More Lies from the Presstitutes
Paul Craig Roberts
The shameless liars that comprise the US media intentionally exaggerated the marchers against “gun violance” by four times the acutal number.
Why are the media presstitutes involved in advocacy of agendas and not in reporting factual news?
Recent polls show that a majority of Americans believe that gun ownership makes people safer. Americans do not believe that people should be denied safety because of an occasional nutcase or a staged shooting to advance the gun control agenda. Indeed, they wonder who is behind the gun control agenda. They wonder about the dumbshits who are protesting the Second Amendment instead of Washington’s rush into conflict with Russia.
I have no doubt that gun control groups are organized by agents of the police state. The United States is falling apart. All of the increase in income and wealth is going to the One Percent. Everyone else is hurting more each day. See Chris Hedges, for example.
The vast majority of Americans are being ground into the dirt by government at all levels. There is no democracy. There is only looting. The One Percent fear that sooner or later even insouciant Americans might rise up. But they can’t if they are disarmed. That is all gun control is about.
Deaths from what the propagandistic “gun violence” shills for the police state hype as a massive problem are such a small percentage of US deaths that they do not even show up statistically. Yet we have all this protest over an infinitesimal number of deaths, and no protests at all by opponents of “gun violence” over police killings, which are larger that “gun violence” deaths or over America’s massive murders on a world scale. Where are the “gun violence” protests over the millions of deaths and millions of displaced peoples in Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan? Where are the “gun violence” protests against Trumpt’s chosen national security adviser John Bolton’s plan to bomb Iran and North Korea into the stone age?
They are nowhere to be found. How much more evidence do you need that the “gun violence” people are totally insensitive to real violence and only serve a police state agenda?
A reader sent me this. I don’t have the time to check it out. So some of you check it and let me know. If correct, I will acknowledged it, and also if incorrect.
This was posted by a friend on FB, I thought it worthy…
Sharing this data from a friend who has researched these statistics
thoroughly. There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms,
and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as
of June 22, 2016 (the last searchable census numbers) Do the math:
0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each
year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never
told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in
perspective as compared to other causes of death:
-65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
-15% are by police.
-17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally
-3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to
5,100. Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation:
-480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
-344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
-333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
-119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of
those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that
is the root cause. This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of
the nation, or about 75 deaths per state -an average because some
States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had
1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but
it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number
of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all
cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something
other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other
deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the
commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery,
death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to
think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called
But what about other deaths each year?
Nearly 75% of all deaths in the United States are attributed to just
10 causes, with the top three of these accounting for over 50 percent
of all deaths. Over the last 5 years, the main causes of death in the
U.S. have remained fairly consistent.
1. Heart disease
2. Cancer (malignant neoplasms)
3. Chronic lower respiratory disease
4. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
5. Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Kidney disease (nephritis, nephritic syndrome, and nephrosis)
Guns don’t even make the top ten list. Not to mention:
-40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
-36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
-34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths
even if you include suicide).
-200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical
errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you
are when you are in a hospital!
-710,000 people die per year from heart disease. Where is the real war
on fast food? Why are we not teaching healthy eating in schools?
So what is the point? If the liberals and the anti-gun movement
focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in
cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all
gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10%
reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun
deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides -Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to
ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?
It’s pretty simple: (to Steven Waugh’s point)
Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this
nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power
may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to
disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand
that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S.
Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time
someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look
at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a
standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”
Hon. Paul Craig Roberts is the John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. A former editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service, he is a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate in Los Angeles and a columnist for Investor's Business Daily. In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists.
He was Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996. From 1982 through 1993, he held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During 1981-82 he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. President Reagan and Treasury Secretary Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious Service Award for "his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy." From 1975 to 1978, Dr. Roberts served on the congressional staff where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.
In 1987 the French government recognized him as "the artisan of a renewal in economic science and policy after half a century of state interventionism" and inducted him into the Legion of Honor.
Dr. Roberts' latest books are The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with IPE Fellow Lawrence Stratton, and published by Prima Publishing in May 2000, and Chile: Two Visions - The Allende-Pinochet Era, co-authored with IPE Fellow Karen Araujo, and published in Spanish by Universidad Nacional Andres Bello in Santiago, Chile, in November 2000. The Capitalist Revolution in Latin America, co-authored with IPE Fellow Karen LaFollette Araujo, was published by Oxford University Press in 1997. A Spanish language edition was published by Oxford in 1999. The New Colorline: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, was published by Regnery in 1995. A paperback edition was published in 1997. Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, co-authored with Karen LaFollette, was published by the Cato Institute in 1990. Harvard University Press published his book, The Supply-Side Revolution, in 1984. Widely reviewed and favorably received, the book was praised by Forbes as "a timely masterpiece that will have real impact on economic thinking in the years ahead." Dr. Roberts is the author of Alienation and the Soviet Economy, published in 1971 and republished in 1990. He is the author of Marx's Theory of Exchange, Alienation and Crisis, published in 1973 and republished in 1983. A Spanish language edition was published in 1974.
Dr. Roberts has held numerous academic appointments. He has contributed chapters to numerous books and has published many articles in journals of scholarship, including the Journal of Political Economy, Oxford Economic Papers, Journal of Law and Economics, Studies in Banking and Finance, Journal of Monetary Economics, Public Finance Quarterly, Public Choice, Classica et Mediaevalia, Ethics, Slavic Review, Soviet Studies, Rivista de Political Economica, and Zeitschrift fur Wirtschafspolitik. He has entries in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Economics and the New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance. He has contributed to Commentary, The Public Interest, The National Interest, Harper's, the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, London Times, The Financial Times, TLS, The Spectator, Il Sole 24 Ore, Le Figaro, Liberation, and the Nihon Keizai Shimbun. He has testified before committees of Congress on 30 occasions.
Dr. Roberts was educated at the Georgia Institute of Technology (B.S.), the University of Virginia (Ph.D.), the University of California at Berkeley and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College.
He is listed in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the World, The Dictionary of International Biography, Outstanding People of the Twentieth Century, and 1000 Leaders of World Influence. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: [email protected]
I listen to my readers. In March 2010, I terminated my syndicated column. Thousands of you protested. So persuasive were your emails asking me to reconsider and to continue writing that, two months later, I began writing again.
In order to create a coherent uncensored and unedited archive of my writings, The Institute For Political Economy, a non-profit organization that supports research, writing and books, has established this site, thus gratifying readers' demands that I continue to provide analyses of events in our time.
In order to stay up, this site needs to pay for itself.