BEFORE A STANDING ARMY CAN RULE THE PEOPLE MUST BE DISARMED
EXCELLENT STATS ON GUN VIOLENCE
Interesting statistics! This jives with the research of Prof. Lott at the University of Chicago, who is a noted expert on gun laws and stats.
There are 30,000 gun related death s per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So, if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assaults are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).
Now it gets good:
200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So, what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).
A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ……………. Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So, you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?
It’s pretty simple: Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs . So, the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”
by Amy Swearer
There is no denying that lawful gun owners use their firearms in self-defense far more often than those decrying the “myth” of a good guy with a gun would care to admit. Firearms are, in fact, used for self-defense often and effectively.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, notorious for its anti-gun bias, acknowledges as much in its 2013 report on gun violence research.
There, in conjunction with the National Research Council, the CDC concluded that almost all national, comprehensive studies on the subject find that firearms are used for lawful defensive purposes between 500,000 and 3.5 million times every year in the United States.
Even assuming that the actual number of defensive uses is on the low end of that range (and there’s good reason to believe that, in fact, it falls at the higher end), firearms are used to protect life and property more often than they are used to commit crimes, according to the CDC.The month of June 2018 provided ample evidence of just how valuable a firearm can be in the hands of a law-abiding citizen.
A cursory review of news stories from that month reveals the following:
- On June 1, a concealed carry permit holder in Cape Coral, Florida, shot a convicted felon who had pulled a firearm on employees of a roofing company. Police said the unnamed good Samaritan acted in self-defense and will not face criminal charges, while the convicted felon—who was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm—will be charged with aggravated assault.
- On June 4, a 63-year-old Chicago man with a concealed carry license used his lawfully owned firearm to fight off three young, would-be robbers, one of whom pulled out what was only later discovered to be a replica firearm. The man shot one of the robbers in the leg, which caused the other suspects to flee.
- Also on June 4, an 18-year-old man in Arlington, Tennessee, found himself “rejected” at gunpoint when he assaulted and attempted to rape his friend’s mother during a sleepover. The man forced the woman on a bed and began putting his hand down her shorts before she was able to knee her attacker in the groin and retrieve her handgun, which was stored in the bedroom. The woman sustained a black eye, but told law enforcement officers that she prevented the man from sexually penetrating her.
- On June 8, a Jacksonville, Florida, man stole cash from a Walmart register and then tried to steal a truck at knifepoint before the truck owner pointed a handgun at the man. The man fled to a nearby Starbucks parking lot, where he again an attempted carjacking—only to be confronted by another armed civilian. Police finally arrived to find the man barricaded inside a Supercuts bathroom, where he was eventually arrested.
- Also on June 8, in DeKalb County, Georgia, three armed individuals followed a couple out of a grocery store, where police believe they intended either to rob or carjack the couple. The would-be attackers failed to account for the possibility that the couple might also be armed, and all three suspects found themselves in the hospital after a shootout, while neither of the victims was injured.
- On June 10, two armed men broke into the Cleveland home of an 84-year-old man, where they found themselves in a shootout when the elderly homeowner did not back down. The homeowner suffered a gunshot wound to his side, but the attackers fled the scene. The homeowner’s 17-year-old grandson called 911 after climbing out a window and onto the roof to escape the gunfire.
- On June 13, a Toledo, Ohio, resident intervened to save the life of a woman being attacked by a man with a hatchet. Police say the resident retrieved a firearm out of his home after witnessing a man in a truck at the nearby intersection repeatedly strike the woman. Neighbors told the media that the woman was screaming for help before the gun owner shot the man attacking her.
- On June 14, a quick-thinking 5-year-old saved his mother’s life by handing her the family firearm to defend herself. The woman’s ex-husband had broken into her Houston home, where he started choking the woman in front of their four children. The woman’s 8-year-old daughter attempted to pry the ex-husband off of her mother until the 5-year-old obtained the weapon, which the mother then used to shoot the ex-husband in the arm. The mother survived, and none of the four children—ages 8, 5, 2 and 1—were hurt in the confrontation.
- In the early morning hours of June 16, a Parkland, Washington, woman shot a 16-year-old who broke into her home and continued approaching her after she fired a warning shot and told him not to move. When the intruder continued to approach her, she shot him in the shoulder. The teenager allegedly collapsed to the floor and continued to yell, “I’m so high” until law enforcement arrived. He is expected to survive the wound.
- On June 17, in Tumwater, Washington, an armed local pastor was credited with stopping a potential mass shooting when he shot and killed a gunman in a Walmart parking lot. The gunman had fired rounds inside the Walmart, apparently trying to break into an ammunition display, before shooting two people during an attempted carjacking. The pastor was aided by a second lawful gun owner.
- Also on June 17, across the country in Pennsylvania, a man and his 17-year-old daughter teamed up to successfully defend their home against a would-be arsonist who entered their home and started pouring gasoline all over the floor. The father tried to push the would-be arsonist out of the door, but was overpowered and assaulted until the daughter was able to retrieve his handgun. He then fired one shot at the intruder, striking him in arm and stomach, and neutralizing the threat until law enforcement could arrive.
- On June 22, a Virginia woman successfully used her firearm to defend her 14-year-old daughter against a knife-wielding would-be kidnapper who had flown to the United States from New Zealand as part of a “carefully planned trip.” The New Zealand man was also carrying pepper spray and duct tape when he used a landscaping brick to smash a glass door, only to be confronted by the teen’s better-armed (and presumably very angry) mother.
- On June 30, a Tennessee teenager used her father’s shotgun to ward off a would-be burglar who approached the front door after stealing two pressure washers from the driveway.
There are, of course, individuals who would use firearms to commit heinous criminal acts. But the proper response to this reality is not the wholesale stripping of constitutional rights from otherwise law-abiding citizens, or the prohibition of entire classes of firearms commonly used by those law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
That framework of broad gun control makes no one safer — least of all the brave citizens highlighted above.
Amy Swearer is a visiting legal fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
A version of this Op-Ed previously appeared on The Daily Signal website under the headline, “A Month of Data Provides Ample Evidence for Why Law-Abiding Citizens Own Firearms.”
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.
The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18
and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute
personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any
type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The
Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of
attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross
violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President
of the United States has zero authority without violating the
Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State
borders.
The
National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government
for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws
of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are
the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the
National Guard.
Attorney
General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the
National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the
limits of the United States."
The
Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October
4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the
Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so
blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been
impeached.
During
the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill
authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18
and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the
House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such
power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to
draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The
fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any
circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the
borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective
states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in
waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an
oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association
(ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional
Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The
militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is
distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also
find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of
the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of
the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of
the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater
care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits
the power of Congress over it."
"This
limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly
establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to
limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary
enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was
intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing
to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be
paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to
confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send
them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the
use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly
some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the
unlimited use of such power."
The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917