Gun Crimes Increase 89% in UK

How's that "gun control" working out for the UK?

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. 

The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place. 

How can that be?  How could gun violence and "the carrying of a firearm" "become increasingly common place" in a country that declared itself a "gun-free zone"?  Isn't that what "gun control" is supposed to prevent?

At the same time, violent crime has dropped steadily in the US since its peak in 1991.  As I wrote recently...

the murder rate in the US was far lower in 2011 at 4.7/100,000 than its 1991 peak of 9.8/100,000.  

In other words, murder rates have decreased steadily since 1991, even though gun sales increased.

Still, there are millions of Americans who don't get it, and do things like make schools "gun free zones".  How's that working out?

Dressed in black fatigues and a military vest, a heavily armed man walked into a Connecticut elementary school Friday and opened fire, shattering the quiet of this southern New England town and leaving the nation reeling at the number of young lives lost. 

Within minutes, 26 people were dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School -- 20 of them children. Among the six adults killed were Dawn Hochsprung, the school's beloved principal, and school psychologist Mary Sherlach.

Once again, an evil, depraved person broke the law (surprise!) and took loaded guns into a "gun-free zone" and killed his defenseless victims at will and with zero opposition.

Young students described being ushered into bathrooms and closets by teachers as the first shots rang out. Janet Vollmer, a kindergarten teacher, locked her classroom doors, covered the windows and read a story to her 19 students to keep them calm.  

What if the government hadn't violated those teachers' Second Amendment rights?  What if at least one teacher had the ability to fight back?  How many of the people who are now dead would still be alive?

Glenn Reynolds highlights the insanity of "gun-free zone"-thinking.

"After a shooting spree," author William Burroughs once said, "they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it."

There are a lot of problems with this approach, but one of the most significant is this one: It doesn't work. One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well. 

In a way, this is no surprise. If there's someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself. And, in fact, many mass shootings — from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker — have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter. 

Policies making areas "gun free" provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren't stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it's the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law.

 Gosh.  Maybe "gun control" has nothing to do with preventing crime!

UPDATE: Psychiatrist, Dr. Keith Ablow, writes... 

One other thing:  Those who call for gun control after incidents like this contribute nothing to the solution.  Gunmen like Friday’s plan their actions, right down to wearing military garb.  They could certainly procure illegal firearms or use incendiary devices to kill.  I only wish the kindergarten teacher and principal in Connecticut had been armed.

I suspect that those who call for gun control after incidents like this don't actually want solutions.

Why We Home School (Continued)

Michigan's teachers apparently can't be bothered to teach their students (only 7% of Detroit's 8th graders read at grade level) but they do have time to protest Michigan's recent right to work law. 

Some 26,000 Michigan students did not attend school Tuesday after hundreds of teachers called out sick in protest of a right-to-work law that many fear will deliver a crippling blow to unions.

Because what's most important is the unions' power, not the kids' education.  Got it.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed the controversial bill into law Tuesday afternoon, hours after the Republican-controlled state House passed the legislation in a 58-51 vote.
........
The law makes it illegal to require nonunion employees to pay unions for negotiating contracts and other services.

And that's what makes the teachers so angry.  Naturally, people who deny parents the right to choose where their kids go to school also deny workers the right to choose whether or not to voluntarily pay union dues.

Then again, considering that these teachers can't even spell the governor's name correctly, maybe the students are better off without them.

But we're the crazy ones for home schooling.

Intensity vs. "Cardio"

For decades now, doctors and "fitness experts" have prescribed long, boring, low-intensity "cardio" workouts (running, swimming, cycling, elliptical machines, etc.) to people who need to lose fat as the most effective method of doing so.  I recently wrote about research that demonstrates that excessive endurance training is not only less effective than high-intensity conditioning at burning fat,  but can even be harmful to the heart.

Pepperdine University is studying the metabolic effects of CrossFit on the body, which no one has ever done before.  If the CrossFit Games weren't enough to convince you, now there is scientific evidence for the effectiveness of such training.  The following videos explain what goes on inside the body when we train at high intensity, and why that kind of training is more effective than "cardio" at burning fat.  If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, skip to 7:00 on the second video.

Running on Empty

Long distance runners know that their sport leads to all kinds of chronic overuse injuries: plantar faciitis, shin splints, iliotibial band syndrome, patellar tendinitis - the list goes on and on.  For some reason, they see this as normal, which makes zero sense, but I used to be one of them, so I guess I shouldn't judge (too harshly).

Now, it turns out that excessive endurance training (of any kind) can damage the heart.



World Triathlon Grand Final in Auckland, New Zealand

 Those two studies—presented at recent medical conferences—follow the publication in recent months and years of several other articles finding cardiac abnormalities in extreme athletes, including coronary artery calcification of a degree typically found in the utterly sedentary.

That's right.  Spend hours a day torturing yourself running, cycling and/or swimming, and your reward may be the heart health of a couch potato.

Opinion is nearly unanimous among cardiologists that endurance athletics significantly increases the risk of atrial fibrillation, an arrhythmia that is estimated to be the cause of one third of all strokes. "Chronic extreme exercise appears to cause excessive 'wear-and-tear' on the heart," the editorial says.

In case you think the doctors behind these studies are couch potatoes trying to justify their sedentary habits...

The most vocal proponent of cutting back for cardiac reasons is Dr. O'Keefe, a 56-year-old cardiologist and former elite athlete. From 1999 to 2004, he won outright the largest sprint distance triathlon in Kansas City, a testament not only to his athletic abilities but also to hours and hours of early- and late-hour training.

But a sense that this regimen was aging him prematurely, coupled with the mounting awareness of cardiac issues in extreme endurance athletes, prompted Dr. O'Keefe to slash his running to below 20 miles a week, never faster than eight minutes a mile.



American marathoner, Ryan Hall



This article surprised me.  I've known for years - from painful personal experience - the damage that excessive endurance training does to the muscles, joints and bones.  But I had no idea it also damaged the heart.  On reflection, however, I shouldn't have been surprised. 

When a person focuses exclusively on one component of fitness, all the others will decrease.  In other words, if you focus exclusively on endurance, your strength, power, agility, balance, etc. will inevitably suffer, which means your overall fitness will suffer.  Fitness and health aren't the same thing, but they're closely related.  It makes sense, then, that if your overall fitness suffers, your health will too.

This isn't even new information.

...for years the endurance-athletics movement has prompted words of caution from none other than Kenneth Cooper, the Dallas physician widely credited with launching the aerobics movement nearly half a century ago. "If you are running more than 15 miles a week, you are doing it for some reason other than health," said Dr. Cooper...

So, what  do Drs. O'Keefe and Lavine suggest?

• Avoid a daily routine of exhaustive strenuous exercise training for periods greater than one hour continuously. An ideal target might be not more than seven hours weekly of cumulative strenuous endurance ET.
• Once or twice weekly, perform high-intensity interval exercise training to improve or maintain peak aerobic fitness. This is more effective in improving overall fitness and peak aerobic capacity than is continuous aerobic exercise training, despite a much shorter total accumulated exercise time spent doing the interval workout.
• Incorporate cross training using stretching, for example, yoga, and strength training into the weekly exercise routine. This confers multi-faceted fitness and reduces the burden of cardiac work compared to a routine of daily long-distance endurance exercise training. 
• Avoid chronically competing in very long distance races, such as marathons, ultra-marathons, Ironman distance triathlons, 100-mile bicycle races, etc., especially after age 45 or 50.

At the same time, a recent study claims that strength training increases life and health.

CONCLUSION: Muscular strength is inversely and independently associated with death from all causes and cancer in men, even after adjusting for cardiorespiratory fitness and other potential confounders.

The good Drs. make more suggestions, and I can't say I completely agree with all of them, but let's summarize all these results.

Basically, what the results tell us is that a complete fitness program that trains all components of fitness, while using short, intense, interval workouts and lots of strength training, is best for fitness and long-term health.

Gosh, where have I heard that before?

Again, this shouldn't surprise anyone.  Humans aren't designed to specialize the way other animals are.  Think about it.  No human can swim like a dolphin, but we can swim, and dolphins can't run or climb.  No human can run as fast as a cheetah, but a cheetah overheats and dies if it attempts to run further than 800m (0.5 mile).  No human can climb a tree like a gorilla, but gorillas can't swim. 


American decathlete, Ashton Eaton


We're not designed to do any one thing extremely well.  We're designed to do many things tolerably well. 

In sports terms, we're designed to be decathletes, not distance runners or body builders.  Decathletes, by the nature of their sport, strive for complete fitness, because they compete in...

• 100m dash
• long jump
• shot put
• high jump
• 400m run
• 110m hurdles
• discus throw
• pole vault
• javelin throw
• 1500m run

Obviously, Olympic decathletes aren't just "tolerably" good at all those events.  They're world-class athletes in all those events.  They could probably qualify for the Olympic trials in each event, if they tried.  But Olympic decathletes, like all elite athletes, are genetic freaks, to which we ordinary folk should not compare ourselves.

So then, why do I say we're designed to be decathletes?  Olympic officials introduced the decathlon in 1904 to prove who was the fittest athlete in the world.  To that end, the ten events, together, test the athletes in all 10 components of fitness.

• Strength
• Power
• Speed
• Stamina
• Endurance
• Flexibility
• Agility
• Balance
• Coordination
• Accuracy

That is why the gold medal winning decathlete receives the title of "World's Greatest Athlete".  We should all train across all ten components of fitness, just as decathletes do, because that is what our bodies are designed to do.



Chad Mackay 



But that would take too much time, right?  If training for a pure endurance event requires hours of training per day, then training across all 10 components of fitness must require ten times as much time, right?

Wrong.

CrossFit's prescription of constantly varied functional movements performed at high intensity accomplishes that goal in just minutes a day.  Most CrossFit workouts train multiple components of fitness.  Some train all 10. 

What if you're an endurance athlete and don't want to give up your sport?  Try CrossFit Endurance.  If you follow their prescription, you'll run fewer total miles (preventing injury), improve all 10 components of fitness and spend less time training.  You don't have to be weak and frail, like your average endurance athlete, to excel at endurance.  The 2012 CrossFit games began with a triathlon.  Australian Chad Mackay won that event, despite being the heaviest athlete in the field.

Who looks fitter and healthier to you; marathoner Ryan Hall, or all-around athletes Ashton Eaton and Chad Mackay?

My purpose here is not to diminish the accomplishments of marathoners, ultramarathoners and triathletes.  My purpose is to inform the ordinary person who wants to be fitter and healthier that following that kind of training regimen will achieve neither health nor fitness.

Of course, some people will continue their chronic cardio ways regardless of the risk.

"Even if I knew for sure that running fast had an element of risk, I don't know that I would back down," said Foiles, the 56-year-old runner who lives in a Kansas City suburb. "To finish at the front of my age group, yeah, that's an inspiration."

But let's not pretend that they do it for their health.

Honoring God With Our Bodies

Aimee posted a great article on the importance of us Christians honoring God with our bodies.  But it's probably not what you think.

First, let me be clear about what I’m not talking about.  I am not talking about external beauty.  I’m talking about our health and fitness.  I’m talking about how we treat our bodies.  Our bodies do not belong to us; they belong to God (1 Cor. 6:19-20).  But we are stewards of our bodies.  Are we – as we are supposed to be – in charge of our bodies?  Or are we slaves to our bodies’ whims (I don’t feel like exercising.  I feel like eating a donut, instead of an omelet)?

Here's my favorite part.  One might think the Bible never mentions anything about physical exercise, but one would be wrong!



Note the little girl.  Start strength training young!

 Most wells back then were a type of cistern, and drawing water was women’s work.   She had to physically walk down stairs into the well, draw water to fill her huge clay jar, and walk back up the cistern with it.  She typically carried these huge jugs or jars on her head or shoulders and they weighed about 50 pounds or more when full.  So in the story it was no small feat for Rebecca to water Eliezer's camels.  He had 10 camels and a thirsty camel can drink up to 30 gallons of water in one sitting.  That means Rebecca carried about 300 gallons of water (2,504 lbs, not counting the jug!)  up from the well into the trough.  Do you think she was a frail, skinny thing; or 100 pounds overweight?  Probably not.

God did not design women to be weak.  He even tells us that strength is an ideal feminine quality (Prov. 31:17).

Unfortunately, church-goers are actually more likely to be overweight.  Yes, that study is based on BMI, which is a crock, but you won't find a study based on anything more solid.

Anyway, read Aimee's entire article.  It's good stuff!

“But I discipline my body, and make it my slave for fear that, having proclaimed the Gospel to others, I should be rejected as a counterfeit.”  ~ 1 Corinthians 9:27

Egypt's New Pharaoh

Where are all those "enlightened ones" who told us the Muslim Brotherhood is a "moderate" political organization?

Almost two years after Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak was removed from power, Cairo's Tahrir Square is still an epicenter of protest and violence. It's an epicenter of protest and violence because Egypt is again ruled by a man who has declared himself dictator. The country's new president, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, announced that constitutional declarations, decisions and laws issued by the president are final and not subject to appeal.

That didn't take long.  Egypt just went through the age-old cycle: despotism to revolution, to democracy, right back to despotism.

More Guns, Less Crime - Media Shocked

The Associated Press discovered a disturbing (to a "Liberal") phenomenon: violent crime rates keep dropping even as gun sales soar.

Gun-related violence has fallen steadily since 2006 in Virginia despite record firearm sales, according to a university professor’s analysis.

Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas R. Baker compared state crime data from 2006 through 2011 with gun-dealer sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Baker’s analysis shows the number of gun purchases soared 73 percent in the six-year period, while gun-related violent crimes fell 24 percent. Baker, who specializes in research methods and criminology theory, said the comparison seems to contradict the premise that more guns lead to more crime in Virginia.

Who could've possibly predicted this outcome?  I mean, besides everyone who's been paying attention over the last 20 years? 

The funny thing is that these people actually think of themselves as "well informed".  Daniel Mitchell sets them straight.

Gee, there are more innocent people with guns and people are surprised that criminals are now more reluctant to commit crimes? I guess you have to be a reporter or an academic to be surprised by this common-sense observation.

Stupidity inevitably increases with increasing education Leftist indoctrination.