Yep we’re gonna go there some…
First we’re gonna pick on the President:
And next two guys who’d like to be:
The arguments in the on-going debate over guns and having them in the hands of private citizens is easy to win on the merits. What is more difficult is dealing with the tactics of how the discussion is carried out, and what happens when you begin to dismantle the arguments with pure rational thought.
In the clip you see Emily Tisch Sussman playing the same cards so many have before her.
The problem is that almost zero of them hold any truth. There aren’t 30,000 gun murders a year, its closer to 11,000 (which in a nation of 370,000,000 people is statistically invisible at .00002%. She effectively moves the goal posts in the conversation so that after each observation she gives is dismantled, there is a different one to focus on.
She claimed that the South Carolina shooting was evidence of the need for more executive action from President Obama–which would be unnecessary completely had only one person in the Bible study been armed.
She claimed that law-abiding gun owners are more likely to have those guns wind up in the hands of people that do bad things with them. Really? With 300,000,000 legally owned fire-arms in the nation, how is there anywhere near that many nefarious acts being carried out?
She claimed that–even when faced with the evidence that the Garland, Tx (Pam Gellar, Draw Mohammed) attempted shooting was thwarted by “good people with guns”–that “good people with guns” is mythical.
She claimed that the Fort Hood shooting demonstrated why “guns didn’t stop” a mass shooting. But she ignored or forgot that Armed Services personnel aren’t allowed to carry their sidearms on Ft. Hood premises.
Lastly and unbelievably she made the argument that the victims of mass shootings themselves would in some way NOT WISH to have someone to be armed and to shoot back in the midst of one of these killing sprees.
Sadly she notes that one victim from the Virginia Tech shooting incident has stated that he would not have had the clarity to know who the shooter was or how to take him down.
My contention is that if we are going to take a survey of the victims of mass shootings and their feelings on private gun ownership–let’s begin with interviewing everyone who has died at the hands of these merciless killers–with no lawful means of defending themselves.
Of all the arguments the left proffers on taking away guns (under the guise of stopping gun violence) there is not a single one of them that has merit.
Which is why we must not let those making the arguments and moving the goalposts get away with such rigorous intellectual dishonesty.
I don’t know about you but my ears have grown weary with the amount of condescension we have endured–from a man who is in essence our employee–for the last 8 years.
Even when announcing his executive orders, commenting how he can see the second amendment “on the paper” (a fact he sounded as though he wished he could change.) Then going on to say that has taught “constitutional law” and that “he knows a thing or two about it.”
The hubris was met with satisfactory affirmation there in the East Room of the People’s House. But across the airwaves (see above still shot) he just looked angry.
So with that as his opening context he proceeded to list a series of events we are all intimately familiar with, said some words about how awful those experiences were–as if we hadn’t lived them–and announced initiatives to add restrictions to the ability of law-abiding people to purchase guns, while announcing zero initiatives that would’ve had any impact on the awful situations he had just taken the time to retrace for us.
After all the hype, urgency, anger, and all-to-convenient alligator tears–he finally had given us the pressing gun reform he had promised for such a long time.
In reaction to today’s announcement by the President, I felt it was important to offer some genuine fact-based analysis and response to a government that attempted to further swipe freedoms from law-abiding people.
I was told by some community leaders, pastors, and law enforcement that it was the best “unpacking” of the matter by anyone in the media today.
Those were very kind and encouraging words to hear, but I will let you judge for yourself. All I want to do is to help people think more clearly.
Listen and weigh in on the comment section below.
And if you’d never want to miss another broadcast. Please go here: http://soundcloud.com/KMCRadio and subscribe for free!
In the days since the deadly attacks in Paris, one thing has been made clear: the political and cultural left in America desire the average American to live with maximum vulnerability towards future terror attacks. They seem oblivious to the natural outcomes of such desires. But they insist that no solution to terrorism or potential terrorism take on an ounce of common sense.
No matter the suggestion, they scoff, condescend and even threaten those who would take even basic precaution—in order to save American bloodshed.
How else do you explain their opposition to the following suggestions?
(Brought to you by the NYRx Card: Up to 75% off prescription medications (brand and generic) for FREE: Click Here. Or call 888.340.3373 x 2 and leave your name and mailing address)
So last night on 60 Minutes (what I have to admit I’ve become addicted to as the best long form journalism still being produced,) Anderson Cooper did a very interesting story about the after effects of the Paris attack.
Shouldn’t come as any surprise that “Paris” is now a “style” of terror attack. In the same way it has also been branded for fashion and food.
There are two reasons why.
One is that the terrorists banked upon old methodologies from law enforcement in the response to the simultaneous attacks going off all at the same time.
The thugs knew that multiple attacks in multiple areas would create not just chaos in the population but even more so for the response from law enforcement.
Incredibly French police waited nearly 35 minutes from when they arrived at the Bataclan theater before they decided to enter and take down the killers.
This hesitation-al pause has been seen in multiple scenarios in American active shootings as well. One of the most recent being the US Naval Yard shooting. Taking 1:09 before getting the shooter down.
Two is that the terrorists also knew the population were sitting ducks, with few to none of them capable defending themselves.
With that as the background and context for the piece, Anderson goes on a training exercise with the NYPD where they demonstrate for him the changing challenges, and hence the new techniques that are undoing upwards of half a century of current thinking about active shootings.
Cooper sits down with Police Commissioners from NYC and WashDC and gets them to confess that part of the challenger of protections large cities against terror is the inability to out imagine the evil doers.
Which led him to one short bit of conversation that seemed to me to be one of the most damning indictments ever heard about the gun control lobby–particularly coming from one of the largest and most important law enforcement operations in the nation: DC.
She more or less admits two very meaningful facts.
1. In active shooting scenarios most of those who are killed or severely injured are rendered so within the first ten minutes of the shooting. (In the US Naval Yard 10 of the 12 who died were dead within the first 6 minutes.)
2. The most effective means of preventing injury and death is to take down the shooter as aggressively as possible. (Which even the DCPD Commissioner admitted is the opposite of what we mostly hear from law enforcement.)
Cooper was trying to establish the rationale for why society has such a need for more of a “response squad” like militarized police force –especially in cities where active terror is becoming an increasing reality.
He made the case quite well given the events of Paris, followed on the heels with Mali.
But given the two amazing admissions of the DCPD, my mind and longtime belief/assumptions concerning unarmed populations jumped right back to the forefront of my brain.
If death comes quickly in the live or active shooter scenarios, and if the best prevention of injury and death is the strategy of taking the live shooter down as quickly and as effectively as possible, then the solution seems pretty simple.
More guns by law abiding people will always create more caution amongst those who have guns illegally and for illegal purposes.
More guns prevalent throughout law abiding populations will be an added discouragement for both terrorists and criminals alike.
Now it’s interesting to hear that top law enforcement in essence agree with such a premise…