I HOPE all you guys are ALREADY doing your job...

[AJMD429]

I really HOPE all you guys are ALREADY doing your job...

...as citizens, and writing and calling all your legisphincters; it is much easier to prevent them from committing to support a stupid (dangerous, counterproductive) law, than to get them to reverse course once they have joined the stampede.

GOP Rep Rooney: I'll Do Something on Gun Control, But 'Not Necessarily for Normal People' - 'Some Freedoms' Will Be Lost | Breitbart

The time to call and write is NOW, today, not tomorrow or the next day, after some slick lobbyist has gotten them to support a bad bill.

And you surely realize that the issue doesn't stop at 'assault' weapons; that is just the easy place to divide-and-conquer 'sportsmen', because some are only concerned with the type of guns involved in their hobby, but don't really care about having a stable nation, or safe streets or schools. Those gun owners are just as bad as the anti's, if not worse.

Too many gun owners are willing to risk their own life as a soldier or police officer, yet won't take an afternoon to write all their legislators. I guess it is more 'romantic' and macho to wait for the U.S. to become like Venezuela, and plan on going all Mad Max instead.....FAR better to get off our asses NOW and prevent such point-of-no-return. It is what out ancestors would have us do.

Let the legislaturds know that it is NOT some 'balance' between 'safe streets versus firearms freedom' - restricting firearms never makes streets (or schools) safer.

If high-rise apartment arsons were killing people, and we had some bunch who was afraid of fire extinguishers and sprinkler systems already banning their possession/installation in high-rise apartments, would it make sense to 'combat those tragic deaths' by debating on which kinds of matches were legal to sell, or tracking cigarette lighter purchases...? Someone sensible would point out that other buildings where extinguishers and sprinklers were still allowed were NOT death-traps, and suggest allowing them in high-risk apartments.

ANY 'compromise' on this is NOT a 'reasonable' step, because NO 'gun control' law will improve school safety. Including ANY compromise - even 'improved background checks' - is dangerous (sets stage for genocide, which is one reason the Second Amendment formally codifies the citizen's right to possess what they clearly intended as 'military style firearms'), and counterproductive (wasted resources to give a false sense of security).

The true goals of the anti-gun crowd are simply to make firearms possession more difficult, because they are filled with ignorance (of history, criminology, and firearms/ammunition technology), and hatred (of the 'type of people' who own firearms). One sees this when they refuse to support practical things (allowing CCW by teachers), even when 'sanitized' ("...as long as they have been thoroughly and extensively trained..."), and they only support 'backround checks' IF they create a registry of who-owns-what for use as a confiscation tool (they also won't support the non-FFL public access to the background check system for the same reason). Those things reveal the motives behind 'commonsense gun regulation' are NOT to make schools safer, and thus we need to be VERY skeptical of what the anti-gun zealots propose, and what the soccer-moms (as well as the castrado pseudo-males who support gun control because they think it improves the odds of sleeping with those soccer moms) are naive enough to go along with.

Oppose it NOW (and yes, every time it rears its ugly head, because tyrants and fools never quit), and support RKBA tenaciously, or we will lose our unique nation and the wonderful progress it has made towards freedom, equal opportunity, prosperity, AND safety for all citizens.

We do NOT have "the highest rate of mass shootings in the world", the design of 'assault' weapons is actually to wound instead of kill, and gun control never saves the 'just one life' that supposedly makes it worth the sacrifice; it leads to far more innocent lives lost. The general public doesn't know these 'inconvenient truths', and the news media they rely on surely won't inform them, so it is up to US. Bring up the topic at home, work, in line at the grocery store, wherever, and have the FACTS at hand to educate folks.

I've posted the Kates article that exposes the fraudulent 'data' some physicians use to support 'gun control', and others have posted some good sources as well; print them out, send links to people, put copies in waiting rooms or get them slipped inside library books on 'gun control' so the kids whose teachers assign homework on the 'gun control' debate get BOTH sides of the story.

GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?

https://crimeresearch.org/2016/01/c...nks-11th-in-fatalities-and-12th-in-frequency/

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/c...m-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/02/w...blic-shootings-are-outside-the-united-states/

Again - the time to act is now, before their bandwagon gets so much momentum from the "...we have to do something... crowd that it is unstoppable. The electorate is uninformed and lazy, but has a strong desire to protect children, and they will support 'anything' so they can feel good about themselves for having 'done something'. It is up to US, as ones who actually understand the REALITY of 'gun control', to steer them in a direction that will actually help, rather than harm.....

Sadly, the self-anointed 'progressive' crowd is far too busy to take the time to learn any facts, far too arrogant to believe their ignorance impairs their ability to dictate public policy, and far more interested in posturing, preening, and virtue-signaling to make themselves look good to their peers, than they are in actually improving school safety. THEY NEED OUTED AS HYPOCRITES WHO ARE ENDANGERING OUR CHILDREN.

It is THEIR unwillingness to "have an open and honest dialogue concerning gun violence" that has led to these children dying; instead they lie, name-call, and impede any rational solutions. THEY are the real "gun fanatics" whose obsession with 'guns' endangers children and leads to innocent kids dying, or cowering behind desks just hoping the 'active shooter' will shoot someone else instead.

Those who use the graves of dead children as a podium to further their sick obsession with 'guns' and their ignorant and irrational fear and hatred of those who own them, are dangerous to society[/B] - far more dangerous than 'guns' themselves, or any other technology, because (even if well-intended) ignorance, fear, and hatred are so destructive; not only leading to innocent deaths, but also to destruction of the minds of survivors and those who would help make school safer, if allowed rational input instead of being demonized as the 'gun lobby'.

 

[Falschirmjaeger]

Absolutely correct on all counts. Well said, sir.

 

[AJMD429]

Just a short excerpt from Kates' article, so you can see the level of contempt he and his physician co-authors have for those in the 'public health' field who try to bring 'gun control' under their umbrella:

from "Guns and Public Health - epidemic of violence, or pandemic of propaganda?" - [FONT=&amp]61 [/FONT][FONT=&amp]Tenn. L. Rev.[/FONT][FONT=&amp] 513-596 (1994)[/FONT]

XIII. A Critique of Overt Mendacity

[FONT=&amp]A 1989 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association approvingly quoted a CDC official's assertion that his work for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention involved "systematically build[ing]a case that owning firearms causes death."[258] The CDC official later claimed that JAMA had misquoted him and offered the only repudiation of the anti-gun political agenda we have found in a health advocacy publication, characterizing it as "anathema to any unbiased scientific inquiry because it assumes the conclusion at the outset and then attempts to find evidence to support it."[259][/FONT][FONT=&amp]Unfortunately, that is precisely what CDC is doing. Indeed, this has subsequently been avowed by the prior official's successor.[260] [/FONT]Even more unfortunately, CDC and other health advocate sages build their case not only by suppressing facts, but by overt fraud, fabricating statistics, and falsifying references to support them.[FONT=&amp][261] The following are but a few of the many examples documented in a recent paper co-authored by professors at Columbia Medical School and Rutgers University Law School.
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
The first instance represents a lamentable exception to our generalization that comparisons of gun ownership and murder rates through the 1970s and 1980s find no place in the health advocacy literature.[262] Some health sages go so far as to overtly misrepresent that murder rates increased over that period, and then correlate this misrepresentation with the same period's steadily increasing gun ownership so as to lend spurious support to their more-guns-mean-more-murder shibboleth. Thus, a 1989 Report to the United States Congress by the CDC stated that "ince the early 1970s the year-to-year fluctuations in firearm availability has [sic] paralleled the numbers of homicides."[263] [/FONT]We leave it to the readers of (p.577)this Article to judge how a 69% increase in handgun ownership over the fifteen year period from 1974 to 1988 could honestly be described as having "paralleled" a 14.2% decrease in homicide during that same period[FONT=&amp].[264]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
Understandably, the CDC Report offered no supporting reference for its claim of parallelism. However, the inventive Dr. Diane Schetky, and two equally inventive CDC writers--Gordon Smith and Henry Falk--in a separate article actually do provide purportedly supporting citations for the claim that "[h]andguns account for only 20% of the firearms in use today, but they are involved in the majority of both criminal and unintentional firearm injuries."[265] The problems with this claim are that the claim is false in every respect and that the citations are fabrications. The purpose of the claim is to exaggerate the comparative risks of handguns vis-a-vis long guns so as to fortify the cause of handgun prohibition and avoid admitting the major problem we have already addressed--that, because handguns are innately far safer than long guns, if a handgun ban caused defensive gun owners to keep loaded long guns instead (as handgun ban advocates and experts concur would be the case), thousands more might die in fatal gun accidents annually.[266][/FONT][FONT=&amp]The only citation given by either Schetky or Smith and Falk to support their claim that handguns comprise only 20% of all guns, yet are involved in 90% of gun accidents and crime, is the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.[267] [/FONT]Understandably, no page citations are given, because the citations are simply falsified[FONT=&amp].

As anyone familiar with the Uniform Crime Reports knows, they provide no data on gun ownership, and thus no comparative data on handgun versus long gun ownership. Nor do the Uniform Crime Reports provide data on accidents in general, thus no data on gun accidents, and thus no comparative data on the incidence of handgun accidents versus long guns accidents. Schetky, Smith, and Falk could have found data on these matters in the National Safety Council's Accident Facts, but those data would not have suited their purpose because these statistics do not support the point they sought to make.(p.578)[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Furthermore, the Uniform Crime Reports give no data on the number of persons injured in gun crimes or the number of such injures in handgun crimes versus long gun crimes. They do give such data for gun murders, but even those data do not support Schetky's claim that 90% are committed with handguns.[268] [/FONT]Every one of the other purported statistics given by Schetky, Smith, and Falk is not only wrong, but wrong in only one particular direction. Each false statistic errs in supporting their point, whereas an accurate rendition of the statistic would not have done so. It is, of course, elementary that innocent mistakes tend to be random and to balance each other rather than all erring in favor of the position for which they are presented[FONT=&amp].
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
Another instance of overt mendacity involves the remarkable Dr. Sloan. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, we classified other mischaracterizations by him as gun-aversive-dyslexia. It strains even that generous category, however, to so classify an inability to accurately read and describe one's own articles. The gravamen of the Sloan two-city comparison discussed previously was that the strict 1978 Canadian gun law caused Vancouver to have less homicide than Seattle, where any responsible adult can buy a handgun.[269] But as an NRA representative pointed out in a critical letter to the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors had made no effort to determine how Canadian homicide had changed since adopting the law.[270] In fact, the homicide rate had not fallen, but rather it had risen slightly, with handgun use unchanged at about one-eighth of homicides. Sloan tried to extricate himself from this embarrassment by mendaciously asserting that the "intent of our article was not to evaluate the effect of the 1978 Canadian gun law."[271] Readers may judge for themselves how well that squares with the article's actual conclusion: "[R]estriction of access to firearms ... is associated with lower rates of homicide."[272] Health advocate readers have certainly understood the significance of the article to be that it "demonstrated the beneficial effect of [Canada's] tighter regulation" of firearms.[273][/FONT][FONT=&amp]It is misleading to suggest that, heavily politicized though it is, the anti-gun health advocacy literature commonly exhibits overt mendacity, as opposed to fraudulent misleading by half-truth and suppression of material facts. Overt (p.579)mendacity is not infrequent, however, and numerous examples will be documented in the next section and in the balance of this Article.[/FONT]

 

[AJMD429]

And....If you need some motivation to "do something"......

These photos are all public-available ones, as posted on Breitbart News site at the link - https://clashamerica.com/pictured-heres-14-kids-cutdown-classrooms/

These young lives WASTED because we haven't the balls to "allow" CCW in schools.....we've instead opted to sit by and allow LibTards to pass feel-good "gun-free zone" laws, then blame 'the NRA' when the next murders inevitably happen....

 

[Viper1973]

These young lives WASTED because we haven't the balls to "allow" CCW in schools.....we've instead opted to sit by and allow LibTards to pass feel-good "gun-free zone" laws, then blame 'the NRA' when the next murders inevitably happen....

EXACTLY! Schools should also only have one accessible (and secure) entrance.

 

[Viper1973]

Two friends of mine are firearms/safety instructors. A local school corporation approached them over the weekend to do active shooter training for all of the staff. BOTH agreed to do the training - but with one, non-negotiable condition. That condition was that they allow anyone licensed to conceal carry on property to be armed (staff, parent, community member, etc.) going forward - no more 'gun free' zone.

As you can imagine the snowflakes about had a seizure about how THAT was out of the question....

My friends told them that they teach active shooter training and self defense, they don't teach 'run and hide your nuts' training and that the offer stands that they will do it - free of charge - but ONLY if the school system drops their draconian rules. Anything less is wasting their time.

 

[T.Lex]

That's unfortunate.

Perhaps it would have been an opportunity share with them the realities of both an active shooter situation and normal people who carry firearms.

It seems to me a better strategy would've been to do the training, then as part of the conclusion point out the best remedy is to have as many (or more) blue force in the area shooting at the aggressors.

 

[AJMD429]

For those who may not feel 'eloquent' enough to write their legislaturds on their own - https://gunowners.org/alert02162018.htm

I still would suggest adding/changing the letter wording (but 'be nice'...........well, 'sort of' nice........or..........not).