Chris Schwartz (Black Hawk County, Iowa Supervisor) debunked on gun control & crime

This was originally a response to Senaturd Cory Booker of New Jersey (live shot of the essay https://www.facebook.com/notes/old-fart-rants-debunked/debunking-cory-booker-on-gun-control/2509040259332375/ & if you refuse to log into Facebook, here are the archived shots https://archive.ph/i51ly https://web.archive.org/web/20190529053335/https://www.facebook.com/notes/old-fart-rants-debunked/debunking-cory-booker-on-gun-control/2509040259332375/ ) but I feel the need to use it (with some amendments) as a response to the vacuous Black Hawk County, Iowa Supervisor Chris Schwartz. He posted some nonsense on gun control & violent crime that I responded to earlier https://rumble.com/v1jns2a-chris-schwartz-black-hawk-county-iowa-supervisor-and-the-real-democrat-insu.htmlShow more

Cory Booker https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/sen-cory-booker-wants-be-gun-control-president has it all figured out on gun control—except he doesn’t. He repeats a lot of Progressive talking points & this is a huge mess of omission & stupidity, let’s deal w/ some of this.

Sen. Booger says, “Ensure a background check on every gun sale by closing the loophole on guns show and online sales and the so-called “Charleston Loophole:”

“Background checks are foundational to any gun safety policy, but loopholes in current law allow individuals to purchase guns in private sales from strangers without a background check. Current law requires that federally licensed firearms dealers conduct background checks on individuals seeking to purchase a firearm in commercial transactions, but prohibited purchasers — such as criminals and domestic abusers — can exploit this loophole simply by finding an unlicensed seller. More than 90 percent of American voters — and nearly 70 percent of NRA members — support universal background checks.”

Do those people have the same idea for “universal background checks” that Sen. Booger does? There is no “Charleston Loophole” https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-comey-regarding-dylann-roof-gun-purchase little man, Dylann Roof https://web.archive.org/web/20150712200646/http:/www.ijreview.com/2015/07/365507-dylann-roof-illegally-obtained-gun-used-fbi-just-announced-allowed-happen/ should have been flagged https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-accused-charleston-shooter-should-not-have-been-able-to-buy-gun/2015/07/10/0d09fda0-271f-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html for a narcotics violation. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama & Ted Kennedy are three elitist Progressives who are all-for throwing young black men in jail for “smokin’ the Ganja”. [NOTE: I am in favor of allowing all non-violent “offenders” who have nothing but possession of marijuana as their charge. I do NOT like it when Soros-backed prosecutors allow violent people to plea down to a drug charge, dropping the assault charges]

I, however, don’t favor throwing young black men in prison for doing drugs (so long as they’re non-violent in all other areas) – but under current law Dylann Roof should have been prohibited from legally purchasing a firearm.

Miss Booger is fibbing on this point as he must know this, unless he’s as dumb as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Most of these “unlicensed sellers” *2* are gang-bangers in the hood Miss Booker, not white rednecks at gun shows handing out “assault weapons” like candy on Halloween. The so-called Gunshow Loophole is a pimple & this clown wants it to morph into an all-encompassing staph infection. https://archive.ph/n772c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcZGkdw2kgs

Miss Booker, ever take a gander at homicide demographics? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOvHY5Rq2TE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QULhUVDskNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BitGFAs0tA http://freewebs.com/professor_enigma/covid-increase-homicides I would ask you Chris Schwartz (Black Hawk County, Iowa Supervisor) the same question old man. You ever looked at homicide demographics? Victims & offenders – they tend to be black men.

Why is it African-American or black men (specifically young black men) are disproportionately committing homicide (among homicides where the perpetrator is known) & disproportionately victims of homicide?

There is plenty of white trash in places like Oklahoma & Mississippi committing homicide, but we definitely have a signal here.

In a lot of states, especially in poor areas concentrated w/ blacks—we have a massive homicide problem. Miss Booker doesn’t have the “guts” to admit that, too bad.

Why is lilly-white Vermont—which requires no license to carry a concealed weapon—such a safe place to live? Sure, Vermont’s white voters put insane folks in office (and Bernie Sanders is not nearly as crazy on guns as most Democrats are), but Vermont’s white voters aren’t insane.

What would happen if we relocated Chicago’s best South Side Hoods (say Englewood) & placed them all in public housing in Montpelier, South Burlington & Burlington? Would single-payer in Vermont solve the problem?

Let’s just be honest here, you can call me racist, but even if federal taxpayers footed the bill for it, the Progressive white voters in those counties would be heading for the hills or gated communities, period. Even Obama wouldn’t relocate his troglodytes there.

What he means by “universal background checks” is basically this: If Fred Smith sells his daddy’s old .357 revolver to his neighbor Joe Six Pack III then the FBI needs to be in on this transaction.

Booger also wants to ban assault weapons & so-called “high-capacity magazines.” I’ve already addressed that here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcZGkdw2kgs one could commit mass shootings w/ a speedloader for crying out loud. I could & should also mention that mass shootings are a small % of all homicides. Banning so-called “assault weapons” won’t have a discernible effect on the homicide rate en masse. [NOTE: From 2004-2018, 68.882% of all homicides were committed where a firearm did the dirty deed. About a third of the time, the assailant uses a knife, crowbar, some other object or personal weapons to commit the crime. They did not need a gun. In the same time frame, ONLY 5.154% of all homicides were committed w/a rifle or shotgun. In addition, for years 2008-2015, 2017-18 the average % of “multiple victim” homicides equaled 10.74%. The vast majority of homicides feature one victim & by far the most common occurrence is “single victim/single offender” as some Progressives are trying to focus on “mass shootings” to get away from the fact that the most common form of homicide in the U.S. is an African-American killing another African-American. It’s very disproportionate. http://freewebs.com/professor_enigma/black-lives-do-not-matter ]

I am not saying they’re not important, just that obsession over mass shootings misses the big picture. It’s akin to Democrats going crazy over shotguns & rifle killings, when handguns (they have since learned this & are zeroing-in on basically all firearms) purchased on the black market kill more folks each year.

In fact, in a typical year more folks are murdered with an object (crowbar, baseball bat or car) or personal weapons (hands, fist, feet) than rifles & shotguns combined. If we just banned alcohol, we could “save” thousands of folks from being pasted all over America’s highways each year by drunk drivers.

Booger wants to go after gun manufacturers (I wonder where Bernie Sanders will sit on this as he voted for “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” I discussed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6lZerrLrXM ) & basically allow them to be shuttered w/ class action lawsuits.

Perhaps we should go after General Motors for drunk drivers or perhaps Anheuser-Busch should be the business getting the sharp end of the stick? Can we sue the sperm donors for fatherless children who didn’t do their job when they got their baby momma knocked-up & then this “son of someone” went on a rampage in the hood?

Can parents sue the school district if their child “graduates” & can’t even run a cash register? Can I sue politicians who reward people for generations of poverty & give them more “benefits” that only perpetuate the problem?

Why doesn’t Senator Booger mention the black out-of-wedlock birth rate https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoA9J0G6s-6owc0S5klji-hEBtbAzbloB? You think that might be a portion of the problem concerning black-on-black homicide? Those folks don’t care about FFLs & never will.

He then says, “Automobiles have become safer, in part, as a result of federal investment in research, but Congress has not provided federal funds to research gun safety.”

He doesn’t mention anything specific of course (because he has nothing specific—automobiles became safer not because of, but in spite of federal funds) & most of the time federal funding (I have numerous examples here http://freewebs.com/professor_enigma/oldfartrants2.htm & here) http://freewebs.com/professor_enigma/old-fart-rants-4 doesn’t make anything better (consumers would have demanded safer, more resilient vehicles that get better MPG & guess what—they got it!). Here are some examples I compiled:

#44: Washington subsidizes heavier-than-air flight & magnificently fails. I found a conflict reading on this subject as the Being Classically Liberal Blog says the gubmint gave Samuel Langley a $50,000 grant. Another page pegged it at $70,000, which I believe is the correct total. $70,000 was a monstrous amount of money back in 1898. Making a long story short, Langley was beaten to the punch by the Wright Brothers, who didn’t need taxpayer-funded “objects of benevolence” from Washington. Washington tries to spend to make heavier-than-air flight a reality & it didn’t work. We’ve seen this story before have we not? Subsidizing clean energy, which has been a boon… so long as you’re not paying for it.

#78 When football season kicks off, you might notice something new stalking up and down the sidelines. No, not a boisterous head coach, or a menacing linebacker itching to get in the game. It’ll be a digital down marker… one your tax dollars paid to help develop.

You heard that right. Auburn University used nearly $130k in federal funds from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to help develop the eDown, a battery powered down marker that displays numbers from 1 to 4 in LED lights.

It all started when a scoreboard manufacturer from Roanoke, AL, (about 45 miles from Auburn) contacted the university with the idea for a digital down marker. The problem, it seems, is the old mechanical down markers were less visible in lower light, required operators to reach above their head, and could jam (we never noticed that).

Auburn agreed it was time for something new and, armed with EDA funding, used a semester-long industrial design course to help develop the down marker. Sixteen students (all presumably paying tuition) developed eight prototypes, one of which was selected by the private scoreboard company that now SELLS the marker as the eDown.

If You Build It… Others Will Profit: “The group [at Auburn] worked so well as a team, and everyone contributed something to the final design. As a result, our company now has a product that is already setting a new standard in professional, collegiate and high school football.”

The scoreboard company “now has a product,” the eDown, they can sell and profit from. However, at nearly 15 times the price of a traditional, mechanical down marker, one has to wonder if a market exists for this Cadillac of its industry. If not, it is only the taxpayer who bore development risk; in other words, the upside is to the company and the downside to the taxpayers.

Consider this: a scoreboard manufacturer already deals with digital displays used at sporting events. This particular manufacturer specializes in scoreboard and game clocks that are mobile – requiring a battery.

It appears this company was already well positioned to develop the eDown on their own. One might argue they needed some technical assistance similar to how a farmer might use a university extension program. But Auburn made the prototype. That is not like an extension program testing your soil; it is like them planting your fields for you.

If it weren’t for federal funding, football would stink & that eDown wouldn’t exist. The horror!

#38: In FY2014, the federal government had 1,074 UNUTILIZED warehouses. Not underutilized, but unutilized warehouses, which was higher than the FY2013 total. Many government warehouses simply store outdated technology & should be sold. But the reason this continues is Washington has its fingers in so many pies, they can’t possibly manage this mess. Time for some downsizing.

#45: AMTRAK, otherwise known as that giant vacuum that sucks up taxpayer wallets. AMTRAK should close all routes that are not in the Northeast corridor because they do not make any money. Thousands upon thousands of folks are not itching to travel to Jerkwater, Montana every week. No offence to my friends in Montana. Once all those routes outside the Northeast Corridor are shuttered, it should be sold off and/or its assets liquidated, period. It doesn’t run a profit, if it did not get subsidies from people who do NOT ride it, it would die, period.

In FY2013, AMTRAK received >1.5 billion in taxpayer subsidies. In FY2014 it was $1.4 billion. That’s a great deal, if you’re not paying for it. But people need AMTRAK, some will say. 1) It’s not a post road, thus it is not constitutional 2) It’s obvious the folks riding are not paying to keep it running because then they would squawk at the exorbitant prices. Reminds me of the NFL soaking taxpayers to build a new stadium. Let the folks who buy the merchandise, let the advertisers on TV, let the folks who buy tickets pay for that garbage. People who don’t give a flying squirrel about the NFL should not pay for it.

Same goes for AMTRAK. AMTRAK’s own literature is very candid in admitting what I’ve said. It has a poor business model & once folks who do NOT ride it quit paying for it, it will die the death it deserves. It’s always easier to get folks who don’t use it to pay for it, right? Imagine if every business did that. The horrors of bankruptcy for AMTRAK, some poor taxpayer won’t get bilked anymore. That’s so unfair. Unfair to whom?

AMTRAK lost over 3.6 billion in FY2012-14 alone. Nice job! So, why on earth do we continue to subsidize & support this entity? Because these idiots in Washington are either economically illiterate or they’re trying to buy votes, or both.

That’s just a small sample, search “Edwards’ Budget Law” for dozens of other wonderful (or not) examples of government waste. Miss Booker is quite confused & turns a blind eye to a government that wastes a few dollars for every dollar it “invests” in the future of your children.

E.G. You can spend a lot of money trying to “send everyone to college” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4PjmmZ8t5Q because we’ll all magically become smarter & we’ll be living in a land of milk & honey—but it won’t work. It’s well-intentioned to a point, but you’ll end up w/ a lot of folks getting useless degrees, failing to get a useful (or useless) degree, being buried in debt while running the cash register or having “a decent job” that doesn’t require the degree you got.

The Senator is just nuts & he doesn’t care about results, his only line is to say we need to throw federal money @ X & by golly the problem will take care of itself. Uh, no it won’t Booger.

His last gasp is this: “Modernize and strengthen the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF): As a result of relentless lobbying by the gun lobby, the ATF is drastically underfunded and has its hands tied.”

Ok, so the ATF is underfunded. We’ve heard this song before—education is underfunded, health care is underfunded, highways are underfunded, Ritalin for Progressives in Cleveland’s blighted neighborhoods is underfunded, condoms for idiots & family-planning is underfunded, the Pentagon is under… wait… that’s a Republican line. Anyways, is the ATF “underfunded” (none of Booger’s supporters are going to look this up because Cory hasn’t either & they don’t care) or not?

If we take a gander at OMB https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/hist-fy2020.pdf Historical federal outlays https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/ for the Justice Dept. (nominal dollars), which the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms) or ATF is a part of the outlays for FY2004-08 were $25.036 billion, FY 2009-13 = $29.738 billion, FY 2014-18 = $30.111 billion. Doesn’t look like a shortage of spending there, eh?

Now let’s look at Justice Dept. & specifically the ATF *1* & see what we can see (inflation adjusted dollars). Go here, https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/charts/ click the “+” on “Department of Justice” & that will drop down a lot of options (this was accessed on 5/28/19).

Then submit a check mark on “Department of Justice” & also “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.” You may want to view them separately as you can more-readily see the explosion (pun intended) in ATF spending from 1990-2000 or 2000-2010. However, since FY2010 it has seen a slight decrease. Here are screenshots of what I posted above https://archive.ph/s9ZXW https://archive.ph/yni1p

The Justice Dept. has seen the same explosion in spending (but if you start at the high watermark of FY2004, it has flattened), but don’t expect Miss Booger, I mean Booker to go into a long-winded dissertation on that because it would debunk his argument.

Bottom line, if you look at inflation-adjusted spending since FY2000, it’s been increasing at a good clip. So, just like John McCain, where no amount of war or defense spending is enough—it doesn’t matter what we spend, Bookend will whine that it’s “underfunded.” I guess it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So, was Cory Booker misinformed or is he a lying sack of…?

BONUS: I should mention this; the ATF https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRlhMU3DRo4 was caught https://personalliberty.com/atf-forgot-comply-policy-accidently-creating-gun-database/ red-handed creating a gunowner database http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678091.pdf (which is prohibited by law) by using defunct FFLs. Whoops! Why didn’t the little man mention that?

*1* As an aside, I tried to find ATF spending figures on their website but there’s not much there & they don’t make it easily-accessible—see https://www.atf.gov/file/59141/download, https://www.atf.gov/file/59251/download & https://www.atf.gov/file/59226/download for some examples. I tried folks, I tried but keeping to the general theme of government being a bureaucratic mess, getting ATF historical outlays for the common man to read will probably require a Special Congressional Commission.

*2* I should add this from the Heritage Foundation https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/05/07/to-sen-cory-booker-gun-ownership-is-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/ on Booger’s proposal. They stress the fact that you don’t have to demonstrate a need to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, just as Rosa Parks didn’t have to demonstrate a need to sit at the front of the bus.

“The worst part about Booker’s plan is that it doesn’t actually address real problems, and therefore would not be effective at lowering rates of gun-related violence.”

“https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf We already know that most gun-related crime is committed by individuals who are already prohibited from owning firearms and obtained guns through illegal channels (I already covered this in one of my videos linked above). When would-be criminals do go through official legal channels, they do so because they don’t have disqualifying criminal or mental health histories and know they will pass a background check.”

“Targeting law-abiding citizens with more restrictions and additional burdens on the exercise of a constitutional right does nothing to stop the very people who already ignore existing laws. It’s the equivalent of suggesting that we can stop people from driving cars without a valid license if we would just make it harder to get a valid driver’s license in the first place.”

From the Bureau of Justice Statistics (January 2019):

“An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it of the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer… Prisoners who reported that they had purchased a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer at a retail source were further asked whether they bought the firearm under their own name and whether they knew a background check was conducted. Among those who had possessed a firearm during the offense for which they were imprisoned, 7% of state and 8% of federal prisoners had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer at a retail source, while approximately 1% of state and 2% of federal prisoners had purchased a firearm from a licensed dealer at a retail source but did not purchase it under their own name (not shown in table)…”

“Prisoners who reported purchasing or trading a firearm from a retail source (gun shop or gun store, pawn shop, flea market, or gun show) were asked if they purchased or traded it from a licensed firearm dealer or a private seller. Prisoners who reported they purchased a firearm from a retail source were further asked whether they bought the firearm under their own name and whether the seller did a firearm purchase background check before selling them the firearm. About 1% of the respondents who possessed a firearm during the offense purchased or traded it from a retail source and were missing responses on whether they bought the firearm from a licensed dealer or private seller. About 1% of respondents who possessed a firearm during the offense purchased it from a retail source and were missing responses on whether the firearm was purchased under their own name or whether a background check was conducted [NOTE: See Table 5 for more details]”

If Chris Schwartz screeches about us not doing enough about the black market, I will point out to the old man that our southern border is wide-open thanks for your fake President & fentanyl, while illegal as the day is long is flowing over basically unabated.

I’m sure some guns are coming with it. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

***ADDENDUM***

I need to add this from the Cato Institute on police spending https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/police-spending-soars-federal-level https://www.cato.org/blog/spending-police-state

If I HAD MY WAY Washington would only be in the business of funding police to protect federal buildings, like courthouses, not run-of-the-mill police departments across the fruited plain, but this is the situation we’re in.

Just as it is not Washington’s job to fund education, they are in the business of funding every local jerkwater school district (and attaching strings to it) across America.

We could return & should return that to the taxpayers in the form of lower tax rates. Funding the local police department & the state patrol should be the job of taxpayers in that particular state, not the job of the pols in Washington, but this is the world we live in.

Funding unemployment programs & food stamp programs should be the job of taxpayers in that particular state, not the job of Washington E.G. If California wants to expand its food stamp/SNAP program to most of the state & pay much of its labor force to “shelter in place” for years during COVID_19, they can raise the money for it instead of fleecing taxpayers in Iowa for it who are still working. Get it?

“As part of the national income accounts, the Bureau of Economic Analysis publishes data on police spending by the federal and state‐local governments (Table 3.16). The data are charted below as a percent of GDP from 1960 to 2018. Spending on state‐local police rose as a share of GDP from 1990 to 2010 but has declined since then. Spending as a share of GDP is about one‐third higher today than in the 1980s.”

“Meanwhile, federal police spending has skyrocketed from 0.05 percent of GDP in the 1980s, on average, to 0.26 percent over the past decade. As a share of GDP, federal police spending has quadrupled since the 1980s and doubled since the 1990s. This mainly includes spending on federal functions such as the FBI, but also includes relatively small amounts for grants to state‐local police agencies.”

I understand Cato’s point but using GDP might be misleading. Program A could sink for example from 0.5% of GDP during an earlier time frame & during a latter time frame be 0.4%. Does that de facto mean that it’s spending has fallen & things are good?

No, it does not. The spending OVERALL could be increasing so fast & at the same time GDP is increasing, yet Program A’s spending is not increasing as fast, meaning it could still be a problem.

The reverse could be true. Program A could be consuming more of GDP, but GDP overall & spending overall might be growing at a much faster clip.

Government can inflate GDP by increasing production of say tanks or battleships for an unnecessary war. It would not create wealth; it would only move money around & increase GDP. Government could increase GDP by hiring millions of people to dig holes & hiring millions more to fill those holes with dirt. Government could hiring millions of unnecessary administrators at a “Federal Ministry of Truth” & that would increase GDP.

That is why I would avoid using GDP as a metric on this, even as I understand what Cato is getting at.

When one looks at state/local police spending per capita you can see high homicide states w/ spending well above the national average (MD, DE, IL) & you can see low homicide states w/spending well above the national average (WY, NJ). You also see low homicide states spending much less than the national avg. (ME, IA, KS, ID) & high homicide states spending much less than the U.S. average (KY, MO, MS, MI).

I too, do not know what the “proper level” of spending for the local/state police is, I just know they should all wear bodycams, they should not be abolished, Washington should not be involved in it (or education & health care either) & that money should be returned to taxpayers as they are taxed for it.

I also know Black Hawk County, Iowa Supervisor Chris Schwartz is not educated on firearms & instead just regurgitates #blacklivesmatter talking points he gleans from the idiot box/MSNBC or the interwebs.

He isn’t very bright.

I also know the real Democrat #INSURRECTION is to abolish the police or intimidate them into not policing high-crime areas, they want to throw folks like Kyle Rittenhouse in jail when they defend their community from fatherless #blacklivesmatter terrorists, they want to take everyone’s guns away so you cannot defend yourself from these miscreants & they want to let violent lunatics out of prison. That my friends, is the real Democrat #INSURRECTION Next month, throw the bums out.