Dorisca wondered whether the slayings would lead Fort Hood’s commanding general to rethink the policy of requiring soldiers to remain unarmed while on post.

Only military police are allowed to carry firearms on a military base. Is anyone really surprised that this is the case? The state will train them to kill, send psychiatrists to their “aid” when they begin to develop problems with killing, and then send them back – ‘cured’ of their indecisiveness – to endure unbearable conditions, kill again, and continue the unwinnable war(s). Remember this from Michael Gaddy, my good friend and long-time Special Forces soldier and war veteran:

Throughout my career, no soldier, regardless of rank or position, was allowed to have in his/her private possession any firearm. When I was on the rifle/pistol team I had to go to the armory to pick up my weapons for any practice or competition and return them immediately upon completion. That always struck me as unusual. While I had 24/7 access to firearms and explosives while in the combat zone, I was not allowed to possess any such item even on a military installation unless it was for training or competition. Slaves should never be allowed the means to resist.

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year  -  a rise of 89 per cent.

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.

Go back in time to the late 1990s, when this issue was visible in the news. The CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control spent $2.6 million in 1995 studying injuries related to firearms under the cloak of carrying out research in the interest of “public safety” because of the “public health” concerns due to gun violence. So then, gun issues become medical issues, and U.S. health agencies can then obtain their own grants and roll out their political agendas under the guise of health research. The CDC received the tax loot and paid researchers to support its politicized, anti-gun agenda and disguise it as scientific research which was printed in journals that were supporters of the anti-gun/gun control agenda. This excellent article from an April 1997 issue of Reason magazine, “Public Health Pot Shots: How the CDC Succumbed to the Gun “Epidemic,” is the best source of information on the government’s politicization of the gun issue during this period. From the article:

In a 1991 letter to CDC critic Dr. David Stolinsky, the NCIPC’s Mark Rosenberg said “our scientific understanding of the role that firearms play in violent events is rudimentary.” He added in a subsequent letter, “There is a strong need for further scientific investigations of the relationships among firearms ownership, firearms regulations and the risk of firearm- related injury. This is an area that has not been given adequate scrutiny. Hopefully, by addressing these important and appropriate scientific issues we will eventually arrive at conclusions which support effective, preventive actions.”

Yet four years earlier, in a 1987 CDC report, Rosenberg thought the area adequately scrutinized, and his understanding sufficient, to urge confiscation of all firearms from “the general population,” claiming “8,600 homicides and 5,370 suicides could be avoided” each year. In 1993 Rolling Stone reported that Rosenberg “envisions a long term campaign, similar to [those concerning] tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.” In 1994 he told The Washington Post, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned.”

The Washington Times reveals that the National Institute for Health (NIH) is currently on an anti-gun binge, as it is “financing research to investigate whether having many liquor stores in a neighborhood puts people at greater risk of getting shot.” Let’s see – more liquor stores are operated in neighborhoods where residents tend to be poor and low-income because residents of these areas are consumers that tend to bring a lot of business to the liquor industry because they desire easy access to cheap liquor and beer. These liquor stores are also magnets for armed robberies. So the NIH will attempt to discover whether or not more crimes are committed in these low-income neighborhoods that play host to liquor stores?

The NIH, which administers more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds for medical research, defended the grants.

“Gun related violence is a public health problem – it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH,” Don Ralbovsky, NIH spokesman, wrote in an e-mail responding to questions about the grants.

But in the end, even the CDC couldn’t make its research work in favor of its agenda. Its own studies could not link gun control laws to the reduction of crime. Nevertheless, any time the government studies “gun safety,” you know that in spite of the fact that all the research in the world will not support its end goal of the necessity of disarmament, the aim is to produce enough information, studies, and opinions to influence the public against gun ownership and persuade them to internalize the emotional aspect of the issue, thereby leading them to despise guns, distrust gun owners, and desire more government intervention to make gun ownership more difficult.

The anti-gun movement is built on pure emotion – hating guns and being afraid of guns – so building perception among the masses through fearmongering and emotional coercion is much more essential, and uncomplicated, than actually proving a hard case through a mishmash of statistics.

The #’s total were 48 dead 210 wounded with the most draconian laws in the country. We don’t need to mention the 624 armed robberies (handgun), 1454 burglary’s (forceable entry) or the others.

From the article:

As of July 30, at least 42 people had been shot and killed, and 183 more had been shot and wounded since July 1. Among the injured were a 9-year-old girl, an 8-year-old boy, a UPS driver who was on a break after making a delivery, and two Chicago police officers serving a drug warrant. 

Here’s a perfect example of a sitting duck in Chicago. A UPS driver, taking a break to pick up a snack, was robbed and shot in the back. Another amazing comment:

There were several especially bloody nights in the month of July. At least eight people were killed and almost two dozen others were wounded on July 4 and 5, four of whom died during a bloody six hours. Overnight July 28 and 29, at least 15 people were shot and wounded – seven of them in a single incident at Homan Boulevard and Walnut Street in the East Garfield Park neighborhood. 

See this map of July 2009 shootings in the city of Chicago. Almost NOWHERE do I see reports on this perpetual bloodbath. Except NPR covered it. But of course, as soon as some alleged “gun nut” shoots a few people, or cops, the cries for gun control are amplified from the left-wing rafters. Chicago disarmed peaceful people so that parasitic criminals could have their way with the sitting duck citizenry. But then again, people like Alan Gottlieb, of the Second Amendment Foundation, knew this long ago.

This is Obama’s city. This is what Obama and his minions (Emanuel, Holder, Frank, Pelosi, etc., etc., etc), who all have hordes of personal security, want for America. They want you unarmed in the name of  …… “peace.”

In this age of a sissified, feel-good, group-hug America, how do the Chicago police intend to get this under control? They are holding anti-violence marches. Holding up signs that say “Working together to keep our neighborhoods safe.” I’ve got a better idea – how about a new motto for the Chicago PD:  ”We’re there when you’re not.” What have the Chicago public schools students been taught about this situation? They’ve been told to rally and demand more gun control.