Search Box

Monday, December 7, 2015

Obama and gun control

The Obama administration, which never lets a crisis go to waste, tries to make political hay out of every mass shooting in this country. When Dylan Roof killed nine black churchgoers, to the Obama administration used the occasion to preach to us about our long legacy of racism. When Christopher Harper-Mercer, a young black man, soon after killed nine whites in Roseburg, Oregon, Obama never mentioned race, but used it as a reason to push for more gun control.

Obama's Department of Justice is now building a domestic terrorism case against Robert Lewis Dear, the Planned Parenthood shooter. Yet when Major Hassan shot and killed 13 people at Fort Hood, the Obama administration classified that as "workplace violence." This administration's hypocrisy is always predictable, transparent, and infuriating.

The crime statistics show that most firearm-related deaths take place in minority communities. Blacks, while only 13% of the population, commit 53% of all murders nationwide. The majority of those deaths are by gang members, of gang members. And almost all of those murders are committed by handguns obtained illegally.

So the obvious first step in cutting down on gun deaths would be to get those illegal guns off the street.
If the Obama administration were serious about cutting down on gun-related deaths, they'd encourage more stop and frisk by the police. But any commonsensical application of that policy -- meaning, applying it to high crime areas -- would mean more "racial profiling." So, of course, that's off the table.

What the Obama administration does instead is demonize police departments, and discourage them from the sort of aggressive police work it takes to cut down on crime. The end result is even more murders, especially in places like Baltimore and St. Louis, where the police have come under the harshest scrutiny.

So instead of cutting down on illegal guns, the President's highest priority is to tighten the restrictions on law-abiding rural dwellers and suburbanites -- you know, those bitter people who cling to their religion and their guns.

The idea that tightening restrictions for these people will somehow make the high murder rate in our inner cities go down is nonsense. It's a little like reacting to Islamic terrorism by saying, see, I told you we have to clamp down on those goddamn Catholics. (In fact, that pretty much is how our President reacted to San Bernadino.)

It's also a little like the unrelenting liberal focus on "assault rifles." Those have been used in a few high profile cases, like San Bernadino and Newtown and Aurora; but statistics show that year after year, they are only used in 1 to 2% of all murders. Handguns are the weapon of choice for most murderers, and stop and frisk is the answer.

If someone intends to kill -- whether he be a gang member or a jihadist or a lone loon like James Holmes -- the last thing he is going to be concerned about is violating a gun law. The only people who obey gun laws are people who have no intention of committing crimes.

And they're simply not the problem.

It's a little like declaring an area a "gun free zone." Law abiding people will honor that request, but to someone with murder on his mind, a silly sign like that is absolutely no deterrent.

Just as our silly President has been absolutely no deterrent to either gang-related crime or terrorism.

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

This President and his administration get me riled up - the lack of common sense is astounding. President Obama comes up with twisted explanations for current events. When he is on t.v., I cannot watch him, knowing that whatever comes out of his mouth is most likely another lie.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
I can't watch him either, I find him sickening. The problem is, when you're going to stick with the politically correct script, you have to avoid all sorts of inconvenient facts: political correctness = factual incorrectness.

Anonymous said...

I can't stand the man. Each day, God willing, is a day closer to getting him out of office, he and his twisted associates. I feel badly for America.

-birdie

Anonymous said...

Obama should have taken time to discuss the Islamic history of violence against Christians and the long legacy of killing innocent civilians by muslim jihadists.

since Obama was raised as a muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia , he should be aware of the jihadist theology promoted by Islamists since the time of Mohammed. Yet he uses his platform to attack "our nations" history of racism , while doing everything in his power to suppress the facts about Islam....25% of American muslims support terrorism according to the latest Pew survey.

Did not surprise me that Farook's family knew he shared the ideology of (Abu Bakr) al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic state and establish an Islamic caliphate....This Islamist did not try to hide is anti-Jewish ideology nor did he conceal his support of the Islamic State. Probably most of those in his mosque shared these beliefs, thus would not have viewed him as a terrorists.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Obama would no more talk about the Islamic history of violence against Christians than he would honestly discuss the incredibly skewed interracial crime rates, especially the rape rates. With liberals, it's all about being anti-white and especially anti-white male, and anti-Christian, and accusing them of bias while being unabashedly biased themselves. Obama will never veer from this script, and any inconvenient facts are simply swept under the rug. At this point he looks ridiculous to anybody who sees him clearly and is aware of his biases, but the media of course keeps covering for him.

You're absolutely right about the Islamist's attitudes.

Anonymous said...

I watched a Youtube video of a former Muslim over the weekend (he became a Christian). He was born in the middle East, trained for jihad as a boy, then as an adult, came to the USA to help create cultural jihad. Through a series of events, he changed his faith. Muslims are intent on making all countries Islamic countries. I don't trust Muslims, knowing what their agenda is.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
You're right, and there are far more people like that than most Americans realize. Lots of potential cells.

Anonymous said...

I can't figure out what's more sickening - Obama, or the kneejerk right that basically says the opposite of what he says. Because the opposite of crazy is still crazy.

That's what's refreshing about Trump. He wants to chart a course that's best for America and not just against Obama.

I don't just hate Obama, though - it's everyone in his administration. Kerry, Lynch, his spokemen on TV - all maximum disgusting. They ALWAYS manage to say something offensive. Remember what Kerry said after the Paris attacks? He spoke to the families of American diplomats and said that the Charlie Hebdo attacks had a "legitimate" focus - then he walked that word back, but he stuck to the essence.

Can you fucking imagine?

And Lynch, while the blood wasn't even dry, speaking at a Muslim gathering, threatening to prosecute Americans for criticizing Islam? They hate us, that is all there is to it.

We'll just have to muddle through.

Lady Bug

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
Yes, everything you say is true. And Holder was as bad as any of them, if not worse. I'd say he was even worse than Obama, but the fact is, he wouldn't have made any of the moves he did without Obama's approval. And you're right, Lynch seems to be Holder Jr. Her "biggest fear" was anti-Muslim talk? That's a bigger fear than actual terrorist attacks? Hmm.

Not sure what you mean by the right's knee-jerk reaction. I'm beginning to really dislike the cuckservatives, as they've been called recently. McCain is as bad as anyone on the Left, maybe worse in some ways (more hawkish).

Taylor Leland Smith said...

I don't know if anyone has already pointed this out, and maybe you've already heard this, but gun violence in the United States has been steadily decreasing since the mid-90s, except in one place in particular: gun free zones. And correlation doesn't equal causation but we've also seen considerable increases in gun ownership. Of course that doesn't fit the liberal agenda either.

Whenever there is a school shooting I can't help but think about whether it might happen at Texas Tech. You might not know this but Texas recently passed a bill allowing campus carry, where concealed carry is allowed not only on campus but in buildings and classrooms. A lot of Texas schools, like Baylor and TCU have opted out and are still gun free. But here in West Texas, people love their guns, and that ain't happening at Texas Tech. In fact, since we're the 'red raiders' and our mascot is basically a gun-toting cowboy, you'll see the entire crowd of 50,000 people throw up their hand in the shape of a gun whenever the football team scores a touchdown . And, whenever one drives onto campus passed the security checkpoint, the way to signal that you're not a visitor is to simply put your hand out the window in the shape of a gun. And the signal that you're good to drive through is that they do the same. Can you imagine that happening at a liberal arts school in the Northeast?

Anyways, I can't help but conclude that this has got to be one of the safest universities in the country. I feel pretty confident that if there were to be an active shooter, he would be subdued by armed students and faculty. And a lot of people don't know this, but armed civilians actually did subdue the UT shooter before he was eventually killed by police.

Anonymous said...

Do you think Obama knows the actual truth regarding national/world events, but just spins lies in order to accomplish his own agenda for this country/world?

-birdie

John Craig said...

Taylor --
I and heard that about gun violence overall and also ownership and gun free zones. Bears repeating though. And it's also the places with the strictest gun laws that tend to have the highest murder rates, like Chicago and DC. (It's not a strict correlation, NYC has both tough laws and a low murder rate, but it is a positive correlation.)

Sounds to me as if you've finally become Texas-ized. Next time I see you you'll probably be sporting a cowboy hat. I've heard that when people carry, they tend to become politer, too. Wonder why that is, I guess probably because they realize they have more reason to avoid petty fights, given the more dangerous consequences.

anyway, I've come around on this issue. I used to be pretty much agnostic, but after doing a little research and reading I realized that everything the gun control advocates said was basically a misrepresentation or sometimes just out and out untrue.

John Craig said...

Birdie --
I think his perception is a little skewed, but mostly he's spinning everything he says by design, on purpose.

Steven said...

This sounds about right but is there any kind of gun law reform that could reduce mass shooting incidents, rare as they are? What reforms are actually suggested?

In the UK an average urban dweller with no criminal connections would find it difficult to get hold of firearms and so these so called incel type guys that have done shootings in America probably wouldn't have been able to do them here. If they did manage to get hold of something, which would involve somehow seeking out the type of people who can get them (where do you start when you don't know people like that and you aren't even very socially adept?), it'd probably be a handgun, rather than an automatic rifle. But America is different- there are so many guns there already and a person might not have any kind of record before doing a shooting anyway, so I'm not sure what reform would be effective.

John Craig said...

Steven --
It'd be awfully hard to stop most mass shootings. Most are by people who have grudges and are ready to commit suicide (by cop, or by themselves at the end of their rampage). And if someone is willing to die, he can do a lot of damage in the meantime. A fair number of those killers are either on the autistic spectrum (Elliot Rodgers, Adam Lanza, Christopher Harper-Mercer, and who knows how many others), or are religious fanatics (like virtually every Islamic terrorist), or have a racial grudge (Dylan Roof, Omar Thornton, Colin Ferguson). How do you weed those people out ahead of time? It's basically impossible. Can you imagine the US passing a law that says no more Aspies can have guns, or no more Muslims? It would never happen.

Yes, many more guns here, and it's easy enough to obtain one illegally.

Anonymous said...

"Not sure what you mean by the right's knee-jerk reaction. I'm beginning to really dislike the cuckservatives, as they've been called recently. McCain is as bad as anyone on the Left, maybe worse in some ways (more hawkish)."

What I mean is that the Republicans are seen as the more warlike party, always goading the Democrats into stupid wars. This has some justification. Look at Iraq. It's the McCain mentality - every time something bad happens, these boots are made for walkin. Not sure I am making myself clear but that's as much as I can do.

And yes, Holder was the worst of all. I told you a while back I think someone pushed him out. Even for the Obama Administration he was excessive. They all make me want to throw up.

Lady Bug

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
Okay, gotcha. True enough, if McCain had been elected in '08, he would have gotten us involved in more wars as well as extending the two we were already in. He IS a war hero, despite what Trump says, but he's a slime ball in every other way. I do think ISIS needs to be stopped, but other than that, we tend to get way overextended in fights that don't benefit us in the least.

Hmm. I wonder what happened with Holder, yes, I do remember you saying that. Could be.

Steven said...

Peter Hitchens, British conservative commentator, has been documenting "a reliable correlation between outbreaks of homicidal violence (including violence classified as political) and the use of mind-altering drugs, whether legal or illegal." From reading his blog, it seems like the perpetrator of nearly every incident in the news either has a record of either smoking cannabis or is taking antidepressants. Its ignored partly because liberals are currently beating the drum for cannabis legalisation.

In the San Bernardino shooting, on the counter at the home of the perpetrators, the police found their last meal and bottles of Adderall and Xanax. Hitchens, who argues against gun control, writes:

"What is Xanax, otherwise known as ‘alprazolam’? Why, it’s a member of the happy, happy benzodiazepine family. Look it up. Adverse effects include suicidal ideation, our old friend. And its ‘paradoxical reactions’ (that is, those you might not expect from a drug marketed as a tranquillizer) are aggression, rage , hostility, twitches and tremor, mania, agitation, hyperactivity and restlessness.

As for Adderall, this is an amphetamine, of all things, mainly prescribed to children alleged to be suffering from the mythical complaint, ‘Attention Deficit Disorder’ or its equally phantasmal relative ‘Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder’....Very high doses can result in psychosis, involving delusions and paranoia. A Wikipedia article says ‘Recreational doses are generally much larger than prescribed therapeutic doses, and carry a far greater risk of serious side effects’."

He finishes: "Please don’t tell me I’m offering a single cause. I am not. I just think that here, unlike the irrational emotive futility of ‘gun control’, there might possibly be a way in which we might conceivably diminish the number of these ghastly incidents. Who could possibly object to an investigation into that?

Well, who could?"

John Craig said...

Steven --
Wow, brains really ran in that family; I was a big fan of his late brother's, especially his book about Mother Teresa, "The Missionary Position."

Interesting correlation, drugs and murder, and easy to believe. I couldn't agree with him more about the "mythical" nature of ADD as a "disease. And I've read in the past that one in nine Adderall users -- 11% -- suffer from hallucinations when they come off the drug. It is, as Hitchens points out, nothing but speed.

I hadn't heard that the Farooks were users of Xanax and Adderall; that's quite telling. Who knows what else was going on with them. My guess is that he wasn't satisfying her sexually, otherwise she might have had more desire to live. And who knows if one or both of them were autistic; they don't diagnose for that in Muslim countries as far as I know, but if so that could have added to their feelings of alienation. I'm sure there were other things going on that we'll never know about.

Steven said...

Yeah, I like to think if I was screwing her, she would never have become a mass murderer. Saving lives on a daily basis.

The thing about Christopher and Peter Hitchens (brothers), they are equal and opposite: equally compelling intellectuals, equally vociferous debaters, with similar cognitive powers but their opinions and world views are almost diametrically opposed. They were both trotskyists in their youth (that radical streak they have) but went in different directions. Peter is a Christian conservative while Christopher was part of the new atheist movement. Peter is a great critic of the Iraq war and other interventions while Christopher was one of its most confident proponents. I sometimes wonder if they cancel each other out. I find them both entertaining but I prefer Peter.

Incidentally, Peter also thinks addiction doesn't exist.

Steven said...

*vociferous was the wrong word there, dammit, but you get my point.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Ha, you should have done your duty and saved some lives. Maybe you can find some Muslim girls in Liverpool and prevent some future suicide bombings…….

Good point about the Hitchens brothers. I agree more with Peter too, but I liked Christopher, he may have leaned left but he was open-minded and honest. I remember when he basically called Bill Clinton a sociopath something you'd never hear from your standard Lefty.

I think that both sex addiction and gambling addiction are somewhat concocted malaises. But alcoholism and drug addictions are something else.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Actually I think vociferous was the right word, as in, both were vociferous (vehement) debaters. Is that not what you meant?

Steven said...

Yeah, both were (are/were? one dead, one alive) independent minded and unconcerned about alienating anybody. Christopher was a darling of the left for his anti-religious views but then he argued in favour of the invasion of Iraq and was also surprisingly against abortion. Peter is a conservative who hates the conservative party.

Here is Christopher gently trolling a feminist (amusing): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgSocr2DTic

And here he is on Bill Clinton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQas34criFo

Steven said...

I feel like vociferous or vehement would be more intense and passionate like a preacher or demagogue. I meant more assertive and compelling, forceful and sometimes emotional but more controlled and gentlemanly. Maybe vociferous was okay, dunno.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Yes, that explains their appeal quite well: they were actually honest, which is such a rare quality these days.

Watched the second clip and about six minutes of the first. He just exudes brilliance, it comes out in every sentence. I've always envied that quality.

John Craig said...

Steven --
I say "vociferous" is fine.

Steven said...

You might not have quite watched it up to this great point: "I wouldn't pick my friends from among those who were liked by everybody. Its not a good sign. If you can charm everybody, it means you don't care about anybody in particular".

John Craig said...

Steven --
Actually, I did see that. It is a good point, and Clinton was famous for his charm.

Anonymous said...

John,

You know all those scare videos put out by Christian organizations on youtube? I used to ignore them. But I was looking for something and this was suggested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7zhZmcwwLM

WARNING: the man's face is terribly disfigured by an Islamic acid attack. But his message is important. We have to listen to guys like this. They've lived under Islam. I feel they are like the people who came from Nazi Germany in the 1930s screaming about what was going to happen, and no one listened.

Lady Bug

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
Just took a look. Yes, we do have to listen to people like that. The French are waking up, the National Front got 40% of the vote yesterday, winning a plurality, though how that will translate into political power is yet unclear. It would be great to see a President Marine le Pen, that's what they need.

But all of the political correctness, which translates into pretending that we don't notice differences between peoples, has got to stop. Otherwise we're doomed (as you suggested the other day).

Steven said...

what do you think of Trump advocating a ban on all Muslims entering the states? (plus special identity cards)

My instincts are not the same as his on this. Its too similar to what happened in Germany in the 30's. Its one step away from internment or expulsion.

Plus its too divisive. It'll make Muslims at home feel persecuted and give the extremist recruiters a stronger story to tell of a war between the west and Islam, both of which make terrorism more likely. Just as the war in Iraq predictably did.

You can limit Muslim immigration perhaps but a ban on all Muslims whatsoever entering the country.I don't think its wise.

John Craig said...

Steven --
I'm for the ban, but against identity cards. Muslims who are already here as citizens should enjoy full rights as citizens, but the US isn't obligated to take anybody in as a new citizen. US citizenship, like British citizenship, is a privilege, not a right for every foreigner, and the US has to be far more discriminating about who it takes in. We are the only country in the entire world which has birthright citizenship, which is insane, and which people take advantage of all the time. (And that wasn't the purpose for which the 14th Amendment was created.) Virtually every other country in the world takes people in on the basis of what they can do for the country, not what the country can do for them. And given that ISIS has effectively declared war on the West, and given that a recent poll showed that 25% of all Muslims support terrorism, it'd be sort of insane to let more in, unless they can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are not inclined towards terrorism and would otherwise be an asset to this country.

I heard once that Switzerland doesn't even consider anyone for citizenship until they've lived in the country for 17 years, legally, and then at that point they ask the person's neighbors if he would make a good citizen. Mexico doesn't let anyone in unless they can prove that they would be an asset to the country. israel has a big barbed wire fence at their border, and when someone does slip through, Israel puts them on the first pane back to their home country. We should follow their lead.

France, as I'm sure you just saw, voted 40% for the National Front, giving them a plurality, and effectively agreeing with Trump's stance. I don't blame them at all.

Steven said...

The ban seems too extreme to me...no tourists and no Muslim immigrants whatsoever, even ones with really good jobs.

"Virtually every other country in the world takes people in on the basis of what they can do for the country, not what the country can do for them"

Except for most of western Europe (which is not an argument for). Not sure about immigration policies in the developing world but there seems to be quite a lot of internal migration in Africa (remember recent protests against other African immigrants in South Africa). They don't have much welfare anyway.

"a recent poll showed that 25% of all Muslims support terrorism"

what poll is that? can you link it?

Surprisingly I haven't seen anything about the French vote in the British press. Usually the gains of the "far right anti-immigrant parties" are covered.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Here is a website which gives a compilation of results of polls of Muslims in the past on their attitudes towards terrorism and so on:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

The third-to-last poll cited under the "Terrorism" category is the 2015 poll in which 25% of Muslims say violence against Americans is justified; thesis the one which has been cited recently. But if you scan the results of the other polls they show similarly surprising results.

I'm surprised the British press hasn't covered the French vote; even the NY Times reported it, as much as it must have galled them to do so.

Anonymous said...

I still have very mixed feelings about Trump. His speeches are terrible. I just don't know...

...But my feelings about Islam have hardened to total hatred.

Here's the latest:

https://newrepublic.com/article/125069/saudi-arabias-depraved-justice

Evil. Fiends. Monsters. Scum.

And the assholes in this country who say things like, "Well, we have capital punishment" are nearly as bad.

But first, let's get real about Islam. It is the religion of the damned.

Lady Bug

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
What amazes me most about the situation you describe is that there are people over here who will say, "Well, we have capital punishment" as if there was any sort of equivalency. That's the liberal mentality in a nutshell: it's all about ignoring the obvious.

Yes, we have capital punishment, but it's imposed on a few people who've killed other people, not someone who's committed adultery. And not only that, but there's a huge disparity over there between how the royal family behaves and how their foreign servants are expected to behave. Do you think any of the royals are stoned to death for adultery?

Lady Bug said...

What do you think is going on with the GoPro? The "authorities" have denied that they were wearing GoPros but they admit that GoPro paraphernalia was found in the apartment & the mother's car.

I've been looking at stuff I've ignored for years. It's scary stuff.

Forget them being radicalized. *I've* been radicalized. I hate them with a passion. But I can't let this affect my life.

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
I think a lot of us have been radicalized. Don't let it affect your life obsess you, but just don't forget to vote for Trump. The funny thing is, what's considered "radical" on our side now is just having common sense and noticing things. The other side considers it evil to notice certain things, no matter how obvious they are.

I have no opinion on that GoPro stuff. I saw that some cameras were found, but haven't really thought about it. I guess what you're saying is that they must have planned at some point to record their killing spree and send it to ISIS or something. Could well be, I don't know.

Anonymous said...

In this day and age, it's hard to take things in stride, but that's what we need to do. The loonies are running the show. If we can trip them up in their insanity, then good on us.

-birdie

Lady Bug said...

@birdie, John,

It gets crazier. On twitter, a reporter from Al Jazeera complained that showing the terror bitch without her face-covering burka was "disrespectful." Others did as well.

Is this gall or what?????

Others responded by putting up screenshots of the videos taken of her dead body (God bless those bullets), sprawled in the street. It appears she had shit herself.

He was forced to retract the tweet. But it illustrates the complete and utter gall of these Muslim apologists.

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
I saw that story. I was outraged at first, too, and was going to write a post about it, but then when I read it I saw it was just one young stupid guy who immediately retracted it; I wouldn't read too much into it.

If they had shown the naked corpse of that woman, btw, it wouldn't have been one-one hundredth as disrespectful as taking the lives of her victims was.