Lee Williams Jul 8 by Lee Williams When most Americans hear the term “mass shooting,” they picture a crazed gunman stalking the halls of a school or a shopping mall, coldly and randomly executing innocent young victims. What does not come to mind are rival drug crews shooting it out in Chicago or Detroit, or a madman murdering his entire family. Yet for one small but influential nonprofit, the Gun Violence Archive, anytime four or more people are killed or even slightly wounded with a firearm, it’s labeled a mass shooting, and politicians, gun control advocates and the mainstream media treat their reports as if they’re gospel. The Gun Violence Archive, or GVA, was founded in 2013 by Michael Klein, a left-leaning philanthropist and open-government advocate, and Mark Bryant, a retired computer analyst and GVA’s current executive director. Gun Violence Archive executive director Mark Bryant. (Photo courtesy Mark Bryant). According to Bryant’s all-inclusive definition, there were 417 mass shootings in 2019. The FBI says there were 30, because it uses a much narrower definition. While the GVA collects and publishes several different types of shooting data – mass murders, number of children and teens killed or injured, officer-involved shootings, defenses gun usages and more – it is their inflated mass shooting numbers that are cited most often by the mainstream media, given its penchant for sensational headlines. In an interview with the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project on Tuesday, Bryant defended his broader definition and the higher body count it yields. “It doesn’t parse,” he said. “It gives an accurate picture of the number of times more than four people were shot, whether in a drive-by or a shooting at a rap concert or a country music concert.” If his higher numbers are misleading the public or being misinterpreted by journalists, it’s not his fault, Bryant claimed. He believes his numbers are fair. “I do, but I think it’s also up to the journalist and the reader to have a better understanding of what the data says. When a journalist uses the mass-shooting numbers as their lead, they’re not looking at the whole situation.” That the media, elected officials and what he calls the “gun violence prevention” community, or GVP, are using his statistics is not in question. The Biden/Harris administration has cited Bryant’s data, as have a bevy of other elected officials and political candidates, at the local, state and federal level. The New York Times, National Public Radio, USA Today and a host of other media outlets now use GVA’s broad definition when reporting about mass shootings. In an interview with the Trace last month, Bryant said CNN “literally cut and pasted our definition for mass shooting into their definition of mass shooting.” In his interview Tuesday, Bryant deflected blame for the media’s overhyping and misuse of his data. “If the numbers are misleading, the journalist didn’t do their homework, you could make that argument,” he said. “The media zeroes in on it, not us. At one point we wanted to take mass shootings out of the loop, but the phone started ringing on a daily basis. It’s important to me that we’re not misinterpreted. We’re not anti-gun. Look at our staff, over half are gun owners. I intentionally do not hire from the GVP community. I want researchers — period. We wanted to have an honest set of data, and you can use it how you want.” Methodology Bryant is a retired computer systems architect who worked on data collection projects for IBM. His current team of 20 researchers have advanced degrees, most in computer science. “We are painfully fastidious on our methodology, on how we log something,” he said. The GVA has divided the country into specific coverage regions. Every day, Bryant said his researchers consult “a mass of about 7,500 sources. They are law enforcement Twitter, law enforcement Facebook, law enforcement police blotters and then we have media sources. The easiest is to grab media sources. Law enforcement is clinical. The media looks more subjectively at an incident.” Bryant acknowledged that there have been reliability issues with media stories, especially after a mass shooting. A shooting in Cincinnati, he said, produced several different versions of events. “When we looked at five media sources, they were all over the map, even about when it occurred. We know that some media reports are erroneous.” “We drill down to granularity of the street level, which is what the FBI doesn’t do,” he said. According to their new report titled: “Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2020,” the FBI defines active shootings as: Shootings in public places Shootings occurring at more than one location Shootings where the shooter’s actions were not the result of another criminal act Shootings resulting in a mass killing Shootings indicating apparent spontaneity by the shooter Shootings where the shooter appeared to methodically search for potential victims Shootings that appeared focused on injury to people, not buildings or objects Shootings were excluded from the FBI’s list if they were the result of: Self-defense Gang violence Drug violence Contained residential or domestic disputes Controlled barricade/hostage situations Crossfire as a byproduct of another ongoing criminal act An action that appeared not to have put other people in peril By comparison, the Gun Violence Archive excludes nothing, even if the shooting is gang or drug related — the two main causes of most violence in the country today. Asked if he believed that the average news consumer even considers domestic violence or gang warfare when they hear the term mass shooting, Bryant said, “I don’t know. I know what we want to do is provide numbers and let the journalists, advocates and ‘congress critters’ look at the data, glean details and drill down on it.” Funding Michael Klein, through his foundation, provides 95% of the GVA’s funding, Bryant said, which is borne out by the nonprofit’s most recent IRS 990 filings from 2017 and 2018. “He (Klein) did well in business,” Bryant said. “We are one of his two projects that look at shining a light on data.” Although Bryant declined to identify the donors who supply the remaining 5% of his annual budget, which is approximately $500,000, he said he takes no money from any group affiliated with former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. “We take no money from any advocates,” he said. “The closes we get to that is the Joyce Foundation.” But according to its website, one of the goals of the Joyce Foundation is to “Reduce gun deaths and injuries in the Great Lakes region.” To achieve this, the Joyce Foundation has a four-step plan: Advance and implement federal, state, and local policies and practices that reduce easy accessibility of guns to those at risk of violence. Support policies to reduce easy accessibility of guns to those at risk of violence. Reduce the next generation’s exposure to gun violence through education on the risks of gun ownership. Litigate to defend evidence-based gun policies and challenge extreme gun rights policies and practices. Anti-gun? During his interview Tuesday, Bryant quickly self-identified as a gun owner and frequent target shooter. He sold three Colt Pythons, he said, in order to raise startup capital for the nonprofit. “I own guns. I target shoot. I started shooting at the age of five during the Eisenhower Administration,” he said. “We didn’t have a lot to do in Harlan County (Kentucky), so we would shoot rats. I’m not against guns. I think there is a need.” However, without supporting data, Bryant said there are thousands of gun owners who lack sufficient training or who may carry a concealed firearm while drinking or while intoxicated. “If there are 50 million gun owners, 200,000 will go stupid,” he said. “I think that gun owners should get together and come to the table and craft rules that will be applicable to everyone.” Asked if he supported the Second Amendment, Bryant said, “I do, as it’s written, but I have a problem in the way people look at the last half and not the first half and parse that. If anyone is looking at the whole amendment, and I say this in interviews often, I don’t have the balls to tell someone how to defend themselves. My job is statistics, not opinion.” In the past, Bryant has claimed that he is “anti-violence” and not anti-gun, but has publicly lobbied for stricter gun control. In 2018, he coauthored a guest column for the Los Angeles Times, titled: “Op-Ed: We have all the data we need: Stronger gun laws would save lives.” The column was coauthored with Devin Hughes, founder of GVPedia, which according to its website is a “project created to provide ready access to academic research and high quality data on gun violence.” In their column, Bryant and Hughes called for more anti-gun legislation, stating: “More guns mean more crime and more death. Gun possession significantly increases your risk of being killed by someone you know. A gun in the home doubles your risk of homicide and triples your risk of suicide. The presence of a gun increases the lethality of domestic violence. Areas with higher gun ownership see a significant increase in burglary. And states with higher levels of gun ownership experience higher rates of firearm fatalities.” Asked about the column Tuesday, which bore his byline, Bryant said, “I didn’t write that. I don’t even know what Devin (Hughes) wrote in that.” Instead, Bryant said he supports restricting standard-capacity magazines. “I think magazine capacity is an issue that should be addressed. You don’t need 30-round mags or a 60-round drum,” he said. “While they are great ‘get off’ tools, they’re part of a hobby, not part of the Second Amendment.” In a guest column for the Lexington Herald Leader three years ago — without a coauthor — Bryant spoke out against Senate Resolution 172, which encouraged teachers to carry firearms in the classroom. “It is a fatally flawed solution from folks who learned another lesson about tools: ‘If all you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail’ — the National Rifle Association solution,” he wrote. Changes coming? Several hours after his interview, Bryant emailed a written statement. “I got thinking about our mass shooting data being disingenuous. And while I disagree, I appreciate the question as it guides us to look at how it is presented to insure it is not. Since it is raw data there is no ‘motive’ implied … only inferred by end users. The number shot and killed is the same whether it is labeled ‘mass shooting’ or ‘4+ shot and killed.’ As long as the methodology is clearly stated it should not matter,” Bryant wrote. “Obviously, the gun rights side likes a smaller number … it helps blow it off as insignificant, makes whistling by the graveyard easier. By the same token some GVP folks would like to see numbers embellished by going with the 3+ count that Obama wanted to use. Some would also like the number inflated by including suicides in with Killed statistics although, as we discussed because the causes/solutions of suicides are far different than other forms of gun violence that would be misleading.” Bryant hinted that he may consider a policy change. “I think that GVA needs to approach mass shootings in a slightly different perspective since they are less than 6% of shootings by number of victims. On the one hand, that may reduce ‘mass shooting’ rhetoric, on the other hand, that will refocus to the much larger ‘ALL’ number,” he wrote. “By using a raw, numerical threshold only we let the user make interpretive decisions. We do the same with (Defensive Gun Usages), not parsing or caveating, publishing the raw data, whether good guy v bad guy, domestic violence, bad guy v bad guy [that number would surprise you]. So that blade cuts both ways.” Takeaways In my humble opinion, Bryant is clearly trying to have things both ways. On one hand he claims he wants his data to be clear, accurate and not misinterpreted. On the other hand, the data itself is neither clear nor accurate, and it’s so sensational — 417 mass shooting versus the FBI’s 30 for 2019 — that of course the media and gun-control organizations are going to use it and misinterpret it. It fits their “guns are evil” narrative far better than the FBI statistics. And once the mainstream media accepts Bryant’s definition and its much higher numbers, they’re hooked. There’s no going back to the FBI’s data. After all, how would they explain to their viewers that the numbers have declined by 10-fold. I also believe Bryant was somewhat less than candid about the public’s perception of a mass shooting. He knows full well what most Americans believe constitutes a mass shooting, and it’s not a couple of gangsters shooting it out over turf, a drug deal gone bad or a psycho who shoots his own family. I also find his methodology particularly flawed – especially since it relies upon media reports and law enforcement’s social media. Media reports – especially cable TV news – are almost always wrong after a shooting of any kind. They strive to be first, and they don’t let the facts get in their way. As to the use of law enforcement Twitter and Facebook accounts, while some of the larger agencies use social media as a way to keep the public informed, others Tweet out pics of the Sheriff’s favorite sandwich, or an homage to a K9 “officer” who joined the Choir Eternal. I’ll give Bryant the benefit of the doubt when he claims to be a gun owner, but he’s clearly a Fudd and a Second Amendment butter – I support the Second Amendment, but … His database is being used by anti-gun politicians, the gun-control crowd and their supporters in the mainstream media to infringe upon our God-given constitutional rights. Keep in mind they’re citing GVA’s data as proof our rights need some infringing. If Bryant honestly believes in an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, he’d shutter the GVA tomorrow. I doubt that will ever happen. The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this. At the range in Sarasota, Florida |
Is This What’s Coming To Delaware
We have seen how Delaware’s Governor Carney blindly followed New York’s Governor Cuomo like a mouse following the Pied Piper as he used his executive power to shutdown the government and the economy. We’ve seen how Delaware’s political elite followed New York’s example during the pandemic, ignoring the will of the people and exercising powers no one ever believed was possible.
Is it happening again? Will Carney once again follow Cuomo? If so, what could it mean for the law-abiding gun owners of Delaware?
Read Governor Cuomo’s declaration of war on the law-abiding gun owners of New York and brace yourself – this kind of totalitarian arrogance could soon be on display here in the First State – and remember, elections have consequences.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 211
DECLARATION OF A STATE WIDE DISASTER EMERGENCY DUE TO GUN VIOLENCE
WHEREAS, gun violence poses a serious threat to the health and quality oflife of all residents of the state ofNewYork; and
WHEREAS, gun violence is reaching crisis levels: gun violence is the leading cause of premature death in the U.S. and gun injuries total $280 billion in healthcare/societal costs annually; and
WHEREAS, since January 2021, gun violence is up 48% in New York City, 22% in Albany, 88% in Buffalo and 95% in Rochester; and
WHEREAS, urban communities in New York State are disproportionately affected by the direct and indirect consequences of gun violence; and
WHEREAS, urban communities in New York State typically experience a spike in gun violence. in the summer months; and
WHEREAS, at least 50% of homicides and 55% of nonfatal shootings involve people associated with gangs or more loosely-affiliated “street groups”; and
WHEREAS, the cycle of escalatory gun provides insight into where future shootings will occur which allows an immediate crisis response; and
WHEREAS, the collection and analysis of data from local law enforcement agencies can help target state funds and services needed to reduce gun violence and save lives in communities with high rates of gun-related violence; and
WHEREAS, data collected can be utilized to support proven community violence intervention programs, summer employment opportunities and other investments known to reduce crimes and make our neighborhoods safer; and
WHEREAS, the state has an obligation to act in a mauner consistent with the science and data on gun violence in order to prevent imminent and immediate harm to communities across the state; and
WHEREAS, the science and data suggest that deployment of more violence interupters, and provision of summer employment programs will have an immediate ameliorative effect on the increased violence that has been occurring in these communities; and
WHERAS, it is necessary to suspend certain provisions of law, rule or regulation which would otherwise hamper the efforts of the State to respond to this crisis;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor of the State of New York, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution of the State of New York and Section 28 of Article 2-B of the Executive Law, do hereby declare a State-wide disaster emergency effective July 6, 2021, and until further notice across New York State; and
FURTHER, I direct the creation of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention and the creation of the Governor’s Council on Gun Violence Reduction and direct all relevant agencies to take appropriate action to protect State property and to assist affected local governments and individuals in responding to and recovering from this · disaster, and to provide such other assistance as necessary to protect the public health, welfare and safety.
FURTHER, by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 29-a of Article 2-B of the Executive Law to temporarily suspend or modify any statute, local law, ordinance, order, rule, or regulation, or parts thereof, during a State disaster emergency, if compliance with such would prevent, hinder, or delay action necessary to cope with the disaster emergency or if necessary to assist or aid in coping with such disaster, I hereby suspend the following effective July 6 through August 5, 2021:
- Section 112 of the State Finance Law, so far as it applies to contracts, leases, licenses, permits or any other written agreements that may be entered into for purposes of mitigating such disaster emergency;
- Section 136-a of the State Finance Law so far as it applies to contracts, leases, licenses, permits or any other written agreements that may be entered into for purposes of mitigating such disaster emergency;
- Section 139-d of the State Finance Law so far as it applies to contracts, leases, licenses, permits or any other written agreements that may be entered into for purposes of mitigating such disaster emergency;
- Section 139-i of the State Finance Law so far as it applies to contracts, leases, licenses, permits or any other written agreements that may be entered into for purposes of mitigating such disaster emergency;
- Section 139-j of the State Finance Law so far as it applies to contracts, leases, licenses, permits or any other written agreements that may be entered into for purposes of mitigating such disaster emergency;
- Section 139-k of the State Finance Law so far as it applies to contracts, leases, licenses, permits or any other written agreements that may be entered into for purposes of mitigating such disaster emergency;
- Section 163 of the State Finance Law so far as it applies to contracts, leases, licenses, permits or any other written agreements that may be entered into for purposes of mitigating such disaster emergency;
- Section 163-a of the State Finance Law so far as it applies to contracts, leases, licenses, permits or any other written agreements that may be entered into for purposes of mitigating such disaster emergency;
- Any rules, regulations or guidelines established pursuant to, in conformity with, or for purposes of implementing any of the aforementioned provisions oflaw;
- Any other provision of any New York State statute, local law, ordinance, orders, rules or regulations, or parts thereof, that may apply to contracts, leases, licenses, permits, program or operational plans, or any other written agreements that may be entered into for purposes of mitigating such disaster emergency; and
- Subdivision twelve of section eight hundred and thirty seven of the Executive Law is modified insofar as to require that all primary police departments in Gun Involved Violence Elimination (G.I.V.E.) jurisdictions: Albany, Buffalo, Hempstead, Mount Vernon, Nassau County, Newburgh, New York City, Niagara Falls, Poughkeepsie, Rochester, Schenectady, Suffolk County, Syracuse, Troy, Utica, Yonkers, Binghamton City, Jamestown City, Kingston City and Spring Valley Village shall be polled by Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) weekly for the following data: shooting incidents, shooting victims and individuals killed by gun violence. All departments shall be surveyed for the following incident level data: date, time, location, victim age, victim sex and victim race and where an arrest has been made, perpetrator age, perpetrator sex and perpetrator race.
GIVEN under my hand and the Privy Seal of the State in the City of Albany this sixth day of July in the year two thousand twenty-one.
ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor of New York
New Jersey AG misusing his offcie to shut down out-of-state firearm businesses
New Jersey’s Attorney General is ordering firearm products banned in the Garden State, and then extorting thousand of dollars from out-of-state firms through lawsuits. Lee Williams Jun 1 New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal When I worked at a newspaper in Delaware, I was intimately aware that if I strayed across the border into New Jersey with any weapons, ammo or mags and got caught, I would likely spend the rest of my life in a state prison. Back then, New Jersey officials were content with only targeting individual gun owners, either those who weren’t familiar with their crazy gun laws, or those from free states who may have taken a wrong turn. Nowadays, things are different. New Jersey officials are actively targeting citizens of other states, who may have never even set foot in New Jersey. New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal is using “undercover” detectives to entrap firearms retailers and manufacturers – especially those in other states – in the hopes that the exorbitant fees and penalties he will extort from them will force the owners out of business. This is a new kind of gun control. So far, AG Grewal has targeted retailers who sell firearm components designed for home-builds and, of course, those who sells standard-capacity magazines. Even the judges are in on the AG’s scheme. A New Jersey state court recently ordered a Florida firm to pay the state $150,000. Their crime? They refused to turn over their customers’ names and addresses to the Attorney General. Grewal v. 22Mods4ALL According to the civil complaint, 22Mods4ALL is a small, mom-and-pop retailer with less than 10 employees located in Longwood, Florida. 22Mods4ALL sells ARs and AR components, as well as the accessories you’d expect. (They actually have 5.56 in stock at $0.66 per round.) I reached out to them seeking comment for this story, but have not heard back. I can’t say I blame them. They’re up against a team with unlimited resources paid for by taxpayer dollars. Besides, the prosecution seems very personal. Whoever wrote the civil complaint Grewal’s office filed against the small shop has a flair for the dramatic. It’s based upon emotion, rather than facts. The complaint begins in El Paso, where the author describes a mass murder committed by an AK-47 and “extra magazines capable of holding at least 30 rounds of ammunition each.” The he carts the reader off the Dayton, Ohio, and describes “a shooter equipped with an AR-15 style rifle, a 100-round drum magazine, and 250 rounds of ammunition.” Then it’s Parkland, Florida’s turn, followed by Tucson, Arizona and then, finally, New Jersey, where the author defines “Large Capacity Magazine.” “To prevent gun violence, and to mitigate the risk of mass shootings, the State of New Jersey has long banned possession of large capacity ammunition magazines (“LCMs”) — firearm magazines capable of holding more than the standard number of rounds provided by the manufacturer,” the complaint states. You’ll notice that New Jersey’s LCM definition is flawed on its face. AR manufacturers designed 20- and 30-round magazines for the rifle – that’s the “standard number of rounds provided by the manufacturer.” Regardless, the penalties are very clear: “Any person who knowingly possesses an LCM is guilty of a fourth-degree crime, punishable by fines of up to $10,000, and by a term of imprisonment of up to eighteen months,” the complaint states. 22Mods4ALL – allegedly – sold six 30-round magazines to “to New Jersey undercover detectives from the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice (“DCJ”),” the complaint states. During a second purchase, the gun shop allegedly sold the detective three more. The Attorney General then sent 22Mods4All a cease-and-desist letter, which the gun shop honored. It stopped shipping mags to New Jersey, but that wasn’t the end of the malicious prosecution. “The Attorney General also demanded Defendant provide the details of all past sales of ammunition magazines capable of holding fifteen rounds or more to any New Jersey address since January 1, 2014, including the name and address of the purchaser and the specific ammunition magazine purchased,” the complaint states. In other words, the AG wanted the names of any New Jersey residents who may have bought a magazine, which would likely have been followed by a knock on their front door. That may have been too much for the good folks at 22Mods4All who, evidently, respect their customers’ privacy and don’t want to see any of them carted off to prison. “Defendant, despite repeated attempts at contact, has ignored the Subpoena for months. As a result, the CFA authorizes the Attorney General and the Director to obtain a judgment from the Superior Court directing compliance with the Subpoena,” the complaint states. Last week, a New Jersey judge ruled that the gun shop owners must pay a civil fine of $150,000 for not cooperating with the AG’s subpoena and turning over a list of customers’ names and addresses. Legal reaction The New Jersey AG is weaponizing his office to push a political agenda, according to former Florida prosecutor Lisa Chittaro. Last year, Chittaro ran for State Attorney of Sarasota County, but lost during the Republican primary to the incumbent. She had been endorsed by the National Rifle Association in the race. “This is a crafty and questionable use of litigation,” Chittaro said. “Because of their elected position, this seems designed to impede and attack a legitimate business – a business that did not target the citizens of that state – for the sole purpose of attacking the Second Amendment. “This attorney general is trying to harness access and regulate the spread of the internet, and hold a legitimate business accountable,” Chittaro said. “This is an attack on the Free Market, an attack on the Second Amendment – it’s an attack. They are using their office as a political weapon. They are pushing through their political agenda of gun control, and they are overreaching into the state of Florida. New Jersey is trying to put a legitimate Florida firm out of business.” Takeaways In my humble opinion, New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal has two reasons for his cross-border shenanigans. First, he wants to make a name for himself. That much is very clear. Second, he wants to close down gun shops – as many as he possibly can – because of his anti-rights political agenda. As bad as AG Grewal tries to paint them, the good folks at 22Mods4All look like heroes. They should be commended for protecting their New Jersey customers – if they have any, of course. Standing up to a bully sounds good, but they’re standing up to a bully who can put them out of business. That takes balls – big brass ones. The problem is exacerbated because AG Grewal desperately needs a win – something he can show off to his constituents. Right now, Attorneys General from 24 states have filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn New Jersey’s ban on standard-capacity magazines. “The Amici States the Attorneys General serve are among the forty-three states that permit the standard, eleven-plus capacity magazines that New Jersey has banned…and have advanced their compelling interests in promoting public safety, preventing crime, and reducing criminal firearm violence without a magazine ban such as the one here,” the brief states. I certainly hope the Justices will take up the case. In the meantime, someone needs to take a hard look at Attorney General Grewal. He is clearly misusing the powers of his office to further his own political agenda. There’s a term for that. It’s called public corruption, and it’s always been a problem in the Garden State. As always, thanks for your time. Lee Subscribe now The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this. Thanks for subscribing to The Gun Writer . This post is public, so feel free to share it. Share © 2021 Lee Williams Unsubscribe At the range in Sarasota, Florida |
SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION (SAF) LAWSUIT CHALLENGES CALIFORNIA’S ONE-GUN-PER-MONTH RESTRICTION
SAF and several others filed a federal lawsuit that challenges California’s one-gun-per-month purchasing limit. The case is known as Nguyen v. Becerra. Plaintiffs claim that the one-gun-per-month limit is unconstitutional in at least one aspect because there is a “Hollywood exemption”. This provision exempts motion picture, television or video production companies from the law. Plaintiffs claim the law is a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Read the entire case here:
Cause and Effect – An Essay
By Defender O’Freedom
Below is a recent headline from the Wilmington News Journal (December 14, 2020):
At least 17 people shot in 5 days in Delaware
According to the story:
“More people have been shot in Delaware in the past five days than in any five-day stretch since at least 2017, the earliest year in Delaware Online/The News Journal’s statewide shooting database. Of the 17 people shot in the past five days, six have died.”
Further, it goes on to report:
“More people have been shot in Delaware in 2020 than in any year since Delaware Online/The News Journal began tracking shootings statewide in 2017. This year, 238 people have been injured and 65 have been killed by gunfire in Delaware.”
This level of gun violence is, unfortunately, not an exception. In major city after major city – Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia and others – crimes committed using firearms are increasing at alarming levels. The answer, according to many of the progressive elected officials, is more gun control – increased requirements for background checks, permits to purchase, background checks for ammunition purchases, limitations on number of gun purchases per month, restrictions on magazine capacity, and outright bans on whole classes of commonly-owned and constitutionally-protected firearms.
Unfortunately, none of these proposals will have any positive effect in reducing the levels of gun violence currently plaguing our communities. Why not? The answer is simple – none of these measures will affect anyone intent on committing a crime with a gun. Criminals do not go through background checks to obtain the tools of their trade. Criminals could care less what guns are “legal.” Criminals will ignore any and all of these so-called “common-sense restrictions.” Take Chicago, for example. That city already has some of the strictest restrictions on firearms purchase and ownership in the entire country, and yet, they also are a perennial leader in shootings and gun-related homicides. Isn’t it ironic that the highest levels of gun violence are in jurisdictions which already have the tightest restriction on firearms and that those jurisdictions with “the most liberal gun laws”
typically have far lower levels of gun violence?
It is a matter of cause and effect, but the cause of more crime is not more guns – at least not in the hands of law-abiding citizens. In fact, competent statistical analysis shows just the opposite – more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime. If you want the details, I suggest that you check out two books by noted economist and researcher John Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime and Gun Control Myths.
So, if more guns is not the cause, what is?
The answer, at least in part, may be found in another article which appeared that same day in the News Journal:
Wilmington teens arrested after chase
Several shots fired during pursuit
This story references one of the shooting incidents mentioned in the first story. In this case, Pennsylvania State police identified a car traveling on I-95 as potentially being one reported stolen in a car-jacking incident in Delaware several days earlier. They attempted to pull the vehicle over, but the driver attempted to escape, resulting in a high-speed pursuit which continued back over the PA-DE state line. In Delaware, two pursing patrol cars attempted to force the suspect vehicle over, but the driver, apparently with intent, deliberately drove into the side of one of the police cruisers. When troopers opened fire, he tried it again. The chase ended with the suspect car crashing into a berm and the driver attempting – unsuccessfully – to flee on foot. Turns out that there were four teenagers in the stolen vehicle, including the 17-year-old driver, a 13-year-old who was found to be in possession of a handgun and ammunition, a second 13-year-old, and a 15-year-old wanted on two capiases.
Note that NONE of the individuals taken into custody was legally allowed to have possession of a handgun. They were found to be in a stolen vehicle. The driver attempted to use a deadly weapon – in this case, the vehicle itself, to ram two PA State Police cars. So, what happned in the aftermath?
The 17-year-old driver of the stolen vehicle was “charged with multiple felonies before being released on $4,000 unsecured bond.” The 13-year-old who was found to be in possession of the handgun was “charged with multiple felonies and was released on $2,000 unsecured bond.” The other 13-year-old taken into custody was not charged and was released. The only person retained in custody was the 15-year old, who “was arraigned on two capiases and committed to the New Castle County Detention center, in lieu of $1,000 secured bond.”
This is a classic example of the “catch and release” policy in effect in Wilmington and many other urban communities being plagued by gun crime. The criminal justice system is doing nothing to deter repeat offenses. In case after case, perpetrators of gun crimes, when they are arrested, are found to be persons already prohibited from the possession of firearms due to prior criminal history. Yet, they were out in society and able to obtain a gun to commit yet another crime. This only serves to highlight that the cause of gun crime is not the gun – it is something much deeper in the socio-economic fabric of the communities from which the perpetrators come. More gun control laws which will only affect the law-abiding will do nothing to address the true underlying issues. In the meantime, the offenders are put back on the streets to strike again, while elected officials only want to further infringe on the rights and abilities of potential victims to defend themselves.
It is time to stop the “revolving door” on our criminal justice system, putting dangerous felons back on the streets with a slap on the wrist. It is time to deter gun crime by giving the perpetrators sentences of sufficient severity to serve as a deterrent to potential future crimes. It is time to stop trying to pass more restrictive gun laws which will only serve to further infringe on what is already the most heavily regulated of all of our Constitutionally-protected basic freedoms – the right to keep and bear arms!
Instead, it should be time to identify and resolve the true root causes of the gun violence epidemic, including things like lack of economic opportunities, a failing public educational system, and breakdown of the stable family unit, just to mention a few.
It is time for each and every one of us to pick up a phone, write a letter or send an email to each and every one of our elected officials and tell them, in no uncertain terms, that we expect them to do their jobs and find real solutions to the real problems – which does not include advancing a fatally-flawed, rights-infringing, gun control agenda!!
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- …
- 15
- Next Page »