The appreciation of sarcasm is being lost at an alarming
rate these days. There used to be a time when people understood you were being
sarcastic, now you have to actually explain
things to them or use one of those stupid symbols…… Being a NY’er, I despise this. If you've read any of my books, you'll know that my characters of quite fond of it as well.
The same hold true for irony. Some folks just don't seem to appreciate just how ironic they really are.
If you have turned on a TV, read
a paper, logged onto Facebook or Twitter lately, you would see irony, in all
its glory and pageantry, on full display, but at the same time being missed out
on by so many who just don’t get it.
Examples are things like:
- Black lives matter……. Because, you know, all the other lives don’t.
- Be a champion of the climate change agenda, but fly across the ocean in your private G4, to accept an award, then immediately fly back to party in Caan.
- Christianity, which follows the tenets of Jesus who says to love one another, is bad. While Islam, which advocates killing in the name of Allah, is good….. You know; the whole religion of peace thing.
- No one under an FBI investigation should ever be able to purchase a gun, but you can still run for President if you’re under an FBI investigation.
I don’t know who originally
coined the phrase ‘Word’s Matter’, but they do. Just like our President admonished
us in a campaign speech back in 2008: “Don't tell me words don't matter. ‘I
have a dream.’ Just words?”
IRONICALLY, he was accused of plagiarizing
that, from a speech Deval Patrick made in 2006, by none other than Hillary
Clinton. Oh well, like they say, politics make for strange bedfellows.
The problem I have with all of
this is that we have stopped reading words, in the form of actual research, and
have begun to accept talking points and snippets as actual truth. They are not.
Take statistics for example.
Everyone loves to flaunt them, because they allow you to use evidence to support your argument, but
are they really that good?
How about this little gem,
stripped from the pages of that vaunted
newspaper, the New York Times (Hint: insert Sarcasm symbol here), which authoritatively
asserted the following: ‘In the United States, the death rate from gun
homicides is about thirty-one per million people or the equivalent of twenty-seven
people shot and killed every day.’
Just to drive home the point,
they included a graph with more statistics, showing just how blood thirsty we Americans are.
Seriously, it was like we are up here (hold your left hand up high) and they
are ALL down here (hold your right hand down really low). Wow, that’s ominous…….
It’s not accurate mind you, but very ominous, which is exactly the
point.
You see the pundits and
politicians don’t want you to know
the truth, they just want you to accept
their facts.
For the better part of my law
enforcement career I was an investigator. Show me a stat and the first thing I
want to know is: what was your methodology? What’s that? you ask.
Well, methodology is the
systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of
study. Or, as my astute boss once told me: garbage in, garbage out.
Too often we take the stats being
offered as honest representations of the facts. They aren’t. In fact they are
skewed to make you support what is being offered to you. So take the New York
Times article, what should we take away from it? Well, number one would be that
the United States is pretty damn violent and, number two that only rich,
Western countries, with a GDP per capita over $25,000.00, matter.
Why is this significant? Because
they want you to believe that we really are that damn violent.
The New York Times is anti-gun.
Asking them for the unvarnished truth on guns is like asking the Devil to cite
the benefits of Christianity. But let’s not bash on the Times alone. How about
this from CBS News:
“Murder is the second leading
cause of death among Americans aged 15 to 24, the study found. The research
also showed that murder was the third leading cause of death among those aged
25-34. Compared to those in the same age groups in other wealthy countries, Americans aged 15-24 are 49 times more likely
to be the victim of a gun-related murder. For those aged 25-34, that number is
32 times more likely, the research revealed.”
So, are we really that violent?
Well, let’s look at some real numbers.
For the moment, let’s ignore the
age groups. I’ll get back to them later. For now, let’s accept that there are
roughly 320 + million people in the United States. We are number three in the
world, but we only make up about 4 ½ percent of the population. In fact, China
and India both beat us soundly by about one billion people EACH. That’s a
pretty sobering stat, isn’t it?
Of those 320+ million, there are
roughly 270 million guns owned by citizens. I’m not going to give you the stat,
because I’m really not that good with math, so I will just say that we,
collectively, have a LOT of guns. In fact, according to the Geneva based Small Arms Survey, the leading source of
international public information about firearms, the U.S. has the best-armed
civilian population in the world, with an estimated average of 90 firearms for
every 100 residents. If you like
Wikipedia, that number jumps to 112.6. Why the disparagement in numbers? Statistics!
So, given either of those statistics,
you would think the United States would lead the world in gun violence….. Right?
The truthful answer is, No.
You see, many people like to pick
and choose their stats. A methodology I prefer to think of as never having to say you’re wrong.
Most research focuses around what
is best described as high income countries. Why? I don’t know. Last I looked
bullets didn’t seem to discriminate along sex, race or religion, so why
financial? I’m sure that there are some socio economic
indicators that they will spout-off to validate their claims, but that’s
kind of silly. It’s also called cherry picking your data, which they
seem to love to do. Guess diversity only matters some of the time……… How ironic.
So, with that many guns one would
certainly be within their mathematical rights to extrapolate that the United
States would obviously be the world’s murder capitol….. Right? And the answer
is: No.
According to the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime the country that leads the world in
intentional homicide is: Honduras, that socialist enclave in Central America, which
has a rate of 84.6 per 100,000 inhabitants, despite restrictive civilian
ownership of guns. Its fellow socialist and gun restricting neighbor, El
Salvador is number two on the list.
Hmmm, corrupt, socialist
government’s which don’t like guns, what a novel idea.
Well, surely the United State is
high up on the list…… right? And the answer is still: No.
Scrolling through the list one
finds that you have to go all the way down to number 108 (out of 218) to find
the U.S. According to the U.N., statistically, you are more likely to die
visiting a tropical resort in the Bahamas than you are in the United States.
So what is the problem?
Well, the problem is that no one
wants to address the actual problem.
Awhile back there was a meme that
pointed out that both Honduras and Switzerland had the same population, yet
Honduras, with their gun laws, led the world in murder, but Switzerland,
without the same strict gun laws, had one of the lowest murder rates. Everyone
jumped on that saying that it was a flawed argument.
Remember before that I said some
would point to socio economic indicators
to validate their claims? Well, the truth is that they want to cherry pick
every form of data so that it validates their claims. They will tell you that
you can’t factor in certain things because they are not relevant to the
equation. Such was the case with Honduras. The experts claimed that you
couldn’t equate the two because of the cultural, political and socio economic
factors that play into gun violence, or a lack thereof.
Here is the problem I have with
this argument:
- In 2016, Omar Mateen murdered 49 people in Orlando. The left immediately blamed guns.
- In 2015, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people in San Bernardino. The left immediately blamed guns.
- In 2015, Robert Lewis Dear murdered 3 people in Colorado. The left immediately blamed guns.
- In 2015, Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer murdered 9 people in Oregon. The left immediately blamed guns.
- In 2015, Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez murdered 5 people in Tennessee. The left immediately blamed guns.
- In 2015, Dylann Storm Roof murdered 9 people in South Carolina. The left immediately blamed guns.
- In 2014, Elliot Rodger murdered 6 people in California. The left immediately blames guns.
- In 2014, Nidal Hassan murdered 3 people in Texas. The left immediately blamed guns.
- In 2013, Aaron Alexis murdered 12 people in Washington, D.C. The left immediately blamed guns.
- In 2012, Adam Lanza murdered 27 people in Connecticut. The left immediately blamed guns.
- In 2012, James Holmes murdered 12 people in Colorado. The left immediately blamed guns.
The left will tell you that we
should not consider certain factors, yet every time they focus solely on one
factor: Guns. Let me tell you what they don’t want you to consider: the
individual.
You see, they have no answer for
the individual. They can’t explain to you why one person breaks the law and
another person doesn’t. They come up with every excuse in the world as to why inner-city
places like: St. Louis, Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York City, Baltimore,
Cincinnati, Newark, New Orleans, Oakland, and Washington D.C. have such high
crime rates, yet cities in the gun-crazy state of Texas, like Plano, El Paso,
Arlington, and Austin don’t.
Ironically, the left will tell
you that you cannot factor some countries, because they have certain socio economic
factors at play, yet they will tell you that you must include all U.S. cities,
that have those very same socio economic factors, when you are talking about
gun violence in the United States. Well, that’s so dumb it makes me squint.
What would happen if you did a side by side comparison, you know like Honduras
and Switzerland?
Well, Detroit and El Paso have
almost the same identical population, yet Detroit has a murder rate of 43.5
while El Paso has a murder rate of 3.1. Heck, Fort Worth, which has a
substantially larger population than Baltimore, is only 6.1 compared to the
latter’s 33.8.
Shootingtracker, the site
everyone goes to in order to document all the horrible mass shootings, listed an amazing 332 mass shootings for 2015, but
when you research it a bit further you notice something unusual. Some of the urban
cities, like I listed above, also have a larger percentage of the shootings.
Call me crazy, but I don’t think it is legal gun owners shooting things up in
Detroit, NYC or Baltimore.
Could it be the individual? Could
it be that 15-24 and 25-34 demographic? Perhaps they might even be criminals? Or
worse yet, actual radical
Islamic terrorists? (Gasp)
So what do these vaunted cities
have in common that makes them so vastly different?
- St. Louis - 1949
- Detroit – 1962
- Philadelphia – 1952
- Chicago – 1931
- New York City – 1971
- Baltimore – 1967
- Cincinnati – 1979
- Newark – 1953
- New Orleans – 1870 (Seriously? WTF?)
- Oakland – 1977
- Washington D.C. – NEVER
The numbers next to each city is
the last year that they had a Republican mayor. Think we might have hit on
something here?
To be fair, I did not count the Rudolph
Giuliani era in NYC as it was more of an aberration. The old saying in NYC was
that Christ himself couldn’t get elected mayor of NYC if he was a Republican.
Truthfully, the last true Republican in NYC was Fiorello Laguardia in 1933.
Giuliani won simply because the city hit rock bottom and had finally stopped
digging. Michael Bloomberg was never a Republican, as evidenced by his own anti-gun
/ liberal policies, and John Lindsey was what would best be considered a RINO.
In my adopted home state of
Illinois, every Monday brings another report of the weekend murders in Chicago.
Over the Father’s Day weekend there were thirteen people killed and at
least forty-two others wounded. One
weekend! So far this year there have
been 280 people killed and another 1,520 wounded. Do you even wonder why they
call it Chiraq? In Chicago a person
is shot, on average, every two hours and
murdered every thirteen. You have a better chance of dying on the streets
of Chicago then you do in Baghdad!
There comes a time when you have
to stop blaming things and start
blaming people.
The lefts clarion call for more
gun control is a façade. A dog whistle designed to focus your attention
away from the real problem which is a complete breakdown in society. The cities
with the highest violence are the same cities with the biggest ‘socio econimic’
problems and they are the same cities were Democrats keep getting re-elected.
The truth is that the politicians
and pundits don’t have an answer for the individual, so they default back to
gun control. They wring their hands, blame legal gun owners, pass even more
restrictive gun laws (which only legal gun owners will obey) and then feign
shock when things don’t change.
Here’s a newsflash, criminals
really don’t care how many gun laws you pass……. They’re criminals!! Which is
precisely the reason why those silly little ‘no
gun’ placards have zero impact.
This is like a social experiment
go awry, political correctness run amok.
We now live in an age where personal responsibility is in the middle of
its death throes. Forty percent of all births are now to unmarried woman. Education
levels are plummeting, incarceration rates are rising, and more people can’t
find full-time work. Criminals are viewed as victims, while the police are
viewed as criminals. We redefine terrorism as a hate crime, to make it seem more
palatable, so we can turn away attention from the abject failures of the government. We
are developing a mindset that we need the government to care for us from
cradle-to-grave. Welfare is viewed as a right, while Social Security is viewed
as an entitlement program.
But no, really, guns are the real
problem.
We need to wake up and realize
that we have been betrayed.
I remember back during the riots
in Baltimore where a mother, Toya Graham, was caught on film slapping her son,
after she saw him with a mask on and a brick in his hand, and pulling him out
of a protest. I use the word protest loosely, because that’s the word
the media used to explain the utter
lawlessness that ran rampant through the city. I remember hearing a number
of people calling for her to be investigated for what she did. Imagine that, a
mother trying to get her child to act properly was going to be investigated. The media even asked her
if she was concerned that she had embarrassed her son. Ms. Graham’s response: “Not at all, he was embarrassing himself by
wearing that mask, that hoodie and doing what he was doing."
It’s amazing to me that, as we
watched the city burn, the media’s concern was of a mother embarrassing her child by trying to get him away from the problem. Where
are the rest of the Toya Graham’s of the world? Why have we abandoned the
concept of personal responsibility? When did it become okay to blame the gun,
but not the shooter?
As I said earlier, it is
estimated that there are anywhere between 90 and 112 firearms per 100 people in
the United States. The truth is that if gun owners were really as bad as we are
made out to be, you’d know about.
A recent report said that, over
the past decade (2005-15), there were just over three hundred thousand gun
related deaths in the United States. I think most people would agree this is
incredibly high number, at least until you consider that it comes out to about
thirty thousand a year. Of that number, less than 1/3 are attributable to homicides.
Suicides and accidents comprise the other 2/3’s.
So what about the big bad Assault
Rifles? Surely they must be responsible. I mean we are constantly being told
that they are evil weapons of war
that the politicians and media tout at every opportunity. Well, beside the fact that they aren’t even actual
Assault Rifles, the truth is they
aren’t even used all that often. Of the roughly 8-9k gun related homicides each
year, only around 300 were used. That’s all
rifles, not just the evil AR-15 or AK-47. In fact, you have a better chance
of being killed by knives, blunt objects or physical assault, than you are by a
rifle.
“But, but…. I just heard that the American Medical Association called
gun violence a public health crisis and has asked the CDC to research it.”
Well If I was the AMA I would as
well, that’s because they probably don’t want you looking at them.
Why you ask? Because what you
probably don’t know is that each year there are an estimated
quarter of a million deaths from medical malpractice. Some reporting
agencies put the number as high as nearly half a million. Let that sink in for
a moment the next time you go see the doctor. You are far more likely to die this
year, as a result of medical malpractice, then you are in over a decade of all firearms deaths.
The truth is you are far more
likely to die from: Medical Errors, Hospital Infection, Alcohol, Tobacco, Motor
Vehicle Crashes, Suicide, Drunk Driving, Poisoning (unintentional), Accidents
(unintentional), than you are by a firearm. Consider only rifles used in homicides
and you can add walking, drowning, fire, malnutrition, and falling out of bed to
the list of things that are more dangerous. This doesn't even include the usual medical issues
of: Cancer, Obesity, Stroke, Diabetes, Pneumonia, etc.
Perhaps we should ban all assault fast food....
So why all the screaming and
gnashing of teeth then? Because they don’t like them.
That’s it, in a nutshell.
For a moment, I want you to take
a long hard look at the media. I want you to make a mental note of each time
you hear a report about guns. Are they reporting the news, or are they telling you a story? Once you realize just how widespread this anti-gun bias is,
you’ll be shocked.
Just recently, the darling child
of the media, Katie Couric, was investigated over a gun documentary she did. Rather
than just present the show, in its entirety, Ms. Couric’s crew selectively edited it. When
Couric asked the group a question, regarding the ability of convicted felons and
those on the terror watch list to legally obtain a gun, there was dramatic eight-second silence, as the camera panned the faces of the gun owners, implying that the group had no answer. The truth was
that they had immediately responded to the question. Simply put, the documentary was craftily edited to make the pro-gun group look bad and to present you with their anti-gun agenda.
Immediately after the Orlando
terror attack, the media was dispatched in droves to seek out the horrific weapon of war and show how easy it is to
buy one. In their zeal, some took it a bit far. Several reporters gleefully
recalled how they could purchase one. Of course no one had a criminal record,
so it was tantamount to someone over the age of 21 proclaiming they had just
purchased alcohol. I’m not sure what is so amazing about purchasing something
legally. A CNN reporter confronted Florida Governor Rick Scott with this
question: “Yes, ISIS, terrorism could be to blame for this, but can you
accept any responsibility for the gun laws here in Florida?”
Seriously? ‘Could be?’ What does
it take for them to call this horrific act terrorism?
Once again we see that it is not
about terrorism, not about the individual, but all about those bad scary guns.
A New York Daily News reporter
went so far as to describe his shooting of an AR 15 as: “It felt to me like a bazooka and sounded like a cannon. But mostly, I
was just terrified.”
Awesome,…… Just for the record,
my kids enthusiastically shot them (along with that evil AK-47) as they were growing
up, but not this middle-aged man who gleefully added: “The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what
you're doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face.
The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a
bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the
gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.”
PT FUCKING SD? Seriously?
The writer then had to do a
follow-up article, apologizing for his rather huge PTSD leap, which he then promptly used as a platform to attack those who called him out on his nonsense. I’m sorry, but he knew what he was doing in
his original article and the second was no better, but that’s the real problem. You see they just don’t like guns.
They have this exaggerated fear of
something and that is enough for them to decide that you can’t have it. If you disagree with them they berate you, or, as
in the case of the reporter, if you call them out on their nonsense, they cry
foul and run to the nearest safe-space. Sorry, you don’t get to have it both ways.
I spent over two decades in law enforcement,
twenty with the NYPD, and I have owned firearms for over three decades. I have
trained on and fired just about every handgun / rifle caliber from .22 to .308.
I am also an NRA certified instructor. So who out there on the left is going to
tell me that I don’t possess the pre-requisite capabilities and training to own
these firearms? You would think that someone with
my background would be opposed to these horrific weapons being in the hands of mere citizens, but you would be wrong. Gun ownership is a serious thing, but I
firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment and the people’s right to keep
and bear arms.
I often hear people saying “you
don’t need guns like that.” I’m sorry, but where did you become the arbiter of
such matters? Did they offer that as a minor study in your Social Justice Warrior degree program? Again, why are we taking
advice from people who have no clue about what they are talking about? Whether
you like it or not the 2nd Amendment really is about those guns.
Unlike you, I know the dangers we
truly face in this world. Protection is just an illusion and one I witnessed first-hand on the mean streets of New
York City. There were times when we would have four cops on patrol, two cars,
for an area that had over a hundred thousand residents. Most crimes are
reported, very few are actually stopped. Despite what a lot of people want you
to believe: Safety is Not a Right.
I’m not sure where this erroneous thought process ever arose, but even the courts have
ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect you. The 2nd
Amendment however is an actual RIGHT, and it is precisely this right which
allows you, the individual, to protect yourself from someone who means to do
you harm.
I saw one Rolling Stone (you
know, the same Rolling Stone that elevated Boston Marathon Bomber,
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, to rock star status on its cover) reporter opining that: “Just
think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if
there had been many others armed. How would it not have devolved into mass
confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout…”
That’s liberal, gun hating, logic
on full display. No, it was so much better for the unarmed victims to all
huddle together, in a state of panic, while the only person with a gun, a
terrorist, casually slaughtered them. How foolish of me.
It’s almost as ironic as Presidential pal, and domestic terrorist,
Bill Ayers, a co-founder of the Weather Underground
Organization, calling for more gun control. Hey, Bill, give us a call when
you look to sponsor bomb control.
If you don’t like guns, then don’t
own one, but don’t tell me that I can’t, because then we are going to have a
problem. Like the old saying goes: “You
can give peace a chance, I’ll cover you in case that doesn’t work out.”