Santa Barbara shooting: Liberals exploit rampage by selectively ignoring crucial facts

Anti-gun liberals wasted no time exploiting the mass murder shooting, stabbing, and attempted vehicular homicide rampage that took place in the Isla Vista area of Santa Barbara. After posting a YouTube video promising a “day of retribution,” a deeply disturbed madman went on a killing spree leaving six dead and 13 injured. Already some are exploiting the deaths for political purposes, using the victims – and selectively ignoring crucial key facts of this incident – to push a policy agenda that will not make anyone safer. Laws don’t prevent crime; they punish it.

The facts:

• The suspect, a 22-year-old student at a college student, had three previous contacts with local law enforcement according to Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown. There are six victims killed, 13 wounded, and the suspect apparently shot himself in the head.
• The murder spree began at the suspect’s residence with a knife. Three males were killed, victims of multiple stab wounds. “It was a pretty horrific crime scene,” Brown told reporters.
• Following the stabbings, the suspect drove to a sorority, where he shot three female UCSB students, killing two and injuring one.
• The suspect then traveled to a nearby deli, where he left his vehicle to shoot 20-year-old Christopher Martinez — another UCSB student.
• All told, there were 10 separate crime scenes before the mass murder came to an end. Brown said deputies exchanged fire with the suspected gunman twice before his vehicle crashed. The suspect apparently took his own life.
• Three semi-automatic handguns were recovered from the suspect’s car, police said. All of the weapons were legally purchased and registered to the suspect.
• Those injured included at least four by the suspect’s car and eight by gunshot wounds. “He aimed his car at our group of friends and gunned it into us,” one victim says.
• The suspect’s parents – whose father was an assistant director on the 2012 film The Hunger Games – had called the police about a month ago to express concerns about his YouTube videos “regarding suicide and the killing of people.” Police officers interviewed him but concluded he posed no danger, stating they had found him to be a “perfectly polite, kind and wonderful human.”

Despite half of the victims murdered with a knife, the media is calling the incident a “shooting.” It is a shooting, and also a stabbing and vehicular assault with attempted vehicular homicide. Already the left is exploiting the tragedy to push their inane agenda. Gun control does not reduce crime. The gun control measures proposed nationally (all of which failed) after the Sandy Hook shooting included restricting magazine capacity limits to 10 rounds, banning so-called “assault rifles,” and imposing universal background checks. These measures were promoted to stop shootings, reduce crime, and increase our safety and the safety “of the children.”

California has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation. That didn’t do anything to prevent the three knife murders (half of the victims murdered). Gun control advocates want to ban so-called "assault rifles" - the killer used handguns. Gun control advocates want "universal" background checks - the killer's handguns were all purchased legally with a background check and registered to him. That didn't prevent anything. Gun control advocates want to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds - California law limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds and the killer used 10 round magazines. This stopped nothing. Further, the suspect used his BMW car as a weapon to injure and attempt to take lives. No gun laws would have changed that.

One of the victim’s parents blames the NRA: “Why did Chris die? Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA,” an emotional Richard Martinez told reporters outside the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office. “They talk about gun rights, what about Chris’ right to live? When will this insanity stop?”

As a parents, we can only imagine the feelings of grief and loss. Perhaps such a time is not one for rash and selfish statements. Half of the victims and their families are dealing with loss of their own that has nothing to do with guns, the NRA or politics. Making the nation's oldest civil rights organization the subject of one’s own personal witch hunt doesn’t solve anything, and ignores the very real grief and loss suffered by others in this incident.

The NRA supports lawful use of firearms, not murder. The answer to “what about Chris’ right to live?” is that his was stolen from him by a deeply disturbed person. We do, in fact, have a law for that – it’s called homicide. What happened was absolutely wrong. We can’t legislate away insanity or evil – if we could have figured out how to make people not do wrong, we would have done so long ago.

But laws don’t prevent crime; they punish it. Laws define guidelines and boundaries, and provide penalties for violating them, but they don’t enforce themselves. That’s why we have law enforcement officers. Further, even if all the gun control advocates’ wish-list of laws had come to pass, this incident still would have happened exactly as it did. Not a single gun control proposal would have affected the outcome even in the slightest.

Yes, guns (and knives, cars, hands, and other instruments) are used by people to injure and kill. What gun control zealots ignore is that guns are used by people to defend, prevent injury and save lives. Many academic studies and the CDC have reported that law-abiding people use guns to defend themselves at least a half-million times a year. Brenner Brief has reported recently real-life stories of people who have done just that, and of law enforcement officials that support the right of the law-abiding to carry guns because they “save people’s lives.” Death is horrific, and mass murder is tragic. The truly sick and disgusting exploit it to push an agenda that makes us more susceptible to further tragedy by attacking our rights and very means to defend ourselves from criminals and the mentally disturbed.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication May 26, 2014).

Santa Barbara Shooting: Liberals Exploit Rampage, Selectively Ignore Crucial Facts

by Matt MacBradaigh | May 26, 2014 | News | 0 comments

Anti-gun liberals wasted no time exploiting the mass murder shooting, stabbing, and attempted vehicular homicide rampage that took place in the Isla Vista area of Santa Barbara. After posting a YouTube video promising a “day of retribution,” a deeply disturbed madman went on a killing spree leaving six dead and 13 injured. Already some are exploiting the deaths for political purposes, using the victims – and selectively ignoring crucial key facts of this incident – to push a policy agenda that will not make anyone safer. Laws don’t prevent crime; they punish it.

The facts:

• The suspect, a 22-year-old student at a college student, had three previous contacts with local law enforcement according to Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown. There are six victims killed, 13 wounded, and the suspect apparently shot himself in the head.
• The murder spree began at the suspect’s residence with a knife. Three males were killed, victims of multiple stab wounds. “It was a pretty horrific crime scene,” Brown told reporters.
• Following the stabbings, the suspect drove to a sorority, where he shot three female UCSB students, killing two and injuring one.
• The suspect then traveled to a nearby deli, where he left his vehicle to shoot 20-year-old Christopher Martinez — another UCSB student.
• All told, there were 10 separate crime scenes before the mass murder came to an end. Brown said deputies exchanged fire with the suspected gunman twice before his vehicle crashed. The suspect apparently took his own life.
• Three semi-automatic handguns and forty-one (41) 10-round magazines were recovered from the suspect’s car, police said. All of the weapons were legally purchased and registered to the suspect.
• Those injured included at least four by the suspect’s car and eight by gunshot wounds. “He aimed his carat our group of friends and gunned it into us,” one victim says.
• The suspect’s parents – whose father was an assistant director on the 2012 film The Hunger Games – had called the police about a month ago to express concerns about his YouTube videos “regarding suicide and the killing of people.” Police officers interviewed him but concluded he posed no danger, stating they had found him to be a “perfectly polite, kind and wonderful human.”

Despite half of the victims murdered with a knife, the media is calling the incident a “shooting.” It is a shooting, and also a stabbing and vehicular assault with attempted vehicular homicide. Already the left is exploiting the tragedy to push their inane agenda. Gun control does not reduce crime. The gun control measures proposed nationally (all of which failed) after the Sandy Hook shooting included restricting magazine capacity limits to 10 rounds, banning so-called “assault rifles,” and imposing universal background checks. These measures were promoted to stop shootings, reduce crime, and increase our safety and the safety “of the children.”

California has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation. That didn’t do anything to prevent the three knife murders (half of the victims murdered). Gun control advocates want to ban so-called “assault rifles” – the killer used handguns. Gun control advocates want “universal” background checks – the killer’s handguns were all purchased legally with a background check and registered to him. That didn’t prevent anything. Gun control advocates want to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds – California law limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds and the killer used 10 round magazines; forty-one 10-round capacity magazines. This stopped nothing. Further, the suspect used his BMW car as a weapon to injure and attempt to take lives. No gun laws would have changed that.

One of the victim’s parents blames the NRA: “Why did Chris die? Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA,” an emotional Richard Martinez told reporters outside the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office. “They talk about gun rights, what about Chris’ right to live? When will this insanity stop?”

As a parents, we can only imagine the feelings of grief and loss. Perhaps such a time is not one for rash and selfish statements. Half of the victims and their families are dealing with loss of their own that has nothing to do with guns, the NRA or politics. Making the nation’s oldest civil rights organization the subject of one’s own personal witch hunt doesn’t solve anything, and ignores the very real grief and loss suffered by others in this incident.

The NRA supports lawful use of firearms, not murder. The answer to “what about Chris’ right to live?” is that his was stolen from him by a deeply disturbed person. We do, in fact, have a law for that – it’s called homicide. What happened was absolutely wrong. We can’t legislate away insanity or evil – if we could have figured out how to make people not do wrong, we would have done so long ago.

But laws don’t prevent crime; they provide for punishment once caught after breaking the law. Laws define guidelines and boundaries, and provide penalties for violating them, but they don’t enforce themselves. That’s why we have law enforcement officers. Further, even if all the gun control advocates’ wish-list of laws had come to pass, this incident still would have happened exactly as it did. Not a single gun control proposal would have affected the outcome even in the slightest.

Yes, guns (and knives, cars, hands, and other instruments) are used by people to injure and kill. What gun control zealots ignore is that guns are also used by people to defend, prevent injury and save lives. Many academic studies and the CDC have reported that law-abiding people use guns to defend themselves at least a half-million times a year. Brenner Brief has reported recently real-life stories of people who have done just that, and of law enforcement officials that support the right of the law-abiding to carry guns because they “save people’s lives.” Death is horrific, and mass murder is tragic. The truly sick and disgusting exploit it to push an agenda that makes us more susceptible to further tragedy by attacking our rights and very means to defend ourselves from criminals and the mentally disturbed.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date May 26, 2014. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Meet three women that used guns in self-defense in their own homes

What women have to say about guns and gun control has been in the spotlight since the Sandy Hook shooting. Phony so-called grassroots anti-gun rights organizations funded by activist billionaires, and real grassroots organizations of moms for gun rights and safety – such as 1MMAGC – have weighed in on what actually makes us safer.

Here are three examples in which women used guns to protect themselves in the sanctity of their homes. In each of these incidents, the woman was home alone and faced a male perpetrator. In each incident, she came out on top because she had a gun.

Duluth, GA. — An intruder who was shot and killed after a confrontation with a woman in her shower was likely stalking her for days and may have had other victims, police said.  The 53-year-old woman, who is a school counselor, was alone. “The male was armed with a kitchen knife, (and) a struggle ensued between the two of them,” a police spokesman said.

The woman tried to fight the man off with a shower rod, and he forced her into her bedroom. She grabbed a .22-caliber handgun and shot the man nine times. Police said the man ran out a back door and collapsed in the yard. He later died at a local medical center. Police said the shooting appeared to be justified, and that she acted in self-defense. There are no plans to charge her.

Houston, TX — A teenage girl who was home alone says she was prepared to shoot when someone tried breaking into her family home. At approximately 3:30 p.m., the perpetrator tried cracking the code to her electronic front door lock. From the inside, the 17-year-old girl heard the alarm and went straight for her dad’s Glock 19 handgun. She was trained by her dad to use it. Fortunately, the alarm scared the would-be intruder away. As word spread about the home invasion attempt, neighbors say they’re getting their guns ready too.

Glenville, PA —  A man who kicked in the front door of a York County home found a woman waiting for him with her handgun at the ready, according to police.  The 31-year-old woman was alone when she heard someone trying to force their way inside. She grabbed a handgun that she trains with on a regular basis, police said.
When the man eventually kicked in her front door and entered the home, the woman leveled the gun and told the intruder not to come any closer.  He obeyed her order and was found on the front porch of a neighbor’s home when an officer arrived minutes later. Police said he may have been intoxicated.

Some anti-gun rights groups have attempted to scare women from having guns, wrongly stating that a gun is more likely to be used on them, or in a suicide. But as Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, Jr. recently said, “firearms, in the hands of  law-abiding citizens, saved people’s lives.” Research shows that the sheriff – and not the anti-gun nuts – is correct.

The CDC reports that there are approximately 20,000 suicides committed with a gun each year. However, the CDC, in a report prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, also states that guns are used for lawful defensive purposes at least a half million times each year:

defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than three million per year.

These women’s stories are the real-life illustrations of exactly such defensive gun use. Clever signs and social media #hashtags don’t stop bad guys – a person holding a gun does. Smart women know they can defend themselves if they are the ones holding the gun, and that a woman who knows how to use her gun makes actual “#gunsense”.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication May 19, 2014).

Meet Three Women Who Used Guns to Defend Themselves in the homes

by Matt MacBradaigh | May 19, 2013 | Guns Save Lives | 0 comments

What women have to say about guns and gun control has been in the spotlight since the Sandy Hook shooting. Phony so-called grassroots anti-gun rights organizations funded by activist billionaires, and real grassroots organizations of moms for gun rights and safety – such as 1MMAGC – have weighed in on what actually makes us safer.

Here are three examples in which women used guns to protect themselves in the sanctity of their homes. In each of these incidents, the woman was home alone and faced a male perpetrator. In each incident, she came out on top because she had a gun.

Duluth, GA. — An intruder who was shot and killed after a confrontation with a woman in her shower was likely stalking her for days and may have had other victims, police said.  The 53-year-old woman, who is a school counselor, was alone. “The male was armed with a kitchen knife, (and) a struggle ensued between the two of them,” a police spokesman said.

The woman tried to fight the man off with a shower rod, and he forced her into her bedroom. She grabbed a .22-caliber handgun and shot the man nine times. Police said the man ran out a back door and collapsed in the yard. He later died at a local medical center. Police said the shooting appeared to be justified, and that she acted in self-defense. There are no plans to charge her.

Houston, TX — A teenage girl who was home alone says she was prepared to shoot when someone tried breaking into her family home. At approximately 3:30 p.m., the perpetrator tried cracking the code to her electronic front door lock. From the inside, the 17-year-old girl heard the alarm and went straight for her dad’s Glock 19 handgun. She was trained by her dad to use it. Fortunately, the alarm scared the would-be intruder away. As word spread about the home invasion attempt, neighbors say they’re getting their guns ready too.

Glenville, PA —  A man who kicked in the front door of a York County home found a woman waiting for him with her handgun at the ready, according to police.  The 31-year-old woman was alone when she heard someone trying to force their way inside. She grabbed a handgun that she trains with on a regular basis, police said.

When the man eventually kicked in her front door and entered the home, the woman leveled the gun and told the intruder not to come any closer.  He obeyed her order and was found on the front porch of a neighbor’s home when an officer arrived minutes later. Police said he may have been intoxicated.

Some anti-gun rights groups have attempted to scare women from having guns, wrongly stating that a gun is more likely to be used on them, or in a suicide. But as Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, Jr. recently said, “firearms, in the hands of  law-abiding citizens, saved people’s lives.” Research shows that the sheriff – and not the anti-gun nuts – is correct.

The CDC reports that there are approximately 20,000 suicides committed with a gun each year. However, the CDC, in a report prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, also states that guns are used for lawful defensive purposes at least a half million times each year:

defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than three million per year.

These women’s stories are the real-life illustrations of exactly such defensive gun use. Clever signs and social media #hashtags don’t stop bad guys – a person holding a gun does. Smart women know they can defend themselves if they are the ones holding the gun, and that a woman who knows how to use her gun makes actual “#gunsense”.

This article was originally published on The Brenner Brief. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh. Original publish date May 19, 2013.

NRA annual meeting: controversial Wisconsin sheriff says guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens save lives

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Sheriff David Clarke Jr. states that firearms, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, save people’s lives.

INDIANAPOLIS, April 25 —  Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Sheriff David Clarke Jr. delivered a rousing speech at the 2014 NRA annual meeting, stating that firearms, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, save people’s lives.

Clarke made controversial national headlines last year when he told residents of his county that calling 911 might not be effective, and advised them to take gun training courses for self-defense in the wake of law enforcement layoffs. His speech at the annual NRA meeting cited several incidents in which guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens saved their own, or a complete strangers, life.

Clarke said “The armed citizen made America free, and the armed citizen will keep America free!” Noting frustration at lawlessness, and honest people’s fear to be safe in their residences, property and neighborhoods, he said:

“As a career cop of 35 years, I got tired of seeing good people like you being raped or having guns stuck up against your heads, and your property taken. I got tired of seeing law-abiding people having their homes broken into, their cars stolen, being intimidated by thugs and gangs, and being prisoners in their own homes – afraid to go outside or  let their kids play in front of their house, because their neighborhoods were under control of the criminal element.”

Clarke decided to “partner” with law-abiding citizens to “go on the offensive against the criminal element”, adding that to do so, people needed “the tools guaranteed under the Second Amendment.” Clarke went on to say that as a law enforcement officer, he calls “the law-abiding citizen the great equalizer,” and that he “trusts the law-abiding armed citizen.”

Clarke recounted several stories from his county where people used firearms to save lives. He told the story of a maintenance worker simply doing his job who was being “savagely beaten” by 3 suspects, one of which wielded a club. Clarke said the maintenance worker later told him he thought  “he was going to die.” Fearing for his life, he pulled his handgun and fired twice, “killing two of the suspects, and saving his own life.”

In another incident, three masked men, one armed with a gun, “burst into a tavern, told the patrons to get down on the floor, and announced a hold-up.” The bar owner grabbed his own firearm from behind the bar, and killed one of the hold-up men. “The other two fled, like the cowards that they were.”

In a third incident, a good Samaritan driving home from work stopped to aid a woman who was being “violently beaten on a sidewalk by a man.” The good samaritan stopped his car, and told the suspect to stop beating the woman. The suspect charged the good samaritan, who pulled his gun from his holster, halting the suspect. “The suspect stopped his advance, and fled like the coward he was.”
Clarke wrapped up these stories by stating: “Those firearms, in the hands of  law-abiding citizens, saved people’s lives.” Clarke concluded by calling on citizens to join pro-gun groups, saying “We’re partners now.” He also warned them that the fight to defend the Second Amendment will be a tough, never-ending one.
You can watch the speech in its entirety below via The Right Scoop:

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication April 10, 2014).

Sheriff David Clarke Jr: Firearms, in the Hands of Law-abiding Citizens, Save Lives

by Matt MacBradaigh | May 1, 2014 | Guns Save Lives, News | 0 comments

INDIANAPOLIS, April 25 —  Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Sheriff David Clarke Jr. delivered a rousing speech at the 2014 NRA annual meeting, stating that firearms, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, save people’s lives.

Clarke made controversial national headlines last year when he told residents of his county that calling 911 might not be effective, and advised them to take gun training courses for self-defense in the wake of law enforcement layoffs. His speech at the annual NRA meeting cited several incidents in which guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens saved their own, or a complete strangers, life.

Clarke said “The armed citizen made America free, and the armed citizen will keep America free!” Noting frustration at lawlessness, and honest people’s fear to be safe in their residences, property and neighborhoods, he said:

“As a career cop of 35 years, I got tired of seeing good people like you being raped or having guns stuck up against your heads, and your property taken. I got tired of seeing law-abiding people having their homes broken into, their cars stolen, being intimidated by thugs and gangs, and being prisoners in their own homes – afraid to go outside or  let their kids play in front of their house, because their neighborhoods were under control of the criminal element.”

Clarke decided to “partner” with law-abiding citizens to “go on the offensive against the criminal element”, adding that to do so, people needed “the tools guaranteed under the Second Amendment.” Clarke went on to say that as a law enforcement officer, he calls “the law-abiding citizen the great equalizer,” and that he “trusts the law-abiding armed citizen.”

Clarke recounted several stories from his county where people used firearms to save lives. He told the story of a maintenance worker simply doing his job who was being “savagely beaten” by 3 suspects, one of which wielded a club. Clarke said the maintenance worker later told him he thought  “he was going to die.” Fearing for his life, he pulled his handgun and fired twice, “killing two of the suspects, and saving his own life.”

In another incident, three masked men, one armed with a gun, “burst into a tavern, told the patrons to get down on the floor, and announced a hold-up.” The bar owner grabbed his own firearm from behind the bar, and killed one of the hold-up men. “The other two fled, like the cowards that they were.”

In a third incident, a good Samaritan driving home from work stopped to aid a woman who was being “violently beaten on a sidewalk by a man.” The good samaritan stopped his car, and told the suspect to stop beating the woman. The suspect charged the good samaritan, who pulled his gun from his holster, halting the suspect. “The suspect stopped his advance, and fled like the coward he was.”

Clarke wrapped up these stories by stating: “Those firearms, in the hands of  law-abiding citizens, saved people’s lives.” Clarke concluded by calling on citizens to join pro-gun groups, saying “We’re partners now.” He also warned them that the fight to defend the Second Amendment will be a tough, never-ending one.

You can watch the speech in its entirety below via The Right Scoop:

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date May 1, 2014. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

The Polls Are In: Gun Control Loses with the American Public

A recent poll shows that the average American rejects the partisan rhetoric calling for more gun control. Rather, the American public falls more in line with academic research, recognizing that superficial legislation cannot curb violent crime, but may in fact make it worse.

An AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll asked Americans to size up how well the government is protecting a variety of rights and freedoms. Interestingly, the poll revealed that Americans believe there has been a dramatic decline in the protections of the Bill of Rights, especially with regard to the Second Amendment. The results were not confined to specific demographics. Instead, the “impression of a declining track record on guns rights turned up everywhere: among Republicans and Democrats, men and women, young and old, city dwellers and those in small towns. ”

Survey findings demonstrate that overall, just 44% of Americans think the federal government is doing a good job of safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms, down from 57% two years earlier. Unsurprisingly, Republicans and independents were far more likely than Democrats to give the government poor marks for protecting gun rights. Among Republicans, the percentage who believe that the government is doing a good job protecting the right to bear arms fell to 36%, down from 51%. However, even among Democrats, the percentage dropped to 56% from 64%. The biggest decline was among independents at just 25% down from 52%.

Of note from the survey, “Americans of all stripes spoke with sorrow about the latest deaths” – but   simply reasoned that tighter laws would not have prevented the tragedies. Some believe tighter gun control laws could make things worse. This is corroborated by government-reported crime statistics, criminologist research and studies of lawful gun use for defensive purposes. Academic research and data in three major areas confirms what the polls reflect, that additional gun control is unnecessary and even counter-productive.

U.S. Homicide, Violent Crime and Gun Murder Is Declining
Murder is near an all-time low in the U.S. Violent crime, including homicides and even gun murder have been steadily declining. Homicides in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990′s when homicides in 1990 to 1994 ranged from 21,000-24,000 annually. In 1993 there were a total of 24,530 homicides (p.137). A majority – 17,075 – of these were Firearms-related (69.6%). The homicide rate was 9.5 per 100,000 people. But homicides dropped homicides dropped to 12,664 in 2011. Again, two-thirds (67.7%) of homicides are Firearm-related, at 8,583. The homicide rate has dropped to 4.7 from 9.5 per 100,000 people. The FBI shows violent crime rates are also drastically declining, dropping from 747.1 in 1993 to 386.3 in 2011. The violent crime rate is now 50.7% of what it was 20 years ago. The homicide rate has declined by 48.7% in that same time period. Firearm homicides have declined by 50.2%. The BJS report “Homicide Trends in the United States” states, “In recent years, all regions have experienced a decline in homicide rates”(p.144, emphasis added)  and “Trends in gun homicides follow patterns similar to those for all homicides” (p. 145). Additional gun control isn’t necessary because murder – even gun murder – is already in decline and reaching record lows.

Lawful Defensive Gun Use
Academic research of lawful gun use for defensive purposes shows that defensive use far outpaces criminal use of firearms. A major reported reason for gun ownership is self-defense. Criminology researchers have found lawful defensive gun use is widespread. Studies with low estimates still show there is more lawful defensive use than there is criminal use. One study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, found annual defensive gun use (DGU) occurs between 256,000-373,000 times per year. Defensive gun use is the lawful use of a firearm to protect oneself in a threatening situation. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of DGU. The seminal Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found 2.5 million annual instances of DGU.

Most recently, a 2013 study “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year,  in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.”

Criminal use of firearms is reported by the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics. FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that approximately 9,000 homicides (lethal violent crime) per year that involve firearms. There were a total of  1.2 million non-lethal violent crimes in 2011, but just 10% of  “nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011” involved a firearm, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, making the total of non-lethal violent crimes with guns approximately 120,000 in 2011. Combined with lethal violent crime (homicides), there are just under 130,000 annual criminal uses of guns. Compared to criminal use of guns – both lethal and non-lethal, defensive gun use is far more pervasive.

Criminologist Research Supports Widespread Gun Ownership
Research in the U.S. indicates substantial evidence that widespread gun possession decreases crime, according to criminologists Don Kates and Gary Mauser. Their 2007 published study in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” found gun restrictions have a negative correlation to crime, meaning “where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest” (p.653). They examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations as well as the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods. They state: “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673).

Professors Kates and Mauser go as far as to say this is an axiom to criminologists, the culmination of virtually every study since at least the 1890s, that average, law-abiding citizens virtually do not murder. Adult murderers have adult criminal records 90% of the time, and usually have multiple contacts with the justice system. In other words, average people don’t suddenly become homicidal simply because they have a gun. Laws intended to prevent crime by keeping all citizen from having guns are useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so. They state: “there is no reason for law prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults, because such people virtually never murder… disarming them becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added).

Academic research confirms what Americans already believe, that the ‘benefits’ of gun control pale in comparison to the Constitutional rights infringed. Though media reports of shootings are often sensational, homicide and gun murders are nearing an all time low. In addition, criminologists show that widespread gun possession correlates with reduced crime and murder rates, and that guns are most commonly used for lawful defensive purposes. Elected representatives in Congress would do well to listen to the voice of the people, a voice in this case that is backed by a large body of academic research and the government’s own reported crime statistics. Congress needs to abandon bad policy and act to protect law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Bell Towers. (Original publication September 26, 2013).

Polls Show Americans Do Not Support Gun Control

by Matt MacBradaigh | Sep 26, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

A recent poll shows that the average American rejects the partisan rhetoric calling for more gun control. Rather, the American public falls more in line with academic research, recognizing that superficial legislation cannot curb violent crime, but may in fact make it worse.

An AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll asked Americans to size up how well the government is protecting a variety of rights and freedoms. Interestingly, the poll revealed that Americans believe there has been a dramatic decline in the protections of the Bill of Rights, especially with regard to the Second Amendment. The results were not confined to specific demographics. Instead, the “impression of a declining track record on guns rights turned up everywhere: among Republicans and Democrats, men and women, young and old, city dwellers and those in small towns. ”

Survey findings demonstrate that overall, just 44% of Americans think the federal government is doing a good job of safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms, down from 57% two years earlier. Unsurprisingly, Republicans and independents were far more likely than Democrats to give the government poor marks for protecting gun rights. Among Republicans, the percentage who believe that the government is doing a good job protecting the right to bear arms fell to 36%, down from 51%. However, even among Democrats, the percentage dropped to 56% from 64%. The biggest decline was among independents at just 25% down from 52%.

Of note from the survey, “Americans of all stripes spoke with sorrow about the latest deaths” – but   simply reasoned that tighter laws would not have prevented the tragedies. Some believe tighter gun control laws could make things worse. This is corroborated by government-reported crime statistics, criminologist research and studies of lawful gun use for defensive purposes. Academic research and data in three major areas confirms what the polls reflect, that additional gun control is unnecessary and even counter-productive.

U.S. Homicide, Violent Crime and Gun Murder Is Declining

Murder is near an all-time low in the U.S. Violent crime, including homicides and even gun murder have been steadily declining. Homicides in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990′s when homicides in 1990 to 1994 ranged from 21,000-24,000 annually. In 1993 there were a total of 24,530 homicides (p.137). A majority – 17,075 – of these were Firearms-related (69.6%). The homicide rate was 9.5 per 100,000 people. But homicides dropped homicides dropped to 12,664 in 2011. Again, two-thirds (67.7%) of homicides are Firearm-related, at 8,583. The homicide rate has dropped to 4.7 from 9.5 per 100,000 people. The FBI shows violent crime rates are also drastically declining, dropping from 747.1 in 1993 to 386.3 in 2011. The violent crime rate is now 50.7% of what it was 20 years ago. The homicide rate has declined by 48.7% in that same time period. Firearm homicides have declined by 50.2%. The BJS report “Homicide Trends in the United States” states, “In recent years, all regions have experienced a decline in homicide rates”(p.144, emphasis added)  and “Trends in gun homicides follow patterns similar to those for all homicides” (p. 145). Additional gun control isn’t necessary because murder – even gun murder – is already in decline and reaching record lows.

Lawful Defensive Gun Use

Academic research of lawful gun use for defensive purposes shows that defensive use far outpaces criminal use of firearms. A major reported reason for gun ownership is self-defense. Criminology researchers have found lawful defensive gun use is widespread. Studies with low estimates still show there is more lawful defensive use than there is criminal use. One study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, found annual defensive gun use (DGU) occurs between 256,000-373,000 times per year. Defensive gun use is the lawful use of a firearm to protect oneself in a threatening situation. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of DGU. The seminal Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found 2.5 million annual instances of DGU.

Most recently, a 2013 study “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year,  in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.”

Criminal use of firearms is reported by the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics. FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that approximately 9,000 homicides (lethal violent crime) per year that involve firearms. There were a total of  1.2 million non-lethal violent crimes in 2011, but just 10% of  “nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011” involved a firearm, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, making the total of non-lethal violent crimes with guns approximately 120,000 in 2011. Combined with lethal violent crime (homicides), there are just under 130,000 annual criminal uses of guns. Compared to criminal use of guns – both lethal and non-lethal, defensive gun use is far more pervasive.

Criminologist Research Supports Widespread Gun Ownership

Research in the U.S. indicates substantial evidence that widespread gun possession decreases crime, according to criminologists Don Kates and Gary Mauser. Their 2007 published study in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” found gun restrictions have a negative correlation to crime, meaning “where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest” (p.653). They examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations as well as the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods. They state: “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673).

Professors Kates and Mauser go as far as to say this is an axiom to criminologists, the culmination of virtually every study since at least the 1890s, that average, law-abiding citizens virtually do not murder. Adult murderers have adult criminal records 90% of the time, and usually have multiple contacts with the justice system. In other words, average people don’t suddenly become homicidal simply because they have a gun. Laws intended to prevent crime by keeping all citizen from having guns are useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so. They state: “there is no reason for law prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults, because such people virtually never murder… disarming them becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added).

Academic research confirms what Americans already believe, that the ‘benefits’ of gun control pale in comparison to the Constitutional rights infringed. Though media reports of shootings are often sensational, homicide and gun murders are nearing an all time low. In addition, criminologists show that widespread gun possession correlates with reduced crime and murder rates, and that guns are most commonly used for lawful defensive purposes. Elected representatives in Congress would do well to listen to the voice of the people, a voice in this case that is backed by a large body of academic research and the government’s own reported crime statistics. Congress needs to abandon bad policy and act to protect law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

This article was originally published on The Bell Towers. Original publish date Sep 26, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Why New Illinois Concealed Carry Gun Law Increases Public Safety

New Illinois Concealed Carry Gun Law Increases Public Safety. Gun politics as usual, anti-gun politicians like Gov. Pat Quinn say new law endangers public safety. But that is exactly contrary to the academic research on the matter.

When Illinois passed a law to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns, it became the last state in the union to do so. Illinois previously allowed no handguns outside the home, but the courts ruled this violated the Second Amendment, and gave the state legislature until July 9 to change their law before the old was repealed. In the land that made the phrase “Chicago politics” infamous, the stakes – and grandstanding – were high. A version of the bill was originally sent on to Governor Pat Quinn, who threatened veto and sent the bill back with suggested changes. The changes were all but ignored and the legislature passed the bill (found here) with a two-thirds majority anyway.

Governor Quinn called the vote “extremely disappointing,” saying it “will lead to tragedy” and that “public safety should never be compromised or negotiated away.” He accused the legislature of “surrender[ing] to the National Rifle Association.” But who’s playing politics? Does Gov Quinn have a point, or is he patently wrong? Based on academic research from criminologists, Governor Quinn is wrong. His suppositions of what endangers people run exactly contrary to research. There is no reason to believe that the overridden suggestions or allowing citizens to carry guns threatens public safety; in fact, quite the opposite.

Governor Quinn’s rejected proposals included inserting limits on the ammunition capacity of gun magazines, restoring the right of local governments to enact restrictions and prohibiting firearms in bars or restaurants that sell any alcohol. The law still restricts carrying guns at restaurants or bars that with 50% or higher percentage of sales from alcohol and many public places, including public transit, schools, libraries and parks. Based on the research, the restrictions as they were passed, are what endangers people.

Illinois citizens still must wait an additional 9 months – 6 months for the state to set up to begin receiving applications for permits and another 3 months once they start receiving them – before they can legally carry. But the homicide rate in gun-less Illinois surpasses the national rate. According to the FBI, the U.S. has a national homicide rate of 4.7 per 100,000 people. Illinois has a homicide rate of 6.4 per 100,000 or 136% of the national rate. There were 599 officially FBI-reported homicides and non-negligent manslaughters in the Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in 2011, with the estimated total coming in at 609. The Chicago MSA makes up the vast majority of murders in the state, but doesn’t account for 100% of them. Firearms and handguns in particular were involved with the vast majority of murders, even though they are illegal. Illinois public safety is already “compromised.”

Which leads us to a basic question: do gun restrictions make the public more safe or less safe? Put another way, does allowing otherwise law-abiding citizens to carry guns jeopardize public safety? Though politicians like Governor Quinn makes politics out of their answers, the academic research is much more straightforward. A 2007 published study in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy by professors Don Kates and Gary Mauser answers emphatically, ‘No, allowing otherwise law-abiding citizens to carry guns does not endanger society.’ They examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations and the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods. They conclude that higher gun control is consistently associated with higher levels of violent crime and homicide and low gun restrictions are associated with lower levels of violent crime and less murder, noting “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long-term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673).

They further state: “Laws whose effect is to reduce gun ownership by law-abiding citizens – the ones who obey gun laws – are futile because these laws do not reduce violence or murder” (p.672). The reason is that average, otherwise law-abiding people do not commit murder. Professors Kates and Mauser go as far as to say this is an axiom to criminologists, the culmination of virtually every study since at least the 1890s. Adult murderers have adult criminal records 90% of the time, and usually have multiple contacts with the justice system; and minors typically have significant contact with the system. Even homicides within the home are usually the product of increasingly violent behavior and prior restraining orders and police contacts before a murder occurs. In other words, average people don’t suddenly become homicidal simply because they have a gun. Laws intended to prevent crime by keeping all citizen from having guns are useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so. They state: “In any event, studies analyzing acquaintance homicide suggest there is no reason for law prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults, because such people virtually never murder… disarming them becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added). They also indicate studies in the U.S. indicate substantial evidence that widespread gun possession decreases crime.
If anything, the final provisions that prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying guns on public transit and libraries are likely counter-productive. However, the freedom of Illinois citizens to finally carry guns does not “compromise public safety”, as Governor Quinn suggests; the research shows it increases safety.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication September 12, 2013).