Monday, December 7, 2015


Of course the blood wasn't even dry and the dead hadn't been counted in San Bernardino and the liberal left was screaming for MORE GUN CONTROL!!!

"No!  It has nothing to do with radical religion (they can't say Islam) and everything to do with these nasty black guns that are running around killing everyone!"

Ummmm....inanimate objects aren't capable of murdering anyone.

The NYT was quick to roll out what "Conservative-led Australia" did 20 years ago to stop it's mass shootings.

In the continuing debate over how to stop mass killings in the United States, Australia has become a familiar touchstone.

President Obama has cited the country’s gun laws as a model for the United States, calling Australia a nation “like ours.” On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton has said the Australian approach is “worth considering.” The National Rifle Association has dismissed the policies, contending that they “robbed Australians of their right to self-defense and empowered criminals” without reducing violent crime.

The oft-cited statistic in Australia is a simple one: There have been no mass killings — defined by experts there as a gunman killing five or more people besides himself — since the nation significantly tightened its gun control laws almost 20 years ago.

Mass shootings in Australia were rare anyway. But after a gunman massacred 35 people in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur in 1996, a public outcry spurred a national consensus to severely restrict firearms. The tightened laws, which were standardized across Australia, are more stringent than those of any state in the United States, including California.

The impact of the gun laws is difficult to assess partly because of the low rates of intentional firearms deaths in Australia. Gun-related homicide rates are even lower, because suicides make up about 80 percent of all gun deaths. Looking at gun-related suicides and homicides separately shows similar trends — higher rates of both before 1996 than after, declines in the decade before 1996 but sharper declines in the decade after, and a leveling off in recent years.

Mr. Leigh and Ms. Neill tried to measure the effect of the 1996 measures across Australian states and territories to see whether different levels of gun confiscation led to different results. They found that the places where the most guns were removed from public circulation also experienced the largest drops in intentional gun deaths.

The impact of the buyback appeared more pronounced on suicides.

“Firearm suicides fell more in states that had more guns bought back than in states with fewer guns bought back,” Ms. Neill said in an email. “Firearm homicides also fell more in states with more guns bought back, but the effect was smaller than for firearm suicides.”


How stupid can people be?  So Australia spends government money to BUY BACK guns and the 'gun violence decreased'....but the article goes on to say that MOST OF IT was a reduction in suicides!!

Friends, if you want to kill yourself, does it matter if you hang yourself, shoot yourself or throw yourself off a bridge??  NOPE!!!  Either way, YOU ARE DEAD!!!

But to the "black guns are scary" crowd...they INSIST on including "Suicide by gun" in all their "guns are bad" statistics.

Make no mistake about it, the liberals who have NEVER SHOT A GUN and have no idea what a PUMP SHOTGUN even is...want to take away your guns.  They figure that if they don't need them in the New York apartment then YOU DON'T NEED THEM living on a ranch in South Dakota.

Please remember WHY we American citizens have the right to bear's to protect us from our own government one day deciding to incarcerate an entire group of us.  It's also to give any future-would-be invaders of America a chance to think twice before invading USA since there would be a gun pointed at the invaders from almost every nook and cranny in the country.

The latest mass shooting was committed by Muslims who were 'living the American dream".  They had NO LOGICAL REASON to kill themselves in a shoot out with police after first killing a bunch of his co-workers....unless you are a religious Muslim....and then the reason can become totally logical.  THEY WANT TO PLEASE ALLAH!!

Of course Obama came on the TV last night to reassure us all that we shouldn't be concerned about future "terrorist" attacks....of course he meant "future MUSLIM terrorist attacks" but he couldn't bring himself to say the word he left us guessing what kind of terrorists he was referring to.

And going even further, he felt in was in his power to remind us that these religious Muslims who just killed and maimed dozens in California were not real Muslims.  WHAT???????  How the heck does Obama have any idea what "real Muslims" are all about?

In reality, ISIS and it's cohorts are probably much closer to Muhammad in their actions and beliefs than the other Muslims who drink, fornicate and act like Westerners.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home