Categories
Category: Good News for a change!
David Niven was an esteemed English actor and novelist. During the course of his long and storied acting career, Niven played a leading man, a world explorer, the villain in a Pink Panther movie, a soldier, a sailor, an action hero, and even James Bond in the first Casino Royale. He won the Oscar for Best Actor in 1958 for his role as Major Pollock in Separate Tables.
Today’s crop of actors is, with few exceptions, a bunch of vapid amoral losers. Their standard of accomplishment is running about naked and flying on private jets to A-lister conferences while telling the rest of us what we should be sacrificing to battle climate change. By contrast, David Niven was a real-live warrior.
Born March 1, 1910, at Belgrave mansions, Grosvenor Gardens, London, Niven came from a long line of British soldiers. His father LT William Niven was killed in Turkey during the Gallipoli Campaign serving with the Berkshire Yeomanry in 1915. His maternal grandfather, CPT William Degacher, was killed in 1879 at the Battle of Isandlwana during the Zulu Wars. His great grandfather was LTG James Webber Smith CB.
Two years after the death of his father, Niven’s mother remarried, this time to a prominent British Conservative politician. At age six, young David was remanded to boarding school. His experience there was rocky, predominantly the result of his proclivity toward pranks.
At age 18, Niven impregnated a fifteen-year-old socialite named Margaret Whigham while she was on holiday. Given the puritanical mores of the day this held the potential for great scandal. The young woman’s family arranged for an abortion, but she revered Niven until his death. Whigham was among the VIP guests at his memorial service in London after he died.
Finding Himself
David Niven was educated at the Royal Military College at Sandhurst, graduating in 1930 as a Second Lieutenant in the British Army. This experience was said to be foundational to his developing the refined unflappable bearing that held him in good stead on the stage and screen. However, the peacetime Army did little to hold Niven’s attention.
LT Niven once ditched a lecture on machinegun tactics delivered by a British Major General in favor of a social engagement with a young woman. Niven was subsequently arrested for insubordination but killed a bottle of whisky with Rhoddy Rose, the officer tasked with guarding him. Rose later went on to become a decorated Colonel in the British Army. With Rose’s assistance, Niven escaped out a window and caught a ship for America, resigning his commission via telegram once underway. Upon his arrival in the United States he tried and failed to make a living first selling whisky and then as a rodeo promoter.
After stints in both Mexico and the Caribbean, Niven eventually made his way to Hollywood, securing a role as an extra in such films as Barbary Coast and Mutiny on the Bounty. His designation as an extra was, “Anglo-Saxon Type No. 2,008.” More serious roles followed until, by the late 1930’s, he had become an A-lister leading man. Niven and Errol Flynn shared a house for a time. By 1939 David Niven was on top of his game, having earned top billing for big budget Hollywood productions. Then Hitler invaded Western Europe, and Niven gave it all up to return to England and rejoin the British Army. At the time, David Niven was the only British movie star working in America to do so.
The Humble Warrior
I watched a couple of interviews with David Niven on YouTube in preparation for this project. Despite his refined, almost haughty British demeanor, you cannot help but be struck by the man’s humility when he was elaborating on his military experience. Once during an interview with Dick Cavett he was asked to relate the most perilous experience he had while serving in World War 2. He prefaced his answer that many other men had done much greater things than had he and that he was likely the most terrified man in Europe during the war. However, cutting through the fluff, David Niven was the real freaking deal.
After being recommissioned as a Lieutenant, Niven was assigned to the motor training battalion of the Prince Consort’s Own Rifle Brigade. The British have some of the most adorable unit designations. Dissatisfied with the pace of that assignment, he volunteered for the Commandos. Niven trained at Inverailort House in the Western Highlands, eventually coming to command “A” Squadron of the General Headquarters Liaison Regiment.
The British Commandos during World War 2 were an elite light infantry unit specializing in small unit operations. A modern counterpart might be the US Army Rangers. Their training was notoriously grueling, and they were relied upon to execute the toughest missions, often with minimal support. Commando training and operational experience laid the foundation for much of the world’s modern Special Operations capabilities.
Niven was an acting Lieutenant Colonel by the time he landed on the continent several days after D-Day. He served with a unit called “Phantom” that was tasked with covertly locating and reporting enemy positions in the chaos following Operation Overlord. One of the few war stories that he was willing to relate publicly concerned his being shelled while attempting to cross a bridge between the American 1st and British 2d Armies.
LTC Niven Earns the Iron Cross
LTC Niven was crossing a bridge just as the Germans began dropping artillery on it. He dove out of his jeep and into a nearby foxhole with heavy German artillery fire impacting all around. Amidst the unfettered chaos of the moment he looked up to see John McClain, an old friend and drama critic, hunkered down the next foxhole over.
The Germans obliterated the bridge, but Niven and McClain emerged unscathed. McClain was uniformed as a Lieutenant in the US Navy. After a happy reunion McClain produced a sack filled with German Iron Crosses. The German forces at Cherbourg were cut off and surrounded. Their commander, Generalleutnant von Schlieben, had requested a sackful of Iron Crosses be air dropped into the salient to be distributed to his men in an effort at shoring up their morale. The Luftwaffe attempted to drop the sack from a fighter plane but inadvertently deposited it in McClain’s hole.
These men were in show business, after all, and were ever on the lookout for an opportunity at levity. Niven’s friend formally presented him with a German Iron Cross for bravery right there in their foxhole. Niven said that he affixed the decoration to his shirt underneath his combat jacket and wore it for the rest of the war.
Though Niven was tight-lipped concerning the details of his wartime service, it was undeniably extensive. He was evacuated as part of the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk. When once he was preparing his men for an assault he attempted to allay their jitters with,”Look, you chaps only have to do this once. But I’ll have to do it all over again in Hollywood with Errol Flynn!”
During the Battle of the Bulge, Niven was challenged by a nervous American sentry jumpy over stories of Otto Skorzeny’s commandos infiltrating Allied lines in American uniforms. The trigger-happy American asked him who had won the World Series in 1943. Niven responded with, “Haven’t the foggiest idea, but I did co-star with Ginger Rogers in Bachelor Mother.” The sentry let him pass.
Many Hollywood actors had actively avoided combat. When pressed about his wartime service, Niven said this, “Anyone who says a bullet sings past, hums past, flies, pings, or whines past, has never heard one – they go crack!”
Niven ended the war a Lieutenant Colonel and returned to Hollywood. Among his several decorations was the American Legion of Merit. Like most combat veterans of that era, Niven seemed ready to put the war behind him and move on with his life.
The Rest of the Story
Soon after his return to Hollywood, the Niven family was enjoying an evening as guests of Tyrone Power. While playing Sardines, a lights-out version of hide and seek with the accumulated kids, Niven’s wife Primmie took a tumble down some stairs, fractured her skull, and was tragically killed. The distraught man immersed himself in his work to compensate. Prominent roles alongside the likes of Cary Grant, Ginger Rogers, and Shirley Temple followed.
David Niven’s career waxed and waned as is often the custom for movie stars. He played on Broadway opposite Gloria Swanson in Nina as a respite from movies. His fortunes lagged for a time until he was cast as Phileas Fogg in the smash 1956 hit Around the World in 80 Days. Around the World took home Best Picture that year.
David Niven holds the distinction of being the only person ever to win a Best Actor award at a ceremony he was hosting. Appearing on-screen for only 23 minutes in Separate Tables, his performance was also the briefest ever to be afforded this honor. Niven’s Oscar proved to be the key that opened all the doors in Hollywood.
Niven shined in movies like The Guns of Navarone, Death on the Nile, Rough Cut, and Seawolves. While hosting the 46th Academy Awards ceremony in 1974, Niven was interrupted when a naked man went streaking past in the background. Streaking was considered quite the popular pastime in the early 1970’s. His classic off-the-cuff response was, “Isn’t it fascinating to think that probably the only laugh that man will ever get in his life is by stripping off and showing his shortcomings?” David Niven was ever the refined English gentleman.
This quote lends insight to this remarkable man’s worldview, “I will, however, tell you just one thing about the war, my first story and my last. I was asked by some American friends to search out the grave of their son near Bastogne. I found it where they told me I would, but it was among 27,000 others, and I told myself that here, Niven, were 27,000 reasons why you should keep your mouth shut after the war.” What a stud.
David Niven died in 1983 at the age of 73 from complications of Lou Gehrig’s disease. The archetypal English gentleman on the silver screen, Niven was also quite the British patriot when it counted.
In May, Elon Musk, the billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO tweeted that he would be “selling almost all physical possessions. Will own no house.” A few days later, he listed four stunning mansions in Los Angeles for sale for a total of $137 million. Elon Musk’s House portfolio holds Gene Wilder’s former home, a $30 million mansion in Los Angeles, and a historic 100-year-old mansion on the San Francisco Peninsula. In this article, we take a look at the breathtaking houses owned by the world’s first billionaire renter.
At one point, Musk owned several properties across the greater Los Angeles area collectively worth over a whopping $70 million. Musk purchased his first piece of Bel-Air real estate in late 2012. He started by renting the same house in 2010; he lived there with his family. He later bought the mansion for $17 million. This Elon Musk house has 20,248 sprawls over square feet with a total of seven bedrooms and thirteen baths. The kitchen features a beautiful brick ceiling. The backyard has a beautiful pool, a spacious tennis court, and a picturesque view of the exclusive Bel-Air Country Club. The home also houses a gym and a wine cellar. This 20,248-square-foot property was the beginning of it all, the first and the largest of his Bel Air estates to go after Musk had tweeted about his goal to the world, the property had been up for sale with an asking price of $30 million and had sold for $29.72 million to William Ding, a Chinese billionaire The sum is reportedly about $5.5 million more than what the Tesla CEO paid when buying it in 2016.
This stunning Elon Musk’s house was located a little away from his mansion for $6.75 million in October 2013. Yes, Elon Musk owned the house of the late actor Gene Wilders, which he had purchased to “preserve the spirit of Gene Wilder”. Beloved actor Gene Wilder lived there for over 30 years until 2007. In a 2015 interview with Vogue, the billionaire CEO described it as “like a little schoolhouse on the prairie, except in Bel-Air on a golf course.” Though Musk never lived in the house, he had used it as a private school—named AdAstra—for his children and children of some of the SpaceX and Tesla employees. While selling the house, the Tesla CEO made it clear that the buyer must not harm the house’s “soul” or tear it down. “Just one stipulation on sale: I own Gene Wilder’s old house. It cannot be torn down or lose any of its soul.” Musk tweeted. Soon, it was revealed that he had sold the Wilder estate to Elizabeth Hunter, the wife of Wilder’s nephew Jordan Walker-Perlman, for $7 million in an off-market deal. It was also reported that the tech mogul lent as much as $6.7 million to help them buy the property too.
This boomerang-shaped Elon Musk’s house in Brentwood, California, about 15 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles was previously owned by Elon Musk. Musk paid just under $3.7 million for it in 2014, per the Variety-owned real-estate site Dirt. The building is surrounded by privacy hedges for security but has floor-to-ceiling giant windows throughout to let the daylight in. Musk sold the home for $4 million in late August 2019, stated a Business Insider report. Way before he publicly declared his intentions, Musk had already sold a 0.28-acre modern house in Brentwood, only about 20 minutes away from his six former Chalon-Somera properties. He sold it in August 2019 for $3.9 million, the property had reportedly cost the Tesla CEO about $3.7 million in 2014.
The billionaire techie purchased another Bel-Air mansion while it was still under construction for $24.25 million in 2016, Variety reported that year. Notably, Musk doesn’t own a home near the Tesla factory in Fremont, California. He has previously shared that he slept on a couch or the floor of a conference room during busy production periods.
In a Zillow listing, the four of Musk’s remaining properties in Bel Air had a combined asking price of $62.5 million and an interesting description to go with: “A project for the big thinker, designed to showcase one of the best views in Los Angeles – from the city to the ocean and beyond.” The properties, all unique in architecture and their worth ranging between $4 million to $30 million, made him a profit of about $6.8 million.
Now, after almost a year of emptying his material baggage, it has all come down to one gigantic 100-year-old mansion near San Jose. The Hillsborough estate is built on 47 acres of land, with 9 bedrooms, 9.5 baths, and just about anything you could dream of including hiking trails, canyons, a big ballroom, and a reservoir! Originally listed for $35 million in May 2020, it seems Musk has taken down the listing for now. However, according to reports, there is every possibility that the home will be relisted and Musk will complete his quest to get rid of all his real estate assets.
by Patrick Carroll
Americans have long been concerned about government surveillance, and rightly so. Being watched by the government is incredibly disconcerting, especially when government agents are probing into your private life.
The rise of drone technology has not helped on this front. Whereas before a government would need a plane or helicopter to get aerial views of you or your property, now they just need a small remote-controlled device.
The issue of governments spying on Americans using drones has come up in some recent court cases and legislative disputes. One recent case involves Todd and Heather Maxon who live on a rural five-acre property in Long Lake Township, Michigan. Todd likes to fix up cars, and he keeps a number of vehicles on his property.
For years the Township has been going after the couple for zoning violations, accusing them of illegally storing “junk” on their property. But here’s the kicker. The cars can’t even be seen from outside the property…that is, unless you fly a drone overhead. And that’s exactly what the Township did.
Without even attempting to get a warrant, the Township hired a contractor to fly a drone as low as 150 feet over the Maxons’ property multiple times over two years. The Township is now trying to use the pictures taken by the drone as evidence that the Maxons are violating a local zoning ordinance.
“If the government wants to conduct intrusive surveillance like this, the Fourth Amendment requires that it get a warrant,” said Institute for Justice Attorney Mike Greenberg regarding the case. “The zoning authority’s failure to even try to get one shows their indifference to Michiganders’ constitutional rights.”
New York City has also come in the crosshairs in recent years for its decisions on this front. In 2019, the New York Police Department acquired 14 drones for “monitoring giant crowds, investigating hazardous waste spills, handling hostage situations and reaching remote areas in crime scenes, among other tasks.” Though the NYPD insists the drones won’t be used for warrantless surveillance, many are worried that putting this technology in the hands of police is just asking for trouble.
Citing these fears, privacy advocates pushed for legislation known as the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology Act (“POST Act”), which requires the NYPD to release information about how surveillance tools are being used and creates an annual oversight system to audit compliance with department policies. The Act was passed in June 2020 after gaining momentum following the death of George Floyd.
The Legal Issue
The legal issue with warrantless government surveillance revolves around the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states the following:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
In plain language, governments aren’t allowed to conduct searches and seizures as they please. They need to get a warrant.
In the more than two centuries that have passed since this amendment was adopted in 1791, mountains of case law have built up establishing precedents for what exactly constitutes “unreasonable” and what qualifies as a “search” or “seizure.” Other related questions have also been extensively litigated, such as whether evidence collected in an unconstitutional search (such as pictures from a warrantless drone flight) can be used in court. On that issue, there is a long-standing precedent. “For more than a century, the remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation has been suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence,” the Institute for Justice notes.
Whether the Maxons win their case remains to be seen.
What’s clear, however, is that drone technology provides governments with unprecedented spying capabilities—capabilities they would gladly use against Americans if they could get away with it.
The Philosophical Issue
For many topics addressed in the Bill of Rights libertarians are firmly in favor of the right being recognized (for example, freedom of speech and gun rights). With the Fourth Amendment, however, there are some philosophical problems.
The economist and political philosopher Walter Block addresses the “right” to privacy in the Peeping Tom chapter of his book Defending the Undefendable 2. “According to the libertarian legal code,” Block writes, “we may do anything at all to each other, whether they like it or not, provided, only, that in so doing we not violate—not their privacy ‘rights’ which do not exist, but rather—their property rights in their own persons and justly owned physical possessions.”
As Block correctly points out, spying on people isn’t technically a rights violation from a libertarian perspective. Indeed, a “right” to privacy, consistently recognized, would lead to all sorts of absurd laws, such as banning detectives or prohibiting most journalism and gossip.
Should we let governments spy on us at will, then, and never push back through legal channels? Of course not. There is a sound philosophical case to be made against government surveillance—it just doesn’t rest on a supposed “right” to privacy.
The most fundamental point to be made in this regard from a libertarian framework is that government surveillance is funded by taxpayer dollars, which are taken coercively. This alone makes the practice immoral in the libertarian view.
It’s also worth pointing out that the purpose of government surveillance isn’t necessarily protecting people. Sometimes the government uses drones because it intends to force its laws on people (such as in the case of the Maxons and Long Lake Township’s zoning laws) in which case the government is using surveillance as a means to a liberty-violating end.
In such cases, libertarians will often make a tactical move. While we may disagree with the Fourth Amendment philosophically, holding the State to its stated laws on privacy is often a more effective way of defending people’s liberties (property rights) than appealing to philosophical ideals. Just saying “it’s their property, they have a right to use it as they please” may be a more philosophically sound rebuttal to zoning laws, but it’s not particularly effective in court.
If appealing to the Fourth Amendment is what will convince the powers that be to respect property rights, there’s nothing wrong with that. We just need to recognize that, for libertarians, such an appeal is merely a practical tactic—the philosophical argument against the government’s actions is rather different from the legal argument.
Privacy in Libertopia
So that’s the argument against government drones, but what about private drones? Would libertopia have private drones flying everywhere, snooping on people constantly, seeing as libertarians don’t recognize a right to privacy? Of course not. Privacy is in high demand, so drones would almost certainly be regulated with voluntary contracts.
Responding to the Fourth Amendment at the end of his Peeping Tom chapter, Block summarizes the libertarian position on privacy as follows: “We have no such right. It is merely a privilege, one that, fortunately, the free market system can bestow upon us.”
– —
Patrick Carroll has a degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Waterloo and is an Editorial Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.
Robert “Jock” McLaren (center) was one hard-core veterinarian. Australian War Memorial photo.
As a species, we are enthralled with seeing people explore their limits. Sometimes it is in the small things. “Would you rather do this by mouth or take a shot?” I will not infrequently query at work.
Some folks will ask for a shot because they are in a hurry or want to get better faster. Others are not in such a rush and make a reasoned decision to take it slower. Then, there are the beefy 21-year-old college guys who get a little weepy and ask if they can call their moms and talk about it. That’s frankly just pathetic.
Many times when discussing hard medical things to come, I have had patients say, “Oh, I could never do that.” I beg to differ. Oftentimes folks just need to be properly incentivized.
It is amazing what the human animal is capable of if there is simply no alternative. Friday runs at Airborne school, 61 days of institutionalized pain and deprivation during the Ranger course, and the horrors of Hell Week during BUD/S that produces baby Navy SEALs are all designed to explore and define a person’s limits. Each institution is carefully crafted to motivate people to quit. Most commonly, a person’s limitations are defined by their circumstances.
In jump school, it is silly stuff like a funny hat and a shiny pin to put on your uniform. However, if there is a threat to a child, then suddenly, that petite 117-pound mom becomes the tactical equivalent of a raging grizzly bear. As the timeless axiom goes, it’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it is rather the size of the fight in the dog. It really does all come down to motivation.
Jock McLaren (left) is shown here in 1945 touring his old POW camp.
The Problem
The vermiform appendix is a most curious organ. Vermiform means “worm-like.” The appendix is a finger-like blind pouch that sprouts off of the cecum at the junction between the small and large intestines. For ages, we thought the appendix was just an afterthought, something that God inadvertently left in there while He was distracted by something else. In recent years we have come to appreciate that the appendix likely serves as a beneficial reservoir for good gut bacteria. It seems God actually never gets distracted.
The problem is that the appendix is bad to get clogged up and infected. Appendicitis is one of the most common indicators of emergency surgery. In 2015, there were 11.6 million cases of appendicitis and 50,100 deaths worldwide. If your appendix gets ripe, that thing has to come out. Now hold that thought.
Surgical procedures are tough enough with the proper tools under controlled
circumstances. Jock McLaren had to make do with slightly less.
The Manliest Man in the World
Born in Scotland, Robert Kerr “Jock” McLaren served as a grunt in Europe during World War I. After the war, Jock immigrated to Queensland, Australia, studied to become a veterinarian, and settled down to make a life for himself. When Australia was dragged into World War II, Dr. McLaren volunteered to go off and do his bit yet again.
During one engagement with the Japanese in 1942, Jock McLaren was captured and remanded to the hellish Changi POW camp in Singapore. The Japanese viewed captured soldiers with particular disdain and typically tried to work and starve them to death. McLaren escaped in short order and, upon his recapture, was transported to another ghastlier camp in Borneo.
Jock escaped yet again along with a Chinese comrade named Johnny Funk and trekked 270 miles across the Pacific, hopping from island to island in a hollowed-out log. Once they arrived on the island of Mindanao, they realized that the Philippines had fallen to the Japanese … and that Jock McLaren had developed appendicitis. With the Japanese actively hunting for them, Jock now had a hard decision to make.
Equipped solely with a razor blade, two spoons, and a hand mirror, Jock McLaren removed his own appendix. He sort of sterilized his equipment by boiling water in a rice pot over a campfire. The operation took four and a half hours without anesthetic. He closed the wound with plant fibers harvested from the surrounding jungle. Two days later, he was on his feet and evading the Japanese yet again. Soon thereafter, McLaren was fighting alongside Philippine guerillas.
Jock McLaren commandeered an antiquated 26-foot whaling boat he christened The Bastard, festooned it with pilfered mortars and machine guns, and used the vessel to terrorize occupying Japanese troops. Despite a hefty bounty on his head, McLaren survived the war. Of his surgical ordeal in the jungle, he later opined, “It was hell, but I came through all right.” I suppose it really all comes down to your motivation.
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- More people own guns today than ever before. That growth continues a long-term trend that goes back several decades. In addition to that gradual increase, we’ve also seen extraordinary growth in new gun buyers in the last two years. We had to rewrite who owns guns and why they own them.
Today, about four-out-of-ten families have a firearm in their home. Despite the astounding changes in gun ownership, the way some politicians talk about guns and gun owners is out of date. New gun owners are subjected to a crash course in being misperceived and misrepresented by politicians and the mainstream news media.
What is real, and what is fantasy?
Sitting President, Joe Biden, echoed old myths about gun owners at a fundraising event in June. He said, “More people get killed with their own gun in their home trying to stop a burglar than, in fact, any other cause.. Think about that. Because it’s hard to do. It’s a hard thing to do.”
Mayor John Fetterman, the Democrat candidate for the US Senate from Pennsylvania, also felt the need to comment on guns and gun ownership. He said, “I have seen with my own eyes at the scenes in my community what a military-grade round does to the human body.” He said that rifles, particularly modern rifles, should be outlawed.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul said, “This whole concept that a good guy with a gun will stop the bad guys with a gun, it doesn’t hold up. And the data bears this out, so that theory is over.”
Those statements don’t fit what we know. We know a lot about new gun owners because we talked with them. Gun stores asked new gun owners why they wanted a gun so the gun shop employee could direct the customer to the appropriate products. The industry trade group representing firearms manufacturers and distributors collected those answers.
The stereotypical gun owner used to be an old white man who bought a gun to go hunting. Several years ago, personal safety replaced hunting as the major reason new gun owners buy firearms. Today, gun owners are from every demographic group; male and female, rich and poor, urban and rural. Gun owners represent every ethnic and racial group. About one-out-of-four African-American adults own a firearm. It seems strange that the mainstream media and politicians have deliberately ignored that change.
We saw firearms ownership increase for many reasons. Concealed carry of a personal firearm is now common in all but a handful of states. Not only are tens of millions licensed to carry a personal firearm in public, but we also exercise those permits daily.
Today, about one-out-of-a-dozen adults carry a firearm in public when and where it is legally permissible to do so. We also stop most attempted mass murders when the government allows us to carry our firearms. Good men and women, ordinary civilians, use firearms to protect themselves and their families more than four thousand times a day. Excluding some politicians, more and more of us have concluded that armed defense works.
Another reason for increased gun ownership is the unusual increase in crime we’ve seen in the last few years. Our judicial system stopped removing repeat criminals from society during the Covid lockdowns. The resulting increase in crime touched our families and friends. Many of us discovered that the police will not be there to protect us. Millions of us responded by buying a firearm and protecting ourselves.
We should probably add a third factor that increased the rate of firearms ownership. The Covid lockdowns reduced the time we could spend with friends and extended family. We spent more time looking at our computers and our phones. During the lockdowns, the news media had a larger influence on our perception of what is happening in the world around us.
To deliver viewers to their declining list of advertisers, the news media fed us a concentrated diet of sensationalized crime reports. Crime indeed increased in the last few years, but the tiny screens brought crime to where we live as never before. In combination, factors like these significantly increased both the number and diversity of legal firearms owners.
We defend ourselves with a firearm between 1.7 and 2.5 million times a year. 44 percent of black gun owners reported using firearms to defend themselves or their families. Many of us know someone who used a firearm in self-defense. In contrast, I never heard the mainstream media correct President Biden’s statement that our guns kill more of us than they save. That leaves our personal experience in direct contradiction with the President’s claim and the media’s twisted narrative about gun owners.
Mayor Fetterman’s claim sounds strange to me as well. Looking at our history, even the ubiquitous 9mm handgun cartridge was first carried as a military round. Today, the 9mm is the most common handgun cartridge carried by both law enforcement and civilians.
When a policeman is carrying it, the modern rifle is called a “personal defense weapon” or a “patrol rifle.” The same gun made out of metal and plastic is relabeled by anti-gun politicians as an “assault rifle” and a “military-grade weapon” when our neighbors own one. The modern rifle is called a “weapon of war,” even though no modern military branch would field the semi-automatic rifles that US civilians are allowed to own today. Today’s military rifles are capable of automatic fire, and ours are not.
Fetterman’s gun-confiscation proposal might make some sense if we only looked at one side of the argument. Fetterman deliberately ignored the hundred thousand times a year that long guns were used in armed defense. We have about 25 million modern rifles in civilian hands here in the US. If these gun owners were a problem to society, then we would surely know it. Modern rifles save many more lives than they cost, but that isn’t what we see on television.
The news media sells sensationalized stories and leaves out the additional facts that put violence into perspective. About four times as many people are killed with knives than are killed with rifles each year. Drowning kills ten times more people each year than die from “assault weapons.” According to FBI homicide statistics, more people were killed with hands and feet than were killed with a long gun of any kind.
We agree that violent crime is shocking, but the mainstream news media never called out the distortions of these anti-gun politicians. The media often reports when a criminal uses a firearm. In contrast, the media seldom reports when our neighbors use their legally owned firearms to stop a crime.
Each time that a major US media outlet mentions an armed citizen using a legally owned firearm to save lives, the media runs hundreds of stories where criminals used a gun. That media bias turns the world upside down. In fact, armed defense is several times more common than a criminal using a firearm during the commission of a crime. This deliberate editorial policy misrepresents the news of armed defense by a factor of over a thousand to one. That is why we think that mass murder is common and that armed defense is rare.
If you only know what you’re told by the mainstream press, then you might believe the gun-control politicians too. One hint is that many Democrat politicians own guns even as they vote for ever more gun-control laws to disarm the rest of us.
The stereotype of gun owners is a lie. The media calls us male-pale-and-stale, and who cares if old white men are disarmed anyway. In fact, gun owners now look like a cross-section of the USA. Minority urban women are the fastest-growing segment of new gun owners. I think Democrat politicians are afraid that more women and minorities will decide to become gun owners. These new gun owners might enter the culture of armed America and protect themselves.
That fear keeps Democrat politicians up at night.
About Rob Morse
The original article, with references, is posted here. Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, Clash Daily, Second Call Defense, and his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob was an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.