Many of the members of the Financial Revival Group have been waiting for this extension to happen and know what it is about.  As we have been discussing in our Member Emails and in our Monthly Members Only Meetings, we fully expected this extension to take place.  We even expressed to you that we thought it would simply be an add-on to the fiscal cliff bill, which indeed it was.

It is official.  The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act has been extended through the end of 2013. 

We still have more to do because we think this bill should have been extended for three years, not just one.  However, with all of the lobbying that went on from many different groups, we don’t believe that further extensions of this bill will be an issue. 

Now, for the benefit of our readers who are not members of the Financial Revival Group and don’t know what this act is about, here is a quick explanation.

If you owe a debt and that debt is forgiven, you have received a financial benefit from that transaction.  When the creditor finally gives up or settles the debt for less than is owed and stops further action to collect the debt, they have officially taken a loss.  The IRS says that since you actually received the money and didn’t fully pay it back, you received a “gift” from that creditor and that “gift” amount is taxable as normal income. 

In the past, we saw this mostly with credit card companies and other uncollectable debts.  If you settled a $20,000 credit card debt for $8,000 you and the IRS would receive a form 1099 for $12,000.  (The IRS gets a copy to make sure you include with your next tax return)  You would have to pay income tax on that $12,000.  If you were in a 15% tax bracket, your tax bill the following year would increase by $1,800.  Not a bad trade by most standards. 

With the continuing housing collapse, we are seeing this same event in real estate but with much larger numbers.  So to help out underwater homeowners, the Bush Administration passed the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act in 2007 that says that if your bank suffers a loss on your house, in certain cases, you would be exempt from the tax.  This law expired at the end of 2010 but was extended through the end of 2012 by the Obama Administration.  Now the bill has been extended again through the end of 2013.

This law applies to you if:

1. Your bank takes a loss on your house as a result of a foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, short sale, loan modification or principle reduction.
2. The event is completed by the end of 2013.  That means your foreclosure, short sale etc. has to be finalized by the end of the year. 
3. The property is your primary residence.
4. The money forgiven was used to buy, build or substantially improve the property.
5. The forgiven amount is less than $2 Million.  Hey, movie stars and basketball players need a break too.

 So, if you have been waiting for the extension of this bill to make a move on your underwater house, now is the time.  Nothing is quick in this process, no matter which way you decide to go.  The first thing you need to do is to find out what all of your options look like and how they will affect you moving forward. 

If you or someone you know wants to find out about every option you have available, you can start with a free 15 minute consultation with the Financial Revival Group.  This free, no obligation phone call will help you get your immediate questions answered and put you on the right track based on your particular situation.  Call us at 425-259-2600 to schedule your consultation or CLICK HERE to email us. 

While Much of America Suffers with Stagnation, Washington’s Political Class Is Having a Very Merry Christmas

In large part because of an excessive burden of government, the American economy is suffering European-style stagnation, with even the Washington Post now confessing that growth far below the long-run trend.

This helps explain why job creation has been so dismal in recent years, with more than twenty million Americans out of work, underemployed, or dropped out of the workforce.

But there is one pocket of enormous prosperity in America. It will warm your heart to know that our overlords in Washington are living the life of Riley.

Here are some of the highlights of a remarkable Reuters expose about the fat cats of big government, starting with the huge gap between the insider elite and the poor.

In the town that launched the War on Poverty 48 years ago, the poor are getting poorer despite the government’s help. And the rich are getting richer because of it. The top 5 percent of households in Washington, D.C., made more than $500,000 on average last year, while the bottom 20 percent earned less than $9,500 – a ratio of 54 to 1. That gap is up from 39 to 1 two decades ago. It’s wider than in any of the 50 states and all but two major cities.

One small but important correction in the previous excerpt. As I have noted many times, the “poor are getting poorer” because of “the government’s help.”

The article then explains that a lot of the redistribution in Washington is from taxpayers to a pampered elite.

…in the years since President Lyndon Johnson took aim at poverty in his first State of the Union address, there has been an increasingly strong crosscurrent: The government is redistributing wealth up, too – especially in the nation’s capital. …Two decades of record federal spending and expanding regulation have fostered a growing upper class of federal contractors, lobbyists and lawyers in the District of Columbia area. …Direct spending by the federal government accounts for 40 percent of the area’s $425 billion-a-year economy. …Roughly 15 cents of every dollar from the entire federal procurement budget stays in or around the government’s hometown, said Stephen S. Fuller, director of the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University. Last year, that was about $80 billion out of $536 billion in procurement spending, he said. The 15 percent share is far greater than the region’s 2 percent portion of the U.S. population. “We’re seeing an enormous transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the Washington economy,” said Fuller.

And all this spending leads to an elitist class of cronyists, politicians, contractors, bureaucrats, and lobbyists. No wonder the DC area is home to some of the richest counties in America.

But unlike other well-to-do areas, the wealth in DC is rarely accumulated by honest means.

Instead, it’s the result of perverse form of redistribution to big-government insiders. Check out these horrifying details.

Washington-area workers with incomes above $100,000 rose to 22 percent of the workforce, up from 14 percent in 1990, adjusted for inflation, a Reuters analysis of Census data found. …there are 320,000 federal jobs in the Washington area. Within the District of Columbia, 55 percent pay $100,000 or more. …Nearly 13,000 lobbyists registered with the government last year and reported $3.3 billion in fees, or about $260,000 per lobbyist. That’s 22 percent more lobbyists and 37 percent more inflation-adjusted revenue per lobbyist than in 1998… Times are flush for Washington lawyers as well. The number of attorneys in the area has risen 44 percent, twice the national rate, to 41,000 since 1999. Their average income, adjusted for inflation, rose 35 percent to $156,000.

I guess we know who’s having a merry Christmas.

All these rich bureaucrats, lobbyists, politicians, cronyists, and contractors certainly are living the good life, as revealed in a Washington Post story on the “Region’s Rising Wealth.” Here are some sordid excerpts.

…the D.C. region already has a reputation as one of the most affluent in the country. But the area is fast emerging as a home to the truly rich as well. High-end luxury retailers are responding. Brands such as Aston Martin are expanding their operations into the area — betting, for instance, that there will be plenty of customers who can afford the $280,000 sports car James Bond drives in the movies. …Already there are 500 Aston Martin owners in the area with the potential for more.

I’ve already shared an interview with Andrew Ferguson by Reason TV that should make all taxpayers upset. Why should ordinary taxpayers be coerced to subsidize Washington’s high-flying parasite economy?

Redistribution is a bad thing in most circumstances. But when you redistribute from poor to rich, that’s utterly perverse.

Well, thanks to profligacy by Bush and Obama, that’s exactly what’s happened.

The region’s top one percent of households make more than a half million dollars yearly — far more than the national average for the one percent, according to a study of Census data by Sentier Research, an Annapolis-based data analysis firm. And these top earners — many of whom are from dual-income households and benefit from federal contracting — weathered the recession better than their counterparts in some other metropolitan areas and the nation. More are moving beyond comfortable affluence to a much higher standard of living. “What is unique to D.C. is that there has been a change in the complexion of wealth here. There didn’t used to be much of this ultra-high-net-worth business here and now there is,” said Susan Traver, the regional president of BNY Mellon Wealth Management.

But everyone in the rest of America at least can go to sleep tonight with a warm and fuzzy feeling of joy, knowing that our money has created such comfortable lives for the political elite.

Milton Pedraza, the CEO of the Luxury Institute, a research and consulting firm, said that purveyors of luxury goods are drawn to the area because it has…a stable economy bolstered by the federal government. Government contracting, where some local entrepreneurs and business owners amassed their fortunes, has been a key driver of the region’s economy for three decades. A third of the region’s gross regional product still comes from federal spending… “Let’s face it . . . the only place with money during the recession was Washington, D.C.,” Pedraza said.

Perhaps we should make a slight correction in the previous excerpt. After all, shouldn’t it read “America suffered a recession because the only place with money was Washington, DC.”

Let’s wrap this up. A few years ago, I issued this video about overpaid bureaucrats.

But I now realize my mini-documentary only scratches the  surface. Yes, there are too many paper-pushers on the government payroll, and of course they get far too much compensation.

But what about unofficial government workforce of over-paid contractors? And all the lobbyists, consultants, and cronyists that exist only because we have a bloated federal government?

Our nation is being seriously damaged by this corrupt system, and I fear that the outcome will be Argentinian-style decline.

Anyway, I found this blog post by well respected gun expert and author Larry Correia.  It explains the gun argument very well and debunks much of the propaganda of the New York and Washington DC media. 

Take a read and let me know what you think. 

Written by Larry Correia

I didn’t want to post about this, because frankly, it is exhausting. I’ve been having this exact same argument for my entire adult life. It is not an exaggeration when I say that I know pretty much exactly every single thing an anti-gun person can say. I’ve heard it over and over, the same old tired stuff, trotted out every single time there is a tragedy on the news that can be milked. Yet, I got sucked in, and I’ve spent the last few days arguing with people who either mean well but are uninformed about gun laws and how guns actually work (who I don’t mind at all), or the willfully ignorant (who I do mind), or the obnoxiously stupid who are completely incapable of any critical thinking deeper than a Facebook meme (them, I can’t stand).

Today’s blog post is going to be aimed at the first group. I am going to try to go through everything I’ve heard over the last few days, and try to break it down from my perspective. My goal tonight is to write something that my regular readers will be able to share with their friends who may not be as familiar with how mass shootings or gun control laws work.

A little background for those of you who don’t know me, and this is going to be extensive so feel free to skip the next few paragraphs, but I need to establish the fact that I know what I am talking with, because I am sick and tired of my opinion having the same weight as a person who learned everything they know about guns and violence from watching TV.

I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store. We were a Title 7 SOT, which means we worked with legal machineguns, suppresors, and pretty much everything except for explosives. We did law enforcement sales and worked with equipment that is unavailable from most dealers, but that means lots and lots of government inspections and compliance paperwork. This means that I had to be exceedingly familiar with federal gun laws, and there are a lot of them. I worked with many companies in the gun industry and still have many friends and contacts at various manufacturers. When I hear people tell me the gun industry is unregulated, I have to resist the urge to laugh in their face.

I was also a Utah Concealed Weapons instructor, and was one of the busiest instructors in the state. That required me to learn a lot about self-defense laws, and because I took my job very seriously, I sought out every bit of information that I could. My classes were longer than the standard Utah class, and all of that extra time was spent on Use of Force, shoot/no shoot scenarios, and role playing through violent encounters. I have certified thousands of people to carry guns.

I have been a firearms instructor, and have taught a lot of people how to shoot defensively with handguns, shotguns, and rifles. For a few years of my life, darn near every weekend was spent at the range. I started out as an assistant for some extremely experienced teachers and I also had the opportunity to be trained by some of the most accomplished firearms experts in the world. The man I stole most of my curriculum from was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Special Forces, turned federal agent SWAT team commander. I took classes in everything from wound ballistics (10 hours of looking at autopsy slides) to high-speed cool-guy door-kicking stuff. I’ve worked extensively with military and law enforcement personnel, including force on force training where I played the OpFor (i.e. I got to be the bad guy, because I make an awesome bad guy. You tell me how evil/capable you want me to be, and how hard you want your men to work, and I’d make it happen, plus I can take a beating). Part of this required learning how mass shooters operate and studying the heck out of the actual events.

I have been a competition shooter. I competed in IPSC, IDPA, and 3gun. It was not odd for me to reload and shoot 1,000 rounds in any given week. I fired 20,000 rounds of .45 in one August alone. I’ve got a Remington 870 with approximately 160,000 rounds through it. I’ve won matches, and I’ve been able to compete with some of the top shooters in the country. I am a very capable shooter. I only put this here to convey that I know how shooting works better than the vast majority of the populace.

I have written for national publications on topics relating to gun law and use of force. I wrote for everything from the United States Concealed Carry Association to SWAT magazine. I was considered a subject matter expert at the state level, and on a few occasions was brought in to testify before the Utah State Legislature on the ramifications of proposed gun laws. I’ve argued with lawyers, professors, professional lobbyists, and once made a state rep cry.

Basically for most of my adult life, I have been up to my eyeballs in guns, self-defense instruction, and the laws relating to those things. So believe me when I say that I’ve heard every argument relating to gun control possible. It is pretty rare for me to hear something new, and none of this stuff is new.

Armed Teachers

So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a “national conversation on guns”. Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture.

Now when I say teachers carrying concealed weapons on Facebook I immediately get a bunch of emotional freak out responses. You can’t mandate teachers be armed! Guns in every classroom! Emotional response! Blood in the streets!

No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.

Police are awesome. I love working with cops. However any honest cop will tell you that when seconds count they are only minutes away. After Colombine law enforcement changed their methods in dealing with active shooters. It used to be that you took up a perimeter and waited for overwhelming force before going in. Now usually as soon as you have two officers on scene you go in to confront the shooter (often one in rural areas or if help is going to take another minute, because there are a lot of very sound tactical reasons for using two, mostly because your success/survival rates jump dramatically when you put two guys through a door at once. The shooter’s brain takes a moment to decide between targets). The reason they go fast is because they know that every second counts. The longer the shooter has to operate, the more innocents die.

However, cops can’t be everywhere. There are at best only a couple hundred thousand on duty at any given time patrolling the entire country. Excellent response time is in the three-five minute range. We’ve seen what bad guys can do in three minutes, but sometimes it is far worse. They simply can’t teleport. So in some cases that means the bad guys can have ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes to do horrible things with nobody effectively fighting back.

So if we can’t have cops there, what can we do?

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.

But teachers aren’t as trained as police officers! True, yet totally irrelevant. The teacher doesn’t need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps.

But this leads to the inevitable shrieking and straw man arguments about guns in the classroom, and then the pacifistic minded who simply can’t comprehend themselves being mandated to carry a gun, or those that believe teachers are all too incompetent and can’t be trusted. Let me address both at one time.

Don’t make it mandatory. In my experience, the only people who are worth a darn with a gun are the ones who wish to take responsibility and carry a gun. Make it voluntary. It is rather simple. Just make it so that your state’s concealed weapons laws trump the Federal Gun Free School Zones act. All that means is that teachers who voluntarily decide to get a concealed weapons permit are capable of carrying their guns at work. Easy. Simple. Cheap. Available now.

Then they’ll say that this is impossible, and give me all sorts of terrible worst case scenarios about all of the horrors that will happen with a gun in the classroom… No problem, because this has happened before. In fact, my state laws allow for somebody with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in a school right now. Yes. Utah has armed teachers. We have for several years now.

When I was a CCW instructor, I decided that I wanted more teachers with skin in the game, so I started a program where I would teach anybody who worked at a school for free. No charge. Zip. They still had to pay the state for their background check and fingerprints, but all the instruction was free. I wanted more armed teachers in my state.

I personally taught several hundred teachers. I quickly discovered that pretty much every single school in my state had at least one competent, capable, smart, willing individual. Some schools had more. I had one high school where the principal, three teachers, and a janitor showed up for class. They had just had an event where there had been a threat against the school and their resource officer had turned up AWOL. This had been a wake up call for this principal that they were on their own, and he had taken it upon himself to talk to his teachers to find the willing and capable. Good for them.

After Virginia Tech, I started teaching college students for free as well. They were 21 year old adults who could pass a background check. Why should they have to be defenseless?  None of these students ever needed to stop a mass shooting, but I’m happy to say that a couple of rapists and muggers weren’t so lucky, so I consider my time well spent.

Over the course of a couple years I taught well over $20,000 worth of free CCW classes. I met hundreds and hundreds of teachers, students, and staff. All of them were responsible adults who understood that they were stuck in target rich environments filled with defenseless innocents. Whether they liked it or not, they were the first line of defense. It was the least I could do.

Permit holders are not cops. The mistake many people make is that they think permit holders are supposed to be cops or junior danger rangers. Not at all. Their only responsibility is simple. If someone is threatening to cause them or a third person serious bodily harm, and that someone has the ability, opportunity, and is acting in a manner which suggest they are a legitimate threat, then that permit holder is allowed to use lethal force against them.

As of today the state legislatures of Texas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma are looking at revamping their existing laws so that there can be legal guns in school. For those that are worried these teachers will be unprepared, I’m sure there would be no lack of instructors in those states who’d be willing to teach them for free.

For everyone, if you are sincere in your wish to protect our children, I would suggest you call your state representative today and demand that they allow concealed carry in schools.

Gun Free Zones

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.

In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking at that.

The only people who obey No Guns signs are people who obey the law. People who obey the law aren’t going on rampages.

I testified before the Utah State Legislature about the University of Utah’s gun ban the day after the Trolley Square shooting in Salt Lake City. Another disaffected loser scumbag started shooting up this mall. He killed several innocent people before he was engaged by an off duty police officer who just happened to be there shopping. The off duty Ogden cop pinned down the shooter until two officers from the SLCPD came up from behind and killed the shooter. (turned out one of them was a customer of mine) I sent one of my employees down to Trolley Square to take a picture of the shopping center’s front doors. I then showed the picture to the legislators. One of the rules was NO GUNS ALLOWED.

The man that attacked the midnight showing of Batman didn’t attack just any theater. There were like ten to choose from. He didn’t attack the closest. It wasn’t about biggest or smallest. He attacked the one that was posted NO GUNS ALLOWED.

There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.

1. Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
2. Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
3. Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
4. China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.

And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.

The Media

Every time there is a mass shooting event, the vultures launch. I find it absolutely fascinating. A bunch of people get murdered, and the same usual suspects show up with the same tired proposals that we’ve either tried before or logic tells us simply will not work. They strike while the iron is hot, trying to push through legislation before there can be coherent thought. We’ve seen this over and over and over again. We saw it succeed in England. We saw it succeed in Australia. We’ve seen it succeed here before.

Yet when anyone from my side responds, then we are shouted at that we are blood thirsty and how dare we speak in this moment of tragedy, and we should just shut our stupid mouths out of respect for the dead, while they are free to promote policies which will simply lead to more dead… If the NRA says something they are bloodthirsty monsters, and if they don’t say something then their silence is damning guilt. It is hypocritical in the extreme, and when I speak out against this I am called every name in the book, I want dead children, I’m a cold hearted monster (the death threats are actually hilarious). If I become angry because they are promoting policies which are tactically flawed and which will do the exact opposite of the stated goals, then I am a horrible person for being angry. Perhaps I shouldn’t be allowed to own guns at all.

But that’s not why I want to talk about the media. I want to talk about the media’s effect on the shooters.

Put yourself in the shoes of one of these killers. One nice thing about playing the villain and being a punching bag for cops, soldiers, and permit holders is that you need to learn about how the bad guys think and operate. And most of the mass shooters fit a similar profile.

The vast majority (last I saw it was over 80%) are on some form of psychotropic drug and has been for many years. They have been on Zoloft or some serotonin inhibitor through their formative years, and their decision making process is often flawed. They are usually disaffected, have been bullied, pushed around, and have a lot of emotional problems. They are delusional. They see themselves as victims, and they are usually striking back at their peer group.

These people want to make a statement. They want to show the world that they aren’t losers. They want to make us understand their pain. They want to make their peer group realize that they are powerful. They’ll show us. The solution is easy. It’s right there in front of your nose.

If you can kill enough people at one time, you’ll be on the news, 24/7, round the clock coverage. You will become the most famous person in the world. Everyone will know your name. You become a celebrity. Experts will try to understand what you were thinking. Hell, the President of the United States, the most important man in the world, will drop whatever he is doing and hold a press conference to talk about your actions, and he’ll even shed a single manly tear.

You are a star.

Strangely enough, this is one of the only topics I actually agree with Roger Ebert on. He didn’t think that the news should cover the shooters or mention their names on the front page of the paper. So whenever the press isn’t talking about guns, or violent movies, or violent video games, or any other thing that hundreds of millions of people participated in yesterday without murdering anybody, they’ll keep showing the killer’s picture in the background while telling the world all about him and his struggles.

And then the cycle repeats, as the next disaffected angry loner takes notes.

They should not be glamorized. They should be hated, despised, and forgotten. They are not victims. They are not powerful. They are murdering scum, and the only time their names should be remembered is when people like me are studying the tactics of how to neutralize them faster.

Mental Health Issues

And right here I’m going to show why I’m different than the people I’ve been arguing with the last few days. I am not an expert on mental health issues or psychiatry or psychology. My knowledge of criminal psychology is limited to understanding the methods of killers enough to know how to fight them better.

So since I don’t have enough first-hand knowledge about this topic to comment intelligently, then I’m not going to comment… Oh please, if only some of the people I’ve been arguing with who barely understand that the bullets come out the pointy end of the gun would just do the same.

Gun Control Laws

As soon as there is a tragedy there comes the calls for “We have to do something!” Sure, the something may not actually accomplish anything as far as solving whatever the tragedy was or preventing the next one, but that’s the narrative. Something evil happened, so we have to do something, and preferably we have to do it right now before we think about it too hard.

The left side of the political spectrum loves it some gun control. Gun control is historically extremely unpopular in red state and purple state America, and thus very hard to pass bit stuff, but there’s a century’s accumulation of lots and lots of small ones. There have been a handful of major federal laws passed in the United States relating to guns, but the majority of really strict gun control has primarily been enacted in liberal dominated urban areas. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books, and I have no idea how many pages of regulations from the BATF related to the production and selling of them. I’ve found that the average American is extremely uneducated about what gun laws already exist, what they actually do, and even fundamental terminology, so I’m going to go through many of the things I’ve seen argued about over the last few days and elaborate on them one by one.

I will leave out the particularly crazy things I was confronted with, including the guy who was in favor of mandating “automatic robot gun turrets” in schools. Yes. Heaven forbid we let a teacher CCW, so let’s put killer robots (which haven’t actually been invented yet) in schools. Man, I wish I was making this up, but that’s Facebook for you.

We need to ban automatic weapons.

Okay. Done. In fact, we pretty much did that in 1934. The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it so that you had to pay a $200 tax on a machinegun and register it with the government. In 1986 that registry was closed and there have been no new legal machineguns for civilians to own since then.

Automatic means that when you hold down the trigger the gun keeps on shooting until you let go or run out of ammo. Actual automatic weapons cost a lot of money. The cheapest one you can get right now is around $5,000 as they are all collector’s items and you need to jump through a lot of legal hoops to get one. To the best of my knowledge, there has only ever been one crime committed with an NFA weapon in my lifetime, and in that case the perp was a cop.

Now are machineguns still used in crimes? Why, yes they are. For every legally registered one, there are conservatively dozens of illegal ones in the hands of criminals. They either make their own (which is not hard to do) or they are smuggled in (usually by the same people that are able to smuggle in thousands of tons of drugs). Because really serious criminals simply don’t care, they are able to get ahold of military weapons, and they use them simply because criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. So even an item which has been basically banned since my grandparents were kids, and which there has been no new ones allowed manufactured since I was in elementary school, still ends up in the hands of criminals who really want one. This will go to show how effective government bans are.

When you say “automatic” you mean full auto, as in a machinegun. What I think most of these people mean is semi-auto.

Okay. We need to ban semi-automatic weapons!

Semi-automatic means that each time you pull the trigger the action cycles and loads another round. This is the single most common type of gun, not just in America, but in the whole world. Almost all handguns are semi-automatic. The vast majority of weapons used for self-defense are semi-automatic, as are almost all the weapons used by police officers.  It is the most common because it is normally the most effective.

Semi-automatic is usually best choice for defensive use. It is easier to use because you can do so one handed if necessary, and you are forced to manipulate your weapon less. If you believe that using a gun for self-defense is necessary, then you pretty much have to say that semi-auto is okay.

Banning semi-automatic basically means banning all guns. I’ll get to the functional problems with that later.

We should ban handguns!

Handguns are tools for self-defense, and the only reason we use them over the more capable, and easier to hit with rifles or shotguns is because handguns are portable. Rifles are just plain better, but the only reason I don’t carry an AR-15 around is because it would be hard to hide under my shirt.

Concealed Carry works. As much as it offends liberals and we keep hearing horror stories about blood in the streets, the fact is over my lifetime most of the United States has enacted some form of concealed carry law, and the blood in the streets wild west shootouts over parking spaces they’ve predicted simply hasn’t happened. At this point in time there are only a few hold out states, all of them are blue states and all of them have inner cities which suffer from terrible crime, where once again, the criminals simply don’t care.

For information about how more guns actually equals less crime, look up the work of Dr. John Lott. And since liberals hate his guts, look up the less famous work of Dr. Gary Kleck, or basically look up the work of any criminologist or economist who isn’t writing for Slate or Mother Jones.

As for why CCW is good, see my whole first section about arming teachers for a tiny part of the whole picture. Basically bad people are going to be bad and do bad things. They are going to hurt you and take your stuff, because that’s what they do. That’s their career, and they are as good at it as you are at your job. They will do this anywhere they think they can get away with it.  We fixate on the mass shooters because they grab the headlines, but in actuality your odds of running in to one of them is tiny. Your odds of having a violent encounter with a run of the mill criminal is orders of magnitudes higher.

I do find one thing highly amusing. In my personal experience, some of the most vehement anti-gun people I’ve ever associated with will usually eventually admit after getting to know me, that if something bad happened, then they really hope I’m around, because I’m one of the good ones. Usually they never realize just how hypocritical and naïve that is.

We should ban Assault Rifles!

Define “assault rifle”…

Uh…

Yeah. That’s the problem. The term assault rifle gets bandied around a lot. Politically, the term is a loaded nonsense one that was created back during the Clinton years. It was one of those tricks where you name legislation something catchy, like PATRIOT Act. (another law rammed through while emotions were high and nobody was thinking, go figure).

To gun experts, an assault rifle is a very specific type of weapon which originated (for the most part) in the 1940s. It is a magazine fed, select fire (meaning capable of full auto), intermediate cartridge (as in, actually not that powerful, but I’ll come back to that later) infantry weapon.

The thing is, real assault rifles in the US have been heavily regulated since before they were invented. The thing that the media and politicians like to refer to as assault rifles is basically a catch all term for any gun which looks scary.

I had somebody get all mad at me for pointing this out, because they said that the term had entered common usage. Okay… If you’re going to legislate it, DEFINE IT.

And then comes up that pesky problem. The US banned assault rifles once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. I mean, it was totally, literally pointless. The special commission to study it said that it accomplished absolutely nothing. (except tick a bunch of Americans off, and as a result we bought a TON more guns) And the reason was that since assault weapon is a nonsense term, they just came up with a list of arbitrary features which made a gun into an assault weapon.

Problem was, none of these features actually made the gun functionally any different or somehow more lethal or better from any other run of the mill firearm. Most of the criteria were so silly that they became a huge joke to gun owners, except of course, for that part where many law abiding citizens accidentally became instant felons because one of their guns had some cosmetic feature which was now illegal.

One of the criteria was that it was semi-automatic. See above. Hard to ban the single most common and readily available type of gun in the world. (unless you believe in confiscation, but I’ll get to that). Then what if it takes a detachable magazine! That’s got to be an Evil Feature. And yes, we really did call the Evil Features. I’ll talk about magazines below, but once again, it is pretty hard to ban something that common unless you want to go on a confiscatory national suicide mission.

For example, flash hiders sound dangerous. Let’s say having a flash hider makes a gun an assault weapon. So flash hiders became an evil feature. Problem is flash hiders don’t do much. They screw onto the end of your muzzle and divert the flash off to the side instead of straight up so it isn’t as annoying when you shoot. It doesn’t actually hide the flash from anybody else. EVIL.

Barrel shrouds were listed. Barrel shrouds are basically useless, cosmetic pieces of metal that go over the barrel so you don’t accidentally touch it and burn your hand. But they became an instantaneous felony too. Collapsible stocks make it so you can adjust your rifle to different size shooters, that way a tall guy and his short wife can shoot the same gun. Nope. EVIL FEATURE!

It has been a running joke in the gun community ever since the ban passed. When Carolyn McCarthy was asked by a reporter what a barrel shroud was, she replied “I think it is the shoulder thing which goes up.”  Oh good. I’m glad that thousands of law abiding Americans unwittingly committed felonies because they had a cosmetic piece of sheet metal on their barrel, which has no bearing whatsoever on crime, but could possibly be a shoulder thing which goes up.

Now are you starting to see why “assault weapons” is a pointless term? They aren’t functionally any more powerful or deadly than any normal gun. In fact the cartridges they normally fire are far less powerful than your average deer hunting rifle. Don’t worry though, because the same people who fling around the term assault weapons also think of scoped deer rifles as “high powered sniper guns”.

Basically, what you are thinking of as assault weapons aren’t special.

Now, the reason that semi-automatic, magazine fed, intermediate caliber rifles are the single most popular type of gun in America is because they are excellent for many uses, but I’m not talking about fun, or hunting, or sports, today I’m talking business. And in this case they are excellent for shooting bad people who are trying to hurt you, in order to make them stop trying to hurt you. These types of guns are superb for defending your home. Now some of you may think that’s extreme. That’s because everything you’ve learned about gun fights comes from TV. Just read the link where I expound on why.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/carbine-vs-shotgun-vs-pistol-for-home-defense/

I had one individual tell me that these types of guns are designed to slaughter the maximum number of people possible as quickly as possible… Uh huh… Which is why every single police department in America uses them, because of all that slaughtering cops do daily. Cops use them for the same reason we do, they are handy, versatile, and can stop an attacker quickly in a variety of circumstances.

When I said “stop an attacker quickly” somebody on Twitter thought that he’d gotten me and said “Stop. That’s just a euphemism for kill!” Nope. I am perfectly happy if the attacker surrenders or passes out from blood loss too. Tactically and legally, all I care about is making them stop doing whatever it is that they are doing which caused me to shoot them to begin with.

The guns that many of you think of as assault rifle are common and popular because they are excellent for fighting, and I’ll talk about what my side really thinks about the 2^nd Amendment below.

We should ban magazines over X number of shots!

I’ve seen this one pop up a lot. It sounds good to the ear and really satisfies that we’ve got to do something need. It sounds simple. Bad guys shoot a lot of people in a mass shooting. So if he has magazines that hold fewer rounds, ergo then he’ll not be able to shoot as many people.

Wrong. And I’ll break it down, first why my side wants more rounds in our gun, second why tactically it doesn’t really stop the problem, and third, why stopping them is a logistical impossibility.

First off, why do gun owners want magazines that hold more rounds? Because sometimes you miss. Because usually—contrary to the movies—you have to hit an opponent multiple times in order to make them stop. Because sometimes you may have multiple assailants. We don’t have more rounds in the magazine so we can shoot more, we have more rounds in the magazine so we are forced to manipulate our gun less if we have to shoot more.

The last assault weapons ban capped capacities at ten rounds. You quickly realize ten rounds sucks when you take a wound ballistics class like I have and go over case after case after case after case of enraged, drug addled, prison hardened, perpetrators who soaked up five, seven, nine, even fifteen bullets and still walked under their own power to the ambulance. That isn’t uncommon at all. Legally, you can shoot them until they cease to be a threat, and keep in mind that what normally causes a person to stop is loss of blood pressure, so I used to tell my students that anybody worth shooting once was worth shooting five or seven times. You shoot them until they leave you alone.

Also, you’re going to miss. It is going to happen. If you can shoot pretty little groups at the range, those groups are going to expand dramatically under the stress and adrenalin. The more you train, the better you will do, but you can still may miss, or the bad guy may end up hiding behind something which your bullets don’t penetrate. Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and then said afterwards, “Darn, I wish I hadn’t brought all that extra ammo.”

So having more rounds in the gun is a good thing for self-defense use.

Now tactically, let’s say a mass shooter is on a rampage in a school. Unless his brain has turned to mush and he’s a complete idiot, he’s not going to walk up right next to you while he reloads anyway. Unlike the CCW holder who gets attacked and has to defend himself in whatever crappy situation he finds himself in, the mass shooter is the aggressor. He’s picked the engagement range. They are cowards who are murdering running and hiding children, but don’t for a second make the mistake of thinking they are dumb. Many of these scumbags are actually very intelligent. They’re just broken and evil.

In the cases that I’m aware of where the shooter had guns that held fewer rounds they just positioned themselves back a bit while firing or they brought more guns, and simply switched guns and kept on shooting, and then reloaded before they moved to the next planned firing position. Unless you are a fumble fingered idiot, anybody who practices in front of a mirror a few dozen times can get to where they can insert a new magazine into a gun in a few seconds.

A good friend of mine (who happens to be a very reasonable democrat) was very hung up on this, sure that he would be able to take advantage of the time in which it took for the bad guy to reload his gun. That’s a bad assumption, and here’s yet another article that addresses that sort of misconception that I wrote several years ago which has sort of made the rounds on firearm’s forums. http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/45671-My-Gunfight-quot-Thinking-Outside-Your-Box-quot  So that’s awesome if it happens, but good luck with that.

Finally, let’s look at the logistical ramifications of another magazine ban. The AWB banned the production of all magazines over ten rounds except those marked for military or law enforcement use, and it was a felony to possess those.

Over the ten years of the ban, we never ran out. Not even close. Magazines are cheap and basic. Most of them are pieces of sheet metal with some wire. That’s it. Magazines are considered disposable so most gun people accumulate a ton of them. All it did was make magazines more expensive, ticked off law abiding citizens, and didn’t so much as inconvenience a single criminal.

Meanwhile, bad guys didn’t run out either. And if they did, like I said, they are cheap and basic, so you just get or make more. If you can cook meth, you can make a functioning magazine. My old company designed a rifle magazine once, and I’m no engineer. I paid a CAD guy, spent $20,000 and churned out several thousand 20 round Saiga .308 mags. This could’ve been done out of my garage.

Ten years. No difference. Meanwhile, we had bad guys turning up all the time committing crimes, and guess what was marked on the mags found in their guns? MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY. Because once again, if you’re already breaking a bunch of laws, they can only hang you once. Criminals simply don’t care.

Once the AWB timed out, because every politician involved looked at the mess which had been passed in the heat of the moment, the fact it did nothing, and the fact that every single one of them from a red state would lose their job if they voted for a new one, it expired and went away. Immediately every single gun person in America went out and bought a couple guns which had been banned and a bucket of new magazines, because nothing makes an American want to do something more than telling them they can’t. We’ve been stocking up ever since. If the last ban did literally nothing at all over a decade, and since then we’ve purchased another hundred million magazines since then, another ban will do even less. (except just make the law abiding that much angrier, and I’ll get to that below).

I bought $600 worth of magazines for my competition pistol this morning. I’ve already got a shelf full for my rifles. Gun and magazine sales skyrocket every time a democrat politician starts to vulture in on a tragedy. I don’t know if many of you realize this, but Barack Obama is personally responsible for more gun sales, and especially first time gun purchases, than anyone in history. When I owned my gun store, we had a picture of him on the wall and a caption beneath it which said SALESMAN OF THE YEAR.

So you can ban this stuff, but it won’t actually do anything to the crimes you want to stop. Unless you think you can confiscate them all, but I’ll talk about confiscation later.

One last thing to share about the magazine ban from the AWB, and this is something all gun people know, but most anti-gunners do not. When you put an artificial cap on a weapon, and tell us that we can only have a limited number of rounds in that weapon, we’re going to make sure they are the most potent rounds possible. Before the ban, everybody bought 9mms which held an average of 15 rounds. After the ban, if I can only have ten rounds, they’re going to be bigger, so we all started buying 10 shot .45s instead.

You don’t need an assault weapon for hunting!

Who said anything about hunting? That whole thing about the 2^nd Amendment being for sportsmen is hogwash. The 2^nd Amendment is about bearing arms to protect yourself from threats, up to and including a tyrannical government.

Spare me the whole, “You won’t be happy until everybody has nuclear weapons” reductio ad absurdum. It says arms, as in things that were man portable. And as for the founding fathers not being able to see foresee our modern arms, you forget that many of them were inventors, and multi shot weapons were already in service. Not to mention that in that day, arms included cannon, since most of the original artillery of the Continental Army was privately owned. Besides, the Supreme Court agrees with me. See DC v. Heller.

Well we should just ban ALL guns then! You only need them to murder people!

It doesn’t really make sense to ban guns, because in reality what that means is that you are actually banning effective self-defense. Despite the constant hammering by a news media with an agenda, guns are used in America far more to stop crime than to cause crime.

I’ve seen several different sets of numbers about how many times guns are used in self-defense every year. The problem with keeping track of this stat is that the vast majority of the time when a gun is produced in a legal self-defense situation no shots are fired. The mere presence of the gun is enough to cause the criminal to stop.

Clint Smith once said if you look like food, you will be eaten. Criminals are looking for prey. They are looking for easy victims. If they wanted to work hard for a living they’d get a job. So when you pull a gun, you are no longer prey, you are work, so they are going to go find somebody else to pick on.

So many defensive gun uses never get tracked as such. From personal experience, I have pulled a gun exactly one time in my entire life. I was legally justified and the bad guy stopped, put his gun away, and left. (15 years later the same son of a bitch would end up murdering a local sheriff’s deputy). My defensive gun use was never recorded anywhere as far as I know. My wife has pulled a gun twice in her life. Once on somebody who was acting very rapey who suddenly found a better place to be when she stuck a Ruger in his face, and again many years later on a German Shepherd which was attacking my one year old son. (amazingly enough a dog can recognize a 9mm coming out of a fanny pack and run for its life, go figure) No police report at all on the second one, and I don’t believe the first one ever turned up as any sort of defensive use statistic, all because no shots were fired.

So how often are guns actually used in self-defense in America? http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns.  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm Of those with guns, only a couple hundred are with rifles. So basically, the guns that the anti-gunners are the most spun up about only account for a tiny fraction of all our murders.

But let’s not go with the high estimate. Let’s go with some smaller ones instead. Let’s use the far more conservative 800,000 number which is arrived at in multiple studies. That still dwarfs the number of illegal shootings. Heck, let’s even run with the number once put out by the people who want to ban guns, the Brady Center, which was still around 108,000, which still is an awesome ratio of good vs. bad.

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive. Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

Doesn’t matter. I don’t like them. We should ban them and take them all away like a civilized country.

Well, I suppose if your need to do something overrides all reason and logic, then by all means let’s ban guns.

Australia had a mass shooting and instituted a massive gun ban and confiscation (a program which would not work here, which I’ll get to, but let’s run with it anyway.). As was pointed out to me on Facebook, they haven’t had any mass shootings since. However, they fail to realize that they didn’t really have any mass shootings before either. You need to keep in mind that mass shooting are horrific headline grabbing statistical anomalies. You are far more likely to get your head caved in by a local thug while he’s trying to steal your wallet, and that probably won’t even make the evening news.

And violent crime is up in Australia. A cursory Google search will show articles about the increase in violent crime and theft, but then other articles pooh-pooing these stats as being insignificant and totally not related to the guns.

So then we’ve got England, where they reacted swiftly after a mass shooting, banned and confiscated guns, and their violent crime has since skyrocketed. Their stats are far worse than Australia, and they are now one of the more dangerous countries to live in the EU. Once again, cursory Google search will show articles with the stats, and other articles saying that those rises like totally have nothing to do with regular folks no longer being able to defend themselves… Sensing a trend yet?

And then we’ve got South Africa, which instituted some really hard core gun bans and some extremely strict controls, and their crime is now so high that it is basically either no longer tracked or simply not countable. But obviously, the totally unbiased news says that has absolutely nothing to do with people no longer being able to legally defend themselves.

Then you’ve got countries like Norway, with extremely strict gun control. Their gun control laws are simply incomprehensible to half of Americans. Not only that, they are an ethnically and socially homogenous, tiny population, well off country, without our gang violence or drug problems. Their gun control laws are draconian by our standards. They make Chicago look like Boise. Surely that level of gun control will stop school shootings! Except of course for 2011 when a maniac killed 77 and injured 242 people, a body count which is absurdly high compared to anything which has happened America.

Because once again, repeat it with me, criminals simply do not give a crap.

That mass killer used a gun and homemade explosives. Make guns harder to get, and explosives become the weapon of choice. Please do keep in mind that the largest and most advanced military coalition in human history was basically stymied for a decade by a small group using high school level chemistry and the Afghani equivalent to Radio Shack.

The biggest mass killings in US history have used bombs (like Bath, Michigan), fire (like Happyland Nightclub) or airliners. There is no law you can pass, nothing you can say or do, which will make some not be evil.

And all of this is irrelevant, because banning and confiscating all the scary guns in America will be national suicide.

You crazy gun nuts and your 2^nd Amendment. We should just confiscate all the guns.

Many of you may truly believe that. You may think that the 2^nd Amendment is archaic, outdated, and totally pointless. However, approximately half of the country disagrees with you, and of them, a pretty large portion is fully willing to shoot somebody in defense of it.

We’ve already seen that your partial bans are stupid and don’t do anything, so unless you are merely a hypocrite more interested in style rather than results, the only way to achieve your goal is to come and take the guns away. So let’s talk about confiscation.

They say that there are 80 million gun owners in America. I personally think that number is low for a few reasons. The majority of gun owners I know, when contacted for a phone survey and asked if they own guns, will become suspicious and simply lie. Those of us who don’t want to end like England or Australia will say that we lost all of our guns in a freak canoe accident.

Guns do not really wear out. I have perfectly functioning guns from WWI, and I’ve got friends who have still useable firearms from the 1800s. Plus we’ve been building more of them this entire time. There are more guns than there are people in America, and some of us have enough to arm our entire neighborhood.

But for the sake of math, let’s say that there are only 80 million gun owners, and let’s say that the government decides to round up all those pesky guns once and for all. Let’s be generous and say that 90% of the gun owners don’t really believe in the 2^nd Amendment, and their guns are just for duck hunting. Which is what politicians keep telling us, but is actually rather hilarious when you think about how the most commonly sold guns in America are the same detachable magazine semiautomatic rifles I talked about earlier.

So ten percent refuse to turn their guns in. That is 8 million instantaneous felons. Let’s say that 90% of them are not wanting to comply out of sheer stubbornness. Let’s be super generous and say that 90% of them would still just roll over and turn their guns when pressed or legally threatened.   That leaves 800,000 Americans who are not turning their guns in, no matter what. To put that in perspective there are only about 700,000 police officers in the whole country.

Let’s say that these hypothetical 10% of 10% are willing to actually fight to keep their guns. Even if my hypothetical estimate of 800,000 gun nuts willing to fight for their guns is correct, it is still 97% higher than the number of insurgents we faced at any one time in Iraq, a country about the size of Texas.

However, I do honestly believe that it would be much bigger than 10%. Once the confiscations turned violent, then it would push many otherwise peaceful people over the edge. I saw somebody on Twitter post about how the 2^nd Amendment is stupid because my stupid assault rifles are useless against drones… That person has obviously never worked with the people who build the drones, fly the drones, and service the drones. I have. Where to you think the majority of the US military falls on the political spectrum exactly? There’s a reason Mitt Romney won the military vote by over 40 points, and it wasn’t because of his hair.

And as for those 700,000 cops, how many of them would side with the gun owners? All the gun nuts, that’s for sure. As much as some people like to complain about the gun culture, many of the people you hire to protect you, and darn near all of them who can shoot well, belong to that gun culture. And as I hear people complain about the gun industry, like it is some nebulous, faceless, all powerful corporate thing which hungers for war and anarchy, I just have to laugh, because the gun industry probably has the highest percentage of former cops and former military of any industry in the country. My being a civilian was odd in the circles I worked in.  The men and women you pay to protect you have honor and integrity, and they will fight for what they believe in.

So the real question the anti-gun, ban and confiscate, crowd should be asking themselves is this, how many of your fellow Americans are you willing to have killed in order to bring about your utopian vision of the future?

Boo Evil Gun Culture!

Really? Because I hate to break it to you, but when nearly six hundred people get murdered a year in beautiful Gun Free Chicago, that’s not my people doing the shooting.

The gun culture is all around you, well obviously except for those of you reading this in elite liberal urban city centers where you’ve extinguished your gun culture. They are your friends, relatives, and coworkers. The biggest reason gun control has become increasingly difficult to pass over the last decade is because more and more people have turned to CCW, and as that has become more common, it has removed much of the stigma. Now everybody outside of elite urban liberal city centers knows somebody that carries a gun. The gun culture is simply regular America, and is made up of people who think their lives and their families lives are more important than the life of anyone who tries to victimize them.

The gun culture is who protects our country. Sure, there are plenty of soldiers and cops who are issued a gun and who use it as part of their job who could care less. However, the people who build the guns, really understand the guns, actually enjoy using the guns, and usually end up being picked to teach everybody else how to use the guns are the gun culture.

The media and the left would absolutely love to end the gun culture in America, because then they could finally pass all the laws they wanted.

Let’s take a look at what happens when a country finally succeeds in utterly stamping out its gun culture. Mumbai, 2008. Ten armed jihadi terrorists simply walked into town and started shooting people. It was a rather direct, straight forward, ham fisted, simple terrorist attack. They killed over 150 and wounded over 300. India has incredibly strict gun laws, but once again, criminals didn’t care.

That’s not my point this time however, I want to look at the response. These ten men shut down an entire massive city and struck fear into the hearts of millions for THREE DAYS. Depending on where this happened in America it would have been over in three minutes or three hours. The Indian police responded, but their tactics sucked. The marksmanship sucked. Their leadership sucked. Their response utterly and completely fell apart.

In talking afterwards with some individuals from a small agency of our government who were involved in the clean-up and investigation, all of whom are well trained, well practiced, gun nuts, they told me the problem was that the Indian police had no clue what to do because they’d never been taught what to do. Their leadership hated and feared the gun so much that they stamped out the ability for any of their men to actually master the tool. When you kill your gun culture, you kill off your instructors, and those who can pass down the information necessary to do the job.

Don’t think that we are so far off here. I recently got to sit down with some fans who are members of one of the larger metro police departments in America. These guys were all SWAT cops or narcotics, all of them were gun nuts who practiced on their own dime, and all of them were intimately familiar with real violence. These are the guys that you want responding when the real bad stuff goes down.

What they told me made me sick. Their leadership was all uniformly liberal and extremely anti-gun, just like most big cities in America. They walked me through what their responses were supposed to be in case of a Mumbai style event, and how their “scary assault weapons” were kept locked up where they would be unavailable, and how dismal their training was, and how since the state had run off or shut down most of the gun ranges, most of the cops couldn’t even practice or qualify anymore.

So now they were less safe, the people they were protecting were less safe, the bad guys were safer, but most importantly their leadership could pat themselves on the back, because they’d done something.

Well, okay. You make some good points. But I’d be more comfortable if you gun people were force to have more mandatory training!

And I did actually have this one said to me, which is an amazing victory by internet arguing standards.

Mandatory training is a placebo at best. Here is my take on why.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/mandatory-training-for-ccw/

In conclusion, basically it doesn’t really matter what something you pick when some politician or pundit starts screaming we’ve got to do something, because in reality, most of them already know a lot of what I listed above. The ones who are walking around with their security details of well-armed men in their well-guarded government buildings really don’t care about actually stopping mass shooters or bad guys, they care about giving themselves more power and increasing their control.

If a bad guy used a gun with a big magazine, ban magazines. If instead he used more guns, ban owning multiple guns. If he used a more powerful gun with less shots, ban powerful guns. If he used hollowpoints, ban hollowpoints. (which I didn’t get into, but once again, there’s a reason everybody who might have to shoot somebody uses them). If he ignored some Gun Free Zone, make more places Gun Free Zones. If he killed a bunch of innocents, make sure you disarm the innocents even harder for next time. Just in case, let’s ban other guns that weren’t even involved in any crimes, just because they’re too big, too small, too ugly, too cute, too long, too short, too fat, too thin, (and if you think I’m joking I can point out a law or proposed law for each of those) but most of all ban anything which makes some politician irrationally afraid, which luckily, is pretty much everything.

They will never be happy. In countries where they have already banned guns, now they are banning knives and putting cameras on every street. They talk about compromise, but it is never a compromise. It is never, wow, you offer a quick, easy, inexpensive, viable solution to ending mass shootings in schools, let’s try that. It is always, what can we take from you this time, or what will enable us to grow some federal apparatus?

Then regular criminals will go on still not caring, the next mass shooter will watch the last mass shooter be the most famous person in the world on TV, the media will keep on vilifying the people who actually do the most to defend the innocent, the ignorant will call people like me names and tell us we must like dead babies, and nothing actually changes to protect our kids.

If you are serious about actually stopping school shootings, contact your state representative and tell them to look into allowing someone at your kid’s school to be armed. It is time to install some speed bumps.

I am so frustrated by all of the talking up of the housing market.  More people are going to be hurt financially by this intentional deceit by the infamous "They" we have talked about in previous posts.  We got here because we have been lied to throughout this whole housing collape.  There is a lot more pain to come in housing.  Just because you have held out this long does not mean you are going to make it through what it still awaits us no matter what "They" say. 

The piece below is a full reprint of a post by Martin Andelman of Mandelman Matters.  Martin and I have had many discussions about this topic and he puts it very well so I wanted you to see this. 

Talking Up the Housing Market? Yada, Yada, Yada… Talk is Cheap

By Martin Andelman

Now I get it… our plan is to try to TALK the housing market up.

Apparently, and I just realized this today, some people think they have figured out that if we just keep talking about how the housing market is recovering… it will respond by recovering.  It’s positively brilliant.  Someone should really let the EU countries know about this strategy because they could really use it, since absolutely nothing else is working in the least.

Hey, you guys in Spain… instead of all that rioting, try saying this over and over again in the newspapers and on television: “El mercado de la vivienda se está recuperando… El mercado de la vivienda se está recuperando!”  That should pretty much handle it.  See, problem solved… glad I could help.

And you guys in Greece, try saying whatever this sounds like: “Η αγορά κατοικίας είναι ανάκτηση.”  And your welcome, by the way.

Okay, look… talk is cheap.  And the strategy of talking about how the housing market is recovering in order to actually make anything recover, although hysterical, is just plain stupid.

On the other hand, since it’s obvious that essentially no one, present company excluded, has the foggiest idea of what to do differently, or is willing to even try doing anything differently, then I suppose talk is all we’ve got.  So, go ahead chatty Cathys… blather on.  Besides, I’ve gotten much better at ignoring you.

The Scale of the Crisis at the End of 2012

As of the end of this year, we will have lost FIVE MILLION homes to foreclosure… and 10 MILLION MORE American households have faced the prospect of foreclosure since the crisis began during the third quarter of 2006.  Add to those the numbers the 5.3 MILLION NOW in the foreclosure pipeline, meaning they have already received a foreclosure notice or are over 30 days delinquent… and 3.3 MILLION of them are over 90 days delinquent or already in pre-sale inventory.

Then stop to consider that there are only 50 million homes carrying a mortgage in this country… and then do the math.  You shouldn’t need a calculator to know that the answer to any equation comes out CRISIS of historical proportion no matter what the talkers are talking about today.

In addition, it’s interesting that no one wants to talk about the COMPLETED BANK REPOSSESSIONS continuing at the rate of about 50,000 A MONTH, with foreclosure starts at 100,000 A MONTH.

But, the housing market is recovering, the housing market is recovering… well yada, yada, yada and a blah, blah, blah.

First Time Buyer Demand Falling

One of the only legitimate sources of demand for homes in this country would be that provided by first time buyers.  Think about it… they can’t be underwater because they don’t already own a home.  So, with at least a third of the country’s homeowners underwater and unable to move, our first time buyers are about the only growing demographic we’ve got, since we’re certainly not growing investors in any sort of hurry.

The latest edition of Fannie Mae’s Housing Insights, however, in which Fannie economists examined the data shows that the decline in the homeownership rate over the last four years has been particularly pronounced for young households.

According to Mortgage News Daily on November 15, 2012, “five years after the start of the housing bust American households continue to shift from homeownership to being renters.”  And why this would be any sort of surprise to anyone is beyond me.

The particularly bad news is that homeownership among the younger demographic groups dropped the most in each of the last five years.  In fact, overall homeownership among those between age 25-44 has declined at double the rate of the overall decline.

The only age group that did not seen a decline in homeownership in 2010 and 2011 is the age 75+ group.

But don’t worry, I’m certainly confident that this country’s OCTOGENARIANS (people in their 80s, just to make sure everyone’s with me) are going to save our housing market… so attention all talkers, better get ready to start talking about that.

Why are young people not buying homes like they used to?  Well, gee… let’s see if we can’t figure that out without having to look anything up, shall we?

Well, there’s the issue of student loan debt, which has become such a scam that I may have to devote an entire blog to it in the near future.  And then there’s the need for 20 percent down payments and 760 credit scores… unless we’re talking FHA loans, in which case we’re talking about 20 percent defaults and increasing insurance premiums and tightening underwriting requirements.

Oh, something else… there’s the relatively higher unemployment numbers among the younger demographics, twice as high as the average in many areas.  And then there’s the fact that young people AREN’T STUPID, so one might imagine that since AT LEAST 20 MILLION of them have watched their elders either lose homes or be at risk of losing homes, it might just be that many are in no hurry to repeat the apparent mistakes of the past.

Ya’ think?  Or do the MORONS reading this think we need to conduct a study to figure that out too?

Being Underwater

Consider the chart from Zillow below to get an idea of how the underwater problem can do nothing but significantly reduce future demand.  Zoom in on it to read it closely, but if you don’t have your glasses, the blue bars are underwater homes by city, and the red bars are delinquent underwater homes by city.

And that’s what Zillow thinks.  Just imagine what the truth of the situation is, because you know it’s not better than Zillow’s.  Just by factoring in the percentage underwater when including real estate sales commissions would take all of those numbers up by 6 percent, right?  Yes, right.

Foreclosures to Come

Another factor that makes talkers mute and much of their data moot is how state laws have created markets where foreclosures are delayed and hanging like the Sword of Damocles over their respective markets.

In case you’re a little rusty on your legends from classical Greek culture, Roman philosopher Cicero uses this story to reach the conclusion that virtue is all you need to live a happy life, when he asks the question, “Does not Dionysius seem to have made it sufficiently clear that there can be nothing happy for the person over whom some fear always looms?”

Look at the chart below to see how Nevada’s new law, AB 284, which took effect in October of 2011, has impacted servicers filing Notices of Default.  It’s not a chart showing problems being solved, it’s just a study in kicking the proverbial can down the road.

As Phillip Gusterson, writing for Seeking Alpha on November 27th, said in his article titled, “Dark Forces Manipulate the Housing Market, “AB284 has dramatically reduced foreclosures in Las Vegas. The result is a lesson in basic economics, with a drop in supply leading to an increase in prices. But what is clear to everyone is that the supply is artificially constrained, and a second lesson in economics could be around the corner: an increase in supply will lead to lower prices.”

He goes on to point out what should be obvious, “AB284 did not remove the need to foreclose on these properties, it just removed the ability to do it, so now one year later we have at least 24,000 units that should have been filed on, but were not because lawmakers in a run up to a general election decided to manipulate the market.”

I don’t agree with everything Mr. Gusterson has to say, but on that point there’s absolutely no chance that he’s even a little bit wrong.  When supply goes down, prices always go up… and the reverse is also true… welcome to Econ 101.

And if that fundamental truth wasn’t enough to cause those thinking that Las Vegas is already at the bottom of the market to pause, Gusterson also points out that, “Las Vegas also has a disproportionate share of ARM mortgages. When interest rates inevitably rise that this will cause a further wave of defaults just as the market shows signs of genuine recovery stimulated by economic growth.”

Notices of Default are increasing steadily over the last few months, however,  which just shows that the banks will ultimately figure out how to foreclose within the current legislative requirements.  As Gusterson’s article opines, “… it does seem logical that the significant market force of 75,000 delinquents will eventually overcome the barriers that politicians throw up to stem the tide.”

He figures that banks will use some combination of “improved administration, short sales, bulk note sales, bulk REO sales, and judicial foreclosures to operate within the post-AB284 environment to work through the foreclosures, and that the post-MERS environment will encourage them to increase the rate of foreclosure.”  

Once again, he is most assuredly correct, but he may be missing one additional factor, which is that the legislature, all too aware of AB 284’s draconian and utterly paralyzing effect on the market, may very well act to weaken the law in order to make it somewhat easier to foreclose in the future.

Lastly, consider that in 2102, according to the Greater Las Vegas Association of Realtors, almost 55 percent of all homes sold in Southern Nevada were bought as ALL CASH deals.  And you don’t have to be any sort of economic expert to realize that we just don’t have anywhere near enough people able to pay cash for homes to create any sort of actual recovery.  (I’m not going to bother sourcing that statement, if you don’t instinctively know it to be the case, you’re an idiot and reading the wrong blog, so scat. I have no time for you.)

What Is Going Up?

The only segment of any housing market going up is at the bottom of the market, where investors are prone to bid against each other, afraid that they’ll lose out.  It’s the same sort of greedy mentality that takes hold at auctions, where I’ve seen people pay more for things than they would have to if buy them at their retail price.

The simple fact is that the markets aren’t acting rationally, and I’m sure part of it is that some of the talking causes irrational things to happen.  For example, Dr. Housing Bubble, who follows Southern California’s housing market better than anyone, points out that while “home sales are up by 8 percent year-over-year, during the same period, the median home price fell by 3.7 percent.”

That’s just great… as demand goes up, price falls?  Try answering questions on an economics exam that way and you’ll fail the test sure as shootin’.  Again, according to Dr. Housing Bubble…

“If you want to see delusion in action take a look at Zillow’s “make me move” option and you will see it in full force.  Even with mortgage rates at record low prices and very generous products like FHA loans that only require 3.5 percent down, the market seems to be moving lower in mid-tier to upper-tier areas.”

Well, obviously that part of the market needs a stern talking to, wouldn’t you say?  Get to work talkers… I expect to see some yabbering and in a hurry.

Talk is Cheap

The fact that there are properties at the very bottom that appear to have increased in price by a few points is no indication that housing is recovering.

Remember, the underwater problem is just as it was, so demand can’t increase because half the market can’t move.  And remember that, for the most part, no one is selling their home unless they have to, so the supply is reduced because no one wants to compete with foreclosures and short sales when selling their home into what is already the worst housing market in 70 years.

If people were selling, without demand increasing, then prices would fall even further as the impact of increased supply and competition could produce no other outcome. And there’s just nowhere that demand can come from as long as we’re pretending that our economy and housing market are recovering, and therefore doing NOTHING about ANYTHING.

Our situation related to unemployment in this country is nothing short of horrific… we’ve got at least 5.5 MILLION people out of work for over six months.  In California, the published rate is over 11 percent, and that’s not even a fully loaded number.  And we haven’t created anything but part-time and minimum wage jobs over the last four years, so even if working, EVERYONE is making less.

What’s amazing to me is that we’re not even pressuring our elected officials to do anything.  Other than a few Occupy people camping on lawns until they get arrested, the only thing we’re doing is kvetching on Facebook and pacing through sleepless nights.

Here’s an excerpt from a Rolling Stone article from last June, written by Jeff Tietz…

To aid Santa Barbara’s large homeless population, local activists launched the Safe Parking program and since the Great Recession began, the number of lots and participants in the program has doubled. By 2009, formerly middle-class people like Janis Adkins had begun turning up – teachers and computer repairmen and yoga instructors seeking refuge in the city’s parking­ lots. 

Safe-parking programs in other cities have experienced a similar influx of middle-class exiles, and their numbers are not expected to decrease anytime soon. 

It can take years for unemployed workers from the middle class to burn through their resources – savings, credit, salable belongings, home equity, loans from family and friends. 

Some 5.4 million Americans have been without work for at least six months, and an estimated 750,000 of them are completely broke or heading inexorably toward destitution. In California, where unemployment remains at 11 percent, middle-class refugees like Janis Adkins are only the earliest arrivals. “She’s the tip of the iceberg,” says Nancy Kapp, the coordinator of the Safe Parking program. 

“There are many people out there who haven’t hit bottom yet, but they’re on their way – they’re on their way.”

Afraid?  Terrified?  Yeah, well me too. 

It’s happening all around us, most of us see the signs of the cracks widening every day.  But too many of us are still in denial, they don’t want to talk about it, they’d rather just listen to the happy talk crowd who are constantly trying to talk our economy back to health.

My wife noticed that I didn’t bother to vote this year and asked me why.  I replied that for all our president is doing, I would have been okay with leaving the position open for the next four years… you know, just not fill it until someone worth voting for comes along.  But it now occurs to me that President Obama fits in  perfectly with what’s going on.  If talking the economy up will somehow work, then I’ve changed my mind and he’s the perfect guy for that job.  (Hahaha… get it?)

Here’s the real deal, however… while you might be able to get ME up by talking to me, housing isn’t going anywhere but sideways and down no matter what anyone says.  Bet on it.

Mandelman out. 

You can talk to the exert about your particular underwater mortgage situation by calling 425-259-2600.  We offer a free 15 minute consultation where you can get your immediate questions answered.  No cost and no obligation.

While many states allow homeowners to get out of their houses without the threat of the bank coming after them for the money the bank lost, the IRS can still haunt you for lots of money in taxes.  Whatever money the bank loses on your underwater house is looked upon by the IRS as a gift from the bank and requires you to pay income tax on it. 

Currently there is a law in place that exempts most homeowners from this tax.  However, this law exprires on December 31, 2012.  The Mortgage Foregiveness Debt Relief Act began with the Bush administration and extended in the Obama administration via the Dodd-Frank bill.  This makes it bi-partisan but needs to be extended.  We have brought this to your attention in previous posts and to support the extension of this important bill. We are gettting some additional help.

Below is an article published by Housing Wire.  Written by Megan Hopkins. 

Four attorneys general are leading the fight to extend tax relief to homeowners who faced financial hardship such as a foreclosure and were granted mortgage debt forgiveness.

Attorneys General Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Pam Bondi of Florida, George Jepsen of Connecticut and Martha Coakley of Massachusetts lead the national effort of 41 state attorneys general calling on Congress to extend the exclusion, in place since 2007. Various government agencies and industry trade groups began fighting for an extension as early as April.

If Congress does not answer, the tax relief efforts put in place by the Mortgage Debt Relief Act will expire on Dec. 31. This federal act essentially dismisses a distressed homeowner’s mortgage debt in the case of a foreclosure, short sale or loan modification.

With the recent push toward more principal reductions via the national settlement between state AGs and the nation's biggest mortgage servicers, hundreds of thousands could be impacted. The $20 bilion-plus settlement outlines consumer-relief mandates and servicing requirements for the nation's largest mortgage servicers.

“Failure to extend this tax relief would hurt the very families we set out to help in the national foreclosure settlement,” Illinois' Madigan said. “We need to do everything we can to encourage — not deter — struggling homeowners to seek help to stay in their homes.”

The AGs wrote a letter to the leaders of the U.S. House and Senate requesting an extension. The letter noted that if the $25 billion national settlement does expire, homeowners would face up to $1.3 billion in tax increases over two years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

"Unless Congress acts, any debt relief to be provided in 2013 under the national mortgage settlement, as well as other mortgage debt relief programs, will likely be considered taxable income," said Masto.

Added Coakley, “This tax relief is critical for helping struggling homeowners stay in their homes as we work to repair the damage from the foreclosure crisis. We urge Congress to ensure families are not hit with an unexpected tax bill when seeking a loan modification.”

More than 4,000 homeowners had received mortgage debt relief for an average savings of $67,457 per homeowner in Coakley's state of Massachusetts since the settlement was signed earlier this year.

An extension is included in the Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012 (S. 3521), which recently passed out of the Senate Finance Committee with bipartisan support.

If you want to discuss the options available and how they will impact you specifically, we will do a free, no obligaton 15 minute phone consultation.  This call is designed to help you get some of your immediate questions answered. 

The Attorney's General from 49 states recently settled with the big five banks regarding the methods they used in the way they have gone about foreclosing and bullying America's underwater homeowners.  The total settlement was $25 billion.  That is a big number but it will do very little in the actual help it will provide to people that actually need it.  This is especially true in that the banks out negotiated the states top lawyers, Again!

Of the $25 billion settlement, $20 billion is designated to go to lowering principle amounts of loans.  The theory is that if the principle is reduced, then people will choose to keep their homes instead of walking away.  In order to get the big five to actually get something done, they get a 25% bonus on any principle they reduce in the first year after the settlement. 

There is no reduction of principle on loans owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The FHFA, which is the agency that regulates them said they will not allow it.  With that rule from FHFA, the principle reductions are left to privately owned mortgages that are incorporated into MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) that are owned primarily by investors (Wall Street) and loans held in the portfolios in each bank. 

The FED recently announced QE3 and says it will buy mortgages to the tune of $40 billion per month for as long as it takes.  This takes care of Wall Street, Again!  So the big five can use their share of the AG Settlement to deal with their own portfolio.  Mostly what they are doing is forgiving 2nd mortgages. 

SIDE NOTE:  If you are current on the payments of your 2nd mortgage, you are not going to get any of this money.  They are forgiving the loans of the people that are already behind.  Another example that if you keep paying you are not going to get any help.

Don't you think they should be helping people who will get some actual benefit from this? 

Meaning people who are still alive.

One of our clients recently sent us a copy of a letter from Chase saying that they are going to forgive the $111,000 2nd mortgage of her husband that died in early 2011.  She was not on the loan or the title to the house, so there is no benefit to her from this.  The loan is included in her husbands probate so we believe that Chase was dutifully notified that they were not going to get paid on this loan. 

So Chase gets credit with the AG's for forgiving $138,750 on a loan they were never going to collect on anyway.  The IRS will not get to collect income taxes on that money either.  If you didn't know, the IRS says that any money forgiven by the banks is taxable as a gift.  Chase also kept for the themselves the opportunity to actually help someone that might be able to keep their house because their 2nd mortgage was forgiven. 

This is not surprising to those of us who understand how the banks work in this arena.  They take every advantage possible for themselves and their shareholders.  If they are too big to fail, does that mean that they should have to do everything in their power to repair the mess they helped to create?  We think they should. 

Note to Chase:  Take this money and use it to forgive the 2nd mortgages of someone, or two some ones that really need it.  Clean up your tactics and help us to fix this mess. 

Companies that collect mortgage payments understand that the housing collapse and lack of any quantifiable rebound is destroying families and the financial futures of millions of Americans.  The employees of these companies are not immune from this either and are looking at their own personal circumstances to determine their course of action.  

Pri

Reprints

Email

Does a borrower whose mortgage is underwater have an obligation to continue paying their monthly loans if they have the ability to do so?

In a survey of 114 economists, real estate experts and investment and market strategists, 71% said they would not strategically default on their mortgage that is at least 40% more than the current value of their home.

My guess is that these people have stable salaries and have not experienced a drop in their incomes since the collapse.

In a separate national survey, 2,009 adults where asked if they would pursue a strategic default, 59% of homeowners said they would not utilize this strategy if they were underwater on their home by 40%.

Probably more of these people have experienced lower incomes since the collapse.

Currently, 15.3 million U.S. homeowners (31%) who have a mortgage are underwater.  Nearly three-quarters have properties that are 40% below their buying cost.  On average, homeowners across the country owe $75,235, approximately 44%, more than what their house is worth.

When homeowners were asked in the survey why they would not choose to strategically default, 37% cited moral reasons, while 35% indicated it didn’t make sense since they intend to live in that house for an extended period of time.

Does the moral issue play a smaller role if you can still pay your mortgage easily?  We believe that is the primary issue when the moral implications are discussed.  If you can’t pay or if your income has dropped, making your payment is destroying your life, the moral issue becomes less important or disappears all together.  

The percentage of people citing the moral issue continues to drop as the collapse continues:

1. People have exhausted their savings and retirement to try to keep up.
2. More details and new plans to protect the banks are released with no help for homeowners.
3. They don’t get any help from their bank.

 The moral issue is the biggest tool the banks have to keep people paying.  The number of strategic defaults is increasing and will grow rapidly as we get deeper into the collapse with no sign of recovery. 

When the Economists were asked for their opinion on the adoption of government-sponsored mortgage principal forgiveness initiatives for underwater borrowers. The survey found that 72% of respondents opposed any adoption of such programs, while 28% were in favor.

Pretty much the same percentage that said they would default in the earlier question.  “I’ve got mine. I’m OK so no one else should get any help.”

Meanwhile, homeowners in one of the states hardest hit by the housing crisis have a different opinion regarding strategic defaults.

In Nevada, where over 60% of homeowners are underwater, a “Face of Foreclosure” report released by the Nevada Association of Realtors polled 1,000 state residents and revealed that 45% believe “there is nothing wrong” with strategically defaulting on their mortgages. However, the other 45% of the survey respondents believe that homeowners still have a legal and ethical obligation to pay for their mortgage if they can.

Does this mean that if they interviewed 1,000 people that 600 were underwater and 450 of those said it is OK to strategically default?  That’s 75% of the underwater homeowners.  Of the people we work with, that number is what we see. 

Last year, one out of every 16 Nevada properties had a foreclosure notice, the report said. According to 500 individuals surveyed who personally experienced a foreclosure in the state, just over one quarter (27%) indicated they strategically defaulted this year, 4% more than the 2011 report.

Furthermore, 40% of those going through the default foreclosure process were told by their financial institutions to strategically default on their mortgage.  Only 9% of those who were foreclosed upon and 10% of all survey respondents said foreclosure prevention programs have helped. Also, 55% of all Nevadans believe the government has failed to address the foreclosure crisis.

The Mortgage Servicing News article was not intended to show the weakness in the market or convince people to strategically default on their mortgages.  However when you look at into the heart of the article, they know the landslide of strategic defaults is coming.  If you are one of the over 15 million underwater homeowners in the country, this will be a decision you will have to deal with.  Don’t wait until you have no choice.  The earlier you act, the more options and benefits you can use to make the transition easier on you.

CLICK HERE to read the full text of the article.