The Real Reason Behind the Oregon Standoff

Based on media coverage, most people think that the standoff in Oregon and the prior one in Nevada were all about some right-wing, anti-government, wacko ranchers in the West refusing to pay grazing fees for allowing their animals to graze on Federal land. But, there's a bigger issue that is driving these events and here's the graphic that explains it:

Source: BigThink: See Link Below

For decades, every President has burnished their legacy by creating new federal lands by executive order.  Congress unfortunately afforded each president this ability with the passage of the Antiquities Act of 1906. The West has been the biggest target with now, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) controlling 58% of the land in the 10 farthest western states; and, an astounding 85% of Nevada.

In recent years, the target of these land grabs have been more about blocking human activities such as drilling for oil and mining, than preserving lands as national treasures.  The bottom line is that the Federal government is controlling massive tracts of land and is collecting all kinds of fees that should rightly belong to the states. Also, it is believed that $2 billion annually is lost to mismanagement of these lands by the BLM and other federal agencies.

By comparison, the East, the South, and the Midwest have been unfairly left alone in the efforts to nationalize lands as noted by the red areas on this map:

This is why we may see many more Oregon and Nevada standoffs in the future; and I don't think it will just be by ranchers.  In 2015 alone, there were 50 bills submitted in western state legislatures to reclaim land taken from the states by various Presidents.  By all accounts, the Obama Administration has made it much more difficult to do anything on Federal lands; especially for ranchers.

Lastly, President Obama's latest edict to place a moratorium on new leases for coal mining on Federal land primarily hurts 5 western states: Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico.  Again, because of the decades long Federal land grab, it is the states in the West that will see potential losses of jobs, and certainly, losses in revenues.

References:

I’m an Oregon rancher. Here’s what you don’t understand about the Bundy standoff: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/08/im-an-oregon-rancher-heres-what-you-dont-understand-about-the-bundy-standoff/

Imbalance of Federal Land Ownership Sheds Light on Oregon Militia: http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

Western States Fighting for Control of Federal Lands: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/10/06/western-states-fighting-control-federal-lands

Antiquities Act of 1906: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_Act

Mining moratorium a blow to Wyoming's coal industry: The vast majority of that mining on government land takes place in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/16/mining-moratorium-blow-to-wyomings-coal-industry.html?intcmp=hplnws 

Obama, Australia, and Gun Control

Following the Umpqua Community College mass shooting, President Obama gave another speech advocating gun control.  An excerpt follows:

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.

Then, he goes on to talk about "common sense" gun control laws. So somehow, we are supposed to believe, that if we did what Australia did, all our mass shootings would just go away.

But we need to understand just what was done in Australia.

They banned all semi-automatic weapons and literally confiscated nearly a million of them from their citizens through a constitutionally mandated buy-back program.  They did this with a simple parliamentary vote in 1996 following another mass shooting in their country. It is now, in most cases,  punishable by imprisonment to own a semi-automatic weapon there.

So, the real question is whether or not Australia's severe gun control laws had any impact on homicides and mass shootings.

First, mass shootings nearly disappeared since the passage of the 1996 law. However, also understand that neighboring New Zealand experienced a similar drop despite not having enacted any ban on semi-automatics. In fact, the incidents of mass shootings in both Australia and New Zealand have tracked very close to each other since 1969. Thus, implying that the absence of mass shootings had more to do with societal changes and little to do with any presence or lack of weapons.

Also, there was no perceptible change in the decline of firearm-related deaths which started in 1969; nearly 3 decades before the ban on semi-automatics and as noted by this Australian government chart:

Also, the next chart shows that homicides actually spiked after the law went into effect:

In our own country, gun violence has been steadily declining since peaking in 1993; proving again that societal changes are at play, not any type of gun restrictions.

It never ceases to amaze me how impassioned Obama has become over gun control since the House of Representatives became majority-controlled by the GOP in 2011.  Where was that same passion when he had control of both Houses in 2009 and 2010?  In 2009, there was the horrific Newtown shooting at Sandy Hook, yet neither Obama nor the Democrats did anything about it. Where was the passage of any single "common sense" gun control law in those two years?  Personally, I believe that the President would actually prefer that no new gun control laws are passed right now so that he and the other Democrats can use it as a political weapon against the GOP.  He also has to know that according to Gallup 47% of Americans own guns, and that the fastest growth groups of gun ownership are woman, and yes, Democrats; with 43% and 40% ownership, respectively.  Also, according to the NRA, half of all guns sold in the last few years are semi-automatics.  Gun ownership is just too high a hurdle for Obama and the Democrats to get anything done here.

Lastly, while mass shootings have dwindled to near nothing in Australia, mass killings haven't.  Just as the Boston Marathon bombers didn't need a semi-automatic weapon to kill 3 and injure 264, Australians don't need semi-automatics to kill a lot of people. Instead, they use arson, hammers, and knives to commit mass murder.  Would you prefer repeated blows to the head with a hammer or a single shot from a gun?

References:

Watch President Obama's Statement on the Shooting in Oregon: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/10/01/watch-president-obamas-statement-shooting-oregon

Gun Laws: Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia

Australian Institute of Criminology: Homicides: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Gun Violence in the U.S.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Australian Mass Murders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

Semi-Automatic Firearms and the “Assault Weapon” Issue Overview: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

The Politics of Gun Control

More than once in the hours following the Umpqua Community College Shooting, I have heard a Democrat claim that the majority of Americans want stricter gun control.  In fact, Harry Reid said this: “Americans want us to act. We cannot dodge this conversation forever.”

Wrong! A majority of Democrats might want more gun control, but most Americans don't; as noted by this latest polling on the topic:

Click on Image to Enlarge

The fact is, that when Independents and Republicans are added up against the Democrats that favor stronger gun control laws, the opposition to it is slightly higher than those for it; 48% to 45%.  And, please note the opposition has grown from 40% in 2008.

In that same polling, the vast majority -- near or above the 90th percentile -- said that there should be background checks for all gun buyers, and that the mentally ill should not own guns.

Maybe some movement in these two areas might -- and that's a big might -- squelch the political left's cries.  But, this I am sure of.  The incidents of mass shooting will still happen because, in most of these cases, the guns used were legally obtained.   Also, with a growing number of Americans in opposition to stricter controls, the chances of getting a two-thirds vote to amend the constitution to negate the right of gun ownership is totally out of the question.

References:

Democratic Lawmakers Urge Gun Control After Oregon Shooting: http://time.com/4059431/oregon-shooting-gun-control-senate-democrats/

White House: Earnest said that the "vast majority of Americans" want to beef up the nation's gun laws: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/9435089/obama-oregon-shooting 

Polling Report: Gun Polls: http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Survey: Majority of Americans Not Interested in Gun Control: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/30/survey-majority-of-americans-not-interested-in-gun-control-for-2016/