Because liberalism is a mental illness, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that any solution to a problem brought up by a Leftist will be utterly moronic.
 
So when it comes to the problem of gun violence, instead of going with logical solutions like allowing people to defend themselves, the city of San Francisco will instead opt to pay “high risk criminals”, aka people who are highly likely to shoot someone, $300 a month to not shoot people and an extra $200 if they work on “improving their community”, which can mean anything from simply working and attending school to being a mediator in a situation that might lead to violence.
 
The kicker of that last one is that it’s unclear whether or not one needs to be successful in preventing violence through mediation in order to get paid. So it potentially could be that two people could be fighting, a person in the Dream Keeper Fellowship program (the program we’re talking about) comes in and says “stop, don’t hurt each other”, the two say “shut up” and the person in the program could just be like “well, I tried,” and be paid $200.
 
And there is a reason I think such a ridiculous situation could be plausible, which I will get to momentarily.
 
Now, where will San Francisco get the money to pay criminals not to specifically shoot people (another thing I will get to momentarily)? Well, by diverting $120 million in funding from law enforcement, of course. So it’s basically another “defund the police” attempt which will undoubtedly backfire on San Francisco.
 
According to The New American, the program “will start with engaging 10 participants in October, and will then expand to another 30 ‘high-risk individuals’ by the end of the year.”
 
And The San Francisco Examiner, which is critical of programs such as these, noted that this program is partly designed after the Operation Peacemaker Fellowship program in Richmond, California, which offers criminals up to $1,000 a month to not shoot other people.
 
At the outset, that program seems like a resounding success. A 2019 study published in the American Journal of Public Health showed that, following the installation of the program, there was a 55% decrease in gun homicides and a 43% decrease in shootings since the program began in 2010. However, there are a few problems with the program.
 
First, there is one massive, obvious loophole that criminals can take advantage of: They are paid not to SHOOT others, not to not harm or try to kill others in general. While it’s true that gun-related crime decreased by a lot since the program began, there was also a 16% increase in stabbings, beatings, all kinds of assaults and homicides which didn’t involve a firearm.
 
In essence, Richmond experienced what London has for a few years now: less gun-related crime, but a lot of other kinds of violent crime anyway.
 
They didn’t make their cities safer, just changed the way in which violence was perpetrated.
 
And the second problem of this program: it didn’t even work with one criminal. One of the participants of that Richmond program was later arrested and sentenced to 40 years to life in prison for SHOOTING and killing another man.
 
Basically, the guy was part of the program, likely was paid a decent amount of money (again, Richmond offered up to a thousand dollars a month), and then went on to violate the terms of the program anyway, rendering it utterly useless.
 
Those two real-life cases are the reason I think that aforementioned ridiculous scenario, where two people fight and a participant could be paid for “trying” to stop it, could happen, and why I specified that the program pays criminals to not shoot people.
 
The guy who shot and killed someone was paid by the program and then went on to violate the rules of the program anyway, so it’s easy to see someone doing that exact same thing in San Francisco and particularly easy to see someone “trying” to stop a violent act from happening and getting paid even if unsuccessful.
 
And the rise in other kinds of violent crime apart from gun violence is why I specified the program paying criminals not to shoot others. Such idiotic solutions may appear to work at the outset, like I said, but they don’t actually work to perform the stated purpose of reducing violence.
 
If San Francisco wants to see a decrease in violence, gun-related or otherwise, they need to make it easier for people to arm and defend themselves.
 
Like I have said in other articles talking about gun control, it doesn’t work. San Francisco has strict gun control measures and still sees a lot of gun violence. That’s no coincidence.
 
And for those who might argue that it makes no sense to make it easier for criminals to get a gun, consider that this makes it easier for law-abiding citizens to get a gun, and criminals often target people and places they strongly believe are unarmed.
 
Schools are gun-free zones and are often targeted by sickos. Police departments and prisons have tons of people who have guns and know how to use them, and you rarely, if ever, hear about shootings happening in those places.
 
Now, one might argue “but military bases have been sites for shootings, and they have the best weapons in the world.” Yes, but bases also have regulations that disarm their soldiers in most places. Allow soldiers to always be armed and you will be far less likely to hear of shootings at military bases, and if you do, the death toll will be minimal and will almost certainly largely include the shooter.
 
The general point is that by disarming the populace, you make it easier on the CRIMINALS to get their way. Not to mention that programs like these can, and often do, fund their criminal actions.
 
Criminals will procure their weapons most often through illegal means, so gun control law doesn’t prevent anyone from getting a gun except people who already INTEND to follow the law and would use it defensively.
 
Like I said, if San Francisco wants to really reduce violence in their city, they should allow their citizens to arm themselves more easily. But Democrats never actually care to solve the problems they create. After all, how else are they going to get their fundraising and donation money to “try to solve these problems”?
 
They will dine and live great lives off of the blood of their constituents.
 
Matthew 15:14
“Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

The Left, following a series of shootings in March, was really hoping to see increased support for their gun-grabbing desires in the fake news polls, so that they might have a “green light” to go forth with such legislation, but things didn’t exactly go their way with a recent WaPo poll.
 
Back in 2018, according to the WaPo, by a margin of 57 to 34, people supported the idea of prioritizing “laws to reduce gun violence” over “protecting the right to own guns.”
 
Before I go further, I want to point out the misleading wording the WaPo and all fake news organizations tend to use in order to rig these polls in their favor. Note how the WaPo didn’t phrase it as prioritizing “laws to increase gun control” or anything like that, but “laws to reduce gun violence.”
 
I’ve pointed this out in a previous article, but this is how these people “debate”. They don’t argue issues, but they frame issues a certain way so as to make it favorable to them and make it look like their position is reasonable. After all, who wouldn’t want to reduce gun violence, right? Only criminals and sick people would not want to reduce gun violence (a term which is misleading in itself, as it makes it look like guns are sentient beings capable of killing people of their own accord).
 
This is actually how communists generally tend to phrase things so that they appeared in their favor. Back in early 1918, as the Soviet Union was beginning to form, their secret police (or at least, one of its iterations), the Cheka, had to break a strike by state employees in Petrograd. The Cheka arrested the leaders of the strike, though Isaac Steinberg, a Socialist Revolutionary himself, and a man with the title of “The People’s Commissar for Justice”, objected to that action, attempting to argue the legality of the Cheka. He wrote to Lenin: “What is the point of a ‘People’s Commissariat for Justice’? It would be more honest to have a People’s Commissariat for Social Extermination. People would understand more clearly.” To which Lenin replied: “Excellent idea. That’s exactly how I see it. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t do to call it that!”
 
Lenin knew precisely what the point of that “legal” position was: to legitimize the soviets’ actions. At the time, some people like Felix Dzerzhinksy frankly cared little for the legality of it all, arguing that it was just “the nitpicking legalism of the old school of the ancient regime,” but others understood that they had to at least make their actions seem relatively legitimate. And so, they named things like a “People’s Commissariat for Justice” that way, despite their intentions being that it would, effectually, be a “People’s Commissariat for Social Extermination.”
 
Similarly, the modern Left makes their gun-grabbing position seem reasonable and legitimate by painting it as “a measure to reduce gun violence” when, in actuality and evidenced by real life, their position leads to MORE gun violence. Just look at Democrat-run cities with extreme gun control measures to see that this is true. It’s no coincidence that the cities with the heaviest gun control measures are cities with the highest gun-related crime rates.
 
Chicago, a gun-control heavy city, recently saw 26 people shot over Mother’s Day weekend, which is about par for the course for Chicago weekends.
 
And in Portland, Oregon, according to The Epoch Times, Portland Police have responded to nearly 360 shootings so far THIS YEAR. Again, it’s no coincidence at all that these things happen in Democrat-run cities.
 
At any rate, the “figures” that the WaPo showed in 2018 were pretty bad for 2A supporters and good for the gun-grabbing Leftists (despite the fact that, even just with that little excerpt from that poll, it’s clear that it was rigged). However, since then, things have been going in the wrong direction for the Left.
 
While they enjoyed a “23-point” advantage in 2018, that advantage plummeted to just “7.” I put those numbers in quotation marks because it’s reasonable that these are still rigged polls and that the numbers are even worse for the Left.
 
Not only has support for gun control measures plummeted in the last few years, but it has particularly come down among young people and Hispanics, two demographics which tend to be pretty Leftist.
 
In April of 2018, 65% of people aged 18-29 said they supported more gun control laws, particularly “red flag” laws and limits on magazine capacity. Fast-forward to 2021, and that number plummeted to 45%, a full 20 points.
 
According to Newsweek: “The preference for enacting new gun laws aimed at reducing firearm violence has dropped by 7 percent overall since the last corresponding survey was conducted in April 2018. Percentage drops were seen in nearly every demographic divide. In that time period, 20 percent of Hispanics pulled back from supporting new gun laws, falling to 50 percent. An increase in rural Americans also now say they want no new gun restrictions, down 17 points to 30 percent.”
 
So not only has overall support for gun control measures fallen 16 points (supposedly), but among young Americans and Hispanics, it has fallen even more, by 20 points (supposedly)?
 
It’s reasonable to ask what exactly has led to this sort of drop, as there has to be a reason for it. But I highly doubt one needs to look very hard for such a reason.
 
Leftists perpetrated hundreds of riots across numerous cities in the country, ultimately killing around 30 people, and causing billions of dollars in damage for the individual cities, let alone total. Riots which were encouraged by elected officials and the fake news media, so long as the riots didn’t affect them in the least bit. And even when it did, such as the riot which affected CNN’s HQ in Atlanta, they still continued to encourage them, believing it would reflect poorly on TRUMP, until polls came out that showed people, in fact, didn’t appreciate their cities being ransacked by the Bitchygoths.
 
With such Democrat-approved destruction and violence, we saw massive increases in gun sales for a number of months (coupled with the fact that people were unconstitutionally forced to stay at home and lock things down, which definitely didn’t help) and an increase in first-time gun buyers. It’s no wonder, then, that so many people are less keen on making it harder for LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS to acquire guns.
 
With Antifa and BLM terrorists running around cities and, sometimes, residential neighborhoods, terrorizing the places where they went, it’s no wonder that people wished to acquire means by which they could be safe and protect the ones they care about.
 
There are other potential reasons for this as well, as Breitbart News points out, though I myself am not so sure about them. One potential reason John Nolte of Breitbart gives is that young Americans are wired to be rebellious. As they see that the establishment, which includes not only the government but also the fake news media, pop culture, academia, etc., is all skewed toward one political ideology, Nolte argues that young people, being rebellious, will rebel against that.
 
There is merit to this idea, as American teenagers tend to rebel and are often encouraged to rebel, but seeing as the Left has been indoctrinating American teenagers with Leftist dribble for decades now, I’m not entirely certain that that is the case. If this were the case, young Americans would be more conservative regarding other issues, not just gun control. Yet, they likely will tend to support, even if because of social pressure, things like homosexuality and transgenderism.
 
Young Americans aged 18-29 usually are leaving the nest or already have, and so recognize that, in a country with increased violence and crime, they have to be able to defend themselves, as they have to be a bit more independent from their parents regarding safety.
 
Though such an explanation might not necessarily suffice for why so many Hispanics have stopped supporting gun control laws, but my first theory might still be applicable. BLM and Antifa have terrorized whomever they could, and are emboldened by the fact they are so quickly released from jail following their actions. When you have terrorists who are being sponsored by the government to continue their terrorism, it’s only natural that people of all races would want to protect themselves, seeing as the government refuses to do its job.
 
Let us continue to hope and pray that we see even greater numbers of people, particularly young people, turn away from Leftist bullcrap that runs contrary to God and to nature and which only serves to destroy people.
 
Proverbs 18:5
“It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the righteous of justice.”

Earlier this week, the city of Boulder, Colorado was struck by a heinous shooting which left 10 people dead, with the suspect being shot in the leg and arrested at the scene.
 
Practically as soon as reports of the shooting came out, Leftists dove headfirst into blaming white people and specifically “white supremacy”, even though hardly anything about the shooting had been known. This is likely because just last week, there was a shooting in Atlanta, Georgia which was perpetrated by a sex-addicted white male against Asian people (though the shooter claims he was not setting out to specifically kill Asians). The Left picked up that story and ran with “white supremacy” claims in a desperate and fruitless effort to divorce themselves from their own history of being white supremacists.
 
Similarly, they began making all sorts of assumptions relating to this shooting in Colorado.
 
They especially pushed those assumptions when reports were released that the suspect had been apprehended at the scene, which the Left took to mean was a practical confirmation of the shooter being white because in Leftist looney world, white people get preferential treatment even when committing heinous crimes and that only white people get arrested after performing a shooting, while members of other races get shot at and killed at the scene.
 
But as it turned out, the shooter wasn’t white; he was actually Muslim and born in Syria, though has lived in the United States for most of his life.
 
Law enforcement reportedly told Laura Loomer that the guy had sworn allegiance to ISIS and that the Biden administration reportedly gave “orders to keep it under wraps to avoid conversation in the media about Islamic terrorism and reversal of Trump’s travel ban, which the terrorist was opposed to,” Loomer revealed on her Telegram channel.
 
She is so far the only source to claim this, so it is unknown if it is true, but going by Leftist rules of assigning motive when motive is unknown, why would there be a problem with labeling the guy a terrorist?
 
To begin with, the guy was a Leftist himself and blamed “racism” for Trump’s 2016 election victory. He also reportedly bullied other students while in high school, believing that they had been racist to him and would reportedly threaten them with filing hate crime charges against them to coerce them into silence, according to National File.
 
All the victims of the shooting were also white and there are reports that he was targeting Christians and Trump supporters, so one could just as easily slap him with the label of domestic Islamic terrorist as the Left tried to do with the Atlanta shooter.
 
But as soon as it was revealed that the shooter wasn’t white but was, in fact, a Muslim and possible ISIS-sympathizing terrorist, the Left’s narrative shifted away from “this is a white domestic terrorist” to “this is the fault of white people for wanting to keep their guns” even though law-abiding citizens will, by definition, not do this kind of crap.
 
Republican strategist Caleb Hull had actually compiled a list of statements and claims from Leftists about the identity of the shooter before it was revealed he was Muslim, with all of them going with the assumption that it was just an “angry white man” who “hates women” and whatever else.
 
Once it was revealed that he was Muslim, some shifted to just “mourning” the victims of the shooting whom they had just politically exploited and would have continued to politically exploit had the shooter actually been white.
 
Amy Siskind, far-Left nutjob activist, tweeted before learning the guy was Muslim: “The shooter is was [sic] taken into custody. In other words it was almost certainly a white man (again). If he were Black or Brown he would be dead.”
 
But after learning the guy was Muslim, Siskind tweeted the following: “Let’s mourn the victims, but not glorify the killer with the attention of having his name widely known.”
 
Generally, I would agree with that last statement, which is why I won’t be sharing his name, but let’s not pretend that the ONLY reason she is saying this is because the shooter has an Arab name. She wants people to not blame the death cult of Islam following the revelation that the shooter is a Muslim with an Arab name and was born in Syria, and instead implores that we simply “mourn the victims” whom she was politically exploiting in her previous tweet to attack white people (ironic, given that all of the shooter’s victims were white).
 
Somewhat similar to the Orlando night club shooting perpetrated by a radical Islamic terrorist whom had been confirmed to have sworn allegiance to ISIS, the Left wants to focus not on the identity of the perpetrator but on the method of killing. They want to target and enslave people by taking away their guns, so they pretend as though AR-15s are a massive threat and that people shouldn’t have the right or ability to own such guns.
 
As a result, Occupier Biden and Democrats in Congress are looking to institute more ineffective gun control (but not before eliminating the filibuster first so that they can impose all kinds of far-Left crap to further cement their power) that will only lead to more such shootings, not lessen them, and will only victimize more Americans than save them.
 
Often times, when such a shooting happens, the Left argues “what if gun control saves just one life?” The thing is that gun control ENDS lives and is more likely to do so the heavier it is enforced. Multiple times, I have shared with you the statistics for Defensive Gun Use (DGUs) and how those uses of guns are FAR more prevalent than offensive and criminal use of guns.
 
Hundreds of thousands to millions of people are saved every year because they are able to use their guns in a defensive manner. Gun control doesn’t stop criminals from owning guns or using them, because by definition, criminals don’t follow the law.
 
I would go further into this argument but we all know that the reason the Left is looking for more gun control measures isn’t to stifle gun-related crimes or shootings of this sort. They LOVE it when shootings like this happen because they get the opportunity to talk about how “dangerous” guns are and how people shouldn’t be allowed to have them and institute policy which would further disarm the populace they want to have complete control over.
 
In a recent article, I pointed out how the Second Amendment still serves as some amount of check against tyranny. This is true because the single best way for tyrants to reign is if their populace is completely defenseless and at the mercy of the government. Venezuelans got rid of their guns and are now wishing they still had them; instead, they have to live in destitution which will not end unless their government is unrealistically merciful and undoes the decades of socialism that they have implemented.
 
Germans got rid of their guns during the Nazi regime and we all know what happened then.
 
Tyrants love for nothing more than for their subjects to be at their complete mercy. Leftists are tyrannical by ideological nature and love any and all opportunities to target the biggest check there is against them: people’s right to bear arms.
 
So they implement more and more gun control laws, call them “common sense” and when they don’t deliver the promised results, they claim that it’s because “we haven’t gone far enough” in that direction. And so they brainwash people more and more into believing that “common sense gun laws” include less and less gun rights until no one is allowed to own guns, apart from those at the top, of course, whom are always protected by the very guns they don’t want YOU to be able to own.
 
But in any case, it is interesting seeing the Left with egg on their face when they make wild assumptions and accusations based on political narratives and seeing them having to backtrack on those things (though some still adhere to the idea that white people and white men specifically are all dangerous).
 
Shame on them for using the victims to try to score political points. Heartless monsters, Leftists are.
 
Isaiah 48:22
“’There is no peace,’ says the Lord, ‘for the wicked.’”

Since the days of slavery, the Democrat has always hated the idea of black people having guns. After all, if their slaves had guns, they could very easily revolt against them and that would be disastrous for them. That kind of mentality is still around, having expanded to all minorities in general, and for much the same reasons: they want a permanent underclass of voters and such a class cannot be allowed to defend itself against their masters.
 
So it’s not surprising, really, when The Violence Policy Center (VPC) sets its sights on the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the NRA and the gun industry as a whole, charging them with “racism” for “targeting” blacks and Latinos as being first-time gun owners.
 
The VPC released a report saying: “In its marketing efforts to communities of color, the gun industry frequently focuses on the self-defense use of firearms, despite the fact that guns are rarely used to stop crimes or kill criminals and are far more likely to be used in homicides, suicides, or fatal unintentional shootings.”
 
Oh, boy, we just began and already, we can smell the bullcrap.
 
First of all, it’s a fact that guns ARE used for self-defense more than for committing crimes. According to Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, “The best estimates of DGUs (defensive gun use)…, even if compared to the more generous estimates of gun crimes, are 4.6 times higher than the crime counts for all guns, and 4.2 times higher for handguns, or 3.9 and 3.4, respectively, if the more conservative… estimates of DGU are used. In sum, DGUs are about three to five times as common as criminal uses, even using generous estimates of gun crimes.”
 
So the VPC is absolutely LYING about self-defense use of guns. But the other thing that they do here is they move the goalposts from just defensive use of guns to outright stopping crimes and KILLING the criminals.
 
Depending on the context of the defensive use of the gun, chances are that some sort of crime is being stopped or prevented. DGUs can vary from preventing rape, murder, assault, etc. to stopping a shooter or a mugger or a robber. So one’s definition of “stopping a crime” can be rather varied. But in a way, using guns to stop any of these constitutes as stopping a crime, so the VPC is outright wrong about that.
 
Secondly, the argument of “guns are rarely used to kill the criminals” is irrelevant because DGUs are not about killing the criminal but about SELF-DEFENSE as the name suggests. If one is capable of brandishing a firearm and scaring away a criminal, that counts as a DGU. The gun doesn’t have to be discharged. Furthermore, killing the criminal is not exactly every gun owner’s desire, even if they are put into a position where they have to use their gun.
 
Kleck also noted that “Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward. Saving a life through DGU would be a benefit, but this almost never involves killing the criminal; probably fewer than 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding victims each year, representing only about 1/1000 of the number of DGUs, and less than 1% of the number of purportedly life-saving DGUs.”
 
So the argument of “criminals are rarely killed by gun owners” is a red-herring argument. Killing the criminal is not a gun-owner’s primary intention when using a gun for self-defense or for the defense of another person.
 
But do you see how they try to “debate”? They don’t argue the issues, they position things so that they are in their favor, using favorable language. “Guns are rarely used to kill criminals” as though that was their purpose.
 
So you have to be able to fight back against that b.s. because their entire line of arguments are based on erroneous premises.
 
At any rate, the report continued: “Recognizing that Blacks and Latinos are already disproportionately impacted by lethal gun violence, these efforts can only increase death and injury in these communities.” See what I mean by erroneous premises basing their line of argumentation? “Guns are bad and selling guns to minorities is, therefore, bad.” Never mind the fact that that is wrong and that it only makes sense to market and sell to people who are MORE LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED BY GUN VIOLENCE.
 
The guns are already in the hands of the criminals, so what sense does it make to keep the innocent from being able to defend themselves? The Left doesn’t answer that because, again, their entire premise rests on the “fact” that guns aren’t helpful for those who wield them defensively.
 
They don’t ask themselves if their underlying premise is wrong at any capacity. It’s like atheists trying to figure out the reason as to why people are so religious based on their faulty premise of “since God doesn’t exist, why is there religion?” They preface their question with a massive presupposition that God doesn’t exist, but don’t even bother to question whether or not that presupposition is correct.
 
That’s what the VPC was doing and what the Left often does. Truly, they make for awful scientists, in this way. Instead of asking if their hypothesis is correct and trying to find the data that proves it isn’t, they assume that it is correct and try to find the data that proves that it is.
 
It’s part of the reason they are so insistent on the idea that there are a bajillion genders.
 
So they assume that guns are pretty exclusively used for crimes and can only hurt gun owners (as though they were sentient beings), do not question that basic premise, and go on to charge that those whom are willing to market and sell guns to minorities do so in order to bring harm upon them, when that is far from the truth.
 
They make charges like the following: “Along with the hope of increased gun sales, a corollary goal of this effort is to turn more Blacks and Latinos, who historically support gun violence prevention measures, into pro-gun advocates for future political battles.”
 
So they charge that the self-defense marketing is not the true intention of the gun industry (without evidence) and they only target minorities for financial and political profit. Because black people and Latinos are incapable of holding independent thought, seemingly.
 
Again, take note of the favorable language that they use. Who wouldn’t support gun violence prevention measures? To be against that would basically mean being in favor of gun violence, right? It’s all b.s. because anyone with half a brain could understand that “gun violence prevention measures” only lead to further gun violence because that’s what gun control tends to lead to. Chicago is a city with plenty of “gun violence prevention measures” and some of the highest crime rates in the country. Disarming those willing to follow the law doesn’t lead to less unlawful acts – matter of fact, it only leads to more of them.
 
And as far as “turning them pro-gun” goes, 1) what’s wrong with wanting people to be more willing to protect themselves and exercise their Second Amendment rights? And 2) Planned Parenthood basically does the same thing by installing abortion clinics in black and Latino neighborhoods, so how is that any different? PP specifically targets and markets to minorities to brainwash them into thinking that their babies are burdens not too dissimilar to cancerous tumors so that they go into those clinics and get an abortion.
 
Planned Parenthood is in the business of ethnic cleansing and no one bats an eye, but if the gun industry wants minorities to be able to protect themselves, that is an outrage? We can see, clearly, where the priorities of the Left lie: only they get to be protected by guns and have the ability to live, while the “weeds” must be rid of in the womb and, if necessary, on the streets.
 
There is good reason I call the Left evil and there is good reason I consider them to be black people’s number one enemy (as well as the enemy of just about everyone who is sane).
 
They want to kill minorities in the womb and leave them unable to protect themselves out of the womb.
 
Will the Left’s racism never end?
 
Micah 2:1
“Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil on their beds! When the morning dawns, they perform it, because it is in the power of their hand.”