Skip to content

Simple Tests to Find Out Who is Doing Your Thinking for You?

January 18, 2019

The average man on the street thinks that socialism takes care of the poor. The average headline surfer thinks that civilian guns ownership causes violence. These opinions are not the result of systematic sociological research. People have “those feelings” because of what they are told in the news. Why is the media telling us things that are so blatantly wrong?

Enthusiastic newscasters and smiling politicians tell us that Cuba and Venezuela have free healthcare. They don’t bother to tell you that Socialist healthcare is among the worst in the world. The media would never tell us the truth that we’d only use socialist healthcare if we had no other choice.

Look at the impressions you have about socialism. Are they based on facts or on spin? How many people do you know who have packed up and moved to China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Bangladesh or to North Korea? I’ve yet to receive my first postcard from neighbors who made the big switch to the new-and-improved workers paradise. Have you?

I didn’t think so. Why didn’t you compare what you see on the news to the reality you see in your neighborhood?

Where is this free lunch, this socialist utopia, that Socialist politicians and big-government reporters talk about? They point at Sweden where the government takes 70 percent more in taxes than it does here in the US. Unemployment in Sweden is also about 70 percent higher than here in the US. Funny how that works..time after every damn time. How many socialists in the US have moved to Sweden?  You can tell me when you’re done packing. I’ll wait…


I guess the reality of Socialism is worse than the fluff and marketing reports we get from US politicians and their supporters in the MSM. I wouldn’t trust a socialist politician to sell me a used car let alone trust them to not sell my child’s future to the Clinton Foundation.

I notice the same media distortions when I listen to people talk about gun-control, another big-government favorite program. Where is this nonviolent utopia I keep hearing about?

Most private citizens are not allowed to have guns in Mexico. The entire country has a single officially sanctioned gun store. The Mexican homicide rate is also five times higher than ours here in the US. The gun-control politicians forgot to tell us that.

Why did you think Mexico was peaceful and the US was violent?

I’ve heard complaints that Mexico isn’t like the US because guns can cross Mexico’s borders. Fine, let’s look at the data from a modern island-nation instead. England outlaws handguns and has insanely strict laws against self-defense. They have all the laws that US gun-prohibitionists want.

The violent crime rate in England and Wales is six times higher than the rate in the US. Again, the talking heads forgot to mention that important fact.

In fact, the talking heads imply the opposite. They imply that the US is one of the most violent countries in the world. It isn’t, and we aren’t even in the top half.

That isn’t what the news and big-government politicians would have you believe, but you can look up the truth and do some junior-high math to compare the rates of violence for yourself. If you didn’t know those facts then you’re letting the media and politicians do your thinking for you.

Don’t tell me that socialism works. Don’t tell me that gun control works. Show me where it has worked. Better yet, show me the flood of people who want to move to this utopia the media invented.

I gave you 500 words for free. Please leave a comment and share this article with your friends. RM


Red-Flag Gun Laws- Public Safety or Abuse of the Innocent?

January 16, 2019

They are called Extreme-Risk Protection Orders. Some people call them Red-Flag Gun Confiscation. Whatever you call it, we’re supposed to call the cops and stop a bad man with a gun before he hurts someone. That sounds more like the script from a cop-drama on TV than what happens in real life. In practice, these laws are designed for abuse. We’ve already seen them fail to stop violent crime. We’ve also seen police kill gun owners during early morning Red-Flag raids. At best, innocent individuals have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get their rights restored after they’ve been served with a red-flag order.

Is that the unavoidable price of freedom, or is that the bigoted abuse of a disfavored minority for political gain? These gun confiscation laws were proposed so that politicians could get facetime on the news and could increase their campaign contributions. When you read beyond the press releases, you’ll see that these laws are a tax on gun owners..particularly on poor gun owners. We know that violence is a very tough problem to solve and red-flag gun confiscation isn’t the solution.

We never know enough to be sure. Do you know if someone will be violent? We think we do, but our memory plays tricks on us. We remember the time a local kid was arrested and we said, “I knew he was headed for trouble.” We forget all the times when we find out that one spouse has fled their home, and all we can say is, “I never knew there was a problem.” We like to think we’re right, so we remember our good guesses and forget the times we were wrong..sometimes sadly wrong.

There are real cases where family members or doctors have legitimate concerns that someone is a threat to themselves or to others. We see the pleas from family members in hindsight after there was an act of violence. We’ve also seen examples where an abusive partner called the cops on an innocent spouse or romantic partner. We’d like a law that made it easy for ordinary people to ask the police to disarm someone who will clearly be violent, while at the same time protecting the rights of the accused. Let’s see how well that works in practice.

Doctors and judges see a lot of people. They are highly educated and trained for that job. They have lots of experience in exercising their professional judgement. They should be in an excellent position to tell if one of their patients or clients was going to be violent. Unfortunately, their track record at predicting violence is horrible.

We looked at mass murderers during the last two decades. There is nothing subtle about their mental condition, and almost two thirds of them had psychiatric counseling. Most had previous contacts with law enforcement as well. Only one of these individuals was clinically diagnosed and adjudicated as a danger to himself or the last twenty years. We have a terrible record of predicting violent behavior even when we’re looking at our most violent citizens. Our track record is worse when we look at ordinary people.

Psychiatrists who have access to complete medical records often have to assess if a patient will be violent. They make that assessment for the safety of the patient and for the safety of hospital staff. These doctors make the correct prediction 60% of the time when they are predicting behavior for the next 24 hours. That means they are slightly better than flipping a coin while they are looking a day into the future. They have no idea if the patient will be violent in the next week, the next month, or the next year. These highly educated and dedicated specialists can’t predict the future. That record will get worse as red-flag laws let non-professionals disarm near strangers with a phone call.

Today, we want a court judge to do the impossible with Red-Flag laws. Your vindictive relative can make a phone call based on a post in social media. You’ll have your firearms no cost to them, but at the cost of tens-of-thousands of dollars to you.. or worse. We’ve already killed gun owners during midnight police raids instigated by a Red-Flag complaint. The dead gun owner had no record of violent or criminal behavior.

Is murder a fatal fault in the gun confiscation process,
or is it a feature that anti-gun politicians wrote into the law from the beginning?

Red-Flag laws lead to firearms confiscation on the basis of an accusation. Gun owners accused under Red-Flag laws are involved in the legal system before they have any chance to submit facts in front of a judge. That one-sided argument means these laws are designed for abuse.

Domestic abusers use Red-Flag laws to disarm their innocent partners. Does confiscating the tools of self-defense make the abused partner safer or does it leave the innocent partner more vulnerable? Red-flag laws let abusers subjugate their victims in ways the abusers could never accomplish on their own.

A vindictive spouse uses Red-Flag laws as a legal weapon during a divorce and custody fight. Does that really benefit anyone.. other than the lawyers? We might want to save lives, but getting the police involved has real risks.

Are those risks justified? People who have their concealed carry permits are the most law abiding segment of our society. Licensed concealed carry holders are among the most law abiding group of people on the planet. People with their carry permits are more law abiding and less violent than the police. Who are we making safer when we disarm the safest group of people we can find? Concealed carry holders are several times less likely than the police to shoot innocent people. Who is at risk when the police knock in the dark of night to confiscate legally owned firearms?

Who are we making safer when we disarm the safest group of people on the planet?

Of course there is a real concern to disarm people who have made threats. There is also a real concern with a system that is so easily abused. Even the ACLU said that red-flag gun laws need to be revised so they are fair to the accused. How can we make the system respond to both concerns?

The obvious solution is to go before a judge. Unfortunately, that often means that the side with the most money and lawyers carries the day. Few of us can afford tens of thousands of dollars to defend ourselves against a groundless accusation. Can you hire a lawyer in the next 24 hours and come up with tens of thousands of dollars in order to protect your rights? Is the right of self-defense only for rich men with lawyers?

An abused partner shouldn’t have to give up their firearms, their tools of personal protection, simply because they don’t have enough time and money to protect their rights in court on short notice. We want to do the right thing, but disarming the innocent party puts them at greater risk rather than making us all safer.

The less obvious solution is to have the state pay the legal fees when an innocent person has to defend their rights in court. If public safety were the real concern, then politicians should be eager to pay those legal fees and court costs. We could at least ask the accuser to put up a bond to cover the costs of false accusations. Can the accused deduct his court and lawyer fees from her taxes?

That isn’t what the politicians want. It is easy to demonize honest gun owners when the news is full of criminals committing violence. As I said, licensed gun owners are extremely law abiding and non-violent. It is easy for bigoted politicians and the the media to blame gun owners even though the legal gun owner is innocent.

There is a bias in the politicians press release and in the slanted news. The media and the politicians ignore the fact that firearms are used to save lives far more often than they are used to take them. News stories about violence hold an audience. Stories about violence get politicians in front of TV cameras. The good guy with a gun that stopped a crime from happening isn’t even considered news. The scales are tipped; tragedy becomes front page news while the triumph of a life saved is hardly mentioned.

You can easily test this claim of bias for yourself. You probably remember the names of several mass murderers. You might remember where they killed. You’re unusual if you know the names or actions of the armed citizens who stopped mass murderers. The fact that you know one but not the other is the result of bias.

Saving lives doesn’t fit the story that reporters..or politicians..want to sell. Red-flag gun confiscation laws are more about the bigoted story that guns and gun owners are evil than about saving lives.

I gave you 1500 words. Please share this article with a friend and leave a comment. RM

Universal Background Checks Don’t Work, so Why Do We Want More of Them?

January 11, 2019

I’ve made mistakes before and I’ll probably make some again. That is why it’s important to be aware and skeptical as we try new ideas. There is a time for persistence and a time to ask if you’re headed in the right direction. All that came to mind as I read about the US House of Representatives proposing universal background checks for firearms owners. These background checks have failed too many times to try them again.

The fundamental failure of a background check is that it looks backward. Mass murder is not a long-term career path. Background checks can’t stop a first-time mass murderer. Here are the most recent examples.


  • The mass murderer who killed 12 people at a country western bar in Thousand Oaks, California passed his background checks..several times.
  • The mass murderer who killed 11 people in a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania synagogue passed his background checks for each weapon he owned.
  • The mass murderer who killed four people in an Annapolis, Maryland newspaper office purchased his firearms legally and passed his background checks.
  • The student who killed 10 people in his El Paso, Texas high school stole his guns. He took the legally owned guns from his father without permission, so background check laws would not have stopped this murder.
  • The schizophrenic who murdered 4 people at a Waffle House restaurant in Nashville, Tennessee was disarmed after he make threats. In a federal lawsuit the murderer’s father said he was never told that his son was a prohibited person and not allowed to have guns.
  • The murderer at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida passed his background checks even though he had many psychological counseling sessions and had been reported to the school, to local police, and to the FBI.


  • The murderer at the church in Sutherland Springs, Texas killed 27 people after passing his background checks. He should have been barred from getting a gun since he was treated for mental illness, convicted of domestic violence, and dishonorably discharged from the US Air Force. The Air Force never submitted his criminal records to the national background check system.
  • The murderer at the Mandalay Bay Casino in Las Vegas killed 59 people after buying his firearms legally and passing a background check for each gun he used.

I could go on for hundreds of examples but I fear you wouldn’t read them. If this is what background checks do for us, then we should run from them rather than embrace more of the same. It is clear that background checks don’t stop mass murders.

Do mandatory background checks reduce other violent crimes? No other state does gun-control as much and as hard as California. California is rated the first in the nation for gun-control. Background check requirements were imposed in California three decades ago and should have worked there if they would work anywhere.

Sociologists and criminologists published a report in the Annals of Epidemiology where they compared California to other states which hadn’t mandated background checks. Neither mandatory background checks nor firearms prohibition for misdemeanor crimes reduced gun homicide or suicide in California. In fact, the California homicide rate rose by 16 percent from 2014 to 2016. California gun-control doesn’t work.

Why do politicians propose failed ideas over and over? For the politician, background checks don’t have to make our streets safer. All they have to do is sound good on TV. Most of us don’t do our homework. We buy our ideas the same way we buy knives on the shopping channel at 2 in the morning. We buy gun-control because it sounds good and is sold with enthusiasm.

Mass murderers and other criminals don’t follow our gun laws. Stop pretending they do because our gullibility is getting us killed. Here is the downside to gun-control and background checks.

Licensed concealed carry holders are among the most law abiding and non-violent groups of people on the planet. Law abiding citizens use legally owned firearms for self-defense thousands of times a day. Disarming even a few honest gun owners will leave more of us as disarmed victims of criminal violence. That costs lives.

There are no exemptions in our gun laws for need. There is no exemption for the young woman who has a stalker and suddenly needs a gun for protection. There is no exemption for the sexual assault victim who now wants a firearm to feel secure when she is home alone. It is illegal to give these innocent and honest people a tool for self-defense until the state approves. The victim’s needs come second after the state has its mandatory background checks..and its fees.

The time to stop and turn around is when you realize you’ve made a mistake. Universal background checks sound good but cost lives.

I gave you almost 800 words and a few hours of research for free. Please share this article and comment. RM


Firearms Regulation Misses the Target

January 10, 2019

The mass murderer at the Mandalay Bay Casino in Las Vegas used something called a bump stock. In theory, a bump stock allows a gun to fire faster. Some politicians say that is too fast. In fact, the fastest shooters alive today already fire a semi-automatic gun so quickly that it rivals some machine guns. Government regulators, and some anti-gun Democrat politicians, then concluded that civilians should be denied the use of all semi-automatic weapons. They claim these guns can shoot like machine guns, at least some of the time. That regulation and laws like it miss the point entirely.

If civilians should be disarmed because these weapons are too dangerous then we should disarm local, state, and federal law enforcement as well. If these guns, and I’ll let you choose which ones you want to ban, are too dangerous for law abiding citizens to own then they are far too dangerous for the government to have. As Senator Feinstein said, “Turn them all in,” only this time we’re including the politicians and the police as well. That proposal is based on facts, and is less far-fetched than it sounds.

Guns confiscated in Washington, DC

This is what we know from the data we have. Licensed concealed carry holders are more law abiding and less criminally inclined than the police. The average citizen is less likely to commit suicide than the police. The average gun owner is significantly less likely than the police to shoot the wrong person. Licensed concealed carry holders in the US are among the most law abiding and non-violent group of people on the planet. If the most law abiding and peaceful group on earth is too dangerous to have guns then so is everyone else. The largest mass murders in US history were committed by the US government.

Let the politicians and judges go first. Disarm the guards at the state capital. Disarm the bailiff at the courthouse. How many celebrities will be for gun-control if it means giving up their private security guards at their gated mansions?

Eliminate the legal exceptions that allow legislators to go armed while ordinary citizens must be defenseless. If you think certain guns, magazines or firearms accessories should be banned, then show us the way and lead with your example. If the rules don’t apply to the politicians and the people guarding them, then gun regulation is simply another government power grab.

Tyrants always want to disarm their subjects, but never themselves.

Why We Continue to Have School Murders

January 10, 2019

Why have there been any more school murders in the USA since the attack at Columbine High School two decades ago? Violent attacks aren’t a mystery. We know why murderers kill. Narcissistic psychopaths and disgruntled sociopaths kill because the media turns these murderers into celebrities. We know the kind of targets they want. We know they will attack unarmed groups of people. We also know how to prevent and how to respond to these attacks. Why haven’t we adopted the measures that save our students? Neither the talking heads nor the politicians want to admit the truth. We have not stopped these rampages because the news media and political special-interests feed on mass murder.

That simple description hides some important details. As horrific as these mass murders are, they are unlikely to strike any particular campus. For perspective, we’re more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed in a mass murder in a public school. We have more than a half million school buildings so we can’t stack a SWAT team in every school hallway. Fortunately, we have solutions that work.

Criminologists and law enforcement specialists adapt police training each year as they evaluate new patterns of crime. These experts looked at the school mass murders and said law enforcement can’t get there in time. Often, these events are over before the police arrive so we need a number of armed first responders in the building before the event starts.

We’ve known how to stop mass murders in schools for the last six years. Why haven’t we put those solutions in place? For a problem to persist in the face of clear solutions means that special interests are benefiting from mass murder or we would have stopped it by now. Ask yourself who benefits from school murders.

Who benefits from school murders?

the News Media connection
If you read the murderers’ journals, doctor’s reports, and police interviews, then you can see a direct line from Dunblane, Scotland to Port Arthur, Australia to Columbine, Colorado, to Sandy Hook, Connecticut. The next mass murderer is inspired by the media coverage given to the last mass murder. Today, the US news media gives these murderers a billion dollars of publicity after they kill. We even changed our language to describe them. “Celebrity murderers” and “celebrity violence” are the terms we invented to describe these killers and what they do. Psychologists and media experts said that a third or more of these mass murders could be stopped if we changed media coverage.

We’ve done that before and we could do it again. The media protects the identity of rape victims. In a similar vein, refusing to mention their name and show their face has already worked to reduce teen suicides. So why didn’t we do something similar in order to stop mass murders in our schools?

Media coverage has gone beyond the public’s “need to know”.  Instead, the media exposure actively promotes the next mass murder. Why would the networks inspire evil? I think the media is desperate in the face of declining credibility and their dwindling number of viewers. Many of the major networks will say anything to keep us watching and to support their political agenda of gun-control.

The general principle of political Progressives is that any action is acceptable if it advances their agenda. What are a few hundred dead children if it helps to further the cause of a disarmed population. The Media will never have to pay reparations for dead teachers and children. Yes, politics is already involved in mass murder.

Gun-Control Politicians
The average citizen doesn’t know that we already have 23 thousand firearms regulations on the books. Each law, each regulation, was described as essential for public safety, yet politicians failed to deliver on that promise each and every time. Firearms prohibition hasn’t worked to stop violent crime or to stop mass murder.

Gun-control fails where ever it is tried. Gun-control in the Ukraine and Russia are far stricter than any legislation proposed in the United States, yet just a few months ago there was a mass school shooting in the Crimea.

All the wasted ink of legislation hasn’t kept blood off the floor. The political promises made in front of the TV cameras were hollow. Gun laws haven’t stopped the crazies and criminals from killing, so why do anti-gun Democrats propose more of the same failed ideas?

Progressives have always worked to undermine the idea of limited Government. Each school shooting brings calls for more gun-control. Destroying the Second Amendment is essential to the Progressive project because the Second Amendment is a constant rebuke to their primary goal of unlimited government power.

This isn’t speculation about actions that Socialists might take at some time in the future, but a prediction that Socialist politicians will continue to act as they have in the past. Under the Obama administration, executives in the US Department of Justice and State Department ran guns to mexican narco-terrorists in the hopes of passing stricter gun control legislation here in the US.

Democrat politicians enjoy personal as well as political payoffs after a mass murder at one of our schools. Like the murderers themselves, these politicians use each crisis to get more face time in front of the TV cameras. These politicians need a crisis to stay in office.

The Progressive Media and Progressive politicians both benefit financially from the carnage in our schools. The Media receives market share, clicks and views. The politicians receive millions of dollars in campaign contributions from anti-gun billionaires. This will continue as long as the Media and Politicians can hide their agenda behind a mask of altruism by saying they are working “for the children”.

Government Unions
Teachers unions uses our children in a deadly political game. Teachers unions are a tool of Progressive politics at worst. At best they are active supporters of big-government. Teachers unions hold our children hostage for their own financial gain and for political power. Teachers receiving security training or medical training to save lives violates union control over “work rules” even if the training is taken on a voluntary basis. This is why Democrats work to twist the narrative about defense of children into the false narrative of forcing teachers to have guns.

No one is suggesting that teachers should be forced to carry guns. The unions object, strongly, to armed volunteer staff in schools because trained volunteers carrying guns demonstrate that guns are useful for defense. That is a living demonstration that self-defense works and rebuts the Socialist narrative that only governments should be armed. Armed defenders also provide a positive role model for children and is anathema to the Progressive project.

The union’s goal is to maximize its power and wealth. Allowing volunteer first responders on campus works against the Union imperative to create as many separate and compartmentalized government positions as possible. It is important to the political goals of the teachers union that citizens be disarmed even if it costs the lives of a few hundred teachers and students.

Where are the Republican politicians in all this? After the next school shooting, Republicans politicians will be afraid of criticism from the Socialists, from government employee unions, and from the socialist media. Republicans are afraid to point out that gun control failed again. That doesn’t mean that gun control works. It means any alternative to bigger government and more gun-control will be shouted down. This isn’t a battle of ideas and consequences, but a battle of shouting voices on the weekend info-tainment shows that pass themselves off as news. Unfortunately, Republicans will win the support from Armed America by being marginally less anti-Second Amendment than the Socialists.

After his daughter was killed in a Florida high school, one surviving parent said this.

‘We have enough laws to stop these murders.
What we don’t have is any personal accountability to protect our children.’

That diversion of responsibility away from school staff and law enforcement isn’t an accident. We saw failure from every level of government at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Government failed from the FBI in Washington to the armed School Resource Officer at the schoolhouse door. Both progressive politicians and socialists unions need to keep the bureaucracy unaccountable for its perpetual failings. Again, this isn’t new behavior. One of the longstanding goals of teacher unions is to prevent accountability for teacher performance. Progressives deliberately reframe the narrative to gun-control after a deadly attack. This moves the focus from their responsibility and shifts attention to the NRA.

Unfortunately, the reports issued after these attacks don’t focus on these larger media and political problems. They often propose ineffective plans that wouldn’t have stopped the last attack and certainly won’t stop the next one. Let’s back that claim up with concrete examples.

  • One school resource officer costs as much as several thousand school staff members who volunteer to take training to be armed first responders. We could defend a medium sized school district for the same cost as a single SRO.
  • The Florida School Guardian program deliberately excludes almost all classroom teachers. We need to protect our students, not the parking lot or the ball field.
  • There are dozens of retired military and police in every community. They would gladly serve as school protectors.

Progressive politicians and teachers unions refuse to consider these obvious solutions. This is another example of unions and politicians defending their turf while leaving our children undefended.

The political and media system brought us where we are today. As citizens and parents, we can’t sit back and expect the system to fix itself. We will have to go to the school board meetings and replace the union interests with our own. We will have to shame the media into reporting responsibly on celebrity violence. We will have to see through the self-serving motives of  politicians.

We are the best advocates our children have. We must speak up and defend them.

Thank you to Dean Weingarten and Bill Frady for help with this article. Mistakes and omissions are mine.
I gave you 1600 words. Please leave a comment and share.

Politics Kills Our Kids Again, safety report from Parkland Florida

January 4, 2019

Florida formed a study committee after 17 students and teachers were killed and an additional 17 were injured at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in early 2018. I read some of the MSDHS safety commission report. It covered the obvious points. Unfortunately, I don’t see much good coming out of it. This was more than a school failure; it was a political failure. More of our children will be at risk and some will die because of problems in the Florida legislature. Sure, implement the suggestions in the report, but please don’t stop there.

The report told us to do the obvious. A school could have received nearly the same recommendations from almost any firearms instructor or security consultant.

  • Have a safety plan. Study what worked for others and adapt it to your situation.
  • Teach people what to do in case of an emergency.
  • Report suspicious activity and act on those reports.
  • Lock your doors.
  • Select a safe place in which to shelter in case of an attack.
  • Contact second responders like the police and EMTs.
  • Have trained individuals on site to stop the threat and treat the injured until secondary responders arrive.
  • Conduct frequent safety drills so everyone knows what to do. Grade people on their performance.
  • Schools and churches should conduct multi-agency safety exercises so police, fire, and EMTs know how to respond to each particular site.
  • Update your safety program based on the lessons learned from each exercise.

Do those recommendations surprise anyone? This list sounds simplistic and that is a fair criticism. Unfortunately, school and police officials failed to do every one of these simple things. That is why the school district hired a public relations specialists to spin the news before the recent election.

One parent summarized the situation this way.

We already had laws to stop this murder.
What we didn’t have was individual accountability.

This is what the report should have said-
-Many police and school staff failed in their assigned jobs. Widespread failure is a sign of poor leadership. These staff were retained in their positions for political reasons. That indicates corrupt management.
-Rather than seeking to immediately improve school safety after the attack, the police and school organizations acted to cover up their failings. Provide alternative educational opportunities so parents can escape these failed institutions.
-If possible, have state executives remove these failed officials from office. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
-To prevent similar failures, revise state limited immunity statutes so individuals working in state and local government may be held criminally and civilly liable for their actions.
-Existing safety programs like the Florida school guardian program were crafted to provide political cover rather than to protect students. The existing guardian program deliberately excludes classroom teachers from being first responders because of union opposition.
-The school guardian program un-necessarily burdens schools and school boards as they work to improve school safety. Change legislations so school boards and local sheriffs may develop their own safety programs separate from the guardian program. Adopt safety programs modeled after the successful programs used in other states.

At least the report said trained volunteer teachers should be armed.

I gave you 500 words for free. Please leave a comment and share this article with your friends. RM.

Gun-Control Fails in Chicago.. but Do Democrats Care?

January 3, 2019

We have good news from the Windy City. Emperor Rahm will end his reign as mayor and the number of murders in Chicago was lower this year than last. Given its long history of violence, do Democrat voters even care any longer?

The Trump recovery finally picked Chicago up off its knees. Due to better employment opportunities, a few thousand young men took real jobs rather than joining gangs in Chicago. That economic shift dropped the number of people murdered in Chicago for the second year in a row. Chicago isn’t the city with the highest murder rate in the US, but it is far from a shining jewel in the Socialist crown. You would think this level of public violence would bother Chicago politicians, or at least bother the Democrat voters who keep the pols in office.

Chicago murder statistics from

Chicago runs Illinois. To be more precise, Chicago politicians run Illinois politics. Both have been in decline for years. Both city and state are massively in debt and horribly inefficient. High taxes, burdensome regulations, and widespread corruption drive out industry. The resulting high rate of unemployment drives up crime. All that was predictable.

Even if the Chicago politicians don’t have a solution to their old string of failures, they are always able to come up with new excuses. Excuses worked for both the politicians and the voters who elected them.. and who keep re-electing them. The Chicago pols blamed guns for the violence in their city.. each month after murderous month.

Chicago statistics for 2018

The excuse of blaming guns worked for Democrat voters in Chicago. After all, they voted Democrat so violent crime isn’t their problem to worry about. Did the voters ever stop to ask themselves the simplest of question?

We were told that guns were the source of violence in Chicago. Why was crime so high in Joliet and Chicago while the violent crime rate was so much lower in Palatine or Des Plaines? Was it easy to get guns in North Lawndale but somehow impossible to get firearms in Palatine? If gun control in Illinois worked so well, then why was Illinois still so violent compared to other states? Illinois Democrats don’t want to know.

map of murders in Chicago 2018

Chicago politicians said that gun-control not only worked, but was essential to public safety. They claimed that Chicago was suffering from the bad gun laws in nearby states. Chicago Democrats never asked themselves why Chicago was so violent, but Fort Wayne and Green Bay were several times safer. They didn’t want to know the answer.

For years Chicago politicians said that guns were the problem and that was why they couldn’t allow concealed carry permits. Oddly enough, the crime rate in Chicago has fallen now that concealed carry came to Illinois. That is consistent with a nationwide report from the American College of Surgeons. The report said concealed carry and permitless carry didn’t increase murder or violent crime. Gun control was a placebo. That political sugarpill let Chicago politicians keep innocent victims disarmed for years. The Chicago voters didn’t care.

self-defense in Chicago 2018

We were told that we need background checks to stop crime whenever legal gun owners buy guns. Studies published in the Annals of Epidemiology showed that those gun-control laws didn’t reduce rates of murder or suicide. Gun-control was neither safe nor effective. Are we shocked to find out that gang bangers don’t bother with paperwork? What these Illinois gun-control laws were successful at doing was disarming poor people in our inner cities, the same people who are at greatest risk of criminal attack. Despite what they claim, Democrat voters don’t care about the safety of poor people.

Unfortunately, it gets crazier than that. Illinois runs a background check every night on every person who has a state license to carry a concealed weapon. When you look closely at the data, people with their concealed carry license are the most law abiding and non-violent class of people on the planet. That means that Illinois state bureaucrats could have searched the police records of anyone else and found more criminals.

That is so important I’m going to say it again. Illinois State law enforcement spent their time investigating the most law abiding group on the planet rather than searching for actual criminals in order to solve crimes and close real cases. Illinois has a deadly problem with drug gangs, but the police spend their nights investigating honest gun owners. We left real criminals on the street in order to meet a political agenda, but Illinois Democrats don’t care.

Politics are real. Voters are supposed to stop political corruption by voting dishonest officials out of office. We have people murdered in Chicago every 15 minutes and Illinois voters can’t be bothered to pay attention.

Who cares about the Chicago’s victims?

We’ve seen the deadly results. With a record like that, don’t you dare tell me that Democrat politicians or Democrat voters care about the working class and the poor.

Chicago homicide statistics
Chicago crime down while carry permits increase
Chicago crime drops in 2018
360 background checks a year are not enough in Illinois
Legally armed people among safest in the world

I gave you 800 words for free. Please rate, share, and comment. RM

%d bloggers like this: