by Nate Jackson:  It’s no secret that there’s little love lost between Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker and President Donald Trump. The two have intermittently feuded for years already, and sorting out their most recent spat is, well, messy.

          On Sunday, Corker said in an interview that Trump’s presidency was like “a reality show,” and that the White House has become an “adult daycare center.” Worse, he said, Trump’s adolescent tweets could set the nation “on the path to World War III.” Corker noted that most Republicans “understand the volatility that we’re dealing with and the tremendous amount of work that it takes by people around him to keep him in the middle of the road.”
          Never one to let such words go unchallenged, Trump responded in part by ridiculing Corker for his height, calling him “Liddle Bob.” And as for the more serious charge of war, Trump rejoined, “We were on the wrong path before,” presumably referring to North Korea. “All you have to do is take a look. If you look over the last 25 years through numerous administrations, we were on a path to a very big problem, a problem like this world has never seen. We’re on the right path right now, believe me.”
          With all of that nonsense out of the way, we have two points: First, our publisher, Mark Alexander, has an old maxim that applies to both men here: “Don’t swap spit with a jackass.” Second, Corker dangerously overstates the case on leading us to war. As Jim Geraghty observed, “If the United States is one hyperbolic presidential Tweet away from all-out war, we’re already doomed.” A senator with the foreign policy bona fides Corker has should know better.
          And as far as North Korea is concerned, Yong Suk Lee, deputy assistant director of the CIA’s Korea Mission Center, argues, “Waking up one morning and deciding he wants to nuke” Los Angeles is not something Kim Jong-un is likely to do. “He wants to rule for a long time and die peacefully in his own bed,” Lee added. “Kim’s long-term goal is to come to some sort of big power agreement with the U.S. and to remove U.S. presence from the peninsula.” In any case, Trump “needs to stop,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) said. “But I wish Bob [Corker] would stop too. Just stop. We’ve got so many other things that we need to be focusing on right now. We need to look ahead, not reflect on anything that’s been done or said in the past.”  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51791

          Sadly but predictably, a plethora of Democrats rushed to exploit the atrocity. Led by Sen. Diane Feinstein (who recently announced that she is going run for another term), Democrats and a few Republicans are  introducing legislation to outlaw bump stocks, an accessory used by Paddock that allowed him to increase his rate of fire. Unfortunately, the bump stock bill, like most gun proposals following mass shootings, would not have stopped the atrocity from occurring and isn’t the panacea that its supporters purport. “Gun control” is both fantasy and fallacy.
          Indeed, even one prominent Democrat acknowledged as much, saying, “I’m not sure there is any set of laws that could have prevented [the Las Vegas massacre].” That was … Dianne Feinstein.
          Will the elimination of bump stocks eliminate the threat of massacres in the future? Of course not. The effect of a bump stock can be created using a rubber band or a belt loop. So should those items must be banned as well under the guise of protecting society?
          The proposed bill also avoids the realities of additive printing from homes. 3D printing has been around for several years and bump stock schematics have existed since 2013. Other components, like lower receivers, are currently being produced in homes around the country so unless the new congressional bill addresses 21st century technology it already has a built-in loophole.
          Feinstein’s efforts are nothing but political grandstanding and they do nothing to prevent a repeat of Vegas. Her efforts, instead, have created new problems that didn’t exist prior to the attack.
          The senator’s misguided bill is a perfect example of unforeseen second and third effects emanating from flawed logic. After she announced her proposed ban on bump stocks and that owning one would be a criminal offense, gun dealers were inundated with requests for the accessory and most dealers have sold out their inventory of the item.
          Feinstein’s bill is also dangerously vague and creates more problems than it solves. As AWR Hawkins explained, “The language of her bill would include bans on other devices, bans that are only implicit at this point. It would simply come down to a bureaucrat deciding the threshold at which semiautomatics are being fired too fast and any accessory that allowed a gun owner to meet that threshold would be banned.”
          “Gun violence” is a very emotional topic so any discussion about how to prevent it must take into consideration a myriad of factors. However, first and foremost in any conversation about the subject is to acknowledge the fact that some gun owners will do wicked things with their weapons. As will some who own knives or trucks.
          Living in a free and open society where the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution means that a small minority will eventually engage in criminal behavior with a gun. However, it’s important to note that while murder with firearms gets a disproportionate amount of media coverage, a quick examination at mortality numbers from 2016 shows that more United States citizens perish from drug overdoses or car accidents than guns — including the suicides used by leftists to grossly inflate the “gun violence” statistic.
          The heinous act that took place in Las Vegas was pure evil, but it’s not indicative of an epidemic sweeping the nation. As Mark Alexander  poignantly wrote last week, “Let’s call these assailants what they are, and maybe we can begin to address the root causes of the bloody attacks as a necessary part of the dialogue on how to prevent them.”
          Feinstein’s legislation does nothing to resolve the problem of violence with guns in America and it only exacerbates an already contentious issue. Americans don’t need more laws on the books. Instead, we all need to be more aware of our surroundings, looking for peculiar behavior, and letting law enforcement know if they observe something out of the ordinary (“see something, say something”). Only by being vigilant citizens can we overcome this scourge.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51765

https://cached-assets.patriotpost.us/images/2017-06-30-385d0541_large.jpg" width="454" height="227" />
by Thomas Gallatin:  On Thursday, The New York Times published an article exposing allegations of “decades of sexual harassment accusations” against the famous leftist Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. The Times revealed that Weinstein has reached at least eight settlements with women who brought allegations of sexual harassment.

          Weinstein has a long history of donating to Democrats and has hosted fundraisers for both Barack liar-nObama and liar-Hillary Clinton. Publicly, Weinstein has been celebrated as a champion of women, but it appears that in his personal life he has often done just the opposite, using his position of power to abuse women.
          After the Times released the story, Weinstein issued an odd and seemingly contradictory statement in which he denied “many of the accusations as patently false,” and yet he offered an apology for “the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past,” adding that he will be taking a leave of absence “to learn about myself and conquer my demons.” Make of that what you will, but it may help to consider his immediate pivot to attack … the NRA and Donald Trump.
          Weinstein said, “I am going to need a place to channel that anger, so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention. I hope [NRA executive vice president] Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party. I’m going to do it at the same place I had my Bar Mitzvah. I’m making a movie about our President, perhaps we can make it a joint retirement party.” Let’s see, shift attention to that which the Left loves to hate and hope your fellow leftists give you a pass and this whole nasty story goes away. It’s this kind of thinking that has enabled his continued poor behavior over the decades.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51727

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRz84cEbwqK5Z8lkMB8zWdTChKlF1ooYR6x07j2d7oodj5qgedkDw" />

by Thomas Gallatin:  On Thursday, The New York Times published an article exposing allegations of “decades of sexual harassment accusations” against the famous leftist Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. The Times revealed that Weinstein has reached at least eight settlements with women who brought allegations of sexual harassment.

          Weinstein has a long history of donating to Democrats and has hosted fundraisers for both Barack liar-nObama and liar-Hillary Clinton. Publicly, Weinstein has been celebrated as a champion of women, but it appears that in his personal life he has often done just the opposite, using his position of power to abuse women.
          After the Times released the story, Weinstein issued an odd and seemingly contradictory statement in which he denied “many of the accusations as patently false,” and yet he offered an apology for “the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past,” adding that he will be taking a leave of absence “to learn about myself and conquer my demons.” Make of that what you will, but it may help to consider his immediate pivot to attack … the NRA and Donald Trump.
          Weinstein said, “I am going to need a place to channel that anger, so I’ve decided that I’m going to give the NRA my full attention. I hope [NRA executive vice president] Wayne LaPierre will enjoy his retirement party. I’m going to do it at the same place I had my Bar Mitzvah. I’m making a movie about our President, perhaps we can make it a joint retirement party.” Let’s see, shift attention to that which the Left loves to hate and hope your fellow leftists give you a pass and this whole nasty story goes away. It’s this kind of thinking that has enabled his continued poor behavior over the decades.  
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51727

          According to UCMJ Article 88, “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense … shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
          West Point responded to Rapone’s contemptuous words with an official statement: “The U.S. Military Academy strives to develop leaders who internalize the academy’s motto of Duty, Honor, Country, and who live the Army values. Second Lieutenant Rapone’s actions in no way reflect the values of the U.S. Military Academy or the U.S. Army. As figures of public trust, members of the military must exhibit exemplary conduct, and are prohibited from engaging in certain expressions of political speech in uniform. Second Lieutenant Rapone’s chain of command is aware of his actions and is looking into the matter. The academy is prepared to assist the officer’s chain of command as required.”
          That statements implies that Rapon’s prior anti-American sentiments were unknown. However, it turns out that his Article 88 violations had been previously reported by a senior USMA officer.
          In a sworn 2015 statement about then-cadet Rapone, now-retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Robert Heffington, an Academy history professor, declared: “From his various online rantings and posts, it appears that DCT Rapone is an avowed Marxist, which is completely out of line with the values of this nation and its Army. Moreover, CDT Rapone’s posts indicate that he hates West Point, the U.S. Army, and indeed this country. One post dated 16 November 2015 states, ‘F—k this country and its false freedom.’ He also … even implicitly justifies the actions of ISIS and blames the United States for terrorist attacks.”
          LTC Heffington concluded, “I cannot reconcile the image of a first class cadet at West Point with the things he has posted online for the world to see. To me, these are red flags that cannot be ignored, and I fail to see how this individual can possibly graduate and become a commissioned officer in six months.”
          The West Point statement does not mentioned Rapone’s communist advocacy or Article 88 violations.
          That notwithstanding, the much more pressing question would be that raised by LTC Huffington — how is it that Rapone was allowed to graduate (or enter) the USMA? The question is rhetorical — the answer being that Barack liar-nObama‘s deep-state socialists extend well beyond civilian bureaucracies and into the ranks of American military leaders.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51723

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5164734625001

          According to UCMJ Article 88, “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense … shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
          West Point responded to Rapone’s contemptuous words with an official statement: “The U.S. Military Academy strives to develop leaders who internalize the academy’s motto of Duty, Honor, Country, and who live the Army values. Second Lieutenant Rapone’s actions in no way reflect the values of the U.S. Military Academy or the U.S. Army. As figures of public trust, members of the military must exhibit exemplary conduct, and are prohibited from engaging in certain expressions of political speech in uniform. Second Lieutenant Rapone’s chain of command is aware of his actions and is looking into the matter. The academy is prepared to assist the officer’s chain of command as required.”
          That statements implies that Rapon’s prior anti-American sentiments were unknown. However, it turns out that his Article 88 violations had been previously reported by a senior USMA officer.
          In a sworn 2015 statement about then-cadet Rapone, now-retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Robert Heffington, an Academy history professor, declared: “From his various online rantings and posts, it appears that DCT Rapone is an avowed Marxist, which is completely out of line with the values of this nation and its Army. Moreover, CDT Rapone’s posts indicate that he hates West Point, the U.S. Army, and indeed this country. One post dated 16 November 2015 states, ‘F—k this country and its false freedom.’ He also … even implicitly justifies the actions of ISIS and blames the United States for terrorist attacks.”
          LTC Heffington concluded, “I cannot reconcile the image of a first class cadet at West Point with the things he has posted online for the world to see. To me, these are red flags that cannot be ignored, and I fail to see how this individual can possibly graduate and become a commissioned officer in six months.”
          The West Point statement does not mentioned Rapone’s communist advocacy or Article 88 violations.
          That notwithstanding, the much more pressing question would be that raised by LTC Huffington — how is it that Rapone was allowed to graduate (or enter) the USMA? The question is rhetorical — the answer being that Barack liar-nObama‘s deep-state socialists extend well beyond civilian bureaucracies and into the ranks of American military leaders.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51723

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5164734625001

          According to UCMJ Article 88, “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense … shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
          West Point responded to Rapone’s contemptuous words with an official statement: “The U.S. Military Academy strives to develop leaders who internalize the academy’s motto of Duty, Honor, Country, and who live the Army values. Second Lieutenant Rapone’s actions in no way reflect the values of the U.S. Military Academy or the U.S. Army. As figures of public trust, members of the military must exhibit exemplary conduct, and are prohibited from engaging in certain expressions of political speech in uniform. Second Lieutenant Rapone’s chain of command is aware of his actions and is looking into the matter. The academy is prepared to assist the officer’s chain of command as required.”
          That statements implies that Rapon’s prior anti-American sentiments were unknown. However, it turns out that his Article 88 violations had been previously reported by a senior USMA officer.
          In a sworn 2015 statement about then-cadet Rapone, now-retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Robert Heffington, an Academy history professor, declared: “From his various online rantings and posts, it appears that DCT Rapone is an avowed Marxist, which is completely out of line with the values of this nation and its Army. Moreover, CDT Rapone’s posts indicate that he hates West Point, the U.S. Army, and indeed this country. One post dated 16 November 2015 states, ‘F—k this country and its false freedom.’ He also … even implicitly justifies the actions of ISIS and blames the United States for terrorist attacks.”
          LTC Heffington concluded, “I cannot reconcile the image of a first class cadet at West Point with the things he has posted online for the world to see. To me, these are red flags that cannot be ignored, and I fail to see how this individual can possibly graduate and become a commissioned officer in six months.”
          The West Point statement does not mentioned Rapone’s communist advocacy or Article 88 violations.
          That notwithstanding, the much more pressing question would be that raised by LTC Huffington — how is it that Rapone was allowed to graduate (or enter) the USMA? The question is rhetorical — the answer being that Barack liar-nObama‘s deep-state socialists extend well beyond civilian bureaucracies and into the ranks of American military leaders.   ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51723

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5164734625001

by Political Editors:  President Donald Trump sent his 70-point immigration enforcement proposal to Congress Sunday evening. If there were any fears that Trump was caving in to Democrat demands on a DACA deal — and there were — this immigration plan will quickly dispel them. Trump’s enforcement plan is arguably the toughest ever offered by any administration. The fundamental theme running throughout the plan is a renewed focus on the primary problem — closing illegal immigration loopholes.

          The plan calls for Congress to comprehensively rewrite immigration laws in order to stiffen security enforcement on both the border and interior (remember, as much as 40% of illegals are visa overstays). The plan also calls for changes to laws to cut the so-called migration chain, as well as funding for building the border wall and the hiring of more deportation agents. In brief, Trump’s proposal is a three-part plan that highlights border security, interior enforcement and merit-based immigration.
          A senior White House official stated, “Anything that is done addressing the status of DACA recipients needs to include these three reforms and solve these three problems. If you don’t solve these problems, then you’re not going to have a secure border, you’re not going to have a lawful immigration system and you’re not going to be able to protect American workers.”
          The Trump administration said that it designed the plan from the ground up after seeking input from the Justice, State and Labor Departments and agents on the ground. They were asked what tools they needed in order to finally get a handle on the problem. The details of this immigration plan are a direct result of that input.
          Trump is rightly focusing on fixing issues of enforcement (or the lack thereof) that have allowed the problem of illegal immigration in the first place before addressing the secondary issue of how to handle the DACA problem.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51744

https://cached-assets.patriotpost.us/images/2015-10-07-acf66d22_large.png" width="454" height="227" />
by Jordan Candler:  It was just a few weeks ago when Equifax finally came clean about a staggering security breach that imperiled the data of some 145 million Americans. Earlier this year, hackers infiltrated the company’s database and retrieved troves of intimate consumer data, including Social Security and credit card numbers. Security breaches happen, but this case was particularly infuriating due to some company officials’ lackluster — perhaps even criminal — response and the preventable way in which the breach occurred.

          Another agency that retains some of your most personal information is the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS isn’t exactly trustworthy either, as demonstrated through the actions of Lois Lerner, who walked away with impunity after targeting conservative groups. The last thing consumers and taxpayers want these two agencies doing in teaming up. So guess what? That’s exactly what they’re doing. What could possibly go wrong?
          On Sept. 29, the IRS awarded a $7.25 million contract “to establish an order for third party data services from Equifax to verify taxpayer identity and to assist in ongoing identity verification and validations needs of the Service.” How ironic — and damning — it will be when some untold number of IRS applications are flagged for fraud by Equifax due to the leaking of information … by Equifax. At this point it’s basically inevitable.
          According to Fox News, “The contract stated that Equifax was the only company capable of providing these services to the IRS, and it was deemed a ‘critical’ service that couldn’t lapse.” That may or may not be true. But as Rep. Early Blumenauer made very clear, “I am shocked that the IRS would contract with this firm for activities that they are clearly unfit to carry out.” The agencies are either tone-deaf or perverse — or both. Hardly surprising — but nonetheless exasperating — coming from such contemptuous agencies.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51696

by Jordan Candler:  It was just a few weeks ago when Equifax finally came clean about a staggering security breach that imperiled the data of some 145 million Americans. Earlier this year, hackers infiltrated the company’s database and retrieved troves of intimate consumer data, including Social Security and credit card numbers. Security breaches happen, but this case was particularly infuriating due to some company officials’ lackluster — perhaps even criminal — response and the preventable way in which the breach occurred.

          Another agency that retains some of your most personal information is the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS isn’t exactly trustworthy either, as demonstrated through the actions of Lois Lerner, who walked away with impunity after targeting conservative groups. The last thing consumers and taxpayers want these two agencies doing in teaming up. So guess what? That’s exactly what they’re doing. What could possibly go wrong?
          On Sept. 29, the IRS awarded a $7.25 million contract “to establish an order for third party data services from Equifax to verify taxpayer identity and to assist in ongoing identity verification and validations needs of the Service.” How ironic — and damning — it will be when some untold number of IRS applications are flagged for fraud by Equifax due to the leaking of information … by Equifax. At this point it’s basically inevitable.
          According to Fox News, “The contract stated that Equifax was the only company capable of providing these services to the IRS, and it was deemed a ‘critical’ service that couldn’t lapse.” That may or may not be true. But as Rep. Early Blumenauer made very clear, “I am shocked that the IRS would contract with this firm for activities that they are clearly unfit to carry out.” The agencies are either tone-deaf or perverse — or both. Hardly surprising — but nonetheless exasperating — coming from such contemptuous agencies.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51696

by Political Editors:  As the investigation into Las Vegas mass murderer Stephen Paddock continues, authorities have yet to determine his motivation. This fact hasn’t stopped Democrats, leftist celebrities and the anti-gun lobby from laying the blame on America’s “gun culture” and specifically the National Rifle Association. Thursday evening, NRA executive director Chris Cox responded in an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, calling for Americans to have an honest conversation about what problems motivate murderous actions like those seen in Las Vegas.

          Cox noted that Paddock was not a NRA member, but that NRA members were murdered and wounded in his shooting rampage. He emphasized that the NRA exists “so that good honest people aren’t left defenseless.” He also pointed to a simple fact: “Gun control is a failed policy. And it’s safe to say that it doesn’t keep people safe.”
          In what was his most poignant defense of the NRA, Cox said, “The NRA spends millions of dollars each year teaching safe and responsible gun ownership, and Hollywood makes billions promoting and glorifying gun violence. And then the same hypocrites come in and say that we’re to blame for this.”
          Carlson then asked him specifically about “bump stocks” and whether the NRA was calling for them to be banned. Cox responded, “Barack liar-nObama’s administration approved the sale of bump stocks and these other devices. What we have said is that the ATF needs to do their job. ATF needs to look and if there is technology that has come to the market that allows a semi-automatic rifle to function as a fully automatic rifle they need to be regulated differently. We didn’t talk about banning anything, we talked about ATF going back and reviewing whether or not these are in compliance with federal law. And if not let’s look at working together and figuring out a way to address this moving forward.”
          Cox closed by once again emphasizing the need for honesty. “We need to have a broader conversation about a violent culture and what’s happened with gratuitous violence out of Hollywood; what’s happened with prescription drugs. Being honest with one another that if we’ve tried something and it’s failed it’s time to move on.”
          Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Nancy Pulosi (D-CA) yesterday hinted at exactly why the NRA exists — to defend our first civil right. In calling for Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) to schedule a vote on a Democrat bill that would ban bump stocks, Pulosi was asked if she viewed this bill as a potential slippery slope toward further gun restrictions. She replied, “I certainly hope so.”  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51712

https://cached-assets.patriotpost.us/images/2017-10-06-4e57523f_large.jpg" width="454" height="227" />
by Michael Swartz:  As is their practice after a shooting with casualties on a mass scale, leftists are blaming the guns for the behavior of a man who obviously lost sight of the commandment, “You shall not murder.” And while we mourn the victims, the mainstream media seems preoccupied with the possibility of multiple shooters and the need to ban “bump stocks.” Many folks have also lost sight of the big picture: Statistically, we’re at far greater risk in a hospital than at a public concert like Sunday night’s Route 91 Harvest festival in Las Vegas.

          One statistician, in fact, concluded that the gun control measures being proposed would be rather ineffective in addressing the problem. Leah Libresco, who is described by The Washington Post as “a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site,” came to this realization as part of a large effort by her former employer — something FiveThirtyEight reminded us of this week — to analyze all 33,000 deaths by firearm in a particular year. She makes the case that “bump stocks,” bans on so-called “assault rifles,” and even gun buybacks would do little good when the largest portions of gun deaths involve their usage as “suicide machines” or as a method for young gangbangers to settle scores.
          “But, but,” stammers the Left, “look at how little gun violence there is in Australia — a place where certain types of guns were confiscated under penalty of law two decades ago after their own mass shooting.” While it’s true that no significant mass shootings have since occurred in Australia, a 2016 study by three Australian researchers found the data was inconclusive regarding the effects of the gun buyback: “Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.”
          Moreover, as Corey Iacono of the Foundation for Economic Education points out, another study that used the adjacent island nation of New Zealand — where there are fewer restrictions on guns — as a control found that both had roughly the same decline in mass shootings. “Gun control advocates have built their entire case about Australian gun control on lazy data analysis, or perhaps no data analysis at all,” argues Iacono. “If anything, Australia proves the complete opposite of what advocates of gun control want.”
          He added, “A national gun confiscation scheme which reduced the civilian firearm stock by an astounding twenty percent and nobody can seem to find any clear evidence it caused a meaningful effect on the firearm murder rate? That’s not only embarrassing, it goes against everything they believe about the nature of the relationship between guns and murder rates.”
          Then, when we consider this longstanding fact that more guns have yielded less crime, leftists’ case really begins to unravel. Not that they’ll stop shouting from the rooftops about it anyway — their newest cause is to repeal the Second Amendment. Our response? Molon labe.
          The leftist viewpoint — shared, apparently, by the New York Times’ token “conservative,” Bret Stephens — doesn’t come close to meeting the smell test. Stephens’ anti-gun prejudices lead him to use faulty numbers, including counting five years’ worth of murder statistics to give himself a number that finally exceeds the annual toll in auto accidents. Even at this emotion-driven moment, this is all the gun-grabbers have.
          Should we remind them yet again that stridently anti-gun Europe, whose elites would love to see our pesky Second Amendment consigned to the dustbin of history, suffers more mass shootings on a statistical basis than the U.S. does? Europe’s restrictions don’t allow a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with one. As we often point out, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Stephen Paddock reportedly spent about 11 minutes firing at the crowd before a security guard finally made it to his room. Local police were even further behind.
          In the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, Congress will certainly feel pressured to “do something,” with the most likely outcome a feel-good ban on bump stocks. Even the NRA doesn’t have a problem considering that, and a Republican lawmaker already has the bill set to go.
          Despite the statistics that have shown a trend toward more security, our government cannot make us perfectly safe — though armed citizens certainly have made us safer. Even if the government took away all the so-called “assault weapons,” deranged individuals bent on causing mass casualties would find a way to do so. One need look no further than the 85 people mowed down last year by a jihadi with a truck in Nice, France.
          Incidents like these are a problem of evil. Instead of debating the repeal of the Second Amendment — which was, after all, placed in the Bill of Rights as a check against a tyrannical government having all the firepower — we should be discussing the lack of self-control that our culture seems to encourage. There are still many laws on the books that extend the command of “you shall not murder,” and perhaps the first order of business should be to restore a much-needed respect for life.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51717

https://cached-assets.patriotpost.us/images/2017-10-06-4e57523f_large.jpg" width="454" height="227" />
by Michael Swartz:  As is their practice after a shooting with casualties on a mass scale, leftists are blaming the guns for the behavior of a man who obviously lost sight of the commandment, “You shall not murder.” And while we mourn the victims, the mainstream media seems preoccupied with the possibility of multiple shooters and the need to ban “bump stocks.” Many folks have also lost sight of the big picture: Statistically, we’re at far greater risk in a hospital than at a public concert like Sunday night’s Route 91 Harvest festival in Las Vegas.

          One statistician, in fact, concluded that the gun control measures being proposed would be rather ineffective in addressing the problem. Leah Libresco, who is described by The Washington Post as “a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site,” came to this realization as part of a large effort by her former employer — something FiveThirtyEight reminded us of this week — to analyze all 33,000 deaths by firearm in a particular year. She makes the case that “bump stocks,” bans on so-called “assault rifles,” and even gun buybacks would do little good when the largest portions of gun deaths involve their usage as “suicide machines” or as a method for young gangbangers to settle scores.
          “But, but,” stammers the Left, “look at how little gun violence there is in Australia — a place where certain types of guns were confiscated under penalty of law two decades ago after their own mass shooting.” While it’s true that no significant mass shootings have since occurred in Australia, a 2016 study by three Australian researchers found the data was inconclusive regarding the effects of the gun buyback: “Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.”
          Moreover, as Corey Iacono of the Foundation for Economic Education points out, another study that used the adjacent island nation of New Zealand — where there are fewer restrictions on guns — as a control found that both had roughly the same decline in mass shootings. “Gun control advocates have built their entire case about Australian gun control on lazy data analysis, or perhaps no data analysis at all,” argues Iacono. “If anything, Australia proves the complete opposite of what advocates of gun control want.”
          He added, “A national gun confiscation scheme which reduced the civilian firearm stock by an astounding twenty percent and nobody can seem to find any clear evidence it caused a meaningful effect on the firearm murder rate? That’s not only embarrassing, it goes against everything they believe about the nature of the relationship between guns and murder rates.”
          Then, when we consider this longstanding fact that more guns have yielded less crime, leftists’ case really begins to unravel. Not that they’ll stop shouting from the rooftops about it anyway — their newest cause is to repeal the Second Amendment. Our response? Molon labe.
          The leftist viewpoint — shared, apparently, by the New York Times’ token “conservative,” Bret Stephens — doesn’t come close to meeting the smell test. Stephens’ anti-gun prejudices lead him to use faulty numbers, including counting five years’ worth of murder statistics to give himself a number that finally exceeds the annual toll in auto accidents. Even at this emotion-driven moment, this is all the gun-grabbers have.
          Should we remind them yet again that stridently anti-gun Europe, whose elites would love to see our pesky Second Amendment consigned to the dustbin of history, suffers more mass shootings on a statistical basis than the U.S. does? Europe’s restrictions don’t allow a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with one. As we often point out, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Stephen Paddock reportedly spent about 11 minutes firing at the crowd before a security guard finally made it to his room. Local police were even further behind.
          In the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, Congress will certainly feel pressured to “do something,” with the most likely outcome a feel-good ban on bump stocks. Even the NRA doesn’t have a problem considering that, and a Republican lawmaker already has the bill set to go.
          Despite the statistics that have shown a trend toward more security, our government cannot make us perfectly safe — though armed citizens certainly have made us safer. Even if the government took away all the so-called “assault weapons,” deranged individuals bent on causing mass casualties would find a way to do so. One need look no further than the 85 people mowed down last year by a jihadi with a truck in Nice, France.
          Incidents like these are a problem of evil. Instead of debating the repeal of the Second Amendment — which was, after all, placed in the Bill of Rights as a check against a tyrannical government having all the firepower — we should be discussing the lack of self-control that our culture seems to encourage. There are still many laws on the books that extend the command of “you shall not murder,” and perhaps the first order of business should be to restore a much-needed respect for life.  ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51717