Tag: walkout

Debunking The April 20th School Walkout

By Nick Hamilton | Houston
In case you haven’t heard, on April 20th, there will be another national school walkout. Many students plan to walk out of school in the morning in an attempt to restrict gun rights. Even teachers are supporting this rebellion against the 2nd Amendment. However, if you’re one of those students who is just walking out to miss class, you may want to reconsider your choice.
First of all, this walkout will accomplish absolutely nothing. The walkouts will simply not motivate politicians to implement more gun control. The vast majority already know their position on the issue. In Houston, the “March for Our Lives” shouted to vote Ted Cruz out of office. When I attended a Ted Cruz speech the next day, he had not changed his opinions. So, what makes these kids think that their actions will result in substantial change? Unfortunately, politicians care little about the opinions of the people.
I already know that Downtown Houston is going to be a madhouse that Friday. T keep these students safe, we have to protect them with police officers to control the crowd. My route home, along with many other Houston residents, depends on that crowd. Houston traffic is absurd already, and thousands of students protesting won’t help that. Also, I can almost guarantee that in places like New York City, which already has very strict gun control, traffic will be even worse. Nobody likes traffic. So, why in the world should anyone expect people to listen to these kids when they’re tying up the traffic, causing detours and delays?
Not to mention, these kids are supposed to be excused by their parents for the walkouts. So, you’re telling me that thousands of kids across the nation are going to allege sickness on April 20th? By those statistics, it would be crazy not to close school districts because so many people are sick. Nobody is going to believe that many people are sick, and it makes no sense to operate under these pretenses.
Though many protesters won’t admit it, but this protest is about taking away our 2nd Amendment. They can say “End Gun Violence” all they want, but I’m sorry to inform you, a fairy isn’t going to come out with a magic wand and end gun violence. Whether we have guns or not, gun violence will happen, much like whether marijuana is legal or not, people will still use marijuana. Criminals aren’t known to follow the law, and we shouldn’t expect them to.
Thus, banning AR-15’s won’t solve any problems, it’ll just disarm many law-abiding citizens. And you can’t say that you support democracy and freedom but want to take away a right that our founding fathers put into place 229 years ago. So if you’re planning to walk out just to skip school, just know that you’re blindly supporting a movement to unjustly disarm citizens. Anyone who does so is advocating for the theft of a liberty we’ve had for over 200 years.

Featured Image Source


Facts, Gun Violence, Walkouts and Feelings

Isaiah Minter | United States

As millions of Americans across the country prepare for the March for Our Lives demonstration on March 24th, I expect the event to be little more than mass virtue signaling masquerading as youth activism. The truth is, millions of individuals carrying colorful signs and slandering those who agree with them does not make gun control good policy. Rather, it shows the foundation of gun control argumentation: emotion. Not facts, but feelings. And when discussing an issue as serious as the safety of our children, this approach does absolutely more harm than good.

If we are serious about improving the safety of our children and reducing gun violence, it is imperative that we pursue truth and evidence, not emotions and foolishness.

Therefore, I hope that this piece, in addressing common myths on the matter, functions as a resource for all Americans to understand the good intentions behind gun control are no substitute for its inability to yield positive results.

All in all, the American people have a right to facts. So here they are.

No, there have not been 18 school shootings this year.

When we think of school shootings, we usually think of students and teachers being killed by a shooter. We picture Columbine, Newtown, and Parkland, not a simple firearm being discharged on school grounds. By rejecting the sensationalized media view of the definition of school shooting, this statistic clearly is fake news.

America does not have a mass shooting problem.

Despite all the media hysteria, America isn’t even in the top ten of countries with the greatest frequency of mass public shootings and the annual death rate from them.

From 2009 to 2015, there were roughly 25% more per capita casualties from mass public shootings throughout Europe than the US.

Moreover, one study done in early 2017 found that all of the worst public mass shootings since 1970 have occurred outside the US. Of the worst 44, 40 have occurred outside the US and of the worst 67, 59 have occurred outside the US. Looking at the US specifically, from 1982 to early 2018 there were 98 mass shootings that resulted in 816 total deaths, or 23 deaths a year. While there has been a slight uptake in the frequency of mass public shootings, mass shootings account for just 12% of mass killings, which account for less than 1% of annual homicides.

Even when looking at homicide rates between US states and the rest of the world, America is not a haven of unimaginable violence.

In comparison to the rest of the world, the US does not stand out. There are clearly some state outliers, mainly Washington D.C., but keep in mind that the nation’s capital has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

We can all agree that homicides and mass public shootings are tragic, but the notion that a country ranked 28th in international homicide has a gun crime epidemic that can only be solved by swift gun confiscation is clearly false.

More guns do not equal more crime.

Because guns are killing machines, more guns mean more crime. Unfortunately, the claim runs contrary to the evidence.

The plain fact is, gun crime, and violent crime, in general, has been falling for decades in America despite increases in gun ownership of roughly 10 million per year. According to Bureau of Justice Statistics:

“U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Nonfatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.”

Even if we compare rates of gun ownership and homicide state by state, the claim is not supported by data. Moreover, with respect to homicide and firearm ownership rates outside the US, a positive correlation remains to be seen.

In the event that a country, we’ll call it Nation A, has a high gun ownership rate and a high level of crime,  it does not logically follow the high level of crime must, or even can, be explained by the high level of gun ownership. It may even be the case that the level of high crime exists in spite of the high level of gun ownership.

For instance, the nine European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate. It may very well be the case that firearm ownership explains very little of the disparity in murder between the two groups.

In any event, because crime is influenced by many factors independent of firearm ownership levels, the gun control side remains unfazed by hard evidence. For if they had any concern for the evidence, they would find that gun control has saved more egos in the last month than it has human lives in the last century.

Guns save lives.

As gun control pundits lament over the lives taken by guns, they ignore the massive disparity between the lives taken by firearms and the lives saved by them.

In 2016, some 16,459 murders were committed, with roughly 11,961 of them committed by firearms. Now, based on a study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, US citizens use guns in defense over 989,883 times a year.

If in one year, 11,961 people were killed by guns – we’ll round up to 12,000 – and 989,883 people had their lives saved by guns – we’ll round up to 990,000 – that means  each year in the United States firearms are used to save lives at least 80 times more often than they are used to take them.

The CDC offers a lower figure, finding that Americans use guns in defense of the home roughly 500,000 times a year.

Ultimately, estimates of defensive gun usage range from 500,000 cases a year to 3 million. In any case, guns are used significantly more often to defend a life than to take one.

Years after Columbine, the state of Colorado passed the 2003 Concealed Carry Act, allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms. According to the CATO Institute, this law helped halt a massacre in December 2007 when an attacker who opened fire in the New Life Mega Church was shot by a volunteer security guard with a concealed handgun.

Elsewhere, three school shootings were thwarted by adults with firearms. In 2015, a 62-year-old man who had fired at several people was shot and wounded by an armed civilian. In the same year, an Uber driver shot a gunman who had opened fire in Logan Square. On the whole, armed citizens kill roughly twice as many criminals as police do, but one would never know this from the media.

The NRA does not bribe politicians.

When it comes to campaign contributions and lobbying, the NRA is not that influential. In 2012, the top 20 lobbying spenders were as follows:

  • US Chamber of Commerce: $136,300,000
  • National Assn of Realtors: $41,464,580
  • Blue Cross/Blue Shield: $22,569,532
  • American Hospital Assn: $20,123,200
  • Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America: $19,260,000
  • General Electric: $18,970,000
  • National Cable & Telecommunications Assn: $18,890,000
  • Google Inc: $18,220,000
  • Northrop Grumman: $17,540,000
  • AT&T Inc: $17,460,000
  • American Medical Assn: $16,505,000
  • Boeing Co: $15,640,000
  • Southern Co: $15,580,000
  • Lockheed Martin: $15,347,350
  • Verizon Communications: $15,020,000
  • Comcast Corp: $14,750,000
  • National Assn of Broadcasters: $14,510,000
  • Royal Dutch Shell: $14,480,000
  • United Technologies: $14,454,750
  • Business Roundtable: $13,890,000

*The NRA spent $2,980,000 in comparison*

The truth is, the NRA is not some sort of lobbying terrorist organization. In 2016, the organization spent just $1.1 million, ranking them 488th in campaign contributions for groups spending more than $1 million. In the same election cycle, the Republican party spent $638 million, or 580 times what the NRA contributed.

Since 2000, the NRA has spent $203 million in campaign contributions. While it is true they do give a lot of money to politicians, the NRA exerts more pressure on the political process by motivating their base, sending voter guides to their members in support of favored candidates. Moreover, they spend more money on independent expenditures than campaign contributions.

Contrary to what the media is pedaling, the gun lobby is not a greedy organization that condones the senseless murder of children. Rather, it is a genuine grass root group in Washington composed of millions of law-abiding citizens that value gun rights.

Me funding you because you support a position – what the NRA does – is not the same as me paying you to support a position. The latter is bribery. 

International gun control did not work.

Britain, Australia, Mexico, all the international cases of gun control that liberal pundits love to use are not as successful as they are made out to be.

In Australia, the firearm homicide rate was declining years before the gun buyback program in 1996. In the 7-years before and after the buyback, the homicide rate declined at the same rate. 3 years after the gun ban, armed robberies and firearm-related murders had increased by 69% and 19% respectively. Additionally, a decade-long study concluded that the gun measures taken by Australia had no effect on crime rates.

In 2000, 3 years after the gun ban in Britain, crime rates had drastically increased: sexual assault by 112%, assault by 130%, and armed robbery by 170%. Half of the areas with the lowest number of legal firearms had a gun crime rate above average, compared to just 10% of the areas with the highest number of legal firearms.

Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, and yet in 2012, the country’s gun homicide rate per 100,000 people was over three times higher than the US. All of this comes in spite of the fact that Mexico has one legal gun store, compared to nearly 65,000 n the US.

Gun crime was declining in Australia before the gun buyback; crime in Britain has risen since the ban, and Mexico remains a country stricken by violence despite the gun control.

American gun control did not work.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban didn’t lower crime. California’s strict gun-control laws failed to prevent San Bernardino. Connecticut gun control legislation since Sandy Hook has proved ineffective. Gun control failed in Chicago, it failed in Washington D.C., The Orlando nightclub Pulse was a gun free zone, as were Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Parkland.

For all the talk on the dire need for tighter gun laws, more signs and tears are offered than cases of hard evidence supporting gun control. And the reason why is clear: American gun control did not do what it was intended to do.

Image Source Matt Baldry

The Failed Disruption of the Student Walkout

By Mason Mohon | @mohonofficial

A wave of activism has taken hold of the high school students of this country. Youth political activity is now in, but it is merely another iteration of teens attempting to make an emotionally-charged change in a way that is good for PR, but bad for the world.

The student-led walkout on Wednesday consisted of high school students exiting the school and standing outside for 17 minutes. The intention was to raise awareness for gun violence, and although they will rarely admit it, it has the political intention of moving towards gun control.

If you don’t see it this way, come on. The celebrated results have been increased gun restrictions in multiple states, and the movement is the clear precursor to the March 24 “March For Our Lives,” a march with a clear gun control agenda. Stop beating around the bush, if you are walking out, chances are you want gun control. This is no innocent apolitical movement.

The obvious intention is to raise awareness of gun violence so that we may solve what we are now aware of. The mainstream method to do such a thing is to implement gun control on any level and of any kind. This is not going to work, though, for multiple reasons.

The most popular gun control example, Australia, has time and time again been revealed to be a faulty model for gun control. The statistics show the country was experiencing a downward trend before and after the buyback. Japan as an example has its flaws because Japan’s lack of gun violence stems primarily from its collectivist culture. The U.S. has a culture of gun ownership, meaning there would be substantial pushback to restrictions on any similar level within the country.

The resulting pushback shows the clear counter-productivity of trying to reduce violence through gun control. Who is controlling? The violent hands of the state would be the ones grabbing the weaponry. An institution of violence working to take the weapons from a gun-loving populace is in for a fight. The only result would be more violence.

Walking out to restrict gun rights should not be our goal. Rather, we should be what many are calling walking up. Like many of the ailments in modern society, deranged psychopathy that causes such tragedies as those of Parkland and Columbine stems from social isolation and lack of a father figure. The only thing that can fix this downward spiral is more human connection, and those responsible for this increase in connection are those that read this piece, along with everyone else.

Become the friend of the one who sits alone. Become the father-figure for the one who is growing up fatherless.

It requires personal work and sacrifice to make a change like the one we all want to see, and walking outside of your school for 17 minutes is flat out lazy. Broken boys and girls sit next to you in class every single day. Put in some work and make a real difference.

Featured image source.

The Walkout Movement Is Just Another Instance Of Ridiculous Lefist Reverse Virtue-Signaling

By Austin Anderholt | United States

Why I will be the only student not to walk out on March 14th

In reaction to the Stoneman Douglas high school shooting that killed 17 on February 14th, many Americans (especially youth) are planning on walking out of school sometime in the next few months. As it seems, the most popular one of these will occur on March 14th, where at 10:00 AM, students and teachers will walk out of class for 17 minutes to “mourn” the loss of the 17 victims of this large school shooting. I go to an extremely liberal school, and many students (as well as some teachers) are planning on engaging in this walkout. I personally find this repulsive, and although I am sure I will be one of the only students at my school to do so, I will not be participating in the 17-minute walk out.

Shortly after president Donald Trump’s inauguration, a group of feminists organized a nationwide protest called “The Women’s March”. Essentially, the idea of the protest was to attack the president as much as possible while still pretending that their march was to support women’s rights.

I’ve nicknamed this tactic the “Heads I win, tails you lose tactic.” Imagine this scenario:

A party gives you an ultimatum. They say “If you participate in our event that means you support our movement, but if you do not participate, it is not because you disagree with our movement, but because you support evil.” If you disagree with the ideas of said party, this gives you two options. You can either choose to join the party’s event with which you disagree with, or you can not join the event, wherein the party in reference will state that it is because you are an evil person. It’s a lose-lose situation.

This reverse virtue signaling tactic is commonly used by leftists. For example, the demonstrators in the Women’s March protest were almost entirely protesting against Trump. Their signs, speeches, and costumes were virtually 100% attacks on Trump. However, many of these feminists would freak out if one said: “I disagree with the Women’s March movement.” Why? Because many of these feminists are still pretending that these marches were for “Equal rights” and could, therefore, disregard any political dissent as “Sexist” and “Against equality.”

This “heads I win, tails you lose” tactic is now also being used by the left to push their gun control doctrine. Many students at my school are telling me that:

“The student walkout is about mourning the parkland students and mourning the parkland students alone. It isn’t about gun control, so if you choose not to participate you’re saying you don’t care about the parkland victims.”

“The student walkout is about gun control, and to join the protest would be to support gun control. If you choose not to participate, you’re saying that you oppose gun control.”

These statements are of course contradictory, and as someone who is both opposed to gun control, and cares about the Parkland victims, I am stuck in quite the predicament. This is why the left loves these kinds of protests. They force you to either side with them and be considered “A good person” or to disagree with these radicals and then be considered some sort of monster. Heads, they win. Tails, you lose.

So what’s the solution? Well, there’s two:

First, one could organize a counter-protest. This way, they could support the second amendment and solidarity with the Parkland victims.

The second option is what I am doing. That being refusing to participate publicly. By publicly calling out the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of the protest, you are not only fighting this leftist lie, but you are delegitimizing and showing other potential protesters how stupid and disgusting the movement really is.

The Student Walk Out Is A Walk Out For All The Wrong Reasons

By Ethan Suquet | United States

Ahead of Wednesday’s planned student walkouts in protest of gun rights I released the following statement on Snapchat at around 2:45 p.m. on Tuesday:

After giving deep thought and consideration to this issue I cannot participate in the student walkout tomorrow. I’ve seen many people posting about it, and I will add my voice to this. Ending violence gun violence is not something that will be resolved through strengthening gun laws but rather something that will be done through the strengthening of each individual’s moral character and the strengthening of the value that society places on an individual life. We know from the statistics on this issue that since 1990 while the number of guns in our nation has soared to new peaks the amount of violent crime has dropped to new lows. We cannot stop gun violence by infringing on the constitutional rights of our neighbors, but we can stop gun violence by embracing the values of kindness and decency. For that reason, tomorrow while many of my fellow students may participate in the planned walkout, I will remain seated in my sixth period Spanish class.-Ethan.

At first I genuinely considered joining in on this, the person that first asked me to join in on this protest is one of the nicest girls I know, and I didn’t wanna let her down, but in the end I decided as I know many other students will that fitting in by joining in on a popular protest movement is not worth so much damage to the conscience.

It is morally wrong to try to take away a fellow citizens constitutional right to bear arms just because a trending movement on the American left suggests that this is the way to go. Throughout history, the damaging effects of disarming a citizenry have been shown.

Whenever a tyrant ascends to power two of their first actions are usually to take away the freedoms that Americans consider to be their first and second amendment rights, but for this article, I would like to focus on the second.

Tyrants never want a dissenting citizenry to be able to fight back, so to prevent that from happening what they do is take away the tools that citizens can use to protect themselves.

While I fully acknowledge that the United States government is very unlikely to attack its citizens in the near future regardless of whether or not they try to ban certain kinds of firearms, taking this risk is not worthy of a nation founded on the idea of a free citizenry. While the government may not turn on us if we are disarmed, if they do we will lack what the constitution left as the last check against tyranny and be unable to fight back.

Even in the wake of an awful shooting so close to my home I cannot and will not resort to a protest designed to take away the rights of my fellow citizens and I hope that other students come to the same realization as I and at 12 pm they stay in class.

Image from Tenth Amendment Center.