According to facts, gun related deaths in the United States dropped 39 percent in the last 20 years, from 18,253 to 11,101.
Piers Morgan and Michael Bloomberg were hardest hit:
Despite the drop, some 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than two decades ago and only 12% think it is lower, according to the Pew Reseach Center.
That’s because your main stream media isn’t focused on reporting facts, but selling news.
Facts are boring, but gun deaths are sexy.
Remember the old journalism maxim: if it bleeds, it leads.
While gun deaths are dropping, gun sales are skyrocketing:
December set a record for the criminal background checks performed before many gun purchases, a strong indication of a big increase in sales, according to an analysis of federal data by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group. Adjusting the federal data to try to weed out background checks that were unrelated to firearms sales, the group reported that 2.2 million background checks were performed last month, an increase of 58.6 percent over the same period in 2011. Some gun dealers said in interviews that they had never seen such demand.
“If I had 1,000 AR-15s I could sell them in a week,” said Jack Smith, an independent gun dealer in Des Moines, referring to the popular style of semiautomatic rifle that drew national attention after Adam Lanza used one to kill 20 children and 6 adults at a Newtown school. “When I close, they beat on the glass to be let in,” Mr. Smith said of his customers. “They’ll wave money at me.”
More guns, less crime.
I was into sex, drugs, and rock n roll Lara. And the reason I repented is because I needed to repent. Do you see what I’m saying?
So I turned from my wicked ways, I embraced Jesus of Galilee, and the next thing I know good times had come my way.
If you want a copy of “Happy, Happy, Happy” buy it through this site through the widget below:
Hat Tip: Breitbart
Oh, my belovedly delicious meat candy…is there anything you can’t do?
A 105-year-old Texas woman has earned a place in almost all headlines by revealing the most unlikely secret to her long life.
Strangely, her key to longevity is bacon. Yes, you read it right; 105-year-old Pearl Cantrell loves to eat bacon and feasts on it almost every day. Her story, for sure, will be a subject of research for most health scientists.
Pearl Cantrell, who’s mostly referred to as the ’105-year-old bacon woman’, said in an interview with a local NBC station, “I love bacon and I eat it everyday. I don’t feel as old as I am, that’s all I can say.”
That’s all you need to say, Pearl.
You’ve said it all.
Why would he be told not to talk if there was nothing to hide?
Head of Congressional Black Caucus Seeks Mercy on Jesse Jackson, Jr Because He’s The “Highlight of our Karaoke Nights.”
Disgraced Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. was convicted of “misusing more than $750,000 in campaign cash on a Rolex watch, celebrity memorabilia, vacations and other goods. His wife pleaded guilty in a related felony case for failing to report on tax returns about $600,000 in income.”
He’s set to be sentenced July 1.
Ohio Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, sent a letter to the judge, begging mercy on Jackson because he’s the “highlight of our karaoke nights.”
Asking for mercy for former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus wrote to a federal judge last month calling Jackson intelligent, charming and entertaining — the “highlight of our karaoke nights.”
The correspondence from Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, was among 14 letters in the case made public Tuesday as Jackson and his wife, former Chicago Ald. Sandi Jackson, await sentencing July 1.
I’d like to ridicule this with some snarky comment, but I’m really kind of overwhelmed with the whole thing.
The man admitted guilt.
But man, can he belt out some “Love Shack!”
That ought to be worth five years, right?
Hat Tip: Marathon Pundit
As I started my work today, I opened the main page of the St. Joseph News Press and started searching for an article on the Americans for Prosperity visit to northwest Missouri yesterday. While I was searching, I saw a headline that piqued my interest.
Clicking the link, I expected the author, Alonzo Weston, to trot out some vapid, anti-gun lefty nonsense.
I was not disappointed:
Common sense tells us that it would be quite a challenge for the government to take away all our firearms.
But there are guys hunkered down in bunkers or in remote compounds somewhere, preparing for just that to happen. Guys living by the National Rifle Association bumper sticker creed of “I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.”
You’re talking about little old grannies with pink derringers hidden under their mattresses and hunters with shotguns in pickup racks. You’re talking about kids with BB guns, too.
How is the government going to take all those away?
This is called
It works like this.
“Those wacky wingnuts think the government is going to take their guns. That’s crazy, AMIRITE?!”
The idea of the government suddenly banning all guns and simultaneously confiscating them is pretty far out there, but the author’s argument isn’t logical. He’s not proving his premise by ridiculing others.
He’s just showing his political bias.
The above quote from the article is also a
Are there people out there who think the government is going to go door to door and take everyone’s guns?
Probably, but none of the speakers at the NRA convention said that.
Besides, that’s not how the left operates. They don’t take big bites.
It’s called incrementalism, and it’s how we got where we are today.
First, they enact “small, common sense” reforms like prohibiting so-called “high capacity magazines” and “assault weapons.”
Then, what’s the next step? Perhaps more common sense reforms are needed to limit our access to semi-automatic pistols.
After that, start in on ammo.
Bit by bit, little by little, we find ourselves disarmed.
Why didn’t this happen before when they implemented the assault weapons ban?
Because when the time to renew it came along, we were lucky enough to have a Republican president and Republican Congress. Otherwise, who knows what Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would have come up with.
The author attacks a straw man with ridicule. It’s a double fail.
And it gets worse from there:
I’m not saying there aren’t any responsible, sensible gun owners. There are many gun owners who simply have firearms for protection, hunting or collecting. Normal folks.
But some of the guest speakers at the convention weren’t speaking for them. Having Sarah Palin, Wayne LaPierre, Rick Perry and Rob Pincus on the program should tip anyone off that this convention was geared toward the gun-loving wing of the tea party.
No, the fact that it’s a National Rifle Association convention should tip a person off that the place is filled with gun lovers.
And he uses “tea party” as a pejorative.
Put those together and you get another logical fallacy called
You can’t believe these people. They’re “the gun-loving wing of the tea party.”
This is bolstered by the very next sentence:
Hasn’t it been established by now that Sarah Palin is merely a pot-stirring wacko?
This is getting tiresome:
The attack on Sarah Palin was followed by this:
Then we had gun trainer Rob Pincus advising gun owners to keep gun safes in their children’s bedroom. Really. This lovely advice comes just days after a 5-year-old boy in Kentucky shot and killed his 2-year-old sister with a rifle he got as a gift.
I had not heard of this, so I checked it out. Is it true?
And it makes sense:
In a video clip of the seminar obtained by ThinkProgress, Pincus asks the members assembled where they thought gun safes should be located, in the interest of home defense.
“How about putting a quick-access safe in your kids’ room?” Pincus asks. “We have an emotional push back to that. Here’s my position on this. If you’re worried that your kid is going to try to break into the safe that is in their bedroom, with a gun in it, you have bigger problems than home defense.”
As the group laughs, Pincus explains that in a home invasion situation, it makes sense to have a gun stored in a bedroom you’re instinctively moving to defend.
“If that alarm goes off and the glass breaks and the dog starts barking, what’s the instinct that most people are going to have, in regards to, ‘Am I going to run across the house to get the gun, or am I going to run over here to help the screaming kid?’” Pincus said. “And if I’m going to go to the kid anyway, and I have an extra gun and an extra safe, why not put it in their closet?”
What the author did was make a factual statement and then refute it with yet another logical fallacy, this time it was an
What Pincus suggests actually makes sense. If you have a pistol for home defense, why wouldn’t you want it in the room where you are going to defend? And if it’s a kid’s room, why wouldn’t you have it in a gun safe?
Rather than address the logic of Pincus’s position, Weston brings up the death of a child who was killed when her brother accidentally shot her with his own gun. He didn’t get into his parents’s gun safe and shoot her with their gun.
But few Americans can resist the emotional effects of hearing about dead children, so point the reader towards that story instead of actually addressing the issue with facts and logic.
And speaking of facts:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry charged that gun-control supporters took advantage of mass shootings to attack gun owners. “You can almost set your watch for how long it takes for people who hate guns, who hate gun owners, to start a new campaign,” Perry said.
Remember, this is the same guy who wanted Texas to secede from the union and who called Medicare and Social Security unconstitutional.
This is a straight up lie.
Gov. Rick Perry never said he wanted Texas to secede from the union. In 2009, he said :
“There’s a lot of different scenarios,” Perry said. “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”
And in 2012, when thousands of Texas citizens signed a petition to secede, Perry rebuked the idea:
The Dallas Morning Newsreports that the Republican governor’s press secretary, Catherine Frazier, said in an email that Perry “believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it.”
And did Perry say Medicare and Social Security are unconstitutional?
Not in those words. Those are talking points from ThinkProgress, an outlet for the Center for American Progress, a George Soros funded organization.
Gov. Perry was asked a question about the General Welfare being used as an excuse for programs like Medicare and Social Security:
The Constitution says that “the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… general Welfare of the United States.” But I noticed that when you quoted this section on page 116, you left “general welfare” out and put an ellipsis in its place. Progressives would say that “general welfare” includes things like Social Security or Medicare—that it gives the government the flexibility to tackle more than just the basic responsibilities laid out explicitly in our founding document. What does “general welfare” mean to you?
[PERRY:] I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that. From my perspective, the states could substantially better operate those programs if that’s what those states decided to do.
Perry’s premise is 100 percent correct.
Weston’s article is 100 percent fail.
The left depends on the glassy eyed masses to accept the party line without thinking critically about what is being preached. They hope those not already walking in lock step with them do the same.
Don’t just read. Use your brain and digest what’s being put before you.
America could use a lot more of that right now.
Update: I meant to put this in the text, but forgot. The text used in the graphics for the logical fallacies came from Nizkor, my go to site for logic. Check it out.
Cross posted from The Missouri Torch.
Or, as Instapundit writes:
DISGRACED EX-GOVERNOR BEATS STEPHEN COLBERT’S SISTER: Sanford wins in SC-01 and it’s not even close.
Sanford won with 54 percent of the vote.
I’m putting this out there again because it bears repeating: when you control the language, you control the argument:
Ms. Jackson Lee, Texas Democrat, also made the case that the moral authority for such services is also derived from the Declaration of Independence.
“One might argue that education and health care fall into those provisions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” she said.
Ms. Jackson Lee added, “I think that what should be continuously emphasized is the president’s leadership on one single point: that although health care was not listed per se in the Constitution, it should be a constitutional right.”
Now, let me blow your mind: she’s right.
Your Constitutional rights are not limited to what is written in the Constitution. That’s a non-starter.
I have a right to a car. Cars are not in the Constitution. See where I’m going.
Here’s where the problem lies. We have allowed the left to change the definition of the word “rights.”
“Rights” are something you are born with, not something delivered to you by government.
When I say I have a right to a car, that means as a free man, the government should not interfere with my purchase of a car.
It does not mean if I can’t afford it, the government should furnish it.
Because you do not have a Constitutional right to someone else’s labor, meaning just because you have a right to an education or a car, you cannot force someone to teach you against their will, nor should you be able to force someone to surrender their property so you can own a 1967 21 Window VW Sunroof Samba with Safari Windows and minigun.
Having a right to something does not equal being entitled to it. But we have let the left convince millions it does.
And thus, they control the debate because we don’t push back on it correctly. We simply say, “YOU DON’T HAVE A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE!!”
Yes. We do.
Let me help you make this paradigm shift. Do you think the government should be able to interfere with your access to health care? Do you think the government should have any input in the treatment of your illnesses? Do you think the government has the power to prevent you from receiving treatment you think is necessary or desirable?
If you said “No,” it’s because you believe you have a right to health care, and that means the government can’t muck around in it.
Stick around. That happens a lot around here.