Intermountain Electric has filed a federal lawsuit seeking more than $3.4 million against the contractor and insurance companies involved in the Veteran's hospital project in Aurora.
Reported by Denver Post 11 hours ago.
Intermountain Electric files $3.4 million lawsuit in VA hospital deal
↧
↧
These glass igloos in the Finnish wilderness are the best way to stare at the Northern Lights all night
What could be better than seeing the Northern Lights?
Seeing them from bed.
In Finnish Lapland, just north of the Arctic Circle, you can.
This far north, the incredible light show is visible around 200 days a year — that's more than every other day. The Kakslauttanen Arctic Resort has made the most of the epic phenomenon with its "Igloo Village," which features igloos made of glass, ideal for seeing the Northern Lights in all their glory, and all night long.
While temperatures around these parts can get as low as -40F, these igloos are made from a special thermal glass that keeps temperatures inside toasty, and the glass from frosting over.
Once you've had your fill of watching the lights, the hotel also features world's largest smoke sauna, a snow restaurant and ice bar, and an ice sculpture gallery. Winter activities include dog-sledding, reindeer sledding, skiing and snowboarding, snowmobiling, and ice fishing.
Glass igloos are available from August through April — prime Aurora Borealis viewing time — and one night for two costs around $455.
Story by Sophie-Claire Hoeller and editing by Kristen Griffin Reported by Business Insider 10 hours ago.
Seeing them from bed.
In Finnish Lapland, just north of the Arctic Circle, you can.
This far north, the incredible light show is visible around 200 days a year — that's more than every other day. The Kakslauttanen Arctic Resort has made the most of the epic phenomenon with its "Igloo Village," which features igloos made of glass, ideal for seeing the Northern Lights in all their glory, and all night long.
While temperatures around these parts can get as low as -40F, these igloos are made from a special thermal glass that keeps temperatures inside toasty, and the glass from frosting over.
Once you've had your fill of watching the lights, the hotel also features world's largest smoke sauna, a snow restaurant and ice bar, and an ice sculpture gallery. Winter activities include dog-sledding, reindeer sledding, skiing and snowboarding, snowmobiling, and ice fishing.
Glass igloos are available from August through April — prime Aurora Borealis viewing time — and one night for two costs around $455.
Story by Sophie-Claire Hoeller and editing by Kristen Griffin Reported by Business Insider 10 hours ago.
↧
The Case for Banning Assault Weapons
In his December 6 address from the Oval Office, President Obama rightly called for action to "make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons, like the ones that were used in San Bernardino."
Assault weapons, like the two pictured above in a police photo of the weapons used in San Bernardino, are a relatively new addition to our nation's gun larder. Prior to the mid-1980s, revolvers dominated the handgun market and most rifles and shotguns were designed for hunting or sport. Even most law enforcement agencies still relied primarily on revolvers and standard (non-military-style) long guns.
But in the 1980s and 1990s, the gun industry, desperate to lift sagging sales, introduced U.S. gun buyers to assault weapons with detachable high-capacity ammunition magazines. Most of these were semiautomatic versions (firing one bullet per trigger pull) of fully automatic (the weapon will fire as long as the trigger is depressed) military weapons. They quickly became the "must-have" item for a segment of America's gun-owning population: both law-abiding and criminal. Soon, MAC-10 and TEC-9 assault pistols, as well as AR-15, AK-47, UZI and SKS assault rifles were the desired weapons of the drug dealers that drove the crack cocaine market of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
These guns were favored not just for their increased firepower, but their ability to intimidate. The inevitable result of introducing weapons originally designed to inflict as many deaths as possible in as efficient a manner as could be imagined was soon seen. The modern era of mass-casualty public shootings was inaugurated when James Huberty decided to go "hunting for humans" with an UZI Carbine at a McDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro, California on July 18, 1984.
This whole new category of civilian firearms -- semiautomatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns derived from military designs -- helped drive gun sales. And gunmakers never looked back. Today's gun industry, which for generations was defined by selling firearms for hunting and sporting use, now embraces maximum lethality as its lodestar.
And since that horrific attack at McDonald's in 1984 that left 21 dead, including numerous children, and 19 wounded, the list of towns and institutions that will forever be associated with mass shootings continues to grow: Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California; Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado; a hunting camp in Birchwood, Wisconsin; a mall in Omaha, Nebraska; an IHOP in Carson City, Nevada; a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; Sandy Hook Elementary School; a military installation in Chattanooga, Tennessee; Planned Parenthood; and now San Bernardino.
But mass shootings are only one symptom of the gun violence epidemic that plagues America. Thirty-three thousand times a year, 92 times a day, Americans die in what has come to be viewed as "normal" firearms violence: suicides, homicides, and unintentional deaths -- the bread and butter of gun death in America.
In the immediate wake of the San Bernardino shooting, one question repeatedly asked was: Were the shooters terrorists? Just as important is the question: Why does it matter? Are the lives ended any less tragic, the injuries suffered any less horrific, because of the given ideology of a mass shooter? If our decades-long national experiment of pouring increasingly lethal guns into our society should have taught us at least one thing, it's that it is virtually impossible to predict who the next shooter will be, and what motives will drive him or her. What we can do is limit the firepower in civilian hands, and banning assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines is an important step in stopping such carnage.
In America today, if you have a relatively clean criminal record and a credit card, you can easily outfit yourself for war and even build your own army. That's a fact. And while an outside observer might assume that the gun industry would work to hide this disturbing reality, they actually promote it with marketing strategies that constantly hawk their guns amid military images and language. In just one example among all too many, the DPMS assault rifle used in San Bernardino is marketed with the slogan, "Built to be as Tough as the Mission Ahead." Even if your "mission" is gunning down your coworkers, fellow students, or just unlucky strangers.
Access to this level of firepower emboldens common criminals, mass shooters, and terrorists alike. It makes them feel confident that they can confront law enforcement and other first responders. Those who ignore President Obama's call to ratchet back the tremendous firepower currently sold legally in America's gun stores only ensure that San Bernardino will be just a brief stop until the next community is rocked by tragedy.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.
Assault weapons, like the two pictured above in a police photo of the weapons used in San Bernardino, are a relatively new addition to our nation's gun larder. Prior to the mid-1980s, revolvers dominated the handgun market and most rifles and shotguns were designed for hunting or sport. Even most law enforcement agencies still relied primarily on revolvers and standard (non-military-style) long guns.
But in the 1980s and 1990s, the gun industry, desperate to lift sagging sales, introduced U.S. gun buyers to assault weapons with detachable high-capacity ammunition magazines. Most of these were semiautomatic versions (firing one bullet per trigger pull) of fully automatic (the weapon will fire as long as the trigger is depressed) military weapons. They quickly became the "must-have" item for a segment of America's gun-owning population: both law-abiding and criminal. Soon, MAC-10 and TEC-9 assault pistols, as well as AR-15, AK-47, UZI and SKS assault rifles were the desired weapons of the drug dealers that drove the crack cocaine market of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
These guns were favored not just for their increased firepower, but their ability to intimidate. The inevitable result of introducing weapons originally designed to inflict as many deaths as possible in as efficient a manner as could be imagined was soon seen. The modern era of mass-casualty public shootings was inaugurated when James Huberty decided to go "hunting for humans" with an UZI Carbine at a McDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro, California on July 18, 1984.
This whole new category of civilian firearms -- semiautomatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns derived from military designs -- helped drive gun sales. And gunmakers never looked back. Today's gun industry, which for generations was defined by selling firearms for hunting and sporting use, now embraces maximum lethality as its lodestar.
And since that horrific attack at McDonald's in 1984 that left 21 dead, including numerous children, and 19 wounded, the list of towns and institutions that will forever be associated with mass shootings continues to grow: Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California; Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado; a hunting camp in Birchwood, Wisconsin; a mall in Omaha, Nebraska; an IHOP in Carson City, Nevada; a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; Sandy Hook Elementary School; a military installation in Chattanooga, Tennessee; Planned Parenthood; and now San Bernardino.
But mass shootings are only one symptom of the gun violence epidemic that plagues America. Thirty-three thousand times a year, 92 times a day, Americans die in what has come to be viewed as "normal" firearms violence: suicides, homicides, and unintentional deaths -- the bread and butter of gun death in America.
In the immediate wake of the San Bernardino shooting, one question repeatedly asked was: Were the shooters terrorists? Just as important is the question: Why does it matter? Are the lives ended any less tragic, the injuries suffered any less horrific, because of the given ideology of a mass shooter? If our decades-long national experiment of pouring increasingly lethal guns into our society should have taught us at least one thing, it's that it is virtually impossible to predict who the next shooter will be, and what motives will drive him or her. What we can do is limit the firepower in civilian hands, and banning assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines is an important step in stopping such carnage.
In America today, if you have a relatively clean criminal record and a credit card, you can easily outfit yourself for war and even build your own army. That's a fact. And while an outside observer might assume that the gun industry would work to hide this disturbing reality, they actually promote it with marketing strategies that constantly hawk their guns amid military images and language. In just one example among all too many, the DPMS assault rifle used in San Bernardino is marketed with the slogan, "Built to be as Tough as the Mission Ahead." Even if your "mission" is gunning down your coworkers, fellow students, or just unlucky strangers.
Access to this level of firepower emboldens common criminals, mass shooters, and terrorists alike. It makes them feel confident that they can confront law enforcement and other first responders. Those who ignore President Obama's call to ratchet back the tremendous firepower currently sold legally in America's gun stores only ensure that San Bernardino will be just a brief stop until the next community is rocked by tragedy.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.
↧
Illinois man pleads guilty to Islamic State group case, planned military base attack
An Aurora man has pleaded guilty to charges he conspired to provide material support to the Islamic State group and making false statements regarding terrorism.
Reported by FOXNews.com 8 hours ago.
↧
9 Gun Arguments That Need to Be Disarmed (Part 3)
Part one discussed two gun arguments that are factually incorrect while part two addressed misguided perspectives on this topic.
This post will zoom in on common NRA and Republican tactics employed to avoid meaningful action and dialogue.
*7. "The Only Thing Stopping a Bad Guy with a Gun Is a Good Guy with a Gun"*
This was the infamous quote used by NRA's executive vice president Wayne LaPierre when addressing the horrific Newtown Sandy Hook shooting that claimed the lives 20 innocent children.
This rationale is used by devout gun owners who believe that mass shootings can be prevented if the victims were properly armed, or if more citizens with guns are present in such a grave dilemma.
This begs some questions:
How many citizens rose to the occasion and sought vigilante justice by standing up to Adam Lanza when he shot up Sandy Hook Middle School?
Or hunted down Dylann Roof when he killed nine African-Americans in a Charlestown church?
Or defiantly defended Umpqua Community College, Columbine or Virginia Tech?
Or bravely confronted the dark underbelly of domestic terrorism as the Wisconsin Sikh Temple was massacred or when three University of North Carolina muslim students were fatally shot?
Slate reports that instances of armed citizens preventing a mass shooting do exist, but such occurrences are rare.
Additionally, this would leave communities entirely dependent on the good will and bravery of a random passerby daring to place themselves in danger in order to save the lives of people they have no connection with.
Police have even commented that open carry laws make protecting their communities a more daunting challenge, leading to confusion and misinformation during a 911 call.
After the Sandy Hook shooting, Rep. Louis Gohmert called for every state to enact concealed-carry laws, citing that crime rate in states with such policy have experienced a plunge in crime rate.
While factually correct, the same can be said for states with tough gun laws, meaning this relationship is coincidental, not causational.
Of course, the NRA wants to push this narrative onto people as a scare-tactic to purchase more guns.
The NRA was once a grassroots organization who formerly advocated for gun control when its primary source of income came from membership fees.
Business Insider reported in 2013, since 2005 the gun manufacturing industry and its corporate allies have hijacked the NRA through donations between $20 million and $52.6 million through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program.
Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.
The article states, "There are two reasons for the industry support for the NRA. The first is that the organization develops and maintains a market for their products. The second, less direct function, is to absorb criticism in the event of PR crises for the gun industry."
This explains the incongruence of LaPierre's distant gun control stance in 1999, when he called for gun-free school, versus his more recent calls for the proliferation of gun ownership.
"Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. "While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory."
Essentially, taking self-protection advice from a NRA lobbyist, who's driven by profit motives fueled by gun sales, is like allowing Ronald McDonald to convince you that a diet of Big Macs is the cornerstone of weight loss nutrition.
*8. "We Need More Mental Health Funding"*
Our current gun debate hones in on grisly mass shootings, but the CDC reports that 60 percent of gun deaths are caused by suicide.
Vox's Dylan Matthews explains this is actually one of the most compelling reasons for reducing access to guns, since an abundance of research shows greater access to guns dramatically increases the risk of suicide.
The New England Journal of Medicine released a report that shows states with high gun ownership has the highest rates of suicide.
Additionally, Vox reports that guns allow people to kill themselves more easily, providing those with a bleak, tenuous hope of a happy life a quick and painless escape.
Jill Harkavy-Friedman, vice president of research for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, previously explained even delaying suicide is instrumental in its prevention.
"Time is really key to preventing suicide in a suicidal person," Harkavy-Friedman said. "First, the crisis won't last, so it will seem less dire and less hopeless with time. Second, it opens the opportunity for someone to help or for the suicidal person to reach out to someone to help. That's why limiting access to lethal means is so powerful."
She added, "[I]f we keep the method of suicide away from a person when they consider it, in that moment they will not switch to another method. It doesn't mean they never will. But in that moment, their thinking is very inflexible and rigid. So it's not like they say, 'Oh, this isn't going to work. I'm going to try something else.' They generally can't adjust their thinking, and they don't switch methods."
Mental health care is indeed a crisis that needs urgent attention in the U.S. Nearly one in five Americans suffer from a mental illness each year, and high costs are often a barrier to receiving treatment.
As 79 percent of mass shootings can be attributed to a history of mental illness, Republican politicians are absolutely correct in stating that this needs to be a top priority in addressing America's health crisis, but it should be one of many solutions.
But this becomes problematic, because "mental illness" has become a common tactic employed by Republicans to dodge substantive gun law reform, as depicted by John Oliver.
*9. "Using Mass Shootings to Talk About Shootings Is Pushing a Political Agenda."*
Talking policy in the aftermath of a horrific shooting, where emotions are highly volatile is inopportune, as we are left to grieve and deal with the shock of a horrific tragedy.
But this violence occurs so frequently, refusing to talk about guns in our society too soon after a mass shooting will be too late after the next one unfolds.
Over the course of his tenure as President, President Obama's passionate pleas for gun reform have slowly eroded into a jaded acceptance of the inevitable visceral opposition to his proposals. Regardless, he is met with vicious disdain from gun enthusiasts and Republicans alike for "political pandering."
Republicans' refusal to talk about gun violence under the guise of empty platitudes, including their "thoughts and prayers," is another form of politicizing the issue.
They're using the grieving process to justify governmental inaction in dealing with this issue.
This seems to make sense, as the NRA bankrolls many of their campaigns.
Additionally, they use the lurid portrayal potential of gun control legislation to fearmonger Americans into buying more guns, both to protect their rights and to guard themselves from the horrors of another shooting.
It's no wonder gun sales spike after high-profile mass shootings.
Comedian Larry Willmore dissects this strategy on his Nightly Show, as our national mourning is used to divert attention toward gun reform and push their agenda of boosting gun sales and deflecting any substantial legislative change that can curb gun violence.
Labelling someone seeking a discussion regarding reforming our gun laws as a political opportunist is just an easy way to vilify someone who is deeply concerned about the rising rates of mass shootings in America.
Ideally, America would have an opportunity to talk about dealing with gun violence at a time of tranquility, but if this is our course of action, we will be waiting for that moment for quite some time, as America has averaged one mass shooting per day since 2013, and during Obama's second term, a Sunday-to-Saturday calendar week has not passed without a mass shooting incident
*Conclusion*
Curbing gun violence is a complex issue, as it crosses mental health, socio-economic, poverty, educational and geographic boundaries.
This requires a collective effort in our communities and cooperation on a state and federal level - as gun violence in New York City or Chicago is vastly different than Wyoming or Vermont.
Each state and municipality should have a deep reflection on how to properly deal with this scourge that reflects their specific needs.
Igniting a level-headed, sensible discussion does not mean the federal government is going to take all our guns. Prohibition has been an abject failure for drugs and alcohol - since guns have become a staple of our society, this policy may likely falter as well.
Although gun control remains a hotly contested debate, it doesn't mean criminal and mental background checks, addressing mental health and poverty, increased security in schools and offices, and closing gun show and "strawman" purchase loopholes aren't feasible.
But it starts with a debate outside of these cliche, regurgitated arguments that not only blatantly defy reality and empirical research, but also stall us in an endless, perpetual cycle of bloodshed and frustration.
With all the senseless chaos Americans have endured this past year, reasonable debate has been drowned out by the white noise of loudmouth pundits, corporate-owned politicians and repeated gun shots.
As the Umpqua Community College shooting unfolded, I watched the news coverage on CNN with a man who survived the Aurora movie theater shooting.
He stared at me with the glimmering look of reoccurring fear in his eyes and his raspy tone described his life of uncertainty and constant fear of another spontaneous shooting at a seemingly unsuspecting location.
He said he will never know when another senseless gunman will pull out a weapon and open fire on people innocently trying to live out their daily lives. This resonating, deep-seeded panic has drastically altered the way he conducts himself.
We must ask ourselves, is this the type of country we want to live in?
One that resolves disputes in a contest of who has the most powerful guns that fire rounds the fastest?
One that turns every conflict into a Mexican standoff, where our sense of security is defined by the size of our gun rack?
One where every citizen has a eerie, lurking awareness that their lives can be expunged at any moment and any location by the trigger pull of an emotionally volatile person seeking to vent their grievances?
If we want to successively balance our 2nd Amendment rights and reduce mass shootings, this involves a serious disarming of our current means of debate.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
This post will zoom in on common NRA and Republican tactics employed to avoid meaningful action and dialogue.
*7. "The Only Thing Stopping a Bad Guy with a Gun Is a Good Guy with a Gun"*
This was the infamous quote used by NRA's executive vice president Wayne LaPierre when addressing the horrific Newtown Sandy Hook shooting that claimed the lives 20 innocent children.
This rationale is used by devout gun owners who believe that mass shootings can be prevented if the victims were properly armed, or if more citizens with guns are present in such a grave dilemma.
This begs some questions:
How many citizens rose to the occasion and sought vigilante justice by standing up to Adam Lanza when he shot up Sandy Hook Middle School?
Or hunted down Dylann Roof when he killed nine African-Americans in a Charlestown church?
Or defiantly defended Umpqua Community College, Columbine or Virginia Tech?
Or bravely confronted the dark underbelly of domestic terrorism as the Wisconsin Sikh Temple was massacred or when three University of North Carolina muslim students were fatally shot?
Slate reports that instances of armed citizens preventing a mass shooting do exist, but such occurrences are rare.
Additionally, this would leave communities entirely dependent on the good will and bravery of a random passerby daring to place themselves in danger in order to save the lives of people they have no connection with.
Police have even commented that open carry laws make protecting their communities a more daunting challenge, leading to confusion and misinformation during a 911 call.
After the Sandy Hook shooting, Rep. Louis Gohmert called for every state to enact concealed-carry laws, citing that crime rate in states with such policy have experienced a plunge in crime rate.
While factually correct, the same can be said for states with tough gun laws, meaning this relationship is coincidental, not causational.
Of course, the NRA wants to push this narrative onto people as a scare-tactic to purchase more guns.
The NRA was once a grassroots organization who formerly advocated for gun control when its primary source of income came from membership fees.
Business Insider reported in 2013, since 2005 the gun manufacturing industry and its corporate allies have hijacked the NRA through donations between $20 million and $52.6 million through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program.
Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.
The article states, "There are two reasons for the industry support for the NRA. The first is that the organization develops and maintains a market for their products. The second, less direct function, is to absorb criticism in the event of PR crises for the gun industry."
This explains the incongruence of LaPierre's distant gun control stance in 1999, when he called for gun-free school, versus his more recent calls for the proliferation of gun ownership.
"Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. "While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory."
Essentially, taking self-protection advice from a NRA lobbyist, who's driven by profit motives fueled by gun sales, is like allowing Ronald McDonald to convince you that a diet of Big Macs is the cornerstone of weight loss nutrition.
*8. "We Need More Mental Health Funding"*
Our current gun debate hones in on grisly mass shootings, but the CDC reports that 60 percent of gun deaths are caused by suicide.
Vox's Dylan Matthews explains this is actually one of the most compelling reasons for reducing access to guns, since an abundance of research shows greater access to guns dramatically increases the risk of suicide.
The New England Journal of Medicine released a report that shows states with high gun ownership has the highest rates of suicide.
Additionally, Vox reports that guns allow people to kill themselves more easily, providing those with a bleak, tenuous hope of a happy life a quick and painless escape.
Jill Harkavy-Friedman, vice president of research for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, previously explained even delaying suicide is instrumental in its prevention.
"Time is really key to preventing suicide in a suicidal person," Harkavy-Friedman said. "First, the crisis won't last, so it will seem less dire and less hopeless with time. Second, it opens the opportunity for someone to help or for the suicidal person to reach out to someone to help. That's why limiting access to lethal means is so powerful."
She added, "[I]f we keep the method of suicide away from a person when they consider it, in that moment they will not switch to another method. It doesn't mean they never will. But in that moment, their thinking is very inflexible and rigid. So it's not like they say, 'Oh, this isn't going to work. I'm going to try something else.' They generally can't adjust their thinking, and they don't switch methods."
Mental health care is indeed a crisis that needs urgent attention in the U.S. Nearly one in five Americans suffer from a mental illness each year, and high costs are often a barrier to receiving treatment.
As 79 percent of mass shootings can be attributed to a history of mental illness, Republican politicians are absolutely correct in stating that this needs to be a top priority in addressing America's health crisis, but it should be one of many solutions.
But this becomes problematic, because "mental illness" has become a common tactic employed by Republicans to dodge substantive gun law reform, as depicted by John Oliver.
*9. "Using Mass Shootings to Talk About Shootings Is Pushing a Political Agenda."*
Talking policy in the aftermath of a horrific shooting, where emotions are highly volatile is inopportune, as we are left to grieve and deal with the shock of a horrific tragedy.
But this violence occurs so frequently, refusing to talk about guns in our society too soon after a mass shooting will be too late after the next one unfolds.
Over the course of his tenure as President, President Obama's passionate pleas for gun reform have slowly eroded into a jaded acceptance of the inevitable visceral opposition to his proposals. Regardless, he is met with vicious disdain from gun enthusiasts and Republicans alike for "political pandering."
Republicans' refusal to talk about gun violence under the guise of empty platitudes, including their "thoughts and prayers," is another form of politicizing the issue.
They're using the grieving process to justify governmental inaction in dealing with this issue.
This seems to make sense, as the NRA bankrolls many of their campaigns.
Additionally, they use the lurid portrayal potential of gun control legislation to fearmonger Americans into buying more guns, both to protect their rights and to guard themselves from the horrors of another shooting.
It's no wonder gun sales spike after high-profile mass shootings.
Comedian Larry Willmore dissects this strategy on his Nightly Show, as our national mourning is used to divert attention toward gun reform and push their agenda of boosting gun sales and deflecting any substantial legislative change that can curb gun violence.
Labelling someone seeking a discussion regarding reforming our gun laws as a political opportunist is just an easy way to vilify someone who is deeply concerned about the rising rates of mass shootings in America.
Ideally, America would have an opportunity to talk about dealing with gun violence at a time of tranquility, but if this is our course of action, we will be waiting for that moment for quite some time, as America has averaged one mass shooting per day since 2013, and during Obama's second term, a Sunday-to-Saturday calendar week has not passed without a mass shooting incident
*Conclusion*
Curbing gun violence is a complex issue, as it crosses mental health, socio-economic, poverty, educational and geographic boundaries.
This requires a collective effort in our communities and cooperation on a state and federal level - as gun violence in New York City or Chicago is vastly different than Wyoming or Vermont.
Each state and municipality should have a deep reflection on how to properly deal with this scourge that reflects their specific needs.
Igniting a level-headed, sensible discussion does not mean the federal government is going to take all our guns. Prohibition has been an abject failure for drugs and alcohol - since guns have become a staple of our society, this policy may likely falter as well.
Although gun control remains a hotly contested debate, it doesn't mean criminal and mental background checks, addressing mental health and poverty, increased security in schools and offices, and closing gun show and "strawman" purchase loopholes aren't feasible.
But it starts with a debate outside of these cliche, regurgitated arguments that not only blatantly defy reality and empirical research, but also stall us in an endless, perpetual cycle of bloodshed and frustration.
With all the senseless chaos Americans have endured this past year, reasonable debate has been drowned out by the white noise of loudmouth pundits, corporate-owned politicians and repeated gun shots.
As the Umpqua Community College shooting unfolded, I watched the news coverage on CNN with a man who survived the Aurora movie theater shooting.
He stared at me with the glimmering look of reoccurring fear in his eyes and his raspy tone described his life of uncertainty and constant fear of another spontaneous shooting at a seemingly unsuspecting location.
He said he will never know when another senseless gunman will pull out a weapon and open fire on people innocently trying to live out their daily lives. This resonating, deep-seeded panic has drastically altered the way he conducts himself.
We must ask ourselves, is this the type of country we want to live in?
One that resolves disputes in a contest of who has the most powerful guns that fire rounds the fastest?
One that turns every conflict into a Mexican standoff, where our sense of security is defined by the size of our gun rack?
One where every citizen has a eerie, lurking awareness that their lives can be expunged at any moment and any location by the trigger pull of an emotionally volatile person seeking to vent their grievances?
If we want to successively balance our 2nd Amendment rights and reduce mass shootings, this involves a serious disarming of our current means of debate.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
↧
↧
Illinois man pleads guilty in Islamic State group case
An Aurora man has pleaded guilty to charges he conspired to provide material support to the Islamic State group and making false statements regarding terrorism.
Reported by MyNorthwest.com 8 hours ago.
↧
Man accused of plotting to attack Illinois National Guard base pleads guilty
An Aurora man has pleaded guilty to charges he conspired to provide material support to the Islamic State group and making false statements regarding terrorism.
Reported by FOXNews.com 8 hours ago.
↧
Accused Massacre Plotter Pleads Guilty in Foiled Attack on Joliet Armory
Patch Naperville, IL -- Jonas Edmonds, of Aurora, plotted with his cousin to shoot as many as 150 people.
Reported by Patch 8 hours ago.
↧
Elderly Cleaning Man Killed in Club Robbery: Montgomery ICYMI
Patch Montgomery, IL -- Also: 6 charged in kidnapping of Aurora man | Tobacco enforcement grant | Montgomery blotter | Plus, your local real estate info.
Reported by Patch 3 hours ago.
↧
↧
Sudden Death of Aurora Police Commander 'Devastating'
Patch Naperville, IL -- Commander Joseph Groom served the Aurora community for the past 26 years.
Reported by Patch 2 hours ago.
↧
Confirmit and Emotient Bring Emotion Detection Technology to Researchers
Confirmit has partnered with Emotient, the leader in emotion detection and sentiment analysis technology based on facial expressions, to deliver greater insight to Market Research (MR) organizations and Voice of the Customer (VoC) programs.
New York, NY and Oslo, Norway and London, UK (PRWEB) December 10, 2015
Confirmit has partnered with Emotient, the leader in emotion detection and sentiment analysis technology based on facial expressions, to deliver greater insight to Market Research (MR) organizations and Voice of the Customer (VoC) programs.
The partnership answers the need for research organizations to use more sophisticated, detailed and personal behavioral analytics to extract more accurate insight from research surveys. Facial expression recognition technology is an ideal solution, delivering a level of insight about personal sentiment and reaction that cannot be gained through other research methods.
Ken Denman, CEO, Emotient, explained, “Attention, engagement and emotion are the currency of revenue growth and customer satisfaction because, put simply, emotions drive spending and loyalty. For organizations running research programs and customer experience surveys, emotion detection technology allows them to analyse an individual’s emotional reactions at the point of experience – delivering greater understanding of behavior patterns and likely future action.”
Terry Lawlor, EVP Product Management at Confirmit said, “By adding emotion detection to our suite of research solutions, we’re empowering our clients to delve even deeper into the behaviors of research respondents and customers. They will be able to make better business decisions, improve product and service offerings, and improve customer experience – all based on detailed emotional reactions and likely behaviors.”
Emotient has embedded its technology into Confirmit’s survey software, making it easy to add emotion detection to any new or existing MR, VoC or Voice of the Employee program. Respondents are seamlessly transferred during a Confirmit Horizons survey to the Emotient system for the emotion detection to be performed, and then seamlessly returned back to the survey to complete data collection.
Lawlor said, “As technology developments move forward at such a rapid pace, it’s imperative that we continuously deliver the best solutions to our global client base. Emotient leads the field in emotion-aware computing and was a natural fit for our comprehensive, feature-rich solution set.”
Denman concluded, “We’re delighted to work with Confirmit to expand the reach of our technologies to leading research and corporate organizations and to provide them with the ability to enhance their analytical capabilities to a personal level while remaining fully scalable.”
The integrated solution is immediately available. Confirmit and Emotient will share more details and demonstrate the integrated solution during an upcoming webinar scheduled for early 2016.
###
About Confirmit
Confirmit is the world’s leading SaaS vendor for multi-channel Voice of the Customer, Voice of the Employee, and Market Research solutions. The company has offices in Oslo (headquarters), Chengdu, Cologne, Grimstad, London, Moscow, New York, San Francisco, Sydney, Vancouver, and Yaroslavl. Confirmit’s software is also distributed through partner resellers in Madrid, Milan, Salvador, and Tokyo.
Confirmit powers Global 5000 companies and Market Research agencies worldwide with a wide range of software products for feedback / data collection, panel management, data processing, analysis, and reporting. Customers include Aurora, British Airways, BSI, Cross-Tab, Dow Chemical, GfK, GlaxoSmithKline, GMO Research, JTN Research, Keep Factor, Morehead Associates, Nielsen, Research Now, RONIN, RS Components, Sony Mobile Communications, Swisscom and The Wellcome Trust. Visit http://www.confirmit.com for more information.
About Emotient
Emotient, Inc., is the leading authority in facial expression analysis. Emotient software translates facial expressions into actionable information that helps companies make better decisions based on audience response to media, products and experiences. Emotient facial expression technology is currently available through the Emotient Analytics web service or the Emotient API. Automated emotion measurement can generate insights that increase revenue across many industries including advertising, media and entertainment, consumer goods, retail, enterprise sales, healthcare and education.
Emotient was founded by a team of six PhDs from the University of California, San Diego, who are the foremost experts in the application of machine learning, computer vision and cognitive science to facial behavioral analysis. Its proprietary, patented technology sets the industry standard for accuracy and real-time delivery of facial expression data and analysis. Emotient was named a Gartner 2014 Cool Vendor and was recognized as a 2015 TiE Top 50 Startup. Reported by PRWeb 2 days ago.
New York, NY and Oslo, Norway and London, UK (PRWEB) December 10, 2015
Confirmit has partnered with Emotient, the leader in emotion detection and sentiment analysis technology based on facial expressions, to deliver greater insight to Market Research (MR) organizations and Voice of the Customer (VoC) programs.
The partnership answers the need for research organizations to use more sophisticated, detailed and personal behavioral analytics to extract more accurate insight from research surveys. Facial expression recognition technology is an ideal solution, delivering a level of insight about personal sentiment and reaction that cannot be gained through other research methods.
Ken Denman, CEO, Emotient, explained, “Attention, engagement and emotion are the currency of revenue growth and customer satisfaction because, put simply, emotions drive spending and loyalty. For organizations running research programs and customer experience surveys, emotion detection technology allows them to analyse an individual’s emotional reactions at the point of experience – delivering greater understanding of behavior patterns and likely future action.”
Terry Lawlor, EVP Product Management at Confirmit said, “By adding emotion detection to our suite of research solutions, we’re empowering our clients to delve even deeper into the behaviors of research respondents and customers. They will be able to make better business decisions, improve product and service offerings, and improve customer experience – all based on detailed emotional reactions and likely behaviors.”
Emotient has embedded its technology into Confirmit’s survey software, making it easy to add emotion detection to any new or existing MR, VoC or Voice of the Employee program. Respondents are seamlessly transferred during a Confirmit Horizons survey to the Emotient system for the emotion detection to be performed, and then seamlessly returned back to the survey to complete data collection.
Lawlor said, “As technology developments move forward at such a rapid pace, it’s imperative that we continuously deliver the best solutions to our global client base. Emotient leads the field in emotion-aware computing and was a natural fit for our comprehensive, feature-rich solution set.”
Denman concluded, “We’re delighted to work with Confirmit to expand the reach of our technologies to leading research and corporate organizations and to provide them with the ability to enhance their analytical capabilities to a personal level while remaining fully scalable.”
The integrated solution is immediately available. Confirmit and Emotient will share more details and demonstrate the integrated solution during an upcoming webinar scheduled for early 2016.
###
About Confirmit
Confirmit is the world’s leading SaaS vendor for multi-channel Voice of the Customer, Voice of the Employee, and Market Research solutions. The company has offices in Oslo (headquarters), Chengdu, Cologne, Grimstad, London, Moscow, New York, San Francisco, Sydney, Vancouver, and Yaroslavl. Confirmit’s software is also distributed through partner resellers in Madrid, Milan, Salvador, and Tokyo.
Confirmit powers Global 5000 companies and Market Research agencies worldwide with a wide range of software products for feedback / data collection, panel management, data processing, analysis, and reporting. Customers include Aurora, British Airways, BSI, Cross-Tab, Dow Chemical, GfK, GlaxoSmithKline, GMO Research, JTN Research, Keep Factor, Morehead Associates, Nielsen, Research Now, RONIN, RS Components, Sony Mobile Communications, Swisscom and The Wellcome Trust. Visit http://www.confirmit.com for more information.
About Emotient
Emotient, Inc., is the leading authority in facial expression analysis. Emotient software translates facial expressions into actionable information that helps companies make better decisions based on audience response to media, products and experiences. Emotient facial expression technology is currently available through the Emotient Analytics web service or the Emotient API. Automated emotion measurement can generate insights that increase revenue across many industries including advertising, media and entertainment, consumer goods, retail, enterprise sales, healthcare and education.
Emotient was founded by a team of six PhDs from the University of California, San Diego, who are the foremost experts in the application of machine learning, computer vision and cognitive science to facial behavioral analysis. Its proprietary, patented technology sets the industry standard for accuracy and real-time delivery of facial expression data and analysis. Emotient was named a Gartner 2014 Cool Vendor and was recognized as a 2015 TiE Top 50 Startup. Reported by PRWeb 2 days ago.
↧
The most breathtaking natural wonder in every state
Wikimedia CommonsWhat makes the US so beautiful is how its topography varies so dramatically from state to state. No wonder it's called "America the Beautiful."
From arid deserts to lush forests, America's landscape is as varied as it is stunning.
Picking 50 wasn't easy, but here are the most beautiful natural attractions in each state.
-ALABAMA: The Heart of Dixie is home to Noccalula Falls, a 90-foot waterfall that has its own gorge trail that passes by an aboriginal fort, a pioneer homestead, Civil War carvings, and caves.-
Shutterstock
Source: National Park Service
-ALASKA: Our northernmost state is the only place in the US where the Northern Lights are a common occurrence. Known as the aurora borealis, this natural light show is caused by the collision of solar wind with particles in our atmosphere.-
Shutterstock
Source: Alaska Tour Jobs-ARIZONA: The Grand Canyon is Arizona's best-known natural beauty, but it isn't the only one. The Wave is a sandstone rock with thousands of linear carvings caused by time and erosion.-
iStock / AvatarKnowmad
Source: TheWave.info
*See the rest of the story at Business Insider* Reported by Business Insider 1 day ago.
↧
Was San Bernardino the End of Civilization as We Know It?
*Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com*
Who can't feel that something's in the air? Some mood of fear, panic, and pure meanness ratcheting up in the planet's "exceptional" nation. Or at least exceptionally jumpy nation. In the wake of the San Bernardino slaughter and news of an online pledge of loyalty to the Islamic State (IS) by one of the killers, the talk of "war" and even "world war" is rising to a fever pitch on the campaign trail. With the death of 14 and the wounding of 21 in a California center dedicated to helping disabled people -- evidently a case of ISIS-inspired, yet all-American workplace terrorism -- the president was forced to address the nation from the Oval Office for the first time since August 2010. The Republicans on the campaign trail having put his feet to the fire, he wanted to reassure the country about how ably his administration was keeping us safe from terrorists, while ratcheting up what he now calls a "war" to defeat the forces of the Islamic State.In the meantime, another wave of Americans have just rushed to local gun shops to arm themselves, further enriching domestic weapons makers (just as the heightening set of conflicts in the Middle East are enriching upbeat national defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon). More than a year before Americans head into voting booths, presidential campaign 2016 has already been transformed into a national security election. And here's a guarantee: no matter who wins, Washington's national security state will emerge stronger than ever with yet more enhanced powers in an increasingly locked-down, up-armed, draconian country. Yet none of the events involved, either here or in the Middle East, merit the alarms being raised.After all, when James Holmes slaughtered 12 people in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, in July 2012, and that December Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, no one talked about World War IV and the president did not address us from the Oval Office. Nor were Americans speaking obsessively and anxiously about their fear of being ambushed anywhere in their lives (though they were no less subject to that possibility than they are now). The more than 1,000 "mass shootings" and 1,300 dead since Sandy Hook, and the 355 such incidents in which at least four people were injured or killed so far this year alone, almost none connected to Islamic terrorism and many minor indeed, weren't considered firefights in World War IV and, despite the obvious dangers, the national security state wasn't put on high alert to protect us.San Bernardino was indeed a grim and grotesque event, but it was not the end of civilization as we know it. It wasn't even the most horrendous shooting incident in twenty-first-century America. It does not represent an overwhelming danger to the American people as a whole. If you want to be fearful of anything, don't get into your vehicle, since that's where 32,000 Americans die every year. Above all, don't arm yourself to fight off the Islamic State in your local restaurant, supermarket, or workplace, since the figures clearly indicate that it's so much more likely you'll pick up that weapon in a depressed or angry mood and kill yourself (or someone else), or that your toddler will find it unlocked and shoot you.In the same way, in the crumbling Middle East, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is indeed an organization with tens of thousands of fighters, more than a genuine toehold in the region, a striking ability to brand itself and see that brand spread to other unsettled and fragmenting areas (Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, etc.), and an obvious skill when it comes to stirring up trouble elsewhere. But it is nothing like "world war" material. It is a real but modest threat.
Put another way, this country, especially in the increasingly demagogic atmosphere of election 2016, is in danger of losing its bearings completely, as well as its collective sense of what's truly threatening, what's actually a danger, and what should matter most to us. Similarly, as State Department whistleblower Peter Van Buren suggests today in "Washington to Whomever: Please Fight the Islamic State for Us," American policymakers seem to have lost their bearings in the Middle East, imagining a war and a set of "allies" that functionally don't exist. Think of it as a double whammy of delusion, at home and abroad.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 1 day ago.
Who can't feel that something's in the air? Some mood of fear, panic, and pure meanness ratcheting up in the planet's "exceptional" nation. Or at least exceptionally jumpy nation. In the wake of the San Bernardino slaughter and news of an online pledge of loyalty to the Islamic State (IS) by one of the killers, the talk of "war" and even "world war" is rising to a fever pitch on the campaign trail. With the death of 14 and the wounding of 21 in a California center dedicated to helping disabled people -- evidently a case of ISIS-inspired, yet all-American workplace terrorism -- the president was forced to address the nation from the Oval Office for the first time since August 2010. The Republicans on the campaign trail having put his feet to the fire, he wanted to reassure the country about how ably his administration was keeping us safe from terrorists, while ratcheting up what he now calls a "war" to defeat the forces of the Islamic State.In the meantime, another wave of Americans have just rushed to local gun shops to arm themselves, further enriching domestic weapons makers (just as the heightening set of conflicts in the Middle East are enriching upbeat national defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon). More than a year before Americans head into voting booths, presidential campaign 2016 has already been transformed into a national security election. And here's a guarantee: no matter who wins, Washington's national security state will emerge stronger than ever with yet more enhanced powers in an increasingly locked-down, up-armed, draconian country. Yet none of the events involved, either here or in the Middle East, merit the alarms being raised.After all, when James Holmes slaughtered 12 people in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, in July 2012, and that December Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, no one talked about World War IV and the president did not address us from the Oval Office. Nor were Americans speaking obsessively and anxiously about their fear of being ambushed anywhere in their lives (though they were no less subject to that possibility than they are now). The more than 1,000 "mass shootings" and 1,300 dead since Sandy Hook, and the 355 such incidents in which at least four people were injured or killed so far this year alone, almost none connected to Islamic terrorism and many minor indeed, weren't considered firefights in World War IV and, despite the obvious dangers, the national security state wasn't put on high alert to protect us.San Bernardino was indeed a grim and grotesque event, but it was not the end of civilization as we know it. It wasn't even the most horrendous shooting incident in twenty-first-century America. It does not represent an overwhelming danger to the American people as a whole. If you want to be fearful of anything, don't get into your vehicle, since that's where 32,000 Americans die every year. Above all, don't arm yourself to fight off the Islamic State in your local restaurant, supermarket, or workplace, since the figures clearly indicate that it's so much more likely you'll pick up that weapon in a depressed or angry mood and kill yourself (or someone else), or that your toddler will find it unlocked and shoot you.In the same way, in the crumbling Middle East, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is indeed an organization with tens of thousands of fighters, more than a genuine toehold in the region, a striking ability to brand itself and see that brand spread to other unsettled and fragmenting areas (Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, etc.), and an obvious skill when it comes to stirring up trouble elsewhere. But it is nothing like "world war" material. It is a real but modest threat.
Put another way, this country, especially in the increasingly demagogic atmosphere of election 2016, is in danger of losing its bearings completely, as well as its collective sense of what's truly threatening, what's actually a danger, and what should matter most to us. Similarly, as State Department whistleblower Peter Van Buren suggests today in "Washington to Whomever: Please Fight the Islamic State for Us," American policymakers seem to have lost their bearings in the Middle East, imagining a war and a set of "allies" that functionally don't exist. Think of it as a double whammy of delusion, at home and abroad.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 1 day ago.
↧
↧
The Tide Is Actually Against Increased Gun Control
In spite of the frequent pleas from President Barack Obama and other national Democrat leaders for increased gun control, the United States is no closer to implementing such laws in spite of constant headlines pointing to mass killings and calling for more government action. This reality becomes all the more clear as many in law enforcement openly push against the call for more gun laws and average Americans treating the situation like a call to arms.
Following the attacks by terrorists in Paris, the Police Chief in Detroit, Michigan surprised the media by announcing that armed citizens are making Detroit decidedly unattractive to terrorists. According to CBS Detroit, because "more guns, fewer problems. That, at least, is Detroit Police Chief's James Craig's view of Detroit and fears about a possible terrorist attack." The article goes on to state, "Detroit's police chief says he believes the fear that armed citizens would return fire serves as a deterrent for a potential terrorist attack in the rust belt city."
This is a theme Chief Craig has promoted for quite a while. In 2014 it was reported in the Washington Times that "Detroit has experienced 37 percent fewer robberies than it did last year, and Police Chief James Craig is crediting armed citizens for the drop. 'Criminals are getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon,' Chief Craig, who has been an open advocate for private gun ownership, told The Detroit News in an interview. 'I don't want to take away from the good work our investigators are doing, but I think part of the drop in crime, and robberies in particular, is because criminals are thinking twice that citizens could be armed.'"
Craig is not the only law enforcement official pushing against the gun control narrative. Ulster County New York Sheriff Paul Van Blarcum has gone even further, advocating for all people with carry permits to keep their guns on them. The Sheriff, who is a Democrat, recently wrote on his office's Facebook page: "In light of recent events that have occurred in the United States and around the world I want to encourage citizens of Ulster County who are licensed to carry a firearm to PLEASE DO SO."
Although it is new to see those in law enforcement be vocal in maintaining such positions, it has long been known that the consensus of most police is a desire to see more responsibly and legally armed citizens. The website, PoliceOne, did an extensive survey of 15,000 officers to determine law enforcement attitudes about gun ownership, and the results will likely surprise most people. According to the survey, "More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable." Furthermore, a "full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent)." Even more surprising is law enforcement's view of what should happen in public school when it comes to protecting young people, with "more than 81 percent of respondents were in favor of arming teachers and school administrators if they were properly trained and vetted or at least proficient."
Law enforcement is not the only one not accepting the anti-gun rhetoric. Average Americans are responding to mass shootings by purchasing more guns. For many, the obvious fact that all of these events are happening in "gun free zones," makes it very logical that they want to assure their own protection wherever possible. Furthermore, we are seeing contrarian attitudes about gun free zones, as the President of the largest Christian University in the US has urged his students to carry guns on campus and the Texas Legislature has passed a law requiring the state's public institutions of higher learning to allow those who are properly licensed to carry guns.
Rhetoric by politicians and the media are at an all time high, but the trend is actually very much against more gun control laws.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 1 day ago.
Following the attacks by terrorists in Paris, the Police Chief in Detroit, Michigan surprised the media by announcing that armed citizens are making Detroit decidedly unattractive to terrorists. According to CBS Detroit, because "more guns, fewer problems. That, at least, is Detroit Police Chief's James Craig's view of Detroit and fears about a possible terrorist attack." The article goes on to state, "Detroit's police chief says he believes the fear that armed citizens would return fire serves as a deterrent for a potential terrorist attack in the rust belt city."
This is a theme Chief Craig has promoted for quite a while. In 2014 it was reported in the Washington Times that "Detroit has experienced 37 percent fewer robberies than it did last year, and Police Chief James Craig is crediting armed citizens for the drop. 'Criminals are getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon,' Chief Craig, who has been an open advocate for private gun ownership, told The Detroit News in an interview. 'I don't want to take away from the good work our investigators are doing, but I think part of the drop in crime, and robberies in particular, is because criminals are thinking twice that citizens could be armed.'"
Craig is not the only law enforcement official pushing against the gun control narrative. Ulster County New York Sheriff Paul Van Blarcum has gone even further, advocating for all people with carry permits to keep their guns on them. The Sheriff, who is a Democrat, recently wrote on his office's Facebook page: "In light of recent events that have occurred in the United States and around the world I want to encourage citizens of Ulster County who are licensed to carry a firearm to PLEASE DO SO."
Although it is new to see those in law enforcement be vocal in maintaining such positions, it has long been known that the consensus of most police is a desire to see more responsibly and legally armed citizens. The website, PoliceOne, did an extensive survey of 15,000 officers to determine law enforcement attitudes about gun ownership, and the results will likely surprise most people. According to the survey, "More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable." Furthermore, a "full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent)." Even more surprising is law enforcement's view of what should happen in public school when it comes to protecting young people, with "more than 81 percent of respondents were in favor of arming teachers and school administrators if they were properly trained and vetted or at least proficient."
Law enforcement is not the only one not accepting the anti-gun rhetoric. Average Americans are responding to mass shootings by purchasing more guns. For many, the obvious fact that all of these events are happening in "gun free zones," makes it very logical that they want to assure their own protection wherever possible. Furthermore, we are seeing contrarian attitudes about gun free zones, as the President of the largest Christian University in the US has urged his students to carry guns on campus and the Texas Legislature has passed a law requiring the state's public institutions of higher learning to allow those who are properly licensed to carry guns.
Rhetoric by politicians and the media are at an all time high, but the trend is actually very much against more gun control laws.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 1 day ago.
↧
The President Stands With Families of Victims of Gun Violence to End the Epidemic
Last night, I had the honor to speak at the 3rd Annual National Vigil for All Victims of Gun Violence, hosted by the Newtown Foundation. I joined more than 300 people at St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., a group that included more than 60 families who had lost a loved one to gun violence, as well as members of Congress, advocates, and faith leaders. We came together to honor all those who have died from gun violence, and to rededicate ourselves to the urgent work of making ours a safer country. My message to the group was simple: Please do not grow weary, for you are inspiring our nation to perfect our union. You can read my full remarks below.***Thank you to Reverend Schunior who has welcomed us to St. Mark's Episcopal Church this evening. To the Newtown Foundation. The families who have lost loved ones to gun violence. To our members of Congress, and faith leaders who provide great leadership and strength. And to all of you who are dedicated to stopping gun violence in America. Good evening.
My name is Valerie Jarrett, and for the past seven years, it has been my privilege to serve as one of President Obama's Senior Advisors. It's an incredible honor for me to be here with you.
We all come here with freshly wounded hearts from the vicious, mass shooting in San Bernardino last week. Fourteen of our fellow Americans gunned down during a holiday party. Right now, their families feel the excruciating pain that we here tonight, and Americans across our country, know all too well.
Families of a pastor and eight members of a Charleston church who opened their doors to a stranger.
Families of 12 moviegoers in Aurora out for a fun night.
Of a veteran, a police officer and a mother of two in a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood.
Six Sikh Americans worshipping in a temple in Oak Creek.
Twelve soldiers and a civilian doctor who were serving our country in order to keep us safe, at Fort Hood.
The family of 15 year-old Hadiya Pendleton, who was chatting with her best friend in a park one mile from my home in Chicago.
The families of 20 precious six- and seven-year-old children and six brave adults in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.
Every single day, families from around our country share the bond of devastating grief caused by losing their loved ones to gun violence. First responders witness the immediate, shocking results of carnage, yet manage to professionally perform their duties. Faith leaders offer prayers of comfort. Whole communities in mourning rally together, providing much needed love and support.
And yet, when the headlines fade and the media's attention turns elsewhere -- when the world seemingly returns to normal -- the families and loves ones who are left behind -- well, they're never the same. They're left to face the pain created by a permanent void in their hearts. First responders are often haunted by post-traumatic stress that may go undiagnosed and untreated. And the human fabric that knits together the communities that have been affected are forever tattered and deeply scarred.
And we all ask ourselves: How could this keep happening again and again? Knowing that this cannot be normal? Or: Is this really who we have become? What is happening in America that leaves no community unscathed by gun violence?
I ask these questions not just as a White House official who has attended far too many memorial services during the last seven years, but also, sadly, as a granddaughter with first-hand experience.
My grandfather was an avid hunter and owned several guns. He practiced dentistry in an office on the first floor of his home here in D.C. When I was 15, two burglars broke into his office in search of opiates. They threatened my grandfather with what turned out to be a toy gun. In an attempt to scare away the burglars, my grandfather pulled out one of his guns. They grabbed his gun, then shot and killed him.
So to those who encourage the purchase of guns to protect ourselves, my grandfather's story proves that we are not always safer just because we own a gun.
I respected my grandfather's right to own his guns and his desire to try to protect himself, but for decades after his death I asked myself, "Would he still be alive had he not pulled out his gun?"
Of course, I'll never forget that day nearly 45 years ago.
I'll also never forget the day when I met many of the remarkable families from Newtown. On December 16, 2012, just two days after the massacre at Sandy Hook, I travelled with President Obama to a vigil in Newtown, where he comforted the families, and the Newtown community, who had lost their loved ones.
That evening, in speaking about the victims, the President said, "They lost their lives in a school that could have been any school in a quiet town full of good and decent people that could be any town in America." He also said to the families that they were not alone. And I am here tonight, three years later, to remind you all that you are not alone.
Now, we all know this type of gun violence simply does not happen in other advanced countries with the same frequency as we experience here in the U.S.
But whether from a mass shooting; a suicide; domestic violence; an accident; a disagreement that escalates out of control; or a gang member who murders an innocent nine-year old child, about 30,000 Americans are killed every year by gun violence.
With the help of many of you, President Obama pushed Congress to pass sensible background check legislation nearly three years ago. And even though 90 percent of Americans agreed with the President and all of you, our bill did not pass. But we did not give up. And thankfully, neither did you.
Because of your passion, energy and advocacy, we have made progress.
In consultation with many of you, President Obama signed 23 executive actions that took on gun violence -- from improving the background check system to improving mental health services.
We have and will continue to press Congress for commonsense background checks. For measures that would prevent people on the no-fly list from buying guns and to keep weapons of war off of our streets.
Now, I know our progress feels slow. But in the words of Dr. King, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
The members of Congress who are here tonight have been such strong allies in this fight, and we will continue to work with them, while also channeling our efforts in cities and states across America.
Cities and states are passing commonsense laws to keep guns out of the hands of known domestic abusers. That gives me hope.
They are expanding background checks and making our communities safer. That gives me hope.
And, just two days ago, the Supreme Court declined to take up a case challenging a Chicago suburb's ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines -- weapons that have more in common with a war zone than any Main Street in America. That gives me hope.
Although the tragic reality is that slow progress means every day we lose more Americans to gun violence, Americans are mobilizing. And that also gives me hope.
Two weeks ago, I met at the White House with a group of gun owners who believe in the need for change. Many were former NRA members who made clear to me that the NRA no longer represents them. And they assured me that many more gun owners are doing the same.
The NRA paradigm that tries to pit those who support the Second Amendment against those who believe in commonsense reform -- we know to be a false choice. And Americans all across our country know too.
And so, I am hopeful.
Please know that President Obama shares your pain and frustration, as well as your steadfast determination to keep pushing to make us all safer. And he is prepared to continue to act.
That's why the President has directed his team, in short order, to finalize a set of recommendations on what more the Administration can do on its own to save lives from gun violence. And those recommendations will include making sure we are doing everything we can to keep guns out of the wrong hands, including through expanding background checks.
And so, in closing, let's remember that we are gathered here together under the banner of friendship and community, of brother and sisterhood, of interfaith fellowship. For just as our pain binds us together, we must continue to stand together in the face of the cynical political theater.
So in times of despair, when some try to use horrendous acts of violence to pit us against each other, it is on us -- all of us -- to instead continue to extend a welcoming hand to a stranger. To be more loving and inclusive. To reject divisive strategies, both old and new. To demonstrate, in both our thoughts and our deeds, amazing grace.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 1 day ago.
My name is Valerie Jarrett, and for the past seven years, it has been my privilege to serve as one of President Obama's Senior Advisors. It's an incredible honor for me to be here with you.
We all come here with freshly wounded hearts from the vicious, mass shooting in San Bernardino last week. Fourteen of our fellow Americans gunned down during a holiday party. Right now, their families feel the excruciating pain that we here tonight, and Americans across our country, know all too well.
Families of a pastor and eight members of a Charleston church who opened their doors to a stranger.
Families of 12 moviegoers in Aurora out for a fun night.
Of a veteran, a police officer and a mother of two in a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood.
Six Sikh Americans worshipping in a temple in Oak Creek.
Twelve soldiers and a civilian doctor who were serving our country in order to keep us safe, at Fort Hood.
The family of 15 year-old Hadiya Pendleton, who was chatting with her best friend in a park one mile from my home in Chicago.
The families of 20 precious six- and seven-year-old children and six brave adults in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.
Every single day, families from around our country share the bond of devastating grief caused by losing their loved ones to gun violence. First responders witness the immediate, shocking results of carnage, yet manage to professionally perform their duties. Faith leaders offer prayers of comfort. Whole communities in mourning rally together, providing much needed love and support.
And yet, when the headlines fade and the media's attention turns elsewhere -- when the world seemingly returns to normal -- the families and loves ones who are left behind -- well, they're never the same. They're left to face the pain created by a permanent void in their hearts. First responders are often haunted by post-traumatic stress that may go undiagnosed and untreated. And the human fabric that knits together the communities that have been affected are forever tattered and deeply scarred.
And we all ask ourselves: How could this keep happening again and again? Knowing that this cannot be normal? Or: Is this really who we have become? What is happening in America that leaves no community unscathed by gun violence?
I ask these questions not just as a White House official who has attended far too many memorial services during the last seven years, but also, sadly, as a granddaughter with first-hand experience.
My grandfather was an avid hunter and owned several guns. He practiced dentistry in an office on the first floor of his home here in D.C. When I was 15, two burglars broke into his office in search of opiates. They threatened my grandfather with what turned out to be a toy gun. In an attempt to scare away the burglars, my grandfather pulled out one of his guns. They grabbed his gun, then shot and killed him.
So to those who encourage the purchase of guns to protect ourselves, my grandfather's story proves that we are not always safer just because we own a gun.
I respected my grandfather's right to own his guns and his desire to try to protect himself, but for decades after his death I asked myself, "Would he still be alive had he not pulled out his gun?"
Of course, I'll never forget that day nearly 45 years ago.
I'll also never forget the day when I met many of the remarkable families from Newtown. On December 16, 2012, just two days after the massacre at Sandy Hook, I travelled with President Obama to a vigil in Newtown, where he comforted the families, and the Newtown community, who had lost their loved ones.
That evening, in speaking about the victims, the President said, "They lost their lives in a school that could have been any school in a quiet town full of good and decent people that could be any town in America." He also said to the families that they were not alone. And I am here tonight, three years later, to remind you all that you are not alone.
Now, we all know this type of gun violence simply does not happen in other advanced countries with the same frequency as we experience here in the U.S.
But whether from a mass shooting; a suicide; domestic violence; an accident; a disagreement that escalates out of control; or a gang member who murders an innocent nine-year old child, about 30,000 Americans are killed every year by gun violence.
With the help of many of you, President Obama pushed Congress to pass sensible background check legislation nearly three years ago. And even though 90 percent of Americans agreed with the President and all of you, our bill did not pass. But we did not give up. And thankfully, neither did you.
Because of your passion, energy and advocacy, we have made progress.
In consultation with many of you, President Obama signed 23 executive actions that took on gun violence -- from improving the background check system to improving mental health services.
We have and will continue to press Congress for commonsense background checks. For measures that would prevent people on the no-fly list from buying guns and to keep weapons of war off of our streets.
Now, I know our progress feels slow. But in the words of Dr. King, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
The members of Congress who are here tonight have been such strong allies in this fight, and we will continue to work with them, while also channeling our efforts in cities and states across America.
Cities and states are passing commonsense laws to keep guns out of the hands of known domestic abusers. That gives me hope.
They are expanding background checks and making our communities safer. That gives me hope.
And, just two days ago, the Supreme Court declined to take up a case challenging a Chicago suburb's ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines -- weapons that have more in common with a war zone than any Main Street in America. That gives me hope.
Although the tragic reality is that slow progress means every day we lose more Americans to gun violence, Americans are mobilizing. And that also gives me hope.
Two weeks ago, I met at the White House with a group of gun owners who believe in the need for change. Many were former NRA members who made clear to me that the NRA no longer represents them. And they assured me that many more gun owners are doing the same.
The NRA paradigm that tries to pit those who support the Second Amendment against those who believe in commonsense reform -- we know to be a false choice. And Americans all across our country know too.
And so, I am hopeful.
Please know that President Obama shares your pain and frustration, as well as your steadfast determination to keep pushing to make us all safer. And he is prepared to continue to act.
That's why the President has directed his team, in short order, to finalize a set of recommendations on what more the Administration can do on its own to save lives from gun violence. And those recommendations will include making sure we are doing everything we can to keep guns out of the wrong hands, including through expanding background checks.
And so, in closing, let's remember that we are gathered here together under the banner of friendship and community, of brother and sisterhood, of interfaith fellowship. For just as our pain binds us together, we must continue to stand together in the face of the cynical political theater.
So in times of despair, when some try to use horrendous acts of violence to pit us against each other, it is on us -- all of us -- to instead continue to extend a welcoming hand to a stranger. To be more loving and inclusive. To reject divisive strategies, both old and new. To demonstrate, in both our thoughts and our deeds, amazing grace.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 1 day ago.
↧
Seattle choir dazzles with ‘Northern Lights’
For their holiday concert, the choir Seattle Pro Musica performs European music spanning 1,000 years — including “Northern Lights” by Latvian composer Eriks Esenvalds — inspired by the aurora borealis.
Reported by Seattle Times 12 hours ago.
↧
Guns-Again
*Such as do build their faith upon the holy text of pike
and gun.
Samuel Butler*, HudibrasThat loud sighing sound you heard after the San Bernardino shooting was a collective sigh of relief from guns of all sorts from all over the United States. And for good reason. Each time the mass slaughter of U.S. citizens occurs, the guns worry that someone will remember Australia and Scotland and suggest that the United States should do what those countries did after mass shootings.
In 1996 there was a mass shooting that killed 35 people in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur in Australia. Australians were unaccustomed to such atrocity. Furthermore, Australia did not have the Second Amendment to the Constitution that a grammatically impaired, Tony Scalia, with his similarly impaired colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court, believes gives every living thing in the United States the right to walk around with a gun. Australians believed tangible human life was more valuable than the intangible right to walk around with a gun. After the shooting occurred, the conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, persuaded legislators to pass the National Firearms Agreement. The act was passed 12 days after the massacre took place. The law prohibits possession of automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles and pump shot guns in most cases. It establishes a 28-day waiting period for those wanting to buy guns. It institutes a gun buy back program that was financed by a slight increase in taxes paid by Australian citizens. The buy back resulted in the acquisition by the government of 700,000 formerly privately owned guns. In the 18 years preceding the passage of the Act, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia that killed 112 people. In 2012 statistics from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime showed there were 30 homicides by firearm annually in Australia.
In 1996 a 43 -year old gunman stormed a schoolhouse in Dunblane, Scotland, killing 16 children. The next year British legislation was passed banning private ownership of automatic weapons and handguns on Britain's mainland.
Those examples are of no interest to U.S. lawmakers and the response of the wanna-be Presidents reflects congressional attitudes. None of them seems to have noticed that the deaths in California were the result of the ability of the murderers to follow the example of home grown mass murderers. Marco Rubio, for example, mocked Democrats who attributed the shootings to guns. He said: "Forty-eight hours after this is over they're still out there talking about gun control measures. As if somehow terrorists care about what our gun control laws are." He's right. James Holmes, Adam Lanza and other domestic mass murderers who have not had the benefit of being tutored by terrorist organizations but are simply following in the footsteps of other locals, don't care what our gun control laws are-we have none and that is why they could do what they did. Ted Cruz said: "We need to target the bad guys but on the flip side, what keeps us safe is we are a free people have a God-given right to protect our homes and our families and our lives." That same God given right is what enables our homegrown terrorists to massacre their fellow citizens.
James Holmes murdered 13 people and wounded 70 more in the Aurora Theater shooting. His house was booby-trapped so the police had to spend hours before entering it to avoid triggering the explosive devices he had set. James was not described as a terrorist and no one suggested the massacre was the president's fault. Adam Lanza killed 26 people in the Sandy Hook Elementary School. He fired 154 rounds in less than five minutes. His house was described as an arsenal. No one attributed that to inadequate leadership by the president. Dylan Storm Roof killed nine people in a church in Charleston, S.C. in June;. Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez killed four Marines and a Navy sailor in July; Christopher Harper-Mercer killed eight fellow students and a teacher in Roseburg, Oregon on October 1. None of those tragedies evoked any response of note from people in Congress nor did any of the members of Congress blame the president or the religious upbringing of the shooters for the massacres.David Gergen, a former advisor to four presidents, commented on the San Bernardino massacre. He told the New York Times that a fear exists among the public that has not been seen since 9/11. He said: "I talk to people who worry that they will be shot on the streets of New York. " Mr. Gergen did not explain what gave rise to this sudden fear of walking around in New York since the people had apparently not been made fearful by the other mass shootings of 2015 nor the random shootings that take place on a daily basis in the United States. They might feel safer if Congress did something about guns. It never will. If you wonder why, ask the NRA. When it comes to guns, it has all the answers. Christopher Brauchli can be emailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 12 hours ago.
and gun.
Samuel Butler*, HudibrasThat loud sighing sound you heard after the San Bernardino shooting was a collective sigh of relief from guns of all sorts from all over the United States. And for good reason. Each time the mass slaughter of U.S. citizens occurs, the guns worry that someone will remember Australia and Scotland and suggest that the United States should do what those countries did after mass shootings.
In 1996 there was a mass shooting that killed 35 people in the Tasmanian town of Port Arthur in Australia. Australians were unaccustomed to such atrocity. Furthermore, Australia did not have the Second Amendment to the Constitution that a grammatically impaired, Tony Scalia, with his similarly impaired colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court, believes gives every living thing in the United States the right to walk around with a gun. Australians believed tangible human life was more valuable than the intangible right to walk around with a gun. After the shooting occurred, the conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, persuaded legislators to pass the National Firearms Agreement. The act was passed 12 days after the massacre took place. The law prohibits possession of automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles and pump shot guns in most cases. It establishes a 28-day waiting period for those wanting to buy guns. It institutes a gun buy back program that was financed by a slight increase in taxes paid by Australian citizens. The buy back resulted in the acquisition by the government of 700,000 formerly privately owned guns. In the 18 years preceding the passage of the Act, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia that killed 112 people. In 2012 statistics from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime showed there were 30 homicides by firearm annually in Australia.
In 1996 a 43 -year old gunman stormed a schoolhouse in Dunblane, Scotland, killing 16 children. The next year British legislation was passed banning private ownership of automatic weapons and handguns on Britain's mainland.
Those examples are of no interest to U.S. lawmakers and the response of the wanna-be Presidents reflects congressional attitudes. None of them seems to have noticed that the deaths in California were the result of the ability of the murderers to follow the example of home grown mass murderers. Marco Rubio, for example, mocked Democrats who attributed the shootings to guns. He said: "Forty-eight hours after this is over they're still out there talking about gun control measures. As if somehow terrorists care about what our gun control laws are." He's right. James Holmes, Adam Lanza and other domestic mass murderers who have not had the benefit of being tutored by terrorist organizations but are simply following in the footsteps of other locals, don't care what our gun control laws are-we have none and that is why they could do what they did. Ted Cruz said: "We need to target the bad guys but on the flip side, what keeps us safe is we are a free people have a God-given right to protect our homes and our families and our lives." That same God given right is what enables our homegrown terrorists to massacre their fellow citizens.
James Holmes murdered 13 people and wounded 70 more in the Aurora Theater shooting. His house was booby-trapped so the police had to spend hours before entering it to avoid triggering the explosive devices he had set. James was not described as a terrorist and no one suggested the massacre was the president's fault. Adam Lanza killed 26 people in the Sandy Hook Elementary School. He fired 154 rounds in less than five minutes. His house was described as an arsenal. No one attributed that to inadequate leadership by the president. Dylan Storm Roof killed nine people in a church in Charleston, S.C. in June;. Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez killed four Marines and a Navy sailor in July; Christopher Harper-Mercer killed eight fellow students and a teacher in Roseburg, Oregon on October 1. None of those tragedies evoked any response of note from people in Congress nor did any of the members of Congress blame the president or the religious upbringing of the shooters for the massacres.David Gergen, a former advisor to four presidents, commented on the San Bernardino massacre. He told the New York Times that a fear exists among the public that has not been seen since 9/11. He said: "I talk to people who worry that they will be shot on the streets of New York. " Mr. Gergen did not explain what gave rise to this sudden fear of walking around in New York since the people had apparently not been made fearful by the other mass shootings of 2015 nor the random shootings that take place on a daily basis in the United States. They might feel safer if Congress did something about guns. It never will. If you wonder why, ask the NRA. When it comes to guns, it has all the answers. Christopher Brauchli can be emailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 12 hours ago.
↧
↧
157 Pounds of Pot Found in Accused Drug Dealer's Jeep
Patch Montgomery, IL -- Aurora detectives pulled the 53-year-old man over after they allegedly saw him involved in a drug deal.
Reported by Patch 8 hours ago.
↧
Aurora man gets life for brutal slaying of his 24-year-old girlfriend
An Aurora man was convicted Thursday of first-degree murder in the fatal shooting last year of his 24-year-old girlfriend, Arapahoe County prosecutors say.
Reported by Denver Post 5 hours ago.
↧
White House Unable To Explain How Gun Control Will Stop Mass Shootings
Authored by Steve Watson, originally posted at PrisonPlanet.com,*The White House cannot name one single shooting incident that would have been prevented by gun control legislation.*
As President Obama prepares executive action to pass further gun control legislation, one errant reporter asked the White House press secretary exactly how such proposals would have prevented any recent mass shootings.
*Josh Earnest couldn’t directly answer the question and floundered around repeating the same talking points over and over again.*
Reporter Byron Tau referred to a statement made by Sen. Marco Rubio that no mass shootings in recent memory would have been prevented by gun legislation, which even the Washington Post fact-checked as true.
*“If not a single recent mass shooting would have been stopped by the kind of gun control measures you champion, are those the right approach to this problem?” *Tau asked.
*“Well, Byron, I think we’ve been pretty direct and upfront,” *replied Earnest, not being very direct and upfront.
“…there is *no piece of legislation that Congress can pass that would prevent every single act of gun violence,”* Earnest added, avoiding the question.
“I think the case that we have made is one that rests primarily on our concern about national security and our *careful consideration of common sense.”* he stated, again avoiding the question entirely.
Earnest then diverted the talking point to the terrorist no-fly-list, prompting Tau to follow up,* “Were any of the recent mass shooters on the ‘no-fly’ list?”*
“Not that I’m aware of,” Earnest admitted. “You’ll probably have to ask the director of national intelligence to confirm that.”
The reporter stuck to the central issue at hand – that gun control legislation is not a fix for mass shootings.
*“Can the White House point to a recent mass shooting that would have been stopped by a expanded assault weapons ban or stricter background checks?” *Tau asked.
*“The evidence seems to be that in all these recent mass shootings, these folks either passed background checks or were very determined to circumvent the strict gun laws that are already on the books.”* the reporter added.
Indeed, The shooters at Virginia Tech, the Aurora Colorado movie theater, Fort Hood, Isla Vista, the Washington Navy Yard, the attempted mass killing at Arapahoe High School ALL passed background checks.
The shooter at Washington Navy Yard even managed to buy his firearm after the background check system was supposedly strengthened following the incident at Virgina Tech.
The BATF has also determined that Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the two shooters in San Bernardino, also legally purchased two of the weapons at a gun shop in Corona.
The reporter pressed Earnest, asking *“Can you point to any that would have been prevented or stopped by the kind of proposals the White House is championing?”*
Earnest again repeated the “common sense” talking point without addressing the actual question and *threw in a smattering of empty “national security” rhetoric.*
Last week when addressing the same line of questioning, Earnest admitted that further gun control legislation would not have prevented the San Bernardino shooting, and that it is purely “hypothetical” that terrorist incidents could be prevented with such new laws.
*While the Obama administration is seemingly hell bent on going after stricter gun control, research from Pew Research Center, the FBI, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reveals that gun violence in the US is actually on the decline, and is at its lowest since the 1960s.*
*In addition, gun crime, despite an exponential increase in privately owned firearms over the same period, has steadily declined for about 20 years, except for high-profile shootings in gun-free zones.* Reported by Zero Hedge 2 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
