Tag Archives: Vox

Agenda-driven reporting: Vox reports that firearms killed more 15 to 19 year olds than cancer, heart disease and diabetes combined in 2016

vox explainer

Another example of Vox serious “reporting.” Hey, I want a grenade launcher, too!!!

Because those diseases typically kill so many more young adults. Another fine example of a Vox “Explainers.”

From the experts at Vox: The message from high school students following last week’s Parkland, Florida, school shooting is clear: We are suffering and dying because Congress has failed to enact stricter gun laws.

“I don’t understand why I could still go in a store and buy a weapon of war,” Samuel Zeif, a Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivor, at the White House this week. “Let’s never let this happen again, please, please.”

Zeif is among the thousands of student protestors who, through grief and fear, are mobilizing across the country in a renewed push to end America’s epidemic of gun violence.

They are right to demand action: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention public health database (no match for “firearms” turned up when I searched on this link), when it comes to causes of deaths in US adolescents ages 15 to 19, firearms are an alarmingly common contributor.

Over at PWC, Alex Gaffney crunched the data to see exactly how many high schoolers are dying by guns. He found a staggering 2,300 (only one match turned up on this page when I searched for “firearms” and it was an article about the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School students advocating for gun control; it wasn’t a link to any hard data) deaths per year on average in the period 2010 to 2016.

If you think that sounds like a lot, it’s because it is. To put the numbers into context, we took a look at the 15 leading causes of death in high schoolers for 2016. Injuries, suicide, and homicide were the top three causes of death, killing more than 8,000 teens in 2016. Gaffney’s data shows 2,665 of those were related to firearms in 2016. Meanwhile, the next 12 causes led to only 1,500 deaths combined. Among them:

  • cancer killed 596 high schoolers in 2016;
  • heart diseases killed 293;
  • chronic lower respiratory diseases killed 80;
  • influenza and pneumonia killed 54;
  • diabetes killed 54.

So guns led to more deaths than the next 12 leading causes of teen deaths combined.

Arming teachers or bolstering mental health programs, as Trump has suggested, isn’t going to fix this problem. As Vox’s German Lopez has written, America has more gun deaths than any other country — and it also has more guns. The problem isn’t the mental health status of Americans. It’s that our gun control laws are too lax (then please do explain the gun deaths in strict gun-controlled Chiraq, genious). And until that’s fixed, guns will remain a key contributor to the death of young people.

See also:

DCG

Blackout: Major progressive web sites omit report that Starbucks is giving raises as result of GOP tax cut

media TDS

Yesterday at 5:09 am Reuters reported that Starbucks was going to give raises to employees. From the story:

Starbucks Corp (SBUX.O) will use some of the savings from the new U.S. corporate tax cuts to give domestic employees pay raises, company stock and expanded benefits with a combined worth of more than $250 million, the company said on Wednesday.

With the announcement, the world’s biggest coffee chain joins companies like Walmart (WMT.N), Apple Inc APPL.O, Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) and American Airlines Group Inc (AAL.O) in sharing their tax savings with employees.

Starbucks is known for giving its workers, which it calls “partners,” more generous pay and benefits than other mass-market restaurants and retailers.

“Investing in our partners has long been our strategy, and due to the recent changes in U.S. tax law, we are able to accelerate some significant partner investments,” Chief Executive Kevin Johnson said in a letter to employees.”

Read the rest of the story here.

Over 11 hours later, at 1:45 pm (Central Time), I went to several proggie web sites to search how they reported this great news. I searched the following sites to see if they had “Starbucks” or any story on their home page about this announcement:

At the time of my search, I didn’t find ANY article on this good news on the above web sites. Gee, I wonder why?

CBS news had the story, at the bottom of their home page under the “Money Watch” category. Fox News DID have the story, about a quarter of the way down on their home page.

Wonder if these progressive “news” web sites will get around to reporting this great news as a result of the GOP tax cut plan, which NOT ONE demorat voted for.

No wonder we call them #FakeNews.

DCG

PS: I checked all the web sites bulleted above at 9:30 pm last night and STILL NOTHING about the Starbucks announcement. Shocker, not.

Bioethicist opinion: Science proves kids are bad for earth; morality suggests we stop having them

travis rieder

Travis and his child in his Twitter profile picture

The author of this opinion piece, Travis Rieder, PhD, is the Assistant Director for Education Initiatives, Director of the Master of Bioethics degree program and Research Scholar at the Berman Institute of Bioethics. He is also a Faculty Affiliate at the Center for Public Health Advocacy within the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

From NBC News: A startling and honestly distressing view is beginning to receive serious consideration in both academic and popular discussions of climate change ethics. According to this view, having a child is a major contributor to climate change. The logical takeaway here is that everyone on Earth ought to consider having fewer children.

Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well-established. Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment. That data was recycled this past summer in a paper showing that none of the activities most likely to reduce individuals’ carbon footprints are widely discussed.

The second, moral aspect of the view — that perhaps we ought to have fewer children — is also being taken seriously in many circles. Indeed, I have written widely on the topic myself.

But scientific evidence and moral theorizing aside, this is a complicated question with plenty of opponents. In what follows, I will address some of the challenges to this idea. Because while I recognize that this is an uncomfortable discussion, I believe that the seriousness of climate change justifies uncomfortable conversations. In this case, that means that we need to stop pretending the decision to have children doesn’t have environmental and ethical consequences.

The argument that having a child adds to one’s carbon footprint depends on the view that each of us has a personal carbon ledger for which we are responsible. Furthermore, some amount of an offspring’s emissions count towards the parents’ ledger.

Most environmentalists accept this sort of ledger view when it comes to recycling, driving, and flying, but support begins to decrease when applied to family planning. The opposition is typified by Vox writer David Roberts, who argues that “such an accounting scheme is utterly impractical” because it seems to entail that one is never responsible for one’s own emissions. Because “we don’t want to double-count,” as Roberts says, this means parents are really only responsible for their kids’ emissions.

The flaw in this objection is the plausible-sounding caveat: “we don’t want to double-count.” Because why wouldn’t we want to double-count? If moral responsibility added up mathematically, then double-counting would be a serious problem. But I think it’s clear that we should not accept a mathematical model of responsibility.

Consider a different case: If I release a murderer from prison, knowing full well that he intends to kill innocent people, then I bear some responsibility for those deaths — even though the killer is also fully responsible. My having released him doesn’t make him less responsible (he did it!). But his doing it doesn’t eliminate my responsibility either.

Something similar is true, I think, when it comes to having children: Once my daughter is an autonomous agent, she will be responsible for her emissions. But that doesn’t negate my responsibility. Moral responsibility simply isn’t mathematical.

If you buy this view of responsibility, you might eventually admit that having many children is wrong, or at least morally suspect, for standard environmental reasons: Having a child imposes high emissions on the world, while the parents get the benefit. So like with any high-cost luxury, we should limit our indulgence.

Read the rest of this opinion here.

DCG

Agenda-driven reporting: Vox claims Australia has solved its gun problem. They haven’t read “How Melbourne Became A Gun City”

There’s some interesting statistics that liberals push in their quest for gun control and some interesting facts that prove they haven’t done their homework in order to push a desired narrative.

Warning: This is a long read. Take your time to read through the whole blog post or bookmark it to read later. The actual data/stories out of Melbourne are an eye-opener yet not surprising.


In response to the Vegas shooting, liberals love to trot out the gun-control example of Australia and its mandatory gun buyback which resulted after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. During that mass shooting, 35 people were killed and 23 were wounded.

A brief history of Australia’s mandatory gun buyback, from to Wikipedia:

Australians reacted to the event with widespread shock and horror, and the political effects were significant and long-lasting. The federal government led state governments, some of which (notably Tasmania itself and Queensland) were opposed to new gun laws, to severely restrict the availability of firearms. While surveys showed up to 85% of Australians ‘supported gun control’,] many people opposed the new laws. Concern was raised within the Coalition Government that fringe groups such as the ‘Ausi Freedom Scouts’, the Australian League of Rights and the Citizen Initiated Referendum Party, were exploiting voter anger to gain support. After discovering that the Christian Coalition and US National Rifle Association were supporting the gun lobby, the government and media cited their support, along with the moral outrage of the community to discredit the gun lobby as extremists.

Under federal government co-ordination, all states and territories of Australia restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns, and tightened controls on their legal use by recreational shooters. The government initiated a mandatory “buy-back” scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of $350 million which was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy which raised $500 million. Media, activists, politicians and some family members of victims, notably Walter Mikac (who lost his wife and two children), spoke out in favour of the changes.”

On October 3, two days after the Vegas shooting, Vox author Ella Nilsen published an article entitled, “The Weeds: Australia solved its gun problem. Could America?”

Excerpt from Ella’s article:

“Through that program, the government was able to get rid of about 650,000 guns. But as Sarah notes, the program went further still, introducing a ban on automatic and semiautomatic weapons, putting in new licensing requirements, and making people wait 28 days before they purchased a gun.

The proposal worked, with suicide rates in Australia dropping about 57 percent after the reforms were implemented, and homicide rates dropping 47 percent, according to studies by Harvard researchers.”

I decided to click on the “proposal worked” link to verify Ella’s statement that “suicide rates in Australia dropping about 57 percent” and “homicide rates dropping 47 percent.”

When I clicked on that link, it took me to a Vox article dated one day before the Vegas shooting on October 2: “Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.”

The author of that Vox article is Zack Beauchamp, whose Twitter bio says “Senior Reporter. Vox. (((Globalist))). From Zack’s article:

It is worth considering, as one data point in the pool of evidence about what sorts of gun control policies do and do not work, the experience of Australia. Between October 1996 and September 1997, Australia responded to its own gun violence problem with a solution that was both straightforward and severe: It collected roughly 650,000 privately held guns. It was one of the largest mandatory gun buyback programs in recent history.

And it worked. That does not mean that something even remotely similar would work in the US — they are, needless to say, different countries — but it is worth at least looking at their experience.

According to one academic estimate, the buyback took in and destroyed 20 percent of all privately owned guns in Australia. Analysis of import data suggests that Australians haven’t purchased nearly enough guns in the past 18 years to make up for the initial decline.

I decided to click on the “import data” link to verify Zack’s statement that “Australians haven’t purchase nearly enough guns in the past 18 years to make up for the initial decline.”

When I clicked on that link, it took me to a PDF discussion paper entitled, “Do Gun Buyback Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data.” The paper is authored by Andrew Leigh from Australian National University and IZA*, and Christine Neill from Wilfrid Laurier University. The discussion paper is dated June 2010.

*From Wikipedia: The IZA – Institute of Labor Economics (German: Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit), until 2016 referred to as the Institute of the Study of Labor (IZA), is a private, independent economic research institute and academic network focused on the analysis of global labor markets and headquartered in Bonn, Germany.

IZA is supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation. From my web research, I found that the Deutsche Post Foundation is a non-profit think tank from Germany’s largest employer, Deutsche Post, which is a postal service and international courier service company (the world’s largest).

According to Handelsblatt Global, the think tank is headed by Klaus Zumwinkel, a former Post chief executive who was convicted of tax evasion in 2009. Despite his conviction for tax evasion, the former executive is still in charge (as of 2015) of the multi-million-euro, not-for-profit foundation and an influential non-profit economic research institute, both of which have links to Deutsche Post.

Mr. Zumwinkel, who is in self-imposed exile in Italy and London, founded the Deutsche Post Foundation in 1998 during his tenure as chief executive and chairman of the postal service. (I could not read the rest of the article due to subscription requirement.)

So back to the discussion paper dated June 2010. From the abstract:

In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth. Using differences across states in the number of firearms withdrawn, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected firearm homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent [sic], with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The estimated effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.”

I’m not surprised that the first Vox link took me to another Vox article. And I’m not surprised that the “import data” link Vox provided took me to a discussion paper from over seven years ago. Why didn’t Vox provide some more current statistical information? That is a rhetorical question, of course.

So what has been happening with gun violence in Australia since their mandatory gun buyback program? Here’s some current information that you will find interesting and liberals will not promote.

I found a 2016 three-part series published by the Melbourne newspaper called The Age. There is no date stamp on the articles yet their statistical data charts go through 2016. The series is entitled, “How Melbourne Became a Gun City.” Here’s the title of the three articles:

Statistical data in the series is courtesy of the Coroners Court of Victoria, Crimes Statistics Agency, and Monash University’s Victorian Injury Surveillance Unit.

Below are highlights from each of the articles. Feel free to read them on your own time as they provide a lot of information regarding gun violence that still exists, and is growing, in the liberals’ favorite “gun-control model” of Australia.

Part One: Young, Dumb and Armed

A brazen new breed of criminals is taking up arms at unprecedented rates and they aren’t afraid to use them.

Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five years.

While the body count was higher during Melbourne’s ‘Underbelly War’ (1999-2005), more people have been seriously maimed in the recent spate of shootings and reprisals.

Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled, driven by the easy availability of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and, increasingly, machine guns, that are smuggled into the country or stolen from licensed owners.

In this series, Fairfax Media looks at Melbourne’s gun problem and the new breed of criminals behind the escalating violence. The investigation has found:

  • There have been at least 99 shootings in the past 20 months – more than one incident a week since January 2015
  • Known criminals were caught with firearms 755 times last year, compared to 143 times in 2011
  • The epicentre of the problem is a triangle between Coolaroo, Campbellfield and Glenroy in the north-west, with Cranbourne, Narre Warren and Dandenong in the south-east close behind
  • Criminals are using gunshot wounds to the arms and legs as warnings to pay debts
  • Assault rifles and handguns are being smuggled into Australia via shipments of electronics and metal parts

In response to the violence, it can be revealed the state government is planning to introduce new criminal offences for drive-by shootings, manufacturing of firearms with new technologies such as 3D printers, and more police powers to keep weapons out of the hands of known criminals.

Part Two: Gunslingers of the Northwest

It is the triangle of Melbourne suburbs where those with guns rule the streets and sleeping children are no longer safe from the bullets.

As a wave of gun crime washes through Melbourne’s streets – with at least 100 shootings in the past 20 months – the number of bullets being fired has inevitably led to unintended victims.

These neighbourhoods are littered with reminders of violence: there is the business owned by a man who lost one brother at the end of a firearm, another to a drug overdose; the street in Dallas where a 19-year-old was found dying from a gunshot wound in July; the Broadmeadows house, with the carcasses of three cars in the front yard, which was struck in a recent drive-by shooting.

Typically, guns fall into the hands of criminals in three ways: stolen from registered owners, mostly from farms or other regional properties; illegally imported; or from the “grey market” of illicit firearms created after a wider range of guns were made illegal as part of sweeping reforms introduced in 1996.

Part Three: Chasing the Silver Bullet

Gun violence is gripping the city and as Victoria’s justice system and politicians come under fire for failing to tackle the crime wave, cops on the frontline have become the targets of real bullets.

Meanwhile, the number of guns on the street swells. Firearms offences have doubled in the past five years. There is now a shooting once a week. It is only a matter of time before more innocent people get caught in the crossfire.

Last year alone, there were 755 incidents in which “prohibited persons” – those with serious criminal convictions – were caught with firearms. It’s a five-fold increase since 2011, according to the Crime Statistics Agency.

Part of the problem is no one can really pin down where all the illegal guns are coming from.  Authorities point to the “grey market” the term given to rifles and shotguns that were not handed back in the 1996 amnesty that followed the Port Arthur massacre and have circulated for the past two decades.

A new national gun amnesty, which many have advocated for, would lead to the voluntary surrender of illicit weapons. Gun control advocates say a new amnesty would particularly target those grey market firearms.

But that argument doesn’t account for the many handguns that have been used in recent shootings. Handguns were not part of the original amnesty, and hence are not part of the grey market.

Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission chief executive officer Chris Dawson admits the “serious national problem” of illegal guns circulating through the country is far from well-defined. Guns, points out Assistant Commissioner (Crime) Stephen Fontana, are surprisingly easy to hide, and traffick.


The next time a liberal tells you how wonderful Australia’s gun buyback program has worked, point them to the “How Melbourne Became a Gun City” series.  Remind them that criminals never follow the laws.

Thanks for reading!

DCG

Anti-Trump violence: news editor incites; San Jose police do nothing

Here’s another sign that the United States has devolved into a Third World country.

Americans once prided ourselves for being a civilized democracy where the bullet is replaced by the ballot, unlike those primitive “banana republics” of the Third World.

No more.

Vox is a news website run by Vox Media, founded by liberal columnist Ezra Klein in April 2014.

Emmett ResinOn June 2, 2016, in a tweet, Vox’s deputy editor Emmett Rensin, 26, urged people to “start a riot” if Donald Trump comes to their town/city. His tweet received at least 349 ♥ likes.

Emmett Resin tweet1In a follow-up tweet, Resin clarified his call to start a riot, stating that whereas murder is not legit, it is legitimate to destroy property, shout opponents down, and disrupt all events.

Emmett Resin tweet2It turns out Vox has its limits. The next day, on June 3, Vox’s editor-in-chief Ezra Klein announced that Rensin has been suspended. Klein said that although Vox encourages its writers to debate and disagree:

“direct encouragement of riots crosses a line between expressing a contrary opinion and directly encouraging dangerous, illegal activity. We welcome a variety of viewpoints, but we do not condone writing that could put others in danger.

In this case, Emmett’s tweets violated Vox’s standards and Emmett has been suspended as a consequence.”

ZeroHedge observes:

One can only imagine the level of anger, media hype, and blame-throwing that would have been unleashed were this some right-wing social media site. Where are Trump supporters’ “safe spaces”? Don’t they deserve to be protected against micro-aggression (and utterly lawless physical violence)?

The answer, of course, is no.

In Amerika today, neither Donald Trump nor his supporters deserve to be protected against threats of and actual acts of violence, as shown in San Jose, California.

Two hours after Emmett Rensin had sent his “start a riot” tweet, anti-Trump protesters in San Jose, California, started a riot.

On the evening of June 2, 2016, 250 police officers in riot gear did nothing as Trump supporters at a Trump rally in downtown San Jose were attacked by violent protesters throwing punches, water bottles and traffic cones.

San Jose Police Chief Eddie Garcia‘s lame excuse is that the police is not “an occupying force” and that the police held back to avoid inciting more violence and having the crowd turn on officers. He also said the 250 police assigned to the rally weren’t enough to control the roughly 400 protesters. (Source: San Jose Mercury News)

It turns out that Garcia is far from being an objective enforcer of peace and order, as Gateway Pundit discovered, for police chief Eddie Garcia is affiliated with the Chicano racist group La Raza (which means “the race”). Below is a screen-cap from Garcia’s Twitter account:

Eddie GarciaThe La Raza Roundtable of California had celebrated when Garcia was sworn in as police chief.

See also:

H/t Big Lug and FOTM’s Hadenoughalready

~Eowyn

Obama goes beyond mere gun control, hints at confiscation

He did promise fundamental transformation.

obama-finger

Breitbart: When President Obama spoke in reaction to the heinous October 1 attack on Umpqua Community College, he went beyond his usual calls for more gun control and suggested instead that America consider following the path blazed by Australia and Great Britain.

In the mid-1990s Australia and Great Britain both instituted what were virtually complete bans on firearm possession.

Obama referenced the bans thus:

“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings.  Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours.  So we know there are ways to prevent it.

And Obama is not the only one who suggested taking a gun-free approach to American life. The anti-Second Amendment message was also pushed by Slate, Vox, and Dan Savage.

For example, on October 1 Slate ran a story reminding readers that Australia enacted their gun ban in response to an attack on April 28, 1996, wherein a gunman “opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania.” Thirty-five were killed and 23 others wounded in the attack. Twelve days later Australia’s government banned guns, period.

On October 2 Vox explained that Australia “confiscated 650,000 guns” via a “mandatory gun buyback” program which forced gun owners to hand their firearms over for destruction. Vox claims the result was that “murders and suicides plummeted’ and suggested such a path might be an option for America following “the murder of at least 10 people at Umpqua Community College.”

Vox did not mention that “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” began plummeting in America in the mid-1990s as well. But in America, the decrease in violent crime did not correlate with a gun ban but with a rapid expansion in the number of guns privately owned. The Congressional Research Service reported that the number of privately owned firearms in America went from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million privately owned firearms in 2009. Subsequently, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate fell from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 and finally to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.

But none of this made any difference to Dan Savage, who responded to the attack on Umpqua Community College by calling for the Second Amendment’s repeal. Savage tweeted, “Fk the NRA, fk the gun nuts, f**k the Second Amendment — better yet, repeal the Second Amendment.

Shannon Watts, mouthpiece for Moms Demand Action, tweeted this yesterday: “The father of the gunman who killed 9 in #UCCShooting said this about his son’s actions today on @CNN. #gunsense (with the statement below).

ucc shooter dad response

I have two words for these people:

molon labe

DCG