The following article is definitive proof that right-wing, conservative men and women live ‘somewhere else’ and are not responsible for liberal progressive problems. Stop blaming us.
- Donald Trump won 49.9% of the popular vote, 304 electoral votes, and 85% of American communities. (Think 12 districts of ‘The Hunger Games’)
- Hillary Clinton won 50.1% of the popular vote, 227 electoral votes, and 15% of American communities. (Think Capital of ‘The Hunger Games’)
- This article uses the data from the Uniform Crime Reports from 47 states and Washington D.C.
- Broward County, Florida overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton.
The Accepted Paradigm:
The current narrative of modern American journalism and American society is conservative, right-wing, white males are primarily responsible for social violence. We are the owners of the assault style rifles, we are the militias, we are the NRA. Right wing, white men are responsible for the suppression of women, blacks, undocumented aliens, and commit the majority of mass shootings. The liberal progressive movement needs to resist our antiquated, repressive social mores, and fight for a more tolerant, diverse, loving, and safe society. It is time to rise up and fight the power! Thank God for the NEA, the molders of young minds!
The New Internet Counter-claim:
Following the 2016 Presidential Election, some clever internet wonks compared a recent map of the worst places in America for violent crime and murder, to those jurisdictions that supported Hillary Clinton. Any 4th grade student could look at the two maps and surmise that liberal progressives are much more violent and murderous than right-wing conservatives. Any adult can look out the window to see May-Day protesters, Antifa protesters, Black Lives Matter protesters and the Occupy movement throwing bricks through windows, assaulting police officers and lighting cars on fire, and shrug. Duh! Of course libs are violent. What police officer would want to serve and protect these d-bags? Lefty entertainers are mean spirited, and lefty journalists are quite callous with those they dislike. So what, exactly, is the shock that Hillary’s supporters have a higher propensity for crime than conservative Americans?
In Steps Snopes.com, THE FACT CHECKER:
Snopes is our internet lie detector. Amid accusations of left-leaning bias, Snopes received a double thumbs-up from factcheck.org for accuracy in 2009 and again in 2018. Snopes put Chicago based Dan “I will set it right” Evon on the case. Dan, a seasoned researcher and community organizer as well as myth debunker, opened his laptop and did not rest until the facts of the matter were laid bare for America. Were American liberal progressives really the source of much of America’s social violence and murders? Or was this just another vast right-wing conspiracy out to discredit the Clintons? Dan would dig up the truth, no matter. Minutes went by as he furiously queried Google Home, SIRI and ALEXA. His furrowed brow glistened with sweat. He took a swig of orange soda… a second bite of his gluten-free, vegan PBJ. He felt the new claim simply had to be wrong. Liberals smoke lots of pot. They are peace-loving. They are not a bunch of drunk Irishmen brawling in the Boston streets at 2AM! And, Shazam, the answer revealed itself to Dan Evon in prophetic form…
Then Chicago Dan rated the maps and the claim that lib-progs create violence in society as FALSE!
Snopes and Dan Evon are simply another outlet of FAKE NEWS:
Call it the arrogance of the lazy. I found the maps compelling and obvious. It was a ‘no shit, Sherlock’ moment. When Snopes, THE FACT CHECKER, came down against the maps, I was floored, so I spent the last several months combing through every state’s Uniform Crime Report and collated nearly 20,000 data points (it was really tedious) comparing per capita violent crimes, per capita murders, and voter outcomes of nearly 3,000 counties, parishes, independent cities and districts. The results made me laugh for nearly ten minutes.
The 2016 Presidential Election cleanly divided America into a red half and a blue half.
American states are divided into over three thousand unique communities with their own unique socioeconomic identities. For example, while the rest of America sees the state of Oregon as a reliable liberal progressive state, once you leave Portland, the rest of the state is fairly conservative. Lots of farming, hunting, fishing and guns. Portland may make the liberal laws and elect the liberal politicians, but most of Oregon is some shade of red. Every state is like this… a complex society filled with diverse communities. If we treat each community as an individual personality, we can start to assess the effectiveness of each community in reducing violence in their local culture, and possibly apply those lessons to American cultures that are failing… like Dan Evon’s home city of Chicago.
For many years the Federal Government has requested all states to complete a Uniform Crime Report for the FBI so that crime trends can be studied. These reports are supposed to be a public resource. Some states, like Texas, do a stellar job, some states, like Mississippi and North Carolina, do such a poor job the data is useless, and some states, like Colorado, make you work for it. For the most part, I used 2016 data, but a few states were a year behind and I had to use their 2015 reports. Alaska, due to its remote location and dispersed population, is treated as a single data point rather than trying to break into several communities.
In the end, I broke down over 2900 communities in 47 states plus Washington D.C. For each community, I tabulated it as either RED, or BLUE, % votes for Trump, % votes for Clinton, overall violence rate per 100,000 in population, total murders, murder rate per 100,000, average murders per community classification, and compared those numbers to America’s overall per capita rates.
Here are the results:
- The 438 communities that supported Hillary Clinton victimized themselves to the tune of 10,390 murders and a violent crime rate of 373.8 per 100,000 in population.
- The 2,483 communities that supported Donald Trump had only 5,146 murders and a violent crime rate of 219.4 per 100,000 in population.
- The 694,000 citizens of Washington D.C., America’s most liberal community, has 139 murders in 2016.
- The most conservative 76 counties in America, spread over 15 states, representing about 554,000 of America’s most conservative citizens, had only 20 murders in 2016.
- The median murder rate for U.S. counties is 0 (yes, zero). Over half of American counties, simply did not have a single homicide in 2016. Baltimore’s murder rate is 54 per 100,000.
- The median for total murders per county for U.S. counties is also 0. Los Angeles had 622.
- The median violent crime rate in the U.S. is approximately 203 per 100,000 in population. St. Louis, MO is 1703 per 100,000.
- The median violent crime rate in counties that supported Trump is 181 per 100,000.
- The median violent crime rate in counties that supported Clinton is 322 per 100,000.
- The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooter, Nik Cruz, is a product of progressive thinkers.
Sorry, Mr. Evon, you just laid an egg. I. D. 10. T. What other FACTS have you been FAKING?
But Why Are Liberal Do-gooders Prone to Violence?
Maybe it is a lack faith in a higher authority. Maybe it is a belief that the end justifies the means. Maybe it is a lack of respect for law enforcement and the rule of law in general. Maybe it is a belief that entitlements and income redistribution will save the world. Maybe it is their cultural inability to judge right from wrong, good from bad, and sick from healthy. Maybe it is their permissive attitudes tolerating, even teaching, bad behavior. I can only guess what the defining philosophical traits will be in the end. Someone else can open that can of worms.
I promise. Two simple, yet powerful words. I swear. My solemn oath. The ‘promise’ is the most common form of contract known to man, and holds sway from the least of children to the greatest of leaders. Yet it is entirely unenforceable, for there is no controlling legal authority beyond the character of the promise maker. In politics the solemn oath of office is a satirical farce. The citizen knows the politician has no intention of keeping any promise or oath. For instance, in the United States, every politician swears to uphold and defend the Constitution, and then relentlessly attempts to subvert it. Why? The Constitution interferes with the politician’s ability to force their personal agenda upon an unwilling population.
The ‘promise’ is also the foundation of journalistic integrity. A journalist’s power is found solely in their integrity. Journalists want their readers to believe they are credible, so they promise to be truthful and adhere to a code of ethics and fairness. Like politicians, journalists spend a huge amount of resources maintaining the illusion of honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, with no controlling legal authority, journalists, like politicians, often undermine public enlightenment with falsehoods and misinformation. Why? The truth often interferes with the journalist’s ability to force their personal agenda upon an unwilling population.
From the Japanese internment during WWII to Obamacare, America’s history is rife with constitutional battles pitting the U.S. government against We The People. Today’s constitutional battle pits the majority of American citizens, who believe in the inherent value of the 2nd Amendment, against opportunistic politicians seeking to diminish the citizen’s right to bear arms. In this battle American politicians find themselves with a new and extraordinarily powerful ally, the British Broadcasting Corporation. The BBC’s journalists bring with them a finely crafted cloak of global integrity, a bully pulpit, if you will. The citizens of our world trust that the BBC will demonstrate the highest integrity in it reporting, so when the BBC sides with forces seeking to subvert the Constitution of the United States of America, the BBC legitimizes them.
THE BBC’s ‘BIG FISH’ STORY
On January 16th, 2013, the BBC published an article that intentionally misleads its readers about relationship of lawful gun ownership and violence both inside and outside of the United States of America. The article, titled US gun debate: Guns in numbers, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20759139 cherry picks data and intentionally omits facts in order to frame the U.S. as a violent “outlier … when compared with other highly developed countries.” They put their data in a slick little chart, threw in a few photos of semi-automatic weapons, and made it a fait accompli. America’s lawful gun culture is at the root of American violence. No further investigation needed.
THE FIRST DECEPTION: The BBC is quick to point out that guns will kill 3.2 of every 100,000 Americans. That is over 30 times higher the United Kingdom’s extremely low rate of 0.1 gun deaths per 100,000! Ouch! What they fail to mention is that America’s overall death by violence rate is 6.5 per 100,000, and the U.K.’s overall rate of death by violence is 1.2 per 100,000. The Brits still kill each other, but simply do it without guns. Both countries are well below the global average of 11.47 violent deaths per 100,000.
THE SECOND DECEPTION: The BBC claims that “On a global scale, this rate puts the US 26th in the world, behind Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica,” for murder. This is not a factual statement. Worldlifeexpectancy.com ranks 192 countries by their rate of death by violence. 91 countries have a higher rate of death by violence that the United States. Actually, it is Guinea, the former French colony, who is in 26th place with a rate of death by violence of 25.3 per 100,000. The law-abiding citizens of Guinea own so few firearms they make the Brits look like gun nuts.
THE THIRD DECEPTION: The BBC next claims that, “when compared with other highly developed countries, the rate shows the U.S. as an outlier.” This is another false statement where the BBC cherry picks their data points. Yes, the U.S. is a bit high, but is lower than Estonia, and not a far cry from Finland and Latvia, who are all peaceful, developed countries. If any country is an “outlier” it is the U.K. Most countries where citizens have little right to bear arms have extraordinarily high violent death rates.
THE FOURTH DECEPTION: The BBC finally infers that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, what they refer to as “Guns in Numbers” is the direct cause for high murder rates in the U.S. The BBC builds this grand falsehood on a foundation of misinformation and baseless claims – what my father would have referred to as a “whopper!”
First, the U.S. murder rate has dropped 50% in the last twenty years, while at the same time private gun ownership has risen by nearly 50%.
Second, about half of American murderers choose a means of killing other than guns.
Third, statistics show a disarmed population is usually at a higher risk of death by violence.
People are going to kill each other whether they have guns or not, and as the saying goes, “God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.” Criminals, terrorists, drug cartels, rebels, and corrupt governments all over the world arm themselves to the teeth with weapons often supplied through legal channels by one government or another. Taking away the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves simply creates a vast reservoir of potential victims. For example, Washington D.C. has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the U.S. yet remains an intractable den of gun violence. Also, I am certain that the genocide in Rwanda would have had an entirely different outcome had all the victims owned the ability to defend themselves.
SHAME ON THE BBC: Like it or not, journalists have an ethical responsibility to present honest, objective findings in the news. Readers believe, perhaps naïvely, that Journalists deal with them fairly and honestly, and take what journalists report as not only factual, but independent of government or cause. With great power comes great responsibility, and organizations such as the BBC have a moral obligation not to be the tool of, or mouthpiece for, any sociopolitical agenda, even if it is an agenda of their own creation. Maybe someone can buy the BBC a dictionary so they could look up the word, “shame.” After all, they own it.
(The link to the data tables is in the right column under MORE INFORMATION)
Governments around the world rightfully arm their police and military forces. Paramilitary organizations and criminal organizations, such as rebels, terrorist groups, and drug cartels, are also armed to the extreme detriment of society. Pinned between those two warring factions lies the ordinary citizen who wants to live in peace. What about them?
The founding fathers of America lived in a time where the king, through his might, controlled their world. Citizens of the kingdom could not worship as they chose without risk of persecution. They were subject to searches and seizures of their property, including their food, without just cause. The king’s soldiers could take over a citizen’s home and eat his food without providing any sort of compensation. Citizens could be arrested, held, even convicted without charge or fair trial. With only the king in mind, the government levied with no benefit to the citizen who paid. The king did not allow the citizens the right to gather and voice their grievances, nor could they publish any challenge to the king’s authority. Granted to man by God, the king took all these liberties away.
The framers of the Constitution of the United States remedied all these injustices with the first ten amendments to the document. Within those ten amendments, America’s founding fathers gave America’s citizens a very grave right, the right to bear arms and then to organize as a militia, a reserve of armed citizens, to ensure our freedoms are secure. The Second Amendment was not included in the Constitution to satisfy the needs of hunters and sportsman. Its sole purpose is to guarantee that the citizens of a free state own the ability to resist tyranny.
Recent tragic events in the United States have again placed our Second Amendment rights at the center of the spotlight. People are honestly questioning whether our right to bear arms has become an anachronism, an unnecessary liberty. Is America’s gun culture at the root of our violent society? Will regulating and confiscating firearms make our country a safer place for our children? Arguments on both side of the debate are heartfelt, emotional, and filled with anecdotal evidence… but what are the facts?
For the purpose of this essay, I gathered twenty-one categories of demographic data for one hundred and seventy-four countries across the globe, and then examined the per capita rate of violent deaths and suicides and per capita private firearm ownership across various like groups. I gleaned this information from reputable databases such as those produced by the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the Central Intelligence Agency. I treat each country as a though they are a unique clinical trial, a liberty experiment, and attempt to find trends through the use of averages. The results were both startling and sobering.
THE GLOBAL AVERAGES
For the 174 countries I examined, the average rate of violent deaths and suicides is 21.46 deaths per 100,000 in population, the average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is $14,663, and the number of privately held firearms is 10.14 per 100 in population.
Using the State of the World Liberty Index, I then divided the nations into a ‘good half’ and a ‘bad half’. For instance, the top ten in the better half of our world, in order, are: Estonia, Ireland, Canada, Switzerland, Iceland, the Bahamas, the U.K., the U.S., Cyprus, and New Zealand. The bottom ten, in order, are: North Korea, Libya, Cuba, Myanmar, Laos, Turkmenistan, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, and Equatorial Guinea.
For the 87 countries that make up the better half of our world, the average rate of violent deaths and suicides per capita drops to 18.14, while their average per capita GDP rises to $21,638 and gun ownership rises to 12.94 per 100 in population. For the 87 countries that make up the lesser half of our world, the average rate of death by violence and suicide rises to 24.88, while their GDP drops to $7,793, and gun ownership drops to 7.30.
For the top ten countries on the Liberty Index, the average rate of death by violence drops to 12.98, the GDP rises to $35,500, and the rate of privately held firearms rises to 28.39. For the bottom ten countries on the Liberty Index, the average rate of death by violence actually drops a bit to 21.14, the GDP drops to $5,110, and the rate of privately owned firearms drops to 4.88.
THE MAGIC OF MONEY
When looking at the raw data, I saw a magic point at which GDP significantly affected the risks of death by violence and suicide. The average risk of death by violence and suicide in the 43 countries that have per capita GDPs above $23,000 is less than half that of the average risk of the 131 countries with GDPs below $23,000. Yet these wealthy nations citizens own firearms at 2.5 times the rate of the poor nations. This leads me to believe that, in general terms, the risk of death by violence and suicide is coupled to available resources, not guns.
THE PRICE OF SAFETY
23 of the 40 safest nations on earth are Muslim. The safest place, as far as risk of death by violence and suicide is concerned, is the United Arab Emirates, yet their citizens own a lot of firearms. The average violent death and suicide rates for the 40 safest countries is an amazingly low 5.62 deaths per 100,000 citizens. Their average rate of citizen owned firearms is double that of the 40 most violent counties. If we extract just the Muslim countries from this list, the death rate drops to 5.00 even though their average GDP is only $18,178! How is this accomplished? Authoritarian rule. Muslim countries generally deny their citizens those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. In Muslim societies women and children have no rights and they persecute minority religions. Statistically they are ‘safer’, but at a real cost to liberty and freedom.
THE FOUR GREAT POWERS
Our world has four great powers: The United States, China, Russia, and the sum of Islamic countries. Nobody else really has any say about anything. The citizens of China, Russia, and Islam all live under authoritarian rule. Only the United States is considered a nation where its citizens enjoy freedom and liberty. Despite low gun ownership, Russia leads the charge when it comes to death by violence and suicide at a whopping 39.70 deaths per 100,000 in population. Russia’s violent death rate is 2.4 times that of the United States, yet U.S. citizens own 10 times the firearms! The citizens of Islam own twice as many firearms as the Chinese, yet have a lower rate of violent deaths and suicides.
LIBERTY VERSUS TYRANNY
There are 43 countries on Earth where citizens have the freedom to live largely as they choose. Their average per capita GDP is $30,221, their average rate of death by violence and suicide is 17.72 per 100,000, and their average rate of privately held firearms is 16.18 per 100. Of those 43 nations, 38 are predominantly Christian, while none are Muslim. The United States of America has been their champion for the last century. The United States’ GDP is $48,300 and its death rate is 16.74. This implies the U.S., through the use of the liberties guaranteed in its constitution, is doing a bit better than the average free country.
There are 54 authoritarian governments on Earth. Their average GDP is $10,224, their average rate of death by violence and suicide is 22.58, and their rate of gun ownership is 7.57. Of those 54 nations, 26 are Muslim. The aggregate of Islam (all 43 countries) has a GDP of $11,481 and a death rate of 12.76. This implies that Islam, through application of its religious law, is better at controlling the rate of violent deaths and suicides than other forms of authoritarian regimes. Islam also outperforms free states that value liberty and freedom.
FREE NATIONS, GUNS AND VIOLENCE
Of all the statistics, this one most surprised me. There are 43 countries that, by nature of their government and people, are considered ‘free.’ Their average rate of death by violence and suicide is 17.72, their average per capita GDP is $30,221, and their average rate of citizen owned firearms is 16.18 per 100. Those nations whose population owns more than 16 firearms per 100 citizens have a death by violence and suicide rate of 13.97. Those nations who own fewer than 16 firearms per 100 citizens have a death by violence and suicide rate of 19.73. The disarmed citizens die by violence at a rate 41% higher, on average, than the armed citizens. This finding not only decouples the citizens right to bear arms and high violence rates, it implies that citizen owned firearms play a role in reducing death by violence and suicide rates.
ANECDOTES ARE DANGEROUS AND FOOLISH
The United States is often compared to the United Kingdom in the argument to restrict private gun ownership. The citizens of the U.K. do not own guns, and their death by violence and suicide rate is about half of the U.S. When people use this comparison, in their desire to win the argument, they ignore that the U.S. death by violence and suicide rate is lower than Finland, Belgium, Estonia, South Korea, and Japan. The citizens of the U.S. own more guns than those countries, too.
Recently I had a naturopath barge into my pharmacy while I was administering influenza vaccines to patients. She chastised me, as though she were an ‘expert’, because the preservative in the vaccine, thimerosal, contains 25mcg of mercury. She was angry that I administered a flu shot to a woman who was breastfeeding. Her evidence? Her son had some sort of developmental problem. She threw all clinical and pharmacologic data out the window. It did not matter to her that the negligible amount of mercury from the vaccine would be rapidly excreted in the mother’s stool, the post-vaccine breast-milk exposure of mercury to the child would be virtually nil, and all the good clinical data from around the globe demonstrated no statistical link for her claim. She knew it in her heart! I had doomed that breastfed child to some horrible future and she was mad as hell. It does not matter to her that the flu has already killed six people in Washington State, including a twelve-year old boy. Based on this interaction, I must suspect all naturopaths are loons. Actually, here I base my opinion on twenty-five years of dealing with naturopaths, but you get the point. Anecdotes and testimonials are useless if the truth is what you want.
The number of firearms owned by private, law-abiding citizens around the globe does not adversely affect the rate of death by violence and suicide. In fact, data implies that the right to bear arms may actually enhance overall social safety. However, resources, religion, and liberty all play a huge role in a society’s level of violence. Both China and Islam use oppression and conformity to achieve a peaceful society for nearly three billion people. In those societies individuals are not free to look left or to look right. The United States of America leads the free world with the Christian ideals of freedom and liberty for just over one billion people. The free world has a slightly higher risk of death by violence and suicide. I accept that risk, for I cherish my God-given liberties and my right to defend them if need be. The remaining three billion people on Earth are condemned to a life of violence and poverty with no means to defend themselves because they do not have any guns.