Disarming American Citizens while Arming Al Qaeda

Al Qaeda in Syria is now armed with the same weapon as the U.S. Navy SEAL teams. Introducing the AS-50, a weapon meant to defend western civilization from our enemies. We suspect that the breadcrumbs from arming Al Qaeda with this 50 caliber sniper rifle will lead to training in American camps in Jordan and acquisition from Benghazi, Libya (see Killing Stevens: The Obama Scandal).

See more about the AS-50 from The Military Channels' Ultimate Weapons.

American citizens' second amendment rights are being assaulted by U.N. Small Arms treaties, $10,000 fines for those who do not have "gun liability" insurance (which does not exist), thousands of confiscations of registered guns from American homes and the vile politicization of dead children. All of this is despite the data that gun bans increase violent crime, including murder, robbery, aggravated assault and rape.

Anti-American terrorists, in the mean time, are being armed by the Obama administration with anti-aircraft (MANPADS) weapons, anti-tank weapons and our best high powered military rifles. These are weapons American citizens could never own, despite the intent of our second amendment.

These actions throw Americans, Israelis and all western people into increased future danger. That this was done while disarming law abiding American citizens is hypocrisy of the highest order. These concurrent actions by President Obama make our world less safe domestically and internationally.

Introducing Airburst Crowd Control Weapon: XM25 CTDE

3/16/2013: While the public has been debating the "military style assault weapon ban" of guns which are neither "assault weapons" nor "military style" automatic weapons, our military has been moving to deploy a new force multiplication weapon. This weapon replaces cumbersome mortars and adds crowd control capabilities.

Introducing the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement (CDTE) System.

The weapon was renamed in 2011 to  XM25 Individual Semiautomatic Air Burst System

The Army has also announced that congress has granted an additional 24.7 million in funding for 36 new prototype XM25s to supplement the five already in the field.

The term defilade refers to the use of terrain or obstacles to shield or conceal 

That's right, you can not hide from this gun. (Troops refer to it as "The Punisher.")

Ammunition types:

Army.mil reports the following:

Photo Credit: Photo courtesy U.S. Army
The XM25 CDTE fires 25 mm grenades that are set to explode in mid-air at or near the target. A laser rangefinder in the weapon is used to determine the distance to the target. The user can manually adjust the detonating distance by up to 10 feet (3.0 m) shorter or longer; the XM25 automatically transmits the detonating distance to the grenade in the firing chamber. The grenade tracks the distance it has traveled by the number of spiral rotations after it is fired, then detonates at the proper distance to produce an air burst effect.

Commentary:

AR15? You call that a gun? That's not a gun...THIS is a gun!

Here we have an indirect fire weapon with a mission scope including crowd control. An individual with this weapon replaces a mortar or small cannon. The XM25 is much more lethal than a machine gun. Woe are they who stand on the wrong end of this weapon, a weapon from which you cannot hide or shield yourself.

Per our Second Amendment rights, we want these for personal defense during the zombie apocalypse. We would even accept it with a small ten round magazine. It is time for the "Firepower Equality" movement!

For more on recent gun control issues Left Coast Rebel reviews Obama Statement vs the Constitution.

Update 3/19/2013: 

This post was held back because it has been unclear how the XM25 was going to be introduced to the public. When police are issued these for crowd control, it will be a major shock to the public. A narrative has been needed to present this weapon. The narrative now seems obvious... mortars are just too dangerous for our troops.

The Pentagon is now banning 60mm mortar rounds as the XM25 becomes available.

Brig. Gen. Jim Lukeman said investigators were trying to determine the cause of the malfunction. 

The Pentagon expanded a temporary ban to prohibit the military from firing any 60 mm mortar rounds until the results of the investigation. The Marine Corps said Tuesday a "blanket suspension" of 60 mm mortars and associated firing tubes is in effect. 

The Pentagon earlier had suspended use of all high-explosive and illumination mortar rounds that were in the same manufacturing lots as ones fired in Nevada.

Update 3/20/2013: The Plot thickens...

On Feb 2, there was a second XM25 malfunction in Afghanistan. The information was released 3/5/2013 as Army Removes XM25 from Service after Incident

A soldier was injured during a Feb. 2 live-fire training event during which the primer of a 25mm high-explosive air burst round ignited as a result of a double feed, according to Army spokesman Matthew Bourke.

Although the primer and propellant were initiated, safety mechanisms prevented the round’s warhead from detonating. The gun was inoperable after the explosion.

...

Alliant Techsystems, Inc (ATK) was awarded a $65.8 million contract in 2011 and another $18.8 million contract in 2012 by the Army’s PEO Soldier for engineering and manufacturing development of the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System.

ATK’s spokesperson referred all questions to Army Public Affairs.

Prior to the accident, the XM25 was very popular among soldiers who dubbed it “the Punisher.” The head of PEO Soldier at the time, Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, called it “a revolutionary weapon … a game changer.”

...Via commenter on Military.com:

The enemy in Afghanistan is shooting at us from beyond the 40mm effective range. The 40mm doesn't have the same accuracy as the XM25 at 400m. 40mm can be defeated by overhead cover where as the 25mm coming through the bunker aperture or window provides significant overmatch. Sometimes the environment is different between LE[Law Enforcement] and military.

Update 8/17/2013:

The XM25 should be ready for full scale deployment in August 2014, per Defensetech.org At that time, the weapon system will be renamed:

 “We’d take the X off,” Lt. Col. Shawn Lucas, the Product Manager Individual Weapons, said in an Army press release. “It’s no longer experimental; it’d be the M25.”

Weapons officials maintain that developing the airburst weapon separately will ultimately field a game-changing weapon to infantry units.

“It’s a leap ahead, something that has never before been resident in the squad, or really our small tactical formations, squads, platoons or companies,” Lucas said. “That’s the ability to engage, and have effects on targets that are in defilade.(cover)”

CDC & FBI Data: Gun Bans = Violent Crime

Introduction

Earlier this month, we debunked the Associated Press portrayal of a recent "gun deaths" study in our post Another Fake Gun Control Study.

The study had some good information and some misleading information. One useful piece of information is data on gun control measures in all 50 states compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Yes, we know they are far-left "gun grabbers", but this data can be used to shed light on whether gun laws help or hurt society.

The aforementioned study also used CDC data from 2007-2010. We decided to compare this data with FBI data from the same period (*1). We then used FBI data as a basis to correct some short comings of the debunked study.

Once a base comparison was established, we expanded the study to include all violent crime statistics per the FBI.

Modifications from the study published in JAMA are as follows:

1. FBI data was substituted for missing data in Vermont, North Dakota, and New Hampshire.
2. The District of Columbia was added to the data set.
3. The Brady Legislative Strength Score (median) for the District of Columbia was estimated in comparison to other gun banning states. Due to the District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008 (*2), the score was reduced by one from our estimate. Our final estimate is 22. 
4. Suicides are not included as "Homicides."
5. We entered this project with only one concern, the truth. While all human beings are biased and prone to fallacy, we have no illusions to our short comings in the field of statistics. We also have no concern for professional pride, funding, or political agenda. While I am personally pro-choice in the realm of self defense, what follows is pure unadulterated data.

Comparing CDC and FBI data.

We can only speculate why these numbers are different. The FBI Murders data is higher than the CDC "gun homicide" rate per 100,000 people. Sixty-seven percent of murders in the USA involve guns per the UN:

In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm

So, we expect the FBI gun and non-gun related murder numbers to be higher than gun "homicides" per the CDC. However, the simple averages for the 51 data points are 3.83/4.9  (CDC/FBI). This leads one to believe 78% of murders in the US involve firearms.

It appears that the CDC numbers, used to promote gun control by the AP, are significantly overstated, the FBI murder statistics are understated or a combination of both. We could do a more elaborate comparison, but with such a large discrepancy between the UN and US data the truth would still elude us.

For our purposes, it does not matter. Both numbers will be included on all graphs to give you a visual representation of the available data. (click to enlarge)

By including Washington, D.C. we bring additional clarity to the gun control debate. It appears that in both CDC and FBI data, a few sensible gun laws reduce murder/homicide but additional laws are counter-productive. Fellow San Diego Local Order of Bloggers author Beers with Demo explored a broader representation of this legal reality in a recent post entitled "It's as if we've run out of good ideas..."

Exit question: We may try to expand on this later, but can a Republic reach a point where they've got pretty much all their basis covered but since they maintain a full time legislative body that is sent to the nation's capitol to do something, they wind up being far more counter-productive than not? 

The data further suggests that there are two optimum points for gun legislation. First, when both police and private citizens are armed, murders are minimized. When both an empowered public right to self-defense and fear of law enforcement cooperate to reduce crime, criminals face a difficult task. The next minimum is upon entering a seeming police state with assured criminal justice, but where citizens offer much less resistance to criminals.

Finally, once gun laws become extreme, such as total bans of lawful gun ownership, criminals are assured  defenseless victims. Avoiding law enforcement ensures a successful criminal career. Due to harsh criminal penalties, witnesses may then be shot in the attempt to avoid criminal punishment.

More Gun Laws Leads to More Violent Crime

In the age of the internet, we don't like to read long posts, so let's keep this direct. Below we explore robbery, rape, and total FBI reported violent crime. The results are mixed, but may be the best data you have seen in your life regarding gun control. We are damn proud of the following, even where it does not fit my political philosophy.

Gun Laws vs Robbery and Rape

Increased gun laws clearly increase violent robbery but there is an apparent minimization for forcible rape. (click to enlarge)

We are using polynomial order 4 smoothing in these graphics to show more detail than a sloped line. If you look closely at the graphic, robbery is almost a straight line in the wrong direction as more gun laws are passed.

Forcible rape falls with a few "common sense" gun laws, then increases slightly as women lose the ability to defend themselves. Once legislative strength becomes very high, forcible rape appears to fall. Complete gun ownership bans then coincide with increased forcible rapes.

There may be additional rape related laws or other factors that coincide with gun laws in a near police state.  The data does suggest that a near police state reduces forcible rape to about 18 per 100,000 per year.

New York (*1) and Connecticut are the data points creating the apparently low number of forcible rapes. A quick review to see if warmer weather skewed the results with regard to forcible rape did not find an obvious indication.  We leave this question for you to ponder.

Gun Laws vs Total Violent Crime

Overall violent crime information from the FBI is heavily influenced by aggravated assaults. This seems to be a type of crime badly influenced by excessive gun laws. It makes sense, people are less likely to get into fights with armed citizens.

The following graph is damning of strong gun control legislation and serves as my conclusion to this study. (click to enlarge)

Conclusion

A few gun control laws are reasonable for public safety. As additional laws are put in place they become counter-productive. As a near police state is enacted, violent crime falls to an average level. When gun bans are enacted, violent crime increases rapidly.

If you are a professional statistician or wish to check my work contact me via twitter.

Sources

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-publications
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

Notes

*1) In 2012, the FBI changed the definition of "Forcible Rape." Because of this definition expansion, which now includes rapes of males and other non-consensual sexual acts, it came to light New York, Chicago and other progressive strongholds under reported or could not be included in FBI statistics for prior years.

U.S. to Expand Its Definition of Rape in Statistics:

For example, the New York Police Department reported 1,369 rapes in 2010, but only 1,036 were entered in the federal figures. However, the police department in Chicago, which had nearly 1,400 reported sexual assaults in 2010, refused to discard cases that did not fit the narrower federal definition when reporting its crime statistics; as a result, the F.B.I.’s uniform crime report — which reported 84,767 forcible rapes that year — did not include any rapes from that city.

The new "Forcible Rape" definition is:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

This change will likely show massive increases in rape reporting in FBI statistics starting with 2012.

*2) District of Columbia v. Heller. After the gun ban in Washington D.C. was repealed, murder rates fell 43.2% by 2011. During the same period, murder rates in Chicago oscillated then ended up 1.9%.

City	2007 Murder Rate	2010 Murder Rate	2011 Murder Rate
Chicago	15.6	15.2	15.9
Washington D.C.	30.8	21.9	17.5

Update 3/27/2013:

Added link to data.

WTF: Terrorism Definition Changed

Ladies and Gentleman, you are deputized as a modern day Paul Revere by continuing to read this information.

Today, we received a notice from the insurance company about terrorism coverage for my business. It begins with a double negative, "terrorism is not excluded from your current policy." The notice also includes some important information.

The definition of terrorism has officially changed:

You are hereby notified that under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, as amended in 2007, the definition of act of terrorism has changed. As defined in Section 102(1) of the Act: The term "act of terrorism" means any act that is certified by the Secretary of the Treasury- in concurrence with the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General of the United States- to be an act of terrorism;

What a terrifying bureaucratically malleable definition. The Act was introduced by the newly elected Democrat controlled Congress in June 2007 and signed by President George W. Bush in December. The letter continues...

to be a violent act or an act that is dangerous to human life, property or infrastructure; to have resulted in damage within the United States, or outside the United States in the case of certain air carriers or vessels or the premises of a United States mission;

(except Benghazi, Libya?)

and to have been committed by an individual or individuals as part of an effort to coerce the civilian population of the United States

(into buying health insurance and give up civil rights protected by the Second Amendment?)

or to influence the policy or affect the conduct of the United States Government by coercion.

It seems this definition specifically denies the possibility that someone in government might use terrorist tactics against the citizens of the United States. There are no separation of powers here. The Executive Branch is completely immune from the label terrorist because it decides who is a terrorist.

Creating an economic climate of desolation, inciting racial hatred, promoting class warfare and pushing sexual wedge issues is not coercion when government elites are responsible. The resulting mass shootings are exclusively due to the insanity of the perpetrators. The "gun-violence" is reportedly caused by guns, not desperate, spiritually depraved people pushed beyond their mental stability via hopelessness. Alan Greenspan is no serial killer! (sarcasm)


America has been great because it has been united. The rhetoric of division has all but ended our days of being a United States. The power hungry group who benefits from our division is our politicians.  Most are seduced by the imperial power collected by our executive branch and are consumed by plots to seize the throne.

Remember our history,

The painter Benjamin West wrote that when he talked to King George III during the Revolutionary War, the monarch asked him what he thought George Washington would do if he prevailed.

Return to his farm, West predicted -- accurately, as it turned out.

"If he does that," King George remarked, "he will be the greatest man in the world."

America and individual human freedom need us to remember the example of George Washington. We require leaders who will end the imperial power of government. Leaders purging government workers who resist the imperial agenda as "insider threats" are inadequate.  The most powerful nation on earth calls for the leadership of the greatest person on earth. Character matters.

Rand Paul's filibuster is an example of what must be done. It can be a tide turner.  We must use such examples to remind our countrymen to compare our leaders to George Washington.

More Information:

Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance notes:

The revised Section 102(1)(A) states, "The term "act of terrorism" means any act that is certified by the Secretary, in concurrence with the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General of the United States—(i) to be an act of terrorism; (ii) to be a violent act or an act that is dangerous to—(I) human life: (II) property; or (III) infrastructure; (iii) to have resulted in damage within the United States, or outside the United States in the case of—(I) an air carrier or vessel described in paragraph (5)(B); or (II) the premises of a United States mission; and (iv) to have been committed by an individual or individuals, as part of an effort to coerce the civilian population of the United States or to influence the policy or affect the conduct of the United States Government by coercion." Section 102(1)(B) states, "No act shall be certified by the Secretary as an act of terrorism if—(i) the act is committed as part of the course of a war declared by the Congress, except that this clause shall not apply with respect to any coverage for workers' compensation; or (ii) property and casualty insurance losses resulting from the act, in the aggregate, do not exceed $5,000,000." Section 102(1)(C) and (D) specify that the determinations are final and not subject to judicial review and that the Secretary of the Treasury cannot delegate the determination to anyone.

Voting Info:

Rep.  Duncan  L.  Hunter: Yea
Rep.  Darrell  Issa: Nay
Rep.  Mike  Pence : Nay

Gun Control: California DOJ Confiscating Guns (updated)

1/25/2013 5:31 PM

The California Department of Justice is running a program to confiscate registered guns from homes that local law enforcement refused to implement. Mark LeForestier, California Supervising Deputy Attorney General & Legislative Affairs Director, testified to a Congressional Task force determined to implement gun controls about the Armed Prohibited Persons program.

It is intended to disarm people who are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms under both federal and California law. It is really a preventative law enforcement program that we believe is critical to enhance and move forward and should be used as a model nationally.

This program works into the framework we have been discussing in which "public health" is being used to subvert the civil rights of Americans as protected by the second amendment. Our report "ObamaCare Insurance Will Not Cover Gun Owners" outlines a theoretical strategy in which the second amendment may be subverted at the federal level. The California state constitution does not include the right to keep and bear arms which has led to draconian state gun laws.

Mr. LeForestier goes on to report:

California retains the records relating to purchases to handguns. That provides us with the data to create a firearms registry. I understand that is very controversial in some quarters, but it is essential in our efforts to disarm prohibited persons.

Coming online in January 2014, will be sales of long guns and we will be retaining those records as well.

He doesn't stop there and goes on to describe the APPs program as carried by Jim Brulte, "someone who is in line now to be the chairman of the California Republican party." The APPs program empowers the CA DOJ to create the firearms registry mentioned above by cross referencing criminal history records, domestic violence databases, as well as mental health records. A list of those who are both armed and prohibited is the result.

It allows us to capture people who have purchased weapons and then subsequently become prohibited as a result of a felony arrest or mental health issue. 

In 2005, the program began and local law enforcement failed to enforce the program. So, in 2007 the CA DOJ started their own force to confiscate weapons and by 2010 had 18 full time agents.

Today we have 33 agents dedicated to this program, but it is still not enough. We have close to 20,000 people on the APPs list. That is a backlog of people that we know to be prohibited. The thirty-three agents that we have dedicated can clear about 2500 cases a year. Yet, each year we have 3000 more cases.

The CA DOJ wants to again double the number of agents dedicated to confiscating weapons in 2013. The list of "Armed Prohibited People" is uploaded to the federal NICS system. In July 2011, mental health records were added to the NICS upload.

Don't believe bloggers... here is the video testimony  You may click the image below to watch on C-SPAN. This video is 7 minutes and 18 seconds.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4335886

Additional Information:
NCIC
San Diego Police Chief: "We can disarm Americans within a Generation"
Sheriffs v. Political Police Chiefs and President Obama

Update 2/19/2013:

Senate Bill 5737 out of Olympia, Washington  (h/t Glenn Beck), Shocking proposed law would give sheriff access to the homes of gun owners:

In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall safely and securely store the assault weapon and the sheriff of the county may, may, but no more than once per year, conduct an inspection of the house

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”
He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

Update 3/9/2013:

AP via Yahoo News
State Senate OKs money for gun-seizure program
State Senate approves money for program that seizes guns from people banned from having them

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Legislation approved Thursday by the state Senate would send more money to a program unique to California that seizes guns from people who are prohibited from having them, a number that has risen to nearly 20,000.

The bill authorizes $24 million for the state Department of Justice's Armed and Prohibited Persons program, which is the only one of its kind in the nation. It prohibits gun ownership for people convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor, who are subject to a domestic violence restraining order or who are determined to be mentally unstable.

The department has confiscated more than 10,000 weapons under the program since 2006 but has a backlog of nearly 20,000 people because it has too few agents to go after the weapons. Those individuals own about 39,000 handguns and 1,600 assault weapons, said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the author of SB140.

The additional money would come from a surplus in fees paid for firearms purchases. It would let the department hire six supervisors, 30 special agents and support staff to create six new teams to seize the weapons.

Update 3/11/2013:
Tense moments as California agents confiscate illegal guns
CBS rode along on a gun confiscation. Two legally registered guns owned by a felon, but 5 guns confiscated. Who owned the other 3 guns was not reported. See report for video.

In six years, agents have been seizing guns. They've prevented shootouts by showing up unexpectedly in force, as many as 10 agents.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris said that the people on the list are the ones who should not be in possession of a gun.

Last year, Harris' agents seized 2,033 guns.

The reporter does not report how many shootouts have occurred, how many people have been killed or injured, who prioritized which people were targeted for confiscation or how the targeting was done. The report fails to mention that "violent" misdemeanors are also justification for gun confiscation or whether a judge determines "mental instability."

As you can see by the screen capture above, the neighborhood raided was a gated community.

Update 3/12/2013:
Bloomberg.com Picks up the story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms

Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a “disqualifying event,” such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn’t sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.


At a house in Fontana, agents were looking for a gun owner with a criminal history of a sex offense, pimping, according to the attorney general’s office. Marsh said that while the woman appeared to be home, they got no answer at the door. Without a warrant, the agents couldn’t enter and had to leave empty- handed.

They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.

“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

Update 3/13/2013:
The Blaze Picks up the story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guns of Law-Abiding Husband Confiscated After Wife’s Single Voluntary Mental Health Visit 

Phillips told TheBlaze she had an adjustment to her medication in December and could not stop crying. Her personal psychiatrist suggested she go to Aurora Charter Oak Hospital in Covina, Calif., where she said she was admitted voluntarily, not a threat to herself or others. Then, when she reviewed her file, Phillips said the nurse had recorded that she was involuntarily admitted and indicated she might be a suicide risk. Phillips claims the nurse had put words into her mouth. 

“I kept telling her I had a grand-baby at home and had to be better for Christmas,” she said. “Does that sound like the words of someone who is a risk to themselves and others?”

Update 3/15/2013:
Legal Insurrection gives us a mention!!
California’s mental gun law

San Diego conservative activist Charles Fettinger offers more concerning details about the new state program that was used to confiscate Phillips’ guns.

Another Fake Gun Control Study

AP is reporting "More Gun Laws = Fewer Deaths, 50-State Study Says." Unfortunately, the study is transparently biased and misleading. The Associated Press reported the following information about the study:

The results are based on an analysis of 2007-2010 gun-related homicides and suicides from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers also used data on gun control measures in all 50 states compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a well-known gun control advocacy group. They compared states by dividing them into four equal-sized groups according to the number of gun laws.

The results were published online Wednesday in the medical journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

Editorial author Dr. Garen Wintemute, director the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, said the study doesn't answer which laws, if any, work.
Wintemute said it's likely that gun control measures are more readily enacted in states with few gun owners  a factor that might have more influence on gun deaths than the number of laws.

The actual study can be found here, but we pillaged the most informative graphic for you below. Study it closely.

The study breaks states into groups, but city laws are not taken into account. So the two progressive gun violence capitals, Washington D.C. and Chicago are excluded and misclassified respectively. Chicago is classified by Illinois' gun laws and Washington D.C. is excluded.

Considering that Chicago has more annual gun deaths than America loses in the Afghanistan War, it is hard to take this study serious. California's gun restriction number in the study is 22, while Illinois gets an 11.5.  Further, Chicago related murders in East Chicago, Indiana and Gary, Indiana are deflected from Illinois' gun deaths count.

The numbers:

• Chicago, Illinois murders in 2008 were 18 per 100,000 residents (510 total). The highest comparable number in the study was Louisiana at 10.1.
• East Chicago, Indiana murders in 2008 were 56.9 per 100,000 residents (17 total).
• Gary, Indiana murders in 2008 were 51.2 per 100,000 residents (49 total).

There are a few other statistical issues in the study.

Suicides are counted. When you remove suicides and look at only Homicides you come to a very different conclusion. Lets be serious. If people are allowed to have guns, they may use them to commit suicide, but that is not the implication of "More Gun Laws = Fewer Deaths."  If someone commits suicide by drugs or jumping from a highway overpass instead of by a gun, society does not benefit from the gun law that influenced the method of suicide.

Either the study authors believe that suicides are caused by guns or they are using suicide victim statistics to dishonestly support their political agenda. If there is another explanation, please comment and let me know.

Next, Vermont, North Dakota and New Hampshire "homicide" numbers are reported as "NA" instead of using zero or a very small number. Mysteriously, "overall" fatalities for these states do not match the remaining "suicide" fatalities numbers. As seen in "Climate Change Math", the "overall" fatalities for these states are greater than the "suicide" fatalities despite the NA for "homicide" fatalities. Consider that these numbers are statistical means or mathematical average. Can you say fudge factor?

Here are the numbers from the study. Take note of the "Firearm Fatalities, Mean (SD)" calculation. Can you smell the Doo Doo?:

Here is my chart of data from the study excluding suicides. Washington, D.C. was not added. States without reported homicide numbers were included as zero. Illinois was not corrected to maximum gun laws in this graph. If we had added Washington, D.C. and adjusted Illinois the results would more conclusively display the short comings of the report, but the changes would be inaccurate estimates. Unlike the CDC, who provided the data, we do not allow political goals to push us into deception.

Here is the graph from the study.

This study is actually reporting the obvious. If someone doesn't have a gun, they cannot commit suicide with a gun. It is the Associated Press who has dishonestly spun the study into a political weapon. Consider this study debunked.

Note:
After consideration, this information may become central to comparing gun deaths and crime. The study uses the term "homicide" for non-suicide gun deaths, but this requires closer scrutiny. They may mean simple non-suicide gun deaths, including police shootings, self defense shootings or other "justifiable homicides."  That would be blatantly deceptive on their part if they are twisting the language in such a fashion.

The Right to Choose To Defend Yourself

There are times when honest debate can solve large problems through reason. These times require both sides to negotiate in good faith. America is not in these times today. We have a president and a progressive movement that is dishonest and favor demagoguery for political advantage.

With this said, we hope there are still honest people on both sides of issues and this is an appeal to the remaining true and honest members on the American left. Please consider the following argument.

When a woman is raped and impregnated through violence, many Americans feel that the victim has the right to choose the fate of her body and her pregnancy. This is a difficult life and death decision with innocent lives at stake.

It is preferable to prevent the rape, the pregnancy and the resulting difficult decision. It is preferable to save the victim from the crime itself.  The sole choice that prevents rape and victimization is the personal choice of how to defend yourself.

You may be capable and confident to defend yourself without exercising your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. However, the choice is your constitutionally protected civil right as a citizen of the United States. Bearing arms may lead a woman into another difficult life and death decision when facing a rapist. Gun rights give victims the choice between the life of a rapist, her own life and the possibility of a rape induced pregnancy.

It is logically and emotionally inconsistent to support a victims right to choose for her body, but not her right to defend that body.

Supporting Information

Facts are stubborn. Most gun violence in the last few years has occurred in gun free zones. We won't diminish our discussion by going very far off track, but there are important and current facts that support the wisdom of the Second Amendment. Some of these facts are reflected in San Diego, California.

In the first half of 2012, San Diego forcible rapes skyrocketed 27% after the repeal of open carry, increased restrictions to gun registration and ammo availability. The California Department of Justice has also begun confiscating guns from subjects deemed "Prohibited." I call them subjects, because the defenseless are not equals in rights or civil liberties as they offer no deterrence to those who would subjugate them. An opinion reinforced by the historic origins of gun restrictions imposed in the south against minorities.

There is a Russian saying, "it comes down to who has the strength to pull the trigger." America's founding fathers had a different view and wished only for the people's power to balance the separated powers of the government. This is why our 1st Amendment is the right to free speech and why it is backed by our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.  With this in mind, not everyone has the strength to pull a trigger, but everyone's civil rights ultimately depend on someone who is holding a gun.

The most empowering choice a person can make is to hold those rights in their own hands.

P.S. 

For more information on Civil Rights, fellow SLOBs author Blogger in Chief has details about The South Central Los Angeles Tea Party 

Update 3/12/2013:
Per The Blaze
‘GUN GIRL’ CONFRONTS DEM. REP. AT TOWN HALL WITH TOUGH QUESTION — AND HE LITERALLY REFUSES TO ANSWER

“Why aren’t you pro-choice when it comes to self-defense for women?” she asks.

His response: “On to the next question. I’m choosing to move to the next question.”

Forcible Rape Jumps 26.76% in San Diego (Updated)

The FBI released voluntarily reported crime statistics for cities and the nation. The Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June 2012 shows a slight national uptick in violent crime of 1.9% from 2011. In San Diego, rape is up by 26.76% and overall violent crime has increased by 7.87%.

San Diego has not reported a significant number of additional murders, 40 during the first half of 2012 compared with 39 during the previous year. While some Police point out that area murders in 2012 have included several gang related killings, the overall rate of murder in the county is nearly flat.

Earlier this year we reported on a 26% increase in rapes per the San Diego Association of Governments, but the two statistics are fundamentally different. The Union Tribute points to the rape definition from earlier this year:

The number of rapes increased by 26 percent, with 376 reported from January to June. At least part of the increase can be attributed to a wider definition of rape that went into effect in January. The new definition includes any gender of victim or perpetrator, as well as instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.

The FBI statistics use "Forcible Rape," a term you may recall from the 2012 election. The media did not report the fact that this is an important distinction in crime reporting and legislation.

Forcible rapes in the San Diego area increased from 213 during the first half of 2011 to 270 during the same period in 2012. This is a similar percentage increase, but the numbers differ drastically.

A year over year trend in FBI crime statistics shows that this is the first uptick in violent crime in several years. There are a couple explanations at work.

Some pundits are blaming the poor economy, but some of the San Diego areas hardest hit by the economy are not showing a correlation. The same problem arises when left wing pundits point to gun possession. El Cajon, California shows a 24.8% decrease in violent crime, a 20% decrease in rape and a 24.8% decrease in assaults. El Cajon is an area associated with gun ownership in San Diego.

Carlsbad, Escondido and Temecula have seen sharp increases in reported forcible rapes. These areas are all similar in population size compared to El Cajon, but are more secluded. "Open Carry" was outlawed in California beginning in January 2012. This may point out that scarcely populated areas without the protection of firearms are targeted by criminals.

Another explanation may be prison realignment (AB109). 10 News reports:

San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne said gangs are growing as a result of the state's prison realignment with California wardens shifting tens of thousands of inmates to county jail cells or providing early release.

"We're seeing about a thousand additional people out of prison and they don't have quite the level of oversight they would normally have and it's pretty clear that it's having some effect on the gangs and they're being more aggressive than before," Lansdowne said.

Gang violence is up 34 percent, he said.

Anecdotal evidence supports the Police Chief, but this is a difficult case to make. City by city across California the results of prison realignment are mixed per the Sacremento Bee.

"The state is not collecting data on this," Krisberg said. "I think it is scandalous."

My theory is that prison realignment, illegal immigration, police budgetary restrictions and the banning of Open Carry laws have produced a net effect. Where people are not armed and police are understaffed, crime is exploding. Elsewhere, criminals now understand that Californians are defenseless and our criminal system is not capable of punishing them for crimes when caught.

While this report is focused on the latest FBI report, 2012 full year statistics on murder is being locally reported:

The murder rate in San Diego was up almost 20 percent in 2012 from the year before, and in San Diego County, the numbers increased by almost 23 percent.

The FBI murder statistics for San Diego during January to June 2012 show an increase of only 8% (25 to 27), which leads to the conclusion that these problems must be growing...and we are legally prohibited from protecting ourselves.

Update:

Police chiefs from around San Diego confirmed my suspicion that the increase in crime is due to the "Open Carry" ban. UT San Diego's Pauline Repard issued a report that three police chiefs from San Diego jumped to support President Obama's 23 executive orders on "gun violence." Can you guess which three?

“I was pleasantly surprised when I heard him take a comprehensive approach,” said Carlsbad Police Chief Gary Morrison. “I liked the way he talked about the medical community and the impact of video games on kids, and money to law enforcement and schools to craft emergency response plans.”

“You could not find a bigger supporter of the president than myself today,” said San Diego Police Chief Bill Lansdowne. “It makes my officers safer and it’s going to make the community safer.”

Chula Vista Police Chief David Bejarano said most people in law enforcement welcome the additional measures the president is proposing.

Maybe this is a biased view and the hardest hit police chiefs are simply grasping for solutions to problems. However this looks like anti-gun police chiefs, and Sheriff Gore if you read the full story, reduce the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves and their property. For these San Diego police chiefs overall violent crime is up 8.32% and forcible rape is up 37.16%. The FBI report shows a 6.29% increase in violent crime and a 3.08% uptick in forcible rape for the other San Diego police chiefs.

In Carlsbad forcible rape skyrocketed 275% and violent crime overall is up 73.42%. On the bright side, there were no murders in the first half of 2012 and auto theft was slightly down. Robbery, aggravated
assault, property crime, burglary and larceny-theft increased.

Chula Vista shows a 16% decrease in reported violent crime due to less aggravated assaults. The FBI report also show a 14.3% increase in forcible rape and increased burglaries, auto theft and property crimes.

Hopefully unrelated, yet interestingly, Chula Vista's police chief David Bejarano had reported ties to Mexican drug gangs and has been accused of writing bad checks.

The city of San Diego shows a 9.55% increase in violent crime and the numbers look to be getting worse as described above.

A full spreadsheet of statistics with my calculations is available here. The stats have been added as an enclosure to this post.

Sources:
CBS News 8
FBI
UT San Diego
10 News
Sacremento Bee

Guns are Civil Rights

FISCAL CLIFF NOTE

Normally this blog would be talking about the so called "fiscal cliff" deal. The outcome of the deal is horrific for the economy and only slightly better than if the we had just fallen off the "cliff." President Obama reportedly was asked by House Speaker John Boehner what he would get in exchange for increased taxes and was told, "You get nothing. I get that for free." So, the entire episode has been about the sociopathic mentality of our president. There is nothing more to add as this is not about economics or policy, it is only about power.

GUNS

Recently I have been confronted by many people on both sides of the political spectrum who have been mislead by the media about guns. The media is sensationalizing the tragedy in the "gun free" school zone in Connecticut by reporting the story as if he had a machine gun and calling his weapons "rapid fire." So, here are a few facts.

You cannot buy a machine gun at K-Mart.

Semi-automatic weapons have no greater capability of "rapid fire" than an old west style six shooter revolvers. They may be able to hold more ammo in a magazine or drum than a revolver.

Semi-automatic simply means a weapon is not a revolver, but loads the next round of ammo. Normally the next round of ammo is loaded via a spring instead of a revolver action.

Machine guns are automatic weapons.

The average gun owner cannot change a semi-automatic weapon into a full automatic weapon or load a high capacity drum magazine of ammo. To do either would require significant training. Most military personnel could not convert a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon.

Semi-automatic weapons do not fire repeatedly if you hold down the trigger.

Machine guns fire big bullets, like rifle bullets or even larger.

Submachine guns fire pistol rounds, like the "Tommy Gun" famous in the 1920's. This is the prototype of a "assault weapon."

The Thompson submachine gun or Tommy gun was invented by General John T. Thompson, it was the first hand held machine gun. Thompson was driven with the thought of creating a hand held machinegun that would help end the First World War, However, "the first shipment of prototype guns destined for Europe arrived at the docks in New York city on November 11, 1918, the day the War ended."

"Assault Weapons" are automatic weapons. They are machine guns or submachine guns. The first modern assault weapon was the "storm rifle," StG 44 created by the socialist tyrants we know as the NAZI party. NAZI is German shortened from National Socialist Party.

 literally means "storm rifle" as in "to storm (i.e. "assault") an enemy position"

You cannot buy an assault weapon or any automatic weapon without a federal license in the United States. The license entitles the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to inspect the weapon at any time.

There are separate models of guns for the military and law enforcement personnel that are not available to private citizens. Many guns may look the same, but privately available guns fire smaller bullets and are not automatic weapons. The reason they look the same is for marketability in the open market.

CIVIL RIGHTS

Now that we are on the same page about the definition of semi-automatic weapons, lets discuss why they are important.

Imagine that you are arrested for murder. Readers of this blog are obviously innocent of such a crime, but how is our judicial system set up to ensure that innocent people are not convicted of crimes? 

First, we have a  police force that is comprised of screened, respectable and honorable citizens. Next we have a judicial system comprised of judges so honorable they are referred to as "Your Honor." Finally, we have a trial by jury system that ensures that your peers, who are unbiased toward you, decide your fate. The government is there to protect you on three levels.

Wait a second, what did we forget... the prosecutor. OK, so one professional is entrusted to decide who to prosecute and who should not be prosecuted. There are four levels of government protecting you. 

So, you have been arrested for a murder, which we know that you did not commit. The police have put you in jail. The prosecutor schedules a hearing before the judge and the judge will decide if a trial by jury is required. 

We must have forgotten something else, because you are not likely a professionally trained criminal attorney who could mount the best defense of your life and liberty. You likely do not know the procedures of the court or rules of evidence. As a matter of fact, under these circumstances, you are completely dependent upon the good nature of the people in government. People who do not know you and are likely to face the worst elements of society on a daily basis. 

Call me a cynic, but there is a pretty good chance your goose is cooked. There must be some reason they arrested you. The people on the jury are going to think the same thing. Further, that flashy prosecutor has convicted a whole lot of people and knows what he is doing. 

As a matter of fact, I have my reservations that even the Honorable Judge would be able to give you an unbiased trial in these circumstances. All the information will be coming from the prosecutor, who must believe you are guilty. Moreover, you have been sitting in jail for a few weeks, and it shows.

Wait a second, you have the right to an attorney. You have a civil right to a professionally trained, criminal defense attorney who has not been sitting in jail, who knows the rules of the court and who can mount a defense of your life and liberty. You have an equalizer!

YOU DO NOT RELY UPON THE GOOD NATURE OF THE PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT WITH YOUR LIFE AND LIBERTY!

Even with four levels of government protection, you have a civil right to defend your life and liberty. Doesn't that sounds like the exact reason for your second amendment civil right to bare arms?

Bill O'Reilly

The other day Bill O'Reilly on The Factor made the comment that "if the American military is coming for you, a gun won't matter."  He made this comment in response the thousands of letters reminding him that one of the reasons for the second amendment was to ensure the government did not become a tyranny. 

Couldn't the exact same argument be made from a legal stand point, "if the American government wants to put you in jail, an attorney won't matter."  The IRS Tax code is so convoluted that no one has complied with every interpretation of every rule. There are certainly other regulations and laws which most everyone is unaware. Each such interpretation of a regulation or law could be used to overpower even the best legal defense team. Regardless, our civil right to a defense attorney stands as an equalizer to the power of the government. This is the difference between a subject and a citizen, a check and balance of power.

It may be that Mr. O'Reilly fails to understand the argument. The reason that the Empire of Japan did not invade U.S. soil was, in the words of General Isoroku Yamamoto, 

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." (Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur])

The same could be said of the American military. If presented an order to forcefully suppress the American people, conservatives in the ranks would resist. As a last resort, the citizenry would prove that, "The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants."

According to Ammoland, more guns were purchased last year in the United States than than there are active duty military members in the world’s fourteen largest armies combined