Good article by John Lott

SPB
[subject]
Sunday, February 18, 2018, 09:28 (2230 days ago)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/02/16/florida-shooting-gun-control-advocates-rush-t...

Florida shooting: Gun control advocates rush to distort the truth about what happened in Parkland
1 day ago
Major media outlets urgently call for gun control as President Trump stresses the need to address America's mental health issues; reaction from Jamie Weinstein, host of the 'Jamie Weinstein Show' on National Review, and Ethan Bearman, radio talk host show and author.Video
Media steps up calls for gun control after school shooting

Major media outlets urgently call for gun control as President Trump stresses the need to address America's mental health issues; reaction from Jamie Weinstein, host of the 'Jamie Weinstein Show' on National Review, and Ethan Bearman, radio talk host show and author.

Gun control advocates are only too sure that they occupy the moral high ground. In the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida high school shooting that left 17 dead, they are accusing their opponents of having “blood on their hands.”

It’s no longer just activists such as Chelsea Handler who are spewing such vitriol. Even mainstream liberals such as political scientist Norm Ornstein use the phrase.

Gun control advocates’ new hot number is that there have been 18 school shootings so far this year, but this is a gross exaggeration.

To get 18, one has to count all instances from kindergarten through college where a gun was fired on or near school property. This includes a case of a police officer accidentally discharging his gun, as well as suicides – such as that of a 31-year-old military veteran with no connection to the school who killed himself in the school parking lot.

Excluding suicides, there have only been five cases where someone was actually shot at a K-12 school. Four actually involved a gun being fired on school property, and two of those resulted in fatalities.

In fact, gun control advocates’ proposals would do more harm than good. They are the ones opposing life-saving laws.

Every time there's a mass public shooting, gun control advocates call for more background checks. President Obama did so each time he spoke after a mass public shooting. Gun control advocates like to think this is a magic solution that would have prevented Wednesday’s massacre.

The proposed background check laws wouldn't have prevented the attack in Florida, nor any other mass public shooting that’s happened in the 21st century.

But the background checks come at a real cost, ranging from $55 in Oregon to $125 in New York City and Washington, D.C.

With millions of mistaken denials because of “false positives,” the checks have confused the names of law-abiding good citizens with those who really are prohibited from owning guns. It is the most vulnerable people – poor minorities – who are kept from being able to protect themselves and their families.

Some, such as Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., reacted to Wednesday’s attack by immediately decrying the failure to keep people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns.

But many on the terrorist watch list are not suspected of being terrorist threats, and of the 2,000 people who have bought guns, not a single one has been accused of using a gun in a crime. The bill prohibiting such purchases never got passed because the Democrats didn’t want to pass it.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, offered an alternative. Under his proposal, the U.S. attorney general could deny a person on the terrorist watch list the ability to purchase a gun, but would need to prove probable cause within 72 hours. Otherwise, some unnamed government bureaucrat could arbitrarily add a person to the terror list and the person would lose his right to self-defense.

Democrats said that the time limit was too short. But instead of proposing a longer time period, they fought against any judicial review.

Others mention a new assault weapon ban, but even research funded by the Clinton administration concluded that the previous ban and limit on magazine size had “no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Those who are blaming the Florida attack on large capacity magazines that can hold more bullets don’t understand how quickly magazines can be changed or how incredibly easy they are to make.

But while Democrats keep pushing for gun control laws that won’t help, they won’t discuss the one change that might have made a difference: abolishing gun-free zones, where the defenselessness of general citizens is guaranteed by law.

It is hard to ignore that all the mass public shootings in Florida – including the Orlando nightclub, the Orlando RV business, the Fort Lauderdale Airport, the Hialeah restaurant, as well as Wednesday’s at the high school – were places where guns are banned.

Nationwide, over 98 percent of such mass shootings attacks since 1950 have also been in gun-free zones.

These killers might be crazy, but they aren’t stupid. They want to kill as many people as possible. Killers in attacks – including the Charleston church, the Colorado “Batman” movie theater and Santa Barbara, California – explained that they picked defenseless targets where they knew no one would have a gun.

What is interesting is that even though gun control advocates are refusing the types of policies that will really save lives, they are claiming that others “have blood on their hands.” That same language hasn’t been used against them. Maybe it should be.

ex post facto....

Dave H.
[subject]
Sunday, February 18, 2018, 09:42 (2230 days ago) @ SPB

That's my one comment to the anti-nuts. They don't get it.

I think they get it, but as was stated earlier, they have an

SPB
[subject]
Sunday, February 18, 2018, 10:02 (2230 days ago) @ Dave H.

agenda and are not about to let a good crisis go to waste. What they do not understand is that they are the pawns of those who like Hitler, PolPot, Idi Amin, Hillary, etc. ad nauseam who want to rule them. Stupid is as stupid does.

I still do not understand why the GOP

Larry Fry
[subject]
Sunday, February 18, 2018, 11:44 (2230 days ago) @ SPB

will not just put in place the same school protection that they have in Israel. The threat level is much higher there so it ought to stop cold any such activity in the US. They have a mulit layered approach. Fence around the school, one or two main entrances with armed guards and a metal detector at the gates. Back packs are checked for liquids and any metal object as they are not permitted. When the kids go on a field trip the teacher is armed and there at least two armed guards. In the US, there are a whole lot of retired vets and police that would be happy to set up a system of certified guards and teachers that would love to be properly trained and practiced to the proper skill level to protect the kids. Of course they GOP, the Dumb Asses, and the deep state do not WANT a solution as they really want to end the 2nd amendment so that they can do the same thing Hitler did and force the Global Concept on we the people and have a single leader. (Can you say Soros or one of his ilk?)

Larry, Gary or one of the Misfits posted that same post last

Jerome
[subject]
Sunday, February 18, 2018, 12:52 (2230 days ago) @ Larry Fry

week.

I am not wanting to turn schools into prisons, like Israel

Woody
[subject]
Sunday, February 18, 2018, 13:59 (2230 days ago) @ Larry Fry

- No text -

Israeli's schools are not prisons. They are safe spaces

Gary Reeder
[subject]
Sunday, February 18, 2018, 14:06 (2230 days ago) @ Woody

for kids. if you don't understand that you have a major problem.

Gary is right. I have been to Israeli and hardly a day goes

Leon H.
[subject]
Sunday, February 18, 2018, 17:16 (2230 days ago) @ Gary Reeder

by that we didn't hear sirens of possible rocket attacks. The kids in school had a safe place where they could relax and study and not worry about all the day to day tensions. Every congressman or senator has armed guards so nobody can get into his office and do him harm. It seems to me the politicians think they are more important to us than our kids. If we had had armed guards in several places in that school in stead of 2 at the far ends of the school or even if that coach had had a gun he could have stopped that young man before his killing spree started. Talking about turning our schools into a prison atmosphere is typical liberal talk.

We’ve come a long way from when I

Brent Foy
[subject]
Sunday, February 18, 2018, 18:14 (2230 days ago) @ SPB

Went to school and most of us had guns in out Pickups, Jeeps, or cars in the parking lot. We would quit often go shooting or varmint hunting at lunch time or after school. The world has changed a lot since then and like it or not we have to live with it at least some what. If I don’t want to carry a gun to protect myself I wouldn’t that’s my choice, but when it comes to our children I thinking it is the responsibility of the school to protect them the best they can. I understand high fences, guards, and metal detectors seem a little oppressive, but I don’t see where we have a choice when we’re making the decision for our youth’s safety. I don’t see any other way of providing a safe environment for students. There might be other things we can add to that, but that seems it’s the bare minimum in the world we live in. I wish it weren’t so but, that don’t make it so.

powered by my little forum