Category Archives: RKBA

News and information on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Natural Right to Self-Defense as recognized by the Second Amendment of the federal Constitution and by many state constitutions.

Sporting Ammunition in a Fire is Safe for Firefighters if it is NOT Loaded in the Chamber of a Firearm

by Michael D. Robbins
Director, Public Safety Project

February 13, 2013

The video below, SAAMI – Sporting Ammunition and the Fire Fighter, “is recommended as an educational tool for fire departments.” Its length is 25:47. It “explains how firefighters face no danger from sporting ammunition in a fire when protected by standard turn-out gear.” Even hundreds or thousands of rounds of firearm ammunition cartridges stored in boxes or other containers are safe for firefighters fighting a fire. Thus, firefighters are safe fighting a fire even in a gun store or target range with lots of boxed or loose sporting ammunition present.

This result is based on extensive testing. “Nearly one million rounds of sporting ammunition were subjected to ten different tests-from open burn conditions to tightly confined burn conditions-to examine what happens to sporting ammunition exposed to severe impact and fire.” A link to an article on the subject follows the video.

“Sporting ammunition includes shot shells up to 8 gauge and handgun and rifle cartridges up to .50 caliber. This video examines sporting ammunition only. It does not address military or law enforcement ammunition, such as tear gas cartridges, tracers, or incendiary projectiles.”

“Note that ammunition loaded in the chamber of a firearm and exposed to a fire IS dangerous just as if the trigger of the firearm was pulled, and the bullet can shoot out the barrel with full velocity.”

Therefore, all firearms should always be treated as if they are loaded and should be pointed in a safe direction.

“CONCLUSION: Projectiles ignited outside a firearm have significantly lower velocities and energies than when shot from a firearm.”

Continue reading

Posted in Research, RKBA, Videos | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sporting Ammunition in a Fire is Safe for Firefighters if it is NOT Loaded in the Chamber of a Firearm

Why “Hate Crime” Laws are Immoral and Counter-Productive, by Michael D. Robbins

Why “Hate Crime” Laws are Immoral and Counter-Productive

Hate crime law supporters weakened our criminal justice system and self-defense rights – and now they want to fix the system only for themselves.

By Michael D. Robbins, Director
Public Safety Project
P.O. Box 2193
El Segundo, CA 90245

PublicSafetyProject.com
Twitter: PSP_USA
YouTube: PublicSafetyProject

August 31, 2001

Revised September 4, 2001 and September 1, 2012.

Mr. Robbins is a Jew and the son of a survivor of pogroms (government sanctioned and sponsored torture and mass murder of Jews) in the former Communist Soviet Union.

This is the September 1, 2012 updated version of the article first posted on FraudFactor.com on August 31, 2001 as “Hate Crime Law Supporters Weakened Our Criminal Justice System and Self-Defense Rights”, and revised on September 4, 2001, at http://www.FraudFactor.com/ff_first_draft_0006.html. The original article and all revisions were written by Michael D. Robbins.


Public Safety Project – There are numerous problems with “hate crime” laws that increase the punishment for violent crimes, property crimes, and other crimes including intimidation primarily, if not only, where the victim is Black, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, homosexual, or some other “minority” and the criminal expressed hatred as a motivation for the crime.

Although hatred based on race, ethnicity, religion, or legal but repulsive deviant sexual behavior is rude, vulgar, and despicable, in a free society, people have a right to be rude, vulgar, and despicable – as long as they are not violating the individual rights of other people, especially by directly harming them, their property, their business, or their reputation through slander or libel. The primary purpose of government in a free society is to protect individual rights and freedom, not to infringe on those rights and freedom.

Various compelling arguments have been made against hate crime laws, yet a significant and perhaps most compelling argument against hate crime laws has not been made except by this author, to the best of this author’s knowledge. This new argument is presented below as the first and primary argument against hate crime laws. Additional arguments follow.

Fixing Criminal Justice System Weaknesses Only for a Select Few

The most insidious aspect of hate crime laws is that they fix our weakened criminal justice system only for a select few and not for everyone across the board. Under hate crime laws, the government is discriminating and playing favorites based on race, ethnicity, gender, or homosexual or other deviant behavior (“sexual orientation”). Hate crime laws are promoted by activists in the most Leftist (“liberal” or “progressive”) soft-on-crime political factions that have consistently voted for Leftist soft-on-crime Democrats who have greatly weakened our criminal justice system and eroded our Natural Right as recognized by the Constitution to own and carry firearms for self-defense.

Multiple studies by Professor Gary Kleck have shown that defense with a firearm is significantly safer and more effective than any other method, including non-resistance. A firearm is a great equalizer, allowing violent crime victims to overcome criminal attackers who rely on physical strength superiority, numerical superiority, or both.

The Leftist political factions include Blacks, Jews, and homosexuals, who typically have 80 to 90 percent Democrat voter registration rates and vote as a block for Leftist Democrat politicians.

After weakening our criminal justice system and self-defense rights, thereby increasing violent crime and endangering everyone, Leftist politicians, political activists, and “community leaders” are now trying to fix the criminal justice system and increase criminal penalties only for their own benefit, when they and the groups they pander to become crime victims. They refuse to fix the criminal justice system for everyone across the board. Instead, they create special privileged classes in a patronage system where special privileges and protections are given in exchange for votes, campaign contributions, and other forms of campaign support.

Fix the Criminal Justice System for Everyone

If the penalties for violent crimes, property crimes, and intimidation are too lenient, then the penalties should be increased regardless of the race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual behavior (“orientation”) of the crime victim. This can be accomplished by electing conservative Republican legislators and through voter initiatives in states where voters have the right of initiative. We can make everyone safer by … Continue reading

Posted in Library, Position Papers, RKBA, Self-Defense and Gun Rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why “Hate Crime” Laws are Immoral and Counter-Productive, by Michael D. Robbins

Statement on the Aurora, Colorado Movie Theater Mass Murder

Public Safety Project statement on the July 20, 2012 Aurora, Colorado Movie Theater Mass Murder

July 20, 2012

By Michael D. Robbins
Director, Public Safety Project
PublicSafetyProject.org
Info (at) PublicSafetyProject.org
310-322-7244

Copyright © 2012 by Michael D. Robbins

http://publicsafetyproject.org/blog/2012/07/20/statement-on-the-aurora-colorado-movie-theater-mass-murder/

http://publicsafetyproject.com/files/docs/2012-07-20-psp-statement-on-the-aurora-colorado-movie-theater-mass-murder.pdf

In this Statement:

Introduction
Political Opportunism
Gun Control Increases Violent Crime
Widespread Private Firearms Ownership Reduces Violence
The Worst Mass-Murders Did Not Involve Firearms
Recommendations for News Reporters Covering This and Other Mass Murders
Twenty-One Mechanisms by which Gun Control Increases Violent Crime

Introduction

We at the Public Safety Project extend are deepest heartfelt sympathy and condolences to the victims of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater mass murder, and to their families and friends.

Fortunately, such mass murders are unusual in the United States. However, when they do occur, it is often in a Helpless Victim Zone, euphemistically labeled a “Gun-Free Zone”, where there is a target-rich environment of helpless victims selectively disarmed by dangerous “gun control” laws and the politicians who enacted them. Had some theater patrons been armed with concealed handguns, they may have been able to stop or slow the murderer and save lives.

Such mass murders are often perpetrated by societal misfits who want to become famous. They know they will be rewarded and made famous by liberal politicians, news reporters, and public figures who sensationalize mass murders and exploit them to campaign for more dangerous and counter-productive firearm restrictions.

This happened in the case of Patrick Purdy, who murdered five school children, and wounded 29 other schoolchildren and one teacher, before committing suicide, on January 17, 1989 at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California. Liberal, soft-on-crime Democrat politicians including Senator Dianne Feinstein and Attorney General John Van de Kamp, advocacy journalists, and Handgun Control, Inc. all covered up the evidence of our broken-down criminal justice system that allowed Patrick Purdy to commit the mass-murder. They sensationalized and exploited those murders to promote the Roos-Roberti gun ban legislation (AB 357 and SB 292). In the process, they made Patrick Purdy famous.

Purdy had committed seven felonies, attacked a police officer, and kicked out a police car window. He was placed under a 72-hour psychiatric hold and evaluation. The evaluation report indicated that Purdy was both homicidal and suicidal, and was likely to murder multiple other people and then take his own life, which is exactly what he did. Purdy was repeatedly let off easy by liberal judges and prosecutors, and should have still been in prison for many years after the date he committed the mass-murder.

The subsequent investigation determined that Patrick Purdy committed the murders because he wanted to become famous, and the liberal politicians, news reporters, and public figures rewarded him with the fame that he wanted. This only encouraged more mass murders by societal misfits seeking fame.

Political Opportunism

Unfortunately, “usual suspect” politicians, lobbyists, and public figures have chosen to exploit this horrific crime to promote dangerous, counter-productive “gun control” laws that increase violent crime, even before all the bodies were removed, and long before most of the facts could be known.

These political opportunists include New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, the Brady Campaign (formerly “Handgun Control, Inc.”), leftist Hollywood celebrities, and other public figures in or who support the Firearms Confiscation Lobby. Once again, they are campaigning for more dangerous and counter-productive firearm restrictions that target, punish, harass, and selectively disarm ordinary law-abiding citizens who have no intention of ever committing a violent crime.

Gun Control Increases Violent Crime (GCIVC)

The last thirty-five years of the most complete and accurate scientific criminological research shows that often, gun control increases violent crime, and it never reduces crime. Gun control laws cost thousands of lives each year, and endanger everyone, including those who choose not to own firearms.

This includes research by professors James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, professor Gary Kleck, professor John Lott, Jr., and others.

(Reference the Federal Wright-Rossi Report, 1981, commercially published as “Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America” by Kathleen Daly, Peter H. Rossi and James D. Wright, January 1983; the Federal Wright-Rossi Felon Survey, commercially published as “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms” by James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi; “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in Ameica” by Gary Kleck, 1991, 2005; and “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws”, Third Edition by John R. Lott, 2010.)

At least half of all American homes possess firearms, and it is mathematically certain that nearly all of them are used for lawful purposes and are not used in crimes.

There are about 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the U.S. each year, almost always without shooting the attacker. Mere possession and display is almost always an adequate defense.

Gun control shifts the balance of power to favor criminals over ordinary citizens. This is especially evident in mass murder shooting rampages, which are facilitated by the imbalance of power created by gun control laws and business policies that prevent self-defense with firearms. Shooting rampages may last from several minutes to more than a half hour, due to the imbalance of power an armed attacker has over unarmed citizens.

Gun control destroys the multiple crime control and deterrent effects of armed citizens. The crime control and deterrent effects of armed citizens equal or exceed those of the entire criminal justice system, including police, courts, and prisons, according to research by Professor Gary Kleck at Florida State University.

Gun control laws waste, squander, and misdirect limited criminal justice resources, including police, court, and prison resources, by targeting the wrong people. Gun control diverts attention away from real and effective crime control methods that have worked in the past and will work in the future.

And gun control is used as a smokescreen by liberal, soft-on-crime politicians, celebrities, and other public figures, to cover up their soft-on-crime records, and to divert attention away from their failure to support real and effective crime control laws. Most news organizations are willing and eager accomplices. All a liberal politician must do to instantly get lots of free positive national news publicity, that cannot be bought at any price, is publicly call for more restrictive gun control laws.

A more detailed list of twenty-one distinct mechanisms by which Gun Control Increases Violent Crime is provided at the end of this statement.

Widespread Private Firearms Ownership Reduces Violence

Firearms are used at least five times more often for self-defense by ordinary citizens than they are misused in all crimes, suicides, and accidents combined.

Therefore, a complete and accurate cost-versus-benefits analysis, rather than a one-sided analysis, shows that widespread firearms ownership by ordinary nonviolent citizens provides a great net benefit to society, and greatly reduces the overall violence rate. Private firearms ownership should be strongly encouraged rather than discouraged or prohibited.

Scientific research by Professor Gary Kleck found that defense with a firearm is significantly safer and more effective than any other method, including non-resistance.

Gun control laws that target, restrict, punish, and harass ordinary law-abiding citizens, who have no criminal intent, are both counter-productive and immoral. The right to self-defense, which necessarily includes the right to own firearms, the safest and most effective means of self-defense, is a basic Natural right of free people that is recognized by the Constitution.

The Worst Mass-Murders Did Not Involve Firearms

The worst mass-murders committed by civilians (rather than governments) did not involve firearms. That is why liberal, anti-gun politicians, lobbyists, and news reporters restrict their discussion to the worst shooting rampages. Far worse mass-murders are possible and have been committed without firearms in the U.S. and in other countries.

For example, Julio Gonzalez quickly murdered 87 people using one dollar worth of gasoline and two matches, when he set fire to the Happy Land Social Club nightclub in the Bronx, New York City, on March 25, 1990. He set the nightclub ablaze after he had an argument with his former girlfriend who worked there, and was ejected by the bouncer.

Gonzalez was found guilty of 87 counts of arson and 87 counts of murder on August 19, 1991. He was sentenced to the maximum of 25 years to life for each count (a total of 4,350 years). It was the most substantial prison term ever imposed in the state of New York. However, he will be eligible for parole after only 25 years, in March 2015, because New York law states that multiple murders occurring during one act will be served concurrently, rather than consecutively. (Source: Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire)

Thus, Gonzalez did not get a death penalty, and will be eligible for parole after serving less than 3.5 months for each of the 87 murders. That places an extremely small value on human life.

There are many worse mass-murder examples than the Happy Land Social Club fire. This example was used to illustrate how simple and easy it is to commit mass-murder without any special skills or equipment.

Recommendations for News Reporters Covering This and Other Mass Murders

Here are our recommendations for more responsible and ethical conduct by news reporters and editors in the aftermath of this horrific mass murder. These recommendations are also useful to news consumers to recognize media incompetence and bias.

We recommend that news reporters avoid sensationalizing the mass murder and making the murderer famous, to advance their careers or promote a “gun control” agenda. Making the murderer famous will encourage more mass murders in the future. This happened in the case of Patrick Purdy, who murdered school children on January 17, 1989 at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, as described above.

We recommend that news reporters refrain from including the murderer(s) in the “victim count” or “death toll” if the murderer(s) are killed or kill themselves. Including the murderer(s) in the “victim count” or “death toll” is misleading and disrespectful to the murder victims, because it asserts a moral equivalence between the murderer(s) and the murder victims. State the number of murder victims, and then state separately that the murderer(s) were killed (not murdered) or killed themselves.

We recommend that if news reporters compare the Aurora, Colorado movie theater mass murder to other mass murders, they provide a more complete and competent comparison that includes all types of mass murders, as described above, rather than artificially narrowing the focus to “shooting rampages” to promote dangerous and counter-productive gun control laws.

We recommend that news reporters refrain from focusing attention on firearm and accessory technical details, which news reporters usually misunderstand and get wrong, and which are usually irrelevant to the factors that enabled the mass-murderer to commit the crime.

We recommend that news reporters refrain from insensitive and thoughtless lines of questioning, including questions such as “How do you feel now that your son is dead?” and “Do you forgive the killer?”

These are actual questions asked by TV news reporters when interviewing murder victims’ family members. The latter question about forgiveness demonstrates extreme ignorance, and it trivializes the murder. Murder is an unforgiveable crime, because only the murder victim can forgive the murderer, which is impossible once the murder victim is dead.

We recommend that news reporters and editors use the more accurate word “murderer” instead of “killer”, “shooter”, and “gunman”, which diminish the illegality and immorality of the murders. Likewise, we recommend use of the word “murders” instead of “killings” and “shootings”, and “murder” instead of “kill”, “shoot”, and “gun down.”

Too many misguided reporters and editors avoid using words such as “murder” to avoid being “judgmental.” That is sheer idiocy, and it is disrespectful to the murder victims.


Twenty-One Mechanisms by which Gun Control Increases Violent Crime (GCIVC)

July 20, 2012

By Michael D. Robbins
Director, Public Safety Project
PublicSafetyProject.org
Info (at) PublicSafetyProject.org
310-322-7244

Copyright © 2012 by Michael D. Robbins

The last thirty-five years of the most complete and accurate scientific criminological research shows that often, gun control increases violent crime, and it never reduces crime. Gun control laws cost thousands of lives each year, and endanger everyone, including those who choose not to own firearms.

There are many mechanisms by which gun control increases violent crime, including the following twenty-one mechanisms. These mechanisms include both general and specific effects. Although some of these mechanisms may appear to be similar or to overlap, I believe they are reasonably distinct mechanisms that merit individual entries in this list. Feel free to contact me with any additions or suggestions.

Continue reading

Posted in Crime Control, Gun Control, Mass Murders, Research, RKBA, Self-Defense, Violent Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Statement on the Aurora, Colorado Movie Theater Mass Murder

Twenty-One Reasons Why Gun Control Increases Violent Crime, by Michael D. Robbins

Twenty-One Reasons Why Gun Control Increases Violent Crime

July 20, 2012

By Michael D. Robbins, Director
Public Safety Project
P.O. Box 2193
El Segundo, CA 90245
310-322-7244

PublicSafetyProject.org
Info (at) PublicSafetyProject.org

Copyright © 2012 by Michael D. Robbins

http://publicsafetyproject.org/blog/2012/07/20/twenty-one-reasons-why-gun-control-increases-violent-crime/

http://publicsafetyproject.com/files/docs/twenty-one-reasons-why-gun-control-increases-violent-crime.pdf

In this Statement:

Introduction
Gun Control Increases Violent Crime
Widespread Private Firearms Ownership Reduces Violence
The Worst Mass-Murders Did Not Involve Firearms
Twenty-One Mechanisms by which Gun Control Increases Violent Crime

Introduction

Firearm prohibitionists have relied on proven false arguments to deceive and mislead law-abiding citizens into giving up their Natural Right to self-defense and to own firearms, as recognized by and enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Defense with a firearm is significantly safer and more effective than any other method, including non-resistance. Furthermore, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to deter and protect against government tyranny. Its independent and operative clause states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The language “shall not be infringed” is the strongest language used in the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that uses that language. More analysis on the Second Amendment will be provided in a separate article.

The same “usual suspect” advocacy researchers, with funding form the same “usual suspect” leftist foundations (e.g., Joyce Foundation and others) have produced biased, unscientific studies to convince ordinary non-violent Americans that they will be safer without their own personal self-defense firearms, and that they will be safer if all other law-abiding citizens are denied their innate right to own firearms for self-defense. Both of these claims have been proven false, and the opposite has been proven to be true – that law-abiding citizens are safer if they and other law-abiding citizens own self-defense firearms.

Most “gun control” laws do not even recognize the right of non-violent, law-abiding citizens to own firearms for self-defense and family-defense purposes. For example, the Gun Control Act of 1968 bans the importation of firearms based on their “suitability for sporting purposes”, without regard for or recognition of their suitability for self-defense, collecting, or investment purposes. Even worse, the determination of “suitability for sporting purposes” is arbitrary, subjective, irrational, and contrary to real world everyday usage.

A firearm is banned if it is one millimeter shorter than the arbitrary minimum length. A particular Beretta pistol with a standard rear sight and grip was banned from importation into the U.S. under the 1968 GCA, but the same pistol with the rear sight changed to a simple adjustable target sight and the grip changed to one with a “target” thumb rest was legal for importation. A flat standard grip that makes the pistol more suitable for carrying for self-defense, either in a concealed or exposed holster, or in a pocket or purse, could be purchased separately and installed in a few minutes with a screwdriver.

As another example, California Penal Code sections 26150 and 26155 require that “When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person”, the county sheriff or city police chief “may issue a license to that person upon proof” that “good cause exists for issuance of the license.” Other requirements include “good moral character” and residency or having a principal place of employment or business in the county or a city in the county.

“Good moral character” is proven with a clean criminal records check and perhaps some character references. However, The definition of “good cause” is subjective and is defined at the whim of the county sheriff and city police chief. The word “may” rather than “shall” makes California a “may issue” state rather than a “shall issue” state. However, in actual practice, the word “may” combined with the subjective “good cause” requirement makes California a “will not issue” state. Exceptions may be made for well-connected famous celebrities or very wealthy people, including contributors to the sheriff’s campaign fund.

In actual practice, self-defense to protect one’s own life or the lives of family members is not deemed to be sufficient good cause to carry a concealed handgun in public in California, a state dominated by Democrat politicians who are anti-self-defense. But carrying large sums of money or expensive jewelry as part of one’s business may be considered “good cause”.

Former San Jose, California Police Chief Joseph D. McNamara wrote in his book “Safe and Sane”, on pages 71-72, “As much as I oppose the average person having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson murders, some innocent lives might have been saved.” That is, the elitist firearm prohibitionists believe your life is not worth protecting and saving unless you are rich and famous. Perhaps McNamara’s book should have been titled “Unsafe and Insane”.

McNamara is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was appointed police chief for the city of San Jose, California in 1976. He posed in his police uniform for a photo featured prominently on the front cover of a Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) pamphlet promoting firearms prohibition. HCI was renamed to the “Brady Campaign” to conceal the firearm ban and confiscation agenda that was the basis for its founding, as explained by HCI founder Pete Shields in the July 27, 1976 issue of the New Yorker magazine.

In 1989, McNamara forbid the police officers in his department from exercising their First Amendment right to speak as private citizens in plain clothes before the California Legislature in opposition to firearms prohibition – SB 292 and AB 357 authored by State Senator David Roberti and Assemblyman Mike Roos – both leftist Democrats. As an example, McNamara ruined the career of San Jose police officer Leroy Pyle for speaking against SB 292 and AB 357 as a private citizen in plain clothes before the legislature, assigning him to desk work and harassing him to force him out of the department.

“Also in 1989, another police expert, the chief firearms training officer for the San Jose, California, police department, Leroy Pyle, produced a videotape in which he explained and detailed both visually and audibly, the difference between a full auto and a semi-auto.[29] This brief technical video by a police expert was also suppressed or ignored by anti-gun officials and the national media. For his efforts to shed light on the issue, Officer Pyle was suspended, given a punishment assignment and driven from his 25-year police career by his anti-gun chief Joseph McNamara. One of the charges McNamara leveled at Pyle was that he wore a San Jose police uniform during part of his public educational effort, something the chief himself was doing in paid advertising for Handgun Control, Inc. and in other public appearances to influence legislative decisions.[30]

“[29] This video was later circulated to lawmakers and the public by the National Rine Association.

“[30] In 1989, Chief McNamara wrote fund-raising letters for Handgun Control, Inc. on San Jose Police Department letterhead. He also appeared in Handgun Control, Inc. national advertising.”

Source:

University of Dayton Law Review
Symposium, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,
vol. 20, no. 2, 1995: 557.
Posted for Educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please visit the local law library or obtain a back issue.

THE GREAT ASSAULT WEAPON HOAX

Joseph P. Tartaro*

Click on the following link to go the the full law review article on the Second Amendment Foundation web site (SAF.org):
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm

Gun Control Increases Violent Crime (GCIVC)

The last thirty-five years of the most complete and accurate scientific criminological research shows that often, gun control increases violent crime, and it never reduces crime. Gun control laws cost thousands of lives each year, and endanger everyone, including those who choose not to own firearms.

This includes research by professors James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, professor Gary Kleck, professor John Lott, Jr., and others.

(Reference the Federal Wright-Rossi Report, 1981, commercially published as “Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America” by Kathleen Daly, Peter H. Rossi and James D. Wright, January 1983; the Federal Wright-Rossi Felon Survey, commercially published as “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms” by James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi; “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America” by Gary Kleck, 1991, 2005; and “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws”, Third Edition by John R. Lott, 2010.)

At least half of all American homes possess firearms, and it is mathematically certain that nearly all of them are used for lawful purposes and are not used in crimes.

There are about 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the U.S. each year, almost always without shooting the attacker. Mere possession and display is almost always an adequate defense.

Gun control shifts the balance of power to favor criminals over ordinary citizens. This is especially evident in mass murder shooting rampages, which are facilitated by the imbalance of power created by gun control laws and business policies that prevent self-defense with firearms. Shooting rampages may last from several minutes to more than a half hour, due to the imbalance of power an armed attacker has over unarmed citizens.

Gun control destroys the multiple crime control and deterrent effects of armed citizens. The crime control and deterrent effects of armed citizens equal or exceed those of the entire criminal justice system, including police, courts, and prisons, according to research by Professor Gary Kleck at Florida State University.

Gun control laws waste, squander, and misdirect limited criminal justice resources, including police, court, and prison resources, by targeting the wrong people. Gun control diverts attention away from real and effective crime control methods that have worked in the past and will work in the future.

And gun control is used as a smokescreen by liberal, soft-on-crime politicians, celebrities, and other public figures, to cover up their soft-on-crime records, and to divert attention away from their failure to support real and effective crime control laws. Most news organizations are willing and eager accomplices. All a liberal politician must do to instantly get lots of free positive national news publicity, that cannot be bought at any price, is publicly call for more restrictive gun control laws.

A more detailed list of twenty-one distinct mechanisms by which Gun Control Increases Violent Crime is provided at the end of this statement.

Widespread Private Firearms Ownership Reduces Violence

Firearms are used at least five times more often for self-defense by ordinary citizens than they are misused in all crimes, suicides, and accidents combined.

Therefore, a complete and accurate cost-versus-benefits analysis, rather than a one-sided analysis, shows that widespread firearms ownership by ordinary nonviolent citizens provides a great net benefit to society, and greatly reduces the overall violence rate. Private firearms ownership should be strongly encouraged rather than discouraged or prohibited.

Scientific research by Professor Gary Kleck found that defense with a firearm is significantly safer and more effective than any other method, including non-resistance.

Gun control laws that target, restrict, punish, and harass ordinary law-abiding citizens, who have no criminal intent, are both counter-productive and immoral. The right to self-defense, which necessarily includes the right to own firearms, the safest and most effective means of self-defense, is a basic Natural right of free people that is recognized by the Constitution.

The Worst Mass-Murders Did Not Involve Firearms

The worst mass-murders committed by civilians (rather than governments) did not involve firearms. That is why liberal, anti-gun politicians, lobbyists, and news reporters restrict their discussion to the worst shooting rampages. Far worse mass-murders are possible and have been committed without firearms in the U.S. and in other countries.

For example, Julio Gonzalez quickly murdered 87 people using one dollar worth of gasoline and two matches, when he set fire to the Happy Land Social Club nightclub in the Bronx, New York City, on March 25, 1990. He set the nightclub ablaze after he had an argument with his former girlfriend who worked there, and was ejected by the bouncer.

Gonzalez was found guilty of 87 counts of arson and 87 counts of murder on August 19, 1991. He was sentenced to the maximum of 25 years to life for each count (a total of 4,350 years). It was the most substantial prison term ever imposed in the state of New York. However, he will be eligible for parole after only 25 years, in March 2015, because New York law states that multiple murders occurring during one act will be served concurrently, rather than consecutively. (Source: Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire)

Thus, Gonzalez did not get a death penalty, and will be eligible for parole after serving less than 3.5 months for each of the 87 murders. That places an extremely small value on human life.

There are many worse mass-murder examples than the Happy Land Social Club fire. This example was used to illustrate how simple and easy it is to commit mass-murder without any special skills or equipment.

Recommendations for News Reporters Covering This and Other Mass Murders

Here are our recommendations for more responsible and ethical conduct by news reporters and editors in the aftermath of this horrific mass murder. These recommendations are also useful to news consumers to recognize media incompetence and bias.

We recommend that news reporters avoid sensationalizing the mass murder and making the murderer famous, to advance their careers or promote a “gun control” agenda. Making the murderer famous will encourage more mass murders in the future. This happened in the case of Patrick Purdy, who murdered school children on January 17, 1989 at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, as described above.

We recommend that news reporters refrain from including the murderer(s) in the “victim count” or “death toll” if the murderer(s) are killed or kill themselves. Including the murderer(s) in the “victim count” or “death toll” is misleading and disrespectful to the murder victims, because it asserts a moral equivalence between the murderer(s) and the murder victims. State the number of murder victims, and then state separately that the murderer(s) were killed (not murdered) or killed themselves.

We recommend that if news reporters compare the Aurora, Colorado movie theater mass murder to other mass murders, they provide a more complete and competent comparison that includes all types of mass murders, as described above, rather than artificially narrowing the focus to “shooting rampages” to promote dangerous and counter-productive gun control laws.

We recommend that news reporters refrain from focusing attention on firearm and accessory technical details, which news reporters usually misunderstand and get wrong, and which are usually irrelevant to the factors that enabled the mass-murderer to commit the crime.

We recommend that news reporters refrain from insensitive and thoughtless lines of questioning, including questions such as “How do you feel now that your son is dead?” and “Do you forgive the killer?”

These are actual questions asked by TV news reporters when interviewing murder victims’ family members. The latter question about forgiveness demonstrates extreme ignorance, and it trivializes the murder. Murder is an unforgiveable crime, because only the murder victim can forgive the murderer, which is impossible once the murder victim is dead.

We recommend that news reporters and editors use the more accurate word “murderer” instead of “killer”, “shooter”, and “gunman”, which diminish the illegality and immorality of the murders. Likewise, we recommend use of the word “murders” instead of “killings” and “shootings”, and “murder” instead of “kill”, “shoot”, and “gun down.”

Too many misguided reporters and editors avoid using words such as “murder” to avoid being “judgmental.” That is sheer idiocy, and it is disrespectful to the murder victims.


Twenty-One Mechanisms by which Gun Control Increases Violent Crime (GCIVC)

July 20, 2012

By Michael D. Robbins
Director, Public Safety Project
PublicSafetyProject.org
Info (at) PublicSafetyProject.org
310-322-7244

Copyright © 2012 by Michael D. Robbins

The last thirty-five years of the most complete and accurate scientific criminological research shows that often, gun control increases violent crime, and it never reduces crime. Gun control laws cost thousands of lives each year, and endanger everyone, including those who choose not to own firearms.

There are many mechanisms by which gun control increases violent crime, including the following twenty-one mechanisms. These mechanisms include both general and specific effects. Although some of these mechanisms may appear to be similar or to overlap, I believe they are reasonably distinct mechanisms that merit individual entries in this list. Feel free to contact me with any additions or suggestions.

Continue reading

Posted in Crime Control, Gun Control, RKBA | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Twenty-One Reasons Why Gun Control Increases Violent Crime, by Michael D. Robbins

Hate Crime Law Supporters Weakened Our Criminal Justice System and Self-Defense Rights, by Michael D. Robbins

Hate crime law supporters weakened our criminal justice system and self-defense rights

And now they want to fix the system only for themselves.

By Michael D. Robbins, Director
Public Safety Project
P.O. Box 2193
El Segundo, CA 90245

PublicSafetyProject.com
Twitter: PSP_USA
YouTube: PublicSafetyProject

August 31, 2001

Revised September 4, 2001

This older version is available here for historical purposes. This article was revised again on September 1, 2012.

It is recommended that you read the newer September 1, 2012 version of this article, which is available at:
http://publicsafetyproject.org/blog/2012/09/01/why-hate-crime-laws-are-immoral-and-counter-productive/

Mr. Robbins is a Jew and the son of a survivor of pogroms (government sanctioned and sponsored torture and mass murder of Jews) in the former Communist Soviet Union.

This article was originally posted on FraudFactor.com on August 31, 2001 and revised on September 4, 2001 at http://www.FraudFactor.com/ff_first_draft_0006.html. The original article and all revisions were written by Michael D. Robbins.


September 1, 2001 – FraudFactor – There are numerous problems with “hate crime” laws that increase the punishment for crimes of violence and intimidation primarily if not only where the victim is black, hispanic, homosexual, Jewish, asian, or some other “minority” and the criminal expresses hatred as a motivation for the crime.

Although hatred based on race or religion is rude, vulgar, and despicable, in a free society, people have a right to be rude, vulgar, and despicable as long as they are not violating the individual rights of other people by physically hurting them or their property. The primary purpose of government in a free society is to protect individual rights and freedom, not to infringe on those rights and freedom.

Various compelling arguments have been made against hate crime laws, yet a significant and perhaps most compelling argument against hate crime laws has not been made except by this author, to the best of this author’s knowledge. This new argument is presented below as the first and primary argument against hate crime laws. Additional arguments follow.

Fixing Criminal Justice System Weaknesses Only for a Select Few

The most insidious aspect of hate crime laws is that they fix our weakened criminal justice system only for a select few and not for everyone across the board. Under hate crime laws, the government is discriminating and playing favorites based on race. Hate crime laws are promoted by activists in the most liberal soft-on-crime political factions that have consistently voted for liberal soft-on-crime Democrats who have greatly weakened our criminal justice system and eroded our right to own and carry firearms for self-defense.

Multiple studies by Professor Gary Kleck have shown that defense with a firearm is significantly safer and more effective than any other methods, including non-resistance. A firearm is a great equalizer, allowing violent crime victims to overcome criminal attackers who rely on physical strength superiority or numerical superiority.

The liberal political factions include blacks, Jews, and homosexuals, who typically have 80 to 90 percent Democrat voter registration rates.

After weakening our criminal justice system and right to self-defense, thereby increasing violent crime and endangering everyone, liberal politicians, political activists, and “community leaders” are now trying to fix the criminal justice system and increase criminal penalties only for their own benefit, when they and the groups they pander to become crime victims. They still refuse to fix the criminal justice system for everyone across the board.

Fix the Criminal Justice System for Everyone

If the penalties for crimes of violence and intimidation are too lenient, then the penalties should be increased regardless of the race or religion of the crime victim. This can be accomplished by electing conservative Republican legislators and through voter initiatives in states where voters have the right of initiative. We can make everyone safer by … Continue reading

Posted in Crime Control, Gun Control, RKBA, Self-Defense and Gun Rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment