Andrew Pollack, father of Meadow Pollack who was a victim of the Parkland shooting, joins The Alex Jones Show to expose the crimes of leftists and their damaging policies.

The left’s relentless push to ban commonly-owned semiautomatic rifles under the guise of safety overlooks the fact that Americans face numerous things that cause exponentially more death than rifles on a daily basis.

By Awr Hawkins
Breitbart.com

ConsiderCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics from 2017, the most recent year of complete data. The total number of firearm-related deaths was 39,773. Roughly two-thirds of that figure, 23,854, were firearm-related suicides, with the remaining 15,919 being a combination of the approximately 500 accidental gun deaths that occur annually coupled with just over 15,000 firearm-related homicides.

If we break down the firearm-related homicides via FBI crime statistics, we see that handguns were far and away the common firearm for murder. The FBI reported 7,032 murders with a handgun verses 403 murders with a rifle, and 264 with a shotgun, in cases where the firearm was identifiable.

If we take the 403 rifle murders a year and divide by 365 it comes out to 1.1, which means 1.1 Americans die in a rifle-related murder each day. We must not overlook the fact that the 403 murders with a rifle are murders with rifles of all kinds, i.e., bolt action, lever action, breech action, pump, and semiautomatic. If we narrowed the category to only include AR-15s, AK-47s, or similar semiautomatics, the number of Americans killed daily would be even lower than 1.1.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

By JD Rucker
noqreport.com
 

Democratic lawmakers love gun-toting criminals. They give them the ammunition (pun intended) they need to stir up their base to push for gun control legislation. After every mass shooting, the cries to “do something” are deafening on social media as virtue-signaling politicians pander for effect.

Gun-toting criminals love Democratic lawmakers. They fight to reduce sentences, hamper law enforcement, and most importantly to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. The less the citizenry is armed, the easier it is for criminals to commit their crimes. This is why gun-free zones are often targeted. It’s why gun crimes are rampant in cities like Chicago where guns are allegedly controlled. Criminals owe Democrats a debt of gratitude for helping them stay in business.

Meanwhile, legacy media does everything it can to support both. They selectively highlight which gun crimes they want to promote. If it matches their propagandized narrative that gun control would have stopped them, you will hear about the story ad nauseam for weeks. If it doesn’t fit the storyline, they’re quick to drop it from the headlines. Take note of this when trying to determine why there were so few stories about the Odessa mass shooter following the initial media blitz. The gun he used was illegally manufactured and sold to him. No proposed gun control measure could have possibly stopped him, so the media has backed off the story faster than vampires from a crucifix.

Mark Robinson at Greensboro NC City Council on Gun Show All credit goes to Mr Robinson himself ! Good job sir! Nobody could’ve said it any better. Brilliant !!!

Stephen Willeford -- a good guy with a gun -- describes what happened on November 5th, 2017 in Sutherland Springs, Texas at the First Baptist Church when a madman with a gun killed 26 churchgoers. Willeford, a trained, long-time NRA Member, engaged the active shooter thus saving many lives and setting a heroic example.

By Rod Thomson
TheRevolutionaryAct.com

Something strange happened within a few days of the mass shooting at Santa Fe High School that killed 10 people and injured 14 others.

The story virtually disappeared from the news cycle. This is quite a remarkable change from the weeks of non-stop media coverage after the Parkland, Florida shooting that resulted in huge protests around the country and bad legislation in Florida.

First, there are a lot of similarities in the two atrocities. The killer in both instances was a mentally disturbed, bullied teenage boy who had shown warning signs. However, it is well-documented that in Parkland, law enforcement and school officials (government) missed or purposely overlooked dozens of red flags regarding the killer that could have prevented the killings.

Seventeen people were killed in Parkland. Ten were killed in Santa Fe. Both are located in conservative states with strong Second Amendment protections, although Texas is more conservative. Both have happened during a time of rampant but factually ill-founded fears of school shootings, and a media that has an anti-gun agenda it pushes shamelessly — including the use of grieving teenage survivors.

So what are the differences? Three stand out.

One, the gun that the Parkland killer used was an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. It is what the media insists on calling an “assault weapon,” without ever really explaining or describing what is meant by the term. It’s scary looking and appears similar to military assault weapons. But it is the same as any semi-automatic rifle or pistol. One shot per trigger pull.

In Santa Fe, the killer used a .38-caliber revolver and a shotgun — not the infamous “assault rifles.” There is very little support among Americans for banning revolvers or shotguns. So that was one big difference.

The second is that the Parkland killer was never stopped. Officers stayed outside and did nothing while he continued to massacre people. He just finally quit murdering and walked away from his school slaughter, later being arrested at a fast food restaurant.

In Santa Fe, men with guns stopped the killer. The teen was cornered in a room by armed school security until more police arrived and he surrendered.

A final difference is in the community and the students. Parkland is in the heavily urbanized, liberal, anti-gun corridor of Southeast Florida, from Miami through Fort Lauderdale to West Palm. The students there reflect that urbanized sense of guns as frightening, and really do not seem to grasp the purpose of the Second Amendment. They came out very strong for gun laws and the media ate it up and national, liberal organizations quickly organized them.

Santa Fe is a semi-rural area of Southern Texas between Houston and Galveston. The people there see guns as part of the culture and have a more ingrained understanding of why there is a Second Amendment. For instance, almost no Santa Fe students participated in the national school walkout in March.

Here is Alex Carvey, 16, a student at Santa Fe High School:

“I don’t think guns are the problem — I think people are the problem,” she said. “Even if we did more gun laws, people who are sick enough to do something like this are still going to figure out a way to do it. So it doesn’t matter.”

So the differences in coverage seem to be based at least somewhat on how it plays into the media narrative of blaming the NRA and gun owners and pushing for more gun control laws. Parkland — despite the myriad failures of government along the way, plays nicely into that narrative.

Santa Fe doesn’t really fit narrative.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

By Rick Moran
PJMedia

A survey by the Centers for Disease Control on defensive gun use (DGU) in the United States that shows DGU happening more regularly than gun crimes has never been publicized.

Gary Kleck, a Florida State criminologist, conducted his own study of DGU and his results mirror those of the CDC.

The Daily Caller:

The CDC’s data, collected a few years after Kleck’s survey, appears to corroborate his findings, Reason.com reported. The question asked in the CDC survey addressed the use or threatened use of a firearm to deter a crime. “During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?”

Kleck, upon reviewing the CDC’s data, noted just how close it came to mirroring his own.

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)….CDC’s results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

Many gun control advocates have complained about the fact that the CDC is limited with regard to research on gun violence. A 1996 amendment to a spending bill bars the organization from using congressionally allocated funds to “advocate or promote gun control.”

What those fighting for stronger gun-control generally leave out is the fact that the CDC is not barred from doing any research on gun violence — and the research it has done in the last two decades has largely corroborated Kleck’s findings.

The Obama administration tried several times to get the CDC to treat gun violence as a disease. This approach would have justified extraordinary gun control measures. Republicans in Congress refused to consider the approach and the CDC itself resisted the notion.

But why did this particular survey not receive the attention that such an important subject should have gotten? The same reason that we never see government studies on salt that contradict the accepted view that excessive salt causes high blood pressure or studies on second hand smoke that prove it's not as harmful as the government says.

And it's why data on global warming that contradicts the "consensus" view somehow gets lost on its way to the printer.

Government has a vested interest in a political agenda and using science to further that end has become commonplace by both parties.

It may be the most controversial right we have as U.S. citizens: the right to keep and bear arms.

The root of that controversy is in the often misunderstood intention of the Second Amendment. So what is it really about?

Very clear and honest speech on why it's virtually impossible to find and implement effective solutions to issues involving guns and the second amendment. 

An analysis of thousands of gun control studies claims that just 63 of those studies found connections between more stringent gun control laws violent crime and suicide reductions.

The non-profit RAND corporation spent two years and $1 million on the analysis, searching for evidence of benefit from gun control policies. RAND’s analysis looked to establish connections between gun policies and rates of homicide, suicide, self-defense gun use, hunting, and other categories. The vast majority of those categories went unaffected by legislation, however, according to NPR.

“Most of the effects that we were looking for evidence on, we didn’t find any evidence,” Andrew Morral, who lead the analysis.

RAND’s analysis found some evidence that laws aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of small children had some effect on rates of suicide and accidental gun injuries. Morral also surveyed 95 gun policy experts on both sides of the debate, asking them to rank the ideal outcomes of any given gun control legislation. The outcomes included lowering homicides, suicides, and mass shootings as well as protecting privacy, and enabling hunting and sport shooting. The vast majority of the expert responded that cutting suicides and homicides should be the top priorities.

“That was a surprise, actually,” Morral told NPR. “I think people on either side of gun policy debates think that the other side has misplaced values — or that it’s a values problem, in any case. But that’s not what we find. We find people prioritize the same things in the same order. Where they disagree is on which laws will achieve those objectives. So this is a disagreement about facts. And the facts are sparse.”

Many gun control advocates have called on the federal government to invest more into gathering accurate data on gun violence in America. Congress has long limited the funding for such studies and prevented gun violence from being considered a health issue that would fall under the jurisdiction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Follow Anders on Twitter

Send Tips: anders@dailycallernewsfoundation.org