Nikolas Cruz’s school records and told reporters he had no “knowledge” of Cruz’s threats while a student. As Runcie told the American Prospect in 2013, he sought to close the “racial achievement” gap and noticed a “huge differential in minority students, black male students in particular, in terms of suspensions and arrests.”
Runcie fought against “zero tolerance” policies and implemented a code that “prohibited arrests in some circumstances, and developed alternatives to suspension.” Instead of suspensions, students are referred to the PROMISE program, in which they receive counseling then return to school.
Like other programs aimed at shutting down the “school-to-prison” pipeline, PROMISE aims to help “students of color,” and this opened the door for Nikolas de Jesus Cruz. Under the regime of political correctness, “Latinos” and/or “Hispanics” qualify as people of color, regardless of national origin or skin shade. So Cruz fit the “metrics” of the program and was not arrested.
In his interview with Broward County sheriff Scott Israel, Jake Tapper of CNN noted that in 2013 the local school board opted to pursue the “least punitive means of discipline” instead of arresting students for crimes.
(Read more at FrontPageMag)
So, this Obama-instituted program (PROMISE – Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Supports & Education) allowed school administrators to decide which crimes got reported. In an effort to slow the school-to-prison pipeline observed by many on the liberal side, they seem to have allowed one bully to open a school-to-grave pipeline for 17 innocent victims. Wouldn’t it have been better to enforce the law against Nikolas Cruz those 45 times he had the police called on him?
Naturally, since the PROMISE program came as part of Obama’s vaunted Race to the Top initiative, it is completely wrapped in rainbows and good intentions, but is it worth another 17 lives? I say “No” and add that this underscores a need for self-protection as guaranteed by the second amendment.
53 national school systems are part of obama’s “Promise” program. Check w/your school board 2 find out if your children R attending 1 of these schools. If so, they are going 2 school with a mixture of good kids/CRIMINALS. BC’s school was a Promise school!https://t.co/cTvis48nNG
— Mint Julep – (@LindaFmAlabama) March 8, 2018
Broward County Sheriff’s office created a “fact check” page: https://t.co/WMs0zfm7U7
Still doesn’t answer why the sheriff insisted that the department got only 23 calls about the shooter or his family when records show almost two dozen more. https://t.co/x3axg0VXck
— Emily E. Larsen (@emilyelarsen) March 8, 2018
Reason #3: When seconds count, the police are minutes away
And the Ferguson Effect makes it worse
In a 14 February 2018 article at City Journal, the links between inner city violence, recriminations against police, and slow police response time come to the forefront.
New Yorker writer Adam Gopnik purports to care about black lives—except when doing so would violate liberal nostrums. In an essay on the nation’s 20-year crime drop, inspired by New York University sociologist Patrick Sharkey’s new book, Uneasy Peace, Gopnik declares that the “urban crime wave is over.” Anyone who has recently raised an alarum about crime—that would be Donald Trump, of course—is appealing to “preexisting bigotry.” Trump campaigned “against crime and carnage where it scarcely exists,” Gopnik writes, in order to exploit the “fetishistic role” of crime in the racist American imagination.
Let’s look at what Gopnik calls crime that “scarcely exists.” In 2016, candidate Trump spoke repeatedly about the rising bloodshed in inner cities. That year was the second in a two-year, 20-percent increase in the nation’s homicide rate, the largest in nearly half a century. Violent crime overall rose nearly 7 percent in 2015 and 2016—the largest consecutive one-year increases in a quarter-century. Up until 2015, crime had been steadily dropping across the country, thanks to the spread of data-driven, proactive policing and the use of determinate sentencing to lock away violent criminals. But as 2014 drew to a close, that 20-year crime drop stalled and then reversed itself.
The victims of the 2015 and 2016 homicide increase were overwhelmingly black. In 2014, there were 6,095 black homicide victims, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. In 2015, there were 7,039 black homicide victims; in 2016, there were 7,881 black homicide victims. Those 7,881 dead black bodies in 2016 comprised more than half the total homicide victims that year, though blacks are only 13 percent of the population. An additional 2,731 blacks were killed over the course of 2015 and 2016 compared with 2014. To Gopnik, that loss of an additional 2,731 black lives is not worth paying attention to—it “scarcely exists.”
Trump regularly referred to Chicago’s crime increase during the presidential campaign. In 2016, 4,300 people were shot in Chicago—one person every two hours. The victims were overwhelmingly black. Two dozen children under the age of 12 were shot in Chicago in 2016, among them a three-year-old boy mowed down on Father’s Day 2016 who is now paralyzed for life, and a ten-year-old boy shot in August whose pancreas, intestines, kidney, and spleen were torn apart. Those child victims were also overwhelmingly black. Trump called those Chicago shootings and others like them in Baltimore and St. Louis “carnage.” What does Gopnik call them? A mere “bump or burp in the numbers.” If 4,300 white people had been shot in any city of the country, there would be a revolution. But because the victims were black, it would be dog-whistle racism to call attention to them. Racism once consisted of ignoring black-on-black violence as a fact of nature that was beneath concern. It is a bizarre twist in contemporary liberalism that drawing attention to the black victims of street crime is now the racist position. This deflection has come about in order to avoid acknowledging that the perpetrators of this crime are black, too. So it is better to look away entirely.
The 2015 and 2016 crime increases were the result of what I have called the Ferguson Effect—the combined phenomenon of depolicing and the resulting emboldening of criminals. (The FBI has not released full data for the year 2017 yet. In the first half of 2017, homicides rose “only” 1.5 percent over their elevated 2016 level.) At the end of 2014, the Black Lives Matter narrative about lethally racist cops kicked into high gear. Told relentlessly by the media and by politicians that proactive policing was oppressive and bigoted, cops started doing less of it in minority neighborhoods. Gopnik and other liberal commentators cannot acknowledge the resulting crime rise because it would mean acknowledging the consequences of depolicing for black lives. To be sure, crime remains far below its early 1990s levels. A two-year crime increase would have to be cataclysmic to wipe out 20 years of steady decline. But if black lives matter, a 20-percent homicide increase is indisputably a cause for concern, and Trump was right to call attention to it.
Gopnik’ s portrayal of the policing revolution responsible for the 20-year crime drop is profoundly ignorant. The idea, he says, was that “if enough policemen frisked enough young minority kids, they would find enough weed and weaponry to send them away.” This is ludicrous. No one was or is being sent to prison for possessing a joint; the small percentage of prisoners sentenced for drug possession (four percent in state prisons, one percent in federal prison) overwhelmingly have bargained down their charge from trafficking. Prison remains a lifetime-achievement award for persistence in criminal offending; to end up in state or federal prison, you either have a long criminal record or have committed a serious crime.
(Read more at City Journal)
In the best of situations, nobody would need protection from bad people. However, since that fantasy only exists in the imaginations of liberals, one might hope for the fiction that appears in our crime-sleuth serials (where the police appear seconds after the victim calls out).
Truth is that the best (top 50%) of police response times can put the police there in about 10 minutes. Conversely, when the local police have reason to feel that they can do nothing right in the eyes of the public, response time can suffer considerably (refer to “the Ferguson Effect” and note that it most often comes to light in liberal meccas like New York).
Again, this underscores the need for citizens to exercise the right to bear arms.
I’m sorry you sore losers on the left but the RESPONSIBILITY for the shooting of innocent kids falls on the shoulders of one & one only, NIKOLAS CRUZ!
The failure to stop Cruz from killing the students falls on:
The sheriff’s department
STOP BLAMING THE NRA! pic.twitter.com/FAbga20JDF
— Greg Varney (@Maganyg56) February 24, 2018
Reason #4: Department policy may prevent police from protecting you
Scot Peterson says why he didn’t go inside Stoneman Douglas during shooting
A 26 February 2018 Miami Sun-Sentinel article explores Scot Peterson’s explanation for not entering the school as it was under attack.
The school deputy who drew national condemnation for failing to confront the Stoneman Douglas shooter fought back Monday, arguing that his decision to not enter the building was made not out of cowardice but from his best assessment of the situation.
Deputy Scot Peterson, the school resource officer, had been accused of allowing students and teachers to face gunman Nikolas Cruz in a school building, while he remained sheltered outside. Broward Sheriff Scott Israel said Peterson should have “went in. Addressed the killer. Killed the killer.” President Trump called Peterson a coward in the aftermath. After being suspended without pay last week, Peterson, 54, resigned.
“What I saw was a deputy arrive … take up a position and he never went in,” the sheriff said at a news conference.
But Peterson’s lawyer, Joseph DiRuzzo, called that account a “gross oversimplification.”
“Let there be no mistake, Mr. Peterson wishes that he could have prevented the untimely passing of the 17 victims on that day, and his heart goes out to the families of the victims in their time of need,” he said “However, the allegations that Mr. Peterson was a coward and that his performance, under the circumstances, failed to meet the standards of police officers are patently untrue.”
Peterson said the initial report was of firecrackers, not gunshots, in the 1200 building, where the killer was shooting his victims. When he reached the building, he heard gunshots, but “believed that those gunshots were originating from outside of any of the buildings on the school campus,” the statement said, in a quotation attributed to Peterson.
In the event of outdoor gunshots, sheriff’s office training calls for deputies to “seek cover and assess the situation in order to communicate what one observes to other law enforcement,” the statement said.
“Consistent with his training, Mr. Peterson ‘took up a tactical position between the 700-800 buildings corridor/corner,” the statement said. Radio reports of a victim on the football field reinforced his belief that the shooter was outside, according to the statement.
(Read more at the Miami Sun-Sentinel)
This, if nothing else, must be seen as a call to arms to those of us who would protect the weak among us.
What seems odd (in this litigious society) is that nobody has sued to regain the protections lost when they declared schools to be “gun-free zones.” How can it be that teachers, principals, janitors, and other public servants lost their second amendment rights to the Gun-Free School Zones Act? For what reason did they give them up? How many mass shootings have occurred in these zones?
A graphic summary of Obama’s PROMISE (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Supports & Education) program pic.twitter.com/qxKFwwzSCX
— Mark (@markone1blog) March 10, 2018
Reason #5: None of the police may want to buck department policy
Three more deputies stayed outside the school
The 2 March 2018 edition of the Chicago Tribune explores the excuses proffered for three other Broward county sheriff’s department personnel. Emphasis (in the form of bold text) is mine.
A sheriff’s office captain told deputies to form a perimeter instead of rushing into the Florida high school where 17 people were killed in a mass shooting, according to documents obtained by the Miami Herald.
However, the log may raise fresh questions about the department’s handling of the mass shooting on Feb. 14, including whether police could have gone in sooner to help the wounded.
“If detectives had answers to all of the questions, then there would be no need for an investigation,” sheriff’s office spokeswoman Veda Coleman-Wright wrote in an email to the Herald late Thursday.
Sheriff Scott Israel has said his office’s training and nationwide active-shooter procedure call for armed law enforcement officers to confront shooters immediately rather than secure a scene. He has blasted Deputy Scot Peterson, the school’s resource officer, for not entering the school building while 19-year-old former student Nikolas Cruz was shooting.
(Read more at the Chicago Tribune)
Here is the Broward Sheriff’s Captain who told deputies to wait outside as Nikolas Cruz slaughtered students and teachers. The Miami Herald report’s that Captain Jan Jordan, commander of BSO’s Parkland district, gave the order, log show, identifying her by her police call sign. pic.twitter.com/EKnD5XNLDx
— SeaMonkey (@OldSalt45) March 6, 2018
Reason #6: Both you and your family may belong to an unpopular group
Condoleezza Rice tells a story from her childhood in support of the 2nd Amendment
As shared through a 1 March 2018 Daily Caller article, Condoleezza Rice told the panelists on the View of the story backing her support for the Second Amendment.
Former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice explained on “The View” Thursday that she supports the Second Amendment because her father used guns to protect her neighborhood from the KKK.
Rice explained that she grew up in Birmingham, Alabama during the civil rights movement and that her family could not count on protection from the police.
“So when White Knight Riders would come through our neighborhood, my father and his friends would take their guns and they’d go to the head of the neighborhood, it’s a little cul-de-sac and they would fire in the air, if anybody came through,” Rice argued.
“I don’t think they actually ever hit anybody. But they protected the neighborhood. And I’m sure if Bull Connor had known where those guns were he would have rounded them up,” she continued. “And so, I don’t favor some things like gun registration.”
(Read more at the Daily Caller)
At this point, I would like to praise Ms. Rice’s gun-toting father. In the face of “law enforcement” who would not protect him and KKK members who would do him and his family harm, he protected his family. I support that.
Reason #7: The reason for school shootings isn’t due to more guns, it is due to more decay in society
So many times, I have written about the need of Christians to protect the weak and defenseless among us. Specifically, I have called on verses that require us to protect widows and orphans. That is:
You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; (Exodus 22:22-23 NASB)
Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:17-19)
These verses show God’s concern for the weak. Therefore, we should also do what we can to protect the defenseless. That would include protecting our young students from predators exposed through the next few linked articles.
A middle-school teacher stands accused of sexually assaulting several students
According to a 8 March 2018 story posted by a New Jersey ABC affiliate, a middle school teacher has been accused of sexual assault of several students.
A middle school teacher is accused of sexually assaulting students in the classroom at Franklin L. Williams Middle School in Jersey City, according to the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office.
The alleged incident occurred in a classroom when a total of seven students were inside.
Upon further investigation, detectives said additional victims alleged similar past incidents. Officials are unsure of the total number of incidents but said Lora allegedly assaulted three students.
(Read more at ABC)
School lets Planned Parenthood promote anti-life values with middle-school students without telling their parents
According to an article in the 16 November 2017 edition of the Schenectady Daily Gazette, the lack of respect for life may have sources that the liberal left will never consider. It seem that an on-campus Planned Parenthood clinic was dispensing life-ending advice and more without the consent of parents.
Schenectady High School should have notified parents about a Planned Parenthood-supported program for freshmen, Superintendent Larry Spring said after a parent complained to the school board Wednesday night.
Vivian Parsons, who grew up in Schenectady, told the school board she felt her rights as a parent were ignored when the district failed to notify her about a teen pregnancy prevention assembly held the previous Thursday that involved Planned Parenthood educators. She said she should have been given a chance to keep her daughter out of the program. Parsons said she learned about the assembly from her daughter last week.
“I have a right to know if this kind of stuff will be presented to my daughter,” Parsons told the school board. “Not every parent is OK with an association with Planned Parenthood, irregardless of content.”
Parsons said she recognized the school is working to address “an epidemic of babies having babies,” but she felt strongly she didn’t want her daughter participating in an event involving Planned Parenthood – a position she connected with her own experience as a teenage mother.
Spring, after the school board meeting, said he “was under the impression” that parents were to be notified of the event and given a chance to opt-out for their kids, similar to how the district handles certain aspects of sex education taught during health classes.
“(In health classes), parents are aware that is going on, and they can say, ‘Hey, wait a minute, I want to handle that differently for my child,’” Spring said after the meeting.
In a written statement Thursday, however, district spokeswoman Karen Corona said parents weren’t notified of the event, “because the content or material within the presentation is not considered inappropriate” for high school freshman. She added that district and school officials would review and discuss “what should be communicated in the future.”
(Read more at the Schenectady Daily Gazette)
The Zimbo list of 50 most infamous female teacher sex scandals
One list provides an accounting of 50 female teachers who went rogue and hooked up with a male student.
One bad part of this list is that there are 50 reproductive-age women who threw away their college educations for the sake of having sex with a boy. Another bad part is that the list is nowhere near comprehensive.